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

[BitUsher]

I did not forget the bloat cost. I addressed that.  Hard drive space is so cheap and getting cheaper that any damage caused by bloat will cost the attacker more than the network.  It currently costs ~ $5,000 in fees to bloat the blockchain by 1 GB.  Harddrive space is about 30 cents a GB (and getting cheaper), so with 10,000 nodes, it costs $3,000.  It costs 5 grand to cause less than 3 grand worth of damage. This may not be satisfactory to some, but it makes this kind of attack a much smaller worry than other problems that we need to be dealing with.

Hard drive space isn't cheap for VPN's, which is what many are being driven to by the amount of bandwidth their full nodes are consuming from home connections. Many ISP's are introducing bandwidth softcaps , so the choice for users is run a full node or watch netflix. This is already a limitation that some users are being forced to make right now at 1 MB limit, many more will be forced to make this tradeoff at 2MB limits.

Here is an example of a Really Inexpensive VPN-
For their cheap , non ssd VPN's the Hard drive space isn't that cheap ... and the bigger issue is the cost of RAM which one needs around 2GB now to run a full node or 20 USD a month. If we keep pushing the blocksize limit higher than the hard disk, CPU, and ram requirements will also grow requiring a 30 usd a month or 40 usd month VPN.

There is a reason that Core introduced some new features in 0.12.0 that allow mempool and traffic limiting... it is both to prepare for increasing the blocksize limit and because currently some nodes are having issues from crashing even with a "small" limit of 1MB.

[BitUsher]

it OK everyone will use Lightnight network so they wont need to run a full node anymore

get it?  

You are describing a much different Lightning network than core envisions. We want normal users to run lightning hubs and share fees with miners to incentivize them to run full nodes. We do not want companies like blockstream, coinbase, bitpay to control payment channels. Lightning network is supposed to be p2p where any average user can easily participate.

Are you suggesting that you don't want to increase full node diversity and count?

[adamstgBit]

I did not forget the bloat cost. I addressed that.  Hard drive space is so cheap and getting cheaper that any damage caused by bloat will cost the attacker more than the network.  It currently costs ~ $5,000 in fees to bloat the blockchain by 1 GB.  Harddrive space is about 30 cents a GB (and getting cheaper), so with 10,000 nodes, it costs $3,000.  It costs 5 grand to cause less than 3 grand worth of damage. This may not be satisfactory to some, but it makes this kind of attack a much smaller worry than other problems that we need to be dealing with.

Hard drive space isn't cheap for VPN's, which is what many are being driven to by the amount of bandwidth their full nodes are consuming from home connections. Many ISP's are introducing bandwidth softcaps , so the choice for users is run a full node or watch netflix. This is already a limitation that some users are being forced to make right now at 1 MB limit, many more will be forced to make this tradeoff at 2MB limits.

Here is an example of a Really Inexpensive VPN-
For their cheap , non ssd VPN's the Hard drive space isn't that cheap ... and the bigger issue is the cost of RAM which one needs around 2GB now to run a full node or 20 USD a month. If we keep pushing the blocksize limit higher than the hard disk, CPU, and ram requirements will also grow requiring a 30 usd a month or 40 usd month VPN.

There is a reason that Core introduced some new features in 0.12.0 that allow mempool and traffic limiting... it is both to prepare for increasing the blocksize limit and because currently some nodes are having issues from crashing even with a "small" limit of 1MB.

20$ to 50$   to run a full node on a VPN, does this sound unreasonable to you?

[coins101]

....
2) bandwidth costs (as this 1gb or 10gb or 100gb must be downloaded and served over and over in the network - for decades)
...

This is the only real issue.

Samsung announced the release of 15TB SSD last week, primarily aimed at cloud storage.  This means we'll have 100 TB SSDs in less than 10 years for the price of 4TBs now.  Storage and processing efficiency boosts in one cheap package.

One of the US satellite TV operators announced recently that they are phasing out satellite distribution and opting to adopt the Netflix model instead.  With 4k TV and huge growth of online streaming, bandwidth is going to be a significant cost issue to node operators as the block size increases. But this just means that full nodes will be pushed out of residential and into professionally managed environments.

[JayJuanGee]

The simple fact is that it's easier to disrupt a network that is already running close to capacity than one that has more excess capacity. That should be intuitively obvious to anyone without a mental handicap.

LOL well put.
I'm going to keep that one in my back pocket.

He forgot the bloat part which is achieved with less cost when the network has ample capacity.

If normal use, is, say, 500-700kb and the rest is spam that goes in for cheap, then instead of a spammer filling 300-500kb of spam for free/near free, he gets to increase that to 1300-1500, which is 3-4x.

i need ammo FOR block size increase not against it...

but you gotta admit that AlexGr just provided very good evidence why we shouldn't just rush into some kind of a blind blocksize limit increase when such blocksize limit increase does not seem to be at all necessary (except to shut up a bunch of loud ass "sky is falling" whiners). 

In spite of this supposed block size limit crisis that has been shouted about for more than a year (and more vocal in the past 6 months and even more vocal in the past couple of months - repeated shouts), there is no real evidence of a crisis and bitcoin has been doing pretty well in staving off a lot of nonsense spamming and still processing valuable transactions in a timely manner for low to no fees.

[adamstgBit]

it OK everyone will use Lightnight network so they wont need to run a full node anymore

get it?  

You are describing a much different Lightning network than core envisions. We want normal users to run lightning hubs and share fees with miners to incentivize them to run full nodes. We do not want companies like blockstream, coinbase, bitpay to control payment channels. Lightning network is supposed to be p2p where any average user can easily participate.

Are you suggesting that you don't want to increase full node diversity and count?

i'm suggesting no one will run a node to on a network that they dont use

are Lightning network node just  bitcoin full nodes + extra stuff?

[BitUsher]

20$ to 50$   to run a full node on a VPN, does this sound unreasonable to you?

Yes, We should all be able to run a full node from home and watch HD video from the same ISP uplink. There is a bottleneck in bandwidth which is not being acknowledged because ISP's are advertising short term burst bandwidth rates and not advertising their softcap limits or sustained bandwidth rates.

i'm suggesting no one will run a node to on a network that they dont use

are Lightning network node just  bitcoin full nodes + extra stuff?

Yes, LN is intended as a solution to incentivize nodes and be tightly integrated within Bitcoin so the user doesn't know the difference when making a payment. All the complexity is hidden from the user so they can run a full node and simply have the fees deposited in their wallet automatically and be able to make LN payments just like today but without the high costs of 5-10 USD a tx we currently pay now.

[BitconAssociation]

... CPU, and ram requirements will also grow requiring a 30 usd a month or 40 usd month VPN.
...

Low fees = free beer.
Spending $40/mo for the freedom from

1) 10-28% theft from capital gains taxes that
2) Theft from a exwife, expartner mandated by a judge
3) theft from asset forfeiture

It's just too damn much! I DEMAND to have my freedomz 4free!

Also lol @ ex-wife. What kind of a girl... You don't want to get mixed up with a guy like me. I'm a loner, Dottie. A rebel.

>LN [...] the user doesn't know the difference when making a payment.

Bullshit because impossible.

[coins101]

...
In spite of this supposed block size limit crisis that has been shouted about for more than a year .....there is no real evidence of a crisis....

I'm pretty sure that counts as a contradiction in terms.

The fact that there are such opposing views is itself a failure by the lead devs to maintain consensus.

[coins101]

....
Yes, LN is intended as a solution to incentivize nodes...

Christ...it will be another 10-15.83 years before there are sufficient numbers of users generating enough micro-transactions to pay nodes sufficiently to cover their costs.

[adamstgBit]

The simple fact is that it's easier to disrupt a network that is already running close to capacity than one that has more excess capacity. That should be intuitively obvious to anyone without a mental handicap.

LOL well put.
I'm going to keep that one in my back pocket.

He forgot the bloat part which is achieved with less cost when the network has ample capacity.

If normal use, is, say, 500-700kb and the rest is spam that goes in for cheap, then instead of a spammer filling 300-500kb of spam for free/near free, he gets to increase that to 1300-1500, which is 3-4x.

i need ammo FOR block size increase not against it...

but you gotta admit that AlexGr just provided very good evidence why we shouldn't just rush into some kind of a blind blocksize limit increase when such blocksize limit increase does not seem to be at all necessary (except to shut up a bunch of loud ass "sky is falling" whiners).  

In spite of this supposed block size limit crisis that has been shouted about for more than a year (and more vocal in the past 6 months and even more vocal in the past couple of months - repeated shouts), there is no real evidence of a crisis and bitcoin has been doing pretty well in staving off a lot of nonsense spamming and still processing valuable transactions in a timely manner for low to no fees.

look months ago it was " look i made a free TX and it eventually got through "
then it was " I paid just this tiny tiny fee and it eventually got through "
today its " i paid only 1 cent worth of bitcoin and it eventually got through "
tomorrow it will be " i paid only 4 cents worth of bitcoin and it eventually got through "

they will keep saying "there's no problem here" even with a 25cent fee.

[BitUsher]

...
In spite of this supposed block size limit crisis that has been shouted about for more than a year .....there is no real evidence of a crisis....

I'm pretty sure that counts as a contradiction in terms.

The fact that there are such opposing views is itself a failure by the lead devs to maintain consensus.

There never has been political consensus and never will be. This has been the case since the first year of bitcoin.
There is a Nakamoto consensus being sustained with these philosophical differences on how people envision bitcoin.

....
Yes, LN is intended as a solution to incentivize nodes...

Christ...it will be another 10-15.83 years before there are sufficient numbers of users generating enough micro-transactions to pay nodes sufficiently to cover their costs.

I don't agree on your timeline but a slow ramp up is fine, because right now there is only 2 incentives for running a full node - Security and Altruism. In the future payment channels will add a 3rd incentive.

[Adrian-x]

Right now, we cannot have blocksizes that can do VISA-level txs

This is said a lot, but it's actually not a problem that bitcoin has, it's a problem we all want to have and no one has a viable plan as to how to make that problem a reality - despite that disconnect we all conceive that it's remotely possible.

The problem bitcoin has is the block size is temporarily limited by the consensus system that's meant to prevent double spending, when in fact block size should be constrained by available technology. The Limit is temporary as Bitcoin wasn't initially conserved with the limit, and when it was added it was proposed that the limit would be increased at a point in time, first projected to be around March 2011.  

Bitcoin may not have a scalability problem at all. The scalability issue is based on a linear projection and a prediction that if we got VISA-level txs today we'd have a problem.

There is primarily one for profit company framing this debate. And were all entertaining that linear projection and the prediction as the reason to limit the block size today so bitcoin can be changed to fit with there business plan.


The reality is, limiting access to the blockchain is the problem, it's not the solution to the problem or a reason to limit the use of the blockchain, or the solution to achieving VISA-level txs. actually it's probably more likely to cause a delay in that vision, or alow bitcoin to centralize in the hands of new masters.

[Adrian-x]

O.k... take for example, when a few months ago, he said that Coinbase was going to support Classic XT etc...

FTFU - Coinbase said they were going to test XT...

[aminorex]

500$ btc when?

Monkey thinks first week of April.  Meanwhile, he expects 370 to hold.

[JayJuanGee]

I did not read all of your rewriting of my sentences because it seems like a complete waste of time because it really boils down to a childish form of an ad hominem attack.  

Don't you have better things to do with your time?  

O.k.. yep, the job of a troller is to attack and to distract with non-sense, and I suppose in that regard you are attempting to earn your money with such efforts?  

And, since you are getting paid for these kinds of trolling efforts (hopefully you get paid well, maybe ?? I hope.  Is it by the post or by the hour or a salary?  

I imagine you are getting paid by the post (in BTC how ironic), maybe .01 or more BTC per post? or some other rate,... I'm kind of guessing the rate.  The best paying signature campaigns receive around .0015 per posts, yet the best paying ones explicitly require that posters do not spam or troll, and even the best paying signature campaigns are not going to bring anywhere near enough money to live (maybe .2BTC or so per month).  Even if you live in some very cheap place, you need to be able to make 1 BTC per month or so to live, no?  I suppose it could be a supplemental income too, even with all your creative efforts?

Since you are getting paid for your distracting efforts, then I suppose, there is some kind of value.  In this regard, you get paid and your employer gets some of the value of your efforts as part of the troll/shill team.  I hope that you are making at least a couple of BTC per month for your attempts (before you get banned).

So trying to get you to post like a human being is not merely an exerciser in futility, it also makes me a paid shill?
I suppose i shouldn't mention all








the





fucking

blank lines either. Might turn me into a witch, so I won't.

You are a newbie, and amongst some of the evidence of you being a troll or paid shill: 1) you coming into the conversation as if you know everyone (and I don't give a shit about your supposed cover story that you have been reading the forum for years, blah blah blah), < snip >

I don't know.   You seem to be attempting to attempt to attribute a claim to me that I am not attempting to make, and/or have attempted to make in the past or am in the process of currently making.  Had i have attempted to make such claim, which you are attempting to attribute to me, to wit that we will need greater transaction capacity in the foreseeable future, which as stated previously, I have not attempted to make, nor am likely to make in the foreseeable future, my line of argument would be quite unlike the one to be pursued below, i.e the one i find fitting to pursue in light of your nasty and manipulative misinterpretation of my intended claim, which, as I believe I have conclusively conveyed, was not the claim that i have attempted to make.

Most people, including myself, i.e. I and many, though not all, people who are not myself, or, in layman's terms "the others," of whom there are more than one or several, and, implicitly, significantly more than one, that is up to as many as all, though I'm not attempting to imply that all the people concur with the claim which I have not made, thou such a claim would be justifiable, nay, almost begging, though make a claim such as one which you are currently attempting to attribute to me I have not, even though experts tend to concur on your being a blithering buffoon.

you pretty much prove my points with your nonsensical continued attempts at ad hominem and your not even attempting to engage with respects to substance.

[BitUsher]

look months ago it was " look i made a free TX and it eventually got through "
then it was " I paid just this tiny tiny fee and it eventually got through "
today its " i paid only 1 cent worth of bitcoin and it eventually got through "
tomorrow it will be " i paid only 4 cents worth of bitcoin and it eventually got through "

they will keep saying "there's no problem here" even with a 25cent fee.

How soon you forget... I remember paying 6-13 pennies in tx fees in early 2013 before v0.8.2

That means the tx fees have gone from dust to 8-13 pennies to 2-3 pennies , back up to 5-11 pennies(for 3 days during the spam attack) and back down to 2-4 pennies and will eventually become a more consistent 2-3 pennies with payment channels even with spam attacks.

[adamstgBit]

O.k... take for example, when a few months ago, he said that Coinbase was going to support Classic XT etc...

FTFU - Coinbase said they were going to test XT...

months ago a bunch of major players, bitpay included said they would back XT

there was an open letter.

[MaritiJames3]

...
In spite of this supposed block size limit crisis that has been shouted about for more than a year .....there is no real evidence of a crisis....

I'm pretty sure that counts as a contradiction in terms.

The fact that there are such opposing views is itself a failure by the lead devs to maintain consensus.

No there no real evidence but its possible for sure, I think we just should see what is gonna happen for sure.
I hope we will see the price rising to a high amount and in this month it can rise to 470 dollar for sure.

[adamstgBit]

look months ago it was " look i made a free TX and it eventually got through "
then it was " I paid just this tiny tiny fee and it eventually got through "
today its " i paid only 1 cent worth of bitcoin and it eventually got through "
tomorrow it will be " i paid only 4 cents worth of bitcoin and it eventually got through "

they will keep saying "there's no problem here" even with a 25cent fee.

How soon you forget... I remember paying 6-8 pennies in tx fees in early 2013 before v0.8.2

That means the tx fees have gone from dust to 8 pennies to 2 pennies , back up to 8 pennies and will eventually drop back to 2-3 pennies with payment channels.

i remember paying the 5cent fee fully knowing i could do it with no fee at all. all this proves is we dont need block to be totally full to get poeple to pay fees.