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

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

Stop disingenuously conflating the SW soft-fork with an actual 2MB block limit hard fork. Just stop it - it's totally transparent.

adam3usAdam Back - Bitcoin Dev & Blockstream President 1 point 38 minutes ago

It is intended to be transparent: one is a ~2MB soft-fork the other is a 2MB hard-fork. Consensus is for the soft-fork first. That should not be controversial in a normal upgrade, all previous upgrades to Bitcoin have been soft-forks too.

[Richy_T]

With my feelings of aging,  10-15% larger would be a little better.

I will see what I can do. I was just picking rough values when I did it.

[AlexGR]

...even if the blocks are full with bogus transactions.

Please provide a definition of 'bogus transaction'. Without such, I am unable to understand your argument.

A very simple or simplistic explanation:

If I want to buy something, I need to pay. That's a valid reason for making a transaction so that transaction isn't bogus.

Now, if I start sending dust between my wallets, in thousands of transactions, in a meaningless way (as far as real-life transactions go), just to generate spam, clog the network etc => that's plenty of bogus transactions right there.

[tomothy]

Market prices tend to rise with increased demand. That is a market function. And when you are still lower than your closest competitor, people will still prefer your service over theirs. If a bank wire costs 10$ and takes days and a btc transfer costs 1$ and takes minutes, why would I use SWIFT instead of BTC?

True, Bitcoin today enjoys a 91% market share of crypto. However, in the overall scope of a USD $7B asset class adrift in a many-$T sea, that market share is not unassailable. Indeed, should the masses finally decide to adopt crypto, I would expect them to adopt one that they can actually _use_, rather than one that prevents them from participating due to an arbitrary limitation. Any of dozens of shitcoins are waiting in the wings to meet this market need, jealously awaiting a chance to procure adoption by delivering real value in comparison to Bitcoin.

What will happen, at most, is that shitcoins will be used for low-value txs and btc will be used for high value txs. You want to gamble for a few cents => you use a shitcoin. You want to buy a chewing gum => you use a shitcoin. You want to transfer 500$ or $5 mn, you use BTC.

Why?

If everyone uses litecoin why would Bitcoin be better for larger transactions?

Isn't this similar to arguing about apples and oranges?
To me, it seems more likely that since crypto currencies occupy multiple spaces in realty, both a unit with inherent value, a representative direct transfer of said inherent value, and as a secure proof of existence ledger based on the security/hash power of the underlying item, that use cases would naturally gravitate to these options?

so with an altcoin like litecoin, it has a relatively fast transfer speed and nominal value worth but on the other hand, it's hash-power isn't necessarily as strong as bitcoin

then you have bitcoin which has a slower transfer speed, but possibly due to scarcity and first mover recognition, larger fiat value, but more importantly operates as a stronger public ledger.

so, if you are going to buy a cup of coffee, or transact a nominal value equivalent of a cup of coffee, or register an item of similar value, and then record that or transfer it to another individual, there are certain use cases which will naturally lend themselves to this option as they do not need enormous security behind it

on the other hand
if you are buying a car, or leasing a car, or perhaps a fleet of cars, or a multi-year,million dollar commercial property lease; this is a deal with significant financial liability associated with it; here as time is not necessarily an immediate concern but the concern is more over the duration of the contractual option and that proof of two parties entering into this agreement, you would want something harder to tamper with and more secure, which naturally would lead you to supporting a blockchain with more hash power.

I think you are missing my point. First, let us strike 'litecoin' from the discussion, as it only serves as a standin for 'some unspecified altcoin'. Next, let us dispense with 'speed of transaction' - most cryptos have essentially instantaneous transactions, with confirmations taking some time, and a 4x speedup in confirmation is meaningless from the standpoint of real use cases.

The issue is that there is no good reason for multiple blockchains. If you put 'little' transactions on one blockchain, and 'large' transactions on another blockchain, it makes no difference. Anyone who wishes to have trustless operation on both blockchains will need to have a full node for both blockchains. No reduction in overall resource demands.

But mostly, as the alt gains use due to fulfilling use cases that Bitcoin refuses to fulfill, it will necessarily rise in utility value (that's a tautology). With increased utility value, I posit that it will also increase in monetary value. Such will attract miners. Probably at the expense of Bitcoin losing miners. Such will accelerate to the point where the security position between Bitcoin and the alt will flip. At which point, there be no advantage whatsoever that Bitcoin can claim. Net result: Bitcoin would be abandoned forthwith, with complete collapse in monetary value of its associated token.

IOW, advocating a 'low value' alt to absorb all the 'small' transactions is suicidal.

I think you're point has significant merit but at the same time you can't waive a magic wand and eliminate speed of transaction from the real world equation. Transactions seem to be prioritized, in part, based on what, if any fee, is associated with them. If you use BTC and your transaction had a small fee, it might take significantly longer to confirm then if you paid more or used an altcoin. To some people, this has value, look at HFT. In a similar fashion, your later point assumes that sidechains will eliminate the need for other coins which offer differing values of utility (or I thought it was your point, I can't find it anymore lol).
We have to first share a commun understanding of what the system we are discussing is/does/maturity level, does it have fully implemented side chains? Have we eliminated the block reward or rather 'exhausted it'; does it fully function based off fees now? What is the fiat/value of the underlying commodity? Who are the mining conglomerates, what country do they operate from, and do their nation state interests correlate with the rest of the world or my location's interests?

Depending on the answer to these questions, there could be significant value in alternative blockchains which are able to survive simply off the crumbs of the main blockchain. Some people throw out there redeemable cans but other people can use them. Hypotehtically, a satoshi in future could cost more than it would to propagate a transaction on an alternative blockchain. Bitcoin banned in XYZ coutnry but no Countrycoin and there happens to be an exchange facilitating conversion between the two? All of a sudden, multiple block chains start to have merit.


Your assumptions also seems to neglect the fact that people like choices. Coke/Pepsi, Visa/Mastercard/Amex/Discover. Some people find value in simply having a backup, hence people might carry, both a mastercard AND amex ( SHOCK AND AWE!). But regardless, people still have brand loyalty. Maybe I only drink pepsi, but if I'm out for drinks at a restuarant, and my choices are coke or no drink; I might go with the coke. However, that decision takes nothing away from pepsi, as pepsi was never on option. Pepsi pepsi hamburger...

" shitcoins will be used for low-valuesecurity/importance txs and btc will be used for high value security/importance txs."

Sure some miners will goto a coin with more value, but that doesn't necessarily equate to more profitability. If the coin has a significant influx of miners, difficulty rises, and your profits will be less.

I guess what i'm trying to say, is, I need help understanding why there should be only one coin. I think you can have too many coins, but just having one doesn't seem to make sense.

[Arcteryx]

 

Liking your new look there, Richy.

+1.  Enjoying the onscreen evolution too!  

WTF is that   Punk yellow 
it is hard on the eyes. Try a royal blue approach  
Don't listen to me I am in a pre-drunk phase for the appending new year.  

[tomothy]

...even if the blocks are full with bogus transactions.

Please provide a definition of 'bogus transaction'. Without such, I am unable to understand your argument.

A very simple or simplistic explanation:

If I want to buy something, I need to pay. That's a valid reason for making a transaction so that transaction isn't bogus.

Now, if I start sending dust between my wallets, in thousands of transactions, in a meaningless way (as far as real-life transactions go), just to generate spam, clog the network etc => that's plenty of bogus transactions right there.

I guess I agree with you in theory but need more clarification. Can dust transactions serve a purpose? Do they ever serve a purpose? For example, could someone else's dust transaction also include like a time/date/stamp of an event taking place? Or, essentially, by including such event information, it would transform the dust transaction into a larger transaction, and therefore not be dust? Did that make sense?

[Cconvert2G36]

...even if the blocks are full with bogus transactions.

Please provide a definition of 'bogus transaction'. Without such, I am unable to understand your argument.

A very simple or simplistic explanation:

If I want to buy something, I need to pay. That's a valid reason for making a transaction so that transaction isn't bogus.

Now, if I start sending dust between my wallets, in thousands of transactions, in a meaningless way (as far as real-life transactions go), just to generate spam, clog the network etc => that's plenty of bogus transactions right there.

Who do you need to pay? The miner.

Who should decide how much you need to pay them? The miner.

Who is attempting to centrally plan production quotas? Core developers with a conflict of interest that is glaring you in the face.

[AlexGR]

...even if the blocks are full with bogus transactions.

Please provide a definition of 'bogus transaction'. Without such, I am unable to understand your argument.

A very simple or simplistic explanation:

If I want to buy something, I need to pay. That's a valid reason for making a transaction so that transaction isn't bogus.

Now, if I start sending dust between my wallets, in thousands of transactions, in a meaningless way (as far as real-life transactions go), just to generate spam, clog the network etc => that's plenty of bogus transactions right there.

Who do you need to pay? The miner.

I meant the seller I'm not talking about fees here.

[tomothy]

...even if the blocks are full with bogus transactions.

Please provide a definition of 'bogus transaction'. Without such, I am unable to understand your argument.

A very simple or simplistic explanation:

If I want to buy something, I need to pay. That's a valid reason for making a transaction so that transaction isn't bogus.

Now, if I start sending dust between my wallets, in thousands of transactions, in a meaningless way (as far as real-life transactions go), just to generate spam, clog the network etc => that's plenty of bogus transactions right there.

Who do you need to pay? The miner.

Who should decide how much you need to pay them? The miner.

Who is attempting to centrally plan production quotas? Core developers with a conflict of interest that is glaring you in the face.

thanks, that makes sense. happy miner, happy blockchain. So, he who controls the means of production...

[Cconvert2G36]

...even if the blocks are full with bogus transactions.

Please provide a definition of 'bogus transaction'. Without such, I am unable to understand your argument.

A very simple or simplistic explanation:

If I want to buy something, I need to pay. That's a valid reason for making a transaction so that transaction isn't bogus.

Now, if I start sending dust between my wallets, in thousands of transactions, in a meaningless way (as far as real-life transactions go), just to generate spam, clog the network etc => that's plenty of bogus transactions right there.

Who do you need to pay? The miner.

I meant the seller I'm not talking about fees here.

Does sending dust between wallets in thousands of transactions require fees? There is no distinction for the miner, pay the fee they require and your transaction is just as legitimate as any other.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[AlexGR]

...even if the blocks are full with bogus transactions.

Please provide a definition of 'bogus transaction'. Without such, I am unable to understand your argument.

A very simple or simplistic explanation:

If I want to buy something, I need to pay. That's a valid reason for making a transaction so that transaction isn't bogus.

Now, if I start sending dust between my wallets, in thousands of transactions, in a meaningless way (as far as real-life transactions go), just to generate spam, clog the network etc => that's plenty of bogus transactions right there.

Who do you need to pay? The miner.

I meant the seller I'm not talking about fees here.

Does sending dust between wallets in thousands of transactions require fees? There is no distinction for the miner, pay the fee they require and your transaction is just as legitimate as any other.

Some miners might process junk for free* or near-zero cost. Others won't even process higher fee txs. As it stands, the answer is "it depends".

* I recently consolidated some of my dust into one address for free.

[JayJuanGee]

With my feelings of aging,  10-15% larger would be a little better.

I will see what I can do. I was just picking rough values when I did it.

Thanks...

Your various chartbuddy innovations are very helpful to our whole discussions and can be valuable towards keeping us somewhat grounded in facts (to the extent that any of us are willing or capable of being grounded)

[Cconvert2G36]

Does sending dust between wallets in thousands of transactions require fees? There is no distinction for the miner, pay the fee they require and your transaction is just as legitimate as any other.

Some miners might process junk for free or near-zero cost. Others won't even process higher fee txs. As it stands, the answer is "it depends".

Bloating up a block with free transactions does have a cost to a miner in terms of propagation and verification time. By bloating a block they risk being orphaned by a longer chain of smaller blocks, costing them 25BTC. A very strong natural incentive to keep blocks at a reasonable size.

I'd expect that if the hardcoded max is increased, you'd see blocks largely the same size that they are now, perhaps at times of peak use and increasing fees they'd be slightly bigger.

A higher limit makes it harder/more expensive for a spammer to price out all legitimate transactions.

[Richy_T]

WTF is that   Punk yellow 
it is hard on the eyes. Try a royal blue approach  
Don't listen to me I am in a pre-drunk phase for the appending new year.  

Just orange. It seems to be in fashion right now.

[Richy_T]

Some miners might process junk for free* or near-zero cost. Others won't even process higher fee txs. As it stands, the answer is "it depends".

* I recently consolidated some of my dust into one address for free.

Those zero-cost transactions are heavily subsidized by the block reward currently. Which is going away in time. Fees are an afterthought at the moment.

[fisheater22]

... I think you're point has significant merit ...

I liek the cut of you're jib

[Cconvert2G36]

Some miners might process junk for free* or near-zero cost. Others won't even process higher fee txs. As it stands, the answer is "it depends".

* I recently consolidated some of my dust into one address for free.

Those zero-cost transactions are heavily subsidized by the block reward currently. Which is going away in time. Fees are an afterthought at the moment.

For the time being... there's also something called priority, calculated from age and size of inputs.

This should be about planning for the future, a happy future where demand for cheap frictionless bitcoin payments continues to grow.

If we're happy about today's # of uses, users, and transactions... 1.75MB equiv will be plenty.

[jbreher]

...even if the blocks are full with bogus transactions.

Please provide a definition of 'bogus transaction'. Without such, I am unable to understand your argument.

A very simple or simplistic explanation:

If I want to buy something, I need to pay. That's a valid reason for making a transaction so that transaction isn't bogus.

Now, if I start sending dust between my wallets, in thousands of transactions, in a meaningless way (as far as real-life transactions go), just to generate spam, clog the network etc => that's plenty of bogus transactions right there.

Definition fail. A definition needs to be precise, such that I may objectively determine whether or not a transaction is bogus by examining it. What are the objective observable characteristics of a bogus transaction?

[fisheater22]

If we're happy about today's # of uses, users, and transactions... 1.75MB equiv will be plenty.

When all of the world's wealth is stored in bitcoin (sometime in 2017), fewer users = richer users. That's the third law of thermodynamics.