Wall Observer

[Erdogan]

Is it just me or is the bitcoinclock showing conflicting info?
Reward-Drop ETA: 2016-07-09 11:46:44 UTC (1 day, 6 hours)
The ETA time does not represent the hours difference from now...

BTW. With the reward drop only about 30% into a difficulty adjustment, any fall-off in mining power will be very damaging for txn throughput (the prospect of which being a softening of the price).

Confirmed. The ETA computation is about 5 hours off. Someone has messed up the timezones I guess.

 

[JayJuanGee]

A drop off would have about the same effect no matter when it happens. Either this period takes a while before we adjust down or we adjust and then the next period takes a while.

However, in addition to lower throughput, we would also have slower emission of new coins. These two are opposing forces when it comes to the effect on price.

It seems that assuming bitcoin to be in some kind of perilous place in terms of blockfullness and technology and security is more of a fictitious assumption rather than a reality.

The computing power of bitcoin is so powerful and secure that it could easily experience a halvening of the computing power and still remain quite secure... Blocks will still be mined every 10 minutes and transactions processed in those 10 minute blocks whether the hash rate is 1.5 petahashes or .75 petahashes, or even .25 petahashes.

On the other hand, I am sure that a lot of bitcoin denialists, anti-bitcoiners, bigblock proponents and bitcoin shills would be more than willing to exaggerate to death any drop in hashpower in order to assert that there is some kind of an emergency and bitcoin is dying...

 

[Erdogan]

There is no emergency. But my baby just wants to dance. This means large blocks, if you didn't get it.

 

[AdrianX]

The computing power of bitcoin is so powerful and secure that it could easily experience a halvening of the computing power and still remain quite secure... Blocks will still be mined every 10 minutes and transactions processed in those 10 minute blocks whether the hash rate is 1.5 petahashes or .75 petahashes, or even .25 petahashes.

@JayJuanGee it's not the security that's at issue, it's the time it takes to adjust the difficulty, if half the hashing power vanished because it wasn't profitable (hypothetically speaking as it's extremely unlikely to happen given mining is still very profitable) then it would take 4 weeks (not 2) to adjust the difficulty and the average block time would slow to 20 minus not 10.

the new difficulty adjustment that follows won't compensate either and it would take 3 weeks to adjust and average block times would be 15 minus, it would eventually balance out months later should bitcoin price stay stable.

so given blocks are full now if hash power were to drop then the transaction backlog would increase exponentially as confirmation times would be extremely delayed over the flowing months.

so having full blocks and going into the halving knowing it could delay transaction confirmation times is not an investors paradise, its a little risky - solution would be to pay fees much higher than recommended if you want the luxury of trading actual BTC and good luck getting BTC out of an exchange, there going to say we sent it and it's likely they only pay the recommended fee so good probability it gets stuck in an exponentially increasing queue.

if the situation had to impact investor confidence and people had to move transactions to exchanges we'd see huge delays. it would be similar to being Goxed, only transactions are stuck in the bitcoin network this time and some may be dropped from the mem-pool as it becomes too big and unwieldy.

so as far as the exchange is concerned they sent your BTC - but the Bitcoin network may drop the transaction because BC/Core (see Crash Prevention via Memory Pool Limits) good luck sorting this fiasco out in the media.

 

[JayJuanGee]

There is no emergency. But my baby just wants to dance. This means large blocks, if you didn't get it.

Nothing wrong with wanting to dance, but I doubt that large blocks is the solution that is going to cause dancing in the longer term. I prefer to be able to dance long term, rather than just some kind of employment of a fix that is not actually needed and instead has destructive potential.

 

[JayJuanGee]

@JayJuanGee it's not the security that's at issue, it's the time it takes to adjust the difficulty, if half the hashing power vanished because it wasn't profitable (hypothetically speaking as it's extremely unlikely to happen given mining is still very profitable) then it would take 4 weeks (not 2) to adjust the difficulty and the average block time would slow to 20 minus not 10.

Well, o.k. Even though you place this part in parenthesis, you seem to be strongly asserting "hypothetically speaking as it's extremely unlikely to happen" If it is so unlikely to happen, then why are we speculating about it as if it were a likely scenario?

Part of my previously made points was to talk about and to assert more likely scenarios.... so in the end we likely realize that miners are not really going to pull back mining power, not in any kind of meaningful way that is actually going to affect the processing of transactions in any kind of meaningful way.

the new difficulty adjustment that follows won't compensate either and it would take 3 weeks to adjust and average block times would be 15 minus, it would eventually balance out months later should bitcoin price stay stable.

O.k. So even if it does hypothetically happen, which is not too likely, it will also soon balance out in weeks or possibly months.... .. and what is wrong with that, especially since we are talking about an unlikely scenario in the first place?

so given blocks are full now if hash power were to drop then the transaction backlog would increase exponentially as confirmation times would be extremely delayed over the flowing months.

That's a BIG FUCKING "given." I would neither presume blocks to be full, and in the event that they appear to be full that there is any kind of meaningful impact in their supposedly being full at the moment... There are not any meaningful delays in transactions and transaction fees continue to be reasonable, as I type.

so having full blocks and going into the halving knowing it could delay transaction confirmation times is not an investors paradise, its a little risky - solution would be to pay fees much higher than recommended if you want the luxury of trading actual BTC and good luck getting BTC out of an exchange, there going to say we sent it and it's likely they only pay the recommended fee so good probability it gets stuck in an exponentially increasing queue.

Now, you are continuing to speculate regarding hypotheticals that do not currently exist and are not too likely to exist. There are a lot of potential solutions and work arounds to "what ifs?", especially if we are not currently experiencing those "what ifs".

if the situation had to impact investor confidence and people had to move transactions to exchanges we'd see huge delays. it would be similar to being Goxed, only transactions are stuck in the bitcoin network this time and some may be dropped from the mem-pool as it becomes too big and unwieldy.

more painting of scenarios that have little to no basis in actual facts.

so as far as the exchange is concerned they sent your BTC - but the Bitcoin network may drop the transaction because BC/Core (see Crash Prevention via Memory Pool Limits) good luck sorting this fiasco out in the media.

No need to sort out anything in the media if transactions are actually going through, and maybe at worse the transactions take 24 hours to go through rather than 24 minutes... and maybe in order to address potential delay issues we learn to increase the fee to $,10 or maybe even to $.20 rather than $.01 or $.004?

 

[AdrianX]

I think there is a potential for price to drop I'm not certain demand going to repeat the same trajectory as the last halving. Reducing the inflation rate on the inelastic supply of btc should catapult us up, I'm just not all convinced give the centralized governance issue and miners general inaction.

The risk may be small but there is a possibility for price reduction and tapping off of hash rate resulting in congestion with a negative impact on investors confidence.

But I'm still investment in the moonshot and open to understanding the risks. Convince me not to hedge that's what I'm looking for?

 

[Erdogan]

I suppose a considerable number of newcomers now watch the blockchain...will mining stop? Will fees go mooning?

Then...value takeoff.
[doublepost=1468064876][/doublepost]33 blocks left

 

[Mengerian]

Market seems to be building a base of support ~$620ish.

I expect a couple months of sideways consolidation, then UP. Maybe in September.

 

[AdrianX]

I'm still considering the possibility of whales manipulation the price so I'm thinking down has a higher possibility than sideways for the moment.

 

[JayJuanGee]

I think there is a potential for price to drop I'm not certain demand going to repeat the same trajectory as the last halving. Reducing the inflation rate on the inelastic supply of btc should catapult us up, I'm just not all convinced give the centralized governance issue and miners general inaction.

I personally believe that you are looking at factors that are less significant in the whole scheme of things. Sure, what you mentioned are factors, but they are of very little importance when we are looking at more important indicators.

For example, look at the amount of transaction fees in USD that is being spent on using bitcoin.

https://blockchain.info/charts/transaction-fees-usd?timespan=all

You can zoom in, if you want to, but the essence of the chart shows real growth, real utility that people are actually spending to use bitcoin, and bitcoin is still processing these kinds of transactions, storing a lot of value and not stealing or losing anyone's money (except maybe to the extent that some folks may rely on some third parties).

The risk may be small but there is a possibility for price reduction and tapping off of hash rate resulting in congestion with a negative impact on investors confidence.

Yep.. it is small.. so why get caught up with the less likely scenarios when we have a lot of good stuff going on that is pushing bitcoin's use, utility and value (that ultimately gets reflected in price).

But I'm still investment in the moonshot and open to understanding the risks. Convince me not to hedge that's what I'm looking for?

Each of us have our demons and our own beliefs and inclinations. Of course, there should always be a certain amount of hedging that hopefully reflects our own personal financial status, view of the future, risk profile and timeline. For example, my initial goal was to invest about 10% of my quasi-liquid assets into BTC; however, due to BTC's appreciation, my allocation has become a bit more than 30%, and so yeah, I may need to consider from time to time the extent to which I may want to reallocate, yet in the end, I have already recently determined that I am o.k. with having a bit more allocation that is based on appreciation rather than based on my initially taking from other assets in order to achieve such numbers... but yeah, the assessment and the reassessment is never over and in that regard, I can change my thinking at any time based on fundamentals or just based on my own financial considerations and personal preferences.

 

[Erdogan]

Mining ok. Mempool ok. Fees ok.

I expected a bit more brutality in volatility. It can still come the next few hours.

 

[Erdogan]

Inching upwards. Explosion next?
[doublepost=1468102859][/doublepost]Six blocks nonfull, mempool small.

 

[AdrianX]

You can zoom in, if you want to, but the essence of the chart shows real growth, real utility that people are actually spending to use bitcoin, and bitcoin is still processing these kinds of transactions, storing a lot of value and not stealing or losing anyone's money (except maybe to the extent that some folks may rely on some third parties).

This growth is good but I don't buy the promise BS/Core made to miners in the 2nd HK meeting saying 100 x increase in fees. Well see a shifts away from Bitcoin if fees increase by 2 order of magnitude from where we are today.

The Bitcoin code is infinity reproducible, the value is in the number of Bitcoin users.

Effectively who's going to pay not $0.50 or $5.00 but $50.00 per transaction befor they find a new network?

 

[JayJuanGee]

This growth is good but I don't buy the promise BS/Core made to miners in the 2nd HK meeting saying 100 x increase in fees. Well see a shifts away from Bitcoin if fees increase by 2 order of magnitude from where we are today.

The Bitcoin code is infinity reproducible, the value is in the number of Bitcoin users.

Effectively who's going to pay not $0.50 or $5.00 but $50.00 per transaction befor they find a new network?

I have some difficulties relating to how there can be so much animosity towards core based on shit that they did not even do..

There is no fucking unified group called core that is actually running bitcoin because bitcoin is decentralized. This supposedly conspiratorial entity called "core" are merely a variety of folks that are engaged in various activities supporting the bitcoin infrastructure, whether that be through developing code or mining or in other ways evangelizing in favor of bitcoin.

I've repeated often that if there are some various proposed solutions to problems, then those solutions need to be proposed in order that they can be considered and adopted to the extent that they address actual problems. Yeah we had some kind of nonsense propositions in respect to XT and Classic that were neither supported by actual fact and unable to get any kind of significant and meaningful following, and in the end, especially recently, many folks in the bitcoin scene have come to understand that a lot of talking points around XT and Classic were nearly pure nonsense.. and apparent attempts to denigrate bitcoin and core and just to create unnecessary and unwarranted divisiveness.

Regarding your above stated discussion of fees, we don't currently have problems with fees (not an actual problem). Fees seem to continue to remain reasonable, and it appears that fees are going to remain reasonable quite a way into the future, no? When are these supposed 100x fee hikes? and based on what starting points? $.50?

I have not experienced these supposed fee hikes, and not even any fee closely approaching $.50, which seems to be your base starting point, and I have sent a quite a few transactions over the blockchain in the past couple of years.. In the past 6 months or so, my fees had tended to be less than $.10, even when I sent between 20 and 40BTC - most recently, in the end of May and in the middle of June 2016.

I also don't recognize why there continues to be arguments suggesting that bitcoin users are going to go to some other superior hypothetical alt coin.

Yeah, sure a bit of healthy competition may be good for bitcoin, especially if there are monopolistic behaviors developing, and in that regard, if there were such a case, I would not mind moving to another coin if there were such a hypothetical coin that actually existed.... and if there were an actual hypothetical problem in bitcoin that actually existed, but in fact there is nothing that even comes remotely close to offering decentralized immutable censorship resistant security, that is namely bitcoin... and there is no, even apparent, threat that miners are going to divert their power towards some unproven code, thinking about you DAO... ... in that regard, bitcoin's code seems to get vetted in a fairly thorough way, and we seem to have some very talented folks that do some of this code writing and review and seems to take change very seriously.

So, again, why go on about hypotheticals about supposed core monopolization and centralization, fee hikes and coin flight that are no where near to having any actual support in real world facts?

 

[AdrianX]

I've only made reference to things the centralized development group referred to as BS/Core have actually done or prominent members have said to miners to get them to run their software changes to the Bitcoin code.

This Reddit users makes a good observation

 

[Erdogan]

@JayJuanGee

So you don't want more users, more transactions, more value, more dancing, more life?

 

[JayJuanGee]

@JayJuanGee

So you don't want more users, more transactions, more value, more dancing, more life?

That seems to be a disingenuous claim to suggest that I don't want bitcoin growth.. if it is not disingenuous, it is a kind of strawman, because I never said anything that should reasonably cause such an inference.

In fact, I think that the whole point is to keep bitcoin as it's unique self, decentralized permissionless and censorship resistant.

There is no other coin that accomplishes what bitcoin does, and if bitcoin were to rush into some unnecessary change in some kind of pursuit of profits or expediency, and introduce a bug or a flaw (which includes attempting to change it's governance which makes it difficult to change), then that would likely set bitcoin back a long ways and also such a rushed and non-vetted change could destroy the unique paradigm changing value that bitcoin is currently bringing to the table in a very powerful way.

 

[AdrianX]

There is no other coin that accomplishes what bitcoin does, and if bitcoin were to rush into some unnecessary change in some kind of pursuit of profits or expediency, and introduce a bug or a flaw (which includes attempting to change it's governance which makes it difficult to change), then that would likely set bitcoin back a long ways and also such a rushed and non-vetted change could destroy the unique paradigm changing value that bitcoin is currently bringing to the table in a very powerful way.

It appears you're spending too much time on censored forums. The Bitcoin code is infinitely reproducible it's only the network of users that give it value.

It's the small centralized group of developers of whom the most influential are employed by Blockstream that are making change to the bitcoin protocol.

Their paid PR team their pursuit to profile by changing the bitcoin protocol and the economic incentives that made bitcoin so attractive in the first place are threatening the unique paradigm changing value that bitcoin is currently bringing to the table.

 

[Bagatell]

Segwit Poll Results

Would you prefer to:

1. 1. Implement SegWit now, lift the block size limit later.
   3 vote(s)
   6.0%
2. 2. Implement SegWit and lift the block size limit at the same time.
   7 vote(s)
   14.0%
3. 3. Lift the block size limit now, and put SegWit on hold (perhaps indefinitely).
   40 vote(s)
   80.0%