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

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[1713903725]

1713903725

[1713903725]

1713903725

[soullyG]

Happy New Year!

[Arcteryx]

break that barrier then it will be a happy one indeed for me 

Anyhow,
happy one to the ones who are celebrating, am not there yet as I am on the dark side of the moon in Yukon 

[jbreher]

I provided an explanation, not a definition.

You can't examine people's intentions because, in a sense, that's the core of the issue here. Does the person initiating the transaction actually want to send money, or does he want to spam the blockchain? How the hell can I know that?

Thank you. Exactly.

If there is no observable objective criteria for discriminating between 'legit transactions' and 'bogus transactions', then it is absolutely meaningless to speak of encoding a mechanism in the protocol for rejecting 'bogus transactions'.

[rjclarke2000]

Just a heads up but Bitcoin is still 430ish as it turns 2016. I'm in the UK (so basically the future)


Just letting you Americans know.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

break that barrier then it will be a happy one indeed for me 

Anyhow,
happy one to the ones who are celebrating, am not there yet as I am on the dark side of the moon in Yukon 

Inference to the best explanation: You must be terribly cold.

[fisheater22]

Just a heads up but Bitcoin is still 430ish as it turns 2016. I'm in the UK (so basically the future)


Just letting you Americans know.

You are a very stubborn young man. For the last time, what is the basic principle of your invention? Is the secret of your airplane muffler more important to you than your life?

[rjclarke2000]

Just a heads up but Bitcoin is still 430ish as it turns 2016. I'm in the UK (so basically the future)


Just letting you Americans know.

You are a very stubborn young man. For the last time, what is the basic principle of your invention? Is the secret of your airplane muffler more important to you than your life?

I'll take the young part! Thanks!

[rjclarke2000]

Just a heads up but Bitcoin is still 430ish as it turns 2016. I'm in the UK (so basically the future)


Just letting you Americans know.

Where's your funny accent then?

Oh and I am not northern. I don't have a pilkington accent! I am a southerner.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

Just a heads up but Bitcoin is still 430ish as it turns 2016. I'm in the UK (so basically the future)


Just letting you Americans know.

Where's your funny accent then?

Oh and I am not northern. I don't have a pilkington accent! I am a southerner.

Well then stop dropping your H's. Those are important.

[rjclarke2000]

Just a heads up but Bitcoin is still 430ish as it turns 2016. I'm in the UK (so basically the future)


Just letting you Americans know.

Where's your funny accent then?

Oh and I am not northern. I don't have a pilkington accent! I am a southerner.

Well then stop dropping your H's. Those are important.

Nuff said

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[Arcteryx]

Just a heads up but Bitcoin is still 430ish as it turns 2016. I'm in the UK (so basically the future)


Just letting you Americans know.

Where's your funny accent then?

Oh and I am not northern. I don't have a pilkington accent! I am a southerner.

Well then stop dropping your H's. Those are important.

Lets just admit it, when everybody is drunk they all drop the H's and a F bomb once and a while.

[DrShell]

Happy New Year (little late)

BTC to the Moon 2016 ! (and in person 2020)

Greetings from Austria

[AlexGR]

I provided an explanation, not a definition.

You can't examine people's intentions because, in a sense, that's the core of the issue here. Does the person initiating the transaction actually want to send money, or does he want to spam the blockchain? How the hell can I know that?

Thank you. Exactly.

If there is no observable objective criteria for discriminating between 'legit transactions' and 'bogus transactions', then it is absolutely meaningless to speak of encoding a mechanism in the protocol for rejecting 'bogus transactions'.

The willingness to pay a fee to conduct bogus txs can be a differentiating factor. But that affects only a certain group of actors, not the whole spectrum. Still better than nothing though.

Happy new year

[rjclarke2000]

Happy New Year (little late)

BTC to the Moon 2016 ! (and in person 2020)

Greetings from Austria

Can you please organise some snow in st anton?  I am there snowboarding in 4 weeks and it looks a bit bare!

Thank you kindly.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[Feri22]

Happy New year mofos 

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[JorgeStolfi]

This problem is far worse if blocks were 8MB: an 8MB transaction with 22,500 inputs and 3.95MB of outputs takes over 11 minutes to hash. If you can mine one of those, you can keep competitors off your heels forever, and own the bitcoin network… Well, probably not.  But there’d be a lot of emergency patching, forking and screaming…

And this assuming the initial optimizations completed to speed up Verification!
This means that If we hardforked a 2MB MaxBlockSize increase on the main tree and we softforked/hardforked in SepSig, we would essentially have up to a 8MB limit (3.5MB to 8MB) in which an attack vector could be opened up with heavy input and multisig tx which would crash nodes.

These are edge cases... but edge cases are what attackers use to disrupt the network.

Remember we have to design code to expect the worst and hostile intent, especially for bitcoin which has many extremely powerful adversaries. This is why I have a nuanced view of simultaneously supporting multiple implementations, the conservative approach from the core devs, and eventually increasing the block limit.  

That is small-blockian FUD.  (Rusty is a Blockstream employee, BTW.)

There is an easy fix for that problem: limit the number of inputs and outputs to a sane value.  There is no real need to have more than (say) 16 inputs or 16 outputs.  If one needs more, just use several transactions. 

The problem is that the cost grows like N^2 for N inputs.  Thus the cost for a single 256-input, 1-output  transaction is about 256^2 = 65536 times the cost C for a single-input, single-outout one.  The same effect can be obtained with 17 transactions with 16 inputs each.  The total bytes will be only a bit more, and the validation cost will be 17 x 16^2 = 4352 times C, or 5% of the big one.

IIRC, BitcoinXT already has a limit on the number of inputs (a lot more than 16, but a lot less than 20'000) that solves that problem.  That fix should be in BitcoinCore too; but I would not be surprised if Blockstrea blocked it too.