Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[justusranvier]

Is there a reason to expect this error to change over time?

Quite possibly, as new wallets come into use that operate in ways different than what Blockchain's heuristics expect.

As transactions become more complex in general, the less accurate that estimate becomes.

[1713416669]

1713416669

[1713416669]

1713416669

[1713416669]

1713416669

[smooth]

Is there a reason to expect this error to change over time?

Quite possibly, as new wallets come into use that operate in ways different than what Blockchain's heuristics expect.

As transactions become more complex in general, the less accurate that estimate becomes.

I'd be interested in a specific hypothesis we could test. There seems to be a sustained trend over a period of years. I agree it is possible that wallets in use could be a factor. For example, Coinbase has gotten very large during this time period (though I'm not sure how much transaction activity is tied to them as opposed to number of registered users).

On the other hand I'm not sure that shifting wallet adoption overall has been such a continuous process and I think the simpler explanation is that transactions actually are getting smaller (or remaining constant in BTC terms). I threw out a couple of arguably plausible reasons why that might be, but that is certainly not a complete list, and it may not even be true. The Bitpay hypothesis (more retail-type transactions which are smaller than speculator transactions) is another one.

[bucktotal]

https://blockchain.info/charts/estimated-transaction-volume-usd?timespan=2year&showDataPoints=false&daysAverageString=7&show_header=true&scale=0&address=

chart linked by NotHatinJustTrollin:



hm, that's interesting. So USD tx volume is roughly stable but number of transactions skyrockets. This means the average amount of a tx is going down.

Any rationale for this?

just brainstorming...

if we take a closer look at the last 2 yrs in log plots, and completely ignore the second gox bubble, usd tx volume has increased about 2.5-3x. 

if we take a closer look at the last 2 yrs of the number of tx excl pop add., for the same range of time, txs have increased about 4x.  its not crazy different. a lot of usd tx volume centered around gox and huge prices.

there could also just be more micro tx being used in the economy (more xcp tx, colored coins, etc)

[solex]

just brainstorming...

if we take a closer look at the last 2 yrs in log plots, and completely ignore the second gox bubble, usd tx volume has increased about 2.5-3x. 

if we take a closer look at the last 2 yrs of the number of tx excl pop add., for the same range of time, txs have increased about 4x.  its not crazy different. a lot of usd tx volume centered around gox and huge prices.

there could also just be more micro tx being used in the economy (more xcp tx, colored coins, etc)

Well, the USD has appreciated against many other currencies by 20% in the last 2 years. So that 2.5-3x can be increased by 10-15% to take account of that.

[BldSwtTrs]

What's happening with cash is crazy: http://www.forbes.com/sites/francescoppola/2015/04/25/the-swiss-have-eliminated-the-zero-lower-bound/

It seems BTC will ultimately not be useful against inflation but against negative rates.

[molecular]

hm, that's interesting. So USD tx volume is roughly stable but number of transactions skyrockets. This means the average amount of a tx is going down.

Any rationale for this?

Number of transactions is an objective number that's easy to measure.

There's more uncertainty about USD volume, since there's no way to be 100% sure which output in a transaction is a spend and which one is change.

good point.

So it could be that distribution of funds across addresses increased (probably correlated to lower address reuse and increased use of HD wallets). When funds are spread accross more addresses within wallets, naturally the error in measuring transaction volume decreases, because wallets can find more suitable inputs from the larger set => change percentage in transactions decreases => error decreases.

[molecular]

What's happening with cash is crazy: http://www.forbes.com/sites/francescoppola/2015/04/25/the-swiss-have-eliminated-the-zero-lower-bound/

It seems BTC will ultimately not be useful against inflation but against negative rates.

Aren't "inflation" (monetary) and "negative rates" directly correlated (by central bank action)?

[molecular]

What's happening with cash is crazy: http://www.forbes.com/sites/francescoppola/2015/04/25/the-swiss-have-eliminated-the-zero-lower-bound/

That article is well worth a read.

The argument for denying the large cash withdrawal the Pension Fund Association wanted to make goes from

International anti-money laundering (AML) guidelines require banks to monitor and report suspicious activity on accounts.

to

Banks are completely within their rights to refuse to enact transactions that they believe may be intended to facilitate financial crime or money laundering.

So the argument goes from "required by guidelines to report transactions" to "judge transactions and refuse to enact them". Quite a jump.

So essentially the bank is both judge and executor? wow. And the "international guidelines on AML" (which seem to get elevated to law here) are written by who?

It'll be interesting to follow this. If the refusal of the cash withdrawal is deemed lawful (which I assume will happen), the mechanism which Hans Peter Konrad doesn't want to admit he understands can continue.

The director of the Pension Fund Association ASIP, Hans Peter Konrad, has been angry for weeks about the fact that pension funds suffer from negative interest rates. He says: “We do not understand why the banks are getting involved.”

If on the other hand the bank is forced to allow the cash withdrawal... get out the wheelbarrows?

[smooth]

hm, that's interesting. So USD tx volume is roughly stable but number of transactions skyrockets. This means the average amount of a tx is going down.

Any rationale for this?

Number of transactions is an objective number that's easy to measure.

There's more uncertainty about USD volume, since there's no way to be 100% sure which output in a transaction is a spend and which one is change.

good point.

So it could be that distribution of funds across addresses increased (probably correlated to lower address reuse and increased use of HD wallets). When funds are spread accross more addresses within wallets, naturally the error in measuring transaction volume decreases, because wallets can find more suitable inputs from the larger set => change percentage in transactions decreases => error decreases.

Okay then, for a start, is the average output size decreasing (and at the same rate or at least with some correlation)?

Remember, also, that "error" can be positive or negative, so much if it will cancel out. Just making the argument that error is decreasing in magnitude doesn't explain a year-long trend in one direction. There could be some systematic (one directional) trend in error though, but not necessarily.

Address balances don't matter by the way, nor does address reuse, because outputs feed transactions, not addresses.

[funundercoinking]

yes it does so.......

[cypherdoc]

This is where everyone has to dig deep.

[cypherdoc]

What's happening with cash is crazy: http://www.forbes.com/sites/francescoppola/2015/04/25/the-swiss-have-eliminated-the-zero-lower-bound/

That article is well worth a read.

The argument for denying the large cash withdrawal the Pension Fund Association wanted to make goes from

International anti-money laundering (AML) guidelines require banks to monitor and report suspicious activity on accounts.

to

Banks are completely within their rights to refuse to enact transactions that they believe may be intended to facilitate financial crime or money laundering.

So the argument goes from "required by guidelines to report transactions" to "judge transactions and refuse to enact them". Quite a jump.

So essentially the bank is both judge and executor? wow. And the "international guidelines on AML" (which seem to get elevated to law here) are written by who?

It'll be interesting to follow this. If the refusal of the cash withdrawal is deemed lawful (which I assume will happen), the mechanism which Hans Peter Konrad doesn't want to admit he understands can continue.

The director of the Pension Fund Association ASIP, Hans Peter Konrad, has been angry for weeks about the fact that pension funds suffer from negative interest rates. He says: “We do not understand why the banks are getting involved.”

If on the other hand the bank is forced to allow the cash withdrawal... get out the wheelbarrows?

This is a variant of a bank run.

[molecular]

This is a variant of a bank run.

Yes.

A central bank run?

[cypherdoc]

Going to be changing the poll soon so get your votes in.

[molecular]

So it could be that distribution of funds across addresses increased (probably correlated to lower address reuse and increased use of HD wallets). When funds are spread accross more addresses within wallets, naturally the error in measuring transaction volume decreases, because wallets can find more suitable inputs from the larger set => change percentage in transactions decreases => error decreases.

Address balances don't matter by the way, nor does address reuse, because outputs feed transactions, not addresses.

You could be right. After much thinking and playing with some numbers, I'm not sure anymore. Postponed.

[rpietila]

Does anyone see the connection between Mt.Gox and the western banking system?

Your balances in the bank are soon only nominally same thing as cash in hand. They never were quite the same, but as convertibility is severed, the price will also diverge.

[NewLiberty]

So the argument goes from "required by guidelines to report transactions" to "judge transactions and refuse to enact them". Quite a jump.

It pits the notion of "Legal Tender" and "right to refuse service" at odds.  The bank wins both ways.

Central banking has waged an international war on cash for a long time.
We are down to about 10% off ledger money (cash) now in the USA for example.

The banker's goal is for money to only ever exist or move at their pleasure.  It becomes monetary totalitarianism.  To quote Bernard von Nothaus, "People can not be free until their money is free".

[tabnloz]

Happened to look at Google trends page and noticed they had a part of global Bitcoin searches. Take from it what you will.

2012: Finland, Sweden, US, Australia, Norway, Canada, Russia

2013: China, Netherlands, Estonia, HK, US, Finland, Czech

2014: Iceland, Estonia, China, US, Canada, Slovenia, Singapore

2015: Slovenia, Ukraine, Singapore, HK, US, Canada, Sweden


Last 12 months, surprisingly, the largest regional interest came from Ghana. Then Slovenia, Estonia and a tad further down Latvia.


Eastern / Fringe Euro area are interested in alternate store of value, Africa for utility.

[_mr_e]

http://www.finextra.com/finextra-downloads/newsdocs/esma_call_for_evidence.pdf

time to get in

Looks like it's time to get in NXT.

[cypherdoc]

http://www.finextra.com/finextra-downloads/newsdocs/esma_call_for_evidence.pdf

time to get in

Looks like it's time to get in NXT.

Isn't it dead yet? And if not, why not?