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

[BlackSpidy]

Here's a pretty easy way to increase block size.

Code:

Block_size_limit_variable = 2000

There's 5.5% of the nodes that already support that, with the Core dev team backing that change, I'm sure 95% (that being Theymo's threshold for "consensus") can get behind it pretty quickly. I'll let the miners decide...

Edit: Woops, no. I checked. 5.5% of the latest 1000 blocks mined back up that solution. 31.39% of nodes already compatible with that simple and stylish solution. I don't know why the simpler, and less buggy solution isn't getting taken by the Core dev team.

[1714918046]

1714918046

[1714918046]

1714918046

[1714918046]

1714918046

[1714918046]

1714918046

[1714918046]

1714918046

[BitUsher]

Here's a pretty easy way to increase block size.

Code:

Block_size_limit_variable = 2000

There's 5.5% of the nodes that already support that, with the Core dev team backing that change, I'm sure 95% (that being Theymo's threshold for "consensus") can get behind it pretty quickly. I'll let the miners decide...

Some of us want a capacity upgrade in April and all the other benefits of segwit. Why are so many classic supporters trying to prevent this capacity upgrade? It certainly doesn't prevent any future maxBlockSize increase; why can't we have segwit to add an effective 1.8MB to 2MB and than later increase the the effective capacity to 3.6 to 4MB?

[bargainbin]

Any of you gents thinking beyond the crushing embarrassment of defeat?
Got your hobo bindles & "Argentina or Bust!" cardboard signs stylish go bags & super legit Paki passports ready?



@BitUsher: that 95% consensus gambit backfired pretty hilariously, hmm?

[JayJuanGee]

Here's a pretty easy way to increase block size.

Code:

Block_size_limit_variable = 2000

There's 5.5% of the nodes that already support that, with the Core dev team backing that change, I'm sure 95% (that being Theymo's threshold for "consensus") can get behind it pretty quickly. I'll let the miners decide...

I believe a lot of folks already appreciate that an actual increase in the blocksize limit from 1 to 2 or 1.5 or 3 or 3.72682 mbs would be pretty easy and even quick. 

Part of the issue concerns whether any block size limit is necessary at this particular time and whether there is some kind of emergency on the horizon that would justify making an immediate upgrade. 

Accordingly, if such an increase is not really necessary (which seems to be consensus), and there is no emergency (seems to be consensus), then the fact that it is easy to upgrade would justify waiting to upgrade rather than rushing into some kind of blocksize limit increase that is not necessary.

[AliceGored]

The +0.75MB equivalent potential capacity gain with segwit is the free candy to get you in the "permanent 75% fee discount for signature heavy settlement tx" van.

Added benefit of creating a massive amount of zombie nodes that don't verify or understand witness data at all.

No time to explain kid, get in!

[BitUsher]

The discount is critical to reducing UTXO bloat to insure that bitcoin can scale and we can ramp up the maxBlockSize variable.
Those that suggest otherwise are disingenuous or don't understand the importance of reducing UTXO growth.

[bargainbin]

Yup, with over 5% of the hashpower & over 30% of the nodes voting against, either that 95% min for consensus or the need for consensus will shortly be forgotten.
Oceania was always at war with Eurasia

[BlackSpidy]

Theymos once said "consensus" is 95%. Or so I hear. I think we're looking forward towards the day he says "well... given as how Classic is 25% of the mined blocks... 'consensus' is now 75%! Activate Segwit unilaterally on the behalf of Bitcoin Core development team!". That way he can't bitch when 75% of the hashing network decides to implement larger block limits despite the Bitcoin Core development team.

Some of us want a capacity upgrade in April and all the other benefits of segwit. Why are so many classic supporters trying to prevent this capacity upgrade? It certainly doesn't prevent any future maxBlockSize increase; why can't we have segwit to add an effective 1.8MB to 2MB and than later increase the the effective capacity to 3.6 to 4MB?

I, for one, don't trust the more buggy and complicated solution. The core dev team is free to release Segwit whenever they want. It's up to the community to adopt or not. I don't know what game they're playing... given how they've decided not to take the simple solution that I just showed. The solution that about a third of nodes would already recognize as valid? Yeah. I'm holding out for that one, and as the mined blocks increases to 75%, I will be behind it every step of the way.

It's already hard enough to explain to my friends what a blockchain is. Now I'm going to have to explain Segwit. Great.

[JayJuanGee]

I'm a bit surprised by the shrinking relative volume of BTC trading on Bitstamp.



https://bitcoinity.org/markets/list?currency=ALL&span=24h

I understand that some of the shrinking trade volume is attributable to low (or no) fees on other exchanges, and some of the low relative volume comes from the marginal trading (etc) that is allowed on other exchanges.

Nonetheless, I remain a bit surprised by this relative volume lowering trend on Bitstamp, and I am thinking that volume and trade on Stamp is a larger reflection of overall BTC market forces and accurate prices; however, if I am failing to account for some material and relevant market dynamics, then I may be looking at the wrong exchange to gauge BTC market sentiment.

Currently, I am thinking that when prices begin to move, then Stamp's relative BTC trade volume will pick up.

I wonder whether in the larger scheme of things, is stamp losing market share and influence?

[JayJuanGee]

Yup, with over 5% of the hashpower & over 30% of the nodes voting against, either that 95% min for consensus or the need for consensus will shortly be forgotten.
Oceania was always at war with Eurasia

There seems to be some fuzzy logic going on here.



The status quo does not lose consensus or its position merely because you get 10, 20 or even close to 50% of people complaining or protesting.  That's ridiculous.


The status quo keeps going, and the only way you change the status quo is building your own consensus...... which is an overwhelming majority... and then you can cause a change to the status quo.


It's weird if people think that causing a bunch of ruckus is the way to undermine consensus.. because it does not matter to the status quo.  It only matters to the implementation of new changes if you cannot reach consensus regarding changes (otherwise the old system keeps plodding on - even if perhaps 50% are whining with big mouths about it). 

The best solutions are going to be to attempt to build consensus rather than undermining old consensus or whining about the status quo or whining about the past... If you want to build something better, then you should strive towards building consensus and convincing others that it is a good idea, and then if it really is a good idea, then it will be adopted.  That is my current understanding of seg wit.... Seg wit has more or less achieved consensus and is going to be going live because it has achieved consensus.

[BitUsher]

I, for one, don't trust the more buggy and complicated solution.

Segwit is actually quite elegant solution that solves many problems and the reason why classic supporters like Gavin support it.

It's already hard enough to explain to my friends what a blockchain is. Now I'm going to have to explain Segwit. Great.

Why would segwit even come up in conversation to non-technical friends? Technical people appreciate it for its ingenuity and elegance in solving many problems within bitcoin. Perhaps you dislike segwit because you don't quite understand it? If not can you name a very specific technical reason why you dislike it?

[bargainbin]

Yup, with over 5% of the hashpower & over 30% of the nodes voting against, either that 95% min for consensus or the need for consensus will shortly be forgotten.
Oceania was always at war with Eurasia

There seems to be some fuzzy logic going on here.

Of course there's fuzzy logic going on here. Don't use jargon you don't understand.

The status quo does not lose consensus or its position merely because you get 10, 20 or even close to 50% of people complaining or protesting.  That's ridiculous.

Good luck with making that segwit thingy happen. Enjoy your status quo: 3tps

Seg wit has more or less achieved consensus and is going to be going live because it has achieved consensus.

Nah. Needs 95% support, ain't got it. Hilarious, since thermos & co. set that bar

[BlackSpidy]

I, for one, don't trust the more buggy and complicated solution.

Segwit is actually quite elegant solution that solves many problems and the reason why classic supporters like Gavin support it.

It's already hard enough to explain to my friends what a blockchain is. Now I'm going to have to explain Segwit. Great.

Why would segwit even come up in conversation to non-technical friends? Technical people appreciate it for its ingenuity and elegance in solving many problems within bitcoin. Perhaps you dislike segwit because you don't quite understand it? If not can you name a very specific technical reason why you dislike it?

Did I read wrongly that Segwit had bugs that needed work on from the dev team? Because that's one con on it's column, while a simple block size increase is a much more speedy (and currently, less buggy) way to provide room for growth in both transactions and volume. Sure, Segwit can be looked at as an elegant way of providing more room, but it looks like building several jetpacks in order to get around building a bridge. Sure, jetpacks are cool and all... but maybe we set a working bridge while the jetpacks are being developed and demonstrated to be safe?

Right now, I oppose Segwit while it hasn't been implemented and shown to work properly. Hey, maybe the jetpack project gets done before the bridge. Cool. I, frankly, oppose it right now, mostly to see what Theymos will do with less than 95% consensus (hopefully, by the time it's rolled out, 75% consensus). Is he going to pull one of those [insert whatever we're calling 75% mining power backed change today]? I don't know. I'm interested to see how the dominant dev team act when they are not as dominant as they were 2 months ago, when bitcoin classic had cero nodes and 0% of hash power behind it. Enough to push back Segwit a bit.

JayJuanGee says that it's (seemingly) the consensus that it's not an emergency. We can afford to do this little test, right?
I show my opinion in the network by running a certain node. I think it'll be part of 51% of nodes and hash power (measured by the latest 1000 blocks) by... July? We'll see 

[notme]

Quote is from Hearn's rage quit. By growth he's talking about giving free access to something that is limited in supply by design. Think it's obvious that it won't work. Make a block 80MB and if it's free (or almost free) to fill up someone will. Utilization can continue to grow even if it costs few cents extra for a space in a block.

It will never be free to fill up a block.  There is always a cost.  However, when the block is 1 MB and it is already close to full with normal transactions, the cost to fill it is affordable to some.  If the block is much larger, it would be much more expensive to fill it and cause transaction delays.  Miners will always set a minimum price/kb to include data in a block.

The argument is not that more space is bad. The argument is that at certain point the cost (in centralization) outweighs the benefit of trying to keep transactions few cents cheaper.

1mb is already filled up (arguably by spam but nevertheless) how long will it take to fill 2mb? Then 4mb if bitcoin will start to take off? Do you think that 8mb is viable? What about 16mb? At what size do you feel the size of the block will centralize the network to the point where you start to get worried and thinking that maybe letting satoshidice pay 2 cents per transaction is not worth it?

That is a question best left to the node operators.  Price should be determined by cost, not artificial scarcity.  Miners will only add a transaction if the transaction fee exceeds the cost of processing and storing the transaction.  Non-mining nodes already have the power to refuse to forward any transactions they feel shouldn't be included.

There is a lot of slack capacity.  Nodes mostly sit idle.  Remove the limit, or let it be adaptive and you will see the limit be determined by technological advancement.  Anything else is centralized economic planning.  Let the market find the optimal blocksize.

[LFC_Bitcoin]

When is SegWit set to be actioned or is there no date? Just a promise of April....maybe

[BitUsher]

Did I read wrongly that Segwit had bugs that needed work on from the dev team?

If you are referring to the testnet HF , than that was a false alarm.

but it looks like building several jetpacks in order to get around building a bridge. Sure, jetpacks are cool and all... but maybe we set a working bridge while the jetpacks are being developed and demonstrated to be safe?

You are insinuating features being tacked on when segwit includes critical improvements which are important for the capacity upgrade like reducing UTXO growth and allowing for payment channels to develop.

Right now, I oppose Segwit while it hasn't been implemented and shown to work properly.

Its gone through a ton of testing and will be secure when it rolls out in April. What gives you the impression it isn't already working properly, when many of us have been using it since December?

Cool. I, frankly, oppose it right now, mostly to see what Theymos will do with less than 95% consensus (hopefully, by the time it's rolled out, 75% consensus). Is he going to pull one of those [insert whatever we're calling 75% mining power backed change today]? I don't know.

Who cares about theymos. He is just one person and doesn't represent the bitcoin ecosystem . It appears you have an unhealthy obsession with his opinion.

[Patel]

Its gone through a ton of testing and will be secure when it rolls out in April.

It's not coming out in April. It's gonna be June/July release.

[arklan]

Its gone through a ton of testing and will be secure when it rolls out in April.

It's not coming out in April. It's gonna be June/July release.

i'll believe it when i see it.

[abercrombie]

are we rich yet??  

 

[BitUsher]

Its gone through a ton of testing and will be secure when it rolls out in April.

It's not coming out in April. It's gonna be June/July release.

No one knows exactly when its coming out as there is still more testing to be done but as far as the expectations are concerned it is expected April /May ... not June /July according to the latest meeting https://bitcoincore.org/en/meetings/2016/03/17/  

0.13 is rolling out in june.

My guess is that May is likely however , so I should probably stop suggesting April.