Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[justusranvier]

With single node or 6 nodes we do not need POW. We already had this centralized services. ... but they are all down.

Can you rephrase your comment in terms of how the number of nodes is related to the number of copies of the blockchain in the world, and how both of those affect the ability of an attacker to perform double spending and censorship attacks?

[1713506396]

1713506396

[1713506396]

1713506396

[1713506396]

1713506396

[1713506396]

1713506396

[1713506396]

1713506396

[1713506396]

1713506396

[Odalv]

With single node or 6 nodes we do not need POW. We already had this centralized services. ... but they are all down.

Can you rephrase your comment in terms of how the number of nodes is related to the number of copies of the blockchain in the world, and how both of those affect the ability of an attacker to perform double spending and censorship attacks?

If there is only 1 copy of blockchain then I expect it is located in 1 datacenter. (node)

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

China threatening short sellers.  Shades of US back in 2008.  the volatility back then makes Bitcoin look like cake:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-07-09/china-soars-most-2009-after-government-threatens-sellers-arrest-global-stocks-surge

Speaking of volatility:




(From the very good Pantera Report)

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

And also speaking of volatility, it seems that I was indeed right in my predictions of a move up.

And it looks like there's a lot more coiled tension where that came from:

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

Another image from the Pantera Report:



If you ignore the late-2013 bubble as being entirely due to Willy Bot / fractional cash reserves at MtGox, it looks like we could be entering the next big run-up right on cue. Or perhaps a little late, with a commensurate increase in pent-up energy.

The stars are aligning: the mother of all stability crests, cyperdoc's Three Buckets with venture capital and mining topping out, years of good news that the price went down on that needs to be corrected, even EW analysis has turned bullish, and of course Greece (and China, and Puerto Rico...).

[cypherdoc]

Another image from the Pantera Report:



If you ignore the late-2013 bubble as being entirely due to Willy Bot / fractional cash reserves at MtGox, it looks like we could be entering the next big run-up right on cue. Or perhaps a little late, with all the more pent-up momentum.

The stars are aligning: the mother of all stability crests, cyperdoc's Three Buckets with venture capital and mining topping out, years of good news that the price went down on that needs to be corrected, even EW analysis has turned bullish, and of course Greece (and China, and Puerto Rico...).

into the next Bull CYCLE?

[cypherdoc]

Yes, but the ongoing spam shows clearly that all full nodes are handling the traffic just fine. We were told that they would crash and burn from overloaded memory. Not true.

Wait, wasn't that exactly Hearn's main argument in his "the sky is falling if we don't increase the blocksize" blog post?  So why do you see the fact that it did not prove true so far as supporting your position of increasing the block size?

b/c the congestion really has only just begun.  if it persists, yes, ppl will start to stop using Bitcoin.  the exit starts slowly at first and then will morph into a stampede; especially if the price starts plunging.  the mempool is a problem that does have to be fixed so that ordinary users can start getting their tx's through.  they won't be as patient as some of us here.

[BTCtrader71]

the congestion really has only just begun.  if it persists, yes, ppl will start to stop using Bitcoin.  the exit starts slowly at first and then will morph into a stampede; especially if the price starts plunging.  the mempool is a problem that does have to be fixed so that ordinary users can start getting their tx's through.  they won't be as patient as some of us here.

In 5-10 years I can imagine having a handful of dominant blockchains that run in parallel. Today we have Visa, MC, Discover, and AmEx; tomorrow we have bitcoin, litecoin, monero, whatever. Actually we will STILL have Visa, MC etc but they will each utilize multiple blockchains as behind-the-scenes payment rails. If one blockchain goes down, Visa (or whoever puts Visa out of business) will switch to another until the problem is resolved. (All behind the scenes as far as John Q Public is concerned.) If not resolved in a timely manner, miners shut down due to reduced transaction fees (after days-weeks, maybe months of downtime), and that chain suffers. If all major blockchains are running smoothly, then the preferred chains would be the ones with the widest acceptance - just like credit cards today.

It would take a lot of downtime though to kill off a prominent blockchain. It takes time to build up lots of hashpower. And even if miners turn off, where are they going to go, and what prevents them turning back on, once the technical problem (whatever it is) is (hopefully) fixed? Presumably, the major competing blockchains will not use mining equipment that can be switched from one blockchain to another.
 

[Odalv]

Don't worry.  According to Mike Hearn Bitcoin can survive just fine with 4 or 6 (forgot which) copies of the blockchain worldwide.

Is he right or wrong about that?

Via what methodology would we test that hypothesis before arriving at a conclusion about its validity?

Who cares?  Before you ask that question you need to show reasonable likelihood that increasing the block size to 8MB will drop the number of full nodes to 4 or 6.

Frankly, I think that a dramatic reduction of nodes is more likely if Bitcoin becomes a settlement network than if the block size is increased to 8MB.  NOBODY will be interested in holding the data if they can't use the network, so the only full nodes will be those sponsored by the payment aggregators.  These aggregators are also perfect locations for governments to apply identity and green address pressure, destroying fungibility.

What do you think about reduction of nodes if the block size is increased to 8,000 MB ?
Why do you think "NOBODY will be interested" processing 100,000 transaction per day worth $1,000,000 in fees ?  (especially in the case, that it can be run on a phone ? -> almost no expenses )

Edit:
if you keep block size small then no sponsors are required to run full node b/c it is cheap and millions will run full node just for fun. (I'll be one of them)

[HeliKopterBen]

the exit starts slowly at first and then will morph into a stampede; especially if the price starts plunging.  the mempool is a problem that does have to be fixed so that ordinary users can start getting their tx's through.  they won't be as patient as some of us here.

It looks like the bull cycle has already started and investors are looking for alternatives, likely because of the 1mb attack that has gone unresolved for years now.  Hopefully its not too late to increase the limit and let the bull run... or maybe its time to jump ship.

[brg444]

the exit starts slowly at first and then will morph into a stampede; especially if the price starts plunging.  the mempool is a problem that does have to be fixed so that ordinary users can start getting their tx's through.  they won't be as patient as some of us here.

It looks like the bull cycle has already started and investors are looking for alternatives, likely because of the 1mb attack that has gone unresolved for years now.  Hopefully its not too late to increase the limit and let the bull run... or maybe its time to jump ship.

Or maybe it's just another trick whales are using to get the last weak hands to dump their BTC. This "attack" is just part of their schemes.

You people need to stop with the paranoia and the scare tactics. All this money is gonna end up flowing back into BTC in due times. Lots of people are going to end up holding the LTC, PPC and NMC bag.

There is no problem with Bitcoin.

[iCEBREAKER]

Yes, but the ongoing spam shows clearly that all full nodes are handling the traffic just fine. We were told that they would crash and burn from overloaded memory. Not true.

Wait, wasn't that exactly Hearn's main argument in his "the sky is falling if we don't increase the blocksize" blog post?  So why do you see the fact that it did not prove true so far as supporting your position of increasing the block size?

b/c the congestion really has only just begun.  if it persists, yes, ppl will start to stop using Bitcoin.  the exit starts slowly at first and then will morph into a stampede; especially if the price starts plunging.  the mempool is a problem that does have to be fixed so that ordinary users can start getting their tx's through.  they won't be as patient as some of us here.

Tip your miner a dollar 'to insure promptness.'

There is no congestion, only load.  Congestion would be if tx with competitive fees were nevertheless delayed.

Wallets and exchanges are upgrading to adaptive fees, and Bitcoin will soon be all the stronger for the experience.

That's how antifragility works.  These encounters with adversity in the form of spam and crapfloods are already increasing Bitcoin's resilience.   

[Odalv]

Yes, but the ongoing spam shows clearly that all full nodes are handling the traffic just fine. We were told that they would crash and burn from overloaded memory. Not true.

Wait, wasn't that exactly Hearn's main argument in his "the sky is falling if we don't increase the blocksize" blog post?  So why do you see the fact that it did not prove true so far as supporting your position of increasing the block size?

b/c the congestion really has only just begun.  if it persists, yes, ppl will start to stop using Bitcoin.  the exit starts slowly at first and then will morph into a stampede; especially if the price starts plunging.  the mempool is a problem that does have to be fixed so that ordinary users can start getting their tx's through.  they won't be as patient as some of us here.

Yes people will stop using Bitcoin b/c they have to pay $0.5 per transaction. They rather use bank and will pay $20.
 

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

The sub-coins (Litecoin, Peercoin, and Namecoin - the original three popular alts) were down from their average ratio to BTC and were due for an upward correction. As usual, the stress testing is just the trigger, just the domino that sets off the cascade of pent-up tension there. It would have happened sooner or later anyway.

Note the orange line, showing Litecoin price in term of BTC. It's merely returning to its usual ratio. It will likely overshoot a bit out of exuberance, then settle back down.

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

Yes people will stop using Bitcoin b/c they have to pay $0.5 per transaction. They rather use bank and will pay $20.

Or use an altcoin that doesn't fetishize 1MB blocks and pay $0.01. Bitcoin can't afford to be ultra-conservative in the face of endless altcoin competition. It must take calculated risks or be overtaken.

[cypherdoc]

Yes people will stop using Bitcoin b/c they have to pay $0.5 per transaction. They rather use bank and will pay $20.

Or use an altcoin that doesn't fetishize 1MB blocks and pay $0.01. Bitcoin can't afford to be ultra-conservative in the face of endless altcoin competition. It must take calculated risks or be overtaken.

so important to demonstrate that it is indeed open source adaptable and resilient.  forks are not to be feared but to be encouraged in the proper situations.

if i have to migrate to a new chain and lose money doing it, i'm done with  crypto.

[Odalv]

Yes people will stop using Bitcoin b/c they have to pay $0.5 per transaction. They rather use bank and will pay $20.

Or use an altcoin that doesn't fetishize 1MB blocks and pay $0.01. Bitcoin can't afford to be ultra-conservative in the face of endless altcoin competition. It must take calculated risks or be overtaken.

 or ... there are SC

[cypherdoc]

Yes people will stop using Bitcoin b/c they have to pay $0.5 per transaction. They rather use bank and will pay $20.

Or use an altcoin that doesn't fetishize 1MB blocks and pay $0.01. Bitcoin can't afford to be ultra-conservative in the face of endless altcoin competition. It must take calculated risks or be overtaken.

 or ... there are SC

like i said:

if i have to migrate to a new chain and lose money doing it, i'm done with crypto.

they warned us in the WP it could happen.

[Odalv]

Yes people will stop using Bitcoin b/c they have to pay $0.5 per transaction. They rather use bank and will pay $20.

Or use an altcoin that doesn't fetishize 1MB blocks and pay $0.01. Bitcoin can't afford to be ultra-conservative in the face of endless altcoin competition. It must take calculated risks or be overtaken.

 or ... there are SC

like i said:

if i have to migrate to a new chain and lose money doing it, i'm done with crypto.

they warned us in the WP it could happen.

Please, tell me how many bitcoin are you spending everyday ? Did you spend any during 6 years ?

[iCEBREAKER]

the congestion really has only just begun.  if it persists, yes, ppl will start to stop using Bitcoin.  the exit starts slowly at first and then will morph into a stampede; especially if the price starts plunging.  the mempool is a problem that does have to be fixed so that ordinary users can start getting their tx's through.  they won't be as patient as some of us here.

Yes people will stop using Bitcoin b/c they have to pay $0.5 per transaction. They rather use bank and will pay $20.
 

[Frappuccino_Doc]

African kids don't have banks, nor $20.  Cheep space on 8GB Gavinblocks is their (and by extension, all of humanity's) only hope.

The network is congested, even though transactions with appropriate fees are working just fine.  Efficiency is more important than resiliency.

Satoshi never planned for Bitcoin to be decentralized forever.  We must try hard to increase adoption, at any cost.

MPEX and everyone else opposed to larger blocks ASAP are Monero pumpers.  Especially iCEBREAKER and tvbcof.

The core devs are corrupt and worthless.  We would be better off with Mike "Drop fees by 10x" Hearn and some guys from Rent-A-Coder.

I'm an OG true believer in the potential of stateless e-cash.  if i have to migrate to a new chain and lose money doing it, i'm done with  crypto.

People will stop using gold as a store of value, because Bitcoin is here to stay no matter what.  Bitcoin is going to die without larger blocks.

Cripplecoin.

[/Frappuccino_Doc]