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

[ChartBuddy]

Coin
Explanation

[1715118863]

1715118863

[1715118863]

1715118863

[adamstgBit]

lets all predent cheap computers with shit interent connections will willingly run full nodes for a system which's prices out their poor ass.

[bambou]

Miners revenues are mandatory to ensure the network's security.

While the block reward tends to 0, it is natural for a fee market to emerge, or else there would not be any incentives left for the miners to keep spending the resources that a POW system requires.

Meanwhile, you can enjoy transacting for nearly nothing.

Yeah, that's my thought. A fee market should be allowed to emerge naturally, not artificially by restricting resources.

This is the purpose of the "artificial" restriction: prevent spamming and hence, allowing a fee market to emerge... naturally.

If no restriction in supply (as it also goes with the 21m cap), then there would not be any incentives for miners to pursue their amazing stacking of hashpower... which in the end ensures the system security.

[Richy_T]

lets all predent cheap computers with shit interent connections will willingly run full nodes for a system which's prices out their poor ass.

I won't be happy until Bitcoin is fully 8-bit

[adamstgBit]

lets all predent cheap computers with shit interent connections will willingly run full nodes for a system which's prices out their poor ass.

I won't be happy until Bitcoin is fully 8-bit

[adamstgBit]

lol fuck this.

[Richy_T]

This is the purpose of the "artificial" restriction: prevent spamming and hence, allowing a fee market to emerge... naturally.

Man...

Just like the artificial price controls in the USSR allowed food supply to emerge naturally.

[muyuu]

Hold on to the wall

[bambou]

This is the purpose of the "artificial" restriction: prevent spamming and hence, allowing a fee market to emerge... naturally.

Man...

Just like the artificial price controls in the USSR allowed food supply to emerge naturally.

http://students.sras.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/pic011-300x197.jpg

Hum.. so you prefer the USA Quantitative Easing approach maybe? Free money right?

Seriously, again, basically I would not disagree to reassess when tx fee > block rewards.

Not prior, nor with some out of thin air (to stay polite) data and projections about adoption or whatever other metrics or implementations that lacks the fundamentals to what a decentralized POW trustless system should be.

[SnokkomBTC]

we want $ 32,000 Bitcoins adamstgBit !!

[_biO_]

Convincing should be pretty easy if the rule change goes against the interest of the majority of the bitcoin community. And if it doesn't we don't have a problem in the first place.

Why should the miners take such a huge gamble. What kind of rule change would justify taking such a risk?

For definiteness, consider postponing the next halving by 2 years, but then reducing the halving interval to 2 years instead of 4, so that the total issuance woudl still be ~21 M BTC. 

That change would means something like 150 million USD of extra revenue over 2 years to a majority mining cartel. (Too lazt to check the number now, but it is that order of magnitude.) That obviously could make the difference beween getting rich or going bankrupt,

So, the motivation for the miners would be very strong.  All other players would be against that change in principle, because the would see little gain (or some loss) for them at various time scales, and "the protocol is sacred".  But, if the change were to happen, they would not be directly harmed, and could live with it.

Would the cartel be able to impose that change on the rest of the community?  I believe that it would.  The "self-interest" argument works better the other way: why would the "economic majority" crash the price and lose all their investment, by trying to fight the cartel?  In order to protect their investment, most holders and companies would pretend to approve the change, and would tell everybody that it was "good for bitcoin"...

They would of course fail horribly trying to do something like that. Yes, all other players would most definitely be against it because there's everything at risk for them if an attack like this would be tolerated. Everyone would have to expect the same thing happening again after those two years. "Hey let us do our thing another year, the year after that we halve, promise!" "Wait no, let's wait some more and do a quartering next time!"

"They could live with it"? Seriously? This is fantasy.

[Richy_T]

[Richy_T]

Hum.. so you prefer the USA Quantitative Easing approach maybe? Free money right?

WAT?

I don't like cabbage therefore I must like brussel sprouts?

Both of those approaches are artificial manipulation of the markets. The block size limit can be classified alongside them.

Seriously, again, basically I would not disagree to reassess when tx fee > block rewards.

Currently, excepting "stress tests", adding transactions to be blockchain have not seen any restrictions caused by the block size limit. If transactions increase to where the block size starts to actually be a constraint, that would be an effective change in operating conditions.

[Fatman3001]

Miners revenues are mandatory to ensure the network's security.

While the block reward tends to 0, it is natural for a fee market to emerge, or else there would not be any incentives left for the miners to keep spending the resources that a POW system requires.

Meanwhile, you can enjoy transacting for nearly nothing.

Yeah, that's my thought. A fee market should be allowed to emerge naturally, not artificially by restricting resources.

I see no reason why fees (as they are) can't pay for a pretty hefty pow network when there's no block reward but thousands of transactions a second and $30k-$70k coins. Any artificial scarcity on this front now will strangle Bitcoin.

[Meuh6879]

I won't be happy until Bitcoin is fully 8-bit

i prefer 10 bit encoding ...  

[bambou]

Miners revenues are mandatory to ensure the network's security.

While the block reward tends to 0, it is natural for a fee market to emerge, or else there would not be any incentives left for the miners to keep spending the resources that a POW system requires.

Meanwhile, you can enjoy transacting for nearly nothing.

Yeah, that's my thought. A fee market should be allowed to emerge naturally, not artificially by restricting resources.

I see no reason why fees can't pay for a pretty hefty pow network when there's no block reward but thousands of transactions a second and $30k-$70k coins. Any artificial scarcity on this front now will strangle Bitcoin.

Start with there is no "thousands of transactions a second and $30k-$70k coins" as of now, in reality y' know..

[Richy_T]

I see no reason why fees can't pay for a pretty hefty pow network when there's no block reward but thousands of transactions a second and $30k-$70k coins. Any artificial scarcity on this front now will strangle Bitcoin.

I agree. Though I am not actually all that worried about the block size limit as I believe the dynamics of Bitcoin will ensure it is disposed of. If not in good time then in time enough.

I'm more of a cheerleader for the process than for any decision in particular.

[Fatman3001]

I see no reason why fees can't pay for a pretty hefty pow network when there's no block reward but thousands of transactions a second and $30k-$70k coins. Any artificial scarcity on this front now will strangle Bitcoin.

I agree. Though I am not actually all that worried about the block size limit as I believe the dynamics of Bitcoin will ensure it is disposed of. If not in good time then in time enough.

I'm more of a cheerleader for the process than for any decision in particular.

As a nerd I tend to have very strong opinions on things I think I understand, so I will argue as a matter of course. But when I lean back a bit I can't really see this not ending in a raised (and eventually removed) blocksize limit.

I see no reason why fees can't pay for a pretty hefty pow network when there's no block reward but thousands of transactions a second and $30k-$70k coins. Any artificial scarcity on this front now will strangle Bitcoin.

Start with there is no "thousands of transactions a second and $30k-$70k coins" as of now, in reality y' know..

No, now there's block rewards paying for a pretty hefty and oversized pow network.

[billyjoeallen]

Miners revenues are mandatory to ensure the network's security.

While the block reward tends to 0, it is natural for a fee market to emerge, or else there would not be any incentives left for the miners to keep spending the resources that a POW system requires.

Meanwhile, you can enjoy transacting for nearly nothing.

Yeah, that's my thought. A fee market should be allowed to emerge naturally, not artificially by restricting resources.

This is the purpose of the "artificial" restriction: prevent spamming and hence, allowing a fee market to emerge... naturally.

If no restriction in supply (as it also goes with the 21m cap), then there would not be any incentives for miners to pursue their amazing stacking of hashpower... which in the end ensures the system security.

You have it backwards. As fees go up, the usefulness of the network goes down.  There is less of a competitive advantage over competing networks.  The fee market can ONLY naturally emerge in the absence of an artificial restriction on capacity.  The NATURAL restriction lies at the intersection of block propagation time (which would limit blocksize without a cap) and fees for larger blocks (more xactions=more fees) along with a certain head start in mining the next block.

[sidhujag]

the FUD is unwarranted even if we keep the 1MB limit ( which we aren't ) all that would really do for the foreseeable future is price out mirco TX's and bring the TX cost at about 10cents, buying over priced coffee is still feasible, and we are still undercut paypals 2% +50cents TX fee massively

Bitcoin is a decentralized publicly auditable settlement system. That people would pay to use. You can use it for 0 fee but it will take longer, its not designed as a payment processor. Satoshi chose security over performance because of decentralization.

The time to increase the block size will be when 0 fee tx takes longer than 5 days.

Bitcoin is a decentralized Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System, even if it can't run on a Raspberry Pi connected to a slow internet connection.  Satoshi talked about what you call the "centralization" of bitcoin, as natural evolution of the consensus layer, and envisioned SPV clients. The time to increase the block size was when bitcoin had established a solid value, the fact that its been delayed so much is hurting bitcoin big time, and you know it.

No you don't get it. Mining centralization/block propagation is what the problem is. I don't think you fully understand the implications. By the time 0 fee tx's take 5 days we hopefully will have the ability for miners to use Tor or anon networks to avoid risk of regulation.

Oh but you have to think outside the box pinky! Thinking ahead takes some thought.

Again bitcoin is intended to be a publicy audit-able and provable settlement system by design and that is why it is powerful. Try to understand what that means.

What I envision is someone actually solves the problems with network latency of block propagation to allow miners to remain decentralized, and avoid regulation through anonymous mining. That would push price up a bit, but what would be even better and soon to follow from this would be the realization that XT admins would admit that the core of the problem has been resolved and there is no need to increase blocks at this time period, pushing bitcoin to new highs.