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

[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?

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.

Then explain at least some of the downside to bigger blocks, if you actually believe what you say. Simply making assertions is not enough.

[1714240598]

1714240598

[1714240598]

1714240598

[1714240598]

1714240598

[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?

Resources exist and have costs.

Water is wet.

[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 )

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.

if segwit didnt do this weird blocksize incress thing, you wouldn't be so confused.
yes we need both.
ultimately any blockchain that does not do both WILL FAIL
LN requires bigger blocks to function as a TX layer for a sizeable amount of TX's.

[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.

Then explain at least some of the downside to bigger blocks, if you actually believe what you say. Simply making assertions is not enough.

RAM requirements due to UTXO set. Bandwidth requirement due to increased data per block and increased historical chain size. Storage requirements due to increased block chain size. Processing requirements due to the need to verify more transactions.

[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?

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.

Then explain at least some of the downside to bigger blocks, if you actually believe what you say. Simply making assertions is not enough.

RAM requirements due to UTXO set. Bandwidth requirement due to increased data per block and increased historical chain size. Storage requirements due to increased block chain size. Processing requirements due to the need to verify more transactions.

What about it? What implications are you trying to get at?

[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.

Water is wet.

Since you can't seem to figure it out on your own, I'll give you a hint.

When you increase the amount of resources required to accomplish something, less people are able to accomplish it. I'll let you figure out how that affects decentralization.

[JayJuanGee]

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..

Sure there are always going to be people on the margins who decide for themselves based on a variety of factors what to use and what to do, but does not mean that bitcoin cannot handle more users and will not adapt to more users.  The mempool is getting spam attacked, and increasing the blocksize limits is not going to stop spam attacks.

BTC is able to adopt to handle more transactions but you don't want it to..

Who cares what I want.  You are describing what you want.  I adapt to whatever is taking place.  If the blocksize limit gets increased, I adapt.  I am not saying what I want.  I am saying what is.  You are saying what you want, and that is you want the blocksize limit to increase, and I say bullshit.. not needed.  If you get your way, then I don't really give a shit, but at the moment, you are just petitioning a change.  and I am saying that your proposed change does not seem to be necessary.

BTC growth has now stopped in its tracks becauase it is at its limit of capability..

BTC seems to be doing pretty good, and a lot of growth taking place all over the world (that seems to be part of the reason for the ongoing upwards price pressures).

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..

What kind of transaction are you trying to accomplish that is not reasonable?  Are others trying to accomplish those kinds of unreasonable transactions, too?  They can use some other means, or is bitcoin the only thing that will work for them?  Why does bitcoin need to serve that purpose at this time? 

your assertion seems a bit fantastical or maybe an attempt to too much prescription about what you wished bitcoin was rather than what bitcoin is, no?

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..

I don't think that you are providing actual facts.  You describe security as a network effect?  Those are at least two concepts.

Bitcoin does have security and bitcoin has a variety of network effects.. plus bitcoin has the other features that I mentioned earlier an secure immutable decentralized ability to transfer and store value.  You gotta name some coin that you believe has what I just described, rather than it is aspiring towards such.  Bitcoin already has it.  Hello?  Those are different points to have something and to aspire to it, no?

You are losing your precious upward price pressure too..

You need to zoom out.  Bitcoin is doing quite well, even if prices bounce between $800 and $1400 for a while, there continues to be very decent and ongoing upwards price pressures that causes me to believe that an upwards break out of the the range is more likely than a downwards breakout..... but time will tell.. we cannot look at price in really short increments, otherwise we may miss some of the points.

[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.

Why would it affect decentralization?

Resources exist and have costs.

Water is wet.

Ok smart ass, so please calculate for us what block size limit is needed to support Visa-level TPS (2000/s) so that the "mainstream" will come flooding in to use bitcoin instead of their Visa card.

Then come back and argue how with that newly calculated blocksize limit we will easily maintain mining decentralization across all mining nodes.

Go on, I'll wait.

[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?

Resources exist and have costs.

Water is wet.

Since you can't seem to figure it out on your own, I'll give you a hint.

