Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[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.

[1713424307]

1713424307

[1713424307]

1713424307

[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.

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

It remains to be seen whether people and wallets will start including additional fees to get quick confirmation during the ongoing stress tests, and whether miners will start posting fee schedules, etc. Despite being for a blocksize limit increase/removal, it's undeniable that there is still a lot of space in blocks at only slightly higher fees if the market rationalizes in time. There will be an interesting interplay as blockspace fills up, especially if these stress tests continue. If the fee market rationalizes, this could become a very protracted debate because the small-blockers will gain ground or at least stop the bleeding for long enough to regroup and launch some intellectual counterattack.

[cypherdoc]

this is beautiful.  i continue to NOT hear any news about a rush to gold:

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2015/06/30/online-payments-halted-in-greece-citizens-eye-bitcoin-to-protect-savings/

[cypherdoc]

remember that, if i'm right, and full blocks are indicating additional incremental demand due to currency crises, this is going to be a more regular thing.  this is what we've theorized about for years.  the network HAS to be ready if you want to Moon.

1MB isn't going to cut it.  right now, unconf tx's are now up to 10000 with now >5TPS delays.

also, gold can't possibly act fast enough to compete with Bitcoin.

Dow gone negative, uh oh.

[lunarboy]

this is beautiful.  i continue to NOT hear any news about a rush to gold:

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2015/06/30/online-payments-halted-in-greece-citizens-eye-bitcoin-to-protect-savings/

I going to say the majority of Europeans have been successfully brainwashed, so as to not even consider Gold as an option. In the fiat we trust.

[Adrian-x]

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...

Not sure but as I understand it an increase in value is new information and new information results is market players adjusting and I imagine that means moving their BTC around as a result of changes in behavior.  

I'm not expecting a pop just yet but I don't think maintaining as we are with relatively full blocks is an indication that we'll cope with an increase of tx's if we see the growth the market is anticipating.

[sickpig]

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.

I agree, I've asked only because I know you're active on reddit, that usually is a better source for this kind of events.

that said I was wondering if another thing we could do is limiting max tx size. Did you rember that no more than a one or two months ago Peter Todd said that chain someone put an entire book on the blockchain?

maybe not an absolute limit but a progressive fee per kb... just a thougth.

[tvbcof]

this is beautiful.  i continue to NOT hear any news about a rush to gold:

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2015/06/30/online-payments-halted-in-greece-citizens-eye-bitcoin-to-protect-savings/

I going to say the majority of Europeans have been successfully brainwashed, so as to not even consider Gold as an option. In the fiat we trust.

If I were under capital controls and the mainstream media were constantly crowing about one solution while not mentioning another solution at all, that would act as powerful incentive for me to not trust the promoted solution and look to the non-promoted solution with more interest.  But I'm an odd-ball.

I'm guessing that a fraction of Greeks long ago diversified into PM's, Bitcoin, and a plethora of other options.  Relatively few Greeks who have significant wealth to protect kept a bulk of it demand accounts (or other slightly less easy to appropriate forms) I would think.  Maybe I'm wrong about this though.

[cypherdoc]

this was just too compelling of a post from a business merchant to not link to:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3bmb5r/stress_test_in_full_effect/csnj9op

[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...

Not sure but as I understand it an increase in value is new information and new information results is market players adjusting and I imagine that means moving their BTC around as a result of changes in behavior.  

I'm not expecting a pop just yet but I don't think maintaining as we are with relatively full blocks is an indication that we'll cope with an increase of tx's if we see the growth the market is anticipating.

If this is a true demand situation based on the recent price movement, then if we have a real bubble move the network is simply going to not be able to handle demand. Increasing fees is not an option because there isn't enough space for everyone regardless of the fees they offer.

What is happening right now shows that P2P nodes can in fact handle larger blocks, they are processing the transaction volume fine and have enough BW to forward transactions. In fact by not clearing transactions in blocks and causing the memory pool to increase beyond what it should, the 1MB limit is probably more stressful on nodes than simply letting larger blocks get processed....

[cypherdoc]

that said I was wondering if another thing we could do is limiting max tx size. Did you rember that no more than a one or two months ago Peter Todd said that chain someone put an entire book on the blockchain?

maybe not an absolute limit but a progressive fee per kb... just a thougth.

can you explain the technicalities of that attack?

was it only possible b/c of p2sh?  also, did it only involve a non standard tx?  if so, isn't that only something that a miner could include into a block he self generates?  and why haven't we seen widespread usage of that attack if it's so effective that we have to worry about it?

[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...

Not sure but as I understand it an increase in value is new information and new information results is market players adjusting and I imagine that means moving their BTC around as a result of changes in behavior.  

I'm not expecting a pop just yet but I don't think maintaining as we are with relatively full blocks is an indication that we'll cope with an increase of tx's if we see the growth the market is anticipating.

If this is a true demand situation based on the recent price movement, then if we have a real bubble move the network is simply going to not be able to handle demand. Increasing fees is not an option because there isn't enough space for everyone regardless of the fees they offer.

What is happening right now shows that P2P nodes can in fact handle larger blocks, they are processing the transaction volume fine and have enough BW to forward transactions. In fact by not clearing transactions in blocks and causing the memory pool to increase beyond what it should, the 1MB limit is probably more stressful on nodes than simply letting larger blocks get processed....[/b]

absolutely.  look here.  guys reporting their bitcoind shut down from memory overload.  that sucks:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3bmb5r/stress_test_in_full_effect/csniofb

[lunarboy]

. In fact by not clearing transactions in blocks and causing the memory pool to increase beyond what it should, the 1MB limit is probably more stressful on nodes than simply letting larger blocks get processed....

This is a very valid point not many have talked about yet. I'd like to see what the 'nodemongers' have to say about this?