Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 19348. (Read 26623502 times)

Who? Who specifically do you believe is being paid for this?? It's time you name names.

Coin



Explanation

I see all the trolls and paid shills are back working hard on Monday ... wonder how long until their Crassic contracts run out?

It couldn't hold at 400's, I expect a small dump to 380's again. It's not that strong right now.
Bitstamp 395 $
BTC-e 397.63 $
Bitfinex 397.58 $
Huobi 417.24 $

Jules: Lookit! I given a million block chains a million max block size bumps and it isn't the same thing.
Vincent: It's the same ball park.
Jules: It ain't no ball park, neither!

A more correct number would be approx 400MW for the entire network and $0.05/kWh. You can't mine competitively with$0.10/kWh and efficiency is much greater than 0.71J/GH.

Yes no at all. How comes that ridiculously stupid argument is still a thing?

No

>1000 Classic nodes.

Are you afraid small blockists?

The cruel abuses of this war have led even good men to lose heart, shoes.

except that it is wrong .. so he is a dick and he is incorrect.

Bitcoin secures other chains through merged-mining already so the number of transactions "that bitcoin is securing" he uses is wrong ... also he hasn't accounted for the fact that the mining reward should be partially amortised over the total transactional life of each bitcoin, the cost of "digging the bitcoin up" is a one time deal but it contributes to the security for the many hundreds or thousands of transactions for the total monetary lifetime of a coin.

You've changed, man.

it is weird how this debate about blocksize has become such a fucked up poisoned clusterfucked fuck up. is that normal? is this how schisms happen? frustrating as hell.

Bitcoin governance does not have to "be fixed" in any way.
It is working perfectly and any attempt at highjacking it will miserably fail.

you're here because Crassic has failed and the level of self-delusion in bitco.in has gotten too thick to see anything clearly ... I'm afraid it's not much better here the level of troll and shit-posting Crassic has created is a great credit to Gavin ... the bitcoin haters must be having a field day on the back of his "stepping back from development" community dividing efforts ... at least he could have done the admirable thing and flounced off in a drama queen ragequit like his mate Hearn and left us in peace.

Personally, in earlier days (even just a few months ago) when I had heard Gavin speak, I had frequently thought that he came off as genuine, a neutral presenter and truly interested in the success of bitcoin.

Mostly, he still comes off as being fairly smart; however, it appears that his steadfast quest for a blocksize increase, has detracted from some of his credibility concerning whether he really is interested in the success of bitcoin or whether he is allowing some hidden agenda matters fog his presentation, especially that he's no longer seeming to present information in a neutral way, but instead spinning in order to attempt to get his way (that it's imperative that block size needs to be increased and bitcoin's governance be tweaked)

https://letstalkbitcoin.com/blog/post/lets-talk-bitcoin-282-bitcoin-classic-with-gavin-andresen

The above link to a recent interview (this week).  Sure Gavin agrees that seg wit is good invention, but he also suggests that seg wit is less important and useful than an outright blocksize increase (which is fairly obvious partisanship on his behalf because he is talking conclusory rather than really engaging with the various benefits that seg wit seems posed to bring to the bitcoin space). 

By not discussing the differences between soft fork and hard fork, he also seems to be suggesting that a hardfork is necessary (almost acting as if it inevitable) and framing his presentations in such a way in which all outcomes assume some kind of hardfork is going to take place (seems a fairly big assumption).. The reality of the matter is that a hard fork is not necessary under a number of scenarios, and he seems to be ignoring the possible non hardfork scenarios.  For example, if the same can be achieved by softfork, then that would likely be the better route to take, especially if you value allowing for productive continued development of the bitcoin space and for supporting of a consensus seeking precedent in bitcoin. 

Maybe Gavin is feeling a bit burned in his recent attempts at being a "benevolent dictator" (his words, not mine) and even Gavin having had asserted that a benevolent dictator would be a good thing for bitcoin in the short term.  In September 2015, he was going around asserting that Mike Hearn would be the benevolent dictator of XT (assuming XT would be hardforked into becoming the "new" bitcoin).  I mean, jesus fucking christ, a guy has to lose some credibility in the community by the subsequent rage quit of someone who just a few months earlier would have had the potential of becoming the "benevolent dictator" of the "new" bitcoin.

Anyhow, Gavin comes off as a bit bitter about bitcoin consensus and bitcoin governance and seems to strongly suggest that bitcoin's governance has to be fixed, but then is a bit dodgy about that being the problem and continuing to insist that a technical fix is an emergency, while at the same time taking digs at the "broken" nature of bitcoin's governance .

In any event, his various assumptions and presentations of issues are losing their coherence and interferes with his objectivity and credibility as a trustworthy speaker.

This is not a case of freedom, it's a case of using an inefficient technology and bloating it for the lolz, at practically zero cost - which shouldn't be happening.

All abuse scenarios will typically play out if people are "free" to play them out. If you want to have a robust and resilient system, you can't allow the "Freedom" to abuse and kill the system. Was Satoshi a fool for implementing a 1MB restriction instead of allowing the "freedom" to have 10 or 20mb of txs per block? Of course not. Was Satoshi a fool for having a fee system in place? Wouldn't it be more "popular" if he said "let's do the freeTXs4all, 4evah"? Wouldn't it be more "popular" if he said "every microtx in the planet should go through BTC" instead of saying "eh, well, we are not very suited for microtxs right now"?... Wouldn't it be more "popular" if he said that the BTC blockchain can store all kind of data structures in it, instead of requiring different blockchains for different applications and admitting that one-blockchain-for-all-uses doesn't scale?


The other day I received 250$ in paypal. I hadn't used paypal in a while and, despite having mentioned what they charge quite often / knowing what they charge in theory, I *still* got blown away by the charges.

I got charged something like 10.5$ in fees for receiving the money.

I got charged ~6$ for converting to euros

I got charged ~3.5$ by my bank for the incoming wire (outgoing wire by paypal was "Free")

Of the 250$, I lost 20$ in paypal fees, conversions and bank wire. The sender of the money also lost some in currency conversion to $$$, fees, etc.

Btw, after I pressed the withdraw button in paypal, my withdrawal was put under "review" for "my security". This would delay the money to my bank account by +1 working days.

This is the bullshit reality of our money transfer industry. Money taking ages to get transferred, having third parties controlling your money, charging you insane amounts for fees, etc etc. There is a huge market for BTC whether at 0.03 USD, 0.3 USD or 3 USD fee. I'm not saying we need 3 USD fees, I'm just saying that there are A LOT of payment scenarios which even if you pay 3 USD for BTC fees, you'll still do it waaaaaay cheaper than through banks, paypal etc etc - so there is a market even if the fees were 100x or 200x what they currently are.



The fallacy of this line of thinking is twofold:

1) It presupposes we have 1mb forevah, when this is not the case

2) It presupposes a 0/1 binary thinking where you go from being able to transact in an affordable manner, to not being able to transact due to very high fees. It's not like 1 cent or 100 USD in fees as our only 2 options. It could be 10 cents, 20 cents, 50 cents, 1 USD etc. This is not an on/off switch. It's a potentiometer / an analog progressive switch.


If users are going to be put off by, say, 10-20 cents in fees, then perhaps they can buy plenty of lube and go get fucked by the banks and the paypals instead. Having 1-2-3 cents in fees and complaining that it's the end of the world if we go upwards and that it's crippling adoption, when RL banking payments are charging the hell out of us (and they are being used everyday by billions of people) and we get fucked by them constantly, is somewhat hypocritic.

Besides the main selling point of BTC shouldn't be an addiction to near-zero cost txs (which we know that is not sustainable in the long run), but rather its decentralized nature and its advantages over central banks (as a token/currency) and commercial banks in terms of controlling your money, paying without trusted 3rd parties which could withhold or confiscate your money, the non reversibility of (confirmed) txs etc etc.

BJA tend to be a dick, but sometimes bring us quality posts as that one. Nice analisys

Quiet you! This is important.