Bitcoin (BTC) statistics - Price, Blocks Count, Difficulty ...

The Blockchain Art Exchange Arts Club

"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/
[link]

/r/bitcoin user count has been inflated all day long. Can't remember the last time recently there were 400+ users at 1am. But no, this has nothing to do with the front page of this sub or the "full" blocks....

submitted by Clean1313 to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

/r/bitcoin user count has been inflated all day long. Can't remember the last time recently there were 400+ users at 1am. But no, this has nothing to do with the front page of this sub or the "full" blocks.... /r/Bitcoin

/bitcoin user count has been inflated all day long. Can't remember the last time recently there were 400+ users at 1am. But no, this has nothing to do with the front page of this sub or the submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

If you were to count how many monthly active users Bitcoin Cash had - what'd be your guess?

submitted by readcash to btc [link] [comments]

For new users: There are 5,378 users here right now with 214,099 subscribers. Add at least one, if not two 0s next to the upvote counts because there are heavy troll bots downvoting every single post to minimize the importance of this sub. r/btc represents the real and uncensored version of Bitcoin.

Although repetitive, it's worth stating for new users that aren't versed in Bitcoin's history: Satoshi envisioned that Bitcoin would increase user capacity by scaling on-chain (not using tabs). bitcoin isn't friendly to this conversation. They see this sub as a threat and will do anything to silence and minimize the impact of the freedom of ideas allowed here. This includes using bots and low-effort paid trolling campaigns.
Recently I've also seen a lot of new users trying to stir up issues between the different development teams. To me, this is a sign of Bitcoin Cash's decentralized nature. It shows that Bitcoin Cash's development is stronger because no single codebase has dictatorship control over BCH. If one codebase has an issue, another codebase backs up the network.
BTC is governed by a single company that does whatever it wants. There isn't anything decentralized about that. That is a huge weakness in the rare chance that a critical bug is found.
So if you see low upvote counts, just be aware that those aren't the real numbers.
<3
submitted by Annapurna317 to btc [link] [comments]

There are currently 1121 Lightning nodes. Because LN requires each user to run a node that is always online, it's safe to say the node count represents the total number of users. Can LN scale Bitcoin to billions of users?

There are currently 1121 Lightning nodes. Because LN requires each user to run a node that is always online, it's safe to say the node count represents the total number of users. Can LN scale Bitcoin to billions of users? submitted by Windowly to btc [link] [comments]

Bitcoin Drops 2.28% As Its Monthly Active User Count Remains in Short-Term Downtrend

Bitcoin Drops 2.28% As Its Monthly Active User Count Remains in Short-Term Downtrend submitted by n4bb to CoinPath [link] [comments]

Holy crap. Now that the Bitcoin network is totally backlogged, /r/BitcoinCash is seeing its highest user count ever. 2,582 users active! Users are looking for a better way to transact!

Holy crap. Now that the Bitcoin network is totally backlogged, /BitcoinCash is seeing its highest user count ever. 2,582 users active! Users are looking for a better way to transact! submitted by BitcoinIsTehFuture to btc [link] [comments]

Holy crap. Now that the Bitcoin network is totally backlogged, /r/BitcoinCash is seeing its highest user count ever. 2,582 users active! Users are looking for a better way to transact!

Holy crap. Now that the Bitcoin network is totally backlogged, /BitcoinCash is seeing its highest user count ever. 2,582 users active! Users are looking for a better way to transact! submitted by BitcoinIsTehFuture to Bitcoincash [link] [comments]

In early 2013, it became a common belief that new Bitcoin users should not be recommended Bitcoin-QT, the full node client. Bitcoin.org was changed to no longer exclusively recommend it. Two years later, the block size conservatives are saying the drop in full node count was due to block size

