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

[Odalv]

Then it is ever worth the risk of claiming the forkcoins

Weren't the chains supposed to be separated after the fork day

This is a bit confusing

Yes it is. "forkcoins" can wipeout your BTC

[jbreher]

What a boogie woogie without replay protection..  

The lack of replay protection would be a major problem for the B2X network, not for [Bitcoin Segwit Core - ed]

Yet it is core acolytes that are screaming bloody murder over such lack.
hmm....

[AlcoHoDL]

True, 2X is insufficient. As is 8X. But they are steps in the right direction. The only direction that will get us to our goal. Larger blocks are a requirement for Bitcoin to be meaningful to humanity as a whole.

Larger blocks are a step in the wrong direction. The reasons are many, and some are so blatantly obvious that it is pointless to waste time and energy explaining them in a forum post.

Instead, I will simply quote a paragraph from the Lightning Network paper [1]:

"The payment network Visa achieved 47,000 peak transactions per second (tps) on its network during the 2013 holidays, and currently averages hundreds of millions per day. Currently, Bitcoin supports less than 7 transactions per second with a 1 megabyte block limit.  If we use an average of 300 bytes per bitcoin transaction and assumed unlimited block sizes, an equivalent capacity to peak Visa transaction volume of 47,000/tps would be nearly 8 gigabytes per Bitcoin block, every ten minutes on average.  Continuously, that would be over 400 terabytes of data per year."

That's gigabytes, not megabytes... That should put things in perspective.

[1] Joseph Poon and Thaddeus Dryja, "The Bitcoin Lightning Network: Scalable Off-Chain Instant Payments", January 14, 2016.

[bitserve]

True, 2X is insufficient. As is 8X. But they are steps in the right direction. The only direction that will get us to our goal. Larger blocks are a requirement for Bitcoin to be meaningful to humanity as a whole.

Larger blocks are a step in the wrong direction. The reasons are many, and some are so blatantly obvious that it is pointless to waste time and energy explaining them in a forum post.

Instead, I will simply quote a paragraph from the Lightning Network paper [1]:

"The payment network Visa achieved 47,000 peak transactions per second (tps) on its network during the 2013 holidays, and currently averages hundreds of millions per day. Currently, Bitcoin supports less than 7 transactions per second with a 1 megabyte block limit.  If we use an average of 300 bytes per bitcoin transaction and assumed unlimited block sizes, an equivalent capacity to peak Visa transaction volume of 47,000/tps would be nearly 8 gigabytes per Bitcoin block, every ten minutes on average.  Continuously, that would be over 400 terabytes of data per year."

That's gigabytes, not megabytes... That should put things in perspective.

[1] Joseph Poon and Thaddeus Dryja, "The Bitcoin Lightning Network: Scalable Off-Chain Instant Payments", January 14, 2016.

The step in the RIGHT direction was done a few months ago with Segwit and enabling LN. We will most probably need a blocksize increase in the near future (hope so, because that would mean an increased adoption of Bitcoin) but it will be as a support of LN being blockchain the backbone of the payment network and LN some sort of multiplier of its transaction capacity.

[jbreher]

True, 2X is insufficient. As is 8X. But they are steps in the right direction. The only direction that will get us to our goal. Larger blocks are a requirement for Bitcoin to be meaningful to humanity as a whole.

"The payment network Visa achieved 47,000 peak transactions per second (tps) on its network during the 2013 holidays, and currently averages hundreds of millions per day. Currently, Bitcoin supports less than 7 transactions per second with a 1 megabyte block limit.  If we use an average of 300 bytes per bitcoin transaction and assumed unlimited block sizes, an equivalent capacity to peak Visa transaction volume of 47,000/tps would be nearly 8 gigabytes per Bitcoin block, every ten minutes on average."

Over the long term, not a problem. How big was your disk a decade ago?  

Note also that this is peak. We can tolerate transaction backlog, as long as it clears without too much time passing. Average is much lower. Note that the published paper makes a fundamental logic error. Using a peak figure as an input to an average calculation is either gross stupidity or simple fearmongering.

Now lets actually discuss how we get Bitcoin into the hands of each and every person. What's your solution for that? Hmm?

[jbreher]

The step in [a] direction was done a few months ago with Segwit and enabling LN.

Neither of which do anything to further the goal of onboarding the world. Whether or not we have Segwit or Lightning, 1MB blocks will require 30 years to get a single transaction to each person on earth. The only way to improve this is with larger blocks.

[bitserve]

The step in [a] direction was done a few months ago with Segwit and enabling LN.

Neither of which do anything to further the goal of onboarding the world. Whether or not we have Segwit or Lightning, 1MB blocks will require 30 years to get a single transaction to each person on earth. The only way to improve this is with larger blocks.

We will need bigger blocks. I wouldn't even mind if we increased to 2x already.... if core would support it (which it seems they don't YET). In fact I would like they did... but they don't. So we will have to wait.

That said... LN will play a bigger role in transaction capacity than any blocksize increase. That's why I have never understood why some people insist in bigger blocks but were oppossed to Segwit and LN. It doesn't make sense to me. We will need both to really SCALE (not linearly) Bitcoin transaction capacity in the orders of magnitude (LN playing the bigger role in that increase of capacity).

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

The step in [a] direction was done a few months ago with Segwit and enabling LN.

Neither of which do anything to further the goal of onboarding the world. Whether or not we have Segwit or Lightning, 1MB blocks will require 30 years to get a single transaction to each person on earth. The only way to improve this is with larger blocks.

This is one blockchain, not the bloody Noah's ark. The limits of on-chain scalability are evident even to the likes of me...

wtf

[jbreher]

The step in [a] direction was done a few months ago with Segwit and enabling LN.

Neither of which do anything to further the goal of onboarding the world. Whether or not we have Segwit or Lightning, 1MB blocks will require 30 years to get a single transaction to each person on earth. The only way to improve this is with larger blocks.

We will need bigger blocks. I wouldn't even mind if we increased to 2x already.... if core would support it (which it seems they don't YET).

That said... LN will play a bigger role in transaction capacity than any blocksize increase.

Have you read what I wrote above? A person who does not yet have Bitcoin cannot use LN. He must first get Bitcoin via an on-chain transaction. So the absolute theoretical minimum number of on-chain transactions required per person is two - one to get Bitcoin, and the other to spend every Bitcoin he will ever own into a single LN channel. In this minimal limit, it would require -- at 1MB -- 60 years for every person on earth to be able to participate.

Accordingly, no. While LN might become an important adjunct, the most important dimension to work on is simple block size.

[d_eddie]

The step in [a] direction was done a few months ago with Segwit and enabling LN.

Neither of which do anything to further the goal of onboarding the world. Whether or not we have Segwit or Lightning, 1MB blocks will require 30 years to get a single transaction to each person on earth. The only way to improve this is with larger blocks.

On the contrary, LN and similar Layer2 technology can do much. Given a sufficiently large number of channels, kept open for a sufficiently long time, the transaction rate (summed over all open channels) can grow almost without limit. In reality, there will be practical limits on channel number and channel lifespan, so a block size increase will likely be needed at some point in the future. How big an increase, and when? I think we should find out by looking at real LN transaction flow numbers.

[jbreher]

Neither of which do anything to further the goal of onboarding the world. Whether or not we have Segwit or Lightning, 1MB blocks will require 30 years to get a single transaction to each person on earth. The only way to improve this is with larger blocks.

This is one blockchain, not the bloody Noah's ark. The limits of on-chain scalability are evident even to the likes of me...

So you're happy with a limit of getting 2% of the population onto LN per year, with no bandwidth left for any other other transactions (like, maybe, to rescind a cheating LN transaction by your channel counterparty trying to steal your funds)?

Fine. In the boxes next to your name, I'll check the 1MB4EVAH column.

[becoin]

What a boogie woogie without replay protection..  

The lack of replay protection would be a major problem for the B2X network, not for [Bitcoin Segwit Core - ed]

Yet it is core acolytes that are screaming bloody murder over such lack.
hmm....

In general, big blocktards are technically and economically ignorant and don't get it. Without replay protection B2X fork is a blatant attempt for 51% attack against Bitcoin. Simple as that! People that burn hundreds of millions to organize this attack don't care about improving Bitcoin. They want to crash Bitcoin.

[jbreher]

The step in [a] direction was done a few months ago with Segwit and enabling LN.

Neither of which do anything to further the goal of onboarding the world. Whether or not we have Segwit or Lightning, 1MB blocks will require 30 years to get a single transaction to each person on earth. The only way to improve this is with larger blocks.

On the contrary, LN and similar Layer2 technology can do much. Given a sufficiently large number of channels, kept open for a sufficiently long time, the transaction rate (summed over all open channels) can grow almost without limit. In reality, there will be practical limits on channel number and channel lifespan, so a block size increase will likely be needed at some point in the future. How big an increase, and when? I think we should find out by looking at real LN transaction flow numbers.

Did you:
a) not read what I wrote; or
b) end up being incapable of understanding it?

[Meuh6879]

1MB blocks will require 30 years to get a single transaction to each person on earth.

Internet was not design to attach picture to email.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pT9kJq_Ogrk

Now, we have Porn in VR.

[jbreher]

What a boogie woogie without replay protection..  

The lack of replay protection would be a major problem for the B2X network, not for [Bitcoin Segwit Core - ed]

Yet it is core acolytes that are screaming bloody murder over such lack.
hmm....

In general, big blocktards are technically and economically ignorant and don't get it. Without replay protection B2X fork is a blatant attempt for 51% attack against Bitcoin. Simple as that! People that burn hundreds of millions to organize this attack don't care about improving Bitcoin. They want to crash Bitcoin.

I don't see what your conjecture has to do with your earlier assertion. To wit: "The lack of replay protection would be a major problem for the B2X network, not for [Bitcoin Segwit Core - ed]"

Or were you just so eager to get in a sideswipe insult that it mattered not whether your utterance had anything to do with the discussion at hand?

[becoin]

What a boogie woogie without replay protection..  

The lack of replay protection would be a major problem for the B2X network, not for [Bitcoin Segwit Core - ed]

Yet it is core acolytes that are screaming bloody murder over such lack.
hmm....

In general, big blocktards are technically and economically ignorant and don't get it. Without replay protection B2X fork is a blatant attempt for 51% attack against Bitcoin. Simple as that! People that burn hundreds of millions to organize this attack don't care about improving Bitcoin. They want to crash Bitcoin.

I don't see what your conjecture has to do with your earlier assertion. To wit: "The lack of replay protection would be a major problem for the B2X network, not for [Bitcoin Segwit Core - ed]"

Or were you just so eager to get in a sideswipe insult that it mattered not whether your utterance had anything to do with the discussion at hand?

Your inability to see the connection proves my point.

People that organize B2X fork don't care about B2X network. The more problems it has the better because it would be more difficult for people to transfer this shit to exchanges and sell it. All they want is crash Bitcoin network!

[fabiorem]

2) if you dump BTC2X then there is a chance that your dump will be replayed on BTC

I'm worried about this. Noobs will be dumping B2X all the way down to get "muh free coins" and then they will be dumping BTC hard, which will make the price drop.

My only hope is that the noobness is so intense that they cant have any way to know how to "retrieve" so-called "free coins", and that the exchanges wont support it since it is not an alt-coin, as there is no replay protection.

[AlcoHoDL]

True, 2X is insufficient. As is 8X. But they are steps in the right direction. The only direction that will get us to our goal. Larger blocks are a requirement for Bitcoin to be meaningful to humanity as a whole.

"The payment network Visa achieved 47,000 peak transactions per second (tps) on its network during the 2013 holidays, and currently averages hundreds of millions per day. Currently, Bitcoin supports less than 7 transactions per second with a 1 megabyte block limit.  If we use an average of 300 bytes per bitcoin transaction and assumed unlimited block sizes, an equivalent capacity to peak Visa transaction volume of 47,000/tps would be nearly 8 gigabytes per Bitcoin block, every ten minutes on average.  Continuously, that would be over 400 terabytes of data per year."

Over the long term, not a problem. How big was your disk a decade ago? 

Note also that this is peak. We can tolerate transaction backlog, as long as it clears without too much time passing. Average is much lower. Note that the published paper makes a fundamental logic error. Using a peak figure as an input to an average calculation is either gross stupidity or simple fearmongering.

Now lets actually discuss how we get Bitcoin into the hands of each and every person. What's your solution for that? Hmm?

What I'm trying to say is that we can't solve the throughput problem in the long term by simply increasing block size. It will let us breathe for a while and then choke us again. Other, smarter methods should be employed for solving this problem. One proposal is the Lightning Network. There will be better ones to come, and we should embrace them.

Regarding your 30-year calculation, it is indeed correct, and is an interesting result. SegWit gets this reduced to 15 years. This duration will be decreased further by increasing the block size. But it still won't solve the throughput problem. Perhaps a combination of gradual block size increases, as permitted by h/w capabilities, and good off-chain solutions are actually needed.

[yugyug]

What i have learn about Lightning network is their ability to increase transaction capacity as close as Visa's transaction capacity which could cater as large as 47,000 transactions per second. We need to have a centralized data center or servers same as what Visa did that can handle transaction at a lightning speed but it defeat the purpose of decentralization but it attracts major I.T. companies to invest this kind of solution for an off-chain lightning network and that is not want the majority to happen.

[jbreher]

True, 2X is insufficient. As is 8X. But they are steps in the right direction. The only direction that will get us to our goal. Larger blocks are a requirement for Bitcoin to be meaningful to humanity as a whole.

"The payment network Visa achieved 47,000 peak transactions per second (tps) on its network during the 2013 holidays, and currently averages hundreds of millions per day. Currently, Bitcoin supports less than 7 transactions per second with a 1 megabyte block limit.  If we use an average of 300 bytes per bitcoin transaction and assumed unlimited block sizes, an equivalent capacity to peak Visa transaction volume of 47,000/tps would be nearly 8 gigabytes per Bitcoin block, every ten minutes on average.  Continuously, that would be over 400 terabytes of data per year."

Over the long term, not a problem. How big was your disk a decade ago? 

Note also that this is peak. We can tolerate transaction backlog, as long as it clears without too much time passing. Average is much lower. Note that the published paper makes a fundamental logic error. Using a peak figure as an input to an average calculation is either gross stupidity or simple fearmongering.

Now lets actually discuss how we get Bitcoin into the hands of each and every person. What's your solution for that? Hmm?

What I'm trying to say is that we can't solve the throughput problem in the long term by simply increasing block size. It will let us breathe for a while and then choke us again. Other, smarter methods should be employed for solving this problem. One proposal is the Lightning Network. There will be better ones to come, and we should embrace them.

I've been around the incessant march of technology long enough to know the it will indeed solve the issue in the long term. There may be some points where demand outstrips technical limits. But now is not such a time, and neither is the long term. LN may be am important component of the ultimate solution set. But it is in no way sufficient. There is no technology proposed that eliminates this fundamental bottleneck. Block size needs to be increased. Period.

Regarding your 30-year calculation, it is indeed correct, and is an interesting result. SegWit gets this reduced to 15 years.

No. It absolutely does not. You are not yet processing what I wrote. For a person who does not yet have Bitcoin, at least two on-chain transactions are required. One to get Bitcoin into his possession, and another to make his one and only lifetime channel funding (how likely is this limit?). Now, it is possible -- however implausible -- that the initial purchase of Bitcoin might be combined with others in a single transaction that can take advantage of Segwit. However, it is impossible for his channel funding transaction to be reduced in block consumption via segwit. The smallest it can be is one input and one output. So that latter set of transactions (the channel fundings) is a minimum of 30 years at 1MB. Plus whatever it takes to get the Bitcoin into peoples hands to begin with (another 30 years in the natural transaction/person case).