So, to sum up.
Yesterday's news: We have consensus!
Today's news: We don't have consensus, we have another split!
Oh well. At least the miners are taking action. They'll be the ones to decide how this goes, whatever the devs say. Hard to argue with hashpower.
Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 19240. (Read 26608186 times)
February 21, 2016, 09:09:35 AM
February 21, 2016, 09:09:02 AM
I guess Classic will be back on the table now. Yeah. Moar war. 
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/46sbmy/mark_friedenbach_core_dev_im_glad_that_your/#d082znm
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/46sbmy/mark_friedenbach_core_dev_im_glad_that_your/#d082znm
February 21, 2016, 09:06:52 AM
@tub-0-lard: by "document" i meant "a document useful in business." But you're correct, free-fucking-form-poetry and atonal jazz are technically documents too 
Well, that piece of atonal jazz they all signed left me with the impression that someone, probably not the miners, wanted plenty of room for interpretation.
Of course.
@UnDerDoG81: Understand exactly what you mean, your English is fine. The thing that's both interesting & sad about Bitcoin is it mirrors the fiat world, but does on fast-forward, in compressed time. It's like having a scale model of mankind, with the millennia between invention of money & draconian regulations compressed into a few years
People rediscover why markets became regulated, realize how unnatural the concept of "store of value" is, that *many* things in a transaction involve trust, not just the value of money, that for contracts to be meaningful, jackbooted thugs are required to enforce it, why complex, highly-centralized organisms with specialization and delegation of tasks evolve from autonomous single-cell bullshit, etc., etc. 
February 21, 2016, 09:00:51 AM
February 21, 2016, 08:56:47 AM
@tub-0-lard: by "document" i meant "a document useful in business." But you're correct, free-fucking-form-poetry and atonal jazz are technically documents too
Well, that piece of atonal jazz they all signed left me with the impression that someone, probably not the miners, wanted plenty of room for interpretation.
February 21, 2016, 08:54:38 AM
Always the same scheme. Pump it till 430-450 and sell... Why can´t they simply let it grow?
dude that's what i want to fuckin know. it's like these people who control this shit have what thousands of coins ? but they're desperate to dump right now right now right now me first no me first no matter what on any and every gain. you'd think that people with thousands of coins would be pleased to see increasing value and not want to slam it back down relentlessly , but no. ...
There ya go. The trick to making money in trading is repeatability -- being able to repeatedly buy lower and sell higher -- not buying an asset & putting a ring on it.
@tub-0-lard: by "document" i meant "a document useful in business." But you're correct, free-fucking-form-poetry and atonal jazz are technically documents too
And so much about Bitcoin being a decentralized paying system for everybody where nobody has any control over it and it is so free and fair and bla. On Bitcoin the whales and early adaptors have all the control. So, BTC is the same crap as FIAT. Controlled by a handfull of greedy fuckers. Exactly like with FIAT. But with BTC not only governments and rich born childs can get rich. Here, every early adaptor had the chance to become a milionaire. Every late adaptor gets slaugthered by the early adaptors now.
Not the best English but I hope you understand what I mean.
February 21, 2016, 08:48:52 AM
Onoes! What's happening? 
... Blocks not full and price near 450! I like it :3
Ahah ^^
Well this was a nice pump.
BTC always works this way, it'll go up again.
February 21, 2016, 08:45:52 AM
Always the same scheme. Pump it till 430-450 and sell... Why can´t they simply let it grow?
dude that's what i want to fuckin know. it's like these people who control this shit have what thousands of coins ? but they're desperate to dump right now right now right now me first no me first no matter what on any and every gain. you'd think that people with thousands of coins would be pleased to see increasing value and not want to slam it back down relentlessly , but no. ...
There ya go. The trick to making money in trading is repeatability -- being able to repeatedly buy lower and sell higher -- not buying an asset & putting a ring on it.
@tub-0-lard: by "document" i meant "a document useful in business negotiations." But you're correct, free-fucking-form-poetry and atonal jazz are technically documents too
February 21, 2016, 08:44:49 AM
TIMBER!
looks like this community is beyond repairable. the consensus found yesterday is already under heavy fire. no surprise eth starts rising again, people want a functioning circle of developers.
only way out of this mess could be that the miners just patch the code, in the end bitcoin has no decentralized way of deciding things apart from POW.
Everyone will read that document like the devil reads The Bible, and it looks like one way of looking at it is that the core road map is unchanged. 2MB non-segwit but 4MB max total smells like little to no change in maxBlockSize. Their encouragement of using more signature heavy txs might eat up much of the 4MB. Idk, we might have to whip some answers out of Bitusher when he's back. It's pretty clear though that Bitcoin is not going to allow many more users for the next 18 months. Sort of hard to get all pumped up about this.
true, would be nice to have it implemented in the roadmap.
but "no new users"? i disagree, we will loose microTXs and gain new users that are doing bigger TXs. is it a good thing to loose microTXs? no of course not! but Bitcoin will survive to let them go for some time.
If a document reads like the Bible, it's clearly not a document. The reason that actual, IRL documents read like they do is because grownups hire paralegals to draft them, so that they would be legally binding, exact, and not open to interpretation like some free-fucking-form poetry.
"A document is a written, drawn, presented or recorded representation of thoughts."
You can call it something else if you want though.
February 21, 2016, 08:42:00 AM
Yes, of course, you're totally bang on with your assessment. If there were a serious attack like this I suspect there might be a fork, maybe...
-----
If you want to perform such an attack regardless of cost, and with unlimited budget, I believe it has already been proven that the Byzantine general's problem is unsolvable, (lacking sufficient incentives)
It's likely that the incentive structure is the only thing that truly protects the blockchain.
-----
If you want to perform such an attack regardless of cost, and with unlimited budget, I believe it has already been proven that the Byzantine general's problem is unsolvable, (lacking sufficient incentives)
It's likely that the incentive structure is the only thing that truly protects the blockchain.
A fork, sure, but a fork to what? Short of changing the hashing algorithm, I don't see what's going to prevent a destructive miner from shitting all over the new fork, too.
So: double-spends for direct economic gain don't seem likely to be a huge problem. Miners disrupting the network for political reasons (or ransom, for that matter) seems like it could be an issue, but it's hard to estimate how likely such an attack would be.
Best case you're waiting many hours, perhaps days per block, until a difficulty change. (This is it's probably unacceptable to the mainstream, but to the participants of MPEX and bitcoin-assets --well-- I wouldn't be surprised if they were willing to accept several weeks or months of extremely slow blocks until a difficulty change. I'm not an insider, but that's the feeling that I get when reading the logs.
But that's just the best case scenario, in the worst case you'd be suffering attacks from the overwhelming majority of hash power (I think mitigation for this would be hard-coded nodes, attaching only to other nodes within the web of trust.) They could potentially operate a viable network with at minimum the 6 or 7 nodes they already run.
Both scenarios are not desirable. I think the algorithm change is probably the most likely outcome. It provides protection from asic attack, and, let's be honest , there is a strong incentive to bring back cpu or at least gpu-friendly mining.
In any case, I think a fork is risky, more risky than most people realize, and I think that Mircea Popescu and his followers are a formidable and compelling group and should not be discounted.
Interesting times ahead.
A handful of loons. I discount then. Why wouldn't you?
Shhh. Play it cool. Hdbuck thinks he's one of them.
February 21, 2016, 08:40:57 AM
Always the same scheme. Pump it till 430-450 and sell... Why can´t they simply let it grow?
dude that's what i want to fuckin know. it's like these people who control this shit have what thousands of coins ? but they're desperate to dump right now right now right now me first no me first no matter what on any and every gain. you'd think that people with thousands of coins would be pleased to see increasing value and not want to slam it back down relentlessly , but no. i guess nobody wants to (or has funds to) bother with supporting the market at any level and they'd rather just violently rock the thing up and down and extract fiat , because apparently people with thousands of coins don't give a shit about bitcoin or trust it they just want everyone's dollars and i guess some can make more trading than allowing the value to grow. you'd think that would not be the case for those at the very tippy top but those few with 6 figure btc i guess don't give a shit what the price is because they're all already farting through silk anyhow ?
February 21, 2016, 08:40:51 AM
TIMBER!
looks like this community is beyond repairable. the consensus found yesterday is already under heavy fire. no surprise eth starts rising again, people want a functioning circle of developers.
only way out of this mess could be that the miners just patch the code, in the end bitcoin has no decentralized way of deciding things apart from POW.
Everyone will read that document like the devil reads The Bible, and it looks like one way of looking at it is that the core road map is unchanged. 2MB non-segwit but 4MB max total smells like little to no change in maxBlockSize. Their encouragement of using more signature heavy txs might eat up much of the 4MB. Idk, we might have to whip some answers out of Bitusher when he's back. It's pretty clear though that Bitcoin is not going to allow many more users for the next 18 months. Sort of hard to get all pumped up about this.
true, would be nice to have it implemented in the roadmap.
but "no new users"? i disagree, we will loose microTXs and gain new users that are doing bigger TXs. is it a good thing to loose microTXs? no of course not! but Bitcoin will survive to let them go for some time.
We'll see. I can't find any reliable data on how much space microTXs account for in the blocks. In fact, it is difficult finding reliable data about anything in Bitcoin because we're a bunch of lying cheating bastards. So I've spent a bit of time just looking at the txs coming in (https://tradeblock.com/bitcoin/). A surprisingly large portion of txs seems to be fairly sizable txs in dollar terms.
Oh, and I didn't say "no new users", I said not "many more users". We might be able to handle a modest linear adoption curve, but Bitcoin won't be able to handle an adoption wave. We're pretty much at the mercy of speculators for a while longer.
February 21, 2016, 08:33:44 AM
Always the same scheme. Pump it till 430-450 and sell... Why can´t they simply let it grow?
because that's how trading works.
You mean thats how stealing others money work? Pump it up, give people hope and then crash the price...
That's how largely unregulated trading works. Everything that is not expressly forbidden is permitted.
February 21, 2016, 08:29:54 AM
TIMBER!
looks like this community is beyond repairable. the consensus found yesterday is already under heavy fire. no surprise eth starts rising again, people want a functioning circle of developers.
only way out of this mess could be that the miners just patch the code, in the end bitcoin has no decentralized way of deciding things apart from POW.
Everyone will read that document like the devil reads The Bible, and it looks like one way of looking at it is that the core road map is unchanged. 2MB non-segwit but 4MB max total smells like little to no change in maxBlockSize. Their encouragement of using more signature heavy txs might eat up much of the 4MB. Idk, we might have to whip some answers out of Bitusher when he's back. It's pretty clear though that Bitcoin is not going to allow many more users for the next 18 months. Sort of hard to get all pumped up about this.
true, would be nice to have it implemented in the roadmap.
but "no new users"? i disagree, we will loose microTXs and gain new users that are doing bigger TXs. is it a good thing to loose microTXs? no of course not! but Bitcoin will survive to let them go for some time.
If a document reads like the Bible, it's clearly not a document. The reason that actual, IRL documents read like they do is because grownups hire paralegals to draft them, so that they would be legally binding, exact, and not open to interpretation like some free-fucking-form poetry.
February 21, 2016, 08:29:06 AM
Always the same scheme. Pump it till 430-450 and sell... Why can´t they simply let it grow?
because that's how trading works.
You mean thats how stealing others money work? Pump it up, give people hope and then crash the price...
Not that I sold, I hold my coins. But it´s not the first time I thought about it to exit BTC @500. Thats the price where I would be back at $0 loss or profit since I invested in BTC. It´s clear that this coin is going nowhere anymore. I would not wonder if the governments start to destroy bitcoin when they present their own digital currency.
February 21, 2016, 08:25:44 AM
TIMBER!
looks like this community is beyond repairable. the consensus found yesterday is already under heavy fire. no surprise eth starts rising again, people want a functioning circle of developers.
only way out of this mess could be that the miners just patch the code, in the end bitcoin has no decentralized way of deciding things apart from POW.
Everyone will read that document like the devil reads The Bible, and it looks like one way of looking at it is that the core road map is unchanged. 2MB non-segwit but 4MB max total smells like little to no change in maxBlockSize. Their encouragement of using more signature heavy txs might eat up much of the 4MB. Idk, we might have to whip some answers out of Bitusher when he's back. It's pretty clear though that Bitcoin is not going to allow many more users for the next 18 months. Sort of hard to get all pumped up about this.
true, would be nice to have it implemented in the roadmap.
but "no new users"? i disagree, we will loose microTXs and gain new users that are doing bigger TXs. is it a good thing to loose microTXs? no of course not! but Bitcoin will survive to let them go for some time.
February 21, 2016, 08:25:13 AM
does still anybody belive we can pump to new highs without the Gox bots? 
oh i do! 6B$ is nothing when it comes to financial markets.
it is quiet a lot if you have to put that money on strange shady exchanges.
true. nevertheless i know at least one fully licensed exchange that has gov-fund protection in place. seems not too shady to me.
Yeah, but the whole point of Bitcoin is
apart from the gov licensed ones you still have plenty of shady exchanges who give a fuck who you are.
Curious fact: Having one's name in a Bulgarian database is, arguably, less of a deterrent than having one's records accessible to the IRS.
February 21, 2016, 08:22:50 AM
Always the same scheme. Pump it till 430-450 and sell... Why can´t they simply let it grow?
because that's how trading works.
February 21, 2016, 08:22:14 AM
does still anybody belive we can pump to new highs without the Gox bots?
oh i do! 6B$ is nothing when it comes to financial markets.
it is quiet a lot if you have to put that money on strange shady exchanges.
true. nevertheless i know at least one fully licensed exchange that has gov-fund protection in place. seems not too shady to me.
Yeah, but the whole point of Bitcoin is
apart from the gov licensed ones you still have plenty of shady exchanges who give a fuck who you are.
February 21, 2016, 08:22:14 AM
TIMBER!
looks like this community is beyond repairable. the consensus found yesterday is already under heavy fire. no surprise eth starts rising again, people want a functioning circle of developers.
only way out of this mess could be that the miners just patch the code, in the end bitcoin has no decentralized way of deciding things apart from POW.
Everyone will read that document like the devil reads The Bible, and it looks like one way of looking at it is that the core road map is unchanged. 2MB non-segwit but 4MB max total smells like little to no change in maxBlockSize. Their encouragement of using more signature heavy txs might eat up much of the 4MB. Idk, we might have to whip some answers out of Bitusher when he's back. It's pretty clear though that Bitcoin is not going to allow many more users for the next 18 months. Sort of hard to get all pumped up about this.
Jump to: