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?
Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 20626. (Read 26608487 times)
October 19, 2015, 02:43:50 AM
October 19, 2015, 02:43:19 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.
October 19, 2015, 02:37:54 AM
October 19, 2015, 02:37:48 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.
October 19, 2015, 02:31:55 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.....
October 19, 2015, 02:31:16 AM
By "us" you mean you and iCE? oh, I almost forgot the cuddly but distinctly more inept hdbuck.
+1 hdbuck has lost his marbles and seriously needs to take a break from this place. iCE isn't even worth energy to type those three characters.
aww why you no likee? im sorry if i get a little irritated by the constant fud of the large bl0ckers cultists and their inept economic views.
anyway BIP000 holding pretty strong
October 19, 2015, 02:29:31 AM
I think what it comes down to is two separate visions for Bitcoin:
Vision 1: The block size limit should be used as a policy tool by a group of experts to balance fees with security/decentralization.
Vision 2: The evolution of the network should be determined by the code we freely choose to run, and Bitcoin should scale with demand through a market-based process.
Vision 1: The block size limit should be used as a policy tool by a group of experts to balance fees with security/decentralization.
Vision 2: The evolution of the network should be determined by the code we freely choose to run, and Bitcoin should scale with demand through a market-based process.
This is complete bogus as usual Peter.
The evolution of the network is already determined by the code nodes choose to run.
If Core supported free choice by users, then we'd have an easy solution to the block size limit debate: they'd make it easy for node operators to express their support for "no change," BIP100, BIP101, etc, etc. That would solve the block size debate in a hurry.
However, the Blockstream crew is already on record saying that the users should *not* be the ones to choose. And this is the reason they are opposed to allowing the people an easy way to express their wishes.
Solve it how exactly? By a vote?
For example, Core could add code to support BIP101, BIP100, and any other solutions that had popular support. Miners could then very easily select--with a drop down menu in the GUI or with a run-time parameter--which of the proposals to flag support for in their blocks (perhaps even voting for several at the same time). The first proposal to be activated (e.g., at the 75% threshold) would be the market-selected winner.
This all sounds very tempting.... except it is not up to the miners to decide but the nodes.
Sure, but miners won't publish blocks that they think will be rejected by the economic majority, regardless of the outcome of any BIP voting.
Am I correct that your vision for Bitcoin is that the block size limit should be used as a policy tool by a group of experts to balance fees with security/decentralization?
Let me get this right... you propose that miners have the ability to vote on the proposal they support (which they do already) but that they should only go ahead with mining such a chain if the economic majority agrees (nodes move forward with a similar block size adjustment)....
How is that any different than what is currently occurring?
The biggest source of "friction" preventing a market process from resolving the block size limit debate is that many people view Bitcoin Core as the core of Bitcoin. They are leery to use XT or modify the code themselves because hard forks are an unknown at the moment. If Core were to facilitate this market process by supporting all popular BIPs, then the process would proceed much quicker. This, of course, is the reason Core doesn't do this.
For the record, Core's hesitance to allow the free-market to function is a good thing for Bitcoin in the long run. I am happy with how the debate is evolving. It is getting people familiar with the idea that multiple protocol implementations are a positive thing for future Bitcoin governance. Interestingly, have you noticed that block size limit topics are no longer as heavily censored on r/bitcoin but things related to decentralizing development are? In fighting the community against the block size limit, Core has shown the community a much bigger problem: Bitcoin governance itself.
There is no "friction". This is a total fabrication of yours Peter and yet another of your attempts to "teach the controversy".
The market process has resolved the block size debate so far in that status quo prevail until a better proposition comes along.
What exactly do you suggest when you say that Core should "support all popular BIPs"? How is that supposed to work?
Please stop mischaracterizing the support for your position. Core has not fought "the community". Core has fought away a small but pernicious minority of very loud individuals who attempted an absolutely irresponsible political coup over Bitcoin's governance under the guidance of a "charismatic" "leader".
The community of Bitcoin peers, evidenced by the decision of full nodes, has so far shown unanimous support for Core and so has the community of miners.
October 19, 2015, 02:26:13 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.
October 19, 2015, 02:22:06 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.
That's a good point, fatman!!!
Each of us should be prepared to defend our arguments with logic and empirical examples - rather than merely criticizing the facts and/or logic of others.
In this regard, it is muc easier to criticize the arguments of others than to set forth a decent basis for your own arguments.
furthermore, sometimes, we just are NOT going to agree on some of the points, and in that regard, sometimes, it is a good thing to just accept that there are differences of opinions without necessarily bashing your opponent.
Personally, I am NOT very attached to either side of the outcome so long as there is a decent amount of input from a variety of stakeholders, while at the same time some employment of compromises without rushing into directions that could be detrimentally irreversible.
The Bitcoin protocol is likely to survive and even thrive, despite variations of view and even some high level of passion expressed on the various sides of the discussion.
October 19, 2015, 02:17:59 AM
I think what it comes down to is two separate visions for Bitcoin:
Vision 1: The block size limit should be used as a policy tool by a group of experts to balance fees with security/decentralization.
Vision 2: The evolution of the network should be determined by the code we freely choose to run, and Bitcoin should scale with demand through a market-based process.
Vision 1: The block size limit should be used as a policy tool by a group of experts to balance fees with security/decentralization.
Vision 2: The evolution of the network should be determined by the code we freely choose to run, and Bitcoin should scale with demand through a market-based process.
This is complete bogus as usual Peter.
The evolution of the network is already determined by the code nodes choose to run.
If Core supported free choice by users, then we'd have an easy solution to the block size limit debate: they'd make it easy for node operators to express their support for "no change," BIP100, BIP101, etc, etc. That would solve the block size debate in a hurry.
However, the Blockstream crew is already on record saying that the users should *not* be the ones to choose. And this is the reason they are opposed to allowing the people an easy way to express their wishes.
Solve it how exactly? By a vote?
For example, Core could add code to support BIP101, BIP100, and any other solutions that had popular support. Miners could then very easily select--with a drop down menu in the GUI or with a run-time parameter--which of the proposals to flag support for in their blocks (perhaps even voting for several at the same time). The first proposal to be activated (e.g., at the 75% threshold) would be the market-selected winner.
This all sounds very tempting.... except it is not up to the miners to decide but the nodes.
Sure, but miners won't publish blocks that they think will be rejected by the economic majority, regardless of the outcome of any BIP voting.
Am I correct that your vision for Bitcoin is that the block size limit should be used as a policy tool by a group of experts to balance fees with security/decentralization?
Let me get this right... you propose that miners have the ability to vote on the proposal they support (which they do already) but that they should only go ahead with mining such a chain if the economic majority agrees (nodes move forward with a similar block size adjustment)....
How is that any different than what is currently occurring?
The biggest source of "friction" preventing a market process from resolving the block size limit debate is that many people view Bitcoin Core as the core of Bitcoin. They are leery to use XT or modify the code themselves because hard forks are an unknown at the moment. If Core were to facilitate this market process by supporting all popular BIPs, then the process would proceed much quicker. This, of course, is the reason Core doesn't do this.
For the record, Core's hesitance to allow the free-market to function is a good thing for Bitcoin in the long run. I am happy with how the debate is evolving. It is getting people familiar with the idea that multiple protocol implementations are a positive thing for future Bitcoin governance. Interestingly, have you noticed that block size limit topics are no longer as heavily censored on r/bitcoin but things related to decentralizing development are? In fighting the community against the block size limit, Core has shown the community a much bigger problem: Bitcoin governance itself.
October 19, 2015, 02:15:49 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.
October 19, 2015, 02:12:18 AM
Sure, but miners won't publish blocks that they think will be rejected by the economic majority, regardless of the outcome of any BIP voting. They'd be mining worthless coins.
If we already have the economic majority making the choices, why do we need to bother with complicated and resource consuming popularity contests?
The way forward for someone who wants to make changes seems straight forward enough, release the code and see what happens.
October 19, 2015, 02:11:12 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.
October 19, 2015, 02:07:37 AM
I think what it comes down to is two separate visions for Bitcoin:
Vision 1: The block size limit should be used as a policy tool by a group of experts to balance fees with security/decentralization.
Vision 2: The evolution of the network should be determined by the code we freely choose to run, and Bitcoin should scale with demand through a market-based process.
Vision 1: The block size limit should be used as a policy tool by a group of experts to balance fees with security/decentralization.
Vision 2: The evolution of the network should be determined by the code we freely choose to run, and Bitcoin should scale with demand through a market-based process.
This is complete bogus as usual Peter.
The evolution of the network is already determined by the code nodes choose to run.
If Core supported free choice by users, then we'd have an easy solution to the block size limit debate: they'd make it easy for node operators to express their support for "no change," BIP100, BIP101, etc, etc. That would solve the block size debate in a hurry.
However, the Blockstream crew is already on record saying that the users should *not* be the ones to choose. And this is the reason they are opposed to allowing the people an easy way to express their wishes.
Solve it how exactly? By a vote?
For example, Core could add code to support BIP101, BIP100, and any other solutions that had popular support. Miners could then very easily select--with a drop down menu in the GUI or with a run-time parameter--which of the proposals to flag support for in their blocks (perhaps even voting for several at the same time). The first proposal to be activated (e.g., at the 75% threshold) would be the market-selected winner.
This all sounds very tempting.... except it is not up to the miners to decide but the nodes.
Sure, but miners won't publish blocks that they think will be rejected by the economic majority, regardless of the outcome of any BIP voting.
Am I correct that your vision for Bitcoin is that the block size limit should be used as a policy tool by a group of experts to balance fees with security/decentralization?
Let me get this right... you propose that miners have the ability to vote on the proposal they support (which they do already) but that they should only go ahead with mining such a chain if the economic majority agrees (nodes move forward with a similar block size adjustment)....
How is that any different than what is currently occurring?
October 19, 2015, 02:04:47 AM
I think what it comes down to is two separate visions for Bitcoin:
Vision 1: The block size limit should be used as a policy tool by a group of experts to balance fees with security/decentralization.
Vision 2: The evolution of the network should be determined by the code we freely choose to run, and Bitcoin should scale with demand through a market-based process.
Vision 1: The block size limit should be used as a policy tool by a group of experts to balance fees with security/decentralization.
Vision 2: The evolution of the network should be determined by the code we freely choose to run, and Bitcoin should scale with demand through a market-based process.
This is complete bogus as usual Peter.
The evolution of the network is already determined by the code nodes choose to run.
If Core supported free choice by users, then we'd have an easy solution to the block size limit debate: they'd make it easy for node operators to express their support for "no change," BIP100, BIP101, etc, etc. That would solve the block size debate in a hurry.
However, the Blockstream crew is already on record saying that the users should *not* be the ones to choose. And this is the reason they are opposed to allowing the people an easy way to express their wishes.
Solve it how exactly? By a vote?
For example, Core could add code to support BIP101, BIP100, and any other solutions that had popular support. Miners could then very easily select--with a drop down menu in the GUI or with a run-time parameter--which of the proposals to flag support for in their blocks (perhaps even voting for several at the same time). The first proposal to be activated (e.g., at the 75% threshold) would be the market-selected winner.
This all sounds very tempting.... except it is not up to the miners to decide but the nodes.
Sure, but miners won't publish blocks that they think will be rejected by the economic majority, regardless of the outcome of any BIP voting. They'd be mining worthless coins.
Am I correct that your vision for Bitcoin is that the block size limit should be used as a policy tool by a group of experts to balance fees with security/decentralization?
October 19, 2015, 02:02:23 AM
I think what it comes down to is two separate visions for Bitcoin:
Vision 1: The block size limit should be used as a policy tool by a group of experts to balance fees with security/decentralization.
Vision 2: The evolution of the network should be determined by the code we freely choose to run, and Bitcoin should scale with demand through a market-based process.
Vision 1: The block size limit should be used as a policy tool by a group of experts to balance fees with security/decentralization.
Vision 2: The evolution of the network should be determined by the code we freely choose to run, and Bitcoin should scale with demand through a market-based process.
This is complete bogus as usual Peter.
The evolution of the network is already determined by the code nodes choose to run.
If Core supported free choice by users, then we'd have an easy solution to the block size limit debate: they'd make it easy for node operators to express their support for "no change," BIP100, BIP101, etc, etc. That would solve the block size debate in a hurry.
However, the Blockstream crew is already on record saying that the users should *not* be the ones to choose. And this is the reason they are opposed to allowing the people an easy way to express their wishes.
Solve it how exactly? By a vote?
For example, Core could add code to support BIP101, BIP100, and any other solutions that had popular support. Miners could then very easily select--with a drop down menu in the GUI or with a run-time parameter--which of the proposals to flag support for in their blocks (perhaps even voting for several at the same time). The first proposal to be activated (e.g., at the 75% threshold) would be the market-selected winner.
This all sounds very tempting.... except it is not up to the miners to decide but the nodes. Now if miners are intent on forking off to their own worthless chain then by all means...
October 19, 2015, 02:01:48 AM
October 19, 2015, 02:01:11 AM
Which one is it then? Cap or no cap?
Do you oppose central control or do you not?
Personally, I think that sufficient incentives exist that the network of miners could be self governing wrt max_block_size.
Realistically, I'll take a half measure to help assuage the doubts of the fearful.
Alright. Let me jump in with my favorite analogy then.
Seeing as we love all things free market then let me ask: are you of the opinion that the network of logging companies & cattle farmers should be left to self-governance in regards to how much of the Amazon rain forest they can cut?
Sounds like we need a strong military with lots of guns to point at them. And maybe Beefstream could get involved with setting production quotas. (While marketing their tasty soy, pea protein, alternative.)
I know it will upset stolfi to hear, he may even tell me to burn in hell, but land owners should be free to destroy/nurture/defile/build and grow/harvest their own property as they choose.
Now returning to your regularly scheduled chartbuddy streak.
Land owners?
Surely you are not proposing these companies are legitimate owners of all this rain forest they are cutting down.
Anyway, I see you didn't quite get the idea I was attempting to get through to you.
How about big game hunters? No reason we should enforce laws about this right? I'm guessing you are fine with them self-governing the hunting of endangered species?
You've replaced one bad analogy with another. Both reeking of statist sentiment.
Bigger blocks aren't going to destroy the rainforest and kill endangered species, and you should be ashamed for using such comparisons. Mircea would be appalled. The decentralized relay network is an asset to the miners, they would be fools to destroy it.
I mean it this time chartbuddy.
Who said they'd destroy it?
Given the incentives under a unlimited block size what'll happen is they will slowly but surely bloat it until it eventually becomes so large that only large datacenters will be able to act as peers on the network. It's a very simple dynamic but one that necessarily leads to capture of the network by the same statists you resent.
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.
October 19, 2015, 01:59:59 AM
I think what it comes down to is two separate visions for Bitcoin:
Vision 1: The block size limit should be used as a policy tool by a group of experts to balance fees with security/decentralization.
Vision 2: The evolution of the network should be determined by the code we freely choose to run, and Bitcoin should scale with demand through a market-based process.
Vision 1: The block size limit should be used as a policy tool by a group of experts to balance fees with security/decentralization.
Vision 2: The evolution of the network should be determined by the code we freely choose to run, and Bitcoin should scale with demand through a market-based process.
This is complete bogus as usual Peter.
The evolution of the network is already determined by the code nodes choose to run.
If Core supported free choice by users, then we'd have an easy solution to the block size limit debate: they'd make it easy for node operators to express their support for "no change," BIP100, BIP101, etc, etc. That would solve the block size debate in a hurry.
However, the Blockstream crew is already on record saying that the users should *not* be the ones to choose. And this is the reason they are opposed to allowing the people an easy way to express their wishes.
Solve it how exactly? By a vote?
For example, Core could add code to support BIP101, BIP100, and any other solutions that had popular support. Miners could then very easily select--with a drop down menu in the GUI or with a run-time parameter--which of the proposals to flag support for in their blocks (perhaps even voting for several at the same time). Non-mining nodes could show support in other ways (although this would be less reliable). The first proposal to be activated (e.g., at the 75% threshold) would be the market-selected winner.
October 19, 2015, 01:58:41 AM
Alright. Let me jump in with my favorite analogy then.
Seeing as we love all things free market then let me ask: are you of the opinion that the network of logging companies & cattle farmers should be left to self-governance in regards to how much of the Amazon rain forest they can cut?
Lots of stupid analogies today. The Blockhain isn't the Amazon rainforest. Increasing blocksize will not lead to any analogous detrimental effects.
I guess we could force your analogy into the carbon footprint debate. Do you want to shut Bitcoin down or go from PoW to PoS?
Yes, it has a direct effect on the cost of running a node.
That is not an "analogous detrimental effect".
Jump to: