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

[adamstgBit]

Segwit is 1.7MB blocks (separated into two data structures that combine to 1.7 and thus create a "virtual" 1MB - which isn't 1 but 1.7 to 3mb - depending the use scenario ) and will be online pretty soon.

What's there to be grumpy about? A 300 kilobytes difference? Why are you acting like the 1.7mb is not even an increase at all and only a "traditional" block increase is? If I save 1.7mb of txs in my disk, it doesn't matter if it is saved on one or two files. The only thing that matters is that they are 1.7mb and that tx/s capacity rises by 60%+.

You get immediate increase AND tx malleability fix AND future increase AND the assurance that political fork attempts will be buried on the spot to prevent market clusterfucks like those induced by Gavin and Hearn.

agreed. this is acceptable.

You want Back to completely control every single core dev or speak for them? That can't happen but the likelihood of an agreement (not for the immediate increase - that's pretty much a given, we are talking about the future increase) is very high to ensure the stability of the system and the economy.

I'd be more worried about those who, under the pretext of urgency try to create the conditions for a political takeover. What urgency anyway? "blocks are full"? And blocks can't be full if they are 2 or 4 if they get spammed for near zero cost? Of course they can. If a store hangs a sign that says "Free shit every day", it will be full every day by those coming to take these free shit off the shelves - same for service oriented businesses.

the urgency is the fact that full blocks = higher fees = more post that say " why is my TX not confirming, i paid the fee Core0.9.1 said i should have " = less user adoption ( whos going to sink alot of money into a system thats giving them a hard time from the start??? ).

Bitcoin (as a protocol, whether it is about BTC, LTC, Dash implementations) creates, by necessity, an expensive network to operate which is highly inefficient as a tradeoff for its decentralized nature. Free shit policy is incompatible with it because near zero cost txs = near zero cost abuse. Even near zero cost sybil attack / near zero cost unmasking of mixing parties for mixing purposes.

fine but a 1cent fee is just fine to limit spam. why would we need 10cent fees to prevent spam?

When you read the latest classic roadmap where they say "oh we will FIX the full blocks", you are like W T F are they talking about? You have the store, hanging a "free shit everyday" sign and people are crowding it. What difference does it make if you make the store twice bigger and you give twice the stuff? It'll still be crowded.

lets not make the store bigger because we'll get more clients? i'm not sure i follow...

The only realistic approach to fixing full blocks is to increase fees to something that is not free or practically free/near zero cost. Either in the protocol or if miners start discarding txs that don't pay very well.

if it was up to me, I'd probably make a proposal like

"we can go to 2MB total capacity (including segwit) if protocol-enforced fees are set to X
"we can go to 3MB total capacity (incuding segwit) if protocol fees are bumped to Y (which is >X)
"we can go to 4MB total capacity (incuding segwit) if protocol fees are bumped to Z (which is >Y)

the goal SHOULD BE to get enough tx pre block so that a 1cent fee will be enough to pay the miners ~8BTC ( yes i pulled this number out of my ass )

In addition to the above I'd issue a miners recommendation to avoid mining very low cost txs / this could also be done through a default setting. I'd issue a new recommendation if price, say, went 5-10x.

miners should set the min fee themselves.

This can provide both expansion space and relative protection from near-zero-cost abuse, plus align with the future requirement where it is a necessity to have tx fee generation in order for the network to be sustainable. No fees = you are fucked, or you have "free-shit-for-everyone" populists promoting the idea that "we were better off in the subsidy era, and we must continue coin generation forevah instead of increasing tx fees, and, you know, fuck this 21mn coin limit, that's only for the few wealthy hoarders, and the small fish should not have to see btc as store of value but rather as economic freedom to transact cheaply, so yeah, screw the investors, viva la revolution and infinite coins for the lolz to have our cheap / near free bloat spam txs".

miners will simply not include fees less than what they feel is necessary, and blocks could be allowed to be 1GB big on the protocol level, but miners will have a soft limit, because no miner would risk trying to broadcast a 1GB block, no amount of fee is worth risking getting orphaned. ( a fee market exists without a blocksize limit )


all in all we disagree about fees.
you want to centrally plan the fee market,( and the force the Stream of fee to LN ??) i don't.
thats pretty much it.


segwit +2MB agreement is OK by me. for now...

[1714720780]

1714720780

[1714720780]

1714720780

[1714720780]

1714720780

[1714720780]

1714720780

[1714720780]

1714720780

[billyjoeallen]

if you small blocker truly believe the shit you say you should from a group that wishes to lower block limit to 0.5MB.

you'll get more decentralization and security, for everything else there's the Lighting Network promiseland.

I know that you know that most people want bigger blocks - sooner or later.
Why keep saying stuff like this?

Indeed.

Core makes BTC much faster (helps scaling) and resilient with 0.12, fixes malleability bug / introduces Segwit in a couple of months (1.7MB capacity) and commits to future blocksize increase that puts capacity at >2mb which classic provides. And we are still discussing "small blockers"? Why?

The amount of stirring shit for the lolz, resurrecting 5-10-20 day posts from the garbage, creating fictitious drama and "problems", saying that the end is coming because "blocks are full" when even 1c or even 4 tenths of one cent fee txs go in in a few hours despite "blocks are full" and backlogs, saying people can't be anonymous with bitcoin because with high fees there can't be no mixing (when fees are at practically zero cost AND the fact that cheap mixing is USELESS mixing due to the sybil attack vector where other parties can pretend to be mixing with you just to unmask you - I mean, if they pay almost zero fees, they can be pretending to be mixing coins all day so that they can see who else mixes with them), pretending there is some official camp that wants 1MB forevah and intentionally creating friction out of nowhere when there is no such camp (everyone is doing scaling work)....wtf? Are you all retarded and/or paid shills?

Blockstream/Core NEEDS segwit for their future plans. It fixes malleability, which could be fixed in a multitude of ways, but is CRITICAL for LN type scrip systems. Importantly, it gives a 75% fee discount to signature heavy transactions, economic favoritism for the settlement network. Most importantly, it only needs miners to soft fork it in, not nodes... non-upgraded nodes are left blissfully unable to verify segwit transactions (a "nice" bifurcation of the full node structure)... no node level referendum on Core's dominance. 1.7MB equiv is a rosy view... a slower uptake from outside developers integrating the changes into their apps means more like 1.3MB. They dangled the carrot of a HF in July 2017, just to get the miners to go along.

Fees aren't prohibitively expensive today... but that means we have near 0 potential for growth... it's not a coincidence that the exponential uptrend in price has been thoroughly broken. Also, no coincidence that alts are exploding (lucky iCE), taking massive share from BTC.

It's obvious to everyone after 6 months of debating that Blockstream wants a constrained on-chain environment to artificially incentivize off-chain solutions... which (totally incidentally) will siphon off miner fees to hub operators. How the fuck do you think Blockstream is gonna get an ROI on $76mm of loot?

Look... I'm not against a form of seg-wit in principle, nor off chain solutions... but they need to compete on a level playing field. I'm sick and tired of scare mongering, DDoS, and censorship being employed to steer this boat in the most favorable direction for Blockstream. It may be going there despite my protestations, but I'm not going to just shut up and get steamrolled without complaining loudly about it.

There's complaining and then there's running a classic node.  I'm at step 2. I agree with everything you just said, but I'm also concerned with mining concentration, which is why the Classic RoadMap is the only game in town.  

The Classic RoadMap is far better than I thought it would be.  It's not just a protest vote. It's a path back to real censorship resistance as well as scaling.  The bad guys fight with DDos attacks and censorship because they have no good arguments.  We have the laws of economics on our side and the moral high ground. Now we have our battle flag. Time to suit up.

Governance derives its just power from the consent of the governed. Classic has my consent.  Core does not.  That's all the justification i need because I'm an American and that's how we roll.

[Cconvert2G36]

There's complaining and then there's running a classic node.  I'm at step 2.
-snip-

I compiled a classic node from source, back before the binaries... cause my body is ready "right meow!" 

[adamstgBit]

[JayJuanGee]

segwit +2MB agreement is OK by me. for now...

But we are not getting 2mb "for now".


we are only getting seg wit  "for now."


the 2mb is contingent on several factors and still to be determined.


It doesn't matter if a bunch of people are whining and throwing hissy fits and saying we have to get 2mb... we are not getting 2mb.. now and probably at the earliest a year from now... .. the powers that be are within the status quo, and none of them are going to agree that 2mb is needed now, and a large number are putting off any kind of exact commitment to 2mb... while agreeing that "some time in the future" 2mb will likely be needed (whether that is at the earliest a year from now or sometime other uncertain time down the road of a few years from now... gotta see how everything plays out).

So, why do people want to make losing propositions and to insist and to say I want to get 2mb "now," and it has already been decided that 2mb is NOT necessary at the moment because seg wit will take care of all of the essentials for at least several months into the future

and 2mb is not off of the table but it will be 1) "considered" 2) "researched" and 3) "to be determined" depending on how things go... blah blah blah.

To me, it makes little to no sense to set oneself up for nearly inevitable failure by insisting and insisting and insisting on something that just is not happening "now"...  When anybody insists on something that is not happening, they get their emotions worked up and just fail to see positives and continue to FOCUS on what they are NOT getting....   Seems a bit ridiculous to me... to think that way and to even to attempt to negotiate from such a position.... and in that regard, the status quo is not convinced that 2mb is needed now, and therefore, the burden has not been met.. and therefore.. 1mb until such time as conditions change...

[JayJuanGee]

Governance derives its just power from the consent of the governed. Classic has my consent.  Core does not.  That's all the justification i need because I'm an American and that's how we roll.

That's not how "we" roll.

You are attempting to argue the same bullshit libertarian arguments for consent for classic governance as you do with your various and numerous libertarian complaints about the us government.

You complain and complain and complain that you have not consented... to the status quo.. and in the end, the status quo rules the day until either you libertarian nutjobs persuade otherwise whether we are talking about governance of the whole population or whether we are talking about governance within bitcoin.

[adamstgBit]

anyone else completely bored and tired of hearing about block size, blockstream, and scalability? fuck no, we are obsessed with this

i wish this thread moderator would simply announce a ban on the topics.  I will not censor shit the fuck all

For the record though, corruption is everywhere Bitcoin is no different, regardless of which side you are on. i'd rather stream blocks then block streams.

[Cconvert2G36]

segwit +2MB agreement is OK by me. for now...

But we are not getting 2mb "for now".


we are only getting seg wit  "for now."


the 2mb is contingent on several factors and still to be determined.


It doesn't matter if a bunch of people are whining and throwing hissy fits and saying we have to get 2mb... we are not getting 2mb.. now and probably at the earliest a year from now... .. the powers that be are within the status quo, and none of them are going to agree that 2mb is needed now, and a large number are putting off any kind of exact commitment to 2mb... while agreeing that "some time in the future" 2mb will likely be needed (whether that is at the earliest a year from now or sometime other uncertain time down the road of a few years from now... gotta see how everything plays out).

So, why do people want to make losing propositions and to insist and to say I want to get 2mb "now," and it has already been decided that 2mb is NOT necessary at the moment because seg wit will take care of all of the essentials for at least several months into the future

and 2mb is not off of the table but it will be 1) "considered" 2) "researched" and 3) "to be determined" depending on how things go... blah blah blah.

To me, it makes little to no sense to set oneself up for nearly inevitable failure by insisting and insisting and insisting on something that just is not happening "now"...  When anybody insists on something that is not happening, they get their emotions worked up and just fail to see positives and continue to FOCUS on what they are NOT getting....   Seems a bit ridiculous to me... to think that way and to even to attempt to negotiate from such a position.... and in that regard, the status quo is not convinced that 2mb is needed now, and therefore, the burden has not been met.. and therefore.. 1mb until such time as conditions change...

The guy that bought at $1200... ladies and gentlemen.

 

 

[adamstgBit]

Segwit is 1.7MB blocks (separated into two data structures that combine to 1.7 and thus create a "virtual" 1MB - which isn't 1 but 1.7 to 3mb - depending the use scenario ) and will be online pretty soon.

What's there to be grumpy about? A 300 kilobytes difference? Why are you acting like the 1.7mb is not even an increase at all and only a "traditional" block increase is? If I save 1.7mb of txs in my disk, it doesn't matter if it is saved on one or two files. The only thing that matters is that they are 1.7mb and that tx/s capacity rises by 60%+.

You get immediate increase AND tx malleability fix AND future increase AND the assurance that political fork attempts will be buried on the spot to prevent market clusterfucks like those induced by Gavin and Hearn.

agreed. this is acceptable.

You want Back to completely control every single core dev or speak for them? That can't happen but the likelihood of an agreement (not for the immediate increase - that's pretty much a given, we are talking about the future increase) is very high to ensure the stability of the system and the economy.

I'd be more worried about those who, under the pretext of urgency try to create the conditions for a political takeover. What urgency anyway? "blocks are full"? And blocks can't be full if they are 2 or 4 if they get spammed for near zero cost? Of course they can. If a store hangs a sign that says "Free shit every day", it will be full every day by those coming to take these free shit off the shelves - same for service oriented businesses.

the urgency is the fact that full blocks = higher fees = more post that say " why is my TX not confirming, i paid the fee Core0.9.1 said i should have " = less user adoption ( whos going to sink alot of money into a system thats giving them a hard time from the start??? ).

Bitcoin (as a protocol, whether it is about BTC, LTC, Dash implementations) creates, by necessity, an expensive network to operate which is highly inefficient as a tradeoff for its decentralized nature. Free shit policy is incompatible with it because near zero cost txs = near zero cost abuse. Even near zero cost sybil attack / near zero cost unmasking of mixing parties for mixing purposes.

fine but a 1cent fee is just fine to limit spam. why would we need 10cent fees to prevent spam?

When you read the latest classic roadmap where they say "oh we will FIX the full blocks", you are like W T F are they talking about? You have the store, hanging a "free shit everyday" sign and people are crowding it. What difference does it make if you make the store twice bigger and you give twice the stuff? It'll still be crowded.

lets not make the store bigger because we'll get more clients? i'm not sure i follow...

The only realistic approach to fixing full blocks is to increase fees to something that is not free or practically free/near zero cost. Either in the protocol or if miners start discarding txs that don't pay very well.

if it was up to me, I'd probably make a proposal like

"we can go to 2MB total capacity (including segwit) if protocol-enforced fees are set to X
"we can go to 3MB total capacity (incuding segwit) if protocol fees are bumped to Y (which is >X)
"we can go to 4MB total capacity (incuding segwit) if protocol fees are bumped to Z (which is >Y)

the goal SHOULD BE to get enough tx pre block so that a 1cent fee will be enough to pay the miners ~8BTC ( yes i pulled this number out of my ass )

In addition to the above I'd issue a miners recommendation to avoid mining very low cost txs / this could also be done through a default setting. I'd issue a new recommendation if price, say, went 5-10x.

miners should set the min fee themselves.

This can provide both expansion space and relative protection from near-zero-cost abuse, plus align with the future requirement where it is a necessity to have tx fee generation in order for the network to be sustainable. No fees = you are fucked, or you have "free-shit-for-everyone" populists promoting the idea that "we were better off in the subsidy era, and we must continue coin generation forevah instead of increasing tx fees, and, you know, fuck this 21mn coin limit, that's only for the few wealthy hoarders, and the small fish should not have to see btc as store of value but rather as economic freedom to transact cheaply, so yeah, screw the investors, viva la revolution and infinite coins for the lolz to have our cheap / near free bloat spam txs".

miners will simply not include fees less than what they feel is necessary, and blocks could be allowed to be 1GB big on the protocol level, but miners will have a soft limit, because no miner would risk trying to broadcast a 1GB block, no amount of fee is worth risking getting orphaned. ( a fee market exists without a blocksize limit )


all in all we disagree about fees.
you want to centrally plan the fee market,( and the force the Stream of fee to LN ??) i don't.
thats pretty much it.


segwit +2MB agreement is OK by me. for now...

this is gold i feel i should frame it

[JayJuanGee]

segwit +2MB agreement is OK by me. for now...

But we are not getting 2mb "for now".


we are only getting seg wit  "for now."


the 2mb is contingent on several factors and still to be determined.


It doesn't matter if a bunch of people are whining and throwing hissy fits and saying we have to get 2mb... we are not getting 2mb.. now and probably at the earliest a year from now... .. the powers that be are within the status quo, and none of them are going to agree that 2mb is needed now, and a large number are putting off any kind of exact commitment to 2mb... while agreeing that "some time in the future" 2mb will likely be needed (whether that is at the earliest a year from now or sometime other uncertain time down the road of a few years from now... gotta see how everything plays out).

So, why do people want to make losing propositions and to insist and to say I want to get 2mb "now," and it has already been decided that 2mb is NOT necessary at the moment because seg wit will take care of all of the essentials for at least several months into the future

and 2mb is not off of the table but it will be 1) "considered" 2) "researched" and 3) "to be determined" depending on how things go... blah blah blah.

To me, it makes little to no sense to set oneself up for nearly inevitable failure by insisting and insisting and insisting on something that just is not happening "now"...  When anybody insists on something that is not happening, they get their emotions worked up and just fail to see positives and continue to FOCUS on what they are NOT getting....   Seems a bit ridiculous to me... to think that way and to even to attempt to negotiate from such a position.... and in that regard, the status quo is not convinced that 2mb is needed now, and therefore, the burden has not been met.. and therefore.. 1mb until such time as conditions change...

The guy that bought at $1200... ladies and gentlemen.

 

 

What the fuck are you talking about?

Is your point, anyhow related to the substance of anything I said in the post?

or are you just striving for some quasi-off-topic and irrelevant dig (which by the way would classify pretty strongly as an ad hominem attack, because there is no there, there in your assertion.?

Surely, BTC prices are relevant in this thread, but in that particular post that I just made, the topic was responding to adam's asserted agreement about segwit and 2mb blocksize limits "now".

[AlexGR]

the urgency is the fact that full blocks = higher fees

There is no such thing. The reason is that actual demand is lower than 1MB and the top is always filled with crap.

If, say, legit txs are like 400-500-600-700kbytes, the rest are spam. So that's why "blocks are full" yet a fee market is not developing and fees don't actually rise to any significant degree. It's because the rest of txs till the 1mb cutoff are bogus / dust / spam / micro-gambling etc. So all legit txs get in, and then all the spammy ones that pay very little or nothing, also get it.

= more post that say " why is my TX not confirming, i paid the fee Core0.9.1 said i should have " = less user adoption ( whos going to sink alot of money into a system thats giving them a hard time from the start??? ) it.

My postal service has an extensive price catalog of what I get depending what I pay. I can send a second or first priority letter, I can send it express, etc. I get what I pay for.

People bitching that their tx is slow, while you saw yourself that at 2 cents you got confirmed in 8 blocks, is insanity. This is more of a user interface (wallet issue) or user expectation issue rather than a protocol issue. User gets a popup that by paying X he gets confirmed in Y (worst case scenario) and problem is solved.

fine but a 1cent fee is just fine to limit spam. why would we need 10cent fees to prevent spam?

Because 1 cent doesn't work, plus it's not futureproof.

lets not make the store bigger because we'll get more clients? i'm not sure i follow...

Proper clients are those who you get revenue from. If you are giving shit for free, you are not getting revenue / not making profit. Having clients is not a bigger target than having an operation that is economically viable.

If fees cannot pay for the security of the network, we will be led to infinite inflation instead (=bitcoin fails as a store of value / alternative to central bank design)

The only realistic approach to fixing full blocks is to increase fees to something that is not free or practically free/near zero cost. Either in the protocol or if miners start discarding txs that don't pay very well.

if it was up to me, I'd probably make a proposal like

"we can go to 2MB total capacity (including segwit) if protocol-enforced fees are set to X
"we can go to 3MB total capacity (incuding segwit) if protocol fees are bumped to Y (which is >X)
"we can go to 4MB total capacity (incuding segwit) if protocol fees are bumped to Z (which is >Y)

the goal SHOULD BE to get enough tx pre block so that a 1cent fee will be enough to pay the miners ~8BTC ( yes i pulled this number out of my ass )

Just do the math.

Right now you have 25 BTC subsidy at 430$ = 10.750$ per block.

In order to have enough txs to replace the subsidy, with 1 cent fees, you need 1.075.000 TXs per block or 1792 tx/sec instead of 2.7 tx/sec, which means 663.7MB blocks.

That, plainly, doesn't work.

In 5-10-20 years it might work. Right now it doesn't. It's not viable.

In a few months 12.5 BTC of subsidy will be cut. Can we have 330mb of extra block space to compensate with 1 cent fee txs? The answer is no. Even if price goes 10x, we still need 33mb blocks - which is also a no-go.

[Cconvert2G36]

What the fuck are you talking about?

Is your point, anyhow related to the substance of anything I said in the post?

or are you just striving for some quasi-off-topic and irrelevant dig (which by the way would classify pretty strongly as an ad hominem attack, because there is no there, there in your assertion.?

Surely, BTC prices are relevant in this thread, but in that particular post that I just made, the topic was responding to adam's asserted agreement about segwit and 2mb blocksize limits "now".

Yes, this is one instance where you can correctly hoist the ad hom flag.

Same reason I view a blind man as incapable of performing a delicate surgery on my heart.

You've made it clear you're the agreeable type, fine. You have an innate deference to authority figures, swell. Others see the incentives laid out clearly before them, and will call a spade a spade. Miners may be just as agreeable as you are, I guess we'll find out.

[adamstgBit]

responding to adam's asserted agreement about segwit and 2mb blocksize limits "now".

what i meant is:
for now,i am happy with segwit ASAP + 2MB in about a year.
only because segwit is apparently the fastest way for a block increase and thats all i really want. i want more blockspace asap and i don't care how it gets done, and then i want the blocks to get bigger and bigger and bigger, until it breaks the internet.

[Gyrsur]

responding to adam's asserted agreement about segwit and 2mb blocksize limits "now".

what i meant is:
for now,i am happy with segwit ASAP + 2MB in about a year.
only because segwit is apparently the fastest way for a block increase and thats all i really want. i want more blockspace asap and i don't care how it gets done, and then i want the blocks to get bigger and bigger and bigger, until it breaks the internet.

yes, bro! I still download the Internet right now. It's huge!  

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[Cconvert2G36]

...

All of this presumes that Bitcoin has a monopoly.

Hint: It doesn't, and the market will punish you until you figure that out.

[AlexGR]

...

All of this presumes that Bitcoin has a monopoly.

Hint: It doesn't, and the market will punish you until you figure that out.

There is no altcoin that has efficiently solved the issue of scaling, near zero cost txs and and near zero cost abuse. If anything, they have worse of a problem due to being forced to go low-fee mode (to increase their adoption) at the expense of getting abused.

[adamstgBit]

In a few months 12.5 BTC of subsidy will be cut. Can we have 330mb of extra block space to compensate with 1 cent fee txs? The answer is no. Even if price goes 10x, we still need 33mb blocks - which is also a no-go.

did you segwit that 330mb block ?

maybe miners will make fees min 5cents, and maybe they can survive on 8BTC

what block size do i need now, does it break the internets?

who cares? this is a problem for tomorrow...

baby steps, lets get segwit + 2MB blocks and then we can go ape shit again in a few years

[Gyrsur]

ok we have unconfirmed good news poeple

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1376895.msg14012687#msg14012687

The only good news you need is right here:



If there are people who genuinely believe that THIS guy (Adam Back) is some kind of evil corporate lying back-stabbing individual, who runs an evil blockstream company that wants the bad of bitcoin, then they seriously need to readjust their evil-detecting radar.

ohh boy! and what if he signs with S.N. - Inventor of HashCash and BitCoin??

Huuhh

 

[Cconvert2G36]

...

All of this presumes that Bitcoin has a monopoly.

Hint: It doesn't, and the market will punish you until you figure that out.

There is no altcoin that has efficiently solved the issue of scaling, near zero cost txs and and near zero cost abuse. If anything, they have worse of a problem due to being forced to go low-fee mode (to increase their adoption) at the expense of getting abused.

Dear guy who uses a fake satoshi email from 2015 as a signature,

Satoshi thought it was a no-brainer that we'd gracefully scale up after 5 years of tech improvement...

It can be phased in, like:

if (blocknumber > 115000)
    maxblocksize = largerlimit

It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete.

When we're near the cutoff block number, I can put an alert to old versions to make sure they know they have to upgrade.

Not quotable for "reasons"... but here's what he thought of your raspberry pi middle men:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=532.msg6306#msg6306