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

[Gab0]

Oh, how I'll really enjoy quoting this discussion when the Lightning Network (or other proper scaling solution) goes live and becomes mainstream...

Reminds me of a song by Leonard Cohen:

"and all the lousy little poets coming round
tryin' to sound like Charlie Manson"

Nope. Lightning is gonna fail as hard as segwit. We need something universally applicable, and NOT FUCKING OPTIONAL.

Bigger blocks work. Nobody except miners would be affected, and even miners would keep their relative position to one another. There would be literally no change, for anyone, except anyone who pays fees. Which is all of us.

The "bigger blocks" solution hasn't been tested on a network of the size and load of that of Bitcoin. Bcash is not Bitcoin. "Bigger blocks", will appear to solve the problem for some small amount of time, until the fees will rise again and we'll soon be asking for "even bigger blocks", ad infinitum. A proper scaling solution should be implemented, one that can scale right now to peak-time VISA levels, by design.

I do not know if I'm right, but I've read that the eth network processes twice as many tx as the bitcoin network and has a kind of dynamic blocks that fit the network's requirements.
I do not know what more tests they need.

Edit: In addition, a short time ago Peter R published in this same thread some advances of the results of the behavior of the network with blocks of 1GB. The tests are being done.

Edit2: Rome was not built in a day. Scales to the nuveles of Visa is something too ambitious. We go step by step with the tools we have today.

[jojo69]

yes or no.

I am not going to get pulled into your binary mode of thinking.  This is your primary cognitive weakness Ibian.  Everything is so simple in your world; black and white, cut and dried, r and K.

Actual reality is more nuanced than that.

For the sake of this discussion I would say that personally I would prefer higher capacity, implemented safely and without serious social collateral damage.

Take that as a "no" if you must.

[d_eddie]

I do not know if I'm right, but I've read that the eth network processes twice as many tx

If you don/t understand the technicals, you might as well refrain fro postig. This is a matter for engineers, nor for vocal users.

[Ibian]

yes or no.

I am not going to get pulled into your binary mode of thinking.  This is your primary cognitive weakness Ibian.  Everything is so simple in your world; black and white, cut and dried, r and K.

Actual reality is more nuanced than that.

For the sake of this discussion I would say that personally I would prefer higher capacity, implemented safely and without serious social collateral damage.

Take that as a "no" if you must.

So, yes. Not really a surprise.

[bitserve]

Do you guys think requesting Bitcoin bigger blocks in the WO thread will make it happen sooner?

If that were true I would start right now. And also asking for faster deployment of Lighting Network, which is a real scalability solution and not just a temporal patch. Both things are needed right now.

Problem is that there is noone to complaint about it. That's what decentralization means in this case. It will just happen when it does. And Bitcoin is not doing that bad in the meantime....

P.S. Maybe they are just waiting until LN is ready for prime time and gets adopted before doing any block size increase.

[jojo69]

 

[Gab0]

I do not know if I'm right, but I've read that the eth network processes twice as many tx

If you don/t understand the technicals, you might as well refrain fro postig. This is a matter for engineers, nor for vocal users.

That's because I do not read about eth.

Edit: And it's not an engineer-only issue. Many of them said that bitcoin would fail, or that bitcoin is broken. You yourself must have seen engineers say that bitcoin needs an inflation system, or engineers suggesting block sizes of 250kb.

[erre]

Tx fees are currently a problem, no one can negate it.
Two days ago I tried to send 30€ of btc to one of my friends willing to try it, but we renounced because of the high fees. Usually I would have used 50sat/b or so and accelerate the tx, but the spam was too much, and even if we could have managed to get the tx to go trough, how he was suppose to "try" it with the current situation?

For me, bitcoin was broken.

Bigger blocks are just an inelegant solution and I don't approve that, but we need to start segwitting or lightening or whatever asap. And to identify spam sources in order to stop them. I would like to see more discussions about this..

Bitcoin is an asset AND a currency, not a stock. Some of the old timers are getting rich, but bitcoin is not an instrument to buy a car (or more probably fiat, as many of you are comprehensibly doing). Don't be too greed, you can still be rich and help bitcoin to be a free p2p currency at the same time. If you are uncomfortable with this price just dump on wall street, but then come back here to support bitcoin.

[d_eddie]

Bigger blocks are just an inelegant solution and I don't approve that, but we need to start segwitting or lightening or whatever asap. And to identify spam sources in order to stop them. I would like to see more discussions about this..

Problem is, in a censorship-free network such as bitcoin means to be, it's a thin line to tell spam from legit.

[TERA2]

The moon is getting smaller.

[kurious]

The moon is getting smaller.

Maybe that is because we're already past it.  Things can look further away in the rear view mirror?

EDIT:  High on Hopium.

[HairyMaclairy]

Hmmm.  

Maybe the Lightning Network is already here.  Tether moves millions of dollars cheaply on the Bitcoin blockchain.  Maybe the answer is staring us right in the face all along.  

[AlcoHoDL]

At least, no non-political reason.

precisely

so stop bullying and start bridge building

Right then, let's do this. One question and one chance to answer.

Do you believe that the current transfer capacity of the bitcoin network is sufficient? Just a straight yes or no.

No.

Why? Because the way it currently works, every little transaction that occurs has to be recorded in the blockchain. Even the 1 € transfers that I made to my students to demonstrate Bitcoin to them, or the coffees that millions of people will potentially buy every morning will have to be broadcast, confirmed, and be forever present in it. I argue that this is unnecessary. There is no need for every little micro-transaction to be explicitly recorded in the blockchain.

Instead of constantly increasing the block size to accommodate for those millions of near-zero value, but non-zero data size transactions, we should aggregate them into a much smaller number of massive-value, but small data size transactions that would be added to the blockchain daily or weekly or whenever needed. The fees can be high, because a single fee payment can cover millions of micro-transactions, where each individual's actual coffee fee could be less than a cent. Having high on-chain fees can be beneficial in actively discouraging spam attacks on the network, so the blockchain stays clean of spam and contains only high-valued transactions that have a reason to be there, and justify the fees paid.

That's roughly the idea behind the Lightning Network. This already happens in computer data transfers. Bits are not transferred one by one, but in packets of bytes, which in turn form much bigger packets of data payloads, and it is these big packets that get checksummed and validated and transferred as big chunks of data. There are different layers of data processing that are in place to optimally achieve the end result. That's how networking works and that's how I believe Bitcoin's scaling issues should be approached. We should aim for VISA-class throughput, not a mere 4x or 8x increase.

I understand that the network is at its limits and something needs to be done very soon. But just imagine what will happen if something goes wrong... The whole thing could collapse! The code base maintainers have a huge responsibility to ensure that the new code works as intended and for that they must do extensive testing and validation before releasing it in the wild. It's no piece of cake. You saw what happened with Bcash. They had to fork it themselves to replace the poorly written EDA algorithm. You only had to glance at the graphs to see the quality of each network. It's no easy task. The core devs have chosen a conservative approach, maximizing robustness and stability as much as they can before releasing any updated code. It can be a painfully slow process, but I trust it will lead us to the proper scaling solution in the end.

[jojo69]

The moon is getting smaller.

IN THE REARVIEW MIRROR!

[cAPSLOCK]

That tears it. I'm ignoring everyone.

But I brought you ice cream and a flower... 

[Rosewater Foundation]

That tears it. I'm ignoring everyone.

But I brought you ice cream and a flower... 

This feels like a trap. Let me guess, fees were too high? Confirmation took too long and the ice cream melted? Then you used <insert alternative cryptocurrency> and it was so user friendly?

[explorer]

That tears it. I'm ignoring everyone.

But I brought you ice cream and a flower... 

This feels like a trap. Let me guess, fees were too high? Confirmation took too long and the ice cream melted? Then you used <insert alternative cryptocurrency> and it was so user friendly?

BitcoinFlower, and BitcoinIce.  They will be the new bitcoin.  Watch for it.  Confirmation before wilt or melt, Guaranteed!

[cAPSLOCK]

That tears it. I'm ignoring everyone.

But I brought you ice cream and a flower... 

This feels like a trap. Let me guess, fees were too high? Confirmation took too long and the ice cream melted? Then you used <insert alternative cryptocurrency> and it was so user friendly?

It's coffee ice cream and a carnation.  No fees... no blocksizes.  

[jojo69]

BitcoinIce

I LIKE it

[SecondLeoTheSecond]

At least, no non-political reason.

precisely

so stop bullying and start bridge building

Right then, let's do this. One question and one chance to answer.

Do you believe that the current transfer capacity of the bitcoin network is sufficient? Just a straight yes or no.

-snip-
This already happens in computer data transfers. Bits are not transferred one by one, but in packets of bytes, which in turn form much bigger packets of data payloads,
-snip

I fear you triggered me there XD

The data transfer of information in computers depends on implemented architecture. Having a serial protocol like UART or SPI means you transfer the information bit by bit. This architecture is still commonly used in most chip to chip transfers. Within a desktop computer though there is generally a multibit databus where several bit values can be latched onto simultaniously. This of course has the disadvantage of requiring several lines to transfer the information simultaniously. If you go yet a step further, to the inside of a cpu for example, things get so small that that having a quiet large data or memory bus becomes feasible again.

So, to put that together, chip to chip transfer between several cases is usually serial (wifi as well as cable), while data transfer in a desktop pc is parallel.

Now I'm untriggered... excuse me