The only trendline investors look at (as opposed to traders) is the five year exponential trendline, which has leveled off.
1.There is no possibility of a new ATH without an increase in max block size.
2. There is no possibility of an increase in max blocksize with bigblockers split between Classic (BIP102), XT (BIP101), and Bitcoin Unlimited.
3. There is enough Fear Uncertainty and Doubt to prevent ANY scaling solution, including SegWit, before the Network hit the Transaction capacity limit.
THEREFOR: We will hit the limit and have a network congestion failure. The price will crash. It is almost inevitable now. The only question is when. My best guess is two months.
THEREFOR we are fucked.
Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 19623. (Read 26608384 times)
January 13, 2016, 08:15:53 PM
January 13, 2016, 08:01:59 PM
January 13, 2016, 07:25:14 PM
Call me old school, but I prefer this order of development
1) Proposals
2) BIP or Whitepaper created
3) Initial draft coding and preliminary testing
4) Peer review , more testing , more debugging
5) Testnet , with more changes if needed and coordination with other wallet developers
6) RC release
Bitcoin Classic is at step 1, Segwit is at step 5.
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-January/012195.html
For source code, please look at sipa's github repo:
https://github.com/sipa/bitcoin/tree/segwit
And some example signing code at my repo:
https://github.com/CodeShark/BitcoinScriptExperiments/blob/master/src/signwitnesstx.cpp
This doesn't make Bitcoin Classic bad or one we should criticize... it merely is one that is immature and needs to go through those steps.
This being said, it can go through some of these steps fairly quickly as some of these concepts aren't new and have been tested on other BIPs.
1) Proposals
2) BIP or Whitepaper created
3) Initial draft coding and preliminary testing
4) Peer review , more testing , more debugging
5) Testnet , with more changes if needed and coordination with other wallet developers
6) RC release
Bitcoin Classic is at step 1, Segwit is at step 5.
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-January/012195.html
For source code, please look at sipa's github repo:
https://github.com/sipa/bitcoin/tree/segwit
And some example signing code at my repo:
https://github.com/CodeShark/BitcoinScriptExperiments/blob/master/src/signwitnesstx.cpp
This doesn't make Bitcoin Classic bad or one we should criticize... it merely is one that is immature and needs to go through those steps.
This being said, it can go through some of these steps fairly quickly as some of these concepts aren't new and have been tested on other BIPs.
January 13, 2016, 07:18:34 PM
That said, there's quite some difference in complexity between Segwit and "change the maxblocksize int", right?
Many people seem to allude that 2MB capacity increase would require simply changing maxBlockSize variable when this simply isn't true as other lines of code would need to be changed to prevent new attack vectors(I.E.. CVE-2013-2292. ). Some proposed code to mitigate these new attacks- https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/commit/cc1a7b53629b265e1be6e212d64524f709d27022
This being said... yes, segwit is more complicated ... but it is all worth it as the capacity increases within it are the least intresting aspects of what it provides us. Right now we don't know if Bitcoin Classic will implement Segwit or not, but if they do not and you truley understand the benefits of segwit than this should be an immediate dis qualifier.
Whatever implementation increases the block size will not suddenly become the undisputed King of Bitcoin. I wouldn't be surprised if people go back to a future 2MB+ Core client when the block size cafuffle is over.
January 13, 2016, 07:18:24 PM
Hmm. Really? As in release candidate? I guess I need to source the impression I was given. I do recall that it was a convo on the dev reflector, though I cannot remember details other than that.
There is no way to know if changes will be made after testing and when RC is ready... that is somewhat of the point of the testnet. Bitcoin classic on the other hand doesn't even have a clear understanding of what the overall framework is , let alone the code, let alone testing.
January 13, 2016, 07:14:59 PM
Segwitt details are well understood, well documented , and with corresponding code and now is in the main testnet instead of just sidechain.
I guess I misunderstood. I recently read that Core devs will still hashing out some aspects of how the code will be implemented. No?
The code is in the testnet being tested. Might it be modified if a bug is found... sure... but it has already been completed and tested for many months last year in sidechains and now it is being tested in the main testnet.
Hmm. Really? As in release candidate? I guess I need to source the impression I was given. I do recall that it was a convo on the dev reflector, though I cannot remember details other than that.
January 13, 2016, 07:12:42 PM
Segwitt details are well understood, well documented , and with corresponding code and now is in the main testnet instead of just sidechain.
I guess I misunderstood. I recently read that Core devs will still hashing out some aspects of how the code will be implemented. No?
The code is done and is in the main bitcoin testnet being tested. Might it be modified if a bug is found?... sure... but it has already been completed and tested for many months last year in sidechains and now it is being tested in the main testnet.
http://www.bitcoin.kn/2016/01/ciphrex-ceo-eric-lombrozo-discusses-the-live-segregated-witness-test-net/?utm_campaign=ciphrex-ceo-eric-lombrozo-discusses-the-live-segregated-witness-test-net&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitter
https://letstalkbitcoin.com/blog/post/lets-talk-bitcoin-277-separating-signatures-with-segregated-witness
January 13, 2016, 07:09:34 PM
Segwitt details are well understood, well documented , and with corresponding code and now is in the main testnet instead of just sidechain.
I guess I misunderstood. I recently read that Core devs will still hashing out some aspects of how the code will be implemented. No?
January 13, 2016, 07:07:48 PM
That said, there's quite some difference in complexity between Segwit and "change the maxblocksize int", right?
Many people seem to allude that 2MB capacity increase would require simply changing maxBlockSize variable when this simply isn't true as other lines of code would need to be changed to prevent new attack vectors(I.E.. CVE-2013-2292. ). Some proposed code to mitigate these new attacks- https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/commit/cc1a7b53629b265e1be6e212d64524f709d27022
This being said... yes, segwit is more complicated ... but it is all worth it as the capacity increases within it are the least intresting aspects of what it provides us. Right now we don't know if Bitcoin Classic will implement Segwit or not, but if they do not and you truley understand the benefits of segwit than this should be an immediate dis qualifier.
January 13, 2016, 07:06:13 PM
The current rise in bitcoin’s price is more stable than
its previous price changes, according to Martin Tillier,
a financial advisor writing in Nasdaq , a provider of
exchange technology, trading, information and public
company services across six continents. Tillier says
bitcoin’s previous price hikes were mysterious, but the
current one is due to the devaluation of China’s
currency.
Because this is a logical reason for the price surge, the
market is acting with a forward discounting mechanism
and some degree of appreciation is now built into the
price. In addition, the interest from traders combined
with the ability to short the currency allows the market
to check upward spikes naturally, simply by attracting
sellers.
its previous price changes, according to Martin Tillier,
a financial advisor writing in Nasdaq , a provider of
exchange technology, trading, information and public
company services across six continents. Tillier says
bitcoin’s previous price hikes were mysterious, but the
current one is due to the devaluation of China’s
currency.
Because this is a logical reason for the price surge, the
market is acting with a forward discounting mechanism
and some degree of appreciation is now built into the
price. In addition, the interest from traders combined
with the ability to short the currency allows the market
to check upward spikes naturally, simply by attracting
sellers.
January 13, 2016, 07:02:11 PM
January 13, 2016, 06:54:35 PM
Segwitt details are well understood, well documented , and with corresponding code and now is in the main testnet instead of just sidechain. Bitcoin Classic has none of that and has contradictory proposals right now as they attempt to formulate what it is.
[...]
Basically, one is clear and the other is still being formulated so we should with-hold judgment.
[...]
Basically, one is clear and the other is still being formulated so we should with-hold judgment.
Sure. It seems to be more of a colour the mid-Blockians are supposed to rally behind for now, rather than a fleshed out proposal.
That said, there's quite some difference in complexity between Segwit and "change the maxblocksize int", right?
January 13, 2016, 06:39:58 PM
So now there's Gavin and Jeff behind it, plus the current #1 and #5 of the mining pools. Will be interesting to see how F2Pool, Bitfury and BTCC Pool react in the coming days.
Certainly interesting ... whatever "it" is ... who knows?...Somewhat irresponsible for them to back something that isn't even formulated yet.
How does that differ from the SegWit-based 'roadmap'?
Segwitt details are well understood, well documented , and with corresponding code and now is in the main testnet instead of just sidechain. Bitcoin Classic has none of that and has contradictory proposals right now as they attempt to formulate what it is.
I.E... https://bitcoinclassic.com/ it is represented as a BIP 102
within this merged pull request -it is a 2MB 4 MB proposal - https://bitcoinclassic.consider.it/merge-3-v0112-2mb-4mb?results=true
They are still voting and deciding upon whether to include Segwit or not and a whole other set of features like reversing RBF or not here -
https://bitcoinclassic.consider.it/
Basically, one is clear and the other is still being formulated so we should with-hold judgment.
January 13, 2016, 06:32:42 PM
So now there's Gavin and Jeff behind it, plus the current #1 and #5 of the mining pools. Will be interesting to see how F2Pool, Bitfury and BTCC Pool react in the coming days.
Certainly interesting ... whatever "it" is ... who knows?...Somewhat irresponsible for them to back something that isn't even formulated yet.
How does that differ from the SegWit-based 'roadmap'?
January 13, 2016, 06:30:18 PM
https://twitter.com/jgarzik/status/687352747465830400
Jeff Garzik @jgarzik 2h2 hours ago
The #bitcoin community should get behind http://BitcoinClassic.com the best hope for moving past current blockage.
Added my name. More soon!
Jeff Garzik @jgarzik 2h2 hours ago
The #bitcoin community should get behind http://BitcoinClassic.com the best hope for moving past current blockage.
Added my name. More soon!
So now there's Gavin and Jeff behind it, plus the current #1 and #5 of the mining pools. Will be interesting to see how F2Pool, Bitfury and BTCC Pool react in the coming days.
oops
I don't believe a second, compatible implementation of Bitcoin will ever be a good idea. So much of the design depends on all nodes getting exactly identical results in lockstep that a second implementation would be a menace to the network. The MIT license is compatible with all other licenses and commercial uses, so there is no need to rewrite it from a licensing standpoint.
Good idea or not, SOMEBODY will try to mess up the network (or co-opt it for their own use) sooner or later. They'll either hack the existing code or write their own version, and will be a menace to the network.I admire the flexibility of the scripts-in-a-transaction scheme, but my evil little mind immediately starts to think of ways I might abuse it. I could encode all sorts of interesting information in the TxOut script, and if non-hacked clients validated-and-then-ignored those transactions it would be a useful covert broadcast communication channel.
That's a cool feature until it gets popular and somebody decides it would be fun to flood the payment network with millions of transactions to transfer the latest Lady Gaga video to all their friends...
January 13, 2016, 06:28:27 PM
Why blocks are full today which is not normal !
Is there some kind of small transaction attack and someone wants to prove that block size is small now !!
Is there some kind of small transaction attack and someone wants to prove that block size is small now !!
It doesn't look like there is any attack. Miners have been filling up blocks more than usual and transactions keep coming in. Mempool doesn't look swamped, nor is it empty.
https://tradeblock.com/bitcoin
January 13, 2016, 06:12:11 PM
So now there's Gavin and Jeff behind it, plus the current #1 and #5 of the mining pools. Will be interesting to see how F2Pool, Bitfury and BTCC Pool react in the coming days.
Certainly interesting ... whatever "it" is ... who knows?...Somewhat irresponsible for them to back something that isn't even formulated yet.
January 13, 2016, 06:09:27 PM
https://twitter.com/jgarzik/status/687352747465830400
Jeff Garzik @jgarzik 2h2 hours ago
The #bitcoin community should get behind http://BitcoinClassic.com the best hope for moving past current blockage.
Added my name. More soon!
Jeff Garzik @jgarzik 2h2 hours ago
The #bitcoin community should get behind http://BitcoinClassic.com the best hope for moving past current blockage.
Added my name. More soon!
So now there's Gavin and Jeff behind it, plus the current #1 and #5 of the mining pools. Will be interesting to see how F2Pool, Bitfury and BTCC Pool react in the coming days.
January 13, 2016, 06:03:03 PM
look at you forkers cherry picking one another.
I'm undecided. Are you against Cores soft Fork proposal to increase capacity or are you a "forker" as well ?
January 13, 2016, 06:01:59 PM
Jump to: