Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion

[becoin]

I aggree it's kicking the can down the road. It's a temporary solution to a problem that can become significant next year.

A temporary solution that makes problem it pretends to solve even worse is not a solution at all. It changes this problem from temporary to chronic.

[1714233150]

1714233150

[1714233150]

1714233150

[AlexGR]

Bitcoin allready has a fee structure to deal with spam, and the wallets are implementing dynamic fees as we speak. A higher capacity system will be a lot more expensive to spam. If you think 7 tps is enough for the future of bitcoin, why don't you just say so?

An increase of TPS is already being discussed by core-devs, and they are trying to find the optimal way to implement it.

With a very large percentage of BTC txs being dust, they have plenty of time to figure it out.

What we don't have the luxury to do, is to start rogue forks that create friction in the dev community. But then again, what doesn't kill you makes you stronger.

As for spam, fees and block sizes: Altcoin Monero has a dynamic sized block. Let's say that, dynamically, the size can enlarge significantly. When it was spam-attacked last year (hint: the bloat created by anonymous coins is multiple size that of bitcoin), do you think people were like "oh, it's ok we have big blocks and we are ok"? No. They had to quickly implement high fees to stop the attack as it would bloat it to unusable levels. It was the fees that stopped the attack, not the self-adapting increasing blocksize.

LTC also used a patch, in the past, to prevent some spam techniques that were used against it. BTC might need to integrate it too.

[Norway]

I aggree it's kicking the can down the road. It's a temporary solution to a problem that can become significant next year.

A temporary solution that makes problem it pretends to solve even worse is not a solution at all. It changes this problem from temporary to chronic.

No. Why do you believe that?

[becoin]

EDIT: And yes, I trust Gavin more than Wladimir.

In general I don't trust those core devs that couple of years ago were vocally or silently opposing translation of Satoshi client GUI into Farsi coming up with the argument that there are sanctions in place from the US government against Iran. If you like to trust such people, well, good luck with your choice.

[aztecminer]

we were at 220 for weeks.. there has been no blood in the streets yet.. unless you consider bitfinex as blood .. which i have a hard time believing there was a whole lot of selling in that brief moment and it suddenly stopped.

[Norway]

Bitcoin allready has a fee structure to deal with spam, and the wallets are implementing dynamic fees as we speak. A higher capacity system will be a lot more expensive to spam. If you think 7 tps is enough for the future of bitcoin, why don't you just say so?

An increase of TPS is already being discussed by core-devs, and they are trying to find the optimal way to implement it.

With a very large percentage of BTC txs being dust, they have plenty of time to figure it out.

What we don't have the luxury to do, is to start rogue forks that create friction in the dev community. But then again, what doesn't kill you makes you stronger.

As for spam, fees and block sizes: Altcoin Monero has a dynamic sized block. Let's say that, dynamically, the size can enlarge significantly. When it was spam-attacked last year (hint: the bloat created by anonymous coins is multiple size that of bitcoin), do you think people were like "oh, it's ok we have big blocks and we are ok"? No. They had to quickly implement high fees to stop the attack as it would bloat it to unusable levels. It was the fees that stopped the attack, not the self-adapting increasing blocksize.

LTC also used a patch, in the past, to prevent some spam techniques that were used against it. BTC might need to integrate it too.

The core devs have discussed this topic for years. Hopefully, XT will push them to action. If not, we will just opt them out.
A higher capacity system will be a lot more expensive to spam. I can't help you, if you don't understand this.

[Norway]

EDIT: And yes, I trust Gavin more than Wladimir.

In general I don't trust those core devs that couple of years ago were vocally or silently opposing translation of Satoshi client GUI into Farsi coming up with the argument that there are sanctions in place from the US government against Iran. If you like to trust such people, well, good luck with your choice.

The FUD is strong in this one, lol!

[becoin]

I aggree it's kicking the can down the road. It's a temporary solution to a problem that can become significant next year.

A temporary solution that makes problem it pretends to solve even worse is not a solution at all. It changes this problem from temporary to chronic.

No. Why do you believe that?

It's obvious.

[becoin]

EDIT: And yes, I trust Gavin more than Wladimir.

In general I don't trust those core devs that couple of years ago were vocally or silently opposing translation of Satoshi client GUI into Farsi coming up with the argument that there are sanctions in place from the US government against Iran. If you like to trust such people, well, good luck with your choice.

The FUD is strong in this one, lol!

The ultimate argument, lol!

[dreamspark]

None of the BIPs you talk about have been put in effect. That's why we have XT today.

EDIT: And yes, I trust Gavin more than Wladimir.

Ummm, that's why they're proposals.

But they can be and are being discussed as we speak, that doesn't mean we need to start throwing toys out and forking the network.

Many people support bigger blocks, but not XT. Bitpay for example have said they are in favor of bigger blocks but in CORE, not XT.

Sorry but I trust the whole core team more than the CIA, sorry Gavin.

At the end of the day it's all being blown out of proportion, consensus one way or the other will be reached and I very much doubt that consensus will settle on XT. If anything it's a good play by Mike and Gavin to hurry along the advent of a better solution.

EDIT: 'if not we will just vote them out'  Good luck with that, this decision is far out of your hands personally. End of the day the miners, payment processors and exchanges will decide.

[brg444]

indeed, if you don't trust Mike and Gavin's XT code, but (for some unfathomable reason) you do trust Adam and Greg's Core, and Wladimir, Jorge, Pieter, Matt, Todd, Mark and all the others

You pathetic pathological lying POS

[AlexGR]

Sticking with your mailman analogy:  If a mailman can't deliver more than 2.7 letters per day (sustained rate), or 7 letters per day (going flat-out, on a good day), and 10 letters per day need to be delivered ...there will be a growing number of undelivered letters at the post office.  No matter how much you decide to pay.
The price of sending a letter will go up, until a competing mail service emerges & your overpriced mail service goes bankrupt.

In a sense, it happened with email. Email was invented and suddenly people could communicate with virtual mails, that didn't even have the cost of paper, envelopes and stamps. A tremendous volume of communications started being done through emails, however the overpriced mail service didn't go bankrupt. Alt-services also developed, mainly for premium and higher-speed deliveries (courier) that took further load off.

But bitcoin is more than a service. It's also a store of value, like gold, due to it's limited nature. Even at 0.x TPS, even if all bitcoins were placed in a physical coin (21m physical coins) and sold as collectibles, being the "first digital, trustless, decentralized currency in human history", their price, as collectibles that would rival in significance of human progression the first ancient minted coins out of precious metals, could easily exceed 1000$ for their numismatic value alone.

People would be surprised to know that there are uncirculated nickels, cents or dollars, that cost hundreds or thousands - way more than a bitcoin costs, yet bitcoin, historically, is far larger in historical significance than an uncirculated coin of a century ago.

What I'm saying here, is that the price of BTC has a lot of speculative elements, inlcuding being the first, being scarce, being the primary means through which all altcoins are transacted to/from (BTC/altcoin pairs), being able to currently transact by itself something like 500k transactions per day, etc etc. It's not just its capacity to serve a lot of transactions - which is not exceedingly good at, that is important. And even if it becomes good at that, then, by necessity, it will lose a lot in many other areas that make bitcoin what it is.

Re. "kicking the can down the road":  Sure, that's the essence of life, the universe, & everything.  We're all gonna die, the universe too.  This doesn't begin to imply that we shouldn't "kick the [death] can down the road" by sidestepping a careening truck.

People do not really appreciate right now what blockchain size costs. This lack of appreciation was bigger, the further back you go and it will be increasingly smaller as we go forwards. If there was a "futures" price for blockchain size utilization, the futures price would be quite high - given historical trends. Giving far more space for cheap is not what should be done. I'm in favor though for providing more space at premium or escalating prices - in order to both increase theoretical tx/s and prevent abuse.

[AlexGR]

The core devs have discussed this topic for years. Hopefully, XT will push them to action. If not, we will just opt them out.
A higher capacity system will be a lot more expensive to spam. I can't help you, if you don't understand this.

If valid transactions are something like 1.1mb and the free space is another 6.9mb, there is high risk of including several megabytes of transaction spam per block, with very low or even zero fees. It will become expensive only if an attacker tries to fill the entire 8mb block, otherwise his average cost per megabyte of spam will be cheaper.

[brg444]

Higher fees don't remove the upper limit of 7 transactions per second. Is that so hard to understand?

Neither does XT altcoin.  Is that so hard to understand?

XT is not an altcoin. And it does widen the bottleneck until a better scaling solution is in place.

The point is it's still not a very good solution and the bottle neck would not be present without the spam/dust transactions.

It's really that simple.

It's a kick the can down the road situation that amounts to Gavin and Mike throwing a hissy fit.

Do you read the BIP's? Its not like core are sitting there saying 1mb is good forever, just that the solution isn't to suddenly throw 8mb patches into the mix. Further XT is basically Gavin and Mikes coin, are you confident that you want to trust the future of the project to these two dictators who, even if other devs join them on XT, could just do the same thing further down the line when they want to change something else.

I aggree it's kicking the can down the road. It's a temporary solution to a problem that can become significant next year. Adoption of bitcoin can suddenly grow exponential if it becomes popular. Gavin and Mike plan for success. In the future, I hope a scaling solution will be subsets of nodes verifying subsets of the transactions. (Today, everybody must verify every transaction.)

None of the BIPs you talk about have been put in effect. That's why we have XT today.

EDIT: And yes, I trust Gavin more than Wladimir.

Why?

Cause he seems like a nice guy?

Cause he managed to make himself the Bitcoin Santa Claus, the one who couldn't say no to "Bitcoin users" and was always "working for them"?

[natewelt]

What's up with these bs rally and fades right back down to the beginning of the rally point? Pretty annoying. Plus XT talk has killed this thread as well.

Bad times we are living in

[brg444]

Bitcoin allready has a fee structure to deal with spam, and the wallets are implementing dynamic fees as we speak. A higher capacity system will be a lot more expensive to spam. If you think 7 tps is enough for the future of bitcoin, why don't you just say so?

An increase of TPS is already being discussed by core-devs, and they are trying to find the optimal way to implement it.

With a very large percentage of BTC txs being dust, they have plenty of time to figure it out.

What we don't have the luxury to do, is to start rogue forks that create friction in the dev community. But then again, what doesn't kill you makes you stronger.

As for spam, fees and block sizes: Altcoin Monero has a dynamic sized block. Let's say that, dynamically, the size can enlarge significantly. When it was spam-attacked last year (hint: the bloat created by anonymous coins is multiple size that of bitcoin), do you think people were like "oh, it's ok we have big blocks and we are ok"? No. They had to quickly implement high fees to stop the attack as it would bloat it to unusable levels. It was the fees that stopped the attack, not the self-adapting increasing blocksize.

LTC also used a patch, in the past, to prevent some spam techniques that were used against it. BTC might need to integrate it too.

The core devs have discussed this topic for years. Hopefully, XT will push them to action. If not, we will just opt them out.
A higher capacity system will be a lot more expensive to spam. I can't help you, if you don't understand this.

We ?

Who is we?

Cause the more I look the more I can't find any significant support for XT from anyone that actually matters in the ecosystem. Just a bunch of reddit trolls, forum posters and general foot soldiers of the "Free Shit Army"

[becoin]

A higher capacity system will be a lot more expensive to spam. I can't help you, if you don't understand this.

I understand everything. You have a guy whose problem is being too dependent on marijuana. To keep him calm and under control your temporary solution is to give him heroin. That's the XT altcoin "solution".

[brg444]

What's up with these bs rally and fades right back down to the beginning of the rally point? Pretty annoying. Plus XT talk has killed this thread as well.

Bad times we are living in

If you are a trader you should be well advised to keep track of the XT issue.

Anyone and their mother could tell we were going to see a dump after the PR propaganda that begun on Monday.

There is no point trading this absolutely manipulated market at this point anyway.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin
Explanation

[natewelt]

What's up with these bs rally and fades right back down to the beginning of the rally point? Pretty annoying. Plus XT talk has killed this thread as well.

Bad times we are living in

If you are a trader you should be well advised to keep track of the XT issue.

Anyone and their mother could tell we were going to see a dump after the PR propaganda that begun on Monday.

There is no point trading this absolutely manipulated market at this point anyway.

I can keep track of XT elsewhere. Wall observer thread is not the right place.  

Everybody and my mother were surprised with the dump. XT could have easily been seen as the savior and price could have skyrocketed.

Manipulation, manipulation, manipulation...don't you guys ever get sick of crying manipulation? It's the way markets work, big money moves the markets.