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

[adamstgBit]

The Economist predicts transactions could take over an hour by early next year if there's no change. Are they wrong?

That is nonsense.  Someone with no idea of how things work just tossed a number.

Once the average traffic (transactions issued per day by all users) exceeds the effective capacity of the network (about 240'000 tx/day, 2.8 tx/s), there will be a steadily growing backlog of unconfirmed transactions.  There will not be a fixed delay: the average delay will keep increasing, day after day.

If the traffic were to be 300'000 tx/day (3.5 tx/s), for example, the backlog would grow at the rate of ~60'000 tx per day (~0.7 tx/s).  The transactions received in one day will take 300'000/240'000*24 = 30 hours to be confirmed; so the average delay for 1-confirmation will keep growing by 6 hours every day.   

If the transactions were serviced first-in, first-out, then all transactions sent in the same hour would be delayed by about the same (but always growing) number of hours.   Since the processing priority is largely determined by the fees paid, however, some transactions may be processed in the next block, independently of the backlog, while others will be delayed even more than they would with the fair policy.   However, there will be no way to estimate the fee needed to get your transaction confirmed in the next block, or within X hours; because that depends on the fees of transactions that will be issued before your confirmation -- by clients who will want their transactions to be processed before yours.

But that regime cannot last for long, of course.  Clients will give up on bitcoin, until traffic drops below the capacity -- say to 220'000 tx/day (~2.6 tx/s). Then, part of the time, there will be no backlog: all transactions will confirm in the next block, even if they pay the minimal fee.  However, the traffic varies a lot depending on time of day and day of the week.  During peak hours and peak days, the traffic will be quite a bit more than 2.8 tx/s. Then there will be a temporary backlog, lasting several hours, that will be cleared slowly when the traffic subsides. 

As before, the backlog and the average confirmation delay will keep growing while the traffic exceeds the capacity.  The delay for your transaction, specifically, will depend on its fee, on the transactions that are waiting in the queue, and on the transactions that will be issued by other clients until your transaction is confirmed.  On some occasions, many transactions may get delayed by several hours, perhaps by a day or two.

the backlog theory is not right, what will end up happening is that TX with 0 fees will never get confirmed ( in which case they never actually leave your wallet ) TX fees will go up such that the TX / sec is below the 1MB limit, if we get a surge of TX demand that will only push fess higher again making low fee TX never confirm. so basically there will never be an ever growing backlog, only ever growing fees.

at one point tho the high fees will start to affect TX demand negatively ( no one wants to use bitcoin any more because its so expensive ) and at that point bitcoin growth has maxed out due to technological limitations ( or self imposed nonsensically 1MB block limit )

Well by that logic I think tx fees can go a lot higher. The world might want to get on this boat. Tickets will just have to go up.

+1. seems we are finally getting somewhere.

we are not at the technological limitations tho, at 10-100MB blocks you might have a solid argument to cap block limit in the name of keeping bitcoin decentralized and let fees run up in this fashion.

[1714692786]

1714692786

[1714692786]

1714692786

[1714692786]

1714692786

[1714692786]

1714692786

[1714692786]

1714692786

[hdbuck]

...

That would be an ideal time for someone to launch a competing coin.  I figure it would take <$1 Billion to overcome Bitcoin's first mover advantage and then the banksters will just keep running the world as if we never existed.  

lmao you really should lay off whatever you are tripping on.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

The Economist predicts transactions could take over an hour by early next year if there's no change. Are they wrong?

That is nonsense.  Someone with no idea of how things work just tossed a number.

Once the average traffic (transactions issued per day by all users) exceeds the effective capacity of the network (about 240'000 tx/day, 2.8 tx/s), there will be a steadily growing backlog of unconfirmed transactions.  There will not be a fixed delay: the average delay will keep increasing, day after day.

If the traffic were to be 300'000 tx/day (3.5 tx/s), for example, the backlog would grow at the rate of ~60'000 tx per day (~0.7 tx/s).  The transactions received in one day will take 300'000/240'000*24 = 30 hours to be confirmed; so the average delay for 1-confirmation will keep growing by 6 hours every day.   

If the transactions were serviced first-in, first-out, then all transactions sent in the same hour would be delayed by about the same (but always growing) number of hours.   Since the processing priority is largely determined by the fees paid, however, some transactions may be processed in the next block, independently of the backlog, while others will be delayed even more than they would with the fair policy.   However, there will be no way to estimate the fee needed to get your transaction confirmed in the next block, or within X hours; because that depends on the fees of transactions that will be issued before your confirmation -- by clients who will want their transactions to be processed before yours.

But that regime cannot last for long, of course.  Clients will give up on bitcoin, until traffic drops below the capacity -- say to 220'000 tx/day (~2.6 tx/s). Then, part of the time, there will be no backlog: all transactions will confirm in the next block, even if they pay the minimal fee.  However, the traffic varies a lot depending on time of day and day of the week.  During peak hours and peak days, the traffic will be quite a bit more than 2.8 tx/s. Then there will be a temporary backlog, lasting several hours, that will be cleared slowly when the traffic subsides. 

As before, the backlog and the average confirmation delay will keep growing while the traffic exceeds the capacity.  The delay for your transaction, specifically, will depend on its fee, on the transactions that are waiting in the queue, and on the transactions that will be issued by other clients until your transaction is confirmed.  On some occasions, many transactions may get delayed by several hours, perhaps by a day or two.

the backlog theory is not right, what will end up happening is that TX with 0 fees will never get confirmed ( in which case they never actually leave your wallet ) TX fees will go up such that the TX / sec is below the 1MB limit, if we get a surge of TX demand that will only push fess higher again making low fee TX never confirm. so basically there will never be an ever growing backlog, only ever growing fees.

at one point tho the high fees will start to affect TX demand negatively ( no one wants to use bitcoin any more because its so expensive ) and at that point bitcoin growth has maxed out due to technological limitations ( or self imposed nonsensically 1MB block limit )

Well by that logic I think tx fees can go a lot higher. The world might want to get on this boat. Tickets will just have to go up.

+1. seems we are finally getting somewhere.

we are not at the technological limitations tho, at 10-100MB blocks you might have a solid argument to cap block limit in the name of keeping bitcoin decentralized and let fees run up in this fashion.

There's still Hong Kong...

[hdbuck]

let us also put aside once and for all the fallacy of confusing 'effectively' SCALING bitcoin with block size.

[Cconvert2G36]

let us also put aside once and for all the fallacy of confusing 'effectively' scaling bitcoin with block size.

Let's not, because they're clearly linked. I hope only the pace of growth is disputed at this point. Sidechains will only add to that. 1MB4EVA needs to get rekt on the shores of romania.

[adamstgBit]

The Economist predicts transactions could take over an hour by early next year if there's no change. Are they wrong?

That is nonsense.  Someone with no idea of how things work just tossed a number.

Once the average traffic (transactions issued per day by all users) exceeds the effective capacity of the network (about 240'000 tx/day, 2.8 tx/s), there will be a steadily growing backlog of unconfirmed transactions.  There will not be a fixed delay: the average delay will keep increasing, day after day.

If the traffic were to be 300'000 tx/day (3.5 tx/s), for example, the backlog would grow at the rate of ~60'000 tx per day (~0.7 tx/s).  The transactions received in one day will take 300'000/240'000*24 = 30 hours to be confirmed; so the average delay for 1-confirmation will keep growing by 6 hours every day.   

If the transactions were serviced first-in, first-out, then all transactions sent in the same hour would be delayed by about the same (but always growing) number of hours.   Since the processing priority is largely determined by the fees paid, however, some transactions may be processed in the next block, independently of the backlog, while others will be delayed even more than they would with the fair policy.   However, there will be no way to estimate the fee needed to get your transaction confirmed in the next block, or within X hours; because that depends on the fees of transactions that will be issued before your confirmation -- by clients who will want their transactions to be processed before yours.

But that regime cannot last for long, of course.  Clients will give up on bitcoin, until traffic drops below the capacity -- say to 220'000 tx/day (~2.6 tx/s). Then, part of the time, there will be no backlog: all transactions will confirm in the next block, even if they pay the minimal fee.  However, the traffic varies a lot depending on time of day and day of the week.  During peak hours and peak days, the traffic will be quite a bit more than 2.8 tx/s. Then there will be a temporary backlog, lasting several hours, that will be cleared slowly when the traffic subsides. 

As before, the backlog and the average confirmation delay will keep growing while the traffic exceeds the capacity.  The delay for your transaction, specifically, will depend on its fee, on the transactions that are waiting in the queue, and on the transactions that will be issued by other clients until your transaction is confirmed.  On some occasions, many transactions may get delayed by several hours, perhaps by a day or two.

the backlog theory is not right, what will end up happening is that TX with 0 fees will never get confirmed ( in which case they never actually leave your wallet ) TX fees will go up such that the TX / sec is below the 1MB limit, if we get a surge of TX demand that will only push fess higher again making low fee TX never confirm. so basically there will never be an ever growing backlog, only ever growing fees.

at one point tho the high fees will start to affect TX demand negatively ( no one wants to use bitcoin any more because its so expensive ) and at that point bitcoin growth has maxed out due to technological limitations ( or self imposed nonsensically 1MB block limit )

Well by that logic I think tx fees can go a lot higher. The world might want to get on this boat. Tickets will just have to go up.

+1. seems we are finally getting somewhere.

we are not at the technological limitations tho, at 10-100MB blocks you might have a solid argument to cap block limit in the name of keeping bitcoin decentralized and let fees run up in this fashion.

There's still Hong Kong...

fuck'm

decentralized != evenly distributed

[billyjoeallen]

...

That would be an ideal time for someone to launch a competing coin.  I figure it would take <$1 Billion to overcome Bitcoin's first mover advantage and then the banksters will just keep running the world as if we never existed.  

lmao you really should lay off whatever you are tripping on.

You think it would take less or more?   Surely you know that it's possible at some number with the right technical design and promotion.  You seem to be not understanding what's at stake here.

[adamstgBit]

Big media is asking again why the price of BTC is rising again

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/why-the-price-of-bitcoin-is-skyrocketing-again-153559170.html#

bullish?

there bearishness / trivializing bitcoin while making the euro Vs dollar trade seem more "game changing" is bullish.

[adamstgBit]

...

That would be an ideal time for someone to launch a competing coin.  I figure it would take <$1 Billion to overcome Bitcoin's first mover advantage and then the banksters will just keep running the world as if we never existed.  

lmao you really should lay off whatever you are tripping on.

You think it would take less or more?   Surely you know that it's possible at some number with the right technical design and promotion.  You seem to be not understanding what's at stake here.

it would take broad consensus amongst the community that this altcoin is the new future of money.

i mean they can pump there coin all they want, all they really do is create a very large honey pot no one dare touch.

[JorgeStolfi]

I just don't see how that would extend to who took final ownership of a bunch of auctioned-off butts. You want a list of who bought what coke-boats, too?

I don't see why the buyer of public property should have more right to remain anonymous than a contractor who gets hired by the government.  In both cases there is a commercial transaction where some valuabe property is exchanged by some amount of money.  Why should the two be treated differently?

But, anyway, the identity of the buyers is not so important.  The public surely should have the right to know the price that they paid.

It is not surprising that the USMS would rather not publish that information.  If the public gets to know that a 1 M$ home was auctioned off by 50 k$, there would be nasty articles and blogposts, suspicion of fraud, etc. -- even if there was no foul play.   But FOIA was meant to overcome that petty motivation for government secrecy.

[billyjoeallen]

...

That would be an ideal time for someone to launch a competing coin.  I figure it would take <$1 Billion to overcome Bitcoin's first mover advantage and then the banksters will just keep running the world as if we never existed.  

lmao you really should lay off whatever you are tripping on.

You think it would take less or more?   Surely you know that it's possible at some number with the right technical design and promotion.  You seem to be not understanding what's at stake here.

it would take broad consensus amongst the community that this altcoin is the new future of money.

i mean they can pump there coin all they want, all they really do is create a very large honey pot no one dare touch.

??   our entire market cap is a fraction of what Facebook paid for Whatsapp.  They don't need our community at all.  All we're doing is their test marketing and technical research for them. A few tweaks, a few power players (in finance, not crypto) backing, and they capture everyone who wants low cost electronic cash without all the anarcho-capitalist drug market baggage. Oh yeah, and it'll scale.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

I just don't see how that would extend to who took final ownership of a bunch of auctioned-off butts. You want a list of who bought what coke-boats, too?

I don't see why the buyer of public property should have more right to remain anonymous than a contractor who gets hired by the government.  In both cases there is a commercial transaction where some valuabe property is exchanged by some amount of money.  Why should the two be treated differently?

But, anyway, the identity of the buyers is not so important.  The public surely should have the right to know the price that they paid.

It is not surprising that the USMS would rather not publish that information.  If the public gets to know that a 1 M$ home was auctioned off by 50 k$, there would be nasty articles and blogposts, suspicion of fraud, etc. -- even if there was no foul play.   But FOIA was meant to overcome that petty motivation for government secrecy.

Maybe you have a point. If they decided to sell plots of land, for example, for well below market, that could effect the value of surrounding land and maybe current landowners have a right to know. IDK. I'd need to think more. I don't usually have much sympathy for landowners. Am I stretching the metaphor too far?

[hdbuck]

...

That would be an ideal time for someone to launch a competing coin.  I figure it would take <$1 Billion to overcome Bitcoin's first mover advantage and then the banksters will just keep running the world as if we never existed.  

lmao you really should lay off whatever you are tripping on.

You think it would take less or more?   Surely you know that it's possible at some number with the right technical design and promotion.  You seem to be not understanding what's at stake here.

it would take broad consensus amongst the community that this altcoin is the new future of money.

i mean they can pump there coin all they want, all they really do is create a very large honey pot no one dare touch.

??   our entire market cap is a fraction of what Facebook paid for Whatsapp.  They don't need our community at all.  All we're doing is their test marketing and technical research for them. A few tweaks, a few power players (in finance, not crypto) backing, and they capture everyone who wants low cost electronic cash without all the anarcho-capitalist drug market baggage. Oh yeah, and it'll scale.

[JorgeStolfi]

A large majority of us Brazilians have agreed to let the government use some of our common property for certain uses, like schools, roads, parks, etc.  I approve such arrangements in principle; in some of those that I disapprove, I am willing to submit to the majority; and in some others I protest and vote agains, as above.

Howz that protesting and voting working out for ya, Prof?

Not very well, but considering that I am minority in many aspects, and the depth of corruption and crime in the country, it could be worse.  I got the President that I voted for, in the last 4 elections, and was rather happy with the results.  I got a mayor, but he was murdered shortly after taking office.  I got a federal congressman but he was jailed after his term ended, for having put a banker in jail for a few hours. 

But it still a lot better than when the military decided what was best for all of us.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin

Explanation

[billyjoeallen]

...

That would be an ideal time for someone to launch a competing coin.  I figure it would take <$1 Billion to overcome Bitcoin's first mover advantage and then the banksters will just keep running the world as if we never existed.  

lmao you really should lay off whatever you are tripping on.

You think it would take less or more?   Surely you know that it's possible at some number with the right technical design and promotion.  You seem to be not understanding what's at stake here.

it would take broad consensus amongst the community that this altcoin is the new future of money.

i mean they can pump there coin all they want, all they really do is create a very large honey pot no one dare touch.

??   our entire market cap is a fraction of what Facebook paid for Whatsapp.  They don't need our community at all.  All we're doing is their test marketing and technical research for them. A few tweaks, a few power players (in finance, not crypto) backing, and they capture everyone who wants low cost electronic cash without all the anarcho-capitalist drug market baggage. Oh yeah, and it'll scale.

I don't really understand your scorn.  If you don't want bitcoin to be the future of money, then what do you want it to be?  I don't mind a certain amount of arrogance, but only if you have the chops to back it up. As it stands, you're a cunt hair away from getting blocked.

[billyjoeallen]

A large majority of us Brazilians have agreed to let the government use some of our common property for certain uses, like schools, roads, parks, etc.  I approve such arrangements in principle; in some of those that I disapprove, I am willing to submit to the majority; and in some others I protest and vote agains, as above.

Howz that protesting and voting working out for ya, Prof?

Not very well, but considering that I am minority in many aspects, and the depth of corruption and crime in the country, it could be worse.  I got the President that I voted for, in the last 4 elections, and was rather happy with the results.  I got a mayor, but he was murdered shortly after taking office.  I got a federal congressman but he was jailed after his term ended, for having put a banker in jail for a few hours. 

But it still a lot better than when the military decided what was best for all of us.

That's a pretty low bar to set, isn't it? "Come to Brazil! It's not currently a military dictatorship."

[Cconvert2G36]

Leave Jorge alone!

His home currency is doing a disruptive black swan without the help of bit-coin.


The Brazilian Real in Actual Money™.

To be fair, it's flat since august ended.

[Karpeles]

Leave Jorge alone!

His home currency is doing a disruptive black swan without the help of bit-coin.


The Brazilian Real in Actual Money™.

To be fair, it's flat since august ended.

With his currency devaluating, he is could have earned both by getting more USD and by the valuation of BTC.

If he is not rich and doesn't need more money at all, I feel sorry for him

[JorgeStolfi]

the backlog theory is not right, what will end up happening is that [ ... ] TX fees will go up such that the TX / sec is below the 1MB limit, if we get a surge of TX demand that will only push fess higher again making low fee TX never confirm. so basically there will never be an ever growing backlog, only ever growing fees.

at one point tho the high fees will start to affect TX demand negatively ( no one wants to use bitcoin any more because its so expensive ) and at that point bitcoin growth has maxed out due to technological limitations ( or self imposed nonsensically 1MB block limit )

of course higher fees will always "affect TX demand negatively" what i mean to say it TX fee will stop simply weeding out low value TX from users, and start weeding groups of users all together.

That is the hope of the small-blockians, who look forward to the "fee market" as a way to raise the fees "naturally" to compensate for the harlving of the reward.

However, I don't expect the fees to rise significantly.  After some initial mega-jams, things should settle down with the average traffic somewhat below the capacity (say, 2.6 tx/s, as in my example).   In that state,  the minimum fee will usually provide confirmation within a day, and confirmation in less than 1 hour will usually be achieved with relatively modest fees.   The traffic will not increase further because of the unpredictable delays, which will occur even if everybody ends up paying 100 $/tx of fees.