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

[adamstgBit]

EVERYONE wants bigger blocks, except for these guys, and it's not because they are all knowing gods and know what's best for us. there are many poeple that understand the nitty gritty details who agree bigger blocks is safe.

From what I saw it seems like bigger block is at least canted by all users. It's the miners who don't want it?

the chinese miner, along with everyone else, were ready for 8MB.

the block size increase has been pushed back for one reason alone, the core dev team deems it unsafe.

who am i to disagree? i'm no one...

but gavin isn't no one, and fucking big chunks of hashing power isn't no one either....


CORE MUST DIE!
they forced our hand, it's them or us....

We have scientific data showing that the network can't handle much more than 3mb right now so yeah.... GTFO

You people seriously need to get out of this little cargocult @ bitcointalk, there's a world out there with science and stuff. It's very cool but admittedly it's harder to figure out than looking at charts all day and posting about moon.  

Did ya'll not read the miners letters basically telling that Classic and their fork YESTERDAY!!!! can go get fukt. Even Jeff Garzik isn't buying this shit.

they change their position as often as i do.

you  probably  have some data showing that smaller miners become handicapped by larger blocks nothing more.

show me this "scientific data"

[Peter R]

..GTFO...this little cargocult...posting about moon... go get fukt...isn't buying this shit.

Your words can't hold back the market, brg444.

[brg444]

they change their position as often as i do.

you  probably  have some data showing that smaller miners become handicapped by larger blocks nothing more.

show me this "scientific data"

Sure, here's one of the papers:

http://fc16.ifca.ai/bitcoin/papers/CDE+16.pdf

Observation 1 (Throughput limit)
Given  the  current  overlay  network and today’s 10 minute average block interval, the block size should not exceed 4MB.
A 4MB block size corresponds to a throughput of at most 27 transactions/sec.
 
Observation 2 (Latency limit)
Given  today’s  overlay  network,  to retain at least 90% effective throughput and fully utilize the bandwidth of the network, the block interval should not be significantly smaller than 12s

There's also the data obtained by Jonathan Toomim from his testnet tests and his survey of Chinese miners.

Like I said, you're so far behind with regards to this stuff you might as well keep concerning yourself with the price and leave the other stuff to competent adults.

We all appreciate your role as a cheerleader, sincerely, we do.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[brg444]

..GTFO...this little cargocult...posting about moon... go get fukt...isn't buying this shit.

Your words can't hold back the market, brg444.

Hey Peter! Still alive?

How's that BU going? How many nodes now? 10? 15?

Yes yes, you'll get your 2MB chain, but..... not tonight, dear

[Dekker3D]

All we have to do now is to ride the wave as the price seems to continue to rise slowly but surely this time around. Hope that there'll be no dramas that will bring the price back to below $400.

[adamstgBit]

they change their position as often as i do.

you  probably  have some data showing that smaller miners become handicapped by larger blocks nothing more.

show me this "scientific data"

Sure, here's one of the papers:

http://fc16.ifca.ai/bitcoin/papers/CDE+16.pdf

Observation 1 (Throughput limit)
Given  the  current  overlay  network and today’s 10 minute average block interval, the block size should not exceed 4MB.
A 4MB block size corresponds to a throughput of at most 27 transactions/sec.
 
Observation 2 (Latency limit)
Given  today’s  overlay  network,  to retain at least 90% effective throughput and fully utilize the bandwidth of the network, the block interval should not be significantly smaller than 12s

There's also the data obtained by Jonathan Toomim from his testnet tests and his survey of Chinese miners.

Like I said, you're so far behind with regards to this stuff you might as well keep concerning yourself with the price and leave the other stuff to competent adults.

We all appreciate your role as a cheerleader, sincerely, we do.

don't you geniuses has a better forum to chat on? or did you get kicked out for being such a dick?

We assume that it is desired to maintain nearly the current degree of decentralization,

fucking easy to make up BS data when you start off with BS assumptions, what excalty this line means and how it effects the data is unclear.

[brg444]

don't you geniuses has a better forum to chat on? or did you get kicked out for being such a dick?

I do but I like to come in here once in a while to hurt your feelings. 

[DaRude]

EVERYONE wants bigger blocks, except for these guys, and it's not because they are all knowing gods and know what's best for us. there are many poeple that understand the nitty gritty details who agree bigger blocks is safe.

From what I saw it seems like bigger block is at least canted by all users. It's the miners who don't want it?

A split at fork (having two blockchains) would be detrimental to the price. Miners know that and will try to avoid a full out war unless they're 99% confident that majority will follow. But portion of miners profit comes from the fees and with the halfing coming up that portion will get even more significant. So naturally they're bias for bigger blocks, as that means more profit from fees.

Coinbase and the like already have their business plan set up and want to show returns yesterday. So they want everything and right MEOW!!

Majority of users are also too short sighted. They want to be able to send $0.05 of internet magic money to each other and feel that BTC in the current implementation must be able to support it. Since it's coming to it's capacity the "logical" thing is to upgrade to new bigger capacity version like they do with their phones and computers.

Core devs are the geek engineers and are the ones that need to be 99.9% sure that updates don't introduce more attack vectors, make BTC more centralized etc... Mining pools are driven by market profits so it's not something  that can easily be tested in the lab.

tl;dr
Engineers-we need more time to make sure it won't blow up.
Managers-we have delivery deadlines, this beta release should be good enough and we'll just patch it later.
Early users/consumers-WTF my iPhone 19c is out of memory, oh apple just released 20s with double the space time to buy more.    

[adamstgBit]

don't you geniuses has a better forum to chat on? or did you get kicked out for being such a dick?

I do but I like to come in here once in a while to hurt your feelings. 

i'm honored.

[DaRude]

Boom BTC3K market buy on Finex. Been too long since i've seen those.

[brg444]

Boom BTC3K market buy on Finex. Been too long since i've seen those.

FOMO 

[adamstgBit]

http://fc16.ifca.ai/bitcoin/papers/CDE+16.pdf

Our results suggest that reparameterization
of block size and intervals should be viewed only as a first
increment toward achieving next-generation, high-load blockchain protocols...

even the geniuses want bigger blocks. but there really smart and understand its only the first step.

basically what i've been saying all along...

i don't shoot for keeping requirement so low so i end up with higher numbers for abs max block size.

wtv man, why is todd not on the same page?

[becoin]

Big blocktards are very disappointed. Bitcoin continues to appreciate despite their efforts.

[Peter R]

Hey Peter! Still alive?

How many nodes now? 10? 15?

We now have over 20% of the nodes supporting 2MB or greater.  XT, BU and Classic have cooperated to ensure that all three implementations remain compatible.  Nodes will follow the longest chain and XT/BU/Classic miners will flag support for the 2MB upgrade.  

How's that BU going?

For the last several months, we've been focussing on the Classic launch.  The miners were more comfortable with this option, as it will allow them to more easily synchronize the block size limit increase to 2MB.

That being said, we will soon be releasing Xthin block propagation under the BU label.  Xthin reduces the propagation impedance by over an order of magnitude.  This is particularly relevant to a good paper recently published:



The authors estimate that even given today's crude block propagation, 4MB is a reasonable block size (IMO using very conservative reasoning):



Further, they claim that the bottleneck is presently block propagation to nodes.  Xthin blocks are expected to drop the propagation impedance by over an order of magnitude, facilitating a further order of magnitude increase in block sizes.  

Combined with subchains, and already we have the technology required to scale--on chain--to over 100 MB blocks.

The future is bright.  All we need to do now is decentralize away from Blockstream and Core.  

Yes yes, you'll get your 2MB chain....

We'll be getting much more than that.  But it is good to see that the back peddling has begun

[hdbuck]

bitcoin is going to the fucking moon!





1MB fuck yeah!

[adamstgBit]

all in

[adamstgBit]

..GTFO...this little cargocult...posting about moon... go get fukt...isn't buying this shit.

Your words can't hold back the market, brg444.

Hey Peter! Still alive?

How's that BU going? How many nodes now? 10? 15?

Yes yes, you'll get your 2MB chain, but..... not tonight, dear

says who?

can some PLEASE FUCKING MAKE AN OFFICIAL STATEMENT

[brg444]

The future is bright.  All we need to do now is decentralize away from Blockstream and Core.  

Yes yes Peter  Maybe if you wish for it hard enough it'll come true one day.

Ever thought of writing Santa Claus about it?

[marcus_of_augustus]

says who?

can some PLEASE FUCKING MAKE AN OFFICIAL STATEMENT

... it's decentralised, there are no fucking officials.

And all praise to Satoshi for that ... watch out for charismatic leaders that try to speak from authority (or produce pretty but misleading 'official-looking' gifs).