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

[bitserve]

I'm sorry, express me wrong.This is what I meant.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/90/Hard_drive_capacity_over_time.svg

And right there is the problem: You are using an obsoleted reference. Find a graph that reflects how hard drive capacity growed from 2010 to 2017. You will be amazed of the trend change.

Why? Because with current technology we have bumped into a wall that makes it very hard to increase capacity per surface unit.

[Gab0]

I'm sorry, express me wrong.This is what I meant.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/90/Hard_drive_capacity_over_time.svg

And right there is the problem: You are using an obsoleted reference. Find a graph that reflects how hard drive capacity growed from 2010 to 2017. You will be amazed of the trend change.

Why? Because with current technology we have bumped into a wall that makes it very hard to increase capacity per surface unit.

Interesting, I'll find out about that.

Meanwhile, what do you think of this?
http://wikibon.org/w/images/b/be/ProjectionCapacityDiskNANDManagementSummary.png

In 2009, Wikibon projected that flash would be the lower cost alternative for active data. Figure 1 shows Wikibon's technology projection for pure capacity data. It shows that flash (the blue line) will become a lower cost media than disk (the red line) for almost all storage in 2016, as scale-out storage technologies enable higher levels of data sharing, and lower storage costs.

Source: http://wikibon.org/wiki/v/Evolution_of_All-Flash_Array_Architectures

[Meuh6879]

Can we stop at 4000 USD ... ?

[conspirosphere.tk]

Interesting, I'll find out about that.

Meanwhile, what do you think of this?
http://wikibon.org/w/images/b/be/ProjectionCapacityDiskNANDManagementSummary.png

it's not just about hard disks. Do you have a fiber connection? How much ram does it takes? Above all: where are the fucking incentives???

[bitserve]

I'm sorry, express me wrong.This is what I meant.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/90/Hard_drive_capacity_over_time.svg

And right there is the problem: You are using an obsoleted reference. Find a graph that reflects how hard drive capacity growed from 2010 to 2017. You will be amazed of the trend change.

Why? Because with current technology we have bumped into a wall that makes it very hard to increase capacity per surface unit.

Interesting, I'll find out about that.

Meanwhile, what do you think of this?
http://wikibon.org/w/images/b/be/ProjectionCapacityDiskNANDManagementSummary.png

Yes, SSD's as a "new" technology might be a future solution for increased capacity. But, we will talk about this again when the projection fullfills and the cost per TB reduces, ok?

[Meuh6879]

This is not the future.
This is the present.





This is the old tech : An 2,5 inch mecanical drive.

[bitserve]

This is not the future.
This is the present.

And HOW MANY of those will you need to add each year when tx's are 100-1000x what are now?

[Meuh6879]

Segwit rebuild the local blockchain ... after somes tweaks by the developpers.
Simple.

[bitserve]

Segwit rebuild the local blockchain ... after somes tweaks by the developpers.
Simple.

Are you talking about pruning or what?

[Meuh6879]

Only need a special request by the node (that it rebuild) to emit raw transactions & signatures from a source : and then the request can build Segwit block from Raw channel.

Request somes more bandwidth and time ... but nodes have time & bandwidth.

Benefices will be EPIC, too ... (3,5Mb Block = 1Mb Segwit).
From 140Gb to 40Gb.

[Gab0]

Interesting, I'll find out about that.

Meanwhile, what do you think of this?
http://wikibon.org/w/images/b/be/ProjectionCapacityDiskNANDManagementSummary.png

In 2009, Wikibon projected that flash would be the lower cost alternative for active data. Figure 1 shows Wikibon's technology projection for pure capacity data. It shows that flash (the blue line) will become a lower cost media than disk (the red line) for almost all storage in 2016, as scale-out storage technologies enable higher levels of data sharing, and lower storage costs.

Source: http://wikibon.org/wiki/v/Evolution_of_All-Flash_Array_Architectures

it's not just about hard disks. Do you have a fiber connection? How much ram does it takes? Above all: where are the fucking incentives???

Today there is no economic incentive to maintain a node. It is pure charity; And of course, make sure that your transaction will be processed.
But, it will not be more expensive to maintain a node in the future.


On the other hand, It is expected that not only the capacity of the disks increase, but also the RAM, the internet speed, the speed of the processors, etc etc etc ...

Nielsen’s “Law of Internet Bandwidth” says that users’ bandwidth will grow by 50% per year (10% less than Moore’s Law for computer speed). The new law fits data from 1983 to 2014.

The dots in the diagram show the various speeds of the Net ranging from early acoustic 300 bps modems in 1984 to the 120 Mbps lines in 2014. The data points are impressively close to the exponential growth curve for the 50% annualized growth stated by Nielsen’s Law.

NOTE: The y-axis is based on a logarithmic scale, making the straight line in the diagram an exponential growth curve.

http://www.futuristspeaker.com/business-trends/future-of-the-internet-8-expanding-dimensions/


More about Nielsen's Law: https://www.nngroup.com/articles/law-of-bandwidth/

[bitserve]

Only need a special request by the node (that it rebuild) to emit raw transactions & signatures from a source : and then the request can build Segwit block from Raw channel.

Request somes more bandwidth and time ... but nodes have time & bandwidth.

Benefices will be EPIC, too ... (3,5Mb Block = 1Mb Segwit).
From 140Gb to 40Gb.

If I understand what you are saying, that would injtroduce additional latencies, complexity of code, etc etc.....

There are many possible "solutions", but I am convinced the best one is to have an L2 which process most of the tx's.

People that talks about blocksize increase are not ambitious enough. For Bitcoin to truly sucess we are talking about several orders of magnitude more tx's than now. There is no fucking way all that can be stored in a single blockchain.

L2 is the only way. That said, I want to have enough blocksize space to move my whole (or significant fractions) Bitcoins directly on the blockchain. For most of the payments I am ok with L2.

[JayJuanGee]

Buy my first bitcoins in 2012, and since that day I find myself reading, learning and observing everything about bitcoin, and I do not think that LN is the divine solution to our scale problems.

Who gives a ratt's ass what you think?

If you have a BIP for changes to bitcoin, then submit it for consideration. 

At this point, segwit has already been decided and it is going to be activated.  Lightning network are a variety of solutions to built on top of that... these are a variety of players, so how you gonna stop it, except to make some proposals for changes through the BIP process - or what recently has been the tactic of instead of trying to figure out an improvement to just create a hardfork to implement your idea... oh wait, that has already been done.  Why don't you go over to supporting Bcash, because that seems to be what you want?  Oh no you don't want that because there are not enough other people supporting Bcash.. instead you want bitcoin to become bcash.. .. getting a bit incoherent, and it is not just a language issue, it is a logic issue.

[gentlemand]

Why is anyone talking about hard disks?

That's like devoting 90% of your effort to choosing the paint job of your Mars Lander rather than how you're going to get there and survive.

Storage has never been an issue. It's the bandwidth and the indexing among other things.

[Gab0]

Only need a special request by the node (that it rebuild) to emit raw transactions & signatures from a source : and then the request can build Segwit block from Raw channel.

Request somes more bandwidth and time ... but nodes have time & bandwidth.

Benefices will be EPIC, too ... (3,5Mb Block = 1Mb Segwit).
From 140Gb to 40Gb.

If I understand what you are saying, that would injtroduce additional latencies, complexity of code, etc etc.....

There are many possible "solutions", but I am convinced the best one is to have an L2 which process most of the tx's.

People that talks about blocksize increase are not ambitious enough. For Bitcoin to truly sucess we are talking about several orders of magnitude more tx's than now. There is no fucking way all that can be stored in a single blockchain.

L2 is the only way. That said, I want to have enough blocksize space to move my whole (or significant fractions) Bitcoins directly on the blockchain. For most of the payments I am ok with L2.

I, and those who support bigger blocks, are as ambitious as you and those who support L2. Mass adoption will not happen overnight. Even so, both sides are needed; L2 fans need big blocks, and bigblockers need L2
But, right now, we should not artificially limit the network.

[JayJuanGee]

Not even Segwit solves the exponential blockchain increase, but it does make it happen via Lighting Network. Yes, we fucking need L2. It's not if we like, don't like, prefer, not prefer, whatever.... IT IS A FUCKING NECESSITY.

What is this L2 that we supposedly need, now?  Does it relate to scaling supposedly?  Doesn't seem like we need shit when it comes to scaling because we already have something that is in the works...and gotta see how it (namely segwit et al) plays out, no? 

Why we speculating about some abstract thing that we supposedly need when segwit has not even gone active yet? 

Seems like these big blocker nutjob arguments are never going to go away, even when they got their own fucking fork and they still want to propose unnecessary changes to bitcoin regular - because nobody wants their bullshit and non-necessary non-segwit "upgrades"

[AlexGR]

Why is anyone talking about hard disks?

That's like devoting 90% of your effort to choosing the paint job of your Mars Lander rather than how you're going to get there and survive.

Storage has never been an issue. It's the bandwidth and the indexing among other things.

In some cases ISP caps as well. Some ISP caps right now are lower than what you'd need for a full blockchain sync - let alone running a node in your basement.

[bitserve]

Not even Segwit solves the exponential blockchain increase, but it does make it happen via Lighting Network. Yes, we fucking need L2. It's not if we like, don't like, prefer, not prefer, whatever.... IT IS A FUCKING NECESSITY.

What is this L2 that we supposedly need, now?  Does it relate to scaling supposedly?  Doesn't seem like we need shit when it comes to scaling because we already have something that is in the works...and gotta see how it (namely segwit et al) plays out, no?  

Why we speculating about some abstract thing that we supposedly need when segwit has not even gone active yet?  

Seems like these big blocker nutjob arguments are never going to go away, even when they got their own fucking fork and they still want to propose unnecessary changes to bitcoin regular - because nobody wants their bullshit and non-necessary non-segwit "upgrades"

L2 is Second Layer, LN. We need it because otherwise we are not really "scaling". Segwit would be a linear increase of 4x in the best ideal circumstances. probably much less depending on adoption and usage. Now? It is ok.... But at current growth we need to start implementing real scaling solutions that give orders of magnitude more capacity... not a mere 2x or 4x.... that's nothing.

Also... And I hope you will open your mind and realise what I mean... even if we don't RIGHT NOW need that unlimited capacity, the fact that Bitcoin is READY for it would be a huge message to the market. And we all like HUGE price rises, don't we?


Anyway, you are right. The moment now is to enjoy the Segwit activation. That's an amazing milestone for Bitcoin.

[JayJuanGee]

Not even Segwit solves the exponential blockchain increase, but it does make it happen via Lighting Network. Yes, we fucking need L2. It's not if we like, don't like, prefer, not prefer, whatever.... IT IS A FUCKING NECESSITY.

What is this L2 that we supposedly need, now?  Does it relate to scaling supposedly?  Doesn't seem like we need shit when it comes to scaling because we already have something that is in the works...and gotta see how it (namely segwit et al) plays out, no?  

Why we speculating about some abstract thing that we supposedly need when segwit has not even gone active yet?  

Seems like these big blocker nutjob arguments are never going to go away, even when they got their own fucking fork and they still want to propose unnecessary changes to bitcoin regular - because nobody wants their bullshit and non-necessary non-segwit "upgrades"

L2 is Second Layer, LN. We need it because otherwise we are not really "scaling". Segwit would be a linear increase of 4x in the best ideal circumstances. probably much less depending on adoption and usage. Now? It is ok.... But at current growth we need to start implementing real scaling solutions that give orders of magnitude more capacity... not a mere 2x or 4x.... that's nothing.

Also... And I hope you will open your mind and realise what I mean... even if we don't RIGHT NOW need that unlimited capacity, the fact that Bitcoin is READY for it would be a huge message to the market. And we all like HUGE price rises, don't we?


Anyway, you are right. The moment now is to enjoy the Segwit activation. That's an amazing milestone for Bitcoin.

O.k.  we agree about the goodness of segwit, and I have no problem that there is planning on the future, but I still have some difficulties understanding how all these supposed emergencies evolve that suggest that there is not enough future planning or that there had been some kind of failure in the past planning.  Those suggestions about past failings are nearly pure fabrication by a bunch of nutjob bigblocker whiners, and in order to back up their fabrication they engaged in an ongoing campaign to spam the bitcoin blockchain for months to increase fees and transactions times. 

Anyhow, I don't have any problem with work upon some L2 solution, but except for the ongoing sabotage and false narratives, their is no actual emergency in place, and I have no doubt that core already have people working on a variety of future scenarios that ultimately would have to go through the BIP process anyhow before they were to get adopted, which is also not a broken process.

Regarding my supposed non open mind, it seems that you are mischaracterizing my position, and merely because I say fuck a lot does not mean that I have a closed mind, and merely because I find a lot of these big blocker nutjob talking points to be distractions does not mean that I do not have an open mind.  We are getting all kinds of positive shit going on in bitcoin, including seg wit going active and a lot of innovation that is likely going to be built upon that and a lot of known unknowns and likely several unknown unknowns, so I find it quite premature to be pushing these various talking points regarding the variety of supposed ways that bitcoin is broken when there are so many GREAT things that are happening - which also seem to be reflected in our current price and how the market is reacting to 1) activation of segwit and 2) bitcoin's recent perseverance through the bullshit renegade hardfork.

[Mrpumperitis]

yea thats right satoshi was a big block whiner...what did he know eh,lol
peter toad and co, know it all, we should just listen to them and we shouldve never went over 1mb, ...stupid satoshi,lol


this thread is now full of sell-outs...you will have to learn the hard way...i feel sorry for you all