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

[Ibian]

Should we be concerned that there are over 200k unconfirmed transactions, and apparently growing?

No.

Because.

It's no different from an airline offering free flights and then charging $20 at the airport for 'preferential boarding'. The queues would get long there as well. People would still be flying though.

That airline is not going to grow any further.

[Miz4r]

Should we be concerned that there are over 200k unconfirmed transactions, and apparently growing?

No.

Because.

It's no different from an airline offering free flights and then charging $20 at the airport for 'preferential boarding'. The queues would get long there as well. People would still be flying though.

That airline is not going to grow any further.

Blame the miners for not activating Segwit yet, we would have had double the throughput by now and would be busy implementing further scaling options like Lightning and a hard fork in the future. It's funny how only relatively empty blockchains like Litecoin are busy doing just that while the one who actually needs it right now is busy fighting among each other.

[toknormal]

I couldn't really care less about the backlog.

It isn't affecting the ability to move Bitcoin around.

[ImI]

I couldn't really care less about the backlog.

It isn't affecting the ability to move mid to larger amounts of Bitcoin around.

fyp

Moving around 10$ worth of BTC and paying 3$ makes not much sense.

[toknormal]

I couldn't really care less about the backlog.

It isn't affecting the ability to move mid to larger amounts of Bitcoin around.

fyp

Moving around 10$ worth of BTC and paying 3$ makes not much sense.

Moving $3 in Bitcoin doesn't make much sense either. The blockchain is a limited resource. Like any other limited resource where there is contention for access it gets expensive.

There are payment systems in abundance for moving $3 around.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

He means alt coins.

[toknormal]

He means alt coins.

No, I mean regular payment networks that are supported in almost every corner shop and supermarket in the developed world.

[spiderbrain]

Wow, I just noticed Kraken's little ATH a few hours ago. What's that about?

[Torque]

Supposed $400M backlog.

And all of the bitcoiners are whining and complaining that this backlog consists of everyone rushing to simultaneously make $400M worth of purchases of goods and coffees.

Shut. The. Fuck. Up. Whiners.

You know that's not why. Not even remotely.   What a farce.

[Ibian]

Wow, I just noticed Kraken's little ATH a few hours ago. What's that about?

THE EUROPEANS ARE COMING!!!

[spiderbrain]

Wow, I just noticed Kraken's little ATH a few hours ago. What's that about?

THE EUROPEANS ARE COMING!!!

They are most welcome if they're happy to pay that much for bitcoins =)

[marcus_of_augustus]

It's gotten too late now for a simple blocksize bump, with all the pathetic politicking and ego-tripping on display, resulting in the current blocking of genuine progress.

The only hardfork that will achieve consensus now will solve the blocksize limit and fee pressure regulation from it's activation time all the way through until we transition to the non-reward regime ~2036.

Short-term HF blocksize bumps will just give the DDOS attackers newer bigger and more deadly targets to aim for, whilst continually agitating for the next HF blocksize "short-term" bump in the interims and then creating mayhem and disruption during the HFs.

I am not sure what you are proposing. I have reread it and I don't even know if you are in favor or against Segwit+2MB.

tl;dr SegWit+FlexCap (or something like it) will now be the only HF solution to get consensus ... 'emergent consensus' is essentially an O(1) attempt at flexcap

[ImI]

I couldn't really care less about the backlog.

It isn't affecting the ability to move mid to larger amounts of Bitcoin around.

fyp

Moving around 10$ worth of BTC and paying 3$ makes not much sense.

Moving $3 in Bitcoin doesn't make much sense either. The blockchain is a limited resource. Like any other limited resource where there is contention for access it gets expensive.

There are payment systems in abundance for moving $3 around.

Yes, and as those limits aren't naturally given but set in code they are obv a topic of discussion. To paint a situation where everything is god given and set in stone is simply bs.

Also you are contradicting yourself: "Ability to move around Bitcoin isn't affected" contradicts "Moving $3 in Bitcoin doesn't make much sense either. The blockchain is a limited resource."

[toknormal]

Also you are contradicting yourself: "Ability to move around Bitcoin isn't affected" contradicts "Moving $3 in Bitcoin doesn't make much sense either. The blockchain is a limited resource."

The problem is that bitcoin (or any blockchain) cannot be a commercial payments system AND an efficient store of value both at once since the two objectives have priorities which are in conflict.

For a start, the purpose of a payment system is to clear trades, not to settle them and as such the commercial realm is adequately catered for by worldwide payment networks such as Visa and Mastercard. There is anything a blockchain can improve on there - even in terms of fees, because the merchant isn't paying those fees to clear the trade, they're paying for access to a massive customer base.

Secondly, it doesn't matter what you make the blocksize - 2 Mb, 16 Mb 32 Mb. It will still get full and still be spammable. Paying a $3 fee to transact on it isn't comparable to paying  2% fee with Visa because the merchant is purchasing different things in each case:

 • with Visa they aren't paying for realtime settlement, with bitcoin they are
 • with Bitcoin they aren't paying for access to a majority client base, with Visa they are
 • with Bitcoin they aren't paying for merchant services, with bitcoin they are

So with bitcoin it's all about settlement, not trade which is why its technical properties should be prioritised around monetary security, stability and confidence rather than commercial versatility.

Against that background, $3 is nothing for moving an asset that is fundamentally a deflationary store of value and that has liquidity worldwide.

[Ibian]

The problem is that bitcoin (or any blockchain) cannot be a commercial payments system AND an efficient store of value both at once since the two objectives have priorities which are in conflict.

Of course it can. Increase the block size. That's it, that's all it takes.

[notme]

Secondly, it doesn't matter what you make the blocksize - 2 Mb, 16 Mb 32 Mb. It will still get full and still be spammable.

You keep saying this, but consider that if you double the available space without halving the minimum fee then you double the cost of DOSing legitimate transactions.  If blocks are full, there will be fee pressure that ensures this floor (besides the fact that transactions without sufficient fees aren't even relayed anymore).  If blocks aren't full, then miners are perfectly capable of determining what transactions are worth the long term cost to include.  They are the ones who have to bear that cost after all.

[ImI]

Also you are contradicting yourself: "Ability to move around Bitcoin isn't affected" contradicts "Moving $3 in Bitcoin doesn't make much sense either. The blockchain is a limited resource."

The problem is that bitcoin (or any blockchain) cannot be a commercial payments system AND an efficient store of value both at once since the two objectives have priorities which are in conflict.

For a start, the purpose of a payment system is to clear trades, not to settle them and as such the commercial realm is adequately catered for by worldwide payment networks such as Visa and Mastercard. There is anything a blockchain can improve on there - even in terms of fees, because the merchant isn't paying those fees to clear the trade, they're paying for access to a massive customer base.

Secondly, it doesn't matter what you make the blocksize - 2 Mb, 16 Mb 32 Mb. It will still get full and still be spammable. Paying a $3 fee to transact on it isn't comparable to paying  2% fee with Visa because the merchant is purchasing different things in each case:

 • with Visa they aren't paying for realtime settlement, with bitcoin they are
 • with Bitcoin they aren't paying for access to a majority client base, with Visa they are
 • with Bitcoin they aren't paying for merchant services, with bitcoin they are

So with bitcoin it's all about settlement, not trade which is why its technical properties should be prioritised around monetary security, stability and confidence rather than commercial versatility.

Against that background, $3 is nothing for moving an asset that is fundamentally a deflationary store of value and that has liquidity worldwide.

The biggest threat for Bitcoin's function as store of value are multiple forks. If Bitcoin splits up into several competing instances of the same original store of value, the value of each single chain and also all chains combined diminishes. So it should be a top priority to keep everyone on board, even if that means doing compromises which are eventually seen as suboptimal.

[Ibian]

Really, increasing the block size seems to have no drawbacks to me. The only ones personally affected by it will be miners, and all that will mean is that the top miners stay the top miners and shit tier miners stay shit tier miners. Nothing changes.

Where is the major problem here?

[toknormal]

Just keep the blocksize the same.

Bitcoin's job is to store value, not to be the next Visa. It *should* be expensive to move around.

[Ibian]

Just keep the blocksize the same.

Bitcoin's job is to store value, not to be the next Visa. It *should* be expensive to move around.

Explain.