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

[LMGTFY]

...

seems chartbuddy isn't been updated for a long time except for thr graphical change below.
the only 3 exchange cannot inecate the main price of bitcoin.

Well, I guess. But they're pretty representative, surely? Bitfinex, Bitstamp and Coinbase account for ~3/4s of BTC/USD trades.

[1714840977]

1714840977

[1714840977]

1714840977

[1714840977]

1714840977

[1714840977]

1714840977

[1714840977]

1714840977

[becoin]

On top of that, Segwit is not a scaling solution. Neither is the raise to 2MB blocks. Both do temporarily fix the current full blocks issue though.

There is no full block issue. There is spam issue. As soon as spam attack stops everything is perfectly normal. Increasing blocksize does nothing to solve spam issue. You can not solve spam issue by giving spammers more free space to spam!

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[Ibian]

On top of that, Segwit is not a scaling solution. Neither is the raise to 2MB blocks. Both do temporarily fix the current full blocks issue though.

There is no full block issue. There is spam issue. As soon as spam attack stops everything is perfectly normal. Increasing blocksize does nothing to solve spam issue. You can not solve spam issue by giving spammers more free space to spam!

It's only as free as the miners allow it to be. As long as people who actually pay a fee get their transfers done in a timely manner, no amount of unpaid spam transactions matters.

[yugo23]

On top of that, Segwit is not a scaling solution. Neither is the raise to 2MB blocks. Both do temporarily fix the current full blocks issue though.

There is no full block issue. There is spam issue. As soon as spam attack stops everything is perfectly normal. Increasing blocksize does nothing to solve spam issue. You can not solve spam issue by giving spammers more free space to spam!

Hmm... I don't understand you. 1MB blocks allow a really low amount of tx and btc is spreading. Of course there is a block size issue! Simply because the adoption of btc is rising and numbers of allowed tx is the staying the same!

[becoin]

On top of that, Segwit is not a scaling solution. Neither is the raise to 2MB blocks. Both do temporarily fix the current full blocks issue though.

There is no full block issue. There is spam issue. As soon as spam attack stops everything is perfectly normal. Increasing blocksize does nothing to solve spam issue. You can not solve spam issue by giving spammers more free space to spam!

It's only as free as the miners allow it to be. As long as people who actually pay a fee get their transfers done in a timely manner, no amount of unpaid spam transactions matters.

So?!... My point is: giving more space to spammers doesn't solve anything and just gives spammers incentives to spam more. What is your point?

[becoin]

On top of that, Segwit is not a scaling solution. Neither is the raise to 2MB blocks. Both do temporarily fix the current full blocks issue though.

There is no full block issue. There is spam issue. As soon as spam attack stops everything is perfectly normal. Increasing blocksize does nothing to solve spam issue. You can not solve spam issue by giving spammers more free space to spam!

Hmm... I don't understand you. 1MB blocks allow a really low amount of tx and btc is spreading. Of course there is a block size issue! Simply because the adoption of btc is rising and numbers of allowed tx is the staying the same!

Sorry, I don't respond to people with paid signatures. 99% of them don't understand what they're talking about. What they do care is only how much posts they make.

[Ibian]

On top of that, Segwit is not a scaling solution. Neither is the raise to 2MB blocks. Both do temporarily fix the current full blocks issue though.

There is no full block issue. There is spam issue. As soon as spam attack stops everything is perfectly normal. Increasing blocksize does nothing to solve spam issue. You can not solve spam issue by giving spammers more free space to spam!

It's only as free as the miners allow it to be. As long as people who actually pay a fee get their transfers done in a timely manner, no amount of unpaid spam transactions matters.

So?!... My point is: giving more space to spammers doesn't solve anything and just gives spammers incentives to spam more. What is your point?

My point is that unpaid transactions are only processed if independent individuals around the world willingly choose to do so of their own volition. What is your point?

[Fatman3001]

On top of that, Segwit is not a scaling solution. Neither is the raise to 2MB blocks. Both do temporarily fix the current full blocks issue though.

There is no full block issue. There is spam issue. As soon as spam attack stops everything is perfectly normal. Increasing blocksize does nothing to solve spam issue. You can not solve spam issue by giving spammers more free space to spam!

It's only as free as the miners allow it to be. As long as people who actually pay a fee get their transfers done in a timely manner, no amount of unpaid spam transactions matters.

So?!... My point is: giving more space to spammers doesn't solve anything and just gives spammers incentives to spam more. What is your point?

Ok, so in between all the CP, drug and tax evasion money there's some spam. So what?

[Ibian]

On top of that, Segwit is not a scaling solution. Neither is the raise to 2MB blocks. Both do temporarily fix the current full blocks issue though.

There is no full block issue. There is spam issue. As soon as spam attack stops everything is perfectly normal. Increasing blocksize does nothing to solve spam issue. You can not solve spam issue by giving spammers more free space to spam!

Hmm... I don't understand you. 1MB blocks allow a really low amount of tx and btc is spreading. Of course there is a block size issue! Simply because the adoption of btc is rising and numbers of allowed tx is the staying the same!

Sorry, I don't respond to people with paid signatures. 99% of them don't understand what they're talking about. What they do care is only how much posts they make.

That's a copout. His sig is not part of his argument. You just don't have a good answer.

[yugo23]

On top of that, Segwit is not a scaling solution. Neither is the raise to 2MB blocks. Both do temporarily fix the current full blocks issue though.

There is no full block issue. There is spam issue. As soon as spam attack stops everything is perfectly normal. Increasing blocksize does nothing to solve spam issue. You can not solve spam issue by giving spammers more free space to spam!

Hmm... I don't understand you. 1MB blocks allow a really low amount of tx and btc is spreading. Of course there is a block size issue! Simply because the adoption of btc is rising and numbers of allowed tx is the staying the same!

Sorry, I don't respond to people with paid signatures. 99% of them don't understand what they're talking about. What they do care is only how much posts they make.

Thanks for this wonderful argument.

But as it happens, some users have paid sig to earn a few bucks while posting, not posting for the few bucks.

I believe I understand what I'm talking about: currently 1MB size limits the btc network to something around 2000 txs per block.

Now simple calculation please: 2000/10min means 12 000/h means 288 000/day

Now I might be dumb, but it means current network can't handle 300 000 users daily. So now explain me how network can scale?

[AlexGR]

On top of that, Segwit is not a scaling solution. Neither is the raise to 2MB blocks. Both do temporarily fix the current full blocks issue though.

There is no full block issue. There is spam issue. As soon as spam attack stops everything is perfectly normal. Increasing blocksize does nothing to solve spam issue. You can not solve spam issue by giving spammers more free space to spam!

It's only as free as the miners allow it to be. As long as people who actually pay a fee get their transfers done in a timely manner, no amount of unpaid spam transactions matters.

So?!... My point is: giving more space to spammers doesn't solve anything and just gives spammers incentives to spam more. What is your point?

My point is that unpaid transactions are only processed if independent individuals around the world willingly choose to do so of their own volition. What is your point?

There is also paid spam... for example if I pay 1 satoshi per byte, I can claim "I paid fees for my tx".

At a 1 satoshi per byte rate one can insert a billion bytes for a billion satoshi. That's ~4300$ for a gigabyte of spam. The blockchain is currently at 67GB, so spamming 67GB would cost just 288k USD. The costs for bandwidth, storage, processing etc of all that crap will exceed, over time, what was paid by the spammer, so, in a sense, it would represent a type of financial amplification attack, where the spammer incurs multiple costs to the ecosystem by spamming away - whether he does it for free or "pays fees" like 1 satoshi / byte. Even at 10 satoshi / byte the attack is feasible.

[ahpku]

...
So?!... My point is: giving more space to spammers doesn't solve anything and just gives spammers incentives to spam more. What is your point?

>giving more space to spammers doesn't solve anything
Sure it does. If 20 people legitimately need to get to work by bus, and your bus is a BMW Isetta, people aren't going to get to work. Simple as that.

>gives spammers incentives to spam more
No. That's stupid.
Currently, riding around, maliciously and, otherwise, aimlessly, on the Isatta bus costs $0.03. How would making the bus bigger (20 seats) be an incentive to ride aimlessly? wouldn't the little shit have to spend $0.03 x 19 to accomplish what $0.03 did on the Isetta bus?

[Ibian]

On top of that, Segwit is not a scaling solution. Neither is the raise to 2MB blocks. Both do temporarily fix the current full blocks issue though.

There is no full block issue. There is spam issue. As soon as spam attack stops everything is perfectly normal. Increasing blocksize does nothing to solve spam issue. You can not solve spam issue by giving spammers more free space to spam!

It's only as free as the miners allow it to be. As long as people who actually pay a fee get their transfers done in a timely manner, no amount of unpaid spam transactions matters.

So?!... My point is: giving more space to spammers doesn't solve anything and just gives spammers incentives to spam more. What is your point?

My point is that unpaid transactions are only processed if independent individuals around the world willingly choose to do so of their own volition. What is your point?

spam

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

But let us find out. How do you define spam, and why should anyone take that definition seriously?

[becoin]

On top of that, Segwit is not a scaling solution. Neither is the raise to 2MB blocks. Both do temporarily fix the current full blocks issue though.

There is no full block issue. There is spam issue. As soon as spam attack stops everything is perfectly normal. Increasing blocksize does nothing to solve spam issue. You can not solve spam issue by giving spammers more free space to spam!

It's only as free as the miners allow it to be. As long as people who actually pay a fee get their transfers done in a timely manner, no amount of unpaid spam transactions matters.

So?!... My point is: giving more space to spammers doesn't solve anything and just gives spammers incentives to spam more. What is your point?

My point is that unpaid transactions are only processed if independent individuals around the world willingly choose to do so of their own volition. What is your point?

Who are those "interdependent individual"?... Most of the "independent individuals around the world" want free money. But if ever they get what they want that won't be money anymore!

[marcus_of_augustus]

On top of that, Segwit is not a scaling solution. Neither is the raise to 2MB blocks. Both do temporarily fix the current full blocks issue though.

There is no full block issue. There is spam issue. As soon as spam attack stops everything is perfectly normal. Increasing blocksize does nothing to solve spam issue. You can not solve spam issue by giving spammers more free space to spam!

Hmm... I don't understand you. 1MB blocks allow a really low amount of tx and btc is spreading. Of course there is a block size issue! Simply because the adoption of btc is rising and numbers of allowed tx is the staying the same!

Sorry, I don't respond to people with paid signatures. 99% of them don't understand what they're talking about. What they do care is only how much posts they make.

Thanks for this wonderful argument.

But as it happens, some users have paid sig to earn a few bucks while posting, not posting for the few bucks.

I believe I understand what I'm talking about: currently 1MB size limits the btc network to something around 2000 txs per block.

Now simple calculation please: 2000/10min means 12 000/h means 288 000/day

Now I might be dumb, but it means current network can't handle 300 000 users daily. So now explain me how network can scale?

See, even a 'dumb' person can see that it cannot scale. For a bitcoin system that wants to cater for 10 million -1 billion customer base increasing blocksize is a largely ignorant approach (a band-aid on a gunshot wound), the most technically sound decision here is to saturate the base layer ASAP to gather data and build out higher layers as necessary based on that information.

[ahpku]

...
But let us find out. How do you define spam, and why should anyone take that definition seriously?

No need to define spam, stop with your sleazy sophistry, comrade.
Any decent Core Citizen knows spam when he sees it. Like pornography, Communism, and perversion.

[Ibian]

On top of that, Segwit is not a scaling solution. Neither is the raise to 2MB blocks. Both do temporarily fix the current full blocks issue though.

There is no full block issue. There is spam issue. As soon as spam attack stops everything is perfectly normal. Increasing blocksize does nothing to solve spam issue. You can not solve spam issue by giving spammers more free space to spam!

Hmm... I don't understand you. 1MB blocks allow a really low amount of tx and btc is spreading. Of course there is a block size issue! Simply because the adoption of btc is rising and numbers of allowed tx is the staying the same!

Sorry, I don't respond to people with paid signatures. 99% of them don't understand what they're talking about. What they do care is only how much posts they make.

Thanks for this wonderful argument.

But as it happens, some users have paid sig to earn a few bucks while posting, not posting for the few bucks.

I believe I understand what I'm talking about: currently 1MB size limits the btc network to something around 2000 txs per block.

Now simple calculation please: 2000/10min means 12 000/h means 288 000/day

Now I might be dumb, but it means current network can't handle 300 000 users daily. So now explain me how network can scale?

See, even a 'dumb' person can see that it cannot scale. For a bitcoin system that wants to cater for 10 million -1 billion customer base increasing blocksize is a largely ignorant approach (a band-aid on a gunshot wound), the most technically sound decision here is to saturate the base layer ASAP to gather data and build out higher layers as necessary based on that information.

Do both. It's not a contest. Whatever improvements are made to the code, doubling the blocksize will double those improvements.

[yugo23]

On top of that, Segwit is not a scaling solution. Neither is the raise to 2MB blocks. Both do temporarily fix the current full blocks issue though.

There is no full block issue. There is spam issue. As soon as spam attack stops everything is perfectly normal. Increasing blocksize does nothing to solve spam issue. You can not solve spam issue by giving spammers more free space to spam!

Hmm... I don't understand you. 1MB blocks allow a really low amount of tx and btc is spreading. Of course there is a block size issue! Simply because the adoption of btc is rising and numbers of allowed tx is the staying the same!

Sorry, I don't respond to people with paid signatures. 99% of them don't understand what they're talking about. What they do care is only how much posts they make.

Thanks for this wonderful argument.

But as it happens, some users have paid sig to earn a few bucks while posting, not posting for the few bucks.

I believe I understand what I'm talking about: currently 1MB size limits the btc network to something around 2000 txs per block.

Now simple calculation please: 2000/10min means 12 000/h means 288 000/day

Now I might be dumb, but it means current network can't handle 300 000 users daily. So now explain me how network can scale?

See, even a 'dumb' person can see that it cannot scale. For a bitcoin system that wants to cater for 10 million -1 billion customer base increasing blocksize is a largely ignorant approach (a band-aid on a gunshot wound), the most technically sound decision here is to saturate the base layer ASAP to gather data and build out higher layers as necessary based on that information.

Hey who are you calling dumb? 

[ahpku]

Who are those "interdependent individual"?... Most of the "independent individuals around the world" want free money. But if ever they get what they want that won't be money anymore!
OMG! Freeloaders! Under my skin! Scurrying around, pooping on me! Halp!

Criminally insane use the interweb? No wonder.