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

[Cconvert2G36]

When blocks are full, anyone will be able to shut it down for an hour for $100,000. It will be slow for many hours after that.  That's your idea of security?

What's 100 grand to stop a six billion dollar network?  You just gave the banksters a kill switch.

Please show us where, among the numerous previous periods of full blocks, the network was 'stopped'.

It never happened.  End of story.

Edit: Also, what does 'shut it down for half an hour' have to do with 'security'?  When, during this fabricated scenario of yours, did people's coins get stolen from their wallets, or people magically have funds appear in their accounts?  Is it a security issue when my bankcard doesn't work at a debit machine because the retailer's internet is out?

BJA, hitting the limit isn't an apocalypse. Think of it as a stuck brake caliper. It limits potential, but is not fatal, at least not while first mover advantage is still so strong. As long as people are salivating about the halving... getting much harder to mine... more good press... MMM still a rollin'... this thing could run well further than you expect.

Locking in some profits is never a bad thing, it's a comfort to have some dry powder, and a joy to sell into euphoria. True permabulls don't have a dime to buy panics, they're already all in. I'm pretty sure we'll see sub 440 again, and if not, great... that's what cold storage is for.

Look... I share your frustration with the current dev environment, their crooked incentives, and their merry band of sycophants, but there's no need to throw yourself on the tracks in a show of bravery. If they want to pay you more, might as well take it. I also don't think that the situation is doomed, miners have the incentive and the power to protect their investment by ditching Core™ if the pain becomes pronounced and a reliable alternative presents itself. Bitcoin was designed to route around attempts to control it, let's see if that's true.

I just had a stuck caliper. It set my truck on fire.

Well, given enough time, that's going to happen. Especially when you don't have the periodic table on your side. 

[1714855767]

1714855767

[1714855767]

1714855767

[billyjoeallen]

Nobody has responded to the most relevant part:

Previous periods of full blocks didn't have as many people who NEEDED not just wanted the network to work. The more people who NEED it to work, the more vulnerable it is to a spam attack. The blocksize limit is an effective way to not just keep bitcoin small, but to keep it unimportant.

[marcus_of_augustus]

Nobody has responded to the most relevant part:

Previous periods of full blocks didn't have as many people who NEEDED not just wanted the network to work. The more people who NEED it to work, the more vulnerable it is to a spam attack. The blocksize limit is an effective way to not just keep bitcoin small, but to keep it unimportant.

only about 40% of current TX "need" the network to work. There's plenty of fat to chop away and the spam goes down and gets more costly as fees go up, gosh darn, think about that!

[Cconvert2G36]

Nobody has responded to the most relevant part:

Previous periods of full blocks didn't have as many people who NEEDED not just wanted the network to work. The more people who NEED it to work, the more vulnerable it is to a spam attack. The blocksize limit is an effective way to not just keep bitcoin small, but to keep it unimportant.

People who NEED it to work will bump their fees. It's not a killer, it's a crippler. A destroyer of potential.

[marcus_of_augustus]

In other newz ... 15 million coin milestone arriving just in time for Christmas http://www.bitcoinwatch.com/

[MinermanNC]

Ho Ho Ho looks like Santa is coming a day early? lol look'n good  

Just wait n see how things are come the 26th Dec after Santa has been n gone dude.

3 Month BTC Futures contracts expire on the 25th. Lots of strong hands have a big vested interests here and it is likely them who have brought BTC up and parked it here for this event. This rise from $300 has been on steadily declining volume, except for the (fake) CNY exchange volume.

Ya really, thx for pointing that part out......   never know though,

[billyjoeallen]

Nobody has responded to the most relevant part:

Previous periods of full blocks didn't have as many people who NEEDED not just wanted the network to work. The more people who NEED it to work, the more vulnerable it is to a spam attack. The blocksize limit is an effective way to not just keep bitcoin small, but to keep it unimportant.

only about 40% of current TX "need" the network to work. There's plenty of fat to chop away and the spam goes down and gets more costly as fees go up, gosh darn, think about that!

You are not differentiating small legitimate transactions from hostile transactions. What I am saying is that when you get rid of the small legit xactions, the chain still fiils up with large legit transactions as bitcoin grows until it becomes vulnerable to a hostile attack. Those small legit transactions are acting as a buffer and you want to get rid of them.

[suda123]

dumpsoon.jpg

ma-ma-ma-ma-mega dump

[Chef Ramsay]

Nobody has responded to the most relevant part:

Previous periods of full blocks didn't have as many people who NEEDED not just wanted the network to work. The more people who NEED it to work, the more vulnerable it is to a spam attack. The blocksize limit is an effective way to not just keep bitcoin small, but to keep it unimportant.

only about 40% of current TX "need" the network to work. There's plenty of fat to chop away and the spam goes down and gets more costly as fees go up, gosh darn, think about that!

When you've seen the lol about tonight, then you say interesting at that point/.

[marcus_of_augustus]

Nobody has responded to the most relevant part:

Previous periods of full blocks didn't have as many people who NEEDED not just wanted the network to work. The more people who NEED it to work, the more vulnerable it is to a spam attack. The blocksize limit is an effective way to not just keep bitcoin small, but to keep it unimportant.

only about 40% of current TX "need" the network to work. There's plenty of fat to chop away and the spam goes down and gets more costly as fees go up, gosh darn, think about that!

You are not differentiating small legitimate transactions from hostile transactions. What I am saying is that when you get rid of the small legit xactions, the chain still fiils up with large legit transactions as bitcoin grows until it becomes vulnerable to a hostile attack. Those small legit transactions are acting as a buffer and you want to get rid of them.

... there is no way to differentiate between "small legit transactions" and fee-paying spam if they pay the same fee, so no, there is no 'buffer' as you are imagining.

And you are thinking all upside-down. Nobody wants "to get rid of" TX ... for the last 6 years free transactions (and yes, abundant spam) have been tolerated and given gold-plated security that only the bitcoin blockchain can provide. At some point, the network becomes saturated because the demand for gold-plated bitcoin TX will for the foreseeable future overcome the network's technological constraints and ability to supply it ... so now the question is "what price?", hence fees.

The block limit is the technological limit that constrains the on-chain capacity, the arise of fees is the free market reaction.

[Cconvert2G36]

-snip-
The block limit is the technological limit that constrains the on-chain capacity, the arise of fees is the free market reaction.

People representing 90% of global hashrate disagreed during their panel in HK.

The idea that 1MB, "scaling" up to 1.75MB equiv with the gradual rollout of segwit, well into 2017... is the technological limit? That's BS and you know it.

The important part of their plan is that hard forks remain "controversial".

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[billyjoeallen]

Nobody has responded to the most relevant part:

Previous periods of full blocks didn't have as many people who NEEDED not just wanted the network to work. The more people who NEED it to work, the more vulnerable it is to a spam attack. The blocksize limit is an effective way to not just keep bitcoin small, but to keep it unimportant.

only about 40% of current TX "need" the network to work. There's plenty of fat to chop away and the spam goes down and gets more costly as fees go up, gosh darn, think about that!

You are not differentiating small legitimate transactions from hostile transactions. What I am saying is that when you get rid of the small legit xactions, the chain still fiils up with large legit transactions as bitcoin grows until it becomes vulnerable to a hostile attack. Those small legit transactions are acting as a buffer and you want to get rid of them.

... there is no way to differentiate between "small legit transactions" and fee-paying spam if they pay the same fee, so no, there is no 'buffer' as you are imagining.

And you are thinking all upside-down. Nobody wants "to get rid of" TX ... for the last 6 years free transactions (and yes, abundant spam) have been tolerated and given gold-plated security that only the bitcoin blockchain can provide. At some point, the network becomes saturated because the demand for gold-plated bitcoin TX will for the foreseeable future overcome the network's technological constraints and ability to supply it ... so now the question is "what price?", hence fees.

The block limit is the technological limit that constrains the on-chain capacity, the arise of fees is the free market reaction.

The limit can be changed with one line of code. It is not a technological limit. It is arbitrary and artificial. And if there is no way to tell, then there is no way for you to prove that you are correct. Dust is a buffer because in previous attacks, the legit dust just didn't get processed in many cases and certainly didn't get resubmitted with higher fees, which allowed the network to clear away the backlog. In your settlement network, people will just keep resubmitting with higher and higher fees until some other form of settlement becomes competitively viable and the demand levels off. That's marginal utility, and it makes Bitcoin vulnerable to miner rent-seeking.

[LFC_Bitcoin]

450's.....now the question is - Can this hold over the holiday period?

[marcus_of_augustus]

-snip-
The block limit is the technological limit that constrains the on-chain capacity, the arise of fees is the free market reaction.

People representing 90% of global hashrate disagreed during their panel in HK.

The idea that 1MB, "scaling" up to 1.75MB equiv with the gradual rollout of segwit, well into 2017... is the technological limit? That's BS and you know it.

The important part of their plan is that hard forks remain "controversial".

Currently the network node operators are overwhelmingly supporting 1MByte block limits, so that is the reality of the technological limit on the network today.

How that changes in the future is the subject of much debate, as you well know.

I was attempting to get causality straight in BJA's mind.

[Cconvert2G36]

-snip-
The block limit is the technological limit that constrains the on-chain capacity, the arise of fees is the free market reaction.

People representing 90% of global hashrate disagreed during their panel in HK.

The idea that 1MB, "scaling" up to 1.75MB equiv with the gradual rollout of segwit, well into 2017... is the technological limit? That's BS and you know it.

The important part of their plan is that hard forks remain "controversial".

Currently the network node operators are overwhelmingly supporting 1MByte block limits, so that is the reality of the technological limit on the network today.

How that changes in the future is the subject of much debate, as you well know.

I was attempting to get causality straight in BJA's mind.

You have to admit that Core has a certain sort of inertia. There's a big chunk of operators still plugging along on previous versions of Core. I also haven't seen an alternative that has the level of ongoing support that I'm comfortable with... so far. I really had high hopes for some kind of good will compromise between the opposing forces (ala garzik), bringing us back together with a common purpose... but it appears that is not going to be the case.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

-snip-
The block limit is the technological limit that constrains the on-chain capacity, the arise of fees is the free market reaction.

People representing 90% of global hashrate disagreed during their panel in HK.

The idea that 1MB, "scaling" up to 1.75MB equiv with the gradual rollout of segwit, well into 2017... is the technological limit? That's BS and you know it.

The important part of their plan is that hard forks remain "controversial".

Currently the network node operators are overwhelmingly supporting 1MByte block limits, so that is the reality of the technological limit on the network today.

How that changes in the future is the subject of much debate, as you well know.

I was attempting to get causality straight in BJA's mind.

You have to admit that Core has a certain sort of inertia. There's a big chunk of operators still plugging along on previous versions of Core. I also haven't seen an alternative that has the level of ongoing support that I'm comfortable with... so far. I really had high hopes for some kind of good will compromise between the opposing forces (ala garzik), bringing us back together with a common purpose... but it appears that is not going to be the case.

https://github.com/jgarzik/bips/blob/87aacb6a58d3c63a5dd2082a566b763dd22f919e/bip-0202.mediawiki
Just a little hard-fork? Like a tiny salad fork? What's the harm?

[dropt]

If fees are running 5 BTC/block, you could pay let's say 10 BTC/ block and almost completely fill it up with transactions sending money to yourself. Greedy miners could do this every time the fees got too low and keep the fees at whatever nash equilibrium level they want.

This argument can be made at any point, even if they're 1GB+ and thus is moot.  If one was inclined and saavy enough they could do the same thing and take down VISA.  What a flaw!  I can't believe Mastercard hasn't already done this!

The fee market is just as subject to manipulation as any other market.  Sure, some transaction will just stop being made as no longer cost effective, but some will have to be made no matter what fees are attached. These transactors will continue to try and out bid each other for block space even after the spam attack is over.

And it will proceed just like it has in every instance thus far.  Higher fees get your transaction through.  You want to pay lower fees? Fine, do so and wait.  If there was going to be a 'fullblocalypse' it would have likely occurred already, but guess what? It hasn't.

So if someone perhaps wants to roll out Bankstercoin, they could dramatically slow down bitcoin for a few hours or days to snag some market share. Or traders could make a big leveraged short along with a spam attack and force a long squeeze.  All it takes is filling up 144 blocks to put the whole network a day behind.

Sure, just like when everyone jumped to LTC, or any other alt during all of those recent 'stress-tests'.  Oh, wait, they didn't.

It's obvious you're running around in circles in a world of what-ifs and hypotheticals and ignoring the real world data that has been collected thus far.  Anything is possible, but what has been shown to *likely* happen contradicts all of your points of fear mongering.

Take a look at the most recent blocks found and their size.  If any of the BS you rant about had merit there would be countless people complaining about stuck transactions, the price would be crashing, and people would be screaming from the rooftops.  But they're not, are they?

But, in the absolute dismal chance any of your rhetoric comes true you better break open that cold storage and get every bitcent you own onto an exchange ASAP before some a malicious entity jams the chain up which you feel is inevitable because, buddy, the blocks are FULL.

[billyjoeallen]

-snip-
The block limit is the technological limit that constrains the on-chain capacity, the arise of fees is the free market reaction.

People representing 90% of global hashrate disagreed during their panel in HK.

The idea that 1MB, "scaling" up to 1.75MB equiv with the gradual rollout of segwit, well into 2017... is the technological limit? That's BS and you know it.

The important part of their plan is that hard forks remain "controversial".

Currently the network node operators are overwhelmingly supporting 1MByte block limits, so that is the reality of the technological limit on the network today.

How that changes in the future is the subject of much debate, as you well know.

I was attempting to get causality straight in BJA's mind.

SwampNode cost me $118.  The "burden" on nodes is laughable. We'll see how much of a burden segwit and  lightning network soft forks are.  If I can give people gold-plated security for pennies, I'll do it. I am doing it. I'll do it on another chain if I can't do it on Bitcoin.

After five years, we've only managed a six billion dollar market cap and you think that first mover advantage is unassailable?  It's greedy, short-sighted, risky and just fucking stupid. All you're doing is giving free R and D to the developers of Bankstercoin.

[marcus_of_augustus]

-snip-
The block limit is the technological limit that constrains the on-chain capacity, the arise of fees is the free market reaction.

People representing 90% of global hashrate disagreed during their panel in HK.

The idea that 1MB, "scaling" up to 1.75MB equiv with the gradual rollout of segwit, well into 2017... is the technological limit? That's BS and you know it.

The important part of their plan is that hard forks remain "controversial".

Currently the network node operators are overwhelmingly supporting 1MByte block limits, so that is the reality of the technological limit on the network today.

How that changes in the future is the subject of much debate, as you well know.

I was attempting to get causality straight in BJA's mind.

You have to admit that Core has a certain sort of inertia. There's a big chunk of operators still plugging along on previous versions of Core. I also haven't seen an alternative that has the level of ongoing support that I'm comfortable with... so far. I really had high hopes for some kind of good will compromise between the opposing forces (ala garzik), bringing us back together with a common purpose... but it appears that is not going to be the case.

Yes, there is a huge amount of inertia and for a very good reason, that is very organic and was to be expected if you have the right experience.

Most people will not be aware that actual operational software in critical infrastructure changes very slowly, much slower than bitcoin Core (which is very high risk by comparison but it is still 'beta'). 90% of fortune 500 companies run RedHat operating systems on their back-office servers and they have very long term support for old versions for those reasons. Apparently the Banks still have some COBOL code running on old mainframes that still do the actual monetary-base and settlement calculations, so-called "green screen" functions because they are too scared to touch it.

Nuclear power plants and oil-rig safety shutdown systems that include software hardly ever make changes to their code after it has been commissioned and the plant "goes live" with active material. It takes committees of programmers and managers poring over every line to get even the simplest changes into an active system.

The disconnect between what is happening here and what the public have been told to "want to happen" is astounding for anybody with any experience in high-risk industrial software systems. The bitcoin protocol is almost complete now and will hardly ever change from now or else it will risk catastrophic failure. It is just very, very unfortunate that Gavin and Hearn "went there" with the whole hard fork MAD power grab, against the vast majority of the development community's technically better judgement and in an entirely reckless manner for critical infrastructure software management.