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

[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.

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.

for it to propagated slower it has to be bigger. no?

[readysalted89]

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

Their opinion cannot be ignored by the core devs, but neither can the western exchange's opinions. Has Bitstamp or any of the other western exchanges voiced an opinion yet?

[phoenix1]

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

It shouldn't be an issue in China - more like: Afghanistan, some countries in Africa and South America

The client probably needs more bandwidth for upload, but it's still laughable and we're not even at 1MB right now.

Not true ... the 1MB limit is already reached several times every day.

https://tradeblock.com/blog/bitcoin-network-capacity-analysis-part-1-macro-block-trends

the maximum block size was reached an average of more than four times per day so far in 2015, meaning at least some otherwise-acceptable transactions are seeing delayed confirmations due to capacity issues on the network 3% of the time since the beginning of the year

The charts thrown around show average block size, which, yes, is currently below the 1MB limit

[adamstgBit]

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

It shouldn't be an issue in China - more like: Afghanistan, some countries in Africa and South America

The client probably needs more bandwidth for upload, but it's still laughable and we're not even at 1MB right now.

and its not like they would be stopped from mining

they would just connect to a pool ( something they probably already do...)

[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.

for it to propagated slower it has to be bigger. no?

No.  If two miners are similarly connected and have similar bandwidth, their propagation time should be roughly equal, I would think, regardless of the block size.  If one or the other is better connected or has more bandwidth, however, then there will be a disadvantage to the less-connected or slower connection, and that disadvantage will increase slightly with block size.  I think one of the Chines miners posted the math that explains this relationship more precisely on the dev list.

I am not really arguing the case for the Chinese miners here, just trying to explain what their objection was, based on what I read on the dev mailing list.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin
Explanation

[adamstgBit]

http://cointelegraph.com/news/114480/former-jp-morgan-exec-distributed-digital-ledgers-will-change-finance

not if the network is limited to 2.5TPS it can't!

increase block size limit anyone?

[adamstgBit]

seriously so much time has probably been wasted talking about this its not even funny
increase the limit and start working on ways ( sidechain or wtv) to reduce traffic on the main chain.
if i saw this happening in a calm and orderly fashion i'd send more fiat to the exchange, but i see Okcoin bitch and complain.

grrrrr

[Fatman3001]

seriously so much time has probably been wasted talking about this its not even funny
increase the limit and start working on ways ( sidechain or wtv) to reduce traffic on the main chain.
if i saw this happening in a calm and orderly fashion i'd send more fiat to the exchange, but i see Okcoin bitch and complain.

grrrrr

Chillax, Adam! This is your "throw-monkey-poo-on-the-wall-and-see-if-it-sticks" thread, not the Bitcoin Brain Trust. We really want to help you, but we're kind of stupid. And most of us aren't even devs.

[tomothy]

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

No.  If two miners are similarly connected and have similar bandwidth, their propagation time should be roughly equal, I would think, regardless of the block size.  If one or the other is better connected or has more bandwidth, however, then there will be a disadvantage to the less-connected or slower connection, and that disadvantage will increase slightly with block size.  I think one of the Chines miners posted the math that explains this relationship more precisely on the dev list.

I am not really arguing the case for the Chinese miners here, just trying to explain what their objection was, based on what I read on the dev mailing list.

Yeah, I recall seeing this too. They showed that an increase in the blocktime would affect their mining profits. I think they suggested gradual scaling starting with like 4mb or 6mb blocks and continuing to increase from there as the network demanded. Regardless, they seemed to document an actual financial incentive and justification for not unilaterally increasing to 20mb immediately.

Any thoughts as to what the weekend holds? I was hoping for the usual thursday night volatility but it seems it's been pretty quiet besides the usual laundering with ltc...

[phoenix1]

Chillax, Adam! This is your "throw-monkey-poo-on-the-wall-and-see-if-it-sticks" thread, not the Bitcoin Brain Trust. We really want too help you, but we're kind of stupid. And most of us aren't even devs.

Monkeys
]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1KaWPYOLuT8]

Devs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-hUV9yhqgY

[Fatman3001]

Chillax, Adam! This is your "throw-monkey-poo-on-the-wall-and-see-if-it-sticks" thread, not the Bitcoin Brain Trust. We really want too help you, but we're kind of stupid. And most of us aren't even devs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1KaWPYOLuT8

That reminds me...see you in 15.

[phoenix1]

Chillax, Adam! This is your "throw-monkey-poo-on-the-wall-and-see-if-it-sticks" thread, not the Bitcoin Brain Trust. We really want too help you, but we're kind of stupid. And most of us aren't even devs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1KaWPYOLuT8

That reminds me...see you in 15.

lol ... gonna test that bionic arm again 

[Adrian-x]

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.

20Mb Block capacity is not 20MB block tragic, its just preparation for the next growth spurt, if we cant handle 20x the amount of users (more like 8x the number of users now) and traffic its going to be a little disappointing, moving you BTC is going to be like having Gox coins when the network jams up.  Once the new 20x user realize how shit it is to use, demand will dry up, and your transactions will clear.

Shit thing is having coins stuck in the network won't allow you to sell, - best we keep the 1MB limit, and you all move your coins to Coinbase, OKCoin and Bitfenix, hope they don't Gox, and sell off chain at the peek to the next bag holder who wont be able to move them.

Who needs a functioning Bitcoin anyway, well have SideChains and Coinbase and Circle, we can just use that, it'll be better.

[JorgeStolfi]

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

It seems that a somewhat more accurate headline would have been: "BTCChina and Huobi agree that the current 1 MB block size limit is too small, but think that 20 MB would be too big"

[JorgeStolfi]

I'm just speculating, but the Winklevoss are going to need to submit another S-1A without mtgox, btc-e and other foreign exchanges listed in it.

IIRC, they had already removed mtgox from the latest (5th) amended filing.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin
Explanation

[Adrian-x]

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

It seems that a somewhat more accurate headline would have been: "BTCChina and Huobi agree that the current 1 MB block size limit is too small, but think that 20 MB would be too big"

you know there are only 91 nodes in the whole of China, if anyone over there wants to use Bitcoin they would need depend on one of the other 5000 nodes over here, i don't think they have much bargaining power.

[Cconvert2G36]

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

It seems that a somewhat more accurate headline would have been: "BTCChina and Huobi agree that the current 1 MB block size limit is too small, but think that 20 MB would be too big"

you know there are only 91 nodes in the whole of China, if anyone over there wants to use Bitcoin they would need depend on one of the other 5000 nodes over here, i don't think they have much bargaining power.

A few of those 91 nodes have many peta's aimed at them though. Could be a major factor if they decide to fight for Mirceacoin Classic.

[Fakhoury]

We have many new players coming to bitcoin all the time in the form of retailers, traders and miners mostly.  Yes, the "miners" portion is probably slowing down a little bit but they are still coming.  I see newbies in the mining threads all the time asking questions about mining.  The new one's who come along pick up the slack of any oldies who may have left bitcoin behind.  Especially, the newbies to trading bitcoin.

We are still very early in the game for bitcoin.  It's a new technology to most; much like the internet and email was to most when it first came out.  These things take time.  So, be patient and let the blockchain work things out.

We have many venture capital groups who have invested a lot of money into the technology of the blockchain.  Many user friendly apps for financial institutions will be coming out soon and will change the way billions in the world live their daily lives.  Many here may give up on bitcoin for lack of patience.  However, I know billions on this earth who have yet to even hear of it who will gladly accept it with open arms and give it the support it needs in great numbers.  There is strength in numbers.

As people in other parts of the world come into the fold of technology with smart phones and the like, we will see a increased enthusiasm for bitcoin - the application.  As other applications are created and used on the blockchain [with a relative ease and security] news will go around about the blockchain.  Bitcoin is not the blockchain.  The blockchain is bitcoin.  The blockchain is more than just bitcoin.  The blockchain is MANY things we have yet to see, but will see in time that will change the way we do many things in the future.

So, be patient...  The future is here...  It only needs a little time to play out.  In June of 2007 (eight years ago on June 29) we had the iPhone or the term, "smart phone."  That was only 8 years ago, people. Nobody ever heard the term, "Smart phone" until eight years ago.  Eight years is only a blink of an eye.  The "drama" in the price of bitcoin fluctuation is what it is - "drama."  We haven't had eight years yet with bitcoin.  

Do not fret!  Bitcoin (the app) will have it's day of recompense.  We just need to be patient and wait on the many other things the blockchain can do.  It's all about "the blockchain."  Not bitcoin!  Bitcoin, is only an application on the blockchain.  Be patient and watch how many other apps created using "the blockchain" technology changes the world.  THEN, you will see a change for the better in how the rest of the world values any other applications, such as bitcoin, using the blockchain technology.

All this talk of saying, "If the price goes below this amount, it's over."  I feel the price of bitcoin is directly related to the value of "the blockchain."  If the blockchain does well, then most any application using the blockchain will do well; as long as it's user friendly.  We are making progress in leaps and bounds with "user friendliness" ever since the blockchain and bitcoin first came out.  Give it time folks.  The blockchain and and it's apps [Including Bitcoin] will do wonders for mankind the same way the internet has.  Just give it time.  

Those who give up on it will lose in the end for their lack of patience.  Six years is but a fart in the wind in view of time and how technology changes.  As more time passes, we will see great strides in the blockchain and many user friendly apps using the blockchain technology; including bitcoin.

David

One of my favorite replies so far here at the forum.