Wall Observer

[freetrader]

Fricking Gmax, ready with a bucket of iced water and a full bladder to take on any rally which sparks up.

s/MAX_BLOCK_SIZE/GMAX_BLOCK_SIZE/

Too unfair?

 

[ChartBuddy]

 

[Richy_T]

Hmm, Chartbuddy stuck?

Hmm, looks that way. I'll give him a thump on the side.

 

[ChartBuddy]

 

[ChartBuddy]

 

[rebuilder]

Fricking Gmax, ready with a bucket of iced water and a full bladder to take on any rally which sparks up.

Did gmaxwell do or say something new prior to the drop?

 

[solex]

@rebuilder
No, but he was instrumental in preventing the block limit being increased in late 2012 / early 2013 when there was serious momentum to get this resolved, and has been dogmatic about his objections up to the current day, even though global bandwidth has improved massively since 2010, and Xthin software is well-proven.

Because of his stalling, only XT first had a block limit increase applied, and now Core regard multiple implementations as a spectre to be crushed, even though this is a facet of decentralization which is healthy for Bitcoin itself. Blocks have been maxed out since late last year such that any price rally which brings new enthusiasm, new users, new activity and volume, quickly meets the reality that throughput is capped and ergo - Bitcoin is still crippled.

 

[ChartBuddy]

 

[JayJuanGee]

@rebuilder
No, but he was instrumental in preventing the block limit being increased in late 2012 / early 2013 when there was serious momentum to get this resolved, and has been dogmatic about his objections up to the current day, even though global bandwidth has improved massively since 2010, and Xthin software is well-proven.

Because of his stalling, only XT first had a block limit increase applied, and now Core regard multiple implementations as a spectre to be crushed, even though this is a facet of decentralization which is healthy for Bitcoin itself. Blocks have been maxed out since late last year such that any price rally which brings new enthusiasm, new users, new activity and volume, quickly meets the reality that throughput is capped and ergo - Bitcoin is still crippled.

Thanks for providing a fairly explicit explanation for your concern.

In fact, this blocksize limit situation is not really about individuals, even though individuals have taken sides and have pushed certain sides.

Currently, it appears that this "crippled" coin could be crashing up into the $600s on this first round of crashes... and then probably a bit later crashing up into the $3k to $5k price territory.

Yeah, surely, there can be a fairly large number of blame throwing concerning whether the price increase should have come sooner or should be more, but really, over the past 6 weeks, we had upward price movement from $403 to $470 with no significant correction during that time and bitcoin was ready for a correction, which took place this week and was approximately 9% and more than half way back to where it was.

Part of the likely reason for the recent price rise from $403 to present levels of mid-$450s is likely because a large number of bitcoin stake holders and bitcoin wanna be stake holders are coming to the recognition that the blocks are full claims are really a BIG FAT set of make believe fantasy of a supposed problem that does not exist.. except to the extent that some people wanted to change bitcoin's governance.

In fact, even though there may have been some short term price appreciations with increasing blocks, it is likely that bitcoin would have become "crippled" if such move would have NOT been recognized for the attempted coupe that it was. I am very glad for a variety of core folks (including Maxwell to the extent that he deserves any credit) for recognizing that XT and Classic were mere coupe attempts that would have likely crippled bitcoin, rather than real needed technical fixes.. because bitcoin is not currently crippled and is on a great trajectory for a lot of future greatness without being taken over by small groups that would have likely resulted if a change in governance would have been successful.

 

[adamstgbit]

if block size was increased and we knew that it would continue to incress there would be certainty as to bitcoins future.
scaling with segwit and LN introduces uncertainty, will LN be easy to use? will segwit created a really complex code base to work from? will this hurt long term? we dont know.
with a simple block incress we understand the effects perfectly, bitcoin remains exactly the same, the requirements to run a full node simply go up.

Core has only made promises, "segwit will incress capacity by ~2X", " LN will allow for unlimited TX/sec with instant confirmations "
we'll wait years to see that there claims where gr8ly exgatered.

its really kinda sad how they have used their position of power, to push unproven and non-existing tech as a solution to an immediate problem.
[doublepost=1461980371,1461979604][/doublepost]

there you have it we'll consolidate over the weekend and then resolve Up
i give it a 98% chance that we break UP an and hit above 520 dollars

you heard me 98% chance, 520 dollars. 520 dollars?? 98% chance!!

 

[JayJuanGee]

if block size was increased and we knew that it would continue to incress there would be certainty as to bitcoins future.
scaling with segwit and LN introduces uncertainty, will LN be easy to use? will segwit created a really complex code base to work from? will this hurt long term? we dont know.
with a simple block incress we understand the effects perfectly, bitcoin remains exactly the same, the requirements to run a full node simply go up.

Core has only made promises, "segwit will incress capacity by ~2X", " LN will allow for unlimited TX/sec with instant confirmations "
we'll wait years to see that there claims where gr8ly exgatered.

its really kinda sad how they have used their position of power, to push unproven and non-existing tech as a solution to an immediate problem.

Adam.. I am responding to the first half of your above post, which I have attached and seems to assume a few things:

1st: you are suggesting that XT and/or classic were mere technical solutions. They were not, they included changes to governance. On the other hand, if they were merely blocksize increases without changes to governance, then its possible that sides would not have gotten so entrenched.

2nd: lots of people describe a mere schedule of actual hard blocksize limit increases as the simplest solution, and that assumes that it is resolving an actual problem without causing more problems that in solves.

3rd: you also seem to be assuming that core is some kind of centralized decision maker, when it does not seem to be. Instead core seems to be quite an eclectic group of people that do not really agree on things, except to agree that neither XT nor classic are good solutions because they attempt to change bitcoin's decentralized governance and seem to introduce more uncertainty than they purportedly resolve.

4th: I agree that there may be some introduction of complexity; however, everyone seems to agree that seg wit is a good idea.. even blocksize limit raising proponents (Gavin Andreesen and Jeff Garzik)... .. maybe there is some dispute about what is more urgent, but no one in the mining or development community really disagrees with seg wit, so I am not sure why you are attempting to suggest that there is disagreement, merely because it seems to be introducing some programing complications and even playing out uncertainties.


Regarding the second half of your post:

No way Jose..... 98% chance that is too much...

But if it does break out to the upside, I believe it is going much beyond $520... and into the $600 range... but I will grant you that once it breaks to the upside, its chances of reaching $520 is pretty good (probably 98%)... and maybe it is about only a 65% chance of making it into the $600s on the first round of the upsurge?

 

[adamstgbit]

@JayJuanGee
this seems all reasonable. i agree with you i'm assuming to many things and exaggerating the consequences. oh well.

in anycase, I do believe that in whatever direction we choose to move forward it will be positive for price.
Core is winning this battle, the convo is becoming less about which direction go in, and more about how butt hurt the losing side is.

there just to much good things to look forward to to move down, this thing MUST move higher. 520 is the min price i think it will forsure reach, i think >600 is likely, and 700's is the max price we can reach ( in the short term )

i'll play it by ear looking to short the price bump with segwits release, and i expect that to be at least 520.
[doublepost=1461982522][/doublepost]i'm getting drunk

 

[JayJuanGee]

@JayJuanGee
this seems all reasonable. i agree with you i'm assuming to many things and exaggerating the consequences. oh well.

in anycase, I do believe that in whatever direction we choose to move forward it will be positive for price.
Core is winning this battle, the convo is becoming less about which direction go in, and more about how butt hurt the losing side is.

there just to much good things to look forward to to move down, this thing MUST move higher. 520 is the min price i think it will forsure reach, i think >600 is likely, and 700's is the max price we can reach ( in the short term )

i'll play it by ear looking to short the price bump with segwits release, and i expect that to be at least 520.

hahahaha....

exaggerating seems to be embedded into your online persona... and all cool about that...


I probably exaggerating too much too about what's gonna happen after breaking the $467 to $475 resistance...

I mean really, it is very difficult to know for sure, and sometimes we have to watch how the volume and speed plays out to figure out if we are selling any, and how much would be prudent... and profit maximizing...etc. etc...

this whole rise from $403 to $470 and back to mid-$450s has been somewhat mediocre volume (at least compared with the volume that took place between August and December 2015)

In any event, free beers are going to need to come into the mix at some point in the near future.... ... maybe at $700 or $2,000 - depending on how it plays out, but I would feel bad if we have to wait until $2k in order to get some free beers......... but even $2k could come about earlier than we expect and surprise the shit out of all of us.... We would know we have a bubble then, if we get $2k any time in the next month, for example.

Maybe by the time we reach either $700 or $2k, I will figure out a way to give out free beers, too.. something about posting a give away QR code with .0001 BTC or whatever beer price amount would be contained therein at that time?

 

[ChartBuddy]

 

[ChartBuddy]

 

[ChartBuddy]

 

[ChartBuddy]

 

[ChartBuddy]

 

[ChartBuddy]

 

[ChartBuddy]