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

[JayJuanGee]

Segwit First!

^screw seqwit+ screw btu ... lets just increase to 2mb and get on up to $2000 ladies?  

Are you retarded?

What is the justification to move up to 2mb?

If there is no justification, besides merely "sounding like a good idea", then there should be no need to presume that 2mb actually resolves anything - besides caving into some whiners and maybe even bringing some disadvantages.
 

Anyhow, we should not be advocating to do things just because it "sounds nice"

How about, so the amount of people that want to use Bitcoin can actually use bitcoin..
That sounds like a very good reason.. Because right now, they can't..

How about another made up argument coming from nonsense.


Anyone can get into bitcoin, and there are various options for them.  

Some locations have more options than others, but these various infrastructure matters are evolving.

Moving to a 2mb block limit size is not going to resolve various onboarding and/or use considerations in the short term.  There is a lot that could be built to help in terms of onboarding and improving transaction options, including the adoption of segwit in a plan forward would help in these kinds of onboarding and use developments.

[1714078828]

1714078828

[1714078828]

1714078828

[1714078828]

1714078828

[Holliday]

How about, so the amount of people that want to abuse Bitcoin can actually abuse bitcoin..
That sounds like a very good reason.. Because right now, they can't..

FTFY.

[alexeft]

How about, so the amount of people that want to abuse Bitcoin can actually abuse bitcoin..
That sounds like a very good reason.. Because right now, they can't..

FTFY.

 

That was good.

[eddie13]

Segwit First!

^screw seqwit+ screw btu ... lets just increase to 2mb and get on up to $2000 ladies? 

Are you retarded?

What is the justification to move up to 2mb?

If there is no justification, besides merely "sounding like a good idea", then there should be no need to presume that 2mb actually resolves anything - besides caving into some whiners and maybe even bringing some disadvantages.
 

Anyhow, we should not be advocating to do things just because it "sounds nice"

How about, so the amount of people that want to use Bitcoin can actually use bitcoin..
That sounds like a very good reason.. Because right now, they can't..

Median confirmation time (with fee) is in the 10 to 20 minutes range. The fee is 1-2 dollars. The rest of the transactions that you see are spam (-ish. )It's just that you can't buy coffee with it, but then, why should you if the underlying technology (the computers on which bitcoin runs) does not currently allow you to?

Faith and patience my friend. It is predicted that by 2020 or so, SSD disks will have approached the cost of HDDs. I suppose that would be a good time to increase the block size.

Higher fees do not let bitcoin process more transactions, they just let greedy people cut in line ahead of everyone else..
You are just buying a ticket closer to the front of the line at the expense of everyone else..

[Holliday]

Higher fees do not let bitcoin process more transactions, they just let greedy people cut in line ahead of everyone else..
You are just buying a ticket closer to the front of the line at the expense of everyone else..

You literally have it completely backwards.

People who pay higher fees are actually adding more to the security of the network in exchange for receiving faster service.

The greedy ones are those who rely on the block subsidies to take care of everything for them.

Getting what you pay for... apparently a foreign concept to some.

[eddie13]

Segwit First!

^screw seqwit+ screw btu ... lets just increase to 2mb and get on up to $2000 ladies?  

Are you retarded?

What is the justification to move up to 2mb?

If there is no justification, besides merely "sounding like a good idea", then there should be no need to presume that 2mb actually resolves anything - besides caving into some whiners and maybe even bringing some disadvantages.
 

Anyhow, we should not be advocating to do things just because it "sounds nice"

How about, so the amount of people that want to use Bitcoin can actually use bitcoin..
That sounds like a very good reason.. Because right now, they can't..

How about another made up argument coming from nonsense.


Anyone can get into bitcoin, and there are various options for them.  

Some locations have more options than others, but these various infrastructure matters are evolving.

Moving to a 2mb block limit size is not going to resolve various onboarding and/or use considerations in the short term.  There is a lot that could be built to help in terms of onboarding and improving transaction options, including the adoption of segwit in a plan forward would help in these kinds of onboarding and use developments.

BS, if everyone wanted to use BTC they simply could not because bitcoin is incapable of processing all of their transactions no matter what they pay in fees..
2mb blocks right now would buy time until better solutions become available, wither that be LN or something yet unheard of.. Right now it's stagnant and people that want to use bitcoin cannot because it just will not process that many transactions..

Sure they can wait forever for confirms while the line cutters jump infront of them, but that is not the way BTC was intended to be..

[RAJSALLIN]

Yes we can give bitcoin time to grow and develop but the big risk is that an altcoin with better tech takes over and shoots bitcoin down to myspace status of cryptos. And tbh that's what we are already witnessing. Yes it's an alt pump but it will continue if bitcoin doesn't get its shit together.

[eddie13]

Higher fees do not let bitcoin process more transactions, they just let greedy people cut in line ahead of everyone else..
You are just buying a ticket closer to the front of the line at the expense of everyone else..

You literally have it completely backwards.

People who pay higher fees are actually adding more to the security of the network in exchange for receiving faster service.

The greedy ones are those who rely on the block subsidies to take care of everything for them.

Getting what you pay for... apparently a foreign concept to some.

So paying higher fees make bitcoin process more transactions per block? Explain that..
You can't, because it is false..

Yeah, you get to cut in line if you pay more, that is being greedy with blockspace and time..

Paying higher fees do not make the network more secure over a small amount to mitigate spam attacks..
The way you are putting it even spam attacks make bitcoin more secure if they pay enough for them..

[Holliday]

BS, if everyone wanted to use BTC they simply could not because bitcoin is incapable of processing all of their transactions no matter what they pay in fees..
2mb blocks right now would buy time until better solutions become available, wither that be LN or something yet unheard of.. Right now it's stagnant and people that want to use bitcoin cannot because it just will not process that many transactions..

Sure they can wait forever for confirms while the line cutters jump infront of them, but that is not the way BTC was intended to be..

Every transaction does not need to be censorship-proof as long as the option exists.

Expecting to include "everyone's" transaction in a decentralized ledger where full nodes have to keep a history of every transaction since the genesis block is simply ridiculous. It would destroy the very properties that gives Bitcoin it's value.

[Holliday]

So paying higher fees make bitcoin process more transactions per block? Explain that..
You can't, because it is false..

Yeah, you get to cut in line if you pay more, that is being greedy with blockspace and time..

Paying higher fees do not make the network more secure over a small amount to mitigate spam attacks..
The way you are putting it even spam attacks make bitcoin more secure if they pay enough for them..

Don't put words in my mouth.

You are the the first person I've encountered who thinks paying more for something is being greedy.

Yes, high fee paying "spam" is beneficial to the network. Imagine that! LOL. I don't think you know what "spam" means, but I'm getting bored with you...

[Ibian]

Segwit First!

^screw seqwit+ screw btu ... lets just increase to 2mb and get on up to $2000 ladies?  

Are you retarded?

What is the justification to move up to 2mb?

If there is no justification, besides merely "sounding like a good idea", then there should be no need to presume that 2mb actually resolves anything - besides caving into some whiners and maybe even bringing some disadvantages.
 

Anyhow, we should not be advocating to do things just because it "sounds nice"

Double the transaction capability (and lower fees as a side effect) is plenty of reason. It's the people who are against growth that have some explaining to do.

This seems like a strawman argument.

You are a strawman.

[Killerpotleaf]

BS, if everyone wanted to use BTC they simply could not because bitcoin is incapable of processing all of their transactions no matter what they pay in fees..
2mb blocks right now would buy time until better solutions become available, wither that be LN or something yet unheard of.. Right now it's stagnant and people that want to use bitcoin cannot because it just will not process that many transactions..

Sure they can wait forever for confirms while the line cutters jump infront of them, but that is not the way BTC was intended to be..

Every transaction does not need to be censorship-proof as long as the option exists.

Expecting to include "everyone's" transaction in a decentralized ledger where full nodes have to keep a history of every transaction since the genesis block is simply ridiculous. It would destroy the very properties that gives Bitcoin it's value.

agreed!

anyway, 1.2MB limit for now and when fee presuure comes back to 1$ 1.3MB blocks, sounds good?

[Torque]

If there had been a HF three years ago from 1MB to 2MB, we'd already be hitting the 2MB limit and BU supporters would be screaming that we need to immediately HF again to 4MB.  And so on, and so on.

They act like that wouldn't be true, but we all know it would.

So apparently for them, every time the block size limit is reached, the solution is simply another 2MB increase.  On and on, until mining centralization by like one person with a total hardware & hashpower monopoly is complete.

Well FU, BU.

[Ibian]

It's the people who are against growth that have some explaining to do.

Yeah, 'cuz no one has given any reasons anywhere why it's a good idea to keep blocks small.

:/

Then why not a tenth of the current size? What could possibly be wrong with that?

[alexeft]

People, you must realize that no matter what is done, how advanced a coin is, it is impossible to have a coin that accomodates all uses and remains decentralized at the same time. At lest at this time. The future will surely be more accomodating, but bitcoin has to survive until then.

[JayJuanGee]

Segwit First!

^screw seqwit+ screw btu ... lets just increase to 2mb and get on up to $2000 ladies?  

Are you retarded?

What is the justification to move up to 2mb?

If there is no justification, besides merely "sounding like a good idea", then there should be no need to presume that 2mb actually resolves anything - besides caving into some whiners and maybe even bringing some disadvantages.
 

Anyhow, we should not be advocating to do things just because it "sounds nice"

How about, so the amount of people that want to use Bitcoin can actually use bitcoin..
That sounds like a very good reason.. Because right now, they can't..

How about another made up argument coming from nonsense.


Anyone can get into bitcoin, and there are various options for them.  

Some locations have more options than others, but these various infrastructure matters are evolving.

Moving to a 2mb block limit size is not going to resolve various onboarding and/or use considerations in the short term.  There is a lot that could be built to help in terms of onboarding and improving transaction options, including the adoption of segwit in a plan forward would help in these kinds of onboarding and use developments.

BS, if everyone wanted to use BTC they simply could not because bitcoin is incapable of processing all of their transactions no matter what they pay in fees..
2mb blocks right now would buy time until better solutions become available, wither that be LN or something yet unheard of.. Right now it's stagnant and people that want to use bitcoin cannot because it just will not process that many transactions..

Sure they can wait forever for confirms while the line cutters jump infront of them, but that is not the way BTC was intended to be..

Can you even understand your own fallacies in your points?  you assume everyone wants to use BTC, and they do not.  You also assume that BTC will not be able to adapt if more people want to use it, which BTC growth seems to be ongoing, no? and there continues to be adaptations, no?  lots of upwards price pressures, too, no?

The last I checked fees and transaction times continue to be very reasonable in BTClandia, and security for BTC is quite great.  

Also, bitcoin offers one of the greatest things ever (and no other crypto or non crypto offers what BTC offers), that is decentralized secure immutable transaction and storage of value.  

You got anything else offering what bitcoin offers?  Hello?  Name one, any?  Go ahead with some actual substance, besides whining about various pie in the sky "what could be" bullshit.  I am waiting.  go ahead.  What offers what bitcoin offers?  Bitcoin is not broken, as you and some of the other nutter shills seem to want to argue.

[Holliday]

BS, if everyone wanted to use BTC they simply could not because bitcoin is incapable of processing all of their transactions no matter what they pay in fees..
2mb blocks right now would buy time until better solutions become available, wither that be LN or something yet unheard of.. Right now it's stagnant and people that want to use bitcoin cannot because it just will not process that many transactions..

Sure they can wait forever for confirms while the line cutters jump infront of them, but that is not the way BTC was intended to be..

Every transaction does not need to be censorship-proof as long as the option exists.

Expecting to include "everyone's" transaction in a decentralized ledger where full nodes have to keep a history of every transaction since the genesis block is simply ridiculous. It would destroy the very properties that gives Bitcoin it's value.

agreed!

anyway, 1.2MB limit for now and when fee presuure comes back to 1$ 1.3MB blocks, sounds good?

Kick the can down the road? No, it sounds terrible.

How about layers which can be removed should the need arise.

[eddie13]

BS, if everyone wanted to use BTC they simply could not because bitcoin is incapable of processing all of their transactions no matter what they pay in fees..
2mb blocks right now would buy time until better solutions become available, wither that be LN or something yet unheard of.. Right now it's stagnant and people that want to use bitcoin cannot because it just will not process that many transactions..

Sure they can wait forever for confirms while the line cutters jump infront of them, but that is not the way BTC was intended to be..

Every transaction does not need to be censorship-proof as long as the option exists.

Expecting to include "everyone's" transaction in a decentralized ledger where full nodes have to keep a history of every transaction since the genesis block is simply ridiculous. It would destroy the very properties that gives Bitcoin it's value.

You are pretty much saying the concept of Bitcoin is ridiculous..

Including "everyone's" transaction in a decentralized ledger where full nodes have to keep a history of every transaction since the genesis block is the very properties that give Bitcoin it's value. Read the whitepaper..

People want to use Bitcoin because it is censorship-proof, wether they NEED that is a different story..

What % of transactions currently being processed in Bitcoin Absolutely Need to be censorship-proof? I bet less than 0.1% of them, they just use it because they want to, not because they have to..

Right now, people want to use Bitcoin and they cannot in a reasonable way..

For years and years we have been wanting greater adoption, working for greater adoption, spreading the word and understanding in search of greater adoption..
Now we have greater adoption and now, "oops, we didn't want greater adoption afterall, gotcha suckers.."

[JayJuanGee]

Segwit First!

^screw seqwit+ screw btu ... lets just increase to 2mb and get on up to $2000 ladies?  

Are you retarded?

What is the justification to move up to 2mb?

If there is no justification, besides merely "sounding like a good idea", then there should be no need to presume that 2mb actually resolves anything - besides caving into some whiners and maybe even bringing some disadvantages.
 

Anyhow, we should not be advocating to do things just because it "sounds nice"

Double the transaction capability (and lower fees as a side effect) is plenty of reason. It's the people who are against growth that have some explaining to do.

This seems like a strawman argument.

You are a strawman.

You seem to be proving my point with your lack of engagement, and now movement away from a strawman to a personal attack.. hahahaha.. you gots nothing, but maybe a little aire (straw has aire, too).   

[Killerpotleaf]

BS, if everyone wanted to use BTC they simply could not because bitcoin is incapable of processing all of their transactions no matter what they pay in fees..
2mb blocks right now would buy time until better solutions become available, wither that be LN or something yet unheard of.. Right now it's stagnant and people that want to use bitcoin cannot because it just will not process that many transactions..

Sure they can wait forever for confirms while the line cutters jump infront of them, but that is not the way BTC was intended to be..

Every transaction does not need to be censorship-proof as long as the option exists.

Expecting to include "everyone's" transaction in a decentralized ledger where full nodes have to keep a history of every transaction since the genesis block is simply ridiculous. It would destroy the very properties that gives Bitcoin it's value.

agreed!

anyway, 1.2MB limit for now and when fee presuure comes back to 1$ 1.3MB blocks, sounds good?

Kick the can down the road? No, it sounds terrible.

How about layers which can be removed should the need arise.

why not both.

i dont think its kicking the can, its more like preparing for the future.

unless you believe no one will ever be able to handle more then 1MB