Author

Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 19413. (Read 26610285 times)

member
Activity: 72
Merit: 10
I am genuinely looking forward to seeing what response you, brg444, icebreaker, hdbuck et al. provide for our entertainment if the network actually forks to classic and no disaster occurs. All that brazen supercilious venom spewed over the last year with potentially nothing to show for haha.

Smiley

I'm glad you're finding it hilarious. I don't. Because I invested non-trivial portion of my portfolio into Bitcoin and I'd hate it all to go "poof!" if a hostile hard fork backfires and the net DOES split into two. Are you willing to bet ALL your BTC that this has a zero chance of happening? I would not be so sure.

yes, best to allow some private company with their own and their VC's agenda to take over bitcoin and dictate its development. surely that's what you signed up for.

Some corporation or other will always be there to try to bareback our little network. I'm calling it the Fidelity problem. Angry

yep, but we are learning how to deal with it. it will be decisive. better now than later.
legendary
Activity: 1554
Merit: 1014
Make Bitcoin glow with ENIAC
The guy tried his best to help fix a problem and was treated as shit for it.

Maybe he should have tried harder to write some actual code.


It doesn't seem like our current conundrum is due to a lack of code.

I am genuinely looking forward to seeing what response you, brg444, icebreaker, hdbuck et al. provide for our entertainment if the network actually forks to classic and no disaster occurs. All that brazen supercilious venom spewed over the last year with potentially nothing to show for haha.

Smiley

I'm glad you're finding it hilarious. I don't. Because I invested non-trivial portion of my portfolio into Bitcoin and I'd hate it all to go "poof!" if a hostile hard fork backfires and the net DOES split into two. Are you willing to bet ALL your BTC that this has a zero chance of happening? I would not be so sure.

Still got time to cut your loose Cheesy
*Not much tho, look at them Classic nodes springing up! Like mushrooms after an autumn rain Smiley

Actually, those classic nodes are more like fungus spreading on the corpses of XT/unlimited nodes.  Grin

So we agree that Bitcoin Classic is a kind of fungus. I guess that's progress.
legendary
Activity: 2380
Merit: 1823
1CBuddyxy4FerT3hzMmi1Jz48ESzRw1ZzZ
hero member
Activity: 737
Merit: 500
We are nowhere close to "everything will suck soon" tm. You guys have been saying that for a year now btw.

Actually several years. We've been repeatedly pointing at the same stupid, unnecessary hard ceiling, and pointing out that the inexorable trend of increasing transactions has us on a clear intersect.

In the meantime, we have recently gone from things never sucking in regards to capacity, to things sucking for brief flashes of time. The issue is not how much one needs to pay to get a transaction through, the issue is that with the current block size, no more than about 350,000 transactions can be processed in a day. Period. No matter how much money is thrown at the transactions.

Here's what those two non-parallel lines would look like if the bump to 2MB occurs May 1:



Thanks! This is still the best graph.
legendary
Activity: 1106
Merit: 1007
Hide your women
The guy tried his best to help fix a problem and was treated as shit for it.

Maybe he should have tried harder to write some actual code.


Who wrote most of the code for Facebook or Microsoft or Apple or Google or anybody? We don't know because it doesn't matter. Satoshi Nakamoto is responsible for the economics of Bitcoin. He got the incentives right, which is the whole ballgame.

We're being held hostage by some narcissistic codemonkeys who think we should defer to their economic expertise and business acumen when they have demonstrated no particular expertise or even competence in those areas. They write code. They are good at it. don't mean shit.

The market always has the last word. incentives matter. 

legendary
Activity: 2380
Merit: 1823
1CBuddyxy4FerT3hzMmi1Jz48ESzRw1ZzZ
legendary
Activity: 2380
Merit: 1823
1CBuddyxy4FerT3hzMmi1Jz48ESzRw1ZzZ
legendary
Activity: 2842
Merit: 1511
The guy tried his best to help fix a problem and was treated as shit for it.

Maybe he should have tried harder to write some actual code.


legendary
Activity: 2380
Merit: 1823
1CBuddyxy4FerT3hzMmi1Jz48ESzRw1ZzZ
legendary
Activity: 2380
Merit: 1823
1CBuddyxy4FerT3hzMmi1Jz48ESzRw1ZzZ
legendary
Activity: 1162
Merit: 1007
We are nowhere close to "everything will suck soon" tm. You guys have been saying that for a year now btw.

Actually several years. We've been repeatedly pointing at the same stupid, unnecessary hard ceiling, and pointing out that the inexorable trend of increasing transactions has us on a clear intersect.

In the meantime, we have recently gone from things never sucking in regards to capacity, to things sucking for brief flashes of time. The issue is not how much one needs to pay to get a transaction through, the issue is that with the current block size, no more than about 350,000 transactions can be processed in a day. Period. No matter how much money is thrown at the transactions.

Here's what those two non-parallel lines would look like if the bump to 2MB occurs May 1:

legendary
Activity: 2380
Merit: 1823
1CBuddyxy4FerT3hzMmi1Jz48ESzRw1ZzZ
legendary
Activity: 2380
Merit: 1823
1CBuddyxy4FerT3hzMmi1Jz48ESzRw1ZzZ
full member
Activity: 154
Merit: 100
legendary
Activity: 3080
Merit: 1688
lose: unfind ... loose: untight
So, yep, I already understood the concepts

I thought you probably did. Sorry for the use of unfamiliar jargon.

Quote
At this point, I believe that the "emergency" is much exaggerated, and not as bit of a deal as it is being made out to be.  That does not mean that NO action need be taken now, but it likely means that we do not need to rush into a solution that is imposed without considering various alternatives.  

Look - I get that you're relatively new here. But rest assured we have been discussing this very issue for several years. Without that perspective in the rear view mirror, you may feel that the urgency is exaggerated. But to those of us who have been tracking this incipient problem for years, the situation does indeed appear dire.

I find it a bit curious that you want to suggest that I have arrived at my conclusion because I am "relatively new here." 

No slight intended. I formed the impression that you thought the discussion over the max block size was a recent phenomenon. I just meant to point out that it has been ongoing for years.

The issue is that, once the lines intersect, growth is limited at the 'about 350,000' transactions a day level. The upward trending line of transactions a day flatlines - limited at the intersect to the system capacity. She can' take any more, cap'n'
Yes.  I mostly agree with the concept that you are describing to be one of apparent increasing block sizes and limited capacity; however, your trajectory assumes that nothing is being done or that there is no implementation before or during that time that can adequately address the situation. 

We are certainly not at your tragic point yet, and from what I can tell, it seems that we are quite a distance, still from that point.. whether it is a year or some other time frame, but even if we have been crossing into that point of congestion during current times, I have not been hearing too many convincing stories regarding any current problems (besides some anecdotal claims and seeming exaggerations of problems that are not really attributable to currently full blocks).  Too many ongoing exaggerations are being bandied about on an ongoing basis.

By 'trajectory' do you mean to denote the rate of growth in the transactions per day? For there is nothing that _can_ be done about this curve. It just is, and reflects all the multitudinous decisions that scores of independent actors arrive at in their usage of the blockchain. It is a reflection of the actual amount of use that people are getting out of Bitcoin. Accordingly, there is nothing to be done about the trajectory. What we can do something about is the capacity for transactions per unit time.

When should such a change come about? I would advocate ASAP. The 50% bet, based upon a 2x/year extrapolation, is somewhat less than a year. But what if we get a surge in adoption? For we don't know when the next great influx will arrive. If it happens next month, we will have scores of befuddled newcomers utterly unable to comprehend where there money disappeared to. With attendant widely-published horror stories. Which runs a very good chance of shunting these -- and future -- newcomers onto some other system. One without such a stupid artificial restriction.

You may claim that nearly a year is enough time to work things out. And that is the ~50% probability (assuming the 2x per year is a good curve fit). But those who have been around this for a while know that this animal seems to get adopted in fits and starts. If we had a proportional spike like we did in Jul, or in Sep, or in Dec, the system could not handle the volume. Period. No capacity whatsoever. If it was a spike, the backlog would eventually clear out. But how would the newcomers feel about their money being in limbo for a month? And what if it would have been Bitcoin's eternal September - we would kill all prospects of an explosion in adoption like the Internet experienced in 1993.

It seems to me that when you describe more or less exacting timelines of a year or some impending soon time into the near future, that is an oversimplification to suggest that this is largely a math problem that a certain number of usages is going to bring us into this filled up capacity... 
 

I'm thinking you must have thought something other than you typed here. A certain number of usages will indeed "bring us into this filled up capacity". This is pure math. The consequences that fall out of such an event can be debated, but the capacity is the capacity. The math is the math. It ain't even sophisticated math. Simple elementary school arithmetic will suffice.

Quote
Yes, some evolving situations (whether expected or not) are going to cause a bit more senses of urgency regarding blocks fullness, but in the end, I feel fairly optimistic that the bitcoin blockchain is strong enough to survive a variety of attacks from a variety of angles... to adjust to the the attacks and to the overclogging, and likely bitcoin participants will also, from time to time, suffer from some delays in processing their transactions, here and there, and it will not be the end of the world or the end of bitcoin. 

First, the problem is not "a variety of attacks from a variety of angles". The problem is simple usage of Bitcoin, in the manner it was designed to be operated, absent a change in the max block size, is limited to 'about 350,000' transactions a day. Period. If more transactions than this are attempted, for a sustained period, those transactions will not be simply delayed. The excess over 'about 350,000' per day will never clear.
hero member
Activity: 784
Merit: 512
I am genuinely looking forward to seeing what response you, brg444, icebreaker, hdbuck et al. provide for our entertainment if the network actually forks to classic and no disaster occurs. All that brazen supercilious venom spewed over the last year with potentially nothing to show for haha.

Smiley

I'm glad you're finding it hilarious. I don't. Because I invested non-trivial portion of my portfolio into Bitcoin and I'd hate it all to go "poof!" if a hostile hard fork backfires and the net DOES split into two. Are you willing to bet ALL your BTC that this has a zero chance of happening? I would not be so sure.

Still got time to cut your loose Cheesy
*Not much tho, look at them Classic nodes springing up! Like mushrooms after an autumn rain Smiley

Actually, those classic nodes are more like fungus spreading on the corpses of XT/unlimited nodes.  Grin
legendary
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1116
I am genuinely looking forward to seeing what response you, brg444, icebreaker, hdbuck et al. provide for our entertainment if the network actually forks to classic and no disaster occurs. All that brazen supercilious venom spewed over the last year with potentially nothing to show for haha.

Smiley

I'm glad you're finding it hilarious. I don't. Because I invested non-trivial portion of my portfolio into Bitcoin and I'd hate it all to go "poof!" if a hostile hard fork backfires and the net DOES split into two. Are you willing to bet ALL your BTC that this has a zero chance of happening? I would not be so sure.

yes, best to allow some private company with their own and their VC's agenda to take over bitcoin and dictate its development. surely that's what you signed up for.

Some corporation or other will always be there to try to bareback our little network. I'm calling it the Fidelity problem. Angry
member
Activity: 72
Merit: 10
I am genuinely looking forward to seeing what response you, brg444, icebreaker, hdbuck et al. provide for our entertainment if the network actually forks to classic and no disaster occurs. All that brazen supercilious venom spewed over the last year with potentially nothing to show for haha.

Smiley

I'm glad you're finding it hilarious. I don't. Because I invested non-trivial portion of my portfolio into Bitcoin and I'd hate it all to go "poof!" if a hostile hard fork backfires and the net DOES split into two. Are you willing to bet ALL your BTC that this has a zero chance of happening? I would not be so sure.

yes, best to allow some private company with their own and their VC's agenda to take over bitcoin and dictate its development. surely that's what you signed up for.
legendary
Activity: 3920
Merit: 11299
Self-Custody is a right. Say no to"Non-custodial"

where's dev

Are we on fork? Shocked

Maybe I will have to measure more preciselyin the future to see how long it is taking in actuality- [...]

Or stop making shit up. That works too Smiley


Yeah right. A rough estimate can be different from precise timing, and yep I agree that no one likes anyone who exaggerates.

I think that I tend to not worry whether it takes 15 minutes or an hour or perhaps a day in some instances for the bitcoins to actually be available because I tend to maintain a sufficient balance in Bitcoin and dollars to provide a bit of a cushion for possible volatility.   Therefore if I'm really worried about having some bitcoins locked up in one place for an extended period of time (more than 15 minutes, for example), I could sell an equal or proportionate amount of bitcoins in another place.

And, yep I can imagine instance in which the cushion of bitcoins would not  be there for me for one reason or another, or possible the amount of bitcoins in the pending transaction is really high, so it's more difficult to maintain a cushion or to sell somewhere else .

I suppose if I were dealing in some hypothetical situations in which I needed access to the bitcoins more quickly then I would need to measure more the amount of time more precisely for actual availability versus the bitcoins just showing up as "pending."


I also recognize that other people may experience other kinds of use cases that make it better to have actual access to the coins more quickly, and there are some people who do not operate their lives with various cushions in their finances, so they get a bit more anxious through either inadvertence or lack of preparations.



One of the USPs of Bitcoin is its fluidity. Being able to move funds in less than an hour, instead of (business) days. No need to maintain "cushions", of your own or rented (credit cards). Creating blockchain traffic jams sacrifices that huge advantage of Bitcoin.



I'm not sure about whether we may be talking about two separate things.


Surely, I do not expect people to engage in the same kinds of practices as me; however, for almost two years before October 2015, I mostly was in the mode of accumulating bitcoin, and whenever I made any transaction, I would replace whatever bitcoins that I used.

Since October 2015, I have begun to trade bitcoin, and in essence I believe trading bitcoin (to some degree) helps to protect my investment from some of the up and down volatility.

Some day in the future, we may be able to measure bitcoin in terms of some other thing rather than the dollar; however, in current times, bitcoin remains quite volatile in terms of the dollar.  Yes, in a lot of instances, there is much more upside potential in being about to move bitcoin around a lot cheaper than the dollar, yet I am still at a point, in my bitcoin investment, that I feel that it is necessary to have these various cushions in place in order to protect me from some of the volatility.

Actually, also, since I have these various systems in place, I also find it to be the case that I can buy and sell bitcoins at a profit no matter what is the price direction, but I sill am involved in quite a bit of record keeping and juggling a variety of bitcoin accounts in order to achieve such profits in trading and in engaging in bitcoin transactions.

Accordingly, I agree with you that in a large number of cases (and the various systems that I use on a regular basis), in most cases it is way way way faster to move around bitcoins in a fairly low fee way than to move around dollars.  The only exception seems to be if there is a transaction going from accounts within the same bank or cash transfers into banks. Otherwise, bitcoin is much faster and less expensive.



legendary
Activity: 2380
Merit: 1823
1CBuddyxy4FerT3hzMmi1Jz48ESzRw1ZzZ
Jump to: