Wall Observer

[jbreher]

yes its only 10days

but this was said

Lauda (mod)


jbreher


Lauda

Yeah, I really wasn't expecting a meaningful reply. Sure, WO was a snakepit of spaghetti, but that's the way everyone reading it understood it to be. It seems quite obvious to me that Adam was really made an example of for not faithfully toeing the Core line.

Lauda has usually been fairly even tempered, but seems to occasionally drift off into lala land. I remember pointedly once where he serially modified someone's statements, attributed as quotes, and would not change them to reflect what was actually said even when called on it.

Oh well. Net result, I'll spend less time on BCT, and more time here.

 

[cbeast]

@Fatman3002
I think the price need to tank to convince miners, and I think it will, because the system won't work properly.

But I'm not shorting. Because I don't know the timing. Nobody does. I just hodl and buy.

The price won't tank, the halving will do that. Speculators have moved to altcoins and are playing wait and see rather than baking in a higher price.

 

[jbreher]

I rather have a feeling segwit could be very bad for bitcoin.

Meh - perhaps. But we will live through it. As long as we do not gimp to the point that some other crypto overtakes the #1 slot, we are assured of eventual greatness.
[doublepost=1458082790][/doublepost]

That said the whole ETH hype proves that if it isn't sorted a contender could quickly arrive and supplant BTC, or at least steal huge market share.

Well, ETH has gained market share on paper. But in terms of actual cap, ETH's rise has not been fueled by divestiture from BTC. It rather makes me think that ETH's market cap is a paper-only phenomenon, and subject to a yuuuuge crash.
[doublepost=1458083556,1458082497][/doublepost]

I do believe the adoption ( or more to the point TX/sec growth ) rate will far exceed the tech improvements, second layer solution will be required sooner than you think. and i do believe ultimately, it doesn't make sense to have main chain process every single TX on the planet, even if the internet is so fast that could handle it.

I'm not following. If TX growth outruns technology, it does it whether the TXs are on the main chain or a side chain. The encoding for each TX isn't going to differ radically in size for some other chain as compared to Bitcoin. Accordingly, putting them on a side chain accomplishes exactly nothing.

eta: insert 'radically'

 

[adamstgbit]

@adamstgbit
What do you think would happen if blocks were 100 MB on average today? Uneven playingfield?

assuming the 100MB are Full, minimum requirement to run a full node would be like $2000-5000 hardware and a 1GBBPS internet connection.

which is acceptable in my view, i mean, you want be a FULL BITCOIN NODE when bitcoin is 100X more used then today, i think it's not unreasonable to ask these "power users" to have solid hardware.... Lets keep in mind that you could still run a SPV node, and still miner can mine bitcoin using pools even with a raspberry pie

but many poeple disagree with me, my opinion isn't based on hard evidence, just an educated guess at best. so i'll yield to the rough consensus that 100MB blocks RIGHT NOW is probably not a good idea.

 

[adamstgbit]

I'm not following. If TX growth outruns technology, it does it whether the TXs are on the main chain or a side chain. The encoding for each TX isn't going to differ radically in size for some other chain as compared to Bitcoin. Accordingly, putting them on a side chain accomplishes exactly nothing.

eta: insert 'radically'

putting them on a sidechain or LN means bitcoin blocks are not 5GB big?

IF bitcoin becomes used as world reserve currency it simply cannot scale to the point where every single TX world wide is included on the blockchain, it's simply not feasible...
what would be the cost of the hardware required to hash 5GB worth of TX in a few second?? dose such hardware even exist?

i'm all for bigger blocks, but I do believe there is value in keeping the network light weight enough so running a full node is within the reach of anyone.

the way i see it we'll hit a wall at 8MB, going up any further will actually start to increase hardware requirements and node count will drop to minimal levels, only those who NEED to run a node will do so.

the margin for it run on a home computer to you need 10,000$ hardware to run it isn't much..
somthing like 8MB runs at home ( 800$ computer with good internet ), 64MB requires 10K$ computers
of course computers are getting better and cheaper everyday
but you can't bank on that on paper.
[doublepost=1458086961,1458086280][/doublepost]all this is based on gut feeling after reading some data here and there and taking an educated guess.

 

[Cconvert2G36]

Tradeblock showing 90 sat/byte avg fee. Looks like another (cheaper cause 1MB) "spam attack" is underway. Anybody want to guess if this dastardly attacker will upgrade to multisig tx once segwit is activated by the 4 chinese dudes?

4MB attack surface for a 1.6MB equiv in general transactions, wizards at work.

 

[adamstgbit]

with blocks always nearly full naturally, it probably doesn't cost much to spam the network.
[doublepost=1458089443][/doublepost]it would be very interesting to see some test of how long it would take to hash a typical 1GB block on a 60$ PC 500$ PC 1500$ PC 10,000$ PC
[doublepost=1458089814,1458088949][/doublepost]seems i'm way off, hashing 20,000 tx will become trivial very soon. CPU power isn't a bottleneck at all

where's the bottom neck?

 

[JayJuanGee]

[doublepost=1458083556,1458082497][/doublepost]

I'm not following. If TX growth outruns technology, it does it whether the TXs are on the main chain or a side chain. The encoding for each TX isn't going to differ radically in size for some other chain as compared to Bitcoin. Accordingly, putting them on a side chain accomplishes exactly nothing.

eta: insert 'radically'

To me, it seems that bitcoin will be a lot better off, if the ultimate solutions disallow fractional reserves of bitcoin (which seems to be current 3rd party risk potentials with a lot of the exchanges and other entities taking transactions off of the blockchain). So, in the end, if fractional reserve incentives are curtailed (even if they cannot be completely eliminated), bitcoin will be better for those blockchain-related systems - even if a large number of the transactions are taking place off of the main blockchai .

 

[Matthew Light]

What exactly does eth do to prevent theft?

It allows funds to be protected by inviolable programming contracts that can reference blockchain history (unlike Bitcoin scripts). So one can write a contract that only allows an account to spend 1% of its balance per day unless there are two signatures (allowing 10% per day) or three signatures (allowed to spend entire balance), or any set of rules one can think of, including integration with the external world (biometric readers, integration with blockchain-based biographic info such as death records, etc.)

 

[jbreher]

putting them on a sidechain or LN means bitcoin blocks are not 5GB big?

If a 1MB main chain is supporting a 4999MB side chain, there is still 5GB of chain to be pushed through the InnerTubes. Do not fall for the fallacy of the partitioned blockchain. Just because some is in a different chain, it does not eliminate the pressure on the infrastructure.

 

[Richy_T]

Chartbuddy, Chartbuddy, wherefore art thou Chartbuddy?

Oh, OK, I guess I *do* need to update that token once in a while.

 

[adamstgbit]

If a 1MB main chain is supporting a 4999MB side chain, there is still 5GB of chain to be pushed through the InnerTubes. Do not fall for the fallacy of the partitioned blockchain. Just because some is in a different chain, it does not eliminate the pressure on the infrastructure.

If we "partition the blockchain", it does allow low end computer to participate.
we'll have lot of computers each with smaller workload
opposed to
industrial size computers managing everything.
[doublepost=1458092867][/doublepost]there a good balance between the two, 1mb isnt it ( 1mb allow a fucking pocket calculator to participate ) and it isn't 5gb ( this cuts all but the most high end computer off the network )

 

[Peter R]

seems i'm way off, hashing 20,000 tx will become trivial very soon. CPU power isn't a bottleneck at all

where's the bottom neck?

This position paper (authored by several well-known bitcoin researchers) suggests that block propagation to nodes is the current bottleneck. According to the authors' measurements of real block propagation and simple calculations, at an average block size of 4 MB, 10% of the network nodes would no longer be able to keep up. At a 37 MB average block size, half of the nodes would be lost.

This is the bottleneck that Bitcoin Unlimited has addressed with Xthin Blocks by @Peter Tschipper. I suspect that if the entire network were running Bitcoin Unlimited 0.12, that 90% of the nodes would be able to keep up with blocks over 20 MB today.

 

[ChartBuddy]

Coin

 

[JimboToronto]

Oh, OK, I guess I *do* need to update that token once in a while.

Thanx Richy. I realize the move has created extra work for you. You're a champ.

Despite having to wait 3 hours instead of 1 for each update (and getting 1/3 the info), it's still worth the wait. Cheers.

 

[ChartBuddy]

Coin

 

[arandy]

Yeah charts baby

 

[ChartBuddy]

Coin

 

[ChartBuddy]

Coin

 

[67 speedqueen]

^^You do know those are traps, right?