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

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

With 1MB blocks Danny Hamilton estimates fees could reach as high as $100 a transaction.

Schweeet. The rest of Planet Earth will be beating down the blockchain's doors for the honour of one transaction. I can see them being given as wedding presents or instead of a dowry.

Proclaim your love for her on the Blockchain. If you really love her?

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

Not sure how that works. Tx cost is (BTC $Price) * (25 BTC per block) / (2.7tps * 60sec * ~10mins) = 10,000 / 1620 = $6.17 <==lowest cost possible, i.e. blocks are full.
What am I doing wrong?

IDK. I'd have to find the sauce.

Don't MAKE me find the sauce.

[CuntChocula]

...
Or in your business language: We can give away our product for free, said no successful business ever.
...

Depends on what you mean by "for free" :- There's Google...

you pay google by advertisement

maybe we can put some advertisements on every TXs 

"sponsored by Coca-Cola"

Google didn't start out by charging for searches, email, etc. Had zero ad revenues because zero ads.
I guess Google should have started out by charging for its services, would have been a multi-gazillion-dollar co. by now.

[Richy_T]

With 1MB blocks Danny Hamilton estimates fees could reach as high as $100 a transaction.

To be fair, there is a mechanism to keep those fees down as others have suggested.

The problem is, that mechanism is disinterest in using Bitcoin.

[AlexGR]

It is the [use cost] that need to be increased!

Said no successful business in a competitive market anywhere.

Longterm Bitcoin has to gather enough fees to survive, without fees no miners.

Or in your business language: We can give away our product for free, said no successful business ever.

edit: the fees will longterm lead 1:1 to Bitcoins security. the higher the gathered fees the higher the security of the network.

Nobody will disagree with that. The question is if those fees will be paid by many tx, or just a few. If you limit the size of blocks to 1 MB (and hence, the number of tx to ~1700), the average fee/tx has to become very expensive (~$5 per tx).

With 1MB blocks Danny Hamilton estimates fees could reach as high as $100 a transaction.

Not sure how that works. Tx cost is (BTC $Price) * (25 BTC per block) / (2.7tps * 60sec * ~10mins) = 10,000 / 1620 = $6.17 <==lowest cost possible, i.e. blocks are full.
What am I doing wrong?

He's talking about fees.

[CuntChocula]

...
He's talking about fees.

Ah, gotcha, my bad. When > tx than can fit in a block, the fee becomes undefined. Meaning I'm simply gambling on my fee not getting pushed out by a higher one, blind auction style.

The actual cost per transaction, tho... On a positive note, if BTC price falls ~99%, we're back in reasonable territory

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

^It'll be fun

[JayJuanGee]

We wont give our costumers what they need

Your customers need free money. No doubt about that.

...especially with other better and efficient services raising... this really seems like a smart move.

Yes, it is a smart move. Get rid of such customers! Let them go to and ruin the other 'efficient services'.
If it is the only type of customers you have then you don't offer value in your service and you should change your business!

Read my previous comment, you really fail to understand the issue here, it is not about free or cheap transactions (although this is how we always advertised bitcoin) but it is about Block size, 90% of transactions in the queue have a valid paid fees. but there is no space to include them.

However, If you want me to pay $1 fee for a $20 worth of goods/services then I am telling you that Bitcoin is for sure failing.

I don't know what the fuck you are doing back and hanging out here and spreading your additional FUD regarding the perils and death of bitcoin?

Didn't you cash out of your total bitcoins about a year and a half ago, and you were proclaiming the same bullshit and then wouldn't leave the forum in order to keep rubbing in about how right you were about bitcoin going to zero, etc...etc. etc....

Why don't you go off and enjoy your bitcoin free life?  What you need to be hanging around this thread and telling bitcoin investors that bitcoin is dying, when you really are just making things up for some seemingly malicious intermeddling purpose.

[Andre#]

It is the [use cost] that need to be increased!

Said no successful business in a competitive market anywhere.

Longterm Bitcoin has to gather enough fees to survive, without fees no miners.

Or in your business language: We can give away our product for free, said no successful business ever.

edit: the fees will longterm lead 1:1 to Bitcoins security. the higher the gathered fees the higher the security of the network.

Nobody will disagree with that. The question is if those fees will be paid by many tx, or just a few. If you limit the size of blocks to 1 MB (and hence, the number of tx to ~1700), the average fee/tx has to become very expensive (~$5 per tx).

With 1MB blocks Danny Hamilton estimates fees could reach as high as $100 a transaction.

My $5/tx comes from providing the same revenue to miners as today, without the current block reward (the original calculation was based on a BTC price of $340). What will happen if demand totally outstrips the supply of blockspace, that can be anything.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[mmitech]

We wont give our costumers what they need

Your customers need free money. No doubt about that.

...especially with other better and efficient services raising... this really seems like a smart move.

Yes, it is a smart move. Get rid of such customers! Let them go to and ruin the other 'efficient services'.
If it is the only type of customers you have then you don't offer value in your service and you should change your business!

Read my previous comment, you really fail to understand the issue here, it is not about free or cheap transactions (although this is how we always advertised bitcoin) but it is about Block size, 90% of transactions in the queue have a valid paid fees. but there is no space to include them.

However, If you want me to pay $1 fee for a $20 worth of goods/services then I am telling you that Bitcoin is for sure failing.

I don't know what the fuck you are doing back and hanging out here and spreading your additional FUD regarding the perils and death of bitcoin?

Didn't you cash out of your total bitcoins about a year and a half ago, and you were proclaiming the same bullshit and then wouldn't leave the forum in order to keep rubbing in about how right you were about bitcoin going to zero, etc...etc. etc....

Why don't you go off and enjoy your bitcoin free life?  What you need to be hanging around this thread and telling bitcoin investors that bitcoin is dying, when you really are just making things up for some seemingly malicious intermeddling purpose.

I thought you were in my ignore list, I think it is time to revisit it... yea, but if you are curious: I am a developer and I develop services around crypto, besides, any developer can have an opinion about the Bitcoin block size issue...


BTW: it is not your problem how I do spend my precious time, instead of attacking my person you can argue my points (not that I think you understand a single thing about the technical side of Bitcoin)


Edit1: BTW, don't bother responding to this, you are already back to my ignore list, a troll with an inflated ego is what you are.

Edit2: I never left, I just stopped speculating, I had/have full hands with work on actual development.

[Yakamoto]

...
Or in your business language: We can give away our product for free, said no successful business ever.
...

Depends on what you mean by "for free" :- There's Google...

you pay google by advertisement

maybe we can put some advertisements on every TXs 

"sponsored by Coca-Cola"

Google didn't start out by charging for searches, email, etc. Had zero ad revenues because zero ads.
I guess Google should have started out by charging for its services, would have been a multi-gazillion-dollar co. by now.

Part of why Google is so popular is because it did absolutely zero ads during their first startup, and this lead to everyone using it to recommend Google over other search engines, as there were barely any ads. And it's pretty much the same way now. The ads are very non-intrusive, and this is what is making them so much money.

I think Google migght only be the size of Bing or Yahoo if they started with ads, and there would most likely also be a more distributed market share.

[ImI]

...
Or in your business language: We can give away our product for free, said no successful business ever.
...

Depends on what you mean by "for free" :- There's Google...

you pay google by advertisement

maybe we can put some advertisements on every TXs 

"sponsored by Coca-Cola"

Google didn't start out by charging for searches, email, etc. Had zero ad revenues because zero ads.
I guess Google should have started out by charging for its services, would have been a multi-gazillion-dollar co. by now.

Part of why Google is so popular is because it did absolutely zero ads during their first startup, and this lead to everyone using it to recommend Google over other search engines, as there were barely any ads. And it's pretty much the same way now. The ads are very non-intrusive, and this is what is making them so much money.

I think Google migght only be the size of Bing or Yahoo if they started with ads, and there would most likely also be a more distributed market share.

the important part is: is google free in terms of no revenue? answer is: no. google obv get revenue. no revenue = no service. as simple as that.

[CuntChocula]

...
Or in your business language: We can give away our product for free, said no successful business ever.
...

Depends on what you mean by "for free" :- There's Google...

you pay google by advertisement

maybe we can put some advertisements on every TXs  

"sponsored by Coca-Cola"

Google didn't start out by charging for searches, email, etc. Had zero ad revenues because zero ads.
I guess Google should have started out by charging for its services, would have been a multi-gazillion-dollar co. by now.

Part of why Google is so popular is because it did absolutely zero ads during their first startup, and this lead to everyone using it to recommend Google over other search engines, as there were barely any ads. And it's pretty much the same way now. The ads are very non-intrusive, and this is what is making them so much money.

I think Google migght only be the size of Bing or Yahoo if they started with ads, and there would most likely also be a more distributed market share.

the important part is: is google free in terms of no revenue? answer is: no. google obv get revenue. no revenue = no service. as simple as that.

The important part is had Google charged fees, or tried to monetize its services too early, it would have flopped.
That's why block rewards exist, think of those as VC cheddar, to let Bitcoin grow up before sending it out to earn its keep. And that's why capping blocksize is shortsighted at best.

[JayJuanGee]

We wont give our costumers what they need

Your customers need free money. No doubt about that.

...especially with other better and efficient services raising... this really seems like a smart move.

Yes, it is a smart move. Get rid of such customers! Let them go to and ruin the other 'efficient services'.
If it is the only type of customers you have then you don't offer value in your service and you should change your business!

Read my previous comment, you really fail to understand the issue here, it is not about free or cheap transactions (although this is how we always advertised bitcoin) but it is about Block size, 90% of transactions in the queue have a valid paid fees. but there is no space to include them.

However, If you want me to pay $1 fee for a $20 worth of goods/services then I am telling you that Bitcoin is for sure failing.

I don't know what the fuck you are doing back and hanging out here and spreading your additional FUD regarding the perils and death of bitcoin?

Didn't you cash out of your total bitcoins about a year and a half ago, and you were proclaiming the same bullshit and then wouldn't leave the forum in order to keep rubbing in about how right you were about bitcoin going to zero, etc...etc. etc....

Why don't you go off and enjoy your bitcoin free life?  What you need to be hanging around this thread and telling bitcoin investors that bitcoin is dying, when you really are just making things up for some seemingly malicious intermeddling purpose.

I thought you were in my ignore list, I think it is time to revisit it... yea, but if you are curious: I am a developer and I develop services around crypto, besides, any developer can have an opinion about the Bitcoin block size issue...


BTW: it is not your problem how I do spend my precious time, instead of attacking my person you can argue my points (not that I think you understand a single thing about the technical side of Bitcoin)


Edit1: BTW, don't bother responding to this, you are already back to my ignore list, a troll with an inflated ego is what you are.

Edit2: I never left, I just stopped speculating, I had/have full hands with work on actual development.

sounds like you are here to help to save us from ourselves... and so we will be experiencing more of your bullshit that selectively picks the facts you want to discuss all of the negative aspects of bitcoin... great... we have some additional trolling to look forward to...     

[Richy_T]

Can miners fork to 2MB and still stay with Core?

Or they're back on Classic??

Miners as individuals can do what they want. The issue becomes when they mine that first 1.01MB block and it gets rejected by the network (or not).

actually, they will just be on their own fork, it will get rejected from other nodes that runs Core but it will be valid on their chain and they will keep mining higher blocks, it will be the longest chain with most work, as Satoshi implied before: Bitcoin will be what the longest chain with the most work decides it to be.

True. But the relevance of the fork is important. A good chunk of the network and many of the auxiliary services would need to be on-board for it to be successful.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[BldSwtTrs]

Why are you calling experts the people who don't see the need to move the blocksize limit, which you agree is needful?

I call bitcoin core experts because they are experts that is not disputable much their competition are experts too. Scaling is a complex topic. There are strong disagreements about what is optimal. No one has made a definitive case but everyone agrees bitcoin needs to scale.

A politically driven contentious hard fork that seems to be much more about who gets to control the future of bitcoin rather then actually about increasing the block size is a known evil. Bitcoin is intrinsically just a computer ledger. It's value comes from the talent of those involved in its ecosystem. The goal is to grow that ecosystem not rip it apart.

OK I was worried that you thought that Core folks are the only experts out there.

Increasing the blocksize is fairly straightforward choice but there is a civil war about that. What will happen with possibly more contentious issues?

We need a governance mechanism for future debates because we can be sure there will be several others. And I prefer a governance mechaism who is bottum up  -hard fork and let the ecosystem choose - than one who is top down and doesn't support competion (extremely fragile position).

We don't rip apart the ecosystem by hard forking, not more than the creation of an altcoin rips apart the ecosystem. Remember when the first alcoin was created there were debates about whether that should be avoided for the good of Bitcoin. The endgame of a hard fork is the same : there will be yet another altcoin. And the network effect of the winning chain will keep sucking every human and capital resources which want to be part of this revolution.

[bitebits]

Right now it is not the block size that needs to be increased. It is the tx fees that need to be increased!

If you increase transaction fees you decrease the number of transactions, so you don't increase the total level of transaction fees.

By increasing the blocksize there is more transaction with constant transactions fees => total level of transaction fees increases.

But with your logic reasoning, the plebs can use Bitcoin as well. No, one must limit the block size so in the end only banks can afford to use it. If you like to make cheap transactions, please use one of the many centralized options available.

[BldSwtTrs]

Right now it is not the block size that needs to be increased. It is the tx fees that need to be increased!

If you increase transaction fees you decrease the number of transactions, so you don't increase the total level of transaction fees.

By increasing the blocksize there is more transaction with constant transactions fees => total level of transaction fees increases.

But with your logic reasoning, the plebs can use Bitcoin as well. No, one must limit the block size so in the end only banks can afford to use it. If you like to make cheap transactions, please use one of the many centralized options available.

Not sure if serious.