Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[cypherdoc]

I just heard the NYSE halted trading.

geezuz.

you see, it's a systemic global problem as i have been saying all along.

the sweet smell of Deflation.

Technical issues   http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=^dji

Market crashing?  Not anymore!



How con-ven-ient!   

yep.  you can bet the glitch was to protect some insiders ponzi.

[1714168008]

1714168008

[1714168008]

1714168008

[1714168008]

1714168008

[iCEBREAKER]

No really guys there's no contagion.........from Greece  

EDIT: very promising that BTC remains independent

EDIT2: front page marketwatch lol: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/greeces-disease-wont-infect-healthy-european-countries-2015-07-08

What contagion?  Everything is fine!

[cypherdoc]

No really guys there's no contagion.........from Greece  

EDIT: very promising that BTC remains independent

EDIT2: front page marketwatch lol: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/greeces-disease-wont-infect-healthy-european-countries-2015-07-08

What contagion?  Everything is fine!

just b/c he could get that wrong doesn't mean his entire thesis is wrong.  plus, he's got me as a counter balance.

[cypherdoc]

look at this.  80K unconf tx's and 6.76TPS and yet gmax et al says there's no problem.  all that wasted computational work done by full nodes for blocks that will never clear those unconf tx's.  i told you long ago these guys will never even be able to recognize a problem even when it's staring them in the face and even after it's beat them over the head:

[iCEBREAKER]

What contagion?  Everything is fine!

just b/c he could get that wrong doesn't mean his entire thesis is wrong.  plus, he's got me as a counter balance.

Getting that key premise wrong does in fact mean his entire consequent thesis is wrong.  EG:

I think we're about to see an explosion of bandwidth to the home, because the ongoing financial crisis will get much worse and big companies are investing in infrastructure again. And people LOVE streaming video....

^That^ doesn't make sense.  QED, Gavin explicitly and inseparably tied larger block feasibility to the supposed end of the financial crisis and subsequent future infrastructure investment.

Gavin is right about one thing however.  The sky will not fall because of full blocks.

Now please return to the normal Chicken Little routine.  It would be so quite in here without your panicked squawking.   

[OROBTC]

...

The NYSE down.  The Bitcoin Ecosystem under attack (and yes, it is an attack, all the spamming).  China down.  Greece.

CNBC is now saying that *it appears* that the NYSE freeze-up probably is a somewhat benign software update.  Well, we'll see.

I have preached elsewhere DIVERSIFICATION for those with assets.  But, please count this as my last such comment here.

/OT

And now back to your regular technical programming.  

[cypherdoc]

What contagion?  Everything is fine!

just b/c he could get that wrong doesn't mean his entire thesis is wrong.  plus, he's got me as a counter balance.

Getting that key premise wrong does in fact mean his entire consequent thesis is wrong.  EG:

I think we're about to see an explosion of bandwidth to the home, because the ongoing financial crisis will get much worse and big companies are investing in infrastructure again. And people LOVE streaming video....

^That^ doesn't make sense.  QED, Gavin explicitly and inseparably tied larger block feasibility to the supposed end of the financial crisis and subsequent future infrastructure investment.

Gavin is right about one thing however.  The sky will not fall because of full blocks.

Now please return to the normal Chicken Little routine.  It would be so quite in here without your panicked squawking.   

you have no idea what a true fee mkt is.  it's not what we're getting now.  the above graph i just put up shows tremendous stress on Bitcoin usage by new and existing users.  what's ironic is that the continuous stream of full blocks is a reflection of miners begging for bigger blocks so that they can chew through that mempool in an instant.  that "clearing" of the mempool would enforce losses on the spammer.  right now, they can just recycle their spam as it gets deleted every 24 h while still causing damage to the user experience. 

get your head out of your ass.

[Odalv]

...  the above graph i just put up shows tremendous stress on Bitcoin usage by new and existing users.  what's ironic is that the continuous stream of full blocks is a reflection of miners begging for bigger blocks so that they can chew through that mempool in an instant.  ...

It is spam attack and with 8MB block it will be worse.

... if blocks were 8MB: an 8MB transaction with 22,500 inputs and 3.95MB of outputs takes over 11 minutes to hash ....

[kazuki49]

look at this.  80K unconf tx's and 6.76TPS and yet gmax et al says there's no problem.  all that wasted computational work done by full nodes for blocks that will never clear those unconf tx's.  i told you long ago these guys will never even be able to recognize a problem even when it's staring them in the face and even after it's beat them over the head:

So the fix is to happily write these 80k spam transactions into the permanent ledger that we (full nodes) have to keep a copy of forever?

This may be the first false-flag attack on the Bitcoin network, just look how the henchman on this thread is salivating over this controlled crisis to force their botched fork.

[cypherdoc]

look at this.  80K unconf tx's and 6.76TPS and yet gmax et al says there's no problem.  all that wasted computational work done by full nodes for blocks that will never clear those unconf tx's.  i told you long ago these guys will never even be able to recognize a problem even when it's staring them in the face and even after it's beat them over the head:

So the fix is to happily write these 80k spam transactions into the permanent ledger that we (full nodes) have to keep a copy of forever?

Yes, initially.

After some volatility and after the spammers figure out they can't jack the mempool anymore the attacks should stop.

[cypherdoc]

look at this.  80K unconf tx's and 6.76TPS and yet gmax et al says there's no problem.  all that wasted computational work done by full nodes for blocks that will never clear those unconf tx's.  i told you long ago these guys will never even be able to recognize a problem even when it's staring them in the face and even after it's beat them over the head:

So the fix is to happily write these 80k spam transactions into the permanent ledger that we (full nodes) have to keep a copy of forever?

Yes, initially.

After some volatility and after the spammers figure out they can't jack the mempool anymore the attacks should stop.

someone did a calculation:

For example, with 100mb blocks, forcing average transaction fees up to only $0.06 over the course of a year would genuinely cost an attacker over $1billion.

[Adrian-x]

...  the above graph i just put up shows tremendous stress on Bitcoin usage by new and existing users.  what's ironic is that the continuous stream of full blocks is a reflection of miners begging for bigger blocks so that they can chew through that mempool in an instant.  ...

It is spam attack and with 8MB block it will be worse.

... if blocks were 8MB: an 8MB transaction with 22,500 inputs and 3.95MB of outputs takes over 11 minutes to hash ....

worse for the attacker who would be paying 8 x in fees. miners can upgrade there CPU's if they are having problems collecting the fees.

[iCEBREAKER]

Gavin is right about one thing however.  The sky will not fall because of full blocks.

Now please return to the normal Chicken Little routine.  It would be so quite in here without your panicked squawking.   

you have no idea what a true fee mkt is.  it's not what we're getting now.  the above graph i just put up shows tremendous stress on Bitcoin usage by new and existing users.  what's ironic is that the continuous stream of full blocks is a reflection of miners begging for bigger blocks so that they can chew through that mempool in an instant.  that "clearing" of the mempool would enforce losses on the spammer.  right now, they can just recycle their spam as it gets deleted every 24 h while still causing damage to the user experience. 

get your head out of your ass.

Oh, touchy touchy!  You really don't like it when I use facts, logic, and humor to highlight the contradictions and unsupported assertions in your worldview.  

How precisely does increasing the minimum fee from ~2 to ~5 cents "damage to the user experience?"

Can you explain that as easily as I can explain how undercharging for use of an incredibly valuable service, which consumes ~1.5 days worth of an avg US home's electricity, damages the long term signalling/incentive structures of the system?

[Odalv]

look at this.  80K unconf tx's and 6.76TPS and yet gmax et al says there's no problem.  all that wasted computational work done by full nodes for blocks that will never clear those unconf tx's.  i told you long ago these guys will never even be able to recognize a problem even when it's staring them in the face and even after it's beat them over the head:

So the fix is to happily write these 80k spam transactions into the permanent ledger that we (full nodes) have to keep a copy of forever?

Yes, initially.

After some volatility and after the spammers figure out they can't jack the mempool anymore the attacks should stop.

someone did a calculation:

For example, with 100mb blocks, forcing average transaction fees up to only $0.06 over the course of a year would genuinely cost an attacker over $1billion.

Did he calculate how much will cost memory to keep this spam ?

[cypherdoc]

look at this.  80K unconf tx's and 6.76TPS and yet gmax et al says there's no problem.  all that wasted computational work done by full nodes for blocks that will never clear those unconf tx's.  i told you long ago these guys will never even be able to recognize a problem even when it's staring them in the face and even after it's beat them over the head:

So the fix is to happily write these 80k spam transactions into the permanent ledger that we (full nodes) have to keep a copy of forever?

Yes, initially.

After some volatility and after the spammers figure out they can't jack the mempool anymore the attacks should stop.

someone did a calculation:

For example, with 100mb blocks, forcing average transaction fees up to only $0.06 over the course of a year would genuinely cost an attacker over $1billion.

Did he calculate how much will cost memory to keep this spam ?

Your missing the point that the spammer wouldn't even try it at that cost.

[cypherdoc]

Gavin is right about one thing however.  The sky will not fall because of full blocks.

Now please return to the normal Chicken Little routine.  It would be so quite in here without your panicked squawking.   

you have no idea what a true fee mkt is.  it's not what we're getting now.  the above graph i just put up shows tremendous stress on Bitcoin usage by new and existing users.  what's ironic is that the continuous stream of full blocks is a reflection of miners begging for bigger blocks so that they can chew through that mempool in an instant.  that "clearing" of the mempool would enforce losses on the spammer.  right now, they can just recycle their spam as it gets deleted every 24 h while still causing damage to the user experience. 

get your head out of your ass.

Oh, touchy touchy!  You really don't like it when I use facts, logic, and humor to highlight the contradictions and unsupported assertions in your worldview.  

How precisely does increasing the minimum fee from ~2 to ~5 cents "damage to the user experience?"

Can you explain that as easily as I can explain how undercharging for use of an incredibly valuable service, which consumes ~1.5 days worth of an avg US home's electricity, damages the long term signalling/incentive structures of the system?

Through lost economic activity from repeated stuck TX's. Users will just quit.

There are people from Greece on reddit who say they won't participate in Bitcoin until the spam issue is fixed.

[Odalv]

look at this.  80K unconf tx's and 6.76TPS and yet gmax et al says there's no problem.  all that wasted computational work done by full nodes for blocks that will never clear those unconf tx's.  i told you long ago these guys will never even be able to recognize a problem even when it's staring them in the face and even after it's beat them over the head:

So the fix is to happily write these 80k spam transactions into the permanent ledger that we (full nodes) have to keep a copy of forever?

Yes, initially.

After some volatility and after the spammers figure out they can't jack the mempool anymore the attacks should stop.

someone did a calculation:

For example, with 100mb blocks, forcing average transaction fees up to only $0.06 over the course of a year would genuinely cost an attacker over $1billion.

Did he calculate how much will cost memory to keep this spam ?

Your missing the point that the spammer wouldn't even try it at that cost.

If your calculation is right then using 1 mb block he has to pay $10 million per year.  (and $100M if we rise fee to $0.6)

[cypherdoc]

...  the above graph i just put up shows tremendous stress on Bitcoin usage by new and existing users.  what's ironic is that the continuous stream of full blocks is a reflection of miners begging for bigger blocks so that they can chew through that mempool in an instant.  ...

It is spam attack and with 8MB block it will be worse.

... if blocks were 8MB: an 8MB transaction with 22,500 inputs and 3.95MB of outputs takes over 11 minutes to hash ....

worse for the attacker who would be paying 8 x in fees. miners can upgrade there CPU's if they are having problems collecting the fees.

That's why there should be no limit at which a spammer can aim for. He'd be shooting in the dark in a futile attempt to jack the mempool all the while losing money to miners who will clear his spam immediately until he capitulates from huge losses never to return.

[cypherdoc]

look at this.  80K unconf tx's and 6.76TPS and yet gmax et al says there's no problem.  all that wasted computational work done by full nodes for blocks that will never clear those unconf tx's.  i told you long ago these guys will never even be able to recognize a problem even when it's staring them in the face and even after it's beat them over the head:

So the fix is to happily write these 80k spam transactions into the permanent ledger that we (full nodes) have to keep a copy of forever?

Yes, initially.

After some volatility and after the spammers figure out they can't jack the mempool anymore the attacks should stop.

someone did a calculation:

For example, with 100mb blocks, forcing average transaction fees up to only $0.06 over the course of a year would genuinely cost an attacker over $1billion.

Did he calculate how much will cost memory to keep this spam ?

Your missing the point that the spammer wouldn't even try it at that cost.

If your calculation is right then using 1 mb block he has to pay $10 million per year.  (and $100M if we rise fee to $0.6)

No, the damage to the user base in that scenario will kill user growth which is the one thing that will cause value to square over time.

[iCEBREAKER]

#Chinameltdown  The end of Chinese false economic prosperity (Austrian perspective)

#EconomicCrisisIsOver  US Mint Runs Out Of Silver On Same Day Price Of Silver Plunges To 2015 Lows


The 'spam issue' in Bitcoin will never be fixed (as you define it) because demand for space in the Mother of all Blockchains will always exceed supply.

Soon, wallets will support dynamic intelli-fees and fancy RBF whatnot.

In the mean time, pay 25 cents or a dollar for higher verification priority if you don't want your tx stuck.

If that's too much money for some broke cheapskates, fuck'em.  They aren't bringing "economic activity" (beyond subsidized freeloading) to Bitcoin in the first place.

@pierre_rochard

Those who would give up essential Decentralization, to purchase a little temporary Adoption, deserve neither Decentralization nor Adoption.