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

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[Richy_T]

Trying to fit more data into the same 1MB is work. Trying to offload txs until they self-cancel, so that the network can scale better is work. Just upping a number is lame.

TIL Rube Goldberg has descendants. Why do something the easy way when you can complicate things and introduce risks of failure?

That it *is* lame and it *is* trivial is what makes it so exasperating that the opposition to it works so hard against it.

It can be phased in, like:

Code:

if (blocknumber > 115000)
   maxblocksize = largerlimit

It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete.

[Richy_T]

In a stunning display of courage, and with an unwavering commitment to the forging of the truth in the crucible of the dialectical method... Our friend, and highly qualified mentor, has graciously offered to continue the debate of these important ideas rather than retreat like a coward to the wizard's irc clubhouse.

Like those who have not #ragequit under adversity before... may his example continue to inspire us in our efforts to fully realize the potential of this bottom-up, community driven effort towards changing the world through a fully decentralized, dialup and raspberryPi compatible, layer 1 settlement network.

Not fair!

I'm still recovering from new years and now I have to open a bottle of Champagne this soon?

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[AlexGR]

Changing a variable from 1MB to 2MB or 20MB is not "work" per se. It's a few bytes of code change.
How can that even classify as some kind of serious work.

The value is not in the "work" per se. The value is in the result.

The result is that Bitcoin still does the same txs per kb as before. There is no actual improvement in scaling, more like a tradeoff where decentralization and network vulnerability to bloat attacks are tuned to "worse" so that more low-to-zero fee txs can go through.

Additionally, the underlying issues that prompted the 1MB limit have not been solved. You have a vulnerability => you issue a patch to defend against the attack vector => without resolving the issue you go ahead and bypass / remove the defense mechanism. And you do that, while blocks aren't even full and by claiming that the sky is falling and that Bitcoin must ...fork in a kind-of-power grab situation. This is lame (in terms of programming) and beyond absurd in terms of the ecosystem and broader dynamics.

I'd like to see some work on how to solve the attack vectors, how to make blockchain use more efficient, how to make the network propagate information faster - stuff like that which represent actual advances.

[jbreher]

The result is that Bitcoin still does the same txs per kb as before. There is no actual improvement in scaling, more like a tradeoff where decentralization and network vulnerability to bloat attacks are tuned to "worse" so that more low-to-zero fee txs can go through.

Such would move the hard cap of somewhere around half a million transactions a day to a higher number. If you do not feel that the ability to process more transactions per unit time is an element of scalability, fine. I find such a position absurd, but so be it. If you insist on clinging to such a definition, than I am more interested increasing potential transactions per unit time than in your definition of scalability -- at least at this point in time, when we are rapidly approaching that limit.

And despite your repetitive statements stripping the reality, this has nothing to do with whether the transactions are zero- low- or ouch!-fee. Half a million a day regardless of the fees paid. Period.

I'd like to see some work on how to solve the attack vectors, how to make blockchain use more efficient, how to make the network propagate information faster - stuff like that which represent actual advances.

You seek technological advances. This is good. But by promoting economic retardation, you are throwing the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak. The ECE is close enough that it can be breached at the next surge of adoption, while SegWit promotors are obviously deluded in claiming it will be in production 1H16.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[AlexGR]

The result is that Bitcoin still does the same txs per kb as before. There is no actual improvement in scaling, more like a tradeoff where decentralization and network vulnerability to bloat attacks are tuned to "worse" so that more low-to-zero fee txs can go through.

Such would move the hard cap of somewhere around half a million transactions a day to a higher number. If you do not feel that the ability to process more transactions per unit time is an element of scalability, fine. I find such a position absurd, but so be it. If you insist on clinging to such a definition, than I am more interested increasing potential transactions per unit time than in your definition of scalability -- at least at this point in time, when we are rapidly approaching that limit.

And despite your repetitive statements stripping the reality, this has nothing to do with whether the transactions are zero- low- or ouch!-fee. Half a million a day regardless of the fees paid. Period.

It has everything to do with low or zero fees.

If, say, you go from 0.5mn txs per day to 1mn txs per day and a spammer can add 0.5mn txs per day for peanuts to fill the extra capacity where does that leave you?

You'll go back to square 1 and you'll still be crying "ahhh the blocks are full, we need a new increase, my negligible fee doesn't get me confirmed in 5-10-20 confirmations and I need to pay more and more", etc etc.

But not only will you be crying for the same things, you'll now have to deal with double the bloat, more hardware requirements, higher expenses for running nodes, a more centralized network, etc etc.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[Arcteryx]

Is this what we would expect from being a stable price for bitcoin
Well it is boring to say the least. Bring some volatility back to it or it is just like any other fiat trading 

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[knightlife999]

We'll get more volatility very soon. Just give the market some time to get past the holidays and back to work. 

[luckygenough56]

drop already bleepcoin !

[coinzat]

Is this what we would expect from being a stable price for bitcoin
Well it is boring to say the least. Bring some volatility back to it or it is just like any other fiat trading 

I like it when the price is stable, but this is not going to last for a long time.
volatility is very normal with bitcoin as we used to see

[oda.krell]

It can be phased in, like:

Code:

if (blocknumber > 115000)
   maxblocksize = largerlimit

It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete.

Hehe, that one should be quoted a lot more around here. Like, daily.

I'm not even that fond of arguments from authority -- in the end, Satoshi is just a particularly smart human being, or group thereof, but fallible like everybody else.

The irony is of course that the Little Blockians are also the strongest proponents of 'protocol literalism', trying to preserve the purity of essence and sanctity of bodily fluids, err, I mean: the purity of Satoshi's original vision of sound money & free guns, as enshrined in the original version of the protocol.

Which only means that it must really suck for them that the master himself thought of max blocksize as a trivially easily changeable spam prevention measure, not some grand economic variable that must be protected by the spilling of blood of free Randian Übermenschen once in a while.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[acquafredda]

We'll get more volatility very soon. Just give the market some time to get past the holidays and back to work. 

And let's not forget there has been a nasty dump on Christmas when everybody was celebrating. Stabilty and Bitcoin trading don't rhyme yet and probably never will. So yes, expect some turbulence soon

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[Ayle56]

We'll get more volatility very soon. Just give the market some time to get past the holidays and back to work. 

And let's not forget there has been a nasty dump on Christmas when everybody was celebrating. Stabilty and Bitcoin trading don't rhyme yet and probably never will. So yes, expect some turbulence soon

The Chinese carried on trading at Christmas because it means nothing to them, but they get drunk at New Year so practically nobody was trading then. First the traders need time to get over their hangovers, then after the banks open in two days time volatility should get going again.