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

[aztecminer]

From Gemini Instagram, Launching soon:

https://instagram.com/geminidotcom/

Rocket to Moon: 
https://instagram.com/p/3e2gb8hNuJ/?taken-by=geminidotcom

Launching an exchange is the easy part. After launch, getting volume and network effect is the hard part. Look at itBit for example. After their New york trust license, nothing significant happened. I don't expect any different for Gemini.

Bingo.  Coinbase launched their exchange and look what happened?  Zilch. Nada. Tumbleweeds.  And they didn't even get licensed in all States, only about half of them.  I expect the same or less for Gemini.

how much longer before other states can use the new exchange? i suppose I should try to login again.

[Wings1987]

They have added a bunch.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin
Explanation

[Wandererfromthenorth]

http://cointelegraph.com/news/114481/chinese-exchanges-reject-gavin-andresens-20-mb-block-size-increase

[Eamorr]

http://cointelegraph.com/news/114481/chinese-exchanges-reject-gavin-andresens-20-mb-block-size-increase

Pathetic. The Bitcoin community is only ripping itself apart. Sometimes you have to do what is best for the community, but some people are only interested in doing what's best for themselves.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin
Explanation

[Sitarow]

http://cointelegraph.com/news/114481/chinese-exchanges-reject-gavin-andresens-20-mb-block-size-increase

Pathetic. The Bitcoin community is only ripping itself apart. Sometimes you have to do what is best for the community, but some people institutions are only interested in doing what's best for themselves.

The great thing about bitcoin is that consensus in a distributed system overcomes all ego's.


What happened to OKcoin? ... I wonder

[phoenix1]

http://cointelegraph.com/news/114481/chinese-exchanges-reject-gavin-andresens-20-mb-block-size-increase

Pathetic. The Bitcoin community is only ripping itself apart. Sometimes you have to do what is best for the community, but some people are only interested in doing what's best for themselves.

A bit harsh.
The only real barrier in there is that they don't want to switch to Bitcoin XT, they wan't to remain with the core Bitcoin software that is tried and tested (not saying XT is buggy - I have no idea)
Gavin has already acknowledged that 20Mb was a calculation error, and is going for 8Mb (as his first card in the negotiations).
They also acknowledge the need to raise it, and saying that there should be a hard upper limit at any one time is eminently sensible. Of course there will be, tho it will likely need to be adjusted over time, which is also being proposed i believe

All part of the 'compromise' process that is in progress IMO. Isn't that better than forced changes made by one entity/person?

As many have already suggested, a compromise with a smaller block size of four megabytes sounds quite reasonable

Hardly sounds like they are being totally un-cooperative to me. Would not surprise me if 'half of what I said' is what Gavin is gunning for anyway. You don't open a negotiation with your final offer.

EDITED for a couple innaccuracies after re-reading the article  

[Sitarow]

http://cointelegraph.com/news/114481/chinese-exchanges-reject-gavin-andresens-20-mb-block-size-increase

Pathetic. The Bitcoin community is only ripping itself apart. Sometimes you have to do what is best for the community, but some people are only interested in doing what's best for themselves.

A bit harsh.
The only real barrier in there is that they don't want to switch to Bitcoin XT, they wan't to remain with the core Bitcoin software that is tried and tested (not saying XT is buggy - I have no idea)
Gavin has already acknowledged that 20Mb was a calculation error, and is going for 8Mb (as his first card in the negotiations), and not as a hard limit (one of the objections in this article), ie with a schedule of increases
They also acknowledge the need to raise it.

All part of the 'compromise' process that is in progress IMO. Isn't that better than forced changes made by one entity/person?

That will help solidify the needed consensus.. What is important to note is that we have to grow the core Bitcoin software first before we allow 3rd party centralized networks dictate how this technology should evolve.

[adamstgBit]

http://cointelegraph.com/news/114481/chinese-exchanges-reject-gavin-andresens-20-mb-block-size-increase

Pathetic. The Bitcoin community is only ripping itself apart. Sometimes you have to do what is best for the community, but some people institutions are only interested in doing what's best for themselves.

The great thing about bitcoin is that consensus in a distributed system overcomes all ego's.


What happened to OKcoin? ... I wonder

“An increase in block size to 20 megabyte would increase operating costs for miners and likely negatively impact the block orphan rates. Higher costs would be propagated to miners and then we may face a scenario where miners cannot run their operations profitably, causing some miners to cease operations. Fewer miners would lead to a decrease in the hash rate, thereby increasing the risk of 51% attacks on the network. ”

oh come on! such ludicrous BS downloading 20MB is SOOOOOOOOO costly

“A very large block size would be problematic for miners because the network bandwidth between China, where the majority of mining is done, and rest of the world is heavily restricted. Important proposals like these need to factor in all of the nuances of the global landscape.”

the bandwidth between China and rest of the world is <20MB every 10 mins?

[phoenix1]

Apparently 20MB was an error in his initial 'back-of-the-envelope- calculations. When corrected, the new number is 8MB. Really does not seem like agreement is that far away
And consulting and compromising with miners was always going to be part of the process.

“We believe in a gradual increase of the block size limit along with a hard upper limit to prevent misuse,“

Does not sound unreasonable to me

EDIT: I Bet 4MB in the core with a schedule of further increases as necessary (based on block fullness rather than time) is what we end up with. Gavin would be a fool to force a fork if there is a concensus to meet in the middle. I think he just made that threat to make damn sure that people start taking it seriously NOW in order to give enough lead time. Fair enough.

[Natalia_AnatolioPAMM]

From Gemini Instagram, Launching soon:

https://instagram.com/geminidotcom/

Rocket to Moon: 
https://instagram.com/p/3e2gb8hNuJ/?taken-by=geminidotcom

Launching an exchange is the easy part. After launch, getting volume and network effect is the hard part. Look at itBit for example. After their New york trust license, nothing significant happened. I don't expect any different for Gemini.

Bingo.  Coinbase launched their exchange and look what happened?  Zilch. Nada. Tumbleweeds.  And they didn't even get licensed in all States, only about half of them.  I expect the same or less for Gemini.

you're right. it definitely will be the same

[dakota neat]

block size is a minor technical issue. cap will be increased when needed (needed means when we reach consensus that it needs to be done). all the drama is only the human componet, same old pathetic hairless ape shit.

[BayAreaCoins]

I expect Gemini to have about as much volume as Cryptsy or Poloniex.  Maybe! Or they will get DDOSED into the middle of next week for sucking Lawskys cock... that's a big possibility as well. I heard anyone who followed Bit Lic in NYC would be pwned and boycotted.

[phoenix1]

blockchain size is a minor technical issue. cap will be increased when needed (needed means when we reach consensus that it needs to be done). all the drama is only the human componet, same old pathetic hairless ape shit.

Lol 

[xyzzy099]

oh come on! such ludicrous BS downloading 20MB is SOOOOOOOOO costly

“A very large block size would be problematic for miners because the network bandwidth between China, where the majority of mining is done, and rest of the world is heavily restricted. Important proposals like these need to factor in all of the nuances of the global landscape.”

the bandwidth between China and rest of the world is <20MB every 10 mins?

I think the problem the Chinese miners are concerned about is that, because of their lower bandwidth, they are already at a bit of a disadvantage with block propagation time, which increases the likelihood that their mined blocks may be orphaned - and increasing the block size increases that problem.

[adamstgBit]

oh come on! such ludicrous BS downloading 20MB is SOOOOOOOOO costly

“A very large block size would be problematic for miners because the network bandwidth between China, where the majority of mining is done, and rest of the world is heavily restricted. Important proposals like these need to factor in all of the nuances of the global landscape.”

the bandwidth between China and rest of the world is <20MB every 10 mins?

I think the problem the Chinese miners are concerned about is that, because of their lower bandwidth, they are already at a bit of a disadvantage with block propagation time, which increases the likelihood that their mined blocks may be orphaned - and increasing the block size increases that problem.

no it doesn't tho, just because the block size limit is higher doesn't mean network traffic is going to jump up dramatically...

nothing is going to change, their arguments are based on hypothetical nonsense.

[xyzzy099]

oh come on! such ludicrous BS downloading 20MB is SOOOOOOOOO costly

“A very large block size would be problematic for miners because the network bandwidth between China, where the majority of mining is done, and rest of the world is heavily restricted. Important proposals like these need to factor in all of the nuances of the global landscape.”

the bandwidth between China and rest of the world is <20MB every 10 mins?

I think the problem the Chinese miners are concerned about is that, because of their lower bandwidth, they are already at a bit of a disadvantage with block propagation time, which increases the likelihood that their mined blocks may be orphaned - and increasing the block size increases that problem.

no it doesn't tho, just because the block size limit is higher doesn't mean network traffic is going to jump up dramatically...

nothing is going to change, their arguments are based on hypothetical nonsense.

Increasing the chance a block will be orphaned doesn't require that 'network traffic jump up', it just requires that that one block be propagated to the network more slowly than another simultaneous block.

[Sitarow]

I think the spirit behind BTCChina and Huobi's caution is summed up well in the following quote.

Speaking to CoinTelegraph, both BTCChina as well as Huobi indicated that they believe any increase in Bitcoin's block size limit should be approached conservatively

[phoenix1]

Interesting article here about how the 'real' speed of the network is actually on 2.8TPS due to increased complexity of transactions due to mixing if I understand it correctly

the average bitcoin transaction data size has grown to roughly 600 bytes. This is largely a result of increasingly complex transactions, often using multiple inputs and outputs. Consequently, that means the bitcoin network can actually handle a sustained rate of roughly 2.8 TPS or roughly 240K per day – far less than commonly assumed

https://tradeblock.com/blog/bitcoin-network-capacity-analysis-part-2-macro-transaction-trends

Blocksize increase anyone ?