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

[Meuh6879]

1MB blocks will require 30 years to get a single transaction to each person on earth.

Internet was not design to attach picture to email.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pT9kJq_Ogrk

Now, we have Porn in VR.

[jbreher]

What a boogie woogie without replay protection..  

The lack of replay protection would be a major problem for the B2X network, not for [Bitcoin Segwit Core - ed]

Yet it is core acolytes that are screaming bloody murder over such lack.
hmm....

In general, big blocktards are technically and economically ignorant and don't get it. Without replay protection B2X fork is a blatant attempt for 51% attack against Bitcoin. Simple as that! People that burn hundreds of millions to organize this attack don't care about improving Bitcoin. They want to crash Bitcoin.

I don't see what your conjecture has to do with your earlier assertion. To wit: "The lack of replay protection would be a major problem for the B2X network, not for [Bitcoin Segwit Core - ed]"

Or were you just so eager to get in a sideswipe insult that it mattered not whether your utterance had anything to do with the discussion at hand?

[becoin]

What a boogie woogie without replay protection..  

The lack of replay protection would be a major problem for the B2X network, not for [Bitcoin Segwit Core - ed]

Yet it is core acolytes that are screaming bloody murder over such lack.
hmm....

In general, big blocktards are technically and economically ignorant and don't get it. Without replay protection B2X fork is a blatant attempt for 51% attack against Bitcoin. Simple as that! People that burn hundreds of millions to organize this attack don't care about improving Bitcoin. They want to crash Bitcoin.

I don't see what your conjecture has to do with your earlier assertion. To wit: "The lack of replay protection would be a major problem for the B2X network, not for [Bitcoin Segwit Core - ed]"

Or were you just so eager to get in a sideswipe insult that it mattered not whether your utterance had anything to do with the discussion at hand?

Your inability to see the connection proves my point.

People that organize B2X fork don't care about B2X network. The more problems it has the better because it would be more difficult for people to transfer this shit to exchanges and sell it. All they want is crash Bitcoin network!

[fabiorem]

2) if you dump BTC2X then there is a chance that your dump will be replayed on BTC

I'm worried about this. Noobs will be dumping B2X all the way down to get "muh free coins" and then they will be dumping BTC hard, which will make the price drop.

My only hope is that the noobness is so intense that they cant have any way to know how to "retrieve" so-called "free coins", and that the exchanges wont support it since it is not an alt-coin, as there is no replay protection.

[AlcoHoDL]

True, 2X is insufficient. As is 8X. But they are steps in the right direction. The only direction that will get us to our goal. Larger blocks are a requirement for Bitcoin to be meaningful to humanity as a whole.

"The payment network Visa achieved 47,000 peak transactions per second (tps) on its network during the 2013 holidays, and currently averages hundreds of millions per day. Currently, Bitcoin supports less than 7 transactions per second with a 1 megabyte block limit.  If we use an average of 300 bytes per bitcoin transaction and assumed unlimited block sizes, an equivalent capacity to peak Visa transaction volume of 47,000/tps would be nearly 8 gigabytes per Bitcoin block, every ten minutes on average.  Continuously, that would be over 400 terabytes of data per year."

Over the long term, not a problem. How big was your disk a decade ago? 

Note also that this is peak. We can tolerate transaction backlog, as long as it clears without too much time passing. Average is much lower. Note that the published paper makes a fundamental logic error. Using a peak figure as an input to an average calculation is either gross stupidity or simple fearmongering.

Now lets actually discuss how we get Bitcoin into the hands of each and every person. What's your solution for that? Hmm?

What I'm trying to say is that we can't solve the throughput problem in the long term by simply increasing block size. It will let us breathe for a while and then choke us again. Other, smarter methods should be employed for solving this problem. One proposal is the Lightning Network. There will be better ones to come, and we should embrace them.

Regarding your 30-year calculation, it is indeed correct, and is an interesting result. SegWit gets this reduced to 15 years. This duration will be decreased further by increasing the block size. But it still won't solve the throughput problem. Perhaps a combination of gradual block size increases, as permitted by h/w capabilities, and good off-chain solutions are actually needed.

[yugyug]

What i have learn about Lightning network is their ability to increase transaction capacity as close as Visa's transaction capacity which could cater as large as 47,000 transactions per second. We need to have a centralized data center or servers same as what Visa did that can handle transaction at a lightning speed but it defeat the purpose of decentralization but it attracts major I.T. companies to invest this kind of solution for an off-chain lightning network and that is not want the majority to happen.

[jbreher]

True, 2X is insufficient. As is 8X. But they are steps in the right direction. The only direction that will get us to our goal. Larger blocks are a requirement for Bitcoin to be meaningful to humanity as a whole.

"The payment network Visa achieved 47,000 peak transactions per second (tps) on its network during the 2013 holidays, and currently averages hundreds of millions per day. Currently, Bitcoin supports less than 7 transactions per second with a 1 megabyte block limit.  If we use an average of 300 bytes per bitcoin transaction and assumed unlimited block sizes, an equivalent capacity to peak Visa transaction volume of 47,000/tps would be nearly 8 gigabytes per Bitcoin block, every ten minutes on average.  Continuously, that would be over 400 terabytes of data per year."

Over the long term, not a problem. How big was your disk a decade ago? 

Note also that this is peak. We can tolerate transaction backlog, as long as it clears without too much time passing. Average is much lower. Note that the published paper makes a fundamental logic error. Using a peak figure as an input to an average calculation is either gross stupidity or simple fearmongering.

Now lets actually discuss how we get Bitcoin into the hands of each and every person. What's your solution for that? Hmm?

What I'm trying to say is that we can't solve the throughput problem in the long term by simply increasing block size. It will let us breathe for a while and then choke us again. Other, smarter methods should be employed for solving this problem. One proposal is the Lightning Network. There will be better ones to come, and we should embrace them.

I've been around the incessant march of technology long enough to know the it will indeed solve the issue in the long term. There may be some points where demand outstrips technical limits. But now is not such a time, and neither is the long term. LN may be am important component of the ultimate solution set. But it is in no way sufficient. There is no technology proposed that eliminates this fundamental bottleneck. Block size needs to be increased. Period.

Regarding your 30-year calculation, it is indeed correct, and is an interesting result. SegWit gets this reduced to 15 years.

No. It absolutely does not. You are not yet processing what I wrote. For a person who does not yet have Bitcoin, at least two on-chain transactions are required. One to get Bitcoin into his possession, and another to make his one and only lifetime channel funding (how likely is this limit?). Now, it is possible -- however implausible -- that the initial purchase of Bitcoin might be combined with others in a single transaction that can take advantage of Segwit. However, it is impossible for his channel funding transaction to be reduced in block consumption via segwit. The smallest it can be is one input and one output. So that latter set of transactions (the channel fundings) is a minimum of 30 years at 1MB. Plus whatever it takes to get the Bitcoin into peoples hands to begin with (another 30 years in the natural transaction/person case).

[d_eddie]

Did you:
a) not read what I wrote; or

This. Your reply came while I was writing mine.

I understand, and you have a point. Opening a channel for each person on earth isn't reasonably possible at the current rates. But that is only the ultimate goal. How many people have VISA today? At the moment, it is more important to expand the network cautiously with the means we have. L2 will be a formidable tool for this, with micropayments and all that. When Average Joe gets used to pay bitcoin at Starbucks, adoption will be so wide in the "rich west" of the world that BTC will be unstoppable.

I trust the developers - I'm not talking about Core only. Third-party L3 solutions could be piggybacked on top of L2, for example. Hardware progress might give us the bandwidth and storage improvements btc needs to be ubiquitous and censor-resistant, so a non-contentious blocksize increase might be much more feasible than it is today. But we can't possibly figure out exactly what the future will be like. We have more than enough on our hands, given what BTC is now. Let us keep it safe and resilient.

[AlcoHoDL]

True, 2X is insufficient. As is 8X. But they are steps in the right direction. The only direction that will get us to our goal. Larger blocks are a requirement for Bitcoin to be meaningful to humanity as a whole.

"The payment network Visa achieved 47,000 peak transactions per second (tps) on its network during the 2013 holidays, and currently averages hundreds of millions per day. Currently, Bitcoin supports less than 7 transactions per second with a 1 megabyte block limit.  If we use an average of 300 bytes per bitcoin transaction and assumed unlimited block sizes, an equivalent capacity to peak Visa transaction volume of 47,000/tps would be nearly 8 gigabytes per Bitcoin block, every ten minutes on average.  Continuously, that would be over 400 terabytes of data per year."

Over the long term, not a problem. How big was your disk a decade ago? 

Note also that this is peak. We can tolerate transaction backlog, as long as it clears without too much time passing. Average is much lower. Note that the published paper makes a fundamental logic error. Using a peak figure as an input to an average calculation is either gross stupidity or simple fearmongering.

Now lets actually discuss how we get Bitcoin into the hands of each and every person. What's your solution for that? Hmm?

What I'm trying to say is that we can't solve the throughput problem in the long term by simply increasing block size. It will let us breathe for a while and then choke us again. Other, smarter methods should be employed for solving this problem. One proposal is the Lightning Network. There will be better ones to come, and we should embrace them.

I've been around the incessant march of technology long enough to know the it will indeed solve the issue in the long term. There may be some points where demand outstrips technical limits. But now is not such a time, and neither is the long term. LN may be am important component of the ultimate solution set. But it is in no way sufficient. There is no technology proposed that eliminates this fundamental bottleneck. Block size needs to be increased. Period.

Regarding your 30-year calculation, it is indeed correct, and is an interesting result. SegWit gets this reduced to 15 years.

No. It absolutely does not. You are not yet processing what I wrote. For a person who does not yet have Bitcoin, at least two on-chain transactions are required. One to get Bitcoin into his possession, and another to make his one and only lifetime channel funding (how likely is this limit?). Now, it is possible -- however implausible -- that the initial purchase of Bitcoin might be combined with others in a single transaction that can take advantage of Segwit. However, it is impossible for his channel funding transaction to be reduced in block consumption via segwit. The smallest it can be is one input and one output. So that latter set of transactions (the channel fundings) is a minimum of 30 years at 1MB. Plus whatever it takes to get the Bitcoin into peoples hands to begin with (another 30 years in the natural transaction/person case).

Well, for the calculation I assumed the goal was for everyone to simply own Bitcoin (hence one transaction per person)...

Perhaps this reveals the limits of the design as it currently stands. Technological advances may not always follow a predictable and foreseeable path. Technology may take a long time to be able to accommodate the technical requirements for a truly global Bitcoin network (in the sense that everyone on Earth actively transacts in it). Another coin may be able to achieve it, but maybe not Bitcoin as it is currently designed. It may take a long time for us to get there...

I also trust the developers. Especially Core. I trust their cautionary/conservative approach. The "bigger is better" approach that many are eager to take may have unforeseeable side-effects on the Bitcoin system. Sure, technology will provide new capabilities and we should use them. But we should do so extremely carefully.

[Torque]

The step in [a] direction was done a few months ago with Segwit and enabling LN.

Neither of which do anything to further the goal of onboarding the world. Whether or not we have Segwit or Lightning, 1MB blocks will require 30 years to get a single transaction to each person on earth. The only way to improve this is with larger blocks.

You have your large blocks in BCH. And according to your previous post, BCH is the one true Bitcoin.

So. what. the. fk. is. the. problem. ?

[jojo69]

Aaaaaaaaaaaand...

the IRS awards none other than Equifax a no bid contract to verify taxpayer identities and help prevent fraud.


I am living in a fucking Kurt Vonnegut novel.


Are they now openly mocking us?

[arklan]

Aaaaaaaaaaaand...

the IRS awards none other than Equifax a no bid contract to verify taxpayer identities and help prevent fraud.


I am living in a fucking Kurt Vonnegut novel.


Are they now openly mocking us?

yea, probably.

[JayJuanGee]

empirical evidence pretty much shows that the 2x part of segwit2x is not really justified

Bullshit.

It's not bullshit.  Show some evidence if you think that there is some kind of problem?  We are talking about spam attacks, and when there are no spam attacks we have all kinds of extras space and low fees and fast transaction times.

So... you can say "bullshit" all you want, when the fact of the matter is that you large blocker nutjobs are the ones who do not have evidence to justify that any change in the blocksize limit is actually needed now or in the near future.
 

The vision is the entire world employing Bitcoin. How are we going to get there?

We get there like we have been  getting there, with incremental changes and improvements and development and yet continuing to grow, including segwit and lightning network in the future.. and ongoing developments and ongoing adoption..   Has been good and continues to be good, except for the multiple disgruntled attackers that have to be fended off on an ongoing basis with their misinformation and FUD spreading.
 

Nobody can spend Bitcoin if they don't already have Bitcoin. Have you thought about the limit of adoption even assuming the desire was there? How long will it take to onboard the world?

We do not go from .1% of the world adoption to 100% world adoption, there is a transition period, so we are a long fucking way from 100% anytime in the near future... it is called incremental adoption... even if it seems like exponential, it is not going to happen in the next few years, if that is what you are thinking.
 

Currently it would take over 30 years to send each person on earth a single Bitcoin transaction. Think about that.

I doubt that it is worthy of very much thought, and I doubt that the facts are even accurate... especially once we et a bit more lightning network tools into place...

Lightning does nothing to alleviate that.
Segwit does nothing to alleviate that.
Schnorr sigs does nothing to alleviate that.

Your saying it does not make it true, either.
 

The only metric that matters in this is transaction throughput - pure and simple. To a first order approximation (i.e. with already minimal-size transactions), this is directly and linearly proportional to block size.

Yeah, you talk in a lot of hypotheticals rather than looking at the actual transaction on the blockchain.
 

True, 2X is insufficient. As is 8X. But they are steps in the right direction. The only direction that can possibly get us to our goal. Larger blocks are a requirement for Bitcoin to be meaningful to humanity as a whole.

Yes.  Assume a problem that does not exist, apart from the ongoing spam attacks.

Sure some day down the road we might need to increase the blockchain limit size... does not seem to be an emergency except to figure out ways to battle various ongoing spam attacks, which are likely going to continue, since B-cash is appearing to becoming more and more of a dud and it is likely not worthwhile to direct mining power towards the bcash chain, so those guys want to spend their mining power to attempt to spam bitcoin instead... go figure.   

[RoomBot]

Aaaaaaaaaaaand...

the IRS awards none other than Equifax a no bid contract to verify taxpayer identities and help prevent fraud.


I am living in a fucking Kurt Vonnegut novel.


Are they now openly mocking us?

Yeah, but it's FREE

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA!!!!

[JayJuanGee]

The step in [a] direction was done a few months ago with Segwit and enabling LN.

Neither of which do anything to further the goal of onboarding the world. Whether or not we have Segwit or Lightning, 1MB blocks will require 30 years to get a single transaction to each person on earth. The only way to improve this is with larger blocks.

We will need bigger blocks. I wouldn't even mind if we increased to 2x already.... if core would support it (which it seems they don't YET). In fact I would like they did... but they don't. So we will have to wait.

That said... LN will play a bigger role in transaction capacity than any blocksize increase. That's why I have never understood why some people insist in bigger blocks but were oppossed to Segwit and LN. It doesn't make sense to me. We will need both to really SCALE (not linearly) Bitcoin transaction capacity in the orders of magnitude (LN playing the bigger role in that increase of capacity).

Hahahahahaha

We need BIGGER blocks like we need another hole in our head....


Which we don't... at least I don't.   

[jojo69]

yea, probably.

I mean...normally I see the wisdom of not attributing to malice that which can be explained by mere stupidity, but, am I to believe that decision makers at that level are actually that retarded??

Which leaves it as an act of communication; they are expressing their contempt for us, rubbing our noses in our powerlessness.

"what'cha gonna do huh?  lol  what'cha gonna do?"

[Elwar]

What i have learn about Lightning network is their ability to increase transaction capacity as close as Visa's transaction capacity which could cater as large as 47,000 transactions per second. We need to have a centralized data center or servers same as what Visa did that can handle transaction at a lightning speed but it defeat the purpose of decentralization but it attracts major I.T. companies to invest this kind of solution for an off-chain lightning network and that is not want the majority to happen.

It could centralize if everyone uses one service. LN will be centralized in the same way that MtGox was the only Bitcoin exchange for several years. And then it wasn't.

[Torque]

Aaaaaaaaaaaand...

the IRS awards none other than Equifax a no bid contract to verify taxpayer identities and help prevent fraud.


I am living in a fucking Kurt Vonnegut novel.


Are they now openly mocking us?

yea, probably.

See here's the interesting thing. In such a widely known surveillance country as America (see NSA spying program), and in an environment of proven govt/corp whistle blowing, false flags and hoaxes, and outright scamming the people (Wells Fargo, JP Morgan, etc.), no Average Joe in America EVER questions if any of these supposed personal information 'hacks' could ever be cover for an inside job. Or in conjunction with or at the request of the IRS, other Alphabet agencies, Govt agencies, etc.

I mean, what great plausible deniability ("Honest! We were hacked from the outside! It had to be the Chinese or the Russians!"). They could literally be just handing the information over to some Alphabet agency or foreign govt, and no one would ever know otherwise.

[jbreher]

The step in [a] direction was done a few months ago with Segwit and enabling LN.

Neither of which do anything to further the goal of onboarding the world. Whether or not we have Segwit or Lightning, 1MB blocks will require 30 years to get a single transaction to each person on earth. The only way to improve this is with larger blocks.

You have your large blocks in BCH. And according to your previous post, BCH is the one true Bitcoin.

So. what. the. fk. is. the. problem. ?

I was just correcting a flawed assertion by JJG. After the predictable pile-on, this is where we arrive. The only _problem_ per se was the insistence that larger blocks serve no purpose - where demonstrably, they do.

[gembitz]

What a boogie woogie without replay protection..  

The lack of replay protection would be a major problem for the B2X network, not for [Bitcoin Segwit Core - ed]

Yet it is core acolytes that are screaming bloody murder over such lack.
hmm....

In general, big blocktards are technically and economically ignorant and don't get it. Without replay protection B2X fork is a blatant attempt for 51% attack against Bitcoin. Simple as that! People that burn hundreds of millions to organize this attack don't care about improving Bitcoin. They want to crash Bitcoin.

I don't see what your conjecture has to do with your earlier assertion. To wit: "The lack of replay protection would be a major problem for the B2X network, not for [Bitcoin Segwit Core - ed]"

Or were you just so eager to get in a sideswipe insult that it mattered not whether your utterance had anything to do with the discussion at hand?

Your inability to see the connection proves my point.

People that organize B2X fork don't care about B2X network. The more problems it has the better because it would be more difficult for people to transfer this shit to exchanges and sell it. All they want is crash Bitcoin network!

no the original troll was to disrupt LN and make it obsolete by increasing the blocksize..2mb blocks would piss on their parade weee