Author

Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 17600. (Read 26720873 times)

sr. member
Activity: 812
Merit: 250
A Blockchain Mobile Operator With Token Rewards
avoiding a split is paramount!

lets just get the Best BU dev Vs the Best Core dev in Dance Dance revolution competition  
legendary
Activity: 854
Merit: 1000
What kind of transaction are you trying to accomplish that is not reasonable?  Are others trying to accomplish those kinds of unreasonable transactions, too?  They can use some other means, or is bitcoin the only thing that will work for them?  Why does bitcoin need to serve that purpose at this time? 

How about small signature campaign payments? Are they spam?
What about all the gamblers betting small amounts? Are they spam?

What about RAREPEPE? If you don't know, the amazing new counterparty implementation trading rare/scarce assets on the bitcoin blockchain?
Is that spam? Cost for it has gotten outrageous and damn near stopped it dead..

You are pretty much saying that small people should not be using Bitcoin and use some altcoin instead?

Altcoins can't escape current technology either.
ya but they can escape your reasoning that leads you to self imposed unnecessary limits.

Of course they can. Only to crash on the technology limits. In which case, functionality is gone forever.
legendary
Activity: 1120
Merit: 1012
hero member
Activity: 1848
Merit: 640
*Brute force will solve any Bitcoin problem*
Quote
If there had been a HF three years ago from 1MB to 2MB, we'd already be hitting the 2MB limit and BU supporters would be screaming that we need to immediately HF again to 4MB.  And so on, and so on.

They act like that wouldn't be true, but we all know it would.

So apparently for them, every time the block size limit is reached, the solution is simply another 2MB increase.  On and on, until mining centralization by like one person with a total hardware & hashpower monopoly is complete.

In reply to this argument.

Let's imagine we had hard forked to 2mb and the limit was reached.

The Bitcoin price would be between 2-3k PER COIN right now. The Market cap would be somewhere around 40 BILLION.

Ethererum, Dash and Monero would be WAY down, they definitely wouldn't be hitting their highs right now.

We'd have 2x the amount of transaction throughput which means there would be far less mempool backlogs, less network congestion and lower fees, which would overall create a MUCH better user experience.

In other words, it's a GOOD problem to have.

But you crybaby pussies, who apparently think 2017 tech can't handle >1mb, have forced the rise of altcoins, and have irreparably damaged Bitcoin's % of marketshare, and now markets are switching over to ethereum / dash / monero.

It's EFFING RIDICULOUS. These are UTTER FAILURES from a business perspective. It is also an utter failure from the perspective of User Experience. This is why one can only conclude that Bitcoin Core has failed completely in leadership, tactics, and effectiveness, they don't even seem to care about the user experience. All in the name of creating a "fee market" which is not yet needed, and won't be needed for a few more decades down the line.

BU at this point is the only thing that can really save bitcoin.

Fork it already! The time has come.





^bitcoin will live on beyond BTU !!! lmfao!!! :-D
hero member
Activity: 1848
Merit: 640
*Brute force will solve any Bitcoin problem*
What about it? What implications are you trying to get at?

Larger blocks require more resources which harms decentralization.

Indeed, but technological resources are increased over time, thus allowing higher capabilities at same costs (over the years).

As I wrote a few posts ago, in 97, my bandwidth, cpu, storage, ram, was 1/1000th of what I now have.

My pc could probably process ...1kb blocks back then... now 1mb... in 20 years, maybe 1gb.

Satoshi never intended for the 1mb to be set indefinitely. He said, we'll raise it when needed.

Obviously you don't want to have too much, because then it hurts in decentralization and leaves the door open for spamming the blockchain.

It just needs a proper balance.

I think the choices that exist right now may not be enough to gather a good consensus (like 90%+) which may in turn create the need for a new proposal.

- BU is trash, nobody in their right mind wants it.
- Segwit will not get adopted because it increases "complexity" and it makes some miners uncomfortable (translation for: "I like the bitcoin I know, I don't want it to change, with the remote chance it introduces unknown risks")

So, given that neither will go ahead, we'll have to make some other arrangement like a 2mb upgrade in the short term, if we don't want to stick with 1mb. But this option doesn't exist right now and should be programmed and provided by core (=reputable source of code).


^2mb limit IS ONE LINE OF CODE!!!! :-D ~n00bs!!! bwaahahaha
legendary
Activity: 992
Merit: 1000
Quote
If there had been a HF three years ago from 1MB to 2MB, we'd already be hitting the 2MB limit and BU supporters would be screaming that we need to immediately HF again to 4MB.  And so on, and so on.

They act like that wouldn't be true, but we all know it would.

So apparently for them, every time the block size limit is reached, the solution is simply another 2MB increase.  On and on, until mining centralization by like one person with a total hardware & hashpower monopoly is complete.

In reply to this argument.

Let's imagine we had hard forked to 2mb and the limit was reached.

The Bitcoin price would be between 2-3k PER COIN right now. The Market cap would be somewhere around 40 BILLION.

Ethererum, Dash and Monero would be WAY down, they definitely wouldn't be hitting their highs right now.

We'd have 2x the amount of transaction throughput which means there would be far less mempool backlogs, less network congestion and lower fees, which would overall create a MUCH better user experience.

In other words, it's a GOOD problem to have.

But you crybaby pussies, who apparently think 2017 tech can't handle >1mb, have forced the rise of altcoins, and have irreparably damaged Bitcoin's % of marketshare, and now markets are switching over to ethereum / dash / monero.

It's EFFING RIDICULOUS. These are UTTER FAILURES from a business perspective. It is also an utter failure from the perspective of User Experience. This is why one can only conclude that Bitcoin Core has failed completely in leadership, tactics, and effectiveness, they don't even seem to care about the user experience. All in the name of creating a "fee market" which is not yet needed, and won't be needed for a few more decades down the line.

BU at this point is the only thing that can really save bitcoin.

Fork it already! The time has come.

legendary
Activity: 1120
Merit: 1012
So please explain why you feel the need to use a full node if you are not going to mine with it.

Privacy. Censorship resistance. Security.
Paranoia. And I think I'm done with you unless you have something new to add.

Looking at the daily news articles, I would say a little more paranoia wouldn't hurt anyone. Take care.

This is how it has been except in the very earliest years. Again, nothing new under the sun and most future users won't be running full nodes either. Most current users don't.

So... because decentralization is hard and most users don't bother with it, we should ignore it. I disagree.

I would imagine those who are willing to secure large values with Bitcoin are interested in the benefits of running a full node.
Decentralization doesn't mean everyone has to run a full node. It just means nobody controls the network as a whole. We could literally split the entire network between three people and it would still be decentralized as long as none of them controlled over 50% of the network.

We clearly don't see eye to eye. The thing is, Bitcoin as it is right now is perfectly fine with me. You will have to fork the network to get what you want, and I will continue using the existing rules. The different implementations will compete on the free market and maybe we can revisit this discussion in a decade from now.
hero member
Activity: 1848
Merit: 640
*Brute force will solve any Bitcoin problem*
It's already the people with the best hardware that make the most money. This is part of the design. It is not a flaw or anything new.

I'm not speaking of mining.

Also, to play your game.

It's already the people who pay the highest fees that get fast confirmations. This is part of the design. It is not a flaw or anything new.


^i can accept grown up fees thats cool pay the miners a bit more to upgrade their equipment to 2mb threshold...keep calm and /\BTC Cool
sr. member
Activity: 812
Merit: 250
A Blockchain Mobile Operator With Token Rewards
What kind of transaction are you trying to accomplish that is not reasonable?  Are others trying to accomplish those kinds of unreasonable transactions, too?  They can use some other means, or is bitcoin the only thing that will work for them?  Why does bitcoin need to serve that purpose at this time? 

How about small signature campaign payments? Are they spam?
What about all the gamblers betting small amounts? Are they spam?

What about RAREPEPE? If you don't know, the amazing new counterparty implementation trading rare/scarce assets on the bitcoin blockchain?
Is that spam? Cost for it has gotten outrageous and damn near stopped it dead..

You are pretty much saying that small people should not be using Bitcoin and use some altcoin instead?

Altcoins can't escape current technology either.
ya but they can escape your reasoning that leads you to self imposed unnecessary limits.
legendary
Activity: 2268
Merit: 1278
So please explain why you feel the need to use a full node if you are not going to mine with it.

Privacy. Censorship resistance. Security.
Paranoia. And I think I'm done with you unless you have something new to add.

This is how it has been except in the very earliest years. Again, nothing new under the sun and most future users won't be running full nodes either. Most current users don't.

So... because decentralization is hard and most users don't bother with it, we should ignore it. I disagree.

I would imagine those who are willing to secure large values with Bitcoin are interested in the benefits of running a full node.
Decentralization doesn't mean everyone has to run a full node. It just means nobody controls the network as a whole. We could literally split the entire network between three people and it would still be decentralized as long as none of them controlled over 50% of the network.
legendary
Activity: 854
Merit: 1000
If there had been a HF three years ago from 1MB to 2MB, we'd already be hitting the 2MB limit and BU supporters would be screaming that we need to immediately HF again to 4MB.  And so on, and so on.

They act like that wouldn't be true, but we all know it would.

So apparently for them, every time the block size limit is reached, the solution is simply another 2MB increase.  On and on, until mining centralization by like one person with a total hardware & hashpower monopoly is complete.

Well FU, BU.
The current limit is not enough for mainstream use. That is a hard fucking mathematical fact. The transaction limit will have to be raised one way or another, sooner or later.

So you're cool with destroying decentralized mining, so the block size can be raised ad infinitum to support the "mainstream". Got it.

Which btw, bitcoin users are certainly not "mainstream". Those are called "fiat users".  Bitcoin users use bitcoin for different reasons entirely than the mainstream, one of them being decentralization.
Why would it affect decentralization?

Resources exist and have costs.
Water is wet.

Since you can't seem to figure it out on your own, I'll give you a hint.

When you increase the amount of resources required to accomplish something, less people are able to accomplish it. I'll let you figure out how that affects decentralization.
It's already the people with the best hardware that make the most money. This is part of the design. It is not a flaw or anything new.

It's only the people with the cheapest electricity that make the most money. They are the miners

Hardware has almost nothing to do with full nodes because of the 1MB blocksize. If it were more, then I don't know if that would be the case.
Why would you even suggest that hardware doesn't much matter? Do we really need to go into the very basics of how mining works? Seriously?

I am talking about hardware to run a node and you are talking about mining. Not the same.
Why run a full node if you are not mining, other than paranoia? What are the practical reasons?

To cast my vote on every block and not allow Jihadi-sons-of-bitches destroy things without my consent? Is that good enough?
That matters about as much as a bad analogy. I mean a fart, excuse me. Without any measurable impact on the network, not to mention the fact it wastes money if you are not mining at a profit, it's just another emotional rationalization, not a practical reason.

For the last time, I AM NOT FUCKING MINING! CLEAR YOUR FUCKING HEAD!@#@&*^(*$&^(
That's what I said. You are wasting money for emotional reasons and using that as a justification to oppose an increase in transaction volume.

Disallowing crazed people from altering bitcoin rules at will is not emotional at all. That's what a full node does (among other things).
legendary
Activity: 854
Merit: 1000
What kind of transaction are you trying to accomplish that is not reasonable?  Are others trying to accomplish those kinds of unreasonable transactions, too?  They can use some other means, or is bitcoin the only thing that will work for them?  Why does bitcoin need to serve that purpose at this time? 

How about small signature campaign payments? Are they spam?
What about all the gamblers betting small amounts? Are they spam?

What about RAREPEPE? If you don't know, the amazing new counterparty implementation trading rare/scarce assets on the bitcoin blockchain?
Is that spam? Cost for it has gotten outrageous and damn near stopped it dead..

You are pretty much saying that small people should not be using Bitcoin and use some altcoin instead?

Altcoins can't escape current technology either.
legendary
Activity: 2268
Merit: 1278
If there had been a HF three years ago from 1MB to 2MB, we'd already be hitting the 2MB limit and BU supporters would be screaming that we need to immediately HF again to 4MB.  And so on, and so on.

They act like that wouldn't be true, but we all know it would.

So apparently for them, every time the block size limit is reached, the solution is simply another 2MB increase.  On and on, until mining centralization by like one person with a total hardware & hashpower monopoly is complete.

Well FU, BU.
The current limit is not enough for mainstream use. That is a hard fucking mathematical fact. The transaction limit will have to be raised one way or another, sooner or later.

So you're cool with destroying decentralized mining, so the block size can be raised ad infinitum to support the "mainstream". Got it.

Which btw, bitcoin users are certainly not "mainstream". Those are called "fiat users".  Bitcoin users use bitcoin for different reasons entirely than the mainstream, one of them being decentralization.
Why would it affect decentralization?

Resources exist and have costs.
Water is wet.

Since you can't seem to figure it out on your own, I'll give you a hint.

When you increase the amount of resources required to accomplish something, less people are able to accomplish it. I'll let you figure out how that affects decentralization.
It's already the people with the best hardware that make the most money. This is part of the design. It is not a flaw or anything new.

It's only the people with the cheapest electricity that make the most money. They are the miners

Hardware has almost nothing to do with full nodes because of the 1MB blocksize. If it were more, then I don't know if that would be the case.
Why would you even suggest that hardware doesn't much matter? Do we really need to go into the very basics of how mining works? Seriously?

I am talking about hardware to run a node and you are talking about mining. Not the same.
Why run a full node if you are not mining, other than paranoia? What are the practical reasons?

To cast my vote on every block and not allow Jihadi-sons-of-bitches destroy things without my consent? Is that good enough?
That matters about as much as a bad analogy. I mean a fart, excuse me. Without any measurable impact on the network, not to mention the fact it wastes money if you are not mining at a profit, it's just another emotional rationalization, not a practical reason.

For the last time, I AM NOT FUCKING MINING! CLEAR YOUR FUCKING HEAD!@#@&*^(*$&^(
That's what I said. You are wasting money for emotional reasons and using that as a justification to oppose an increase in transaction volume.
legendary
Activity: 2296
Merit: 2271
BTC or BUST
What kind of transaction are you trying to accomplish that is not reasonable?  Are others trying to accomplish those kinds of unreasonable transactions, too?  They can use some other means, or is bitcoin the only thing that will work for them?  Why does bitcoin need to serve that purpose at this time? 

How about small signature campaign payments? Are they spam?
What about all the gamblers betting small amounts? Are they spam?

What about RAREPEPE? If you don't know, the amazing new counterparty implementation trading rare/scarce assets on the bitcoin blockchain?
Is that spam? Cost for it has gotten outrageous and damn near stopped it dead..

You are pretty much saying that small people should not be using Bitcoin and use some altcoin instead?
legendary
Activity: 1120
Merit: 1012
So please explain why you feel the need to use a full node if you are not going to mine with it.

Privacy. Censorship resistance. Security.

This is how it has been except in the very earliest years. Again, nothing new under the sun and most future users won't be running full nodes either. Most current users don't.

So... because decentralization is hard and most users don't bother with it, we should ignore it. I disagree.

I would imagine those who are willing to secure large values with Bitcoin are interested in the benefits of running a full node.
legendary
Activity: 2268
Merit: 1278
What about it? What implications are you trying to get at?

Larger blocks require more resources which harms decentralization.

Indeed, but technological resources are increased over time, thus allowing higher capabilities at same costs (over the years).

As I wrote a few posts ago, in 97, my bandwidth, cpu, storage, ram, was 1/1000th of what I now have.

My pc could probably process ...1kb blocks back then... now 1mb... in 20 years, maybe 1gb.

Satoshi never intended for the 1mb to be set indefinitely. He said, we'll raise it when needed.

Obviously you don't want to have too much, because then it hurts in decentralization and leaves the door open for spamming the blockchain.

It just needs a proper balance.

I think the choices that exist right now may not be enough to gather a good consensus (like 90%+) which may in turn create the need for a new proposal.

- BU is trash, nobody in their right mind wants it.
- Segwit will not get adopted because it increases "complexity" and it makes some miners uncomfortable (translation for: "I like the bitcoin I know, I don't want it to change, with the remote chance it introduces unknown risks")

So, given that neither will go ahead, we'll have to make some other arrangement like a 2mb upgrade in the short term, if we don't want to stick with 1mb. But this option doesn't exist right now and should be programmed and provided by core (=reputable source of code).
That's the idea I'm backing. Changing a one to a two ought to be a speedy process, and testing to make sure it works properly can't possibly be another multi-year process.
legendary
Activity: 2268
Merit: 1278
If there had been a HF three years ago from 1MB to 2MB, we'd already be hitting the 2MB limit and BU supporters would be screaming that we need to immediately HF again to 4MB.  And so on, and so on.

They act like that wouldn't be true, but we all know it would.

So apparently for them, every time the block size limit is reached, the solution is simply another 2MB increase.  On and on, until mining centralization by like one person with a total hardware & hashpower monopoly is complete.

Well FU, BU.
The current limit is not enough for mainstream use. That is a hard fucking mathematical fact. The transaction limit will have to be raised one way or another, sooner or later.

So you're cool with destroying decentralized mining, so the block size can be raised ad infinitum to support the "mainstream". Got it.

Which btw, bitcoin users are certainly not "mainstream". Those are called "fiat users".  Bitcoin users use bitcoin for different reasons entirely than the mainstream, one of them being decentralization.
Why would it affect decentralization?

Resources exist and have costs.
Water is wet.

Since you can't seem to figure it out on your own, I'll give you a hint.

When you increase the amount of resources required to accomplish something, less people are able to accomplish it. I'll let you figure out how that affects decentralization.
It's already the people with the best hardware that make the most money. This is part of the design. It is not a flaw or anything new.

It's only the people with the cheapest electricity that make the most money. They are the miners

Hardware has almost nothing to do with full nodes because of the 1MB blocksize. If it were more, then I don't know if that would be the case.
Why would you even suggest that hardware doesn't much matter? Do we really need to go into the very basics of how mining works? Seriously?

I am talking about hardware to run a node and you are talking about mining. Not the same.
Why run a full node if you are not mining, other than paranoia? What are the practical reasons?

To cast my vote on every block and not allow Jihadi-sons-of-bitches destroy things without my consent? Is that good enough?
That matters about as much as a bad analogy. I mean a fart, excuse me. Without any measurable impact on the network, not to mention the fact it wastes money if you are not mining at a profit, it's just another emotional rationalization, not a practical reason.
legendary
Activity: 1120
Merit: 1012
What about it? What implications are you trying to get at?

Larger blocks require more resources which harms decentralization.

would you agree that if bitcoin doubles its user base this will help decentralization?

It depends. If they are users who are crying because they can't afford competition for fast confirmations, I doubt they are going to be running full nodes.

would you agree that if a signficant % of its userbase start using the second layer this will incentivize them to run first layer nodes and second layer nodes.

Same as above, I doubt those who want "cheap, fast" transactions are going to bother with the expense of running a full node.
legendary
Activity: 2268
Merit: 1278
What about it? What implications are you trying to get at?

Larger blocks require more resources which harms decentralization.
It's already the people with the best hardware that make the most money. This is part of the design. It is not a flaw or anything new.

This is getting tired. Why don't you pick one quote tree and stick to it.

I'm not speaking of mining.

I'm simply responding to you. I sorry if that is making you tired. Feel free to stop discussing this at any point.
You are speaking of non-mining bitcoin users who use a full node as their wallet.

That's a personal choice, in no way a necessity. Is this really what you base your opposition to larger transaction volume on?

If users have to depend on others to run full nodes, Bitcoin is no longer censorship-proof.
This is how it has been except in the very earliest years. Again, nothing new under the sun and most future users won't be running full nodes either. Most current users don't.
legendary
Activity: 2268
Merit: 1278
It's already the people with the best hardware that make the most money. This is part of the design. It is not a flaw or anything new.

I'm not speaking of mining.

Also, to play your game.

It's already the people who pay the highest fees that get fast confirmations. This is part of the design. It is not a flaw or anything new.
One of these is not like the other.

And why would you speak of anything but mining? Increased hardware demands won't affect regular wallet users.

Are you suggesting that there aren't benefits to using a full node as your wallet?
Only for the paranoid, or people who mine anyway.

Well, I guess we've found the problem.

If your premise is that wanting to run a full node is only for the paranoid, I guess you can justify larger blocks.

I'm going to have to disagree with your premise though.
I keep multiple coins on my phone. Walking around money for convenience. Bog-standard and cheap smartphone with no special precautions. No problems in several years of doing this. So please explain why you feel the need to use a full node if you are not going to mine with it.
Jump to: