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

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[Elwar]

It appears that Hearn, who was an early adopter, pulled out all of his money at once making the price plummet.

But the price showed stability as far as (adoption in)/(miner out) at around $430. We will slowly climb back to that price after a while.

[lottery248]

unless we have a better news in the bitcoin world, otherwise we have not that bright future seems. please take a look at the chart buddy:

Coin



Explanation

it is almost the same compared after the leave of Mike Hearn. we need something innovated now.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[Andre#]

Hypocrisy? Let me see... Fees are supposed to replace the block reward, even when blocks stay at 1 MB. So 1 MB of transactions should yield 25 BTC in fees. On average, 1700 tx fit in a full block. So 1 tx requires a fee of 25/1700 = 0.0145 BTC, which is atm $5.58. That's 35x more than $0.16. I won't get upset over $0.16, but more than $5 is quite something else.

Personally I expect that subsidy reduction will mostly be covered by price increase in BTC.

BTC can rise as much as it wants, but $5 is still $5 (you can decrease the fees in terms of BTC, but if miners need currently 25*400 = 10 kUSD, that's what they need. If you state that at some point in the future, all miners' revenue should come from fees, then it's ALL revenue. It will only be different if a) blocks can get bigger, or b) blocks can be more efficient (like SegWit). Double the no. of tx, then the fees in today's USD will halve in the long run. It's that simple, really.

As far as fees are concerned, we'll see how it goes. We are somewhat far from the point of replacing the subsidy and by that time a lot will have changed, both in blocksize and scaling solutions.

The decrease is exponential. It goes pretty fast. And by limiting the usage of BTC (to 1700 tx per block, or hardly twice of that), you can wonder how high the price can get.

[mOgliE]

Hypocrisy? Let me see... Fees are supposed to replace the block reward, even when blocks stay at 1 MB. So 1 MB of transactions should yield 25 BTC in fees. On average, 1700 tx fit in a full block. So 1 tx requires a fee of 25/1700 = 0.0145 BTC, which is atm $5.58. That's 35x more than $0.16. I won't get upset over $0.16, but more than $5 is quite something else.

Personally I expect that subsidy reduction will mostly be covered by price increase in BTC.

BTC can rise as much as it wants, but $5 is still $5 (you can decrease the fees in terms of BTC, but if miners need currently 25*400 = 10 kUSD, that's what they need. If you state that at some point in the future, all miners' revenue should come from fees, then it's ALL revenue. It will only be different if a) blocks can get bigger, or b) blocks can be more efficient (like SegWit). Double the no. of tx, then the fees in today's USD will halve in the long run. It's that simple, really.

As far as fees are concerned, we'll see how it goes. We are somewhat far from the point of replacing the subsidy and by that time a lot will have changed, both in blocksize and scaling solutions.

The decrease is exponential. It goes pretty fast. And by limiting the usage of BTC (to 1700 tx per block, or hardly twice of that), you can wonder how high the price can get.

I like your arguments. It's right that a decrease in btc doesn't count, as long as most people will be paid in $ you've got to think in fiat. Whatever btc price, 5$ is still 5$. And I just don't understand why blocks size is not adapted? Is there any reason for that?

[AlexGR]

BTC can rise as much as it wants, but $5 is still $5

+

The decrease is exponential. It goes pretty fast. And by limiting the usage of BTC (to 1700 tx per block, or hardly twice of that), you can wonder how high the price can get.

The division and fees you mention imply 1mb limit forevah, or same tx/s capacity forevah, but this is not anyone's plan as far as I know. So, naturally, fees will be much lower. And if we get a technological breakthrough that allows much better scaling, they will probably drop like a stone.

[Andre#]

Why would be only 5-10, or only 500 nodes? There is no factual data to support that claim at all.

Everyone can have a p2p client that deals with 10kb/sec, has 100 mb storage requirements, needs 1 small cpu and 256mb ram. As you go up and up in hw requirements, cost goes up, "volunteers" go down - even if userbase goes up. As you hit datacenter level requirements the number of "volunteers" starts dropping significantly because costs start running in the 5 digit, then 6 digit category and eventually you'll be paying millions.

Some of us remember 8 bit CPUs running at 4Mhz with 1k of RAM and software stored on audio cassettes. Hard drives were just something you read about. The first one I actually had (nearly 10 years later) was 40MB

In the past 10 years, I have seen 10 racks of servers in a server room disappear into a handful of Virtual hosts. I'm currently running a full node on Amazon's smallest, weakest instance type. Their cost for storing the blockchain as it currently stands is on the order of $5/month.

These are issues we should not be worrying about until they are measurably becoming an issue. Like regularly full blocks already *are*

This. (My first hard drive was 10 MB, btw.)

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[fred930]

I'm currently running a full node on Amazon's smallest, weakest instance type. Their cost for storing the blockchain as it currently stands is on the order of $5/month.

What exactly should I ask for if I want to follow your footsteps and run a full node on Amazon's smallest, weakest instance type? Is it a Linux instance type because they are usually the cheapest?

What exactly should I ask for if I want to follow your footsteps, but if I want a Windows instance type?

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

Why would be only 5-10, or only 500 nodes? There is no factual data to support that claim at all.

Everyone can have a p2p client that deals with 10kb/sec, has 100 mb storage requirements, needs 1 small cpu and 256mb ram. As you go up and up in hw requirements, cost goes up, "volunteers" go down - even if userbase goes up. As you hit datacenter level requirements the number of "volunteers" starts dropping significantly because costs start running in the 5 digit, then 6 digit category and eventually you'll be paying millions.

Some of us remember 8 bit CPUs running at 4Mhz with 1k of RAM and software stored on audio cassettes. Hard drives were just something you read about. The first one I actually had (nearly 10 years later) was 40MB

In the past 10 years, I have seen 10 racks of servers in a server room disappear into a handful of Virtual hosts. I'm currently running a full node on Amazon's smallest, weakest instance type. Their cost for storing the blockchain as it currently stands is on the order of $5/month.

These are issues we should not be worrying about until they are measurably becoming an issue. Like regularly full blocks already *are*

This. (My first hard drive was 10 MB, btw.)

An old ferguson cassette tape recorder attached to a Sinclair zx81    2000 bits per second, with about 500kb per side.

I still have an old  7 track tape from an IBM on the wall of my office.  Weighs 3kgs and holds 1.1Mb

(edit: I rescued it from being scrapped in a bank i was working at, never actually used one  )

[Dotto]

Let me say only that I am neither Dorian Satoshi Nakamoto nor Craig Steven Wright. 

Confirmed: Strollfi is Nakamoto

[Richy_T]

What exactly should I ask for if I want to follow your footsteps and run a full node on Amazon's smallest, weakest instance type? Is it a Linux instance type because they are usually the cheapest?

What exactly should I ask for if I want to follow your footsteps, but if I want a Windows instance type?

It's pretty straightforward. Just fire up a t2.micro with enough disk space, create a security group that allows port 22 and 8333 and run the node software.

It's fairly similar between windows and linux but I'd recommend linux because it's cheaper and because you don't really need all the things windows does. I'm thinking I may make a video on how to do it.

[LFC_Bitcoin]

Listen to LFC Bitcoin guise... he knows what he's talking about... srs
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1318765.0

 

It's good to see you guys bonding. You must be having a real ball.

[aztecminer]

It appears that Hearn, who was an early adopter, pulled out all of his money at once making the price plummet.

But the price showed stability as far as (adoption in)/(miner out) at around $430. We will slowly climb back to that price after a while.

in the article he said he sold in December . .. i think a lot people sold in December during the marshal's pump.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[Andre#]

Nice write up:

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/41ipkd/some_advice_for_everybody_at_this_point_in_time/
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/41ipu0/some_advice_for_everybody_at_this_point_in_time/

(Available at your Reddit of choice)

[oda.krell]

What exactly should I ask for if I want to follow your footsteps and run a full node on Amazon's smallest, weakest instance type? Is it a Linux instance type because they are usually the cheapest?

What exactly should I ask for if I want to follow your footsteps, but if I want a Windows instance type?

It's pretty straightforward. Just fire up a t2.micro with enough disk space, create a security group that allows port 22 and 9333 and run the node software.

It's fairly similar between windows and linux but I'd recommend linux because it's cheaper and because you don't really need all the things windows does. I'm thinking I may make a video on how to do it.

As in: running a full node on that instance?

What about bandwidth / number of connections? I vaguely remember some recommendations not to bother with running a full node unless meeting certain requirements wrt the previous two variables, since otherwise you're not really adding much to the network. Is that a problem with the EC2 node?

If not, I'm going to start running a few of those instances as well. The reason for me not to permanently run a full node is that I don't have a machine that I don't use otherwise, and that I don't mind being dedicated to the network. But outsourcing it sounds exactly like my kind of deal

Please give us a rundown on how to set one up over there, at some point.

[madmat]

What exactly should I ask for if I want to follow your footsteps and run a full node on Amazon's smallest, weakest instance type? Is it a Linux instance type because they are usually the cheapest?

What exactly should I ask for if I want to follow your footsteps, but if I want a Windows instance type?

It's pretty straightforward. Just fire up a t2.micro with enough disk space, create a security group that allows port 22 and 9333 and run the node software.

It's fairly similar between windows and linux but I'd recommend linux because it's cheaper and because you don't really need all the things windows does. I'm thinking I may make a video on how to do it.

As in: running a full node on that instance?

What about bandwidth / number of connections? I vaguely remember some recommendations not to bother with running a full node unless meeting certain requirements wrt the previous two variables, since otherwise you're not really adding much to the network. Is that a problem with the EC2 node?

If not, I'm going to start running a few of those instances as well. The reason for me not to permanently run a full node is that I don't have a machine that I don't use otherwise, and that I don't mind being dedicated to the network. But outsourcing it sounds exactly like my kind of deal

Please give us a rundown on how to set one up over there, at some point.

Bitcoin port is 8333 and not 9333.

[oda.krell]

Nice write up:

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/41ipkd/some_advice_for_everybody_at_this_point_in_time/
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/41ipu0/some_advice_for_everybody_at_this_point_in_time/

(Available at your Reddit of choice)

Very much worth reading. Thanks.

I've had some reservations against Falkvinge previously, not even entirely sure why - there's something vaguely pompous about his online writing I've read before - but this post of his is quite different. Fully agreed with what he writes, how he writes it, and what he's saying between the lines (about the form of governance).

Anyone from 'the other camp' wants to take a shot at it though? I'm always interested to hear a coherent argument against something that appears completely natural and obvious to me - makes me nervous almost if I think it's "natural" and "obvious" hehe