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

[bargainbin]

...actual blockchain use is low and the rest of the free space is topped off with spam. That's why fees don't rise. If every tx was legitimate...

What are the objective criteria by which any given transaction can be classified as being either: a) spam; or b) legitimate?

I have been asking this for months of many who like to kick around the term 'spam'. Many of them repeatedly. Perhaps even you? But to date, I have received exactly zero responsive replies.

Spam includes any unwanted or unnecessary transactions which impose a burden upon the network.

Unwanted and Unnecessary can be defined as tx which are deliberately made to attack the network and hold no purpose other than to cause disruption or bloat. Spam is also defined as any tx that pays far below the necessary threshold of fees that would be considered the norm during a given moment. This can change with time but is always quite distinguishable as seen here. ...

Didn't someone define pornography in loosely similar terms? "Serves no purpose but to subvert; A decent person knows it when he sees it?"

1000 sequential 10 satoshi transactions from a dice site -- not spam.
1000 sequential 10 satoshi transactions from a bad_man -- spamz.
Only hope you don't code like you post.

P.S.
>any tx that pays far below the necessary threshold of fees that would be considered the norm during a given moment

See the colors? Avoid those, because meaningless and open to interpretation. Again, if you code anything like you write...

[Cconvert2G36]

...actual blockchain use is low and the rest of the free space is topped off with spam. That's why fees don't rise. If every tx was legitimate...

What are the objective criteria by which any given transaction can be classified as being either: a) spam; or b) legitimate?

I have been asking this for months of many who like to kick around the term 'spam'. Many of them repeatedly. Perhaps even you? But to date, I have received exactly zero responsive replies.

Spam includes any unwanted or unnecessary transactions which impose a burden upon the network.

Unwanted and Unnecessary can be defined as tx which are deliberately made to attack the network and hold no purpose other than to cause disruption or bloat. Spam is also defined as any tx that pays far below the necessary threshold of fees that would be considered the norm during a given moment. This can change with time but is always quite distinguishable as seen here:

https://bitcoinfees.21.co/#delay

In the chart above you can see :

21-40 Satoshi's Per Byte is arguable
0-20 Satoshi's Per Byte is clearly spam  

Now it is not for us to decide for a miner if they want to subsidize or process spam on the network regardless of any externalities it imposes upon all full nodes permanently and the network  as a whole. One goal of a fee market is to eventually incentivize miners to begin to slowly value tx fees rather than merely the block reward which means tx fees need to increase to 5-10 usd per tx eventually once block reward is practically non-existent. Simply increasing the blocksize will never produce enough volume to compensate for these fees as it doesn't scale like payment channels do which can than pass on really high tx fees onto miners for a large set of aggregated txs as a settlement.

What the actual... That's exactly what you're advocating tho. If miners were setting soft limits and the malicious miner DoS limit was well above actual tx's [like it was for 5 years(!)]... we wouldn't be arguing about anything, the fee market would be determined along miner's actual supply curve. Core Devs have morphed into economic Central Planners with their stalling... and not for no reason, they want to sell the medicine for our "disease".

[Cconvert2G36]

Looks like the HK meeting might not be the 80% mining monolith we thought it was... cat fights on tweeters.

[BitUsher]

What the actual... That's exactly what you're advocating tho. If miners were setting soft limits and the malicious miner DoS limit was well above actual tx's [like it was for 5 years(!)]... we wouldn't be arguing about anything, the fee market would be determined along miner's actual supply curve. Core Devs have morphed into economic Central Planners with their stalling... and not for no reason, they want to sell the medicine for our "disease".

There needs to be a balance between the mining "central planners" with the developer "central planners" with the user "central planners" and the... ect... with defining the constraints to insure our network is secure and robust rather than remove all constraints and allow any individual group of "central planners" to have too much control. Thus miners should have some choice and control , but not complete control as there is a dynamic and overlapping consensus structure here.

