Another image from the Pantera Report:  If you ignore the late-2013 bubble as being entirely due to Willy Bot / fractional cash reserves at MtGox, it looks like we could be entering the next big run-up right on cue. Or perhaps a little late, with a commensurate increase in pent-up energy. The stars are aligning: the mother of all stability crests, cyperdoc's Three Buckets with venture capital and mining topping out, years of good news that the price went down on that needs to be corrected, even EW analysis has turned bullish, and of course Greece (and China, and Puerto Rico...). |
|
|
|
And also speaking of volatility, it seems that I was indeed right in my predictions of a move up. And it looks like there's a lot more coiled tension where that came from:  |
|
|
|
Jeff Garzik has just posted 2 pull requests for bitcoin core on github: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/6405Remove TX priority and free transaction area from mempool, block creator.https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/6402 Floating network relay fee increase, if memory pool grows too large.the latter will introduce, if merged, "a relay fee that adjusts to floods which cause the memory pool to grow too large". It seems that core devs start becoming aware of the lack of of economic incentives for services provided by full nodes. i hate to bring up an analogy from medicine since it may not be appropriate but i'll try nonetheless. one of the greatest things i learned during my internship btwn med school and residency in eyes, is that too much intervention can cause problems for patients. every 3 mo i'd rotate onto a new ward with responsibilities for about a couple of dozen gorked out patients. i say gorked out b/c invariably all of them had at least a dozen meds onboard for a variety of reasons most of which had to do with sedation, pain, or anti-anxiety. problem was, these meds unbeknownst to their previous physicians were preventing these ppl from getting better. this was a repeating problem. so the first thing i would do would be to cocentrate on stripping off as many of these unnecessary meds as possible. much to everyone's amazement, these pts would perk up, turn around and start walking again, interacting with staff, feeling better, be more alert, and generally just get better to the pt i could discharge them. and this experience happened over and over for me. twas a great personal accomplishment for me and one i will never forget; don't over do it. pt being, i still think the block size cap is the fundamental problem here. more rules and limits that core dev piles on simply complicates the code and makes it more complex. if anything, we should be stripping off rules and limits so that the free mkt can come to bear on many of these problems we are currently seeing. the miners and users are perfectly capable of regulating the size of blocks and fees on their own. if we lift the cap, the spam can actually help the network. as long as spammers have to pay fees any spam attempts will line the pockets of miners and go back to growing the hashrate. that would be a good thing and the last thing the spammers want to do. no doubt they will try at first so we should expect even greater higher level attacks initially but in the long run, they will die off. that's b/c their real objective is to disrupt new user growth which w/o a cap will be short circuited. any further spam then will just help the tx mkt to grow, miners to profit, and yes, full nodes will eventually develop their own fee mkt too. yes, full node capacities will have to grow but that should be viewed as a good thing b/c on the other end that will mean that miners are prospering (which is ok Greg) and user growth will be skyrocketing along with the price. more merchants will come on board with new user growth and they will want and probably have a fiduciary responsibility to run their own full nodes which will add to network capacity. so strip off rules and limits within reason, not add, and let BitcoinRun! Yup, the parallels between economics and biology are striking. Introduce an arbitrary sacred cow "fix" (like the blocksize limit) into the mix, then all the machinery necessary to support it becomes a sacred cow as well. It takes a paradigm shift and a bit of a leap of faith to break out of that vicious cycle. |
|
|
|
hey, since everybody and their mother now knows i'm an eye doc, how's your diabetic retinopathy? i was dying to ask you that 3 yr ago back in my cgminer days when you first revealed that. but that was before HF.  that's right up my alley you know. Well, after lots of laser shots each visit (I'm pretty sure the total was 100 or more) I stopped going (about 2 years ago?) Yeah I should get around to going back again when I can afford it (before I go blind) clinically significant diabetic macular edema is not a good thing. you need to tighten those blood sugar levels. yes, laser and occasionally intravitreal injections of Avastin can be helpful. good luck. kano, change your diet. Research the Paleo diet. Start with some Google searches: "Why is wheat bad" "Why are night shades bad" "Why is corn bad" "Why is pasteurized milk bad" "Why are nuts bad" Then start fermenting cabbage or some food and eating it daily, along with your Paleo diet, because good bacteria appears to be one of the keys. Also drastically increase your exercise. Also consider a fecal transplant. I am only eating sweet "potato" alias camote for carbohydrates. I am eating mostly chicken soup with cabbage and small mackerel-like fish fried whole (head and tail, crunchy). I eat green leafy vegetables with every meal. Glad to see this. Besides the other health benefits, the psychobiotic effects of changing diet and microbe populations can be dramatic. Another easy and cheap thing to ferment is cucumber (skinned and pureed, put in a jar with loose lid for 2-4 days with water on top, usually no salt needed). Used to be just about everything was fermented, many of our bodies' functions are outsourced to cooperative bacteria that we've co-evolved with. /OT |
|
|
|
It's not that unrealistic.
Ask yourself, in terms of non-price aspects, is Bitcoin 50x further along than it was 18 months ago when we were over $1000? I'd say it's about 10-20x further along. Back then there was practically nothing compared to the current level of venture capital, big banks on board, popular acknowledgement, etc. Think what would happen if the bearish sentiment receded and people suddenly started feeling FOMO? All this "good news" that happened during the fall suddenly has to get priced in. Then, there's still 6 months until the end of the year, so we could by 2-3x further along by then, amounting to ~50x further along compared with end of 2013, and as price rises to match we could peak near $50,000 in a wild bubble top.
My guess would be that this happens more toward next year after the halving, but this year is quite possible.
And like someone mentioned, after a wild bubble tops and bursts, we'll have a correction, and a much higher ceiling will be set. But when it's all set and done, it will all come down to when to sell at the top. You may think you are at the sweet spot, sell, then find out you sold right in the middle of the rise. You think "I now only have to wait for the correction". The price keeps going up, bursts, and the correction happens, but the correction is never lower than were you sold at, you keep waiting and waiting and the price start going up slowly again. You are now left outside of the game for future gains. Enjoy your dollars/euros while the rest keep riding the BTC train. That's why you use this: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=345065.0 |
|
|
|
|
From the devs' perspective, they have to deal with a lot of non-technical people, so dismissing arguments based on a technicality becomes a go-to tactic. They might justify it based on the fact that the person is clearly completely off-base and has nothing useful to say. This tactic is easier than explaining why.
The problem comes when they use that to justify dismissing someone even when they can't really be sure if they're completely off-base. It becomes a kind of last-ditch "panic button" for when they want to avoid addressing something.
|
|
|
|
|
It's not that unrealistic.
Ask yourself, in terms of non-price aspects, is Bitcoin 50x further along than it was 18 months ago when we were over $1000? I'd say it's about 10-20x further along. Back then there was practically nothing compared to the current level of venture capital, big banks on board, popular acknowledgement, etc. Think what would happen if the bearish sentiment receded and people suddenly started feeling FOMO? All this "good news" that happened during the fall suddenly has to get priced in. Then, there's still 6 months until the end of the year, so we could by 2-3x further along by then, amounting to ~50x further along compared with end of 2013, and as price rises to match we could peak near $50,000 in a wild bubble top.
My guess would be that this happens more toward next year after the halving, but this year is quite possible.
|
|
|
|
How can you misinterpret this video ?? Obviously he shows everyone, that Bull-runs and Bear-runs are a common part of Bitcoin, and no matter how hard it crashed, the next Bull-run was even more intense.
That is a clear signal to buy bitcoins, it's not fuding !
Finally, someone gets it  I think people are just reacting to the headline. |
|
|
|
Did no one watch the video? It's a great work of sarcasm, showing how people always manage to fall into the trap of pointing to any correction, not matter how gigantic the bull run was, and saying Bitcoin is dead or not to buy it. They say, "Up 1000000%, yeah, but now it's down 80%. Terrible investment." (Wrongly, of course.) Perhaps it was a little too subtle  |
|
|
|
|
Interesting. Poll results with 131 voters at this time: 2/3 think we'll go over 300 by July 31, and 50% think we'll go over 350.
|
|
|
|
we agree on the need for a fee mkt. where we apparently disagree is where it is to be enforced. i say, instead of with artificial block size caps which require a centrally planned decision with core devs, we offload it away from core devs to the actors involved directly in the tx negotiation; miners and users. yes, miners might have trouble distinguishing btwn spam and real tx's but the point is that they can construct a block with however and whichever many tx's they wish to include based on their internal assessment of the situation at the time. only they can do this. I agree with this, especially if you mean removing the hard cap entirely and letting orphan considerations limit the blocksizes based on miner choices. only users can determine how much they are willing to pay.
Assuming you mean as part of a market process where users and miners meet at price points, I agree. |
|
|
|
Gosh, I know you guys are good guys and care about the system being ironclad from all sides. But you gotta get out, take a walk in the real world sometimes
Also applies to the "bigger blocks will mean fewer nodes" argument. |
|
|
|
i know the probability is random. so why has every_single_one i've seen always been within a minute or two?
And is it just me, or does it seem like people keep remarking on the coincidental "pathological inability to find blocks" during each of the stress tests? (this is from memory, could be wrong) Might it have something to do with how mining pools work, perhaps a bug or inefficiency that causes them to throw away or waste hashing power if they are busy collecting too many transactions, lowering the overall effective hashrate significantly? (And conversely the 0 tx blocks are using their real full hashrate??) /no-idea-about-this-technical-aspect |
|
|
|
Because it can be economically expected that most transactions now are low priority, since fees are cheap. This means the actual transaction volume that likely would be taking place given only somewhat more expensive fees is much, much less. It's should be obvious enough that if transactions were completely free people would spam like crazy. That's not a judgment on the validity of those transactions; it's just economic reality. People start to economize dramatically when there is even a marginally-above-zero cost versus when there isn't.
This is in no way suggesting 1MB is sufficient, but it's not helpful to pretend that transaction volume when fees are negligible will remain the same if fees go to merely tiny. In no other market would we expect such a thing, and for all we know we could easily be talking about order-of-magnitude differences in volume from a fee increase that still presents no real pain for any major use case.
but cheap to who, you? i remember an Indian standing up at the San Jose conf during Q&A and complaining about high tx fees for ppl in his country. and they are, given their relative income levels. we should be promoting Bitcoin to these 3rd world countries where a .0001 minimum fee is arguably expensive. that's why we have the economic fee choice of .00001 which oftentimes still results in rejection. to take it further, do you believe that Bitcoin should offer even these Indians the ability to buy a cup of coffee for cheap fees? i think so but probably you think different. i know tvbcof and iCE would flat out say no way. but then that goes back to my argument that for maximum decentralization and to become digital gold Bitcoin needs to service these ppl. when you say ppl will spam like crazy, don't you trust that the miners can react to filter that spam, if they so choose? the problem with the 1MB choke approach is that yes, new users will be forced to economize on their tx's. OR just leave. This isn't relevant to the question of whether having a fee market would help. I'm not saying 1MB is adequate, and I'm not saying that fees shouldn't be cheap enough for any particular group. I'm saying that no matter what blocksize cap we have, or even if we have no cap, we will still need a fee market for maximum scalability on chain. And we could easily be talking about order-of-magnitude differences in scalability contingent on the presence or absence of a proper fee market. As for miners blocking spam, sure, but as you say: who's to tell what is really spam? |
|
|
|
if you're saying where we're going is Moon, then how can a 1MB cap (assuming SC or LN take a year) even with wallet fee capability, result in a smoothly adjusting fee increase as we consistently hit the 1MB cap? if anything, it will go parabolic in a chaotic fashion and result in extremely poor user experience and subsequent rejection.
Because it can be economically expected that most transactions now are low priority, since fees are cheap. This means the actual transaction volume that likely would be taking place given only somewhat more expensive fees is much, much less. It's should be obvious enough that if transactions were completely free people would spam like crazy. That's not a judgment on the validity of those transactions; it's just economic reality. People start to economize dramatically when there is even a marginally-above-zero cost versus when there isn't. This is in no way suggesting 1MB is sufficient, but it's not helpful to pretend that transaction volume when fees are negligible will remain the same if fees go to merely tiny. In no other market would we expect such a thing, and for all we know we could easily be talking about order-of-magnitude differences in volume from a fee increase that still presents no real pain for any major use case. |
|
|
|
remember that, if i'm right, and full blocks are indicating additional incremental demand due to currency crises, this is going to be a more regular thing. this is what we've theorized about for years. the network HAS to be ready if you want to Moon.
1MB isn't going to cut it. right now, unconf tx's are now up to 10000 with now >5TPS delays.
To be clear, I agree. Smoothly adjusting fees are another tool in the scaling toolbox, though, and should be ready for use as well. Where we're going, a 8 or 20x increase all by itself might not cut it. I'm eyeing a 500x price increase for the next bubble (peak, crashing afterward to 5-10x lower: ~$10-20K/BTC), which will mean a pretty big increase in transaction volume and may overrun even the 20MB blocks if we don't even have a fee market up yet. We need as many scaling solutions in place as possible to enable the next bull run. The nice thing about this debate is it's incentivizing them all. I'm confident we'll have the blocksize cap increase, hopefully in advance and not as a reaction to a stalled rally, but also a lot of other things. It's worth pushing against the small-blockers not because they have any real power to stop the increase, but because it lights a fire under them to do their part in making those optimizations to try to prove we can get by with smaller blocks. It's a futile effort on their part, but it ends up helping with large blocks, too. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
