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

[goggles]

dogecoin users unaffected?  

[1714708877]

1714708877

[1714708877]

1714708877

[Gab0]

Looking for some update of LN in r / lightning.network, I found this:





From the LN white paper:
https://lightning.network/lightning-network-paper.pdf






If the block limit of 1mb will inevitably be eliminated, why refuse an increase in the size of the blocks at critical times like the ones we have seen these days?

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

I don't think we should be hardfroking to accommodate L2 'solutions'. Am I wrong?

[goggles]

Maybe I don't understand the lightning network well, but wouldn't the channels used by the exchanges be the major benefit?

[alexeft]

If the block limit of 1mb will inevitably be eliminated, why refuse an increase in the size of the blocks at critical times like the ones we have seen these days?

How do you tell critical times from spam times?

Currently 50GB of data is added every year, ie in a year the blockchain will be at 200GB. Also, it's not static data but a database. Not really an easy load.
Whatsmore, a bigger blocksize will mean a faster growing blockchain. For example, BCH will have to face 400GB of additional data per year. Who will care to start a new node in a year from now?

[d_eddie]

If the block limit of 1mb will inevitably be eliminated, why refuse an increase in the size of the blocks at critical times like the ones we have seen these days?

Among other reasons: because, as our good Mayor implies in his reply, a hardfork is required to increase the block size. A hardfork is not unplanned for, but when it happens it should include a bundle of fixes, not just a quick bandaid.
Besides, the bandaid can't really solve the problem, even momentarily: if the spammers are willing to spam no matter what, they can as easily fill double-sized blocks with 1-satoshi transactions.

[Globb0]

I think the blockchain needs to have a sliding window. The network could pay a few nodes to be legacy nodes and hold the full history version or  chunks of archive (searchable).

The main chain could start 2 years ago with each accounts balance on that day and every transaction since then.

[d_eddie]

I think the blockchain needs to have a sliding window. The network could pay a few nodes to be legacy nodes and hold the full history version or  chunks of archive (searchable).

The main chain could start 2 years ago with each accounts balance on that day and every transaction since then.

Storage is not the only problem. Bouncing big blocks around also causes bandwidth and latency issues.

[alexeft]

sauce^

Nice in many many more ways than one!

[Arriemoller]

<nonsense>

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=532.msg6306#msg6306

Satoshi would not have wasted his time answering such a question if it was not in his original mind frame.

Great quote from that link too "If you don't believe me or don't get it, I don't have time to try to convince you, sorry."

I mean that link alone says more than anything I could or would ever need to say... something needs to change to regain market confidence in my opinion.

LOL good one!

Or fucking Poloniex  

I think that's a woman.

[JayJuanGee]

I'm all for a block size increase to 2mb. I just think that 8mb, as proposed by BCash, is too much, and will create more problems in the future, such as centralized nodes.

I agree... start slow and move up.

Just do something.

Amazing how people can't see the obvious. 2MB blocks, 8MB, 64MB, whatever you want MB is not the solution. And 8MB blocks by BCash has low fees for simple reason absolutely nobody is using it.

That second part is not true.

I take Roger at his word that he is using Bcash, especially to provide demonstrations about how great Bcash is.  Jihan is using Bcash, along with forcing anyone purchasing miners from him to do so through Bcash, there are also people moving Bcash to sell it, and there are also probably a few retards that actually believe bcash is bitcoin 2.0 who are buying it....

hahahahaha.

O.k... I 'm quibbling.  I'm quibbling.

Tldr.. roger is not nobody... you better give some respect.   

You can put whatever cap you want sooner or latter fees are going to again get up as adoption spreads, and we are not even at the beginning of real adoption, meaning adoption at the Twitter or Facebook users number levels. Block size increase will only lead to many people not being able to run a node and solve nothing. The only solution is LN, true solution without any side effects. Unlimited number of transactions, 0 fees, period. There is no point of making Bitcoin more centralized when LN are just around a corner. Let's first try and see how it works before we hard-fork to bigger block-size forever.

Exactly.  1) why "fix" something that is not broken, 2) the stupid-ass suggested fix is likely to make matters worse, 3) bitcoin has a lot of uses cases already, and 4) developments such as lightning network are being worked on and tested and likely to be adopted and implemented more and more and more, and resolve a lot of the temporary issues that are supposedly causing BIG blocker nutjobs to get their panties in a twist...   

By the way, the BIG blocker nutjobs really don't give a ratt's ass about fixing bitcoin, they merely want to change its governance, make it more easy to change and some other bullshit nonsense that would pretty much destroy the various current value propositions of bitcoin.  Making bitcoin difficult to change is a feature and not a bug, because we don't want stupid ass astroturfs coming in and acting like they are changing bitcoin to make it better, when bitcoin is not broke.  Those misinformation spreading fucktards.   

[JayJuanGee]

That’s right.

Just introduce 10GB blocks and call it a night. Problem solved.

What the fuck?


Why we need a limit?  I think we should petition for a few changes to bitcoin in order to remove any kind of blocksize limit, and then we can call bitcoin, bitcoin unlimited... right?




Wait...... something sounds funny about what I am saying.....   hm?

[milkshock100]

We survive tonight without dipping below fridays lows and I think we are in the clear....

[Wekkel]

Wait...... something sounds funny about what I am saying.....   hm?

Now that you mention some changes, why not also go for a zillion coins. I mean, there is enough for everyone and it is only fair. Limitations are just a piece of goddamn code. We don’t care about code, right?

We are going to push this through, no matter what. Let’s push this and polish our egos. Billionaires be billionaires, f** the rest  

[PoolMinor]

It is time to buy, you have one hour.....

[realr0ach]

Maybe I don't understand the lightning network well, but wouldn't the channels used by the exchanges be the major benefit?

This is all you need to know for why Lightning Network is a dud:

LN is an unworkable train wreck without putting all channel closings in the same common permissioned queue (meaning completely centralized).  The fact these systems are built around a finite block size means humans can easily attack that bottleneck by flooding it with channel closings.  Since it can be flooded, you're required to buffer them and either discard low payers or put them at the back of the line just like regular bitcoin mempool.

From that point, you either have to design as a hub and spoke model just like what Mike Hearn claimed, where the Lightning node is a bitcoin bank and everyone who uses it is their peon slaves to extract usury upon, or every lightning node broadcasts a shared queue with each other.  But due to the fact that people can try to flood the queue as mentioned earlier, each lightning node will have their own criteria for what is or isn't spam that they will broadcast to other nodes (meaningly INSANELY PERMISSIONED, cartel coordinated, and usury based).  The nodes might also be incentivized NOT to broadcast and force a hub and spoke model for their own gain.

If a Lightning node constantly broadcasts flood bullshit to everyone, they will likely be blacklisted by other Lightning nodes (lightning banks, whatever you want to call them), so the entire system is based around things like trusted and untrusted members, subjective anti-spam filters, etc.  In other words, for Lightning to work at all, it would probably be the most permissioned centralized piece of garbage ever to exist.  No real difference from having an account at Bank of America, and ironcially, the govt will likely legislate who is and isn't allowed to run these Lightning nodes, meaning Bank of America or Goldman Sachs will run them.

At least this is my understanding of the problems one has to overcome to create such system.  The fact bitcoin is not decentralized and it's impossible to create a decentralized digital currency in the first place, also means anyone claiming Lightning is going to be "decentralized" is a complete idiot when it's built on top of bitcoin.

[Gab0]

If the block limit of 1mb will inevitably be eliminated, why refuse an increase in the size of the blocks at critical times like the ones we have seen these days?

Among other reasons: because, as our good Mayor implies in his reply, a hardfork is required to increase the block size. A hardfork is not unplanned for, but when it happens it should include a bundle of fixes, not just a quick bandaid.
Besides, the bandaid can't really solve the problem, even momentarily: if the spammers are willing to spam no matter what, they can as easily fill double-sized blocks with 1-satoshi transactions.

You are right, and the most efficient, in an ideal scenario, would be to make a hardfork with a series of improvements in the network; but the current conditions (spam attacks, new users, price increases, media attention, fomo) are having critical consequences in the network. Not only users have been harmed, but the stability and continuity of companies that have built their business model around the bitcoin blockchain (and at the same time add value to the network). For that reason, I think it is far from being a "temporary" solution, or of less importance.

On the other hand, it would be much more expensive for the attacker to fill the blocks.
Filling the blocks with transactions of ~ $ 20 in fees should mean a large sum of money (regardless of whether they are miners or not). Obviously, this type of attack is being made to manipulate the price. If the cost of carrying out the attack exceeds the benefits that can be achieved by manipulating the market, the attacker loses the incentive to carry them out. Also, if 2mb or 4mb blocks are filled with 1sat / B transactions, no one would care, because the fees would still be low and the network would remain decentralized. Jbreher recently mentioned the tx capacity of an average computer. I quote:

The only serious investigation into the matter has proven that your average 'home' computer today can handle a simple block size increase that will net us about 100 tx/s. And with a fix to core's crappy multithreading design, can handle block size increase up to about 500 tx/s. And that is without looking for other sw architecture improvements.

I would like to be able to express my ideas more widely, but the language barrier does not allow me to do so.

[svdleer]

i'm watching the orderbook in GDAX a while now.

This is what i noticed a few times :

2017-12-25 00:13:51.088915 BTC-USD bid: 0.001 @ 14109.00   ask: 33.362 @ 14200.67
2017-12-25 00:13:51.090565 BTC-USD bid: 0.000 @ 14109.00   ask: 33.362 @ 14200.67
2017-12-25 00:13:51.092307 BTC-USD bid: 2.590 @ 14106.40   ask: 33.362 @ 14200.67
2017-12-25 00:13:51.094036 BTC-USD bid: 2.358 @ 14106.40   ask: 33.362 @ 14200.67

Ask Wall is dropped, no filed orders @ 14200

2017-12-25 00:13:51.097444 BTC-USD bid: 2.358 @ 14106.40   ask: 0.038 @ 14175.00

Another example :

2017-12-25 00:32:44.920442 BTC-USD bid: 0.834 @ 14130.00   ask: 27.295 @ 14134.85
2017-12-25 00:32:44.921671 BTC-USD bid: 0.636 @ 14130.00   ask: 27.295 @ 14134.85
2017-12-25 00:32:44.924260 BTC-USD bid: 0.636 @ 14130.00   ask: 27.221 @ 14134.85
2017-12-25 00:32:44.925542 BTC-USD bid: 0.636 @ 14130.00   ask: 27.147 @ 14134.85

Dropped :

2017-12-25 00:32:44.928893 BTC-USD bid: 0.636 @ 14130.00   ask: 0.250 @ 14134.84

Again no orders filed.

2017-12-25 00:36:45.922197 BTC-USD bid: 0.001 @ 14055.18   ask: 20.720 @ 14055.19
2017-12-25 00:36:45.994320 BTC-USD bid: 0.001 @ 14055.18   ask: 25.720 @ 14055.19
2017-12-25 00:36:46.222450 BTC-USD bid: 0.000 @ 14055.18   ask: 25.720 @ 14055.19
2017-12-25 00:36:46.234737 BTC-USD bid: 0.000 @ 14055.17   ask: 25.720 @ 14055.19

Dropped :

2017-12-25 00:36:46.235970 BTC-USD bid: 0.000 @ 14055.17   ask: 0.217 @ 14055.18

And this goes on and on.

2017-12-25 00:39:26.456802 BTC-USD bid: 1.431 @ 14035.89   ask: 24.273 @ 14035.90
2017-12-25 00:39:26.492477 BTC-USD bid: 1.000 @ 14035.89   ask: 24.273 @ 14035.90
2017-12-25 00:39:26.504431 BTC-USD bid: 0.000 @ 14035.88   ask: 24.273 @ 14035.90
2017-12-25 00:39:26.526798 BTC-USD bid: 0.000 @ 14035.88   ask: 23.953 @ 14035.90
2017-12-25 00:39:26.551306 BTC-USD bid: 0.000 @ 14035.88   ask: 0.250 @ 14035.89

....

[FractalUniverse]

hmm looks like normal exchange bot to me

[d_eddie]

On the other hand, it would be much more expensive for the attacker to fill the blocks.

Double size, double number of transactions (on average), double cost.
IMO the issue is that if the ones who spam are miners who pocket most of the fees anyway, it's much too cheap to spam.

Filling the blocks with transactions of ~ $ 20 in fees should mean a large sum of money (regardless of whether they are miners or not).

If it's majority miners, it's not "regardless". They can rely on mining a large percentage of blocks, which in turn means a large percentage of the fees they paid get back to them.

Obviously, this type of attack is being made to manipulate the price. If the cost of carrying out the attack exceeds the benefits that can be achieved by manipulating the market, the attacker loses the incentive to carry them out.

Agreed. IMO the way to up the price of spamming is not having larger blocks, because a significant percent of those blocks get mined by the spammer anyway - be they large or small blocks. A better solution would be to have really widespread mining, so the attackers know that their chances of pocketing back their own spam fees are low.

Also, if 2mb or 4mb blocks are filled with 1sat / B transactions, no one would care, because the fees would still be low

My bad. I didn't write clearly (and I was not being accurate anyway).
I meant 1 satoshi as the transaction amount, not the fee. I know dust transactions are discarded anyway, but I meant "amount as low as can be". A bit of an exaggeration, admittedly.

Jbreher recently mentioned the tx capacity of an average computer. I quote:

The only serious investigation into the matter has proven that your average 'home' computer today can handle a simple block size increase that will net us about 100 tx/s. And with a fix to core's crappy multithreading design, can handle block size increase up to about 500 tx/s. And that is without looking for other sw architecture improvements.

Jbreher is usually accurate in his factual statements, and his math is usually flawless. However, he does have his bigblocker agenda in his mind when he posts. He failed to mention bandwidth and latency, which are the real bottlenecks - more so than storage or computing power.

I would like to be able to express my ideas more widely, but the language barrier does not allow me to do so.

I don't know what else you wanted to express, but you made yourself quite clear on these points. Don't think about the barrier - just say what you mean in the best way you manage. I think communication is just fine.

Merry Xmas everybody!