Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 20083. (Read 26720832 times)
December 05, 2015, 06:22:40 AM
Breaking throught sticky psychodelia boom boom
December 05, 2015, 06:05:20 AM
I am not buying into this bulltrap.
I'm seeing a dump @ $390 this time. $396-ish
December 05, 2015, 06:00:55 AM
December 05, 2015, 06:00:02 AM
best case sanrio
snip
I hope you went long Adam.. snip
I like that! That would make us all happy @ Christmas! Those are dates shown in the "best case scenario". Let's find some Bitcoins under the Christmas tree
December 05, 2015, 05:56:10 AM
Physiological point is $400
December 05, 2015, 05:53:53 AM
More from VISA... http://www.coindesk.com/hands-on-with-visa-europes-bitcoin-remittance-app/
Rockets, trains, unicorns, yachts...
Rockets, trains, unicorns, yachts...
December 05, 2015, 05:41:04 AM
December 05, 2015, 05:19:49 AM
The quality of saturation is the critical element one should be worried about.
Saturation from dust, spam, worthless micro-txs, faucets, dice, "stress tests", scripts that are purposefully wasting space in the blockchain for minimal fees, etc = nobody should even bother.
Saturation from legit txs should get a bump to accommodate for new capacity.
Saturation from dust, spam, worthless micro-txs, faucets, dice, "stress tests", scripts that are purposefully wasting space in the blockchain for minimal fees, etc = nobody should even bother.
Saturation from legit txs should get a bump to accommodate for new capacity.
That is true. However, to kill that "trash", it would be much better to just raise the minimum fee. It would be a "centralized decision", true, but so is imposing an arbitrary size limit.
Quote
If you enlarge the block size prior to being genuinely saturated, you are just opening the bloat-attack-vector, wide open.
When the 1 MB limit was introduced in 2010, it was 100x the average block size at the time. Until the "stress tests" of June 2015, there has been no "bloat-attack-vector": no one tried to create 1 MB blocks, not even in 2010 when they would have been more damaging than 8 MB blocks would be today.
Quite probably, the stress tests would not have happened if the limit had been raised to 8 MB two years ago. The stated goal of the first test was to create a 200 MB backlog of unprocessed transactions. That was easy, because the clearance between the normal traffic (0.5 MB/block) and the effective capacity of the network (0.8 MB/block) was very small, so the "tester" only needed to issue more than 0.3 MB of transactions every 10 minutes to start building the backlog. If the limit was 8 MB, the effective capacity may have been at least 6 MB/block, so the tester would have had to issue 5.5 MB every 10 minutes -- more than 15 times.
For the same reason, the 1 MB limit makes a real spam attack (with dynamic fees) much more likely, because it makes it much cheaper and easier to carry out.
Quote
If someone says "but we can send these users to thin clients, web wallets etc", just contemplate that if this happens now, and having your own bitcoin-qt is unsustainable for a lot of people, then what will happen in 5 years or 10 years? such txs.
Centralization of mining is one of the few real flaws of the protocol, that will require another genius idea to solve. The "full but non-mining" nodes are a hack that attempts to get around to that problem. However, they violate the spirit of bitcoin, they will not protect bitcoin from a miner cartel, and they will disappear anyway, because they are not rewarded (and they are not rewarded because they did not exist in Satoshi's design).
December 05, 2015, 05:02:53 AM
Alot of people are wishing they would of bought more in the $200 range. There is going to be alot more people wishing they would of bought in the $300 range after the halving boom. Believe me, its coming.
correct.
Yes, if they will raise the limit. If they refuse, a boom won't be possible.
About this I am not sure, but it's quite possible that will be a show stopper
December 05, 2015, 05:02:14 AM
Just broke $383 on China's exchanges. Strap in, Gentlemen. 
December 05, 2015, 05:00:51 AM
December 05, 2015, 04:38:07 AM
Alot of people are wishing they would of bought more in the $200 range. There is going to be alot more people wishing they would of bought in the $300 range after the halving boom. Believe me, its coming.
correct.
Yes, if they will raise the limit. If they refuse, a boom won't be possible.
December 05, 2015, 04:14:08 AM
Alot of people are wishing they would of bought more in the $200 range. There is going to be alot more people wishing they would of bought in the $300 range after the halving boom. Believe me, its coming.
correct.
December 05, 2015, 04:03:11 AM
The next 24 hours are critical.
December 05, 2015, 04:02:09 AM
Wow weekly candle turned green unexpected on sick volume. Is this gentlemen?
December 05, 2015, 04:00:51 AM
December 05, 2015, 03:39:57 AM
First we have to break that golden $383. 
December 05, 2015, 03:36:39 AM
Further up the next resistance is set at the $400 dollars round figure. A breakout above here could lead to extended gains towards $450 dollars per coin.
http://www.forexnews.com/blog/2015/12/04/bitcoin-in-another-uneventful-session/
http://www.forexnews.com/blog/2015/12/04/bitcoin-in-another-uneventful-session/
December 05, 2015, 03:16:17 AM
I strongly suspect that Adam does not have any intention of implementing that plan, certainly not before the network gets saturated. I believe that he made that proposal only to pretend that he is a reasonable guy, and to steal support from BIP101.
The quality of saturation is the critical element one should be worried about.
Saturation from dust, spam, worthless micro-txs, faucets, dice, "stress tests", scripts that are purposefully wasting space in the blockchain for minimal fees, etc = nobody should even bother.
Saturation from legit txs should get a bump to accommodate for new capacity.
If you enlarge the block size prior to being genuinely saturated, you are just opening the bloat-attack-vector, wide open. And then users will say 'ohhh, this is bullshit, this program BTC requires me to download 2 tb of data prior to using it"... or, if someone is in a country where bandwidth is expensive and they are charged for over-the-top use, after, say, 100gb/month, "aaah, I can't even sync this without going over my monthly quota". Or "shit, I have to send these money out, and I'm syncing the last 30 hours and it takes an hour to do so"... because 8mb blocks are full of cheap spam and dust.
If someone says "but we can send these users to thin clients, web wallets etc", just contemplate that if this happens now, and having your own bitcoin-qt is unsustainable for a lot of people, then what will happen in 5 years or 10 years?
Block size needs a glide path that co-incides with actual usage, and marginalizes spam/dust, or makes it expensive for such txs.
Miners and nodes should set their own prices and dust limits. There are economic pressures compelling them to. The overarching max block size should be a circuit breaker / malicious miner protection only. A sort of training wheels.
Jump to: