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

[AlexGR]

what is wrong with subsidies? everybody knows they are needed to boot strap the system. in the long run no one is in favor of subsidies.

I'm just pointing out the obvious problem of blocksize increase limitations.

answer this simple question: how much breast milk is right for your baby? when do you think your baby will be grown big enough to start eating on its own?

A baby drinks the milk in order to grow (100% efficiency). The players over here are wasting the 3tx/s limit with spamming. There is no equivalent analogy over there.

[1715010624]

1715010624

[1715010624]

1715010624

[1715010624]

1715010624

[1715010624]

1715010624

[1715010624]

1715010624

[ahpku]

Look, the whole complaint about the spam thing is retarded.

Satoshi didn't get the memo that he is retarded for contemplating the flood/spam/dust attack vectors. We should give him the "retard of the century" award.

If Satoshi has intended the 1MB limit to be permanent, he still wouldn't deserve the "retard of the century" award.
But, of course, he never did. Observe:

It can be phased in, like:

if (blocknumber > 115000)
    maxblocksize = largerlimit

It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete.

When we're near the cutoff block number, I can put an alert to old versions to make sure they know they have to upgrade.

So satoshi clearly doesn't deserve the "retard of the century" award.  
Smallblockers, OTOH, do.

I'm trying to understand who exactly is a "smallblocker"?

Core's short-term plan is 1.7mb (segwit) and Classic is 2mb. The difference being ~300kb.

There is no official or alternative development that stays at 1mb.

You are trying to simultaneously argue that
1. We must allow fees market to develop by limiting the number of tx possible.
2. Core's "incidental" blocksize increase with segwit, and plans for increasing the blocksize limit (hard fork in 2017), are a good thing.
These seem to be mutually exclusive.
All I ask for is for is intrinsic consistency

[Ibian]

Look, the whole complaint about the spam thing is retarded.

Satoshi didn't get the memo that he is retarded for contemplating the flood/spam/dust attack vectors. We should give him the "retard of the century" award.

Appeals to authority is not a valid argument. Would you like to try again? Perhaps with my full post this time?

[shane]

we will going to under $400 
becarefull, watching bitcoin chart and ready to sell your bitcoin 

[Dotto]

Say bye bye to 400

[ZyclonRacerX]

Last chance to buy above $400.

[AlexGR]

Then why advertise it as a scaling solution, if scaling itself is a bad thing, due to not being instrumental to fee market developing?
Shouldn't they come up with some block-bloating code, to compensate for the nasty scaling side effect?

What you are attacking are the irrationalities of those who attack core devs, not the official position of core devs.

Core has a scaling roadmap to make bitcoin scale far beyond what is capable with block increases. Who told you that they consider scaling a bad thing or that a fee market is their first priority?

With fees at 0.00$ to 0.05$, being ~1% of the block reward, there is no meaningful fee market to discuss about. There is definitely a mechanism where you can bypass the queue by a higher fee, and in this sense it is a market, but the volume of this market is so tiny that it doesn't even register compared to what subsidy does. Miners could be mining empty blocks and it wouldn't affect their pocket negatively. That's how insignificant it is.

If devs push for highers fees => "ohhh those fuckers want to exclude the poor guy"
If devs allow for more space/tx abundance at near-zero fees => "ohhh they are idiots, this attracts attacks, it can't work for the long-term sustainability of bitcoin and bitcoin mining" etc etc.
If devs don't interefere => "oh they are sitting on their ass doing nothing and their incompetence has created these problems"

Whatever they do, either way, or whatever they don't do, you can find a reason to attack them. This type of thinking can be evidenced by writings such as BillyJoe's who, a few months ago, was saying "ohhh I don't want to pay higher fees, I bought my right to transact when I bought my coins" and then, when commenting on the Lightning network, he was spreading FUD about how will the miners get paid if the LN can do so many transactions at low fees, and that miners should get more fees, otherwise bitcoin will be in problem etc etc.

Whatever the situation => you can use it to attack the devs. And this is happening all day.

Low fees? Fuck the devs.
High fees? Fuck the devs.
The devs are staying out of the argument? Fuck the devs again.

Fuck the devs, Fuck the devs, Fuck the devs, Fuck the devs, Fuck the devs, Fuck the devs, Fuck the devs, Fuck the devs, Fuck the devs, Fuck the devs, Fuck the devs, Fuck the devs, Fuck the devs, Fuck the devs, Fuck the devs, Fuck the devs, Fuck the devs, Fuck the devs, Fuck the devs, Fuck the devs, Fuck the devs, Fuck the devs, Fuck the devs, Fuck the devs

...all day long...

Why?

Because the issues here are not technical. They have the facade of technical disagreements but at their root, they are a way to undermine confidence and promote a governance coup.

[Tzupy]

Anyone buying bitcoins at 400$+ 320$+ is irresponsibile and deserves to lose their money.

FTFY

[ahpku]

Then why advertise it as a scaling solution, if scaling itself is a bad thing, due to not being instrumental to fee market developing?
Shouldn't they come up with some block-bloating code, to compensate for the nasty scaling side effect?

What you are attacking are the irrationalities of those who attack core devs, not the official position of core devs.

Core has a scaling roadmap to make bitcoin scale far beyond what is capable with block increases. Who told you that they consider scaling a bad thing or that a fee market is their first priority?

I'm not talking to Core devs now, I'm talking to you -- a Core supporter who claims that blocksize shouldn't be increased, because fees market.
If you're going to argue that more tx per solved block is not merely unnecessary but detrimental, because fees market, please be consistent and criticize Core for planning to raise the block size limit.
All I'm asking of you is to stop contradicting yourself, thereby failing at the most basic, the logical, level.

With fees at 0.00$ to 0.05$, being ~1% of the block reward, there is no meaningful fee market to discuss about.

Then don't.

<>
Because the issues here are not technical. They have the facade of technical disagreements but at their root, they are a way to undermine confidence and promote a governance coup.

If you feel the issues aren't technical, no point discussing technical issues, is there? Let's don our tinfoil hats and get back to what we do best: talking about the world conspiring to get us
Edit:
>Miners could be mining empty blocks and it wouldn't affect their pocket negatively. That's how insignificant it is.
Oddly enough, they aren't mining mostly empty blocks now.
Why do you suppose that is?
How would segwit encourage them to mine full blocks?
How would 2MB blocksize limit discourage them from mining full blocks?
Again, what point are you trying to make/defend by introducing the fees market & the fact that miners can mine empty blocks?

[AlexGR]

I'm not talking to Core devs now, I'm talking to you -- a Core supporter who claims that blocksize shouldn't be increased, because fees market.

I don't run things, so my opinion is irrelevant.

If you want my proposal / solution, then that is not in line with core, classic, etc.

It would be something like:

-bump fees to at least 0.08$ per 250b tx.

-bump block size to 2 mb (or implement segwit with a 2mb effective capacity - but also ensuring that all bytes used by segwit get charged the same fees, irregardless of the data structure they are in). 4mb could also be implemented if safe.

-watch with pride the catharsis that ensues as dust/spam get evicted, and block use drops to 400-600kb/block with 3x-5x potential to grow

[ahpku]

I'm not talking to Core devs now, I'm talking to you -- a Core supporter who claims that blocksize shouldn't be increased, because fees market.

I don't run things, so my opinion is irrelevant.

Should have opened with that, limiting me to a single, terse reply:
Then why post?

P.S. Personally, I'd be fine with 8c min tx fees & 2MB blocks now. But neither Classic nor Core is offering that, so...

[AlexGR]

I'm not talking to Core devs now, I'm talking to you -- a Core supporter who claims that blocksize shouldn't be increased, because fees market.

I don't run things, so my opinion is irrelevant.

Should have opened with that, limiting me to a single, terse reply:
Then why post?

You asked me *my* opinion and I wrote it.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[ahpku]

I'm not talking to Core devs now, I'm talking to you -- a Core supporter who claims that blocksize shouldn't be increased, because fees market.

I don't run things, so my opinion is irrelevant.

Should have opened with that, limiting me to a single, terse reply:
Then why post?

You asked me *my* opinion and I wrote it.

I asked you to logically reconcile the arguments you've used to support Core, the ones that are mutually exclusive.
That is, if you accept the law of universal noncontradiction, which is the very fundament of classical logic.
I have never asked you for your opinions -- those you've offered unprompted.

[inca]

Anyone buying bitcoins at 400$+ 320$+ is irresponsibile and deserves to lose their money.

FTFY

For once you may be right  

Be under absolutely no doubt that the only reason value is billowing out of bitcoin into other chains right now is that bitcoin is frozen and unable to scale because of deliberate inaction with the Core client programmers.

The value proposition for bitcoin is based upon existing and future investors/users believing in future growth for the currency. With a frozen network with a transaction cap (wtf) forced arbitrarily into creation there is no incentive for money to flow to bitcoin anymore.

The market always finds a solution and often not one that you would like. It has tried several times to oust Core with XT and now Classic. If the miners to not wake the fuck up then very soon the process of value transfer between the bitcoin and alternative blockchains will gather pace and become a tidal wave from which there will be no return.

EDIT: oh and don't waste your time with alex gorale. To still be supporting the absurd economic position held by the Core client even while bitcoin value evaporates tells you all you need to know about his intelligence and critical thinking.

[AlexGR]

I'm not talking to Core devs now, I'm talking to you -- a Core supporter who claims that blocksize shouldn't be increased, because fees market.

I don't run things, so my opinion is irrelevant.

Should have opened with that, limiting me to a single, terse reply:
Then why post?

You asked me *my* opinion and I wrote it.

I asked you to logically reconcile the arguments you've used to support Core, the ones that are mutually exclusive.
That is, if you accept the law of universal noncontradiction, which is the very fundament of classical logic.
I have never asked you for your opinions -- those you've offered unprompted.

There is nothing contradictory. You start with the hypothesis that I don't want blocks increased or that I am a core supporter.

If I am a "core" supporter, then I must, by necessity, support the 1.7mb segwit proposal as a short-term upgrade. So how can it be that I'm in favor of non block increase?

If I am a "classic" supporter, the same for 2mb.

What I've often wrote, and perhaps you haven't seen it, is that I'm not opposed to larger blocks. I'm opposed to the abuse blocks are getting (whether 1mb-2mb-4mb etc). More size = more abuse. Cheaper fees = cheaper abuse. These things go hand in hand and are open attack vectors.

So give more size but increase fees. Alternatively, go conservative with blockchain increases, gradually making fees more expensive as the market itself evicts dust/spam.

[ahpku]

I'm not talking to Core devs now, I'm talking to you -- a Core supporter who claims that blocksize shouldn't be increased, because fees market.

I don't run things, so my opinion is irrelevant.

Should have opened with that, limiting me to a single, terse reply:
Then why post?

You asked me *my* opinion and I wrote it.

I asked you to logically reconcile the arguments you've used to support Core, the ones that are mutually exclusive.
That is, if you accept the law of universal noncontradiction, which is the very fundament of classical logic.
I have never asked you for your opinions -- those you've offered unprompted.

There is nothing contradictory. You start with the hypothesis that I don't want blocks increased or that I am a core supporter.

Because you have consistently defended Core & attacked Classic, going as far as to suggest that Classic is an attack on Bitcoin,
"Because the issues here are not technical. They have the facade of technical disagreements but at their root, they are a way to undermine confidence and promote a governance coup."

But I guess you're not a core supporter, pushing for 8c fees & 2MB blocks instead. Surprised you didn't lead with that.
P.S. Considering what you wish to see happen, I suggest you consider Classic. While Classic is not imposing a minimal tx fee, it's offering to raise the blocksize limit to 2MB. 1 out of 2 ain't bad.
Core, OTOH, is neither willing to give you 2MB (not 'til '17, and then maybe), nor the 8c min tx fee

[Dotto]

Monero, ETH and Maid are not in a pump and dump phase, they are just growing to next level. Im like 20 days waiting for a retracement to enter but no way... I really want to hear your thoughts to this issue, from a BTC wall observer point of view, as pure eth/maid threads would be too biased and eco chambered to his own coins.

The big/small blockers debate is totally burnout and 2014-15, lets move, evolve, adapt and grow

[Dotto]

And... 400 broken

[inca]

Dive, dive, dive!