Author

Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 19051. (Read 26609738 times)

member
Activity: 115
Merit: 10
motherofgod.jpg

https://www.bitfinex.com/pages/announcements/?id=93
https://i.imgur.com/ZJ6cOaL.png

The market is speaking to you subservient miners. Are you listening?
legendary
Activity: 1904
Merit: 1037
Trusted Bitcoiner
legendary
Activity: 2758
Merit: 1075
legendary
Activity: 2380
Merit: 1823
1CBuddyxy4FerT3hzMmi1Jz48ESzRw1ZzZ
legendary
Activity: 1904
Merit: 1037
Trusted Bitcoiner
By the time of the next 2-3-4 halvings, our blocksize limits could be in the hundreds of megabytes.
given that phones will have terabytes of non-volatile nanosecond latency memory by then, it shouldn't be a problem.  but, competing with low-latency centralized settlement while surviving kyc/aml will be a challenge before 2020. 

I'm pretty sure there'll be pleeeenty of challenges till 2020 Cheesy
like reaching "widespread consensus" for 2MB in 2017
legendary
Activity: 1708
Merit: 1049
By the time of the next 2-3-4 halvings, our blocksize limits could be in the hundreds of megabytes.
given that phones will have terabytes of non-volatile nanosecond latency memory by then, it shouldn't be a problem.  but, competing with low-latency centralized settlement while surviving kyc/aml will be a challenge before 2020. 

I'm pretty sure there'll be pleeeenty of challenges till 2020 Cheesy
legendary
Activity: 1596
Merit: 1030
Sine secretum non libertas
By the time of the next 2-3-4 halvings, our blocksize limits could be in the hundreds of megabytes.
given that phones will have terabytes of non-volatile nanosecond latency memory by then, it shouldn't be a problem.  but, competing with low-latency centralized settlement while surviving kyc/aml will be a challenge before 2020. 
legendary
Activity: 1708
Merit: 1049
how are miners going to get paid when block reward  goes away?

tx fees

Quote
years ago we just kinda shrugged this off saying "one day there will be several orders of magnitude more TX and the fees will pay the miners"

at 1 or 2 MB there's just no way fees can replace block reward.

By the time of the next 2-3-4 halvings, our blocksize limits could be in the hundreds of megabytes.
legendary
Activity: 1708
Merit: 1049
I think it's a good analogy, which makes the issue easier to understand. If there are flaws in the analogy, I'm happy to discuss them. The criticism of AlexGR that people on a bus are real, and Bitcoin transactions in a block (according to him) are not, is just childish.

His other remark that it's cheap to buy all the space in a block (because blocks are quite small and transactions cheap), doesn't discredit the analogy. If someone wants to take out the high speed train from Amsterdam to Paris, he can buy all the train tickets. It's doable, and effectively a DOS attack preventing any other people from using the train. If anything, it shows my analogy is a correct one.

Not there yet.

When you broadcast a tx, where you "pay", say, 1 satoshi per byte, what you are *really* doing is that you are stating your intention that if you get included in some block then you will pay the said amount.

You don't actually pay anything beforehand. The payment is only done upon inclusion. If you get the service, you get paid. If someone else pays more than you, then HE gets it, not you. In that scenario, where he got in and you didn't, the only party paying is him, not you. You haven't paid anything. You only said that you were willing to pay a trivial amount, which was less than him, and the miner said ok, you aren't paying me that much, so I'm going to process that other guy who pays me more.



Personally, I'm not anxious for all that spam to be "cleared" by getting included in the blockchain.

It would be like having the street outside your house filled with trash and considering collecting them inside your house to "clean the street".

Nice analogy, it illustrates how we disagree. Going with the trash theme, IMO the current setup is akin to saying everything people throw away should be dumped and never touched again. Never mind that due to changing market conditions and innovation, some trash may actually be valuable to people if they can get their hands on it - recycling metals for example.

If you remove, by dictate, the ability to process "trash" beyond some arbitrary treshold, you remove the markets ability to correctly value that "trash".

Well, physical garbage do tend to have more valuable stuff in them compared to digital...

Anyway, in the above analogy, the street garbage is the mempool, and your house is the blockchain. Now, the mempool can be spammed A LOT because it is practically free to do so (broadcasting intentions to get included, either for free, or with a trivial fee) and you can decide whether you will do what the spammer wants, or not.

The market always has an ability to value the trash: If the sender of the tx doesn't care for his tx (broadcasting zero and near-zero cost txs) he is betraying his intentions. When you see "blocks are full" and fees topping out at 4-5-6 cents for 1st block inclusion, without activating any serious fee competition, you know right away what is going on: Junk transactions are flowing in.

If, say, I want to send my coins to an exchange and sell right away there are various costs:

-Exchange commissions
-Bank wire/withdrawal costs
-Conversion fees (for non-$ users)

...which might add up to tens of dollars. Now why would I be "cheap" when I'm sending the tx?... to save what? 0.03$?
member
Activity: 117
Merit: 10
-snip-
If I am a spammer and you give me 1mb to fill, and I fill it, and you give me 10mb and I do the same, will you keep giving me 100mb, 1gb, 10gb blocks etc etc, where I fill them all?
-snip-

Get your shit together, it took you 7 years to fill the 1MB.

For the Nth time, we simply disagree on who should decide what is spam or not. You say Core developers, comprised of the blockstream clique. Others say the miners are better qualified to determine their production levels and prices.
legendary
Activity: 1904
Merit: 1037
Trusted Bitcoiner
Why do I feel you are deliberately choosing not to see the other POV? Let's forget for a minute that you seem to have the ability to tell apart a user transaction from a spam transaction and suggest that actually the daily demand for transactions rises above 250,000 consistently. Tell me how exactly users who are unable to get a transaction confirmed (they just sit there ad infinitum) are not 'disrupted'?
Since when did failure of transactions to be written to the chain become a feature? It is a sign of failure.

You said:

Quote
The best bit is that as the network becomes increasingly congested actually performing a flooding attack to completely disrupt the network becomes trivially cheap to employ.

And I just noted that the network cannot be disrupted (let alone "completely"), it will continue to process its 250k txs per day, with the highest-paid-tx-gets-included queue.

The idea that every tx has to be included and the network must upgrade to compensate is wrong because it is a self-feeding loop that tends to infinite spam and abuse. If I am a spammer and you give me 1mb to fill, and I fill it, and you give me 10mb and I do the same, will you keep giving me 100mb, 1gb, 10gb blocks etc etc, where I fill them all? Do you think this kind of self-defeating system is some kind of "success"? Are there many blockchains, beyond bitcoin, where you can do just that and where the devs haven't taken action to save their blockchain - typically through sharper fees to act as a deterrent to the attackers?

The case of having 250.000 legit txs and zero spam, and them having to compete for that 250k tx space is just theoretical. Why? Because actual txs are way below that point and by the time actual txs double or triple (which could take >1 year), we'll be 1.7 or even more (which is right ahead). So rejoice, more spam will be able to be included to the blockchain compared to our 700-800kb per block right now.

how are miners going to get paid when block reward  goes away?

years ago we just kinda shrugged this off saying "one day there will be several orders of magnitude more TX and the fees will pay the miners"

at 1 or 2 MB there's just no way fees can replace block reward.

i think pretending that there will be 250k TX a day willing to pay 5$ of fees each is nutty.

if we have a crazy spammer that will fill blocks with some minimal fee TX, indefinitely, i say, let's take advantage of this guy!

legendary
Activity: 2380
Merit: 1823
1CBuddyxy4FerT3hzMmi1Jz48ESzRw1ZzZ
legendary
Activity: 1708
Merit: 1049
Why do I feel you are deliberately choosing not to see the other POV? Let's forget for a minute that you seem to have the ability to tell apart a user transaction from a spam transaction and suggest that actually the daily demand for transactions rises above 250,000 consistently. Tell me how exactly users who are unable to get a transaction confirmed (they just sit there ad infinitum) are not 'disrupted'?
Since when did failure of transactions to be written to the chain become a feature? It is a sign of failure.

You said:

Quote
The best bit is that as the network becomes increasingly congested actually performing a flooding attack to completely disrupt the network becomes trivially cheap to employ.

And I just noted that the network cannot be disrupted (let alone "completely"), it will continue to process its 250k txs per day, with the highest-paid-tx-gets-included queue.

The idea that every tx has to be included and the network must upgrade to compensate is wrong because it is a self-feeding loop that tends to infinite spam and abuse. If I am a spammer and you give me 1mb to fill, and I fill it, and you give me 10mb and I do the same, will you keep giving me 100mb, 1gb, 10gb blocks etc etc, where I fill them all? Do you think this kind of self-defeating system is some kind of "success"? Are there many blockchains, beyond bitcoin, where you can do just that and where the devs haven't taken action to save their blockchain - typically through sharper fees to act as a deterrent to the attackers?

The case of having 250.000 legit txs and zero spam, and them having to compete for that 250k tx space is just theoretical. Why? Because actual txs are way below that point and by the time actual txs double or triple (which could take >1 year), we'll be 1.7 or even more (which is right ahead). So rejoice, more spam will be able to be included to the blockchain compared to our 700-800kb per block right now.
full member
Activity: 126
Merit: 100


Canadians, how is it you're still alive?
@Fatman: I just know Bomber Deer had a hand in this Angry
hero member
Activity: 737
Merit: 500

Of course, you have a right to post in response to whatever you like, and you certainly have plenty of companions in this same thread, in many other forum threads and in redit/bitcoin whining, exaggerating and spreading the same kinds of misinformation about the same topic. 


In my thinking it rises to the level of whining because it appears to be deceptive in a variety of ways.

Many of you goofballs engage in all kinds of fancy dancing in order to describe various scares about technical issues that don't really exist because when push comes to shove, you are not really concerned about technical issues (at least those who really understand the matter) but instead just want to whine, whine and whine and you want to insist on a hardfork or some other governance matter, which is really about disrupting while at the same time blaming the other side rather than attempts at resolution of potential technicalities in a reasonable and responsible manner. 

Possibly, half of you are paid shills, another 1/3 are misinformed or super emotional.  If these supposed technical matters had been presented continuously, argued and evidence set forth as a technical issue, then possibly there may have been some attempt at resolution, but based on the much illogical insistence on hard forks and other blackmailing attempts, i get the sense that technicalities continue to be exaggerated, which seems to be the case whenever looking into any details or evidence in support of technical block limit problem matters. 

Furthermore, the next move after seeing multiple flaws in the overall technical arguments, trolls like you tend to want to drag the topic into the weeds in order to distract and divert, when in the end all you seem to want is a hardfork (which gets us back to governance rather than real and concrete technical matters regarding possible problems with  the current blocksize limits).


I didn't expect you to resort to name calling after running out of arguments. I guess I overestimated you.

Goodnight.
legendary
Activity: 2380
Merit: 1823
1CBuddyxy4FerT3hzMmi1Jz48ESzRw1ZzZ
legendary
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1116
legendary
Activity: 1904
Merit: 1037
Trusted Bitcoiner
JayJuanGee you're a small blocker?  Shocked


I'm o.k. with the current plan to implement seg wit first and to reassess the blocksize limit situation after seg wit is in play for a while.

I doubt anyone is suggesting small blocks forever, but at the moment there doesn't seem to be sufficient evidence of an emergency need to take some kind of drastic measures to increase the blocksize limit on an emergency basis..  and in that regard, the impression and/or creation of an emergency seems to be largely fabricated with a bunch of loud and whiny voices.

Seems like we are going to see how seg wit plays out and then be able to reassess the blocksize limit situation at that time.


Further I believe that there is no meaningful proposal on the table to merely increase the blocksize limit without also attempting to affect bitcoin governance, which demonstrates to me that proposals that have recently been on the table to immediately increase the blocksize limit appear to be largely disingenuous.


you're right even small blockers aren't small blockers anymore.

i guess to be a "small blocker" these days means you place a lot of value on keeping the system "lightweight".

I value that to, but not enough to sacrifice user experience, give up micro TX,  etc...

i guess there is a spectrum of "blockers"  

adamstgBit,
You're a scammer and shouldn't be participating in scam hunts pretending to be a "trusted bitcoiner".  Angry

Definitive and conclusive proof here: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.14169483

oh this guy....

i blame the mail man.

legendary
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1116
JayJuanGee you're a small blocker?  Shocked


I'm o.k. with the current plan to implement seg wit first and to reassess the blocksize limit situation after seg wit is in play for a while.

I doubt anyone is suggesting small blocks forever, but at the moment there doesn't seem to be sufficient evidence of an emergency need to take some kind of drastic measures to increase the blocksize limit on an emergency basis..  and in that regard, the impression and/or creation of an emergency seems to be largely fabricated with a bunch of loud and whiny voices.

Seems like we are going to see how seg wit plays out and then be able to reassess the blocksize limit situation at that time.


Further I believe that there is no meaningful proposal on the table to merely increase the blocksize limit without also attempting to affect bitcoin governance, which demonstrates to me that proposals that have recently been on the table to immediately increase the blocksize limit appear to be largely disingenuous.


you're right even small blockers aren't small blockers anymore.

i guess to be a "small blocker" these days means you place a lot of value on keeping the system "lightweight".

I value that to, but not enough to sacrifice user experience, give up micro TX,  etc...

i guess there is a spectrum of "blockers"  

adamstgBit,
You're a scammer and shouldn't be participating in scam hunts pretending to be a "trusted bitcoiner".  Angry

Definitive and conclusive proof here: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.14169483
legendary
Activity: 3920
Merit: 11299
Self-Custody is a right. Say no to"Non-custodial"



......  [clipped]......





Crap!

Lost it.


Your a childish goofball, and bordering on troll in the above-linked post.. (that I clipped for reader-friendly sake).      Roll Eyes Roll Eyes   Tongue Tongue


It actually made me chuckle. Cheesy

I do get carried away sometimes.



I suppose there could be some humor in FATTY's "artistic" rendition of the matter.    Embarrassed


Jump to: