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

[alexeft]

I fully understand the drive to enable growth but we must be very careful.

I'll tell you a story that is not very nice but here it goes.


Children that are born early are kept in special hospital departments. Sometimes, under those conditions, their organisms try to grow very fast BUT their lungs are not mature enough to support a bigger body size. Doctors then try to inhibit growth to save them from their death. Very sad situation!  

It's very similar with the current situation of bitcoin.

[1714307106]

1714307106

[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.

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.

Are you suggesting that there aren't benefits to using a full node as your wallet?

[Ibian]

I fully understand the drive to enable growth but we must be very careful.

I'll tell you a story that is not very nice but here it goes.


Children that are born early are kept in special hospital departments. Sometimes, under those conditions, their organisms try to grow very fast BUT their lungs are not mature enough to support a bigger body size. Doctors then try to inhibit growth to save them from their death. Very sad situation!  

It's very similar with the current situation of bitcoin.

A bad analogy is like a fart. Nobody likes it.

[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.

Are you suggesting that there aren't benefits to using a full node as your wallet?

Only for the paranoid, or people who mine anyway.

[Holliday]

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.

I'm not speaking of mining.

I'm simply responding to you. I sorry if that is making you tired. Feel free to stop discussing this at any point.

[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.

I'm not speaking of mining.

I'm simply responding to you. I sorry if that is making you tired. Feel free to stop discussing this at any point.

You are speaking of non-mining bitcoin users who use a full node as their wallet.

That's a personal choice, in no way a necessity. Is this really what you base your opposition to larger transaction volume on?

[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.

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?

I am talking about hardware to run a node and you are talking about mining. Not the same.

[alexeft]

I fully understand the drive to enable growth but we must be very careful.

I'll tell you a story that is not very nice but here it goes.


Children that are born early are kept in special hospital departments. Sometimes, under those conditions, their organisms try to grow very fast BUT their lungs are not mature enough to support a bigger body size. Doctors then try to inhibit growth to save them from their death. Very sad situation!  

It's very similar with the current situation of bitcoin.

A bad analogy is like a fart. Nobody likes it.

I never said it was nice! 

[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.

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.

Are you suggesting that there aren't benefits to using a full node as your wallet?

Only for the paranoid, or people who mine anyway.

Well, I guess we've found the problem.

If your premise is that wanting to run a full node is only for the paranoid, I guess you can justify larger blocks.

I'm going to have to disagree with your premise though.

[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?

I am talking about hardware to run a node and you are talking about mining. Not the same.

Why run a full node if you are not mining, other than paranoia? What are the practical reasons?

[Killerpotleaf]

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

Larger blocks require more resources which harms decentralization.

would you agree that if bitcoin doubles its user base this will help decentralization?

would you agree that if a signficant % of its userbase start using the second layer this will incentivize them to run first layer nodes and second layer nodes.

[Holliday]

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.

I'm not speaking of mining.

I'm simply responding to you. I sorry if that is making you tired. Feel free to stop discussing this at any point.

You are speaking of non-mining bitcoin users who use a full node as their wallet.

That's a personal choice, in no way a necessity. Is this really what you base your opposition to larger transaction volume on?

If users have to depend on others to run full nodes, Bitcoin is no longer censorship-proof.

[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.

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?

I am talking about hardware to run a node and you are talking about mining. Not the same.

Why run a full node if you are not mining, other than paranoia? What are the practical reasons?

To cast my vote on every block and not allow Jihadi-sons-of-bitches destroy things without my consent? Is that good enough?

[AlexGR]

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

Larger blocks require more resources which harms decentralization.

Indeed, but technological resources are increased over time, thus allowing higher capabilities at same costs (over the years).

As I wrote a few posts ago, in 97, my bandwidth, cpu, storage, ram, was 1/1000th of what I now have.

My pc could probably process ...1kb blocks back then... now 1mb... in 20 years, maybe 1gb.

Satoshi never intended for the 1mb to be set indefinitely. He said, we'll raise it when needed.

Obviously you don't want to have too much, because then it hurts in decentralization and leaves the door open for spamming the blockchain.

It just needs a proper balance.

I think the choices that exist right now may not be enough to gather a good consensus (like 90%+) which may in turn create the need for a new proposal.

- BU is trash, nobody in their right mind wants it.
- Segwit will not get adopted because it increases "complexity" and it makes some miners uncomfortable (translation for: "I like the bitcoin I know, I don't want it to change, with the remote chance it introduces unknown risks")

So, given that neither will go ahead, we'll have to make some other arrangement like a 2mb upgrade in the short term, if we don't want to stick with 1mb. But this option doesn't exist right now and should be programmed and provided by core (=reputable source of code).

[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.

Are you suggesting that there aren't benefits to using a full node as your wallet?

Only for the paranoid, or people who mine anyway.

Well, I guess we've found the problem.

If your premise is that wanting to run a full node is only for the paranoid, I guess you can justify larger blocks.

I'm going to have to disagree with your premise though.

I keep multiple coins on my phone. Walking around money for convenience. Bog-standard and cheap smartphone with no special precautions. No problems in several years of doing this. So please explain why you feel the need to use a full node if you are not going to mine with it.

[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.

I'm not speaking of mining.

I'm simply responding to you. I sorry if that is making you tired. Feel free to stop discussing this at any point.

You are speaking of non-mining bitcoin users who use a full node as their wallet.

That's a personal choice, in no way a necessity. Is this really what you base your opposition to larger transaction volume on?

If users have to depend on others to run full nodes, Bitcoin is no longer censorship-proof.

This is how it has been except in the very earliest years. Again, nothing new under the sun and most future users won't be running full nodes either. Most current users don't.

[Holliday]

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

Larger blocks require more resources which harms decentralization.

would you agree that if bitcoin doubles its user base this will help decentralization?

It depends. If they are users who are crying because they can't afford competition for fast confirmations, I doubt they are going to be running full nodes.

would you agree that if a signficant % of its userbase start using the second layer this will incentivize them to run first layer nodes and second layer nodes.

Same as above, I doubt those who want "cheap, fast" transactions are going to bother with the expense of running a full node.

[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?

I am talking about hardware to run a node and you are talking about mining. Not the same.

Why run a full node if you are not mining, other than paranoia? What are the practical reasons?

To cast my vote on every block and not allow Jihadi-sons-of-bitches destroy things without my consent? Is that good enough?

That matters about as much as a bad analogy. I mean a fart, excuse me. Without any measurable impact on the network, not to mention the fact it wastes money if you are not mining at a profit, it's just another emotional rationalization, not a practical reason.

[Ibian]

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

Larger blocks require more resources which harms decentralization.

Indeed, but technological resources are increased over time, thus allowing higher capabilities at same costs (over the years).

As I wrote a few posts ago, in 97, my bandwidth, cpu, storage, ram, was 1/1000th of what I now have.

My pc could probably process ...1kb blocks back then... now 1mb... in 20 years, maybe 1gb.

Satoshi never intended for the 1mb to be set indefinitely. He said, we'll raise it when needed.

Obviously you don't want to have too much, because then it hurts in decentralization and leaves the door open for spamming the blockchain.

It just needs a proper balance.

I think the choices that exist right now may not be enough to gather a good consensus (like 90%+) which may in turn create the need for a new proposal.

- BU is trash, nobody in their right mind wants it.
- Segwit will not get adopted because it increases "complexity" and it makes some miners uncomfortable (translation for: "I like the bitcoin I know, I don't want it to change, with the remote chance it introduces unknown risks")

So, given that neither will go ahead, we'll have to make some other arrangement like a 2mb upgrade in the short term, if we don't want to stick with 1mb. But this option doesn't exist right now and should be programmed and provided by core (=reputable source of code).

That's the idea I'm backing. Changing a one to a two ought to be a speedy process, and testing to make sure it works properly can't possibly be another multi-year process.

[Holliday]

So please explain why you feel the need to use a full node if you are not going to mine with it.

Privacy. Censorship resistance. Security.

This is how it has been except in the very earliest years. Again, nothing new under the sun and most future users won't be running full nodes either. Most current users don't.

So... because decentralization is hard and most users don't bother with it, we should ignore it. I disagree.

I would imagine those who are willing to secure large values with Bitcoin are interested in the benefits of running a full node.