Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 19190.

BitUsher

legendary

Activity: 994

Merit: 1035

Quote from: Fatman3001 on February 25, 2016, 02:22:15 PM

Anyhew. What was the point of the meeting? Why would the miners agree to these concessions if the other side had only glass beads to offer back?

The devs that signed the proposal were some of the more pessimistic and cautious core devs regarding raising the blocksize . Most of the other devs will be easier to hear and convince to rally behind once the technical details are fully elaborated.

Quote from: Fatman3001 on February 25, 2016, 02:22:15 PM

There's a lot of money at stake. Devs are gambling with the future of these peoples companies.

This is ridiculous statement to make. Devs have absolutely no control over the miners, merchants, payment processors, users. We all have to choose to run or upgrade to their software.... that is the VOTE! Their influence over our ecosystem is completely indirect because even those that hate them secretly respect their expertise and efforts. Do not become bitter that you cannot force devs to write and maintain code for you that goes against their advice or moral conscience.

BitUsher

legendary

Activity: 994

Merit: 1035

Quote from: BitUsher on February 25, 2016, 02:18:07 PM

You forgot the link... reading now..

https://github.com/bitcoinclassic/documentation/blob/master/roadmap/roadmap2016.md

Initial Impression --

The Good - Thin blocks, Weak Blocks (Also Found in Core's roadmap)

The Bad - Advocating for SPV mining , which is a problem exacerbated by their Validate Once proposal, and pushing off the many benefits of Segwit till the end of the year

The Ugly - 3rd/4th Q 2016 adaptive rule for a block size limit that heavily incentivizes those with better bandwidth which would drive miners from China to locations with better bandwidth and make many home mining operations obsolete because they cannot compete with the propagation times with larger operations who can afford better uplinks. There is no consideration for centralization concerns or the costs of nodes with this proposal which makes it a non-starter from the get go IMHO.

becoin

legendary

Activity: 3431

Merit: 1233

Quote from: bitebits on February 25, 2016, 02:15:47 PM

The Bitcoin Classic team will help realize Satoshi’s vision of making Bitcoin scale into a global peer to peer cash system, and not just a settlement network.

Blah-blah-blah... Big blcktards continue to abuse Satoshi's name in their failed altcoin fork.

Fatman3001

legendary

Activity: 1554

Merit: 1014

Make Bitcoin glow with ENIAC

Quote from: BitUsher on February 25, 2016, 02:08:27 PM

Quote from: adamstgBit on February 25, 2016, 01:48:51 PM

i'm trying hard to remain calm and get some anwers https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/did-blockstream-veto-the-roundtable-consensus-1376895

Blockstream and their employees are damned if they do and damned if they don't.

First, the conspiracy was that Blockstream was a unified cabal of developers with a vision to control bitcoin and a plan to force everyone to use their subscription sidechain products.

Now when the nutters find out that Blockstream has a contract which allows developers to independently express their thoughts without being coerced into following a unified company plan and are free to independently develop and contribute what they want with autonomy than they scream foul as if this is some attempt to further stall development.

f2pool could have been mature about this matter and simply emailed Adam a friendly email to clarify what the issue was , but instead they decided to stir up some really petty drama so they could appease the widest audience with their political games of using false nVersion's to give miners on their pool a false sense they are "voting" for classic when the nodes are really running core. These political games aren't that big of a deal in of themselves besides being unprofessional , but when they are done with the ignorance of the inherent risks that using false nVersion's creates, is really harmful to our ecosystem*.

* Using false nVersion's risk triggering safety warnings or potential forks.

You are conflating different peoples views. Both sides have a wide variety of overlapping consensus. If you start conflating peoples opinions it will necessarily look ridiculous.

Anyhew. What was the point of the meeting? Why would the miners agree to these concessions if the other side had only glass beads to offer back?

There's a lot of money at stake. Devs are gambling with the future of these peoples companies. The miners came to do business and expected the other side to do so as well. If the devs are so unconcerned with throwing everyone else under the bus they will discover what decentralized really means.

We'll see if Adams attempt to unring the bell will work, but it's pretty obvious that his and other devs commitment to this "consensus" is far less meaningful than the miners were lead to believe.

BitUsher

legendary

Activity: 994

Merit: 1035

Quote from: bitebits on February 25, 2016, 02:15:47 PM

Note: This is our initial roadmap proposal. We will run this by miners, companies and users for feedback, before it is finalized.

Bitcoin Classic 2016 Roadmap

The Bitcoin Classic team will help realize Satoshi’s vision of making Bitcoin scale into a global peer to peer cash system, and not just a settlement network. We believe on-chain scaling is crucial for the long term health of Bitcoin. On-chain scaling maximizes transaction volume, whose fees are needed to replace miner rewards on the medium to long term scale.

Our preferred strategy for on-chain scaling, is to eliminate the need for blocks to be synced within seconds. We will implement solutions that make continuous block syncing possible. Instead of transmitting the data for a new block all at once when it is found, we can significantly optimize current bandwidth by sending data during the full ten-minute interval between blocks.

This will enable the Bitcoin network to scale to significant new levels, without endangering decentralization. We will scale using a 3-pronged approach.

[...]

You forgot the link... reading now..

https://github.com/bitcoinclassic/documentation/blob/master/roadmap/roadmap2016.md

bitebits

legendary

Activity: 2242

Merit: 3523

Flippin' burgers since 1163.

Note: This is our initial roadmap proposal. We will run this by miners, companies and users for feedback, before it is finalized.

Bitcoin Classic 2016 Roadmap

The Bitcoin Classic team will help realize Satoshi’s vision of making Bitcoin scale into a global peer to peer cash system, and not just a settlement network. We believe on-chain scaling is crucial for the long term health of Bitcoin. On-chain scaling maximizes transaction volume, whose fees are needed to replace miner rewards on the medium to long term scale.

Our preferred strategy for on-chain scaling, is to eliminate the need for blocks to be synced within seconds. We will implement solutions that make continuous block syncing possible. Instead of transmitting the data for a new block all at once when it is found, we can significantly optimize current bandwidth by sending data during the full ten-minute interval between blocks.

This will enable the Bitcoin network to scale to significant new levels, without endangering decentralization. We will scale using a 3-pronged approach.

[...]

BitUsher

legendary

Activity: 994

Merit: 1035

Quote from: adamstgBit on February 25, 2016, 01:48:51 PM

i'm trying hard to remain calm and get some anwers https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/did-blockstream-veto-the-roundtable-consensus-1376895

Blockstream and their employees are damned if they do and damned if they don't with some of you guys.

First, the conspiracy was that Blockstream was a unified cabal of developers with a vision to control bitcoin and a plan to force everyone to use their subscription sidechain products.

Now when the nutters find out that Blockstream has a contract which allows developers to independently express their thoughts without being coerced into following a unified company plan and are free to independently develop and contribute what they want with autonomy than they scream foul as if this is some attempt to further stall development.

f2pool could have been mature about this matter and simply emailed Adam a friendly email to clarify what the issue was , but instead they decided to stir up some really petty drama so they could appease the widest audience with their political games of using false nVersion's to give miners on their pool a false sense they are "voting" for classic when the nodes are really running core. These political games aren't that big of a deal in of themselves besides being unprofessional , but when they are done with the ignorance of the inherent risks that using false nVersion's creates, is really harmful to our ecosystem*.

* Using false nVersion's risk triggering safety warnings or potential forks.

ChartBuddy

legendary

Activity: 2380

Merit: 1823

1CBuddyxy4FerT3hzMmi1Jz48ESzRw1ZzZ

Coin

Explanation

adamstgBit

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1037

Trusted Bitcoiner

i'm trying hard to remain calm and get some anwers https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/did-blockstream-veto-the-roundtable-consensus-1376895

adamstgBit

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1037

Trusted Bitcoiner

Quote from: harrymmmm on February 25, 2016, 01:27:57 PM

Quote from: adamstgBit on February 25, 2016, 10:48:28 AM

Quote from: harrymmmm on February 25, 2016, 04:10:00 AM

Quote from: adamstgBit on February 24, 2016, 12:02:50 PM

Adam told you it wasn't. Close to a month ago, but don't mention that,
'Course (iirc) he also offered a fix for the issue, but don't mention that.

Yep, better to see if the angry mob can be used to fuck with the price a bit more. /s

if there's an angry mob it's not because of 1 small oversight.
I was and still am perfectly willing to support segwit.
i'm angry because, we had this agreement and now it's falling apart, who's making it fall apart? Blockstream guys...

BTW, has it been confirmed that Blockstream can/have veto the agreement???

Grrr. I had a bad day yesterday. I meant 'peter todd told you', not 'adam told you', of course. Lol.
Sry if that caused confusion in your reply. I'll assume it didn't...

I'm surprised at your mood swings tho. You do seem angry and unreasonable lately.
I see you joining the group who mislead as you did on the image i quoted above. There's a lot of fud here lately ... just thought I'd 'out' something rather obvious.

Maybe you're just angry, impatient, and not checking your facts like you used to.

Re the agreement:
I'm not sure it could be considered a contract in any sense. It was more like a memorandum of understanding, so 'falling apart' isn't that much of a betrayal. If indeed it is even falling apart.

I can understand adam's signature. He's a rep of a company that's guaranteed the employess free speech on the bitcoin topics, so kinda hard to sign off as the company prez. I'm sure he tried to get away with the 'individual' sig, but eventually was obliged to change it to prez. Understandable I think. It was a difficult call and may still cause trouble back at blockstream.

Maaku's comments just reinforce that.

The overall view tho, is that many players signed it, so there's some kind of commitment to modify the roadmap with a decent consideration of a hard fork in some months. That's better than you had (from core devs) before this agreement, right? Previously, there was just a vague mention of a future hard fork to clean up some stuff, rebase segwit's merkle tree, etc.

Not what either side wanted, but better overall than what could have happened.

i am livid.

harrymmmm

hero member

Activity: 576

Merit: 503

Quote from: adamstgBit on February 25, 2016, 10:56:22 AM

Quote from: aztecminer on February 25, 2016, 10:54:51 AM

Quote from: BlindMayorBitcorn on February 24, 2016, 10:07:45 PM

...and we're still above $420. Dafuq Huh

bitcoin = #bizarroworld

watch it crumble when its confirmed the some of the Blockstream guys have veto power.

It did have weasel-words in it to that effect.
It had to though. Adam has no power to force even blockstream employees to go along with it.

So, imho, you can assume that's confirmed already. Doesn't mean it will happen that way tho.
Up to the point where that decision is necessary, I imagine a lot of discussion will take place inside and outside blockstream

blunderer

full member

Activity: 154

Merit: 100

Quote from: Andre# on February 25, 2016, 12:46:29 PM

Quote from: BlindMayorBitcorn on February 25, 2016, 12:10:27 PM

http://bluematt.bitcoin.ninja/2016/01/14/decentralization/

Thanks, I missed it earlier. Very good write up.

Quote

Why Bitcoin's Decentralization Matters

Bitcoiners, from Bitcoin Core developers to long-time Bitcoin enthusiasts to recent /r/Bitcoin discoverers, love to talk about how Bitcoin’s decentralization is its ultimate feature. Rarely, however, do you see anyone explain why decentralization matters - surely it’s an interesting property from a computer science perspective, but why should consumers, businesses or investors care? This post is an attempt to write out why decentralization is foundational to Bitcoin’s utility ...

...which is to say "being a suitable backbone for LN, hope you didn't buy into the whole Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System bullshit lol."

harrymmmm

hero member

Activity: 576

Merit: 503

Quote from: adamstgBit on February 25, 2016, 10:48:28 AM

Quote from: harrymmmm on February 25, 2016, 04:10:00 AM

Quote from: adamstgBit on February 24, 2016, 12:02:50 PM

Adam told you it wasn't. Close to a month ago, but don't mention that,
'Course (iirc) he also offered a fix for the issue, but don't mention that.

Yep, better to see if the angry mob can be used to fuck with the price a bit more. /s

if there's an angry mob it's not because of 1 small oversight.
I was and still am perfectly willing to support segwit.
i'm angry because, we had this agreement and now it's falling apart, who's making it fall apart? Blockstream guys...

BTW, has it been confirmed that Blockstream can/have veto the agreement???

Grrr. I had a bad day yesterday. I meant 'peter todd told you', not 'adam told you', of course. Lol.
Sry if that caused confusion in your reply. I'll assume it didn't...

I'm surprised at your mood swings tho. You do seem angry and unreasonable lately.
I see you joining the group who mislead as you did on the image i quoted above. There's a lot of fud here lately ... just thought I'd 'out' something rather obvious.

Maybe you're just angry, impatient, and not checking your facts like you used to.

Re the agreement:
I'm not sure it could be considered a contract in any sense. It was more like a memorandum of understanding, so 'falling apart' isn't that much of a betrayal. If indeed it is even falling apart.

I can understand adam's signature. He's a rep of a company that's guaranteed the employess free speech on the bitcoin topics, so kinda hard to sign off as the company prez. I'm sure he tried to get away with the 'individual' sig, but eventually was obliged to change it to prez. Understandable I think. It was a difficult call and may still cause trouble back at blockstream.

Maaku's comments just reinforce that.

The overall view tho, is that many players signed it, so there's some kind of commitment to modify the roadmap with a decent consideration of a hard fork in some months. That's better than you had (from core devs) before this agreement, right? Previously, there was just a vague mention of a future hard fork to clean up some stuff, rebase segwit's merkle tree, etc.

Not what either side wanted, but better overall than what could have happened.

Fatman3001

legendary

Activity: 1554

Merit: 1014

Make Bitcoin glow with ENIAC

Quote from: adamstgBit on February 25, 2016, 01:16:26 PM

Quote from: Andre# on February 25, 2016, 12:46:29 PM

Quote from: BlindMayorBitcorn on February 25, 2016, 12:10:27 PM

http://bluematt.bitcoin.ninja/2016/01/14/decentralization/

Thanks, I missed it earlier. Very good write up.

Quote

Why Bitcoin's Decentralization Matters

Bitcoiners, from Bitcoin Core developers to long-time Bitcoin enthusiasts to recent /r/Bitcoin discoverers, love to talk about how Bitcoin’s decentralization is its ultimate feature. Rarely, however, do you see anyone explain why decentralization matters - surely it’s an interesting property from a computer science perspective, but why should consumers, businesses or investors care? This post is an attempt to write out why decentralization is foundational to Bitcoin’s utility and, somewhat more importantly, set up future posts talking about when it isn’t.

https://twitter.com/onemorepeter/status/702807258003017728

That is brilliant, I'll steal that link.

JayJuanGee

legendary

Activity: 3920

Merit: 11299

Self-Custody is a right. Say no to"Non-custodial"

Quote from: aztecminer on February 25, 2016, 11:14:47 AM

Quote from: JayJuanGee on February 25, 2016, 03:42:49 AM

Quote from: JayJuanGee on February 24, 2016, 10:35:04 PM

Quote from: JayJuanGee on February 24, 2016, 05:10:36 PM

Quote from: adamstgBit on February 24, 2016, 02:38:07 PM

Quote from: xslugx on February 24, 2016, 02:36:54 PM

Quote from: AlexGR on February 24, 2016, 02:35:45 PM

Quote from: xslugx on February 24, 2016, 02:32:59 PM

Quote from: adamstgBit on February 24, 2016, 01:50:23 PM

Quote from: adamstgBit on February 24, 2016, 01:47:14 PM

i just send 1$ to 1LBHYYEbd8eqrfi9PiSEkj35e9vM3iZEFm with a 1cent fee

lets see what happens...

sending it now...

https://blockchain.info/address/1LBHYYEbd8eqrfi9PiSEkj35e9vM3iZEFm

if this dont work ill send it with a 5cent fee.

current block height 399867

Damn, 1 cent fee is 1% it's far too much already!
I usually pay a 0.1% fee and it goes in the first blocks!

Fees go per kilobytes used in the blockchain, not per amount sent. The blockchain doesn't care if you send 0.01 btc or 10 btc - only about how much space is used by the transaction.

Well. Logical I suppose. But how do you know the size of your transaction?

side note, my TX is the min size ~256bytes

block height 399870

0 confirmations

I have begun this experiment too, with transferring approximately $1 (although I think that the same fee will pretty much apply for a $100 or $1,000.

I sent it 3 times, and I adjusted the fee to be either .0001 BTC per kilobyte ($.04 fee), .000025 per kilobyte ($.01 fee) and .00001 per kilobyte ($.004 fee).

The higher two showed up on the receiving end without confirmations within a couple of minutes of my sending them; however the lowest one, which is essentially nearly no fees, has not yet even shown up on the other end, so far, after 22 minutes.

I will attempt to check the extent of the update, every 30 minutes in order to verify whether they have confirmations.

So far only one of my three transactions have gone through (listed below from higher fee to lower fee). The first transaction included the standard fees, and the second two included lower than the standard fees.

1) $1.06 (.0025 BTC) sent 6 hours ago Fee .0001 btc ($.04) (.0001 BTC per kilobyte) - Immediately showed up on receiving end, and 3 confirmations and available for use after 1 hour and 12 minutes.

2) $1.20 (.002855 BTC) sent 6 hours ago Fee .000025 btc ($.01) (.000025 BTC per kilobyte) - Immediately showed up on receiving end, and so far 0 confirmations and after 5 hours disappeared from receiving end

3) $1 (.00236 BTC) sent 6 hours ago Fee .00001 btc ($.004) (.00001 BTC per kilobyte) - So far has not shown up on receiving end and 0 confirmations

I conclude that including the standard fees helps to ensure that your transaction goes through in a timely manner. Maybe I will provide another update, later, if these last two transactions ever go through?

Finally, I got the results of all three of my low quantity bitcoin/blockchain transactions of a little over $1.
Each of these transactions were sent about 11 hours ago, via blockchain.info wallet to a local bitcoins wallet.

Results as follows from highest to lowest fees:

1) Amount sent $1.06 (.0025 BTC) I Manually added Fee .0001 BTC ($.04) (.0001 BTC per kilobyte) (fee % = 3.77358%)
- Immediately viewable on receiving end w 0 confirmations/ available for use (3 confirmations) after 1 hour / 12 minutes.

2) Amount sent $1.20 (.002855 BTC) I Manually added Fee .000025 BTC ($.01) (.000025 BTC per kilobyte) (fee % = 0.833333%)
- Immediately viewable on receiving end w 0 confirmations / available for use (3 confirmations) after 7 hours / 11 minutes.

3) Amount sent $1.00 (.00236 BTC) I Manually added Fee .00001 BTC ($.004) (.00001 BTC per kilobyte) (fee % = 0.4%)
- Was never viewable on receiving end until after completely received / available for use (3 confirmations) after 9 hours / 21 minutes.

I would consider each of these three transaction to be near micro transactions, and the fastest one was a bit over an hour with nearly a 4% fee added and the slowest low fee one (was nearly free, and probably I could have eliminated the fee completely) of less than a 0.4% fee was still finalized and completely and irreversibly settled in less than 10 hours. During a time that the blocks were supposedly nearly full all day (and blockchain.info charts were showing an average blocksize of about 85% full - which is about the highest ever for the whole history of bitcoin (interesting given the likely additional spam being pumped into the blockchain with various free transactions on an ongoing basis)......

Yes, a bit nerve racking to wait for final confirmation for nearly half a day and to be able to use the coins, but still pretty decent settlement and manageable for such a low cost and low amount transactions, no?

Surely, there are some downsides to irreversibility and owning mistakes (if they are made); however, even during this contentious "full blocks" period, these results seem to be pretty decent for beating the fees and the speed of the settlements of my bank transactions, with 24/7 useage and also international (maybe even intergalactical, once communication channels are improved?).

awesome... if i want to buy a starbucks with bitcoin it will take between one hour and ten hours .... i was really starting to worry about that. ... because i think waiting any more than ten hours to get my coffee is way to excessive.....

10 hours is relatively fast for nearly free decentralized final settlement.... and at this point the state of bitcoin's speed and price is in an interim status, with more developments and solutions on the way.

Stay tuned, and stop your bullshit spamming/trolling of this thread with your nonsense.

By the way, we all know that completely free and immediate settlement transactions are not on the blockchain at this point, but they remain pretty secure and low priced and not too bad in terms of speed, as I already mentioned and as is shown in my experiment..

adamstgBit

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1037

Trusted Bitcoiner

Quote from: Andre# on February 25, 2016, 12:46:29 PM

Quote from: BlindMayorBitcorn on February 25, 2016, 12:10:27 PM

http://bluematt.bitcoin.ninja/2016/01/14/decentralization/

Thanks, I missed it earlier. Very good write up.

Quote

Why Bitcoin's Decentralization Matters

Bitcoiners, from Bitcoin Core developers to long-time Bitcoin enthusiasts to recent /r/Bitcoin discoverers, love to talk about how Bitcoin’s decentralization is its ultimate feature. Rarely, however, do you see anyone explain why decentralization matters - surely it’s an interesting property from a computer science perspective, but why should consumers, businesses or investors care? This post is an attempt to write out why decentralization is foundational to Bitcoin’s utility and, somewhat more importantly, set up future posts talking about when it isn’t.

https://twitter.com/onemorepeter/status/702807258003017728

bargainbin

full member

Activity: 126

Merit: 100

ChartBuddy

legendary

Activity: 2380

Merit: 1823

1CBuddyxy4FerT3hzMmi1Jz48ESzRw1ZzZ

Coin

Explanation

Andre#

hero member

Activity: 737

Merit: 500

Quote from: BlindMayorBitcorn on February 25, 2016, 12:10:27 PM

http://bluematt.bitcoin.ninja/2016/01/14/decentralization/

Thanks, I missed it earlier. Very good write up.

Quote

Why Bitcoin's Decentralization Matters

Bitcoiners, from Bitcoin Core developers to long-time Bitcoin enthusiasts to recent /r/Bitcoin discoverers, love to talk about how Bitcoin’s decentralization is its ultimate feature. Rarely, however, do you see anyone explain why decentralization matters - surely it’s an interesting property from a computer science perspective, but why should consumers, businesses or investors care? This post is an attempt to write out why decentralization is foundational to Bitcoin’s utility and, somewhat more importantly, set up future posts talking about when it isn’t.

adamstgBit

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1037

Trusted Bitcoiner

Quote from: billyjoeallen on February 25, 2016, 12:44:15 PM

Quote from: aztecminer on February 25, 2016, 11:03:21 AM

Quote from: billyjoeallen on February 25, 2016, 12:17:36 AM

I can't believe I even have to say this but I do not hate the Chinese. I hate single party currency-manipulating governments with a sketchy understanding and respect for property rights and free speech.

Canadians, OTOH...

Plaid-wearing moosehumpers.

what about mexicans ??

I love beautiful young Mexican Girls. Especially my daughter.

it's starting to make sense why the future of bitcoin matters to you.

Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 19190. (Read 26608500 times)