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

[peonminer]

hitting that 465 resistance again and again, who the fuck is nutty enough to break and buy through it? we should head down.... can't paint TOO many bubbles   

Do that thing where you tell everyone to sell again

Last time you did we rocketed from $380 to $475

[wachtwoord]

I saw this earlier and hope/think Greg will reconsider and keep fighting the good fight against Gavin's minions.

This is not LOTR, nor Warcraft. Genuine people have genuine disagreements. There are no minions.... on Gavin's side.

There are. Only on Gavin's side. He's trying to increase the size of blocks which breaks Bitcoin. He's some sort of socialist, corrupted by the CIA or went crazy but what he's doing is fighting Bitcoin. There is no logical reason to choose for bigger blocks other a strive for centralization, control by the government and the loss of utility of Bitcoin itself (and in effect a loss off value). He's advocating changes which make my holdings worth less. That makes you my enemy.

[wachtwoord]

A while ago I was sitting in front of a block explorer seeing the transactions as they happened in real time, in USD terms... there were many 0.03, 0.07$ transactions etc. This is bullshit.

Cry me a river. What is the line between not-bullshit and bullshit? I don't measure it in size of transaction, I measure it in number of transactions. Do you personally run a full node? I do. If you do not personally run a node, WTF do you care about number of transactions? If you do, then why are you so damned cheap to spend another $USD 10 on HDD space, and another $USD 0.50/mo on bandwidth - especially as you're so incensed about small-value transactions?

I do too. SwampNode is running BitcoinXT.  Cost me $118 bucks, so any crybabies whining about the node problem can stop wasting their time. 

That's not Bitcoin but GavinCoin.

[olli]

I saw this earlier and hope/think Greg will reconsider and keep fighting the good fight against Gavin's minions.

This is not LOTR, nor Warcraft. Genuine people have genuine disagreements. There are no minions.... on Gavin's side.

There are. Only on Gavin's side. He's trying to increase the size of blocks which breaks Bitcoin. He's some sort of socialist, corrupted by the CIA or went crazy but what he's doing is fighting Bitcoin. There is no logical reason to choose for bigger blocks other a strive for centralization, control by the government and the loss of utility of Bitcoin itself (and in effect a loss off value). He's advocating changes which make my holdings worth less. That makes you my enemy.

The shill is strong in this one

[AlexGR]

A while ago I was sitting in front of a block explorer seeing the transactions as they happened in real time, in USD terms... there were many 0.03, 0.07$ transactions etc. This is bullshit.

Cry me a river. What is the line between not-bullshit and bullshit?

Bullshit = not understanding the value of the blockchain and polluting it with dust and spam. But, IMO, miners carry a large responsibility for allowing the processing of such transactions which is not in anyone's long-term interest.

Do you personally run a full node?

Sort of.

If you do not personally run a node, WTF do you care about number of transactions? If you do, then why are you so damned cheap to spend another $USD 10 on HDD space, and another $USD 0.50/mo on bandwidth - especially as you're so incensed about small-value transactions?

The bigger the blockchain, the more unusable and more centralized it becomes. The blockchain should grow to the degree that it has to (=legitimate transactions) and not a kilobyte more. Anything different is inefficient.

The blockchain is a valuable resource. If you treat it like a dumpster you are devaluing BTC.

Economic considerations should also be given for developing countries where bandwidth costs are high, as are imported technological goods like hard disks, ram and high end CPUs/mobos. The western world doesn't really understand the problem. Then again it doesn't even understand the value of BTC compared to soft currencies either. It came as a surprise to many to read how good BTC is performing against various global currencies. We are so fixated in dollar terms that we cannot fathom that, in some other country, BTC is actually higher than its ever been. Things that we take for granted (stable currencies, access to cheap IT stuff, access to cheap bandwidth) aren't really granted all over the planet - and especially there where bitcoin is needed most.

[brg444]

The western world doesn't really understand the problem.

Yep, typical egocentric spoiled little brats

[billyjoeallen]

A while ago I was sitting in front of a block explorer seeing the transactions as they happened in real time, in USD terms... there were many 0.03, 0.07$ transactions etc. This is bullshit.

Cry me a river. What is the line between not-bullshit and bullshit? I don't measure it in size of transaction, I measure it in number of transactions. Do you personally run a full node? I do. If you do not personally run a node, WTF do you care about number of transactions? If you do, then why are you so damned cheap to spend another $USD 10 on HDD space, and another $USD 0.50/mo on bandwidth - especially as you're so incensed about small-value transactions?

I do too. SwampNode is running BitcoinXT.  Cost me $118 bucks, so any crybabies whining about the node problem can stop wasting their time. 

That's not Bitcoin but GavinCoin.

Fuck off. I know Gavin from 2011. I trust him. It was gavincoin when I bought it and if it's not gavincoin now, then I don't want it anymore. I'll sell the whole way up and still have more coins than most here.

[Cconvert2G36]

Agreed, Why anyone would be heavily invested in an artificially capped currency that most people can not use is beyond me.

