rpietila Wall Observer - the Quality TA Thread ;)

[BTCtrader71]

This may depend on how the question of the 1 MB max blocksize limit is handled. One thing is certain without an increase in this limit, and a hark fork is necessary for this, Bitcoin will be dethroned by a competitor. Once the limit is reached transaction fees will skyrocket as an ever growing number of transactions compete for the 1 MB space every 10 min. Fortunately Gavin Andresen understands the need for this. So do other Bitcoin developers. The real question in my mind is will they muster the necessary community consensus to make this hard fork happen?

In the absence of a hard fork, how soon do we expect to hit this limit?

[1714496981]

1714496981

[1714496981]

1714496981

[1714496981]

1714496981

[1714496981]

1714496981

[1714496981]

1714496981

[1714496981]

1714496981

[ArticMine]

This may depend on how the question of the 1 MB max blocksize limit is handled. One thing is certain without an increase in this limit, and a hark fork is necessary for this, Bitcoin will be dethroned by a competitor. Once the limit is reached transaction fees will skyrocket as an ever growing number of transactions compete for the 1 MB space every 10 min. Fortunately Gavin Andresen understands the need for this. So do other Bitcoin developers. The real question in my mind is will they muster the necessary community consensus to make this hard fork happen?

In the absence of a hard fork, how soon do we expect to hit this limit?

I have heard estimates in the range of one year. What I would recommend, however, is to spend some time at https://blockchain.info/ and take a look at what is actually happening in the Bitcoin network in real time and then form one's own opinion, rather than depend on what I or someone else may say.

[nanobrain]

wow, a few member really try hard to increase their post counter... 

Nothing wrong with that, so long as there is some substance to it.

This from Bitcointalk's very own...

and most periphrastic poster to ever grace an internet forum. 

[JayJuanGee]

wow, a few member really try hard to increase their post counter... 

Nothing wrong with that, so long as there is some substance to it.

This from Bitcointalk's very own...

and most periphrastic poster to ever grace an internet forum. 

I will take that as a "hello".   And, hi to you,  Nanobrain. 

You and I have had some difference of opinions in the past, but to each his own, and currently, I am thinking that there may be some attempt to try to turn this week's MACD candle red, before it closes out (on Sunday?) before we thereafter may be ready to choo choo a little bit into the upper $600s maybe later in the week or possibly into the following week.

[Bagatell]

I will take that as a "hello". 

Don't. He meant roundabout, indirect, circuitous, wandering, oblique, discursive, tortuous, rambling.

Let me add long-winded, wordy and windy.

[JayJuanGee]

I will take that as a "hello". 

Don't. He meant roundabout, indirect, circuitous, wandering, oblique, discursive, tortuous, rambling.

Let me add long-winded, wordy and windy.

Yeah... actually, I looked up the word b/c I had NOT seen it previously, and I was trying to give him some benefit of the doubt by merely characterizing his comment as a "hello."

I take it that you may be bored with the current bitcoin price situation, and that could be why you felt some need to chime in with clarification and additional observations from your viewpoint?

[Roy Badami]

So this could be the end of the bitcoin bubbles, possibly. Will a competitor come and dethrone bitcoin? Or, are we just entering a new and much smaller growth period?

This may depend on how the question of the 1 MB max blocksize limit is handled. One thing is certain without an increase in this limit, and a hark fork is necessary for this, Bitcoin will be dethroned by a competitor. Once the limit is reached transaction fees will skyrocket as an ever growing number of transactions compete for the 1 MB space every 10 min. Fortunately Gavin Andresen understands the need for this. So do other Bitcoin developers. The real question in my mind is will they muster the necessary community consensus to make this hard fork happen?

I don't think there's any plausible scenario in which the death of Bitcoin is somehow an opportunity for some altcoin to take its place.  The death of Bitcoin would be the death of cryptocurrency.

[aminorex]

I don't think there's any plausible scenario in which the death of Bitcoin is somehow an opportunity for some altcoin to take its place.  The death of Bitcoin would be the death of cryptocurrency.

Fungibility crisis.  You can't stop the signal, Mal.

[threecats]

So this could be the end of the bitcoin bubbles, possibly. Will a competitor come and dethrone bitcoin? Or, are we just entering a new and much smaller growth period?

This may depend on how the question of the 1 MB max blocksize limit is handled. One thing is certain without an increase in this limit, and a hark fork is necessary for this, Bitcoin will be dethroned by a competitor. Once the limit is reached transaction fees will skyrocket as an ever growing number of transactions compete for the 1 MB space every 10 min. Fortunately Gavin Andresen understands the need for this. So do other Bitcoin developers. The real question in my mind is will they muster the necessary community consensus to make this hard fork happen?

I don't think there's any plausible scenario in which the death of Bitcoin is somehow an opportunity for some altcoin to take its place.  The death of Bitcoin would be the death of cryptocurrency.

I don't agree. BTC is currently caught in the middle of two somewhat conflicting pulls: 1) a means of commerce and 2) and a deeper evolution of modern politics: that is, the changing balance of power between the individual and the state. At this point there are alts mpving full speed ahead in both these two directions, while btc seems paralyzed in the middle. In first direction, alts like Via are moving forward with sidechain possibilities and faster transactions. In the other direction, anons like Cloak and BTCD are moving rapidly towards privacy evolutions that BTC has now forsaken.

Evolution, sythesis, antithesis - this is the nature of life. BTC and crypto in general does not stand apart  from this flow.

[eat_more_fruit]

Fungibility crisis.

I have been paying attention to much of what you've been saying, and yet I am not sure I understand what the purported BTC fungibility crisis is, and why, e.g., the recent FBI auction does not set a strong precedent for fungibility.  Time permitting, could you please explain a bit?

Also, just for fun, in case those interested have not read this nice paper on the history of fungibility: 'Banknotes and Their Vindication in Eighteenth-Century Scotland'.  http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2260952

[aminorex]

In the U.S. at least, any property gained as a result of a crime, and any benefits derived from that property, as well as any property employed instrumental to a crime, are subject to forfeiture.  It does not matter how many hands the property has passed through in the interim.  Any bitcoin which was ever stolen from Mt. Gox, any bitcoin which was ever used to buy smack on SR/TMP/SR2/BMR, is always and forever tainted until it has been seized by the state, whereupon it is again cleansed of all unrighteousness, as e.g. in the Marshall's sale.  Running it through coinjoin just means the seize-able coins are pervasive.  They remain seize-able.  Eventually, a court can use the sword to compel forfeiture.  U.S. courts claim global jurisdiction in many matters.  In fact, U.S. courts often seem to perceive that the over-riding rationale for the armed power of the state, is to enforce the rulings of the courts.  International agreements often imply cooperative enforcement, in fact.  I could easily imagine, for example, a scenario in which a court orders holders to yield tainted coins.  With a stretch I can imagine a court ordering performance of code changes to effect seizure globally, and blacklisting non-compliant miners, ordering the blockade of network traffic pursuant to a non-compliant blockchain.

So far it is not a practical issue.  However, this will eventually be the largest issue in crypto, for a period of time, until the technology routes around the damage caused by the legal system.  Presently the easiest, cheapest, safest way to route around it is to use XMR.

[eat_more_fruit]

OK, thanks for that. But the case remains that seizure of BTC, even within compliant jurisdictions, even in a world in which "we tortured some folks", is largely unenforceable. No?

[aminorex]

OK, thanks for that. But the case remains that seizure of BTC, even within compliant jurisdictions, even in a world in which "we tortured some folks", is largely unenforceable. No?

If it is not enforceable by other means, it is certainly enforceable at the interface with fiat, in any AML/KYC-compliant context.  If the BTC economy were severed from the fiat economy, it would become irrelevant to most of the purposes for which bitcoin is currently and/or potentially important.

[eat_more_fruit]

Do you think blockchain analysis can defeat any sort of coin mixing? How about some sort of continuous mixing scheme?

[Peter R]

This may depend on how the question of the 1 MB max blocksize limit is handled. One thing is certain without an increase in this limit, and a hark fork is necessary for this, Bitcoin will be dethroned by a competitor. Once the limit is reached transaction fees will skyrocket as an ever growing number of transactions compete for the 1 MB space every 10 min. Fortunately Gavin Andresen understands the need for this. So do other Bitcoin developers. The real question in my mind is will they muster the necessary community consensus to make this hard fork happen?

In the absence of a hard fork, how soon do we expect to hit this limit?

I have heard estimates in the range of one year. What I would recommend, however, is to spend some time at https://blockchain.info/ and take a look at what is actually happening in the Bitcoin network in real time and then form one's own opinion, rather than depend on what I or someone else may say.

Many people cite 7 transactions per second (tps) as the limit for 1 MB blocks, but 3 tps is probably more accurate.  

Here's a chart that uses extrapolation to estimate the dates when the bitcoin network would reach the blocksize limit (3 tps or 7 tps) if historical growth rates hold.  If we witness another "growth spurt," I expect we will approach 3 tps on several days and the discussions with regards to increasing the blocksize will become more focussed.  

[ArticMine]

...
Many people cite 7 transactions per second (tps) as the limit for 1 MB blocks, but 3 tps is probably more accurate.  

Here's a chart that uses extrapolation to estimate the dates when the bitcoin network would reach the blocksize limit (3 tps or 7 tps) if historical growth rates hold.  If we witness another "growth spurt," I expect we will approach 3 tps on several days and the discussions with regards to increasing the blocksize will become more focussed.  
...

Yes I agree. This combined with the threat of an alt-coin, not encumbered by a static blocksize limit, rising up the charts should focus the debate and could lead to a consensus in the Bitcoin community. I am of the belief that Bitcoin will weather this and make the necessary hard fork but it may well take reaching the limit and a good "kick in the pants" from an alt-coin to achieve the necessary consensus. As for which alt-coin I have to agree with aminorex that XMR (Monero) as the leading CryptoNote coin is a good candidate to deliver the necessary "kick in the pants".

[bucktotal]

thanks Peter. a simple and effective graph.

i also think we're going to need to get close to limit before really focus on the issue. (human nature i suppose...)

is there a significant consequence to 2x, 4x, 10x -ing the block size as a temp fix?

[Roy Badami]

So this could be the end of the bitcoin bubbles, possibly. Will a competitor come and dethrone bitcoin? Or, are we just entering a new and much smaller growth period?

This may depend on how the question of the 1 MB max blocksize limit is handled. One thing is certain without an increase in this limit, and a hark fork is necessary for this, Bitcoin will be dethroned by a competitor. Once the limit is reached transaction fees will skyrocket as an ever growing number of transactions compete for the 1 MB space every 10 min. Fortunately Gavin Andresen understands the need for this. So do other Bitcoin developers. The real question in my mind is will they muster the necessary community consensus to make this hard fork happen?

I don't think there's any plausible scenario in which the death of Bitcoin is somehow an opportunity for some altcoin to take its place.  The death of Bitcoin would be the death of cryptocurrency.

I don't agree. BTC is currently caught in the middle of two somewhat conflicting pulls: 1) a means of commerce and 2) and a deeper evolution of modern politics: that is, the changing balance of power between the individual and the state. At this point there are alts mpving full speed ahead in both these two directions, while btc seems paralyzed in the middle. In first direction, alts like Via are moving forward with sidechain possibilities and faster transactions. In the other direction, anons like Cloak and BTCD are moving rapidly towards privacy evolutions that BTC has now forsaken.

Evolution, sythesis, antithesis - this is the nature of life. BTC and crypto in general does not stand apart  from this flow.

If Bitcoin can be replaced by a competitor, then it will almost certainly have failed to act as a store of value.  At that point, why would anyone have confidence in the replacement coin not to be itself replaced in time.  If this scenario were to play out, I think it would damage confidence in cryptocurrencies for the foreseeable future.

[JayJuanGee]

So this could be the end of the bitcoin bubbles, possibly. Will a competitor come and dethrone bitcoin? Or, are we just entering a new and much smaller growth period?

This may depend on how the question of the 1 MB max blocksize limit is handled. One thing is certain without an increase in this limit, and a hark fork is necessary for this, Bitcoin will be dethroned by a competitor. Once the limit is reached transaction fees will skyrocket as an ever growing number of transactions compete for the 1 MB space every 10 min. Fortunately Gavin Andresen understands the need for this. So do other Bitcoin developers. The real question in my mind is will they muster the necessary community consensus to make this hard fork happen?

I don't think there's any plausible scenario in which the death of Bitcoin is somehow an opportunity for some altcoin to take its place.  The death of Bitcoin would be the death of cryptocurrency.

I don't agree. BTC is currently caught in the middle of two somewhat conflicting pulls: 1) a means of commerce and 2) and a deeper evolution of modern politics: that is, the changing balance of power between the individual and the state. At this point there are alts mpving full speed ahead in both these two directions, while btc seems paralyzed in the middle. In first direction, alts like Via are moving forward with sidechain possibilities and faster transactions. In the other direction, anons like Cloak and BTCD are moving rapidly towards privacy evolutions that BTC has now forsaken.

Evolution, sythesis, antithesis - this is the nature of life. BTC and crypto in general does not stand apart  from this flow.

Although I agree that alt-cryptocoins can be a place for innovation, Based on the market, your conclusion about the stagnant state of BTC seems incorrect.  BTC's share of the market cap continues to grow, while all of the others put together are NOT really taking any meaningful market share from BTC.  This may show more of the demise of LTC rather than the demise of BTC.  In conclusion, BTC seems to continue to hold its own, pretty well, and so far.

[Peter R]

is there a significant consequence to 2x, 4x, 10x -ing the block size as a temp fix?

Increasing the hard-coded blocksize limit as a temporary fix is trivial from the software perspective, but it is a hard fork.  In pseudo code:

   if (blocknumber > 350,000) blocksize_limit = 4 MB

   else blocksize_limit = 1 MB

I expect that we will implement a temporary fix like this ^^ when we get closer to the limit.  There will also be a strong commitment at this point that the next change will implement a floating blocksize limit.  The algorithm used to calculate this limit must be chosen very carefully and shouldn't be rushed.