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

[Ibian]

On top of that, Segwit is not a scaling solution. Neither is the raise to 2MB blocks. Both do temporarily fix the current full blocks issue though.

There is no full block issue. There is spam issue. As soon as spam attack stops everything is perfectly normal. Increasing blocksize does nothing to solve spam issue. You can not solve spam issue by giving spammers more free space to spam!

It's only as free as the miners allow it to be. As long as people who actually pay a fee get their transfers done in a timely manner, no amount of unpaid spam transactions matters.

So?!... My point is: giving more space to spammers doesn't solve anything and just gives spammers incentives to spam more. What is your point?

My point is that unpaid transactions are only processed if independent individuals around the world willingly choose to do so of their own volition. What is your point?

[Fatman3001]

On top of that, Segwit is not a scaling solution. Neither is the raise to 2MB blocks. Both do temporarily fix the current full blocks issue though.

There is no full block issue. There is spam issue. As soon as spam attack stops everything is perfectly normal. Increasing blocksize does nothing to solve spam issue. You can not solve spam issue by giving spammers more free space to spam!

It's only as free as the miners allow it to be. As long as people who actually pay a fee get their transfers done in a timely manner, no amount of unpaid spam transactions matters.

So?!... My point is: giving more space to spammers doesn't solve anything and just gives spammers incentives to spam more. What is your point?

Ok, so in between all the CP, drug and tax evasion money there's some spam. So what?

[Ibian]

On top of that, Segwit is not a scaling solution. Neither is the raise to 2MB blocks. Both do temporarily fix the current full blocks issue though.

There is no full block issue. There is spam issue. As soon as spam attack stops everything is perfectly normal. Increasing blocksize does nothing to solve spam issue. You can not solve spam issue by giving spammers more free space to spam!

Hmm... I don't understand you. 1MB blocks allow a really low amount of tx and btc is spreading. Of course there is a block size issue! Simply because the adoption of btc is rising and numbers of allowed tx is the staying the same!

Sorry, I don't respond to people with paid signatures. 99% of them don't understand what they're talking about. What they do care is only how much posts they make.

That's a copout. His sig is not part of his argument. You just don't have a good answer.

[yugo23]

On top of that, Segwit is not a scaling solution. Neither is the raise to 2MB blocks. Both do temporarily fix the current full blocks issue though.

There is no full block issue. There is spam issue. As soon as spam attack stops everything is perfectly normal. Increasing blocksize does nothing to solve spam issue. You can not solve spam issue by giving spammers more free space to spam!

Hmm... I don't understand you. 1MB blocks allow a really low amount of tx and btc is spreading. Of course there is a block size issue! Simply because the adoption of btc is rising and numbers of allowed tx is the staying the same!

Sorry, I don't respond to people with paid signatures. 99% of them don't understand what they're talking about. What they do care is only how much posts they make.

Thanks for this wonderful argument.

But as it happens, some users have paid sig to earn a few bucks while posting, not posting for the few bucks.

I believe I understand what I'm talking about: currently 1MB size limits the btc network to something around 2000 txs per block.

Now simple calculation please: 2000/10min means 12 000/h means 288 000/day

Now I might be dumb, but it means current network can't handle 300 000 users daily. So now explain me how network can scale?

[AlexGR]

On top of that, Segwit is not a scaling solution. Neither is the raise to 2MB blocks. Both do temporarily fix the current full blocks issue though.

There is no full block issue. There is spam issue. As soon as spam attack stops everything is perfectly normal. Increasing blocksize does nothing to solve spam issue. You can not solve spam issue by giving spammers more free space to spam!

It's only as free as the miners allow it to be. As long as people who actually pay a fee get their transfers done in a timely manner, no amount of unpaid spam transactions matters.

So?!... My point is: giving more space to spammers doesn't solve anything and just gives spammers incentives to spam more. What is your point?

My point is that unpaid transactions are only processed if independent individuals around the world willingly choose to do so of their own volition. What is your point?

There is also paid spam... for example if I pay 1 satoshi per byte, I can claim "I paid fees for my tx".

At a 1 satoshi per byte rate one can insert a billion bytes for a billion satoshi. That's ~4300$ for a gigabyte of spam. The blockchain is currently at 67GB, so spamming 67GB would cost just 288k USD. The costs for bandwidth, storage, processing etc of all that crap will exceed, over time, what was paid by the spammer, so, in a sense, it would represent a type of financial amplification attack, where the spammer incurs multiple costs to the ecosystem by spamming away - whether he does it for free or "pays fees" like 1 satoshi / byte. Even at 10 satoshi / byte the attack is feasible.

[ahpku]

...
So?!... My point is: giving more space to spammers doesn't solve anything and just gives spammers incentives to spam more. What is your point?

>giving more space to spammers doesn't solve anything
Sure it does. If 20 people legitimately need to get to work by bus, and your bus is a BMW Isetta, people aren't going to get to work. Simple as that.

>gives spammers incentives to spam more
No. That's stupid.
Currently, riding around, maliciously and, otherwise, aimlessly, on the Isatta bus costs $0.03. How would making the bus bigger (20 seats) be an incentive to ride aimlessly? wouldn't the little shit have to spend $0.03 x 19 to accomplish what $0.03 did on the Isetta bus?

[Ibian]

On top of that, Segwit is not a scaling solution. Neither is the raise to 2MB blocks. Both do temporarily fix the current full blocks issue though.

There is no full block issue. There is spam issue. As soon as spam attack stops everything is perfectly normal. Increasing blocksize does nothing to solve spam issue. You can not solve spam issue by giving spammers more free space to spam!

It's only as free as the miners allow it to be. As long as people who actually pay a fee get their transfers done in a timely manner, no amount of unpaid spam transactions matters.

So?!... My point is: giving more space to spammers doesn't solve anything and just gives spammers incentives to spam more. What is your point?

My point is that unpaid transactions are only processed if independent individuals around the world willingly choose to do so of their own volition. What is your point?

spam

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

But let us find out. How do you define spam, and why should anyone take that definition seriously?

[becoin]

On top of that, Segwit is not a scaling solution. Neither is the raise to 2MB blocks. Both do temporarily fix the current full blocks issue though.

There is no full block issue. There is spam issue. As soon as spam attack stops everything is perfectly normal. Increasing blocksize does nothing to solve spam issue. You can not solve spam issue by giving spammers more free space to spam!

It's only as free as the miners allow it to be. As long as people who actually pay a fee get their transfers done in a timely manner, no amount of unpaid spam transactions matters.

So?!... My point is: giving more space to spammers doesn't solve anything and just gives spammers incentives to spam more. What is your point?

My point is that unpaid transactions are only processed if independent individuals around the world willingly choose to do so of their own volition. What is your point?

Who are those "interdependent individual"?... Most of the "independent individuals around the world" want free money. But if ever they get what they want that won't be money anymore!

[marcus_of_augustus]

On top of that, Segwit is not a scaling solution. Neither is the raise to 2MB blocks. Both do temporarily fix the current full blocks issue though.

There is no full block issue. There is spam issue. As soon as spam attack stops everything is perfectly normal. Increasing blocksize does nothing to solve spam issue. You can not solve spam issue by giving spammers more free space to spam!

Hmm... I don't understand you. 1MB blocks allow a really low amount of tx and btc is spreading. Of course there is a block size issue! Simply because the adoption of btc is rising and numbers of allowed tx is the staying the same!

Sorry, I don't respond to people with paid signatures. 99% of them don't understand what they're talking about. What they do care is only how much posts they make.

Thanks for this wonderful argument.

But as it happens, some users have paid sig to earn a few bucks while posting, not posting for the few bucks.

I believe I understand what I'm talking about: currently 1MB size limits the btc network to something around 2000 txs per block.

Now simple calculation please: 2000/10min means 12 000/h means 288 000/day

Now I might be dumb, but it means current network can't handle 300 000 users daily. So now explain me how network can scale?

See, even a 'dumb' person can see that it cannot scale. For a bitcoin system that wants to cater for 10 million -1 billion customer base increasing blocksize is a largely ignorant approach (a band-aid on a gunshot wound), the most technically sound decision here is to saturate the base layer ASAP to gather data and build out higher layers as necessary based on that information.

[ahpku]

...
But let us find out. How do you define spam, and why should anyone take that definition seriously?

No need to define spam, stop with your sleazy sophistry, comrade.
Any decent Core Citizen knows spam when he sees it. Like pornography, Communism, and perversion.

[Ibian]

On top of that, Segwit is not a scaling solution. Neither is the raise to 2MB blocks. Both do temporarily fix the current full blocks issue though.

There is no full block issue. There is spam issue. As soon as spam attack stops everything is perfectly normal. Increasing blocksize does nothing to solve spam issue. You can not solve spam issue by giving spammers more free space to spam!

Hmm... I don't understand you. 1MB blocks allow a really low amount of tx and btc is spreading. Of course there is a block size issue! Simply because the adoption of btc is rising and numbers of allowed tx is the staying the same!

Sorry, I don't respond to people with paid signatures. 99% of them don't understand what they're talking about. What they do care is only how much posts they make.

Thanks for this wonderful argument.

But as it happens, some users have paid sig to earn a few bucks while posting, not posting for the few bucks.

I believe I understand what I'm talking about: currently 1MB size limits the btc network to something around 2000 txs per block.

Now simple calculation please: 2000/10min means 12 000/h means 288 000/day

Now I might be dumb, but it means current network can't handle 300 000 users daily. So now explain me how network can scale?

See, even a 'dumb' person can see that it cannot scale. For a bitcoin system that wants to cater for 10 million -1 billion customer base increasing blocksize is a largely ignorant approach (a band-aid on a gunshot wound), the most technically sound decision here is to saturate the base layer ASAP to gather data and build out higher layers as necessary based on that information.

Do both. It's not a contest. Whatever improvements are made to the code, doubling the blocksize will double those improvements.

[yugo23]

On top of that, Segwit is not a scaling solution. Neither is the raise to 2MB blocks. Both do temporarily fix the current full blocks issue though.

There is no full block issue. There is spam issue. As soon as spam attack stops everything is perfectly normal. Increasing blocksize does nothing to solve spam issue. You can not solve spam issue by giving spammers more free space to spam!

Hmm... I don't understand you. 1MB blocks allow a really low amount of tx and btc is spreading. Of course there is a block size issue! Simply because the adoption of btc is rising and numbers of allowed tx is the staying the same!

Sorry, I don't respond to people with paid signatures. 99% of them don't understand what they're talking about. What they do care is only how much posts they make.

Thanks for this wonderful argument.

But as it happens, some users have paid sig to earn a few bucks while posting, not posting for the few bucks.

I believe I understand what I'm talking about: currently 1MB size limits the btc network to something around 2000 txs per block.

Now simple calculation please: 2000/10min means 12 000/h means 288 000/day

Now I might be dumb, but it means current network can't handle 300 000 users daily. So now explain me how network can scale?

See, even a 'dumb' person can see that it cannot scale. For a bitcoin system that wants to cater for 10 million -1 billion customer base increasing blocksize is a largely ignorant approach (a band-aid on a gunshot wound), the most technically sound decision here is to saturate the base layer ASAP to gather data and build out higher layers as necessary based on that information.

Hey who are you calling dumb? 

[ahpku]

Who are those "interdependent individual"?... Most of the "independent individuals around the world" want free money. But if ever they get what they want that won't be money anymore!
OMG! Freeloaders! Under my skin! Scurrying around, pooping on me! Halp!

Criminally insane use the interweb? No wonder.

[Fatman3001]

...
So?!... My point is: giving more space to spammers doesn't solve anything and just gives spammers incentives to spam more. What is your point?

>giving more space to spammers doesn't solve anything
Sure it does. If 20 people legitimately need to get to work by bus, and your bus is a BMW Isetta, people aren't going to get to work. Simple as that.

>gives spammers incentives to spam more
No. That's stupid.
Currently, riding around, maliciously and, otherwise, aimlessly, on the Isatta bus costs $0.03. How would making the bus bigger (20 seats) be an incentive to ride aimlessly? wouldn't the little shit have to spend $0.03 x 19 to accomplish what $0.03 did on the Isetta bus?

                     1MB                                                                     2MB

[AlexGR]

But let us find out. How do you define spam, and why should anyone take that definition seriously?

My definition of spam is when someone doesn't transact because they want to make an economic transaction, but rather to do something else, like filling blocks with crap or bloating the blockchain.

Apparently satoshi did take it seriously and had planned the fee mechanism as a countermeasure.

I admire the flexibility of the scripts-in-a-transaction scheme, but my evil little mind immediately starts to think of ways I might abuse it.  I could encode all sorts of interesting information in the TxOut script, and if non-hacked clients validated-and-then-ignored those transactions it would be a useful covert broadcast communication channel.

That's a cool feature until it gets popular and somebody decides it would be fun to flood the payment network with millions of transactions to transfer the latest Lady Gaga video to all their friends...

That's one of the reasons for transaction fees.  There are other things we can do if necessary.

Obviously, fees won't work as a countermeasure for spam if they are too low. The whole point is to disincentivize the attacker. If the attacker doesn't feel sufficient pain he can easily proceed with the attack. Giving the attacker more space to conduct the attack, instead of more fee pressure, will simply amplify the attack and reduce the attackers cost.

The fee pressure might originate from either blocksize scarcity, miners setting a higher fee limit to what they process and/or devs setting higher default recommendations (or even network enforced fees - as long as the miners run the code).

[ahpku]

...
Now I might be dumb, but it means current network can't handle 300 000 users daily. So now explain me how network can scale?

I'll field this one. Core has a multipronged approach to scaling. The first step is SegWit, which will effectively quintuple the blocksize.
As if that wasn't enough, having SegWit in place allows for the implementation of Lightning Network, with virtually unlimited number of prepaid transactions as long as said transactions are between the same two people!

[Ibian]

But let us find out. How do you define spam, and why should anyone take that definition seriously?

My definition of spam is when someone doesn't transact because they want to make an economic transaction, but rather to do something else, like filling blocks with crap or bloating the blockchain.

Apparently satoshi did take it seriously and had planned the fee mechanism as a countermeasure.

I admire the flexibility of the scripts-in-a-transaction scheme, but my evil little mind immediately starts to think of ways I might abuse it.  I could encode all sorts of interesting information in the TxOut script, and if non-hacked clients validated-and-then-ignored those transactions it would be a useful covert broadcast communication channel.

That's a cool feature until it gets popular and somebody decides it would be fun to flood the payment network with millions of transactions to transfer the latest Lady Gaga video to all their friends...

That's one of the reasons for transaction fees.  There are other things we can do if necessary.

Obviously, fees won't work as a countermeasure for spam if they are too low. The whole point is to disincentivize the attacker. If the attacker doesn't feel sufficient pain he can easily proceed with the attack. Giving the attacker more space to conduct the attack, instead of more fee pressure, will simply amplify the attack and reduce the attackers cost.

The fee pressure might originate from either blocksize scarcity, miners setting a higher fee limit to what they process and/or devs setting higher default recommendations (or even network enforced fees - as long as the miners run the code).

Your definition is bunk. We can't cryptographically verify intent for any given transaction, and until that becomes possible you will have to come up with something better.

Fees are in place and your worries are unfounded. If we ever get so many transactions that the network can't process them miners will focus on the ones with highest fees first, which will give spam attacks diminishing returns as their volume increase. And if a malicious attacker is willing to pay so high fees that his transactions rise to the top of the pile, then he has paid for that privilege. This is how a free market works.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[mainpmf]

But let us find out. How do you define spam, and why should anyone take that definition seriously?

My definition of spam is when someone doesn't transact because they want to make an economic transaction, but rather to do something else, like filling blocks with crap or bloating the blockchain.

Isn't there a way to measure the number of very low fees txs?

Maybe spam are a great part of network pressure bu best would be to check it, I suppose somebody must have done it no?

[ahpku]

But let us find out. How do you define spam, and why should anyone take that definition seriously?

My definition of spam is when someone doesn't transact because they want to make an economic transaction, but rather to do something else, like filling blocks with crap or bloating the blockchain.

Alex, have you ever written any code? It's a wonderful thing to try, even if you never plan to do it for fun or profit. It's, in a way of speaking, explaining complex things to a machine, a machine which, though capable of being quick and consistent, doesn't know its ass from its elbow without you telling it, procedurally, how to do it. Step by step.
This will prepare you for future interhuman interactions, like the one I'm having with you.
Bitcoin is not sentient, it makes no value judgements beyond truth values of variable, so telling Bitcoin "spam is the stuff we don't want, get rid of it" will only result in "Brrp! bleep bloop X=42."
Please tell me you understand, and that I don't need to resort to lower, register-level explanations.