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

[AlexGR]

Too much politics. Is there some technical reason we can't have both bigger blocks and better blocks? Is this more than jockeying for power?

That's the plan: Segwit = 1.7mb to 3mb (depending use), plus solves tx malleability.

Obviously, all these "disagreements" aren't about the ~300kb difference between segwit and a 2mb hf.

[Ibian]

Too much politics. Is there some technical reason we can't have both bigger blocks and better blocks? Is this more than jockeying for power?

That's the plan: Segwit = 1.7mb to 3mb (depending use), plus solves tx malleability.

Obviously, all these "disagreements" aren't about the ~300kb difference between segwit and a 2mb hf.

Okay. So, why not change a one to a two now while we wait for the other, presumably more convoluted, stuff to get done?

[2015Bubble]

Browsing for rocket gifs..

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[WeltMaster]

Breaking this $350~500 range reminds me of back in the $8-16 days

where next?

[AlexGR]

Too much politics. Is there some technical reason we can't have both bigger blocks and better blocks? Is this more than jockeying for power?

That's the plan: Segwit = 1.7mb to 3mb (depending use), plus solves tx malleability.

Obviously, all these "disagreements" aren't about the ~300kb difference between segwit and a 2mb hf.

Okay. So, why not change a one to a two now while we wait for the other, presumably more convoluted, stuff to get done?

As far as I'm concerned, I don't have any evidence that we actually need >1mb right now, although we will get >1mb... there is actually no plan that keeps bitcoin at 1mb.... core says 1.7 in a couple months, classic says 2mb with contentious/destructive hf, so... there you have it.

When you have tx fees ranging from 1 to 5 cents (depending the priority one wants), that means there is no overwhelming actual transaction demand which in turn has an underdeveloped fee market while also allowing spare capacity to be used for spamming and wasteful transactions.

The fact that some people have 1-2 cents in their wallet software and it takes a few hours when there is an attack, is not enough to hf bitcoin and it won't change their user experience once the 2mb are flooded the same way. Therefore they need a better wallet software. The system is working as intended per satoshi's instructions on how to bypass a flood attack (you outpay the spammer). If users don't know it, it's because their wallet software obviously doesn't do a good job of notifying them that fees are dynamic and not static.

As for the timing: Even if the code for HF was issued tomorrow it would still get activated months ahead so that users can get prepared. If the recent "transaction problems" are any indicator, then if people don't even know that they have to pay a few cents to transact, then they can't *really* be depended upon for upgrading in time. It will simply create a mess. So, TLDR, segwit deployment would be much faster. A HF should be planned well ahead, again per the instructions of Satoshi.

[JayJuanGee]

Bitcoin looking healthy again.

Yes, and blocks are still maxxed out.

The blocks are hardly maxed out ----- unless you are just making up shit in order to attempt to exaggerate some problem that is not even close to what the loud mouth FUDsters are attempting to portray.


Blocks floating around 65% at the moment... ... but they had  experienced some peaks approaching 90% in recent days (within the past week)

At the time of writing, these were the latest blocks.

401423: 0 MB
401422: 976.48 MB
401421: 974.79 MB
401420: 974.77 MB
401419: 906.65 MB
401418: 0 MB
401417: 974.64 MB
401416: 912.66 MB
401415: 976.45 MB
401414: 974.72 MB
401413: 965.86 MB
401412: 974.55 MB
401411: 974.74 MB

Looks pretty maxed out to me (with thousands tx waiting in tradeblock's mempool). I guess I must be making it up, then.

BTW, you also could have looked at ChartBuddy.

Explanation

Explanation

Explanation

ChartBuddy knows his shit -- I'm only making it up.

I've cited my sources as blockchain.info charts, and you cited your sources as chartbuddy?  If someone could explain why blockchain.info is lacking in credibility, then that may be helpful.  I really do not understand the significance of chartbuddy because I put through several transactions during supposed congested periods last week, and my experiences reflected those described in blockchain.info, which was relatively quick confirmations and finalization of transactions (in spite claims of fulblocalypse).

So, yeah, I don't think that these various claims of fullblocks really materialize into real world problems, and yes, I think that the blockchain is suffering from various spam/ddos attacks yet is still functioning pretty fucking well in spite of attempts to make it seem full and in spite of attempts to describe some kind of supposed tragedy in the alleged clogged up nature of the blockchain.

Those list of block sizes, I actually got them from blockchain.info as well. So I don't think that blockchain.info lacks credibility. I don't know about the average block sizes chart, though. The chart says the all time high was 876 B, which doesn't tell the whole story regarding block fullness if empty blocks and soft limited blocks are counted as well.

Of course, the "real world problems" of delayed transactions can be solved for a big part once all people are properly trained to guess the right fee, and wallets are updated to make as good a fee advise as possible. And sooner or later the use cases which require cheap transactions will be dropped. And all will be fine.

I just hope it doesn't come to that. I don't want Bitcoin's growth to stop. It seems we differ in that wish, and that's fine. Time will tell which crypto can deliver the desired volume, and how.

You are suggesting that we differ in a wish regarding whether bitcoin's growth stops or not.  I don't think so.  With that assertion you seem to be implying some untrue assertion that I am not interested in growth of bitcoin... which is pure bullshit to read that into anything that I am saying.


In essence, I provided you an actual link regarding the source within blockchain.info in which I was getting my information regarding both average block size and also regarding transaction times.  You did not provide me any link.  I was suggesting that both those chart links that I provided and also my real world experiences had demonstrated to me that there really does not seem to be an urgent problem concerning the blocks being full and the amount of time that it takes for a paid for transaction to go through (with the .0001BTC per kilobyte fee).


Accordingly, if there is some information that I am missing (on blockchain.info), then why can't you provide a link that shows that information regarding blocks being maxed out as you asserted??..   You could also, if you so choose, provide some kind of factual information that would support your assertion that this is some kind of major problem that cannot wait a little bit for the implementation of seg wit and the thereafter further considerations of possible block size limit increases that may follow within a year or so thereafter, if that seems necessary after seg wit.

Most technical people in bitcoin seem to agree that some kind of additional block size increase will still be necessary after the implementation of seg wit.. but there remains some uncertainties still regarding the extent to which an actual schedule of block size limit increases is going to be necessary after the implementation of seg wit. and what the timeline for that increase is going to be (or does it need to be pre-established rather than adaptive based on circumstances).  

Perhaps the CEO of blockchain.info can convince you?
 
https://medium.com/@OneMorePeter/bitcoin-scaling-and-choices-bed96a76e637#.laj905178

At Blockchain.info, where I am CEO, we have historically seen very few tickets related to transaction times or fees. Now however, we are setting new records for the number of tickets we receive in this category daily — indeed, the tickets are growing by a factor of 10 every week. It is now our top support issue by ticket volume.

His analysis on the recent so-called "spam attack" is also worthwhile.

What you provided is not evidence.  It is an opinion piece that appears to be based on selective evidence from sources that are less than clear.

Within the Peter Smith article, why not provide evidence on a longer scale that actually shows block fullness, transaction times and fees on a more specific and streamed timeline, instead of taking a clip from a short period now (of 2 weeks) and comparing that short period to some preselected 2015 period and then suggesting that somehow those clips of time are representative without showing the whole thing.  that is hardly factual, hardly convincing and hardly a credible way to present supposed facts.

Yes, Blockchain.info has charts, and I provided links to a couple of those charts that show my point. 

You are asserting that you are getting your supposed information from blockchain.info facts as well that show conclusions different from mine; however, the best you can come up with is to provide a link to some opinionated piece that does not provide actual representative or convincing data.

I will admit that the links to the Blockchain.info charts that I provided could be more detailed regarding how those charts arrive at their conclusions (regarding average blocksize and average transaction times with fees), yet, nonetheless, the charts that I provided (as far as I can tell) are the best information that is available from blockchain.info on those particular topics (and they do not support the conclusions that you have been attempting to make regarding some kind of emergency in regards to blocksize limit, fees or transaction times).

  Again, I am asking whether you have some better charts or some better factual information that I am missing that help to establish the points that you seem to be attempting to make (besides some opinion piece from someone who is apparently attempting to spin facts in order to make an argument to increase the blocksize). 

I am completely open to changing my opinion in a variety of ways if there are actual facts to support conclusions that are different from my understanding of the matter.

[aztecminer]

Breaking this $350~500 range reminds me of back in the $8-16 days

where next?

probably nowhere until obama is no longer occupying the white house. they aint going down, and if they go up might cause more volume thus exposing their scaling problem . they are truly paralyzed under obama's strategies . #GimpedCoin

[JayJuanGee]

Too much politics. Is there some technical reason we can't have both bigger blocks and better blocks? Is this more than jockeying for power?

That's the plan: Segwit = 1.7mb to 3mb (depending use), plus solves tx malleability.

Obviously, all these "disagreements" aren't about the ~300kb difference between segwit and a 2mb hf.

Okay. So, why not change a one to a two now while we wait for the other, presumably more convoluted, stuff to get done?

When you are dealing with billions of dollars, it would be irresponsible to suddenly change without any actual techinical reason (besides a bunch of loud mouthed cunts complaining).

[aztecminer]

Too much politics. Is there some technical reason we can't have both bigger blocks and better blocks? Is this more than jockeying for power?

That's the plan: Segwit = 1.7mb to 3mb (depending use), plus solves tx malleability.

Obviously, all these "disagreements" aren't about the ~300kb difference between segwit and a 2mb hf.

Okay. So, why not change a one to a two now while we wait for the other, presumably more convoluted, stuff to get done?

As far as I'm concerned, I don't have any evidence that we actually need >1mb right now, although we will get >1mb... there is actually no plan that keeps bitcoin at 1mb.... core says 1.7 in a couple months, classic says 2mb with contentious/destructive hf, so... there you have it.

When you have tx fees ranging from 1 to 5 cents (depending the priority one wants), that means there is no overwhelming actual transaction demand which in turn has an underdeveloped fee market while also allowing spare capacity to be used for spamming and wasteful transactions.

The fact that some people have 1-2 cents in their wallet software and it takes a few hours when there is an attack, is not enough to hf bitcoin and it won't change their user experience once the 2mb are flooded the same way. Therefore they need a better wallet software. The system is working as intended per satoshi's instructions on how to bypass a flood attack (you outpay the spammer). If users don't know it, it's because their wallet software obviously doesn't do a good job of notifying them that fees are dynamic and not static.

As for the timing: Even if the code for HF was issued tomorrow it would still get activated months ahead so that users can get prepared. If the recent "transaction problems" are any indicator, then if people don't even know that they have to pay a few cents to transact, then they can't *really* be depended upon for upgrading in time. It will simply create a mess. So, TLDR, segwit deployment would be much faster. A HF should be planned well ahead, again per the instructions of Satoshi.

as far as you are concerned, bitcoin still does not scale, and until it does, it still doesn't. we been talking about this for ten months.

[Ibian]

Too much politics. Is there some technical reason we can't have both bigger blocks and better blocks? Is this more than jockeying for power?

That's the plan: Segwit = 1.7mb to 3mb (depending use), plus solves tx malleability.

Obviously, all these "disagreements" aren't about the ~300kb difference between segwit and a 2mb hf.

Okay. So, why not change a one to a two now while we wait for the other, presumably more convoluted, stuff to get done?

As far as I'm concerned, I don't have any evidence that we actually need >1mb right now, although we will get >1mb... there is actually no plan that keeps bitcoin at 1mb.... core says 1.7 in a couple months, classic says 2mb with contentious/destructive hf, so... there you have it.

When you have tx fees ranging from 1 to 5 cents (depending the priority one wants), that means there is no overwhelming actual transaction demand which in turn has an underdeveloped fee market while also allowing spare capacity to be used for spamming and wasteful transactions.

The fact that some people have 1-2 cents in their wallet software and it takes a few hours when there is an attack, is not enough to hf bitcoin and it won't change their user experience once the 2mb are flooded the same way. Therefore they need a better wallet software. The system is working as intended per satoshi's instructions on how to bypass a flood attack (you outpay the spammer). If users don't know it, it's because their wallet software obviously doesn't do a good job of notifying them that fees are dynamic and not static.

As for the timing: Even if the code for HF was issued tomorrow it would still get activated months ahead so that users can get prepared. If the recent "transaction problems" are any indicator, then if people don't even know that they have to pay a few cents to transact, then they can't *really* be depended upon for upgrading in time. It will simply create a mess. So, TLDR, segwit deployment would be much faster. A HF should be planned well ahead, again per the instructions of Satoshi.

It doesn't matter if we need it now. We will need it, and soon. The failure to upgrade well ahead of time is part of why the price is as low as it is, and why adoption isn't higher.

[Ibian]

Too much politics. Is there some technical reason we can't have both bigger blocks and better blocks? Is this more than jockeying for power?

That's the plan: Segwit = 1.7mb to 3mb (depending use), plus solves tx malleability.

Obviously, all these "disagreements" aren't about the ~300kb difference between segwit and a 2mb hf.

Okay. So, why not change a one to a two now while we wait for the other, presumably more convoluted, stuff to get done?

When you are dealing with billions of dollars, it would be irresponsible to suddenly change without any actual techinical reason (besides a bunch of loud mouthed cunts complaining).

You disagree that we will need greater transaction capacity in the foreseeable future?

[JayJuanGee]

Too much politics. Is there some technical reason we can't have both bigger blocks and better blocks? Is this more than jockeying for power?

That's the plan: Segwit = 1.7mb to 3mb (depending use), plus solves tx malleability.

Obviously, all these "disagreements" aren't about the ~300kb difference between segwit and a 2mb hf.

Okay. So, why not change a one to a two now while we wait for the other, presumably more convoluted, stuff to get done?

When you are dealing with billions of dollars, it would be irresponsible to suddenly change without any actual techinical reason (besides a bunch of loud mouthed cunts complaining).

You disagree that we will need greater transaction capacity in the foreseeable future?

I don't know.   You seem to be attempting to attribute a claim to me that I am not making.  Most people, including myself, seem to believe that some kind of increased blocksize limit is going to have to take place down the road (the extent to which the time-line for such capacity increase is foreseeble seems somewhat speculative).

It surely seems that greater transaction capacity is going to be needed at some point, because it is anticipated that bitcoin is going to continue to grow. 

At this point, Seg wit is in the works and it is getting closer and closer to implementation (so it seems), and there are various plans to consider the extent to which additional increases to capacity are going to be needed after seg wit is brought live. 

So, yeah, seems pretty likely that increased users and increased transactions are going to cause for increased needs for larger block size limits. 

At this point, it does not seem to be an emergency as it is made out to be, except for a bunch of loud mouths making the problem out to be greater than it really is.  That is part of the problem.. too much whining about a supposed, alleged and speculative problem that doesn't really exist beyond the attempts at fabricating such and other innocent people seeming to believe such fabrications and the loud mouths rather than actual..

Even though there is some truth that down the road there are likely going to need to be various expansions to capacity, the matter is not as urgent and dire as it is made out to be, and no one is really arguing that expansions will never be needed.  Those are kinds of strawmen arguments to suggest that core advocates do not believe that a blocksize increase will be needed down the road.

[olli]

Browsing for rocket gifs..

Here's one:

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[JayJuanGee]

Currently, I'm considering removing a large majority of my coins from Coinbase, because of their various recent stances in the blocksize limit debate that seem to purposeful attempts at disrupting and dividing the bitcoin community (to the extent that there is such a community). 

[AlexGR]

Too much politics. Is there some technical reason we can't have both bigger blocks and better blocks? Is this more than jockeying for power?

That's the plan: Segwit = 1.7mb to 3mb (depending use), plus solves tx malleability.

Obviously, all these "disagreements" aren't about the ~300kb difference between segwit and a 2mb hf.

Okay. So, why not change a one to a two now while we wait for the other, presumably more convoluted, stuff to get done?

As far as I'm concerned, I don't have any evidence that we actually need >1mb right now, although we will get >1mb... there is actually no plan that keeps bitcoin at 1mb.... core says 1.7 in a couple months, classic says 2mb with contentious/destructive hf, so... there you have it.

When you have tx fees ranging from 1 to 5 cents (depending the priority one wants), that means there is no overwhelming actual transaction demand which in turn has an underdeveloped fee market while also allowing spare capacity to be used for spamming and wasteful transactions.

The fact that some people have 1-2 cents in their wallet software and it takes a few hours when there is an attack, is not enough to hf bitcoin and it won't change their user experience once the 2mb are flooded the same way. Therefore they need a better wallet software. The system is working as intended per satoshi's instructions on how to bypass a flood attack (you outpay the spammer). If users don't know it, it's because their wallet software obviously doesn't do a good job of notifying them that fees are dynamic and not static.

As for the timing: Even if the code for HF was issued tomorrow it would still get activated months ahead so that users can get prepared. If the recent "transaction problems" are any indicator, then if people don't even know that they have to pay a few cents to transact, then they can't *really* be depended upon for upgrading in time. It will simply create a mess. So, TLDR, segwit deployment would be much faster. A HF should be planned well ahead, again per the instructions of Satoshi.

as far as you are concerned, bitcoin still does not scale, and until it does, it still doesn't. we been talking about this for ten months.

Let's say I have far more belief in Satoshi and the mechanisms embedded in Bitcoin than those who are trying to "save" it.

Two mechanisms in particular:

a) The fee market
b) Value scaling

If Bitcoin "can't scale", with given network parameters intact since 2010, then perhaps someone can answer me how did it climb from a few dollars per day in transactions in 2010 to doing 150-230 million USD per day? It would seem impossible if we heard all the trolls.

And why is it that it can still scale from 200 million per day to 2 billion USD per day, doing over 600 billion USD per year and getting a volume that exceeds paypal and western union, multiplied by two (!), without even increasing the basic system by 1 transaction per second?

The compensatory mechanisms are extremely strong, even if there is currently a weakness in terms of transaction/sec capacity.

And since we are in an investment-related thread:

You can use the 250k transactions per day for buying coffees at 3$ apiece. You can even double or quadraple the blocksize to 4mb and get 1mn transactions of 3$ on average. Now tell me, do you feel better that you can do 12tx/s and you can buy 12 coffees per second? Do you feel better that you can only do 3mn per day or just 1 billion per year by doing microtransactions? Can you even justify BTC's marketcap of 6+ bn by doing that? The answer is no.

If, on the other hand, you are doing 250k or 1mn txs of 1000$ apiece, you are doing 250mn USD per day* to 1bn USD per day - or 91bn to 365bn per year, beating the likes of Western Union and Paypal, all the while making your marketcap grow astronomically because it's very under-rated at 6bn. You can choose whether you can go after microtransactions -where you will waste your enormous advantage- and harm your marketcap, or moving serious money and being the real deal. And the future is even brighter because we'll be able to do *both* (mass low value and high value transactions). It's technologically assured based on the tech progression curve.

* We are currently doing 150-230mn per day at 600-800$ per tx: https://blockchain.info/charts/estimated-transaction-volume-usd?timespan=30days&showDataPoints=false&daysAverageString=1&show_header=true&scale=0&address=

[becoin]

Too much politics. Is there some technical reason we can't have both bigger blocks and better blocks? Is this more than jockeying for power?

That's the plan: Segwit = 1.7mb to 3mb (depending use), plus solves tx malleability.

Obviously, all these "disagreements" aren't about the ~300kb difference between segwit and a 2mb hf.

Okay. So, why not change a one to a two now while we wait for the other, presumably more convoluted, stuff to get done?

As far as I'm concerned, I don't have any evidence that we actually need >1mb right now, although we will get >1mb... there is actually no plan that keeps bitcoin at 1mb.... core says 1.7 in a couple months, classic says 2mb with contentious/destructive hf, so... there you have it.

When you have tx fees ranging from 1 to 5 cents (depending the priority one wants), that means there is no overwhelming actual transaction demand which in turn has an underdeveloped fee market while also allowing spare capacity to be used for spamming and wasteful transactions.

The fact that some people have 1-2 cents in their wallet software and it takes a few hours when there is an attack, is not enough to hf bitcoin and it won't change their user experience once the 2mb are flooded the same way. Therefore they need a better wallet software. The system is working as intended per satoshi's instructions on how to bypass a flood attack (you outpay the spammer). If users don't know it, it's because their wallet software obviously doesn't do a good job of notifying them that fees are dynamic and not static.

As for the timing: Even if the code for HF was issued tomorrow it would still get activated months ahead so that users can get prepared. If the recent "transaction problems" are any indicator, then if people don't even know that they have to pay a few cents to transact, then they can't *really* be depended upon for upgrading in time. It will simply create a mess. So, TLDR, segwit deployment would be much faster. A HF should be planned well ahead, again per the instructions of Satoshi.

It doesn't matter if we need it now. We will need it, and soon. The failure to upgrade well ahead of time is part of why the price is as low as it is, and why adoption isn't higher.

Same BS arguments again and again...
Blocks are full because adoption is low?!
This place is not attractive because this place is overcrowded?!
Are you nuts?

Stop blabbering! Fork it!

[Ibian]

Western union and paypal base their fees on the amount of money moved. Bitcoin bases its fees on size of actual transactions in data terms. Very different business models. Pretending that you can directly compare them is fraudulent.

[adamstgBit]

Currently, I'm considering removing a large majority of my coins from Coinbase, because of their various recent stances in the blocksize limit debate that seem to purposeful attempts at disrupting and dividing the bitcoin community (to the extent that there is such a community). 

lol nice,

my advice to you is JUST DO IT