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

[Ibian]

Increasing raw throughput does not mean improving scalability.

It does with bitcoin. Twice the size in the same 10 minute blocks=twice the throughput. Basic fucking first grade stuff.

No. You are uneducated about these concepts, i.e. you don't even know that scalability actually means. If you are not willing to listen and learn, then I will no longer be wasting my time on you.

Do you think this correction is done yet? It's still not as deep as the one from May 25-27. It would have to go below $2k do match that.

It is not just a correction. I take it you have missed the Bitmain announcement/threat? I do not want it to go any lower, at least not yet.

Your habit of starting everything you say by pumping your own intellectual superiority is a bad one. If you don't wanna explain what you mean it's better not to.

[1714903745]

1714903745

[Meuh6879]

Looking good ... BTFD (if you have cash).

[Lauda]

Your habit of starting everything you say with something about your own intellectual superiority is a bad one.

Consider this: 99.9% of the people that one encountered in the past year or so, are either inferior by knowledge or intellect and claiming they "know" or "understand" stuff whilst propagating completely flawed knowledge to others (which is damaging on its own). Therefore, you should understand.

If you don't wanna explain what you mean it's better not to.

I explained it to you with a rather lengthy paragraph. You've just dismissed it and continued posting the same nonsense.

No reasonable amount, which would not fully centralized Bitcoin, is enough. Increasing the block size != improving scalability. Segwit -> Schnorr + signature aggregation are a very nice step. For those that do not know, and I'm sure ImI is part of those, the latter requires 1 signature for inputs from the same address. This means that TXs pulling out a lot of inputs from the same one would be very small in size in comparison to today. The bonus side effect of this improvement is not only capacity, but also the incentive to consolidate UTXO. Block size increases make sense, to a certain degree. However, kicking the can that way does nothing but set precedence for "weak/lazy scaling" and centralization. Let's have actual improvements, like those mentions and Weak blocks, before we do this?

Scaling does not just mean more throughput on the main chain. Adding more throughput by increasing the block size is absolutely not equal to "improving scalability". An example of improving scalability would be enabling more throughput by using the same amount of resources. Signature aggregation, as described above, would be an example of such. Another way of imporving scalability is reducing resource cost, which is what Segwit does in part with it's sighash (trying to scale down the quadratic validation time to linear, which would also mitigate the DoS attack vector of a raw block size increase). There are also some other examples, but this should give you a general idea.
I am absolutely positive that we would have been somewhere above $5k, and pretty stable, had Segwit activated in January or February.

[leowonderful]

This is why I hate vacations, I always come back to some odd or horrible situation happening. This "crash" isn't as bad as i thought it would be, probably some traders taking profits all over the board. We'll be back up in a few days. Nice time to grab some cheap coins, price might go down more but it probably won't be as much as the main drop.

[Dabs]

I feel like I'm watching The Big Bang Theory. Lots of doctors here (with PhDs) and maybe an engineer.

[spooderman]

Lauda doing God's work as always.

[Ibian]

Your habit of starting everything you say with something about your own intellectual superiority is a bad one.

You should understand considering that (based off of data in the past year or so) 99.9% of the people that one encountered are either inferior by knowledge or intellect, claiming they "know" or "understand" stuff whilst propagating completely flawed knowledge.

If you don't wanna explain what you mean it's better not to.

I explained it to you with a rather lengthy paragraph. You've just dismissed it and continued posting the same nonsense.

No reasonable amount, which would not fully centralized Bitcoin, is enough. Increasing the block size != improving scalability. Segwit -> Schnorr + signature aggregation are a very nice step. For those that do not know, and I'm sure ImI is part of those, the latter requires 1 signature for inputs from the same address. This means that TXs pulling out a lot of inputs from the same one would be very small in size in comparison to today. The bonus side effect of this improvement is not only capacity, but also the incentive to consolidate UTXO. Block size increases make sense, to a certain degree. However, kicking the can that way does nothing but set precedence for "weak/lazy scaling" and centralization. Let's have actual improvements, like those mentions and Weak blocks, before we do this?

Scaling does not just mean more throughput. Adding more throughput, such as increasing the block size, is absolutely not equal to "improving scalability". An example of improving scalability would be enabling more throughput by using the same amount of resources. Signature aggregation, as described above, would be an example of such. Another way of imporving scalability is reducing resource cost, which is what Segwit does in part with it's sighash (trying to scale down the quadratic validation time to linear, which would also mitigate the DoS attack vector of a raw block size increase). There are also some other examples, but this should give you a general idea.
I am absolutely positive that we would have been somewhere above $5k, and pretty stable, had Segwit activated in January or February.

What you are talking about is efficiency. Increasing the network capacity is far more relevant than the precise mechanism to achieve it. You don't simply get to pretend that one definition of a word you keep using, and arguably using wrongly, is invalid.

[Meuh6879]

Until this day you have peeps like LunaticLuke that say openly that the high fees are good and the blocksize should be shrunk to 0.5MB.

well ... 0.5MB of transactions+3.5MB of signatures sound legit in a segwit environment.

[Torque]

Once bitcoin drops below $2,000 again, it probably won't ever get back up above it ever again.

Didn't know you were still here Proudhon! I concur with respect to  the odds you outlined: it isn't likely at this point, not given the competition out there. The tech is getting ancient.

Confirmed. Proudhon has always been correct in his analysis.

[Dabs]

Doubling blocksize may double network capacity, but that does not scale nicely. You may think it scales linearly, and that's not really a good idea on its own. Together with other real improvements to scalability, something that more than doubles network capacity is better.

We want something that scales to ten to twenty to a hundred times more transactions while keeping the blockchain as small as possible (without pruning).

[spooderman]

Ibian, doing more of the same stuff in the same way is the least intelligent possible way to scale. And in fact, attempting to do that in bitcoin actually causes problems to increase more rapidly than benefits.

(Do I have to explain why larger blocks create runaway centralisation?)

[Torque]

Good morning Bitcoinland.

Just got back from acquiring a bit more coin. Wish I could have afforded more. Didn't quite catch the absolute bottom but came close.

It's rebounded over $100 since... currently $2285USD (Bitcoinaverage).

Do you think this correction is done yet? It's still not as deep as the one from May 25-27. It would have to go below $2k do match that.

Hard to say. Usually there are 3 legs down. The troll shorts usually aim their biggest bag of ammo somewhere in the middle, with the last one barely breaching some psychological barrier (like $2k for example) before giving up.

I guess it depends on how much ammo they got left.

[Lauda]

And another example of scalability is to increase the blocksize. Increasing the network capacity is far more relevant than the precise mechanism to achieve it. You don't simply get to pretend that one definition of a word you keep using is invalid.

Here we go again, no argument to refuse anything and continual looping of false knowledge. Unfortunately, theymos is too liberal and his forum policy tolerates bullshit and all kinds of misleading information.

Adding more throughput by increasing the block size is absolutely not equal to "improving scalability".

There is a DoS attack vector at 2 MB that can be malicious exploited, especially by a mining cartel. It seems like you are heavily uninformed. Maybe less r/btc time next time snowflake?

Lauda doing God's work as always.

It seems to be pointless with some people. Reminds me of Flat Earth believers or the Anti-Vaccination movement. "You are an expert, what do you know? I have a right to have my own opinion!!"

You may think it scales linearly, and that's not really a good idea on its own.

Signature hashing is quadratic not linear.

imo the most basic "unit" of scale is amount of inputs and outputs that can be processed.  if we want to improve how many in->outs we can process, we need to make that action of turning an input to an output as cheap\easy as possible for validators

[Ibian]

Ibian, doing more of the same stuff in the same way is the least intelligent possible way to scale. And in fact, attempting to do that in bitcoin actually causes problems to increase more rapidly than benefits.

(Do I have to explain why larger blocks create runaway centralisation?)

It can be done pretty much literally by changing one number, it has the least potential complications and has to my understanding already been tested with no meaningful complications.

This whole thing is stupid. It's not one or the other. Do both.

[Meuh6879]

[spooderman]

Ibian, doing more of the same stuff in the same way is the least intelligent possible way to scale. And in fact, attempting to do that in bitcoin actually causes problems to increase more rapidly than benefits.

(Do I have to explain why larger blocks create runaway centralisation?)

It can be done pretty much literally by changing one number, it has the least potential complications and has to my understanding already been tested with no meaningful complications.

This whole thing is stupid. It's not one or the other. Do both.

Just because it only requires changing a number doesn't mean it's a good idea lol.

Are you serious with this argument?

[Dabs]

It can be done pretty much literally by changing one number, it has the least potential complications and has to my understanding already been tested with no meaningful complications.

There is a DoS attack vector at 2 MB that can be malicious exploited, especially by a mining cartel. It seems like you are heavily uninformed.

You may think it scales linearly, and that's not really a good idea on its own.

Signature hashing is quadratic not linear.

I was talking about the blocksize thing. I like the signature thing for many inputs to the same address, that actually makes sense.

[Ibian]

Ibian, doing more of the same stuff in the same way is the least intelligent possible way to scale. And in fact, attempting to do that in bitcoin actually causes problems to increase more rapidly than benefits.

(Do I have to explain why larger blocks create runaway centralisation?)

It can be done pretty much literally by changing one number, it has the least potential complications and has to my understanding already been tested with no meaningful complications.

This whole thing is stupid. It's not one or the other. Do both.

Just because it only requires changing a number doesn't mean it's a good idea lol.

Are you serious with this argument?

We needed bigger capacity a year ago. Whatever efficiency benefits other ideas bring, they are further increased by bigger blocks. Do both, and do the part we can do now, now.

[JimboToronto]

Do you think this correction is done yet? It's still not as deep as the one from May 25-27. It would have to go below $2k do match that.

It is not just a correction. I take it you have missed the Bitmain announcement/threat? I do not want it to go any lower, at least not yet.

You're right. I was too busy yesterday to even check in. Today I woke up, saw the price and ran out to buy.

So it's hard fork panic part two? Jeezuz Murphy. I'm looking into it.

Sigh.

[spooderman]

We needed bigger capacity a year ago. Whatever efficiency benefits other ideas bring, they are further increased by bigger blocks. Do both, and do the part we can do now, now.

If it can be done, why hasn't it? I actually am fine with 2MB+SW but that doesn't mean I have the power to make it happen.