When you increase the amount of resources required to accomplish something, less people are able to accomplish it. I'll let you figure out how that affects decentralization.

It's already the people with the best hardware that make the most money. This is part of the design. It is not a flaw or anything new.

[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"

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.    

Well, we do have to take one step at a time, and surely if it seems prudent to increase the blocksize limit, then I am sure that there will be some kind of means  to accomplish that, if it seems to be a prudent course of action - whether that is at $1200 or $10k or some other price point that happens to coincide with the need to increase the blocksize limit..

[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?

Resources exist and have costs.

Water is wet.

Ok smart ass, so please calculate for us what block size limit is needed to support Visa-level TPS (2000/s) so that the "mainstream" will come flooding in to use bitcoin instead of their Visa card.

Then come back and argue how with that newly calculated blocksize limit we will easily maintain mining decentralization across all mining nodes.

Go on, I'll wait.

Nobody has argued to go from current to full global mainstream adoption in a single bound, except opponents of growth. And we still will have to grow at some point. Arguably now, and if not now then very soon.

[Killerpotleaf]

what block size limit is needed to support Visa-level TPS (2000/s)

~1GB

[Paashaas]

Jihad Jihan Wu lost his PR ALT-coin battle.

[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.

if segwit didnt do this weird blocksize incress thing, you wouldn't be so confused.
yes we need both.
ultimately any blockchain that does not do both WILL FAIL
LN requires bigger blocks to function as a TX layer for a sizeable amount of TX's.

yeah, but only one has been vetted, approved, tested and then gone live.   That is seg wit.   The other is an attempt at a hostile take over (BU's version of a blocksize limit increase). 

Don't be trying to give them some kind of false equivalencies to these two matters that are currently on the table, because at this point, the two are not equivalent. 

If a blocksize limit increase (whether BU or some other variation) could be vetted, approved, tested and then go live, then it would be closer to being equivalent to seg wit, no?

[Holliday]

It's already the people with the best hardware that make the most money. This is part of the design. It is not a flaw or anything new.

I'm not speaking of mining.

Also, to play your game.

It's already the people who pay the highest fees that get fast confirmations. This is part of the design. It is not a flaw or anything new.

[Holliday]

What about it? What implications are you trying to get at?

Larger blocks require more resources which harms decentralization.

[alexeft]

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.

Water is wet.

Since you can't seem to figure it out on your own, I'll give you a hint.

When you increase the amount of resources required to accomplish something, less people are able to accomplish it. I'll let you figure out how that affects decentralization.

It's already the people with the best hardware that make the most money. This is part of the design. It is not a flaw or anything new.

It's only the people with the cheapest electricity that make the most money. They are the miners

Hardware has almost nothing to do with full nodes because of the 1MB blocksize. If it were more, then I don't know if that would be the case.

[Ibian]

It's already the people with the best hardware that make the most money. This is part of the design. It is not a flaw or anything new.

I'm not speaking of mining.

Also, to play your game.

It's already the people who pay the highest fees that get fast confirmations. This is part of the design. It is not a flaw or anything new.

One of these is not like the other.

And why would you speak of anything but mining? Increased hardware demands won't affect regular wallet users.

[Ibian]

What about it? What implications are you trying to get at?

Larger blocks require more resources which harms decentralization.

It's already the people with the best hardware that make the most money. This is part of the design. It is not a flaw or anything new.

This is getting tired. Why don't you pick one quote tree and stick to it.

[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?

Resources exist and have costs.

Water is wet.

Since you can't seem to figure it out on your own, I'll give you a hint.

When you increase the amount of resources required to accomplish something, less people are able to accomplish it. I'll let you figure out how that affects decentralization.

It's already the people with the best hardware that make the most money. This is part of the design. It is not a flaw or anything new.

It's only the people with the cheapest electricity that make the most money. They are the miners

Hardware has almost nothing to do with full nodes because of the 1MB blocksize. If it were more, then I don't know if that would be the case.

Why would you even suggest that hardware doesn't much matter? Do we really need to go into the very basics of how mining works? Seriously?