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

[ButtLava]

That's like saying "if the gays can get married, whats to stop people from marrying their pets!". How can you seriously compare raising the block size limit to a slippery slope of raising the total supply? Nobody wants to devalue their coins by creating more, but they DO want to increase the value in them by making them more accessible and liquid.

A forker can troll us with an argument of the following style:

"High tx fees reduce adoption, so we need low tx fees to increase adoption. If that doesn't happen, BTC is dead. So it's preferable to have more than 21mn coins through constant inflation rather than raising tx fees".

They could say "you are crippling BTC's potential through those high fees, we need much lower fees and in order to do that we need subsidy / more coins".

If people insist on having low-fee txs, then the end-game is a ...DOGEcoin (infinite inflation).

Higher fees solve both the inflation issue and also address the sane block utilization issue.

Fees at 1 to 3 cents are ridiculous anyway.

I don't necessarily disagree with you that there will be people that want more than 21m coins. However, 'trolling' does not move the economic majority into submission. They can say it all they want. It's not like anyone in particular will own bitcoins direction if theres a fork, not anymore than anyone owns its direction now. If the economic majority wants more coins it'll happen, regardless of whether it is 'big blockers', 'small blockers' or anyone else. But my guess is that would not happen, as I can't think of any situation where it would be logical to devalue your own coins by making more, when they are already practically infinitely divisible. People would rather divide their own and sell than create more.

I am still curious why did everyone get stuck on this 1mb value? I mean, like I said earlier, why not 1.2mb, or why not just 1 transaction per block if limiting it is the best? I'm just so confused why the current transactions per second limit became the magic number.

[Laosai]

Is Blockstream working on one of those Turing complete scripting languages for smart contracts as a sidechain at all? Are they in competition with Ethereum?

imo, there is no need for a turing complete stack language for specialized use cases like smart contracts. this is bullshit and is coming from ethereum fanboys. security is the first target all other targets have to follow.

ethereum is a hype whithout a single proof in the wild so far.

I would say there is a use for that, that you're a bit harsh on eth here ^^

But that would be really strange to use btc for that. No need to complexify and corrupt the security of btc.

And this is why i'm neither a proponent for the segwit softfork.

I'm sorta tired with the upgrade rush.

Bitcoin is not a sprint, it is a marathon.

Agreed!

Not being able to scale to the adoption is not a real problem. Compromising the current security and potentially losing the trust of years of survival... Now that's what i call a problem.

[AlexGR]

I don't necessarily disagree with you that there will be people that want more than 21m coins.

An argument like that will never be presented "we want more coins and high inflation for the lolz".

It will be presented as "we want cheap txs".... Arguments like "People want cheap txs, who are you to stop that".... Populist bullshit like "bigger blocks" and the "dangers" of "fullblockalypse".

[AlexGR]

I am still curious why did everyone get stuck on this 1mb value? I mean, like I said earlier, why not 1.2mb, or why not just 1 transaction per block if limiting it is the best? I'm just so confused why the current transactions per second limit became the magic number.

It's arbitrary really. Satoshi actually gave more room than necessary, but then again the fees paid back then were like 0.01.

[valta4065]

I don't necessarily disagree with you that there will be people that want more than 21m coins.

An argument like that will never be presented "we want more coins and high inflation for the lolz".

It will be presented as "we want cheap txs".... Arguments like "People want cheap txs, who are you to stop that".... Populist bullshit like "bigger blocks" and the "dangers" of "fullblockalypse".

Bah, by the time no more coins are mined the technologies will have change so much... How can anyone predict what will seem a good idea then? ^^

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[billyjoeallen]

So basically you smallblockers are saying you WANT to pay $8/transaction. The road map shows that capacity will only increase at some point in the future when power consumption also increases, maintaining the high cost. 

That's absolutely crazy.  There may be a demand for what amounts to a wire transfer of gold bars, but it's a tiny market compared to payments, remittances, title xfers, micropayments, etc.
 
How secure is the network going to be with all of the fees going to third parties on the layers rather than to the miners? Think about it: when the block reward gets quartered (two halvings), those miners will need those fees or network security will be harmed.

Keeping blocks small will HURT security.

[ButtLava]

I am still curious why did everyone get stuck on this 1mb value? I mean, like I said earlier, why not 1.2mb, or why not just 1 transaction per block if limiting it is the best? I'm just so confused why the current transactions per second limit became the magic number.

It's arbitrary really. Satoshi actually gave more room than necessary, but then again the fees paid back then were like 0.01.

That's what I was thinking, it seems 1mb was just a nice round number for him to pick at the time.

This is why I can't understand where all this contention is coming from. It seems out of left field for me. I run a software company, which we will be exiting this year (assuming all goes well), and I just can't fathom the stubbornness on the function of this single value that seems totally arbitrary. I would be running analysis, bug testing, etc, every possible iteration of that number. Perhaps even writing a simulation to see how the change of the number would effect network performance, hash rates, probably miner dropout, etc. I've been considering what I will do with my time when I exit my current company, and it seems likely that it will be bitcoin related. And I'm starting to wonder if I should just contribute code directly or work on the analysis side of things. I'd love to submit code but it seems the stubbornness is a harder problem to solve than the technical hurdles

[billyjoeallen]

I don't necessarily disagree with you that there will be people that want more than 21m coins.

An argument like that will never be presented "we want more coins and high inflation for the lolz".

It will be presented as "we want cheap txs".... Arguments like "People want cheap txs, who are you to stop that".... Populist bullshit like "bigger blocks" and the "dangers" of "fullblockalypse".

There is no comparison between a hard fork to raise the blocksize and a hard fork to increase the 21 milion cap on supply. The former is a minor property that almost everyone agrees will need to be changed at some point. I owned Bitcoins for years before I even know there was a max blocksize.  I knew of the 21 MM limit before I bought my first coin.  

A slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

[wachtwoord]

I don't necessarily disagree with you that there will be people that want more than 21m coins.

An argument like that will never be presented "we want more coins and high inflation for the lolz".

It will be presented as "we want cheap txs".... Arguments like "People want cheap txs, who are you to stop that".... Populist bullshit like "bigger blocks" and the "dangers" of "fullblockalypse".

There is no comparison between a hard fork to raise the blocksize and a hard fork to increase the 21 milion cap on supply. The former is a minor property that almost everyone agrees will need to be changed at some point. I owned Bitcoins for years before I even know there was a max blocksize.  I knew of the 21 MM limit before I bought my first coin.  

A slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

Dude increasing the 21 M limit and increasing the block size is the same thing.

[wachtwoord]

So basically you smallblockers are saying you WANT to pay $8/transaction. The road map shows that capacity will only increase at some point in the future when power consumption also increases, maintaining the high cost. 

That's absolutely crazy.  There may be a demand for what amounts to a wire transfer of gold bars, but it's a tiny market compared to payments, remittances, title xfers, micropayments, etc.
 
How secure is the network going to be with all of the fees going to third parties on the layers rather than to the miners? Think about it: when the block reward gets quartered (two halvings), those miners will need those fees or network security will be harmed.

Keeping blocks small will HURT security.

Yes I want to pay $8 per transaction (more even). It's worth the security.

[Fatman3001]

I am still curious why did everyone get stuck on this 1mb value? I mean, like I said earlier, why not 1.2mb, or why not just 1 transaction per block if limiting it is the best? I'm just so confused why the current transactions per second limit became the magic number.

It's arbitrary really. Satoshi actually gave more room than necessary, but then again the fees paid back then were like 0.01.

That's what I was thinking, it seems 1mb was just a nice round number for him to pick at the time.

This is why I can't understand where all this contention is coming from. It seems out of left field for me. I run a software company, which we will be exiting this year (assuming all goes well), and I just can't fathom the stubbornness on the function of this single value that seems totally arbitrary. I would be running analysis, bug testing, etc, every possible iteration of that number. Perhaps even writing a simulation to see how the change of the number would effect network performance, hash rates, probably miner dropout, etc. I've been considering what I will do with my time when I exit my current company, and it seems likely that it will be bitcoin related. And I'm starting to wonder if I should just contribute code directly or work on the analysis side of things. I'd love to submit code but it seems the stubbornness is a harder problem to solve than the technical hurdles

There's plenty of code, there's plenty of stubbornness, there's not enough analysis. The block size problem should have been dealt with two years ago. And if someone had done the legwork back then it would have been done two years ago. The one project trying to do this kind of stuff, ledgerjournal.org, is run by a fairly controversial member of the community. His project needs to be strengthened and there also needs to be different voices on the scene. If you want to make a difference in Bitcoin then this is a good entry point.

[ButtLava]

There's plenty of code, there's plenty of stubbornness, there's not enough analysis. The block size problem should have been dealt with two years ago. And if someone had done the legwork back then it would have been done two years ago. The one project trying to do this kind of stuff, ledgerjournal.org, is run by a fairly controversial member of the community. His project needs to be strengthened and there also needs to be different voices on the scene. If you want to make a difference in Bitcoin then this is a good entry point.

I didn't know about ledgerjournal, thanks.

[hdbuck]

There's plenty of code, there's plenty of stubbornness, there's not enough analysis. The block size problem should have been dealt with two years ago. And if someone had done the legwork back then it would have been done two years ago. The one project trying to do this kind of stuff, ledgerjournal.org, is run by a fairly controversial member of the community. His project needs to be strengthened and there also needs to be different voices on the scene. If you want to make a difference in Bitcoin then this is a good entry point.

I didn't know about ledgerjournal, thanks.

ledgerjournal is run by a charlatan.
bitcoin could not care less about academics circlejerkers

[Elwar]

Just checking in on the block size debate thread. All solved yet?

[valta4065]

I don't necessarily disagree with you that there will be people that want more than 21m coins.

An argument like that will never be presented "we want more coins and high inflation for the lolz".

It will be presented as "we want cheap txs".... Arguments like "People want cheap txs, who are you to stop that".... Populist bullshit like "bigger blocks" and the "dangers" of "fullblockalypse".

There is no comparison between a hard fork to raise the blocksize and a hard fork to increase the 21 milion cap on supply. The former is a minor property that almost everyone agrees will need to be changed at some point. I owned Bitcoins for years before I even know there was a max blocksize.  I knew of the 21 MM limit before I bought my first coin.  

A slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

Dude increasing the 21 M limit and increasing the block size is the same thing.

What? Whaaaaaat?
I'm clearly not aware of that! What are you talking about? What's the link between block size and coins cap?

[ButtLava]

ledgerjournal is run by a charlatan.
bitcoin could not care less about academics circlejerkers

Who is this madman people keep talking about?

[hdbuck]

I don't necessarily disagree with you that there will be people that want more than 21m coins.

An argument like that will never be presented "we want more coins and high inflation for the lolz".

It will be presented as "we want cheap txs".... Arguments like "People want cheap txs, who are you to stop that".... Populist bullshit like "bigger blocks" and the "dangers" of "fullblockalypse".

There is no comparison between a hard fork to raise the blocksize and a hard fork to increase the 21 milion cap on supply. The former is a minor property that almost everyone agrees will need to be changed at some point. I owned Bitcoins for years before I even know there was a max blocksize.  I knew of the 21 MM limit before I bought my first coin.  

A slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

Dude increasing the 21 M limit and increasing the block size is the same thing.

What? Whaaaaaat?
I'm clearly not aware of that! What are you talking about? What's the link between block size and coins cap?

It is called instigating a _precedent_, changing a protocol parameter such as the 21M limit is 1 line of code, just like the blocksize limit.

Anyway, glad to see that such governance coup is impossible and that nobody, not even core can do anything about it.

[yugo23]

I don't necessarily disagree with you that there will be people that want more than 21m coins.

An argument like that will never be presented "we want more coins and high inflation for the lolz".

It will be presented as "we want cheap txs".... Arguments like "People want cheap txs, who are you to stop that".... Populist bullshit like "bigger blocks" and the "dangers" of "fullblockalypse".

There is no comparison between a hard fork to raise the blocksize and a hard fork to increase the 21 milion cap on supply. The former is a minor property that almost everyone agrees will need to be changed at some point. I owned Bitcoins for years before I even know there was a max blocksize.  I knew of the 21 MM limit before I bought my first coin.  

A slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

Dude increasing the 21 M limit and increasing the block size is the same thing.

What? Whaaaaaat?
I'm clearly not aware of that! What are you talking about? What's the link between block size and coins cap?

It is called instigating a _precedent_, changing a protocol parameter such as the 21M limit is 1 line of code, just like the blocksize limit.

Anyway, glad to see that such governance coup is impossible and that nobody, not even core can do anything about it.

Ah ok what he means is not that block size would mean more than 21millions coins but just that both are an important part of btc that shouldn't be changed.

So what do you do about the increasing adoption then? You just stop people from using btc?

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation