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

[spiderbrain]

Is BTC dead???

Nah, it's just got a bit of a hubris hangover

[springgers]

Triple digits reached  

I have been watching for the last 2 hours and haven't seen it but rebound back.
Those sayings are just going to make weak hands abandon all hope for a recovery.

[york780]

Right now ? 993 EUR. I am not lying I am talking about euro's not dollars.

[notme]

Miners will include everything that contains a transaction fee, even one satoshi. Why? Because even one satoshi is one satoshi. And then came spam...................

One could add 100GB to the BU blockchain, just by spending 1 BU coin.

This is not a reasonable game theory interpretation of what will happen. They will set the block size to yield the highest total fees, which would require the exclusion of very low fee transactions.

So, we've had tons of "spam" on the network, I assume that "spam" will continue post BU (should that happen). I also imagine lots of new "spam" as an attack on BU.

Miners craft blocks to get the highest total fees, means they are accepting blocks of that size? What happens when a malicious miner crafts blocks of the same size but filled with their own transactions, thus not draining the mempool what-so-ever?

I'm not convinced that incentives will simply be mine-blocks-for-rewards if there is a fork. I think we will see all kinds of attacks on both networks (after this long of a stalemate and the bitterness we are seeing today, it would be naive to think otherwise) and I'm interested to see how BU with it's multiple variables (additional complexity) deals with such attacks. I fully expect them to eat themselves before long and hard code rules to prevent certain things from happening, basically ending up even more restrictive than a simple you-get-what-you-pay-for fee market.

we welcome fee paying spam.  

if you guys want to create valid blocks on our network thats cool man

even if you want to do some tests and see if invalid blocks get rejected thats OK too

If you are accepting blocks of N size with fee paying transactions, you will also accept my blocks of N size consisting entirely of 0 fee transactions to myself that I've not broadcast but simply put in my blocks. My blocks are valid according to your rules, bloat the chain, do not help reduce the mempool, and still receive block rewards!

And because your block had unbroadcast transactions it would take longer to validate than a different block released at about the same time.  Because BU has parallel validation of competing chains, your block would lose out even it arrived slightly quicker.  It is this orphan risk that creates the cost.

[Holliday]

Miners will include everything that contains a transaction fee, even one satoshi. Why? Because even one satoshi is one satoshi. And then came spam...................

One could add 100GB to the BU blockchain, just by spending 1 BU coin.

This is not a reasonable game theory interpretation of what will happen. They will set the block size to yield the highest total fees, which would require the exclusion of very low fee transactions.

So, we've had tons of "spam" on the network, I assume that "spam" will continue post BU (should that happen). I also imagine lots of new "spam" as an attack on BU.

Miners craft blocks to get the highest total fees, means they are accepting blocks of that size? What happens when a malicious miner crafts blocks of the same size but filled with their own transactions, thus not draining the mempool what-so-ever?

I'm not convinced that incentives will simply be mine-blocks-for-rewards if there is a fork. I think we will see all kinds of attacks on both networks (after this long of a stalemate and the bitterness we are seeing today, it would be naive to think otherwise) and I'm interested to see how BU with it's multiple variables (additional complexity) deals with such attacks. I fully expect them to eat themselves before long and hard code rules to prevent certain things from happening, basically ending up even more restrictive than a simple you-get-what-you-pay-for fee market.

we welcome fee paying spam.  

if you guys want to create valid blocks on our network thats cool man

even if you want to do some tests and see if invalid blocks get rejected thats OK too

If you are accepting blocks of N size with fee paying transactions, you will also accept my blocks of N size consisting entirely of 0 fee transactions to myself that I've not broadcast but simply put in my blocks. My blocks are valid according to your rules, bloat the chain, do not help reduce the mempool, and still receive block rewards!

And because your block had unbroadcast transactions it would take longer to validate than a different block released at about the same time.  Because BU has parallel validation of competing chains, your block would lose out even it arrived slightly quicker.  It is this orphan risk that creates the cost.

Fine, I'll just broadcast all those 0 fee transactions first. I wasn't thinking when I suggested keeping them to myself. They are 0 fee, I have nothing to lose!

And remember, I'm here to get paid block rewards to attack the chain. Even if I lose out on some close blocks, so what?

[Killerpotleaf]

Miners will include everything that contains a transaction fee, even one satoshi. Why? Because even one satoshi is one satoshi. And then came spam...................

One could add 100GB to the BU blockchain, just by spending 1 BU coin.

This is not a reasonable game theory interpretation of what will happen. They will set the block size to yield the highest total fees, which would require the exclusion of very low fee transactions.

So, we've had tons of "spam" on the network, I assume that "spam" will continue post BU (should that happen). I also imagine lots of new "spam" as an attack on BU.

Miners craft blocks to get the highest total fees, means they are accepting blocks of that size? What happens when a malicious miner crafts blocks of the same size but filled with their own transactions, thus not draining the mempool what-so-ever?

I'm not convinced that incentives will simply be mine-blocks-for-rewards if there is a fork. I think we will see all kinds of attacks on both networks (after this long of a stalemate and the bitterness we are seeing today, it would be naive to think otherwise) and I'm interested to see how BU with it's multiple variables (additional complexity) deals with such attacks. I fully expect them to eat themselves before long and hard code rules to prevent certain things from happening, basically ending up even more restrictive than a simple you-get-what-you-pay-for fee market.

we welcome fee paying spam.  

if you guys want to create valid blocks on our network thats cool man

even if you want to do some tests and see if invalid blocks get rejected thats OK too

If you are accepting blocks of N size with fee paying transactions, you will also accept my blocks of N size consisting entirely of 0 fee transactions to myself that I've not broadcast but simply put in my blocks. My blocks are valid according to your rules, bloat the chain, do not help reduce the mempool, and still receive block rewards!

And because your block had unbroadcast transactions it would take longer to validate than a different block released at about the same time.  Because BU has parallel validation of competing chains, your block would lose out even it arrived slightly quicker.  It is this orphan risk that creates the cost.

Fine, I'll just broadcast all those 0 fee transactions first. I wasn't thinking when I suggested keeping them to myself. They are 0 fee, I have nothing to lose!

And remember, I'm here to get paid block rewards to attack the chain. Even if I lose out on some close blocks, so what?

ya man wast your money

[Holliday]

Miners will include everything that contains a transaction fee, even one satoshi. Why? Because even one satoshi is one satoshi. And then came spam...................

One could add 100GB to the BU blockchain, just by spending 1 BU coin.

This is not a reasonable game theory interpretation of what will happen. They will set the block size to yield the highest total fees, which would require the exclusion of very low fee transactions.

So, we've had tons of "spam" on the network, I assume that "spam" will continue post BU (should that happen). I also imagine lots of new "spam" as an attack on BU.

Miners craft blocks to get the highest total fees, means they are accepting blocks of that size? What happens when a malicious miner crafts blocks of the same size but filled with their own transactions, thus not draining the mempool what-so-ever?

I'm not convinced that incentives will simply be mine-blocks-for-rewards if there is a fork. I think we will see all kinds of attacks on both networks (after this long of a stalemate and the bitterness we are seeing today, it would be naive to think otherwise) and I'm interested to see how BU with it's multiple variables (additional complexity) deals with such attacks. I fully expect them to eat themselves before long and hard code rules to prevent certain things from happening, basically ending up even more restrictive than a simple you-get-what-you-pay-for fee market.

we welcome fee paying spam.  

if you guys want to create valid blocks on our network thats cool man

even if you want to do some tests and see if invalid blocks get rejected thats OK too

If you are accepting blocks of N size with fee paying transactions, you will also accept my blocks of N size consisting entirely of 0 fee transactions to myself that I've not broadcast but simply put in my blocks. My blocks are valid according to your rules, bloat the chain, do not help reduce the mempool, and still receive block rewards!

And because your block had unbroadcast transactions it would take longer to validate than a different block released at about the same time.  Because BU has parallel validation of competing chains, your block would lose out even it arrived slightly quicker.  It is this orphan risk that creates the cost.

Fine, I'll just broadcast all those 0 fee transactions first. I wasn't thinking when I suggested keeping them to myself. They are 0 fee, I have nothing to lose!

And remember, I'm here to get paid block rewards to attack the chain. Even if I lose out on some close blocks, so what?

ya man wast your money

Huh? I'm getting paid block rewards. I lose out on BU fees, but so what? I'm attacking BU's chain and getting paid to do it! How much are the fees going to be anyway when blocks are big enough to include all these transactions? Isn't that the selling point? Fees are too high, we need bigger blocks?

[Killerpotleaf]

Miners will include everything that contains a transaction fee, even one satoshi. Why? Because even one satoshi is one satoshi. And then came spam...................

One could add 100GB to the BU blockchain, just by spending 1 BU coin.

This is not a reasonable game theory interpretation of what will happen. They will set the block size to yield the highest total fees, which would require the exclusion of very low fee transactions.

So, we've had tons of "spam" on the network, I assume that "spam" will continue post BU (should that happen). I also imagine lots of new "spam" as an attack on BU.

Miners craft blocks to get the highest total fees, means they are accepting blocks of that size? What happens when a malicious miner crafts blocks of the same size but filled with their own transactions, thus not draining the mempool what-so-ever?

I'm not convinced that incentives will simply be mine-blocks-for-rewards if there is a fork. I think we will see all kinds of attacks on both networks (after this long of a stalemate and the bitterness we are seeing today, it would be naive to think otherwise) and I'm interested to see how BU with it's multiple variables (additional complexity) deals with such attacks. I fully expect them to eat themselves before long and hard code rules to prevent certain things from happening, basically ending up even more restrictive than a simple you-get-what-you-pay-for fee market.

we welcome fee paying spam.  

if you guys want to create valid blocks on our network thats cool man

even if you want to do some tests and see if invalid blocks get rejected thats OK too

If you are accepting blocks of N size with fee paying transactions, you will also accept my blocks of N size consisting entirely of 0 fee transactions to myself that I've not broadcast but simply put in my blocks. My blocks are valid according to your rules, bloat the chain, do not help reduce the mempool, and still receive block rewards!

And because your block had unbroadcast transactions it would take longer to validate than a different block released at about the same time.  Because BU has parallel validation of competing chains, your block would lose out even it arrived slightly quicker.  It is this orphan risk that creates the cost.

Fine, I'll just broadcast all those 0 fee transactions first. I wasn't thinking when I suggested keeping them to myself. They are 0 fee, I have nothing to lose!

And remember, I'm here to get paid block rewards to attack the chain. Even if I lose out on some close blocks, so what?

ya man wast your money

Huh? I'm getting paid block rewards. I lose out on BU fees, but so what? I'm attacking BU's chain and getting paid to do it! How much are the fees going to be anyway when blocks are big enough to include all these transactions? Isn't that the selling point? Fees are too high, we need bigger blocks?

if you aren't including fees you're gonna be minning at a loss.

pretty soon, all minning will be based on fee revenue.

and my node will ignore your 0fee paying TX you attempt to broadcast.

[gentlemand]

Chinese coins, the type you can't withdraw from the exchange, are now more expensive than liberated ones. That's an odd little metric of something.

Not to mention btc-e being 20 bucks more too.

[Ted E. Bare]

Stamp and Finex are extremely oversold indeed. It has to bounce back big, it just has to. No fucking way is this the normal price.

[notme]

Fine, I'll just broadcast all those 0 fee transactions first. I wasn't thinking when I suggested keeping them to myself. They are 0 fee, I have nothing to lose!

And remember, I'm here to get paid block rewards to attack the chain. Even if I lose out on some close blocks, so what?

Miners are free to prioritize however they'd like.  I can't imagine you'd get more than a couple blocks accepted before they implemented countermeasures.

Nodes are also free do decide what to forward.  Unless your 0 fee transactions have sizeable outputs, they would already be dropped by today's network.  How many btc are you willing to devote to this pointless attack?

[notme]

In the hopes we can start an actual dialog and quit throwing insults at each other:

BU does not want a contentious fork.  It is just a tool to allow larger blocks without requiring the blessing of self-appointed bitcoin priests.  Miners will only utilize the tool when the market is ready to have larger blocks.  They are not dumb enough to shoot themselves in the foot.  There is no magic threshold that will trigger a hard fork.

If you actually want to understand BU and not just parrot the unfounded attacks on it, check out the BU subfourm on the forum where the idea was hatched back in 2015: https://bitco.in/forum/forums/bitcoin-unlimited.15/

Start threads, ask questions, find out what BU actually is.  If you are right that is is bad, you'll be able to attack it much better once you understand it.

[spiderbrain]

In the hopes we can start an actual dialog and quit throwing insults at each other:

BU does not want a contentious fork.  It is just a tool to allow larger blocks without requiring the blessing of self-appointed bitcoin priests.  Miners will only utilize the tool when the market is ready to have larger blocks.  They are not dumb enough to shoot themselves in the foot.  There is no magic threshold that will trigger a hard fork.

If you actually want to understand BU and not just parrot the unfounded attacks on it, check out the BU subfourm on the forum where the idea was hatched back in 2015: https://bitco.in/forum/forums/bitcoin-unlimited.15/

Start threads, ask questions, find out what BU actually is.  If you are right that is is bad, you'll be able to attack it much better once you understand it.

Yay rational debate!

[Holliday]

Fine, I'll just broadcast all those 0 fee transactions first. I wasn't thinking when I suggested keeping them to myself. They are 0 fee, I have nothing to lose!

And remember, I'm here to get paid block rewards to attack the chain. Even if I lose out on some close blocks, so what?

Miners are free to prioritize however they'd like.  I can't imagine you'd get more than a couple blocks accepted before they implemented countermeasures.

Nodes are also free do decide what to forward.  Unless your 0 fee transactions have sizeable outputs, they would already be dropped by today's network.  How many btc are you willing to devote to this pointless attack?

I'm not sure how broadcasting 0 fee transactions that send bitcoins to myself costs me anything. As I said, I would be paid block rewards. I don't know that the attack is considered pointless if I'm adding bloat to the chain without contributing anything.

The "implemented countermeasures" is what I'm interested in. I mean, how does one tell my transactions from a regular user? Or my blocks, for that matter? As I said, I fully expect BU to eat itself in short time and be more restrictive than a simple you-get-what-you-pay-for fee market.

[Mervyn_Pumpkinhead]

www.youtube.com/watch?v=yURRmWtbTbo

[notme]

Fine, I'll just broadcast all those 0 fee transactions first. I wasn't thinking when I suggested keeping them to myself. They are 0 fee, I have nothing to lose!

And remember, I'm here to get paid block rewards to attack the chain. Even if I lose out on some close blocks, so what?

Miners are free to prioritize however they'd like.  I can't imagine you'd get more than a couple blocks accepted before they implemented countermeasures.

Nodes are also free do decide what to forward.  Unless your 0 fee transactions have sizeable outputs, they would already be dropped by today's network.  How many btc are you willing to devote to this pointless attack?

I'm not sure how broadcasting 0 fee transactions that send bitcoins to myself costs me anything. As I said, I would be paid block rewards. I don't know that the attack is considered pointless if I'm adding bloat to the chain without contributing anything.

The "implemented countermeasures" is what I'm interested in. I mean, how does one tell my transactions from a regular user? Or my blocks, for that matter? As I said, I fully expect BU to eat itself in short time and be more restrictive than a simple you-get-what-you-pay-for fee market.

If they reject blocks that are more than 5% free transactions, you would lose your block rewards or have to limit your bloat to 5% of the block.  They could alternatively do it using some measure such as (delta utxo)/(tx fees) >= some minimum.  If you aren't bloating the UTXO, you're actually helping since miners can easily prune transactions with no unspent outputs.

[becoin]

In the hopes we can start an actual dialog and quit throwing insults at each other:

C'mon! Stop talking BS and fork it!
If you don't, just STFU!

[Killerpotleaf]

In the hopes we can start an actual dialog and quit throwing insults at each other:

C'mon! Stop talking BS and fork it!

you first

[Meuh6879]

Already a green candle ?!?

[becoin]

In the hopes we can start an actual dialog and quit throwing insults at each other:

C'mon! Stop talking BS and fork it!

you first

I don't need a fork! I don't need unlimited spam on the blockchain!