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

[BldSwtTrs]

Can't wait until small block retards are proved to be irresponsible idiots by empirical data points.

We should make a list of them, so in the future we will never forget who they were and humiliate them forever.

There's no such thing as a small block retard.

People have ideas and inclinations based on information that they have, and there's a lot of misinformation out there regarding what's even going on with the block chain; how much is spam, whether an increase is currently justified and/or wether segregated witness will take care of some if not all of this spamming blockage to the extent blockage exists and if not what would be better additional solutions going forward once segregated witness is in place.

Yeah people have different ideas and most of them are dumb ideas.

That's why it's important to relie on the empirical facts to judge who are right and who are the fucking irresponsible retards. It's darwinian selection. It's a process way more efficient than pointless debating.

So now we are going to see that full block are not good at all and see who were the dangerous retards who thought full blocks were somehow cool.

It's like the bolcheviks. They have ideas and they thought they were right. They talked badly of people who disagree with them. Then the testing of their ideas prove that they were huge retards and that they had their head full shit. Gmaxwell and Adam Back are the Lenin of their time. The sooner the market route around them, the better.

It seems to me you have a very precise idea of your own position at least.

I don't have such brutal and clear opinion on this issue. And from the grasp of complexity I was able to see, it seems impossible for me to have a clear point of view of the situation as we're still lacking data.

Yeah small blocks have problems, but what do you want? Bigger and bigger blocks? You do realize that in order to scale the Visa transactions we would need 800GB blocks... Seems complicated to me...

It's binary thinking. Eventually you will die so it's better to stop breathing right now, isn't it?

The choice is not between 1Mb or Visa-scale right now. The choice is between 1Mb and large enough blocksize to allow normal usage.

[1714732679]

1714732679

[1714732679]

1714732679

[1714732679]

1714732679

[Fatman3001]

Very Well Said



http://bitledger.info/hard-fork-risks-and-why-95-should-be-the-standard/

Except, to the extent this is the case, it will still be the case at 95%.

[BldSwtTrs]

Very Well Said



http://bitledger.info/hard-fork-risks-and-why-95-should-be-the-standard/

If everyone agreed on the rules he wouldn't feel the need to write that.

Besises that contradiction, it demonstrates a failure to think dynamically. It's not because the system is in a certain state at t that it will be in the same state a t+x.
Today the majority agree on 1Mb, tomorrow the majority will agree on the stupidity of 1Mb.

[BitUsher]

Except, to the extent this is the case, it will still be the case at 95%.

This is true, and why Peter Todd suggests a safer 99% HF  threshold with an option to softfork in a 95% threshold if there is no progress within a defined timeline. This would allow for non-contentions and widely accepted HF to more securely be adopted.
Of course this simply moves the degree from 75% to 95-99% but this is indeed a significant difference and it really depends upon a subjective sense of what you define as a rough consensus. There are a few (less than 0.1% of the community) who believe there should never be any HF's or even many SF's and we would necessarily have to ostracize them to make any upgrades.

It isn't just a subjective difference of what one feels should be the correct threshold but objectively 95% is safer than 75% with many attack vectors.

Besises that contradiction, it demonstrates a failure to think dynamically. It's not because the system is in a certain state at t that it will be in the same state a t+x.
Today the majority agree on 1Mb, tomorrow the majority will agree on the stupidity of 1Mb.

I don't know why this needs to be endlessly repeated, but some people appear to be a little slow to pick it up... almost no one wants capacity to remain an effective 1MB. I and many others not only want larger blocksizes but much larger block sizes are necessarily required for payment channels to handle mainstream txs. (Go back and read the LN slides if you have any questions) We simply disagree on the timeline, order and manner in order to scale.

[8up]

systems must also be adaptive. otherwise they die. life and death in this sense are also only seperated by time.

the nice thing is. we will find out, if we were too fast too slow or exactly right. other cryptos will try different settings; and one of these will probably be far superior to the settings the divided bitcoin community set for itself.

[BldSwtTrs]

Except, to the extent this is the case, it will still be the case at 95%.

This is true, and why Peter Todd suggests a safer 99% HF  threshold with an option to softfork in a 95% threshold if there is no progress within a defined timeline. This would allow for non-contentions and widely accepted HF to more securely be adopted.
Of course this simply moves the degree from 75% to 95-99% but this is indeed a significant difference and it really depends upon a subjective sense of what you define as a rough consensus. There are a few (less than 0.1% of the community) who believe there should never be any HF's or even many SF's and we would necessarily have to ostracize them to make any upgrades.

It isn't just a subjective difference of what one feels should be the correct threshold but objectively 95% is safer than 75% with many attack vectors.

Besises that contradiction, it demonstrates a failure to think dynamically. It's not because the system is in a certain state at t that it will be in the same state a t+x.
Today the majority agree on 1Mb, tomorrow the majority will agree on the stupidity of 1Mb.

I don't know why this needs to be endlessly repeated, but some people appear to be a little slow to pick it up... almost no one wants capacity to remain an effective 1MB. I and many others not only want larger blocksizes but much larger block sizes are necessarily required for payment channels to handle mainstream txs. (Go back and read the LN slides if you have any questions) We simply disagree on the timeline, order and manner in order to scale.

You agree on the fact that the blocksize limit stays at 1Mb for now.

My opinion is that real world feedback will make understand most small blockists how wrong they are regarding their priorities.

[BitUsher]

systems must also be adaptive. otherwise they die.

Yes, we clearly disagree on the balance of dexterity and security. IMHO, There should be more testing done and we should be more careful as the market cap continues to grow.

My opinion is that real world feedback will make understand most small blockists how wrong they are regarding their priorities.

Thus far the majority of users doesn't appear to agree, but even if this were reversed our priorities wouldn't change and we would stay the course. We do not need an inefficient form of paypal. This has never been the goal and Bitcoin would be considered a failure if it devolved into this. We will move on with or without the bitcoin name and continue as always with our original goals of a decentralized and sovereign currency.

[AlexGR]

yeah baby, 2,5 million BTC in memepool with a total fee of 6 BTC!

https://tradeblock.com/bitcoin/

forkers gotta derp.

Down to

34,924 tx / 258,264.29 XBT
Total fees
6.0987 XBT
Total size
46.01 MB
Fee/size
12.64 sat/B

...with same fees. Seems it was pretty "legit" - millions disappearing from the queue...

Because Bitcoin is a public good, and because the Law of Marginal Utility applies to money just like any other commodity, an artificial fee market amounts to a regressive tax. You've turned Bitcoin into just another tool of oppression.

Yes, because anyone having to pay a few cents to get their tx included in a few hours to a few minutes, is oppressed

Bigblocker hypocrisy: "I can run a full node for XXX$. I can buy a hard disk, ram, good network connection etc for XXX$. But... I have an issue with 0.0x$ fees"

...actual blockchain use is low and the rest of the free space is topped off with spam. That's why fees don't rise. If every tx was legitimate...

What are the objective criteria by which any given transaction can be classified as being either: a) spam; or b) legitimate?

I have been asking this for months of many who like to kick around the term 'spam'. Many of them repeatedly. Perhaps even you? But to date, I have received exactly zero responsive replies.

If you see someone moving coins between his addresses back and forth, tens/hundreds/thousands of times, is this an attempt at a legitimate transaction?

[Fatman3001]

systems must also be adaptive. otherwise they die.

Haven't you paid attention? The Bitcoin Ledger is Holy.

And eth is for bassoon players.
https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fagott

Litecoins are apparently too fluffy.

We'll just have to wait 3-4 years until they've ironed out the kinks of LN.

[8up]

systems must also be adaptive. otherwise they die.

Yes, we clearly disagree on the balance of dexterity and security. IMHO, There should be more testing done and we should be more careful as the market cap continues to grow.

...if the market cap continues to grow! - What does it tell us, if it stays the same, if it shrinks or if it massively grows? And very important - in comparison to the whole crypto enviroment.


IMO it is fruitful to define the things we as acommunity disagree with. and also define criteria to see/know or acknowldege, when according to the criteria a certain perspective is invalidated.

i am all for the falsification or invalidation of my perspective, that a fee market is too early in the game. what could be the criteria too falsify me?

on the other hand which criteria will show me that a certain (too big) blocksize bears risks that i am (also depending on criteria) not willing to take.


the thing is both/all perspectives seem to be very maximalistic. the real challenge is to find the middle ground. divorce is easy. staying together when times are tough is the real mastery.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[BitUsher]

systems must also be adaptive. otherwise they die.

Yes, we clearly disagree on the balance of dexterity and security. IMHO, There should be more testing done and we should be more careful as the market cap continues to grow.

if the market cap continues to grow.

IMO it is frutile to define the things we as acommunity disagree with. and also define criteria to see/know or acknowldege, when according to the criteria a certain perspective is invalidated.

i am all for the falsification or invalidation of my perspective, that a fee market is too early in the game. what could be the criteria too falsify me?

on the other hand which criteria will show me that a certain (too big) blocksize bears risks that i am (also depending on criteria) not willing to take.


the thing is both/all perspectives seem to be very maximalistic. the real challenge is to find the middle ground. divorce is easy. staying together when times are tough is the real mastery.

There are many objective and evidentiary levels that would make me feel more comfortable with increasing capacity higher and quicker. One example among many- a reversal in node drop of rate or increasing total economic node count , and not just the sybil attack created by the ignorant who feel they are contributing to the security by spinning up cloud nodes without economic agents behind them.

[Fatman3001]

If you see someone moving coins between his addresses back and forth, tens/hundreds/thousands of times, is this an attempt at a legitimate transaction?

Link please.

I'd like to see how the current surge is in large part due to a massive spam attack.

[lottery248]

Coin



Explanation

that's not what i am expecting for... it is supposed to be $450 on the bitcoin halving.
btw chartbuddy is supposed to provide information of chinese exchange site.

[BitUsher]

If you see someone moving coins between his addresses back and forth, tens/hundreds/thousands of times, is this an attempt at a legitimate transaction?

Link please.

I'd like to see how the current surge is in large part due to a massive spam attack.

Data has already been shown -


----------------------------------------------

Looks like we likely found one of the "spammers" attacking the network -
This isn't behavior that is typical from a tumbler or mixer.

https://twitter.com/DataTranslator/status/704579281507258368

1KNCgSJVHg3W5hMCyGeRA1vBiPn9Vi4qXt is been sending coins to itself since the 28th, no signs of stopping.

and another

https://twitter.com/DataTranslator/status/704612433869021184

[BldSwtTrs]

systems must also be adaptive. otherwise they die.

Yes, we clearly disagree on the balance of dexterity and security. IMHO, There should be more testing done and we should be more careful as the market cap continues to grow.

My opinion is that real world feedback will make understand most small blockists how wrong they are regarding their priorities.

Thus far the majority of users doesn't appear to agree, but even if this were reversed our priorities wouldn't change and we would stay the course. We do not need an inefficient form of paypal. This has never been the goal and Bitcoin would be considered a failure if it devolved into this. We will move on with or without the bitcoin name and continue as always with our original goals of a decentralized and sovereign currency.

Good for you and for us if you work on something else once you will get defeated by the market. The farther you stay from  Bitcoin the better it will be for it.

"We don't need an inefficient form of paypal". You have absolutely no clue what we need or not. I have no clue neither, but at least I don't have the pretense of knowledge. Only the market knows.

And you bunch of bolcheviks, you think you are smarter than the market, and that's why you will fail and will end up working on an altcoin that nobody care about.

[8up]

systems must also be adaptive. otherwise they die.

Yes, we clearly disagree on the balance of dexterity and security. IMHO, There should be more testing done and we should be more careful as the market cap continues to grow.

if the market cap continues to grow.

IMO it is frutile to define the things we as acommunity disagree with. and also define criteria to see/know or acknowldege, when according to the criteria a certain perspective is invalidated.

i am all for the falsification or invalidation of my perspective, that a fee market is too early in the game. what could be the criteria too falsify me?

on the other hand which criteria will show me that a certain (too big) blocksize bears risks that i am (also depending on criteria) not willing to take.


the thing is both/all perspectives seem to be very maximalistic. the real challenge is to find the middle ground. divorce is easy. staying together when times are tough is the real mastery.

There are many objective and evidentiary levels that would make me feel more comfortable with increasing capacity higher and quicker. One example among many- a reversal in node drop of rate or increasing total economic node count , and not just the sybil attack created by the ignorant who feel they are contributing to the security by spinning up cloud nodes without economic agents behind them.

maybe it's also time to learn from others? https://www.ethernodes.org/network/1
what other incentives can there be to run a full node, we haven't thought of!?

[Fatman3001]

@Bitusher that pattern alone doesn't add up to the hundreds of MB forced through the system the last couple of days. Nor the millions of BTC.

[BitUsher]

"We don't need an inefficient form of paypal". You have absolutely no clue what we need or not. I have no clue neither, but at least I don't a the pretense of knowledge.

Only the market knows.

And you, bunch of bolcheviks, you think you are smater than the market, and that's why you will fail and will end up working on an altcoin that nobody care about.

LoL... Its not about being smarter than the market. If the market prefers an inefficient and censorable version of paypal than so be it. That doesn't interest me, they are free to carry on with this decision and all the benefits and consequences that come with it.

[BitUsher]

@Bitusher that pattern alone doesn't add up to the hundreds of MB forced through the system the last couple of days. Nor the millions of BTC.

One cannot have perfect knowledge of the intentions of every user on the blockchain. With forensic analysis the most we can do is find some evidence of odd behaviors that do not fit normal use and give it a probability that it may be a spam/ddos attack on the network. Those 2 examples are of high suspect, and there likely is other examples yet to be discovered.

maybe it's also time to learn from others? https://www.ethernodes.org/network/1
what other incentives can there be to run a full node, we haven't thought of!?

Well the LN is a plan that solves multiple problems in our ecosystem and specifically that of node drop of rates due to lack of incentives. With the LN full nodes will be incentivized by making a small cut of tx fees to cover costs and perhaps even turn a very small profit.

---------------------------------------------

Let's make bitcoin robust and prepare it to scale way beyond Visa and Mastercard combined:

http://coinjournal.net/bitcoin-will-need-to-scale-to-levels-much-higher-than-visa-mastercard-and-paypal-combined/

Not setting the right precedents early on may send us in a completely different direction where we have a few nodes in datacenters with blocks at 128MB processing only a pathetic ~896tps