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

[billyjoeallen]

https://blockchain.info/charts/n-transactions?timespan=all&showDataPoints=false&daysAverageString=1&show_header=true&scale=0&address=

We're going to see a noticeable slowdown in confirmation times or a noticeable increase in fees by the time we hit 300,000 Transactions/day. By the time we hit 400,000 TPD,  This slowdown or fee increase will be dramatic and with current code, 500,000 may not even be possible.

With high fees and/or slow confirmations, MOST of the current business models of the major bitcoin companies (Coinbase, Circle, 21, Bitpay etc) will be unworkable.  

There isn't anything close to a consensus on anyway to fix this. There isn't even a consensus that it needs to be fixed.  

Expecting Bitcoin to rally into four or even five digits before the scaling problem is corrected is like expecting a Boeing 777 to take off in your driveway. We're gonna run out of road before we get above stalling speed.

You are using a chart that has a hidden story behind it and pretend like that story doesn't even exist.

The hidden story is that most of the transactions there are bogus, spam, dust, very low to no-fee, etc.

So to get the true representation you must know the ratio of normal transactions vs the spam/dust transactions within the capacity limit.

What will actually happen is that the ratio of the quality of txs will shift internally, within the prescribed limit. So if you have something like half a million of txs per day as a limit, and you currently have just 100k normal transactions per day (with the other 100-150k being bogus/spam/dust), then you have a 5x margin to hit the actual limit, when dust/spam/attacks are priced out and become uneconomical to execute.

If you are always considering dust/spam/bogus/attack txs to be the same in quality, then you could have an increase to 2MB tomorrow morning and by tomorrow evening someone could be filling the extra mb with "stress test" junk txs. That would prove what? That "Bitcoin is at its limit"? Just because someone has filled the new TPD limit with another 500k bogus transactions? No. It would only prove that if your block size supply is much larger than block size demand, then you can have plenty of free riders in that space. And those free riders will be using that space irresponsibly. Why not, anyway, since they aren't paying much for doing so...

Are you paying attention to yourself?  If we have a limit of 500K TPD, then that means there are really less than a million actual bitcoiners out there after six fucking years. All of the promise of smartcontracts, colored coins for equities and derivitives trading, title transfers, timestamps, banking the unbanked, it's all bullshit. You think those small xactions are garbage/dust, but you have no idea what they mean to the people involved.

I believe that the current market price reflects the discounted potential future value of bitcoin's use as the internet of money, not just some settlement system for digital gold. That's a huge difference in potential and I don't think the market has priced that in yet. I think most speculators believe this issue will be resolved before it becomes a major problem, but people like you convince me that it's not true. As long as you're being taken seriously, then you represent a threat that I have to take seriously.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[peonminer]

[adamstgBit]

[klee]

We may drop but China won't stop buying. They have many reasons to continue doing so.

I expect worst case scenario a dump at 365 area, best case 435 area.

(If we indeed drop).

I shorted at 464 with a stop at 468.

Cause PnF TA does not work...

[AlexGR]

Are you paying attention to yourself?  If we have a limit of 500K TPD, then that means there are really less than a million actual bitcoiners out there after six fucking years.

Bitcoin got mainstream attention around 2013. So the first 4 years were a bunch of nerds.

All of the promise of smartcontracts, colored coins for equities and derivitives trading, title transfers, timestamps, banking the unbanked, it's all bullshit. You think those small xactions are garbage/dust, but you have no idea what they mean to the people involved.

It's not bullshit. They can be served by the Bitcoin technology, perhaps in other blockchains. It's not necessary to have everything in just one blockchain. From what I've read I never got the impression that Satoshi was envisioning putting all kind of crap into the blockchain.

I believe that the current market price reflects the discounted potential future value of bitcoin's use as the internet of money, not just some settlement system for digital gold.

Since the scaling debate got larger with the XT fork drama, and especially after XT got no traction, price has gone up significantly. Most people (obviously not you) trust the the core devs will do the things that are right for the future of bitcoin. If there is a problem, they'll fix it or find a solution. They work their ass off to maintain it, evolve it, make it faster and allow it to scale better. It is illogical to even propose that they want to purposefully bury it and cripple it, so that years worth of work will go down the drain. If they have a disagreement, and if the matter isn't pressing (and in this case IT ISN'T, since 1MB blocks get full with junk), they can sort it out through dialogue and consensus.

That's a huge difference in potential and I don't think the market has priced that in yet. I think most speculators believe this issue will be resolved before it becomes a major problem

That's the consensus, yes. Even the core devs have coins or vested interest in BTC. Why would they want their "child" to go down or be problematic? So far they are doing a pretty good job of maintaining order and introducing improvements, while also not breaking consensus. That's not as easy as it sounds.

[adamstgBit]

[nioc]

https://blockchain.info/charts/n-transactions?timespan=all&showDataPoints=false&daysAverageString=1&show_header=true&scale=0&address=

We're going to see a noticeable slowdown in confirmation times or a noticeable increase in fees by the time we hit 300,000 Transactions/day. By the time we hit 400,000 TPD,  This slowdown or fee increase will be dramatic and with current code, 500,000 may not even be possible.

With high fees and/or slow confirmations, MOST of the current business models of the major bitcoin companies (Coinbase, Circle, 21, Bitpay etc) will be unworkable.  

There isn't anything close to a consensus on anyway to fix this. There isn't even a consensus that it needs to be fixed.  

Expecting Bitcoin to rally into four or even five digits before the scaling problem is corrected is like expecting a Boeing 777 to take off in your driveway. We're gonna run out of road before we get above stalling speed.

You are using a chart that has a hidden story behind it and pretend like that story doesn't even exist.

The hidden story is that most of the transactions there are bogus, spam, dust, very low to no-fee, etc.

So to get the true representation you must know the ratio of normal transactions vs the spam/dust transactions within the capacity limit.

What will actually happen is that the ratio of the quality of txs will shift internally, within the prescribed limit. So if you have something like half a million of txs per day as a limit, and you currently have just 100k normal transactions per day (with the other 100-150k being bogus/spam/dust), then you have a 5x margin to hit the actual limit, when dust/spam/attacks are priced out and become uneconomical to execute.

If you are always considering dust/spam/bogus/attack txs to be the same in quality, then you could have an increase to 2MB tomorrow morning and by tomorrow evening someone could be filling the extra mb with "stress test" junk txs. That would prove what? That "Bitcoin is at its limit"? Just because someone has filled the new TPD limit with another 500k bogus transactions? No. It would only prove that if your block size supply is much larger than block size demand, then you can have plenty of free riders in that space. And those free riders will be using that space irresponsibly. Why not, anyway, since they aren't paying much for doing so...

Is there any info on the type of tx being made now?  How do you describe spam and dust and how do you detect it?  What parameters are important +/or knowable?

You commented recently that you watched the transactions as they went by on the screen and determined that many were dust/spam.  I also watched transactions go by on blockchain,info before your post while waiting 3-4 blocks for my "recommended fee" transactions to be included in their first block.  Virtually all I saw, obviously a small and therefore irrelevant sample, looked "normal" in size.

Pay no attention to my unpaid signature.  I am invested in Btc and want it to succeed.  The only reason I spend time, energy and money is for success. 

[nioc]

we'll be at >500 soon, but <400 sooner.

Considering it is you posting Adam, logic would take this to mean we are stuck between 400 and 500

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[adamstgBit]

we'll be at >500 soon, but <400 sooner.

Considering it is you posting Adam, logic would take this to mean we are stuck between 400 and 500

that sounds about right.

[BldSwtTrs]

Why have you done that to us Adam?

[peonminer]

those short shorts

 

[AlexGR]

You commented recently that you watched the transactions as they went by on the screen and determined that many were dust/spam.  I also watched transactions go by on blockchain,info before your post while waiting 3-4 blocks for my "recommended fee" transactions to be included in their first block.  Virtually all I saw, obviously a small and therefore irrelevant sample, looked "normal" in size.

That's what it should look like when there are no "stress tests" / attacks, too much dust moving around etc. The ratio between crap and legitimate* txs is actually improving. When no attacks are ongoing and the crap is limited, we are usually peaking at around 500-550k per block (on average), otherwise it goes up to 800k (on average).

Personally I like to take some random samples during the day and check myself, I'm not using a specific chart for this, except this https://blockchain.info/charts/avg-block-size?timespan=30days&showDataPoints=false&daysAverageString=1&show_header=true&scale=0&address= for checking block usage.


* It is not necessary that a spammer should always be moving small amounts. He can also move larger amounts (if he has a large supply of Bitcoins) so that he can pretend that spam txs are "legit".

[Meuh6879]

It touch the 400 euros !























time to buy !!!!

[LFC_Bitcoin]

Looks like Christmas has come early, great chance to get some cheap coins before we go back above 500. Buy now or cry later.

[peonminer]

Dead cattacus-bouncacus- teh ev0lution of ze beetc01an

Back to $1.85 per BTCitcoin we go!

[billyjoeallen]

Are you paying attention to yourself?  If we have a limit of 500K TPD, then that means there are really less than a million actual bitcoiners out there after six fucking years.

Bitcoin got mainstream attention around 2013. So the first 4 years were a bunch of nerds.

All of the promise of smartcontracts, colored coins for equities and derivitives trading, title transfers, timestamps, banking the unbanked, it's all bullshit. You think those small xactions are garbage/dust, but you have no idea what they mean to the people involved.

It's not bullshit. They can be served by the Bitcoin technology, perhaps in other blockchains. It's not necessary to have everything in just one blockchain. From what I've read I never got the impression that Satoshi was envisioning putting all kind of crap into the blockchain.

I believe that the current market price reflects the discounted potential future value of bitcoin's use as the internet of money, not just some settlement system for digital gold.

Since the scaling debate got larger with the XT fork drama, and especially after XT got no traction, price has gone up significantly. Most people (obviously not you) trust the the core devs will do the things that are right for the future of bitcoin. If there is a problem, they'll fix it or find a solution. They work their ass off to maintain it, evolve it, make it faster and allow it to scale better. It is illogical to even propose that they want to purposefully bury it and cripple it, so that years worth of work will go down the drain. If they have a disagreement, and if the matter isn't pressing (and in this case IT ISN'T, since 1MB blocks get full with junk), they can sort it out through dialogue and consensus.

That's a huge difference in potential and I don't think the market has priced that in yet. I think most speculators believe this issue will be resolved before it becomes a major problem

That's the consensus, yes. Even the core devs have coins or vested interest in BTC. Why would they want their "child" to go down or be problematic? So far they are doing a pretty good job of maintaining order and introducing improvements, while also not breaking consensus. That's not as easy as it sounds.

We've been over and over this. There's no reason why the blockchain has to be small.  Not when broadband is ubiquitous. Not when 1TB hard drives cost less than a carton of smokes.  My XTnode cost me $118 bucks. The cost is trivial, and even if it becomes less trivial, nodes will still be run because those of us with an incentive to keep the network operating smoothly will do so. Someday a bitcoin node may be the size of a google datacenter. So what? Google seems to be doing pretty well.  They don't seem to care that most searches aren't for anything important.

You don't seem to understand certain things, like why aren't blocks filling up now when fees are either zero or near zero. The risk of orphaned blocks is real. it happens all the time.  It's because miners can chose how big to make their blocks now by deciding which transactions to include.  Miners, smart miners, most miners don't care about what percentage of their compensation comes from block reward and which part comes from fees. They only care about ROI, like any sane businessman. If they can make more money from bigger blocks, they'll do it. If they can make more money from smaller blocks, they'll do that. 

You want to keeps blocks small to make stress tests less likely. Why? Stress tests are a good thing. They are important for determining the safety and security of the network.  And as for spam attacks, what's more likely to crash a network, one with the capacity to handle the attack or one that can't?

I'm not even talking to you. You seem to be hopeless. Only a crash will convince you of your error. I just hope some of the others reading this will see what's really going on and what's really at stake.

Bitcoin had an issue early on that a spam attack could threaten the network because the bitcoin price was almost nothing and dust back then really was dust. It's not anymore. There's a huge difference between a $0.000002 transaction  and a $0.02 xaction, so this is no longer the case and the 1MB cap is no longer necessary.  There is a natural limit to blocksize called the risk of orphan rate. Larger blocks take longer to propagate through the network and so have a higher risk of being orphaned. This is what keeps miners from including any and every transaction unless there is a lot of extra room in the block.

We get spam email because email is free. If email cost a penny, we would get a lot less spam, but the cost of email would still be negligible.  "dust" transactions are actually ANTI-spam in some cases. In other cases they are timestamps or title transfers of property worth much more than the nominal value of the coins sent.

A half million transaction/day isn't enough for bitcoin to be anything more than a hobby network. Nobody can build a business model around Bitcoin now without knowing what the future capacity will be. People need to plan.

[TReano]

time to short this down and squeez a couple perma bulls 

[ImI]

time to short this down and squeez a couple perma bulls 

plz short the shit out of this mf