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

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[1714663581]

1714663581

[1714663581]

1714663581

[JayJuanGee]

All the quick-witted people are slowly crowding back in. This is speculation! Why isn't anybody yelling out random numbers

My random number is my prediction of 59.561034829% chance that the next breakout of 1.5% or more (using $426.71 as a starting reference point) is going to be down,  and the remaining 40.4389652% chance of up.

Sideways is not an option in my outlined scenario, even though it could take awhile before prices break either one way or the other (up to a year, possibly .00000013295188403% chance of that).

Downward wins, with a 1.5% break down, but how far will it go?  $410?    will we breach $407?

[Mervyn_Pumpkinhead]

You have a serious denial issues if you think someone can't copy an open source project, tweak it to remove some bugs, rebrand it to get rid of the baggage and bullshit and give the dominant player some serious competition, especially with enough funding. It doesn't matter if it's grass roots or astroturf.  Fake it 'till you make it.   Billionaires who missed out on being early adopters can be early adopters of BTC2.0 It can even be decentralized and distributed. Haterz be worldwide, Bro.

Exactly! And that is what will happen. Bitcoin the currency isn't important in the long run. The main importance of bitcoin is the idea of open sourced, decentrelized monetary systems. This idea will eventually give birth to new cryptos, that unlike bitcoin, are practical as financial tools.
People here don't like this vision, since it would mean that crypto is not about making a bunch of unskilled kids rich for buying and holding. In my idea, the only people coming from bitcoin, that will become rich, are mainly the ones who created support services like bitpay or the exchanges, and the people who can trade and therefor can move their money to the right place when it's needed.
The "i buy, i hold, i hope for $$$" people will get exactly what their level of skill deserves.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[AlexGR]

That's the baffling/infuriating part with small blockers, they assume that if we hard fork to 2MB once, 256MB is right around the corner... it's not. It's also completely different from changing the reward schedule, which is often raised in the next sentence.

All the "evidence" the "large blockers" seem to require is whether the blocks are full or not. If they are, they say the fullblocalypse is coming, even if the blocks are full with bogus transactions.

So, from a social engineering perspective, the system is pretty vulnerable.

1. Spam the network to fill the blocks
2. Show some useful idiots that "blocks are getting full"
3. Have the useful idiots think the apocalypse is coming, due to the junk txs
4. Let the useful idiots propagate the idea that the developers are crazy for not seeing the same thing and that since the devs are not seeing the apocalypse, they are inadequate and not up to the task, or have ulterior motives to bury btc, or (insert any other conspiracy here).
5. Force devs due to social engineering pressure to increase block size (which reduces fee competition and allows cheap spamming of the blocks) against fundamental reasons not to.
6. Re-spam the enlarged blocks, now at cheaper rates

It's a "GOTO 1 - repeat - fill blockchain with junk - make BTC centralized in the process - leave it vulnerable to other attack vectors as well", situation.

But it could also play out differently... miners might decide that it's not even worth the risk of including 3-4-5-10mb of txs, as the 25 BTC or 12.5 BTC reward is much better than gaining an extra half btc (with an increased orphan risk). A 30s, 1m, 2m advantage could be significant in finding a block. So at that point we'll have a network that only processes very high fee txs to ensure the fastest propagation possible and that the miner has an advantage over the other miners who actually want to include txs in their blocks. At that point, the same people who were asking for much larger blocks, will be crying at how inadequate bitcoin devs are for creating a situation where miners do not even want to mine regular transactions but rather opt to mine only the block reward (and/or some very high fee txs). I mean this is already happening with 1MB empty blocks. Empty-blockers (miners) will be saying "haha those idiots mining the 4-8-10mb blocks full of txs are shooting themselves in the foot, while we are having a tremendous edge over them with our empty blocks". What then? Start forcing miners to mine the transactions?

If Bitcoin is artificially crippled at 1MB4EVA, or even 1.75MB with segwit through 2018, competitors will be picking away at that first mover advantage like a vulture on a corpse. This is not gold, it's not on the periodic table, it's open source software. It's value is derived from utility, and expected utility. Kill the utility, kill the coin... or at least relegate it to rpietila's new castle game.

Asking someone to pay a fee for transacting is not killing utility. It's the intended design anyway as time progresses and rewards slow down. Fees must compensate.

You have a serious denial issues if you think someone can't copy an open source project, tweak it to remove some bugs, rebrand it to get rid of the baggage and bullshit and give the dominant player some serious competition, especially with enough funding. It doesn't matter if it's grass roots or astroturf.  Fake it 'till you make it.   Billionaires who missed out on being early adopters can be early adopters of BTC2.0 It can even be decentralized and distributed. Haterz be worldwide, Bro.

You fail to grasp a very simple concept:

If you make a free, or almost free crypto, that can do tens of millions of TXs per day, what's stopping someone from abusing it and getting the network to its capacity limits, triggering a priority queue through fees?

If I can have many free txs then I can make a script and fuck the system up for peanuts. Hundreds or thousands of nodes will be paying bandwidth and storage costs for junk that took me a few seconds to generate through my script. The game theory of such a system doesn't add up.

Now, if someone finds a groundbreaking solution in scaling, and this is by some kind of open-source decentralized crypto, then, perhaps, BTC can copy that solution (if it works) and apply it to increase its own scaling potential. Open source works both ways.

[Cconvert2G36]

-snip-
If you make a free, or almost free crypto, that can do tens of millions of TXs per day, what's stopping someone from abusing it and getting the network to its capacity limits, triggering a priority queue through fees?
-snip-

The same thing that's stopped it from 2009 until today... miner's dust and spam limits. They are incentivized to make small enough blocks to avoid orphaning, unless the fees offered shift them along that supply curve. It really comes down to whether  you trust the free market and the system's built in incentives... or you trust a small cadre of dudes that all happen to work for a certain company that plans to produce the medicine for your disease.

[suda123]

That's the baffling/infuriating part with small blockers, they assume that if we hard fork to 2MB once, 256MB is right around the corner... it's not. It's also completely different from changing the reward schedule, which is often raised in the next sentence.

All the "evidence" the "large blockers" seem to require is whether the blocks are full or not. If they are, they say the fullblocalypse is coming, even if the blocks are full with bogus transactions.

So, from a social engineering perspective, the system is pretty vulnerable.

1. Spam the network to fill the blocks
2. Show some useful idiots that "blocks are getting full"
3. Have the useful idiots think the apocalypse is coming, due to the junk txs
4. Let the useful idiots propagate the idea that the developers are crazy for not seeing the same thing and that since the devs are not seeing the apocalypse, they are inadequate and not up to the task, or have ulterior motives to bury btc, or (insert any other conspiracy here).
5. Force devs due to social engineering pressure to increase block size (which reduces fee competition and allows cheap spamming of the blocks) against fundamental reasons not to.
6. Re-spam the enlarged blocks, now at cheaper rates

It's a "GOTO 1 - repeat - fill blockchain with junk - make BTC centralized in the process - leave it vulnerable to other attack vectors as well", situation.

But it could also play out differently... miners might decide that it's not even worth the risk of including 3-4-5-10mb of txs, as the 25 BTC or 12.5 BTC reward is much better than gaining an extra half btc (with an increased orphan risk). A 30s, 1m, 2m advantage could be significant in finding a block. So at that point we'll have a network that only processes very high fee txs to ensure the fastest propagation possible and that the miner has an advantage over the other miners who actually want to include txs in their blocks. At that point, the same people who were asking for much larger blocks, will be crying at how inadequate bitcoin devs are for creating a situation where miners do not even want to mine regular transactions but rather opt to mine only the block reward (and/or some very high fee txs). I mean this is already happening with 1MB empty blocks. Empty-blockers (miners) will be saying "haha those idiots mining the 4-8-10mb blocks full of txs are shooting themselves in the foot, while we are having a tremendous edge over them with our empty blocks". What then? Start forcing miners to mine the transactions?

If Bitcoin is artificially crippled at 1MB4EVA, or even 1.75MB with segwit through 2018, competitors will be picking away at that first mover advantage like a vulture on a corpse. This is not gold, it's not on the periodic table, it's open source software. It's value is derived from utility, and expected utility. Kill the utility, kill the coin... or at least relegate it to rpietila's new castle game.

Asking someone to pay a fee for transacting is not killing utility. It's the intended design anyway as time progresses and rewards slow down. Fees must compensate.

You have a serious denial issues if you think someone can't copy an open source project, tweak it to remove some bugs, rebrand it to get rid of the baggage and bullshit and give the dominant player some serious competition, especially with enough funding. It doesn't matter if it's grass roots or astroturf.  Fake it 'till you make it.   Billionaires who missed out on being early adopters can be early adopters of BTC2.0 It can even be decentralized and distributed. Haterz be worldwide, Bro.

