I will be messaging you on [**2019-04-04 18:41:26 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2019-04-04 18:41:26 UTC To Local Time) to remind you of [**this link.**](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/9laxfk/btc_transactions_are_slowly_ramping_up_again_if/)
[**CLICK THIS LINK**](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=[https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/9laxfk/btc_transactions_are_slowly_ramping_up_again_if/]%0A%0ARemindMe! 6 months) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.
^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete Comment&message=Delete! e7628yv)
|[^(FAQs)](http://np.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/24duzp/remindmebot_info/)|[^(Custom)](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=[LINK INSIDE SQUARE BRACKETS else default to FAQs]%0A%0ANOTE: Don't forget to add the time options after the command.%0A%0ARemindMe!)|[^(Your Reminders)](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List Of Reminders&message=MyReminders!)|[^(Feedback)](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBotWrangler&subject=Feedback)|[^(Code)](https://github.com/SIlver--/remindmebot-reddit)|[^(Browser Extensions)](https://np.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/4kldad/remindmebot_extensions/)
I don't think they will ever raise the block limit because they will never admit LN has failed. Anytime the blocks get full and people demand raise - they will first look at Segwit adoption, and if its less than 95%, they will say - there is still space that is not being utilized in Segwit - until that space is used, no way the block will be raised.
After that, they will point to LN and say, there is space on LN - if you are not using LN, don't bitch about the blocksize. Eventually people will get tired of this and leave BTC - which ironically will also decrease the pressure on blocksize :)
If Blockstream did not allow blocksize limit raise when we had a 300MB backlog (the mempool were literally crashing nodes) - they sure as hell are not going to raise it if LN is not 100% being utilized to its fullest.
This is what happens when development and control of the roadmap for BTC is completely centralized.
More tx on BTC is good for Bitcoin Cash for two reasons.
1) More crypto adoption is good for the entire space, even when it's on the BTC chain
2) When fees go up again there is again an incentive for people to use other chains on exchanges, including BCH.
And there you can see that BTC blocks are still around ~1M and fully packed. What happened is that the block size space is now used more efficiently because transactions batching is utilized to a larger extent (most likely by bitcoin exchanges). Many simple transactions can be combined together and are counted as a single transaction even though bitcoins are actually sent to multiple recipients.
As myself and others have already said in these comments, outputs per block are also at lows.
So it's inputs which are on the rise, which means consolidating transactions. This is confirmed by the UTXO set size dropping:
Well, my point still stands in the sense that the BTC block size is still fully utilized. Thanks for investigating it. If somebody is consolidating UTXOs ([sweeping "dust"](https://np.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/689nzg/weekend_means_low_transfer_fees_time_to_sweep_the/)), then it is also a useful optimization which allows to use the available block size more efficiently in the future.
Also the transactions volume is currently dropping to some extent for every crypto, including BCH: https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/transactions-btc-eth-ltc-bch.html#3m
Exactly, so it must be consolidating transactions while the fees are low.
Which is confirmed, because the UTXO has gone down in the last (almost) month now.
Have you checked the link that I provided in my previous message? Blocks are full, so the sensationalist headline (which is implying that the BTC usage is declining) is not exactly accurate.
If blocks carry fewer transactions now, then the average transaction size has to be larger in order to still fill them up. You can always check the blockchain explorer yourself, here is a link to one of the latest BTC blocks: https://blockchain.info/block/00000000000000000060f5e916d142830d26f16df6e6e72dcaa44d5de92df272
I put that part in a comment so the title wouldn't be too long. Maybe try reading some comments sometime.
> https://outputs.today/ (click button for outputs graph)
>Lowest consecutive 2 days for as long as the outputs graph goes back.
>Other crypto's like ETH are way down in transaction volume also.
LOL, you got any more jokes?
Edit: Seriously, the total LN capacity is $50,000, the median BTC transaction is over $500. So there's only about a few hundred BTC transaction per day capacity on the LN. Hell, the **average** BTC transaction is larger than the whole LN.
And as predicted, out of 640 nodes, there's less than 10 main hubs.
*A handsome bot appears wearing a Blockstream t-shirt and a red hat that says #NOTX. He uncorks a suspicious looking bottle of sparkling wine with a label that says "Dom Perignon Champaign" written in crayon. He pours Zectro and ForkiusMaximus a glass of champaign and hands it to them*
Monsieur Zectro et monsieur ForkiusMaximus, a toast if you will, to "Fees being only 10 times too high to be useful for payment instead of 100 times too high!".
