Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[cypherdoc]

curious.  i haven't heard any news of Greeks fleeing to gold.  of course, my news feed is biased towards Bitcoin.  nonetheless, i do read traditional sources and haven't heard a peep about that while Bitcoin buying articles seem to be abound.

that should tell you something.  and that is, with a standard internet connection, even in the presence of a Great Firewall of China which Greece doesn't have, ordinary citizens can easily find their way to Bitcoin buying sources.  the articles from yesterday were quoting business up 10x.  even Greeks are somehow buying gold in the background, i doubt it would be to that magnitude due to the increased ease, storage, transportation, safety, & speed of buying Bitcoin.

that shows us one other thing.  if blocks continue to get filled and inaccessible, then ordinary citizens at far ends of the Earth will not be able to buy Bitcoin when they need to.  sure, Greece isn't technically a 3rd world country but it's more towards that end of the spectrum nowadays than a developed country.

i spent all day watching blocks sizes and degree of fullness.  there was filling going on all day long with TPS bursting to 30TPS many times throughout the day as well as unconf tx's doubling even tripling.  2.3 TPS is the threshold for when the network starts having problems.

bottomline is, there will be much more demand coming from all over the world in quite near times to come.  Bitcoin has to be ready to scale.  Any forward looking person who understands business knows to look forward and prepare.  the fastest, simplest, most predictable, most easily understood way to do that is to increase the block size now.

[cypherdoc]

dammit.  here we go again upon just checking.  unconf tx's over 7000:

[cypherdoc]

trusty 'ol Goldcorp gone off the cliff:

[cypherdoc]

Gold collapsing.  Bitcoin UP.

[cypherdoc]

blocks full again with TPS unacceptably high --> unconf tx set ~ 3000, more than double normal.  pools taking defensive action.  when will Blockstream devs do something?:

Why do you call this "defensive" action?

when Chinese pools face a series of what they consider to be "large blocks", which in this case means full blocks as you can see from the data, they automatically switch to mining "header" blocks with 0 tx's during the time it takes to process all the tx's in the preceding large block.  this is b/c large blocks take a bit more time to process and check all the signatures so the argument goes that they can't afford to waste that precious time so for defensive purposed they just go ahead and start hashing  the next block with only the  "header" that in this case contain no tx's that might have included an invalid input from the preceding large block.

[sickpig]

dammit.  here we go again upon just checking.  unconf tx's over 7000:

any chances of an on going stress test ?

[cypherdoc]

what's interesting to me is that all these full blocks that have been coming more frequently and consecutively have not caused any block delays.  that is good news b/c there are some who thought that as we filled the 1MB limit, there might be delays and have pointed to just this mechanism in the past when we've had such delays.  so we know 1MB blocks don't slow down the network.  so just how high can we push this limit w/o breaking it?

[_mr_e]

blocks full again with TPS unacceptably high --> unconf tx set ~ 3000, more than double normal.  pools taking defensive action.  when will Blockstream devs do something?:

Why do you call this "defensive" action?

when Chinese pools face a series of what they consider to be "large blocks", which in this case means full blocks as you can see from the data, they automatically switch to mining "header" blocks with 0 tx's during the time it takes to process all the tx's in the preceding large block.  this is b/c large blocks take a bit more time to process and check all the signatures so the argument goes that they can't afford to waste that precious time so for defensive purposed they just go ahead and start hashing  the next block with only the  "header" that in this case contain no tx's that might have included an invalid input from the preceding large block.

So they switch back to working on a full block if they aren't able to solve the block header in the time it takes to fully process everything?

[cypherdoc]

dammit.  here we go again upon just checking.  unconf tx's over 7000:

any chances of an on going stress test ?

i doubt it as yesterday's scheduled test didn't conform to it's stated plan.  

and really, does it matter?  how can you tell in most circumstances unless spam tx's are coming from a single address?  and if the tx's are paying the regular fees, which they are, who cares?  the miners will make hay and be more profitable.  actually, i do care b/c that means ordinary users that might square the network effect (Metcalfe) wanting in from places like Greece might not be able to get in.  yes, the 1MB'ers will say that they're just coming in thru places like Coinbase, which they are, but i'd counter argue that in the medium to long run Coinbase has to buy supply from the mainchain to keep their reserves high.  so it does feed through.

[cypherdoc]

blocks full again with TPS unacceptably high --> unconf tx set ~ 3000, more than double normal.  pools taking defensive action.  when will Blockstream devs do something?:

Why do you call this "defensive" action?

when Chinese pools face a series of what they consider to be "large blocks", which in this case means full blocks as you can see from the data, they automatically switch to mining "header" blocks with 0 tx's during the time it takes to process all the tx's in the preceding large block.  this is b/c large blocks take a bit more time to process and check all the signatures so the argument goes that they can't afford to waste that precious time so for defensive purposed they just go ahead and start hashing  the next block with only the  "header" that in this case contain no tx's that might have included an invalid input from the preceding large block.

So they switch back to working on a full block if they aren't able to solve the block header in the time it takes to fully process everything?

yep.  and that makes sense b/c they want not only the reward but the fees if they can get them.

[cypherdoc]

what's interesting to me is that all these full blocks that have been coming more frequently and consecutively have not caused any block delays.  that is good news b/c there are some who thought that as we filled the 1MB limit, there might be delays and have pointed to just this mechanism in the past when we've had such delays.  so we know 1MB blocks don't slow down the network.  so just how high can we push this limit w/o breaking it?

what's also really interesting is that currently, i'm not seeing any 0 tx defensive blocks being mined.  maybe the Chinese miners are figuring out that it's not necessary.  that's more good news b/c we want them munching as many tx's as possible in a consistent manner. 

and that's good news b/c they are probably figuring out that a block size increase can't hurt them if done in a "safe" way, whatever that means.

[_mr_e]

what's interesting to me is that all these full blocks that have been coming more frequently and consecutively have not caused any block delays.  that is good news b/c there are some who thought that as we filled the 1MB limit, there might be delays and have pointed to just this mechanism in the past when we've had such delays.  so we know 1MB blocks don't slow down the network.  so just how high can we push this limit w/o breaking it?

what's also really interesting is that currently, i'm not seeing any 0 tx defensive blocks being mined.  maybe the Chinese miners are figuring out that it's not necessary.  that's more good news b/c we want them munching as many tx's as possible in a consistent manner. 

and that's good news b/c they are probably figuring out that a block size increase can't hurt them if done in a "safe" way, whatever that means.

I think that if we see blocks fill up and the network starts functioning poorly, we are going to see a change pushed out far quicker then any of us ever imagined.

[cypherdoc]

what's interesting to me is that all these full blocks that have been coming more frequently and consecutively have not caused any block delays.  that is good news b/c there are some who thought that as we filled the 1MB limit, there might be delays and have pointed to just this mechanism in the past when we've had such delays.  so we know 1MB blocks don't slow down the network.  so just how high can we push this limit w/o breaking it?

what's also really interesting is that currently, i'm not seeing any 0 tx defensive blocks being mined.  maybe the Chinese miners are figuring out that it's not necessary.  that's more good news b/c we want them munching as many tx's as possible in a consistent manner. 

and that's good news b/c they are probably figuring out that a block size increase can't hurt them if done in a "safe" way, whatever that means.

I think that if we see blocks fill up and the network starts functioning poorly, we are going to see a change pushed out far quicker then any of us ever imagined.

well, let's hope so.

i believe the confliction runs deep with those guys.  i mean, their careers are on the line if they ever want any more investment money.  that's just the way these things work.

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

I think that if we see blocks fill up and the network starts functioning poorly, we are going to see a change pushed out far quicker then any of us ever imagined.

Indeed. Theory is theory, lips will flap endlessly while they can. First sign of pain, opinion will go way lopsided.

[cypherdoc]

I think that if we see blocks fill up and the network starts functioning poorly, we are going to see a change pushed out far quicker then any of us ever imagined.

Indeed. Theory is theory, lips will flap endlessly while they can. First sign of pain, opinion will go way lopsided.

what pain?  the BS guys have withstood an onslaught of adverse community opinion and afaic they aren't backing down.  they have a fiduciary responsibility to make either or both of their products, SC's or LN, work.  and with gmax at the helm issuing orders, i don't see how any of the other guys break away.

[_mr_e]

I think that if we see blocks fill up and the network starts functioning poorly, we are going to see a change pushed out far quicker then any of us ever imagined.

Indeed. Theory is theory, lips will flap endlessly while they can. First sign of pain, opinion will go way lopsided.

what pain?  the BS guys have withstood an onslaught of adverse community opinion and afaic they aren't backing down.  they have a fiduciary responsibility to make either or both of their products, SC's or LN, work.  and with gmax at the helm issuing orders, i don't see how any of the other guys break away.

We don't need them for every one else to realize what we need to do to fix the network immediately if it breaks. XT may get some very quick uptake.

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

Pain = Actual major problems in the network, heavy complaints from users, use cases hindered, and most importantly a stalled rally where blocksize gets the blame.

[tvbcof]

...
that shows us one other thing.  if blocks continue to get filled and inaccessible, then ordinary citizens at far ends of the Earth will not be able to buy Bitcoin when they need to.  sure, Greece isn't technically a 3rd world country but it's more towards that end of the spectrum nowadays than a developed country.

i spent all day watching blocks sizes and degree of fullness.  there was filling going on all day long with TPS bursting to 30TPS many times throughout the day as well as unconf tx's doubling even tripling.  2.3 TPS is the threshold for when the network starts having problems.

Ya, I told a Greek friend of mine that he might be able to preserve some of his lifes savings and transfer it in spite of the capital controls.  When I told him that the fees might be higher than about a penny, and he might have to wait for more than the next block, he said "No thanks.  I'll just kiss the 100k euro away.  The bankers need it more than I do."  Gosh foreigners are weird.

bottomline is, there will be much more demand coming from all over the world in quite near times to come.  Bitcoin has to be ready to scale.  Any forward looking person who understands business knows to look forward and prepare.  the fastest, simplest, most predictable, most easily understood way to do that is to increase the block size now.

Easiest to to let Google run Bitcoin as they do for email.  I'd probably still run my own mail server and have some modicum of privacy if it were not for the thousands of spams I get per day and the constant hassle of keeping my filters up-to-date and stuff.

[rocks]

what's interesting to me is that all these full blocks that have been coming more frequently and consecutively have not caused any block delays.  that is good news b/c there are some who thought that as we filled the 1MB limit, there might be delays and have pointed to just this mechanism in the past when we've had such delays.  so we know 1MB blocks don't slow down the network.  so just how high can we push this limit w/o breaking it?

what's also really interesting is that currently, i'm not seeing any 0 tx defensive blocks being mined.  maybe the Chinese miners are figuring out that it's not necessary.  that's more good news b/c we want them munching as many tx's as possible in a consistent manner.  

and that's good news b/c they are probably figuring out that a block size increase can't hurt them if done in a "safe" way, whatever that means.

I think that if we see blocks fill up and the network starts functioning poorly, we are going to see a change pushed out far quicker then any of us ever imagined.

As of 12:03pm eastern time blockchain.info is reporting 11.6MB unconfirmed transactions and 1.95BTC in fees (mostly from minimum fees).

Is there another stress test going on? Or did a bunch of guys decide to flood the network to push for larger blocks...

[cypherdoc]

what's interesting to me is that all these full blocks that have been coming more frequently and consecutively have not caused any block delays.  that is good news b/c there are some who thought that as we filled the 1MB limit, there might be delays and have pointed to just this mechanism in the past when we've had such delays.  so we know 1MB blocks don't slow down the network.  so just how high can we push this limit w/o breaking it?

what's also really interesting is that currently, i'm not seeing any 0 tx defensive blocks being mined.  maybe the Chinese miners are figuring out that it's not necessary.  that's more good news b/c we want them munching as many tx's as possible in a consistent manner.  

and that's good news b/c they are probably figuring out that a block size increase can't hurt them if done in a "safe" way, whatever that means.

I think that if we see blocks fill up and the network starts functioning poorly, we are going to see a change pushed out far quicker then any of us ever imagined.

As of 12:03pm eastern time blockchain.info is reporting 11.6MB unconfirmed transactions and 1.95BTC in fees (mostly from minimum fees).

Is there another stress test going on? Or did a bunch of guys decide to flood the network to push for larger blocks...

or maybe Greeks, Europeans, gold, & stock mkt investors are running to Bitcoin?  we don't know.