Yes, so you are essentially saying that coins transferred from ealry adopters into the hands of later adopters, right?
A clearer picture could be done if we use the power function of time factor in the calculation of the days destroyed metric instead.
Agreed. I think a power function was suggested a couple of months ago, but I have not seen stats done. Would be much more useful info for Bitcoin than the exhaustive analysis of SD bets/returns which goes on. |
|
|
|
Why don't you check the all-time chart? At this price the recent peak values should have been way higher than the 2011 peaks, but the truth is the opposite. Because the long-term chart may be even more misleading. Reason is that the cashing-out done in 2011 will have put coins from very large stockpiles into the hands of new buyers. Some of whom will also have stockpiled, but generally that peak created many smaller stockpiles in many more hands. Ideally we need a 2-year filter on blockchain.info which would help give a clearer picture. |
|
|
|
SD is not flooding anything. They're not attacking the network, Bitcoin users want to use their services.
Of all business, they're likely the one that has mostly contributed to miners via transaction fees.
This is the Circe-like character of SD. It looks attractive but carries great dangers. I am still concerned that this type of transaction source can scale far faster than the Bitcoin network. Miners have no interest in keeping a "monster block". And they can easily choose not to build on top of such block, unless it is N blocks deep already, what would likely get the monster block rejected by the network.
Consider variance. One hallmark of any successful, complex system is low variance of important intrinsic parameters. The Earth's ecosystem depends upon low variance in climate: e.g. the difference in air pressure between a cyclone and anticyclone is not a large percentage of 1 atmosphere. In the case of Bitcoin, a very small block followed by a very large one is an unhealthy sign. A cap will help keep the variance (standard of deviation) of block size lower. This must be helpful to all miners as they know what to expect and plan accordingly, making incremental changes, which are always safer. A cap helps ensure all miners are on the same page about what is considered an expected block or a oversized one. |
|
|
|
Damn! I was so tempted to sell at ~90 and put in a buy at 79 earlier today, but didn't want to get burned in case we made a run to 100. Oh well...I'm glad we did have this correction though.
You could engrave that into every trader's tombstone! |
|
|
|
|
$75 is first major support.
|
|
|
|
Block size is effectively infinite right now because they are nowhere near being full to the 500KB soft limit.
Bandwidth is NOT effectively infinite right now,... -MarkM- MarkM, I still read your posts because you embed enough useful feedback within your stream-of-consciousness padding to make it worthwhile, but it is a struggle at times. Clearly bandwidth is finite, but the increase in propagation time between 50KB, 500KB or 5MB blocks is not very significant in a 10 minute time window. The increase in verification time seems to be the real limiting factor. I used to support such idea, until I realize that a dynamic cap implies in an arbitrary formula, and that's an attempt to guess subjective demands and unpredictable supplies. It's impossible, and fortunately, not necessary.
The advantages are nice to have, not mission critical: Politically, a cap is a less radical departure from the soft and hard block limit which people know about. Psychologically, it maintains a perceived need to add fees, and might price out SD-like flooding. It also prevents the chance that an unexpected monster block gets accepted and built on causing problems for some miners. |
|
|
|
Block size is effectively infinite right now because they are nowhere near being full to the 500KB soft limit. Empirical evidence is preferred over theoretical chains of cause and effect, and this shows a steady long-term increase in fees already. The chart below is in BTC, ignoring the USD equivalent one... https://blockchain.info/charts/transaction-fees?showDataPoints=false×pan=&show_header=true&daysAverageString=7&scale=0&address=What is being done in the field to increase fees, right now, is WORKING. All that needs to happen is allow the 1MB to be replaced by a capping algorithm which just keeps pace ahead of demand. Then see what happens to fees. If they plateau at too low a level - then try to fix it. Why fix something which is not broken (except the need to avoid the sudden train wreck due to an arbitrary constant). |
|
|
|
 The Spirit Unleashed! |
|
|
|
I advised them to [...] collect euro banknotes with German, Luxembourg and Finland prefixes.
This makes no sense. All banknotes are equally valid across the whole eurozone. The initial letter in the serial number only indicates which central bank issued the note, nothing else. Plus, there are no banknotes with Luxembourg's prefix (letter R). And now AEP writes this: "Capital controls have shattered the monetary unity of EMU. A Cypriot euro is no longer a core euro. We wait to hear the first stories of shops across Europe refusing to accept euro notes issued by Cyprus, with a G in the serial number."http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/debt-crisis-live/9958402/Cyprus-bailout-live.html |
|
|
|
90 is not long for this world.
+1, spike to 92 imminent |
|
|
|
In the grand scheme of things this run from the teens to ~$90 will appear very short lived and ridiculously bubble-ish. Years from now at the bottom of the coming correction we'll all recognize how absurd it is that BTC traded at this level.
What market size should bitcoin be, in your opinion? The size needed that it can be used to transfer wealth around without pushing the price around too much. He wants the price back to $1 so he can load up again and replace all the bitcoins he sold at a ridiculously low price when he first thought he had called the top correctly. I wonder what price it would get to before it is too difficult for him to watch anymore? $500? |
|
|
|
|
New milestone. The $87.70 ATH is 3x the current silver price of 29.20 :-)
|
|
|
|
|
I wouldn't worry. The last block was 20 mins ago and can be an hour fairly often (due to the laws of probability)
Mt Gox has been slow for the last hour because BTC is making a sustained foray into the 80s, and new all time highs...
|
|
|
|
 New species found! The tragic BTC Bear ( Bitcoinus proudhonii) |
|
|
|
Someone call a medic! Bitcoinity is about to a'splode
Bitcoinity is now powering the Markets page on blockchain.info in addition to its own site. This is a great addition. Would be nice to see count of users like CM. CM has about 680 at present, which is double 2 months ago. |
|
|
|
Is this problem of block size really so complex ? Maybe you are all overcomplicating simple things.
Can't it be solved by using one of following ways ?:
1. Miners VOTE for the next block size every X blocks, using special transactions, extra data put in previously mined blocks or whatever OR
2. Block size is AUTOMATICALLY calculated every Y blocks using some relatively simple algo (like basing on how full previous blocks were) ?
Why is this debacle so long and painful ? Maybe we should do one of these and if it doesn't work, try the next in the row ?
2. [max] Block size is AUTOMATICALLY calculated... I agree. I think option 2. is the simplest and most effective solution to the roadblock of the current fixed limit. I am all for scaling for demand, but scaling for infinity is just going to the opposite extreme. There is a magic block size around 10MB where the fees market will work properly because they start to exceed the block reward. The existing fee structure, which also allows for some zero-rated transactions, seems to be proving itself in the field as overall fees are slowly increasing anyway. Why don't we let this organic growth continue by employing option 2 soon? |
|
|
|
Not such a big problem unless you are crazy enough to store your btc with them. If the losses cause them to collapse it will just make it more difficult to purchase btc but bitcoin will live on.
But I remember what happened to bitcoin when MtGox got into troubles in 2011. What are you trying to achieve by talking down the fx rate by reinterpreting the past in a FUD manner? BTC has saved your finances while the euro has a heart attack, so now you want BTC to fall as well?? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
