Coin
Explanation
Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 19721. (Read 26708935 times)
January 01, 2016, 10:02:11 PM
January 01, 2016, 09:42:53 PM
In a stunning display of courage, and with an unwavering commitment to the forging of the truth in the crucible of the dialectical method... Our friend, and highly qualified mentor, has graciously offered to continue the debate of these important ideas rather than retreat like a coward to the wizard's irc clubhouse.
Like those who have not #ragequit under adversity before... may his example continue to inspire us in our efforts to fully realize the potential of this bottom-up, community driven effort towards changing the world through a fully decentralized, dialup and raspberryPi compatible, layer 1 settlement network.
Like those who have not #ragequit under adversity before... may his example continue to inspire us in our efforts to fully realize the potential of this bottom-up, community driven effort towards changing the world through a fully decentralized, dialup and raspberryPi compatible, layer 1 settlement network.
This, gentlemen is the curtain call.
After much consideration I've decided to turn the page on this thread in light of the most recent developments but also so that it stops paying lip service to the lying fraudster above and his cohort of deception artists. (Remind me not to ever create another thread without making it self-moderated)
It is clear that we now have a path forward out of this arguable gridlock thanks to the hard work of knowledgeable but most importantly resilient people. (https://bitcoin.org/en/bitcoin-core/capacity-increases)
Although it was never a consideration that a merry bunch of loud mouths with no authority could hijack the project and hardfork Bitcoin into inexistence the schism was of a great service to everyone involved with Bitcoin in that it help identify the malicious actors and to some extent purge them from the ecosystem.
The leaders of this governance coup are now nowhere to be seen, Mike Hearn having revealed themselves as the villain he always was is now gone working full time for the bankers he had probably always been in cahoots with. Gavin Andresen has taken residency over at a forum populated by notorious scammer cypherdoc and dangerous, sociopath, charlatan Peter R. After previously advocating for what was deemed a "safe" immediate increase to 20MB, he is now figuratively begging on his knees for 2MB "compromise" only for the sake of forcing a contentious hard fork on Bitcoin in order to undermine the trust of investors in what projects to be the most important year for Bitcoin yet.
As for the groups of shills they've spawned their "community" is in shambles largely because of the self-admitted fractious tendencies.
In what proved to be its strongest menace to date it is now safe to say Bitcoin has once again demonstrated its value and the strength of its antifragile nature.
Seeing as I can't bother responding anymore to the endless barrage of lies and deception spewed here by the shills (and I certainly understand why others have already given up) it would be a disservice to more naive & gullible individuals to leave the thread open and provide a stage for these scammers.
Nonetheless it was a good ride and proved to be a most informative experience. I'd like to thank all of the honest contributors who've helped separate the wheat from the chaff (you know who you are). A special mention for iCEBREAKER for being the originator of the #REKT movement. It was an honor to carry the torch.
To the rest of you contemptible, lying ph0rkers understand that by the grace of the internet your performances and subsequent downfall will forever be preserved for posterity and serve as a tell-tale of the consequences of going against Bitcoin.
May your souls rest in peace.
Long live Bitcoin!
After much consideration I've decided to turn the page on this thread in light of the most recent developments but also so that it stops paying lip service to the lying fraudster above and his cohort of deception artists. (Remind me not to ever create another thread without making it self-moderated)
It is clear that we now have a path forward out of this arguable gridlock thanks to the hard work of knowledgeable but most importantly resilient people. (https://bitcoin.org/en/bitcoin-core/capacity-increases)
Although it was never a consideration that a merry bunch of loud mouths with no authority could hijack the project and hardfork Bitcoin into inexistence the schism was of a great service to everyone involved with Bitcoin in that it help identify the malicious actors and to some extent purge them from the ecosystem.
The leaders of this governance coup are now nowhere to be seen, Mike Hearn having revealed themselves as the villain he always was is now gone working full time for the bankers he had probably always been in cahoots with. Gavin Andresen has taken residency over at a forum populated by notorious scammer cypherdoc and dangerous, sociopath, charlatan Peter R. After previously advocating for what was deemed a "safe" immediate increase to 20MB, he is now figuratively begging on his knees for 2MB "compromise" only for the sake of forcing a contentious hard fork on Bitcoin in order to undermine the trust of investors in what projects to be the most important year for Bitcoin yet.
As for the groups of shills they've spawned their "community" is in shambles largely because of the self-admitted fractious tendencies.
In what proved to be its strongest menace to date it is now safe to say Bitcoin has once again demonstrated its value and the strength of its antifragile nature.
Seeing as I can't bother responding anymore to the endless barrage of lies and deception spewed here by the shills (and I certainly understand why others have already given up) it would be a disservice to more naive & gullible individuals to leave the thread open and provide a stage for these scammers.
Nonetheless it was a good ride and proved to be a most informative experience. I'd like to thank all of the honest contributors who've helped separate the wheat from the chaff (you know who you are). A special mention for iCEBREAKER for being the originator of the #REKT movement. It was an honor to carry the torch.
To the rest of you contemptible, lying ph0rkers understand that by the grace of the internet your performances and subsequent downfall will forever be preserved for posterity and serve as a tell-tale of the consequences of going against Bitcoin.
May your souls rest in peace.
Long live Bitcoin!
January 01, 2016, 09:34:51 PM
Changing a variable from 1MB to 2MB or 20MB is not "work" per se. It's a few bytes of code change.
How can that even classify as some kind of serious work.
How can that even classify as some kind of serious work.
The value is not in the "work" per se. The value is in the result.
Value is measured by the work put in as I like to point out. But that is not what we are striving here at this time. It is uncertain where it will go as of now.
January 01, 2016, 09:17:36 PM
In a stunning display of courage, and with an unwavering commitment to the forging of the truth in the crucible of the dialectical method... Our friend, and highly qualified mentor, has graciously offered to continue the debate of these important ideas rather than retreat like a coward to the wizard's irc clubhouse.
Like those who have not #ragequit under adversity before... may his example continue to inspire us in our efforts to fully realize the potential of this bottom-up, community driven effort towards changing the world through a fully decentralized, dialup and raspberryPi compatible, layer 1 settlement network.
Like those who have not #ragequit under adversity before... may his example continue to inspire us in our efforts to fully realize the potential of this bottom-up, community driven effort towards changing the world through a fully decentralized, dialup and raspberryPi compatible, layer 1 settlement network.
This, gentlemen is the curtain call.
After much consideration I've decided to turn the page on this thread in light of the most recent developments but also so that it stops paying lip service to the lying fraudster above and his cohort of deception artists. (Remind me not to ever create another thread without making it self-moderated)
It is clear that we now have a path forward out of this arguable gridlock thanks to the hard work of knowledgeable but most importantly resilient people. (https://bitcoin.org/en/bitcoin-core/capacity-increases)
Although it was never a consideration that a merry bunch of loud mouths with no authority could hijack the project and hardfork Bitcoin into inexistence the schism was of a great service to everyone involved with Bitcoin in that it help identify the malicious actors and to some extent purge them from the ecosystem.
The leaders of this governance coup are now nowhere to be seen, Mike Hearn having revealed themselves as the villain he always was is now gone working full time for the bankers he had probably always been in cahoots with. Gavin Andresen has taken residency over at a forum populated by notorious scammer cypherdoc and dangerous, sociopath, charlatan Peter R. After previously advocating for what was deemed a "safe" immediate increase to 20MB, he is now figuratively begging on his knees for 2MB "compromise" only for the sake of forcing a contentious hard fork on Bitcoin in order to undermine the trust of investors in what projects to be the most important year for Bitcoin yet.
As for the groups of shills they've spawned their "community" is in shambles largely because of the self-admitted fractious tendencies.
In what proved to be its strongest menace to date it is now safe to say Bitcoin has once again demonstrated its value and the strength of its antifragile nature.
Seeing as I can't bother responding anymore to the endless barrage of lies and deception spewed here by the shills (and I certainly understand why others have already given up) it would be a disservice to more naive & gullible individuals to leave the thread open and provide a stage for these scammers.
Nonetheless it was a good ride and proved to be a most informative experience. I'd like to thank all of the honest contributors who've helped separate the wheat from the chaff (you know who you are). A special mention for iCEBREAKER for being the originator of the #REKT movement. It was an honor to carry the torch.
To the rest of you contemptible, lying ph0rkers understand that by the grace of the internet your performances and subsequent downfall will forever be preserved for posterity and serve as a tell-tale of the consequences of going against Bitcoin.
May your souls rest in peace.
Long live Bitcoin!
After much consideration I've decided to turn the page on this thread in light of the most recent developments but also so that it stops paying lip service to the lying fraudster above and his cohort of deception artists. (Remind me not to ever create another thread without making it self-moderated)
It is clear that we now have a path forward out of this arguable gridlock thanks to the hard work of knowledgeable but most importantly resilient people. (https://bitcoin.org/en/bitcoin-core/capacity-increases)
Although it was never a consideration that a merry bunch of loud mouths with no authority could hijack the project and hardfork Bitcoin into inexistence the schism was of a great service to everyone involved with Bitcoin in that it help identify the malicious actors and to some extent purge them from the ecosystem.
The leaders of this governance coup are now nowhere to be seen, Mike Hearn having revealed themselves as the villain he always was is now gone working full time for the bankers he had probably always been in cahoots with. Gavin Andresen has taken residency over at a forum populated by notorious scammer cypherdoc and dangerous, sociopath, charlatan Peter R. After previously advocating for what was deemed a "safe" immediate increase to 20MB, he is now figuratively begging on his knees for 2MB "compromise" only for the sake of forcing a contentious hard fork on Bitcoin in order to undermine the trust of investors in what projects to be the most important year for Bitcoin yet.
As for the groups of shills they've spawned their "community" is in shambles largely because of the self-admitted fractious tendencies.
In what proved to be its strongest menace to date it is now safe to say Bitcoin has once again demonstrated its value and the strength of its antifragile nature.
Seeing as I can't bother responding anymore to the endless barrage of lies and deception spewed here by the shills (and I certainly understand why others have already given up) it would be a disservice to more naive & gullible individuals to leave the thread open and provide a stage for these scammers.
Nonetheless it was a good ride and proved to be a most informative experience. I'd like to thank all of the honest contributors who've helped separate the wheat from the chaff (you know who you are). A special mention for iCEBREAKER for being the originator of the #REKT movement. It was an honor to carry the torch.
To the rest of you contemptible, lying ph0rkers understand that by the grace of the internet your performances and subsequent downfall will forever be preserved for posterity and serve as a tell-tale of the consequences of going against Bitcoin.
May your souls rest in peace.
Long live Bitcoin!
January 01, 2016, 09:02:12 PM
January 01, 2016, 08:54:51 PM
Changing a variable from 1MB to 2MB or 20MB is not "work" per se. It's a few bytes of code change.
How can that even classify as some kind of serious work.
How can that even classify as some kind of serious work.
The value is not in the "work" per se. The value is in the result.
January 01, 2016, 08:51:21 PM
Can someone explain to me how different implementations can/are supposed to co-exist?
Why would they not? The protocol is what is important. If one abides by the protocol, your counterparty cannot tell whether or not you are running the same implementation that they are.
Seems to work for TCP/IP stacks.
January 01, 2016, 08:41:35 PM
In that regard, there is no problem having varying opinions about the direction forward, but when several large block proponents argue like spoiled children regarding having to do x "right now," or everything is going to go to hell in a handbasket, it comes off as short-sighted at best and disingenuous at worse, because bitcoin is not broken at the moment, even though plans and measures do need to take place in order to scale and prepare for the future seemingly inevitable increases in transaction volume.
Meh, the big-blockers are mostly putting forward arguments and trying to actually do something about things.
Changing a variable from 1MB to 2MB or 20MB is not "work" per se. It's a few bytes of code change.
Trying to fit more data into the same 1MB is work. Trying to offload txs until they self-cancel, so that the network can scale better is work. Just upping a number is lame.
If the xt team actually wanted to make bitcoin scale better they should more actively develop solutions that allow this to happen by increasing transactions fitted per mb and it would probably be hailed by everyone (if it's safe and doesn't break everything). Raising the variable, I mean that's stuff that an automated shitcoin generator could be programmed to do on its own. How can that even classify as some kind of serious work.
"Please tell us the name of the shitcoin you are going to make"
"Please choose a hashing algorithm"
"Please choose block times"
"Please choose max number of coins"
"Please choose initial coins per block"
"Please choose how often subsidy will be cut by 50%"
"Please choose block size limit"
Voila.
January 01, 2016, 08:31:20 PM
In that regard, there is no problem having varying opinions about the direction forward, but when several large block proponents argue like spoiled children regarding having to do x "right now," or everything is going to go to hell in a handbasket, it comes off as short-sighted at best and disingenuous at worse, because bitcoin is not broken at the moment, even though plans and measures do need to take place in order to scale and prepare for the future seemingly inevitable increases in transaction volume.
Meh, the big-blockers are mostly putting forward arguments and trying to actually do something about things.
Changing a variable from 1MB to 2MB or 20MB is not "work" per se. It's a few bytes of code change.
Trying to fit more data into the same 1MB is work. Trying to offload txs until they self-cancel, so that the network can scale better is work. Just upping a number is lame.
If the xt team actually wanted to make bitcoin scale better they should more actively develop solutions that allow this to happen by increasing transactions fitted per mb and it would probably be hailed by everyone (if it's safe and doesn't break everything). Raising the variable, I mean that's stuff that an automated shitcoin generator could be programmed to do on its own. How can that even classify as some kind of serious work.
"Please tell us the name of the shitcoin you are going to make"
"Please choose a hashing algorithm"
"Please choose block times"
"Please choose max number of coins"
"Please choose initial coins per block"
"Please choose how often subsidy will be cut by 50%"
"Please choose block size limit"
Voila.
January 01, 2016, 08:02:45 PM
January 01, 2016, 07:39:38 PM
I do not feel like I have much of a stake in either direction, but it is possible that I am siding a bit with the concept that there is some legitimacy to maintaining the status quo, and accordingly the burden is on those who want to change it to convince the rest to change and how to change, etc etc....
The status-quo so far is that (other than on certain occasions) there has been plenty of space for all transactions that needed to get into a block without needing excessive fees. Full blocks is something that the bitcoin ecosystem is not familiar with and will be a big change in operational status.
Heady times for a simple gentleman.
Yes. We are going to have to see how a lot of this evolves, and there is certain utility to specialization; however, in forums like these, we can often times gain exposure and learn a bit more about various specialties that people have and varying ways that people from varying backgrounds consider "problems"
Lol. You said it brother.
January 01, 2016, 07:36:27 PM
I do not feel like I have much of a stake in either direction, but it is possible that I am siding a bit with the concept that there is some legitimacy to maintaining the status quo, and accordingly the burden is on those who want to change it to convince the rest to change and how to change, etc etc....
The status-quo so far is that (other than on certain occasions) there has been plenty of space for all transactions that needed to get into a block without needing excessive fees. Full blocks is something that the bitcoin ecosystem is not familiar with and will be a big change in operational status.
Heady times for a simple gentleman.
Yes. We are going to have to see how a lot of this evolves, and there is certain utility to specialization; however, in forums like these, we can often times gain exposure and learn a bit more about various specialties that people have and varying ways that people from varying backgrounds consider "problems"
January 01, 2016, 07:22:02 PM
I do not feel like I have much of a stake in either direction, but it is possible that I am siding a bit with the concept that there is some legitimacy to maintaining the status quo, and accordingly the burden is on those who want to change it to convince the rest to change and how to change, etc etc....
