rpietila Wall Observer - the Quality TA Thread ;)

[JayJuanGee]

I think you are confusing UTXO and unconfirmed transactions.  The UTXO set is all confirmed transactions that have unspent outputs.

Edited the original post, is my question clearer now ?

why edit the original post rather than clarifying the matter in a subsequent post?

A lot of this blocksize debate seems to be speculative with a lot of potential solutions with NONE Of them being real detrimental to the overall health of bitcoin, except possibly mostly for the creation of FUD and downward price manipulations.

[fairglu]

Storage (a hierarchy, in general), CPU power, and bandwidth are all potential bottlenecks and the future critical factor will depend in on the path of technological evolution which is difficult to predict. Most expect bandwidth, I believe.

Bandwidth is already a problem, because larger blocks already have a higher likelihood of being orphaned, and IMHO that's the point which makes blocksize discussion mostly hypothetical. Larger blocks are already unprofitable for miners, if they make large blocks it's out of goodwill.

Storage is the second issue, but that is fixable in the long run through pruning: no point in storing and replicating historic transactions that have long been over-confirmed. Historic transactions are irrelevant for bitcoin as a storage or value or a mean of payment, they are useful for validating, but that could be replaced by automatic check points every few months f.i., and everything historic beyond the last checkpoint could be pruned, keeping only the UTXO.

[ArticMine]

Storage (a hierarchy, in general), CPU power, and bandwidth are all potential bottlenecks and the future critical factor will depend in on the path of technological evolution which is difficult to predict. Most expect bandwidth, I believe.

Bandwidth is already a problem, because larger blocks already have a higher likelihood of being orphaned, and IMHO that's the point which makes blocksize discussion mostly hypothetical. Larger blocks are already unprofitable for miners, if they make large blocks it's out of goodwill.

Storage is the second issue, but that is fixable in the long run through pruning: no point in storing and replicating historic transactions that have long been over-confirmed. Historic transactions are irrelevant for bitcoin as a storage or value or a mean of payment, they are useful for validating, but that could be replaced by automatic check points every few months f.i., and everything historic beyond the last checkpoint could be pruned, keeping only the UTXO.

Yes but if orphan blocks is the only limitation, miners will simply demand a higher fee to overcome the probability of an orphan block. This will create a fee market. If the price of bandwidth drops then the fee will be driven down. All of this works provided that there is a block reward.

[billyjoeallen]

Storage (a hierarchy, in general), CPU power, and bandwidth are all potential bottlenecks and the future critical factor will depend in on the path of technological evolution which is difficult to predict. Most expect bandwidth, I believe.

Bandwidth is already a problem, because larger blocks already have a higher likelihood of being orphaned, and IMHO that's the point which makes blocksize discussion mostly hypothetical. Larger blocks are already unprofitable for miners, if they make large blocks it's out of goodwill.

Storage is the second issue, but that is fixable in the long run through pruning: no point in storing and replicating historic transactions that have long been over-confirmed. Historic transactions are irrelevant for bitcoin as a storage or value or a mean of payment, they are useful for validating, but that could be replaced by automatic check points every few months f.i., and everything historic beyond the last checkpoint could be pruned, keeping only the UTXO.

Yes but if orphan blocks is the only limitation, miners will simply demand a higher fee to overcome the probability of an orphan block. This will create a fee market. If the price of bandwidth drops then the fee will be driven down. All of this works provided that there is a block reward.

I draw the opposite conclusion. If larger blocks have a higher probability of being orphaned, miners will make their blocks as small as possible, even significantly under the maxblocksize limit. This is why the debate seems so silly. We don't need a software-coded block size limit at all.  blocks that are too big will get orphaned.  This is happening NOW.  It's why so few blocks are anywhere near the 1 MB limit. 

We don't pay miner fees to get xactions confirmed. We pay to get them confirmed quickly.  That is a market that exists TODAY.  We need larger block size limts to scale. We need to scale to get wider adoption. Wider adoption is another way of saying more decentralization (or accurately distribution) of users. Why is mining centralization the only centralization that smallblockers care about? 

7 TPS is a joke. We need a PREDICTABLE SCHEDULE of block size increases or a complete removal of a size limit. I am not opposed to Garzic's temporary 2 MB limit so that we can see what happens and evaluate the effects, but this needs to happen soon. Our competition is not sitting by idly watching this play out. They are  making plans to grab Bitcoin's market share. In some cases, they are already cutting into it.

[Fontas Returns]

We have some MAJOR bearish divergence on the short term charts. It's going to slam down HARD this weekend. Sell now if you didn't already because you missed my nearly spot on call on the top of the recent pump and didn't sell then like I advised. Set buys @ 225.

[billyjoeallen]

We have some MAJOR bearish divergence on the short term charts. It's going to slam down HARD this weekend. Sell now if you didn't already because you missed my nearly spot on call on the top of the recent pump and didn't sell then like I advised. Set buys @ 225.

I'm optimistic. I'm going for $229

of course with so few shorts to halt the dip, we may go much lower. 

[lunarboy]

Right, Ok so my misunderstanding on this scaling debate comes down to one question.

Assuming vast quantities of transactions, and no restrictions on block size.  Where is the primary processing/storage bottleneck? Is it in the temporary size of the mempool, (pre processing), or the permanent size of the blockchain? (post processing)

Storage (a hierarchy, in general), CPU power, and bandwidth are all potential bottlenecks and the future critical factor will depend in on the path of technological evolution which is difficult to predict. Most expect bandwidth, I believe.

Great timing from mike. Pretty much provides the answers I was looking for. Namely a fee market can and might develop around the mempool storage.

  https://medium.com/@octskyward/mempool-size-limiting-a3f604b72a4a

[fairglu]

I draw the opposite conclusion. If larger blocks have a higher probability of being orphaned, miners will make their blocks as small as possible, even significantly under the maxblocksize limit. This is why the debate seems so silly. We don't need a software-coded block size limit at all.  blocks that are too big will get orphaned.  This is happening NOW.  It's why so few blocks are anywhere near the 1 MB limit. 

Exactly, and there are not so few blocks with only 1 tx (the coinbase), and regularly blocks with less than 100 tx.

The problem is that fees need to get much, much higher than 1 or 2 mBTC per tx to make it worth for miners.

7 TPS is a joke. We need a PREDICTABLE SCHEDULE of block size increases or a complete removal of a size limit.

Block size increase in itself is not going to increase the number of TPS because of the orphan risk.

To compete on a global scale with just Paypal, bitcoin would need on the order of 700 TPS, or 100 MB block size, at which point the risk of a block getting orphaned would be very very high.

IMHO the key of the scalability battle is not the block size, it's the fee structure and block propagation. There needs to be ways to minimize orphan block risks, maybe by allowing fork merging: a block could be allowed to have multiple next & previous blocks. This way if two blocks come at the same time, rather than one orphaning the other, the next block could accept both.

Currently if block B & C are mined based on block A, then only B or C will be accepted by block D being mined on either B or C.

The proposal would be that D could accept both B & C, and then half the B & C rewards would be burned by D (so the total reward is unchanged).

[billyjoeallen]

I draw the opposite conclusion. If larger blocks have a higher probability of being orphaned, miners will make their blocks as small as possible, even significantly under the maxblocksize limit. This is why the debate seems so silly. We don't need a software-coded block size limit at all.  blocks that are too big will get orphaned.  This is happening NOW.  It's why so few blocks are anywhere near the 1 MB limit. 

Exactly, and there are not so few blocks with only 1 tx (the coinbase), and regularly blocks with less than 100 tx.

The problem is that fees need to get much, much higher than 1 or 2 mBTC per tx to make it worth for miners.

7 TPS is a joke. We need a PREDICTABLE SCHEDULE of block size increases or a complete removal of a size limit.

Block size increase in itself is not going to increase the number of TPS because of the orphan risk.

To compete on a global scale with just Paypal, bitcoin would need on the order of 700 TPS, or 100 MB block size, at which point the risk of a block getting orphaned would be very very high.

IMHO the key of the scalability battle is not the block size, it's the fee structure and block propagation. There needs to be ways to minimize orphan block risks, maybe by allowing fork merging: a block could be allowed to have multiple next & previous blocks. This way if two blocks come at the same time, rather than one orphaning the other, the next block could accept both.

Currently if block B & C are mined based on block A, then only B or C will be accepted by block D being mined on either B or C.

The proposal would be that D could accept both B & C, and then half the B & C rewards would be burned by D (so the total reward is unchanged).

So the block chain becomes a block tree.  Then processing power becomes the bottleneck because you have to validate blocks D,E,F, and G then 8 blocks for the next block reward, etc.

[molecular]

I draw the opposite conclusion. If larger blocks have a higher probability of being orphaned, miners will make their blocks as small as possible, even significantly under the maxblocksize limit. This is why the debate seems so silly. We don't need a software-coded block size limit at all.  blocks that are too big will get orphaned.  This is happening NOW.  It's why so few blocks are anywhere near the 1 MB limit.  

I'd like to believe that myself, but...

That (the bolded part above) is true now, but it might change. Think IBLT or other "block transmission compression schemes". Will there still be enough penalty in the form of orphan risk cost for big blocks?.

Makes me think of that proposal by Meni: Elastic block cap with rollover penalties.

[Fatov]

Where is the next break point?

[coinableS]

Where is the next break point?

I closed my long from 228 yesterday at 241. This morning about 12 hours ago I went short.
I'm thinking something like this, but only short term.



I don't think we'll go much below 232 the 3 day still looks bullish.

[Fatov]

Where is the next break point?

I closed my long from 228 yesterday at 241. This morning about 12 hours ago I went short.
I'm thinking something like this, but only short term.



I don't think we'll go much below 232 the 3 day still looks bullish.

Good move @coinableS
I'll have to follow your post 

[coinableS]

Where is the next break point?

I closed my long from 228 yesterday at 241. This morning about 12 hours ago I went short.
I'm thinking something like this, but only short term.



I don't think we'll go much below 232 the 3 day still looks bullish.

Good move @coinableS
I'll have to follow your post 

Thanks, I was a bit off on the 232, it went $4 below. I wasn't expecting that drop yesterday. Currently not in any positions, but leaning towards taking another long. Looking at the 3 day, I think the new green candle could engulf the 3 previous reds which would be very nice 

[fox19891989]

For my view, the USD side of the equation in not considered often enough. All fiat will loose value over a long
period of time(hence my username  lol). This alone will cause BTC in USD dollars to rise longterm. At the bare minimum,
if you can buy a Superbowl quality TV now for one bitcoin, then you will be able to do so in the future. The USD cost
of the TV will be much higher and I think it's pretty safe to assume the value of bitcoin will outpace it, causing the amount
of bitcoin needed for a TV is drop below 1.

[rpietila]

Every step deeper towards the final calamities makes me feel to write something

My condolences to the victims of the first day.

Every time terrible things happen, we should first get our loved ones out of harm's way, then help everyone, then check the official narrative of the event, and then find out what makes it an impossible and obvious lie.

A handy way to find out the culprit is to see what measures are pushed to the public as a result. I know the whole "refugee crisis" is manufactured from the start, the documents dating back a few years outlined it even to the municipality level, so nothing special there. The problem of comprehension is in the end of reader, same as not understanding the discussion, decision and documented plan of U.S. to start chemtrails in 1964, being totally open and accessible to read.

I exhort everyone to understand also that the attacks were coordinated, the way only special services can do. Facts do not support independent muslim action here. Also, the muslims have lived at peace for hundreds of years despite their violent holy book, could it be that the recent extremism is instigated by CIA? Of course it is, I know the whole Arab Spring stuff to destabilize the region is their doing, as well as practically all political unstability for the last 25 years. (CIA includes Mossad, because the latter, despite being smaller, effectively controls the CIA).

Politicians are powerless to fight CIA. JFK was murdered when he wanted USA to stop paying usury to bankster-owned Fed, and wanted to rein CIA as well. Since then, every president there has been a tool. European countries occasionally have people in high positions who are not infiltrated, but not too many. Example of Finland going on right now is the dream national right-wing government composed of opposition figures, turned completely to support the worst NWO agenda immediately upon coming to power.

We also cannot eradicate CIA, or ISIS, or any other tool that they have created - I mean this not in the sense of giving up, but just recognizing the fact. You cannot attack evil with evil. What you can do - what I can do - to purge the influence of evil is:

- Live at peace with everyone. But make sure to never yield an inch to lie, for that is your end. (Doing this in our age is more difficult perhaps than ever before, because everything is a lie, and being distanced from everything is not easy, yet is mandatory to retain what Bible terms "saltiness".)

- Pray that the days of tribulation will be shortened, that Daniel 2 and Revelation would soon manifest themselves.

- Every day wake up trusting in the Lord that he has given you this day to do good. Ask him what is "good". It may turn out to be rather more interesting than you could make up for yourself even if you tried!

- Accept what comes. Even a hair will not fall from your head without God knowing. Jesus cried for Jerusalem, and I also cry for you, but I will not lament my destiny, I have chosen my side.

Numerous times I have been attacked by nominally state agencies. Each of my friends who has moved a little on the path of understanding, has similarly been harassed. I have lived in a self-imposed exile in Estonia for some time now, latest prompted by the extrajudicial arrests (and torture, such as not knowing when you will get water the next time, turning out to be 72 hours) of my colleagues in Finland.

It terrifies me that people can "just obey their orders" and do such evil things (both gunning down civilians and torturing prisoners is very evil). At the same time it does not terrify me at all since we are eternal beings, and have been given one life here, and that is just a passing moment. When heaven and earth will pass away and cannot be found, and the White Throne is there, everyone will be responsible of his own deeds, so whether my destiny is to be assassinated in my inauguration ceremony, or mind-controlled, humiliated, destroyed as a person, forcibly drugged and thrown to an asylum until I die - what I can do, I must do. What I cannot do, is not my problem, and if any of my writings are more appreciated when people are more awake, remember that the writings were true all the time, it was you who changed 

In my estimation, the world as we know it (Satan's "kosmos") is dismantling in not so many years, 20 maybe.

[BitChick]

I love this post! I think that for many of us our "eyes are being opened."  Things are not always what they seem and it takes God given discernment to see beyond what the media portrays things.  But you are right in that we cannot "fight evil with evil."

I am becoming more grateful each day, as I see things unfolding around me, that I am learning not to trust in my government, not to trust in USD, basically not to trust any anything but God and His words that do not change.   I too feel that in prayer this is a time of preparation for us.  Things will most likely change drastically in the years to come.

[nicked]

Did I accidentally click on the wrong thread? I thought this was "rpietila Wall Observer - the Quality TA Thread "

[BitChick]

Did I accidentally click on the wrong thread? I thought this was "rpietila Wall Observer - the Quality TA Thread "

Have you been to the other "TA Thread?"  There is a reason this one is called the "Quality" one.

[Hyena]

I have lived in a self-imposed exile in Estonia for some time now, latest prompted by the extrajudicial arrests (and torture, such as not knowing when you will get water the next time, turning out to be 72 hours) of my colleagues in Finland.

Most of what you said is true about CIA, NWO, chemtrails and Satan. However, it gets me angry when you start praising multiculturalism while living IN MY FUCKING COUNTRY. I'm a native Estonian and I believe we have enough refugees (Russian refugees from the WW2). Even when there is evidence suggesting that Muslims are being set up by CIA to make them seem evil, their culture has no place in Estonia. We all know how they are raping white women in Sweden and Norway and such behaviour is absolutely not tolerated here. Go back to Finland you old fart if you want to live with Muslims and Nigerians.