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

[Gab0]

The world is hungry for bitcoins. Very hungry! Every bitcoin during dips will be snapped up immediately.

becoin, 3rd party segcoin is not the coin the world will be hungry for, as the poor will be priced out with huge tx fees.

Pumpy, the poor like you that can't afford to pay bitcoin tx fees will use LNs for their payments.

But, to open or close a channel in LN, you should not make a transition in the bitcoin blockchain?
It seems to me that if everyone wants to adopt bitcoin, LN is not enough.

And that's the reason a blocksize increase WILL be needed. Noone can deny that, it's only the timing, the size of blocksize increase and the process to implement it what is on the table.

I insist on this, because I would really like to understand and learn from their arguments to defend small blocks (but so far, what I have researched about the problem tells me that we should increase the size of the blocks).

I have the limitation of having another language, so it is very difficult for me to express my ideas. And many times my questions or opinions are answered with trolling, which is very frustrating (and I imagine for any new member it should be the same).

Buy my first bitcoins in 2012, and since that day I find myself reading, learning and observing everything about bitcoin, and I do not think that LN is the divine solution to our scale problems.

I live in a Third World country.
My first computer, purchased in 2010, still supports the bitcoin chain. And it would even with x2 blocks. Today I have a second computer, bought in 2016, that would easily support 4MB block for a few more years.
And it is to be expected in the next 5 years, the capacity and rapidity of hardware will increase exponentially.

I'm sorry, express me wrong.This is what I meant.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/90/Hard_drive_capacity_over_time.svg

[1714526226]

1714526226

[1714526226]

1714526226

[1714526226]

1714526226

[1714526226]

1714526226

[bitserve]

You say hard disk capacity is growing exponentially? Really?

His first computer had 120 GB HDD, and today he has 500 GB.
Looks exponential to me.

Good one. LOL.

The only thing that is growing exponentially here is blockchain size. And that is without a blocksize increase nor mass adoption.

In fact, the 1MB caused the higher fees which made us all be very frugal on our usage of tx's, reduced to the minimum necessary. If it were not for the cap and the high fees I would probably be doing 10x the tx's I am doing now.

Not even Segwit solves the exponential blockchain increase, but it does make it happen via Lighting Network. Yes, we fucking need L2. It's not if we like, don't like, prefer, not prefer, whatever.... IT IS A FUCKING NECESSITY.

Ok, let's say for a moment we don't have L2 for the next 3 years.... And that fees remain low and adoption rate has been growing. That would perfectly mean 100-1000 times more tx's per hour than now. ANd that is a conservative figure.

I will leave as an exercise to the reader to calculate how many 4TB hd's you will need to add EACH YEAR.

In 2009 Moore's law still had some remaining sense.... it is not applicable anymore.

Really, this is absurd. You have BCH or even Litecoin if you want more block space per hour. Or just wait until BITCOIN increases its blocksize when the time comes. It will. In the meantime you can perfectly keep using it with no worries about blocksize.

[Meuh6879]

More than 2x in 1 month.
EPIC.

[Gab0]

Good one. LOL.

The only thing that is growing exponentially here is blockchain size. And that is without a blocksize increase nor mass adoption.

In fact, the 1MB caused the higher fees which made us all be very frugal on our usage of tx's, reduced to the minimum necessary. If it were not for the cap and the high fees I would probably be doing 10x the tx's I am doing now.

Not even Segwit solves the exponential blockchain increase, but it does make it happen via Lighting Network. Yes, we fucking need L2. It's not if we like, don't like, prefer, not prefer, whatever.... IT IS A FUCKING NECESSITY.

Ok, let's say for a moment we don't have L2 for the next 3 years.... And that fees remain low and adoption rate has been growing. That would perfectly mean 100-1000 times more tx's per hour than now. ANd that is a conservative figure.

I will leave as an exercise to the reader to calculate how many 4TB hd's you will need to add EACH YEAR.

In 2009 Moore's law still had some remaining sense.... it is not applicable anymore.

Really, this is absurd. You have BCH or even Litecoin if you want more block space per hour. Or just wait until BITCOIN increases its blocksize when the time comes. It will. In the meantime you can perfectly keep using it with no worries about blocksize.

I very much agree with this.

hey, if you can’t afford a $20.000 node to help this network, piss off

/sarc

We must consider that the price per GB is decreasing over time.
http://ns1758.ca/winch/cost-hard-drives-komorowski.jpg

[600watt]

just wow.

[bitserve]

I'm sorry, express me wrong.This is what I meant.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/90/Hard_drive_capacity_over_time.svg

And right there is the problem: You are using an obsoleted reference. Find a graph that reflects how hard drive capacity growed from 2010 to 2017. You will be amazed of the trend change.

Why? Because with current technology we have bumped into a wall that makes it very hard to increase capacity per surface unit.

[Gab0]

I'm sorry, express me wrong.This is what I meant.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/90/Hard_drive_capacity_over_time.svg

And right there is the problem: You are using an obsoleted reference. Find a graph that reflects how hard drive capacity growed from 2010 to 2017. You will be amazed of the trend change.

Why? Because with current technology we have bumped into a wall that makes it very hard to increase capacity per surface unit.

Interesting, I'll find out about that.

Meanwhile, what do you think of this?
http://wikibon.org/w/images/b/be/ProjectionCapacityDiskNANDManagementSummary.png

In 2009, Wikibon projected that flash would be the lower cost alternative for active data. Figure 1 shows Wikibon's technology projection for pure capacity data. It shows that flash (the blue line) will become a lower cost media than disk (the red line) for almost all storage in 2016, as scale-out storage technologies enable higher levels of data sharing, and lower storage costs.

Source: http://wikibon.org/wiki/v/Evolution_of_All-Flash_Array_Architectures

[Meuh6879]

Can we stop at 4000 USD ... ?

[conspirosphere.tk]

Interesting, I'll find out about that.

Meanwhile, what do you think of this?
http://wikibon.org/w/images/b/be/ProjectionCapacityDiskNANDManagementSummary.png

it's not just about hard disks. Do you have a fiber connection? How much ram does it takes? Above all: where are the fucking incentives???

[bitserve]

I'm sorry, express me wrong.This is what I meant.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/90/Hard_drive_capacity_over_time.svg

And right there is the problem: You are using an obsoleted reference. Find a graph that reflects how hard drive capacity growed from 2010 to 2017. You will be amazed of the trend change.

Why? Because with current technology we have bumped into a wall that makes it very hard to increase capacity per surface unit.

Interesting, I'll find out about that.

Meanwhile, what do you think of this?
http://wikibon.org/w/images/b/be/ProjectionCapacityDiskNANDManagementSummary.png

Yes, SSD's as a "new" technology might be a future solution for increased capacity. But, we will talk about this again when the projection fullfills and the cost per TB reduces, ok?

[Meuh6879]

This is not the future.
This is the present.





This is the old tech : An 2,5 inch mecanical drive.

[bitserve]

This is not the future.
This is the present.

And HOW MANY of those will you need to add each year when tx's are 100-1000x what are now?

[Meuh6879]

Segwit rebuild the local blockchain ... after somes tweaks by the developpers.
Simple.

[bitserve]

Segwit rebuild the local blockchain ... after somes tweaks by the developpers.
Simple.

Are you talking about pruning or what?

[Meuh6879]

Only need a special request by the node (that it rebuild) to emit raw transactions & signatures from a source : and then the request can build Segwit block from Raw channel.

Request somes more bandwidth and time ... but nodes have time & bandwidth.

Benefices will be EPIC, too ... (3,5Mb Block = 1Mb Segwit).
From 140Gb to 40Gb.

[Gab0]

Interesting, I'll find out about that.

Meanwhile, what do you think of this?
http://wikibon.org/w/images/b/be/ProjectionCapacityDiskNANDManagementSummary.png

In 2009, Wikibon projected that flash would be the lower cost alternative for active data. Figure 1 shows Wikibon's technology projection for pure capacity data. It shows that flash (the blue line) will become a lower cost media than disk (the red line) for almost all storage in 2016, as scale-out storage technologies enable higher levels of data sharing, and lower storage costs.

Source: http://wikibon.org/wiki/v/Evolution_of_All-Flash_Array_Architectures

it's not just about hard disks. Do you have a fiber connection? How much ram does it takes? Above all: where are the fucking incentives???

Today there is no economic incentive to maintain a node. It is pure charity; And of course, make sure that your transaction will be processed.
But, it will not be more expensive to maintain a node in the future.


On the other hand, It is expected that not only the capacity of the disks increase, but also the RAM, the internet speed, the speed of the processors, etc etc etc ...

Nielsen’s “Law of Internet Bandwidth” says that users’ bandwidth will grow by 50% per year (10% less than Moore’s Law for computer speed). The new law fits data from 1983 to 2014.

The dots in the diagram show the various speeds of the Net ranging from early acoustic 300 bps modems in 1984 to the 120 Mbps lines in 2014. The data points are impressively close to the exponential growth curve for the 50% annualized growth stated by Nielsen’s Law.

NOTE: The y-axis is based on a logarithmic scale, making the straight line in the diagram an exponential growth curve.

http://www.futuristspeaker.com/business-trends/future-of-the-internet-8-expanding-dimensions/


More about Nielsen's Law: https://www.nngroup.com/articles/law-of-bandwidth/

[bitserve]

Only need a special request by the node (that it rebuild) to emit raw transactions & signatures from a source : and then the request can build Segwit block from Raw channel.

Request somes more bandwidth and time ... but nodes have time & bandwidth.

Benefices will be EPIC, too ... (3,5Mb Block = 1Mb Segwit).
From 140Gb to 40Gb.

If I understand what you are saying, that would injtroduce additional latencies, complexity of code, etc etc.....

There are many possible "solutions", but I am convinced the best one is to have an L2 which process most of the tx's.

People that talks about blocksize increase are not ambitious enough. For Bitcoin to truly sucess we are talking about several orders of magnitude more tx's than now. There is no fucking way all that can be stored in a single blockchain.

L2 is the only way. That said, I want to have enough blocksize space to move my whole (or significant fractions) Bitcoins directly on the blockchain. For most of the payments I am ok with L2.

[JayJuanGee]

Buy my first bitcoins in 2012, and since that day I find myself reading, learning and observing everything about bitcoin, and I do not think that LN is the divine solution to our scale problems.

Who gives a ratt's ass what you think?

If you have a BIP for changes to bitcoin, then submit it for consideration. 

At this point, segwit has already been decided and it is going to be activated.  Lightning network are a variety of solutions to built on top of that... these are a variety of players, so how you gonna stop it, except to make some proposals for changes through the BIP process - or what recently has been the tactic of instead of trying to figure out an improvement to just create a hardfork to implement your idea... oh wait, that has already been done.  Why don't you go over to supporting Bcash, because that seems to be what you want?  Oh no you don't want that because there are not enough other people supporting Bcash.. instead you want bitcoin to become bcash.. .. getting a bit incoherent, and it is not just a language issue, it is a logic issue.

[gentlemand]

Why is anyone talking about hard disks?

That's like devoting 90% of your effort to choosing the paint job of your Mars Lander rather than how you're going to get there and survive.

Storage has never been an issue. It's the bandwidth and the indexing among other things.

[Gab0]

Only need a special request by the node (that it rebuild) to emit raw transactions & signatures from a source : and then the request can build Segwit block from Raw channel.

Request somes more bandwidth and time ... but nodes have time & bandwidth.

Benefices will be EPIC, too ... (3,5Mb Block = 1Mb Segwit).
From 140Gb to 40Gb.

If I understand what you are saying, that would injtroduce additional latencies, complexity of code, etc etc.....

There are many possible "solutions", but I am convinced the best one is to have an L2 which process most of the tx's.

People that talks about blocksize increase are not ambitious enough. For Bitcoin to truly sucess we are talking about several orders of magnitude more tx's than now. There is no fucking way all that can be stored in a single blockchain.

L2 is the only way. That said, I want to have enough blocksize space to move my whole (or significant fractions) Bitcoins directly on the blockchain. For most of the payments I am ok with L2.

I, and those who support bigger blocks, are as ambitious as you and those who support L2. Mass adoption will not happen overnight. Even so, both sides are needed; L2 fans need big blocks, and bigblockers need L2
But, right now, we should not artificially limit the network.