The status-quo so far is that (other than on certain occasions) there has been plenty of space for all transactions that needed to get into a block without needing excessive fees. Full blocks is something that the bitcoin ecosystem is not familiar with and will be a big change in operational status.
Heady times for a simple gentleman.
January 01, 2016, 07:19:48 PM
I do not feel like I have much of a stake in either direction, but it is possible that I am siding a bit with the concept that there is some legitimacy to maintaining the status quo, and accordingly the burden is on those who want to change it to convince the rest to change and how to change, etc etc....
The status-quo so far is that (other than on certain occasions) there has been plenty of space for all transactions that needed to get into a block without needing excessive fees. Full blocks is something that the bitcoin ecosystem is not familiar with and will be a big change in operational status.
January 01, 2016, 07:13:36 PM
For completeness, I would add that 'Big Blocker' Prime, Gavin, made some strategically unwise decisions early on -- basically, being rather uncompromising wrt his 'exponential block size growth' model, which likely lead to further hardening of the fronts, and personally cost him a lot of sympathies and trust.
That already was a big compromise. Sometimes, the problem is that the only compromise the other side will accept is you acceding to their demands utterly,
January 01, 2016, 07:02:11 PM
January 01, 2016, 06:50:22 PM
I do not feel like I have much of a stake in either direction, but it is possible that I am siding a bit with the concept that there is some legitimacy to maintaining the status quo, and accordingly the burden is on those who want to change it to convince the rest to change and how to change, etc etc....
Fair enough. However, there is no universal status quo. We need to choose between code status quo vs. economic status quo.
To maintain code status quo (1MB maxblocksize) requires abandoning economic status quo (ability to engage in transaction). To maintain unfettered transaction, we must increase maxblocksize.
Think carefully about which aspect of 'status quo' should dominate.
The fact that I asserted that I feel that I do not have a stake in either direction means that I do not have to "think carefully."
In that regard, it seems that I am very likely going to follow whichever outcomes and solutions come about.
For example, if some altcoin competitor were to take over bitcoin because it is "flawed" in various ways then I would likely decide at that point whether I will go with that particular alt coin or stick with bitcoin.
At this time, bitcoin remains far and away the best game in town, and various technical people can debate and decide how they are going to proceed with coding etc... and maybe I will chime in from time to time, when the subject matter is brought to "the wall observer" thread or any other participatory threads that I may be reading.
If I lose confidence in bitcoin and solutions that are proposed or made, then I will consider whether to disinvest.
At this point, I see no reason to disinvest or to lighten my stake in bitcoin, and accordingly, I am continuing to accumulate BTC because I believe that bitcoin remains a very good investment, and likely amongst one of the best current investments to be on the edge of leading edge paradigm changes in society. Accordingly, at this time, I believe that bitcoin is going to continue to be developed by a number of folks, including miners, coders, venture capitalists, consumers, speculators, etc,, whether it results in bigger blocks in the near term or not.
It seems that bitcoin will result in bigger blocks in the longer term (maybe 6 months to 3 years down the road), but for the moment, segregated witness seems to be an adequate interim solution to address some of the seemingly more urgent concerns while the technical people continue to discuss and propose various ways forward. So, I am glad that there are people working on these matters and I do NOT have to "think carefully."
January 01, 2016, 06:29:32 PM
I do not feel like I have much of a stake in either direction, but it is possible that I am siding a bit with the concept that there is some legitimacy to maintaining the status quo, and accordingly the burden is on those who want to change it to convince the rest to change and how to change, etc etc....
Fair enough. However, there is no universal status quo. We need to choose between code status quo vs. economic status quo.
To maintain code status quo (1MB maxblocksize) requires abandoning economic status quo (ability to engage in transaction). To maintain unfettered transaction, we must increase maxblocksize.
Think carefully about which aspect of 'status quo' should dominate.
January 01, 2016, 06:02:17 PM
Jump to: