Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.


Staff member
Dec 16, 2015
@Norway : Are you going to modify the previous post every 5 minutes? because my tradeblock is showing 900K+ and climbing steadily. Soon 1M+ . This is so FU'd. If this carries on I think we'll see business publicly freezing their Bitcoin activities, and who knows what happens then.

Tick fucking tock.
Last edited:


Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015

I've not studied mass psychology but i'd be willing to bet there's an effect similar to the Black Swan type event in economics. Whereby it takes a significant event such as a fire, natural disaster or similar to occur before rapid large change in behaviour can be enacted. Does this mean we will have to have a price crash or a transaction snowball before any miner changes behaviour?

@Norway I want to like your comment but it disgusts me. :mad:


Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
Like does not mean "like" - it means acknowledge, thank you or whatever you think when you click it.

Someone put an obituary on Facebook and it got tones of likes from the people who are the most sad to see that person pass away, you get a feeling they don't like the fact that they died, but they are trying to be pro-social. they are not liking that a loved one just passed away but liking it as sorry for you loss that's tragic.
@lunar Let's hope this shit makes miners act.
made me think lots of coins moving to an exchange near you. - the run up to March 11 is going to get interesting.


Well-Known Member
Aug 19, 2015
Some further notes on the above discussion:

Isn't it ironic that nullc fears very efficient block propagation yet pushes compact blocks over xthin because, among other things ... it is supposedly more bandwidth-efficient?

@AdrianX, fitting the above I stumbled upon a particularly bad case of Gregonomics:
But there is a more important point: Lets just accept that there is a low linear cost floor. Mining is pretty perfect competition, we'd expect prices to adapt down to that floor and then all the miners income would be going to pay that floor cost, and not going to make the POW artificially difficult-- which it must be, since otherwise an attacker mining empty blocks (and thus skipping those costs) can eclipse the chain.
@Peter R: I indeed believe the O(1) argument to be false, regarding transmission of transactions. I think the idea behind 'just use the hash and reassemble yourself' method is essentially hiding the cost of >1 bit per decision on include/not-include in the (theoretical) non-uniqueness of the hash value. It clouds the view on these issues. Entropy needs to be exchanged no matter what.


Active Member
Aug 28, 2015
Bitcoin Transaction Fees Are Up More Than 1200% in Past Two Years

Hardly worth reading the article, as the headline says it all. I feel like i'm powerless and watching a completely avoidable slow motion train wreck. There's lunatics in the engine room. Shame the cargo is vitally needed aid and protection for the billions of financially persecuted people on the planet.
@lunar you're wrong /s

According to @SysMan (Bitfury's Alex Petrov) the fee are actually decreasing... in BTC terms.


Joking a part we already have passed the stage where the problem is the exponential growth of the fees.

What we are facing now is unpredictability of confirmation time, due to an enormous backlog of transactions and very difficult to estimate bursts in system usage.

Basically we are in a situation where guessing the correct fee to get your txn "confirmed" in the next N block is becoming extremely hard.

All of this is bad because it inevitably lead to users disenfranchisement.

To conclude to me what is really important is the consequences that the maxwellian fee market is having on confirmation time and system predictability.


Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
I thought it might be a good time to bring this up again. See if we can expand a little.

GDP = amount of units x value of unit x velocity

and GDP stays the same, than velocity and value of units are inverse (more velocity = less value, and the other way round)

So, paradoxically money is worth more if it is less usable.
With higher velocity, less monetary units are capable of performing the same amount of exchange work. Velocity in Fisher's theory acts as kind of a pseudo-supply. We see this empirically in central bank monetary policy, where often there are measurable effects where increases in money supply end up producing less inflation than expected, because of the concurrent reduction in velocity.

This aspect doesn't justify just constraining blocksize -> moon though, because reducing transaction throughput has contrary effects too on the opposite side of the equation, which I would argue are probably more significant. I can't necessarily back this up empirically per se, but just furiously handwaving, I would find it way more plausible that constrained transactional capability hits the bottleneck of killing aggregate real economic exchange much earlier than it starts suppressing money velocity.
So what we are seeing now are three additional, compounding effects, on the money supply and monetary velocity.

UTXO lock-in - Coins taken out of supply, because they are under the minimum network transaction fee.

Mempool Lock-in - Coins are taken out of supply because they sit in a mempool limbo.

User Lock-in - Coins taken out of supply because users fear to move them with decreased network usability.

Speculation: This huge reduction in supply / decreased velocity will lead to bubble bust, moon juice. Furthermore a separation in value will occur due to decreased utility of on-chain w.r.t. off chain coins. (coins on an exchange are relatively more valuable, as they have the extra utility of easy to sale)

The above compounded effects will heavily incentivise exchanges to risk fractionally reserving their coins. :(

What exchanges provide daily proof of reserves?

Zangelbert Bingledack

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2015

"Unencumbered coins" now more and more naturally refers to coins sitting in an exchange than to coins in your wallet. The 1MB cap has turned the situation on its head. Fractional reserve is indeed a perverse incentive introduced. It is now becoming obvious that artificially tiny limits of transactions completely destroy Bitcoin, not just slow it down or limit its reach.

It's time to impress these arguments onto the miners and the general bitcoining public. Core/BS are on the defensive. Let's push the advantage.


Well-Known Member
Aug 19, 2015
I wonder if the whole line of "it has not been tested yet", "it is risky", "BU is dangerous" bullshit is maybe countered in the best way by simply saying: "we only return Bitcoin to a state it was in before, and therefore has been well-tested on chain?"


Active Member
Aug 31, 2015
100k tx stuck in mempool and yet the BU hashrate seems to be dropping. 15% in last 144 blocks.

Those fucking miners are pissing me off. And the manipulation on bitcointalk (german subjection) recently. Posts are being deleted and scaling discussion is segragated into new threads by the mods (from the popular "lounge type" thread "der aktuelle Kursverlauf").

I'm buying altcoins and fiat (my god!). The only lever I have available to me.

So sad.