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

[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

[yugo23]

Coin



Explanation

BIM! Under the 400 again! I knew it!!!

400 is jsut a too strong ceiling, can't be broken so fast ^^

[JayJuanGee]

Fuck me.  It's hard to imagine a worse call.  Well, the market has spoken and the market always gets the last word.

I'm glad that you are willing to admit your bad call;  however, I always assert that we can really never know for sure the shortest term price direction unless we happen to be a whale that is able to push it with 10k or more coins  (and/or equivalent in dollars maybe on bitstamp?).

On the other hand, BTC prices had been lingering for so long in the upper $300s after the Hearn fiasco.. and then attempts at pushing it below $350 had really not been going anywhere... at least not yet... and also people seem to be kind of less convinced that there is any real material issue that is dragging down bitcoin as Hearn was arguing.... I mean seeing through the apparent propaganda...

So far this uptrend has not been on very high relative volume (at least from my perspective), so that causes me to believe that it could be put to a halt or reversed with some voluminous dumping (maybe 10k coins would be sufficient?)

That was way more than a 10,000 coin pump. The markets are connected, so pumping on one or two exchanges isn't enough if the others don't follow.  No, the market clearly believes that the miners will be able to convince and/or pressure Core into including a hardfork in the roadmap. I am nearly not so optimistic, but as Keynes said, markets can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent.

You may be correct that it will take more than 10K coins to stop a pump or reverse it, but when there is low volume, it seems to be much more possible to get such a stop of the pump or a reversal with a smaller number of coins..

 I was just using 10k as a "for instance," and I understand that the amount of coins needed will vary case by case.

[bitebits]

pretty awesome that bitcoin resisted human induced inflation.

That's not even close to an accurate description of what happened. Cripplecore is resisting taking some armor off the truck to allow more cargo capacity. As a result we have an $8/transaction network.  Good luck winning any races with that.

If you had 10 MB blocks tomorrow morning, you'd still need 0.8$ in fees, per tx, to replenish lost subsidy income.

People are currently paying 0$ to 0.03$ (for first block inclusion) while "blocks are full", under the current 1 MB scheme. With the current fees, even with 100 MB blocks, and them being full, you'd still be unable to pay the subsidy loss (you'd need 0.08$ per tx). So you'd need something like 250MB blocks with the current fees. This makes it pretty obvious and simple: Fees have to rise.

If fees don't rise, then miners bail out and the network loses security. OR, some new "forkers" will come and say something retarded like "we want free txs forevah, so let us inflate the money quantity instead... why limit btc to 21mn coins? That's ...crippling to BTC... yeah, let's uncripple it by issuing a few hundred million more... we don't want to pay high tx fees you know... we prefer inflation".

Who gets the fees?

Who decides which transactions gets on the block?

Indeed. Just follow the money, it usually answers many questions.

[conspirosphere.tk]

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

Anyone can adopt bitcoin by paying the damned fees at market price.
Shills, saboteurs, trolls, academics, and useful idiots are invited to fork off.
Clear enough?

[Dekker3D]

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?

Bitcoin will still be there and usable only that it will stop from increasing in volume. Usability wise, bitcoin is not being used in a major way yet. Most of the coins are kept and simply traded with USD/BTC. The increase in demand while the supply is not will make the bitcoin price go up but that won't happen in the near future yet so there are so many things that could still happen.