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

[AlexGR]

The truth hurts.

Not really fatal tho, unless you rush into the arms of your captors, repeatedly. Bitcoin crippled, Monero UP!

Monero has an adaptive blocksize, so now you know.  

The adaptive blocksize in itself is a security weakness without substantial fees. A spammer can easily make the system "adapt" to his ever increasing demands to spam it for near-zero cost and destroy it. Plus network propagation and block validation has a certain time required, you cannot go to infinity just because someone is spamming it.

So, when the time came for such a spam scenario, "central intervention" by the devs happened and they raised the fees quite higher to make every tx much more expensive.

So the solution for Monero, wasn't the adaptive blocksize (it was broken unto itself, if you expected the "market" or the "miners" to determine the fees) => but the centrally imposed fees.

Likewise Bitcoin could have 4mb blocks tomorrow morning, if, say, every tx was bumped to something like 10 cents minimum. This, by itself, would probably have us at <500kb block use right away by eliminating dust & spam, with an 8x expansion space up to 4mb.

Don't worry, I'm not buyin' castle fun bux. Just filthy foldin' money for me these last few months.

I'm not worried. Just pointing out the obvious pattern:

"Oh I can't tolerate BTC that has a fee market, it's unacceptable if fees go up, the solution to spam can't be to make txs more expensive" => "let's buy some altcoin which does exactly that and claim we are diversifying from the 'dangers' of BTC"... lol?

Why is it unacceptable for BTC to have high fees and for altcoins to have high fees to combat spam?
Why is it more acceptable if altcoins do that by "central planning" while bitcoin's fees are actually determined by the market itself - depending the load on any given moment?
How can "adaptive blocksize" be considered a better solution when it can't work without central planning on fees? It failed monero, so why is it touted as a better solution?

We can be throwing shit all day to BTC, but to change the negatives and spin them to positives and vice versa is just propaganda.

[ahpku]

...
I'm not worried. Just pointing out the obvious pattern:

"Oh I can't tolerate BTC that has a fee market, it's unacceptable if fees go up, the solution to spam can't be to make txs more expensive" ...

Not sure where you're getting this. Most are fine with having a "fee market." It's creating demand by imposing production quotas (1MB cap) that most don't want.

[AlexGR]

...
I'm not worried. Just pointing out the obvious pattern:

"Oh I can't tolerate BTC that has a fee market, it's unacceptable if fees go up, the solution to spam can't be to make txs more expensive" ...

Not sure where you're getting this. Most are fine with having a "fee market." It's creating demand by imposing production quotas (1MB cap) that most don't want.

Criticism varies.

"Ohhh my tx didn't go in with 1c", "bitcoin is unreliable because fees fluctuate", "I don't want a fee market because it excludes the poor", "3tx/s are too little", "fuck the 1mb central planners" etc etc.

[becoin]

In a worst case, let’s say that 50% of hashing power turns off at the block halving because it is no longer profitable for those miners. This would mean that we start getting blocks mined every 20 minutes on average instead of 10 minutes. But blocks are already 70% full today. If the average confirmation time goes to 20 minutes, it means that we will be at 140% of capacity on every block, and start accumulating a backlog."

This is why tx fees should go up. It is so simple. This crackhead doesn't understand what he is talking about.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[nioc]

...
I'm not worried. Just pointing out the obvious pattern:

"Oh I can't tolerate BTC that has a fee market, it's unacceptable if fees go up, the solution to spam can't be to make txs more expensive" ...

Not sure where you're getting this. Most are fine with having a "fee market." It's creating demand by imposing production quotas (1MB cap) that most don't want.

Criticism varies.

"Ohhh my tx didn't go in with 1c", "bitcoin is unreliable because fees fluctuate", "I don't want a fee market because it excludes the poor", "3tx/s are too little", "fuck the 1mb central planners" etc etc.

3tx/s are too little, 3tx/s are too little, 3tx/s are too little, 3tx/s are too little

[ahpku]

Cconvert2G36, disregard. When I'm wrong I'm wrong.

A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by a Bitcoin Forum moderator. Posts are most frequently deleted because they are off-topic, though they can also be deleted for other reasons. In the future, please avoid posting things that need to be deleted.

The mods are counting words. Fewer than X words = spam. If you wish for your post to be considered !spam, add moar words.

[AlexGR]

...
I'm not worried. Just pointing out the obvious pattern:

"Oh I can't tolerate BTC that has a fee market, it's unacceptable if fees go up, the solution to spam can't be to make txs more expensive" ...

Not sure where you're getting this. Most are fine with having a "fee market." It's creating demand by imposing production quotas (1MB cap) that most don't want.

Criticism varies.

"Ohhh my tx didn't go in with 1c", "bitcoin is unreliable because fees fluctuate", "I don't want a fee market because it excludes the poor", "3tx/s are too little", "fuck the 1mb central planners" etc etc.

3tx/s are too little, 3tx/s are too little, 3tx/s are too little, 3tx/s are too little

It's all relative depending the actual use.
If they are too little, how come the demand for these 3tx/s be so low as to pay only 1-2 cents and/or have issues like wasting these transactions in spamming, moving dust, having gambling micro-txs etc....

Actual demand is lower than these 3tx/s, and the rest (up to the limit) is filled with near-zero-paying crap. That's why there is no serious impact on the fee market. That's why dust continues to move. That's why spammers continue to spam and move coins from here to there to here to there, in a loop, just because they can spam the network and do so at a near zero cost.

[ahpku]

...
I'm not worried. Just pointing out the obvious pattern:

"Oh I can't tolerate BTC that has a fee market, it's unacceptable if fees go up, the solution to spam can't be to make txs more expensive" ...

Not sure where you're getting this. Most are fine with having a "fee market." It's creating demand by imposing production quotas (1MB cap) that most don't want.

Criticism varies.

"Ohhh my tx didn't go in with 1c", "bitcoin is unreliable because fees fluctuate", "I don't want a fee market because it excludes the poor", "3tx/s are too little", "fuck the 1mb central planners" etc etc.

You might be missing the point.
It's not that the fees are high, but that they'd have to be ~$6.00 per tx, at current exchange rate and current block size limit, for Bitcoin to stop relying on subsidies (block reward). $6 per transaction, with BTC exchange rate @ $400, is too damn high.

And if Core is so eager for the fees market to develop, WTF are they working on Segwit (which will, purportedly, increase the number of tx per solved block)?
Will miners start excluding "spam" transactions once segwit is implemented? If so, why?

[barbs]

Anyone buying bitcoins at 400$+ is irresponsibile and deserves to lose their money.

[Ibian]

Look, the whole complaint about the spam thing is retarded. The moment we start deciding what is considered a "legit" transaction and enforcing it we no longer have a decentralized network. Any transaction that the miners are willing to spend electricity on is as good as any other, or the whole experiment is a failure.

[AlexGR]

...
I'm not worried. Just pointing out the obvious pattern:

"Oh I can't tolerate BTC that has a fee market, it's unacceptable if fees go up, the solution to spam can't be to make txs more expensive" ...

Not sure where you're getting this. Most are fine with having a "fee market." It's creating demand by imposing production quotas (1MB cap) that most don't want.

Criticism varies.

"Ohhh my tx didn't go in with 1c", "bitcoin is unreliable because fees fluctuate", "I don't want a fee market because it excludes the poor", "3tx/s are too little", "fuck the 1mb central planners" etc etc.

You might be missing the point.
It's not that the fees are high, but that they'd have to be ~$6.00 per tx, at current exchange rate and current block size limit, for Bitcoin to stop relying on subsidies (block reward). $6 per transaction, with BTC exchange rate @ $400, is too damn high.

To replace subsidy you'd need 100MB blocks, assuming that there is 100x demand, and that the quality of this demand is on par with our current top-tier urgent txs that are paying 0.06$ per tx.

The problem is that 100MB blocks don't work. And it's not "Core's fault". And it's not like Gavin Andersen or Classic can make them work either. This type of size will eventually work as software and hardware technology evolves.

[ahpku]

...
I'm not worried. Just pointing out the obvious pattern:

"Oh I can't tolerate BTC that has a fee market, it's unacceptable if fees go up, the solution to spam can't be to make txs more expensive" ...

Not sure where you're getting this. Most are fine with having a "fee market." It's creating demand by imposing production quotas (1MB cap) that most don't want.

Criticism varies.

"Ohhh my tx didn't go in with 1c", "bitcoin is unreliable because fees fluctuate", "I don't want a fee market because it excludes the poor", "3tx/s are too little", "fuck the 1mb central planners" etc etc.

You might be missing the point.
It's not that the fees are high, but that they'd have to be ~$6.00 per tx, at current exchange rate and current block size limit, for Bitcoin to stop relying on subsidies (block reward). $6 per transaction, with BTC exchange rate @ $400, is too damn high.

To replace subsidy you'd need 100MB blocks, assuming that there is 100x demand, and that the quality of this demand is on par with our current top-tier urgent txs that are paying 0.06$ per tx.

The problem is that 100MB blocks don't work. And it's not "Core's fault". And it's not like Gavin Andersen or Classic can make them work either. This type of size will eventually work as software and hardware technology evolves.

You might have accidentally missed the emboldened bit, so I'll repost:

... And if Core is so eager for the fees market to develop, WTF are they working on Segwit (which will, purportedly, increase the number of tx per solved block)?
Will miners start excluding "spam" transactions once segwit is implemented? If so, why?

>To replace subsidy you'd need 100MB blocks
And Core is addressing this ...how?

>The problem is that 100MB blocks don't work.
They wouldn't work today. By the time Bitcoin's block rewards have ended, it should be trivial. No?

[AlexGR]

Look, the whole complaint about the spam thing is retarded.

Satoshi didn't get the memo that he is retarded for contemplating the flood/spam/dust attack vectors. We should give him the "retard of the century" award.

[ahpku]

Look, the whole complaint about the spam thing is retarded.

Satoshi didn't get the memo that he is retarded for contemplating the flood/spam/dust attack vectors. We should give him the "retard of the century" award.

If Satoshi has intended the 1MB limit to be permanent, he still wouldn't deserve the "retard of the century" award.
But, of course, he never did. Observe:

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.

So satoshi clearly doesn't deserve the "retard of the century" award. 
Smallblockers, OTOH, do.

[8up]

...
I'm not worried. Just pointing out the obvious pattern:

"Oh I can't tolerate BTC that has a fee market, it's unacceptable if fees go up, the solution to spam can't be to make txs more expensive" ...

Not sure where you're getting this. Most are fine with having a "fee market." It's creating demand by imposing production quotas (1MB cap) that most don't want.

Criticism varies.

"Ohhh my tx didn't go in with 1c", "bitcoin is unreliable because fees fluctuate", "I don't want a fee market because it excludes the poor", "3tx/s are too little", "fuck the 1mb central planners" etc etc.

You might be missing the point.
It's not that the fees are high, but that they'd have to be ~$6.00 per tx, at current exchange rate and current block size limit, for Bitcoin to stop relying on subsidies (block reward). $6 per transaction, with BTC exchange rate @ $400, is too damn high.

To replace subsidy you'd need 100MB blocks, assuming that there is 100x demand, and that the quality of this demand is on par with our current top-tier urgent txs that are paying 0.06$ per tx.

The problem is that 100MB blocks don't work. And it's not "Core's fault". And it's not like Gavin Andersen or Classic can make them work either. This type of size will eventually work as software and hardware technology evolves.

what is wrong with subsidies? everybody knows they are needed to boot strap the system. in the long run no one is in favor of subsidies.

answer this simple question: how much breast milk is right for your baby? when do you think your baby will be grown big enough to start eating on its own?

[AlexGR]

Will miners start excluding "spam" transactions once segwit is implemented? If so, why?[/b]

It's up to them.

As for Segwit, Segwit solves the old issue of tx mal. *and* also gives a capacity upg to those who want it.

[AlexGR]

Look, the whole complaint about the spam thing is retarded.

Satoshi didn't get the memo that he is retarded for contemplating the flood/spam/dust attack vectors. We should give him the "retard of the century" award.

If Satoshi has intended the 1MB limit to be permanent, he still wouldn't deserve the "retard of the century" award.
But, of course, he never did. Observe:

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.

So satoshi clearly doesn't deserve the "retard of the century" award. 
Smallblockers, OTOH, do.

I'm trying to understand who exactly is a "smallblocker"?

Core's short-term plan is 1.7mb (segwit) and Classic is 2mb. The difference being ~300kb.

There is no official or alternative development that stays at 1mb.

[ahpku]

Will miners start excluding "spam" transactions once segwit is implemented? If so, why?[/b]

It's up to them.

As for Segwit, Segwit solves the old issue of tx mal. *and* also gives a capacity upg to those who want it.

Then why advertise it as a scaling solution, if scaling itself is a bad thing, due to not being instrumental to fee market developing?
Shouldn't they come up with some block-bloating code, to compensate for the nasty scaling side effect?

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation