Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 5552. (Read 26607612 times)

So I guess now he's planning on having Tesla pump and dump some bitcoin every quarter to make their numbers look good on paper? Lol.

Fucking company has yet to make a profit. Like ever.

https://lightning.network/lightning-network-paper.pdf


We've all been waiting for that since Bitcoin's blocks became full in 2016


Well, some of those. Others of those I think are just fads and will die out naturally. Satoshi himself also mentioned several options that were very interesting. I will just put in that I do agree that there is an apparent concern that unbounded block sizes could lead to bloated blocks. I don't think that's as likely a problem as you probably do but it is one that should be addressed (note, however that most looking for bigger blocks would have been happy with *incremental* increases. Probably more on that later.). I am also not really that interested in complex eth-style contracts and agree that eth is fine pursuing that endgame (though doubtless some do want that in Bitcoin). Note that high transaction fees have some quite serious security implications, including people relying on custodial wallets, added friction on mixers and making wallet management tasks expensive. It also tends to make dust too expensive to aggregate/spend (meaning UTXO bloat, something you have expressed concern about). And, of course, there's layer 2 solutions which typically require a couple of on-chain transactions somewhere along the line.


I mean, sure it would (or at least a good part of the way there - just saw you wrote 10k), just as every capacity increase for computing in the past has improved things. We're no longer on acoustic couplers, 10 base T is now only a few components in the bottom of my junk drawer to me. You mention Raspberry Pis but Bitcoin was already two years old when the Raspberry Pi launched and now is up to the RPi 4 with commensurate increases in processor speed and storage and communication speed. An order of magnitude (10MB) would not be out-of-line at this point IMO. And RPi's are a pretty bad baseline. I've been throwing out MB/CPU combos that out-perform RPis. RPis have their place but any application as a Bitcoin node is for novelty purposes only (and yes, I've done it. It was not a pleasant experience even in 2012)


(Hah, $281.33. Cute.)

I guess the question is, perhaps, what is the "right size" for the block size. Well, not for everyone. Some believe that changing the protocol in any way is a fork and thus not Bitcoin. There is, perhaps some truth in that though it should be noted that Bitcoin *has* already forked the protocol several times in the past and that this ideal is one that CSW holds for his own shitcoin (so fine company there). But for those who are more open to discussion, it is one to be had. So let's start with "Why 1MB?". Satoshi apparently was concerned with spam so added it as a limit that was small enough to prevent horrible network disruption but large enough (approximately 100x the block size at the time) that it would not affect normal operation. He even suggested a way that it could be removed. Now, it's fashionable to disparage Satoshi's opinion when it's convenient but then why should we give any more weight to his arbitrary choice of 1000000 bytes? As far as I know, only Luke-Jr has seriously suggested that blocksize should be smaller.

I feel we have a lot of common ground outside of this issue so I think I can safely talk about the free market with you here. Fees buy space on the blockchain. Normally, in a free market, if demand for something goes up, this causes rising prices which encourages more supply of the thing in demand. The problem with the block size limit as it stands is that there is no way to increase that supply. Block space is effectively provided by a mandatory cartel where supply is fixed. Can you imagine if Henry Ford would have never been able to expand beyond his original factory? If, when GM came onboard (I may have my chronology incorrect there), he had to split his ability to produce vehicles with them? Can you imagine how expensive cars would be? The non-monopoly price for a transaction would be the nominal cost to mine a fraction of a block and store the transaction (a piddling number of bytes) with a multiplier because miners often don't win any given block and then a small amount as profit. Realistically, we're talking sub-10c. More indicates a market failure and when we're up into tens or twenties of dollars, it's an indication something is seriously amiss (if we're talking free markets). Now, it can be argued that this aspect of Bitcoin is not supposed to be free market (after all, the 21 million cap isn't really either) but then let's not be talking about free market forces.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism

Maybe it's been mentioned already but this is an entertaining watch:

"The Tragic Struggle of Telling your Friends to Buy Bitcoin (2011-2021)"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8GDsddB1us&ab_channel=RadicalLiving

Just in case if you were wondering if selling Bitcoin works?

Do you have a citation for that?  I have not seen such a thing, although I admit I that have not followed LN development closely as I should; I have been more checking into it from time to time, waiting for a few particular parts of it to mature.

By the way, what use cases would you like to see?  If we get to the point of high-value transactions and upper-layer settlements on the blockchain, small-value transactions off-chain, and RGB/Spectrum doing smart contracts, tokens, NFTs, DEXes, etc., then what more is needed?  I am sincerely curious.  On this point, off the top of my head, all that can I think of are some smart contract edge cases where the contract code must be available for execution without parties being online; that’s not a case for bigger blocks, but rather, for one of the upstart competitors to ETH2.


As I noted in one of my earlier posts, Bitcoin transaction demand is high enough that I don’t even think that a blocksize increase would meaningfully increase capacity.  And it only grows!  How do you propose that, say, twice a very low TPS would make any difference, when we need orders of magnitude higher TPS to cover all of the small-value tx use cases with mass adoption?  Bigger blocks wouldn’t get us to 10k TPS and up, unless you think that running a node should require a supercomputer hooked straight into an Internet backbone link.  (Or unless you want to make more radical changes to Bitcoin’s architecture, other than increasing the blocksize.)

The problem is that Bitcoin itself is not adequate to support the L2 systems being constructed for it. (Something explicitly acknowledged by the LN developers by the way). The problem is not that Bitcoin is inadequate to the purposes to which I would like to see it put (which might have fallen by the wayside, admitedly) but also to those you are suggesting for it.

I'm not going to argue for bigger blocks right now though. I think the need is going to become ever more self evident. Indeed, the recent hashrate crash would have been largely a non-even if there was adequate capacity.

My argument here is with the particular type of Bitcoiner who behaves as if people and markets will do whatever Bitcoin wants.  That’s not how it works—all bluster to the contrary notwithstanding.  Obviously, most Bitcoiners outside of a few forums and social media venues do not think this way.

Bitcoin got big because it does what people want.  It fulfills a real need.  It is what the market wants.

Bitcoiners need to acknowledge use cases which are not addressed by what Bitcoin is today.  Many top-flight Bitcoin/LN developers do just that; and they rarely waste time posting on forums, because they are too busy creating solutions for tomorrow.

I observe that no altcoin today adequately fulfills the “cup of coffee purchase” use case.  Some of them have inexpensive, fast transactions—but security that would be a catastrophe, if they saw mass adoption.  Some of them have inexpensive, fast, secure transactions—with awful privacy.  Many of them have inexpensive transactions that would become expensive, if their blocks were not almost empty as they are now.  Etc...

The best should dominate.  Bitcoin dominates because it is the best.  Let’s keep it that way.  Sometimes, to that end, we must examine what could and should be done better.

---

The L1/L2 distinction is not only a Bitcoin thing; it addresses problems which are fundamental to blockchain architectures.  As the market matures, developers and users will come better to recognize which transactions belong on a blockchain, and which don’t.  A beneficial side effect of Bitcoin’s scaling debates is that Bitcoin is years ahead of any altcoin in L2 developments.  (Notwithstanding how Ethereum has been spinning its wheels with L2 talk; it has much worse scaling problems than Bitcoin, and thus far much less to show in terms of solutions.)

I used to work for a company that grew huge buying up smaller companies in the same field (healthcare) that were struggling under the regulatory burden. I think they swallowed up over 300 small hospitals by the time I left. They're not the only company doing similar stuff either.

Yup. 100kB or bust. Then onward to 10kB. After that, zero transaction blocks are only a short step away and no transactions = 100% SOV security.

Are you really just totally unaware of the Korean Demilitarized Zone (DMZ)?  

That border cannot be crossed in either direction.  Or do you really suppose that South Koreans will sneak through a heavily guarded area covered with land mines and electric fences to get some bitcoins?

Please tell me that you’re American.  I don’t want to believe that anyone else is so totally ignorant of the world.

---

Google’s source:  https://markets.businessinsider.com/currencies/news/bitcoin-kimchi-premium-south-korea-crypto-crackdown-exchanges-shut-regulation-2021-4-1030351638
Just to make sure:  https://archive.is/CmxaD
https://web.archive.org/web/20210427222022/https://markets.businessinsider.com/currencies/news/bitcoin-kimchi-premium-south-korea-crypto-crackdown-exchanges-shut-regulation-2021-4-1030351638

The article does not give much information.  Just fluff.  If there is anything significant going on here, I think that much of the impact would hinge on what they mean by “anti-money laundering strategies”.  (Strategies to launder anti-money?  I just put my positrons and anti-protons in my washing machine.)

Let me, as a northen European debunk that. We are not socialis countries. Heavily taxed welfare states, yes, but very much capitalist states.
We don't even have any minimum wages, and the unions don't want any, because it is to socialist, it means the government sets the price of work, which in turn means that everybody pays that same wage, no competition in the lower wage brackets what so ever and that in the long run means lower wages than a system without minimum wages and good competition over the wage slaves.

Haha! And they'll be selling the coins they got with hacking/ransomware back to the people they stole from, lol.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/90/Russian_Man_signoff_2013-04-23.ogg

As far as I know they are still in use.

That's a pretty stupid article: They have till November and my guess is it's an ass ton of paperwork. But let the Govt shut them down, I'm sure that will instantly drop the number of S. Koreans who want to hold Bitcoin to absolute zero. No, they won't get it elsewhere, their government knows so much better.

There will just be a bigger "won premium" as who would want a currency like the S. Korean Won.

$5 bucks says N. Korea will open a wall of bitcoin ATMs on the border in November  Just to fuck with them.

The link is 404.

Somehow says “status: 404”, then redirects (?); see metadata banner at top here:  https://archive.is/B0CHW  (Took forever to load with its zillions of ad tracker embeds.)


Archives checked after it failed to load normally.

Ant pump, HODLsleep

Night brothers

Looks like link was bad, here's a good one, will fix in op also.

Deadline to comply or else be shuttered.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.businessinsider.com/bitcoin-kimchi-premium-south-korea-crypto-crackdown-exchanges-shut-regulation-2021-4%3famp

No, in his case he was mimicking me as a sort of a “no u” argument.  I am surprised that he didn’t blow me a raspberry.

But thanks for the general reminder that there are a few things on my “to do” checklist which have slipped for the past few weeks, given the relative place in my life’s priorities of dealing with forum idiocy.

How is this different from the sludge in the US?