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

[molecular]

AlexGR, do you allow for the possibility that maybe small blocks isn't a good idea?

Timing is crucial.

Even 1TB per year blocks (20mb/block) will have its time when 20mb/block will be "alright".

Upgrade too soon, you'll have 10gb txs and 990gb spam.

Upgrade on time, you'll get 800-950gb txs and 50-200gb spam.

I don't understand why it's spam when it pays a fee. Miners are free to exclude tx if the fee is too small.

[lottery248]

Coin



Explanation

*considers the bitstamp rate as a laughingstock, and point to that graph error, then R.o.f.l's hard.
ChartBuddy is seemed to be broken. if not, then the price shown would not like that with 6 unnecessary decimals.

[molecular]

Wow, nailed that little ETH pump perfectly. I'm all out of ETH now, doubled my BTC in the last couple of weeks plus now have a DASH masternode. Good stuff. Thank you whales, you may now dump all the ETH.

It'll take another week at least. First bitfinex fun, then bitfinex swap market liquid. Then shorting on leverage.

[ButtLava]

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.

Not there yet.

When you broadcast a tx, where you "pay", say, 1 satoshi per byte, what you are *really* doing is that you are stating your intention that if you get included in some block then you will pay the said amount.

You don't actually pay anything beforehand. The payment is only done upon inclusion. If you get the service, you get paid. If someone else pays more than you, then HE gets it, not you. In that scenario, where he got in and you didn't, the only party paying is him, not you. You haven't paid anything. You only said that you were willing to pay a trivial amount, which was less than him, and the miner said ok, you aren't paying me that much, so I'm going to process that other guy who pays me more.

You are correct, Bitcoin tx are blind auctions. But it also works the other way around. Once you have issued a tx with a decent fee that you expect to be included, someone can come along and flood the (small) block with txs with a bit higher fee. It doesn't even have to be malicious -- a sudden event causing a lot of extra txs will do the trick. Your tx will get "stuck", and you are left behind frustrated. As has been demonstrated recently.

Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Blind Self Auctioning System. Maybe that's more accurate now.  

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[Fatman3001]

AlexGR, do you allow for the possibility that maybe small blocks isn't a good idea?

Timing is crucial.

Even 1TB per year blocks (20mb/block) will have its time when 20mb/block will be "alright".

Upgrade too soon, you'll have 10gb txs and 990gb spam.

Upgrade on time, you'll get 800-950gb txs and 50-200gb spam.

I don't understand why it's spam when it pays a fee. Miners are free to exclude tx if the fee is too small.

I sort of like his moral approach to txs. Maybe we could introduce KYC on protocol level and purge the system for drug and CP payments as well. The latter seems even worse than spam txs.

[ButtLava]

AlexGR, do you allow for the possibility that maybe small blocks isn't a good idea?

Timing is crucial.

Even 1TB per year blocks (20mb/block) will have its time when 20mb/block will be "alright".

Upgrade too soon, you'll have 10gb txs and 990gb spam.

Upgrade on time, you'll get 800-950gb txs and 50-200gb spam.

I don't understand why it's spam when it pays a fee. Miners are free to exclude tx if the fee is too small.

It's not, and nobody seems to think this through. Since you can't (usually, unless through analysis or public announcement of intention) know the source or purpose of a transaction, spam in bitcoin space can only be defined as a percentage function of a transactions fee value relative to other transactions or its probability of block inclusion. So like, if a transaction is in the bottom 10% of currently average fees paid, maybe you consider that spam... or maybe you consider transactions in the bottom 50% spam. All relative to the viewer. Or maybe we are all hodlers, and none of us are actually using bitcoin for anything useful, and all of it is spam. But then you have to ask, what is useful? What if a company that is literally doing nothing but spamming the network with 'useless' transactions but is paying good fees for it and pushing useful transactions away? Is that spam?

Spam is a word that is only useful for the brain to justify something. It's not a number and bitcoin only cares about the math.

[Andre#]

AlexGR, do you allow for the possibility that maybe small blocks isn't a good idea?

Timing is crucial.

Even 1TB per year blocks (20mb/block) will have its time when 20mb/block will be "alright".

Upgrade too soon, you'll have 10gb txs and 990gb spam.

Upgrade on time, you'll get 800-950gb txs and 50-200gb spam.

I don't understand why it's spam when it pays a fee. Miners are free to exclude tx if the fee is too small.

I sort of like his moral approach to txs. Maybe we could introduce KYC on protocol level and purge the system for drug and CP payments as well. The latter seems even worse than spam txs.

I suspect those are the ones that do the long chain txs. So by censoring purging those we virtually triple the block size limit. Yaay! 

[8up]

http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-10/microsoft-store-doesnt-accept-bitcoin

[Fatman3001]

http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-10/microsoft-store-doesnt-accept-bitcoin

Edit: If this is due to the recent network disruptions Bitcoin is in a world of pain.

[Dotto]

http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-10/microsoft-store-doesnt-accept-bitcoin

If you are not making money now is that you are doing it wrong. Guys, diversify, enjoy, and then short the helluva of...  

[julian071]

http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-10/microsoft-store-doesnt-accept-bitcoin

Edit: If this is due to the recent network disruptions Bitcoin is in a world of pain.

Hung-over adam is not gonna like this =(

[8up]

http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-10/microsoft-store-doesnt-accept-bitcoin

If you are not making money now is that you are doing it wrong. Guys, diversify, enjoy, and then short the helluva of...  

For now, I am BTC long and ETH short.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[podyx]

What has microsoft store do with bitcoin? What's so significant?

[BldSwtTrs]

http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-10/microsoft-store-doesnt-accept-bitcoin

Reverse mass adoption.

Good game small blockists.

[Fatman3001]

For now, I am BTC long and ETH short.

The bodies of eth-tarmis are heaping up at the crypto altar.

Be safe

[8up]

For now, I am BTC long and ETH short.

The bodies of eth-tarmis are heaping up at the crypto altar.

Be safe

Great pic. Thanks. 

[JayJuanGee]

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.

I don't really consider my comments to you as name calling.  I believe that I am just describing the dynamic that causes me to wonder why people seem to be get so worked up in arms regarding this whole matter because it remains very deceptive in its appearance in the pushing of XT and Classic that are something other than they appear to be.

O, really?

I'm engaging in a description of what seems to be an idiotic position that you have taken in arguing for a hard fork   , and you said that's what you want.  not me.

[Fatman3001]

I'm engaging in a description of what seems to be an idiotic position that you have taken in arguing for a hard fork   , and you said that's what you want.  not me.


                                               Ta-da!

Always a pleasure