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

[gentlemand]

It seems to be a cyclical thing. Long ago I remember a dump was guaranteed every weekend without fail. Then it was a guaranteed pump despite many still betting on dumpage way after that behaviour was gone. Not bothered whether it's pumpy or dumpy any more as long there are some signs of life.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin
Explanation

[BlackSpidy]

When do you think the transactions are going to clear up?

[Brewins]

When do you think the transactions are going to clear up?

When whoever is doing the blockchain ddos stress tests stop or are stopped by the miners.

[rolling]

When do you think the transactions are going to clear up?

I think it would be great if they never clear up. Bigger fees only make sense.

The average fee for the 22800 pending transactions is .000128 BTC or 3.4 cents per transaction.

Anyone who wants to get a transaction processed in the next block or two only needs to have a $0.10 (.00037 BTC) fee and it should be just fine. The way I look at it, if you don't think it's worth it to pay 10 cents to process your transaction on the most secure network on the planet, then use a less secure alternative. The higher the average fee goes, the less chance of spam attacks and low value transactions bloating the Blockchain.

[Sitarow]

[ChartBuddy]

Coin
Explanation

[BlackSpidy]

When do you think the transactions are going to clear up?

I think it would be great if they never clear up. Bigger fees only make sense.

The average fee for the 22800 pending transactions is .000128 BTC or 3.4 cents per transaction.

Anyone who wants to get a transaction processed in the next block or two only needs to have a $0.10 (.00037 BTC) fee and it should be just fine. The way I look at it, if you don't think it's worth it to pay 10 cents to process your transaction on the most secure network on the planet, then use a less secure alternative. The higher the average fee goes, the less chance of spam attacks and low value transactions bloating the Blockchain.

I haven't had much experience, so I ask: is it common for services to let you determine the transaction fee when withdrawing? Because I've only seen that option in one of the... three bitcoin-related services I've used.

[rolling]

When do you think the transactions are going to clear up?

I think it would be great if they never clear up. Bigger fees only make sense.

The average fee for the 22800 pending transactions is .000128 BTC or 3.4 cents per transaction.

Anyone who wants to get a transaction processed in the next block or two only needs to have a $0.10 (.00037 BTC) fee and it should be just fine. The way I look at it, if you don't think it's worth it to pay 10 cents to process your transaction on the most secure network on the planet, then use a less secure alternative. The higher the average fee goes, the less chance of spam attacks and low value transactions bloating the Blockchain.

I haven't had much experience, so I ask: is it common for services to let you determine the transaction fee when withdrawing? Because I've only seen that option in one of the... three bitcoin-related services I've used.

No, but they really should let users decide if they want to add an additional fee in case it is a high priority transaction. This is going to be a bigger and bigger issue as time goes by and the block halving occurs. The days of free (or nearly free) transactions are numbered.

[Cconvert2G36]

When do you think the transactions are going to clear up?

I think it would be great if they never clear up. Bigger fees only make sense.

The average fee for the 22800 pending transactions is .000128 BTC or 3.4 cents per transaction.

Anyone who wants to get a transaction processed in the next block or two only needs to have a $0.10 (.00037 BTC) fee and it should be just fine. The way I look at it, if you don't think it's worth it to pay 10 cents to process your transaction on the most secure network on the planet, then use a less secure alternative. The higher the average fee goes, the less chance of spam attacks and low value transactions bloating the Blockchain.

Why can't we have both a fee market and higher throughput?

Seems a bit early to say 2.7 tx per second should be set in stone. Shouldn't it be allowed to grow in the early stages? Within reason, wrt current hardware and avg bandwidth capabilities. This still requires adequate time to be studied, and shouldn't be rushed, nor needlessly delayed. Even the bandwidth constrained majority of chinese hash power said they would be open to 8MB.

It seems like a somewhat artificial handicap when btc is competing with an entire universe of alts, many with much higher throughput.

The fee market should grow in proportion to the diminishing of the block reward over time. Early=big inflation/no or tiny fees, Later= exponentially smaller inflation/higher demand for limited blocksize (speed incentivized by non-trivial fees eventually).   

[rolling]

When do you think the transactions are going to clear up?

I think it would be great if they never clear up. Bigger fees only make sense.

The average fee for the 22800 pending transactions is .000128 BTC or 3.4 cents per transaction.

Anyone who wants to get a transaction processed in the next block or two only needs to have a $0.10 (.00037 BTC) fee and it should be just fine. The way I look at it, if you don't think it's worth it to pay 10 cents to process your transaction on the most secure network on the planet, then use a less secure alternative. The higher the average fee goes, the less chance of spam attacks and low value transactions bloating the Blockchain.

Why can't we have both a fee market and higher throughput?

Seems a bit early to say 2.7 tx per second should be set in stone. Shouldn't it be allowed to grow in the early stages? Within reason, wrt current hardware and avg bandwidth capabilities. This still requires adequate time to be studied, and shouldn't be rushed, nor needlessly delayed. Even the bandwidth constrained majority of chinese hash power said they would be open to 8MB.

It seems like a somewhat artificial handicap when btc is competing with an entire universe of alts, many with much higher throughput.

The fee market should grow in proportion to the diminishing of the block reward over time. Early=big inflation/no or tiny fees, Later= exponentially smaller inflation/higher demand for limited blocksize (speed incentivized by non-trivial fees eventually).   

I have no issue with the increase to the "maximum" block size as proposed by Gavin. It doesn't mean miners are going to utilize the extra capacity unless they are compensated for it.

[Cconvert2G36]

I have no issue with the increase to the "maximum" block size as proposed by Gavin. It doesn't mean miners are going to utilize the extra capacity unless they are compensated for it.

Bigger blocks do impact all mining pools (and full nodes in their own way), independent of whether they set their software to make smaller blocks. It comes in the form of validation and hashing the transactions, which takes time, in a game where seconds count. That's why this is important to get right, and I think something crucial in the growth of btc vs plenty of willing competitors.

[rolling]

I have no issue with the increase to the "maximum" block size as proposed by Gavin. It doesn't mean miners are going to utilize the extra capacity unless they are compensated for it.

Bigger blocks do impact all mining pools (and full nodes in their own way), independent of whether they set their software to make smaller blocks. It comes in the form of validation and hashing the transactions, which takes time, in a game where seconds count. That's why this is important to get right, and I think something crucial in the growth of btc vs plenty of willing competitors.

True and some independent miner will no doubt build those huge blocks that everyone else has to deal with but the big boys aren't going to do it for free.

[Cconvert2G36]

I have no issue with the increase to the "maximum" block size as proposed by Gavin. It doesn't mean miners are going to utilize the extra capacity unless they are compensated for it.

Bigger blocks do impact all mining pools (and full nodes in their own way), independent of whether they set their software to make smaller blocks. It comes in the form of validation and hashing the transactions, which takes time, in a game where seconds count. That's why this is important to get right, and I think something crucial in the growth of btc vs plenty of willing competitors.

True and some independent miner will no doubt build those huge blocks that everyone else has to deal with but the big boys aren't going to do it for free.

Should we invest in larger highways or force people to carpool?  It may take some time to resolve...

Nice metaphor, a small village with a single lane toll road is going to have a hard time competing with the town next door with a two lane (miner) subsidized thoroughfare.

And after time and growth. A big city shouldn't/can't use a 30 lane freeway, but can (for a fee) generate a market for limited travel capacity, because the demand to be there exists and that demand is willing to pay (to use the most secure blockchain).   

[ChartBuddy]

Coin
Explanation

[ChartBuddy]

Coin
Explanation

[luckygenough56]

btc stagnating ltc mooning

it's part of the manipulation guys, btc blockchain is being spammed to force people to buy/use ltc instead

doom

[ChartBuddy]

Coin
Explanation

[gizmoh]

btc stagnating ltc mooning

it's part of the manipulation guys, btc blockchain is being spammed to force people to buy/use ltc instead

doom

LTC is toppish, about to pop.
Be very careful gamblers.

[bassclef]

btc stagnating ltc mooning

it's part of the manipulation guys, btc blockchain is being spammed to force people to buy/use ltc instead

doom

LTC is toppish, about to pop.
Be very careful gamblers.

Volume is still expanding on larger timeframes, forecast full moon with chance of parabola.