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

[JayJuanGee]

Can't wait until small block retards are proved to be irresponsible idiots by empirical data points.

We should make a list of them, so in the future we will never forget who they were and humiliate them forever.

There's no such thing as a small block retard.

People have ideas and inclinations based on information that they have, and there's a lot of misinformation out there regarding what's even going on with the block chain; how much is spam, whether an increase is currently justified and/or wether segregated witness will take care of some if not all of this spamming blockage to the extent blockage exists and if not what would be better additional solutions going forward once segregated witness is in place.

[BldSwtTrs]

Can't wait until small block retards are proved to be irresponsible idiots by empirical data points.

We should make a list of them, so in the future we will never forget who they were and humiliate them forever.

There's no such thing as a small block retard.

People have ideas and inclinations based on information that they have, and there's a lot of misinformation out there regarding what's even going on with the block chain; how much is spam, whether an increase is currently justified and/or wether segregated witness will take care of some if not all of this spamming blockage to the extent blockage exists and if not what would be better additional solutions going forward once segregated witness is in place.

Yeah people have different ideas and most of them are dumb ideas.

That's why it's important to relie on the empirical facts to judge who are right and who are the fucking irresponsible retards. It's darwinian selection. It's a process way more efficient than pointless debating.

So now we are going to see that full block are not good at all and see who were the dangerous retards who thought full blocks were somehow cool.

It's like the bolcheviks. They have ideas and they thought they were right. They talked badly of people who disagree with them. Then the testing of their ideas prove that they were huge retards and that they had their head full shit. Gmaxwell and Adam Back are the Lenin of their time. The sooner the market route around them, the better.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

[ButtLava]

I don't think the traditional definition of spam really works for bitcoin. Since we don't (generally) have enough information to know why any given transaction was sent, it could just as easily be ignorance or malice that it was with too low a fee. "Spam" generally has an ulterior motive, such as advertising, or installing a trojan on your machine, to get your bank account info, nigerian prince wants to give you money, etc, which is much easier to determine in email or chats just based on the content. But with bitcoin there isn't any content to analyse other than the transaction itself.

In an engineer mindset, it makes more sense to just avoid words like spam altogether, and just label every transaction with a % probability of being included in the next block. Then you just have a useful number, instead of terms which mean different things to different people. Label transactions with numbers, not words, as the blockchain does not care what words we use. Then you can decide yourself if you think everything below a 3% chance is spam, or maybe you think everything below 90% is spam, doesn't matter as long as we have a probability baseline.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[Fatman3001]

[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.]

I understand that is the current wisdom. Nobody is attacking each other, just themselves. Nerds are shit at warfare.

[yugo23]

Can't wait until small block retards are proved to be irresponsible idiots by empirical data points.

We should make a list of them, so in the future we will never forget who they were and humiliate them forever.

There's no such thing as a small block retard.

People have ideas and inclinations based on information that they have, and there's a lot of misinformation out there regarding what's even going on with the block chain; how much is spam, whether an increase is currently justified and/or wether segregated witness will take care of some if not all of this spamming blockage to the extent blockage exists and if not what would be better additional solutions going forward once segregated witness is in place.

Yeah people have different ideas and most of them are dumb ideas.

That's why it's important to relie on the empirical facts to judge who are right and who are the fucking irresponsible retards. It's darwinian selection. It's a process way more efficient than pointless debating.

So now we are going to see that full block are not good at all and see who were the dangerous retards who thought full blocks were somehow cool.

It's like the bolcheviks. They have ideas and they thought they were right. They talked badly of people who disagree with them. Then the testing of their ideas prove that they were huge retards and that they had their head full shit. Gmaxwell and Adam Back are the Lenin of their time. The sooner the market route around them, the better.

It seems to me you have a very precise idea of your own position at least.

I don't have such brutal and clear opinion on this issue. And from the grasp of complexity I was able to see, it seems impossible for me to have a clear point of view of the situation as we're still lacking data.

Yeah small blocks have problems, but what do you want? Bigger and bigger blocks? You do realize that in order to scale the Visa transactions we would need 800GB blocks... Seems complicated to me...

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

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...  

 

[BitUsher]

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.

Why can't definitions be relative and conceptual instead of static?

A precise definition of spam has to include negative connotation, and value judgements will naturally shift over time.

Exactly.

----------------------------------------------

Looks like we likely found one of the "spammers" attacking the network -
This isn't behavior that is typical from a tumbler or mixer.

https://twitter.com/DataTranslator/status/704579281507258368

1KNCgSJVHg3W5hMCyGeRA1vBiPn9Vi4qXt is been sending coins to itself since the 28th, no signs of stopping.

and another

https://twitter.com/DataTranslator/status/704612433869021184

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

Looks like we likely found one of the "spammers" attacking the network -

Thats just one of the sources.  

I thought Core was immune to dDos?

edit:  Ah, I see you are updating your post. 

[BitUsher]

I thought Core was immune to dDos?

There is no such thing as being immune to DDOS , but there are multiple ways of handling it rather than both temporarily and permanently externalizing the costs on the whole network. 3 pennies per tx doesn't pay for these externalities as the true cost per tx is between 5-10usd.

Right now the fee market is handling the ddos. There are other methods* being suggested as well like -

plan a) limit connection for new nodes, from old versions 7/6/unknown.
plan b) delay low fee trx and deliver them in bundles - less to process
plan c) plan a & b together + backbone analysis nodes to collect statistics for future.

* to deal with the problems of old versions massively relaying very low tx

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[yugo23]

I keep being surprised by the incredible amount of energy some people are willing to invest in order to find spammers, scammers... While earning nothing from it Oo

[BitUsher]

Very Well Said



http://bitledger.info/hard-fork-risks-and-why-95-should-be-the-standard/

[BldSwtTrs]

Can't wait until small block retards are proved to be irresponsible idiots by empirical data points.

We should make a list of them, so in the future we will never forget who they were and humiliate them forever.

There's no such thing as a small block retard.

People have ideas and inclinations based on information that they have, and there's a lot of misinformation out there regarding what's even going on with the block chain; how much is spam, whether an increase is currently justified and/or wether segregated witness will take care of some if not all of this spamming blockage to the extent blockage exists and if not what would be better additional solutions going forward once segregated witness is in place.

Yeah people have different ideas and most of them are dumb ideas.

That's why it's important to relie on the empirical facts to judge who are right and who are the fucking irresponsible retards. It's darwinian selection. It's a process way more efficient than pointless debating.

So now we are going to see that full block are not good at all and see who were the dangerous retards who thought full blocks were somehow cool.

It's like the bolcheviks. They have ideas and they thought they were right. They talked badly of people who disagree with them. Then the testing of their ideas prove that they were huge retards and that they had their head full shit. Gmaxwell and Adam Back are the Lenin of their time. The sooner the market route around them, the better.

It seems to me you have a very precise idea of your own position at least.

I don't have such brutal and clear opinion on this issue. And from the grasp of complexity I was able to see, it seems impossible for me to have a clear point of view of the situation as we're still lacking data.

Yeah small blocks have problems, but what do you want? Bigger and bigger blocks? You do realize that in order to scale the Visa transactions we would need 800GB blocks... Seems complicated to me...

It's binary thinking. Eventually you will die so it's better to stop breathing right now, isn't it?

The choice is not between 1Mb or Visa-scale right now. The choice is between 1Mb and large enough blocksize to allow normal usage.

[Fatman3001]

Very Well Said



http://bitledger.info/hard-fork-risks-and-why-95-should-be-the-standard/

Except, to the extent this is the case, it will still be the case at 95%.

[BldSwtTrs]

Very Well Said



http://bitledger.info/hard-fork-risks-and-why-95-should-be-the-standard/

If everyone agreed on the rules he wouldn't feel the need to write that.

Besises that contradiction, it demonstrates a failure to think dynamically. It's not because the system is in a certain state at t that it will be in the same state a t+x.
Today the majority agree on 1Mb, tomorrow the majority will agree on the stupidity of 1Mb.

[BitUsher]

Except, to the extent this is the case, it will still be the case at 95%.

This is true, and why Peter Todd suggests a safer 99% HF  threshold with an option to softfork in a 95% threshold if there is no progress within a defined timeline. This would allow for non-contentions and widely accepted HF to more securely be adopted.
Of course this simply moves the degree from 75% to 95-99% but this is indeed a significant difference and it really depends upon a subjective sense of what you define as a rough consensus. There are a few (less than 0.1% of the community) who believe there should never be any HF's or even many SF's and we would necessarily have to ostracize them to make any upgrades.

It isn't just a subjective difference of what one feels should be the correct threshold but objectively 95% is safer than 75% with many attack vectors.

Besises that contradiction, it demonstrates a failure to think dynamically. It's not because the system is in a certain state at t that it will be in the same state a t+x.
Today the majority agree on 1Mb, tomorrow the majority will agree on the stupidity of 1Mb.

I don't know why this needs to be endlessly repeated, but some people appear to be a little slow to pick it up... almost no one wants capacity to remain an effective 1MB. I and many others not only want larger blocksizes but much larger block sizes are necessarily required for payment channels to handle mainstream txs. (Go back and read the LN slides if you have any questions) We simply disagree on the timeline, order and manner in order to scale.

[8up]

systems must also be adaptive. otherwise they die. life and death in this sense are also only seperated by time.

the nice thing is. we will find out, if we were too fast too slow or exactly right. other cryptos will try different settings; and one of these will probably be far superior to the settings the divided bitcoin community set for itself.

[BldSwtTrs]

Except, to the extent this is the case, it will still be the case at 95%.

This is true, and why Peter Todd suggests a safer 99% HF  threshold with an option to softfork in a 95% threshold if there is no progress within a defined timeline. This would allow for non-contentions and widely accepted HF to more securely be adopted.
Of course this simply moves the degree from 75% to 95-99% but this is indeed a significant difference and it really depends upon a subjective sense of what you define as a rough consensus. There are a few (less than 0.1% of the community) who believe there should never be any HF's or even many SF's and we would necessarily have to ostracize them to make any upgrades.

It isn't just a subjective difference of what one feels should be the correct threshold but objectively 95% is safer than 75% with many attack vectors.

Besises that contradiction, it demonstrates a failure to think dynamically. It's not because the system is in a certain state at t that it will be in the same state a t+x.
Today the majority agree on 1Mb, tomorrow the majority will agree on the stupidity of 1Mb.

I don't know why this needs to be endlessly repeated, but some people appear to be a little slow to pick it up... almost no one wants capacity to remain an effective 1MB. I and many others not only want larger blocksizes but much larger block sizes are necessarily required for payment channels to handle mainstream txs. (Go back and read the LN slides if you have any questions) We simply disagree on the timeline, order and manner in order to scale.

You agree on the fact that the blocksize limit stays at 1Mb for now.

My opinion is that real world feedback will make understand most small blockists how wrong they are regarding their priorities.