Author

Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 19704. (Read 26608860 times)

sr. member
Activity: 392
Merit: 250
-snip-
If you make a free, or almost free crypto, that can do tens of millions of TXs per day, what's stopping someone from abusing it and getting the network to its capacity limits, triggering a priority queue through fees?
-snip-

The same thing that's stopped it from 2009 until today... miner's dust and spam limits. They are incentivized to make small enough blocks to avoid orphaning, unless the fees offered shift them along that supply curve. It really comes down to whether  you trust the free market and the system's built in incentives... or you trust a small cadre of dudes that all happen to work for a certain company that plans to produce the medicine for your disease.
legendary
Activity: 1708
Merit: 1049
That's the baffling/infuriating part with small blockers, they assume that if we hard fork to 2MB once, 256MB is right around the corner... it's not. It's also completely different from changing the reward schedule, which is often raised in the next sentence.

All the "evidence" the "large blockers" seem to require is whether the blocks are full or not. If they are, they say the fullblocalypse is coming, even if the blocks are full with bogus transactions.

So, from a social engineering perspective, the system is pretty vulnerable.

1. Spam the network to fill the blocks
2. Show some useful idiots that "blocks are getting full"
3. Have the useful idiots think the apocalypse is coming, due to the junk txs
4. Let the useful idiots propagate the idea that the developers are crazy for not seeing the same thing and that since the devs are not seeing the apocalypse, they are inadequate and not up to the task, or have ulterior motives to bury btc, or (insert any other conspiracy here).
5. Force devs due to social engineering pressure to increase block size (which reduces fee competition and allows cheap spamming of the blocks) against fundamental reasons not to.
6. Re-spam the enlarged blocks, now at cheaper rates

It's a "GOTO 1 - repeat - fill blockchain with junk - make BTC centralized in the process - leave it vulnerable to other attack vectors as well", situation.

But it could also play out differently... miners might decide that it's not even worth the risk of including 3-4-5-10mb of txs, as the 25 BTC or 12.5 BTC reward is much better than gaining an extra half btc (with an increased orphan risk). A 30s, 1m, 2m advantage could be significant in finding a block. So at that point we'll have a network that only processes very high fee txs to ensure the fastest propagation possible and that the miner has an advantage over the other miners who actually want to include txs in their blocks. At that point, the same people who were asking for much larger blocks, will be crying at how inadequate bitcoin devs are for creating a situation where miners do not even want to mine regular transactions but rather opt to mine only the block reward (and/or some very high fee txs). I mean this is already happening with 1MB empty blocks. Empty-blockers (miners) will be saying "haha those idiots mining the 4-8-10mb blocks full of txs are shooting themselves in the foot, while we are having a tremendous edge over them with our empty blocks". What then? Start forcing miners to mine the transactions?

You have a serious denial issues if you think someone can't copy an open source project, tweak it to remove some bugs, rebrand it to get rid of the baggage and bullshit and give the dominant player some serious competition, especially with enough funding. It doesn't matter if it's grass roots or astroturf.  Fake it 'till you make it.   Billionaires who missed out on being early adopters can be early adopters of BTC2.0 It can even be decentralized and distributed. Haterz be worldwide, Bro.

You fail to grasp a very simple concept:

If you make a free, or almost free crypto, that can do tens of millions of TXs per day, what's stopping someone from abusing it and getting the network to its capacity limits, triggering a priority queue through fees?

If I can have many free txs then I can make a script and fuck the system up for peanuts. Hundreds or thousands of nodes will be paying bandwidth and storage costs for junk that took me a few seconds to generate through my script. The game theory of such a system doesn't add up.

Now, if someone finds a groundbreaking solution in scaling, and this is by some kind of open-source decentralized crypto, then, perhaps, BTC can copy that solution (if it works) and apply it to increase its own scaling potential. Open source works both ways.
legendary
Activity: 2380
Merit: 1823
1CBuddyxy4FerT3hzMmi1Jz48ESzRw1ZzZ
legendary
Activity: 876
Merit: 1000


You have a serious denial issues if you think someone can't copy an open source project, tweak it to remove some bugs, rebrand it to get rid of the baggage and bullshit and give the dominant player some serious competition, especially with enough funding. It doesn't matter if it's grass roots or astroturf.  Fake it 'till you make it.   Billionaires who missed out on being early adopters can be early adopters of BTC2.0 It can even be decentralized and distributed. Haterz be worldwide, Bro.

Exactly! And that is what will happen. Bitcoin the currency isn't important in the long run. The main importance of bitcoin is the idea of open sourced, decentrelized monetary systems. This idea will eventually give birth to new cryptos, that unlike bitcoin, are practical as financial tools.
People here don't like this vision, since it would mean that crypto is not about making a bunch of unskilled kids rich for buying and holding. In my idea, the only people coming from bitcoin, that will become rich, are mainly the ones who created support services like bitpay or the exchanges, and the people who can trade and therefor can move their money to the right place when it's needed.
The "i buy, i hold, i hope for $$$" people will get exactly what their level of skill deserves.
legendary
Activity: 3920
Merit: 11299
Self-Custody is a right. Say no to"Non-custodial"
All the quick-witted people are slowly crowding back in. This is speculation! Why isn't anybody yelling out random numbers Huh



My random number is my prediction of 59.561034829% chance that the next breakout of 1.5% or more (using $426.71 as a starting reference point) is going to be down,  and the remaining 40.4389652% chance of up.

Sideways is not an option in my outlined scenario, even though it could take awhile before prices break either one way or the other (up to a year, possibly .00000013295188403% chance of that).


Downward wins, with a 1.5% break down, but how far will it go?  $410?    will we breach $407?
legendary
Activity: 2380
Merit: 1823
1CBuddyxy4FerT3hzMmi1Jz48ESzRw1ZzZ
sr. member
Activity: 392
Merit: 250
member
Activity: 84
Merit: 10
back up we go

The thing that's happening right now... the very opposite of up... What's the word I'm looking for?
legendary
Activity: 1106
Merit: 1007
Hide your women
Going from 2.7 tps to 5.4 tps isn't trying to make a VISA competitor where the world's cups of coffee will be forever on the blockchain. It's simply growing in line with (actually more conservatively than) hardware/bandwidth improvement. With current number of tx, and no block subsidy... this thing is as good as dead.

That's why the block reward exists, to provide cheapish transactions while we grow the base number of transactions that will eventually cover the cost of mining security. 

That's the baffling/infuriating part with small blockers, they assume that if we hard fork to 2MB once, 256MB is right around the corner... it's not. It's also completely different from changing the reward schedule, which is often raised in the next sentence.

If Bitcoin is artificially crippled at 1MB4EVA, or even 1.75MB with segwit through 2018, competitors will be picking away at that first mover advantage like a vulture on a corpse. This is not gold, it's not on the periodic table, it's open source software. It's value is derived from utility, and expected utility. Kill the utility, kill the coin... or at least relegate it to rpietila's new castle game.


+1

You can have a lot of little fees or a few big fees, but if you opt for a few big fees, you can expect competition who will choose the opposite business model.
legendary
Activity: 1106
Merit: 1007
Hide your women
Why?

If everyone uses litecoin why would Bitcoin be better for larger transactions?

If *everyone* uses litecoin, it won't be.

The chances of that happening is near zero for a long list of reasons.

What will happen, at most, is that shitcoins will be used for low-value txs and btc will be used for high value txs. You want to gamble for a few cents => you use a shitcoin. You want to buy a chewing gum => you use a shitcoin. You want to transfer 500$ or $5 mn, you use BTC.

You are advancing a hypothesis as a known. I think your hypothesis is faulty.

I believe that, should any alt be adopted for small value transactions, the line between 'small value' and 'large value' will quickly trend upwards in absolute value, eventually subsuming all of the actual value within the so-called 'high value' transaction space. If indeed this vision is correct, the Bitcoin would be left eventually as valueless.

The fee market dictates the transaction type. If you have, say, 1$ fee, you can't perform 1-2-3$ txs. You can however perform 50-100-1000-1mn USD txs.

When you have a network that does like 500.000 txs of an average 1.000-10.000$ (acting like the "SWIFT" of crypto), you are at 0.5 to 5bn USD per day.

And if you have a network that does 10 times the number of transactions, say 5mn txs, but for "small" values, like an average of 1 to 10$ per tx, it will only be at 5 to 50mn USD tx volume.

One would say "but why wouldn't people keep their money on the second coin with the many txs etc". The answer is: because it is a disposable coin / a joke coin, that will be unable to preserve functionality in the long run.

It is impossible for a low-fee coin to survive blockchain abuse, which, in the long run, will render that coin unusable. If there is no new mechanism that allows for scaling, all the reasons that prevent bitcoin from going into huge blocks are also there. And they are exploitable. Imagine you have an altcoin that tomorrow gets all the btc load for near zero fees. What's stopping script kiddies from inserting tonz of transactions for the lulz to see the network get clogged? And then people will say "oh fuck that, I came to this altcoin to escape higher fees and now I'm queued for ages and I have to pay fees again, and then, as the attackers are willing to pay even very small fees, I must now pay even higher fees, etc, etc... it's all fucked up". LTC, DOGE are affected in the same way. We'll see how DASH goes because it actually will try to do something different, through the masternode network, but anyway. If you can get many txs for free you can also spam for free and abuse the system (and then the devs will have to "react" by increasing fees to stop the abuse, etc etc). Monero got attacked that way last year I think, and they had to raise fees to prevent the blockchain from getting bloated to DOA levels.

At MOST, some people or group could sink billions into an altcoin, complete with incentives for miners to switch, a well-funded marketing effort, a competent development group that they can control (or at least trust), legal defense fund, lobbying team, focus groups, etc. 

What's seven billion dollars to Wall Street or Silicone Valley? What's the payoff if they succeed?  I'm surprised they haven't done this already.

If that altcoin has very low or near zero fees, it will be exploitable - no matter who creates it. Btw, the scenario of a Wall-Street-coin or Silicon-Valley-coin, is not a real threat due to being centralized. As I told you yesterday, these will be competing in the centralized space with visa and paypal, not with BTC.

If they are an alternative player with a decentralized currency and they arrive on the scene claiming that they can supply millions of txs for free, I can make a script to add gigabytes per day for the lolz into its blockchain. At some point, when people will not be happy with this, and the network will be threatened for its long-term sustainability, the devs will have to "react" and raise fees in order to prevent me from spamming it.

Big money will not necessarily solve the scaling issue. Code will (scaling improvements, new compression algorithms, etc). Or technology will (more storage, faster processing, greater bandwidth etc). Things that apply today, in terms of technological restrictions, might not apply in 3-5-10-15 years. But even if you have a far more capable network in terms of tx capacity, it will always be subject to abuse in a zero to low fee scenario. And thus it will need to be protected. This applies to both BTC and altcoins.

You have a serious denial issues if you think someone can't copy an open source project, tweak it to remove some bugs, rebrand it to get rid of the baggage and bullshit and give the dominant player some serious competition, especially with enough funding. It doesn't matter if it's grass roots or astroturf.  Fake it 'till you make it.   Billionaires who missed out on being early adopters can be early adopters of BTC2.0 It can even be decentralized and distributed. Haterz be worldwide, Bro.
legendary
Activity: 3080
Merit: 1688
lose: unfind ... loose: untight
<< quite a good bit of factual info, but leading to what I believe are a few flawed conclusions, with no clear train of reasoning to draw the conclusions from the factual info >>

Just calling it the way I see it.
legendary
Activity: 3080
Merit: 1688
lose: unfind ... loose: untight
If you have exactly 8 connections, it almost certainly means you have no incoming connections at all.  This usually indicates a network misconfiguration, such as port 8333 blocked by your firewall, or maybe in your case, it's a Tor issue.

The default is 8 outgoing, unlimited incoming. 

