"This Club is instituted for the purpose of facilitating the social intercourse of those connected with, or interested in Art, Blockchain or anything creative." The Blockchain Arts Club was founded by The B.A.E as part of our vision in order to provide a haven for people in art whether professional or amateur. https://blockchainartexchange.com/
Jeff Garzik submitted by
on Dec 16 2015:
Following the guiding WP principle of Assume Good Faith, I've been trying
to boil down the essence of the message following Scaling Bitcoin. There
are key bitcoin issues that remain outstanding and pressing, that are*
orthogonal to LN & SW*.
I create multiple proposals and try multiple angles because of a few,
notable systemic economic and analysis issues - multiple tries at solving
the same problems. Why do I do what I do -- Why not try to reboot... just
list those problems?
FE - "Fee Event", the condition where main chain MSG_BLOCK is 95+% to hard
limit for 7 or more days in row, "blocks generally full" This can also be
induced by a miner squeeze (collective soft limit reduction).
Service - a view of bitcoin as a decentralized, faceless, multi-celled,
amorphous automaton cloud, that provides services in exchange for payment
Users - total [current | future] set of economic actors that pay money to
the Service, and receive value (figuratively or literally) in return
Block Size - This is short hand for MAX_BLOCK_SIZE, the hard limit that
requires, today, a hard fork to increase (excl. extension blocks etc.)
Keep the Service alive, secure, decentralized, and censorship resistant for
as many Users as possible.
Observations on block size (shorthand for MAX_BLOCK_SIZE as noted above):
This is economically modeled as a supply limited resource over time. On
average, 1M capacity is available every 10 minutes, with variance.
Observations on Users, block size and modern bidding process:
A supermajority of hashpower currently evaluates for block inclusion based,
first-pass, on tx-fee/KB. Good.
The Service is therefore responsive to the free market and some classes of
Recent mempool changes float relay fee, making the Service more responsive
to fast moving markets and DoS's. Good progress.
Service provided to Users can be modeled at the bandwidth resource level as
bidding for position in a virtual priority queue, where up-to-1M bursts are
cleared every 10 min (on avg etc.). Not a perfectly fixed supply,
definitionally, but constrained within a fixed range.
Observations on the state of today's fee market:
On average, blocks are not full. Economically, this means that fees trend
towards zero, due to theoretically unlimited supply at <1M levels.
Of course, fees are not zero. The network relay anti-flood limits serve as
an average lower limit for most transactions (excl direct-to-miner).
Wallet software also introduces fee variance in interesting ways. All this
fee activity is range-bound on the low end.
Let the current set of Users + transaction fee market behavior be TFM
(today's fee market).
Let the post-Fee-Event set of Users + transaction fee market behavior be
FFM (future fee market).
*Key observation: A Bitcoin Fee Event (see def. at top) is an Economic
An Economic Change Event is a period of market chaos, where large changes
to prices and sets of economic actors occurs over a short time period.
A Fee Event is a notable Economic Change Event, where a realistic
projection forsees higher fee/KB on average, pricing some economic actors
(bitcoin projects and businesses) out of the system.
*It is a major change to how current Users experience and pay for the
Service*, state change from TFM to FFM.
The game theory bidding behavior is different for a mostly-empty resource
versus a usually-full resource. Prices are different. Profitable business
models are different. Users (the set of economic actors on the network)
Observation: Contentious hard fork is an Economic Change Event.
Similarly, a fork that partitions economic actors for an extended period or
permanently is also an Economic Change Event, shuffling prices and economic
actors as the Service dynamically readjusts on both sides of the partition,
and Users-A and Users-B populations change their behavior.
Short-Term Problem #1: No-action on block size increase leads to an
Economic Change Event.
Failure to increase block size is not obviously-conservative, it is a
conscious choice, electing for one economic state and set of actors and
prices over another. Choosing FFM over TFM. It is rational to reason that maintaining TFM is more conservative
enduring an Economic Change Event from TFM to FFM.
*It is rational to reason that maintaining similar prices and economic
actors is less disruptive.*
Failure to increase block size will lead to a Fee Event sooner rather than
Failure to plan ahead for a Fee Event will lead to greater market chaos and
Short-Term Problem #2: Some Developers wish to accelerate the Fee Event,
and a veto can accomplish that.
In the current developer dynamics, 1-2 key developers can and very likely
would veto any block size increase.
Thus a veto (e.g. no-action) can lead to a Fee Event, which leads to
pricing actors out of the system.
A block size veto wields outsize economic power, because it can accelerate
*This is an extreme moral hazard: A few Bitcoin Core committers can veto
increase and thereby reshape bitcoin economics, price some businesses out
of the system. It is less of a moral hazard to keep the current economics
[by raising block size] and not exercise such power.*
Short-Term Problem #3: User communication and preparation
The current trajectory of no-block-size-increase can lead to short time
market chaos, actor chaos, businesses no longer viable.
In a $6.6B economy, it is criminal to let the Service undergo an ECE
without warning users loudly, months in advance: "Dear users, ECE has
accelerated potential due to developers preferring a transition from TFM to
As stated, *it is a conscious choice to change bitcoin economics and User
experience* if block size is not advanced with a healthy buffer above
actual average traffic levels. Raising block size today, at TFM, produces a smaller fee market delta.
Further, wallet software User experience is very, very poor in a
hyper-competitive fee market. (This can and will be improved; that's just
the state of things today)
Short-Term Problem #4: UseDev disconnect: Large mass of users wishes
to push Fee Event into future
Almost all bitcoin businesses, exchanges and miners have stated they want a
block size increase. See the many media articles, BIP 101 letter, and wiki
The current apparent-veto on block size increase runs contra to the desires
of many Users. (note language: "many", not claiming "all")
*It is a valid and rational economic choice to subsidize the system with
lower fees in the beginning*. Many miners, for example, openly state they
prefer long term system growth over maximizing tiny amounts of current day
Vetoing a block size increase has the effect of eliminating that economic
choice as an option.
It is difficult to measure Users; projecting beyond "businesses and miners"
is near impossible.
Without exaggeration, I have never seen this much disconnect between user
wishes and dev outcomes in 20+ years of open source.
Short-Term Problem #5: Higher Service prices can negatively impact system
Bitcoin depends on a virtuous cycle of users boosting and maintaining
bitcoin's network effect, incentivizing miners, increasing security.
Higher prices that reduce bitcoin's user count and network effect can have
the opposite impact.
(Obviously this is a dynamic system, users and miners react to higher
prices... including actions that then reduce the price)
Short-Term Problem #6: Post-Fee-Event market reboot problem + general lack
Game it out: Blocks are now full (FFM). Block size kept at 1M.
How full is too full - who and what dictates when 1M should be increased?
The same question remains, yet now economic governance issues are
compounded: In FFM, the fees are very tightly bound to the upper bound of
the block size. In TFM, fees are much less sensitive to the upper bound of
Changing block size, when blocks are full, has a more dramatic effect on
the market - suddenly new supply is magically brought online, and a minor
Economic Change Event occurs.
More generally, the post-Fee-Event next step has not been agreed upon. Is
it flexcap? This key "step #2" is just barely at whiteboard stage.
Short-Term Problem #7: Fee Event timing is unpredictable.
As block size free space gets tighter - that is the trend - and block size
remains at 1M, Users are ever more likely to hit an Economic Change Event.
It could happen in the next 2-6 months.
Today, Users and wallets are not prepared.
It is also understandably a very touchy subject to say "your business or
use case might get priced out of bitcoin"
But it is even worse to let worse let Users run into a Fee Event without
informing the market that the block size will remain at 1M.
Markets function best with maximum knowledge - when they are informed well
in advance of market shifting news and events, giving economic actors time
Short-Term Problem #8: Very little testing, data, effort put into
blocks-mostly-full economics We only know for certain that blocks-mostly-not-full works.
We do not
know that changing to blocks-mostly-full works.
Changing to a new economic system includes boatloads of risk.
Very little data has been forthcoming from any party on what FFM might look
like, f...[message truncated here by reddit bot]... original: http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-Decembe011973.html
Does each user on coinbase and other exchanges count toward the number of total wallets created on the network? submitted by
Additionally, where can I find this data? I see there are around 24,000,000 based on recent articles, but am not finding a website with such statistics nor any references in the given articles.
However, most bitcoin users have several bitcoin wallets and use multiple wallet addresses to increase their financial privacy when transacting in bitcoin. Hence, the total number of bitcoin users must be less than 42 million. 34 Percent Active Users. The number of people who use bitcoin actively has also increased. A report from the leading blockchain analysis company, Chainalysis, has ... Bitcoin Active Addresses historical chart Number of unique (from or to) addresses per day. Share: btc eth ltc bch bsv xmr xrp etc zec dash doge btg vtc rdd blk nmc ftc nvc. Scale: linear log. Latest Prices: BTC/USD: 13069.95 (bitasset) BTC/USD: 13042.23 (hitbtc) BTC/USD: 13061.89 (coinbasepro) BTC/USD: 13061.56 (gdax) Zoom: 3 months 6 months 1 year 2 years all time. Transactions Block ... The number of Blockchain wallets has been growing since the creation of the Bitcoin virtual currency in 2009, reaching over 54 million Blockchain wallet users at the end of September 2020. Digital money that’s instant, private, and free from bank fees. Download our official wallet app and start using Bitcoin today. Read news, start mining, and buy BTC or BCH. If we treated each address as a person, this would count as two people when it's really one. Many people own hundreds of addresses and 3-10 different wallets. Services can hold bitcoins in one address that belong to many people. Bitfinex, for example, holds 100,000+ bitcoins in one address. Bitfinex is a Bitcoin exchange with millions of customers. If we treat each address as a person, this ...
Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube. This is my current list of 25 Top Crypto YouTubers, in my opinion, measured with a set of metrics developed by my marketing agency. 1. Naomi Brockwell time... Learn about Bitcoin with the most watched Bitcoin video. More information: Start Guide - https://www.weusecoins.com Mining Guide - https://www.bitcoinmining.... bitcoin vers une reprise baissiÈre ou retour aux 10.000$ ?! ETHEREUM analyse btc eth crypto monnaie - Duration: 21:30. Cryptanalyst - Analyses crypto FR 2,090 views Bitcoin underwent multiple rejections in the $11,000 region over recent weeks, suggesting the asset remains rangebound. Fortunately for bulls, there are on-c...