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

[becoin]

Miners will include everything that contains a transaction fee, even one satoshi. Why? Because even one satoshi is one satoshi. And then came spam...................

One could add 100GB to the BU blockchain, just by spending 1 BU coin.

This is not a reasonable game theory interpretation of what will happen. They will set the block size to yield the highest total fees, which would require the exclusion of very low fee transactions.

Yielding highest total fees requires inclusion of low fee transactions, not exclusion!

[1714537278]

1714537278

[1714537278]

1714537278

[alexeft]

Miners will include everything that contains a transaction fee, even one satoshi. Why? Because even one satoshi is one satoshi. And then came spam...................

One could add 100GB to the BU blockchain, just by spending 1 BU coin.

This is not a reasonable game theory interpretation of what will happen. They will set the block size to yield the highest total fees, which would require the exclusion of very low fee transactions.

I can at least imagine a miner in distress because coin price fell and he has to pay the electrcity bill. Then, it's include all....

[spiderbrain]

Miners will include everything that contains a transaction fee, even one satoshi. Why? Because even one satoshi is one satoshi. And then came spam...................

One could add 100GB to the BU blockchain, just by spending 1 BU coin.

This is not a reasonable game theory interpretation of what will happen. They will set the block size to yield the highest total fees, which would require the exclusion of very low fee transactions.

Yielding highest total fees requires inclusion of low fee transactions, not exclusion!

No, because you remove the competition for block inclusion. If every transaction gets included, no one needs to compete. So the most profitable choice is setting the fees low enough to increase transaction volume but high enough to still have block inclusion competition, which gives you a bell curve.

[Holliday]

Miners will include everything that contains a transaction fee, even one satoshi. Why? Because even one satoshi is one satoshi. And then came spam...................

One could add 100GB to the BU blockchain, just by spending 1 BU coin.

This is not a reasonable game theory interpretation of what will happen. They will set the block size to yield the highest total fees, which would require the exclusion of very low fee transactions.

So, we've had tons of "spam" on the network, I assume that "spam" will continue post BU (should that happen). I also imagine lots of new "spam" as an attack on BU.

Miners craft blocks to get the highest total fees, means they are accepting blocks of that size? What happens when a malicious miner crafts blocks of the same size but filled with their own transactions, thus not draining the mempool what-so-ever?

I'm not convinced that incentives will simply be mine-blocks-for-rewards if there is a fork. I think we will see all kinds of attacks on both networks (after this long of a stalemate and the bitterness we are seeing today, it would be naive to think otherwise) and I'm interested to see how BU with it's multiple variables (additional complexity) deals with such attacks. I fully expect them to eat themselves before long and hard code rules to prevent certain things from happening, basically ending up even more restrictive than a simple you-get-what-you-pay-for fee market.

[spiderbrain]

Miners will include everything that contains a transaction fee, even one satoshi. Why? Because even one satoshi is one satoshi. And then came spam...................

One could add 100GB to the BU blockchain, just by spending 1 BU coin.

This is not a reasonable game theory interpretation of what will happen. They will set the block size to yield the highest total fees, which would require the exclusion of very low fee transactions.

I can at least imagine a miner in distress because coin price fell and he has to pay the electrcity bill. Then, it's include all....

That is a possible scenario, but most people capable of getting the investment together to own a mining farm are probably fairly rational. It is also possible that governments print their own currency until they create hyperinflation, but it only happens rarely. I was only making a statement about what the emergent behaviour of rational actors would be.

[becoin]

Miners will include everything that contains a transaction fee, even one satoshi. Why? Because even one satoshi is one satoshi. And then came spam...................

One could add 100GB to the BU blockchain, just by spending 1 BU coin.

This is not a reasonable game theory interpretation of what will happen. They will set the block size to yield the highest total fees, which would require the exclusion of very low fee transactions.

Yielding highest total fees requires inclusion of low fee transactions, not exclusion!

No, because you remove the competition for block inclusion. If every transaction gets included, no one needs to compete. So the most profitable choice is setting the fees low enough to increase transaction volume but high enough to still have block inclusion competition, which gives you a bell curve.

So, the most profitable choice for users (not miners) is to spam the BUcoin network with lowest possible fees as much as they can, for transactions they don't care about if excluded, to cause a very low bell curve so that "legit" transactions get included with relatively low fees?

[spiderbrain]

Miners will include everything that contains a transaction fee, even one satoshi. Why? Because even one satoshi is one satoshi. And then came spam...................

One could add 100GB to the BU blockchain, just by spending 1 BU coin.

This is not a reasonable game theory interpretation of what will happen. They will set the block size to yield the highest total fees, which would require the exclusion of very low fee transactions.

So, we've had tons of "spam" on the network, I assume that "spam" will continue post BU (should that happen). I also imagine lots of new "spam" as an attack on BU.

Miners craft blocks to get the highest total fees, means they are accepting blocks of that size? What happens when a malicious miner crafts blocks of the same size but filled with their own transactions, thus not draining the mempool what-so-ever?

I'm not convinced that incentives will simply be mine-blocks-for-rewards if there is a fork. I think we will see all kinds of attacks on both networks (after this long of a stalemate and the bitterness we are seeing today, it would be naive to think otherwise) and I'm interested to see how BU with it's multiple variables (additional complexity) deals with such attacks. I fully expect them to eat themselves before long and hard code rules to prevent certain things from happening, basically ending up even more restrictive than a simple you-get-what-you-pay-for fee market.

Good question, I don't know the answer. I'm not interested enough in BU to fully understand all the implications of a chain based on that client. I agree there will be a lot of unreasonable violence following any fork, which is a shame. Mostly I am just keeping my head down to avoid the bitterness of the technical debate at the moment.

[alexeft]

Miners will include everything that contains a transaction fee, even one satoshi. Why? Because even one satoshi is one satoshi. And then came spam...................

One could add 100GB to the BU blockchain, just by spending 1 BU coin.

This is not a reasonable game theory interpretation of what will happen. They will set the block size to yield the highest total fees, which would require the exclusion of very low fee transactions.

So, we've had tons of "spam" on the network, I assume that "spam" will continue post BU (should that happen). I also imagine lots of new "spam" as an attack on BU.

Miners craft blocks to get the highest total fees, means they are accepting blocks of that size? What happens when a malicious miner crafts blocks of the same size but filled with their own transactions, thus not draining the mempool what-so-ever?

I'm not convinced that incentives will simply be mine-blocks-for-rewards if there is a fork. I think we will see all kinds of attacks on both networks (after this long of a stalemate and the bitterness we are seeing today, it would be naive to think otherwise) and I'm interested to see how BU with it's multiple variables (additional complexity) deals with such attacks. I fully expect them to eat themselves before long and hard code rules to prevent certain things from happening, basically ending up even more restrictive than a simple you-get-what-you-pay-for fee market.

Good question, I don't know the answer. I'm not interested enough in BU to fully understand all the implications of a chain based on that client. I agree there will be a lot of unreasonable violence following any fork, which is a shame. Mostly I am just keeping my head down to avoid the bitterness of the technical debate at the moment.

No bitterness from and no practical interest here either. Just trying to understand BU.

[spiderbrain]

So, the most profitable choice for users (not miners) is to spam the BUcoin network with lowest possible fees as much as they can, for transactions they don't care about if excluded, to cause a very low bell curve so that "legit" transactions get included with relatively low fees?

Interesting. I suppose it depends upon whether the supply and demand function is an actual Gaussian curve, or something asymmetrical. Would the mining community drop the price of the first block inclusion fees in order to harvest more of the small fees? I don't know. I was generally trying to make a point that there are two competing forces at play in setting the block size in unlimited, rather than it tending to include all transactions.

[spiderbrain]

No bitterness from and no practical interest here either. Just trying to understand BU.

That wasn't aimed at anyone in this discussion, I just meant in general at the moment

[Holliday]

Miners will include everything that contains a transaction fee, even one satoshi. Why? Because even one satoshi is one satoshi. And then came spam...................

One could add 100GB to the BU blockchain, just by spending 1 BU coin.

This is not a reasonable game theory interpretation of what will happen. They will set the block size to yield the highest total fees, which would require the exclusion of very low fee transactions.

So, we've had tons of "spam" on the network, I assume that "spam" will continue post BU (should that happen). I also imagine lots of new "spam" as an attack on BU.

Miners craft blocks to get the highest total fees, means they are accepting blocks of that size? What happens when a malicious miner crafts blocks of the same size but filled with their own transactions, thus not draining the mempool what-so-ever?

I'm not convinced that incentives will simply be mine-blocks-for-rewards if there is a fork. I think we will see all kinds of attacks on both networks (after this long of a stalemate and the bitterness we are seeing today, it would be naive to think otherwise) and I'm interested to see how BU with it's multiple variables (additional complexity) deals with such attacks. I fully expect them to eat themselves before long and hard code rules to prevent certain things from happening, basically ending up even more restrictive than a simple you-get-what-you-pay-for fee market.

we welcome fee paying spam.  

if you guys want to create valid blocks on our network thats cool man

even if you want to do some tests and see if invalid blocks get rejected thats OK too

If you are accepting blocks of N size with fee paying transactions, you will also accept my blocks of N size consisting entirely of 0 fee transactions to myself that I've not broadcast but simply put in my blocks. My blocks are valid according to your rules, bloat the chain, do not help reduce the mempool, and still receive block rewards!

[DaRude]

Is BTC dead???

[spiderbrain]

Is BTC dead???

Nah, it's just got a bit of a hubris hangover

[springgers]

Triple digits reached  

I have been watching for the last 2 hours and haven't seen it but rebound back.
Those sayings are just going to make weak hands abandon all hope for a recovery.

[york780]

Right now ? 993 EUR. I am not lying I am talking about euro's not dollars.

[notme]

Miners will include everything that contains a transaction fee, even one satoshi. Why? Because even one satoshi is one satoshi. And then came spam...................

One could add 100GB to the BU blockchain, just by spending 1 BU coin.

This is not a reasonable game theory interpretation of what will happen. They will set the block size to yield the highest total fees, which would require the exclusion of very low fee transactions.

So, we've had tons of "spam" on the network, I assume that "spam" will continue post BU (should that happen). I also imagine lots of new "spam" as an attack on BU.

Miners craft blocks to get the highest total fees, means they are accepting blocks of that size? What happens when a malicious miner crafts blocks of the same size but filled with their own transactions, thus not draining the mempool what-so-ever?

I'm not convinced that incentives will simply be mine-blocks-for-rewards if there is a fork. I think we will see all kinds of attacks on both networks (after this long of a stalemate and the bitterness we are seeing today, it would be naive to think otherwise) and I'm interested to see how BU with it's multiple variables (additional complexity) deals with such attacks. I fully expect them to eat themselves before long and hard code rules to prevent certain things from happening, basically ending up even more restrictive than a simple you-get-what-you-pay-for fee market.

we welcome fee paying spam.  

if you guys want to create valid blocks on our network thats cool man

even if you want to do some tests and see if invalid blocks get rejected thats OK too

If you are accepting blocks of N size with fee paying transactions, you will also accept my blocks of N size consisting entirely of 0 fee transactions to myself that I've not broadcast but simply put in my blocks. My blocks are valid according to your rules, bloat the chain, do not help reduce the mempool, and still receive block rewards!

And because your block had unbroadcast transactions it would take longer to validate than a different block released at about the same time.  Because BU has parallel validation of competing chains, your block would lose out even it arrived slightly quicker.  It is this orphan risk that creates the cost.

[Holliday]

Miners will include everything that contains a transaction fee, even one satoshi. Why? Because even one satoshi is one satoshi. And then came spam...................

One could add 100GB to the BU blockchain, just by spending 1 BU coin.

This is not a reasonable game theory interpretation of what will happen. They will set the block size to yield the highest total fees, which would require the exclusion of very low fee transactions.

So, we've had tons of "spam" on the network, I assume that "spam" will continue post BU (should that happen). I also imagine lots of new "spam" as an attack on BU.

Miners craft blocks to get the highest total fees, means they are accepting blocks of that size? What happens when a malicious miner crafts blocks of the same size but filled with their own transactions, thus not draining the mempool what-so-ever?

I'm not convinced that incentives will simply be mine-blocks-for-rewards if there is a fork. I think we will see all kinds of attacks on both networks (after this long of a stalemate and the bitterness we are seeing today, it would be naive to think otherwise) and I'm interested to see how BU with it's multiple variables (additional complexity) deals with such attacks. I fully expect them to eat themselves before long and hard code rules to prevent certain things from happening, basically ending up even more restrictive than a simple you-get-what-you-pay-for fee market.

we welcome fee paying spam.  

if you guys want to create valid blocks on our network thats cool man

even if you want to do some tests and see if invalid blocks get rejected thats OK too

If you are accepting blocks of N size with fee paying transactions, you will also accept my blocks of N size consisting entirely of 0 fee transactions to myself that I've not broadcast but simply put in my blocks. My blocks are valid according to your rules, bloat the chain, do not help reduce the mempool, and still receive block rewards!

And because your block had unbroadcast transactions it would take longer to validate than a different block released at about the same time.  Because BU has parallel validation of competing chains, your block would lose out even it arrived slightly quicker.  It is this orphan risk that creates the cost.

Fine, I'll just broadcast all those 0 fee transactions first. I wasn't thinking when I suggested keeping them to myself. They are 0 fee, I have nothing to lose!

And remember, I'm here to get paid block rewards to attack the chain. Even if I lose out on some close blocks, so what?

[Killerpotleaf]

Miners will include everything that contains a transaction fee, even one satoshi. Why? Because even one satoshi is one satoshi. And then came spam...................

One could add 100GB to the BU blockchain, just by spending 1 BU coin.

This is not a reasonable game theory interpretation of what will happen. They will set the block size to yield the highest total fees, which would require the exclusion of very low fee transactions.

So, we've had tons of "spam" on the network, I assume that "spam" will continue post BU (should that happen). I also imagine lots of new "spam" as an attack on BU.

Miners craft blocks to get the highest total fees, means they are accepting blocks of that size? What happens when a malicious miner crafts blocks of the same size but filled with their own transactions, thus not draining the mempool what-so-ever?

I'm not convinced that incentives will simply be mine-blocks-for-rewards if there is a fork. I think we will see all kinds of attacks on both networks (after this long of a stalemate and the bitterness we are seeing today, it would be naive to think otherwise) and I'm interested to see how BU with it's multiple variables (additional complexity) deals with such attacks. I fully expect them to eat themselves before long and hard code rules to prevent certain things from happening, basically ending up even more restrictive than a simple you-get-what-you-pay-for fee market.

we welcome fee paying spam.  

if you guys want to create valid blocks on our network thats cool man

even if you want to do some tests and see if invalid blocks get rejected thats OK too

If you are accepting blocks of N size with fee paying transactions, you will also accept my blocks of N size consisting entirely of 0 fee transactions to myself that I've not broadcast but simply put in my blocks. My blocks are valid according to your rules, bloat the chain, do not help reduce the mempool, and still receive block rewards!

And because your block had unbroadcast transactions it would take longer to validate than a different block released at about the same time.  Because BU has parallel validation of competing chains, your block would lose out even it arrived slightly quicker.  It is this orphan risk that creates the cost.

Fine, I'll just broadcast all those 0 fee transactions first. I wasn't thinking when I suggested keeping them to myself. They are 0 fee, I have nothing to lose!

And remember, I'm here to get paid block rewards to attack the chain. Even if I lose out on some close blocks, so what?

ya man wast your money

[Holliday]

Miners will include everything that contains a transaction fee, even one satoshi. Why? Because even one satoshi is one satoshi. And then came spam...................

One could add 100GB to the BU blockchain, just by spending 1 BU coin.

This is not a reasonable game theory interpretation of what will happen. They will set the block size to yield the highest total fees, which would require the exclusion of very low fee transactions.

So, we've had tons of "spam" on the network, I assume that "spam" will continue post BU (should that happen). I also imagine lots of new "spam" as an attack on BU.

Miners craft blocks to get the highest total fees, means they are accepting blocks of that size? What happens when a malicious miner crafts blocks of the same size but filled with their own transactions, thus not draining the mempool what-so-ever?

I'm not convinced that incentives will simply be mine-blocks-for-rewards if there is a fork. I think we will see all kinds of attacks on both networks (after this long of a stalemate and the bitterness we are seeing today, it would be naive to think otherwise) and I'm interested to see how BU with it's multiple variables (additional complexity) deals with such attacks. I fully expect them to eat themselves before long and hard code rules to prevent certain things from happening, basically ending up even more restrictive than a simple you-get-what-you-pay-for fee market.

we welcome fee paying spam.  

if you guys want to create valid blocks on our network thats cool man

even if you want to do some tests and see if invalid blocks get rejected thats OK too

If you are accepting blocks of N size with fee paying transactions, you will also accept my blocks of N size consisting entirely of 0 fee transactions to myself that I've not broadcast but simply put in my blocks. My blocks are valid according to your rules, bloat the chain, do not help reduce the mempool, and still receive block rewards!

And because your block had unbroadcast transactions it would take longer to validate than a different block released at about the same time.  Because BU has parallel validation of competing chains, your block would lose out even it arrived slightly quicker.  It is this orphan risk that creates the cost.

Fine, I'll just broadcast all those 0 fee transactions first. I wasn't thinking when I suggested keeping them to myself. They are 0 fee, I have nothing to lose!

And remember, I'm here to get paid block rewards to attack the chain. Even if I lose out on some close blocks, so what?

ya man wast your money

Huh? I'm getting paid block rewards. I lose out on BU fees, but so what? I'm attacking BU's chain and getting paid to do it! How much are the fees going to be anyway when blocks are big enough to include all these transactions? Isn't that the selling point? Fees are too high, we need bigger blocks?

[Killerpotleaf]

Miners will include everything that contains a transaction fee, even one satoshi. Why? Because even one satoshi is one satoshi. And then came spam...................

One could add 100GB to the BU blockchain, just by spending 1 BU coin.

This is not a reasonable game theory interpretation of what will happen. They will set the block size to yield the highest total fees, which would require the exclusion of very low fee transactions.

So, we've had tons of "spam" on the network, I assume that "spam" will continue post BU (should that happen). I also imagine lots of new "spam" as an attack on BU.

Miners craft blocks to get the highest total fees, means they are accepting blocks of that size? What happens when a malicious miner crafts blocks of the same size but filled with their own transactions, thus not draining the mempool what-so-ever?

I'm not convinced that incentives will simply be mine-blocks-for-rewards if there is a fork. I think we will see all kinds of attacks on both networks (after this long of a stalemate and the bitterness we are seeing today, it would be naive to think otherwise) and I'm interested to see how BU with it's multiple variables (additional complexity) deals with such attacks. I fully expect them to eat themselves before long and hard code rules to prevent certain things from happening, basically ending up even more restrictive than a simple you-get-what-you-pay-for fee market.

we welcome fee paying spam.  

if you guys want to create valid blocks on our network thats cool man

even if you want to do some tests and see if invalid blocks get rejected thats OK too

If you are accepting blocks of N size with fee paying transactions, you will also accept my blocks of N size consisting entirely of 0 fee transactions to myself that I've not broadcast but simply put in my blocks. My blocks are valid according to your rules, bloat the chain, do not help reduce the mempool, and still receive block rewards!

And because your block had unbroadcast transactions it would take longer to validate than a different block released at about the same time.  Because BU has parallel validation of competing chains, your block would lose out even it arrived slightly quicker.  It is this orphan risk that creates the cost.

Fine, I'll just broadcast all those 0 fee transactions first. I wasn't thinking when I suggested keeping them to myself. They are 0 fee, I have nothing to lose!

And remember, I'm here to get paid block rewards to attack the chain. Even if I lose out on some close blocks, so what?

ya man wast your money

Huh? I'm getting paid block rewards. I lose out on BU fees, but so what? I'm attacking BU's chain and getting paid to do it! How much are the fees going to be anyway when blocks are big enough to include all these transactions? Isn't that the selling point? Fees are too high, we need bigger blocks?

if you aren't including fees you're gonna be minning at a loss.

pretty soon, all minning will be based on fee revenue.

and my node will ignore your 0fee paying TX you attempt to broadcast.