Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 19696. (Read 26608439 times)

 Lambie, in this iteration of your shell, you seem to be such a passive aggressive kind of FUD spreading troller, who still seems to be quite detached from reality in your exaggerated ways to make negative points regarding bitcoin.

Even though bitcoin enthusiasts are expecting grandios networking possibilities with bitcoin, which ultimately causes exponential growth (and price appreciation), there is almost no way that bitcoin could subsume or absorb any majority proportion of the world's wealth, even in the the next 5-10 years, and even in the best case scenarios for bitcoin.

If Bitcoin were to subsume, even 1% to 5% of various wealth storage and/or payment systems in the next 3-5 years, that would result in bitcoins valued over a million dollars per BTC.. so your exaggeration of 2017 seems out of this world in its level of preposterousness and trying to suggest that any bitcoin bull would believe such fantasies.

I provided an explanation, not a definition.

You can't examine people's intentions because, in a sense, that's the core of the issue here. Does the person initiating the transaction actually want to send money, or does he want to spam the blockchain? How the hell can I know that? If he uses non-dust amounts he can camouflage his spamming as seemingly "legit" txs, and they all may be between his own wallets. But if he had to pay a good fee for doing that kind of spamming, which would eventually deplete his BTC after sending them back and forth, well then he might opt out of the scheme.

But even that is not 100% accurate. A big player with deep pockets might have no issue in paying the fees + spamming / congesting the network with bogus txs. It depends on the actors involved really. Normally, a script kiddie would be different than a legitimate user in that the kiddie wouldn't want to pay for each of his 50.000 spam transactions, while the legitimate user might include a small fee to get his 1-2-5 txs included. So, in that sense, the fee could serve to differentiate between one who wants to transact for real and one who doesn't. But an evil corporate entity would be able to afford paying for the 50.000 spam transactions, or double, or tenfold, if, say, network capacity increased. So in that case, the fee would not be able to serve as a differentiating factor between the serious & legit tx and the bogus one.

I'm not trying to eliminate it, I am trying to say that in the dichotomy between litecoin and Bitcoin, the 4x blocktime difference is meaningless.

The remaining aspects of transaction time only serve to buttress my point - whatever coin provides true utility to more users will in time subsume the vast majority of the market.


No. Sidechains are a distraction. If the main blockchain of some coin supports all transactional use cases, and the Bitcoin blockchain supports only 'high value' transaction use cases due to some arbitrary maxblocksize limit, over time Bitcoin will become marginalized, and the alt will subsume Bitcoin's market cap.


Coke and Pepsi both provide rehydration and a sugar boost in pretty much identical quantities. The only difference between them is a slight flavor difference. IOW, they fulfill exactly the same use cases. Invalid comparison to two coins where one fulfills the universe of use cases and the other only a proper subset.

Likewise, Visa/Mastercard/Amex/Discover have differentiated use cases. Amex doesn't give me 5% back on all purchases. Visa doesn't partially make my car payment. Mastercard doesn't get me free stays at airport lounges. Discover isn't 'everywhere you want to be'. Again, differentiated use cases -- due to an inherent capability of the card. Not one card offers a proper superset of the use cases of the others.

Back to 430. +1,70%
That's cool.
New year is coming soon and Bitcoin is up again.
2016 couldn't start better as with a nice little increase.

When all of the world's wealth is stored in bitcoin (sometime in 2017), fewer users = richer users. That's the third law of thermodynamics.

Definition fail. A definition needs to be precise, such that I may objectively determine whether or not a transaction is bogus by examining it. What are the objective observable characteristics of a bogus transaction?

For the time being... there's also something called priority, calculated from age and size of inputs.

This should be about planning for the future, a happy future where demand for cheap frictionless bitcoin payments continues to grow.

If we're happy about today's # of uses, users, and transactions... 1.75MB equiv will be plenty.

I liek the cut of you're jib

Those zero-cost transactions are heavily subsidized by the block reward currently. Which is going away in time. Fees are an afterthought at the moment.

Just orange. It seems to be in fashion right now.

Bloating up a block with free transactions does have a cost to a miner in terms of propagation and verification time. By bloating a block they risk being orphaned by a longer chain of smaller blocks, costing them 25BTC. A very strong natural incentive to keep blocks at a reasonable size.

I'd expect that if the hardcoded max is increased, you'd see blocks largely the same size that they are now, perhaps at times of peak use and increasing fees they'd be slightly bigger.

A higher limit makes it harder/more expensive for a spammer to price out all legitimate transactions.

Thanks...

Your various chartbuddy innovations are very helpful to our whole discussions and can be valuable towards keeping us somewhat grounded in facts (to the extent that any of us are willing or capable of being grounded)

Some miners might process junk for free* or near-zero cost. Others won't even process higher fee txs. As it stands, the answer is "it depends".

* I recently consolidated some of my dust into one address for free.

Coin



Explanation

Does sending dust between wallets in thousands of transactions require fees? There is no distinction for the miner, pay the fee they require and your transaction is just as legitimate as any other.

thanks, that makes sense. happy miner, happy blockchain. So, he who controls the means of production...

I meant the seller I'm not talking about fees here.

Who do you need to pay? The miner.

Who should decide how much you need to pay them? The miner.

Who is attempting to centrally plan production quotas? Core developers with a conflict of interest that is glaring you in the face.

I guess I agree with you in theory but need more clarification. Can dust transactions serve a purpose? Do they ever serve a purpose? For example, could someone else's dust transaction also include like a time/date/stamp of an event taking place? Or, essentially, by including such event information, it would transform the dust transaction into a larger transaction, and therefore not be dust? Did that make sense?

 WTF is that   Punk yellow 
it is hard on the eyes. Try a royal blue approach  
Don't listen to me I am in a pre-drunk phase for the appending new year.