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

[Norway]

And how does 2.7 tx per second factor in ^.

Are you worried BTC can't scale, Cconvert? It's actually easy. And it will be like this:

MINERS SHARE THE CONFIRMATION WORK.

This means that not every f**king mining computer (or pool) have to verify every f**king coffee transaction!

It has to be many confirmations, and by a very distributed network. But not EVERY F**KING computer in the p2p network!!!

The concept is very easy, but the implication is more difficult. (But really not THAT hard if you ask me.)

I wondered if I should step up as a developer regarding this, but I read somewhere that Gavin talked about "random" confirmations, and someone also work at Tree Chains (I think it's about the same).

Anyway, I think very clever people work at the practical solution to this problem (at MIT?). And we don't really need Lightning or Sidechains to make onchain coffee cup trades.

[1714625143]

1714625143

[Cconvert2G36]

And how does 2.7 tx per second factor in ^.

Are you worried BTC can't scale, Cconvert? It's actually easy. And it will be like this:

MINERS SHARE THE CONFIRMATION WORK.

This means that not every f**king mining computer (or pool) have to verify every f**king coffee transaction!

It has to be many confirmations, and by a very distributed network. But not EVERY F**KING computer in the p2p network!!!

The concept is very easy, but the implication is more difficult. (But really not THAT hard if you ask me.)

I wondered if I should step up as a developer regarding this, but I read somewhere that Gavin talked about "random" confirmations, and someone also work at Tree Chains (I think it's about the same).

Anyway, I think very clever people work at the practical solution to this problem (at MIT?). And we don't really need Lightning or Sidechains to make onchain coffee cup trades.

Have you posted this to the dev mailing list?

PS: It's puff puff, pass.

[Norway]

And how does 2.7 tx per second factor in ^.

Are you worried BTC can't scale, Cconvert? It's actually easy. And it will be like this:

MINERS SHARE THE CONFIRMATION WORK.

This means that not every f**king mining computer (or pool) have to verify every f**king coffee transaction!

It has to be many confirmations, and by a very distributed network. But not EVERY F**KING computer in the p2p network!!!

The concept is very easy, but the implication is more difficult. (But really not THAT hard if you ask me.)

I wondered if I should step up as a developer regarding this, but I read somewhere that Gavin talked about "random" confirmations, and someone also work at Tree Chains (I think it's about the same).

Anyway, I think very clever people work at the practical solution to this problem (at MIT?). And we don't really need Lightning or Sidechains to make onchain coffee cup trades.

Have you posted this to the dev mailing list?

PS: It's puff puff, pass.

I have not done anything regarding this. I told you the two reasons for this in my previous post. (The post you are responding to.)

1: Gavin has talked about statistical distribution of confirmations before.
2: Somebody are working on tree chains, which I think is related to the same, but I'm not sure.

The ideas are out there. I think Core devs Gavin & Jeff are capable of handling this shit, but Core boss Wladimir is just too scared to make any decisions or point in any direction.

If I don't see any development in this area in 6 months, I will probably contact Gavin to propose a deterministic distribution of transaction confirmations. But I do think fresher brains than mine are working at it now. So I don't worry too much about bitcoin scaling.

I don't understand what you mean by your puff and pass remark. Probably a language thing, as I am from Norway.  

[Cconvert2G36]

I have not done anything regarding this. I told you the two reasons for this in my previous post. (The post you are responding to.)

1: Gavin have talked about statistical distribution of confirmations before.
2: Somebody are working on tree chains, which I think is related to the same, but I'm not sure.

The ideas are out there. I think Core devs Gavin & Jeff are capable of handling this shit, but Core boss Wladimir is just too scared to make any decitions or point in any direction.

If I don't see any development in this area in 6 months, I will probably contact Gavin to propose a deterministic distribution of transaction confirmations. But I do think fresher brains than mine are woring at it now. So I don't worry too much about bitcoin scaling.

I don't understand what you mean by your puff and pass remark. Probably a language thing, as I am from Norway. 

Sorry for being glib. It's more a product of my own frustration with the progress (or lack thereof).

You may be thinking of IBLT?

Probably don't need to remind Gavin, he made a nice gist about it.
https://gist.github.com/gavinandresen/e20c3b5a1d4b97f79ac2

I gotcha

[ChartBuddy]

Coin
Explanation

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

Still above 240. That's something...



PS. Nice analysis from Jstofl here.

[Norway]

I have not done anything regarding this. I told you the two reasons for this in my previous post. (The post you are responding to.)

1: Gavin have talked about statistical distribution of confirmations before.
2: Somebody are working on tree chains, which I think is related to the same, but I'm not sure.

The ideas are out there. I think Core devs Gavin & Jeff are capable of handling this shit, but Core boss Wladimir is just too scared to make any decitions or point in any direction.

If I don't see any development in this area in 6 months, I will probably contact Gavin to propose a deterministic distribution of transaction confirmations. But I do think fresher brains than mine are woring at it now. So I don't worry too much about bitcoin scaling.

I don't understand what you mean by your puff and pass remark. Probably a language thing, as I am from Norway. 

Sorry for being glib. It's more a product of my own frustration with the progress (or lack thereof).

You may be thinking of IBLT?

Probably don't need to remind Gavin, he made a nice gist about it.
https://gist.github.com/gavinandresen/e20c3b5a1d4b97f79ac2

I gotcha

He he, no problem. And I don't even know what glib means!

Can you give me the short version of what IBLT is? (Clicked the link, but too drunk to read many letters, ha ha ha)

Anyway, don't worry about bitcoin scaling, it's not very difficult to scale. The beauty of the power distribution is simply that the best code will be used!

CHEEEEEERS MATE!!!! 

[ChartBuddy]

Coin
Explanation

[brg444]

I have not done anything regarding this. I told you the two reasons for this in my previous post. (The post you are responding to.)

1: Gavin have talked about statistical distribution of confirmations before.
2: Somebody are working on tree chains, which I think is related to the same, but I'm not sure.

The ideas are out there. I think Core devs Gavin & Jeff are capable of handling this shit, but Core boss Wladimir is just too scared to make any decitions or point in any direction.

If I don't see any development in this area in 6 months, I will probably contact Gavin to propose a deterministic distribution of transaction confirmations. But I do think fresher brains than mine are woring at it now. So I don't worry too much about bitcoin scaling.

I don't understand what you mean by your puff and pass remark. Probably a language thing, as I am from Norway. 

Sorry for being glib. It's more a product of my own frustration with the progress (or lack thereof).

You may be thinking of IBLT?

Probably don't need to remind Gavin, he made a nice gist about it.
https://gist.github.com/gavinandresen/e20c3b5a1d4b97f79ac2

I gotcha

He he, no problem. And I don't even know what glib means!

Can you give me the short version of what IBLT is? (Clicked the link, but too drunk to read many letters, ha ha ha)

Anyway, don't worry about bitcoin scaling, it's not very difficult to scale. The beauty of the power distribution is simply that the best code will be used!

CHEEEEEERS MATE!!!! 

I'm sorry but you might as well drink more so that tomorrow you have forgotten all about the idea.

The problem of scaling is indeed not technically difficult at all. The problem resides in messing with Bitcoin's carefully incentives. It is not enough to enable miners to process more transactions, we have to consider what the costs are on the whole network.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin
Explanation

[Cconvert2G36]

I'm sorry but you might as well drink more so that tomorrow you have forgotten all about the idea.

The problem of scaling is indeed not technically difficult at all. The problem resides in messing with Bitcoin's carefully incentives. It is not enough to enable miners to process more transactions, we have to consider what the costs are on the whole network.

Bitcoin's carefully incentives have already resulted in a handful of industrial mining operations. It's somewhat silly to wring your hands about the relaying nodes (occasionally) having slightly higher demands placed on them, while the (de)centralized mining cartel has the power to disrupt things a bit more, how do I say... dramatically.

I'm not a camp follower, if miners voting to increase results in greater capacity, fantastic. Capital inflow is being deterred by the intransigence towards scaling above 2.7tps.

[aztecminer]

when they announce QE4 all money will go to the stock market for the big stock market rally party.... you all should buy more bitcoin now that way you have some to sell when it is time for everyone to move to stock market .... lol.

[Searing]

 Well the coinwallet stress test next week is that gonna amount to anything (effect btc price) or is it just gonna be a big yawn?

 I've no clue...just been watching the FUD on the Inet about it

 

[ChartBuddy]

Coin
Explanation

[JorgeStolfi]

From that article they state "The purpose of these stress tests [sic] is to see if the Bitcoin network can handle a barrage of very small transactions that will act like a DDOS attack" which is ridiculous because it IS a DDOS attack. It makes no sense to call it a "stress test" when in fact it is simply an attack on the main network

It was not a real DoS attack, because it used fixed and relatively low fees. Anyone who paid slightly more than them got trough, as if there was no backlog.

For that reason, it did not convince the small-block camp that 1 MB is too small.  If that was the intent, it was too much expense and effort for a dubious or null result. 

In fact, many in the small-block camp have interpreted the tests as a trick of the big-block camp, and used that to discredit them.  So, if it was indeed a big-blockian trick, it backfired.

I don't really know what to think of them...

[JayJuanGee]

Today I discovered that I had been working with a misunderstanding of the “no fees” policy of Circle.

For some reason, I had thought that there was a buy sell spread; however, recently, I had been considered receiving regular approximately monthly payments in Bitcoin; however, I considered that the regular monthly receipt of Bitcoin was going to likely exceed my ability to spend those bitcoin during that month.  Accordingly, I realized that if I were to end up receiving the BTC on a regular monthly basis, then I was going to have to cash out btc into dollars on a regular monthly basis.

Therefore, I studied more closely into Circle’s sell rate, and I that point, I had an ah ha moment.  It appears that Circle is using the same rate to buy or to sell BTC.

Therefore, there is effectively NO fee on either end (even though their rate seems to be about consistently about 1% higher than the Stamp  trading rate).  Furthermore, it also appears that currently I have a $5,000 weekly sell limit on Circle, which is practically unlimited in terms of my anticipated quantity of need to cash out any BTC in the near future.   WOW!!!!!!

Accordingly, I have concluded that on my end, if i were to receive any regular monthly Bitcoin payment(s) then at the point of receipt of each payment, I would decide whether I wanted to cash out through Circle immediately into my bank account (all or part) or to hold those BTC until a later time. 

I'm glad that I was able to clarify this Circle fees matter (at least for my own understanding) because potentially working with BTC on a regular basis (up to $5,000 per week through Circle) appears to be much better than I had originally thought.

Maybe they do more selling volume than buying. So maintaining an above-market price would make them money (or help pay their expenses).

Yes!!!!! That may be part of the situation with Circle, yet it remains unclear about whether they make money by the about 1% higher sell price?   or on the other hand, questioning what is their monetization

[Cconvert2G36]

Re: Subtly Padding Volume: Try harder Huobi.

[JayJuanGee]

I have a story ......


After big crashing some whales fear of destroying of Btc ,,,,,,,,,, so they decided to push price up ...... this is temporary ... we will see price $180 very sooon

What "big crashing"?  

EDIT: You mean dec 2013 - jan 2015?

he mean the last crash from nearly 300 to below 200.

Norway made a good point... in essence, any BTC crash was largely experienced between December 2013 and January 2015... ever since January 2015, BTC prices have largely been floating between $220 and $290, with a few exceptions out of that range.  The last about 8 months have been pretty stable in BTClandia, even though a lot of us who are bullish about BTC wished that BTC prices would advance higher outside of the $200s range..... and to stay up above the $200s range, permanently.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin
Explanation

[iCEBREAKER]

But that was weeks ago, and it is clear that Core will never agree to any increase.

Why do you believe it's clear that Core will never agree to any increase?

Because Always & Never, that's why!

Just ignore Trollfi, he's could have been a useful source of counter-groupthink but has struck out.

Strike One: Playing Doubting Thomas to blockchain tech, despite compsci/fintech consensus that (per Horowitz) "it may be the most important computer science breakthrough since packet switching."

Strike Two: Declaring XT would win, after getting suckered in by Gavin and Hearn's false sense of urgency and other social engineering attacks.

Strike Three: Indulging in use of no less than three Always & Never words in a single sentence.

Bonus Strike: Being embarrassingly jealous of Dr. Back's far more lucrative and history-making, world-changingly influential CS career.   

Even the Buttcoiners deserve a better class of 'big fat smart-bug' for their hive mind.  Good thing Peter Todd is there!