Topic: Stuff deleted by starter of the Wall Observer thread (Read 658 times)
ok.. i'll bite. what centralization? It's Lightning, on top of Bitcoin. No centralization there.
... a discussion where I pointed out the natural consequence of Dab's hypothetical situation.
I'll reply here, just for you. I may be one of those doing that (closing opening channels daily) but not everyone has to. Perhaps when the tech is more understood. I mean, I already make one or two "real" transactions per day. What's one or two channels which blooms up into infinity? If I change the example to open and close a channel once a week or once a month, and everyone else does that ... you have capacity for the world, or more.
That would be better, but not world. With today's bitcoin, we remain mired at less than half-million transactions a day. If everyone opens and closes one channel once a week, we can accommodate at most 1.75 million users. If the average user opens and closes a channel once per month, we are limited to 7.5 million users. Three orders of magnitude from world scale.
And yes, we still don't know how many channels each user will maintain on average, and how often they will feel the need to update. But if they only maintain a single channel, it lends credence to the centralized hub conjecture. And if they very seldom refresh their channels, they are limited to however much funds they can put in the channel at creation - of course, assuming they don't get paid in Bitcoin within Lightning.
Quote
Also, don't forget, it's not exactly channels or transactions per day or per second, it's per block, and with a high enough fee, it stays in the mempool until it gets into a block.
This is true. I use the per day figure, as it starts one thinking about sustained throughput, instead of burst capacity. If total sustained demand exceeds total sustained throughput, there will always be transactions that never get included in blocks.
Quote
But if you want to calculate an average, based on one channel a year, that's about a million channels per day, or three hundred sixty five channels in a year, with each channel having a million transactions. So it's not 7 or 8 billion ...
OK, assuming we ever get to one million per day, is it realistic that the average user tops off his one and only Lightning channel (there's that centralization again) once per year? I don't think so. Maybe I'll be proven wrong. Even if so, that would be hard capped at 365 million users. Again, well short of our goal. And this is assuming only on open _or_ one close per user per year.
Thanks for the respectful continued discussion.
... a discussion where I pointed out the natural consequence of Dab's hypothetical situation.
I'll reply here, just for you. I may be one of those doing that (closing opening channels daily) but not everyone has to. Perhaps when the tech is more understood. I mean, I already make one or two "real" transactions per day. What's one or two channels which blooms up into infinity? If I change the example to open and close a channel once a week or once a month, and everyone else does that ... you have capacity for the world, or more.
I have one or two major bank accounts, maybe that translates to one or two channels in the future. I might just open and close it once a year, because I have a feeling I'd like to "settle" it.
Also, don't forget, it's not exactly channels or transactions per day or per second, it's per block, and with a high enough fee, it stays in the mempool until it gets into a block.
But if you want to calculate an average, based on one channel a year, that's about a million channels per day, or three hundred sixty five channels in a year, with each channel having a million transactions. So it's not 7 or 8 billion ...
Anyway, don't worry about your posts in the other thread. Stick to bitcoin (and there is only one, and it's not bcash), don't call it Bitcoin Segwit, because it's just Bitcoin. And you'll be fine. I almost promise you none of your posts will get deleted if you do that.
Prints walls of text (worse that JJG) either directly or indirectly bashing Bitcoin, or promoting and pumping BCash. Or both.
On a BITCOIN subforum thread called WO.
Where people don't talk about BCH much (an altcoin!!) because they don't fucking care. But you not only want to passingly mention BCH, you want to ARGUE and shill for it ad nauseam. In fact, you don't ever discuss or debate anything in an unbiased/agnostic fashion, or even in a pro-Bitcoin fashion. You have a VERY CLEAR anti-Bitcoin agenda. Everything with you is anti-Bitcoin, anti-Core, anti-small block, anti-LN, and BCash is da greatest shit evar! You are just constantly spewing anti-Bitcoin propaganda in every post.
And yet the troll wonders why his posts are getting culled from the Bitcoin WO thread? Really?
And now you create a separate thread to whine about it like a little girl?
You're a known troll and a BCH shill, jbreher, and everyone knows it.
Get a life, man. Go back to the BCH forum or subsection.
On a BITCOIN subforum thread called WO.
Where people don't talk about BCH much (an altcoin!!) because they don't fucking care. But you not only want to passingly mention BCH, you want to ARGUE and shill for it ad nauseam. In fact, you don't ever discuss or debate anything in an unbiased/agnostic fashion, or even in a pro-Bitcoin fashion. You have a VERY CLEAR anti-Bitcoin agenda. Everything with you is anti-Bitcoin, anti-Core, anti-small block, anti-LN, and BCash is da greatest shit evar! You are just constantly spewing anti-Bitcoin propaganda in every post.
And yet the troll wonders why his posts are getting culled from the Bitcoin WO thread? Really?
And now you create a separate thread to whine about it like a little girl?
You're a known troll and a BCH shill, jbreher, and everyone knows it.
Get a life, man. Go back to the BCH forum or subsection.
Next up, another apparent instance of biased treatment in the diffferential deletion of posts:
Think again. BCH is consistently more profitable to mine than is BTC:
No. Though nodes that have been continuously up for a long interval of time (days to weeks) will have near-identical mempool contents.
I'm not much of a sports car kinda guy. (As I've posted before, my daily driver is a beat up 20 year old van). But the wife likes 'em. Drag races her Corvette. She has expressed however a profound distaste for anything that doesn't gulp dinosaur juice and belch hydrocarbons. I wonder if this might turn her opinion?
I'm not sure where you get your quarter-million number from. Bitcoin before gets us 3 to 4 tx/s
3 tx/s
180 tx/m
10,800 tx/h
259,200 tx/d
x1.7x if everyone uses segwit for 100% of their on-chain tx
440,600 segwit tx/d
/2 for settling twice a day
220,300 max users supported.
Show me a block representing 4 or more tx/s?
Segwit might increase block size greater than 1.7x under aberrational circumstances - but these circumstances include very large # inputs & outputs per tx. Still capped at 1.7x tx.
Your plan to double block size is a pig in a poke. Even allowing, the number of users supported is under a half million. Sound like a world beater to you?
Yes, but if each user is to open and close a channel daily (your hypothetical, remember), Bitcoin Segwit can only support a quarter-million users. Even if I spot you the unobtainable number of 4 million, the only way you can hit a trillion tx/d is if each of your 4 million users initiates 1 million tx/d. I don't think there is a human alive that could generate that many transactions. Hell a preprogrammed Raspberry Pi cannot generate that many transactions in a day. A decent-spec consumer computer could. If it worked on it 'round the clock.
While this is true, you still have an insurmountable obstacle in the (1 open + 1 close per day) * number of users <= daily on-chain tx capacity.
Again spreading FUD after several people told you LN channels are not supposed to be closed quickly?
No. Dabs was the one that first postulated daily opening and closing channels. I merely am guiding Dabs to the natural conclusion of that postulate.
Admittedly, I've not heard that before. So you are saying the transactions will never be settled on-chain? You realize then that such transactions are by definition 'not Bitcoin', right?
Does that stupid machine Jihad advertises also calculate the mining fees? If yes, it will never switch to BCH mining as it has soooooooooooooo much space and soooooooooooo low fees!
Talk about shooting themselves in the foot!
Talk about shooting themselves in the foot!
Think again. BCH is consistently more profitable to mine than is BTC:
I have a few questions.
1) Does every node with good connectivity have all mempool transactions in its memory?
1) Does every node with good connectivity have all mempool transactions in its memory?
No. Though nodes that have been continuously up for a long interval of time (days to weeks) will have near-identical mempool contents.
I'm not much of a sports car kinda guy. (As I've posted before, my daily driver is a beat up 20 year old van). But the wife likes 'em. Drag races her Corvette. She has expressed however a profound distaste for anything that doesn't gulp dinosaur juice and belch hydrocarbons. I wonder if this might turn her opinion?
Lightning atop Bitcoin Segwit? With everyone settling twice a day? Great - you've just set the max number of users at less than quarter-million.
Is that what you wanted? If not, perhaps you need to devote more thought.
Is that what you wanted? If not, perhaps you need to devote more thought.
I'm not sure where you get your quarter-million number from. Bitcoin before gets us 3 to 4 tx/s
3 tx/s
180 tx/m
10,800 tx/h
259,200 tx/d
x1.7x if everyone uses segwit for 100% of their on-chain tx
440,600 segwit tx/d
/2 for settling twice a day
220,300 max users supported.
Show me a block representing 4 or more tx/s?
Segwit might increase block size greater than 1.7x under aberrational circumstances - but these circumstances include very large # inputs & outputs per tx. Still capped at 1.7x tx.
Your plan to double block size is a pig in a poke. Even allowing, the number of users supported is under a half million. Sound like a world beater to you?
Quote
Each of those transactions can be Lightning'd, as opening or closing a channel is just one transaction. So that's 4 million times maybe 1 million, or about a trillion transactions per day.
Yes, but if each user is to open and close a channel daily (your hypothetical, remember), Bitcoin Segwit can only support a quarter-million users. Even if I spot you the unobtainable number of 4 million, the only way you can hit a trillion tx/d is if each of your 4 million users initiates 1 million tx/d. I don't think there is a human alive that could generate that many transactions. Hell a preprogrammed Raspberry Pi cannot generate that many transactions in a day. A decent-spec consumer computer could. If it worked on it 'round the clock.
Quote
This does not include any other off chain scaling solutions or payment channels that are not Lightning, such as inside the same wallet (coinbase to coinbase.)
While this is true, you still have an insurmountable obstacle in the (1 open + 1 close per day) * number of users <= daily on-chain tx capacity.
Again spreading FUD after several people told you LN channels are not supposed to be closed quickly?
No. Dabs was the one that first postulated daily opening and closing channels. I merely am guiding Dabs to the natural conclusion of that postulate.
Quote
Not only that channels can send funds to each other for the purpose of closing,
Admittedly, I've not heard that before. So you are saying the transactions will never be settled on-chain? You realize then that such transactions are by definition 'not Bitcoin', right?
Bitcoin mining bears directly upon Bitcoin price. Bitcoin mining is technical. I have provided analysis of the technical aspects of Bitcoin mining. Bearing directly upon Bitcoin price. I corrected a publicly-posted false and defaming statement made by alexeft. With truthful information, citing the source. My post is deleted. alexeft's is still up. @infofront is not applying the stated principles in anything approaching a logical manner, let alone a fair one.
alexeft asked several questions regarding Bitcoin's mempool and implementations, posed to anyone who would answer. I provided truthful answers. How is my post deletable, while alexeft's is not? Makes no sense. Differentiated enforcement.
OK, BobLawBlaw's post is likely off topic. So my response is likely off-topic as well. Mine has been deleted. Why is BobLawBlaw's still up? Obviously biased treatment.
itod barged into a discussion where I pointed out the natural consequence of Dab's hypothetical situation. He tried to defame me, then tried to show how I was 'wrong', using a different hypotheticl of his own concoction - one having nothing to do with the topic being discussed. I pointed out the irrelevance of his point. My post was deleted. itod's was not. Why the differential treatment?
Why was the following post deleted?
We're not trying to kill Bitcoin Segwit. We are merely building Bitcoin Cash to be all that it can be -- in order to take its rightful place as the dominant Satoshi derivative.
I'm sure we've had a fair share of fly by night pump n dumpers. But enough of us are playing a long game. Those of you thinking this is over may want to rethink.
The BCH crew were very stupid to attempt to kill BTC
We're not trying to kill Bitcoin Segwit. We are merely building Bitcoin Cash to be all that it can be -- in order to take its rightful place as the dominant Satoshi derivative.
I'm sure we've had a fair share of fly by night pump n dumpers. But enough of us are playing a long game. Those of you thinking this is over may want to rethink.
So the following was gentlemand's post in entirety - which has not been deleted:
That said, something still feels off to me. If this was all that the biggest attack on bitcoin to date could do, then... well we will see what we will see.
The BCH crew were very stupid to attempt to kill BTC while it's been on a pretty much unbroken months-long bull run, even more so with all the institutional talk swirling around.
The time to have done it would've been last year or 2015 when a powerful enough pump might have tempted enough traders, holders and miners for long enough. Even then it's such a shite proposition it would've failed but the scare would've been far larger.
What makes my post deletable, while gentlemand's is not? I assert that nothing in the moderation guidelines for this thread supports such an action.
@infofront - what justifies your apparent unequal treatment?
More work being deleted. As far as I can tell, my posts do not run afoul of the directives. I reproduce for your your consideration, the post outlining the directives.
infofront, if you are reading this, perhaps you can clarify what directives I am violating in each post you delete. Especially as compared to the posts to which I am responding.
thats fine too,
I'm looking for quality charts or good TA bearish or bullish.
asking good questions example....
is also welcome here.
just don't be posting about your "FEELINGS" and you won't get delete.
infofront, if you are reading this, perhaps you can clarify what directives I am violating in each post you delete. Especially as compared to the posts to which I am responding.
Wall Observer
A free service brought to you by the bitcoin community
Whenever there is a significant change in market depth, please update this thread with a new depth chart, and a good price chart with some TA is also welcome, feel free to comment on these if you have something to worth contributing, ( if your post is not at all TA it will be deleted )
Posting guild lines:
Please lets keep this thread clean. ( I will be removing any off topic posts )
Do not post random comments on this thread, unless it is directly related to the last wall update (ex. The 20K ask was was NOT sold into, it was removed after being tested)
When you post a chart please use bitcoincharts.com, mtgoxlive.com, btccharts.com or bitcoinity.com
as requested, i have started a new thread.
this thread is now a self-moderated topic.
I will try and keep this thread clean, with only facts, current trends, past price movements, depth charts, etc.
I promise to not delete post simply because i do not agree with the bearish TA.
thank you for your input!
the rules of this thread is an attempt to keep this thread from having +1000 post when price is doing big moves, and instead relay important indicators during critical moments.
also when the market is more calm we can expect to see wall posts and TA price charts, back to back without any relevant chatting, making easier to analyze.
there are other threads where speculators can discuss their sentiment, just not here...
A free service brought to you by the bitcoin community
Whenever there is a significant change in market depth, please update this thread with a new depth chart, and a good price chart with some TA is also welcome, feel free to comment on these if you have something to worth contributing, ( if your post is not at all TA it will be deleted )
Posting guild lines:
Please lets keep this thread clean. ( I will be removing any off topic posts )
Do not post random comments on this thread, unless it is directly related to the last wall update (ex. The 20K ask was was NOT sold into, it was removed after being tested)
When you post a chart please use bitcoincharts.com, mtgoxlive.com, btccharts.com or bitcoinity.com
as requested, i have started a new thread.
this thread is now a self-moderated topic.
I will try and keep this thread clean, with only facts, current trends, past price movements, depth charts, etc.
I promise to not delete post simply because i do not agree with the bearish TA.
thank you for your input!
We needed more regulation around this bitch.
the rules of this thread is an attempt to keep this thread from having +1000 post when price is doing big moves, and instead relay important indicators during critical moments.
also when the market is more calm we can expect to see wall posts and TA price charts, back to back without any relevant chatting, making easier to analyze.
there are other threads where speculators can discuss their sentiment, just not here...
That 1000+ page thread was getting kinda useless.
thats fine too,
I'm looking for quality charts or good TA bearish or bullish.
asking good questions example....
Interesting pattern I've noticed. It's been sort of bouncing downwards for the last 4 days. Is there a technical term for this sort of thing?
is also welcome here.
just don't be posting about your "FEELINGS" and you won't get delete.
I guess you can stay. Keep in mind that no other mods touch that particular thread, not even theymos anymore. Not until it goes out of hand anyways.
Quote
There are no rules of self-moderation, so this deletion cannot be appealed. Do not continue posting in this topic if the topic-starter has requested that you leave.
I guess you really are that stupid.
I am not appealing anything. Further, the topic-starter has not requested that I leave. So who is the stupid one? Find a mirror.
Quote
Get a clue and stop spamming Wall Observer with your BCash altcoin propaganda.
It ain't spam, and it ain't Bitcoin Cash propaganda. It pertains directly to Bitcoin walls and to Bitcoin price. Thanks for playing. Bye.
You whiny bitch.
Quote
There are no rules of self-moderation, so this deletion cannot be appealed. Do not continue posting in this topic if the topic-starter has requested that you leave.
I guess you really are that stupid. Get a clue and stop spamming Wall Observer with your BCash altcoin propaganda.
I'm just glad we have sensible moderation on WO that can see through the disingenuous crap that gets slung about by Team BiTrash.
Quote
A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by the starter of a self-moderated topic. There are no rules of self-moderation, so this deletion cannot be appealed. Do not continue posting in this topic if the topic-starter has requested that you leave.
You can create a new topic if you are unsatisfied with this one. If the topic-starter is scamming, post about it in Scam Accusations.
You can create a new topic if you are unsatisfied with this one. If the topic-starter is scamming, post about it in Scam Accusations.
1. There are no rules.
2. You created a new topic.
3. Have fun with your thread.
The following post from me was also deleted:
Quote from: Peter R
Nodes can influence the rule set and its enforcement in proportion to their share of the network hash power. This is Bitcoin's direct governance mechanism.
Market participants can influence the rule set and its enforcement in proportion to their economic power. This is Bitcoin's indirect governance mechanism.
A non-mining node by itself has no influence. This is easy to prove: if you run 100 raspberry-pi nodes, do you have more influence over the rule set and its enforcement than if you unplugged 99 of them? Of course not, because only the people behind those (non-mining) nodes matter, not the nodes themselves.
Market participants can influence the rule set and its enforcement in proportion to their economic power. This is Bitcoin's indirect governance mechanism.
A non-mining node by itself has no influence. This is easy to prove: if you run 100 raspberry-pi nodes, do you have more influence over the rule set and its enforcement than if you unplugged 99 of them? Of course not, because only the people behind those (non-mining) nodes matter, not the nodes themselves.
Judge for yourself whether or not this has anything to do with "Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion", as per the title of the thread from which it was deleted.
Feel free to add your own deletions here. This is a self-moderated thread, which I think means mods will treat it as hands-off. I will delete commercial spam if any. Otherwise, hands-off - as long as it pertains to stuff deleted from the WO thread.
I cannot speak definitively. There's mine. I ain't Bitmain. I assume that many others -- who I know to believe in the direction Bitcoin Cash has set for Bitcoin's future -- likewise run nodes.
Not much of an answer, that. Sort of hand-wavey.
I agree. Of course it is hand-wavey. What do you want me to do? I have no definitive list of all nodes. Do you have one for Bitcoin Segwit? Tallying them up -- in a permissionless environment -- would seem to be the responsibility of the person desiring the statistic, no? I guess in this case, that would be you. Right?
Node count and distribution is important. Why are you pretending it's a non-issue?
Feel free to add your own deletions here. This is a self-moderated thread, which I think means mods will treat it as hands-off. I will delete commercial spam if any. Otherwise, hands-off - as long as it pertains to stuff deleted from the WO thread.
How about nodes? Does BCH actually have any that aren't Bitmain?
I cannot speak definitively. There's mine. I ain't Bitmain. I assume that many others -- who I know to believe in the direction Bitcoin Cash has set for Bitcoin's future -- likewise run nodes.
Not much of an answer, that. Sort of hand-wavey.
I agree. Of course it is hand-wavey. What do you want me to do? I have no definitive list of all nodes. Do you have one for Bitcoin Segwit? Tallying them up -- in a permissionless environment -- would seem to be the responsibility of the person desiring the statistic, no? I guess in this case, that would be you. Right?
Perhaps if you could make a cogent case showing how Bitcoin Segwit is in any way more decentralized than Bitcoin Cash, you might have a point. But so far, all I've seen from you or others is mere hand waving.
Node count and distribution is important. Why are you pretending it's a non-issue?
I am not pretending it is a non-issue. I assume there are currently fully-validating non-mining 'nodes' in sufficient number. I am also assuming as people who operate fully-validating non-mining 'nodes' shift from focused upon Bitcoin Segwit to being focused upon Bitcoin Cash, that they will start operating 'nodes' upon Bitcoin Cash. Does this seem unreasonable to you? If so, why?
Of course, it is true that I have much less regard for the operation of such non-mining, fully-validating 'nodes' than do most. Indeed, I believe they provide essentially zero benefit to the system as a whole (though they do provide some measure of benefit to their individual owners).
Further, I believe that any system that does not provide forcible barriers to entry is decentralized to the extent that it need be. If the decentralization is purported to 'keep another class of parties in check', then spinning up a single said decentralizing element is sufficient to perform the task at hand. The system need not depend upon ridiculous oversubscription to perform the requisite function.
So presumably, that was your best 'cogent case showing how Bitcoin Segwit is in any way more decentralized than Bitcoin Cash'? What else ya got?
(apologies for the somewhat aggressive tone)
Quote
OUR SEVEN SOCIAL PRINCIPLES:
WE ASSUME GOOD FAITH.
WE REWARD THE POSITIVE.
WE ACT WITH DIGNITY.
WE TRUST EACH OTHER TO FAIL WELL.
WE DO NOT ASK PERMISSION.
THE NETWORK IS MOTHER, THE NETWORK IS FATHER.
WE HAVE FUN, BECAUSE IT ATTRACTS MORE PEOPLE.
WE ASSUME GOOD FAITH.
WE REWARD THE POSITIVE.
WE ACT WITH DIGNITY.
WE TRUST EACH OTHER TO FAIL WELL.
WE DO NOT ASK PERMISSION.
THE NETWORK IS MOTHER, THE NETWORK IS FATHER.
WE HAVE FUN, BECAUSE IT ATTRACTS MORE PEOPLE.
drugs are bad mmmmmmkay?
OTOH, vision statements are usually good. mmmmmmkay?
10.600 BTC sell wall on Bittrex, @ 0.1 BTC/BCH
Edit: probably Roger Ver's last stash in this pump.
Edit: probably Roger Ver's last stash in this pump.
Probably not. I've been trading 10 BTC per day into Bitcoin Cash most days for the last few weeks. I ain't outta ammo yet. And I'm just an itty-bitty minnow.
BCH doesn't give to users anything that BTC doesn't!
Well, other than affordable and fast transactions. Oh - it also gave better than 100% in the last few days. Bitcoin Segwit? Not so much.
Cheers!
BTC actually has significant advantages over Bitcoin Cash, even if it has higher fees and transaction times, simply because it's the common denominator for literally every altcoin.
True statement. At least at this moment in time. Don't get too cocky now.
BCashers got rekt.
In whatever bizzaro universe better than doubling your money (closer to 4x) in the last few days can be considered 'rekt'.