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

[hmmkay]

https://twitter.com/bencxr/status/755241138756448256
LN test:  20 payments in 100ms > 17+million per day, per channel.

This is getting interesting.

[1714840595]

1714840595

[1714840595]

1714840595

[1714840595]

1714840595

[1714840595]

1714840595

[1714840595]

1714840595

[Torque]

https://twitter.com/bencxr/status/755241138756448256
LN test:  20 payments in 100ms > 17+million per day, per channel.

This is getting interesting.

Indeed. You know, there are prominent people in the Bitcoin community that I admire and still support, but I'm baffled by their opposition to LN being a separate thing from the core Bitcoin network.

Anyone who knows anything about technology, networks, and programming knows the valid reason why databases are completely separate from the transactional layers of any application.  Or how bank clearing houses work.  It's really the only way to scale it properly.

[gentlemand]

When it encourages between 7-9 trillion people to clog every channel with faucet dicking then what? We're all DOOMED.

[jertsy]

https://twitter.com/bencxr/status/755241138756448256
LN test:  20 payments in 100ms > 17+million per day, per channel.

This is getting interesting.

Indeed. You know, there are prominent people in the Bitcoin community that I admire and still support, but I'm baffled by their opposition to LN being a separate thing from the core Bitcoin network.

Anyone who knows anything about technology, networks, and programming knows the valid reason why databases are completely separate from the transactional layers of any application.  Or how bank clearing houses work.  It's really the only way to scale it properly.

That test might result in a price jump despite whether anyone supports the lightning network or fights it. A jump might go above $700 once and for all. There's been a few weeks of calm but some news like that might start the high volume violent price moves again.

[gentlemand]

That test might result in a price jump despite whether anyone supports the lightning network or fights it. A jump might go above $700 once and for all. There's been a few weeks of calm but some news like that might start the high volume violent price moves again.

Since when did your average trader react to news other than the bad? I can't really think of anything. The unfortunate thing about bad news is that it's usually instant whereas good news always adds to a future just beyond reach.

[AlexGR]

A day is good. Anything less than that is bullshit and distorted. For example if we start isolating time frames, I can show you the last blocks

421405   4 minutes   2775   32,406.06 BTC   BTCC Pool   997.1
421404   28 minutes   782   6,553.55 BTC   Slush   998.18
421403   28 minutes   1759   14,162.17 BTC   BitFury   998.19
421402   34 minutes   1992   18,610.63 BTC   F2Pool   999.81
421401   35 minutes   2027   18,207.23 BTC   F2Pool   999.87
421400   36 minutes   2841   39,982.53 BTC   BW.COM   998.15

Are those the usual value /transaction ?  Seems like an average of 10 btc /t

I believe it includes some "hot wallet" activity of exchanges.

Some hot wallets operate like this:

You request a 1 btc withdrawal, I request 3 btc withdrawal, another requests 4 btc withdrawal

Hot wallet is at 1000 btc so it does -1 for your withdrawal and 999 btc as change to a new address. Then the 999 btc change sends me 3 and has 996 as change. Then it sends 4 to the next withdrawal and keeps 992 as change. It does that until the hot wallet is exhausted of funds. Now it is possible that instead of having the actual tx (the 1, 3, 4 btc transfers) count as volume, the change is counted as volume - because the change is far larger.

[respawn2]

https://twitter.com/bencxr/status/755241138756448256
LN test:  20 payments in 100ms > 17+million per day, per channel.

This is getting interesting.

Indeed. You know, there are prominent people in the Bitcoin community that I admire and still support, but I'm baffled by their opposition to LN being a separate thing from the core Bitcoin network.

Anyone who knows anything about technology, networks, and programming knows the valid reason why databases are completely separate from the transactional layers of any application.  Or how bank clearing houses work.  It's really the only way to scale it properly.

Bitcoin, unsettling as this may sound, is very much unlike a bank. It was designed to be both a currency and a payment processor, i.e. A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System.
Lightning is not a p2p cash system, but a p2p gift card system. One opens a "channel" and funds it with BTC.  Think credit card that, instead of letting you buy now and pay later, requires you to pre-fund it every month, and then allows you buy up to the pre-funded amount. Why "gift card" instead of credit card, you ask? Because you can only use it to transact with a single entity, just like you can only spend your Starbucks gift card at Starbucks.

[gentlemand]

We're possibly rewarded with back door centralisation by expecting places like Coinbase to route channels for us. It's all conjecture. Let's see it running before deciding how it's going to work.

[hmmkay]

Either way it's a good intermediate step for scaling.

Maybe 20-30 years from now, harddiskspace and worldwide internetspeed can handle 1 GB blocks for all transactions. Until then, LN seems a good alternative.

[xyzzy099]

We're possibly rewarded with back door centralisation by expecting places like Coinbase to route channels for us. It's all conjecture. Let's see it running before deciding how it's going to work.

You might find these links interesting:

https://medium.com/@rusty_lightning/lightning-routing-rough-background-dbac930abbad#.6k920aqm5

http://bitfury.com/content/5-white-papers-research/whitepaper_flare_an_approach_to_routing_in_lightning_network_7_7_2016.pdf

[savetherainforest]

When it encourages between 7-9 trillion people to clog every channel with faucet dicking then what? We're all DOOMED.

You do know they are launching 10 nano-meter technology on large scale soon... and then 5 or 7 nano-meters! ... Now we have the 14nm chips on the market and you can give custom designs pre-orders.
But the thing is that when those 5 - 7 nano-meter chips hit the market like in 2020 ... The next thing after that is quatum computing!
But there is another "but" ...  I have read in some article that there is already a way for quantum computing, but not at room temperature, meaning you would need a special cooler in a special room.

So.. have about that! You worry too much...


*Edit: All I can say is that "Moore's Law" was right!

[kobilica]

Approaching 666$ again 

[JimboToronto]

Good morning Bitcoinland.

Sideways 'r' us.



This can't go on forever, or can it?

[adamstgBit]

[edited out]

good job buying as the sky was falling.

Look at you?  seeming to not be able to resist getting in a kind of non-substantive ad hominem attack.  You don't even explain what was wrong with my approach.  Are you saying (in retrospect monday morning quarterbacking) that there was something fundamentally wrong with my approach?  Do you know enough about my approach?   I don't really want to get caught up on this, except to suggest that you really don't have anything here, except some desire to get in a bit of a digg, for some reason?

you read sarcasm when there was none.
your approach which seems to be focused around the idea that you simply cannot predict price movements, there for you dont try, you simply let the price movements dictate your actions based on your     avg price / % in / desired % in
Is the best possible approach as an investor.

[jertsy]

That test might result in a price jump despite whether anyone supports the lightning network or fights it. A jump might go above $700 once and for all. There's been a few weeks of calm but some news like that might start the high volume violent price moves again.

Since when did your average trader react to news other than the bad? I can't really think of anything. The unfortunate thing about bad news is that it's usually instant whereas good news always adds to a future just beyond reach.

Was news of the Brexit bad news? It depends on your point of view, but Bitcoin soared back up to $700 as soon as the news was out. I'm certain the fiat market traders who lost a fortune betting on no Brexit viewed it as bad news, and I'm also certain many Bitcoin holders viewed it as good news.

[Tzupy]

So far there's not enough fiat on exchanges to push up fast. But if 630$ holds, a rally is still possible.

[AlexGR]

https://twitter.com/bencxr/status/755241138756448256
LN test:  20 payments in 100ms > 17+million per day, per channel.

This is getting interesting.

Indeed. You know, there are prominent people in the Bitcoin community that I admire and still support, but I'm baffled by their opposition to LN being a separate thing from the core Bitcoin network.

Anyone who knows anything about technology, networks, and programming knows the valid reason why databases are completely separate from the transactional layers of any application.  Or how bank clearing houses work.  It's really the only way to scale it properly.

Bitcoin, unsettling as this may sound, is very much unlike a bank. It was designed to be both a currency and a payment processor, i.e. A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System.
Lightning is not a p2p cash system, but a p2p gift card system. One opens a "channel" and funds it with BTC.  Think credit card that, instead of letting you buy now and pay later, requires you to pre-fund it every month, and then allows you buy up to the pre-funded amount. Why "gift card" instead of credit card, you ask? Because you can only use it to transact with a single entity, just like you can only spend your Starbucks gift card at Starbucks.

Perhaps LN can be viewed as the aggregating mechanism that makes micro-txs possible:

Bitcoin isn't currently practical for very small micropayments.  Not for things like pay per search or per page view without an aggregating mechanism, not things needing to pay less than 0.01.  The dust spam limit is a first try at intentionally trying to prevent overly small micropayments like that.

Bitcoin is practical for smaller transactions than are practical with existing payment methods.  Small enough to include what you might call the top of the micropayment range.  But it doesn't claim to be practical for arbitrarily small micropayments.

[respawn2]

https://twitter.com/bencxr/status/755241138756448256
LN test:  20 payments in 100ms > 17+million per day, per channel.

This is getting interesting.

Indeed. You know, there are prominent people in the Bitcoin community that I admire and still support, but I'm baffled by their opposition to LN being a separate thing from the core Bitcoin network.

Anyone who knows anything about technology, networks, and programming knows the valid reason why databases are completely separate from the transactional layers of any application.  Or how bank clearing houses work.  It's really the only way to scale it properly.

Bitcoin, unsettling as this may sound, is very much unlike a bank. It was designed to be both a currency and a payment processor, i.e. A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System.
Lightning is not a p2p cash system, but a p2p gift card system. One opens a "channel" and funds it with BTC.  Think credit card that, instead of letting you buy now and pay later, requires you to pre-fund it every month, and then allows you buy up to the pre-funded amount. Why "gift card" instead of credit card, you ask? Because you can only use it to transact with a single entity, just like you can only spend your Starbucks gift card at Starbucks.

Perhaps LN can be viewed as the aggregating mechanism that makes micro-txs possible:

Bitcoin isn't currently practical for very small micropayments.  Not for things like pay per search or per page view without an aggregating mechanism, not things needing to pay less than 0.01.  The dust spam limit is a first try at intentionally trying to prevent overly small micropayments like that.

Bitcoin is practical for smaller transactions than are practical with existing payment methods.  Small enough to include what you might call the top of the micropayment range.  But it doesn't claim to be practical for arbitrarily small micropayments.

I can see LN being useful, but it's not a scaling solution.
Let's take micropayments (assuming that by "arbitrarily small," you mean sub-$2 now, sub $4 when the tx fees double, etc., but that's a different topic).

Why are micropayments useful? Let's say Google is charging me per search: there's absolutely no reason for Google not to tally the number of searches I do on their own database, and then bill me by the month. Is there?
So micropayments aren't needed for sites that I use often, but LN is utterly useless to me if I need to make a micropayment to a site I never visited - I'd need to create a channel first.

In short, give me some compelling use cases for micropayments which couldn't be handled simpler without LN. I'm sure there are many, but just can't think of them offhand.

[AlexGR]

https://twitter.com/bencxr/status/755241138756448256
LN test:  20 payments in 100ms > 17+million per day, per channel.

This is getting interesting.

Indeed. You know, there are prominent people in the Bitcoin community that I admire and still support, but I'm baffled by their opposition to LN being a separate thing from the core Bitcoin network.

Anyone who knows anything about technology, networks, and programming knows the valid reason why databases are completely separate from the transactional layers of any application.  Or how bank clearing houses work.  It's really the only way to scale it properly.

Bitcoin, unsettling as this may sound, is very much unlike a bank. It was designed to be both a currency and a payment processor, i.e. A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System.
Lightning is not a p2p cash system, but a p2p gift card system. One opens a "channel" and funds it with BTC.  Think credit card that, instead of letting you buy now and pay later, requires you to pre-fund it every month, and then allows you buy up to the pre-funded amount. Why "gift card" instead of credit card, you ask? Because you can only use it to transact with a single entity, just like you can only spend your Starbucks gift card at Starbucks.

Perhaps LN can be viewed as the aggregating mechanism that makes micro-txs possible:

Bitcoin isn't currently practical for very small micropayments.  Not for things like pay per search or per page view without an aggregating mechanism, not things needing to pay less than 0.01.  The dust spam limit is a first try at intentionally trying to prevent overly small micropayments like that.

Bitcoin is practical for smaller transactions than are practical with existing payment methods.  Small enough to include what you might call the top of the micropayment range.  But it doesn't claim to be practical for arbitrarily small micropayments.

I can see LN being useful, but it's not a scaling solution.
Let's take micropayments (assuming that by "arbitrarily small," you mean sub-$2 now, sub $4 when the tx fees double, etc., but that's a different topic).

Why are micropayments useful? Let's say Google is charging me per search: there's absolutely no reason for Google not to tally the number of searches I do on their own database, and then bill me by the month. Is there?
So micropayments aren't needed for sites that I use often, but LN is utterly useless to me if I need to make a micropayment to a site I never visited - I'd need to create a channel first.

In short, give me some compelling use cases for micropayments which couldn't be handled simpler without LN. I'm sure there are many, but just can't think of them offhand.

Online games could use micropayments. E-commerce on cheap items or services too.

I'm of the opinion that the long-term goal of BTC+technology should be to ...eliminate the need for things like LN - but work with them while they are needed.

[adamstgBit]

https://twitter.com/bencxr/status/755241138756448256
LN test:  20 payments in 100ms > 17+million per day, per channel.

This is getting interesting.

Indeed. You know, there are prominent people in the Bitcoin community that I admire and still support, but I'm baffled by their opposition to LN being a separate thing from the core Bitcoin network.

Anyone who knows anything about technology, networks, and programming knows the valid reason why databases are completely separate from the transactional layers of any application.  Or how bank clearing houses work.  It's really the only way to scale it properly.

Bitcoin, unsettling as this may sound, is very much unlike a bank. It was designed to be both a currency and a payment processor, i.e. A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System.
Lightning is not a p2p cash system, but a p2p gift card system. One opens a "channel" and funds it with BTC.  Think credit card that, instead of letting you buy now and pay later, requires you to pre-fund it every month, and then allows you buy up to the pre-funded amount. Why "gift card" instead of credit card, you ask? Because you can only use it to transact with a single entity, just like you can only spend your Starbucks gift card at Starbucks.

Perhaps LN can be viewed as the aggregating mechanism that makes micro-txs possible:

Bitcoin isn't currently practical for very small micropayments.  Not for things like pay per search or per page view without an aggregating mechanism, not things needing to pay less than 0.01.  The dust spam limit is a first try at intentionally trying to prevent overly small micropayments like that.

Bitcoin is practical for smaller transactions than are practical with existing payment methods.  Small enough to include what you might call the top of the micropayment range.  But it doesn't claim to be practical for arbitrarily small micropayments.

I can see LN being useful, but it's not a scaling solution.
Let's take micropayments (assuming that by "arbitrarily small," you mean sub-$2 now, sub $4 when the tx fees double, etc., but that's a different topic).

Why are micropayments useful? Let's say Google is charging me per search: there's absolutely no reason for Google not to tally the number of searches I do on their own database, and then bill me by the month. Is there?
So micropayments aren't needed for sites that I use often, but LN is utterly useless to me if I need to make a micropayment to a site I never visited - I'd need to create a channel first.

In short, give me some compelling use cases for micropayments which couldn't be handled simpler without LN. I'm sure there are many, but just can't think of them offhand.

LN is most useful for lager entities which hold users bitcoins, and move them on there behalf.

bitpay, bitfinex, changetip, etc..

will all be connected together via LN and allow users to move funds among these large site, in a cheap / instant / trustless manner.