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

[Hunyadi]

LOL!

http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-December/011936.html

Is this real?

[1714493126]

1714493126

[1714493126]

1714493126

[1714493126]

1714493126

[1714493126]

1714493126

[1714493126]

1714493126

[Fatman3001]

LOL!

http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-December/011936.html

Isn't this the same e-mail that supported smallblocks a couple of months ago?

It seems like this "Satoshi" and Craig Wright have the same appetite for inconsistency.

Not to mention that if "We are all Satoshi" then, in accordance with basic logic, Craig Wright is Satoshi.

[peonminer]

GET 'EM SATOSHI NAKAMOTO WE FUCKING LOVE YOU GODSPEED TO YOUR FOREVER HIDDEN IDENTITY AND ETERNAL SAFETY!!!!!

[AlexGR]

Low fee transactions could take days to confirm. Zero fee xactions may never confirm.

Sounds like it will finally work like it should be.

The blockchain is too valuable a resource to be wasted by zero and ridiculously low fee txs.

And it's not only scaling but usability too. If I have a 100mb block size and it takes me a couple of hours just to sync the last day or a day to sync the last week (before I send a payment), will this be usable? Or will people say, ah yes, now you lost the ability to run bitcoin-qt, just use a thin client...

That's either stupid or dishonest. Nobody is proposing 100 MB blocks and won't unless bandwidth gets much much greater. The design is for block reward to subsidize miners until the network grows big enough to be supported on fees. How is that possible with ~ half million xactions/day? 

This is supposed to be a peer to peer network for the people, not <1 million elitists, criminals and middlemen.

We have different interpretations of stupidity.

When I have a system that has a hole in it (bloat in blockchain through low or no fees, that can be abused as an attack vector and kill bitcoin usage and adoption in the long run), I will not go and make it larger so that someone else can sink my boat. *That* is stupidity.

Scaling is not an issue right now. Not the processing of transactions. If you want to make a legitimate transaction, you'll pay a normal fee and you'll be processed in one block.

If you enlarge the block before scaling becomes an issue, then you open the attack vector wide open for further abuse (because it is already abused with over half the transactions being dust and spam). This is beyond idiotic.

I believe when the time comes, and the need is real, the block size can be increased. If it doesn't, there will be just some fee competition that prevents a lot of low and very low value tx. So what? This is certainly the lesser of the two evils involved here.

TL;DR: Keep Bitcoin as a smaller & more uncertain version of fiat. Make sure it also becomes more expensive to transact with.
Put off solving Bitcoin's principal problems for later, because totally good enough for now.
This will really drive adoption.

And downloading terabytes of blockchain bloat will?

Bitcoin is a protocol and while it is true that scaling issues exist, they are being worked on to find solutions. But nobody says we all have to use just one blockchain for storing everything, and doing so with zero cost. This is not feasible. We can transact with Dogecoins for the lulz if we want to. It's still bitcoin-based tech. You can have 100 chains, or 1000 chains. The sky is the limit.

As for cost: In Greece, in order to conduct a bank wire from one bank acc of bank A to another bank account of bank B, it goes like cost 1 euro for sender, cost 3 euro for receiver. Total 4 euros of charge even if I transfer like 10 euros. Do you think this puts people off from transacting with the banks? No. They just don't do it for small amounts, or if they do they are using something like "offchain" transaction by using the same bank for internal transferring of one bank account to the other, which typically has zero cost.

[macsga]

LOL!

http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-December/011936.html

Is this real?

Told ya so...

[aztecminer]

Low fee transactions could take days to confirm. Zero fee xactions may never confirm.

Sounds like it will finally work like it should be.

The blockchain is too valuable a resource to be wasted by zero and ridiculously low fee txs.

And it's not only scaling but usability too. If I have a 100mb block size and it takes me a couple of hours just to sync the last day or a day to sync the last week (before I send a payment), will this be usable? Or will people say, ah yes, now you lost the ability to run bitcoin-qt, just use a thin client...

That's either stupid or dishonest. Nobody is proposing 100 MB blocks and won't unless bandwidth gets much much greater. The design is for block reward to subsidize miners until the network grows big enough to be supported on fees. How is that possible with ~ half million xactions/day? 

This is supposed to be a peer to peer network for the people, not <1 million elitists, criminals and middlemen.

We have different interpretations of stupidity.

When I have a system that has a hole in it (bloat in blockchain through low or no fees, that can be abused as an attack vector and kill bitcoin usage and adoption in the long run), I will not go and make it larger so that someone else can sink my boat. *That* is stupidity.

Scaling is not an issue right now. Not the processing of transactions. If you want to make a legitimate transaction, you'll pay a normal fee and you'll be processed in one block.

If you enlarge the block before scaling becomes an issue, then you open the attack vector wide open for further abuse (because it is already abused with over half the transactions being dust and spam). This is beyond idiotic.

I believe when the time comes, and the need is real, the block size can be increased. If it doesn't, there will be just some fee competition that prevents a lot of low and very low value tx. So what? This is certainly the lesser of the two evils involved here.

TL;DR: Keep Bitcoin as a smaller & more uncertain version of fiat. Make sure it also becomes more expensive to transact with.
Put off solving Bitcoin's principal problems for later, because totally good enough for now.
This will really drive adoption.

And downloading terabytes of blockchain bloat will?

Bitcoin is a protocol and while it is true that scaling issues exist, they are being worked on to find solutions. But nobody says we all have to use just one blockchain for storing everything, and doing so with zero cost. This is not feasible. We can transact with Dogecoins for the lulz if we want to. It's still bitcoin-based tech. You can have 100 chains, or 1000 chains. The sky is the limit.

As for cost: In Greece, in order to conduct a bank wire from one bank acc of bank A to another bank account of bank B, it goes like cost 1 euro for sender, cost 3 euro for receiver. Total 4 euros of charge even if I transfer like 10 euros. Do you think this puts people off from transacting with the banks? No. They just don't do it for small amounts, or if they do they are using something like "offchain" transaction by using the same bank for internal transferring of one bank account to the other, which typically has zero cost.

problem: it doesn't cost "transaction fees" to use debit card or fiat paper to buy something.

[-Greed-]

bitchcoin breaks 425 on its way to 500. who is going to sell at 500 ??

Me.

Can't believe this one pumper is controlling the entire market.  There are literally no other players. I'm secretly hoping a deep pocket bear raider comes swooping in out of nowhere and crushes this fake market run. It would be completely deserved.

If it does happen, it'll probably be the same guy doing it.

Completely. Fake. Market. No wonder Average Joes detest bitcoin. With things like this, it's a wonder anyone will ever want to buy bitcoin in the future.

+1
Me too.

LOL!

http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-December/011936.html

Is this real?

Not signed is likely means a compromised/expired mail.

[Ultrafinery]

...
TL;DR: Keep Bitcoin as a smaller & more uncertain version of fiat. Make sure it also becomes more expensive to transact with.
Put off solving Bitcoin's principal problems for later, because totally good enough for now.
This will really drive adoption.

And downloading terabytes of blockchain bloat will?

If increasing the blocksize is not a solution you like, then there is no [apparent] solution. Life's like that -- some problems don't have elegant solutions.

Bitcoin is a protocol and while it is true that scaling issues exist, they are being worked on to find solutions. But nobody says we all have to use just one blockchain for storing everything, and doing so with zero cost. This is not feasible. We can transact with Dogecoins for the lulz if we want to. It's still bitcoin-based tech. You can have 100 chains, or 1000 chains. The sky is the limit.

'Bitcoin-based tech' is not bitcoin. The 'bitcoin-based tech' that solves Bitcoin's shortcomings will dominate. Good money drives out the bad.

As for cost: In Greece, in order to conduct a bank wire from one bank acc of bank A to another bank account of bank B, it goes like cost 1 euro for sender, cost 3 euro for receiver. Total 4 euros of charge even if I transfer like 10 euros. Do you think this puts people off from transacting with the banks?

Transact != wiring money from bank to bank. If you had to pay 4 euros for a candy bar (on top of the cost of the actual product), you'd have a point.
Not much call for a riskier version of SEPA.

[Fatman3001]

And downloading terabytes of blockchain bloat will?

Bitcoin is a protocol and while it is true that scaling issues exist, they are being worked on to find solutions. But nobody says we all have to use just one blockchain for storing everything, and doing so with zero cost. This is not feasible. We can transact with Dogecoins for the lulz if we want to. It's still bitcoin-based tech. You can have 100 chains, or 1000 chains. The sky is the limit.

As for cost: In Greece, in order to conduct a bank wire from one bank acc of bank A to another bank account of bank B, it goes like cost 1 euro for sender, cost 3 euro for receiver. Total 4 euros of charge even if I transfer like 10 euros. Do you think this puts people off from transacting with the banks? No. They just don't do it for small amounts, or if they do they are using something like "offchain" transaction by using the same bank for internal transferring of one bank account to the other, which typically has zero cost.

First off, if/when Bitcoin takes off for real there's going to be nerd cred to be had running a node. And terabytes of what you call bloat only makes it better.

Second, if a priority transaction goes significantly up in price it will be less suitable for micropayments for services like access to newspaper articles et al, especially in low-cost countries.

Third, if you get rid of all the "dust" you get rid of a world of opportunities in the internet of things. It's way too early to limit the network in this way,

[AlexGR]

problem: it doesn't cost "transaction fees" to use debit card or fiat paper to buy something.

So in real life you have multiple payment systems for different purposes, with multi-tiered costs, speeds etc.

In Bitcoin you want to make from microtransactions to billion $$$ transactions, in the same way, with the same speed, with the same minimal cost. Ah well, give it some time until it gets there, right now it clearly isn't capable to scale to that level. And it won't be by doubling or quadrupling, or 1000x the block size. You can't scale such a system to the degree that hierarchical systems do, but other problems plaguing hierarchical systems are dealt with. It's a balancing act.

[Ultrafinery]

problem: it doesn't cost "transaction fees" to use debit card or fiat paper to buy something.

So in real life you have multiple payment systems for different purposes, with multi-tiered costs, speeds etc.

In Bitcoin you want to make from microtransactions to billion $$$ transactions, in the same way, with the same speed, with the same minimal cost. Ah well, give it some time until it gets there, right now it clearly isn't capable to scale to that level. And it won't be by doubling or quadrupling, or 1000x the block size. You can't scale such a system to the degree that hierarchical systems do, but other problems plaguing hierarchical systems are dealt with. It's a balancing act.

But you do understand that the whole appeal behind Bitcoin is the fact that it could, potentially, eliminate the need for banks, payment processors, and all the associated expenses, right? That's the part that appeals to people who are not laundering money/running ransomware extortion schemes/buying drugs on DNMs.
Take that away, and what's left is ...yeah, you got it -- straight-up criminal uses.

[QuestionAuthority]

Almost there, I just need a little more push for that $500 a coin I need for Christmas presents. Let's try to have that done by Dec 20 if possible.

[AlexGR]

First off, if/when Bitcoin takes off for real there's going to be nerd cred to be had running a node. And terabytes of what you call bloat only makes it better.

Bloat always makes the situation worse.

Second, if a priority transaction goes significantly up in price it will be less suitable for micropayments for services like access to newspaper articles et al, especially in low-cost countries.

Not for Bitcoin the protocol, but Bitcoin as in BTC, the currency, the BTC blockchain etc.

Gold was currency.
Silver was currency.
Copper was currency.

They were in circulation simultaneously. Why didn't they only have gold or silver coins? Because each thing served a different need.

If transactions go up significantly, there is no problem in having spillover of microtransactions into bitcoin-based altcoins. Faster, cheaper and their blockchain is a far less valuable resource that can be ...discarded in the long run if it bloats to unusable levels.

Third, if you get rid of all the "dust" you get rid of a world of opportunities in the internet of things. It's way too early to limit the network in this way,

The protocol exists for all this world of opportunities. People can still use an alternate chain if they want to use the blockchain to store data, contracts, intellectual property etc etc. There is no "necessity" that it must be done on BTC's blockchain. And it won't be some kind of failure if everything doesn't fit in the BTC blockchain.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[Fatman3001]

problem: it doesn't cost "transaction fees" to use debit card or fiat paper to buy something.

So in real life you have multiple payment systems for different purposes, with multi-tiered costs, speeds etc.

In Bitcoin you want to make from microtransactions to billion $$$ transactions, in the same way, with the same speed, with the same minimal cost. Ah well, give it some time until it gets there, right now it clearly isn't capable to scale to that level. And it won't be by doubling or quadrupling, or 1000x the block size. You can't scale such a system to the degree that hierarchical systems do, but other problems plaguing hierarchical systems are dealt with. It's a balancing act.

But you do understand that the whole appeal behind Bitcoin is the fact that it could, potentially, eliminate the need for banks, payment processors, and all the associated expenses, right? That's the part that appeals to people who are not laundering money/running ransomware extortion schemes/buying drugs on DNMs.
Take that away, and what's left is ...yeah, you got it -- straight-up criminal uses.

You mean it's meant to be something like "A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System"?

Nah, that's pie in the sky thinking.

[aztecminer]

problem: it doesn't cost "transaction fees" to use debit card or fiat paper to buy something.

So in real life you have multiple payment systems for different purposes, with multi-tiered costs, speeds etc.

In Bitcoin you want to make from microtransactions to billion $$$ transactions, in the same way, with the same speed, with the same minimal cost. Ah well, give it some time until it gets there, right now it clearly isn't capable to scale to that level. And it won't be by doubling or quadrupling, or 1000x the block size. You can't scale such a system to the degree that hierarchical systems do, but other problems plaguing hierarchical systems are dealt with. It's a balancing act.

But you do understand that the whole appeal behind Bitcoin is the fact that it could, potentially, eliminate the need for banks, payment processors, and all the associated expenses, right? That's the part that appeals to people who are not laundering money/running ransomware extortion schemes/buying drugs on DNMs.
Take that away, and what's left is ...yeah, you got it -- straight-up criminal uses.

criminals who want to charge a high "transaction fee" every time someone buys something... a better word for it might be "corruption".

[AlexGR]

problem: it doesn't cost "transaction fees" to use debit card or fiat paper to buy something.

So in real life you have multiple payment systems for different purposes, with multi-tiered costs, speeds etc.

In Bitcoin you want to make from microtransactions to billion $$$ transactions, in the same way, with the same speed, with the same minimal cost. Ah well, give it some time until it gets there, right now it clearly isn't capable to scale to that level. And it won't be by doubling or quadrupling, or 1000x the block size. You can't scale such a system to the degree that hierarchical systems do, but other problems plaguing hierarchical systems are dealt with. It's a balancing act.

But you do understand that the whole appeal behind Bitcoin is the fact that it could, potentially, eliminate the need for banks, payment processors, and all the associated expenses, right?

Bitcoin, as a protocol, can do that. But it doesn't need to be ONE chain for everything.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

Mike Hearn's little free shit peed-in-my-pants [snip]

Way to ruin a pretty decent reputation you had here.

I'm getting the impression that an emerging bull market isn't exactly a good influence on your ego. I'm half expecting risto to drop by any moment now, posting about his latest renovation projects.

Not to mention this little nugget.

... nup, just we duh wunt mah-big-blocks massah.

I know I'm going to be accused of being too PC, but the more I look at it the more problematic it looks.

Reminds me a lot of MP.

a proposal its proponents call "segregated witness," which amounts to Jim Crow style prejudice against cryptographic signatures on the blockchain.

I'm sure SW is exactly like state-sanctioned racial oppression.

 

[Ultrafinery]

...
Bitcoin, as a protocol, can do that. But it doesn't need to be ONE chain for everything.

What does that even mean? Bitcoin as the backing in 'bitcoin gold standard'? Why not simply dispense with Bitcoin altogether, and go with a currency which works without Goldbergian kludges? Because there are Chinese chicken coops full of toasty hardware, AKA 'world's most powerful supercomputer'?

Gold was currency.
Silver was currency.
Copper was currency.

Copper? Not really. That's for zerohedgers who wana be goldbugs but ain't got the bux.

When Gustavus' daughter and heir Christina reached maturity at 18, after a brief fling with paper-based money backed by copper—which was well received initially but soon lost credibility—she began issuing copper in lumps as large as fifteen kilograms to serve as currency. Unwieldy as they were, the copper-based monetary system worked to a fashion until the world copper price slumped. Sweden's great copper no longer commanded the premium it once had on world markets, and foreign income dried up. Relative to the rest of Europe, Sweden's people once more had become poor.

[AlexGR]

...
Bitcoin, as a protocol, can do that. But it doesn't need to be ONE chain for everything.

What does that even mean?

Just because one hard disk doesn't fit the world's data it doesn't mean that hard disk drive was a useless invention.

We can still use multiple hard disks, even with their finite capacity limits.

Likewise, we can use multiple blockchains to store transactions and other stuff.

Copper? Not really. That's for zerohedgers who wana be goldbugs but ain't got the bux.

Historically it was. This can't be disputed really.

Gold = high denomination coins
Silver = medium
Copper = small