You fail to grasp a very simple concept:

If you make a free, or almost free crypto, that can do tens of millions of TXs per day, what's stopping someone from abusing it and getting the network to its capacity limits, triggering a priority queue through fees?

If I can have many free txs then I can make a script and fuck the system up for peanuts. Hundreds or thousands of nodes will be paying bandwidth and storage costs for junk that took me a few seconds to generate through my script. The game theory of such a system doesn't add up.

Now, if someone finds a groundbreaking solution in scaling, and this is by some kind of open-source decentralized crypto, then, perhaps, BTC can copy that solution (if it works) and apply it to increase its own scaling potential. Open source works both ways.

ooooooo so those guys are fud fear mongering


So we're getting burn fees?

[r0ach]

even if the blocks are full with bogus transactions.

There's no such thing as a "bogus transaction" or "spam", that's a LukeJr fallacy.  Minimum transaction fee is the anti-spam mechanism of Bitcoin.  Block size is an arbitrary retardation of throughput.  In an actual functioning system, you would want to encourage people to "spam" the blockchain as much as they want as long as they pay transaction fees.  If you want to try and differentiate between certain types of traffic, it means your system is broken.

The problem is not spam, the problem is that Bitcoin probably needs at least a 0.0001 minimum transaction fee, especially if the block size isn't raised.  Zero fee transactions never should have existed in the first place.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[rocks]

Going from 2.7 tps to 5.4 tps isn't trying to make a VISA competitor where the world's cups of coffee will be forever on the blockchain. It's simply growing in line with (actually more conservatively than) hardware/bandwidth improvement. With current number of tx, and no block subsidy... this thing is as good as dead.

That's why the block reward exists, to provide cheapish transactions while we grow the base number of transactions that will eventually cover the cost of mining security. 

That's the baffling/infuriating part with small blockers, they assume that if we hard fork to 2MB once, 256MB is right around the corner... it's not. It's also completely different from changing the reward schedule, which is often raised in the next sentence.

If Bitcoin is artificially crippled at 1MB4EVA, or even 1.75MB with segwit through 2018, competitors will be picking away at that first mover advantage like a vulture on a corpse. This is not gold, it's not on the periodic table, it's open source software. It's value is derived from utility, and expected utility. Kill the utility, kill the coin... or at least relegate it to rpietila's new castle game.

+10

In the end, because security depends on fees, and users pay fees based on utility, bitcoin's security model directly depends on the total utility it provides to users.

A widely used bitcoin has infinitely higher utility than a 1mb limited bitcoin.

This is what satoshi meant when he said that in a couple decades bitcoin would either be widely used or not used at all. Unless bitcoin is widely used by the time the coinbase rewards role off, its security model breaks.

This is why we have to scale, period.

[madmat]

Anyhow, probably time to put on a full-node again,

I restarted 24/7 on mine about a month ago, due to the controversy. Currently running Core, but not as support for core dev position. I am _very_ motivated to find an alternative. If only the 'anything but 1MB4EVA stasis' crowd had a single standard to rally around...

Do you run yours from your computer at home, or from a vps?

I have been meaning to start running one, but I can't run mine from home, and it costs quite a lot for a decent vps that's reliable and has sufficient bandwidth. What's the lowest spec vps that can run a full node, and how much data would it probably use in a month?

Google cloud is free the first 60 days. See my signature links for more details.

[Fatman3001]

-snip-
If you make a free, or almost free crypto, that can do tens of millions of TXs per day, what's stopping someone from abusing it and getting the network to its capacity limits, triggering a priority queue through fees?
-snip-

The same thing that's stopped it from 2009 until today... miner's dust and spam limits. They are incentivized to make small enough blocks to avoid orphaning, unless the fees offered shift them along that supply curve. It really comes down to whether  you trust the free market and the system's built in incentives... or you trust a small cadre of dudes that all happen to work for a certain company that plans to produce the medicine for your disease.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mej5wS7viw

Why?

If everyone uses litecoin why would Bitcoin be better for larger transactions?

If *everyone* uses litecoin, it won't be.

The chances of that happening is near zero for a long list of reasons.

Do you have that list?

[ErisDiscordia]

But it could also play out differently... miners might decide that it's not even worth the risk of including 3-4-5-10mb of txs, as the 25 BTC or 12.5 BTC reward is much better than gaining an extra half btc (with an increased orphan risk). A 30s, 1m, 2m advantage could be significant in finding a block. So at that point we'll have a network that only processes very high fee txs to ensure the fastest propagation possible and that the miner has an advantage over the other miners who actually want to include txs in their blocks. At that point, the same people who were asking for much larger blocks, will be crying at how inadequate bitcoin devs are for creating a situation where miners do not even want to mine regular transactions but rather opt to mine only the block reward (and/or some very high fee txs). I mean this is already happening with 1MB empty blocks. Empty-blockers (miners) will be saying "haha those idiots mining the 4-8-10mb blocks full of txs are shooting themselves in the foot, while we are having a tremendous edge over them with our empty blocks". What then? Start forcing miners to mine the transactions?

Do you realize that you have actually provided an argument for raising blocksize? The bad thing you are afraid of will happen is already happening. Unless there are other bad things which will happen, we might as well raise the blocksize and reap the benefits.

TBH even though I'm not sure what solution is best going forward I remain highly skeptical of centrally mandated policy. I still suspect that many people applying their own preferred solution will lead to a more optimal situation than ANY centrally mandated, one-size-fits-all solution. This is why I lean towards letting miners/nodes decide policy including blocksize. Most people arguing for keeping the limit seem hopelessly arrogant in their pretensions of knowledge of what the future will bring. (AlexGR is a shining example of someone who is keeping it civilized)

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[Searing]

But it could also play out differently... miners might decide that it's not even worth the risk of including 3-4-5-10mb of txs, as the 25 BTC or 12.5 BTC reward is much better than gaining an extra half btc (with an increased orphan risk). A 30s, 1m, 2m advantage could be significant in finding a block. So at that point we'll have a network that only processes very high fee txs to ensure the fastest propagation possible and that the miner has an advantage over the other miners who actually want to include txs in their blocks. At that point, the same people who were asking for much larger blocks, will be crying at how inadequate bitcoin devs are for creating a situation where miners do not even want to mine regular transactions but rather opt to mine only the block reward (and/or some very high fee txs). I mean this is already happening with 1MB empty blocks. Empty-blockers (miners) will be saying "haha those idiots mining the 4-8-10mb blocks full of txs are shooting themselves in the foot, while we are having a tremendous edge over them with our empty blocks". What then? Start forcing miners to mine the transactions?

Do you realize that you have actually provided an argument for raising blocksize? The bad thing you are afraid of will happen is already happening. Unless there are other bad things which will happen, we might as well raise the blocksize and reap the benefits.

TBH even though I'm not sure what solution is best going forward I remain highly skeptical of centrally mandated policy. I still suspect that many people applying their own preferred solution will lead to a more optimal situation than ANY centrally mandated, one-size-fits-all solution. This is why I lean towards letting miners/nodes decide policy including blocksize. Most people arguing for keeping the limit seem hopelessly arrogant in their pretensions of knowledge of what the future will bring. (AlexGR is a shining example of someone who is keeping it civilized)

blocksize goes up say to 2mb....lots of folk unsatisfied...press had fun with this ..more fud....price sideways......blocksize does not go up ...seg witness instead...some other folk unsatisfied....price goes sideways....either way the lack of 'consensus' and firm plan for the future is just gonna make people skittish whichever way it goes imho

(but then again i drank the bfl kool aid at one time..got a refund..but still you have to take anything i say with that in consideration...2013 newbie that I was irregardless)

[r0ach]

4MB immediate hard fork is the only viable solution imo.  Then segwit can be used as a bandaid to increase further in the future with or without a fork, effectively taking it to 8MB or so.

[conspirosphere.tk]

I mean this is already happening with 1MB empty blocks.

Do you realize that you have actually provided an argument for raising blocksize?

No, he provided only arguments to let the fee market work. And possibly to ban the saboteurs once for all to save our time.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[mavericklm]

4MB immediate hard fork is the only viable solution imo.  Then segwit can be used as a bandaid to increase further in the future with or without a fork, effectively taking it to 8MB or so.

nope!

first we need to work on the fact that there are big pools that mine empty blocks

after that, maybe we can jump to 1.5mb or 2mb

[Elwar]

I'm still not sure which team to support. "big blockers" or "small blockers".

Still waiting on the team mascots to decide which is better.