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

[billyjoeallen]

The mempool has already been over 10MB for two days straight. We are looking at a permanent and growing backlog of transactions.  

Check http://cointape.com

Tell me those who are waiting, how much they are paying in fees.

To help you with the math: 1 satoshi = $0.0000040927

From what I see, most want to pay <30 satoshi per byte with a lot of transactions being in the <10 satoshi per byte or 0 satoshi.

Most txs right now who are waiting, are paying <0.05$ - with the bulk paying <0.02$

First block inclusion is at 0.08$ right now.

Such Fullblockalypse... Very fees... WOW

This is just the beginning. In the future, we'll have to throw in fees and HOPE they are high enough for our transactions to be included.  That makes it impossible to build a business model because of the unknown variable.

As a miner, would you rather get a 26BTC reward @$600/BTC or a 35BTC reward @ $200/BTC? This may not be a hypothetical question.

[AlexGR]

#1 majority hashpower is in China. Chinese mines can be controlled or shut down by the People's Bank or the government.

If the chinese can produce something domestically, they do.

Why "import" BTCs for dollars, from foreign miners, when they can produce them locally?

If Chinese production of BTCs can satisfy local BTC hunger (prevents USD outflows) or even be used for "export" (USD inflows), then it's a "profitable" activity for their economy.

[pleaseexplainagain]

I get very confused by all the different views of fee growth/block size  etc.

It seems to me to be to fairly straightforward in terms of my use of bitcoin.

I have bitcoins for 2 reasons
1. as a store of value
2. to make transfers to other people in other countries and to also make transfers to companies (to buy things).

I like small or no fees but to protect the system and reward those protecting it I am quite happy to pay up to the amount that is just less than an alternative
eg for transfers say what Western Union charges which is say $20
eg for purchases it may also be about $20 (say 1% on purchases over $200)

So being selfish as an individual always is I do not care about the block size just what that result is in terms of effect on me both in terms of security and cost.

I do not think we have to worry about for example millions/billions coming out of China to get around capital controls - the rich in any country will be allowed to do it without bitcoin and make a % cut assisting the middle class to do the same.

We should be making fee and size decisions on the little guy first. he/she is after all an existing not a potential/doubtful user.

What say all?

[CuntChocula]

Bitcoin was interesting when it was an experiment, when it ran. It’s crawling now, crawling toward instability.

http://www.coindesk.com/is-bitcoin-for-the-masses-or-against-the-state/

Even the cheap rags are onto us.  

"One could even go so far as to claim the current banking system is more decentralized than bitcoin at this point. The Federal Reserve is composed of 12 banks across the country which then lend money to the nearly 7,000 banks in the country, not to mention the thousands of credit unions as well.

On the other hand, bitcoin (although still in its infancy) is currently managed primarily by four large mining pools, all out of China. While these pools are networks of many individual miners, there is uneasiness about this predisposition."

http://s2.postimg.org/dbb1ohovd/neigh.jpg

#1 BTC = Global, not a single country.

Which only makes things moar lopsidedly hilarious: Hundreds of central banks, in hundreds of countries, vs. 4 bros in Chian.

#2 BTC = Public Ledger and distributed, Unlike banks that don't even trust one another's books.

Bitcoin's core devs are at war with each other :-

#3 BTC and its participants can migrate to a better horizon solution at a moments notice. Unlike bank that don't have a trusted backup that they would ever agree on due to political situations and commitments.

"A better horizon solution at a moments notice"? Bitcoin can't even agree on a trivial issue like blocksize in ...how long has this drama been going on? A year? That's right, about a year.
Tell me more about "a moments [sic] notice."

[Sitarow]

Bitcoin was interesting when it was an experiment, when it ran. It’s crawling now, crawling toward instability.

http://www.coindesk.com/is-bitcoin-for-the-masses-or-against-the-state/

Even the cheap rags are onto us.  

"One could even go so far as to claim the current banking system is more decentralized than bitcoin at this point. The Federal Reserve is composed of 12 banks across the country which then lend money to the nearly 7,000 banks in the country, not to mention the thousands of credit unions as well.

On the other hand, bitcoin (although still in its infancy) is currently managed primarily by four large mining pools, all out of China. While these pools are networks of many individual miners, there is uneasiness about this predisposition."

#1 BTC = Global, not a single country.
#2 BTC = Public Ledger and distributed, Unlike banks that don't even trust one another's books.
#3 BTC and its participants can migrate to a better horizon solution at a moments notice. Unlike bank that don't have a trusted backup that they would ever agree on due to political situations and commitments.

The list goes on. It is unfortunate to see this disingenuous type of approach to sell sensationalism while masquerading as journalistic reporting.

#1 majority hashpower is in China. Chinese mines can be controlled or shut down by the People's Bank or the government.

If you are referring to the "manufacturing of asic hardware" than consider that the "hashpower" you refer to is soon (as in the next month or so) to be made obsolete by sources outside china.

If you are referring to pool and network computation share of the pie than what you see are the results of pool participants that can easily direct their hardware at other locations if the need arises. That hash-power is migratory.  

The changing landscape of the infrastructure that supports bitcoin is constantly evolving and to think the old rules apply is short sighted understanding.

[billyjoeallen]

#1 majority hashpower is in China. Chinese mines can be controlled or shut down by the People's Bank or the government.

If the chinese can produce something domestically, they do.

Why "import" BTCs for dollars, from foreign miners, when they can produce them locally?

If Chinese production of BTCs can satisfy local BTC hunger (prevents USD outflows) or even be used for "export" (USD inflows), then it's a "profitable" activity for their economy.

Having most of the hashpower in one country, particularly one controlled by a totalitarian government, is almost as bad as having most of the hashpower in one pool.  What if the Commies decide that Bitcoin is a threat to their own new digital currency that they are looking into creating?  Protectionism isn't exactly unknown to them.

[ImI]

The more important Bitcoins becomes, the more likely a congestion failure will be absent a scaling solution.  Let's assume half the transactions are either not important or urgent. Then what happens if that number grows by a factor of five? This is not unprecedented.  There is no way the price will sustainably go up without attracting new users EXPONENTIALLY and the network won't be able to handle them no matter how much in fees they pay. 

Let's use a hypothetical example: Imagine that the Chinese government announces that they will soon close the loophole that allows their citizens to avoid capital controls via crypto. This could cause a mad rush to the exits, particularly if the economic conditions inside China deteriorate. If one tenth of one percent of the Chinese try to get their money out through bitcoin, that's (1,600,000,000)X(0.001)=1,600,000 so at only one transaction each, we're looking at over four times the total daily network capacity IN ADDITION TO all the other traffic.  That's just one example. I can think of dozens more. Hyperinflation in a third world country. another Cypress type banking crisis.  A terrorist attack on the Bank of International Settlements. SWIFT or ACH getting hacked. etc.

The mempool has already been over 10MB for two days straight. We are looking at a permanent and growing backlog of transactions. 

that doesn't contradict my point. you are right if a big flush of TXs comes their will be a BIG mempool and essentially alot of TXs would have to switch to another coin. nevertheless its not a "congestion" as this basically paints a picture where NO TXs AT ALL will be processed ands thats bullshit.

if you have 1.6Mio TXs and only 200.000 are fitting on the blockchain then a market will occur and the most important 200.000 will be processed. i know you can argue that that would be not a good situation for Bitcoin OK, but its not that the newtwork stops processing TXs.

i hope it gets clearer now.

[CuntChocula]

...
If you are referring to pool and network computation share of the pie than what you see are the results of pool participants that can easily direct their hardware at other locations if the need arises. That hash-power is migratory.  

The changing landscape of the infrastructure that supports bitcoin is constantly evolving and to think the old rules apply is short sighted understanding.

Lolno. The hashpower stays where electricity costs are low/government subsidized: China.

...
i hope it gets clearer now.

Not to me, no.

...
So... Each time I transact via Bitcoin, I make a wager (that the tx fee I paid is sufficient to have my transaction included)?
Sort of like a blind auction?
On that like white on rice, the wackier & more probabilistic my money is, the better

[Sitarow]

Bitcoin was interesting when it was an experiment, when it ran. It’s crawling now, crawling toward instability.

http://www.coindesk.com/is-bitcoin-for-the-masses-or-against-the-state/

Even the cheap rags are onto us.  

"One could even go so far as to claim the current banking system is more decentralized than bitcoin at this point. The Federal Reserve is composed of 12 banks across the country which then lend money to the nearly 7,000 banks in the country, not to mention the thousands of credit unions as well.

On the other hand, bitcoin (although still in its infancy) is currently managed primarily by four large mining pools, all out of China. While these pools are networks of many individual miners, there is uneasiness about this predisposition."

#1 BTC = Global, not a single country.

Which only makes things moar lopsidedly hilarious: Hundreds of central banks, in hundreds of countries, vs. 4 bros in Chian.

#2 BTC = Public Ledger and distributed, Unlike banks that don't even trust one another's books.

Bitcoin's core devs are at war with each other :-

#3 BTC and its participants can migrate to a better horizon solution at a moments notice. Unlike bank that don't have a trusted backup that they would ever agree on due to political situations and commitments.

"A better horizon solution at a moments notice"? Bitcoin can't even agree on a trivial issue like blocksize in ...how long has this drama been going on? A year? That's right, about a year.
Tell me more about "a moments [sic] notice."

I think you may be trolling however for those that may be reading your reply then please indulge further.

#1 The "hashpower" is migratory and can move in less time than it takes for you to wire funds to your exchange of choice and get transferred to BTC.
#2 Anyone including you can step up to the plate and provide a solution that will attain consensus
#3  "Bitcoin can't even agre"? Bitcoin is not an individual there fore no agreement necessary. What you mention is the different perspectives that people have to resolve issues that may or may not fit into their expectations of what Bitcoin is or should do.

No attempt to present disingenuous views will change the fact that bitcoin and this technology has a flexibility that those in the old world are uncomfortable with. Bitcoin and the block chain technology has enabled all
participants the ability to choose the best solutions that are put forward.

[billyjoeallen]

The more important Bitcoins becomes, the more likely a congestion failure will be absent a scaling solution.  Let's assume half the transactions are either not important or urgent. Then what happens if that number grows by a factor of five? This is not unprecedented.  There is no way the price will sustainably go up without attracting new users EXPONENTIALLY and the network won't be able to handle them no matter how much in fees they pay. 

Let's use a hypothetical example: Imagine that the Chinese government announces that they will soon close the loophole that allows their citizens to avoid capital controls via crypto. This could cause a mad rush to the exits, particularly if the economic conditions inside China deteriorate. If one tenth of one percent of the Chinese try to get their money out through bitcoin, that's (1,600,000,000)X(0.001)=1,600,000 so at only one transaction each, we're looking at over four times the total daily network capacity IN ADDITION TO all the other traffic.  That's just one example. I can think of dozens more. Hyperinflation in a third world country. another Cypress type banking crisis.  A terrorist attack on the Bank of International Settlements. SWIFT or ACH getting hacked. etc.

The mempool has already been over 10MB for two days straight. We are looking at a permanent and growing backlog of transactions. 

that doesn't contradict my point. you are right if a big flush of TXs comes their will be a BIG mempool and essentially alot of TXs would have to switch to another coin. nevertheless its not a "congestion" as this basically paints a picture where NO TXs AT ALL will be processed ands thats bullshit.

if you have 1.6Mio TXs and only 200.000 are fitting on the blockchain then a market will occur and the most important 200.000 will be processed. i know you can argue that that would be not a good situation for Bitcoin OK, but its not that the newtwork stops processing TXs.

i hope it gets clearer now.

Those people switching to another coin may never switch back.

[bitebits]

We're 3 years since that magical year, 2013. Now the magic is gone and is likely never to return. Halving will bump the price but it looks like no new bubbles.

At least 2013 was fun...........  

It's similar to the metals market. Peaked in 2011 and a slow grind down,most likely still haven't seen the bottom 5 years later.

Why the impatience? Bitcoin is more alive then ever, look at the endless walls of text in this Wall Observer thread. Longer term I am not worried at all, a lot of people seem to care about Bitcoin's (bright) future.

[Richy_T]

The more important Bitcoins becomes, the more likely a congestion failure will be absent a scaling solution.  Let's assume half the transactions are either not important or urgent.

Anyone feel like updating this one for Bitcoin them emailing it to core?

http://craphound.com/spamsolutions.txt

[ImI]

The more important Bitcoins becomes, the more likely a congestion failure will be absent a scaling solution.  Let's assume half the transactions are either not important or urgent. Then what happens if that number grows by a factor of five? This is not unprecedented.  There is no way the price will sustainably go up without attracting new users EXPONENTIALLY and the network won't be able to handle them no matter how much in fees they pay. 

Let's use a hypothetical example: Imagine that the Chinese government announces that they will soon close the loophole that allows their citizens to avoid capital controls via crypto. This could cause a mad rush to the exits, particularly if the economic conditions inside China deteriorate. If one tenth of one percent of the Chinese try to get their money out through bitcoin, that's (1,600,000,000)X(0.001)=1,600,000 so at only one transaction each, we're looking at over four times the total daily network capacity IN ADDITION TO all the other traffic.  That's just one example. I can think of dozens more. Hyperinflation in a third world country. another Cypress type banking crisis.  A terrorist attack on the Bank of International Settlements. SWIFT or ACH getting hacked. etc.

The mempool has already been over 10MB for two days straight. We are looking at a permanent and growing backlog of transactions. 

that doesn't contradict my point. you are right if a big flush of TXs comes their will be a BIG mempool and essentially alot of TXs would have to switch to another coin. nevertheless its not a "congestion" as this basically paints a picture where NO TXs AT ALL will be processed ands thats bullshit.

if you have 1.6Mio TXs and only 200.000 are fitting on the blockchain then a market will occur and the most important 200.000 will be processed. i know you can argue that that would be not a good situation for Bitcoin OK, but its not that the newtwork stops processing TXs.

i hope it gets clearer now.

Those people switching to another coin may never switch back.

≠ congestion failure 

[JorgeStolfi]

Anarchism does not mean chaos. Most Anarchists believe in a society of laws. These laws are just devised through other consensus mechanisms than democratic or republic forms of representations. The minority doesn't prevail over the majority,

Laws and contracts are useless if there is no third party with power to enforce them and settle disputes. 

See for example the Ver x OKcoin caper over the domain bitcoin.com.  Apart from the forged signature, the contract that they agred to was useless because it did not specify the jurisdiction, and did not even specify the legal entity involved (OKCoin China, or its Singapore subsidiary?).  So, when they disagreed over its terms, all they could do was to exchange insults on reddit. 

For contracts, the two parties could still use arbitrators by mutua agreement; but if one party refuses to do what the arbitrator determiens, what then?  For that, and for disputes or acts between random people not covered by contracts, there has to be a government of some sort, that defines the laws and has the power to apply them.

Now, those laws are either approved by the majority, or they are approved by a minority (maybe empty) and disapproved by the majority.  The latter situation is unstable, unless the minority has somehow more power than the majority (e.g. they have the bigger guns, or they are the only ones who can read the stars and predict the time to sow the maize).  Anyway, if you are part of that minority, you may like it; but chances are that you will not be, and anyway the society as a whole will be unhappy.

there is no evil illuminati or group of lizard people controlling our own fate but we are collectively responsible for both the good deeds and crimes in society and we must have solidarity with each other.  

That is a nice idea, but don't expect me to take it seriously until you can point out one example of a society, anywhere and anytime, that managed to function for any reasonable length of time without the members creating some sort of government with power to determine the fate of individuals in spite of their wishes...

[BitUsher]

Well some of us suspected Bitcoin Classic was a trojan horse meant to change governance and than switch to BIP101 and the numbers are indeed reflecting that --

Up at the highest rated approval we have BIP101

https://bitcoin.consider.it/BIP101

Democracy in action folks! Letting the mobs of idiots and people who want to destroy bitcoin vote for its future.... wonderful.

[Sitarow]

...
If you are referring to pool and network computation share of the pie than what you see are the results of pool participants that can easily direct their hardware at other locations if the need arises. That hash-power is migratory.  

The changing landscape of the infrastructure that supports bitcoin is constantly evolving and to think the old rules apply is short sighted understanding.

Lolno. The hashpower stays where electricity costs are low/government subsidized: China.

It is true that mining has been a community service more than a self sustaining endeavor that would result in long turn profit.

The sooner people recognize that mining profitably and mining to get a lions share of the daily bitcoin subsidy pool the richer the local economy in that area will be.

For instance if a government or corporation recognized the value of mining bitcoin they would subsidies hardware development and support building infrastructures that would employ members of the local community.

For one example would be to use bitcoin mining as a way to subsidies operating costs of a power plant. Why have simply the local community pay for the electricity, why not get the global population that use BTC to pay for the power plant operating costs... Wind solar and so on. Many options have presented themselves in China but due to the ever changing landscape of the technology that is used to mine bitcoin being competitive only lasts on average 3 to 6 months before your initial investment costs are no longer recouped and you are forced to "UPGRADE".

[CuntChocula]

Bitcoin was interesting when it was an experiment, when it ran. It’s crawling now, crawling toward instability.

http://www.coindesk.com/is-bitcoin-for-the-masses-or-against-the-state/

Even the cheap rags are onto us.  

"One could even go so far as to claim the current banking system is more decentralized than bitcoin at this point. The Federal Reserve is composed of 12 banks across the country which then lend money to the nearly 7,000 banks in the country, not to mention the thousands of credit unions as well.

On the other hand, bitcoin (although still in its infancy) is currently managed primarily by four large mining pools, all out of China. While these pools are networks of many individual miners, there is uneasiness about this predisposition."

http://s2.postimg.org/dbb1ohovd/neigh.jpg

#1 BTC = Global, not a single country.

Which only makes things moar lopsidedly hilarious: Hundreds of central banks, in hundreds of countries, vs. 4 bros in Chian.

#2 BTC = Public Ledger and distributed, Unlike banks that don't even trust one another's books.

Bitcoin's core devs are at war with each other :-

#3 BTC and its participants can migrate to a better horizon solution at a moments notice. Unlike bank that don't have a trusted backup that they would ever agree on due to political situations and commitments.

"A better horizon solution at a moments notice"? Bitcoin can't even agree on a trivial issue like blocksize in ...how long has this drama been going on? A year? That's right, about a year.
Tell me more about "a moments [sic] notice."

I think you may be trolling however for those that may be reading your reply then please indulge further.

#1 The "hashpower" is migratory and can move in less time than it takes for you to wire funds to your exchange of choice and get transferred to BTC.

What does that even mean? The hashpower is a bunch of factory mines in China. They could be banned/seized by the Chinese government (possibly to mine their own crypto, possibly to add some extra "disruptive" to Bitcoin.
Migratory?

#2 Anyone including you can step up to the plate and provide a solution that will attain consensus

But reaching the consensus is nearly impossible, as a year of hilarious infighting has so aptly illustrated. It's a flaw, at the conceptual level. You can't fix it, like you can't fix a broken perpetual motion engine. it's totally forked

#3  "Bitcoin can't even agre"? Bitcoin is not an individual there fore no agreement necessary. What you mention is the different perspectives that people have to resolve issues that may or may not fit into their expectations of what Bitcoin is or should do.

Of course agreement is necessary. Without it you can't solve emerging problems, "at a moments notice" or in a year. Doh.

No attempt to present disingenuous views

WTF are disingenuous views?

[Fatman3001]

Well some of us suspected Bitcoin Classic was a trojan horse meant to change governance and than switch to BIP101 and the numbers are indeed reflecting that --

Up at the highest rated approval we have BIP101

https://bitcoin.consider.it/BIP101

Sounds good to me.

Democracy in action folks! Letting the mobs of idiots and people who want to destroy bitcoin vote for its future.... wonderful.

That seems to be the majority of bitcoiners. They only have to because Core lost touch with reality.

[AlexGR]

#1 majority hashpower is in China. Chinese mines can be controlled or shut down by the People's Bank or the government.

If the chinese can produce something domestically, they do.

Why "import" BTCs for dollars, from foreign miners, when they can produce them locally?

If Chinese production of BTCs can satisfy local BTC hunger (prevents USD outflows) or even be used for "export" (USD inflows), then it's a "profitable" activity for their economy.

Having most of the hashpower in one country, particularly one controlled by a totalitarian government, is almost as bad as having most of the hashpower in one pool.  What if the Commies decide that Bitcoin is a threat to their own new digital currency that they are looking into creating?  Protectionism isn't exactly unknown to them.

China is intentionally low profile in terms of international "incidents". They don't want to draw too much negative attention.

Even if the western elite hate bitcoin with a passion, they will (hypocritically) crucify the chinese for such an attempt. They'll make it top news that "China is panicking and is now after Bitcoin and bitcoiners". The chinese have learned the western modus operandi, they aren't idiots. They have an attitude of "maintain a low profile and steady as she goes" particularly for things related to things which aren't exclusively domestic and/or have international reach. I feel the western elite tried to exploit them with the hearn article, by putting them on the spotlight, presenting them as some kind of "problem" so that they can then try to mitigate this "perception" and thus make them react like "we are not the problem, we'll increase blocksize" to preserve their low profile. Thus they were "played" to start getting out and supporting the "Classic" in order to ...prove that "we aren't the problem, we are easy-going miners, we only want peace and stability, all these stuff that were written about us are false"...

The western elite like to play chess and play everyone like a pawn... what is the chinese miner attribute? Low profile, we don't want any problems, we do what we do and don't really bother with anyone... so with a little bit of upsetting the status quo after the Hearn article => they are placed into the spotlight as a "problem" => this activates their instict to go back to low profile and say "yeah yeah 2mb it is, just leave us alone so we can go back to low profile mode where nobody notices us". However by doing that they are shooting themselves on the foot since forking bitcoin is destructive both for them and bitcoin.

[Sitarow]

Bitcoin was interesting when it was an experiment, when it ran. It’s crawling now, crawling toward instability.

http://www.coindesk.com/is-bitcoin-for-the-masses-or-against-the-state/

Even the cheap rags are onto us.  

"One could even go so far as to claim the current banking system is more decentralized than bitcoin at this point. The Federal Reserve is composed of 12 banks across the country which then lend money to the nearly 7,000 banks in the country, not to mention the thousands of credit unions as well.

On the other hand, bitcoin (although still in its infancy) is currently managed primarily by four large mining pools, all out of China. While these pools are networks of many individual miners, there is uneasiness about this predisposition."

#1 BTC = Global, not a single country.

Which only makes things moar lopsidedly hilarious: Hundreds of central banks, in hundreds of countries, vs. 4 bros in Chian.

#2 BTC = Public Ledger and distributed, Unlike banks that don't even trust one another's books.

Bitcoin's core devs are at war with each other :-

#3 BTC and its participants can migrate to a better horizon solution at a moments notice. Unlike bank that don't have a trusted backup that they would ever agree on due to political situations and commitments.

"A better horizon solution at a moments notice"? Bitcoin can't even agree on a trivial issue like blocksize in ...how long has this drama been going on? A year? That's right, about a year.
Tell me more about "a moments [sic] notice."

I think you may be trolling however for those that may be reading your reply then please indulge further.

#1 The "hashpower" is migratory and can move in less time than it takes for you to wire funds to your exchange of choice and get transferred to BTC.

What does that even mean? The hashpower is a bunch of factory mines in China. They could be banned/seized by the Chinese government (possibly to mine their own crypto, possibly to add some extra "disruptive" to Bitcoin.
Migratory?

#2 Anyone including you can step up to the plate and provide a solution that will attain consensus

But reaching the consensus is nearly impossible, as a year of hilarious infighting has so aptly illustrated. It's a flaw, at the conceptual level. You can't fix it, like you can't fix a broken perpetual motion engine. it's totally forked

#3  "Bitcoin can't even agre"? Bitcoin is not an individual there fore no agreement necessary. What you mention is the different perspectives that people have to resolve issues that may or may not fit into their expectations of what Bitcoin is or should do.

Of course agreement is necessary. Without it you can't solve emerging problems, "at a moments notice" or in a year. Doh.

No attempt to present disingenuous views

WTF are disingenuous views?

From what I can tell and what I perceive, is that you have a greater understanding to the whole spectrum of what Bitcoin consists of and how each part makes up the project as a hole.

However the points you harp on and the way you present them leaves me with the impressions that you are attempting to get people to ignore the important points that should be considered.

The way you go on is as a disingenuous person "pretending that one knows less about something than one really does.