Thanks. That's actionable info. Once I decide which larger-blocked node client I'll go with, I'll sink the time into reconfiguring.
legendary
Activity: 2380
Merit: 1823
1CBuddyxy4FerT3hzMmi1Jz48ESzRw1ZzZ
sr. member
Activity: 392
Merit: 250
Going from 2.7 tps to 5.4 tps isn't trying to make a VISA competitor where the world's cups of coffee will be forever on the blockchain. It's simply growing in line with (actually more conservatively than) hardware/bandwidth improvement. With current number of tx, and no block subsidy... this thing is as good as dead.

That's why the block reward exists, to provide cheapish transactions while we grow the base number of transactions that will eventually cover the cost of mining security. 

That's the baffling/infuriating part with small blockers, they assume that if we hard fork to 2MB once, 256MB is right around the corner... it's not. It's also completely different from changing the reward schedule, which is often raised in the next sentence.

If Bitcoin is artificially crippled at 1MB4EVA, or even 1.75MB with segwit through 2018, competitors will be picking away at that first mover advantage like a vulture on a corpse. This is not gold, it's not on the periodic table, it's open source software. It's value is derived from utility, and expected utility. Kill the utility, kill the coin... or at least relegate it to rpietila's new castle game.

legendary
Activity: 1708
Merit: 1049
Why?

If everyone uses litecoin why would Bitcoin be better for larger transactions?

If *everyone* uses litecoin, it won't be.

The chances of that happening is near zero for a long list of reasons.

What will happen, at most, is that shitcoins will be used for low-value txs and btc will be used for high value txs. You want to gamble for a few cents => you use a shitcoin. You want to buy a chewing gum => you use a shitcoin. You want to transfer 500$ or $5 mn, you use BTC.

You are advancing a hypothesis as a known. I think your hypothesis is faulty.

I believe that, should any alt be adopted for small value transactions, the line between 'small value' and 'large value' will quickly trend upwards in absolute value, eventually subsuming all of the actual value within the so-called 'high value' transaction space. If indeed this vision is correct, the Bitcoin would be left eventually as valueless.

The fee market dictates the transaction type. If you have, say, 1$ fee, you can't perform 1-2-3$ txs. You can however perform 50-100-1000-1mn USD txs.

When you have a network that does like 500.000 txs of an average 1.000-10.000$ (acting like the "SWIFT" of crypto), you are at 0.5 to 5bn USD per day.

And if you have a network that does 10 times the number of transactions, say 5mn txs, but for "small" values, like an average of 1 to 10$ per tx, it will only be at 5 to 50mn USD tx volume.

One would say "but why wouldn't people keep their money on the second coin with the many txs etc". The answer is: because it is a disposable coin / a joke coin, that will be unable to preserve functionality in the long run.

It is impossible for a low-fee coin to survive blockchain abuse, which, in the long run, will render that coin unusable. If there is no new mechanism that allows for scaling, all the reasons that prevent bitcoin from going into huge blocks are also there. And they are exploitable. Imagine you have an altcoin that tomorrow gets all the btc load for near zero fees. What's stopping script kiddies from inserting tonz of transactions for the lulz to see the network get clogged? And then people will say "oh fuck that, I came to this altcoin to escape higher fees and now I'm queued for ages and I have to pay fees again, and then, as the attackers are willing to pay even very small fees, I must now pay even higher fees, etc, etc... it's all fucked up". LTC, DOGE are affected in the same way. We'll see how DASH goes because it actually will try to do something different, through the masternode network, but anyway. If you can get many txs for free you can also spam for free and abuse the system (and then the devs will have to "react" by increasing fees to stop the abuse, etc etc). Monero got attacked that way last year I think, and they had to raise fees to prevent the blockchain from getting bloated to DOA levels.

At MOST, some people or group could sink billions into an altcoin, complete with incentives for miners to switch, a well-funded marketing effort, a competent development group that they can control (or at least trust), legal defense fund, lobbying team, focus groups, etc. 

What's seven billion dollars to Wall Street or Silicone Valley? What's the payoff if they succeed?  I'm surprised they haven't done this already.

If that altcoin has very low or near zero fees, it will be exploitable - no matter who creates it. Btw, the scenario of a Wall-Street-coin or Silicon-Valley-coin, is not a real threat due to being centralized. As I told you yesterday, these will be competing in the centralized space with visa and paypal, not with BTC.

