Are blockchain tracking sites tracking Segwit adoption wrong?

[franky1]

yea you can stretch out the data back to 2009 to sway thee eyes away from the period of concern
but care to notice the 2018 cliff edge that went BELOW 2016-17 levels

kind of funny you think including 2009-2015 is helpful.
when infact people will notice a nice exponential curve upwards. that then went weird after mid 2017
and no segwit had nothing to do with 2009-2015

as for fees
"median" dang, im not gonna repeat the long lengthy debate where lauda tried that "median" trick a couple years back
hint. to save months of social drama... median has nothing to do with average

for instance
1-1-1-1-1-9-9-9-9 of the set of 9 transaction amounts median=1
EG i could make a block of 9 transactions and put my own transactions paying myself 1sat 5 times(stat tweaking). and then let in normal peoples transactions (real community) of 9sat
thus the community majority pay 9 but the stats tweak show on graph sites that use "median" show only '1'
yet the average would be 4.555555
(BTCC done alot of throwing in lots of free transactions from its own exchange.. purely to make stats look better then general reality of whole community utility)


transaction fee's again.. by looking at the lack of transactions per block. explains itself
nothing at all to do with segwit gets more transactions in but cheaper.. because .. there are LESS transactions(2018 cliff dive)

oh and also if you look at the bytes USED per tx and if you count the PRICE people pay. you will see they pay more now than in 2016

but i do find it funny about using the "median" as oppose to average.  yea i remembered that lil trick

funny that when segwit was announced people were hopeful to get back below 10cents average amounts again.
funny that when the base block is not actually 100% filled. the fee's are not below 10cents

[1713867769]

1713867769

[1713867769]

1713867769

[franky1]

green line=community expectation of natural growth
red line. .. well ill let you work out what happened mid 2017.. where the red line begins and shows a different direction than the expections


(quick hand doodle dont knitpick the specifics. just concentrated on the question about green vs red)
the peak at end of 2017-start of 2018 is just he couple month drama of ATH
but again explain why the red curve.
i also beside the eye swaying 2009-2018 chart. i done a 2016-2018 specific.. chart beside it... just to draw attention to the point of this topic related to segwit which was first mentioned and debated blah blah blah. not in 2009-15 but from 2016+ just so people can concentrate on that period

i also included some dotted lines that help show rough area of transaction lows and highs of both 2016 and 2017. to also show that 2018 fell below 2016-2017 standards

but again.. explain the red line.. i think you all know exactly what happened at the point where green met red. (hint mid 2017)

[HeRetiK]

[...]

but again.. explain the red line.. i think you all know exactly what happened at the point where green met red. (hint mid 2017)

IIRC that drop in daily transactions around June was when the spam transactions subsided, presumably because the proponents of what is now Bitcoin Cash / Bitcoin ABC (FKA Bitcoin Unlimited FKA Bitcoin XT) gave up on trying to pressure Core into increasing the block size; finally deciding to simply fork off instead. On a closer look the initial release of Bitcoin XT in late 2015 also marks the beginning of the suspicious acceleration in transaction amount growth. Most likely a coincidence but still a kinda weird one at that, especially in retrospect.

I do assume you have a different take on it though?

[Wind_FURY]

yea you can stretch out the data back to 2009 to sway thee eyes away from the period of concern
but care to notice the 2018 cliff edge that went BELOW 2016-17 levels

Because 2016 - 2017 was the start and the peak of the hype. Would you say that it will never reach and surpass that level again? Or would you say that the fees will be higher than ever if it surpasses that level? Because it will, and it will have lower fees.

Plus I believe median was used to avoid "skewing" the data from the extreme numbers from outliers.

Where did you get the "green line"?

[franky1]

yea you can stretch out the data back to 2009 to sway thee eyes away from the period of concern
but care to notice the 2018 cliff edge that went BELOW 2016-17 levels

Because 2016 - 2017 was the start and the peak of the hype. Would you say that it will never reach and surpass that level again? Or would you say that the fees will be higher than ever if it surpasses that level? Because it will, and it will have lower fees.

it was you that shown off the 2009-2018 data.. so i just shown the curve of that graph. also with all the (false) promotion of "more transactions" and stuff.. that curve would continue on its 10 year trend... (under core expectations/PR/assumptions)
the green curve was within the confines of expectation, even with block limits. (because transactions per block are not at expected "peak" capacity, so you cant say it would platto out due to capacity as the capacity of cores promotion is more than 7tx/s right... while reality at the green/red is not even 3.5tx/s)

oh.. and the ATH spike actually shows that capacity hadnt peaked and actually had more potential.......
but.. as the curve shows the reality of transactions DROPPING at mid 2017

Plus I believe median was used to avoid "skewing" the data from the extreme numbers from outliers.

thats something that got debated and laughed about a couple years ago.
long story short
median can be more scewed and abused than anything.

median has nothing to do with what multiple people spend.
median has nothing to do with what average spend it.
median is just what the SINGLE piggy in the middle spent.(not group, not community. just the single middle)
which can be easily prepared collated and tweaked

Where did you get the "green line"?

its called looking and observing.

look at the chart which you provided for the last near 10 years and see the curve
EG
if you were to see this:
            /\/
        /\/
    /\/
/\/
if you flatten out the small tips and dips. would you call it a vertical?, or horizontal? or diagonal line?
you would call it a diagonal line.. same goes for your 10 year chart. you would see a curve.

its just basic shape recognition a 5 year old can do

[franky1]

[...]

but again.. explain the red line.. i think you all know exactly what happened at the point where green met red. (hint mid 2017)

IIRC that drop in daily transactions around June was when the spam transactions subsided, presumably because the proponents of what is now Bitcoin Cash / Bitcoin ABC (FKA Bitcoin Unlimited FKA Bitcoin XT) gave up on trying to pressure Core into increasing the block size; finally deciding to simply fork off instead. On a closer look the initial release of Bitcoin XT in late 2015 also marks the beginning of the suspicious acceleration in transaction amount growth. Most likely a coincidence but still a kinda weird one at that, especially in retrospect.

I do assume you have a different take on it though?

though above appears to be just another meander off topic and a point finger to kardashian drama session.. ill address it
(but dang im starting to notice this tactic occur so much)

HeRetiK.. gotta love the finger pointing that it was someone else creating spam.
the 2015 spam ......... oh you mean the core bips... for instance the checksequenceverify bip was a very spammy period as one example i remember (gotta laugh at a certain dev that ramped up his favourite mixer service at that time period. wasnt that subtle)
(you might wanna check your calender vs core bips)

funny thing is. spam only happens when core want a new BIP adopted under the premise "transactions are at peak, adopt us and we give you more capacity"

no other proposal had mandatory adoption. no other proposal had tricks to get adoption.
over the years xt, bu, classic and others just released software and if people didnt adopt it. no deadlines. no force no coercion. just let people run it and see what happened..it was a 'oh well consensus said no.'

only core couldnt take no as an option..(blockstream devs had a seed round tranche of funds bet on the november 2017 ultimate deadline)
 core only had 35% vote winter2016 - start of summer 2017.. they hated it. but didnt want to back down and go back to the drawing board. it was a core roadmap or else.
lesson to core.. when someone says "take the highroad" that means eat your hat, accept no as the answer. and retreat with respect... doesnt mean to actually TAKE the road

i hope you now calender check and blockchain data check which bips occured at spammy periods. .. oh and i mean data check, not reddit/twitter kardashian drama PR check

[HeRetiK]

IIRC that drop in daily transactions around June was when the spam transactions subsided, presumably because the proponents of what is now Bitcoin Cash / Bitcoin ABC (FKA Bitcoin Unlimited FKA Bitcoin XT) gave up on trying to pressure Core into increasing the block size; finally deciding to simply fork off instead. On a closer look the initial release of Bitcoin XT in late 2015 also marks the beginning of the suspicious acceleration in transaction amount growth. Most likely a coincidence but still a kinda weird one at that, especially in retrospect.

I do assume you have a different take on it though?

HeRetiK.. gotta love the finger pointing that it was someone else creating spam.
funny thing is. spam only happens when core want a new BIP adopted under the premise "transactions are at peak, adopt us and we give you more capacity"

[...]

frank1... gotta love the finger pointing that it was Core creating spam.

In all seriousness though, obviously we don't know who was responsible for creating the spam and probably never will. However Bitcoin Cash proponents being behind the transaction spam makes more sense to me due to (1) Core developers insisting on Bitcoin not running at capacity yet (which would have been the case, if not for the spam transactions) and (2) Bitcoin Unlimited / XT / ABC chanting the eternal song of "look at all these transactions, we need to move now and increase the block size" while flaming Core for "doing nothing" while "organic growth" is "overloading the network".

For all we do know though it might just have been Coinbase fucking up the network with their (back then) lack of transaction batching.

That being said I appreciate you posting your view on that matter.

[franky1]

frank1... gotta love the finger pointing that it was Core creating spam.

In all seriousness though, obviously we don't know who was responsible for creating the spam and probably never will.
For all we do know though it might just have been Coinbase fucking up the network with their (back then) lack of transaction batching.

That being said I appreciate you posting your view on that matter.

1. presuming is was random. is a laugh. check the core BIP dates (july 2015 spam attack .... bip for CSV)
2. not coinbase non-batching.. the transactions were from a mixer well known linked to a certain dev
3. even if coinbase spammed. check the puppet master dcg.co/portfolio/#c.. also note a dev group in #b

but thats digressing off the point. since segwit there has been a red curve of transactions

oh and before you presume the red curve 2018 drop was due to lets say coinbase batching.. that too can be proved just a presumption.
because if that was the case. you would on one of the charts windfury provided for the topic (inputs and outputs)
in a situation of batching. would see inputs and outputs rise .. not fall.

.. in 2018 coinbase did start batching.. but still the transaction count chart.. AND the inputoutput chart BOTH DROPPED
which means coinbase had little influence.
(the 'spam' if you analyse the blockchain and not reddit PR. shows it was MIXER caused..people actually put in a lil amount of coin into the main mixers and later followed the taint. so blockchain analysis revealed the actual truth.. not reddit/twitter PR)

oh.. by the way. dont now presume "Wu CHINA" spammed.. as the blockchain data (again not reddit PR) can show "Wu clan" was not filling blocks to spam that things are over capacity.. (hint: empty blocks = less spam)

..
finally to hopefully put to rest the meander about "conservatism" aka "doing nothing"

the drama which i call the "floppydisk space(1mb) or else servers" is so laughable.
Kodak tried that in 1999 when they too thought going digital with microsd cards wont work due to limits of floppy disks...

the reply the world gave kodak was .. what i shall call now a 256GB space is a fingernail size bit of plastic
we are not in the floppy, dialup era.. we are in in fibre/5G/microsd era..

if anyone wants to say 1mb is too much for 10minutes.. better tell liverstreamers, skyp/facetimers, gamers that.. oh wait. that would be a laugh

[HeRetiK]

1. presuming is was random. is a laugh. check the core BIP dates (july 2015 spam attack .... bip for CSV)
2. not coinbase non-batching.. the transactions were from a mixer well known linked to a certain dev
3. even if coinbase spammed. check the puppet master dcg.co/portfolio/#c.. also note a dev group in #b

The Coinbase bit was more of a joke so if that presumption made you laugh than I guess the joke worked... kinda?

Point being that while the transaction drop-off is unlikely to be a coincidence it is also close to impossible to tell who's play it was. Even less so if a mixer was involved.

[...]

oh.. by the way. dont now presume "Wu CHINA" spammed.. as the blockchain data (again not reddit PR) can show "Wu clan" was not filling blocks to spam that things are over capacity.. (hint: empty blocks = less spam)

I don't quite get what you are trying to say. Mining empty blocks (as was the case with Antpool, especially) increases the effectiveness of spam transactions so your hint of "empty blocks = less spam" makes absolutely no sense to me.

[...]

the drama which i call the "floppydisk space(1mb) or else servers" is so laughable.
Kodak tried that in 1999 when they too thought going digital with microsd cards wont work due to limits of floppy disks...

That's an oversimplification of the complexity of the issue and you should know better than that. But it's also pretty much off-topic and has been argued to death so I'll leave it at that.

[franky1]

I don't quite get what you are trying to say. Mining empty blocks (as was the case with Antpool, especially) increases the effectiveness of spam transactions so your hint of "empty blocks = less spam" makes absolutely no sense to me.

how can "wu clan" spam MORE confirmed transactions. if wu clan are not adding spam transactions to thier block.
EG
a train
you only have a filled train if you put more people on the train. you cant blame a train driver for filling trains if that train isnt filled. what you should do is ask the other train drivers of other trains(pools) why they let people get on and off at every station to cause issues.
(hint. could be solved by introducing a fee priority rule that costs users more that spend more than 2 times a day or a rule that tx's wont get added to a block unless 6 confirms)
you dont simply reddit shout "wu clan must be adding lots of 1 confirm tx's" .. because blockchain data doesnt show that to be the case


also about the mixer. knowing the taint followed a particular mixer and you analyze the blockdata. and whos mixer is linked to particular people. you get to see which group is more involved.

and yes i did laugh at the joke.. the whole kardashan drama to finger point away from devs is the funniest part though.
yet its the devs who are literally the only ones that write the code that cause changes to the protocol that cause protocol issues.

its real funny when some people point fingers at people who dont even write a line of code... thats true comedy

my mindset is blockchains dont scale themselves. devs CODE scaling.
if a dev says blockchains cant scale. and the dev is refusing to scale it.
its the dev that has failed.
again blockchains are not some AI. its reliant on devs. so if a dev says no. then its the dev that is refusing. not the technology
(if you reply with typical floppydisk size data or else server farm reply that circles since 3 years+ ago..... update yourself microsd, fibre,5g)

[Wind_FURY]

yea you can stretch out the data back to 2009 to sway thee eyes away from the period of concern
but care to notice the 2018 cliff edge that went BELOW 2016-17 levels

Because 2016 - 2017 was the start and the peak of the hype. Would you say that it will never reach and surpass that level again? Or would you say that the fees will be higher than ever if it surpasses that level? Because it will, and it will have lower fees.

it was you that shown off the 2009-2018 data.. so i just shown the curve of that graph. also with all the (false) promotion of "more transactions" and stuff.. that curve would continue on its 10 year trend... (under core expectations/PR/assumptions)
the green curve was within the confines of expectation, even with block limits. (because transactions per block are not at expected "peak" capacity, so you cant say it would platto out due to capacity as the capacity of cores promotion is more than 7tx/s right... while reality at the green/red is not even 3.5tx/s)

oh.. and the ATH spike actually shows that capacity hadnt peaked and actually had more potential.......
but.. as the curve shows the reality of transactions DROPPING at mid 2017

But do you believe that Bitcoin will never surpass those peak numbers of transactions again?

Plus I believe median was used to avoid "skewing" the data from the extreme numbers from outliers.

thats something that got debated and laughed about a couple years ago.
long story short
median can be more scewed and abused than anything.

median has nothing to do with what multiple people spend.
median has nothing to do with what average spend it.
median is just what the SINGLE piggy in the middle spent.(not group, not community. just the single middle)
which can be easily prepared collated and tweaked

Those people who laughed maybe do not know anything about statistics. Median is used because it is not as affected by outliers that will skew the data as the mean is.

Median is better for data if the distribution is not symmetrical.

Where did you get the "green line"?

its called looking and observing.

look at the chart which you provided for the last near 10 years and see the curve
EG
if you were to see this:
            /\/
        /\/
    /\/
/\/
if you flatten out the small tips and dips. would you call it a vertical?, or horizontal? or diagonal line?
you would call it a diagonal line.. same goes for your 10 year chart. you would see a curve.

its just basic shape recognition a 5 year old can do

Hahahahaha! "Graphing at first glance".