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

[AlexGR]

Do you even realize that the long term outcome of Lightning (the Holy Graal of Core folks) would be to massively reduce the amount of transaction fees versus an on-chain scaling?

Wait, what?

Core is simultaneously accused that they want "higher fees" or "fee competition" and now accused for "wanting to massively reduce fees with lightning".

Please decide what core wants.

[billyjoeallen]

When you take away child's toy, he is upset...His reaction just shows his arrogance for the last couple of months

Thinking of upset Hearn joining R3 and arrogantly ragequitting. Now banks getting behind Garzik's "classic" fork. It is too obvious what is going on.

Banks need bitcoin blockchain but without bitcoin and that's exactly what big-blockers are doing crippling bitcoin as store of value. Hurray... free block space to every spammer!

Only dumb people think there is a need to have a blocksize limit in order to have the store of value function.

Only dumb people think miners can pay their bills with the miserable tx fees big-blockers are willing to pay.

What kind of person thinks a company exists to employ people? Your statement betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of economics. The network does not exist to support the miners. Miners exist to support the network. 

[becoin]

When you take away child's toy, he is upset...His reaction just shows his arrogance for the last couple of months

Thinking of upset Hearn joining R3 and arrogantly ragequitting. Now banks getting behind Garzik's "classic" fork. It is too obvious what is going on.

Banks need bitcoin blockchain but without bitcoin and that's exactly what big-blockers are doing crippling bitcoin as store of value. Hurray... free block space to every spammer!

Only dumb people think there is a need to have a blocksize limit in order to have the store of value function.

Only dumb people think miners can pay their bills with the miserable tx fees big-blockers are willing to pay.

What kind of person thinks a company exists to employ people? Your statement betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of economics. The network does not exist to support the miners. Miners exist to support the network. 

Only dumb people can say that people are not using bitcoin because blocks are full. It is like saying people don't use this place because it is overcrowded.

[billyjoeallen]

Do you even realize that the long term outcome of Lightning (the Holy Graal of Core folks) would be to massively reduce the amount of transaction fees versus an on-chain scaling?

Wait, what?

Core is simultaneously accused that they want "higher fees" or "fee competition" and now accused for "wanting to massively reduce fees with lightning".

Please decide what core wants.

You know those car dealerships that jack up the price before giving you a discount? Blockstream is selling something that would have no value if Core did their jobs. Wait, what? They're the same people? OHHHhhhh.

[BldSwtTrs]

Do you even realize that the long term outcome of Lightning (the Holy Graal of Core folks) would be to massively reduce the amount of transaction fees versus an on-chain scaling?

Wait, what?

Core is simultaneously accused that they want "higher fees" or "fee competition" and now accused for "wanting to massively reduce fees with lightning".

Please decide what core wants.

Core people are clueless about economics. They doesn't understand the consequences of their wishes.

Maybe you are able to think for yourself and see what they don't see. What is the long term outcome which produces the more transaction fees: on chain scaling or off chain scaling (e.g. Lightning)?

[BldSwtTrs]

When you take away child's toy, he is upset...His reaction just shows his arrogance for the last couple of months

Thinking of upset Hearn joining R3 and arrogantly ragequitting. Now banks getting behind Garzik's "classic" fork. It is too obvious what is going on.

Banks need bitcoin blockchain but without bitcoin and that's exactly what big-blockers are doing crippling bitcoin as store of value. Hurray... free block space to every spammer!

Only dumb people think there is a need to have a blocksize limit in order to have the store of value function.

Only dumb people think miners can pay their bills with the miserable tx fees big-blockers are willing to pay.

Do you even realize that the long term outcome of Lightning (the Holy Graal of Core folks) would be to massively reduce the amount of transaction fees versus an on-chain scaling?

Are you a BitPay employee? Are you horrified that merchants will set up Lightning pools instead of using your service that is dependent on ALWAYS use the dollar as a crutch to crippled Bitcoin? Do you even realize that Lightning is build UPON a base named Bitcoin? Do you even realize that a house CAN'T exist without its base? How is Lightning bad thing for minors? Lightning can't exist without bitcoin and bitcoin can't exist without minors. Is Lightning a bad thing for Lightning?!

Lightning reduces transaction fees so it's detrimental to your own objective to make Bitcoin more secure.

Hell is paved with good intentions.

[Richy_T]

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.

AWS has bandwidth and connections out the wazoo. You pay for it though but my quick calculations put it pretty low. It could get pricey if someone tried to get the whole blockchain from you but I understand that has been somewhat fixed. In theory, I could make an image of my node and put it out in the marketplace so anyone could use it but there would be a few things I'd have to do before I was comfortable doing that.

I should have written 8333 BTW. I'll go back and correct it.

[becoin]

When you take away child's toy, he is upset...His reaction just shows his arrogance for the last couple of months

Thinking of upset Hearn joining R3 and arrogantly ragequitting. Now banks getting behind Garzik's "classic" fork. It is too obvious what is going on.

Banks need bitcoin blockchain but without bitcoin and that's exactly what big-blockers are doing crippling bitcoin as store of value. Hurray... free block space to every spammer!

Only dumb people think there is a need to have a blocksize limit in order to have the store of value function.

Only dumb people think miners can pay their bills with the miserable tx fees big-blockers are willing to pay.

Do you even realize that the long term outcome of Lightning (the Holy Graal of Core folks) would be to massively reduce the amount of transaction fees versus an on-chain scaling?

Are you a BitPay employee? Are you horrified that merchants will set up Lightning pools instead of using your service that is dependent on ALWAYS use the dollar as a crutch to crippled Bitcoin? Do you even realize that Lightning is build UPON a base named Bitcoin? Do you even realize that a house CAN'T exist without its base? How is Lightning bad thing for minors? Lightning can't exist without bitcoin and bitcoin can't exist without minors. Is Lightning a bad thing for Lightning?!

Lightning reduces transaction fees so it's detrimental to your own objective to make Bitcoin more secure.

Hell is paved with good intentions.

Lightning will reduce the number of people and entities paying transaction fees but not the overall amount of fees paid!

[ImI]

i love those full blocks! its a fckn good sign!

By your (very stupid) logic we should move down the limit to 100kB or even 10kB since it would bring even fuller block and even bigger transaction fees. Why don't we do that?

The "stupid logic" goes more transactions = more adoption and isn't so stupid after all. 

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[Richy_T]

Bitcoin port is 8333 and not 9333.

Correct. Entirely a typo and fixed now.

[ImI]

i love those full blocks! its a fckn good sign!

Do you really believe those chart buddy numbers?   I mean really, if you look at Blockchain.info, you get spikes between 45% and 75%, but currently, the average is around 60%.


https://blockchain.info/charts/avg-block-size


I believe that full blocks is a good sign, too -  of increased adoption ... so it is a decent problem to have..... even though some sky-is-falling panic mongerers are engaged in ongoing apparent scare strategies that seem to be aimed at causing quicker decisions than seems to be necessary....

I am a bit more confident in blockchain.info numbers as depicted in the above graph, and I would be interested to hear why those numbers are supposedly an inaccurate depiction of the current state of affairs or the urgency of the matter.

maybe one has to subtract those blocks that are empty on purpose

[billyjoeallen]

When you take away child's toy, he is upset...His reaction just shows his arrogance for the last couple of months

Thinking of upset Hearn joining R3 and arrogantly ragequitting. Now banks getting behind Garzik's "classic" fork. It is too obvious what is going on.

Banks need bitcoin blockchain but without bitcoin and that's exactly what big-blockers are doing crippling bitcoin as store of value. Hurray... free block space to every spammer!

Only dumb people think there is a need to have a blocksize limit in order to have the store of value function.

Only dumb people think miners can pay their bills with the miserable tx fees big-blockers are willing to pay.

What kind of person thinks a company exists to employ people? Your statement betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of economics. The network does not exist to support the miners. Miners exist to support the network. 

Only dumb people can say that people are not using bitcoin because blocks are full. It is like saying people don't use this place because it is overcrowded.

Compared to what? Is bitcoin being used compared to VISA, SWIFT, ACH, Western Union? Moneygram? Mastercard? Gold? Dollars? 

Bitcoin is a toy network and you apparently want it to stay a toy for some reason.

[Richy_T]

Do you really believe those chart buddy numbers?   I mean really, if you look at Blockchain.info, you get spikes between 45% and 75%, but currently, the average is around 60%.

I can give you the code and you can run this shit yourself. It's all really trivial calls and standard "how to calculate averages" stuff.

[AlexGR]

Do you even realize that the long term outcome of Lightning (the Holy Graal of Core folks) would be to massively reduce the amount of transaction fees versus an on-chain scaling?

Wait, what?

Core is simultaneously accused that they want "higher fees" or "fee competition" and now accused for "wanting to massively reduce fees with lightning".

Please decide what core wants.

Core people are clueless about economics. They doesn't understand the consequences of their wishes.

Well, I'm not debating core devs here, rather their "attackers".

All this time I was hearing "ohhh core people are bad, they want to price squeeze out the small guy", then I see someone saying to a chinese miner that classic is good for them because lightning will reduce their mining fees in the long run - or something to that effect, and now you saying "ohhh fees will go down" etc.

It seems that people will go to any stretch just to attack core devs. Even when their attackers have flaws in their reasoning because they are attacking both directions (low & high fees), it's still core devs fault for not understanding economics

[billyjoeallen]

Do you even realize that the long term outcome of Lightning (the Holy Graal of Core folks) would be to massively reduce the amount of transaction fees versus an on-chain scaling?

Wait, what?

Core is simultaneously accused that they want "higher fees" or "fee competition" and now accused for "wanting to massively reduce fees with lightning".

Please decide what core wants.

Core people are clueless about economics. They doesn't understand the consequences of their wishes.

Maybe you are able to think for yourself and see what they don't see. What is the long term outcome which produces the more transaction fees: on chain scaling or off chain scaling (e.g. Lightning)?

DING DING DING!!! WE have a winner. Thank you for stating clearly what so many of us were thinking.

The ugly answer could be that they don't really care about miner compensation or network security as much as they care about getting their slice (which they would actually be TAKING from the miners).

[Richy_T]

maybe one has to subtract those blocks that are empty on purpose

Note that I still include the empty blocks for the red-line indicator so it's easy to see with and without that calculation.

The block fullness is actually fairly variable so the averages you get depend very much on your sampling time. Plus the number of blocks in an hour is also somewhat variable. You can have 4 blocks one hour for 98% full and then maybe 10 blocks another hour for an average of 40% full. The problem is, those 10 blocks at 40% don't really help the person who couldn't get their transaction on the chain in the 4-blocks-per-hour time period.

As always, the question has to be, "what am I looking to represent". A daily average might not present a useful number if you're wanting to know about user experience whereas an hourly can give a better insight as that's closer to the timescale for a typical Bitcoin transaction. It doesn't help that the daily average interstate speed was 50mph when an accident means you're stuck in non-moving traffic for an hour.

I haven't looked but transactions may be on a 24 hour cycle also. Low transaction volumes at certain times of the day would contribute to a low daily averages while high volume times may still be having problems that would indicate a need for remediation.

In summary, averages are tricky when it comes to interpretation and divining meaning. Which is why I included the per-block indicator dots.

[AlexGR]

The ugly answer could be that they don't really care about miner compensation or network security as much as they care about getting their slice (which they would actually be TAKING from the miners).

Now you care about miner compensation and network security? Weren't you the one complaining that you don't want to pay fees because you've bought the right to transact when you bought your coins, etc etc?

High fees = "fuck core devs"
Low fees = "fuck core devs"

For real?

[mixan]

Russian official wants to ban bitcoin entirely. If that passes. They have the largest population and even if 35% have been using it that is a large chunk of bitcoin users.
Watch the price drop on that news.

[Richy_T]

Do you really believe those chart buddy numbers?

So you're calling me a liar. Either

1)Prove it

2)Apologize.

3)Show the world that you're a man of no honor.