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

[nioc]

I was told that despite the title of this thread it also serves as the block observer thread.

For whatever reason it currently looks like a full block day.

Let's see if my transaction that I just sent which included a fee high enough too be rated "high priority" will be included in the next block.  Yes I actually have a use for btc and use it on a regular basis.

While I was typing this, a new block was found the size of which was 0.9982 MB  and I am happy to report that my "high priority" transaction, fee of 0.000113, was included in that block

[Gyrsur]

I was told that despite the title of this thread it also serves as the block observer thread.

For whatever reason it currently looks like a full block day.

Let's see if my transaction that I just sent which included a fee high enough too be rated "high priority" will be included in the next block.  Yes I actually have a use for btc and use it on a regular basis.

While I was typing this, a new block was found the size of which was 0.9982 MB  and I am happy to report that my "high priority" transaction, fee of 0.000113, was included in that block

https://blockchain.info/de/charts/avg-block-size

[XCASH]

I was told that despite the title of this thread it also serves as the block observer thread.

...

It's mostly a troll movement tracking & discussion thread sprinkled with a bit of blurb about segwit every now and again. We track and discuss lambie's latest socks. Adam should change the title to the lambie sock movement tracking & discussion thread.

[billyjoeallen]

Does somebody know ehat is causing this price movement?

I don't know, but it's got everyone posting here again. I though this thread was dead after weeks of nothing but sparse NLC sock posts. A ten dollar pump later and all the old timers are back posting here again. This latest pump is unusually slow and steady compared to the usual sharp violent ones. Perhaps it's more sustainable because of it.

It's only sustainable if price can raise at a rate slower than average blocksize. I don't see how that's possible because a belief in rising xaction fees has the effect of pushing demand forward or in other words causing people to transact now rather than later which causes the blocks to grow. A self-fulfilling prophecy. 

So either you think a fee market will emerge, in which case you contribute to the capacity problem or you think it won't, in which case you hold off and allow the market to think demand for blockspace is lower than it is,  which creates less incentive to fix the capacity problem. How are you gonna take advantage of a non-jammed network without contributing to the jam? 

The capacity problem will not be fixed if it is not seen as a problem and it won't be seen as a problem if the exchange price is high. Miners will continue to profit selling a shitty inferior product because you assholes keep buying it. I can't blame them. You can't buy as much blockspace as you used to for the same amount of coin. You can't xfer it as fast for the same fee. It can be censored by the PRC.  One Bitcoin is a smaller amount of total market cap than it used to be.  Even if it's undervalued, it's not nearly as undervalued as it was at $350, so why the hell are you buying now? Got a tax refund burning a hole in your pocket?

[r0ach]

It's only sustainable if price can raise at a rate slower than average blocksize. I don't see how that's possible because a belief in rising xaction fees has the effect of pushing demand forward or in other words causing people to transact now rather than later which causes the blocks to grow. A self-fulfilling prophecy. 

So either you think a fee market will emerge, in which case you contribute to the capacity problem or you think it won't, in which case you hold off and allow the market to think demand for blockspace is lower than it is,  which creates less incentive to fix the capacity problem. How are you gonna take advantage of a non-jammed network without contributing to the jam? 

The capacity problem will not be fixed if it is not seen as a problem and it won't be seen as a problem if the exchange price is high. Miners will continue to profit selling a shitty inferior product because you assholes keep buying it. I can't blame them. You can't buy as much blockspace as you used to for the same amount of coin. You can't xfer it as fast for the same fee. It can be censored by the PRC.  One Bitcoin is a smaller amount of total market cap than it used to be.  Even if it's undervalued, it's not nearly as undervalued as it was at $350, so why the hell are you buying now? Got a tax refund burning a hole in your pocket?

And anytime BillyJoeAllen posts about a supposed "block size armageddon", all you need to do is post this as reply:

It doesn't matter what % of blocks are full you stupid fucks.  All that matters is what the average transaction fee is.  Since there is no minimum transaction fee, the blocks are basically designed to be full at all times eventually even if you set it to 100MB blocks.  Segwit + hard fork in 2017 = 3.2MB blocks.  Then schnorr multisig on top of that should lower transaction sizes and increase TPS further.

[billyjoeallen]

It's only sustainable if price can raise at a rate slower than average blocksize. I don't see how that's possible because a belief in rising xaction fees has the effect of pushing demand forward or in other words causing people to transact now rather than later which causes the blocks to grow. A self-fulfilling prophecy. 

So either you think a fee market will emerge, in which case you contribute to the capacity problem or you think it won't, in which case you hold off and allow the market to think demand for blockspace is lower than it is,  which creates less incentive to fix the capacity problem. How are you gonna take advantage of a non-jammed network without contributing to the jam? 

The capacity problem will not be fixed if it is not seen as a problem and it won't be seen as a problem if the exchange price is high. Miners will continue to profit selling a shitty inferior product because you assholes keep buying it. I can't blame them. You can't buy as much blockspace as you used to for the same amount of coin. You can't xfer it as fast for the same fee. It can be censored by the PRC.  One Bitcoin is a smaller amount of total market cap than it used to be.  Even if it's undervalued, it's not nearly as undervalued as it was at $350, so why the hell are you buying now? Got a tax refund burning a hole in your pocket?

And anytime BillyJoeAllen posts about a supposed "block size armageddon", all you need to do is post this as reply:

It doesn't matter what % of blocks are full you stupid fucks.  All that matters is what the average transaction fee is.  Since there is no minimum transaction fee, the blocks are basically designed to be full at all times eventually even if you set it to 100MB blocks.  Segwit + hard fork in 2017 = 3.2MB blocks.  Then schnorr multisig on top of that should lower transaction sizes and increase TPS further.

If blocks were designed to be full, then how come they weren't full until recently despite effectively zero fees?  cripplecoiners never answer that.

[kodtycoon]

are the blocks full because of spam tx's or genuine ones? like is someone artificially filling blocks atm or is it natural?

[billyjoeallen]

are the blocks full because of spam tx's or genuine ones? like is someone artificially filling blocks atm or is it natural?

define natural. All xactions that conform to the protocol get included. They are all natural. That's the whole point of having a distributed open source ledger, so that nobody is in the position of telling us what we can do.

[kodtycoon]

It's only sustainable if price can raise at a rate slower than average blocksize. I don't see how that's possible because a belief in rising xaction fees has the effect of pushing demand forward or in other words causing people to transact now rather than later which causes the blocks to grow. A self-fulfilling prophecy. 

So either you think a fee market will emerge, in which case you contribute to the capacity problem or you think it won't, in which case you hold off and allow the market to think demand for blockspace is lower than it is,  which creates less incentive to fix the capacity problem. How are you gonna take advantage of a non-jammed network without contributing to the jam? 

The capacity problem will not be fixed if it is not seen as a problem and it won't be seen as a problem if the exchange price is high. Miners will continue to profit selling a shitty inferior product because you assholes keep buying it. I can't blame them. You can't buy as much blockspace as you used to for the same amount of coin. You can't xfer it as fast for the same fee. It can be censored by the PRC.  One Bitcoin is a smaller amount of total market cap than it used to be.  Even if it's undervalued, it's not nearly as undervalued as it was at $350, so why the hell are you buying now? Got a tax refund burning a hole in your pocket?

And anytime BillyJoeAllen posts about a supposed "block size armageddon", all you need to do is post this as reply:

It doesn't matter what % of blocks are full you stupid fucks.  All that matters is what the average transaction fee is.  Since there is no minimum transaction fee, the blocks are basically designed to be full at all times eventually even if you set it to 100MB blocks.  Segwit + hard fork in 2017 = 3.2MB blocks.  Then schnorr multisig on top of that should lower transaction sizes and increase TPS further.

If blocks were designed to be full, then how come they weren't full until recently despite effectively zero fees?  cripplecoiners never answer that.

why would people do transactions simply because there is space? the fees were low for a long time because the blocksize was always more than big enough for the number of transactions. now that they are near full, the fee increases as competition for space increases. eventually, if the size doesnt increase, demand for space will lead to further increases in the cost to transact.

i dont think they were designed to be full, as that would require a dynamic blocksize. without dynamic blocksize, they are either not full due to low transaction count, just full when it reaches equilibrium, or over full when there is too much demand. The only way i see this becoming a problem is if demand is so high that transaction fees become intolerable, though i suspect that could happen very fast if transaction fees are dynamically increased as blocks become fuller.

It doesnt matter if most users dont see it as a problem, it will be fixed so long as the devs see it as a problem and miners agree. since when do decision makers take joe soaps opinions into account when deciding whether is an issue or not. Facebook users never considered how much data they were creating or how it would affect their beloved facebook did they? but yet facebook and their devs still pre-emtped the issue and solved it, regardless of whether the users considered it an issue or not.

 i dont see why bitcoin would be any different. facebook over loaded = facebook goes down. bitcoin over loaded, transactions get very expensive. this isnt a consideration that the vast majority of users will take into account ever so to say that blocks should be full simply because they its cheap to transact is wrong. to assume that users will front run others by sending transactions sooner because fees might increase soon is also wrong. to think that most users have that kind of foresight is wrong. to think that users will send transactions willy nilly just because they can do it very cheap is wrong. you are thinking about this as if people are rational beings and will always optimize their use of bitcoin and plan ahead, but people just arent like that.

[kodtycoon]

are the blocks full because of spam tx's or genuine ones? like is someone artificially filling blocks atm or is it natural?

define natural. All xactions that conform to the protocol get included. They are all natural. That's the whole point of having a distributed open source ledger, so that nobody is in the position of telling us what we can do.

you obviously know what i mean but are purposefully trying to sound clever.

i mean is someone running a bot to send pointless transactions just to fill the blocks to put pressure on the core devs to do something.

what else would i mean by artificially filling the blocks.

[billyjoeallen]

are the blocks full because of spam tx's or genuine ones? like is someone artificially filling blocks atm or is it natural?

define natural. All xactions that conform to the protocol get included. They are all natural. That's the whole point of having a distributed open source ledger, so that nobody is in the position of telling us what we can do.

you obviously know what i mean but are purposefully trying to sound clever.

i mean is someone running a bot to send pointless transactions just to fill the blocks to put pressure on the core devs to do something.

what else would i mean by artificially filling the blocks.

Why would filling blocks to pressure Core be illegitimate? Highlighting a weakness in a network in order to facilitate a fix is common with all open source projects.

[kodtycoon]

are the blocks full because of spam tx's or genuine ones? like is someone artificially filling blocks atm or is it natural?

define natural. All xactions that conform to the protocol get included. They are all natural. That's the whole point of having a distributed open source ledger, so that nobody is in the position of telling us what we can do.

you obviously know what i mean but are purposefully trying to sound clever.

i mean is someone running a bot to send pointless transactions just to fill the blocks to put pressure on the core devs to do something.

what else would i mean by artificially filling the blocks.

Why would filling blocks to pressure Core be illegitimate? Highlighting a weakness in a network in order to facilitate a fix is common with all open source projects.

because its not genuine user transaction growth due to a need/want to use bitcoin. its a growth in transaction because someone wants the devs to make a change. its akin to a forced ddos. its not a ddos due to genuine user growth, its an attack to take down down a website. whether its done with good intentions or not, its still artificial.

[billyjoeallen]

It's only sustainable if price can raise at a rate slower than average blocksize. I don't see how that's possible because a belief in rising xaction fees has the effect of pushing demand forward or in other words causing people to transact now rather than later which causes the blocks to grow. A self-fulfilling prophecy. 

So either you think a fee market will emerge, in which case you contribute to the capacity problem or you think it won't, in which case you hold off and allow the market to think demand for blockspace is lower than it is,  which creates less incentive to fix the capacity problem. How are you gonna take advantage of a non-jammed network without contributing to the jam? 

The capacity problem will not be fixed if it is not seen as a problem and it won't be seen as a problem if the exchange price is high. Miners will continue to profit selling a shitty inferior product because you assholes keep buying it. I can't blame them. You can't buy as much blockspace as you used to for the same amount of coin. You can't xfer it as fast for the same fee. It can be censored by the PRC.  One Bitcoin is a smaller amount of total market cap than it used to be.  Even if it's undervalued, it's not nearly as undervalued as it was at $350, so why the hell are you buying now? Got a tax refund burning a hole in your pocket?

And anytime BillyJoeAllen posts about a supposed "block size armageddon", all you need to do is post this as reply:

It doesn't matter what % of blocks are full you stupid fucks.  All that matters is what the average transaction fee is.  Since there is no minimum transaction fee, the blocks are basically designed to be full at all times eventually even if you set it to 100MB blocks.  Segwit + hard fork in 2017 = 3.2MB blocks.  Then schnorr multisig on top of that should lower transaction sizes and increase TPS further.

If blocks were designed to be full, then how come they weren't full until recently despite effectively zero fees?  cripplecoiners never answer that.

why would people do transactions simply because there is space? the fees were low for a long time because the blocksize was always more than big enough for the number of transactions. now that they are near full, the fee increases as competition for space increases. eventually, if the size doesnt increase, demand for space will lead to further increases in the cost to transact.

i dont think they were designed to be full, as that would require a dynamic blocksize. without dynamic blocksize, they are either not full due to low transaction count, just full when it reaches equilibrium, or over full when there is too much demand. The only way i see this becoming a problem is if demand is so high that transaction fees become intolerable, though i suspect that could happen very fast if transaction fees are dynamically increased as blocks become fuller.

It doesnt matter if most users dont see it as a problem, it will be fixed so long as the devs see it as a problem and miners agree. since when do decision makers take joe soaps opinions into account when deciding whether is an issue or not. Facebook users never considered how much data they were creating or how it would affect their beloved facebook did they? but yet facebook and their devs still pre-emtped the issue and solved it, regardless of whether the users considered it an issue or not.

 i dont see why bitcoin would be any different. facebook over loaded = facebook goes down. bitcoin over loaded, transactions get very expensive. this isnt a consideration that the vast majority of users will take into account ever so to say that blocks should be full simply because they its cheap to transact is wrong. to assume that users will front run others by sending transactions sooner because fees might increase soon is also wrong. to think that most users have that kind of foresight is wrong. to think that users will send transactions willy nilly just because they can do it very cheap is wrong. you are thinking about this as if people are rational beings and will always optimize their use of bitcoin and plan ahead, but people just arent like that.

ok, so you agree with me that blocks weren't designed to be full and so Roach is full of shit. There are two conflicting problems with opposite solutions. 1) chainbloat that can occur easily when fees are low. 2) service disruptions that can occur when xactions exceed capacity.  Where you stand on the blocksize issue depends on how you prioritize these problems.

I think it's silly to worry about chainbloat when the entire chain can still fit on a 64GB jump drive. We need to build a much bigger user base before we balance the need for blockspace with the need for capacity or we risk losing market share to altcoins that have lower fees and cheaper blockspace. This is already occurring and if we lose firstmover advantage, Bitcoin will become the MySpace of Crypto and recovery will be highly unlikely.

[billyjoeallen]

are the blocks full because of spam tx's or genuine ones? like is someone artificially filling blocks atm or is it natural?

define natural. All xactions that conform to the protocol get included. They are all natural. That's the whole point of having a distributed open source ledger, so that nobody is in the position of telling us what we can do.

you obviously know what i mean but are purposefully trying to sound clever.

i mean is someone running a bot to send pointless transactions just to fill the blocks to put pressure on the core devs to do something.

what else would i mean by artificially filling the blocks.

Why would filling blocks to pressure Core be illegitimate? Highlighting a weakness in a network in order to facilitate a fix is common with all open source projects.

because its not genuine user transaction growth due to a need/want to use bitcoin. its a growth in transaction because someone wants the devs to make a change. its akin to a forced ddos. its not a ddos due to genuine user growth, its an attack to take down down a website. whether its done with good intentions or not, its still artificial.

So it's more or less exactly like the assholes who were filling the blocks with zero fee xactions to pressure Core NOT to increase the blocksize limit. At least Bigblock spammers are paying fees. It cuts both ways. If we shouldn't yield to the pressure of bigblock spammers, then we shouldn't yield to the pressure of smallblock spammers either. Once you start playing favorites with transactions, you become a central banker, the very thing Bitcoin was supposed to prevent.

[r0ach]

If there is no minimum transaction fee, there are numerous methods of making blocks full at all times no matter how big you make them either using little or no money to do so (such as the miners themselves).  This means the only relevant metric is how much the transaction fees are and not what % of blocks are full.  It's so simple even a caveman can understand it.

[billyjoeallen]

If there is no minimum transaction fee, there are numerous methods of making blocks full at all times no matter how big you make them either using little or no money to do so (such as the miners themselves).  This means the only relevant metric is how much the transaction fees are and not what % of blocks are full.  It's so simple even a caveman can understand it.

Yeah, I agree it's caveman logic. Kinda like telling women to piss their pants to prevent being raped. it may work sometimes, but there is a cost.  You're also likely gonna scare off suitors that you actually want.

[AlexGR]

are the blocks full because of spam tx's or genuine ones? like is someone artificially filling blocks atm or is it natural?

If there is genuine demand for blockspace, you'll see the fees rising significantly coupled with tx spillover to altcoin blockchains.

Given the above:

1) Long-established altcoins have very low tx count
2) BTC fees are EXTREMELY low / practically zero cost, indicating low tx demand (for genuine uses).

https://bitcoinfees.21.co/

[marcus_of_augustus]

BlockyJoeAllen come to dump his mind vomit all over these public pages again I see.

Hey genius, you think you got it all figured, where's your code? Where's you tests? Where's your data?

Enough with the mind vomit, time to put up or stfu.

Monday morning quarterbacks and backseat drivers are worse than clueless noobs, there is no reason for their ignorance, it's just willful.

[billyjoeallen]

BlockyJoeAllen come to dump his mind vomit all over these public pages again I see.

Hey genius, you think you got it all figured, where's your code? Where's you tests? Where's your data?

Enough with the mind vomit, time to put up or stfu.

Monday morning quarterbacks and backseat drivers are worse than clueless noobs, there is no reason for their ignorance, it's just willful.

I don't have to be an automotive engineer to know that a car with a 40 MPH governor is prolly not gonna be a bestseller.

[nanobrain]

BlockyJoeAllen come to dump his mind vomit all over these public pages again I see.

Hey genius, you think you got it all figured, where's your code? Where's you tests? Where's your data?

Enough with the mind vomit, time to put up or stfu.

Monday morning quarterbacks and backseat drivers are worse than clueless noobs, there is no reason for their ignorance, it's just willful.

I remember you used to think BJA actually was a genius...but then he started disagreeing with you.

If you want to start floating your theory that the BJA account has been sold/hijacked, the allusion to women being raped suggests this is the original BJA in all his unapologetic glory.