Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking &amp; discussion - page 19084. (Read 26608895 times)

Quote from: AlexGR on March 07, 2016, 03:13:40 PM

Too much politics. Is there some technical reason we can't have both bigger blocks and better blocks? Is this more than jockeying for power?

That's the plan: Segwit = 1.7mb to 3mb (depending use), plus solves tx malleability.

Obviously, all these "disagreements" aren't about the ~300kb difference between segwit and a 2mb hf.

Okay. So, why not change a one to a two now while we wait for the other, presumably more convoluted, stuff to get done?

When you are dealing with billions of dollars, it would be irresponsible to suddenly change without any actual techinical reason (besides a bunch of loud mouthed cunts complaining).

You disagree that we will need greater transaction capacity in the foreseeable future?

Ibian

legendary

Activity: 2268

Merit: 1278

Quote from: AlexGR on March 07, 2016, 03:13:40 PM

Too much politics. Is there some technical reason we can't have both bigger blocks and better blocks? Is this more than jockeying for power?

That's the plan: Segwit = 1.7mb to 3mb (depending use), plus solves tx malleability.

Obviously, all these "disagreements" aren't about the ~300kb difference between segwit and a 2mb hf.

Okay. So, why not change a one to a two now while we wait for the other, presumably more convoluted, stuff to get done?

As far as I'm concerned, I don't have any evidence that we actually need >1mb right now, although we will get >1mb... there is actually no plan that keeps bitcoin at 1mb.... core says 1.7 in a couple months, classic says 2mb with contentious/destructive hf, so... there you have it.

When you have tx fees ranging from 1 to 5 cents (depending the priority one wants), that means there is no overwhelming actual transaction demand which in turn has an underdeveloped fee market while also allowing spare capacity to be used for spamming and wasteful transactions.

The fact that some people have 1-2 cents in their wallet software and it takes a few hours when there is an attack, is not enough to hf bitcoin and it won't change their user experience once the 2mb are flooded the same way. Therefore they need a better wallet software. The system is working as intended per satoshi's instructions on how to bypass a flood attack (you outpay the spammer). If users don't know it, it's because their wallet software obviously doesn't do a good job of notifying them that fees are dynamic and not static.

As for the timing: Even if the code for HF was issued tomorrow it would still get activated months ahead so that users can get prepared. If the recent "transaction problems" are any indicator, then if people don't even know that they have to pay a few cents to transact, then they can't *really* be depended upon for upgrading in time. It will simply create a mess. So, TLDR, segwit deployment would be much faster. A HF should be planned well ahead, again per the instructions of Satoshi.

It doesn't matter if we need it now. We will need it, and soon. The failure to upgrade well ahead of time is part of why the price is as low as it is, and why adoption isn't higher.

aztecminer

legendary

Activity: 1092

Merit: 1000

Too much politics. Is there some technical reason we can't have both bigger blocks and better blocks? Is this more than jockeying for power?

That's the plan: Segwit = 1.7mb to 3mb (depending use), plus solves tx malleability.

Obviously, all these "disagreements" aren't about the ~300kb difference between segwit and a 2mb hf.

Okay. So, why not change a one to a two now while we wait for the other, presumably more convoluted, stuff to get done?

As far as I'm concerned, I don't have any evidence that we actually need >1mb right now, although we will get >1mb... there is actually no plan that keeps bitcoin at 1mb.... core says 1.7 in a couple months, classic says 2mb with contentious/destructive hf, so... there you have it.

When you have tx fees ranging from 1 to 5 cents (depending the priority one wants), that means there is no overwhelming actual transaction demand which in turn has an underdeveloped fee market while also allowing spare capacity to be used for spamming and wasteful transactions.

The fact that some people have 1-2 cents in their wallet software and it takes a few hours when there is an attack, is not enough to hf bitcoin and it won't change their user experience once the 2mb are flooded the same way. Therefore they need a better wallet software. The system is working as intended per satoshi's instructions on how to bypass a flood attack (you outpay the spammer). If users don't know it, it's because their wallet software obviously doesn't do a good job of notifying them that fees are dynamic and not static.

As for the timing: Even if the code for HF was issued tomorrow it would still get activated months ahead so that users can get prepared. If the recent "transaction problems" are any indicator, then if people don't even know that they have to pay a few cents to transact, then they can't *really* be depended upon for upgrading in time. It will simply create a mess. So, TLDR, segwit deployment would be much faster. A HF should be planned well ahead, again per the instructions of Satoshi.

as far as you are concerned, bitcoin still does not scale, and until it does, it still doesn't. we been talking about this for ten months.

JayJuanGee

legendary

Activity: 3920

Merit: 11299

Self-Custody is a right. Say no to"Non-custodial"

Quote from: WeltMaster on March 07, 2016, 03:05:36 PM

Too much politics. Is there some technical reason we can't have both bigger blocks and better blocks? Is this more than jockeying for power?

That's the plan: Segwit = 1.7mb to 3mb (depending use), plus solves tx malleability.

Obviously, all these "disagreements" aren't about the ~300kb difference between segwit and a 2mb hf.

Okay. So, why not change a one to a two now while we wait for the other, presumably more convoluted, stuff to get done?

When you are dealing with billions of dollars, it would be irresponsible to suddenly change without any actual techinical reason (besides a bunch of loud mouthed cunts complaining).

aztecminer

legendary

Activity: 1092

Merit: 1000

Breaking this $350~500 range reminds me of back in the $8-16 days

where next? Cheesy

probably nowhere until obama is no longer occupying the white house. they aint going down, and if they go up might cause more volume thus exposing their scaling problem . they are truly paralyzed under obama's strategies . #GimpedCoin

JayJuanGee

legendary

Activity: 3920

Merit: 11299

Self-Custody is a right. Say no to"Non-custodial"

Quote from: Andre# on March 07, 2016, 01:31:48 PM

Quote from: JayJuanGee on March 06, 2016, 08:38:36 PM

Quote from: Andre# on March 06, 2016, 06:52:31 PM

Quote from: JayJuanGee on March 06, 2016, 04:39:54 PM

Quote from: Andre# on March 06, 2016, 04:09:39 PM

Quote from: JayJuanGee on March 06, 2016, 02:32:25 PM

Quote from: Andre# on March 06, 2016, 09:20:25 AM

Quote from: Morecoin Freeman on March 06, 2016, 08:11:26 AM

Bitcoin looking healthy again.

Yes, and blocks are still maxxed out.

The blocks are hardly maxed out ----- unless you are just making up shit in order to attempt to exaggerate some problem that is not even close to what the loud mouth FUDsters are attempting to portray.

Blocks floating around 65% at the moment... ... but they had experienced some peaks approaching 90% in recent days (within the past week)

At the time of writing, these were the latest blocks.

401423: 0 MB
401422: 976.48 MB
401421: 974.79 MB
401420: 974.77 MB
401419: 906.65 MB
401418: 0 MB
401417: 974.64 MB
401416: 912.66 MB
401415: 976.45 MB
401414: 974.72 MB
401413: 965.86 MB
401412: 974.55 MB
401411: 974.74 MB

Looks pretty maxed out to me (with thousands tx waiting in tradeblock's mempool). I guess I must be making it up, then.

BTW, you also could have looked at ChartBuddy.

Quote from: ChartBuddy on March 06, 2016, 07:00:36 AM

Quote from: ChartBuddy on March 06, 2016, 08:00:37 AM

Quote from: ChartBuddy on March 06, 2016, 09:00:37 AM

ChartBuddy knows his shit -- I'm only making it up.

I've cited my sources as blockchain.info charts, and you cited your sources as chartbuddy? If someone could explain why blockchain.info is lacking in credibility, then that may be helpful. I really do not understand the significance of chartbuddy because I put through several transactions during supposed congested periods last week, and my experiences reflected those described in blockchain.info, which was relatively quick confirmations and finalization of transactions (in spite claims of fulblocalypse).

So, yeah, I don't think that these various claims of fullblocks really materialize into real world problems, and yes, I think that the blockchain is suffering from various spam/ddos attacks yet is still functioning pretty fucking well in spite of attempts to make it seem full and in spite of attempts to describe some kind of supposed tragedy in the alleged clogged up nature of the blockchain.

Those list of block sizes, I actually got them from blockchain.info as well. So I don't think that blockchain.info lacks credibility. I don't know about the average block sizes chart, though. The chart says the all time high was 876 B, which doesn't tell the whole story regarding block fullness if empty blocks and soft limited blocks are counted as well.

Of course, the "real world problems" of delayed transactions can be solved for a big part once all people are properly trained to guess the right fee, and wallets are updated to make as good a fee advise as possible. And sooner or later the use cases which require cheap transactions will be dropped. And all will be fine.

I just hope it doesn't come to that. I don't want Bitcoin's growth to stop. It seems we differ in that wish, and that's fine. Time will tell which crypto can deliver the desired volume, and how.

You are suggesting that we differ in a wish regarding whether bitcoin's growth stops or not. I don't think so. With that assertion you seem to be implying some untrue assertion that I am not interested in growth of bitcoin... which is pure bullshit to read that into anything that I am saying.

In essence, I provided you an actual link regarding the source within blockchain.info in which I was getting my information regarding both average block size and also regarding transaction times. You did not provide me any link. I was suggesting that both those chart links that I provided and also my real world experiences had demonstrated to me that there really does not seem to be an urgent problem concerning the blocks being full and the amount of time that it takes for a paid for transaction to go through (with the .0001BTC per kilobyte fee).

Accordingly, if there is some information that I am missing (on blockchain.info), then why can't you provide a link that shows that information regarding blocks being maxed out as you asserted??.. You could also, if you so choose, provide some kind of factual information that would support your assertion that this is some kind of major problem that cannot wait a little bit for the implementation of seg wit and the thereafter further considerations of possible block size limit increases that may follow within a year or so thereafter, if that seems necessary after seg wit.

Most technical people in bitcoin seem to agree that some kind of additional block size increase will still be necessary after the implementation of seg wit.. but there remains some uncertainties still regarding the extent to which an actual schedule of block size limit increases is going to be necessary after the implementation of seg wit. and what the timeline for that increase is going to be (or does it need to be pre-established rather than adaptive based on circumstances).

Perhaps the CEO of blockchain.info can convince you?

https://medium.com/@OneMorePeter/bitcoin-scaling-and-choices-bed96a76e637#.laj905178

Quote

At Blockchain.info, where I am CEO, we have historically seen very few tickets related to transaction times or fees. Now however, we are setting new records for the number of tickets we receive in this category daily — indeed, the tickets are growing by a factor of 10 every week. It is now our top support issue by ticket volume.

His analysis on the recent so-called "spam attack" is also worthwhile.

What you provided is not evidence. It is an opinion piece that appears to be based on selective evidence from sources that are less than clear.

Within the Peter Smith article, why not provide evidence on a longer scale that actually shows block fullness, transaction times and fees on a more specific and streamed timeline, instead of taking a clip from a short period now (of 2 weeks) and comparing that short period to some preselected 2015 period and then suggesting that somehow those clips of time are representative without showing the whole thing. that is hardly factual, hardly convincing and hardly a credible way to present supposed facts.

Yes, Blockchain.info has charts, and I provided links to a couple of those charts that show my point.

You are asserting that you are getting your supposed information from blockchain.info facts as well that show conclusions different from mine; however, the best you can come up with is to provide a link to some opinionated piece that does not provide actual representative or convincing data.

I will admit that the links to the Blockchain.info charts that I provided could be more detailed regarding how those charts arrive at their conclusions (regarding average blocksize and average transaction times with fees), yet, nonetheless, the charts that I provided (as far as I can tell) are the best information that is available from blockchain.info on those particular topics (and they do not support the conclusions that you have been attempting to make regarding some kind of emergency in regards to blocksize limit, fees or transaction times).

Again, I am asking whether you have some better charts or some better factual information that I am missing that help to establish the points that you seem to be attempting to make (besides some opinion piece from someone who is apparently attempting to spin facts in order to make an argument to increase the blocksize).

I am completely open to changing my opinion in a variety of ways if there are actual facts to support conclusions that are different from my understanding of the matter.

AlexGR

legendary

Activity: 1708

Merit: 1049

Too much politics. Is there some technical reason we can't have both bigger blocks and better blocks? Is this more than jockeying for power?

That's the plan: Segwit = 1.7mb to 3mb (depending use), plus solves tx malleability.

Obviously, all these "disagreements" aren't about the ~300kb difference between segwit and a 2mb hf.

Okay. So, why not change a one to a two now while we wait for the other, presumably more convoluted, stuff to get done?

As far as I'm concerned, I don't have any evidence that we actually need >1mb right now, although we will get >1mb... there is actually no plan that keeps bitcoin at 1mb.... core says 1.7 in a couple months, classic says 2mb with contentious/destructive hf, so... there you have it.

When you have tx fees ranging from 1 to 5 cents (depending the priority one wants), that means there is no overwhelming actual transaction demand which in turn has an underdeveloped fee market while also allowing spare capacity to be used for spamming and wasteful transactions.

The fact that some people have 1-2 cents in their wallet software and it takes a few hours when there is an attack, is not enough to hf bitcoin and it won't change their user experience once the 2mb are flooded the same way. Therefore they need a better wallet software. The system is working as intended per satoshi's instructions on how to bypass a flood attack (you outpay the spammer). If users don't know it, it's because their wallet software obviously doesn't do a good job of notifying them that fees are dynamic and not static.

As for the timing: Even if the code for HF was issued tomorrow it would still get activated months ahead so that users can get prepared. If the recent "transaction problems" are any indicator, then if people don't even know that they have to pay a few cents to transact, then they can't *really* be depended upon for upgrading in time. It will simply create a mess. So, TLDR, segwit deployment would be much faster. A HF should be planned well ahead, again per the instructions of Satoshi.

WeltMaster

sr. member

Activity: 437

Merit: 250

Breaking this $350~500 range reminds me of back in the $8-16 days

where next? Cheesy

ChartBuddy

legendary

Activity: 2380

Merit: 1823

1CBuddyxy4FerT3hzMmi1Jz48ESzRw1ZzZ

Explanation

2015Bubble

full member

Activity: 196

Merit: 100

Browsing for rocket gifs..

Ibian

legendary

Activity: 2268

Merit: 1278

Too much politics. Is there some technical reason we can't have both bigger blocks and better blocks? Is this more than jockeying for power?

That's the plan: Segwit = 1.7mb to 3mb (depending use), plus solves tx malleability.

Obviously, all these "disagreements" aren't about the ~300kb difference between segwit and a 2mb hf.

Okay. So, why not change a one to a two now while we wait for the other, presumably more convoluted, stuff to get done?

AlexGR

legendary

Activity: 1708

Merit: 1049

Too much politics. Is there some technical reason we can't have both bigger blocks and better blocks? Is this more than jockeying for power?

That's the plan: Segwit = 1.7mb to 3mb (depending use), plus solves tx malleability.

Obviously, all these "disagreements" aren't about the ~300kb difference between segwit and a 2mb hf.

BitconAssociation

newbie

Activity: 42

Merit: 0

Quote from: Andre# on March 07, 2016, 01:31:48 PM

Too much politics. Is there some technical reason we can't have both bigger blocks and better blocks? Is this more than jockeying for power?

>bigger blocks and better blocks
Other than the fact that there's no "bigger better" solution is on the table right now? No.

>Is this more than jockeying for power?
More than jockeying for power in a system predicated on jockeying for power? No.
If our premises are correct, jockeying should be sufficient for the best possible outcome.

Ibian

legendary

Activity: 2268

Merit: 1278

Too much politics. Is there some technical reason we can't have both bigger blocks and better blocks? Is this more than jockeying for power?

gentlemand

legendary

Activity: 2590

Merit: 3015

Welt Am Draht

Perhaps the CEO of blockchain.info can convince you?

https://medium.com/@OneMorePeter/bitcoin-scaling-and-choices-bed96a76e637#.laj905178

This is the most meaningful sentence from that for me -

'we should plan for success. Not survival, not previous growth rates, but for an outcome in which millions and millions more people decide to join our economy and community rapidly.'

And it could've been done when it was far tinier than it is now. It would've been a shit ton easier and nipped everything in the bud before it got going.

ChartBuddy

legendary

Activity: 2380

Merit: 1823

1CBuddyxy4FerT3hzMmi1Jz48ESzRw1ZzZ

Quote from: yugo23 on March 07, 2016, 08:07:05 AM

Explanation

aztecminer

legendary

Activity: 1092

Merit: 1000

Quote from: becoin on March 07, 2016, 07:59:33 AM

Quote from: bitebits on March 07, 2016, 06:38:59 AM

On top of that, Segwit is not a scaling solution. Neither is the raise to 2MB blocks. Both do temporarily fix the current full blocks issue though.

There is no full block issue. There is spam issue. As soon as spam attack stops everything is perfectly normal. Increasing blocksize does nothing to solve spam issue. You can not solve spam issue by giving spammers more free space to spam!

Hmm... I don't understand you. 1MB blocks allow a really low amount of tx and btc is spreading. Of course there is a block size issue! Simply because the adoption of btc is rising and numbers of allowed tx is the staying the same!

or... it might just be manipulators.. they require keep up the illusion of bitcoin while pms are rising. they are in the same predicament with pms as they are with bitcoin .. they went as far as have goldman sachs deliver a warning that pms were going to drop, and then another fool came out trying to convince All of US that gold was going to $700 or even $250 . yeah uh huh sure they are.. bring it on biatches.. pms aint going down anytime soon due to the huge demand for pms.. bring it down see if i buy some.. maybe is a trick to get us all to sell our pms betting on a pull back when instead it will rise leaving everyone buying back at a loss like they did during the 'Marshall's Auction Bitcoin Pump'.. except people arent buying the fud they have been spreading. as we can all see, true to my analysis, bitcoin continues to trade within the $350 - $500 range. to debunk my analysis of bitcoin they will need to pump it above $500, because there is no chance they going to crash it below $300 again. my analysis is right because it is not based on normal chart analysis, instead, it is based upon the manipulations by the US federal govy of "their" crypto-currency. ETH is now trading higher than ripple. that is hard to understand atm.

aztecminer

legendary

Activity: 1092

Merit: 1000

Quote from: ChartBuddy on March 07, 2016, 08:00:36 AM

Quote from: JayJuanGee on March 06, 2016, 08:38:36 PM

lol.. well i guess u guys didnt fix the blocks being full while i was away from bitcoin all weekend #GimpedCoin

Andre#

hero member

Activity: 737

Merit: 500

Quote from: Andre# on March 06, 2016, 06:52:31 PM

Quote from: JayJuanGee on March 06, 2016, 04:39:54 PM

Quote from: Andre# on March 06, 2016, 04:09:39 PM

Quote from: JayJuanGee on March 06, 2016, 02:32:25 PM

Quote from: Andre# on March 06, 2016, 09:20:25 AM

Quote from: Morecoin Freeman on March 06, 2016, 08:11:26 AM

Bitcoin looking healthy again.

Yes, and blocks are still maxxed out.

The blocks are hardly maxed out ----- unless you are just making up shit in order to attempt to exaggerate some problem that is not even close to what the loud mouth FUDsters are attempting to portray.

Blocks floating around 65% at the moment... ... but they had experienced some peaks approaching 90% in recent days (within the past week)

At the time of writing, these were the latest blocks.

401423: 0 MB
401422: 976.48 MB
401421: 974.79 MB
401420: 974.77 MB
401419: 906.65 MB
401418: 0 MB
401417: 974.64 MB
401416: 912.66 MB
401415: 976.45 MB
401414: 974.72 MB
401413: 965.86 MB
401412: 974.55 MB
401411: 974.74 MB

Looks pretty maxed out to me (with thousands tx waiting in tradeblock's mempool). I guess I must be making it up, then.

BTW, you also could have looked at ChartBuddy.

Quote from: ChartBuddy on March 06, 2016, 07:00:36 AM

Quote from: ChartBuddy on March 06, 2016, 08:00:37 AM

Quote from: ChartBuddy on March 06, 2016, 09:00:37 AM

ChartBuddy knows his shit -- I'm only making it up.

I've cited my sources as blockchain.info charts, and you cited your sources as chartbuddy? If someone could explain why blockchain.info is lacking in credibility, then that may be helpful. I really do not understand the significance of chartbuddy because I put through several transactions during supposed congested periods last week, and my experiences reflected those described in blockchain.info, which was relatively quick confirmations and finalization of transactions (in spite claims of fulblocalypse).

So, yeah, I don't think that these various claims of fullblocks really materialize into real world problems, and yes, I think that the blockchain is suffering from various spam/ddos attacks yet is still functioning pretty fucking well in spite of attempts to make it seem full and in spite of attempts to describe some kind of supposed tragedy in the alleged clogged up nature of the blockchain.

Those list of block sizes, I actually got them from blockchain.info as well. So I don't think that blockchain.info lacks credibility. I don't know about the average block sizes chart, though. The chart says the all time high was 876 B, which doesn't tell the whole story regarding block fullness if empty blocks and soft limited blocks are counted as well.

Of course, the "real world problems" of delayed transactions can be solved for a big part once all people are properly trained to guess the right fee, and wallets are updated to make as good a fee advise as possible. And sooner or later the use cases which require cheap transactions will be dropped. And all will be fine.

I just hope it doesn't come to that. I don't want Bitcoin's growth to stop. It seems we differ in that wish, and that's fine. Time will tell which crypto can deliver the desired volume, and how.

You are suggesting that we differ in a wish regarding whether bitcoin's growth stops or not. I don't think so. With that assertion you seem to be implying some untrue assertion that I am not interested in growth of bitcoin... which is pure bullshit to read that into anything that I am saying.

In essence, I provided you an actual link regarding the source within blockchain.info in which I was getting my information regarding both average block size and also regarding transaction times. You did not provide me any link. I was suggesting that both those chart links that I provided and also my real world experiences had demonstrated to me that there really does not seem to be an urgent problem concerning the blocks being full and the amount of time that it takes for a paid for transaction to go through (with the .0001BTC per kilobyte fee).

Accordingly, if there is some information that I am missing (on blockchain.info), then why can't you provide a link that shows that information regarding blocks being maxed out as you asserted??.. You could also, if you so choose, provide some kind of factual information that would support your assertion that this is some kind of major problem that cannot wait a little bit for the implementation of seg wit and the thereafter further considerations of possible block size limit increases that may follow within a year or so thereafter, if that seems necessary after seg wit.

Most technical people in bitcoin seem to agree that some kind of additional block size increase will still be necessary after the implementation of seg wit.. but there remains some uncertainties still regarding the extent to which an actual schedule of block size limit increases is going to be necessary after the implementation of seg wit. and what the timeline for that increase is going to be (or does it need to be pre-established rather than adaptive based on circumstances).

Perhaps the CEO of blockchain.info can convince you?

https://medium.com/@OneMorePeter/bitcoin-scaling-and-choices-bed96a76e637#.laj905178

Quote

At Blockchain.info, where I am CEO, we have historically seen very few tickets related to transaction times or fees. Now however, we are setting new records for the number of tickets we receive in this category daily — indeed, the tickets are growing by a factor of 10 every week. It is now our top support issue by ticket volume.

His analysis on the recent so-called "spam attack" is also worthwhile.

ChartBuddy

legendary

Activity: 2380

Merit: 1823

1CBuddyxy4FerT3hzMmi1Jz48ESzRw1ZzZ