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

[jbreher]

Since the scaling discussion is rolling over here, I would like everyone to consider this data -

But simulation by bitfury already indicated that we will have a severe performance problem with 4MB blocks on average home computer

I'd like to see that report. Got a link?

With only several thousand running full nodes now, it seems to me that 'average home computer' is not the limiting issue.

This is the data you are looking for -
https://rusty.ozlabs.org/?p=522

here is the simulation test code-
https://gist.github.com/rustyrussell/9c3c4bf3127419bd3f1d


This is an example of a tx that can push validation times to their limit and potentially crash nodes--

https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/tx/bb41a757f405890fb0f5856228e23b715702d714d59bf2b1feb70d8b2b4e3e08

There are solutions to this problem and principally why core devs want to roll these out first ... before increasing the blocksize limit on the main tree.

I'll reply back on the thread that you're porting this from (when I get back there). Suffice to say that I believe that market forces can solve this (non)problem without centralized command and control from the Core devs.

As just one tangential observation, I note that my rather modest node seems to have encountered no issue in swallowing up the referenced block 364292.

[1715162572]

1715162572

[1715162572]

1715162572

[JimboToronto]

A late good morning Bitcoinland.

We had a little volatility overnight I see but we seem to have ended up right back around $430, i.e. about halfway back from the Dec. 26 panic dump.

Sub-$400 seems so long ago doesn't it? Hopefully it's history now. We had lots of time to buy cheap coins. Let's see the price rise.

Overall 2015 was a good year for Bitcoin. We saw capitulation in January, a "live cat bounce" back down in August and a micro-bubble in October/November.

Final result: a net increase of 43% over the course of the year. Not bad.

[Cconvert2G36]

Color me surprised. 

[BitUsher]

Color me surprised.  

Rusty is a talented and competent developer and I am grateful that he can contribute to our ecosystem. I really appreciate all the testing and data he has provided our community.

without centralized command and control from the Core devs.

The core devs have little control. The miners can push through a hardfork without the developers. The miners have most of the keys to the kingdom and simply choose to trust the developers for the time being based upon their competence.

This really shouldn't be an us vs them debate... because we should always prepare for the worst and support all the implementations. Other implementations need a lot of help and I would personally welcome some of the competent core developers breaking off and leading other repositories.

[jbreher]

Market prices tend to rise with increased demand. That is a market function. And when you are still lower than your closest competitor, people will still prefer your service over theirs. If a bank wire costs 10$ and takes days and a btc transfer costs 1$ and takes minutes, why would I use SWIFT instead of BTC?

True, Bitcoin today enjoys a 91% market share of crypto. However, in the overall scope of a USD $7B asset class adrift in a many-$T sea, that market share is not unassailable. Indeed, should the masses finally decide to adopt crypto, I would expect them to adopt one that they can actually _use_, rather than one that prevents them from participating due to an arbitrary limitation. Any of dozens of shitcoins are waiting in the wings to meet this market need, jealously awaiting a chance to procure adoption by delivering real value in comparison to Bitcoin.

What will happen, at most, is that shitcoins will be used for low-value txs and btc will be used for high value txs. You want to gamble for a few cents => you use a shitcoin. You want to buy a chewing gum => you use a shitcoin. You want to transfer 500$ or $5 mn, you use BTC.

Why?

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

Isn't this similar to arguing about apples and oranges?
To me, it seems more likely that since crypto currencies occupy multiple spaces in realty, both a unit with inherent value, a representative direct transfer of said inherent value, and as a secure proof of existence ledger based on the security/hash power of the underlying item, that use cases would naturally gravitate to these options?

so with an altcoin like litecoin, it has a relatively fast transfer speed and nominal value worth but on the other hand, it's hash-power isn't necessarily as strong as bitcoin

then you have bitcoin which has a slower transfer speed, but possibly due to scarcity and first mover recognition, larger fiat value, but more importantly operates as a stronger public ledger.

so, if you are going to buy a cup of coffee, or transact a nominal value equivalent of a cup of coffee, or register an item of similar value, and then record that or transfer it to another individual, there are certain use cases which will naturally lend themselves to this option as they do not need enormous security behind it

on the other hand
if you are buying a car, or leasing a car, or perhaps a fleet of cars, or a multi-year,million dollar commercial property lease; this is a deal with significant financial liability associated with it; here as time is not necessarily an immediate concern but the concern is more over the duration of the contractual option and that proof of two parties entering into this agreement, you would want something harder to tamper with and more secure, which naturally would lead you to supporting a blockchain with more hash power.

I think you are missing my point. First, let us strike 'litecoin' from the discussion, as it only serves as a standin for 'some unspecified altcoin'. Next, let us dispense with 'speed of transaction' - most cryptos have essentially instantaneous transactions, with confirmations taking some time, and a 4x speedup in confirmation is meaningless from the standpoint of real use cases.

The issue is that there is no good reason for multiple blockchains. If you put 'little' transactions on one blockchain, and 'large' transactions on another blockchain, it makes no difference. Anyone who wishes to have trustless operation on both blockchains will need to have a full node for both blockchains. No reduction in overall resource demands.

But mostly, as the alt gains use due to fulfilling use cases that Bitcoin refuses to fulfill, it will necessarily rise in utility value (that's a tautology). With increased utility value, I posit that it will also increase in monetary value. Such will attract miners. Probably at the expense of Bitcoin losing miners. Such will accelerate to the point where the security position between Bitcoin and the alt will flip. At which point, there be no advantage whatsoever that Bitcoin can claim. Net result: Bitcoin would be abandoned forthwith, with complete collapse in monetary value of its associated token.

IOW, advocating a 'low value' alt to absorb all the 'small' transactions is suicidal.

[BitUsher]

IOW, advocating a 'low value' alt to absorb all the 'small' transactions is suicidal.

Agreed. All side, tree, sub , separated chains should be dependent upon the longest chain. This is the way forward.

[Cconvert2G36]

Rusty is a talented and competent developer and I am grateful that he can contribute to our ecosystem. I really appreciate all the testing and data he has provided our community.

He certainly is. That doesn't stop me from wondering how much is a conclusion in search of evidence vs evidence in search of a conclusion. Blockstream™ has an unhealthy amount of influence on an open and distributed project.

[jbreher]

...even if the blocks are full with bogus transactions.

Please provide a definition of 'bogus transaction'. Without such, I am unable to understand your argument.

...

You fail to grasp a very simple concept:

If you make a free, or almost free crypto, that can do only a handful of TX 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 even less 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.

IOW, restricting maxblocksize only makes your envisioned scenario worse.

[BitUsher]

He certainly is. That doesn't stop me from wondering how much is a conclusion in search of evidence vs evidence in search of a conclusion. Blockstream™ has an unhealthy amount of influence on an open and distributed project.

Rather than wasting time bikeshedding, infighting , or assuming intentions we should simply do our best to support all implementations to raise the bar of the whole ecosystem.

On that note ... I am off for today ...

Happy New Year to everyone.   Don't drink and drive and if you can avoid the roads by sleeping with the host/hostess of the party than take the opportunity.

[Cconvert2G36]

He certainly is. That doesn't stop me from wondering how much is a conclusion in search of evidence vs evidence in search of a conclusion. Blockstream™ has an unhealthy amount of influence on an open and distributed project.

Rather than wasting time bikeshedding, infighting , or assuming intentions we should simply do our best to support all implementations to raise the bar of the whole ecosystem.

On that note ... I am off for today ...

Happy New Year to everyone.   Don't drink and drive and if you can avoid the roads by sleeping with the host/hostess of the party than take the opportunity.

Good to hear the talking points are out, and the matter is all settled folks. Nothing to see here.



Meanwhile, the COO of a company controlling 11% of the hashrate is not being shy...



And is apparently bothered with the censoring and steering.

[JayJuanGee]

A late good morning Bitcoinland.

We had a little volatility overnight I see but we seem to have ended up right back around $430, i.e. about halfway back from the Dec. 26 panic dump.

Sub-$400 seems so long ago doesn't it? Hopefully it's history now. We had lots of time to buy cheap coins. Let's see the price rise.

Overall 2015 was a good year for Bitcoin. We saw capitulation in January, a "live cat bounce" back down in August and a micro-bubble in October/November.

Final result: a net increase of 43% over the course of the year. Not bad.

A few more hours, and that rendition of results and overall bitcoin performance will be locked in for the calendar year (depending upon which timezone is referenced).   

[Dotto]

The market canalize dispersed knowledge with appropriate incentives.

When you ask people about what they don't know, it is a mess. But within the market, there is a selection process where knowledge is rewarded and ignorance is penalized, so the result is not a mere average, but a selection and an aggregation of refined knowledge.

The more you gather knowledgeable people around a problem*, the more you allow them to follow the path they deem the most promising**, the higher the probabilby is that the problem will be resolved in an efficient and creative way.

*by allow profit to play its incentive role
**by preventing a small group of people to reduce the options of other

And real life currencies are managed by a small group of people, not by the market. If you want Bitcoin to stay special, you should reject the power of a small group of people over it.

Great post

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

He certainly is. That doesn't stop me from wondering how much is a conclusion in search of evidence vs evidence in search of a conclusion. Blockstream™ has an unhealthy amount of influence on an open and distributed project.

Rather than wasting time bikeshedding, infighting , or assuming intentions we should simply do our best to support all implementations to raise the bar of the whole ecosystem.

On that note ... I am off for today ...

Happy New Year to everyone.   Don't drink and drive and if you can avoid the roads by sleeping with the host/hostess of the party than take the opportunity.

Good to hear the talking points are out, and the matter is all settled folks. Nothing to see here.

Actual businesses are telling them they’re being prematurely priced out of the economy. How is that a trivial detail??

[suda123]

The market canalize dispersed knowledge with appropriate incentives.

When you ask people about what they don't know, it is a mess. But within the market, there is a selection process where knowledge is rewarded and ignorance is penalized, so the result is not a mere average, but a selection and an aggregation of refined knowledge.

The more you gather knowledgeable people around a problem*, the more you allow them to follow the path they deem the most promising**, the higher the probabilby is that the problem will be resolved in an efficient and creative way.

*by allow profit to play its incentive role
**by preventing a small group of people to reduce the options of other

And real life currencies are managed by a small group of people, not by the market. If you want Bitcoin to stay special, you should reject the power of a small group of people over it.

Great post
[/quote

]Great post

*And real life currencies are managed by a small group of people, not by the market. If you want Bitcoin to stay special, you should reject the power of a small group of people over it.*

[JayJuanGee]

So, 435 or 420 will fall eventually.  My bet will be on momentum when that happens. 

Does the monkey have anything to say?

Sure, probably the question remains whether there is enough momentum to break out of this range and $420 and $435 seem to reflect our current price range of the past, almost 4 days.

I remain kind of torn in my forecast views, and I suppose I am still putting a bit more weight to the probability of downward before upward (maybe 56.5/43.5).. but wat da fuge du I know?

[Cconvert2G36]

Actual businesses are telling them they’re being prematurely priced out of the economy. How is that a trivial detail??

Do you even code? No? Well, just lie back and it will all be over soon. We have consensus and you're not part of it.  

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[Fatman3001]

Liking your new look there, Richy.

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

Liking your new look there, Richy.

+1.  Enjoying the onscreen evolution too! 

[JayJuanGee]

Liking your new look there, Richy.

+1.  Enjoying the onscreen evolution too! 

With my feelings of aging,  10-15% larger would be a little better.