Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[VeritasSapere]

Making transacting on the Bitcoin network more expensive and a lot less reliable is not good for adoption, this is exactly what is happening now with allowing the Bitcoin network to be overloaded like this, when we can just increase its capacity. This is why the blocksize should be increased, on balance it is better to continue to bootstrap adoption using the block subsidy as was always intended. Instead of attempting to change the original economic policy and plan for Bitcoin by attempting to increase the fees with this arbitrary limit, using the blocksize limit in this way is like a form of centralized economic planning, that was never the intention of the blocksize limit since it was only meant to serve as a temporary anti spam limit. Satoshi thought that Bitcoin could scale directly and so do I, at the very least do not underestimate what kind of a fundamental departure and divergence from the original vision this really is. It is my sincere believe that if the blocksize is not increased Bitcoin will simply just be out competed and obsolesced by other cryptocurrencies and fiat.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1381391.msg14054609#msg14054609
[doublepost=1456794390][/doublepost]An outsiders perspective, the "new normal":

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/bitcoin-new-normal-slow-confirmation-block-size-debate

 

[cypherdoc]

getting hot:

 

[freetrader]

and hotter:

https://np.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/48dq80/jeff_garzik_on_twitter_adam3us_justinwnewton/?ref=share&ref_source=link

 

[solex]

Metastasis of the block limit issue:

1) should have been just a Core Dev problem, then
2) became an "all" dev debate, (cause: maxwell, todd, friedenbach) then,
3) a community issue (cause: borgstream) then
4) made the community politically divided (cause: thermos) then
5) final stages are a public relations disaster in the crypto-media, then
6) a PR disaster in the mainstream media.

Phase 5 getting underway

 

[dlareg]

@solex Great summary! And oddly enough this whole time there has been zero compromise! Not even 0.1 MB. And they keep calling for compromise. Insanity! Seg-wit is like giving a broke person a credit card.

 

[freetrader]

It is *promising* a broke person a credit card in 3 months time.

While you're busy building the clearinghouse.

 

[dlareg]

@freetrader LMAO... I would "like" twice if there were two buttons

 

[freetrader]

@dlareg : Thanks, I'll be here all week

 

[cypherdoc]

you gotta wonder if this was the setup by Petrov of the Chinese miners. this holier than thou strategy:

[doublepost=1456805232][/doublepost][doublepost=1456805643,1456804674][/doublepost]https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/48din1/austin_hill_in_meltdown_mode_desperately_sending/

 

[solex]

http://www.openbitcoinprivacyproject.org/2016/02/announcing-the-2nd-edition-of-our-bitcoin-wallet-privacy-rating-report/

Thanks JR. This is an awesome report. Coincidentally, we are just setting up a multi-sig wallet for BU using Copay, which I note gets 37/100 for privacy, through the best is 50, and in our case we are OK to be fully public about the funds and where they are being spent.

Surprised that Darkwallet only 4th since this is its raison d'être.

 

[sickpig]

In other news, Luke-jr being himself:


I for one, am glad that such safe spaces exist.

every once in a while you should have a look at github core PR comments:

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7622#issuecomment-190333941

such pages are the realm of surrealism.

 

[Fatman3002]

3.6 MILLION BTC STUCK IN MEMPOOL!!!?!?!!!?!?

Anyone here who has Hearns phone number?

You know, the guy from Google who knew wtf he was talking about?

It turns out the Bitcoin Community might have been wrong and the highly qualified software and systems engineer might have been on to something.

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

3.6 MILLION BTC STUCK IN MEMPOOL!!!?!?!!!?!?

I wonder how much of this are "real" bitcoin and how much is just a resend of unconfirmed transactions.

Seriously - let's wait some days. By now you it's not possible to decide if this is a spam attack or demand outperforming support.

If it's a spam attack it will end (and we know how resistant bitcoin is against such an attack at this state of block-fullness), if it lasts without end, we know that a size increase is really really needed.

 

[cypherdoc]

Coming from a tinkerer and manipulator like Adam this makes me very nervous:

 

[albin]

@sickpig

I've wondered why there even is a such thing as a softcap set as a config parameter.

Wouldn't it make alot more sense if a maximum blocksize target was a parameter passed when calling getblocktemplate? Especially in light of the weak rationalization there in the comments that failing to set the default @ consensus blocksize cap incentivizes miners to consciously tweak their own settings.

 

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

Coming from a tinkerer and manipulator like Adam this makes me very nervous:

I don't think that was smart by Adam.
Touching the halving process is psychologically close to the 21 limit. And he is admitting, what a lot of people already knew, you can change nearly everything with a "soft" fork. Thus it isn't inherently more harmless than a "hard" fork like he and his buddies are trying to suggest all the time.

 

[freetrader]

Now I would really like to see the list of proposals brought up at the Roundtable about which people could not agree. There must be some real zingers from Blockstream.

#HitTheRoad #TrickleDown

 

[sickpig]

@sickpig

I've wondered why there even is a such thing as a softcap set as a config parameter.

Wouldn't it make alot more sense if a maximum blocksize target was a parameter passed when calling getblocktemplate? Especially in light of the weak rationalization there in the comments that failing to set the default @ consensus blocksize cap incentivizes miners to consciously tweak their own settings.

I share your concerns, softcap is a concept that has always bagged me as well. It didn't make sense for me since the begining. As its big brother, the max block size limit, it smells centralization from a mile away.

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

Happy Fee Event everybody

Situation is by magnitutes less dramatic than mempool statistics indicate.

I send two transactions - one from my wallets with fees as bitcoinfees.21.com says - and one from a broker who set the fees by himself. Guess what? Both were confirmed within the first block.

Bitcoin may be now officially on of the most expensive mean of payment. I payed 20c for a bad composed 90€-transaction and 7cent for a well-composed 30€ transaction. But as long as people are willing to pay as much I see the fees more as a success than a failure.

Problem is, it's hard to estimate when we start to loose growth. Best indicators may be the daily fees payed, the daily transaction volume or the marketcap of altcoins.

 

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

@Christoph Bergmann
I'm sorry, but are you out of your mind?
You paid 7 and 20 cent for transactions you see that as a success??
Bitcoin went from cheap, nearly instant transactions to slow and expensive in a few weeks. The design was built on a lot of cheap transactions.

"When we start to lose growth"
Have you been following? We lost so much fucking growth. Altcoins are eating Bitcoins lunch and investments in bitcoin are stagnating. Do you know how this thing should have grown? Exponentially.
Why on earth do you think, people will continue to use Bitcoin? And, as I wrote before, wait for the next crash with full blocks. It will hurt. A lot.

By the way, didn't Peter R made a beautiful graphic where Bitcoin price was plotted over number of transactions?