Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 19718. (Read 26708873 times)
January 02, 2016, 04:10:53 PM
He guyz? What do you think of this cool new shirt I just discovered?
January 02, 2016, 04:04:16 PM
I consider the number of txs irrelevant compared to actual use.
Did you not admit upthread that you know of no way to examine a given transaction, and objectively categorize it as 'valid transaction' vs. 'bogus transaction'? Or was that someone else? If it was someone else, can you explain to me how you can objectively determine whether a given transaction reflects (what you casually dismiss as) 'actual use'?
If not, you offer exactly zero solutions.
Quote
Quote
When new interested parties arrive, money in hand, but are thwarted by not being able to acquire Bitcoin due to there being no room in any block for their transaction, what do you think the result will be?
If new interested parties arrive with thousands or millions of dollars and they are arguing whether they should pay a few cents in fees, I'd tell them to ...fork off and find an altcoin that promises free or very low fee txs, until that one is crowded or abused and then they discover the hard way that there is no free launch in crypto.
Any system, altcoin etc that allows cheap use (and by extension => cheap abuse) can and probably will be abused once it becomes larger. The temptation is too high for malicious attackers. It's my belief that if a currency is vulnerable to that kind of attacks by kids => it's not good.
Keeping the artificial limit at half-mil/day does nothing to deter such a spammer. Indeed, it only makes it cheaper for such a spammer to completely overwhelm the entire network, as less transactions are required to do so.
But again, you're only debating a second-order effect. The first order effect is that keeping the current maxblocksize ensures that no more than a half-mil transactions per day can be conducted in Bitcoin. Period. No matter how much is paid in fees. Finito. Game over.
Quote
To return to the issue at hand, being in BTC allows one to participate in a decentralized system where the government won't just come in and tell you you can't transact due to "capital controls", or that your balance is confiscated. Your balance won't become zero because the bank made some poor choices and you paid for it. You also get a type of money with very specific inflation parameters, unlike fiat.
Duh. Red herring totally unrelated to the discussion at hand. What you seem to fail to acknowledge is that this advantage applies to many cryptos. These benefits are not the exclusive domain of Bitcoin. I would like Bitcoin to remain the only crypto that matters. You seem hell-bent on suiciding it.
Quote
Now all these require of you a small technical knowhow and paying some small fee for your txs because the network -at this point in time- won't scale to VISA-like or paypal-like numbers.
Nobody of which I am aware is advocating an instant increase to 100M transactions per day (Visa-scale). And yet you persist in arguing against a modest increase in the maxblocksize. Did I miss where you divulged the magic transaction throughput where you believe the system will break down?
Quote
If you do get them => you don't mind paying a small tx fee. It's the least you can do to support the system.
Again, 'small fee' is a red herring. The issue is inability to transact at any price.
Quote
If you do get them but you also don't want to pay even the small tx fee => use an altcoin.
IOW, suicide Bitcoin so that some other alt can absorb its market share. Got it. Not a vision I can support - sorry.
January 02, 2016, 04:02:07 PM
January 02, 2016, 03:27:07 PM
When new interested parties arrive, money in hand, but are thwarted by not being able to acquire Bitcoin due to there being no room in any block for their transaction, what do you think the result will be?
Most new adoption will have to go through a bank or exchange anyways so they can simply make an economic choice to conduct a free off the chain tx with coinbase/circle/changetip/ect... vs making a 30 penny fee tx on the chain during a fee market event as defined by Garzik. This would buffer any overflow and prevent a crisis while a hard fork is implemented to raise the maxblocksize or other solutions.
I am not suggesting that I would prefer people to permanently use off the chain solutions or that I don't sympathize with those that suggest we need to kick the can either .... I am merely indicating that the situation is not as dire as you seem to imply.
We should focus on conducting as much testing as possible on various hard fork capacity solutions in the next 6 months to prepare for this fantastic problem to dilemma to overcome. This includes all the implementations.
p.s... SepSig is also flexible insomuch as we can choose to use more multisig(a good thing to encourage) to increase capacity to 3-4x if needed , rather than simply 1.75x
January 02, 2016, 03:21:25 PM
The result is that Bitcoin still does the same txs per kb as before. There is no actual improvement in scaling, more like a tradeoff where decentralization and network vulnerability to bloat attacks are tuned to "worse" so that more low-to-zero fee txs can go through.
Such would move the hard cap of somewhere around half a million transactions a day to a higher number. If you do not feel that the ability to process more transactions per unit time is an element of scalability, fine. I find such a position absurd, but so be it. If you insist on clinging to such a definition, than I am more interested increasing potential transactions per unit time than in your definition of scalability -- at least at this point in time, when we are rapidly approaching that limit.
And despite your repetitive statements stripping the reality, this has nothing to do with whether the transactions are zero- low- or ouch!-fee. Half a million a day regardless of the fees paid. Period.
It has everything to do with low or zero fees.
If, say, you go from 0.5mn txs per day to 1mn txs per day and a spammer can add 0.5mn txs per day for peanuts to fill the extra capacity where does that leave you?
You'll go back to square 1 and you'll still be crying "ahhh the blocks are full, we need a new increase, my negligible fee doesn't get me confirmed in 5-10-20 confirmations and I need to pay more and more", etc etc.
But not only will you be crying for the same things, you'll now have to deal with double the bloat, more hardware requirements, higher expenses for running nodes, a more centralized network, etc etc.
Yes. A 'spammer' with sufficient resources can clog the system, no matter how high the maxblocksize is. So what? That is not the relevant point.
There are two kinds of spammers:
a) A spammer with not so many resources can bloat it and clog it (whether 1mb, 2mb, 4mb etc) for peanuts if the room is plenty (thus not requiring much fees to get paid), if the fee structure is not properly designed and if the miners are processing zero to near-zero fee txs (many miners do - so eventually your spam gets included).
b) A spammer with sufficient resources, can bloat it and clog it -despite an anti-spam fee structure- as long as he is willing to pay the price. The problem with this attacker is that he would be very visible. People would know it's big governments or banks doing it. So banks or governments paying to create bogus txs would be an admission of fear and a vote of confidence for BTC (despite the disruptive effect of spamming it).
Quote
The relevant point is that, at the current maxblocksize, the system supports only a half-million transactions per day (+/-). Period. No more may be processed, even if every such attempted transaction was accompanied by 0.01, 0.1, 1, 10, or more BTC. This is a hard limit currently, and this is an absolute fact. I don't know why you keep trying to deflect the conversation to the less-important 'amount of fees issue'.
I consider the number of txs irrelevant compared to actual use.
Right now you could have, let's say hypothetically, a 0.5mn tx capacity maxed out and of them only 0.25mn could be legit and 0.25 are spam. It won't change anything if blocksizes goes to 1mn tx capacity maxed out and the ratio goes like 0.35mn legit / 0.65mn being spam. It's just cheaper spam.
Quote
In and of itself, the half-million per day limit would be no issue, but only as long as no more than a half-million 'valid' transactions are attempted per day. However, we are currently trending towards saturation. On average, blocks are currently approximately half-full. And in the last year, actual block size has increased 136%. On current trend, we don't have a year to raise this limit before user frustration. We don't have a half-year. If we get a surge in adoption this month (not an unlikely prospect, given the widely-media-discussed doubling in price over the last quarter), we could easily saturate within weeks of today.
When new interested parties arrive, money in hand, but are thwarted by not being able to acquire Bitcoin due to there being no room in any block for their transaction, what do you think the result will be?
When new interested parties arrive, money in hand, but are thwarted by not being able to acquire Bitcoin due to there being no room in any block for their transaction, what do you think the result will be?
If new interested parties arrive with thousands or millions of dollars and they are arguing whether they should pay a few cents in fees, I'd tell them to ...fork off and find an altcoin that promises free or very low fee txs, until that one is crowded or abused and then they discover the hard way that there is no free launch in crypto.
Any system, altcoin etc that allows cheap use (and by extension => cheap abuse) can and probably will be abused once it becomes larger. The temptation is too high for malicious attackers. In the mid-90's I knew a guy that used to mailbomb local ISPs so that their bandwidth was depleted. The local ISPs had like 64Kbps-128KBPS leased lines that they had to "spread" to 50-100 users online, connected with 14.4 to 28.8k modems. Users didn't have enough bandwidth to begin with and when the mailbombing packages started to arrive, everything went to a crawl. He was doing that for ...the lulz. The idea that he was somehow important to disrupt network service for many people just by doing something as simple as ...sending mails that were saturating the internet link of the provider was apparently exciting to him. It's my belief that if a currency is vulnerable to that kind of attacks by kids => it's not good.
To return to the issue at hand, being in BTC allows one to participate in a decentralized system where the government won't just come in and tell you you can't transact due to "capital controls", or that your balance is confiscated. Your balance won't become zero because the bank made some poor choices and you paid for it. You also get a type of money with very specific inflation parameters, unlike fiat. Now all these require of you a small technical knowhow and paying some small fee for your txs because the network -at this point in time- won't scale to VISA-like or paypal-like numbers. If one doesn't like the benefits of decentralized payment systems, decentralized "banking" and decentralized currencies due to the small fees, let them go back to fiat currencies, the big banks, western union, credit cards etc. They'll love the inflation, the fees there, the ability of the government to control your life etc etc.
If you don't get the advantages of crypto => you can bail.
If you do get them => you don't mind paying a small tx fee. It's the least you can do to support the system.
If you do get them but you also don't want to pay even the small tx fee => use an altcoin until that too is abused and requires higher fees.
January 02, 2016, 03:19:39 PM
Endless blocksize debate...could we just break €400 and go on now? 
January 02, 2016, 03:02:32 PM
January 02, 2016, 03:01:40 PM
I'm going to stop including 1 transaction blocks in the full-block calculations though. There were three out of six (all F2Pool) when I looked yesterday. That's skewing things way down.
If the current formula accurately reflects the percentage of total potential used block space that had actually been filled, I would advocate no change. To do otherwise turns it into a meaningless statistic. Better to have the simple unvarnished truth, rather than some manipulated figure meant to illuminate some vague outcome.
+1 The existence of empty blocks is more a result of the gaming inherent in bitcoin than any explicit aim on the part of miners. As Richy said, empty blocks are allowed, but they will only succeed where no better block is found in the interim. A chain with a non empty block at its tip will always have more work than one with an empty block. A chain with the most valid work is by definition the longest chain. But if the fuller block isnt found quickly enough, the empty one will be built upon next.
So I see no issue with including them.
January 02, 2016, 02:50:30 PM
I'm going to stop including 1 transaction blocks in the full-block calculations though. There were three out of six (all F2Pool) when I looked yesterday. That's skewing things way down.
If the current formula accurately reflects the percentage of total potential used block space that had actually been filled, I would advocate no change. To do otherwise turns it into a meaningless statistic. Better to have the simple unvarnished truth, rather than some manipulated figure meant to illuminate some vague outcome.
January 02, 2016, 02:42:01 PM
The result is that Bitcoin still does the same txs per kb as before. There is no actual improvement in scaling, more like a tradeoff where decentralization and network vulnerability to bloat attacks are tuned to "worse" so that more low-to-zero fee txs can go through.
Such would move the hard cap of somewhere around half a million transactions a day to a higher number. If you do not feel that the ability to process more transactions per unit time is an element of scalability, fine. I find such a position absurd, but so be it. If you insist on clinging to such a definition, than I am more interested increasing potential transactions per unit time than in your definition of scalability -- at least at this point in time, when we are rapidly approaching that limit.
And despite your repetitive statements stripping the reality, this has nothing to do with whether the transactions are zero- low- or ouch!-fee. Half a million a day regardless of the fees paid. Period.
It has everything to do with low or zero fees.
If, say, you go from 0.5mn txs per day to 1mn txs per day and a spammer can add 0.5mn txs per day for peanuts to fill the extra capacity where does that leave you?
You'll go back to square 1 and you'll still be crying "ahhh the blocks are full, we need a new increase, my negligible fee doesn't get me confirmed in 5-10-20 confirmations and I need to pay more and more", etc etc.
But not only will you be crying for the same things, you'll now have to deal with double the bloat, more hardware requirements, higher expenses for running nodes, a more centralized network, etc etc.
Yes. A 'spammer' with sufficient resources can clog the system, no matter how high the maxblocksize is. So what? That is not the relevant point.
The relevant point is that, at the current maxblocksize, the system supports only a half-million transactions per day (+/-). Period. No more may be processed, even if every such attempted transaction was accompanied by 0.01, 0.1, 1, 10, or more BTC. This is a hard limit currently, and this is an absolute fact. I don't know why you keep trying to deflect the conversation to the less-important 'amount of fees issue'.
