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

[eddie13]

What kind of transaction are you trying to accomplish that is not reasonable?  Are others trying to accomplish those kinds of unreasonable transactions, too?  They can use some other means, or is bitcoin the only thing that will work for them?  Why does bitcoin need to serve that purpose at this time? 

How about small signature campaign payments? Are they spam?
What about all the gamblers betting small amounts? Are they spam?

What about RAREPEPE? If you don't know, the amazing new counterparty implementation trading rare/scarce assets on the bitcoin blockchain?
Is that spam? Cost for it has gotten outrageous and damn near stopped it dead..

You are pretty much saying that small people should not be using Bitcoin and use some altcoin instead?

[Ibian]

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.

The current limit is not enough for mainstream use. That is a hard fucking mathematical fact. The transaction limit will have to be raised one way or another, sooner or later.

So you're cool with destroying decentralized mining, so the block size can be raised ad infinitum to support the "mainstream". Got it.

Which btw, bitcoin users are certainly not "mainstream". Those are called "fiat users".  Bitcoin users use bitcoin for different reasons entirely than the mainstream, one of them being decentralization.

Why would it affect decentralization?

Resources exist and have costs.

Water is wet.

Since you can't seem to figure it out on your own, I'll give you a hint.

When you increase the amount of resources required to accomplish something, less people are able to accomplish it. I'll let you figure out how that affects decentralization.

It's already the people with the best hardware that make the most money. This is part of the design. It is not a flaw or anything new.

It's only the people with the cheapest electricity that make the most money. They are the miners

Hardware has almost nothing to do with full nodes because of the 1MB blocksize. If it were more, then I don't know if that would be the case.

Why would you even suggest that hardware doesn't much matter? Do we really need to go into the very basics of how mining works? Seriously?

I am talking about hardware to run a node and you are talking about mining. Not the same.

Why run a full node if you are not mining, other than paranoia? What are the practical reasons?

To cast my vote on every block and not allow Jihadi-sons-of-bitches destroy things without my consent? Is that good enough?

That matters about as much as a bad analogy. I mean a fart, excuse me. Without any measurable impact on the network, not to mention the fact it wastes money if you are not mining at a profit, it's just another emotional rationalization, not a practical reason.

For the last time, I AM NOT FUCKING MINING! CLEAR YOUR FUCKING HEAD!@#@&*^(*$&^(

That's what I said. You are wasting money for emotional reasons and using that as a justification to oppose an increase in transaction volume.

[alexeft]

What kind of transaction are you trying to accomplish that is not reasonable?  Are others trying to accomplish those kinds of unreasonable transactions, too?  They can use some other means, or is bitcoin the only thing that will work for them?  Why does bitcoin need to serve that purpose at this time? 

How about small signature campaign payments? Are they spam?
What about all the gamblers betting small amounts? Are they spam?

What about RAREPEPE? If you don't know, the amazing new counterparty implementation trading rare/scarce assets on the bitcoin blockchain?
Is that spam? Cost for it has gotten outrageous and damn near stopped it dead..

You are pretty much saying that small people should not be using Bitcoin and use some altcoin instead?

Altcoins can't escape current technology either.

[alexeft]

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.

The current limit is not enough for mainstream use. That is a hard fucking mathematical fact. The transaction limit will have to be raised one way or another, sooner or later.

So you're cool with destroying decentralized mining, so the block size can be raised ad infinitum to support the "mainstream". Got it.

Which btw, bitcoin users are certainly not "mainstream". Those are called "fiat users".  Bitcoin users use bitcoin for different reasons entirely than the mainstream, one of them being decentralization.

Why would it affect decentralization?

Resources exist and have costs.

Water is wet.

Since you can't seem to figure it out on your own, I'll give you a hint.

When you increase the amount of resources required to accomplish something, less people are able to accomplish it. I'll let you figure out how that affects decentralization.

It's already the people with the best hardware that make the most money. This is part of the design. It is not a flaw or anything new.

It's only the people with the cheapest electricity that make the most money. They are the miners

Hardware has almost nothing to do with full nodes because of the 1MB blocksize. If it were more, then I don't know if that would be the case.

Why would you even suggest that hardware doesn't much matter? Do we really need to go into the very basics of how mining works? Seriously?

I am talking about hardware to run a node and you are talking about mining. Not the same.

Why run a full node if you are not mining, other than paranoia? What are the practical reasons?

To cast my vote on every block and not allow Jihadi-sons-of-bitches destroy things without my consent? Is that good enough?

That matters about as much as a bad analogy. I mean a fart, excuse me. Without any measurable impact on the network, not to mention the fact it wastes money if you are not mining at a profit, it's just another emotional rationalization, not a practical reason.

For the last time, I AM NOT FUCKING MINING! CLEAR YOUR FUCKING HEAD!@#@&*^(*$&^(

That's what I said. You are wasting money for emotional reasons and using that as a justification to oppose an increase in transaction volume.

Disallowing crazed people from altering bitcoin rules at will is not emotional at all. That's what a full node does (among other things).

[Ibian]

So please explain why you feel the need to use a full node if you are not going to mine with it.

Privacy. Censorship resistance. Security.

Paranoia. And I think I'm done with you unless you have something new to add.

This is how it has been except in the very earliest years. Again, nothing new under the sun and most future users won't be running full nodes either. Most current users don't.

So... because decentralization is hard and most users don't bother with it, we should ignore it. I disagree.

I would imagine those who are willing to secure large values with Bitcoin are interested in the benefits of running a full node.

Decentralization doesn't mean everyone has to run a full node. It just means nobody controls the network as a whole. We could literally split the entire network between three people and it would still be decentralized as long as none of them controlled over 50% of the network.

[Killerpotleaf]

What kind of transaction are you trying to accomplish that is not reasonable?  Are others trying to accomplish those kinds of unreasonable transactions, too?  They can use some other means, or is bitcoin the only thing that will work for them?  Why does bitcoin need to serve that purpose at this time? 

How about small signature campaign payments? Are they spam?
What about all the gamblers betting small amounts? Are they spam?

What about RAREPEPE? If you don't know, the amazing new counterparty implementation trading rare/scarce assets on the bitcoin blockchain?
Is that spam? Cost for it has gotten outrageous and damn near stopped it dead..

You are pretty much saying that small people should not be using Bitcoin and use some altcoin instead?

Altcoins can't escape current technology either.

ya but they can escape your reasoning that leads you to self imposed unnecessary limits.

[gembitz]

It's already the people with the best hardware that make the most money. This is part of the design. It is not a flaw or anything new.

I'm not speaking of mining.

Also, to play your game.

It's already the people who pay the highest fees that get fast confirmations. This is part of the design. It is not a flaw or anything new.

^i can accept grown up fees thats cool pay the miners a bit more to upgrade their equipment to 2mb threshold...keep calm and /\BTC

[Holliday]

So please explain why you feel the need to use a full node if you are not going to mine with it.

Privacy. Censorship resistance. Security.

Paranoia. And I think I'm done with you unless you have something new to add.

Looking at the daily news articles, I would say a little more paranoia wouldn't hurt anyone. Take care.

This is how it has been except in the very earliest years. Again, nothing new under the sun and most future users won't be running full nodes either. Most current users don't.

So... because decentralization is hard and most users don't bother with it, we should ignore it. I disagree.

I would imagine those who are willing to secure large values with Bitcoin are interested in the benefits of running a full node.

Decentralization doesn't mean everyone has to run a full node. It just means nobody controls the network as a whole. We could literally split the entire network between three people and it would still be decentralized as long as none of them controlled over 50% of the network.

We clearly don't see eye to eye. The thing is, Bitcoin as it is right now is perfectly fine with me. You will have to fork the network to get what you want, and I will continue using the existing rules. The different implementations will compete on the free market and maybe we can revisit this discussion in a decade from now.

[chopstick]

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.

In reply to this argument.

Let's imagine we had hard forked to 2mb and the limit was reached.

The Bitcoin price would be between 2-3k PER COIN right now. The Market cap would be somewhere around 40 BILLION.

Ethererum, Dash and Monero would be WAY down, they definitely wouldn't be hitting their highs right now.

We'd have 2x the amount of transaction throughput which means there would be far less mempool backlogs, less network congestion and lower fees, which would overall create a MUCH better user experience.

In other words, it's a GOOD problem to have.

But you crybaby pussies, who apparently think 2017 tech can't handle >1mb, have forced the rise of altcoins, and have irreparably damaged Bitcoin's % of marketshare, and now markets are switching over to ethereum / dash / monero.

It's EFFING RIDICULOUS. These are UTTER FAILURES from a business perspective. It is also an utter failure from the perspective of User Experience. This is why one can only conclude that Bitcoin Core has failed completely in leadership, tactics, and effectiveness, they don't even seem to care about the user experience. All in the name of creating a "fee market" which is not yet needed, and won't be needed for a few more decades down the line.

BU at this point is the only thing that can really save bitcoin.

Fork it already! The time has come.

[gembitz]

What about it? What implications are you trying to get at?

Larger blocks require more resources which harms decentralization.

Indeed, but technological resources are increased over time, thus allowing higher capabilities at same costs (over the years).

As I wrote a few posts ago, in 97, my bandwidth, cpu, storage, ram, was 1/1000th of what I now have.

My pc could probably process ...1kb blocks back then... now 1mb... in 20 years, maybe 1gb.

Satoshi never intended for the 1mb to be set indefinitely. He said, we'll raise it when needed.

Obviously you don't want to have too much, because then it hurts in decentralization and leaves the door open for spamming the blockchain.

It just needs a proper balance.

I think the choices that exist right now may not be enough to gather a good consensus (like 90%+) which may in turn create the need for a new proposal.

- BU is trash, nobody in their right mind wants it.
- Segwit will not get adopted because it increases "complexity" and it makes some miners uncomfortable (translation for: "I like the bitcoin I know, I don't want it to change, with the remote chance it introduces unknown risks")

So, given that neither will go ahead, we'll have to make some other arrangement like a 2mb upgrade in the short term, if we don't want to stick with 1mb. But this option doesn't exist right now and should be programmed and provided by core (=reputable source of code).

^2mb limit IS ONE LINE OF CODE!!!! :-D ~n00bs!!! bwaahahaha

[gembitz]

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.

In reply to this argument.

Let's imagine we had hard forked to 2mb and the limit was reached.

The Bitcoin price would be between 2-3k PER COIN right now. The Market cap would be somewhere around 40 BILLION.

Ethererum, Dash and Monero would be WAY down, they definitely wouldn't be hitting their highs right now.

We'd have 2x the amount of transaction throughput which means there would be far less mempool backlogs, less network congestion and lower fees, which would overall create a MUCH better user experience.

In other words, it's a GOOD problem to have.

But you crybaby pussies, who apparently think 2017 tech can't handle >1mb, have forced the rise of altcoins, and have irreparably damaged Bitcoin's % of marketshare, and now markets are switching over to ethereum / dash / monero.

It's EFFING RIDICULOUS. These are UTTER FAILURES from a business perspective. It is also an utter failure from the perspective of User Experience. This is why one can only conclude that Bitcoin Core has failed completely in leadership, tactics, and effectiveness, they don't even seem to care about the user experience. All in the name of creating a "fee market" which is not yet needed, and won't be needed for a few more decades down the line.

BU at this point is the only thing that can really save bitcoin.

Fork it already! The time has come.

^bitcoin will live on beyond BTU !!! lmfao!!! :-D

[Holliday]

Fork it already! The time has come.

[alexeft]

What kind of transaction are you trying to accomplish that is not reasonable?  Are others trying to accomplish those kinds of unreasonable transactions, too?  They can use some other means, or is bitcoin the only thing that will work for them?  Why does bitcoin need to serve that purpose at this time? 

How about small signature campaign payments? Are they spam?
What about all the gamblers betting small amounts? Are they spam?

What about RAREPEPE? If you don't know, the amazing new counterparty implementation trading rare/scarce assets on the bitcoin blockchain?
Is that spam? Cost for it has gotten outrageous and damn near stopped it dead..

You are pretty much saying that small people should not be using Bitcoin and use some altcoin instead?

Altcoins can't escape current technology either.

ya but they can escape your reasoning that leads you to self imposed unnecessary limits.

Of course they can. Only to crash on the technology limits. In which case, functionality is gone forever.

[Killerpotleaf]

avoiding a split is paramount!

lets just get the Best BU dev Vs the Best Core dev in Dance Dance revolution competition  

[gembitz]

So please explain why you feel the need to use a full node if you are not going to mine with it.

Privacy. Censorship resistance. Security.

Paranoia. And I think I'm done with you unless you have something new to add.

Looking at the daily news articles, I would say a little more paranoia wouldn't hurt anyone. Take care.

This is how it has been except in the very earliest years. Again, nothing new under the sun and most future users won't be running full nodes either. Most current users don't.

So... because decentralization is hard and most users don't bother with it, we should ignore it. I disagree.

I would imagine those who are willing to secure large values with Bitcoin are interested in the benefits of running a full node.

Decentralization doesn't mean everyone has to run a full node. It just means nobody controls the network as a whole. We could literally split the entire network between three people and it would still be decentralized as long as none of them controlled over 50% of the network.

We clearly don't see eye to eye. The thing is, Bitcoin as it is right now is perfectly fine with me. You will have to fork the network to get what you want, and I will continue using the existing rules. The different implementations will compete on the free market and maybe we can revisit this discussion in a decade from now.

^honeybadger don't give a fuck! ~ bitcoin will not be hackd by noob altcoiners!!! :-D bwaahaha ~ however Rodger Ver has some valid arguments you must agree**

[Holliday]

avoiding a split is paramount!

lets just get the Best BU dev Vs the Best Core dev in Dance Dance revolution competition  

How about we let them code "Hello World" and see who does it without making their computer crash? LMAO.

[JayJuanGee]

What kind of transaction are you trying to accomplish that is not reasonable?  Are others trying to accomplish those kinds of unreasonable transactions, too?  They can use some other means, or is bitcoin the only thing that will work for them?  Why does bitcoin need to serve that purpose at this time? 

How about small signature campaign payments? Are they spam?
What about all the gamblers betting small amounts? Are they spam?

What about RAREPEPE? If you don't know, the amazing new counterparty implementation trading rare/scarce assets on the bitcoin blockchain?
Is that spam? Cost for it has gotten outrageous and damn near stopped it dead..

You are pretty much saying that small people should not be using Bitcoin and use some altcoin instead?

How small is small?

Are you talking $10 or less?

You could be correct that bitcoin is not as good for that at this time.  But if the amount is really small, sometimes you can choose to send it with no fees or very little fees, and it will still go through (just takes longer).

Anyhow, seems like you want to get in the weeds, again for no real purpose except trying to prescribe what bitcoin ought to be rather than figure out how to use bitcoin for what it is.

[travwill]

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.

In reply to this argument.

Let's imagine we had hard forked to 2mb and the limit was reached.

The Bitcoin price would be between 2-3k PER COIN right now. The Market cap would be somewhere around 40 BILLION.

Ethererum, Dash and Monero would be WAY down, they definitely wouldn't be hitting their highs right now.

We'd have 2x the amount of transaction throughput which means there would be far less mempool backlogs, less network congestion and lower fees, which would overall create a MUCH better user experience.

In other words, it's a GOOD problem to have.

But you crybaby pussies, who apparently think 2017 tech can't handle >1mb, have forced the rise of altcoins, and have irreparably damaged Bitcoin's % of marketshare, and now markets are switching over to ethereum / dash / monero.

It's EFFING RIDICULOUS. These are UTTER FAILURES from a business perspective. It is also an utter failure from the perspective of User Experience. This is why one can only conclude that Bitcoin Core has failed completely in leadership, tactics, and effectiveness, they don't even seem to care about the user experience. All in the name of creating a "fee market" which is not yet needed, and won't be needed for a few more decades down the line.

BU at this point is the only thing that can really save bitcoin.

Fork it already! The time has come.

It is idiotic to implement a solution, especially on that requires a hard fork, if it only solves your probably temporarily.  Horrible IT practices to keep patching code and no matter how large you make the block sizes, they will in time fill up or require prioritization by miners.

IMHO it means much more to optimize Bitcoin with Segwit, take advantage of that "larger block" size it allows with more transactions, and then allow for off chain solutions to blossom that require Segwit.  Bitcoin can remain the power settlement system that it will only ever be.  Nothing more.

Thinking bitcoin will someday be some millions of transactions per second system is far fetched dreaming so make it all it can be and as optimized as possible, not even more centralized, less secure, and temporarily patched.

[Killerpotleaf]

avoiding a split is paramount!

lets just get the Best BU dev Vs the Best Core dev in Dance Dance revolution competition  

How about we let them code "Hello World" and see who does it without making their computer crash? LMAO.

assert(!"Hello World");

OPS we did again!

[jbreher]

It's not 16MB, it's 16MB times 6 per hour, times 24 per day, times 365 per year!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The result is close to 1TB per year!!!

Be still my heart! I'll need to spend $25* per year to handle the onslaught. How will I ever cope!?!

* or the cost of a handful of smallblock bitcoin transaction fees. oh-the-huge-manatee.png!

1TB of SSD disk is not $25, rather it is ~$200 (per year of course). Not to mention the cpu needed for such a huge database with high transaction volume!
All of a sudden we are going to need multi-CPU blade servers and SANs to run a node! Come to your senses!

Firstly, node operation does not require SSD latencies. HDD speeds are fine. So 25 bux. Yet... so what? Less than 0.2 BTC? Waaaaaah. Buck up buttercup - those that refuse to invest shall be rightfully cast aside. And good riddance to you too. It would be one thing if you even tried... but... I guess you're just too. damned. insignificant.

..................president............

A president? ... <tardness deleted>

I see you seem to love wallowing in your public display of ignorance. Suit yourself.... imbecile. When you actually absorb the reality, I'll be happy to respond in a more conducive manner.

Umm... yeah. Did you even bother to read your linked article? Not a president of Bitcoin, but a president of the organization. What are the president's powers and duties?:

President: a publicly identified (real-life identity is known) BU Member who is responsible for the ongoing activities of the confederation. The president shall resolve BUIP number conflicts, organize BUIP discussion (in the forum 5 of 12 designated by the secretary), and schedule/initiate voting (within the limits specified in these articles).

Oh god! I hope he doesn't abuse his power by actually ... ASSIGNING A BUIP NUMBER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! AAAIIIIEEEEEE!!!!!

A benevolent dictator believer!!! Please enlighten me with your infinite wisdom! 

Anyway, the way things are setup, one can be a dictator (president, sic..........) only on those who trust him to be one. Hence, there is no need to talk that much.

Just a note to apologize for my rudeness. I think your stated positions are ludicrous, but I didn't need to be a dick about it. Sorry.