Remember a fee market does not work. A fee market simply prices people out, it decides who can use and who cannot use Bitcoin.

It is not "beyond you" to understand this. It is pretty elementary.

1. You can understand pretty well the concept of abuse.
2. You can understand that not 100% of humanity is dependable to behave in a good manner, 24/7/365.
3. If you leave the option of free and totally unrestrained use of the blockchain then it's just a matter of time before the blockchain is bloated to infinity by some script kiddie who creates some script and lets it run continuously and adds tens / hundreds of gigabytes of spam, "for the lulz"...
4. You can now fully grasp that fees and "limitations" are what prevent system abuse that would have already rendered BTC a swift death.
5. If you have a better solution for the problem at hand, please present it.

The question you pose is actually reversed: Who would actually be invested in a joke currency that a script kiddie can render it useless for the lolz?

Miners have plenty of incentive to set their own min fees and spam filters, and they do/will. People seem to have a hard time understanding that max != actual. You think a tx spammer is just lying in wait for a limit increase to run their script? That 1MiB (that we haven't hit until now) is protecting the network from complete disaster?

The more honest of your faction just admit they don't want their (often potential) full node to slow down their netflix habits, because of course that is more important than a global p2p digital cash system unlike the world has ever seen. This is sometimes combined with the argument that it would make Bitcoin more robust against malicious attacks by actors with nation state levels of funding... sure. The biggest defense against this attack vector is to become so widespread and so useful that such a state action would be untenable, it would be an attack on more people and more of the economy.

As many of the 1MB4EVA crowd seem to be quite interested in Monero (completely tangentially of course), maybe that would be the best option for them. It would have a limited supply, meaning it would be a great store of value (wouldn't you agree brg444?), with complete built in fungibility. They could crank fees way up to keep the riff raff lolcows out, and their hardware and bandwidth requirements tiny... seems perfect.

[Fatman3001]

I saw this earlier and hope/think Greg will reconsider and keep fighting the good fight against Gavin's minions.

This is not LOTR, nor Warcraft. Genuine people have genuine disagreements. There are no minions.... on Gavin's side.

There are. Only on Gavin's side. He's trying to increase the size of blocks which breaks Bitcoin. He's some sort of socialist, corrupted by the CIA or went crazy but what he's doing is fighting Bitcoin. There is no logical reason to choose for bigger blocks other a strive for centralization, control by the government and the loss of utility of Bitcoin itself (and in effect a loss off value). He's advocating changes which make my holdings worth less. That makes you my enemy.

“The treacherous are ever distrustful.”

“He that breaks a thing to find out what it is has left the path of wisdom.”

“Go back to the abyss! Fall into nothingness that awaits you and your master!”

“It is not despair, for despair is only for those who see the end beyond all doubt. We do not.”

“For even the very wise cannot see all ends.”

[AlexGR]

Agreed, Why anyone would be heavily invested in an artificially capped currency that most people can not use is beyond me.

Remember a fee market does not work. A fee market simply prices people out, it decides who can use and who cannot use Bitcoin.

It is not "beyond you" to understand this. It is pretty elementary.

1. You can understand pretty well the concept of abuse.
2. You can understand that not 100% of humanity is dependable to behave in a good manner, 24/7/365.
3. If you leave the option of free and totally unrestrained use of the blockchain then it's just a matter of time before the blockchain is bloated to infinity by some script kiddie who creates some script and lets it run continuously and adds tens / hundreds of gigabytes of spam, "for the lulz"...
4. You can now fully grasp that fees and "limitations" are what prevent system abuse that would have already rendered BTC a swift death.
5. If you have a better solution for the problem at hand, please present it.

The question you pose is actually reversed: Who would actually be invested in a joke currency that a script kiddie can render it useless for the lolz?

Miners have plenty of incentive to set their own min fees and spam filters, and they do/will.

They have the incentive but they are not configured accordingly. Not all of them. That's why dust/spam/no-fee and "stress test" txs get processed.

People seem to have a hard time understanding that max != actual. You think a tx spammer is just lying in wait for a limit increase to run their script? That 1MiB (that we haven't hit until now) is protecting the network from complete disaster?

The 1MB limit is definitely helping to prevent abuse. Otherwise the attack vector and the willing miners are there for exploitation in a 5MB, 10MB, 20MB block scenario.

As many of the 1MB4EVA crowd seem to be quite interested in Monero (completely tangentially of course), maybe that would be the best option for them. It would have a limited supply, meaning it would be a great store of value (wouldn't you agree brg444?), with complete built in fungibility. They could crank fees way up to keep the riff raff lolcows out, and their hardware and bandwidth requirements tiny... seems perfect.

I do not believe that BTC should stay at 1MB. If it was up to me, it would grow depending the actual organic growth of the network* and other considerations that have to do with security, centralization etc.

* by that I do not mean the number of transactions. This is a pretty useless metric if one can start issuing tens of thousands of txs.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[adamstgBit]

hitting that 465 resistance again and again, who the fuck is nutty enough to break and buy through it? we should head down.... can't paint TOO many bubbles   

Do that thing where you tell everyone to sell again

Last time you did we rocketed from $380 to $475

in my defence it went 380 -> 379 and THEN 475

 

[fisheater22]

To be fair to small-blockers, there's simply no elegant way to scale Bitcoin.
Some things just ain't meant to be

[wachtwoord]

A while ago I was sitting in front of a block explorer seeing the transactions as they happened in real time, in USD terms... there were many 0.03, 0.07$ transactions etc. This is bullshit.

Cry me a river. What is the line between not-bullshit and bullshit? I don't measure it in size of transaction, I measure it in number of transactions. Do you personally run a full node? I do. If you do not personally run a node, WTF do you care about number of transactions? If you do, then why are you so damned cheap to spend another $USD 10 on HDD space, and another $USD 0.50/mo on bandwidth - especially as you're so incensed about small-value transactions?

I do too. SwampNode is running BitcoinXT.  Cost me $118 bucks, so any crybabies whining about the node problem can stop wasting their time. 

That's not Bitcoin but GavinCoin.

Fuck off. I know Gavin from 2011. I trust him. It was gavincoin when I bought it and if it's not gavincoin now, then I don't want it anymore. I'll sell the whole way up and still have more coins than most here.

I hope people like you will sell. May be prices should stay depressed for a few more years to accomplish just that.

People that want a bigger block are just socialists that want their free transactions. Fees is what pays for the security of the network. The block subsidy is temporary. The total value of the fees correlates directly into a level of security. Fees will be lower overall with a larger block size (more supply) so security will be lower. The unique selling point of Bitcoin is security that no power on this planet can break. A payment network that works globally is nothing new and NOT the goal of Bitcoin. The payment network is to bootstrap the store of value. That's all.

[Fatman3001]

To be fair to small-blockers, there's simply no elegant way to scale Bitcoin.
Some things just ain't meant to be

Nothing wrong with Ugly Early.

[Cconvert2G36]

They have the incentive but they are not configured accordingly. Not all of them. That's why dust/spam/no-fee and "stress test" txs get processed.

Have you used the network lately? No-fee transactions aren't getting included, and definitely won't be once priority is removed. Dust and spam should not be subjectively determined, fee per kb is all that matters. Miners have a very real incentive to keep their blocks to a reasonable size, it's called orphan risk.

The 1MB limit is definitely helping to prevent abuse. Otherwise the attack vector and the willing miners are there for exploitation in a 5MB, 10MB, 20MB block scenario.

Straw man, the miners have said they are ready for 2MiB, maybe 3, so that should be the starting point for our can kick. See jgarzik's new proposal out today, it seems a very reasonable compromise between the harder line factions of the two camps.

I do not believe that BTC should stay at 1MB. If it was up to me, it would grow depending the actual organic growth of the network* and other considerations that have to do with security, centralization etc.

* by that I do not mean the number of transactions. This is a pretty useless metric if one can start issuing tens of thousands of txs.

Thanks for clarifying that. If you have suggestions of how to measure the organic growth outside of transaction levels and address usage, I'm sure the dev's would love to hear about it.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

To be fair to small-blockers, there's simply no elegant way to scale Bitcoin.
Some things just ain't meant to be

Nothing wrong with Ugly Early.

That's what she said.

[wachtwoord]

They have the incentive but they are not configured accordingly. Not all of them. That's why dust/spam/no-fee and "stress test" txs get processed.

Have you used the network lately? No-fee transactions aren't getting included, and definitely won't be once priority is removed. Dust and spam should not be subjectively determined, fee per kb is all that matters. Miners have a very real incentive to keep their blocks to a reasonable size, it's called orphan risk.

I send a zero fee transaction yesterday. It was included in the first block.

I never pay a fee if I don't have to and still I'm in favor of rising fees, by limiting supply (of space).

[Cconvert2G36]

They have the incentive but they are not configured accordingly. Not all of them. That's why dust/spam/no-fee and "stress test" txs get processed.

Have you used the network lately? No-fee transactions aren't getting included, and definitely won't be once priority is removed. Dust and spam should not be subjectively determined, fee per kb is all that matters. Miners have a very real incentive to keep their blocks to a reasonable size, it's called orphan risk.

I send a zero fee transaction yesterday. It was included in the first block.

I never pay a fee if I don't have to and still I'm in favor of rising fees, by limiting supply (of space).

Enjoy it while it lasts.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

They have the incentive but they are not configured accordingly. Not all of them. That's why dust/spam/no-fee and "stress test" txs get processed.

Have you used the network lately? No-fee transactions aren't getting included, and definitely won't be once priority is removed. Dust and spam should not be subjectively determined, fee per kb is all that matters. Miners have a very real incentive to keep their blocks to a reasonable size, it's called orphan risk.

I send a zero fee transaction yesterday. It was included in the first block.

I never pay a fee if I don't have to and still I'm in favor of rising fees, by limiting supply (of space).

Enjoy it while it lasts.

At some point there will have to be a fees market because of the halvenings, right? Has anyone crunched the numbers? Are there studies? What will it look like?