Wall Observer

[above1000]

well i'm hoping the magic 8 balls prediction is on the up and up 8up got this part right the drastic fall to the 550 range / as i have said in the past the exchanges run the show / if they go rogue cash out or experience a hack leading to insolvent it can be bad news bat man / how fast the false bubble fell apart created by gox when they fell apart / to own-lee lose 100 on a exchange or 2 folding is not that bad its better than going from 1300 to 200 = mtgox style / some one a few pages back spider-man got out at the high 750-s the top of this last bubble that took us something like 2 years to get to / now we fall back/ i'm hoping for stable then correction/ the 8-ball did not factor in the exchanges going up the creek / the exchanges hold and sway the price / its okay there are other exchanges and traders and the market could correct and hold together i would hope / i would like to see the other half of the 8-balls prediction come true as the buying pressure and the next pump comes threw / i would like to see us ride out this storm and then turn around for the slam dunk of upward momentum halving kicking in and what not / i will give the 8 ball some slack as no one saw the exchanges magically disappearing into thin air and if we can pull upward in a 3 month window or something close we might get over 800 // 1000 is gravy and well--welcomed- its possible because this was a quick down spin / i want to see correction and other exchanges pop up or who ever is up pick up the slack so we can keep this thing moving // over all this is still a exciting chain of events and could make for a good pump jest faster than the last one is whats needed // 2 more years is to long// so if the troops rally they might pull off a nice turn around -----
---- --- - -- - - lets go team pump over 1000 ----- - - - ------------------ --- - - -

 

[freetrader]

you guys are creating an altcoin by bypassing the consensus mechanism.
you talk about choice and give miner no choice.

Two pieces of good news!

1. we're not bypassing the consensus mechanism, we're taking to the Big Consensus Mechanism aka the market aka the Supreme Court in cases like these

2. absolutely miners will have choice. Too much choice! They'll be able to choose between Bitcoin Core as-is (well, their HF ain't ready so it'll have to be as-is), or a bigger block fork which they still CAN mine (I'm putting one out there with SHA256 as an additional option for the market). Or they can choose to propose a fork client of their own. Or they can activate Classic. Plus I anticipate there will be other fork proposals, though not sure whether they will accomodate the miners. So many choices. Life is Good (tm).

 

[8up]

There has to be always a "reason" for price action to go up or down. But in the end it's just aggregated psychology.

You don't need to buy into this now, if you want to play this one safe (like all the others and many former longs buy at $660+). @above1000 $450/550 is the bottom I expected for more than just the last week.

 

[adamstgbit]

Two pieces of good news!

1. we're not bypassing the consensus mechanism, we're taking to the Big Consensus Mechanism aka the market aka the Supreme Court in cases like these

2. absolutely miners will have choice. Too much choice! They'll be able to choose between Bitcoin Core as-is (well, their HF ain't ready so it'll have to be as-is), or a bigger block fork which they still CAN mine (I'm putting one out there with SHA256 as an additional option for the market). Or they can choose to propose a fork client of their own. Or they can activate Classic. Plus I anticipate there will be other fork proposals, though not sure whether they will accomodate the miners. So many choices. Life is Good (tm).

you're trolling me

bottom line is if you change the algo then this fork by no means threatens cores authority over bitcoin dev because your fork will have very little relation to bitcoin.

why dont you change the coin cap as well?
[doublepost=1470243803][/doublepost]changing a stupid define is controversial, changing the algo is 100X worse. no one will seriously consider this a possible way forward for bitcoin. you are creating a new beginning not a way forward.
[doublepost=1470243936][/doublepost]lets keep in mind that ETC was so successful because they didnt fork/change anything.

 

[freetrader]

@adamstgbit : Sometimes to move forward one needs a new beginning, a new direction starting from where one left off.

Core's true authority over bitcoin dev derives largely from their expertise and ability to contribute to making Bitcoin better, but also depends on their willingness. This is not really threatened by a fork.

Changing the algo only removes the current miners. It is independent of Core's ability to develop.
It's much more the miners that should be worried by this.

But in general, any true hard fork threatens Core's *dominance* over Bitcoin development. But I see this as a good thing. It's high time that Bitcoin development becomes less dependent on Core veto powers (they do run a centralized development structure with some form of consensus which only includes themselves, and a complete unwillingness to compromise on issues with other development teams, especially when these in any way affect the development direction of the Bitcoin protocol).

Changing the algo is uncontroversial in its effect, we can read up exactly what it signifies in the writing of Satoshi. However, it still remains Bitcoin. Bitcoin's POW function is incidental, and intended for change in case of emergency (e.g. majority of dishonest, colluding miners).

That is why the whitepaper says (note the bold part):

> a value that when hashed, such as with SHA-256

Changing POW retains 97% (probably more) of the Bitcoin source code, and just ends up changing the result of a hash. It does not change the money properties.

No-one is suggesting changing the 21M coin cap because that DOES change the money properties.

I won't call the ETC fork successful yet, even though I share their value of not reversing a ledger to undo some transactions for the benefit of some (for whatever reasons).

 

[Roger_Murdock]

you're trolling me

bottom line is if you change the algo then this fork by no means threatens cores authority over bitcoin dev because your fork will have very little relation to bitcoin.

Bitcoin is the ledger, not the current ledger-updating protocol. If a PoW-changing fork becomes economically dominant, it will absolutely be regarded as "Bitcoin." As a practical matter, a PoW-changing fork will probably face a high hurdle in actually achieving economic dominance, but it's certainly possible. I offered some thoughts on an approach that I think would have the best chance of success here and here.

why dont you change the coin cap as well?

Because such a change would clearly not be value enhancing.

changing a stupid define is controversial, changing the algo is 100X worse. no one will seriously consider this a possible way forward for bitcoin. you are creating a new beginning not a way forward.

It's hard to know what the market will consider a possible way forward until you try it. If the market doesn't value one fork attempt at a particular time, it may still value another at a later time. But I think as a fundamental matter, the ability to at least credibly threaten a PoW-change is an absolutely critical defense mechanism against miners that are not acting in Bitcoin's best interests (although people can certainly disagree about the threshold of mismanagement that justifies the actual deployment of a PoW change -- again, ultimately the market will decide).

lets keep in mind that ETC was so successful because they didnt fork/change anything.

Maybe. And some would argue that allowing on-chain scaling as per Satoshi's original vision represents "not changing" Bitcoin's fundamental monetary properties (which are far more important than any particular implementation detail).

 

[adamstgbit]

And some would argue that allowing on-chain scaling as per Satoshi's original vision represents "not changing" Bitcoin's fundamental monetary properties (which are far more important than any particular implementation detail).

sure, even i say this type of stuff, but IMO algo change is simply too much of a change.
you're admitting defeat right off the bat, you're saying, I will NEVER get miners support and so i must change algo. fine, then this forks fate is baked in the cake, you're an altcoin that starts off with a give-away to all the bitcoin users, and not much more.

I think you guys dont get that bitcoin will thrive regardless of the path we choose

It won't matter if your fork is 100X better, if it is perceived to be an altcoin rather than a viable way forward then you will never get any significant support.

start with a change to the algo and you will most certainly get that result.

 

[freetrader]

It's a link to the site

 

[adamstgbit]

It's a link to the site

NOW we're talking

looking this over now.
[doublepost=1470355721][/doublepost]The look of it is great, I like how you dont mention the algo change or any specific implementation details.

I like it.

 

[adamstgbit]

a though about the forking, regardless of algo change or not

difficulty should start off at a very minimal number, this will create a very strong econmic incentive to mine the forked chain, because for 2 weeks blocks will be coming out at a much higher rate than 1 block / 10 mins.

 

[8up]

PSA: 1W chart will close around $600. Next week will close around $660. The following week will close around $900. In other words: uber-bullish chart pattern in the making.

 

[Bagatell]

Anyone looking for a job?

https://www.linkedin.com/jobs/view/187661632

 

[cbeast]

Hard fork to 2-20MB* is a no brainer. At this price the small block will wither quickly. I really tried to get the 1MB theory. LN is a payment system (like a checking account), not actual bitcoins with PoW value. At some point folks will want some real bitcoins and the transaction fee will be too high, so it hurts it as a store of value.

*20MB presumes it doesn't slow down mining in general.

 

[Bagatell]

Lightning need to get their shit together. Others are already building three layers on bitcoin. Omni<Tether<USDT etc.

 

[Richy_T]

Anyone looking for a job?

https://www.linkedin.com/jobs/view/187661632

They contacted me about this but I'm not up for moving across country.

(Not about being a director I think though. - Research scientist)
[doublepost=1470982458][/doublepost]

Hard fork to 2-20MB* is a no brainer. At this price the small block will wither quickly. I really tried to get the 1MB theory. LN is a payment system (like a checking account), not actual bitcoins with PoW value. At some point folks will want some real bitcoins and the transaction fee will be too high, so it hurts it as a store of value.

*20MB presumes it doesn't slow down mining in general.

Bitcoin isn't for the plebs.

 

[Bagatell]

ground floor - opportunities, shit coins, scams and haberdashery. Going up!

and for those of you unfamiliar with early British sit-coms

 

[Bagatell]

 

[cbeast]

Bitcoin isn't for the plebs.

Right. That's the 1MB theory, but I don't get why they think anyone else would want it either?

 

[Bagatell]

"They" slipped up. I can provide cryptographic proof that at least one oik has bitcoin.

 

[8up]

We're about to FOMO hard.