Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 19553. (Read 26609797 times)
January 20, 2016, 12:07:39 PM
LOL!
for sure buddy. for sure.
January 20, 2016, 12:06:34 PM
January 20, 2016, 12:06:10 PM
...
I like that they are doing a simple 1 line change to 2MB.
this has a shot at forking bitcoin i guess.
but i would expect core to fallow the 2MB rule once its set in place... why wouldn't they? if they don't they technically mining an alt coin.
"bitcoin" necessarily is what the majority want it to be.
I like that they are doing a simple 1 line change to 2MB.
this has a shot at forking bitcoin i guess.
but i would expect core to fallow the 2MB rule once its set in place... why wouldn't they? if they don't they technically mining an alt coin.
"bitcoin" necessarily is what the majority want it to be.
Technically, the core is just a bunch of devs. They don't mine.
They could copy Core's code & call it Core 0.12, but only if they got no shame.
right and if 75% of miners went to some fork probably 99.9% would come join them shortly after and then who cares about anything else?
You never know. Smallblockers are unpredictable, about the only thing safe to assume is they won't pursue rational self-interest because too wild & irrational.
January 20, 2016, 12:05:24 PM
January 20, 2016, 12:04:15 PM
...
I like that they are doing a simple 1 line change to 2MB.
this has a shot at forking bitcoin i guess.
but i would expect core to fallow the 2MB rule once its set in place... why wouldn't they? if they don't they technically mining an alt coin.
"bitcoin" necessarily is what the majority want it to be.
I like that they are doing a simple 1 line change to 2MB.
this has a shot at forking bitcoin i guess.
but i would expect core to fallow the 2MB rule once its set in place... why wouldn't they? if they don't they technically mining an alt coin.
"bitcoin" necessarily is what the majority want it to be.
Technically, the core is just a bunch of devs. They don't mine.
They could copy Core's code & call it Core 0.12, but only if they got no shame.
right and if 75% of miners went to some fork probably 99.9% would come join them shortly after and then who cares about anything else?
You never know. Smallblockers are unpredictable, about the only thing safe to assume is they won't pursue rational self-interest because too wild & irrational.
January 20, 2016, 12:03:59 PM
Segregated Witness
January 20, 2016, 12:02:38 PM
probably why hearn is out.. oh well.. he was the one pushing for 'blockchain blacklists' .
Unlike Luke-jr who just went ahead and implemented them.
January 20, 2016, 12:02:26 PM
This doesn't merit a thread of its own, so here in the "lounge" it goes:
Is it possible to implement 2 MB blocks in different, incompatible ways? If, say, Bitcoin Classic got the support needed to trigger 2MB production to start, and Core also switched to 2MB blocks, could they still be incapable of operating on the same blockchain? I'm not saying it's likely to be done if possible, just curious.
Is it possible to implement 2 MB blocks in different, incompatible ways? If, say, Bitcoin Classic got the support needed to trigger 2MB production to start, and Core also switched to 2MB blocks, could they still be incapable of operating on the same blockchain? I'm not saying it's likely to be done if possible, just curious.
January 20, 2016, 12:01:48 PM
January 20, 2016, 11:58:06 AM
...
I like that they are doing a simple 1 line change to 2MB.
this has a shot at forking bitcoin i guess.
but i would expect core to fallow the 2MB rule once its set in place... why wouldn't they? if they don't they technically mining an alt coin.
"bitcoin" necessarily is what the majority want it to be.
I like that they are doing a simple 1 line change to 2MB.
this has a shot at forking bitcoin i guess.
but i would expect core to fallow the 2MB rule once its set in place... why wouldn't they? if they don't they technically mining an alt coin.
"bitcoin" necessarily is what the majority want it to be.
Technically, the core is just a bunch of devs. They don't mine.
They could copy Core's code & call it Core 0.12, but only if they got no shame.
right and if 75% of miners went to some fork probably 99.9% would come join them shortly after and then who cares about anything else?
January 20, 2016, 11:57:58 AM
January 20, 2016, 11:56:18 AM
buy or die.
January 20, 2016, 11:55:48 AM
sounds reasonable,
I like that they are doing a simple 1 line change to 2MB.
this has a shot at forking bitcoin i guess.
but i would expect core to fallow the 2MB rule once its set in place... why wouldn't they? if they don't they technically mining an alt coin.
"bitcoin" necessarily is what the majority want it to be.
i think at that point core would have to come to the realization that the development of bitcoin is becoming decentralized and so they can no longer call all the shots.
I like that they are doing a simple 1 line change to 2MB.
this has a shot at forking bitcoin i guess.
but i would expect core to fallow the 2MB rule once its set in place... why wouldn't they? if they don't they technically mining an alt coin.
"bitcoin" necessarily is what the majority want it to be.
i think at that point core would have to come to the realization that the development of bitcoin is becoming decentralized and so they can no longer call all the shots.
Clarifications...
1) Bitcoin classic is not simply changing maxBlockSize, doing so , even to 2MB would introduce dangerous attack vectors -CVE-2013-2292 The Classic devs are aware of this and thankfully making many more changes for sigop protections.
2) Development has already been decentralized with multiple implementations. We do need to support other implemenentations like libbitcoin and bitcore. There is a distinction to be made between having multiple implemenatations that break consensus rules and ones that do not . There can be multiple implementations that have different developers, written in different code/languages, and with different unique features all working cooperatively (This is recommended), but some would argue that always having implementations that are attempting to usurp consensus rules decreases user and investor confidence as ultimately there can only be one set of consensus rules that is considered bitcoin.
3) Segwit provides an effective 2MB increase in capacity , is already in testnet, has wide support - https://bitcoincore.org/en/segwit_adoption/ and will go live in april, IMHO before Classic can get deployed
4) In other news a planned hard fork increasing to an effective 4MB capacity is already being organized-
https://botbot.me/freenode/bitcoin-core-dev/
wangchun from F2Pool is planning with some core devs yesterday for a planned 2MB hard fork and adding extra nonce space in feb/march 2017 to increase effective capacity up to ~4MB.
thanks for this.
answers a lot of the questions i posted 1 hour ago.
January 20, 2016, 11:54:21 AM
oooo....
January 20, 2016, 11:49:46 AM
...
I like that they are doing a simple 1 line change to 2MB.
this has a shot at forking bitcoin i guess.
but i would expect core to fallow the 2MB rule once its set in place... why wouldn't they? if they don't they technically mining an alt coin.
"bitcoin" necessarily is what the majority want it to be.
I like that they are doing a simple 1 line change to 2MB.
this has a shot at forking bitcoin i guess.
but i would expect core to fallow the 2MB rule once its set in place... why wouldn't they? if they don't they technically mining an alt coin.
"bitcoin" necessarily is what the majority want it to be.
Technically, the core is just a bunch of devs. They don't mine.
They could copy Core's code & call it Core 0.12, but only if they got no shame.
January 20, 2016, 11:49:36 AM
sounds reasonable,
I like that they are doing a simple 1 line change to 2MB.
this has a shot at forking bitcoin i guess.
but i would expect core to fallow the 2MB rule once its set in place... why wouldn't they? if they don't they technically mining an alt coin.
"bitcoin" necessarily is what the majority want it to be.
i think at that point core would have to come to the realization that the development of bitcoin is becoming decentralized and so they can no longer call all the shots.
I like that they are doing a simple 1 line change to 2MB.
this has a shot at forking bitcoin i guess.
but i would expect core to fallow the 2MB rule once its set in place... why wouldn't they? if they don't they technically mining an alt coin.
"bitcoin" necessarily is what the majority want it to be.
i think at that point core would have to come to the realization that the development of bitcoin is becoming decentralized and so they can no longer call all the shots.
Clarifications...
1) Bitcoin classic is not simply changing maxBlockSize, doing so , even to 2MB would introduce dangerous attack vectors -CVE-2013-2292 The Classic devs are aware of this and thankfully making many more changes for sigop protections.
2) Development has already been decentralized with multiple implementations. We do need to support other implemenentations like libbitcoin and bitcore. There is a distinction to be made between having multiple implemenatations that break consensus rules and ones that do not . There can be multiple implementations that have different developers, written in different code/languages, and with different unique features all working cooperatively (This is recommended), but some would argue that always having implementations that are attempting to usurp consensus rules decreases user and investor confidence as ultimately there can only be one set of consensus rules that is considered bitcoin.
3) Segwit provides an effective 2MB increase in capacity , is already in testnet, has wide support - https://bitcoincore.org/en/segwit_adoption/ and will go live in april, IMHO before Classic can get deployed
4) In other news a planned hard fork increasing to an effective 4MB capacity is already being organized-
https://botbot.me/freenode/bitcoin-core-dev/
wangchun from F2Pool is planning with some core devs yesterday for a planned 2MB hard fork and adding extra nonce space in feb/march 2017 to increase effective capacity up to ~4MB.
January 20, 2016, 11:47:17 AM
Bitcoin was bound to go back to $400.- I didn't expected this rise so fast, i thought a test $350 ore so then to $400.
they cant go to 350.00, they can be hardballed there.
seems to be the case <350 is starting to feel like a pipe dream, if it was going to happen it should have already
my guess is price SHOULD BE much higher... but bitcoin isn't some Softball US Stock, so who knows!
maybe is why the hearn thing happened, he might be thinking same as u about it would have already if it were going too .. $350 is hardball because from there they would get stuck in a smaller range, or peeps like me and you will win if they go up or down from there... buying at 400-500 range is not very strong position since you are relying on the price to go up from there rather than down .. i do not believe they can beat me at hardball if i bought at 300 - 350 .. i really dont want to buy above 300 though, but if i did, i am confident i would woop em at their game. i don't believe at this time we will see <350 anytime soon much less <300 before halving. i think <350 we can buy in w new fiat and force the win though .
your not thinking long term enough in 6-24months there simply wont be any supply at these prices, price might need to climb an order of magnitude once bitcoin is over this block limit crap and supply drops. there are very useful applications to bitcoin poeple are going to find them and use them save some money and make bitcoin price explode.
going up.
January 20, 2016, 11:42:18 AM
I'd advise trader here to secure their long position.
We have consensus.
We have consensus.
When did this royal "we" come to this result?
Should I act quickly, or do I have a few days of down before the up comes?
Not long ago.
I'd advise you act quickly.
Called it
January 20, 2016, 11:39:52 AM
Bitcoin was bound to go back to $400.- I didn't expected this rise so fast, i thought a test $350 ore so then to $400.
they cant go to 350.00, they can be hardballed there.
seems to be the case <350 is starting to feel like a pipe dream, if it was going to happen it should have already
my guess is price SHOULD BE much higher... but bitcoin isn't some Softball US Stock, so who knows!
maybe is why the hearn thing happened, he might be thinking same as u about it would have already if it were going too .. $350 is hardball because from there they would get stuck in a smaller range, or peeps like me and you will win if they go up or down from there... buying at 400-500 range is not very strong position since you are relying on the price to go up from there rather than down .. i do not believe they can beat me at hardball if i bought at 300 - 350 .. i really dont want to buy above 300 though, but if i did, i am confident i would woop em at their game. i don't believe at this time we will see <350 anytime soon much less <300 before halving. i think <350 we can buy in w new fiat and force the win though .
January 20, 2016, 11:36:45 AM
Good morning Bitcoinland.
Back up over $400 after 5 days of bargain prices. I hope everyone got some cheap coins.
I could only afford to buy 2 BTC, 1 for $390 on the first dip and another for $370 on the continued drop.
That's still not too bad for the middle of January. Thanks Mike.
Back up over $400 after 5 days of bargain prices. I hope everyone got some cheap coins.
I could only afford to buy 2 BTC, 1 for $390 on the first dip and another for $370 on the continued drop.
That's still not too bad for the middle of January. Thanks Mike.
Jump to: