Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 20994. (Read 26623485 times)
August 19, 2015, 11:19:47 PM
BTC gonna jump up to $315?
August 19, 2015, 11:02:28 PM
August 19, 2015, 10:54:21 PM
Quote
Adam Back: The worry with extremely large blocks is that they can be used to exacerbate a selfish mining attack. If you’ve got a large miner or a couple of large miners, they can create very large blocks and other people won’t be able to receive them or process them in time. So, they will gain an advantage in mining.
Bitcoin chose its parameters to make the advantage minimal so that it’s a level playing field between small miners and large miners. Right now, the interval between Bitcoin blocks is ten minutes. And the approximate time it takes to propagate, or send a block after it’s found, across the peer-to-peer network is about 10 or 15 seconds. You want the ratio between the propagation time and the block interval to be high enough, because, as a miner, while you’re waiting to receive a block, or while you’re processing a block to check it’s valid, you’re unable to mine. So, you lose money.
By having larger blocks, it’s going to take a longer time to process them. So, it’s going to favor miners with higher bandwidth or who are more centrally connected via high speed links to other miners. It gives them an advantage.
Bitcoin chose its parameters to make the advantage minimal so that it’s a level playing field between small miners and large miners. Right now, the interval between Bitcoin blocks is ten minutes. And the approximate time it takes to propagate, or send a block after it’s found, across the peer-to-peer network is about 10 or 15 seconds. You want the ratio between the propagation time and the block interval to be high enough, because, as a miner, while you’re waiting to receive a block, or while you’re processing a block to check it’s valid, you’re unable to mine. So, you lose money.
By having larger blocks, it’s going to take a longer time to process them. So, it’s going to favor miners with higher bandwidth or who are more centrally connected via high speed links to other miners. It gives them an advantage.
How about access to heavily state subsidized electricity rates? Miners more centrally located to hydroelectric plants? Are these not advantages to be gained in the mining market? Why do the reticent devs arrogate themselves the power to centrally plan advantage, or disadvantage, as it relates to bandwidth speeds? (And would they have a conceivable side interest in desiring such control?)
Quote
If you increase the block size rapidly, the level playing field is eroded. If it gets eroded too much, once miners are able to create blocks that only they and a couple of other big miners can mine, they can exclude everybody else because [other miners] can’t keep up.
Let's be honest, there are well less than 20 individual pools/nodes that really comprise the vast majority mining power, are these pools not already incentivized and funded enough to secure the absolute best possible connectivity in their locale? Again, why play favorites here?
Quote
The block size is there to put a check on these economies of scale and level the playing field.
The economies of scale generally relate to power rates, and housing. Why not quality of network connectivity? Well, because of full node distribution, which may very well fall in the case of a precipitous blocksize increase. Seems like he's barking up the wrong tree in focusing on mining vs full node decentralization?
I said, weeks ago, before this strange schism erupted in the community that I would be perfectly happy even with Jeff's BIP 102. The timing is not absolutely critical yet, and if it suddenly was, we would have 100% more headroom. Sad to see everything sort of devolve into a shitstorm, but I really am hopeful that a more conservative increase (even one time) option emerges from core. Followed by a mass exodus from XT when they see that there is another more equitable and certainly less contentious outcome.
I think the core team is technically brilliant, yes even gmaxwell. But some of these questions are more than technical, they're somewhat political, and people's disparate interests get all wrapped up in it.
August 19, 2015, 10:52:09 PM
Oh yeah. Economies of scale. Surely he hasn't heard that one before. Good on you to point this out.
I'd say you clearly don't understand english maybe? Did you somehow miss this paragraph ?
Quote
Adam Back: The worry with extremely large blocks is that they can be used to exacerbate a selfish mining attack. If you’ve got a large miner or a couple of large miners, they can create very large blocks and other people won’t be able to receive them or process them in time. So, they will gain an advantage in mining.
Bitcoin chose its parameters to make the advantage minimal so that it’s a level playing field between small miners and large miners. Right now, the interval between Bitcoin blocks is ten minutes. And the approximate time it takes to propagate, or send a block after it’s found, across the peer-to-peer network is about 10 or 15 seconds. You want the ratio between the propagation time and the block interval to be high enough, because, as a miner, while you’re waiting to receive a block, or while you’re processing a block to check it’s valid, you’re unable to mine. So, you lose money.
By having larger blocks, it’s going to take a longer time to process them. So, it’s going to favor miners with higher bandwidth or who are more centrally connected via high speed links to other miners. It gives them an advantage.
If you increase the block size rapidly, the level playing field is eroded. If it gets eroded too much, once miners are able to create blocks that only they and a couple of other big miners can mine, they can exclude everybody else because [other miners] can’t keep up.
Bitcoin chose its parameters to make the advantage minimal so that it’s a level playing field between small miners and large miners. Right now, the interval between Bitcoin blocks is ten minutes. And the approximate time it takes to propagate, or send a block after it’s found, across the peer-to-peer network is about 10 or 15 seconds. You want the ratio between the propagation time and the block interval to be high enough, because, as a miner, while you’re waiting to receive a block, or while you’re processing a block to check it’s valid, you’re unable to mine. So, you lose money.
By having larger blocks, it’s going to take a longer time to process them. So, it’s going to favor miners with higher bandwidth or who are more centrally connected via high speed links to other miners. It gives them an advantage.
If you increase the block size rapidly, the level playing field is eroded. If it gets eroded too much, once miners are able to create blocks that only they and a couple of other big miners can mine, they can exclude everybody else because [other miners] can’t keep up.
The block size is there to put a check on these economies of scale and level the playing field.
You don't need that check and it causes more problems than it solves. There's no such thing as a level playing field. Some miners get their electricity cheaper. Some live closer to a main internet trunk. Some are born with higher IQ. Some have more access to investment capital. Life isn't fair.
It will take longer to process larger blocks, but bandwidth and processing speed increase all the time. The advantage is only temporary like any advantage in a highly competitive industry. If only big miners can compete, then become a big miner or sell out to one and become their employee. Effectively the only real barrier to entry is capital, BUT THIS IS CAPITALISM, BABY. The only way to remove that barrier is to exit the free market. That causes more problems than it solves.
I heard a whole lot of griping about mining pools, but now a larger block size will allow an individual large mine to compete with an entire pool, and you're not happy with that either!!
Scale or die.
August 19, 2015, 10:49:46 PM
I'll buy LTC or some other shitcoin because it's so worthless the CIA will leave it alone 
August 19, 2015, 10:45:23 PM
Why does this sound so plausible 
http://www.contravex.com/2015/08/19/vox-populi-vox-dei-no-more/
Quote
Agent A : “Ok team, listen up, I’ve assembled you here today because we haven’t a moment to lose. These are the direst of times and we’re running out of options.”
Agent C : “I have the same sense, so what’s the plan ?”
Agent A : “We’re going to fast-track our proposed ph0rk, wind up the media marionette, and squeeze the price signal with everything we’ve got. I don’t know if it’ll be enough, but we have to do something. We can’t just take this laying down. The stakes are simply too high.”
Agent C : “I’m already on the phone with Agent E(conomist).”
Agent D : “I have Agent B(itfinex) on hold.”
Agent E : “Agents G(avin) and H(earn) are standing by awaiting your orders, sir. What shall I tell them ?”
Agent A : “Tell them to fire when ready. Hell, tell them all to fire, fire, fire. What choice do we have ? What else can we do ? Good God I hope this works. The People are counting on us…”
Agent C : “I have the same sense, so what’s the plan ?”
Agent A : “We’re going to fast-track our proposed ph0rk, wind up the media marionette, and squeeze the price signal with everything we’ve got. I don’t know if it’ll be enough, but we have to do something. We can’t just take this laying down. The stakes are simply too high.”
Agent C : “I’m already on the phone with Agent E(conomist).”
Agent D : “I have Agent B(itfinex) on hold.”
Agent E : “Agents G(avin) and H(earn) are standing by awaiting your orders, sir. What shall I tell them ?”
Agent A : “Tell them to fire when ready. Hell, tell them all to fire, fire, fire. What choice do we have ? What else can we do ? Good God I hope this works. The People are counting on us…”
Quote
Agent B(BC) : “Bitcoin could split in debate over currency’s future”
Agent B(usiness)I(nsider) : “A bitcoin civil war is threatening to tear the digital currency in two”
Agent E(conomist) : “A spat between programmers may split bitcoin”
Agent G(uardian) : “Bitcoin’s forked: chief scientist launches alternative proposal for the currency”
Agent V(ox) : “Bitcoin is on the verge of a constitutional crisis”
Agent W(all)S(treet)J(ournal) : “Bitcoin’s Noisy Size Debate Reaches a Hard Fork”
Agent B(usiness)I(nsider) : “A bitcoin civil war is threatening to tear the digital currency in two”
Agent E(conomist) : “A spat between programmers may split bitcoin”
Agent G(uardian) : “Bitcoin’s forked: chief scientist launches alternative proposal for the currency”
Agent V(ox) : “Bitcoin is on the verge of a constitutional crisis”
Agent W(all)S(treet)J(ournal) : “Bitcoin’s Noisy Size Debate Reaches a Hard Fork”
http://www.contravex.com/2015/08/19/vox-populi-vox-dei-no-more/
August 19, 2015, 10:42:38 PM
OH SHIT!!!!!!
We are crashing!!!!!!!!
UP
We are crashing!!!!!!!!
UP
August 19, 2015, 10:19:41 PM
Back clearly does not understand economics. Mining gets more centralized because of economies of scale. this is unavoidable unless you intentionally want to keep mining as a hobby. Look at gold mining. At the beginning of the California Gold Rush, anybody with a shovel and a pan could make a buck. After the low hanging fruit all got picked,you had to invest more and more capital and have more knowledge and specialized knowledge.
Back's basically saying that he doesn't want to scale up at all, but if we are to scale up it should be as little as possible. He offers valid concerns, but in practice, that means that "reasonable" block size increase means no increase.
Mining centralization is unfortunate and unavoidable but there is also limits to centralization in an open network. The barriers to entry are hardware efficiency, cost of hardware, cost of electricity, technical skill and other things like bandwidth.
Every single barrier can be overcome if the price of bitcoin gets enough. The same thing happened a few years ago when gold prices jumped so high that placer mining became profitable again. Smart rich people from lower margin industries come in and compete--But that WON'T happen if most bitcoin transactions go off blockchain because of economics.
Oh yeah. Economies of scale. Surely he hasn't heard that one before. Good on you to point this out.
I'd say you clearly don't understand english maybe? Did you somehow miss this paragraph ?
Quote
Adam Back: The worry with extremely large blocks is that they can be used to exacerbate a selfish mining attack. If you’ve got a large miner or a couple of large miners, they can create very large blocks and other people won’t be able to receive them or process them in time. So, they will gain an advantage in mining.
Bitcoin chose its parameters to make the advantage minimal so that it’s a level playing field between small miners and large miners. Right now, the interval between Bitcoin blocks is ten minutes. And the approximate time it takes to propagate, or send a block after it’s found, across the peer-to-peer network is about 10 or 15 seconds. You want the ratio between the propagation time and the block interval to be high enough, because, as a miner, while you’re waiting to receive a block, or while you’re processing a block to check it’s valid, you’re unable to mine. So, you lose money.
By having larger blocks, it’s going to take a longer time to process them. So, it’s going to favor miners with higher bandwidth or who are more centrally connected via high speed links to other miners. It gives them an advantage.
If you increase the block size rapidly, the level playing field is eroded. If it gets eroded too much, once miners are able to create blocks that only they and a couple of other big miners can mine, they can exclude everybody else because [other miners] can’t keep up.
Bitcoin chose its parameters to make the advantage minimal so that it’s a level playing field between small miners and large miners. Right now, the interval between Bitcoin blocks is ten minutes. And the approximate time it takes to propagate, or send a block after it’s found, across the peer-to-peer network is about 10 or 15 seconds. You want the ratio between the propagation time and the block interval to be high enough, because, as a miner, while you’re waiting to receive a block, or while you’re processing a block to check it’s valid, you’re unable to mine. So, you lose money.
By having larger blocks, it’s going to take a longer time to process them. So, it’s going to favor miners with higher bandwidth or who are more centrally connected via high speed links to other miners. It gives them an advantage.
If you increase the block size rapidly, the level playing field is eroded. If it gets eroded too much, once miners are able to create blocks that only they and a couple of other big miners can mine, they can exclude everybody else because [other miners] can’t keep up.
The block size is there to put a check on these economies of scale and level the playing field.
August 19, 2015, 10:17:07 PM
It is interesting to watch the poll results, until yesterday people were ready to go all in if the CIA took charge of bitcoin. Today , i see a drastic movement from the other side. Even though the number of votes are extremely low and may not reflect the opinion of the masses, i feel the masses would vote to go all in if the CIA took charge of Bitcoin. The only issue really, is that this was not the principle of Bitcoin when it was launched, it was supposed to be free of any government control or in fact any central authority. The fact that people are ready to go all in if the CIA takes over is interesting, because people feel that essentially it is a government nod for the use of Bitcoin. Bitcoin is supposed to be the currency of the free though, so its quite interesting to see how it has evolved over the years. If you put up this poll at the start of the Bitcoin lifecycle, i am sure 95% would have said "GTFO".
Pretty sure it was a joke dude. Playing off the brilliant argument that Gavin and Hearn's move to go past 2.7tps surely means they're agents.
The CIA probably burns bitcoin's market cap every other day... So, ain't nobody got time for that, besides... we're keeping all the data distributed and safe for them for free.
How does it not surprise me that gmaxwell resorts to exaggeration and hyperbole, to support the Blockstream agenda?
Well... even it was a joke, most of the un-informed would not even be aware of what you just said. So going by that yardstick, people are of the mindset that government backing is somehow good for Bitcoin. To an extent you cannot disagree with them. If the government had an agenda and some interest in promoting the use of bitcoin, they would go all out and ensure the bitcoin boat would be steadied and the volatility would not be present. I don't see that happening any time soon either, but people are living with a false sense of security that if the government backs something, it must be good.
Bitcoin was invented, partly, to disabuse them of this notion.
August 19, 2015, 10:12:56 PM
It is interesting to watch the poll results, until yesterday people were ready to go all in if the CIA took charge of bitcoin. Today , i see a drastic movement from the other side. Even though the number of votes are extremely low and may not reflect the opinion of the masses, i feel the masses would vote to go all in if the CIA took charge of Bitcoin. The only issue really, is that this was not the principle of Bitcoin when it was launched, it was supposed to be free of any government control or in fact any central authority. The fact that people are ready to go all in if the CIA takes over is interesting, because people feel that essentially it is a government nod for the use of Bitcoin. Bitcoin is supposed to be the currency of the free though, so its quite interesting to see how it has evolved over the years. If you put up this poll at the start of the Bitcoin lifecycle, i am sure 95% would have said "GTFO".
Pretty sure it was a joke dude. Playing off the brilliant argument that Gavin and Hearn's move to go past 2.7tps surely means they're agents.
The CIA probably burns bitcoin's market cap every other day... So, ain't nobody got time for that, besides... we're keeping all the data distributed and safe for them for free.
How does it not surprise me that gmaxwell resorts to exaggeration and hyperbole, to support the Blockstream agenda?
Well... even it was a joke, most of the un-informed would not even be aware of what you just said. So going by that yardstick, people are of the mindset that government backing is somehow good for Bitcoin. To an extent you cannot disagree with them. If the government had an agenda and some interest in promoting the use of bitcoin, they would go all out and ensure the bitcoin boat would be steadied and the volatility would not be present. I don't see that happening any time soon either, but people are living with a false sense of security that if the government backs something, it must be good.
August 19, 2015, 10:08:23 PM
Back clearly does not understand economics. Mining gets more centralized because of economies of scale. this is unavoidable unless you intentionally want to keep mining and our whole project as a hobby. Look at gold mining. At the beginning of the California Gold Rush, anybody with a shovel and a pan could make a buck. After the low hanging fruit all got picked,you had to invest more and more capital and have more knowledge and specialized knowledge.
Back's basically saying that he doesn't want to scale up at all, but if we are to scale up it should be as little as possible. He offers valid concerns, but in practice, that means that "reasonable" block size increase means no increase.
Mining centralization is unfortunate and unavoidable but there is also limits to centralization in an open network. The barriers to entry are hardware efficiency, cost of hardware, cost of electricity, technical skill and other things like bandwidth.
Every single barrier can be overcome if the price of bitcoin gets enough. The same thing happened a few years ago when gold prices jumped so high that placer mining became profitable again. Smart rich people from lower margin industries come in and compete--But that WON'T happen if most bitcoin transactions go off blockchain because of economics.
Off blockchain transactions increase the velocity of money which has the same effect of increasing supply. You're not trading with bitcoin. You're trading with bitcoin IOUs.
MV=PQ money supply times velocity equals price of goods time quantity of goods. How long before Coinbase starts operating as a fractional reserve or gets out-competed by someone else who does?
Supply and demand. Effectively increasing bitcoin supply drives the price down.
Scale or die.
August 19, 2015, 10:06:47 PM
August 19, 2015, 10:05:33 PM
23
August 19, 2015, 10:02:30 PM
August 19, 2015, 10:02:09 PM
It is interesting to watch the poll results, until yesterday people were ready to go all in if the CIA took charge of bitcoin. Today , i see a drastic movement from the other side. Even though the number of votes are extremely low and may not reflect the opinion of the masses, i feel the masses would vote to go all in if the CIA took charge of Bitcoin. The only issue really, is that this was not the principle of Bitcoin when it was launched, it was supposed to be free of any government control or in fact any central authority. The fact that people are ready to go all in if the CIA takes over is interesting, because people feel that essentially it is a government nod for the use of Bitcoin. Bitcoin is supposed to be the currency of the free though, so its quite interesting to see how it has evolved over the years. If you put up this poll at the start of the Bitcoin lifecycle, i am sure 95% would have said "GTFO".
Pretty sure it was a joke dude. Playing off the brilliant argument that Gavin and Hearn's move to go past 2.7tps surely means they're agents.
The CIA probably burns bitcoin's market cap every other day... So, ain't nobody got time for that, besides... we're keeping all the data distributed and safe for them for free.
How does it not surprise me that gmaxwell resorts to exaggeration and hyperbole, to support the Blockstream agenda?
August 19, 2015, 09:59:31 PM
I really dont think that there is an excuse not to scale up. Hell, it should be an automated process by now. The community will grow and we're going to need the larger blocks. I dont see how making the block, say... 8MB would cause any trouble. At all. Personally, I dont think this most recent crash back to $220s is merely because of the blocksize debate, but it's not helping. Bitcoins are good for me at $1000 or $100, it's just too useful to not use. Much more useful than some other methods of transferring money. If we let Bitcoin stall behind, we have hundreds of other cryptocurrencies lining up to be the face of cryptocurrencies.
Bitcoin will live on, ether in scaled-up core or XT. Meanwhile, there will be more "bitcoin is dead" headlines to add to that one webpage.
Bitcoin will live on, ether in scaled-up core or XT. Meanwhile, there will be more "bitcoin is dead" headlines to add to that one webpage.
Oh yeah? I'm curious how do you use Bitcoin?
As of right now, I have a few loans going on at bitbond.com (getting better interests than I would at a bank) and I have made a few purchases using purse.io (making a few savings, compared to the local stores, which have ridiculous profit margins), and occasionally helping my friends buy stuff online. Using bitcoin is too easy and convenient (compared to the old and obsolete systems we use here) for me to give up. Regardless of price, I'm almost always looking for more bitcoin.
August 19, 2015, 09:57:31 PM
This is an attempted coup alright, but it's from idiot miners who want a bigger slice of a smaller pie. If we cave on this, they will never allow our network to become competitive enough to disrupt the banksters.
Bloating the blockchain to DOA levels will disrupt bitcoin, not the banksters.
Besides, 8mb blocks, or even 80mb blocks, aren't enough to scale to such levels. You'd need enormous storage (and bandwidth) per day to compete with the volume of banks and credit cards.
so which is it, the increase is too big and too small at the same time? We don't need to go head to head with VISA right now. We need grown up core devs who don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Why do you need bigger blocks right now?
Stop promoting this false dilemma. It's not XT or nothing.
I'm totally on board with the guy who doesn't know how to spell brakes. Obviously a Top Mind™.
The guy is Greg Maxwell. Of course small brains such as yours can only fixate on grammar mistakes and not the content of the message.
August 19, 2015, 09:56:22 PM
It is interesting to watch the poll results, until yesterday people were ready to go all in if the CIA took charge of bitcoin. Today , i see a drastic movement from the other side. Even though the number of votes are extremely low and may not reflect the opinion of the masses, i feel the masses would vote to go all in if the CIA took charge of Bitcoin. The only issue really, is that this was not the principle of Bitcoin when it was launched, it was supposed to be free of any government control or in fact any central authority. The fact that people are ready to go all in if the CIA takes over is interesting, because people feel that essentially it is a government nod for the use of Bitcoin. Bitcoin is supposed to be the currency of the free though, so its quite interesting to see how it has evolved over the years. If you put up this poll at the start of the Bitcoin lifecycle, i am sure 95% would have said "GTFO".
Maybe you ought not to take these polls too seriously
August 19, 2015, 09:54:51 PM
It is interesting to watch the poll results, until yesterday people were ready to go all in if the CIA took charge of bitcoin. Today , i see a drastic movement from the other side. Even though the number of votes are extremely low and may not reflect the opinion of the masses, i feel the masses would vote to go all in if the CIA took charge of Bitcoin. The only issue really, is that this was not the principle of Bitcoin when it was launched, it was supposed to be free of any government control or in fact any central authority. The fact that people are ready to go all in if the CIA takes over is interesting, because people feel that essentially it is a government nod for the use of Bitcoin. Bitcoin is supposed to be the currency of the free though, so its quite interesting to see how it has evolved over the years. If you put up this poll at the start of the Bitcoin lifecycle, i am sure 95% would have said "GTFO".
August 19, 2015, 09:49:59 PM
This is an attempted coup alright, but it's from idiot miners who want a bigger slice of a smaller pie. If we cave on this, they will never allow our network to become competitive enough to disrupt the banksters.
Bloating the blockchain to DOA levels will disrupt bitcoin, not the banksters.
Besides, 8mb blocks, or even 80mb blocks, aren't enough to scale to such levels. You'd need enormous storage (and bandwidth) per day to compete with the volume of banks and credit cards.
so which is it, the increase is too big and too small at the same time? We don't need to go head to head with VISA right now. We need grown up core devs who don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Why do you need bigger blocks right now?
Stop promoting this false dilemma. It's not XT or nothing.
I'm totally on board with the guy who doesn't know how to spell brakes. Obviously a Top Mind™.
Jump to: