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

[marcus_of_augustus]

As/when the blocks fill up with real demand then the empty blocks will start getting used because the fees will incentivise the miners to develop more efficient software that will queue profitable enough waiting transactions to be mined immediately into the next block. You need to leave them in for your analysis ...

[1714055825]

1714055825

[rebuilder]

Stupid question: Why are miners including 0-fee transactions in blocks at all? AFAIK, they can refuse to do so regardless of max blocksize.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[jbreher]

Until we have a significant volume of multisig, SegWit's putting the signatures outside the block size accounting does nothing for scalability. SegWit's '3-4x for multisig' is completely dependent upon the proportion of multisig transactions, is it not?

Yes, fee market pressure could drive more to multisig which would increase capacity from 1.75x to somewhere between 2-3x as blocks will unlikely be mostly filled with SepSig.

No. My point is that multisig necessarily _increases_ the size of a transaction - by replacing one signature with several. SegWit's 3-4x claim for multisig is based only upon the fact that they don't count the signature portion of the transaction in the 'block size' accounting. If there are no -- or an insignificant number -- of multisig transactions, then SegWit's claimed 3-4x due to multisig is either zero, or an insignificant amount, respectively.

In a world where multisig is the norm, yes SegWit will have an effective transaction count increase. But here in the real world, where multisig is very little, MultiSig's claim of 3-4x increase is smoke and mirrors.

[Fatman3001]

Stupid question: Why are miners including 0-fee transactions in blocks at all? AFAIK, they can refuse to do so regardless of max blocksize.

Because they are paid to do so through block rewards. Plus, some pools are concerned with their own and Bitcoins image.

Edit: When I re-read my post it sounded a bit terse. That was not my intention. Large scale miners are HEAVILY invested in Bitcoin. They've got facilities, equipment, employees, and long term deals with electricity providers and isp's. They're not here for the quick scam. Most of them (the ones acting rationally) will not do anything to hurt Bitcoin.

[makingwin1]

Coin



Explanation

its strange to see such a big difference of 2 dollars between two exchanges how manipulators dont make them nearly the same?

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

Stupid question: Why are miners including 0-fee transactions in blocks at all? AFAIK, they can refuse to do so regardless of max blocksize.

Because they are paid to do so through block rewards. Plus, some pools are concerned with their own and Bitcoins image.

Edit: When I re-read my post it sounded a bit terse. That was not my intention. Large scale miners are HEAVILY invested in Bitcoin. They've got facilities, equipment, employees, and long term deals with electricity providers and isp's. They're not here for the quick scam. Most of them (the ones acting rationally) will not do anything to hurt Bitcoin.

These technical discussions have really improved the quality of posts here. I'm starting to feel like maybe I should relegate myself to Reddit.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[Fatman3001]

Stupid question: Why are miners including 0-fee transactions in blocks at all? AFAIK, they can refuse to do so regardless of max blocksize.

Because they are paid to do so through block rewards. Plus, some pools are concerned with their own and Bitcoins image.

Edit: When I re-read my post it sounded a bit terse. That was not my intention. Large scale miners are HEAVILY invested in Bitcoin. They've got facilities, equipment, employees, and long term deals with electricity providers and isp's. They're not here for the quick scam. Most of them (the ones acting rationally) will not do anything to hurt Bitcoin.

These technical discussions have really improved the quality of posts here. I'm starting to feel like maybe I should relegate myself to Reddit.

Don't worry. Soon the price will start climbing and we'll all be posting sexist images and throwing poo at each other again.

[BitUsher]

Until we have a significant volume of multisig, SegWit's putting the signatures outside the block size accounting does nothing for scalability. SegWit's '3-4x for multisig' is completely dependent upon the proportion of multisig transactions, is it not?

Yes, fee market pressure could drive more to multisig which would increase capacity from 1.75x to somewhere between 2-3x as blocks will unlikely be mostly filled with SepSig.

No. My point is that multisig necessarily _increases_ the size of a transaction - by replacing one signature with several. SegWit's 3-4x claim for multisig is based only upon the fact that they don't count the signature portion of the transaction in the 'block size' accounting. If there are no -- or an insignificant number -- of multisig transactions, then SegWit's claimed 3-4x due to multisig is either zero, or an insignificant amount, respectively.

In a world where multisig is the norm, yes SegWit will have an effective transaction count increase. But here in the real world, where multisig is very little, MultiSig's claim of 3-4x increase is smoke and mirrors.

This is a fair point upon consideration ... thus we should assume SepSig increases capacity to 1.75-2MB.

[LFC_Bitcoin]

Stupid question: Why are miners including 0-fee transactions in blocks at all? AFAIK, they can refuse to do so regardless of max blocksize.

No idea but I don't know why people are still doing 0 fee transactions now.

[niktitan132]

It looks like it's coming back up to me.
$500 by next month?
Reality or pipe dream?

[2legit2]

It looks like it's coming back up to me.
$500 by next month?
Reality or pipe dream?

im pretty sure it is reality as the price is stable so it can start growing easily

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

Stupid question: Why are miners including 0-fee transactions in blocks at all? AFAIK, they can refuse to do so regardless of max blocksize.

Because they are paid to do so through block rewards. Plus, some pools are concerned with their own and Bitcoins image.

Edit: When I re-read my post it sounded a bit terse. That was not my intention. Large scale miners are HEAVILY invested in Bitcoin. They've got facilities, equipment, employees, and long term deals with electricity providers and isp's. They're not here for the quick scam. Most of them (the ones acting rationally) will not do anything to hurt Bitcoin.

These technical discussions have really improved the quality of posts here. I'm starting to feel like maybe I should relegate myself to Reddit.

Don't worry. Soon the price will start climbing and we'll all be posting sexist images and throwing poo at each other again.

I can now be found in the Humanities section.

[Richy_T]

So I see no issue with including them.

The issue is that they cause the situation to be represented inaccurately. Say we had a backlog sufficiently large that we could fill a hundred blocks. Each block could legitimately be mined up to close to the full block limit of 1000000. Somewhere around 5-7 blocks mined in an hour's sample should honestly produce an aggregate average block fill of 99/100%.

Now, consider that if 3 empty blocks get thrown out there on top of those 5-7 (empty blocks tend to get mined very quickly since miners will usually start mining in transactions asap), that pulls the percentage down to maybe 70%. The question is, is that a fair representation of the situation?

My inclination is to regard empty blocks as NOOPs and exclude them from the calculation. Though I would probably indicate that empty blocks were found.

[fisheater22]

When I re-read my post it sounded a bit terse. That was not my intention.

Aaaghhh!!!

[Fatman3001]

Stupid question: Why are miners including 0-fee transactions in blocks at all? AFAIK, they can refuse to do so regardless of max blocksize.

Because they are paid to do so through block rewards. Plus, some pools are concerned with their own and Bitcoins image.

Edit: When I re-read my post it sounded a bit terse. That was not my intention. Large scale miners are HEAVILY invested in Bitcoin. They've got facilities, equipment, employees, and long term deals with electricity providers and isp's. They're not here for the quick scam. Most of them (the ones acting rationally) will not do anything to hurt Bitcoin.

These technical discussions have really improved the quality of posts here. I'm starting to feel like maybe I should relegate myself to Reddit.

Don't worry. Soon the price will start climbing and we'll all be posting sexist images and throwing poo at each other again.

I can now be found in the Humanities section.

Sorry for bombing your thread.

[Fatman3001]

When I re-read my post it sounded a bit terse. That was not my intention.

Aaaghhh!!!

Took you long enough.

[JayJuanGee]

It looks like it's coming back up to me.
$500 by next month?
Reality or pipe dream?

Based on low volume and the almost non-movement of BTC price in the past few days, I kept considering that the price was preparing for a dump of 1 to 2 %... like  odds of 55%/45%.   

Currently, my thinking is sort of reversing, but not strong, and I am leaning more towards and upsurge in price by maybe 1 or 2%.. odds of... that would be about 55%/45%.. only a feeling and I'm not really sure as you can see by my numbers...

Also, a long weekend, can cause a certain amount of waiting until the end of the weekend to make some attempts at a high volume push in one direction or another.. but sometimes it seems that the big players may each be waiting for some other big player to act first, but no one bigger player wants to act first at this time, so we await in a kind of limbo land in which we do not know whether one or more big players have a plan to attempt a push of the price.

[Richy_T]

Ideally I'd like to see both versions plus a snapshot of the mempool size. Or a version without empty blocks, number of empty blocks for that period, and a snapshot of the mempool size... but that sounds like a lot of work.

Actually surprisingly little. I'll see if I can do it and work out JJG's size increase. Also, there's a bug which nobody seems to have noticed yet