Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 20625.

8up

hero member

Activity: 618

Merit: 500

Quote from: vrzo on October 19, 2015, 04:28:20 AM

Mining is not decentralized at all. If few people control (own) mining facilities in China and the rest of the world - this is not decentralization - even is none of them controls more than 10% of hashpower.

Decentralization is thousands of individuals controlling no more than 1% od hashpower each. If mining is profitable then it will be centralized.

Exactly. The less profitable the mining (over time), but the more useful the network - the better for decentralization. I guess "21" prepares for this.

Mining (in 20 years) will be like nodes. If you have a benefit of operating a node (and or mining chip) you will do it; does not matter if you are rewarded for it!

Elwar

legendary

Activity: 3598

Merit: 2386

Viva Ut Vivas

21 Inc is working on decentralizing mining in a big way.

When every kid's video game console is mining bitcoins any thoughts of centralization will be out the window.

vrzo

member

Activity: 90

Merit: 10

Mining is not decentralized at all. If few people control (own) mining facilities in China and the rest of the world - this is not decentralization - even is none of them controls more than 10% of hashpower.

Decentralization is thousands of individuals controlling no more than 1% od hashpower each. If mining is profitable then it will be centralized.

JayJuanGee

legendary

Activity: 3920

Merit: 11299

Self-Custody is a right. Say no to"Non-custodial"

Quote from: phishead on October 19, 2015, 03:58:22 AM

Quote from: ChartBuddy on October 19, 2015, 03:01:47 AM

Coin

Explanation

Hey sorry for the newbness, but I was reading your explanation and didn't understand exactly what each image entails... is the first image on the left the "newest" image? Or the one on the right? Or maybe showing different exchange sites?

There is a link next to each of them, so surely, the charts show a snapshot of different exchanges.

Andre#

hero member

Activity: 737

Merit: 500

Quote from: brg444 on October 18, 2015, 10:34:10 PM

Quote from: Fatman3001 on October 18, 2015, 10:31:38 PM

Quote from: brg444 on October 18, 2015, 10:10:16 PM

Aren't you busy building the next global payment system over at bitco.in?

I can't wait for Bitcoin Unlimited Grin

I thought you would be thrilled being compared with Palin. Grin

ChartBuddy

legendary

Activity: 2380

Merit: 1823

1CBuddyxy4FerT3hzMmi1Jz48ESzRw1ZzZ

Coin

Explanation

phishead

hero member

Activity: 1874

Merit: 840

Keep what's important, and know who's your friend

Quote from: ChartBuddy on October 19, 2015, 03:01:47 AM

Coin

Explanation

Hey sorry for the newbness, but I was reading your explanation and didn't understand exactly what each image entails... is the first image on the left the "newest" image? Or the one on the right? Or maybe showing different exchange sites?

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: Fatman3001 on October 19, 2015, 03:13:14 AM

Quote from: brg444 on October 19, 2015, 02:49:54 AM

Quote from: Fatman3001 on October 19, 2015, 02:43:19 AM

Quote from: brg444 on October 19, 2015, 02:15:49 AM

Quote from: Fatman3001 on October 19, 2015, 02:11:12 AM

Quote from: brg444 on October 19, 2015, 02:01:11 AM

Quote from: Fatman3001 on October 19, 2015, 01:57:50 AM

What happened to your analogy? Is the rainforest and endangered species of the world going to remain untouched, but we'll see forests bloated with wild game and cattle carcasses?

Negative externalities may be a foreign concept to you?

In the case of rain forests it concerns the destruction of the ecosystem and numerous other consequences that ensue. As for Bitcoin it relates to the externalization of costs to nodes, in other words destruction of the decentralization.

But that doesn't follow from your analogy... ughhh... my point is that you chose a poorly suited analogy to evoke a moral response which isn't relevant for this debate. You're not fighting FOR your stance, you're fighting against the opposite stance while using every dirty trick in the book. This might be effective in some environments, but if you assume that most people who care to read your posts are not idiots and are dying to hear some well thought out arguments that explains YOUR stance, it's quite annoying.

I think my analogy is pretty clear: in the presence of a known scarce value (rain forest & decentralization) it is necessary that controls be put in place so as to limit the potential damages cause by misaligned incentives from the various participants in the system.

Except decentralization is only a scarce resource if we make it such. The node problem seems to be more reliant on the popularity of Bitcoin than the technical demands for running a full node. People need to believe in the project and get excited for it to bother with maintaining a node. The reason we've had a decline is because a lot of people lost faith in Bitcoin in the recent downturn. The technical demands are secondary.

That is absolutely not true as evidenced by the numerous accounts of interested individuals who have had no choice but to stop running their full nodes because of technical constraints.

As the blockchain continues to grow the resources required to fully validate one's own transactions will necessarily continue to increase.

You'll find anecdotal evidence for everything, and there's no denying that people have different points where they find they cannot/will not continue running a node, but the fact that those people are not being replaced at a higher rate has much to do, in my opinion, with the stagnation in price since the last bubble and the lack of attractive use cases. Hopefully there will be more attractive use cases for ordinary people after the next peak. Use cases that will make Bitcoin more relevant to people and help the number of nodes to grow. Nodes run on enthusiasm and nerd-cred.

Here's another anecdotal evidence: the number of nodes did not increase with the latest price rise.

hdbuck

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1002

lol this edit, so you would not even present such evidence in the future? Roll Eyes

also as per your vaillant bet, it is the fucking longest VALID chain, you dishonest fucktard.

Fatman3001

legendary

Activity: 1554

Merit: 1014

Make Bitcoin glow with ENIAC

Quote from: brg444 on October 19, 2015, 02:49:54 AM

Quote from: Fatman3001 on October 19, 2015, 02:43:19 AM

Quote from: brg444 on October 19, 2015, 02:15:49 AM

Quote from: Fatman3001 on October 19, 2015, 02:11:12 AM

Quote from: brg444 on October 19, 2015, 02:01:11 AM

Quote from: Fatman3001 on October 19, 2015, 01:57:50 AM

What happened to your analogy? Is the rainforest and endangered species of the world going to remain untouched, but we'll see forests bloated with wild game and cattle carcasses?

Negative externalities may be a foreign concept to you?

In the case of rain forests it concerns the destruction of the ecosystem and numerous other consequences that ensue. As for Bitcoin it relates to the externalization of costs to nodes, in other words destruction of the decentralization.

But that doesn't follow from your analogy... ughhh... my point is that you chose a poorly suited analogy to evoke a moral response which isn't relevant for this debate. You're not fighting FOR your stance, you're fighting against the opposite stance while using every dirty trick in the book. This might be effective in some environments, but if you assume that most people who care to read your posts are not idiots and are dying to hear some well thought out arguments that explains YOUR stance, it's quite annoying.

I think my analogy is pretty clear: in the presence of a known scarce value (rain forest & decentralization) it is necessary that controls be put in place so as to limit the potential damages cause by misaligned incentives from the various participants in the system.

Except decentralization is only a scarce resource if we make it such. The node problem seems to be more reliant on the popularity of Bitcoin than the technical demands for running a full node. People need to believe in the project and get excited for it to bother with maintaining a node. The reason we've had a decline is because a lot of people lost faith in Bitcoin in the recent downturn. The technical demands are secondary.

That is absolutely not true as evidenced by the numerous accounts of interested individuals who have had no choice but to stop running their full nodes because of technical constraints.

As the blockchain continues to grow the resources required to fully validate one's own transactions will necessarily continue to increase.

You'll find anecdotal evidence for everything, and there's no denying that people have different points where they find they cannot/will not continue running a node, but the fact that those people are not being replaced at a higher rate has much to do, in my opinion, with the stagnation in price since the last bubble and the lack of attractive use cases. Hopefully there will be more attractive use cases for ordinary people after the next peak. Use cases that will make Bitcoin more relevant to people and help the number of nodes to grow. Nodes run on enthusiasm and nerd-cred.

ChartBuddy

legendary

Activity: 2380

Merit: 1823

1CBuddyxy4FerT3hzMmi1Jz48ESzRw1ZzZ

Coin

Explanation

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: Peter R on October 19, 2015, 02:52:39 AM

Quote from: brg444 on October 19, 2015, 02:45:25 AM

Can you provide evidences for "support" continuing to migrate away from Core. Support from whom?

I can't share that information at this moment.

BTW, I'm still taking 1 BTC bets that a block larger than 1 MB will be included in the longest PoW chain by this time next year.

I guess the least I can do is show the evidence that support my position:

Peter R

legendary

Activity: 1162

Merit: 1007

Quote from: brg444 on October 19, 2015, 02:45:25 AM

Can you provide evidences for "support" continuing to migrate away from Core. Support from whom?

Sorry, I can't.

BTW, I'm still taking 1 BTC bets that a block larger than 1 MB will be included in the longest PoW chain by this time next year.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: Fatman3001 on October 19, 2015, 02:43:19 AM

Quote from: brg444 on October 19, 2015, 02:15:49 AM

Quote from: Fatman3001 on October 19, 2015, 02:11:12 AM

Quote from: brg444 on October 19, 2015, 02:01:11 AM

Quote from: Fatman3001 on October 19, 2015, 01:57:50 AM

What happened to your analogy? Is the rainforest and endangered species of the world going to remain untouched, but we'll see forests bloated with wild game and cattle carcasses?

Negative externalities may be a foreign concept to you?

In the case of rain forests it concerns the destruction of the ecosystem and numerous other consequences that ensue. As for Bitcoin it relates to the externalization of costs to nodes, in other words destruction of the decentralization.

But that doesn't follow from your analogy... ughhh... my point is that you chose a poorly suited analogy to evoke a moral response which isn't relevant for this debate. You're not fighting FOR your stance, you're fighting against the opposite stance while using every dirty trick in the book. This might be effective in some environments, but if you assume that most people who care to read your posts are not idiots and are dying to hear some well thought out arguments that explains YOUR stance, it's quite annoying.

I think my analogy is pretty clear: in the presence of a known scarce value (rain forest & decentralization) it is necessary that controls be put in place so as to limit the potential damages cause by misaligned incentives from the various participants in the system.

Except decentralization is only a scarce resource if we make it such. The node problem seems to be more reliant on the popularity of Bitcoin than the technical demands for running a full node. People need to believe in the project and get excited for it to bother with maintaining a node. The reason we've had a decline is because a lot of people lost faith in Bitcoin in the recent downturn. The technical demands are secondary.

That is absolutely not true as evidenced by the numerous accounts of interested individuals who have had no choice but to stop running their full nodes because of technical constraints.

As the blockchain continues to grow the resources required to fully validate one's own transactions will necessarily continue to increase.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: Peter R on October 19, 2015, 02:37:48 AM

Quote from: brg444 on October 19, 2015, 02:29:31 AM

What exactly do you suggest when you say that Core should "support all popular BIPs"? How is that supposed to work?

I mean they could add code to support all popular BIPs. Miners and node operators could express their free choice by activating one or several of them in the GUI or with a run-time parameter. Eventually, either nothing would happen or the one of the BIPs would be activated and the market would settle on a solution with the blessing of Core

Or...they could not do this while support continues to migrate away from Core. This would be my preference as it ends the block size limit debate AND the governance problem.

Can you provide evidences for "support" continuing to migrate away from Core. Support from whom? Surely not the relevant actors as I've explained in my last post they are, by all accounts, still satisfied with current state of the network.

Let's be clear: either nodes unanimously decide to hard fork to a larger block size or they don't. The free floating setting you have been proposing would irremediably lead to fracture of the network into multiple forks. It makes absolutely no sense from a technical perspective.

JayJuanGee

legendary

Activity: 3920

Merit: 11299

Self-Custody is a right. Say no to"Non-custodial"

Regarding price and walls, maybe we are going to remain in this territory of $255 to $275 for a few days.

Actually, since the weekend mostly contained retracement, maybe there will be some movement in one direction or the other by NO later than Wednesday... I remain fairly confident that the short term price direction will be upward -yet I am retaining some doubts about whether prices can go above or remain above $300 prior to the Fed auction.

Thoughts?

Where we going this week and in the coming 2.5 weeks prior to the Fed auction?

Fatman3001

legendary

Activity: 1554

Merit: 1014

Make Bitcoin glow with ENIAC

Quote from: brg444 on October 19, 2015, 02:15:49 AM

Quote from: Fatman3001 on October 19, 2015, 02:11:12 AM

Quote from: brg444 on October 19, 2015, 02:01:11 AM

Quote from: Fatman3001 on October 19, 2015, 01:57:50 AM

What happened to your analogy? Is the rainforest and endangered species of the world going to remain untouched, but we'll see forests bloated with wild game and cattle carcasses?

Negative externalities may be a foreign concept to you?

In the case of rain forests it concerns the destruction of the ecosystem and numerous other consequences that ensue. As for Bitcoin it relates to the externalization of costs to nodes, in other words destruction of the decentralization.

But that doesn't follow from your analogy... ughhh... my point is that you chose a poorly suited analogy to evoke a moral response which isn't relevant for this debate. You're not fighting FOR your stance, you're fighting against the opposite stance while using every dirty trick in the book. This might be effective in some environments, but if you assume that most people who care to read your posts are not idiots and are dying to hear some well thought out arguments that explains YOUR stance, it's quite annoying.

I think my analogy is pretty clear: in the presence of a known scarce value (rain forest & decentralization) it is necessary that controls be put in place so as to limit the potential damages cause by misaligned incentives from the various participants in the system.

Except decentralization is only a scarce resource if we make it such. The node problem seems to be more reliant on the popularity of Bitcoin than the technical demands for running a full node. People need to believe in the project and get excited for it to bother with maintaining a node. The reason we've had a decline is because a lot of people lost faith in Bitcoin in the recent downturn. The technical demands are secondary.

hdbuck

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1002

Quote from: Peter R on October 19, 2015, 02:17:59 AM

...

Peter R

legendary

Activity: 1162

Merit: 1007

Quote from: brg444 on October 19, 2015, 02:29:31 AM

What exactly do you suggest when you say that Core should "support all popular BIPs"? How is that supposed to work?

I mean they could add code to support all popular BIPs. Miners and node operators could express their free choice by activating one or several of them in the GUI or with a run-time parameter. Eventually, either nothing would happen or one of the BIPs would be activated and the market would settle on a solution with the blessing of Core

Or...they could not do this while support continues to migrate away from Core. This would be my preference as it ends the block size limit debate AND the governance problem.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: Peter R on October 19, 2015, 02:26:13 AM

Quote from: Holliday on October 19, 2015, 02:12:18 AM

The way forward for someone who wants to make changes seems straight forward enough, release the code and see what happens.

I agree. We are presently working on a proposal called Bitcoin Unlimited that does exactly this without any voting requirement at all. We'll see if the idea has legs over the next few weeks...

For the record, the biggest obstacle is /r/bitcoin's policy that such code is an "alt coin" and thus off topic and censored. Many people at Core share this view. Over time, /r/bitcoin will lose its importance; however, at present it is still the dominant medium for the dissemination of Bitcoin related information. It is a slow process to overcome these network effects.

There you are again thinking that Bitcoin decisions are taken over at /r/Bitcoin.....

Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 20625. (Read 26608435 times)