Now you can see how the term "central planners" isn't very appropriate to use when I describe the balance of power dynamics.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

^^
And you'll probably not deliver on the wrenches or the Seagull outboard, and I'll stand there with my Bimmer in pieces & dick in hand.
Just like the average Bitcoin enthusiast, after transact with fellow pedophiles Bitcoin enthusiasts via the medium of Bitcoin.
Because I can see it clear as day already, don't lie to me -- I know exactly how it's gonna go down.

I promise to bring a wrench.

[bargainbin]

^^
And you'll probably not deliver on the wrenches or the Seagull outboard, and I'll stand there with my Bimmer in pieces & dick in hand.
Just like the average Bitcoin enthusiast, after transact with fellow pedophiles Bitcoin enthusiasts via the medium of Bitcoin.
Because I can see it clear as day already, don't lie to me -- I know exactly how it's gonna go down.

I promise to bring a wrench.

Yeah, from a Seagull outboard & a set of wrenches down to a *promised* wrench.
In Two Weeks^TM. Another promise; another lie
Blockchain Technology, is there anyone you can't corrupt?

@BitUsher You really have no idea what a centrally planned economy is, do you?

[Cconvert2G36]

What the actual... That's exactly what you're advocating tho. If miners were setting soft limits and the malicious miner DoS limit was well above actual tx's [like it was for 5 years(!)]... we wouldn't be arguing about anything, the fee market would be determined along miner's actual supply curve. Core Devs have morphed into economic Central Planners with their stalling... and not for no reason, they want to sell the medicine for our "disease".

There needs to be a balance between the mining "central planners" with the developer "central planners" with the user "central planners" and the... ect... with defining the constraints to insure our network is secure and robust rather than remove all constraints and allow any individual group of "central planners" to have too much control. Thus miners should have some choice and control , but not complete control as there is a dynamic and overlapping consensus structure here.

Now you can see how the term "central planners" isn't very appropriate to use when I describe the balance of power dynamics.

No.

The miners are economic competitors, with each other, to serve their customers (users), with a product (blockspace). The mines are their factories. A bigger mine means more potential blockspace will be theirs to sell.

Dev teams create software that may be chosen, and used by miners, or it may not be. They compete with other dev teams. They are not an infallible priesthood, and if they make decisions that harm the best interests of the miners, they will be routed around [eventually...].

Miners must weigh all variables when deciding how much blockspace to produce... will it damage the decentralized nature of the network? Will this huge block become stale when a chain of smaller blocks supplants it? Will enough customers want to pay my minimum fee?

Satoshi designed the system based on free market incentives, the consensus mechanism is here:



As it stands, Core devs have their mitts on a lever... they are deciding a production quota. That's central planning. Something that used to be a good deal less popular around these parts.

Your solo solar mine, and now this, leads me to question how much you really understand about markets, economics, and Bitcoin.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[BitUsher]

The miners are economic competitors, with each other, to serve their customers (users), with a product (blockspace). The mines are their factories. A bigger mine means more potential blockspace will be theirs to sell.

No , users are not miners customers and blockspace is certainly not a product. There is a power dynamic between Users , miners, merchants, exchanges and developers. Your analogy is a horrible one as it ignores that the "product" isn't something that is created by miners in a "factory" but something created by the combined efforts of users , developers, and miners. Remember, Bitcoin is the longest valid PoW chain and developers and users (using economic full nodes) define what is and isn't valid, and not directly the act of mining. (although miners are users themselves so fill 2 roles)

Dev teams create software that may be chosen, and used by miners, or it may not be. They compete with other dev teams. They are not an infallible priesthood, and if they make decisions that harm the best interests of the miners, they will be routed around [eventually...]. or immediately , any user can veto a developer instantly and "vote" simply by inaction or choosing another implementation among many

Agreed.

Miners must weigh all variables when deciding how much blockspace to produce... will it damage the decentralized nature of the network? Will this huge block become stale when a chain of smaller blocks supplants it? Will enough customers want to pay my minimum fee?

No, Miners , users, merchants, exchanges, developers all decide on the blockspace together. Miners don't have a monopoly upon this vote.... their decision can instantly be disregarded if they betray the economic majority or will of the users.

As it stands, Core devs have their mitts on a lever... they are deciding a production quota. That's central planning. Something that used to be a good deal less popular around these parts.

This is dishonest as it ignores the users and miners who agree with Core Devs(its not just developers that decided upon this "production quota") and misleads others into thinking developers have any control over users besides one that is built upon trust and respect. The moment one disapproves of an implementation or group of developers they can instantly fire them or ignore them without the developers having any means of control over them. There is no "lever" the devs control... everyone has to actively choose to upgrade or vote for the devs, and can fire the devs at any moment by the simple task of not upgrading.

[bargainbin]

The miners are economic competitors, with each other, to serve their customers (users), with a product (blockspace). The mines are their factories. A bigger mine means more potential blockspace will be theirs to sell.

No , users are not miners customers and blockspace is certainly not a product. There is a power dynamic between Users , miners, merchants, exchanges and developers. Your analogy is a horrible one as it ignores that the "product" isn't something that is created by miners in a "factory" but something created by the combined efforts of users , developers, and miners. Remember, Bitcoin is the longest valid PoW chain and developers and users (using economic full nodes) define what is and isn't valid, and not directly the act of mining. (although miners are users themselves so fill 2 roles)

So by requiring their tx confirmed, users contribute to this great product we call the Bitcoine ecosystem (alternate spelling: echo system).
I'm starting to understand... Let me try!

The butcher's customers aren't customers, that's a horrible analogy. The butcher, the cow, the guy that drives a bolt through the cow's brain at the slaughterhouse, and the woman that gives the captive bolt guy head -- they all interact in this complex interrelated power dynamic, thus creating the product -- that is to say, the market itself.
Am I doing it rite?

*Although like the miners who may be users themselves, a butcher could also be a user by buying his own meat, just as the captive bolt guy can beat his own meat, thus removing the only woman from our equation, which leaves us with two guys, a dead bolt, and a knife -- a sausage fest without any obvious winners, which is to say ...Bitcoin.

>[miners'] decision can instantly be disregarded if they betray the economic majority or will of the users.
That is to say, if the miners are discovered to be Enemies of the People.
Both "Enemy of the People" & "Economic Majority" are self-explanatory, and only the worst sort of an Enemy of the People would demand a definition for ether one.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[Cconvert2G36]

The miners are economic competitors, with each other, to serve their customers (users), with a product (blockspace). The mines are their factories. A bigger mine means more potential blockspace will be theirs to sell.

No , users are not miners customers and blockspace is certainly not a product. There is a power dynamic between Users , miners, merchants, exchanges and developers. Your analogy is a horrible one as it ignores that the "product" isn't something that is created by miners in a "factory" but something created by the combined efforts of users , developers, and miners. Remember, Bitcoin is the longest valid PoW chain and developers and users (using economic full nodes) define what is and isn't valid, and not directly the act of mining. (although miners are users themselves so fill 2 roles)

So by requiring their tx confirmed, users contribute to this great product we call the Bitcoine ecosystem (alternate spelling: echo system).
I'm starting to understand... Let me try!

The butcher's customers aren't customers, that's a horrible analogy. The butcher, the cow, the guy that drives a bolt through the cow's brain at the slaughterhouse, and the woman that gives the captive bolt guy head -- they all interact in this complex interrelated power dynamic, thus creating the product -- that is to say, the market itself.
Am I doing it rite?

I was grudgingly about to bang out this whole thing about God, the chapel organist, and a landscaping company... thanks.

[billyjoeallen]

If we took the currency issue out of this conflict, it would look something like this:

Chipherpunk A builds a permanent immutable database and wants to charge people to write to it because he doesn't want it to fill up with crap.

Cipherpunk B builds a permanent immutable database and he lets anybody write anything to it because that's what free speech really is.

Smallblockers are the censors who see themselves as the guardians of free speech. They want to guard free speech with censorship.  If you elect yourself the arbiter of what is and is not spam, you are practicing censorship.  If you charge people for writing on a public wall you are a censor.

I think smallblockers see themselves more as publishers, people who have not only the right but the responsibility to ensure only quality things get printed, given the real cost of printing. This would be true if Bitcoin was a private good, but it is not. It is a public good, in the economic sense.

Smallblockers are just another form of censorship for crypto to overcome, either by routing around Core or routing around Bitcoin. 

[marcus_of_augustus]

If we took the currency issue out of this conflict, it would look something like this:

Chipherpunk A builds a permanent immutable database and wants to charge people to write to it because he doesn't want it to fill up with crap.

Cipherpunk B builds a permanent immutable database and he lets anybody write anything to it because that's what free speech really is.

Smallblockers are the censors who see themselves as the guardians of free speech. They want to guard free speech with censorship.  If you elect yourself the arbiter of what is and is not spam, you are practicing censorship.  If you charge people for writing on a public wall you are a censor.

I think smallblockers see themselves more as publishers, people who have not only the right but the responsibility to ensure only quality things get printed, given the real cost of printing. This would be true if Bitcoin was a private good, but it is not. It is a public good, in the economic sense.

Smallblockers are just another form of censorship for crypto to overcome, either by routing around Core or routing around Bitcoin. 

tl;dr govvy troll muddies the waters by mixing up "free as in beer" and "free as in freedom" into a witches brew of psy-op misinformation

[bargainbin]

...
tl;dr govvy troll muddies the waters by mixing up "free as in beer" and "free as in freedom" into a witches brew of psy-op misinformation

Lessee... "govvy," "troll," "free beer" & "psy-op(s)."

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[bitcoinboy12]

It seems btc price is back to being stable. Let's hope that this will be the new price range for the next few weeks or so before another breakout is going to happen.

[jbreher]

Spam includes any unwanted or unnecessary transactions which impose a burden upon the network.

Unwanted and Unnecessary can be defined as tx which are deliberately made to attack the network and hold no purpose other than to cause disruption or bloat. Spam is also defined as any tx that pays far below the necessary threshold of fees that would be considered the norm during a given moment. This can change with time but is always quite distinguishable as seen here:

https://bitcoinfees.21.co/#delay

In the chart above you can see :

21-40 Satoshi's Per Byte is arguable
0-20 Satoshi's Per Byte is clearly spam  

Now it is not for us to decide for a miner if they want to subsidize or process spam on the network regardless of any externalities it imposes upon all full nodes permanently and the network  as a whole. 

Thanks for trying. But your definition seems to be bereft of any ability to classify transactions as spam or legitimate. It is situational dependent. Changing by the moment. Under your definition,  a transaction that would be spam at one point in time may not be spam at another point in time, and vice versa.

It may be that you wish to classify something as either: a) below some level of satoshis per byte; or b) above some level of satoshis per byte. Which might be meaningful in our system. But that is not spam vs legitimate. Further, your fellow travelers are distinctly attaching a value of 'bad' to those transactions they deem 'spam', and 'not bad' to those transactions they deem 'legitimate'. Even if your metric was not variable from moment to moment, it does not fit into this framework.

Until recently, a transaction with zero transaction fees attached would have been privileged if it destroyed a sufficient number of bitcoin-days. Under your definition, such a transaction is spam, regardless of the economic value of the transaction - even Satoshi moving his fabled nut. I submit to you that such a definition is at least pejorative.

But hey - its 'a' definition.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[hdbuck]

yeah baby, 2,5 million BTC in memepool with a total fee of 6 BTC!

https://tradeblock.com/bitcoin/

forkers gotta derp.