In and of itself, the half-million per day limit would be no issue, but only as long as no more than a half-million 'valid' transactions are attempted per day. However, we are currently trending towards saturation. On average, blocks are currently approximately half-full. And in the last year, actual block size has increased 136%. On current trend, we don't have a year to raise this limit before user frustration. We don't have a half-year. If we get a surge in adoption this month (not an unlikely prospect, given the widely-media-discussed doubling in price over the last quarter), we could easily saturate within weeks of today.
When new interested parties arrive, money in hand, but are thwarted by not being able to acquire Bitcoin due to there being no room in any block for their transaction, what do you think the result will be?
January 02, 2016, 02:18:21 PM
In theory, empty blocks *could* be valid but in practice, I think it's fair to say that 100% are from early mining empty blocks (which is a valid miner activity according to the rules but skews calculations and causes the difficulty higher than it should be, causing a lower tps availability)
No, that must be wrong!! According to well known crypto-expert conspiro that can only happen if smelly big blockers get their way!!
Quote from: conspirosphere.tk
3. and making them bigger they are incentivized to mine empty blocks.
January 02, 2016, 02:02:18 PM
January 02, 2016, 01:44:24 PM
Shill? The desperation is showing. 
I'm going to stop including 1 transaction blocks in the full-block calculations though. There were three out of six (all F2Pool) when I looked yesterday. That's skewing things way down.
I'm going to stop including 1 transaction blocks in the full-block calculations though. There were three out of six (all F2Pool) when I looked yesterday. That's skewing things way down.
How is it calculated right now?
(Btw, last block was also a 1-transaction block https://blockchain.info/block/0000000000000000011bcf42f3520787eb3172c9d3dc42b2379be12cf43f3567 )
It iterates over all blocks since the last check, totals the block space used and the block space available (by adding 1000000 for each block) and calculates the percentage from that.
In theory, empty blocks *could* be valid but in practice, I think it's fair to say that 100% are from early mining empty blocks (which is a valid miner activity according to the rules but skews calculations and causes the difficulty higher than it should be, causing a lower tps availability)
January 02, 2016, 01:05:42 PM
Shill? The desperation is showing.
I'm going to stop including 1 transaction blocks in the full-block calculations though. There were three out of six (all F2Pool) when I looked yesterday. That's skewing things way down.
I'm going to stop including 1 transaction blocks in the full-block calculations though. There were three out of six (all F2Pool) when I looked yesterday. That's skewing things way down.
How is it calculated right now?
(Btw, last block was also a 1-transaction block https://blockchain.info/block/0000000000000000011bcf42f3520787eb3172c9d3dc42b2379be12cf43f3567 )
January 02, 2016, 01:02:12 PM
January 02, 2016, 12:38:23 PM
Shill? The desperation is showing.
I'm going to stop including 1 transaction blocks in the full-block calculations though. There were three out of six (all F2Pool) when I looked yesterday. That's skewing things way down.
I'm going to stop including 1 transaction blocks in the full-block calculations though. There were three out of six (all F2Pool) when I looked yesterday. That's skewing things way down.
January 02, 2016, 12:02:10 PM
January 02, 2016, 12:01:01 PM
That's the pathology of (supposedly honest) blockchain bloaters. Refusing to see that increasing the blocksize without providing incentives to dissuade destructive behaviors (from spam attacks to gratuitous crap) is both pointless and suicidal.
The incentive to prevent people from spamming the blockchain is minimum transaction fee. If people are spamming the blockchain for no reason as an attack vector, it means minimum transaction fee should be higher. Zero fee transactions never should have existed. Since finite block size is an open, readily available attack vector, the one thing the small blockers have going for them is, it's inevitable you'll reach a fee market no matter what you set block size to. I still think Bitcoin needs to scale to around 8-10MB blocks to not have a glass ceiling on price, but it should be able to do that with time.
Also, even though I want block size increased, since the blocks will become full no matter what you set them to, it's probably better to let them fill first to test how the system works and create solutions for whatever problems occur rather than dealing with the same problem at 10 or 20MB blocks later. So yea, raising the block size isn't really that urgent yet as some people say.
January 02, 2016, 11:22:09 AM
lol so now chartbuddy gone total shill and advertise yet another dead on arrival altcoin. 
mods? banhammer time?
mods? banhammer time?
January 02, 2016, 11:13:42 AM
lol so now chartbuddy gone total shill and advertise yet another dead on arrival altcoin.
mods? banhammer time?
mods? banhammer time?
Jump to: