Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[molecular]

observation: sticky fees

see the peaks in the 130 and 110 sat/byte bins? Those are probably mainly people having set fixed fees in their clients when the mempool was full and those fees made sense. Now it's less full (or rather empty prices > 60 sat/byte when excluding those 2 bins), but they keep the setting, effectively propping up the fees (unecessarily) out of habit.

In other words: mempool has been emptied over the weekend down to 60 sat/byte. Now it's filling again, but not at 70, but at highers levels people remember as "should-be-safe-for-fast-inclusion".

 

[lunar]

Boom !

https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/block/00000000000000000204cd2c9840023f1434f3dcdd7f471e4b8c8638d14d7006

Antpool

 

[molecular]

After diskussion with people on german btctalk subforum I have a suggestion:

Lowering the BU default EB setting from 16 MB (is that the default? it seems) to something less intimidating like 2 MB would ease the understanding that miners wouldn't immediately go bonkers mining unecessarily big blocks. (I've been showing around the cool bunodes.com site)

This almost is purely for psychologcal effect.

I can see why the node network should signal to the miners as high an EB setting as possible, but it would make it easier to argue that miners wouldn't start producing very big blocks (let's say > 2 MB) right away. This is a fear people seem have and I think it's not what would happen even if the whole network signalled 16 MB EB. Some people think the node network itself should present a barrier against miners going crazy with the blocksize. We all know the nodes are defenseless anyway and will eventually follow the longest chain at some point (when their AD is reached). If miner majority wants bigger blocks, they will get it, no matter what the nodes say (just like today).

Thoughts? Rationale why default EB is 16 MB?

;tldr: 16 MB default setting unecessarily scares (and maybe misleads) people. Why not lower it?

 

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

@molecular
imho 16 MB is completely ok and I don't see a reason to lower it. It's just twice as much as the start value for BIP101 and we are in 2017.

The heck with it, if it was for me we could have an infinity limit.

Never change a running system, don't stop accelerating BU.

 

[Zarathustra]

Default should be 32 MB, as it has beegn originally.

 

[Norway]

Boom !

https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/block/00000000000000000204cd2c9840023f1434f3dcdd7f471e4b8c8638d14d7006

Antpool

OMG! Is it happening?

 

[lunar]

@Norway I certainly hope so, but it's a little too early to call it just yet. Could still be warning shot?

Either way there's big news from the Mining world today. Slush has updated it's voting preferences and seems to now be mining more BU blocks than before. Bitcoin.com is about to open to the public later today, with 110% block reward. Antpool may have finally pulled the trigger.

A triple whammy followed with ETF clarity probably friday. This is going to be a hectic week of news.

I'm long BU blocks target 350/1000 by the weekend.

 

[Roy Badami]

I am not at all afraid. Core will lose this badly against the miners. It will be fireworks, it will likely include a nice meltdown of all our most 'loved' folks over in that Company.

And I bet most of them will be scratching their heads, failing to understand why they lost. They will be utterly convinced that logically, they should have won.

 

[awemany]

My vote on the limit would be: Leave it empty, make it mandatory to fill in.

In any case, I think it is not a huge issue. I am fine either way. I'd also be fine with a 2MB default for now. Or 32MB, or whatever. I think if we get a HF going, the dust will settle and handling of blocksize will get a lot saner anyways.

@Roy Badami : But only if you believe they are genuine in their beliefs ... (I am not, anymore. And I was patient as well...)

 

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

A triple whammy followed with ETF clarity probably friday. This is going to be a hectic week of news.

If the ETF gets approved and Antpool keeps mining BU blocks we'll all be island shopping next week.

 

[awemany]

So... who's the first to get a good old 'To the moon' post going on /r/btc?

I wanted to, but then there's usually an icon put next to the post, and I am not too deep into the Bitcoin memes to be sure to select the right one

 

[Norway]

Jihan Wu:

“[Bitcoin] Core exists as dictatorship and tyranny, upholding speech control, colluding to attack people with different views, has become the biggest threat of the long-term development of bitcoin.”

Source: https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/worlds-largest-mining-equipment-firm-founder-criticizes-core-segwit/

 

[8up]

I bet F2Pool and BW will follow suit. This will result in BU representing ~60% of all hash power.

If ETF is approved as well this could be the perfect time for wealth transfer without igniting an immediate bubble nor a mega crash due to short term uncertainty. Overall I think, the current development is very bullish in the mid- and longterm.

 

[Mengerian]

Already some talk of fork arbitrage:
Could result in significant wealth transfers if people follow through on these plans. Will be interesting to see how it plays out!

 

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

@Mengerian
If there was a possibility to safely trade coins pre fork I'd happily trade everything I have on the core chain to the BU chain. As of now I'd guess there would be some lost souls who'd be stupid enough to follow core into the ground.
But after the fork, or even when the fork is getting closer, I doubt, that we'll see a lot of people following core blindly. If people have the definite choice between scaling coin and cripple coin, they might experience some kind of awakening.

But I hope for some blind idiots to buy my 1 MB coins.

 

[Mengerian]

@satoshis_sockpuppet Yeah, I see it as a process of selecting investors who can correctly assess what makes Bitcoin more valuable. Those who do so accurately increase their holding and so gain more influence in shaping Bitcoin in future. Having investors who are prescient, persistent, and have survived many up and downs is part of what supports Bitcoin's value, and gives it an edge over competing coins.

Mr. Bitcoin is building his army of holders.

 

[awemany]

Browsing rBitcoin on the Antpool thread. Just a so typical example of the language and tone over there:


Maybe I have a bias invisible to me, but all kinds of unnecessary insults are thrown around a lot more readily on rBitcoin.

 

[Norway]

Looks like parts of Core supporters want UASF. It's a transfer of power from one system to another,

From POW to PON (proof of node).

I want to see Adam Back, Greg Maxwell and all the other cunts at Blockstream try to pull this off.

What are they waiting for?

Well, to keep it real, they are never going to try to pull it off. Because it's just too stupid. Even to them.

 

[theZerg]

the purpose of setting nodes' EB high -- to 16MB by default -- is that we feel that if you don't care about it full nodes should follow whatever the miners choose. If you care about it go ahead and change it. And miners (or pools anyway) WILL care; its their job to watch the health of the network.

 

[Norway]

@Rogerver has public release of his pool, and antpool start to mine BU on the same day,

BULLISH!