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

[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.

[adamstgBit]

just popping for an update if anyone cares...holy fuck what a day, moved out and painted the rooms white ( finished at 11:30PM  ), looking forward to having a tenent!

Crazy yoyo action in the 440-430 range has me feeling bullish

Plus a fortune cookie told me everything was going to be alright, better than alright!

WOOT WOOT

TO THE MOOOOOON

┗(°0°)┛

[Cconvert2G36]

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

https://tradeblock.com/bitcoin/

forkers gotta derp.

Yo hdbuck,

You finally get some success in building The Realest Bitcoin (client)?

They totally weren't making fun of you after you left neither...  

[Andre#]

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.

Exactly. I'm amazed so few people understand free markets. Did so many people grew up under communism and feel nostalgic about it?

[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.  

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

I very specifically and intentionally did not do that.

pub·lic good
noun
1.
ECONOMICS
a commodity or service that is provided without profit to all members of a society, either by the government or a private individual or organization.
"a conviction that library informational services are a public good, not a commercial commodity"

You are conflating a qualitative and quantitative limit on transactions. YOU are the one confusing "free as in beer" and "free as in freedom".  A $10 remittance to an impoverished family member may be more important than a $1000 dice bet by a millionaire due to marginal utility. It may or may not be. That isn't for me or you to determine.  By forcing one of those two transactions off the network (because fees do not increase capacity), you are giving rich people an artificial advantage over poor people in addition to the natural advantages they already posses.   You've turned Bitcoin into just another tool of oppression.

Because Bitcoin is a public good, and because the Law of Marginal Utility applies to money just like any other commodity, an artificial fee market amounts to a regressive tax. You've turned Bitcoin into just another tool of oppression.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[Cconvert2G36]

-snip-
Because Bitcoin is a public good, and because the Law of Marginal Utility applies to money just like any other commodity, an artificial fee market amounts to a regressive tax. You've turned Bitcoin into just another tool of oppression.

Bitcoin isn't a public good. It is not provided without profit to all members of society...

Space to include your transaction is a product/service, and it is provided by private companies, for a profit, either directly or indirectly.

I get the gist of where you're trying to go, but it's just not working, try again.

[Fatman3001]

3.5million BTC stuck in mempool.

All spam

[Cconvert2G36]

3.5million BTC stuck in mempool.

All spam

Of course it's not all spam. But >1/5 of all BTC waiting for a block? Nah, you know about tx based on unconfirmed inputs...

If I had to hazard a guess... this is the big blocker version of nuking the ip's of classic nodes.

[OR... if your lead foil is thick enough... the small blockers doing exactly the opposite of what you'd think they'd do after seeing the big blockers ddos themselves.]

[Fatman3001]

3.5million BTC stuck in mempool.

All spam

Of course it's not all spam. But >1/5 of all BTC waiting for a block? Nah, you know about tx based on unconfirmed inputs...

If I had to hazard a guess... this is the big blocker version of nuking the ip's of classic nodes.

It is what it is until proven otherwise.

[billyjoeallen]

-snip-
Because Bitcoin is a public good, and because the Law of Marginal Utility applies to money just like any other commodity, an artificial fee market amounts to a regressive tax. You've turned Bitcoin into just another tool of oppression.

Bitcoin isn't a public good. It is not provided without profit to all members of society...

Space to include your transaction is a product, and it is provided by private companies, for a profit, either directly or indirectly.

I get the gist of where you're trying to go, but it's just not working, try again.

There is no direct profit in running a node. It is a concentrated cost for which there is a distributed benefit.
Satoshi didn't sell the white paper. He gave it to us. We do not pay the code developers. They are volunteers. 

A public square is a public good, no matter how many hotdog and snow cone vendors operate there.  Miners are in it for profits, just like the construction company that is contracted to build a public road. Doesn't negate the fact that the road is a public good. Neither does commercial traffic on the road. This is just a definition in economics. 

Space to include your transaction is a resource, like water, that may or may not be a commodity depending on the circumstances.

[JayJuanGee]

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

Yep.   The more we read the various "creative" bullshit coming off of BJA's keyboard, the more we must come to realize that someone must be paying him to come up with such levels of bullshit that his employer believes that even some people are going to buy into such stupidity and misdescriptions.... Yeah, let's just fill up the various bitcoin talk threads with reams and reams of repetition and if we can a few posters to believe it, then even they are going to start to repeat our nonsense.

[Cconvert2G36]

-snip-
Because Bitcoin is a public good, and because the Law of Marginal Utility applies to money just like any other commodity, an artificial fee market amounts to a regressive tax. You've turned Bitcoin into just another tool of oppression.

Bitcoin isn't a public good. It is not provided without profit to all members of society...

Space to include your transaction is a product, and it is provided by private companies, for a profit, either directly or indirectly.

I get the gist of where you're trying to go, but it's just not working, try again.

There is no direct profit in running a node. It is a concentrated cost for which there is a distributed benefit.
Satoshi didn't sell the white paper. He gave it to us. We do not pay the code developers. They are volunteers.  

Non-mining-nodes are not charities, they are a secure and somewhat private method to interact with the network. Some are also run because the admin has an interest in the overall health of the network and its potential peers. Self-interested participants, not volunteers at the Children's Hospital. I won't be so uncharitable as to say that their main role is that of a dude standing at the toll booth, deciding whether or not to pass your toll to the toll collector... but there's an element of that.

Mark my words, miners will employ their own developers, just like Blockstream, who beat them to the punch...

A public square is a public good, no matter how many hotdog and snow cone vendors operate there.  Miners are in it for profits, just like the construction company that is contracted to build a public road. Doesn't negate the fact that the road is a public good. Neither does commercial traffic on the road. This is just a definition in economics.  

Miners aren't construction companies, their job isn't done after laying the 'crete. They are toll road operators, they (should) choose the toll prices and provide security along the road on which you're a travellin'.

Space to include your transaction is a resource, like water, that may or may not be a commodity depending on the circumstances.

Blockspace is a commodity, there are other providers of somewhat similar commodities that you may choose to satisfy your needs and desires, but this not public square here for you to urinate in, unless they let you.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[billyjoeallen]

-snip-
Because Bitcoin is a public good, and because the Law of Marginal Utility applies to money just like any other commodity, an artificial fee market amounts to a regressive tax. You've turned Bitcoin into just another tool of oppression.

Bitcoin isn't a public good. It is not provided without profit to all members of society...

Space to include your transaction is a product, and it is provided by private companies, for a profit, either directly or indirectly.

I get the gist of where you're trying to go, but it's just not working, try again.

There is no direct profit in running a node. It is a concentrated cost for which there is a distributed benefit.
Satoshi didn't sell the white paper. He gave it to us. We do not pay the code developers. They are volunteers.  

Non-mining-nodes are not charities, they are a secure and somewhat private method to interact with the network. Some are also run because the admin has an interest in the overall health of the network and its potential peers. Self-interested participants, not volunteers at the Children's Hospital. I won't be so uncharitable to say that their main role is that of a dude standing at the toll booth, deciding whether or not to pass your toll to the toll collector... but there's an element of that.

Mark my words, miners will employ their own developers, just like Blockstream, who beat them to the punch...

A public square is a public good, no matter how many hotdog and snow cone vendors operate there.  Miners are in it for profits, just like the construction company that is contracted to build a public road. Doesn't negate the fact that the road is a public good. Neither does commercial traffic on the road. This is just a definition in economics.  

Miners aren't construction companies, their job isn't done after laying the 'crete. They are toll road operators, they (should) choose the toll prices and provide security along the road on which you're a travellin'.

Space to include your transaction is a resource, like water, that may or may not be a commodity depending on the circumstances.

Blockspace is a commodity, there are other providers of somewhat similar commodities that you may choose to satisfy your needs and desires, but this not public square here for you to urinate in, unless they let you.

Everybody is self-interested, even charity hospital volunteers and philanthropists. The discipline of economics uses very specific definitions, precisely so economists won't waste time in stupid arguments like this but can move on to more substantive things. You are not making an economic argument. You are making a philosophical argument. I am not even remotely interested in engaging in that. I don't want to re-invent the wheel or take the time to learn some Objectivist secret code words.

An open-source, permissionless network is a public good, regardless of who pays for it or who profits from it. This isn't my opinion. This is simply a classification in the field of political economy. It's not a classification category I just made up or tweaked the definition for my own ends. If you don't like the terms economists use, then don't use them, but you can't say that they are wrong. A term means what people agree it means, what people use it to mean. You can try an tell a biologist that an elephant isn't a mammal because it has a trunk and he'll just look at you funny. It's not even coherent enough to be wrong.