Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 19111. (Read 26608188 times)

Coin



Explanation

[wut? that can't be right....I'm tired.]


Repurposing the block size limit into a tool to shape the network, rather than just a defense against spam attacks, can reasonably be characterized as central planning. It's important to be aware of this so we don't unintentionally mess up the economics of Bitcoin. If more of the "free market" devs understood this problem I think the debate would be different.

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that when funds flow into an altcoin, they flow out of bitcoin.  That's incorrect.  Overwhelmingly, altcoins are purchased and sold using bitcoin, with XMR a distant second.  Fiat does not even bump the needle.

fiat in -> {  bitcoin -> alt -> bitcoin } -> fiat out

Please notice that the fiat flows are all on the bitcoin interface.  It is these flows which determine the fiat/bitcoin pricing relationships.  If everyone on the planet were to suddenly decide they had to have financial privacy, and so wanted to buy 1000 EUR worth of Monero (about 1000 XMR), their first step would be to buy 1000 EUR worth of BTC.  No matter how many XMR they buy, zero or 1000, the impact on BTC/EUR is unchanged.  The impact on the price of XMR would be much, much larger, admittedly, but that would not mean that BTC did not benefit from the flow.  It merely benefits less than does the XMR of our example, and only because the portion of market cap involved is smaller.

In fact, if you want BTC/EUR to rise, it would make sense rationally to encourage punters to get into ETH  -- although not morally, as ETH is a valueless speculation with an inevitably ignominious end-game.  The more layers of inconvenience remove them from fiat, the less likely they are to cause an outflow on the BTC->fiat interface.  Speculators attracted by hype and froth are likely to be poor support for the BTC/EUR price anyhow -- much better for BTC if they play inside the playpen.  Let them punt on ETH or MAID.  Serious investors prefer serious investors as peers.  They participate in capital formation, business formation, productivity innovation, infrastructure support -- the things that build a material (even if virtual) economy.

Comparison and jealousy are sins.  Like all such sins (fear, greed, etc.), they hurt the sinner most of all.  A rational actor must be free from such sins.

Betting your double bottom dollar on tomorrow?

Coin



Explanation

Your post pretty much proved my point that you are engaged in ongoing vague pussified indirect innuendos, which in essence is a whole hellava lot easier to pick apart various contributions of other posters in these here threads rather than to provide some kind of closely approximating meaningful content of your own.

 

Unless we plan on keeping the 1MB cap always and forever... any HF to increase it will "force" you to upgrade your client, as it will reject any blocks from miners over 1MB. Soft fork segwit doesn't require anyone to upgrade, but it means your formerly full node client will not be verifying segwit tx signatures, as they would now be in the witness portion of the block, which your client doesn't understand. It becomes a sort of half-node. In the case of segwit tx, it sees them, but can't verify the sigs itself. If you hadn't been paying attention, you might not even know it had happened. In the case of a HF, you know, it's unambiguous that it's time to upgrade.

Segwit itself is actually a pretty cool idea, it has the big positive of ridding us of tx malleability problems altogether. I'm not against a version of the idea at all. I argue against aspects of it, like the soft fork deployment, the fee discount for sig heavy settlement tx, and that it's a fairly complex change to the system possibly being rushed and inadequately tested. I worry that the additional capacity it could bring is being dangled like a carrot to get us to turn a blind eye to the economic favoritism it carries, and it could stall out a HF blocksize increase way out to mid or late next year.

Surely, ETH has a bit more credibility than Ripple, but really, you could not really believe what you just wrote....

Further, this Eth pump has only been about 6 weeks... o.k.... surely it 10x in 6 weeks, but still, you gotta step back a little bit... and surely, even if ETH does not crash back to below $2, Bitcoin still is going to retain considerable value.. in spite of some of the ongoing and ridiculously exaggerated in-fighting.

well, they can't exactly force us to upgrade our clients. i'm very much a "wait a see" kind of guy. if the release of segwit comes and things go kaboom, there will still be a record of how things were before that. if it's really bad, it's technically possible to revert to the pre-forked version and carry on, i think.

of course, "technically possible" and "easy" or even "kinda doable" are vastly different things, and frankly i might be talking total bullshit anyway. i'm not totally clear on the whole "soft fork" thing.

Coin



Explanation

Honestly, I'd rather just be posting memes and gifs while celebrating the halving, confident about growth after having added some modest capacity...

WRT Blockstream... it wasn't until after Scaling HK, when gmax's email to the mailing list literally became the Core roadmap, with no hard fork increase in sight, that the pieces began clicking into place. Others had already described the whole thing as a charade and a stalling tactic, but I was actually hoping for some kind of unifying plan, I should and do feel silly for that now.

Soft fork segwit as a "scaling solution" bifurcates the capabilities of full nodes without their knowledge or permission, completely changes fee economics with favoritism to settlement transactions, and apparently is having mysterious chain forks on its testnet a month before deployment... while being sold as the safe and "ready" option. [Shrugs] The pieces certainly haven't stopped fitting yet.  

On vacation i saw this bear and had to take a pic, i thought you guys might get a lol.

425 - 415 range be like:

Coin



Explanation

You never asked for permission before... Progress

'cause arguing on politics, governance, motivations, personalities and social science unquantifiables is riddled with subjective sloppiness ... so that is where the scoundrels and stirrers seek refuge when they run out of technical arguments that can win on merit.

yep, keep running that conflict of interest BS canard up the flagpole, that will definitely get bitcoin working better ... shall we have 8MByte worth of conflict of interest or do you think 20 MByte of conflict of interest  is better? ... hmm let me just a put a thumb up my arse and pull another BS innumerate non-argument out.

[Politely nods.]

If you can't see a conflict of interest glaring you in the face ['cause you chat with the nice fellows in irc], and don't see that conflict manifesting in how this has all gone down over the last year... I really just can't help you, sorry.

admit it .. .the whole "blockstream core planners" spiel/spin is lame.

you just choked up your groupthink vomit all over the place trying to justify using such lame language.

You typed that with a straight face?

newspeak rhetoric: there are no "planners" just developers

nodes choose (or not) to run: while enduring/absorbing ddos and after being shown scary slides in 18hr meetings that include (not so) subtle threats

Attempts at vilification through framing the debate: The echochamber ruled with an iron fist by herr theymos. Sort by controversial. Talk of node options deemed altcoins and poster banned.

agenda via language (spin): Toomimcoin, Gavincoin R3KT [child-like glee], Hard Fork=Dangerous, Soft Fork=Safe Fork, No Contention, Always Consensus

attempt to manipulate your opinions and influence your previously independent thought processes: See above(!)

We [sometimes] disagree on an important issue... and that's ok. But please, your description of why I think the way I do, strains credulity.