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

[AlexGR]

The actual problem comes next if transactions continue to ramp up as they have progressively leading to a backlog which never clears.

Personally, I'm not anxious for all that spam to be "cleared" by getting included in the blockchain.

It would be like having the street outside your house filled with trash and considering collecting them inside your house to "clean the street".

When the network is spammed, two things can happen, or both of them to some degree.

1) the blockchain will get bloated with spam
2) the mempool will get bloated with spam

Then it doesn't matter what price your wallet chooses, it will not guarantee inclusion by a miner, as the next person putting a transaction in will out bid you (yay fee market!).

This is only theoretical and provided all 1mb is legit use.

Practice shows that even at "extreme" load, fees don't rise above 5-6 cents.

The answer is simple: Legit txs are way below 1mb and the rest is topped off with spam. So there is no reason for fee competition at the top, as legit txs always outbid the spammers (provided their software is not crap).

What you say would happen, if indeed there was sufficient legit demand to cover the 1mb (which, unfortunately, there isn't). The time when this will be so is coming but by the time legit activity hits 1mb in a year or so, or later, we'll be at 1.7mb or more, so, again, it won't matter.

Being economically naive you would hurrah! at a working fee market. But actually by enforcing limited transactional scarcity with a blocksize cap what you actually do is break bitcoin for most people. Suddenly stuck transactions are widespread and sure you can still use bitcoin but fees will simply spiral upwards until they are ridiculous.

This is FUD (explained above why it has never worked that way).

The best bit is that as the network becomes increasingly congested actually performing a flooding attack to completely disrupt the network becomes trivially cheap to employ.

The network will still process the best paying 250.000 txs per day, undisrupted, no matter how much one floods/spams it.

[Fatman3001]

You, otoh, insist that miners need the steady hand of blockstream to determine where that supply curve abruptly stops. The core dev's are the power rangers protecting the system from outright collapse under the load of massive free spam being shoved into blocks. Of course that part isn't centralization tho.

If you've seen pictures of Gmaxwell and Luke-Jr you've seen they look super decentralized.

[JayJuanGee]

Perhaps this animated graph of block size and transaction fee can show you.

http://organofcorti.blogspot.nl/2016/03/block-size-and-transaction-fee-animation.html

A more detailed (and non-animated) view:

https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Ze8NXBUY7Z0/VtpIeA1cFYI/AAAAAAAAFeU/Ju1kct5bWHk/s1600/post2_plot2_2016-03-05.png

I will take it on faith that those graphs are factually accurate.

That goes for the graphs of blockchain.info as well. Luckily, all data is public, so everyone can check it if he wants.

A large majority of people already accept that Blockchain.info produces factually accurate information, so it seems to make little to no sense to me that you would be attempting to suggest that blockchain.info may either not be credible or that it is somehow similar in stature to some other random source.  

I never said that blockchain.info isn't credible. In fact, that list of blocks and their sizes of my first reply came straight from blockchain.info . I objected to your reference to a graph of average block sizes, because taking the average of block sizes is not a good way to try to show that there's enough space left. On the other hand, it is you who put blockchain.info on a pedestal. I don't see why the graph of Coindesk, or a site like tradeblock.com would be considered a less good source.

they still don't demonstrate some kind of emergency state, and even though a bit more granular than blockchain.info, they are not really showing anything that should cause panic. 

Suppose a bus company starts running a service in 2010. At first, you'd only see one or two people in the bus. As the bus service becomes more known, more people travel on the bus. Nowadays, busses are often completely occupied. It's common that people are left at the bus stops having to wait for the next one, esp. if they bought the cheapest tickets.

You can see that this happens more and more often. However, anyone who bought the most expensive ticket always manages to get on the next bus. Nevertheless, it happens more and more often that more and more people with the cheap tickets have to skip buses.

Yet, you say there's no reason for panic. You don't expect that the demand for the bus service will keep growing.

Your analogy of a bus seems somewhat forced, and the subsequent post of AlexGR seems to adequately, reasonably and effectively respond to various deficiencies of your bus analogy.  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=178336.msg14164904#msg14164904

I think it's a good analogy, which makes the issue easier to understand. If there are flaws in the analogy, I'm happy to discuss them. The criticism of AlexGR that people on a bus are real, and Bitcoin transactions in a block (according to him) are not, is just childish.

His other remark that it's cheap to buy all the space in a block (because blocks are quite small and transactions cheap), doesn't discredit the analogy. If someone wants to take out the high speed train from Amsterdam to Paris, he can buy all the train tickets. It's doable, and effectively a DOS attack preventing any other people from using the train. If anything, it shows my analogy is a correct one.

and maybe even if there are ways to show charts that separate spam and legit transactions 

I can imagine that a flood of tx without fee can be considered spam. But nowadays, only mining pools use zero fee tx to payout their miners. There are hardly any zero fee tx issued otherwise. (800 in the past 24 hours, source: https://bitcoinfees.21.co/ ) But if a tx carries a fee, how to decide if it's spam or not? What is your definition of spam?

I have no fucking clue about various technicalities.... I am of the understanding that there are a lot of transactions that are being sent to the blockchain to make it seem to be more full than it is in order to attempt to whine about some kind of blockchain crisis.  AlexGR addressed some of this in his post, too when he discusses how inexpensive it is to fill up the blocks with nonsense.  

If you don't understand the various technicalities, then our discussion stops right there. I do acknowledge that some people like to issue txs for no other reason then to show what happens when blocks are full for a significant period of time. Those periods are easily to recognise as they last a couple of days. However, don't forget these attacks are so easy, because there's only so little free space left an attacker needs to buy up.

I get the sense that seg wit filters out spam too, so maybe we are going to witness some better representations of what's going on once seg wit is live?.

How does SW filters spam? How does it decide which tx is spam and which is not?

I don't really know on a technical level, and so I rely on some of the descriptions regarding what it is supposed to do. My understanding is that it separates transaction involving fees from other non-fee information.  Accordingly, we are likely going to see how it plays out, but it seems to incorporate a lot of good solutions that may address some of the spamming matters.

If you don't know if SW is going to mark certain tx as spam, then don't claim it. "Lets see how it plays out" doesn't give me much confidence. That both applies to implementing SW as a complicated soft fork, as to changing the working of the blockchain from plenty of room in blocks to scarcity of space in blocks.

Anyhow, there is work on seg wit at the moment and a plan to begin with that (coming soon) and then to give further consideration to whether an additional physical block size limitation needs to be incorporated as well.. so I really am still having difficulties grappling with some of the panick.   

How many people need to wait for how many next buses until you panic? Or don't you care about others, as long as you can afford your bus ticket?

Why does it matter what I think?  

Because I'm having a discussion with you. If I wouldn't be interested in what you think, I wouldn't take you serious.

and I never said that the blocksize never needs to be increased, as you seem to be attempting to attribute to me.

Unless I understood you wrong, you seem to think that blocks are not almost permanently full, or not getting there so soon in order to plan for an increase of the block size limit. I beg to differ, and I'm trying to show you (1) blocks are quite full already, and (2) as the number of tx roughly doubles every year, it is clear that the growth of Bitcoin usage will have to come to a halt very soon. Of course, once LN is up and running, things may be different. But I'm far, far from convinced this will be the case in 6 to 12 months from now.

In other words: how many tx do you think Bitcoin should be able to process today, in 3 months, in 6 months, and in one year's time?

getting repetitive.  I think that there are expansion plans in place... good enough for me for the moment....

You don't answer my question. It may be (still) good enough at the moment, but next year? For sure, it can't be more than 400,000 tx. Something got to give.

Fact: the number if tx per day is close to the limit of 250,000. We recently touched that twice. (sources: https://blockchain.info/charts/n-transactions?timespan=2year&showDataPoints=false&daysAverageString=1&show_header=true&scale=0&address= , http://www.coindesk.com/data/bitcoin-daily-transactions/ )

We crossed the 20,000 tx/day in June 2012
We crossed the 50,000 tx/day in August 2013
We crossed the 100,000 tx/day in March 2015
We crossed the 200,000 tx/day in January 2016

And the hard limit is a little over 250,000...

So, do you think 250,000 tx/day is sufficient for Bitcoin to be successful? Do you think 400,000 tx/day is sufficient by the end of this year, when SW is rolled out and most other software is updated to take advantage of it? Do you think 400,000 tx/day will be enough until LN comes into existence?

Again, it doesn't really matter that much what I think.  

Then we can stop this discussion.

But it seems that AlexGR addressed this matter too.

 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=178336.msg14164904#msg14164904

In essence, there may be some peaks of 250k transactions per day, but likely not even really close to that in regards to legitimate transactions  and there remain adequate expansion plans already in the works and likely many more to come.. so why fret about something that is still in the works and not at an emergency state yet?

Transactions that are paid for are legitimate. If you want to use the intent of the person doing the tx as criterion for legitimacy, then you throw out the censorship resistance quality that Bitcoin is famous for.

Overall, we are repeating ourselves, and I am genuinely not interested in debating the matter of blocksize limits. 

I already stated my position much more than I feel is necessary in relation to bitcoin prices  and wall speculation.. blah blah blah.  In essence, I said that I am not convinced that there is a problem as you keep arguing that there is some kind of problem.  In that regard, what's the point of going over and over and over the same points, and mostly speculation that there may be a problem later?

I am involved in this thread in order to discuss price matters, and wall matters, and predictions, and to look at stupid animated gifs and that kind of stuff.

I think that there are sufficient plans in place in order to address blocksize limits in the near future that are likely going to be worked out and are evolving.. including seg wit and that is good enough for me in order to continue to invest in bitcoin and consider bitcoin with a rosey and bright future.. inspite of ongoing forking whiners.

[AliceGored]

If you've seen pictures of Gmaxwell and Luke-Jr you've seen they look super decentralized.

https://i.imgur.com/F2O5vRg.png

Luke Jr couldn't be located, possibly busy putting heretics to the sword of righteousness.

[Fatman3001]

Perhaps this animated graph of block size and transaction fee can show you.

http://organofcorti.blogspot.nl/2016/03/block-size-and-transaction-fee-animation.html

A more detailed (and non-animated) view:

https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Ze8NXBUY7Z0/VtpIeA1cFYI/AAAAAAAAFeU/Ju1kct5bWHk/s1600/post2_plot2_2016-03-05.png

I will take it on faith that those graphs are factually accurate.

That goes for the graphs of blockchain.info as well. Luckily, all data is public, so everyone can check it if he wants.

A large majority of people already accept that Blockchain.info produces factually accurate information, so it seems to make little to no sense to me that you would be attempting to suggest that blockchain.info may either not be credible or that it is somehow similar in stature to some other random source.  

I never said that blockchain.info isn't credible. In fact, that list of blocks and their sizes of my first reply came straight from blockchain.info . I objected to your reference to a graph of average block sizes, because taking the average of block sizes is not a good way to try to show that there's enough space left. On the other hand, it is you who put blockchain.info on a pedestal. I don't see why the graph of Coindesk, or a site like tradeblock.com would be considered a less good source.

they still don't demonstrate some kind of emergency state, and even though a bit more granular than blockchain.info, they are not really showing anything that should cause panic. 

Suppose a bus company starts running a service in 2010. At first, you'd only see one or two people in the bus. As the bus service becomes more known, more people travel on the bus. Nowadays, busses are often completely occupied. It's common that people are left at the bus stops having to wait for the next one, esp. if they bought the cheapest tickets.

You can see that this happens more and more often. However, anyone who bought the most expensive ticket always manages to get on the next bus. Nevertheless, it happens more and more often that more and more people with the cheap tickets have to skip buses.

Yet, you say there's no reason for panic. You don't expect that the demand for the bus service will keep growing.

Your analogy of a bus seems somewhat forced, and the subsequent post of AlexGR seems to adequately, reasonably and effectively respond to various deficiencies of your bus analogy.  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=178336.msg14164904#msg14164904

I think it's a good analogy, which makes the issue easier to understand. If there are flaws in the analogy, I'm happy to discuss them. The criticism of AlexGR that people on a bus are real, and Bitcoin transactions in a block (according to him) are not, is just childish.

His other remark that it's cheap to buy all the space in a block (because blocks are quite small and transactions cheap), doesn't discredit the analogy. If someone wants to take out the high speed train from Amsterdam to Paris, he can buy all the train tickets. It's doable, and effectively a DOS attack preventing any other people from using the train. If anything, it shows my analogy is a correct one.

and maybe even if there are ways to show charts that separate spam and legit transactions 

I can imagine that a flood of tx without fee can be considered spam. But nowadays, only mining pools use zero fee tx to payout their miners. There are hardly any zero fee tx issued otherwise. (800 in the past 24 hours, source: https://bitcoinfees.21.co/ ) But if a tx carries a fee, how to decide if it's spam or not? What is your definition of spam?

I have no fucking clue about various technicalities.... I am of the understanding that there are a lot of transactions that are being sent to the blockchain to make it seem to be more full than it is in order to attempt to whine about some kind of blockchain crisis.  AlexGR addressed some of this in his post, too when he discusses how inexpensive it is to fill up the blocks with nonsense.  

If you don't understand the various technicalities, then our discussion stops right there. I do acknowledge that some people like to issue txs for no other reason then to show what happens when blocks are full for a significant period of time. Those periods are easily to recognise as they last a couple of days. However, don't forget these attacks are so easy, because there's only so little free space left an attacker needs to buy up.

I get the sense that seg wit filters out spam too, so maybe we are going to witness some better representations of what's going on once seg wit is live?.

How does SW filters spam? How does it decide which tx is spam and which is not?

I don't really know on a technical level, and so I rely on some of the descriptions regarding what it is supposed to do. My understanding is that it separates transaction involving fees from other non-fee information.  Accordingly, we are likely going to see how it plays out, but it seems to incorporate a lot of good solutions that may address some of the spamming matters.

If you don't know if SW is going to mark certain tx as spam, then don't claim it. "Lets see how it plays out" doesn't give me much confidence. That both applies to implementing SW as a complicated soft fork, as to changing the working of the blockchain from plenty of room in blocks to scarcity of space in blocks.

Anyhow, there is work on seg wit at the moment and a plan to begin with that (coming soon) and then to give further consideration to whether an additional physical block size limitation needs to be incorporated as well.. so I really am still having difficulties grappling with some of the panick.   

How many people need to wait for how many next buses until you panic? Or don't you care about others, as long as you can afford your bus ticket?

Why does it matter what I think?  

Because I'm having a discussion with you. If I wouldn't be interested in what you think, I wouldn't take you serious.

and I never said that the blocksize never needs to be increased, as you seem to be attempting to attribute to me.

Unless I understood you wrong, you seem to think that blocks are not almost permanently full, or not getting there so soon in order to plan for an increase of the block size limit. I beg to differ, and I'm trying to show you (1) blocks are quite full already, and (2) as the number of tx roughly doubles every year, it is clear that the growth of Bitcoin usage will have to come to a halt very soon. Of course, once LN is up and running, things may be different. But I'm far, far from convinced this will be the case in 6 to 12 months from now.

In other words: how many tx do you think Bitcoin should be able to process today, in 3 months, in 6 months, and in one year's time?

getting repetitive.  I think that there are expansion plans in place... good enough for me for the moment....

You don't answer my question. It may be (still) good enough at the moment, but next year? For sure, it can't be more than 400,000 tx. Something got to give.

Fact: the number if tx per day is close to the limit of 250,000. We recently touched that twice. (sources: https://blockchain.info/charts/n-transactions?timespan=2year&showDataPoints=false&daysAverageString=1&show_header=true&scale=0&address= , http://www.coindesk.com/data/bitcoin-daily-transactions/ )

We crossed the 20,000 tx/day in June 2012
We crossed the 50,000 tx/day in August 2013
We crossed the 100,000 tx/day in March 2015
We crossed the 200,000 tx/day in January 2016

And the hard limit is a little over 250,000...

So, do you think 250,000 tx/day is sufficient for Bitcoin to be successful? Do you think 400,000 tx/day is sufficient by the end of this year, when SW is rolled out and most other software is updated to take advantage of it? Do you think 400,000 tx/day will be enough until LN comes into existence?

Again, it doesn't really matter that much what I think.  

Then we can stop this discussion.

But it seems that AlexGR addressed this matter too.

 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=178336.msg14164904#msg14164904

In essence, there may be some peaks of 250k transactions per day, but likely not even really close to that in regards to legitimate transactions  and there remain adequate expansion plans already in the works and likely many more to come.. so why fret about something that is still in the works and not at an emergency state yet?

Transactions that are paid for are legitimate. If you want to use the intent of the person doing the tx as criterion for legitimacy, then you throw out the censorship resistance quality that Bitcoin is famous for.

Overall, we are repeating ourselves, and I am genuinely not interested in debating the matter of blocksize limits. 

I already stated my position much more than I feel is necessary in relation to bitcoin prices  and wall speculation.. blah blah blah.  In essence, I said that I am not convinced that there is a problem as you keep arguing that there is some kind of problem.  In that regard, what's the point of going over and over and over the same points, and mostly speculation that there may be a problem later?

I am involved in this thread in order to discuss price matters, and wall matters, and predictions, and to look at stupid animated gifs and that kind of stuff.

I think that there are sufficient plans in place in order to address blocksize limits in the near future that are likely going to be worked out and are evolving.. including seg wit and that is good enough for me in order to continue to invest in bitcoin and consider bitcoin with a rosey and bright future.. inspite of ongoing forking whiners.

Let's look at that again.

Perhaps this animated graph of block size and transaction fee can show you.

http://organofcorti.blogspot.nl/2016/03/block-size-and-transaction-fee-animation.html

A more detailed (and non-animated) view:

https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Ze8NXBUY7Z0/VtpIeA1cFYI/AAAAAAAAFeU/Ju1kct5bWHk/s1600/post2_plot2_2016-03-05.png

I will take it on faith that those graphs are factually accurate.

That goes for the graphs of blockchain.info as well. Luckily, all data is public, so everyone can check it if he wants.

A large majority of people already accept that Blockchain.info produces factually accurate information, so it seems to make little to no sense to me that you would be attempting to suggest that blockchain.info may either not be credible or that it is somehow similar in stature to some other random source. 

I never said that blockchain.info isn't credible. In fact, that list of blocks and their sizes of my first reply came straight from blockchain.info . I objected to your reference to a graph of average block sizes, because taking the average of block sizes is not a good way to try to show that there's enough space left. On the other hand, it is you who put blockchain.info on a pedestal. I don't see why the graph of Coindesk, or a site like tradeblock.com would be considered a less good source.

they still don't demonstrate some kind of emergency state, and even though a bit more granular than blockchain.info, they are not really showing anything that should cause panic. 

Suppose a bus company starts running a service in 2010. At first, you'd only see one or two people in the bus. As the bus service becomes more known, more people travel on the bus. Nowadays, busses are often completely occupied. It's common that people are left at the bus stops having to wait for the next one, esp. if they bought the cheapest tickets.

You can see that this happens more and more often. However, anyone who bought the most expensive ticket always manages to get on the next bus. Nevertheless, it happens more and more often that more and more people with the cheap tickets have to skip buses.

Yet, you say there's no reason for panic. You don't expect that the demand for the bus service will keep growing.

Your analogy of a bus seems somewhat forced, and the subsequent post of AlexGR seems to adequately, reasonably and effectively respond to various deficiencies of your bus analogy.  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=178336.msg14164904#msg14164904

I think it's a good analogy, which makes the issue easier to understand. If there are flaws in the analogy, I'm happy to discuss them. The criticism of AlexGR that people on a bus are real, and Bitcoin transactions in a block (according to him) are not, is just childish.

His other remark that it's cheap to buy all the space in a block (because blocks are quite small and transactions cheap), doesn't discredit the analogy. If someone wants to take out the high speed train from Amsterdam to Paris, he can buy all the train tickets. It's doable, and effectively a DOS attack preventing any other people from using the train. If anything, it shows my analogy is a correct one.

and maybe even if there are ways to show charts that separate spam and legit transactions 

I can imagine that a flood of tx without fee can be considered spam. But nowadays, only mining pools use zero fee tx to payout their miners. There are hardly any zero fee tx issued otherwise. (800 in the past 24 hours, source: https://bitcoinfees.21.co/ ) But if a tx carries a fee, how to decide if it's spam or not? What is your definition of spam?

I have no fucking clue about various technicalities.... I am of the understanding that there are a lot of transactions that are being sent to the blockchain to make it seem to be more full than it is in order to attempt to whine about some kind of blockchain crisis.  AlexGR addressed some of this in his post, too when he discusses how inexpensive it is to fill up the blocks with nonsense. 

If you don't understand the various technicalities, then our discussion stops right there. I do acknowledge that some people like to issue txs for no other reason then to show what happens when blocks are full for a significant period of time. Those periods are easily to recognise as they last a couple of days. However, don't forget these attacks are so easy, because there's only so little free space left an attacker needs to buy up.

I get the sense that seg wit filters out spam too, so maybe we are going to witness some better representations of what's going on once seg wit is live?.

How does SW filters spam? How does it decide which tx is spam and which is not?

I don't really know on a technical level, and so I rely on some of the descriptions regarding what it is supposed to do. My understanding is that it separates transaction involving fees from other non-fee information.  Accordingly, we are likely going to see how it plays out, but it seems to incorporate a lot of good solutions that may address some of the spamming matters.

If you don't know if SW is going to mark certain tx as spam, then don't claim it. "Lets see how it plays out" doesn't give me much confidence. That both applies to implementing SW as a complicated soft fork, as to changing the working of the blockchain from plenty of room in blocks to scarcity of space in blocks.

Anyhow, there is work on seg wit at the moment and a plan to begin with that (coming soon) and then to give further consideration to whether an additional physical block size limitation needs to be incorporated as well.. so I really am still having difficulties grappling with some of the panick.   

How many people need to wait for how many next buses until you panic? Or don't you care about others, as long as you can afford your bus ticket?

Why does it matter what I think? 

Because I'm having a discussion with you. If I wouldn't be interested in what you think, I wouldn't take you serious.

and I never said that the blocksize never needs to be increased, as you seem to be attempting to attribute to me.

Unless I understood you wrong, you seem to think that blocks are not almost permanently full, or not getting there so soon in order to plan for an increase of the block size limit. I beg to differ, and I'm trying to show you (1) blocks are quite full already, and (2) as the number of tx roughly doubles every year, it is clear that the growth of Bitcoin usage will have to come to a halt very soon. Of course, once LN is up and running, things may be different. But I'm far, far from convinced this will be the case in 6 to 12 months from now.

In other words: how many tx do you think Bitcoin should be able to process today, in 3 months, in 6 months, and in one year's time?

getting repetitive.  I think that there are expansion plans in place... good enough for me for the moment....

You don't answer my question. It may be (still) good enough at the moment, but next year? For sure, it can't be more than 400,000 tx. Something got to give.

Fact: the number if tx per day is close to the limit of 250,000. We recently touched that twice. (sources: https://blockchain.info/charts/n-transactions?timespan=2year&showDataPoints=false&daysAverageString=1&show_header=true&scale=0&address= , http://www.coindesk.com/data/bitcoin-daily-transactions/ )

We crossed the 20,000 tx/day in June 2012
We crossed the 50,000 tx/day in August 2013
We crossed the 100,000 tx/day in March 2015
We crossed the 200,000 tx/day in January 2016

And the hard limit is a little over 250,000...

So, do you think 250,000 tx/day is sufficient for Bitcoin to be successful? Do you think 400,000 tx/day is sufficient by the end of this year, when SW is rolled out and most other software is updated to take advantage of it? Do you think 400,000 tx/day will be enough until LN comes into existence?

Again, it doesn't really matter that much what I think. 

Then we can stop this discussion.

But it seems that AlexGR addressed this matter too.

 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=178336.msg14164904#msg14164904

In essence, there may be some peaks of 250k transactions per day, but likely not even really close to that in regards to legitimate transactions  and there remain adequate expansion plans already in the works and likely many more to come.. so why fret about something that is still in the works and not at an emergency state yet?

Transactions that are paid for are legitimate. If you want to use the intent of the person doing the tx as criterion for legitimacy, then you throw out the censorship resistance quality that Bitcoin is famous for.

Overall, we are repeating ourselves, and I am genuinely not interested in debating the matter of blocksize limits. 

I already stated my position much more than I feel is necessary in relation to bitcoin prices  and wall speculation.. blah blah blah.  In essence, I said that I am not convinced that there is a problem as you keep arguing that there is some kind of problem.  In that regard, what's the point of going over and over and over the same points, and mostly speculation that there may be a problem later?

I am involved in this thread in order to discuss price matters, and wall matters, and predictions, and to look at stupid animated gifs and that kind of stuff.

I think that there are sufficient plans in place in order to address blocksize limits in the near future that are likely going to be worked out and are evolving.. including seg wit and that is good enough for me in order to continue to invest in bitcoin and consider bitcoin with a rosey and bright future.. inspite of ongoing forking whiners.

There's reallly something here...

Again please.

Perhaps this animated graph of block size and transaction fee can show you.

http://organofcorti.blogspot.nl/2016/03/block-size-and-transaction-fee-animation.html

A more detailed (and non-animated) view:

https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Ze8NXBUY7Z0/VtpIeA1cFYI/AAAAAAAAFeU/Ju1kct5bWHk/s1600/post2_plot2_2016-03-05.png

I will take it on faith that those graphs are factually accurate.

That goes for the graphs of blockchain.info as well. Luckily, all data is public, so everyone can check it if he wants.

A large majority of people already accept that Blockchain.info produces factually accurate information, so it seems to make little to no sense to me that you would be attempting to suggest that blockchain.info may either not be credible or that it is somehow similar in stature to some other random source. 

I never said that blockchain.info isn't credible. In fact, that list of blocks and their sizes of my first reply came straight from blockchain.info . I objected to your reference to a graph of average block sizes, because taking the average of block sizes is not a good way to try to show that there's enough space left. On the other hand, it is you who put blockchain.info on a pedestal. I don't see why the graph of Coindesk, or a site like tradeblock.com would be considered a less good source.

they still don't demonstrate some kind of emergency state, and even though a bit more granular than blockchain.info, they are not really showing anything that should cause panic. 

Suppose a bus company starts running a service in 2010. At first, you'd only see one or two people in the bus. As the bus service becomes more known, more people travel on the bus. Nowadays, busses are often completely occupied. It's common that people are left at the bus stops having to wait for the next one, esp. if they bought the cheapest tickets.

You can see that this happens more and more often. However, anyone who bought the most expensive ticket always manages to get on the next bus. Nevertheless, it happens more and more often that more and more people with the cheap tickets have to skip buses.

Yet, you say there's no reason for panic. You don't expect that the demand for the bus service will keep growing.

Your analogy of a bus seems somewhat forced, and the subsequent post of AlexGR seems to adequately, reasonably and effectively respond to various deficiencies of your bus analogy.  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=178336.msg14164904#msg14164904

I think it's a good analogy, which makes the issue easier to understand. If there are flaws in the analogy, I'm happy to discuss them. The criticism of AlexGR that people on a bus are real, and Bitcoin transactions in a block (according to him) are not, is just childish.

His other remark that it's cheap to buy all the space in a block (because blocks are quite small and transactions cheap), doesn't discredit the analogy. If someone wants to take out the high speed train from Amsterdam to Paris, he can buy all the train tickets. It's doable, and effectively a DOS attack preventing any other people from using the train. If anything, it shows my analogy is a correct one.

and maybe even if there are ways to show charts that separate spam and legit transactions 

I can imagine that a flood of tx without fee can be considered spam. But nowadays, only mining pools use zero fee tx to payout their miners. There are hardly any zero fee tx issued otherwise. (800 in the past 24 hours, source: https://bitcoinfees.21.co/ ) But if a tx carries a fee, how to decide if it's spam or not? What is your definition of spam?

I have no fucking clue about various technicalities.... I am of the understanding that there are a lot of transactions that are being sent to the blockchain to make it seem to be more full than it is in order to attempt to whine about some kind of blockchain crisis.  AlexGR addressed some of this in his post, too when he discusses how inexpensive it is to fill up the blocks with nonsense. 

If you don't understand the various technicalities, then our discussion stops right there. I do acknowledge that some people like to issue txs for no other reason then to show what happens when blocks are full for a significant period of time. Those periods are easily to recognise as they last a couple of days. However, don't forget these attacks are so easy, because there's only so little free space left an attacker needs to buy up.

I get the sense that seg wit filters out spam too, so maybe we are going to witness some better representations of what's going on once seg wit is live?.

How does SW filters spam? How does it decide which tx is spam and which is not?

I don't really know on a technical level, and so I rely on some of the descriptions regarding what it is supposed to do. My understanding is that it separates transaction involving fees from other non-fee information.  Accordingly, we are likely going to see how it plays out, but it seems to incorporate a lot of good solutions that may address some of the spamming matters.

If you don't know if SW is going to mark certain tx as spam, then don't claim it. "Lets see how it plays out" doesn't give me much confidence. That both applies to implementing SW as a complicated soft fork, as to changing the working of the blockchain from plenty of room in blocks to scarcity of space in blocks.

Anyhow, there is work on seg wit at the moment and a plan to begin with that (coming soon) and then to give further consideration to whether an additional physical block size limitation needs to be incorporated as well.. so I really am still having difficulties grappling with some of the panick.   

How many people need to wait for how many next buses until you panic? Or don't you care about others, as long as you can afford your bus ticket?

Why does it matter what I think? 

Because I'm having a discussion with you. If I wouldn't be interested in what you think, I wouldn't take you serious.

and I never said that the blocksize never needs to be increased, as you seem to be attempting to attribute to me.

Unless I understood you wrong, you seem to think that blocks are not almost permanently full, or not getting there so soon in order to plan for an increase of the block size limit. I beg to differ, and I'm trying to show you (1) blocks are quite full already, and (2) as the number of tx roughly doubles every year, it is clear that the growth of Bitcoin usage will have to come to a halt very soon. Of course, once LN is up and running, things may be different. But I'm far, far from convinced this will be the case in 6 to 12 months from now.

In other words: how many tx do you think Bitcoin should be able to process today, in 3 months, in 6 months, and in one year's time?

getting repetitive.  I think that there are expansion plans in place... good enough for me for the moment....

You don't answer my question. It may be (still) good enough at the moment, but next year? For sure, it can't be more than 400,000 tx. Something got to give.

Fact: the number if tx per day is close to the limit of 250,000. We recently touched that twice. (sources: https://blockchain.info/charts/n-transactions?timespan=2year&showDataPoints=false&daysAverageString=1&show_header=true&scale=0&address= , http://www.coindesk.com/data/bitcoin-daily-transactions/ )

We crossed the 20,000 tx/day in June 2012
We crossed the 50,000 tx/day in August 2013
We crossed the 100,000 tx/day in March 2015
We crossed the 200,000 tx/day in January 2016

And the hard limit is a little over 250,000...

So, do you think 250,000 tx/day is sufficient for Bitcoin to be successful? Do you think 400,000 tx/day is sufficient by the end of this year, when SW is rolled out and most other software is updated to take advantage of it? Do you think 400,000 tx/day will be enough until LN comes into existence?

Again, it doesn't really matter that much what I think. 

Then we can stop this discussion.

But it seems that AlexGR addressed this matter too.

 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=178336.msg14164904#msg14164904

In essence, there may be some peaks of 250k transactions per day, but likely not even really close to that in regards to legitimate transactions  and there remain adequate expansion plans already in the works and likely many more to come.. so why fret about something that is still in the works and not at an emergency state yet?

Transactions that are paid for are legitimate. If you want to use the intent of the person doing the tx as criterion for legitimacy, then you throw out the censorship resistance quality that Bitcoin is famous for.

Overall, we are repeating ourselves, and I am genuinely not interested in debating the matter of blocksize limits. 

I already stated my position much more than I feel is necessary in relation to bitcoin prices  and wall speculation.. blah blah blah.  In essence, I said that I am not convinced that there is a problem as you keep arguing that there is some kind of problem.  In that regard, what's the point of going over and over and over the same points, and mostly speculation that there may be a problem later?

I am involved in this thread in order to discuss price matters, and wall matters, and predictions, and to look at stupid animated gifs and that kind of stuff.

I think that there are sufficient plans in place in order to address blocksize limits in the near future that are likely going to be worked out and are evolving.. including seg wit and that is good enough for me in order to continue to invest in bitcoin and consider bitcoin with a rosey and bright future.. inspite of ongoing forking whiners.

There's some mind-blowing stuff here that bears repeating.

Perhaps this animated graph of block size and transaction fee can show you.

http://organofcorti.blogspot.nl/2016/03/block-size-and-transaction-fee-animation.html

A more detailed (and non-animated) view:

https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Ze8NXBUY7Z0/VtpIeA1cFYI/AAAAAAAAFeU/Ju1kct5bWHk/s1600/post2_plot2_2016-03-05.png

I will take it on faith that those graphs are factually accurate.

That goes for the graphs of blockchain.info as well. Luckily, all data is public, so everyone can check it if he wants.

A large majority of people already accept that Blockchain.info produces factually accurate information, so it seems to make little to no sense to me that you would be attempting to suggest that blockchain.info may either not be credible or that it is somehow similar in stature to some other random source. 

I never said that blockchain.info isn't credible. In fact, that list of blocks and their sizes of my first reply came straight from blockchain.info . I objected to your reference to a graph of average block sizes, because taking the average of block sizes is not a good way to try to show that there's enough space left. On the other hand, it is you who put blockchain.info on a pedestal. I don't see why the graph of Coindesk, or a site like tradeblock.com would be considered a less good source.

they still don't demonstrate some kind of emergency state, and even though a bit more granular than blockchain.info, they are not really showing anything that should cause panic. 

Suppose a bus company starts running a service in 2010. At first, you'd only see one or two people in the bus. As the bus service becomes more known, more people travel on the bus. Nowadays, busses are often completely occupied. It's common that people are left at the bus stops having to wait for the next one, esp. if they bought the cheapest tickets.

You can see that this happens more and more often. However, anyone who bought the most expensive ticket always manages to get on the next bus. Nevertheless, it happens more and more often that more and more people with the cheap tickets have to skip buses.

Yet, you say there's no reason for panic. You don't expect that the demand for the bus service will keep growing.

Your analogy of a bus seems somewhat forced, and the subsequent post of AlexGR seems to adequately, reasonably and effectively respond to various deficiencies of your bus analogy.  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=178336.msg14164904#msg14164904

I think it's a good analogy, which makes the issue easier to understand. If there are flaws in the analogy, I'm happy to discuss them. The criticism of AlexGR that people on a bus are real, and Bitcoin transactions in a block (according to him) are not, is just childish.

His other remark that it's cheap to buy all the space in a block (because blocks are quite small and transactions cheap), doesn't discredit the analogy. If someone wants to take out the high speed train from Amsterdam to Paris, he can buy all the train tickets. It's doable, and effectively a DOS attack preventing any other people from using the train. If anything, it shows my analogy is a correct one.

and maybe even if there are ways to show charts that separate spam and legit transactions 

I can imagine that a flood of tx without fee can be considered spam. But nowadays, only mining pools use zero fee tx to payout their miners. There are hardly any zero fee tx issued otherwise. (800 in the past 24 hours, source: https://bitcoinfees.21.co/ ) But if a tx carries a fee, how to decide if it's spam or not? What is your definition of spam?

I have no fucking clue about various technicalities.... I am of the understanding that there are a lot of transactions that are being sent to the blockchain to make it seem to be more full than it is in order to attempt to whine about some kind of blockchain crisis.  AlexGR addressed some of this in his post, too when he discusses how inexpensive it is to fill up the blocks with nonsense. 

If you don't understand the various technicalities, then our discussion stops right there. I do acknowledge that some people like to issue txs for no other reason then to show what happens when blocks are full for a significant period of time. Those periods are easily to recognise as they last a couple of days. However, don't forget these attacks are so easy, because there's only so little free space left an attacker needs to buy up.

I get the sense that seg wit filters out spam too, so maybe we are going to witness some better representations of what's going on once seg wit is live?.

How does SW filters spam? How does it decide which tx is spam and which is not?

I don't really know on a technical level, and so I rely on some of the descriptions regarding what it is supposed to do. My understanding is that it separates transaction involving fees from other non-fee information.  Accordingly, we are likely going to see how it plays out, but it seems to incorporate a lot of good solutions that may address some of the spamming matters.

If you don't know if SW is going to mark certain tx as spam, then don't claim it. "Lets see how it plays out" doesn't give me much confidence. That both applies to implementing SW as a complicated soft fork, as to changing the working of the blockchain from plenty of room in blocks to scarcity of space in blocks.

Anyhow, there is work on seg wit at the moment and a plan to begin with that (coming soon) and then to give further consideration to whether an additional physical block size limitation needs to be incorporated as well.. so I really am still having difficulties grappling with some of the panick.   

How many people need to wait for how many next buses until you panic? Or don't you care about others, as long as you can afford your bus ticket?

Why does it matter what I think? 

Because I'm having a discussion with you. If I wouldn't be interested in what you think, I wouldn't take you serious.

and I never said that the blocksize never needs to be increased, as you seem to be attempting to attribute to me.

Unless I understood you wrong, you seem to think that blocks are not almost permanently full, or not getting there so soon in order to plan for an increase of the block size limit. I beg to differ, and I'm trying to show you (1) blocks are quite full already, and (2) as the number of tx roughly doubles every year, it is clear that the growth of Bitcoin usage will have to come to a halt very soon. Of course, once LN is up and running, things may be different. But I'm far, far from convinced this will be the case in 6 to 12 months from now.

In other words: how many tx do you think Bitcoin should be able to process today, in 3 months, in 6 months, and in one year's time?

getting repetitive.  I think that there are expansion plans in place... good enough for me for the moment....

You don't answer my question. It may be (still) good enough at the moment, but next year? For sure, it can't be more than 400,000 tx. Something got to give.

Fact: the number if tx per day is close to the limit of 250,000. We recently touched that twice. (sources: https://blockchain.info/charts/n-transactions?timespan=2year&showDataPoints=false&daysAverageString=1&show_header=true&scale=0&address= , http://www.coindesk.com/data/bitcoin-daily-transactions/ )

We crossed the 20,000 tx/day in June 2012
We crossed the 50,000 tx/day in August 2013
We crossed the 100,000 tx/day in March 2015
We crossed the 200,000 tx/day in January 2016

And the hard limit is a little over 250,000...

So, do you think 250,000 tx/day is sufficient for Bitcoin to be successful? Do you think 400,000 tx/day is sufficient by the end of this year, when SW is rolled out and most other software is updated to take advantage of it? Do you think 400,000 tx/day will be enough until LN comes into existence?

Again, it doesn't really matter that much what I think. 

Then we can stop this discussion.

But it seems that AlexGR addressed this matter too.

 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=178336.msg14164904#msg14164904

In essence, there may be some peaks of 250k transactions per day, but likely not even really close to that in regards to legitimate transactions  and there remain adequate expansion plans already in the works and likely many more to come.. so why fret about something that is still in the works and not at an emergency state yet?

Transactions that are paid for are legitimate. If you want to use the intent of the person doing the tx as criterion for legitimacy, then you throw out the censorship resistance quality that Bitcoin is famous for.

Overall, we are repeating ourselves, and I am genuinely not interested in debating the matter of blocksize limits. 

I already stated my position much more than I feel is necessary in relation to bitcoin prices  and wall speculation.. blah blah blah.  In essence, I said that I am not convinced that there is a problem as you keep arguing that there is some kind of problem.  In that regard, what's the point of going over and over and over the same points, and mostly speculation that there may be a problem later?

I am involved in this thread in order to discuss price matters, and wall matters, and predictions, and to look at stupid animated gifs and that kind of stuff.

I think that there are sufficient plans in place in order to address blocksize limits in the near future that are likely going to be worked out and are evolving.. including seg wit and that is good enough for me in order to continue to invest in bitcoin and consider bitcoin with a rosey and bright future.. inspite of ongoing forking whiners.

Crap!

Lost it.

[inca]

The actual problem comes next if transactions continue to ramp up as they have progressively leading to a backlog which never clears.

Personally, I'm not anxious for all that spam to be "cleared" by getting included in the blockchain.

It would be like having the street outside your house filled with trash and considering collecting them inside your house to "clean the street".

When the network is spammed, two things can happen, or both of them to some degree.

1) the blockchain will get bloated with spam
2) the mempool will get bloated with spam

Then it doesn't matter what price your wallet chooses, it will not guarantee inclusion by a miner, as the next person putting a transaction in will out bid you (yay fee market!).

This is only theoretical and provided all 1mb is legit use.

Practice shows that even at "extreme" load, fees don't rise above 5-6 cents.

The answer is simple: Legit txs are way below 1mb and the rest is topped off with spam. So there is no reason for fee competition at the top, as legit txs always outbid the spammers (provided their software is not crap).

What you say would happen, if indeed there was sufficient legit demand to cover the 1mb (which, unfortunately, there isn't). The time when this will be so is coming but by the time legit activity hits 1mb in a year or so, or later, we'll be at 1.7mb or more, so, again, it won't matter.

Being economically naive you would hurrah! at a working fee market. But actually by enforcing limited transactional scarcity with a blocksize cap what you actually do is break bitcoin for most people. Suddenly stuck transactions are widespread and sure you can still use bitcoin but fees will simply spiral upwards until they are ridiculous.

This is FUD (explained above why it has never worked that way).

The best bit is that as the network becomes increasingly congested actually performing a flooding attack to completely disrupt the network becomes trivially cheap to employ.

The network will still process the best paying 250.000 txs per day, undisrupted, no matter how much one floods/spams it.

Why do I feel you are deliberately choosing not to see the other POV? Let's forget for a minute that you seem to have the ability to tell apart a user transaction from a spam transaction and suggest that actually the daily demand for transactions rises above 250,000 consistently. Tell me how exactly users who are unable to get a transaction confirmed (they just sit there ad infinitum) are not 'disrupted'?
Since when did failure of transactions to be written to the chain become a feature? It is a sign of failure.

[Fatman3001]

If you've seen pictures of Gmaxwell and Luke-Jr you've seen they look super decentralized.

https://i.imgur.com/F2O5vRg.png

Luke Jr couldn't be located, possibly busy putting heretics to the sword of righteousness.

Or he's just too decentralized

[rebuilder]

Personally, I'm not anxious for all that spam to be "cleared" by getting included in the blockchain.

It would be like having the street outside your house filled with trash and considering collecting them inside your house to "clean the street".

Nice analogy, it illustrates how we disagree. Going with the trash theme, IMO the current setup is akin to saying everything people throw away should be dumped and never touched again. Never mind that due to changing market conditions and innovation, some trash may actually be valuable to people if they can get their hands on it - recycling metals for example.

If you remove, by dictate, the ability to process "trash" beyond some arbitrary treshold, you remove the markets ability to correctly value that "trash".

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[explorer]

LOL quite possibly the longest page in this thread   

Perhaps this animated graph of block size and transaction fee can show you.

http://organofcorti.blogspot.nl/2016/03/block-size-and-transaction-fee-animation.html

A more detailed (and non-animated) view:

https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Ze8NXBUY7Z0/VtpIeA1cFYI/AAAAAAAAFeU/Ju1kct5bWHk/s1600/post2_plot2_2016-03-05.png

I will take it on faith that those graphs are factually accurate.

That goes for the graphs of blockchain.info as well. Luckily, all data is public, so everyone can check it if he wants.

A large majority of people already accept that Blockchain.info produces factually accurate information, so it seems to make little to no sense to me that you would be attempting to suggest that blockchain.info may either not be credible or that it is somehow similar in stature to some other random source.  

I never said that blockchain.info isn't credible. In fact, that list of blocks and their sizes of my first reply came straight from blockchain.info . I objected to your reference to a graph of average block sizes, because taking the average of block sizes is not a good way to try to show that there's enough space left. On the other hand, it is you who put blockchain.info on a pedestal. I don't see why the graph of Coindesk, or a site like tradeblock.com would be considered a less good source.

they still don't demonstrate some kind of emergency state, and even though a bit more granular than blockchain.info, they are not really showing anything that should cause panic. 

Suppose a bus company starts running a service in 2010. At first, you'd only see one or two people in the bus. As the bus service becomes more known, more people travel on the bus. Nowadays, busses are often completely occupied. It's common that people are left at the bus stops having to wait for the next one, esp. if they bought the cheapest tickets.

You can see that this happens more and more often. However, anyone who bought the most expensive ticket always manages to get on the next bus. Nevertheless, it happens more and more often that more and more people with the cheap tickets have to skip buses.

Yet, you say there's no reason for panic. You don't expect that the demand for the bus service will keep growing.

Your analogy of a bus seems somewhat forced, and the subsequent post of AlexGR seems to adequately, reasonably and effectively respond to various deficiencies of your bus analogy.  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=178336.msg14164904#msg14164904

I think it's a good analogy, which makes the issue easier to understand. If there are flaws in the analogy, I'm happy to discuss them. The criticism of AlexGR that people on a bus are real, and Bitcoin transactions in a block (according to him) are not, is just childish.

His other remark that it's cheap to buy all the space in a block (because blocks are quite small and transactions cheap), doesn't discredit the analogy. If someone wants to take out the high speed train from Amsterdam to Paris, he can buy all the train tickets. It's doable, and effectively a DOS attack preventing any other people from using the train. If anything, it shows my analogy is a correct one.

and maybe even if there are ways to show charts that separate spam and legit transactions 

I can imagine that a flood of tx without fee can be considered spam. But nowadays, only mining pools use zero fee tx to payout their miners. There are hardly any zero fee tx issued otherwise. (800 in the past 24 hours, source: https://bitcoinfees.21.co/ ) But if a tx carries a fee, how to decide if it's spam or not? What is your definition of spam?

I have no fucking clue about various technicalities.... I am of the understanding that there are a lot of transactions that are being sent to the blockchain to make it seem to be more full than it is in order to attempt to whine about some kind of blockchain crisis.  AlexGR addressed some of this in his post, too when he discusses how inexpensive it is to fill up the blocks with nonsense.  

If you don't understand the various technicalities, then our discussion stops right there. I do acknowledge that some people like to issue txs for no other reason then to show what happens when blocks are full for a significant period of time. Those periods are easily to recognise as they last a couple of days. However, don't forget these attacks are so easy, because there's only so little free space left an attacker needs to buy up.

I get the sense that seg wit filters out spam too, so maybe we are going to witness some better representations of what's going on once seg wit is live?.

How does SW filters spam? How does it decide which tx is spam and which is not?

I don't really know on a technical level, and so I rely on some of the descriptions regarding what it is supposed to do. My understanding is that it separates transaction involving fees from other non-fee information.  Accordingly, we are likely going to see how it plays out, but it seems to incorporate a lot of good solutions that may address some of the spamming matters.

If you don't know if SW is going to mark certain tx as spam, then don't claim it. "Lets see how it plays out" doesn't give me much confidence. That both applies to implementing SW as a complicated soft fork, as to changing the working of the blockchain from plenty of room in blocks to scarcity of space in blocks.

Anyhow, there is work on seg wit at the moment and a plan to begin with that (coming soon) and then to give further consideration to whether an additional physical block size limitation needs to be incorporated as well.. so I really am still having difficulties grappling with some of the panick.   

How many people need to wait for how many next buses until you panic? Or don't you care about others, as long as you can afford your bus ticket?

Why does it matter what I think?  

Because I'm having a discussion with you. If I wouldn't be interested in what you think, I wouldn't take you serious.

and I never said that the blocksize never needs to be increased, as you seem to be attempting to attribute to me.

Unless I understood you wrong, you seem to think that blocks are not almost permanently full, or not getting there so soon in order to plan for an increase of the block size limit. I beg to differ, and I'm trying to show you (1) blocks are quite full already, and (2) as the number of tx roughly doubles every year, it is clear that the growth of Bitcoin usage will have to come to a halt very soon. Of course, once LN is up and running, things may be different. But I'm far, far from convinced this will be the case in 6 to 12 months from now.

In other words: how many tx do you think Bitcoin should be able to process today, in 3 months, in 6 months, and in one year's time?

getting repetitive.  I think that there are expansion plans in place... good enough for me for the moment....

You don't answer my question. It may be (still) good enough at the moment, but next year? For sure, it can't be more than 400,000 tx. Something got to give.

Fact: the number if tx per day is close to the limit of 250,000. We recently touched that twice. (sources: https://blockchain.info/charts/n-transactions?timespan=2year&showDataPoints=false&daysAverageString=1&show_header=true&scale=0&address= , http://www.coindesk.com/data/bitcoin-daily-transactions/ )

We crossed the 20,000 tx/day in June 2012
We crossed the 50,000 tx/day in August 2013
We crossed the 100,000 tx/day in March 2015
We crossed the 200,000 tx/day in January 2016

And the hard limit is a little over 250,000...

So, do you think 250,000 tx/day is sufficient for Bitcoin to be successful? Do you think 400,000 tx/day is sufficient by the end of this year, when SW is rolled out and most other software is updated to take advantage of it? Do you think 400,000 tx/day will be enough until LN comes into existence?

Again, it doesn't really matter that much what I think.  

Then we can stop this discussion.

But it seems that AlexGR addressed this matter too.

 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=178336.msg14164904#msg14164904

In essence, there may be some peaks of 250k transactions per day, but likely not even really close to that in regards to legitimate transactions  and there remain adequate expansion plans already in the works and likely many more to come.. so why fret about something that is still in the works and not at an emergency state yet?

Transactions that are paid for are legitimate. If you want to use the intent of the person doing the tx as criterion for legitimacy, then you throw out the censorship resistance quality that Bitcoin is famous for.

Overall, we are repeating ourselves, and I am genuinely not interested in debating the matter of blocksize limits. 

I already stated my position much more than I feel is necessary in relation to bitcoin prices  and wall speculation.. blah blah blah.  In essence, I said that I am not convinced that there is a problem as you keep arguing that there is some kind of problem.  In that regard, what's the point of going over and over and over the same points, and mostly speculation that there may be a problem later?

I am involved in this thread in order to discuss price matters, and wall matters, and predictions, and to look at stupid animated gifs and that kind of stuff.

I think that there are sufficient plans in place in order to address blocksize limits in the near future that are likely going to be worked out and are evolving.. including seg wit and that is good enough for me in order to continue to invest in bitcoin and consider bitcoin with a rosey and bright future.. inspite of ongoing forking whiners.

Let's look at that again.

Perhaps this animated graph of block size and transaction fee can show you.

http://organofcorti.blogspot.nl/2016/03/block-size-and-transaction-fee-animation.html

A more detailed (and non-animated) view:

https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Ze8NXBUY7Z0/VtpIeA1cFYI/AAAAAAAAFeU/Ju1kct5bWHk/s1600/post2_plot2_2016-03-05.png

I will take it on faith that those graphs are factually accurate.

That goes for the graphs of blockchain.info as well. Luckily, all data is public, so everyone can check it if he wants.

A large majority of people already accept that Blockchain.info produces factually accurate information, so it seems to make little to no sense to me that you would be attempting to suggest that blockchain.info may either not be credible or that it is somehow similar in stature to some other random source. 

I never said that blockchain.info isn't credible. In fact, that list of blocks and their sizes of my first reply came straight from blockchain.info . I objected to your reference to a graph of average block sizes, because taking the average of block sizes is not a good way to try to show that there's enough space left. On the other hand, it is you who put blockchain.info on a pedestal. I don't see why the graph of Coindesk, or a site like tradeblock.com would be considered a less good source.

they still don't demonstrate some kind of emergency state, and even though a bit more granular than blockchain.info, they are not really showing anything that should cause panic. 

Suppose a bus company starts running a service in 2010. At first, you'd only see one or two people in the bus. As the bus service becomes more known, more people travel on the bus. Nowadays, busses are often completely occupied. It's common that people are left at the bus stops having to wait for the next one, esp. if they bought the cheapest tickets.

You can see that this happens more and more often. However, anyone who bought the most expensive ticket always manages to get on the next bus. Nevertheless, it happens more and more often that more and more people with the cheap tickets have to skip buses.

Yet, you say there's no reason for panic. You don't expect that the demand for the bus service will keep growing.

Your analogy of a bus seems somewhat forced, and the subsequent post of AlexGR seems to adequately, reasonably and effectively respond to various deficiencies of your bus analogy.  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=178336.msg14164904#msg14164904

I think it's a good analogy, which makes the issue easier to understand. If there are flaws in the analogy, I'm happy to discuss them. The criticism of AlexGR that people on a bus are real, and Bitcoin transactions in a block (according to him) are not, is just childish.

His other remark that it's cheap to buy all the space in a block (because blocks are quite small and transactions cheap), doesn't discredit the analogy. If someone wants to take out the high speed train from Amsterdam to Paris, he can buy all the train tickets. It's doable, and effectively a DOS attack preventing any other people from using the train. If anything, it shows my analogy is a correct one.

and maybe even if there are ways to show charts that separate spam and legit transactions 

I can imagine that a flood of tx without fee can be considered spam. But nowadays, only mining pools use zero fee tx to payout their miners. There are hardly any zero fee tx issued otherwise. (800 in the past 24 hours, source: https://bitcoinfees.21.co/ ) But if a tx carries a fee, how to decide if it's spam or not? What is your definition of spam?

I have no fucking clue about various technicalities.... I am of the understanding that there are a lot of transactions that are being sent to the blockchain to make it seem to be more full than it is in order to attempt to whine about some kind of blockchain crisis.  AlexGR addressed some of this in his post, too when he discusses how inexpensive it is to fill up the blocks with nonsense. 

If you don't understand the various technicalities, then our discussion stops right there. I do acknowledge that some people like to issue txs for no other reason then to show what happens when blocks are full for a significant period of time. Those periods are easily to recognise as they last a couple of days. However, don't forget these attacks are so easy, because there's only so little free space left an attacker needs to buy up.

I get the sense that seg wit filters out spam too, so maybe we are going to witness some better representations of what's going on once seg wit is live?.

How does SW filters spam? How does it decide which tx is spam and which is not?

I don't really know on a technical level, and so I rely on some of the descriptions regarding what it is supposed to do. My understanding is that it separates transaction involving fees from other non-fee information.  Accordingly, we are likely going to see how it plays out, but it seems to incorporate a lot of good solutions that may address some of the spamming matters.

If you don't know if SW is going to mark certain tx as spam, then don't claim it. "Lets see how it plays out" doesn't give me much confidence. That both applies to implementing SW as a complicated soft fork, as to changing the working of the blockchain from plenty of room in blocks to scarcity of space in blocks.

Anyhow, there is work on seg wit at the moment and a plan to begin with that (coming soon) and then to give further consideration to whether an additional physical block size limitation needs to be incorporated as well.. so I really am still having difficulties grappling with some of the panick.   

How many people need to wait for how many next buses until you panic? Or don't you care about others, as long as you can afford your bus ticket?

Why does it matter what I think? 

Because I'm having a discussion with you. If I wouldn't be interested in what you think, I wouldn't take you serious.

and I never said that the blocksize never needs to be increased, as you seem to be attempting to attribute to me.

Unless I understood you wrong, you seem to think that blocks are not almost permanently full, or not getting there so soon in order to plan for an increase of the block size limit. I beg to differ, and I'm trying to show you (1) blocks are quite full already, and (2) as the number of tx roughly doubles every year, it is clear that the growth of Bitcoin usage will have to come to a halt very soon. Of course, once LN is up and running, things may be different. But I'm far, far from convinced this will be the case in 6 to 12 months from now.

In other words: how many tx do you think Bitcoin should be able to process today, in 3 months, in 6 months, and in one year's time?

getting repetitive.  I think that there are expansion plans in place... good enough for me for the moment....

You don't answer my question. It may be (still) good enough at the moment, but next year? For sure, it can't be more than 400,000 tx. Something got to give.

Fact: the number if tx per day is close to the limit of 250,000. We recently touched that twice. (sources: https://blockchain.info/charts/n-transactions?timespan=2year&showDataPoints=false&daysAverageString=1&show_header=true&scale=0&address= , http://www.coindesk.com/data/bitcoin-daily-transactions/ )

We crossed the 20,000 tx/day in June 2012
We crossed the 50,000 tx/day in August 2013
We crossed the 100,000 tx/day in March 2015
We crossed the 200,000 tx/day in January 2016

And the hard limit is a little over 250,000...

So, do you think 250,000 tx/day is sufficient for Bitcoin to be successful? Do you think 400,000 tx/day is sufficient by the end of this year, when SW is rolled out and most other software is updated to take advantage of it? Do you think 400,000 tx/day will be enough until LN comes into existence?

Again, it doesn't really matter that much what I think. 

Then we can stop this discussion.

But it seems that AlexGR addressed this matter too.

 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=178336.msg14164904#msg14164904

In essence, there may be some peaks of 250k transactions per day, but likely not even really close to that in regards to legitimate transactions  and there remain adequate expansion plans already in the works and likely many more to come.. so why fret about something that is still in the works and not at an emergency state yet?

Transactions that are paid for are legitimate. If you want to use the intent of the person doing the tx as criterion for legitimacy, then you throw out the censorship resistance quality that Bitcoin is famous for.

Overall, we are repeating ourselves, and I am genuinely not interested in debating the matter of blocksize limits. 

I already stated my position much more than I feel is necessary in relation to bitcoin prices  and wall speculation.. blah blah blah.  In essence, I said that I am not convinced that there is a problem as you keep arguing that there is some kind of problem.  In that regard, what's the point of going over and over and over the same points, and mostly speculation that there may be a problem later?

I am involved in this thread in order to discuss price matters, and wall matters, and predictions, and to look at stupid animated gifs and that kind of stuff.

I think that there are sufficient plans in place in order to address blocksize limits in the near future that are likely going to be worked out and are evolving.. including seg wit and that is good enough for me in order to continue to invest in bitcoin and consider bitcoin with a rosey and bright future.. inspite of ongoing forking whiners.

There's reallly something here...

Again please.

Perhaps this animated graph of block size and transaction fee can show you.

http://organofcorti.blogspot.nl/2016/03/block-size-and-transaction-fee-animation.html

A more detailed (and non-animated) view:

https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Ze8NXBUY7Z0/VtpIeA1cFYI/AAAAAAAAFeU/Ju1kct5bWHk/s1600/post2_plot2_2016-03-05.png

I will take it on faith that those graphs are factually accurate.

That goes for the graphs of blockchain.info as well. Luckily, all data is public, so everyone can check it if he wants.

A large majority of people already accept that Blockchain.info produces factually accurate information, so it seems to make little to no sense to me that you would be attempting to suggest that blockchain.info may either not be credible or that it is somehow similar in stature to some other random source. 

I never said that blockchain.info isn't credible. In fact, that list of blocks and their sizes of my first reply came straight from blockchain.info . I objected to your reference to a graph of average block sizes, because taking the average of block sizes is not a good way to try to show that there's enough space left. On the other hand, it is you who put blockchain.info on a pedestal. I don't see why the graph of Coindesk, or a site like tradeblock.com would be considered a less good source.

they still don't demonstrate some kind of emergency state, and even though a bit more granular than blockchain.info, they are not really showing anything that should cause panic. 

Suppose a bus company starts running a service in 2010. At first, you'd only see one or two people in the bus. As the bus service becomes more known, more people travel on the bus. Nowadays, busses are often completely occupied. It's common that people are left at the bus stops having to wait for the next one, esp. if they bought the cheapest tickets.

You can see that this happens more and more often. However, anyone who bought the most expensive ticket always manages to get on the next bus. Nevertheless, it happens more and more often that more and more people with the cheap tickets have to skip buses.

Yet, you say there's no reason for panic. You don't expect that the demand for the bus service will keep growing.

Your analogy of a bus seems somewhat forced, and the subsequent post of AlexGR seems to adequately, reasonably and effectively respond to various deficiencies of your bus analogy.  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=178336.msg14164904#msg14164904

I think it's a good analogy, which makes the issue easier to understand. If there are flaws in the analogy, I'm happy to discuss them. The criticism of AlexGR that people on a bus are real, and Bitcoin transactions in a block (according to him) are not, is just childish.

His other remark that it's cheap to buy all the space in a block (because blocks are quite small and transactions cheap), doesn't discredit the analogy. If someone wants to take out the high speed train from Amsterdam to Paris, he can buy all the train tickets. It's doable, and effectively a DOS attack preventing any other people from using the train. If anything, it shows my analogy is a correct one.

and maybe even if there are ways to show charts that separate spam and legit transactions 

I can imagine that a flood of tx without fee can be considered spam. But nowadays, only mining pools use zero fee tx to payout their miners. There are hardly any zero fee tx issued otherwise. (800 in the past 24 hours, source: https://bitcoinfees.21.co/ ) But if a tx carries a fee, how to decide if it's spam or not? What is your definition of spam?

I have no fucking clue about various technicalities.... I am of the understanding that there are a lot of transactions that are being sent to the blockchain to make it seem to be more full than it is in order to attempt to whine about some kind of blockchain crisis.  AlexGR addressed some of this in his post, too when he discusses how inexpensive it is to fill up the blocks with nonsense. 

If you don't understand the various technicalities, then our discussion stops right there. I do acknowledge that some people like to issue txs for no other reason then to show what happens when blocks are full for a significant period of time. Those periods are easily to recognise as they last a couple of days. However, don't forget these attacks are so easy, because there's only so little free space left an attacker needs to buy up.

I get the sense that seg wit filters out spam too, so maybe we are going to witness some better representations of what's going on once seg wit is live?.

How does SW filters spam? How does it decide which tx is spam and which is not?

I don't really know on a technical level, and so I rely on some of the descriptions regarding what it is supposed to do. My understanding is that it separates transaction involving fees from other non-fee information.  Accordingly, we are likely going to see how it plays out, but it seems to incorporate a lot of good solutions that may address some of the spamming matters.

If you don't know if SW is going to mark certain tx as spam, then don't claim it. "Lets see how it plays out" doesn't give me much confidence. That both applies to implementing SW as a complicated soft fork, as to changing the working of the blockchain from plenty of room in blocks to scarcity of space in blocks.

Anyhow, there is work on seg wit at the moment and a plan to begin with that (coming soon) and then to give further consideration to whether an additional physical block size limitation needs to be incorporated as well.. so I really am still having difficulties grappling with some of the panick.   

How many people need to wait for how many next buses until you panic? Or don't you care about others, as long as you can afford your bus ticket?

Why does it matter what I think? 

Because I'm having a discussion with you. If I wouldn't be interested in what you think, I wouldn't take you serious.

and I never said that the blocksize never needs to be increased, as you seem to be attempting to attribute to me.

Unless I understood you wrong, you seem to think that blocks are not almost permanently full, or not getting there so soon in order to plan for an increase of the block size limit. I beg to differ, and I'm trying to show you (1) blocks are quite full already, and (2) as the number of tx roughly doubles every year, it is clear that the growth of Bitcoin usage will have to come to a halt very soon. Of course, once LN is up and running, things may be different. But I'm far, far from convinced this will be the case in 6 to 12 months from now.

In other words: how many tx do you think Bitcoin should be able to process today, in 3 months, in 6 months, and in one year's time?

getting repetitive.  I think that there are expansion plans in place... good enough for me for the moment....

You don't answer my question. It may be (still) good enough at the moment, but next year? For sure, it can't be more than 400,000 tx. Something got to give.

Fact: the number if tx per day is close to the limit of 250,000. We recently touched that twice. (sources: https://blockchain.info/charts/n-transactions?timespan=2year&showDataPoints=false&daysAverageString=1&show_header=true&scale=0&address= , http://www.coindesk.com/data/bitcoin-daily-transactions/ )

We crossed the 20,000 tx/day in June 2012
We crossed the 50,000 tx/day in August 2013
We crossed the 100,000 tx/day in March 2015
We crossed the 200,000 tx/day in January 2016

And the hard limit is a little over 250,000...

So, do you think 250,000 tx/day is sufficient for Bitcoin to be successful? Do you think 400,000 tx/day is sufficient by the end of this year, when SW is rolled out and most other software is updated to take advantage of it? Do you think 400,000 tx/day will be enough until LN comes into existence?

Again, it doesn't really matter that much what I think. 

Then we can stop this discussion.

But it seems that AlexGR addressed this matter too.

 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=178336.msg14164904#msg14164904

In essence, there may be some peaks of 250k transactions per day, but likely not even really close to that in regards to legitimate transactions  and there remain adequate expansion plans already in the works and likely many more to come.. so why fret about something that is still in the works and not at an emergency state yet?

Transactions that are paid for are legitimate. If you want to use the intent of the person doing the tx as criterion for legitimacy, then you throw out the censorship resistance quality that Bitcoin is famous for.

Overall, we are repeating ourselves, and I am genuinely not interested in debating the matter of blocksize limits. 

I already stated my position much more than I feel is necessary in relation to bitcoin prices  and wall speculation.. blah blah blah.  In essence, I said that I am not convinced that there is a problem as you keep arguing that there is some kind of problem.  In that regard, what's the point of going over and over and over the same points, and mostly speculation that there may be a problem later?

I am involved in this thread in order to discuss price matters, and wall matters, and predictions, and to look at stupid animated gifs and that kind of stuff.

I think that there are sufficient plans in place in order to address blocksize limits in the near future that are likely going to be worked out and are evolving.. including seg wit and that is good enough for me in order to continue to invest in bitcoin and consider bitcoin with a rosey and bright future.. inspite of ongoing forking whiners.

There's some mind-blowing stuff here that bears repeating.

Perhaps this animated graph of block size and transaction fee can show you.

http://organofcorti.blogspot.nl/2016/03/block-size-and-transaction-fee-animation.html

A more detailed (and non-animated) view:

https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Ze8NXBUY7Z0/VtpIeA1cFYI/AAAAAAAAFeU/Ju1kct5bWHk/s1600/post2_plot2_2016-03-05.png

I will take it on faith that those graphs are factually accurate.

That goes for the graphs of blockchain.info as well. Luckily, all data is public, so everyone can check it if he wants.

A large majority of people already accept that Blockchain.info produces factually accurate information, so it seems to make little to no sense to me that you would be attempting to suggest that blockchain.info may either not be credible or that it is somehow similar in stature to some other random source. 

I never said that blockchain.info isn't credible. In fact, that list of blocks and their sizes of my first reply came straight from blockchain.info . I objected to your reference to a graph of average block sizes, because taking the average of block sizes is not a good way to try to show that there's enough space left. On the other hand, it is you who put blockchain.info on a pedestal. I don't see why the graph of Coindesk, or a site like tradeblock.com would be considered a less good source.

they still don't demonstrate some kind of emergency state, and even though a bit more granular than blockchain.info, they are not really showing anything that should cause panic. 

Suppose a bus company starts running a service in 2010. At first, you'd only see one or two people in the bus. As the bus service becomes more known, more people travel on the bus. Nowadays, busses are often completely occupied. It's common that people are left at the bus stops having to wait for the next one, esp. if they bought the cheapest tickets.

You can see that this happens more and more often. However, anyone who bought the most expensive ticket always manages to get on the next bus. Nevertheless, it happens more and more often that more and more people with the cheap tickets have to skip buses.

Yet, you say there's no reason for panic. You don't expect that the demand for the bus service will keep growing.

Your analogy of a bus seems somewhat forced, and the subsequent post of AlexGR seems to adequately, reasonably and effectively respond to various deficiencies of your bus analogy.  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=178336.msg14164904#msg14164904

I think it's a good analogy, which makes the issue easier to understand. If there are flaws in the analogy, I'm happy to discuss them. The criticism of AlexGR that people on a bus are real, and Bitcoin transactions in a block (according to him) are not, is just childish.

His other remark that it's cheap to buy all the space in a block (because blocks are quite small and transactions cheap), doesn't discredit the analogy. If someone wants to take out the high speed train from Amsterdam to Paris, he can buy all the train tickets. It's doable, and effectively a DOS attack preventing any other people from using the train. If anything, it shows my analogy is a correct one.

and maybe even if there are ways to show charts that separate spam and legit transactions 

I can imagine that a flood of tx without fee can be considered spam. But nowadays, only mining pools use zero fee tx to payout their miners. There are hardly any zero fee tx issued otherwise. (800 in the past 24 hours, source: https://bitcoinfees.21.co/ ) But if a tx carries a fee, how to decide if it's spam or not? What is your definition of spam?

I have no fucking clue about various technicalities.... I am of the understanding that there are a lot of transactions that are being sent to the blockchain to make it seem to be more full than it is in order to attempt to whine about some kind of blockchain crisis.  AlexGR addressed some of this in his post, too when he discusses how inexpensive it is to fill up the blocks with nonsense. 

If you don't understand the various technicalities, then our discussion stops right there. I do acknowledge that some people like to issue txs for no other reason then to show what happens when blocks are full for a significant period of time. Those periods are easily to recognise as they last a couple of days. However, don't forget these attacks are so easy, because there's only so little free space left an attacker needs to buy up.

I get the sense that seg wit filters out spam too, so maybe we are going to witness some better representations of what's going on once seg wit is live?.

How does SW filters spam? How does it decide which tx is spam and which is not?

I don't really know on a technical level, and so I rely on some of the descriptions regarding what it is supposed to do. My understanding is that it separates transaction involving fees from other non-fee information.  Accordingly, we are likely going to see how it plays out, but it seems to incorporate a lot of good solutions that may address some of the spamming matters.

If you don't know if SW is going to mark certain tx as spam, then don't claim it. "Lets see how it plays out" doesn't give me much confidence. That both applies to implementing SW as a complicated soft fork, as to changing the working of the blockchain from plenty of room in blocks to scarcity of space in blocks.

Anyhow, there is work on seg wit at the moment and a plan to begin with that (coming soon) and then to give further consideration to whether an additional physical block size limitation needs to be incorporated as well.. so I really am still having difficulties grappling with some of the panick.   

How many people need to wait for how many next buses until you panic? Or don't you care about others, as long as you can afford your bus ticket?

Why does it matter what I think? 

Because I'm having a discussion with you. If I wouldn't be interested in what you think, I wouldn't take you serious.

and I never said that the blocksize never needs to be increased, as you seem to be attempting to attribute to me.

Unless I understood you wrong, you seem to think that blocks are not almost permanently full, or not getting there so soon in order to plan for an increase of the block size limit. I beg to differ, and I'm trying to show you (1) blocks are quite full already, and (2) as the number of tx roughly doubles every year, it is clear that the growth of Bitcoin usage will have to come to a halt very soon. Of course, once LN is up and running, things may be different. But I'm far, far from convinced this will be the case in 6 to 12 months from now.

In other words: how many tx do you think Bitcoin should be able to process today, in 3 months, in 6 months, and in one year's time?

getting repetitive.  I think that there are expansion plans in place... good enough for me for the moment....

You don't answer my question. It may be (still) good enough at the moment, but next year? For sure, it can't be more than 400,000 tx. Something got to give.

Fact: the number if tx per day is close to the limit of 250,000. We recently touched that twice. (sources: https://blockchain.info/charts/n-transactions?timespan=2year&showDataPoints=false&daysAverageString=1&show_header=true&scale=0&address= , http://www.coindesk.com/data/bitcoin-daily-transactions/ )

We crossed the 20,000 tx/day in June 2012
We crossed the 50,000 tx/day in August 2013
We crossed the 100,000 tx/day in March 2015
We crossed the 200,000 tx/day in January 2016

And the hard limit is a little over 250,000...

So, do you think 250,000 tx/day is sufficient for Bitcoin to be successful? Do you think 400,000 tx/day is sufficient by the end of this year, when SW is rolled out and most other software is updated to take advantage of it? Do you think 400,000 tx/day will be enough until LN comes into existence?

Again, it doesn't really matter that much what I think. 

Then we can stop this discussion.

But it seems that AlexGR addressed this matter too.

 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=178336.msg14164904#msg14164904

In essence, there may be some peaks of 250k transactions per day, but likely not even really close to that in regards to legitimate transactions  and there remain adequate expansion plans already in the works and likely many more to come.. so why fret about something that is still in the works and not at an emergency state yet?

Transactions that are paid for are legitimate. If you want to use the intent of the person doing the tx as criterion for legitimacy, then you throw out the censorship resistance quality that Bitcoin is famous for.

Overall, we are repeating ourselves, and I am genuinely not interested in debating the matter of blocksize limits. 

I already stated my position much more than I feel is necessary in relation to bitcoin prices  and wall speculation.. blah blah blah.  In essence, I said that I am not convinced that there is a problem as you keep arguing that there is some kind of problem.  In that regard, what's the point of going over and over and over the same points, and mostly speculation that there may be a problem later?

I am involved in this thread in order to discuss price matters, and wall matters, and predictions, and to look at stupid animated gifs and that kind of stuff.

I think that there are sufficient plans in place in order to address blocksize limits in the near future that are likely going to be worked out and are evolving.. including seg wit and that is good enough for me in order to continue to invest in bitcoin and consider bitcoin with a rosey and bright future.. inspite of ongoing forking whiners.

Crap!

Lost it.

[Andre#]

Overall, we are repeating ourselves, and I am genuinely not interested in debating the matter of blocksize limits. 

I already stated my position much more than I feel is necessary in relation to bitcoin prices  and wall speculation.. blah blah blah.  In essence, I said that I am not convinced that there is a problem as you keep arguing that there is some kind of problem.  In that regard, what's the point of going over and over and over the same points, and mostly speculation that there may be a problem later?

I am involved in this thread in order to discuss price matters, and wall matters, and predictions, and to look at stupid animated gifs and that kind of stuff.

I think that there are sufficient plans in place in order to address blocksize limits in the near future that are likely going to be worked out and are evolving.. including seg wit and that is good enough for me in order to continue to invest in bitcoin and consider bitcoin with a rosey and bright future.. inspite of ongoing forking whiners.

Ok, I accept you're not interested in debating the matter of blocksize limits. It's not for everybody. But if you publicly state opinions, I feel free to respond to them, since it also allows others here to make up their mind.

As long as the capacity problem (that I see coming, and you don't) exists, it's worth doing so for me. I'm invested in Bitcoin, and I don't want to see it fail. You may see that as whining, as I advocate a hard fork to raise the block size limit asap in order to buy us time to properly implement those plans you are referring to.

I'll keep whining until I sell my BTC.

[JayJuanGee]

......  [clipped]......





Crap!

Lost it.

Your a childish goofball, and bordering on troll in the above-linked post.. (that I clipped for reader-friendly sake).        

[Andre#]

......  [clipped]......





Crap!

Lost it.

Your a childish goofball, and bordering on troll in the above-linked post.. (that I clipped for reader-friendly sake).        

It actually made me chuckle.

I do get carried away sometimes.

[JayJuanGee]

Overall, we are repeating ourselves, and I am genuinely not interested in debating the matter of blocksize limits. 

I already stated my position much more than I feel is necessary in relation to bitcoin prices  and wall speculation.. blah blah blah.  In essence, I said that I am not convinced that there is a problem as you keep arguing that there is some kind of problem.  In that regard, what's the point of going over and over and over the same points, and mostly speculation that there may be a problem later?

I am involved in this thread in order to discuss price matters, and wall matters, and predictions, and to look at stupid animated gifs and that kind of stuff.

I think that there are sufficient plans in place in order to address blocksize limits in the near future that are likely going to be worked out and are evolving.. including seg wit and that is good enough for me in order to continue to invest in bitcoin and consider bitcoin with a rosey and bright future.. inspite of ongoing forking whiners.

Ok, I accept you're not interested in debating the matter of blocksize limits. It's not for everybody. But if you publicly state opinions, I feel free to respond to them, since it also allows others here to make up their mind.

As long as the capacity problem (that I see coming, and you don't) exists, it's worth doing so for me. I'm invested in Bitcoin, and I don't want to see it fail. You may see that as whining, as I advocate a hard fork to raise the block size limit asap in order to buy us time to properly implement those plans you are referring to.

I'll keep whining until I sell my BTC.

Of course, you have a right to post in response to whatever you like, and you certainly have plenty of companions in this same thread, in many other forum threads and in redit/bitcoin whining, exaggerating and spreading the same kinds of misinformation about the same topic. 


In my thinking it rises to the level of whining because it appears to be deceptive in a variety of ways.

Many of you goofballs engage in all kinds of fancy dancing in order to describe various scares about technical issues that don't really exist because when push comes to shove, you are not really concerned about technical issues (at least those who really understand the matter) but instead just want to whine, whine and whine and you want to insist on a hardfork or some other governance matter, which is really about disrupting while at the same time blaming the other side rather than attempts at resolution of potential technicalities in a reasonable and responsible manner. 

Possibly, half of you are paid shills, another 1/3 are misinformed or super emotional.  If these supposed technical matters had been presented continuously, argued and evidence set forth as a technical issue, then possibly there may have been some attempt at resolution, but based on the much illogical insistence on hard forks and other blackmailing attempts, i get the sense that technicalities continue to be exaggerated, which seems to be the case whenever looking into any details or evidence in support of technical block limit problem matters. 

Furthermore, the next move after seeing multiple flaws in the overall technical arguments, trolls like you tend to want to drag the topic into the weeds in order to distract and divert, when in the end all you seem to want is a hardfork (which gets us back to governance rather than real and concrete technical matters regarding possible problems with  the current blocksize limits).

[JayJuanGee]

......  [clipped]......





Crap!

Lost it.

Your a childish goofball, and bordering on troll in the above-linked post.. (that I clipped for reader-friendly sake).        

It actually made me chuckle.

I do get carried away sometimes.

I suppose there could be some humor in FATTY's "artistic" rendition of the matter.    

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

JayJuanGee you're a small blocker?  

I'm o.k. with the current plan to implement seg wit first and to reassess the blocksize limit situation after seg wit is in play for a while.

I doubt anyone is suggesting small blocks forever, but at the moment there doesn't seem to be sufficient evidence of an emergency need to take some kind of drastic measures to increase the blocksize limit on an emergency basis..  and in that regard, the impression and/or creation of an emergency seems to be largely fabricated with a bunch of loud and whiny voices.

Seems like we are going to see how seg wit plays out and then be able to reassess the blocksize limit situation at that time.


Further I believe that there is no meaningful proposal on the table to merely increase the blocksize limit without also attempting to affect bitcoin governance, which demonstrates to me that proposals that have recently been on the table to immediately increase the blocksize limit appear to be largely disingenuous.

you're right even small blockers aren't small blockers anymore.

i guess to be a "small blocker" these days means you place a lot of value on keeping the system "lightweight".

I value that to, but not enough to sacrifice user experience, give up micro TX,  etc...

i guess there is a spectrum of "blockers"  

adamstgBit,
You're a scammer and shouldn't be participating in scam hunts pretending to be a "trusted bitcoiner".  

Definitive and conclusive proof here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1393253.msg14169483#msg14169483

[adamstgBit]

JayJuanGee you're a small blocker?  

I'm o.k. with the current plan to implement seg wit first and to reassess the blocksize limit situation after seg wit is in play for a while.

I doubt anyone is suggesting small blocks forever, but at the moment there doesn't seem to be sufficient evidence of an emergency need to take some kind of drastic measures to increase the blocksize limit on an emergency basis..  and in that regard, the impression and/or creation of an emergency seems to be largely fabricated with a bunch of loud and whiny voices.

Seems like we are going to see how seg wit plays out and then be able to reassess the blocksize limit situation at that time.


Further I believe that there is no meaningful proposal on the table to merely increase the blocksize limit without also attempting to affect bitcoin governance, which demonstrates to me that proposals that have recently been on the table to immediately increase the blocksize limit appear to be largely disingenuous.

you're right even small blockers aren't small blockers anymore.

i guess to be a "small blocker" these days means you place a lot of value on keeping the system "lightweight".

I value that to, but not enough to sacrifice user experience, give up micro TX,  etc...

i guess there is a spectrum of "blockers"  

adamstgBit,
You're a scammer and shouldn't be participating in scam hunts pretending to be a "trusted bitcoiner".  

Definitive and conclusive proof here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1393253.msg14169483#msg14169483

oh this guy....

i blame the mail man.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

 

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[Andre#]

Of course, you have a right to post in response to whatever you like, and you certainly have plenty of companions in this same thread, in many other forum threads and in redit/bitcoin whining, exaggerating and spreading the same kinds of misinformation about the same topic. 


In my thinking it rises to the level of whining because it appears to be deceptive in a variety of ways.

Many of you goofballs engage in all kinds of fancy dancing in order to describe various scares about technical issues that don't really exist because when push comes to shove, you are not really concerned about technical issues (at least those who really understand the matter) but instead just want to whine, whine and whine and you want to insist on a hardfork or some other governance matter, which is really about disrupting while at the same time blaming the other side rather than attempts at resolution of potential technicalities in a reasonable and responsible manner. 

Possibly, half of you are paid shills, another 1/3 are misinformed or super emotional.  If these supposed technical matters had been presented continuously, argued and evidence set forth as a technical issue, then possibly there may have been some attempt at resolution, but based on the much illogical insistence on hard forks and other blackmailing attempts, i get the sense that technicalities continue to be exaggerated, which seems to be the case whenever looking into any details or evidence in support of technical block limit problem matters. 

Furthermore, the next move after seeing multiple flaws in the overall technical arguments, trolls like you tend to want to drag the topic into the weeds in order to distract and divert, when in the end all you seem to want is a hardfork (which gets us back to governance rather than real and concrete technical matters regarding possible problems with  the current blocksize limits).

I didn't expect you to resort to name calling after running out of arguments. I guess I overestimated you.

Goodnight.