Source on transactions per day:
Source on transfers per day:
>Is it a block chain?
Yes, every block of transactions contains a header including the hash of the prior block and there's a cryptographic method for acceptance of new blocks. Instead of Proof of Work, it uses Delegated Proof of Stake for block production/acceptance.
Bitcoin is more centralized than most PoS systems, especially DPOS.
How many unique block producers create 50% of all blocks in Bitcoin? 3.
In Bitcoin Cash? 4.
In Ethereum? 2.
In Steem? 11.
*Delegated* Proof of Stake ensures a minimum number of unique block producers creating most blocks as part of the protocol. Empirically this is shown to be less centralized than PoW systems and the distribution of stake has been widening at a very rapid pace over the two year history that Steem has been running.
On the contrary, it is Steem that is becoming less centralized, while the balance of power in Bitcoin has looked the same for years, with a very small number of producers having the power to form the majority of new blocks.
> block producers
Your equating pools and miners.
There are a limited number of pools, yes, but there are thousands of individual miners in those pools.
In either Bitcoin, hundreds and maybe even thousands of people are getting 50% of those block rewards.
For example,[ ViaBTC pool](https://viabtc.com/) has 250,000+ active BTC miners, and 50,000+ active BCH miners. [Slushpool has over 92,000](https://slushpool.com/stats/?c=btc) active BTC miners.
In steem, as you have just shown, only 11 people are getting 50% of the rewards.
> Your equating pools and miners.
Pools are the block producers in the Bitcoin system. Solo miners almost never produce blocks, and even the existence of the few who do, does nothing to remove the fact that the majority of blocks are produced by 3-4 entities together in Bitcoin.
All those individual miners do is vote. They vote by allocating their hashpower to a mining pool, which goes on to create the actual block, which is where the real decisions happen in the Bitcoin network.
>In steem, as you have just shown, only 11 people are getting 50% of the rewards.
I showed you that 11 people produce 50% of the blocks, they DO NOT get 50% of the rewards.
Steem doesn't allocate all new Steem to block producers as Bitcoin and Ethereum do. Because Steem forgoes PoW, it can afford to distribute new supply much more widely than those systems, based on a "Subjective Proof of Work" continuous voting system.
Steem allocates ~56% of rewards to authors on the network. [Here's the distribution for yesterday](https://steemit.com/statistics/@wetten/daily-author-reward-statistics-for-2018-02-11). The top rewarded user got just over 1% of that 56%, which is actually a highly controversial issue on Steem as it is seen as too high.
~19% of the rewards are granted to curators, ie. users upvoting posts and predicting what will be popular.
~15% is paid to Steem Power holders, those who lock in their Steem for voting rights
~10% is paid to the block producing Witnesses.
This has empirically resulted in the largest stakeholders being rapidly diluted, power and stake becoming constantly more widely distributed among Steem user accounts.
Not sure, but probably earlier than that.
When it hit the 6K a week ago, in my opinion, the hype over the US Government meeting witht the SEC and friends, inflated the market and created the feeling that BTC had hit the bottom.
But true tradders know that a bottom is not defined until it is tested at least 2-3 times, just to be sure. BTC only hit the 6K once.
In my opinion, we will hit the 6K again during this week and it will go beyond that.
I think this is the motherload of all BTC crashes...
> But true tradders know that a bottom is not defined until it is tested at least 2-3 times
I haven't seen that with BTC, at least not within the last year. It's usually a V shaped recovery.
I just had an idea to draw some channels on a log chart, this seems pretty interesting tbh.
Notice how when it had a bullish break of the first channel was when Tether started printing, and when the second one broke to the upside is when Tether really started ramping up their printing press. Then when Tether started getting investigated BTC went back to the bottom of the second channel.
I may be wrong about the Tether part, but I do know if BTC breaks this channel to the downside, BTC is most likely going down into the first channel. Or possibly the top of that channel will be support, either way, not good.
I also had that feeling a few days ago, when the price started climbing for no reason whatsoever. There are volume spikes which are concerning...
What you say is concerning and if true, it could collapse the entire bitcoin ecosystem, since there is no regulations for exchanges who do not use fiat to buy or sell, and work exclusively with Tether...
They could be controlling most of the markets without people even noticing...
EDIT: It seems that the [Chinese regulators have yet to put their eye on Tether](https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/Bitcoin-evolution/Chinese-traders-key-link-to-cryptocurrency-market-in-trouble). If they do it and it they discover that there is no 1:1 parity... They will start to dump all those tokens very fast, and possibly the bitcoins.