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

[AZwarel]

Now that i think about it, we might never need a fee market. If bitcoin - the network - became an integral part of international value exchange aka trade, i see bitcoin mining as an auxiliary corporate department in every major commercial hubs. It worth the time to explore this idea.

The incentive here would not be direct BTC income through fees anymore, but the upkeep of an external reward of a scalable, secure and decentralized network of agreements.

[1714839378]

1714839378

[AlexGR]

It´s interesting how we can read the same thing but not read the same thing.

I don't think he meant what you think he meant. Otherwise bitcoin would have no issue right now with, say, 20mb or 100mb blocks. But it does. They won't work in real life. Unless of course you put Bitcoin in 5-10 data centers and then, yes, it'd work. Until the gov comes down and raids the data centers. That would be "awesome"...

Now that i think about it, we might never need a fee market.

Say we don't have fees.

What's stopping me from instering 500 Terabytes of spam for the lolz into the blockchain. Would everyone have to pay the cost of my spamming?

[wachtwoord]

Poor people debating their inabilities of letting go couple dollars fees for their groceries, hoping bitcoin and its technology cares about them. pathetic. ^^

You mean the 3rd world brown poor people with financially and politically oppressive regimes like the other 6 billion who lives from <10 dollars a day, and so will never can use btc and earn financial freedom with "only a couple dollars tx fee, which costs more than the actual grocery".

Or only the western white type of poor people?

Bitcoin is not for poor people. When it grows big enough it will be unavailable for most of the middle class too. That's fine.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[AZwarel]

It´s interesting how we can read the same thing but not read the same thing.

I don't think he meant what you think he meant. Otherwise bitcoin would have no issue right now with, say, 20mb or 100mb blocks. But it does. They won't work in real life. Unless of course you put Bitcoin in 5-10 data centers and then, yes, it'd work. Until the gov comes down and raids the data centers. That would be "awesome"...

Now that i think about it, we might never need a fee market.

Say we don't have fees.

What's stopping me from instering 500 Terabytes of spam for the lolz into the blockchain.

That is not what i said. There still will be fee, but it won't be the main factor in constraining tx output. Fee today is what you (and btw was intended as by satoshi) said exactly: spam prevention. Not to mention, if 1 block reaches 1000MB, that is around 250,000 tx x 0,0001 fee, which is 2,5 BTC per block. You can either raise the number of tx/block, or cost of fee /tx, or both to reach mining income. Why you speculate that only fee cost/tx can go up, not tx/block as well to pay miners?

Why would be only 5-10, or only 500 nodes? There is no factual data to support that claim at all. There are more than 6000 nodes today, run by voluntaries. Why those with a few hundred bucks and good connection won't run one in the future, especially as we can speculate hardware keeps getting better and cheaper? Who thought we will streaming HD+ videos today for giggles?

Again, no experimental data available to argue there will be less nodes in the future if we scale up the network - which is logically contradicting, 100x more users would suggest 100x potential node runners. FUD speculation.

[AZwarel]

Poor people debating their inabilities of letting go couple dollars fees for their groceries, hoping bitcoin and its technology cares about them. pathetic. ^^

You mean the 3rd world brown poor people with financially and politically oppressive regimes like the other 6 billion who lives from <10 dollars a day, and so will never can use btc and earn financial freedom with "only a couple dollars tx fee, which costs more than the actual grocery".

Or only the western white type of poor people?

Bitcoin is not for poor people. When it grows big enough it will be unavailable for most of the middle class too. That's fine.

Define. You mean 1 BTC (100,000,000 satoshis) will be too expensive, or downloading a wallet and transact in the Bitcoin network will be unavailable for "poor people"?
And how exactly will it grow big, without "most of middle class" participate in it to grow? Or you hypotise that only dollar millionaries are buying/holding bitcoin today? How exactly that works out in your mind? Seriously..

[AlexGR]

Why would be only 5-10, or only 500 nodes? There is no factual data to support that claim at all.

Everyone can have a p2p client that deals with 10kb/sec, has 100 mb storage requirements, needs 1 small cpu and 256mb ram. As you go up and up in hw requirements, cost goes up, "volunteers" go down - even if userbase goes up. As you hit datacenter level requirements the number of "volunteers" starts dropping significantly because costs start running in the 5 digit, then 6 digit category and eventually you'll be paying millions.

[Andre#]

It's not clear if he meant < 0.01 USD or < 0.01 BTC, but given that in August 2010 1 BTC was worth less than 0.07 USD, lets assume 0.01 USD.

If you click the link, you'll see the discussion was from a question of a member about what does the 0.01 btc fee solve in terms of antispamming and how this would prevent microtransactions etc, and satoshi explains that it is intentionally limiting them.

=>

What exactly is this 'dust spam' that this 0.01BTC transaction fee "solving"?
It seems to do more harm than good because it prevents micropayment implementations such as the one bytemaster is suggesting.

In any case, I wouldn't take it as a fixed value. I mean if BTC goes to 10.000 dollars, 0.01 BTC is meaningless as a limit (it's 100$).

So the suggested anti-spam fee was 0.0007 USD. That doesn't prevent microtransactions. It prevents nanotransactions. Surely, it wasn't meant as 0.01 BTC irrespective of the rising value of BTC. It would mean that the anti-spam fee would be independent from the value of the fee -- that makes no sense whatsoever.

I few days ago I wanted to jump the queue. I paid 0.55 USD with my Mycelium wallet.

See? It works as Satoshi said

No, because the normal fee of 0.01 USD is already way more than the anti-spam threshold fee of 0.0007 USD (i.e. 0.01 BTC @ August 2010).

[AlexGR]

No, because the normal fee of 0.01 USD is already way more than the anti-spam threshold fee of 0.0007 USD (i.e. 0.01 BTC @ August 2010).

The point was that you simply pay the fee and skip the flood attack. Obviously if the flooders are paying fees to get accepted in the mempool due to the current or future antispam limit (as low or high it may be), you have to pay more than them to get ahead.

[AZwarel]

Why would be only 5-10, or only 500 nodes? There is no factual data to support that claim at all.

Everyone can have a p2p client that deals with 10kb/sec, has 100 mb storage requirements, needs 1 small cpu and 256mb ram. As you go up and up in hw requirements, cost goes up, "volunteers" go down - even if userbase goes up. As you hit datacenter level requirements the number of "volunteers" starts dropping significantly because costs start running in the 5 digit, then 6 digit category and eventually you'll be paying millions.

Everyone can, and yet, they don't. Also, this isn't USSR, everyone can not have the same capacities, yet 100 million people have 1GB/sec connection with nTB storage capacity today, so we have a lot of room to improve. Also, it might cost 6 digits money to run a datacenter TODAY. In ten years, it easily could be 3-4 digits, as it happened multiple times before.

You can not selectively extrapolate present->future data pairs: if p2p client requirements increase 100x fold in the future you also have to speculate future capacity increases/ cost decreases as well!

Of course, i agree that scaling optimally should follow the speed of capacity increase, aka technical constrains on economy of scale. The point i disagree is that the technical side also will and is increasing, making it possible to scale up, for example blocksize right now.

[Andre#]

I totally agree. It seems some bitcoiners forget we have some duties outside here. We can't live with just btc.

I'm paid through a bank, I pay my taxes through banks... There is no other way.

This could be a nice meme though... split screen shows a guy with a happy face and has a caption like "Doesn't complain for paying XXX in bank fees per month", the other side shows him using btc and yelling at the screen with a caption like "Gets furious at 'smallblockers' due to paying 0.16$ fee for a BTC tx".

Something like that...

The hypocrisy, some times, is mind-blowing. And I'm not talking about specific users, you, or someone else - I mean generally.

Hypocrisy? Let me see... Fees are supposed to replace the block reward, even when blocks stay at 1 MB. So 1 MB of transactions should yield 25 BTC in fees. On average, 1700 tx fit in a full block. So 1 tx requires a fee of 25/1700 = 0.0145 BTC, which is atm $5.58. That's 35x more than $0.16. I won't get upset over $0.16, but more than $5 is quite something else.

[AZwarel]

I totally agree. It seems some bitcoiners forget we have some duties outside here. We can't live with just btc.

I'm paid through a bank, I pay my taxes through banks... There is no other way.

This could be a nice meme though... split screen shows a guy with a happy face and has a caption like "Doesn't complain for paying XXX in bank fees per month", the other side shows him using btc and yelling at the screen with a caption like "Gets furious at 'smallblockers' due to paying 0.16$ fee for a BTC tx".

Something like that...

The hypocrisy, some times, is mind-blowing. And I'm not talking about specific users, you, or someone else - I mean generally.

Hypocrisy? Let me see... Fees are supposed to replace the block reward, even when blocks stay at 1 MB. So 1 MB of transactions should yield 25 BTC in fees. On average, 1700 tx fit in a full block. So 1 tx requires a fee of 25/1700 = 0.0145 BTC, which is atm $5.58. That's 35x more than $0.16. I won't get upset over $0.16, but more than $5 is quite something else.

Exactly, and if you do a percentage count. to move like 200$ which can not be said dust, that is a 2,7%+ fee, something like credit cards. So whats the point? :-)

For a hundred bucks it goes up to 5,4%+ which is nearing western union level.

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

what a day. Just heard a rumour that Blockstream may be having their next tranche of funding cancelled, and then I almost die laughing at brg444 on his knees begging chinese miners to stay with core...

And I mean BEGGING...

SW, at it's theoretical maximum, will force you to transmit 4MB worth of data for only a 1.75MB maximum gain in tx's and associated fees.  how does that help you vs a simple blocksize increase to 4MB worth of pure tx's and fees?

This is a complete lie and misfabrication.

macbook-air please, if you are wang chun, do consult with the Core devs.

Segwit is the most responsible way to end this dead lock for now and will provide for ample time and headroom to optimize the propagation problems so that a 2MB hard fork may go through with absolute network consensus down the road.

There is still clear dissent amongst users about a contentious hard fork and while miners may agree it would create a bad precedent for you to force this on the community.  

(of course he starts off begging, but then just straight up threatens them!!  lolz   )

p.s. whats a 'misfabrication'? Is that like a double negative - so its the truth    

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[r0ach]

Or only the western white type of poor people?

When I created Bitcoin, I designed it as the world's first welfare system for Caucasian and Asian men, since nobody else was serving that market.

[AlexGR]

Everyone can, and yet, they don't.

No incentives. Yet if you look at an altcoin (dash), its masternode network has around 4000 nodes due to getting part of the block subsidy.

Also, this isn't USSR, everyone can not have the same capacities, yet 100 million people have 1GB/sec connection with nTB storage capacity today, so we have a lot of room to improve. Also, it might cost 6 digits money to run a datacenter TODAY. In ten years, it easily could be 3-4 digits, as it happened multiple times before.

If the data and network requirements keep exploding, and network/storage/cpu capabilities are at the same progression rate, costs will be similar or higher.

Now, if there is a breakthrough in technology or in BTC scaling efficiency, that would be another issue altogether.

Hypocrisy? Let me see... Fees are supposed to replace the block reward, even when blocks stay at 1 MB. So 1 MB of transactions should yield 25 BTC in fees. On average, 1700 tx fit in a full block. So 1 tx requires a fee of 25/1700 = 0.0145 BTC, which is atm $5.58. That's 35x more than $0.16. I won't get upset over $0.16, but more than $5 is quite something else.

Personally I expect that subsidy reduction will mostly be covered by price increase in BTC.

Mining 50 BTC that cost 10$ gets you 500$.
Mining 25 BTC that cost 500$ gets you 10.000$ (do you mind that you are now getting 12.500 vs 500 per block? No. I thought so)
Mining 12.5 BTC that cost 6.000$, gets you 75.000$

...the only question will be what it costs for the miner (in terms of capex + opex) to get the block reward, due to diff increases and mining competition which will, in turn, eat the theoretical profit of a higher btc price.

As far as fees are concerned, we'll see how it goes. We are somewhat far from the point of replacing the subsidy and by that time a lot will have changed, both in blocksize and scaling solutions.

[fisheater22]

what a day. Just heard a rumour that Blockstream may be having their next tranche of funding cancelled, and then I almost die laughing at brg444 on his knees begging chinese minors to stay with core...

And I mean BEGGING...
[...]

[JorgeStolfi]

Funny how for someone not "believing" in bitcoin you still cling on religiously to what Satoshi intended/said/meant or not and based on a 8 years old WP.

As I wrote, it is not that Satoshi's words and ideas are "sacred", but they help understand why bitcoin is the way it is -- and see more clearly the features that may render it unsuitable for specific uses. 

And, as I may have written many times, I could have loved bitcoin as it was in 2009: an experiment on a new kind of payment system, run by an open set of uncoordinated anonymous volunteers, stabilized by its incentives, etc..  But I cannot like the monster into which it has mutated. 

I could like it again if it somehow returned to the original plan -- with 10 times as many users perhaps than it had in mid-2010, and with the price 10 times higher, at about 0.50 USD/BTC;  bit without speculative trading, and without for-profit mining...

[CuntChocula]

...
For a hundred bucks it goes up to 5,4%+ which is nearing western union level.

Economic freedom, like any commodity, is worth what the market is willing to pay for it.

[Morecoin Freeman]

Another painful leg down in bitcoin?