Wall Observer

[Andre#]

In the past several weeks, a bit over a month, the blockchain spamming seems to have gone down a bit and average blocksize has been running between 60% and 80% during recent weeks.

Look again: https://www.btc.com/en/stats/block-size
Median block size was between 94%-100%, average block size between 75%-85%.

 

[JayJuanGee]

Look again: https://www.btc.com/en/stats/block-size
Median block size was between 94%-100%, average block size between 75%-85%.

When I was referring to several weeks, I had specifically mentioned 4 weeks earlier in my post, and my comment remains accurate... Maybe I could have conditioned it with "largely" between 60% and 80% to be more accurate, but in the end, that's just getting us caught up in the weeds rather than whether my comment is sufficiently accurate depiction of the facts?

Furthermore, I did not discuss the median in my post, and I have no problem with you asserting the median to make some kind of argument.

But really my assertion about average seems to be more accurate than yours when referring to the past 4 weeks, approximately in which for some reason you are asserting the average to be "75% to 85%", and I am not sure what good it does to attempt to correct me and to then innaccurately describe what has been going on in the referred to period.

I stand by my overall point which is that there does not seem to be any blockfullness "emergency" as many people seem to want to cry out on a repeated and ongoing basis

 

[Andre#]

When I was referring to several weeks, I had specifically mentioned 4 weeks earlier in my post, and my comment remains accurate... Maybe I could have conditioned it with "largely" between 60% and 80% to be more accurate, but in the end, that's just getting us caught up in the weeds rather than whether my comment is sufficiently accurate depiction of the facts?

I stand corrected, I looked at the dates in the graph wrongly. Indeed, in the past 4 weeks the daily average size was 57-85%. The daily median was 55-99%.

Furthermore, I did not discuss the median in my post, and I have no problem with you asserting the median to make some kind of argument.

When looking at user experience, the median (which is kind of the typical value of a set of values) is much more telling than the average. Especially in the block size discussion, where empty blocks are false signals w.r.t. tx pressure (empty blocks don't mean there are no txs to be processed).

It's beginning to seem likely that many people are starting to see through this full block myth.

On the page with the graphs, scroll down to the all time graphs of monthly averages and medians. The past three months, the median size was 93%. It has doubled the past half year. Under normal circumstance one would expect it to double to 185% by October. SW will be too little (170%), too late (one year after rolling out?).

It's not without reason that links to these graphs are forbidden to be posted on /r/bitcoin .

 

[ChartBuddy]

Coin

 

[solex]

On the page with the graphs, scroll down to the all time graphs of monthly averages and medians. The past three months, the median size was 93%. It has doubled the past half year. Under normal circumstance one would expect it to double to 185% by October. SW will be too little (170%), too late (one year after rolling out?).

It's not without reason that links to these graphs are forbidden to be posted on /r/bitcoin .

Exactly. And I am constantly amazed at how many Bitcoiners are swallowing the BS-Core "What, me worry?" attitude about block fullness.

Median size 93%. Well, anyone who drives a car and seeing the fuel-gauge sitting at 7% never thinks about the myth of fuel-tank emptiness, they are are thinking of where they can fill up next. Especially with a lot of long-distance driving to do and won't speed off into the night thinking "Whatever."

 

[adamstgbit]

Price is negatively affected by core's unwillingness to simply bump the limit

there promise of segwit coupled with censorship, and there fanboys pushing their ideas onto poeple has kept them in power.

but, I fear price will crash, when segwit is only accepted by 30% of miners after weeks of trying to push everyone into adopting it.

but out of the ashes rises the phoenix, bitcoin Unlimited FTW!

 

[ChartBuddy]

Coin

 

[adamstgbit]

ETH is FINALLY about to break support... the bear market is coming to ETH in a big way.
IMO, very good chance we'll see it start to lose value at an alarming rate and then BAM mega volume and epic crash, at which point i'll grab BLOAT LOADS of the shit, for a quick 20%.

targeting : 0.009 - 0.007 ish

 

[JayJuanGee]

I stand corrected, I looked at the dates in the graph wrongly. Indeed, in the past 4 weeks the daily average size was 57-85%. The daily median was 55-99%.




When looking at user experience, the median (which is kind of the typical value of a set of values) is much more telling than the average. Especially in the block size discussion, where empty blocks are false signals w.r.t. tx pressure (empty blocks don't mean there are no txs to be processed).

.

I mostly agree with your point about the median likely providing a better idea regarding individual user experiences when it comes to likelihood for having delays in confirmation times. I also agree with you that when we are talking about daily averages, then empty blocks could have a very decent chance of skewing mean results towards smaller percentages and reflect a smaller value regarding likelihood of delays in time for individual user experiences to get into the blocks.


Nonetheless, I continue to believe that a lot of the concern about delay(s) is overhyped by people who are engaged in anecdotal exaggerations about facts that have not yet occurred.. to speculate that there is going to be a problem, rather than actually experiencing any kind of meaningful problem, and at the same time pushing xt, classic agendas, which have to do with things other than the blocksize limits.


In that regard, we need to look at a variety of factors beside merely median blocksize, a variety of anecdotal accounts coupled with yelling about it


When it comes down to brass tacks, we have had secure transactions going through bitcoin in times that are way faster than traditional banks and with decentralized controls, and we really should not be expecting competition with centralized credit cards and payment systems that have been in business longer and are controlled by a lot of regulations (and money taking) …


Even though bitcoin is currently immature as a technology and there seems to be considerable emphasis on securing value in order that people are not getting screwed out of their coins because of security flaws, and accordingly it seems that very likely within a few years, bitcoin is going to become much more capable of faster transactions that may be comparable to centralized systems? I’m not sure, and I don’t really care at this moment, because we have to see how seg wit unravels and we need to see what kinds of continued innovations come through seg wit and other upcoming changes in bitcoin (including possible blocksize limit increases that may occur in one or two years).

On the page with the graphs, scroll down to the all time graphs of monthly averages and medians. The past three months, the median size was 93%. It has doubled the past half year. Under normal circumstance one would expect it to double to 185% by October. SW will be too little (170%), too late (one year after rolling out?).

.

I think that we have already had variations of this discussion in the other thread (Bitcointalk wall observer thread), yet maybe I had never made any assertions about transactions going above 100%, because those kinds of assertions make little to no sense to me. If there is a blocksize limit, then transactions cannot go above the limit.


On the other hand, I do understand the point that at some point daily transactions are likely going to continue to increase - maybe double, triple or quadruple in a short period of time.. and in that regard, there is likely going to be needs for increased capacity… but the upcoming needs for increased capacity does not mean that there currently is a problem, beyond a lot of yelling about the topic.


Surely seg wit seems to remain as part of the current proposed solution that is about to go live (depending upon whether it is blocked by classic/xt supporters), and from my understanding there seem to be other scaling-type plans continuing to be considered, even though some of the details of additional plans depend upon how seg wit unravels when it actually goes live in the near future… and some of those considerations were discussed in the hongkong agreement.

It's not without reason that links to these graphs are forbidden to be posted on /r/bitcoin .

I don’t really follow r/bitcoin, but I believe that you posted those same above links in the Bitcoin talk wall observer thread, and they were not removed….


I also don’t really have any problems with the idea that an owner of a forum may categorize certain topics as within bitcoin or as within alt coin related .. and accordingly, some links may be allowed under some topics and not under other topics… because they may seem to be more argumentative rather than factual… Maybe you can explain more why those links may have been removed from r/bitcoin?

 

[ChartBuddy]

Coin

 

[JayJuanGee]

Exactly. And I am constantly amazed at how many Bitcoiners are swallowing the BS-Core "What, me worry?" attitude about block fullness.

Median size 93%. Well, anyone who drives a car and seeing the fuel-gauge sitting at 7% never thinks about the myth of fuel-tank emptiness, they are are thinking of where they can fill up next. Especially with a lot of long-distance driving to do and won't speed off into the night thinking "Whatever."

Well, in essence, it may depend upon how you frame the situation before you consider what is BS and what is not.

For example, if you assume core supporters have bad motives then you are likely going to come to faulty conclusions.

Also, when you use bad analogies, also, you are likely going to come to bad conclusions.

Your above analogy regarding running on nearly an empty tank does not seem to fit the situation very well.

Bitcoin is not going to break if blocks reach 100%. Various kinds of adaptation occurs as blocks approach 100%, including choices to spread out transaction or to not use the system, and further, even though there may be 50 blocks that are near 100%, there may be catching up going on to, that allows the transactions to go through much more quickly than traditional banking systems (without centralization). Further, even though there have been quite a few loud voices screaming that there is an emergency and speculating about the sky falling and other tragedies if a blocksize limit increase solution is not employed right away, the factless repetition of such speculative and unfounded information does not cause it to become true.

It seems to be much more important to take things more modestly when dealing with monetary (value) systems, then to jump into some kind of solution that is searching for a problem that doesn't really exist beyond the fact that it is being frequently shouted.

 

[8up]

Nonetheless, I continue to believe that a lot of the concern about delay(s) is overhyped by people who are engaged in anecdotal exaggerations about facts that have not yet occurred.. to speculate that there is going to be a problem, rather than actually experiencing any kind of meaningful problem, and at the same time pushing xt, classic agendas, which have to do with things other than the blocksize limits.

Markets are solution finding machines. You won't run into problems - never ever. Markets provide you with a glipmpse of the future... They will find solutions a head of your current reality.

Hence market shifts happen in cycles (as well as everything else in the world).

Expect a first BTC > ALT (wave) > then expect it to roll back;
expect another (maybe bigger) wave BTC > ALT and again expect it to roll back....
And so on...

In the case the above is not true and a real problem (unnoticed to date by all market participants) exists. By the time - it is already to late to adapt (for the affected market).


P.S. Crypto-currencies have a bright future. Bitcoin - I don't know.

 

[solex]

@JayJuanGee
I will clarify, the BS = Blockstream. That was a reference to Core Dev being captured, not that they are no good at what they do.

With respect to the 1MB. I have many years experience in mainstream financial systems and over that time made many executive decisions about increasing software limits like the 1MB, or identifying necessary hardware purchases, all to safely handle real-world increases in transaction volumes which were relentless every year. (Not only tx, but also for different classes of static data to support tx processing).

The general rule of thumb (which varies depending upon the volatility of demand changes) is that limited resources need to be addressed technically when they are 40% utilized. So when the Bitcoin median block size hit 400KB for sustained periods (a day or two) then software changes to deal with this limit should not only have been written, but ready for go-live, an example here is Classic's 75% threshold for the 2MB should be just about activating when the median block size is around 40% of max.

The fact that this has not been achieved even though 93% utilization is occurring is clear and present evidence of professional negligence by the devs responsible, The only shield they have against criticism is that Bitcoin is a decentralized system and no-one has control. Nevertheless, the momentum to deal with the block limit existed in early 2013, and even Wuille said that up to 100MiB should be considered. What has happened since then is that technical considerations have been subordinated to political and other background imperatives.

Yes, Bitcoin won't stop like a car does when it runs out of fuel, but at maximum utilization business will be driven away. Prohashing used to pay out primarily in BTC and now they usually pay out in alt-coins. One by one users will be driven away, until the network effect for growth actually becomes arrested. Core Dev are betting on SegWit, yet it is unlikely to provide more than a 30% uplift after one year. This is too little and too late.

 

[JayJuanGee]

Markets are solution finding machines. You won't run into problems - never ever. Markets provide you with a glipmpse of the future... They will find solutions a head of your current reality.

Hence market shifts happen in cycles (as well as everything else in the world).

Expect a first BTC > ALT (wave) > then expect it to roll back;
expect another (maybe bigger) wave BTC > ALT and again expect it to roll back....
And so on...

In the case the above is not true and a real problem (unnoticed to date by all market participants) exists. By the time - it is already to late to adapt (for the affected market).


P.S. Crypto-currencies have a bright future. Bitcoin - I don't know.

You haven't really said anything materially contrary to what I am saying, which is really that various cryptos may play off one another; however, somewhat contrary to what I had been asserting, you seem to suggest that some other alts are somehow going to catch up to bitcoin (and possibly surpass it in a variety of ways) due to bitcoin's lack of innovation, and I really have my doubts about that kind of a claim.

Really, I don't care whether I am correct or not about bitcoin being prominent, dominant and difficult to topple, because I could give a shit about whether bitcoin is the one in the lead or some other crypto takes the lead.

I will move my investment to whichever crypto currency serves my purposes, and right now bitcoin remains the one with the greatest security in terms of my sense of the value of my funds, and the greatest network effects in all respects, including developers, speculators, consumers, liquidation avenues, wall street speculation, exchanges, peer to peer hashing power, etc..

I understand that there are various motives, and personally, I am not speculating on bitcoin as a short term investment or a way to get rich quick, but as a long term investment (and I really like the liquidation possibilities, the security of the coins and the broader and broader investments)

Sure there may be various innovations taking place with other coins, and they may be more mobile and efficient or able to add some features that bitcoin currently does not have, but for the most part bitcoin remains the value chain in which value is secured and the go to chain for other coins to bounce off of and to secure themselves, and regarding blocksize limit debates, to me it seems to remain a good thing if bitcoin is not altered easily and it is difficult to change the status quo of bitcoin and accordingly, it's security is not messed with due to some lame and/or "emergency" made up measures that cripple it's security and purport to be something other than they are... (both xt and classic strive to undermine bitcoin and its governance, even though they claim to be aimed at technical issues (which is not true) if xt and/or classic had been aimed at mere technical issues, and if those technical issues were truly a problem, the technical issues would have likely been resolved by now).

I remain pretty much currency agnostic, and I will put my money where it seems to be most secure, and at the moment, that place seems to be with bitcoin rather than any of the other 600 alts or even the closest 10 runner ups in market cap.

 

[Andre#]

I don’t really follow r/bitcoin, but I believe that you posted those same above links in the Bitcoin talk wall observer thread, and they were not removed….

I also don’t really have any problems with the idea that an owner of a forum may categorize certain topics as within bitcoin or as within alt coin related .. and accordingly, some links may be allowed under some topics and not under other topics… because they may seem to be more argumentative rather than factual… Maybe you can explain more why those links may have been removed from r/bitcoin?

Indeed, the post in bct made it. My post in /r/bitcoin and at least of two others I know of, got taken off. Also, a comment of mine that mentioned the link, got deleted. I don't know why this happened, I don't get any message about it. However, I do understand why people who are opposed to increasing the block size limit don't want facts about block size growth to be published in /r/bitcoin. It's the same reason why the facts of the Panama Papers cannot be published in Russia and China.

 

[8up]

You haven't really said anything materially contrary to what I am saying, which is really that various cryptos may play off one another; however, somewhat contrary to what I had been asserting, you seem to suggest that some other alts are somehow going to catch up to bitcoin (and possibly surpass it in a variety of ways) due to bitcoin's lack of innovation, and I really have my doubts about that kind of a claim.

Actually I can agree, with most things you said. We are discussing Bitcoin in this forum because it still matters (the most). The whole drama is about power and governance. In the end - who cares if innovation takes place inside or outside the system as long as I have the free choice(!) to be part of it.

If Bitcoin would be change* resistant (including soft forks!), this would have value of its own.

(*) 100% consensus necessary for change

 

[ChartBuddy]

Coin

 

[ChartBuddy]

Coin

 

[8up]

These three lines (30m chart) represent the fate of Bitcoin. I am inclined to say: "This time it's critcial."

The top line: All the way down from the ATH in late 2013 as well as the temporary top in late 2015.
The upper bottom line: All the way up from the ATL (@Bitstamp) in late 2011 intersecting the low in late summer 2015.
The lower bottom line: All the way up from the corrective low in late 2015 (and coincidently intersecting with the low of early 2015).

 

[adamstgbit]

the next 24 hours are critical!!!!!!