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

[Ibian]

If there had been a HF three years ago from 1MB to 2MB, we'd already be hitting the 2MB limit and BU supporters would be screaming that we need to immediately HF again to 4MB.  And so on, and so on.

They act like that wouldn't be true, but we all know it would.

So apparently for them, every time the block size limit is reached, the solution is simply another 2MB increase.  On and on, until mining centralization by like one person with a total hardware & hashpower monopoly is complete.

Well FU, BU.

The current limit is not enough for mainstream use. That is a hard fucking mathematical fact. The transaction limit will have to be raised one way or another, sooner or later.

[1714241276]

1714241276

[1714241276]

1714241276

[1714241276]

1714241276

[1714241276]

1714241276

[1714241276]

1714241276

[JayJuanGee]

BS, if everyone wanted to use BTC they simply could not because bitcoin is incapable of processing all of their transactions no matter what they pay in fees..
2mb blocks right now would buy time until better solutions become available, wither that be LN or something yet unheard of.. Right now it's stagnant and people that want to use bitcoin cannot because it just will not process that many transactions..

Sure they can wait forever for confirms while the line cutters jump infront of them, but that is not the way BTC was intended to be..

Every transaction does not need to be censorship-proof as long as the option exists.

Expecting to include "everyone's" transaction in a decentralized ledger where full nodes have to keep a history of every transaction since the genesis block is simply ridiculous. It would destroy the very properties that gives Bitcoin it's value.

agreed!

anyway, 1.2MB limit for now and when fee presuure comes back to 1$ 1.3MB blocks, sounds good?

Kick the can down the road? No, it sounds terrible.

How about layers which can be removed should the need arise.

why not both.

i dont think its kicking the can, its more like preparing for the future.

unless you believe no one will ever be able to handle more then 1MB

why do both when only one of the solutions is helpful, agreed to, vetted and tested.

[Holliday]

It's the people who are against growth that have some explaining to do.

Yeah, 'cuz no one has given any reasons anywhere why it's a good idea to keep blocks small.

:/

Then why not a tenth of the current size? What could possibly be wrong with that?

We have consensus at 1 MB now.

[JayJuanGee]

If there had been a HF three years ago from 1MB to 2MB, we'd already be hitting the 2MB limit and BU supporters would be screaming that we need to immediately HF again to 4MB.  And so on, and so on.

They act like that wouldn't be true, but we all know it would.

So apparently for them, every time the block size limit is reached, the solution is simply another 2MB increase.  On and on, until mining centralization by like one person with a total hardware & hashpower monopoly is complete.

Well FU, BU.

The current limit is not enough for mainstream use. That is a hard fucking mathematical fact. The transaction limit will have to be raised one way or another, sooner or later.

Again.. nonsense.

Falsely, asserting some kind of "math" "reality"... we could likely concede that sometime the transaction limit will need to be raised, but that does not seem to be the current state of affairs, except some whiners trying to describe a situation as an "emergency", when no such "emergency" exists.

[Ibian]

Segwit First!

^screw seqwit+ screw btu ... lets just increase to 2mb and get on up to $2000 ladies?  

Are you retarded?

What is the justification to move up to 2mb?

If there is no justification, besides merely "sounding like a good idea", then there should be no need to presume that 2mb actually resolves anything - besides caving into some whiners and maybe even bringing some disadvantages.
 

Anyhow, we should not be advocating to do things just because it "sounds nice"

Double the transaction capability (and lower fees as a side effect) is plenty of reason. It's the people who are against growth that have some explaining to do.

This seems like a strawman argument.

You are a strawman.

You seem to be proving my point with your lack of engagement, and now movement away from a strawman to a personal attack.. hahahaha.. you gots nothing, but maybe a little aire (straw has aire, too).   

Nope, you are a confirmed strawman. You do not get a proper reply. Look at your own posts. You are using emotional manipulative language, not logical and factual arguments.

[Killerpotleaf]

BS, if everyone wanted to use BTC they simply could not because bitcoin is incapable of processing all of their transactions no matter what they pay in fees..
2mb blocks right now would buy time until better solutions become available, wither that be LN or something yet unheard of.. Right now it's stagnant and people that want to use bitcoin cannot because it just will not process that many transactions..

Sure they can wait forever for confirms while the line cutters jump infront of them, but that is not the way BTC was intended to be..

Every transaction does not need to be censorship-proof as long as the option exists.

Expecting to include "everyone's" transaction in a decentralized ledger where full nodes have to keep a history of every transaction since the genesis block is simply ridiculous. It would destroy the very properties that gives Bitcoin it's value.

agreed!

anyway, 1.2MB limit for now and when fee presuure comes back to 1$ 1.3MB blocks, sounds good?

Kick the can down the road? No, it sounds terrible.

How about layers which can be removed should the need arise.

why not both.

i dont think its kicking the can, its more like preparing for the future.

unless you believe no one will ever be able to handle more then 1MB

why do both when only one of the solutions is helpful, agreed to, vetted and tested.

LN isnt even out of alpha stage....

so i need to assume you mean increasing block size, like miners did from 256KB to 1MB slowly over time ( yes miners had there own Max generation size before )

[eddie13]

Can you even understand your own fallacies in your points?  you assume everyone wants to use BTC, and they do not.  You also assume that BTC will not be able to adapt if more people want to use it, which BTC growth seems to be ongoing, no? and there continues to be adaptations, no?  lots of upwards price pressures, too, no?

The last I checked fees and transaction times continue to be very reasonable in BTClandia, and security for BTC is quite great.  

Also, bitcoin offers one of the greatest things ever (and no other crypto or non crypto offers what BTC offers), that is decentralized secure immutable transaction and storage of value.  

You got anything else offering what bitcoin offers?  Hello?  Name one, any?  Go ahead with some actual substance, besides whining about various pie in the sky "what could be" bullshit.  I am waiting.  go ahead.  What offers what bitcoin offers?  Bitcoin is not broken, as you and some of the other nutter shills seem to want to argue.

Obviously more people want to use BTC than it can handle, see the mempool backlog..
BTC is able to adopt to handle more transactions but you don't want it to..
BTC growth has now stopped in its tracks becauase it is at its limit of capability..
Fees and transation times being "reasonable" is in the eye of the beholder.. If you are sending 5,000 BTC I'm sure you don't mind paying a $5 fee..

their are hundreds of other cryptos that offer the same thing BTC does in different variations, BTC just has the network effect security, which it is just about to lose..
How many BTC clones are their? Bunch..

You are losing your precious upward price pressure too..

[Ibian]

It's the people who are against growth that have some explaining to do.

Yeah, 'cuz no one has given any reasons anywhere why it's a good idea to keep blocks small.

:/

Then why not a tenth of the current size? What could possibly be wrong with that?

We have consensus at 1 MB now.

I did not ask about that. What would be wrong with lowering the limit to a tenth of what it currently is? Do you see any problems with that at all?

[Holliday]

why not both.

i dont think its kicking the can, its more like preparing for the future.

unless you believe no one will ever be able to handle more then 1MB

Because hard forking every time we get full blocks is almost as ridiculous as BU's solution.

[Killerpotleaf]

the need for a split is self evident.

[alexeft]

We could practically double the capacity of the network without additional resources (call me segwit) but nooooooooooooooooooooooo!

 

[JayJuanGee]

Segwit First!

^screw seqwit+ screw btu ... lets just increase to 2mb and get on up to $2000 ladies?  

Are you retarded?

What is the justification to move up to 2mb?

If there is no justification, besides merely "sounding like a good idea", then there should be no need to presume that 2mb actually resolves anything - besides caving into some whiners and maybe even bringing some disadvantages.
 

Anyhow, we should not be advocating to do things just because it "sounds nice"

Double the transaction capability (and lower fees as a side effect) is plenty of reason. It's the people who are against growth that have some explaining to do.

This seems like a strawman argument.

You are a strawman.

You seem to be proving my point with your lack of engagement, and now movement away from a strawman to a personal attack.. hahahaha.. you gots nothing, but maybe a little aire (straw has aire, too).   

Nope, you are a confirmed strawman. You do not get a proper reply. Look at your own posts. You are using emotional manipulative language, not logical and factual arguments.

Yep.. you are conceding that you are not providing a proper response, and trying to suggest that I am engaging in some kind of disingenuous posting, when you seem to be the one who cannot sort through tone.  I asserted that you had made a strawman argument and I gave reasons.  Thereafter, you just responded with an ad hominem.  and then after that, without backing it up, you are asserting that I am too emotional, manipulative, non logical and non factual.. but you do not really make any kind of meaningful attempt to back up what you are saying besides directing me back to my previous posts... why in the fuck would I want to read my previous posts?  Maybe you should read them and respond.... I already wrote them, and there seems to be absolutely no reason for me to go back to reading them again, except if I want to follow your distraction and evasion.

[bitcoinvest]

Hello bitcoin land,

after some relaxing moments where i not checked the price of the btc i look the charts for the last 1 hour and looks like we going up
to pass maybe 1000€ looks like its going to happen.
what your opinions? ( i don't want to speak more about this fork things etc here at least.. )

[Torque]

If there had been a HF three years ago from 1MB to 2MB, we'd already be hitting the 2MB limit and BU supporters would be screaming that we need to immediately HF again to 4MB.  And so on, and so on.

They act like that wouldn't be true, but we all know it would.

So apparently for them, every time the block size limit is reached, the solution is simply another 2MB increase.  On and on, until mining centralization by like one person with a total hardware & hashpower monopoly is complete.

Well FU, BU.

The current limit is not enough for mainstream use. That is a hard fucking mathematical fact. The transaction limit will have to be raised one way or another, sooner or later.

So you're cool with destroying decentralized mining, so the block size can be raised ad infinitum to support the "mainstream". Got it.

Which btw, bitcoin users are certainly not "mainstream". Those are called "fiat users".  Bitcoin users use bitcoin for different reasons entirely than the mainstream, one of them being decentralization.

[JayJuanGee]

BS, if everyone wanted to use BTC they simply could not because bitcoin is incapable of processing all of their transactions no matter what they pay in fees..
2mb blocks right now would buy time until better solutions become available, wither that be LN or something yet unheard of.. Right now it's stagnant and people that want to use bitcoin cannot because it just will not process that many transactions..

Sure they can wait forever for confirms while the line cutters jump infront of them, but that is not the way BTC was intended to be..

Every transaction does not need to be censorship-proof as long as the option exists.

Expecting to include "everyone's" transaction in a decentralized ledger where full nodes have to keep a history of every transaction since the genesis block is simply ridiculous. It would destroy the very properties that gives Bitcoin it's value.

agreed!

anyway, 1.2MB limit for now and when fee presuure comes back to 1$ 1.3MB blocks, sounds good?

Kick the can down the road? No, it sounds terrible.

How about layers which can be removed should the need arise.

why not both.

i dont think its kicking the can, its more like preparing for the future.

unless you believe no one will ever be able to handle more then 1MB

why do both when only one of the solutions is helpful, agreed to, vetted and tested.

LN isnt even out of alpha stage....

so i need to assume you mean increasing block size, like miners did from 256KB to 1MB slowly over time ( yes miners had there own Max generation size before )

Your response makes no sense.


of course I am referring to the implementation of seg wit rather than a blocksize limit increase... At this time, both are not necessary, so no need to consider doing both (as a kind of compromise) as you seem to be asserting.

[Killerpotleaf]

the market needs to price in the "buy 1 get one free" forking effect.

[Ibian]

If there had been a HF three years ago from 1MB to 2MB, we'd already be hitting the 2MB limit and BU supporters would be screaming that we need to immediately HF again to 4MB.  And so on, and so on.

They act like that wouldn't be true, but we all know it would.

So apparently for them, every time the block size limit is reached, the solution is simply another 2MB increase.  On and on, until mining centralization by like one person with a total hardware & hashpower monopoly is complete.

Well FU, BU.

The current limit is not enough for mainstream use. That is a hard fucking mathematical fact. The transaction limit will have to be raised one way or another, sooner or later.

So you're cool with destroying decentralized mining, so the block size can be raised ad infinitum to support the "mainstream". Got it.

Which btw, bitcoin users are certainly not "mainstream". Those are called "fiat users".  Bitcoin users use bitcoin for different reasons entirely than the mainstream, one of them being decentralization.

Why would it affect decentralization?

[Holliday]

It's the people who are against growth that have some explaining to do.

Yeah, 'cuz no one has given any reasons anywhere why it's a good idea to keep blocks small.

:/

Then why not a tenth of the current size? What could possibly be wrong with that?

We have consensus at 1 MB now.

I did not ask about that. What would be wrong with lowering the limit to a tenth of what it currently is? Do you see any problems with that at all?

You say that you want your car to be able to drive further on 1 tank of gas.

I say, increasing the size of the tank may cause problems.

You say, then let's reduce the size of the tank.

No, man. The network is functioning on 1 MB blocks. Everyone has agreed to 1 MB blocks for the past 7 odd years.

You want me to say that 1 MB blocks have more utility than 1/10th MB blocks so that you can argue that increasing the block size will increase utility. I'm saying that increasing the block size also comes with additional risks and trade-offs and it would be a mistake to ignore those additional risks and trade-offs.

I'm not going to bother continuing the discussion if you want to continue to be ridiculous.

[savetherainforest]

Segwit First!

^screw seqwit+ screw btu ... lets just increase to 2mb and get on up to $2000 ladies? 

Are you retarded?

What is the justification to move up to 2mb?

If there is no justification, besides merely "sounding like a good idea", then there should be no need to presume that 2mb actually resolves anything - besides caving into some whiners and maybe even bringing some disadvantages.
 

Anyhow, we should not be advocating to do things just because it "sounds nice"

There are a lot of crazy people on this thread lately... don't bother with them.

But 2mb maybe would be a good idea after surpassing the 10.000$ threshold.    

[Holliday]

If there had been a HF three years ago from 1MB to 2MB, we'd already be hitting the 2MB limit and BU supporters would be screaming that we need to immediately HF again to 4MB.  And so on, and so on.

They act like that wouldn't be true, but we all know it would.

So apparently for them, every time the block size limit is reached, the solution is simply another 2MB increase.  On and on, until mining centralization by like one person with a total hardware & hashpower monopoly is complete.

Well FU, BU.

The current limit is not enough for mainstream use. That is a hard fucking mathematical fact. The transaction limit will have to be raised one way or another, sooner or later.

So you're cool with destroying decentralized mining, so the block size can be raised ad infinitum to support the "mainstream". Got it.

Which btw, bitcoin users are certainly not "mainstream". Those are called "fiat users".  Bitcoin users use bitcoin for different reasons entirely than the mainstream, one of them being decentralization.

Why would it affect decentralization?

Resources exist and have costs.