If they are an alternative player with a decentralized currency and they arrive on the scene claiming that they can supply millions of txs for free, I can make a script to add gigabytes per day for the lolz into its blockchain. At some point, when people will not be happy with this, and the network will be threatened for its long-term sustainability, the devs will have to "react" and raise fees in order to prevent me from spamming it.

Big money will not necessarily solve the scaling issue. Code will (scaling improvements, new compression algorithms, etc). Or technology will (more storage, faster processing, greater bandwidth etc). Things that apply today, in terms of technological restrictions, might not apply in 3-5-10-15 years. But even if you have a far more capable network in terms of tx capacity, it will always be subject to abuse in a zero to low fee scenario. And thus it will need to be protected. This applies to both BTC and altcoins.
sr. member
Activity: 392
Merit: 250
I'd like to see a business start to pay people for running nodes.  Maybe they can get advertisers to pay them money to cover the cost.  I end up running a node for a few weeks then stop since I get nothing.

Sounds more like a charity than a business. Also, a bunch of nodes under the control of one person or in one place isn't all that helpful. It would also be rife with dbags trying to game the system with pseudo nodes and such.

I think the expense/hassle makes sense for someone with a decent amount of coin. If you are interested in the long term success of your investment, you may want to contribute to the health of the network behind that investment, and have your own copy of the blockchain with the means to verify that it's accurate.  
legendary
Activity: 2380
Merit: 1823
1CBuddyxy4FerT3hzMmi1Jz48ESzRw1ZzZ
legendary
Activity: 910
Merit: 1000
I'd like to see a business start to pay people for running nodes.  Maybe they can get advertisers to pay them money to cover the cost.  I end up running a node for a few weeks then stop since I get nothing.
sr. member
Activity: 392
Merit: 250
Home. My entire bitcoin folder tree amounts to less than 64 GiB - or less than USD $10 of disk space. Bandwidth is such that I don't even notice any degradation to other apps. I admit that my ISP is better than many. I've never thought to measure it with any finer resolution than 'computing demands are irrelevant'.

Care to share how many peers you're connected to?

Hmm... just a sec... checking....

OK, back. 8. I'm guessing that's a default. I've not modified that part of bitcoin.conf.

As long as we're nitpicking my particular node, it may be worth pointing out that I am running it over Tor.

If you have exactly 8 connections, it almost certainly means you have no incoming connections at all.  This usually indicates a network misconfiguration, such as port 8333 blocked by your firewall, or maybe in your case, it's a Tor issue.

The default is 8 outgoing, unlimited incoming.  If you open the Help->Debug Window menu item, it will show the relevant information.


Running a full node over tor requires setting up a tor hidden service first. I found this tutorial but don't have personal experience with it:

https://www.sky-ip.org/configure-bitcoin-node-debian-ubuntu.html

If you just want to run from your home IP, it's as simple as forwarding port 8333 in your router to your machine running bitcoind. Once you see more than 8 connections, you will be contributing to the network.

Be advised that XT nodes have had their broadcasted IP's DDoS'd in the past, although that seems to have subsided vs the days when it was quickly gaining share. I imagine it will happen again to XT and Unlimited nodes if they continue growing.
legendary
Activity: 1066
Merit: 1098
Home. My entire bitcoin folder tree amounts to less than 64 GiB - or less than USD $10 of disk space. Bandwidth is such that I don't even notice any degradation to other apps. I admit that my ISP is better than many. I've never thought to measure it with any finer resolution than 'computing demands are irrelevant'.

Care to share how many peers you're connected to?

Hmm... just a sec... checking....

OK, back. 8. I'm guessing that's a default. I've not modified that part of bitcoin.conf.

As long as we're nitpicking my particular node, it may be worth pointing out that I am running it over Tor.

If you have exactly 8 connections, it almost certainly means you have no incoming connections at all.  This usually indicates a network misconfiguration, such as port 8333 blocked by your firewall, or maybe in your case, it's a Tor issue.

The default is 8 outgoing, unlimited incoming.  If you open the Help->Debug Window menu item, it will show the relevant information.
Jump to: