Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 21062. (Read 26710141 times)

Coin
Explanation

Haha. Some block micromanist forked from a block just prior to 500 kB, now covertly trotting on with his FPGA miner... sold 5k coins from his suspected to be XT altcoin supply for microcoins true to sathoshi bitcoins. Must be an Elder Whale squared.

amen.

It's not an issue... it is like : more competition = a better service.  Sooner or later the block size should be increased. The speculation can't do nothing in this case....

Is the dropping price a reflection of the fork issue, the supposed Satoshi email, all the ETH profits cashing out, or maybe a mixture of the three?

Coin
Explanation

I don't think this is correct.

5.1% : https://getaddr.bitnodes.io/dashboard/

I hope a few people who've grown complacent have their fat arses handed to them.

Coin
Explanation

I woke up to see the mess in https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/. I agree with Gavin and Mike, let the community decide.

I think the reason for all the hubbub is because that with no federal bank running things it is important to people who are in bitcoin in part for that very reason
1.how consensus is reached incl how and by whom aspects are "sold' as being necessary/good and
2. what precedent it might set that lead us down a certain path
3. who after it all sorts out has their nose left out of joint and what action will they take

tldr - what happens over this matters

Pro-fork here too. It's time to reorganize the dev power.
Over 4.5% of all nodes have allready upgraded to XT in support. (Yes, I know the hash power and not the number of nodes will make the decision next year.)
Watch the number of XT nodes grow here:
http://xtnodes.com/

Just on the contrary! If you buy bitcoins now will give the opportunity to spend same coins twice both on Bitcoin and XT networks in future if there is a split at all. So, if you buy 1 bitcoin now you actually buy 2 bitcoins if XT altcoin succeeds in being true alternative to bitcoin!

Well what's all the hubbub about then? Sounds like a smooth transition. Nobody will know the difference. I can't believe people are so stubborn. They are disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing. In fear of "centralization"?
It sounds like a very decentralized process. But majority does rule.
I'm pro-fork.

Satoshi just came back to declare it dead. 

I think that doubling every two years is silly, because it is ridiculously optimistic.

But note that what will increase is the block size LIMIT, not the block SIZE (although the small-blockians always say the latter).  

The block SIZE will just continue to grow (or not) gradually, proportionally to the traffic.  Right now the numbers are ~450 kB and ~120'000 tx/day.  The traffic doubled in the past 12 months, from 60'000 tx/day, growing almost constantly at 5000 tx/day per month.  

The traffic now is more than half of the network's capacity, which was revealed in the recent stress tests: ~750 kB/block, ~200'000 tx/day.  (It is less than 1 MB/block because of many empty blocks, due to the way miners work, and to partially full blocks, that some miners generate by choice.)  

If it keeps growing at the same pace of the last 12 months, and the block size limit remains 1 MB, "traffic jams" should become frequent at peak hours in mid-2016, or maybe earlier, when the traffic will be 180'000 tx/day or so; and then the traffic should stop growing, as any new adoption will have to be matched by a similar "un-adoption".  

If the block size limit is increased to 8 MB, the traffic may keep growing naturally and gradually beyond that 180'000 tx/day limit.  There is no reason to think that the traffic will grow faster just because the size limit has been lifted.  The limit has been 1 MB/block since 2010, and yet the traffic has always been well below the network's capacity, even during the Nov/2013 rally and later crashes (except for the recent "stress tests").  So, the doubling of the limit every two years will, quite probably, have no effect whatsoever on the traffic (and therefore on the average block size).

I have been thinking about the mail from the nickname Satoshi Nakamoto, whoerever it is. His argument is not about the technical side of the debate but about politics and long term future.

I think people need to talk less about the technical implications and more about the political implications of this fork.
 
The argument of this guys is that is the XT fork is sucessful, that means that in the future someone with enough political influence can make a forked suceeded. That means that one days the President of the United States, who definitly has enough political influence, will be able to push a succesful fork. And we all know what that would mean: no more 21 millions limit. We will be back to central banking.

You need not do anything until the actual fork i.e. once 75% of miners are using XT. At that point, QT is unlikely to recover; miners will quickly switch to mining the longest chain (XT).

For regular users running Bitcoin software (i.e. a node), there's really no reason not to switch to XT (except as a not-taken-into-account protest vote). If XT wins, you'll be on XT. If XT doesn't achieve 75% or miner support, nothing changes.

Coin
Explanation