I will take it on faith that those graphs are factually accurate.
That goes for the graphs of blockchain.info as well. Luckily, all data is public, so everyone can check it if he wants.
A large majority of people already accept that Blockchain.info produces factually accurate information, so it seems to make little to no sense to me that you would be attempting to suggest that blockchain.info may either not be credible or that it is somehow similar in stature to some other random source.
I am giving you the benefit of the doubt regarding the source of the information that you provided, yet if you are making a lot of arguments or if you are trying to spin the information, then those kinds of efforts may cause me (or others to question the credibility of the source(s)).
Accordingly, if you have some question about some of the information provided by blockchain.info or you want to suggest such information representations of blockchain.info is merely just the same as any other random source, then the burden is on you to provide evidence and logic to support such an allegation if that is what you want to do.
they still don't demonstrate some kind of emergency state, and even though a bit more granular than blockchain.info, they are not really showing anything that should cause panic.
Suppose a bus company starts running a service in 2010. At first, you'd only see one or two people in the bus. As the bus service becomes more known, more people travel on the bus. Nowadays, busses are often completely occupied. It's common that people are left at the bus stops having to wait for the next one, esp. if they bought the cheapest tickets.
You can see that this happens more and more often. However, anyone who bought the most expensive ticket always manages to get on the next bus. Nevertheless, it happens more and more often that more and more people with the cheap tickets have to skip buses.
Yet, you say there's no reason for panic. You don't expect that the demand for the bus service will keep growing.
Your analogy of a bus seems somewhat forced, and the subsequent post of AlexGR seems to adequately, reasonably and effectively respond to various deficiencies of your bus analogy.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=178336.msg14164904#msg14164904I do wish that blockchain.info would come out with some more granular charts to maybe break down by hourly or even shorter periods and to be able to zoom in or out in order to better see if there are some rush hour periods..
What's so special about blockchain.info, I wonder.
I could give a shit about the source, except to the extent that it is credible. Blockchain.info is a credible source, unless you somehow show otherwise. Furthermore, as I already addressed this earlier, if you are throwing around various random sources to prove your point, then I will likely begin to wonder why you cannot find your arguments within already accepted and credible sources.
and maybe even if there are ways to show charts that separate spam and legit transactions
I can imagine that a flood of tx without fee can be considered spam. But nowadays, only mining pools use zero fee tx to payout their miners. There are hardly any zero fee tx issued otherwise. (800 in the past 24 hours, source:
https://bitcoinfees.21.co/ ) But if a tx carries a fee, how to decide if it's spam or not? What is your definition of spam?
I have no fucking clue about various technicalities.... I am of the understanding that there are a lot of transactions that are being sent to the blockchain to make it seem to be more full than it is in order to attempt to whine about some kind of blockchain crisis. AlexGR addressed some of this in his post, too when he discusses how inexpensive it is to fill up the blocks with nonsense.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=178336.msg14164904#msg14164904So if the intent of the transactions is to fill up the block rather than to either transmit value or to legitimately record some information, then it is likely spam.... Again, I have no real knowledge regarding analyzing this stuff, so I see that there are other more technical and trusted people describing some of the bullshit that is sent that seems to be for the purpose of merely just attempting to fill up the blocks or to create the appearance of full blocks.
I get the sense that seg wit filters out spam too, so maybe we are going to witness some better representations of what's going on once seg wit is live?.
How does SW filters spam? How does it decide which tx is spam and which is not?
I don't really know on a technical level, and so I rely on some of the descriptions regarding what it is supposed to do. My understanding is that it separates transaction involving fees from other non-fee information. Accordingly, we are likely going to see how it plays out, but it seems to incorporate a lot of good solutions that may address some of the spamming matters.
Anyhow, there is work on seg wit at the moment and a plan to begin with that (coming soon) and then to give further consideration to whether an additional physical block size limitation needs to be incorporated as well.. so I really am still having difficulties grappling with some of the panick.
How many people need to wait for how many next buses until you panic? Or don't you care about others, as long as you can afford your bus ticket?
Why does it matter what I think? If you think it is a crises, then go on crying about it. I already said that I think that there are sufficient plans to attempt various remedies that are in the pipeline, including seg wit... and I never said that the blocksize never needs to be increased, as you seem to be attempting to attribute to me.
In other words: how many tx do you think Bitcoin should be able to process today, in 3 months, in 6 months, and in one year's time?
getting repetitive. I think that there are expansion plans in place... good enough for me for the moment....
Fact: the number if tx per day is close to the limit of 250,000. We recently touched that twice. (sources:
https://blockchain.info/charts/n-transactions?timespan=2year&showDataPoints=false&daysAverageString=1&show_header=true&scale=0&address= ,
http://www.coindesk.com/data/bitcoin-daily-transactions/ )
We crossed the 20,000 tx/day in June 2012
We crossed the 50,000 tx/day in August 2013
We crossed the 100,000 tx/day in March 2015
We crossed the 200,000 tx/day in January 2016
And the hard limit is a little over 250,000...
So, do you think 250,000 tx/day is sufficient for Bitcoin to be successful? Do you think 400,000 tx/day is sufficient by the end of this year, when SW is rolled out and most other software is updated to take advantage of it? Do you think 400,000 tx/day will be enough until LN comes into existence?
Again, it doesn't really matter that much what I think.
But it seems that AlexGR addressed this matter too.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=178336.msg14164904#msg14164904In essence, there may be some peaks of 250k transactions per day, but likely not even really close to that in regards to legitimate transactions and there remain adequate expansion plans already in the works and likely many more to come.. so why fret about something that is still in the works and not at an emergency state yet?
Poll
