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

[NotLambchop]

...
Is that a list of bitcoin symptoms?
...

Here:

Can we make some of these people Caucasian /brown? Just for balance?

We could, but that would take work.  Because click.

Also, my fellow Klansmen told me it's fine just as it is.

[Newar]

Also can't read much of code but, larger block size is a GOOd thing. Why? more hashed information per unit block. Not just for bitcoin transactions, but for any information to be stored in a block and validated by the network. Can't you see why this is a good thing? bitcoin blocks can be used for more thanjust bitcoin transactions. good thing in my books.

The blockchain is already what? 30Gigs? 40gigs?  That's a lot of storage and a lot of bandwidth. If you were to increase the size of the blocks it will become very costly for individuals to run full nodes, leading to centralization.

Also removes the idea of scarcity in the block. To maintain the incentive for the miners is to maintain the security of the blockchain. Once the reward gets cut down it is imagined that the fees will replace this incentive. Scarcity and an open market fee structure would hopefully provide enough incentive to keep the miners interested.

I'm not fully on the side of either camp just yet, any changes (or stubborn refusal to change) could result in unintended consequences. I'm just saying we should tread lightly.

Just because the block size is 20 MB doesn't mean they will be full at the time. Even with the current limit 1 MB hardly ever hit.

Bandwith and storage are getting cheaper as time goes on.

[BitThink]

It is the upper limit, not the block size itself being increased. Block size increases when the transaction increases. Without a proper upper limit, some day no one can send or receive BTC.

[empowering]

Also can't read much of code but, larger block size is a GOOd thing. Why? more hashed information per unit block. Not just for bitcoin transactions, but for any information to be stored in a block and validated by the network. Can't you see why this is a good thing? bitcoin blocks can be used for more thanjust bitcoin transactions. good thing in my books.

The blockchain is already what? 30Gigs? 40gigs?  That's a lot of storage and a lot of bandwidth. If you were to increase the size of the blocks it will become very costly for individuals to run full nodes, leading to centralization.

Also removes the idea of scarcity in the block. To maintain the incentive for the miners is to maintain the security of the blockchain. Once the reward gets cut down it is imagined that the fees will replace this incentive. Scarcity and an open market fee structure would hopefully provide enough incentive to keep the miners interested.

I'm not fully on the side of either camp just yet, any changes (or stubborn refusal to change) could result in unintended consequences. I'm just saying we should tread lightly.

The cost of storage and bandwidth is falling per fixed dollar at an exponential rate (on a yearly -18 months basis)

[silverfuture]

Clearly this is GENTLEMEN!

[NotLambchop]

...
The blockchain is already what? 30Gigs? 40gigs?  That's a lot of storage and a lot of bandwidth. If you were to increase the size of the blocks it will become very costly for individuals to run full nodes, leading to centralization...

If we end up not liking it, we can always change it back.  Just like the 21 million coin limit

[NotLambchop]

...

Have to ask you too:

...

Have you ever been tested for Assburger's?  Serious question.

Please don't take it the wrong way.

[JorgeStolfi]

It is the upper limit, not the block size itself being increased. Block size increases when the transaction increases. Without a proper upper limit, some day no one can send or receive BTC.

IIRC, someone objected that it would become an advantage for a miner to assemble empty or very short blocks, because that would give him an edge over miners who work on full 20 MB blocks (which would take significantly longer to propagate).  Thus there was a proposal to force all blocks to be 20 MB long, irrespective of their actual contents.  Does it make sense?

[JorgeStolfi]

...
The blockchain is already what? 30Gigs? 40gigs?  That's a lot of storage and a lot of bandwidth. If you were to increase the size of the blocks it will become very costly for individuals to run full nodes, leading to centralization...

If we end up not liking it, we can always change it back.  Just like the 21 million coin limit

That was cruel. 

[silverfuture]

Please don't take it the wrong way.

Wouldn't dream of it friend!

[empowering]

...
The blockchain is already what? 30Gigs? 40gigs?  That's a lot of storage and a lot of bandwidth. If you were to increase the size of the blocks it will become very costly for individuals to run full nodes, leading to centralization...

If we end up not liking it, we can always change it back.  Just like the 21 million coin limit

That was cruel. 

Yeah... try that.

 

[f2000]

Crippling regret 

[klondike_bar]

Also can't read much of code but, larger block size is a GOOd thing. Why? more hashed information per unit block. Not just for bitcoin transactions, but for any information to be stored in a block and validated by the network. Can't you see why this is a good thing? bitcoin blocks can be used for more thanjust bitcoin transactions. good thing in my books.

The blockchain is already what? 30Gigs? 40gigs?  That's a lot of storage and a lot of bandwidth. If you were to increase the size of the blocks it will become very costly for individuals to run full nodes, leading to centralization.

Also removes the idea of scarcity in the block. To maintain the incentive for the miners is to maintain the security of the blockchain. Once the reward gets cut down it is imagined that the fees will replace this incentive. Scarcity and an open market fee structure would hopefully provide enough incentive to keep the miners interested.

I'm not fully on the side of either camp just yet, any changes (or stubborn refusal to change) could result in unintended consequences. I'm just saying we should tread lightly.

Just because the block size is 20 MB doesn't mean they will be full at the time. Even with the current limit 1 MB hardly ever hit.

Bandwith and storage are getting cheaper as time goes on.

+1. i expect that technology will scale more quickly than the blockchain.

you can buy a 1TB harddrive for $50 (or a 128GB SSD for $100), and >2MB/s bandwith is pretty common now in major cities.
in 2-3 years from now youll buy a 1TB SSD for $100, and the majority of people in developed countries will have access to 5MB/s or better, with major cities having 10-20MB/s

Ps: i recently moved my blockchain files from my 128GB SSD to an HDD, and was shocked how much longer loading bitcoin-qt took. It went from being about 40-60 second loadtime to 3-4 minutes. SSD drives are the future, and will make read/write/storage of the blockchain quick and simple

[sunshine_sid]

The matrix has shifted.  Can anyone else feel it?

[silverfuture]

Uh Oh bears!

LOLZ at the ones cheering the dumps on Feb22

[silverfuture]

The matrix has shifted.  Can anyone else feel it?

Something feels much different.

[karolina]

Also can't read much of code but, larger block size is a GOOd thing. Why? more hashed information per unit block. Not just for bitcoin transactions, but for any information to be stored in a block and validated by the network. Can't you see why this is a good thing? bitcoin blocks can be used for more thanjust bitcoin transactions. good thing in my books.

The blockchain is already what? 30Gigs? 40gigs?  That's a lot of storage and a lot of bandwidth. If you were to increase the size of the blocks it will become very costly for individuals to run full nodes, leading to centralization.

Also removes the idea of scarcity in the block. To maintain the incentive for the miners is to maintain the security of the blockchain. Once the reward gets cut down it is imagined that the fees will replace this incentive. Scarcity and an open market fee structure would hopefully provide enough incentive to keep the miners interested.

I'm not fully on the side of either camp just yet, any changes (or stubborn refusal to change) could result in unintended consequences. I'm just saying we should tread lightly.

Just because the block size is 20 MB doesn't mean they will be full at the time. Even with the current limit 1 MB hardly ever hit.

Bandwith and storage are getting cheaper as time goes on.

+1. i expect that technology will scale more quickly than the blockchain.

you can buy a 1TB harddrive for $50 (or a 128GB SSD for $100), and >2MB/s bandwith is pretty common now in major cities.
in 2-3 years from now youll buy a 1TB SSD for $100, and the majority of people in developed countries will have access to 5MB/s or better, with major cities having 10-20MB/s

Ps: i recently moved my blockchain files from my 128GB SSD to an HDD, and was shocked how much longer loading bitcoin-qt took. It went from being about 40-60 second loadtime to 3-4 minutes. SSD drives are the future, and will make read/write/storage of the blockchain quick and simple

SSD's are also actually cheaper to produce than HDD's, we are just paying premiums for them for obvious reasons. You can already get 1TB MSATA SSD's, so the tech is definitely there already to fit 4TB within a 2.5" enclosure. It won't be long until a 4TB, 2.5" SSD will sell for under $100. By the time the blockchain hits 4TB, we may even have quantum storage lol.

[Walsoraj]

https://twitter.com/GateHubNet/status/571326310036979712

Bullish!   



Jorge, plz confirm.  Thx in advance.

[empowering]

The matrix has shifted.  Can anyone else feel it?

In the UK we call this "sunshine"

(little joke that anyone in the UK will get today)

[inca]

Any other Brits on here?