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

[hdbuck]

I think btc will boom in the near future.

Look at the altcoin market people.

I think shit is gonna hit the fan soon.

i just do not see how bitcoin can do anything if it can't scale.. right now i am trying to figure out how cutting the mining of coins will make a difference if bitcoin cannot scale. last year we were talking about this scaling issue was supposed to be fixed early this year.. we are moving into February and where's the fix ?? bitcoin is worth $400 even though it cant scale ..

Sorry if I seem stupid but... What do you mean about scaling? The fact that blocks are full?

bitcoin cannot continue to grow because it cannot handle the additional traffic . #gimpcoin

Such broken thinking. What are you still doing around? Sell now.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[Richy_T]

I was thinking that an ideal way to eliminate spam would be for the miners/nodes to agree to not process txs that use a fee lower than 10 cents. We'd probably go down to 200-600kb blocks right away (depending the load) with plenty of room to spare - and probably everything would go in in the first block. But having prices in USD doesn't work in terms of code (which deals with BTC fractions).

It's all price controls and cartels with you, isn't it?

[Andre#]

I have not yet seen a single cryptocurrency that hasn't resorted to dev intervention under circumstances of bloat/flood attack. Whether it is about fees or block size, something has to give in order to stop it or restrain it.

Which flood attack? The couple of "stress tests" that we had last year?

The network is in constant saturation by dust and spam that want to be processed for free or near zero cost. A stress test is just a more focused version of the same issue.

Near-zero to zero fee txs equals near-zero to zero fee attacks. Attacks which do not have serious economic disincentives betray a broken underlying game theory.

If that's a problem, a minimum fee should be introduced.

It is a problem but we also face political pressure. You can get crucified for doing the right fee with populist bullshit like "ohhh the devs are raising the fees, they want to make BTC expensive for users" crap.

If I look at the last eight blocks (395,151-395,158) I see that 16,093 tx were processed for a fee of 3.08 BTC. That's 0.000191 BTC/tx or USD 0.0766 . I'm not sure how much zero-fee transactions are in there, but with an average of 7.7 cents, how much higher should the minimum fee bee in your opinion?

Free or nearly free txs = free or nearly free abuse. If you allow that = you are a joke coin that can be attacked by script-kiddies.

In BTC the last line of defense, in absence of serious fees requirement, is the block size.

[...]

I was thinking that an ideal way to eliminate spam would be for the miners/nodes to agree to not process txs that use a fee lower than 10 cents. We'd probably go down to 200-600kb blocks right away (depending the load) with plenty of room to spare - and probably everything would go in in the first block. But having prices in USD doesn't work in terms of code (which deals with BTC fractions).

10 cents is a lot, I think. But apparently 7.7 is already the average, so there's little in between.

One thing I don't understand. If big blocks are such an issue for Chinese miners, why don't they refuse to include tx with too low a fee?

[AlexGR]

I was thinking that an ideal way to eliminate spam would be for the miners/nodes to agree to not process txs that use a fee lower than 10 cents. We'd probably go down to 200-600kb blocks right away (depending the load) with plenty of room to spare - and probably everything would go in in the first block. But having prices in USD doesn't work in terms of code (which deals with BTC fractions).

It's all price controls and cartels with you, isn't it?

It's about game theory and economic disincentives in order to defend against system(+atic) abuse. If you read the Ethereum link provided above, you'll see some subtle criticism against bitcoin for leaving the abuse disincentives (fees) to be ...determined by the free market. Litecoin also didn't leave the abuse prevention fees to be determined by the free market: The imposed a fee patch. Monero also saw first hand the effects of a bloat attack and raised fees.

As you can understand this is not about me.

If you made a coin tomorrow, and someone started killing it for the lolz, you'd patch it up with some kind of fee increase / block restriction. Common sense.

[cbeast]

I was thinking that an ideal way to eliminate spam would be for the miners/nodes to agree to not process txs that use a fee lower than 10 cents. We'd probably go down to 200-600kb blocks right away (depending the load) with plenty of room to spare - and probably everything would go in in the first block. But having prices in USD doesn't work in terms of code (which deals with BTC fractions).

It's all price controls and cartels with you, isn't it?

It's about game theory and economic disincentives in order to defend against system(+atic) abuse. If you read the Ethereum link provided above, you'll see some subtle criticism against bitcoin for leaving the abuse disincentives (fees) to be ...determined by the free market. Litecoin also didn't leave the abuse prevention fees to be determined by the free market: The imposed a fee patch. Monero also saw first hand the effects of a bloat attack and raised fees.

As you can understand this is not about me.

If you made a coin tomorrow, and someone started killing it for the lolz, you'd patch it up with some kind of fee increase / block restriction. Common sense.

Who's qualified to determine those fees, Alan Greenspan?

[hdbuck]

10 cents is a lot, I think.

pfahahaha, poor kid.

One thing I don't understand. If big blocks are such an issue for Chinese miners, why don't they refuse to include tx with too low a fee?

That one is gold too. Time to go to bed peterpan.

[AlexGR]

If I look at the last eight blocks (395,151-395,158) I see that 16,093 tx were processed for a fee of 3.08 BTC. That's 0.000191 BTC/tx or USD 0.0766 . I'm not sure how much zero-fee transactions are in there, but with an average of 7.7 cents, how much higher should the minimum fee bee in your opinion?

The average is problematic because there are some guys who are paying A LOT of fees without actually needing to pay them:

https://bitcoinfees.21.co/

Anything above 50 satoshis/byte right now is overkill, yet some are paying >100 satoshi/byte which distort the average, while a lot of txs are in the 0, 1-10 and 11-20 satoshi/byte categories.

I'm more concerned about 0 and 1-10.

10 satoshi x 250 bytes = 2500 satoshi for a normal tx = 1 cent.

Yeah, I say fuck them. Some countries even stopped minting 1 cent coins altogether due to the coin metal and minting costing more than 1 cent

[bargainbin]

I was thinking that an ideal way to eliminate spam would be for the miners/nodes to agree to not process txs that use a fee lower than 10 cents. We'd probably go down to 200-600kb blocks right away (depending the load) with plenty of room to spare - and probably everything would go in in the first block. But having prices in USD doesn't work in terms of code (which deals with BTC fractions).

It's all price controls and cartels with you, isn't it?

[AlexGR]

I was thinking that an ideal way to eliminate spam would be for the miners/nodes to agree to not process txs that use a fee lower than 10 cents. We'd probably go down to 200-600kb blocks right away (depending the load) with plenty of room to spare - and probably everything would go in in the first block. But having prices in USD doesn't work in terms of code (which deals with BTC fractions).

It's all price controls and cartels with you, isn't it?

It's about game theory and economic disincentives in order to defend against system(+atic) abuse. If you read the Ethereum link provided above, you'll see some subtle criticism against bitcoin for leaving the abuse disincentives (fees) to be ...determined by the free market. Litecoin also didn't leave the abuse prevention fees to be determined by the free market: The imposed a fee patch. Monero also saw first hand the effects of a bloat attack and raised fees.

As you can understand this is not about me.

If you made a coin tomorrow, and someone started killing it for the lolz, you'd patch it up with some kind of fee increase / block restriction. Common sense.

Who's qualified to determine those fees, Alan Greenspan?

Who decided what the existing minimum fees are? Greenspan?

[CuntChocula]

...
Who decided what the existing minimum fees are? Greenspan?

Are there minimum fees? If so, what are they/who/ how were they implemented?

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[AlexGR]

...
Who decided what the existing minimum fees are? Greenspan?

Are there minimum fees? If so, what are they/who/ how were they implemented?

If the miners choose to mine everything, obviously there is a bypass to that.

Implementation is part devs - of any coin, not just btc - (they write the code, set the default values etc for nodes) and part miners & nodes who can change the values or disregard default recommendations. Same for wallets. I can disregard recommendation / default and send a free tx and hope it gets processed. Give it enough time and some times it does.

[aztecminer]

I think btc will boom in the near future.

Look at the altcoin market people.

I think shit is gonna hit the fan soon.

i just do not see how bitcoin can do anything if it can't scale.. right now i am trying to figure out how cutting the mining of coins will make a difference if bitcoin cannot scale. last year we were talking about this scaling issue was supposed to be fixed early this year.. we are moving into February and where's the fix ?? bitcoin is worth $400 even though it cant scale ..

Sorry if I seem stupid but... What do you mean about scaling? The fact that blocks are full?

bitcoin cannot continue to grow because it cannot handle the additional traffic . #gimpcoin

Such broken thinking. What are you still doing around? Sell now.

you guys been talking about fixing this problem...and yet.. it is NOT fixed... you guys cant make up your mind how to fix it, how much fees should be, who will control bitcoin.... and then we have users who cannot face the fact that bitcoin is gimped... meanwhile.... we're speculating $50k oz gold after the reset to allow "the salvaging of all debt and derivatives."

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

...
Who decided what the existing minimum fees are? Greenspan?

Are there minimum fees? If so, what are they/who/ how were they implemented?

min fees now seem to be set by core, via their software. Filthy non-coding Miners hardly get a look in anymore.

[rebuilder]

Who decided what the existing minimum fees are? Greenspan?

No-one, since there is no such thing currently. You can push transactions out with whatever fee you wish, including 0. Wallets will usually recommend a fee though, how that fee is decided is presumably decided by the developers of the wallet in question. Miners, in turn, choose what fees, if any, they require for their services. You might say it's a fee market.

[Andre#]

I was thinking that an ideal way to eliminate spam would be for the miners/nodes to agree to not process txs that use a fee lower than 10 cents. We'd probably go down to 200-600kb blocks right away (depending the load) with plenty of room to spare - and probably everything would go in in the first block. But having prices in USD doesn't work in terms of code (which deals with BTC fractions).

It's all price controls and cartels with you, isn't it?

It's about game theory and economic disincentives in order to defend against system(+atic) abuse. If you read the Ethereum link provided above, you'll see some subtle criticism against bitcoin for leaving the abuse disincentives (fees) to be ...determined by the free market. Litecoin also didn't leave the abuse prevention fees to be determined by the free market: The imposed a fee patch. Monero also saw first hand the effects of a bloat attack and raised fees.

As you can understand this is not about me.

If you made a coin tomorrow, and someone started killing it for the lolz, you'd patch it up with some kind of fee increase / block restriction. Common sense.

Who's qualified to determine those fees, Alan Greenspan?

Hence my question, why don't miners just ignore txs that carry too little fees? It's up to them to separate the paying customers from the freeloaders.

[Andre#]

10 cents is a lot, I think.

pfahahaha, poor kid.

One thing I don't understand. If big blocks are such an issue for Chinese miners, why don't they refuse to include tx with too low a fee?

That one is gold too. Time to go to bed peterpan.

Hey lost boy, do you have anything constructive to add to the discussion?

What am I thinking, of course not.

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

Who decided what the existing minimum fees are? Greenspan?

No-one, since there is no such thing currently. You can push transactions out with whatever fee you wish, including 0. Wallets will usually recommend a fee though, how that fee is decided is presumably decided by the developers of the wallet in question. Miners, in turn, choose what fees, if any, they require for their services. You might say it's a fee market.

Correct - but you are relying on the kindness of strangers to get your tx in to a block. and that will only happen if there is spare capacity ( i.e it costs the miner zero to include it ) But bear in mind that the old 'reserved' portion of the block (50K) for free priority tx's is now gone (by default) and that the concept of priority is about to be killed off entirely, I think its fair to say that the idea of free tx's is dead.

[AlexGR]

Hence my question, why don't miners just ignore txs that carry too little fees? It's up to them to separate the paying customers from the freeloaders.

Only they can answer it.