I distinctly remember that the recommending of Bitcoin-QT to new Bitcoin users became a faux pas in early 2013. It was claimed that regular people should download and install an SPV client like Multibit.
Predictably, there was a large drop in the full node count, as the wallet market became dominated by a large number of new, light clients, and the most trafficked Bitcoin website, bitcoin.org, stopped exclusively recommending people to install Bitcoin-QT.
Now, we have important developers like Luke-Jr claiming that this 95% drop in full node count can be mainly attributed to the growing size of the block chain, despite the fact that the drop began right when light clients began being recommended..
EDIT to add some data:
This is the image that GMaxwell and Peter Todd, two individuals who are conservative about the block size (in particular Peter Todd, who's been warning about increasing the 1 MB size limit since 2013), have linked to to make their point about the full node count:
http://i.imgur.com/EL0zHRe.jpg
Up until at least March 18, 2013, the only client recommended to visitors of bitcoin.org was Bitcoin-QT, and an installation link for it was provided right on the landing page:
https://web.archive.org/web/20130318211940/http://bitcoin.org/
The WayBack Machine shows that by March 25th, 2013, this had changed, and a 'Choose Your Wallet' button appeared on Bitcoin.org/:
https://web.archive.org/web/20130513214959/http://bitcoin.org/en/
From March 25th 2013 onward, the number of non-full-node wallets recommended by bitcoin.org increased, in response to a general increase in the number of high quality and/or well marketed light and mobile wallets on the market.
Now a days, Bitcoin-QT is one of twelve clients displayed on bitcoin.org's Choose Your Wallet page:
https://bitcoin.org/en/choose-your-wallet
Other than Bitcoin-QT and Bitcoin Armory, all of them are non-full-node clients.
This shift, from a wallet market where only Bitcoin-QT was available and recommended to one that is increasingly diverse and dominated by light clients, coincides with the point (Spring 2013) where we start seeing a rapid decline in the full node count.
submitted by aminok to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Block size: It's economics & user preparation & moral hazard | Jeff Garzik | Dec 16 2015

Jeff Garzik on Dec 16 2015:
All,
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?
Definitions:
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.)
Guiding Principle:
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
DoS. Good.
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
Change Event.*
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)
are different.
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 than
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
later.
Failure to plan ahead for a Fee Event will lead to greater market chaos and
User pain.
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
ECE.
*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
FFM."
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
e.g.
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Block_size_limit_controversy#Entities_positions
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
income.
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
security
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
of planning
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
block size.
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
to prepare.
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
submitted by dev_list_bot to bitcoin_devlist [link] [comments]

Graph: Mempool Transaction Count - The number of transactions waiting to be confirmed. Backlogs at an all-time high, users experiencing delays, unable to transact, miners losing fees. Bitcoin network congested and unreliable due to Core/Blockstream's never-ending obstructionism, censorship and lies.

Graph:
https://blockchain.info/charts/mempool-count?timespan=all
Core/Blockstream is sabotaging the network by forcing everyone to use their shitty tiny 1 MB "max blocksize" when everyone knows the network can already support 4 MB blocks.
It's time for the Bitcoin community to tell the owners of Blockstream and "the devs they rode in on" to go fuck themselves.
Bitcoin Unlimited is the real Bitcoin, in line with Satoshi's vision.
Meanwhile, BlockstreamCoin+RBF+SegWitAsASoftFork+LightningCentralizedHub-OfflineIOUCoin is some kind of weird unrecognizable double-spendable non-consensus-driven fiat-financed offline centralized settlement-only non-P2P "altcoin".
Smart miners like ViaBTC have already upgraded to Bitcoin Unlimited - and more and more users and miners are dumping Core.
The best way to ensure Bitcoin's continued success is to abandon the corrupt incompetent liars from Core/Blockstream - and move forward with simple, safe on-chain scaling now by upgrading to Bitcoin Unlimited.
submitted by ydtm to btc [link] [comments]

[uncensored-r/Bitcoin] Extremely bullish indicator - Coinbase user count going exponential

The following post by Creatively_Unused is being replicated because some comments within the post(but not the post itself) have been silently removed.
The original post can be found(in censored form) at this link:
np.reddit.com/ Bitcoin/comments/7fisde
The original post's content was as follows:
https://i.imgur.com/wtZbW7P.png
submitted by censorship_notifier to noncensored_bitcoin [link] [comments]

Charts for Bitcoin Cash apps users count

Charts for Bitcoin Cash apps users count submitted by slbbb to btc [link] [comments]

I count 185 users on r/btc+r/BitcoinXT+r/bitcoin_uncensored right now vs. 363 on r/Bitcoin, less than double

Subreddits decentralizing as planned?
submitted by ForkiusMaximus to btc [link] [comments]

Charts for Bitcoin Cash apps users count

Charts for Bitcoin Cash apps users count submitted by ABitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

Noob Question: Number of unique addresses are back to almost pre Jan 2017 level. I am not sure what it exactly means. My guess is that they only count wallets with non-zero bitcoins. Doesnt it mean we lost almost all the users that we had gained over last year. Please correct me what I am missing.

Noob Question: Number of unique addresses are back to almost pre Jan 2017 level. I am not sure what it exactly means. My guess is that they only count wallets with non-zero bitcoins. Doesnt it mean we lost almost all the users that we had gained over last year. Please correct me what I am missing. submitted by mike_testing to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Bitcoin Progress Report: India Counts over 1 Million Bitcoin Users

Bitcoin Progress Report: India Counts over 1 Million Bitcoin Users submitted by BitConnect_Vindee to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Does each user on an exchange count towards total bitcoin wallet addresses?

Does each user on coinbase and other exchanges count toward the number of total wallets created on the network?
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.
submitted by anotherRedditUser95 to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Holy crap. Now that the Bitcoin network is totally backlogged, /r/BitcoinCash is seeing its highest user count ever. 2,582 users active! Users are looking for a better way to transact!

Holy crap. Now that the Bitcoin network is totally backlogged, /BitcoinCash is seeing its highest user count ever. 2,582 users active! Users are looking for a better way to transact! submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

There are currently 1121 Lightning nodes. Because LN requires each user to run a node that is always online, it's safe to say the node count represents the total number of users. Can LN scale Bitcoin to billions of users?

There are currently 1121 Lightning nodes. Because LN requires each user to run a node that is always online, it's safe to say the node count represents the total number of users. Can LN scale Bitcoin to billions of users? submitted by HiIAMCaptainObvious to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

Counting Them All: How to Figure Out Actual Number Of Bitcoin Users

Counting Them All: How to Figure Out Actual Number Of Bitcoin Users submitted by knight222 to btc [link] [comments]

Bitcoin mentioned around Reddit: DAY 2: WE ARE FORMALLY DEMANDING A RESPONSE FROM REDDIT Explaining EXACTLY What Caused The User Count of r/The_Donald To Increase 10-fold To An All Time High of 133,947 Then Drop Back to Base Level In /r/The_Donald

Bitcoin mentioned around Reddit: DAY 2: WE ARE FORMALLY DEMANDING A RESPONSE FROM REDDIT Explaining EXACTLY What Caused The User Count of The_Donald To Increase 10-fold To An All Time High of 133,947 Then Drop Back to Base Level In /The_Donald submitted by HiIAMCaptainObvious to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

Bitcoin Usage BREAKS RECORDS In The United States. 24 Years Ago Most Couldn’t Even Use The Internet. Bitcoin Forms “Obviously Bullish” Divergence as User Count ... Using PowerShell - Count of users in a specific OU - YouTube Building on Bitcoin - Designing Lightning Wallets for the Bitcoin Users How to Use Bitcoin for Non-Technical Users - The Bitcoin Show

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. An increase in wallet creations is a sign of new users coming into the crypto community. Notes Our Blockchain.com wallets are non-custodial solutions, meaning that we do not have access to the funds stored in the wallet. Transactions Block Size Sent from addresses Difficulty Hashrate Price in USD Mining Profitability Sent in USD Avg. Transaction Fee Median Transaction Fee Block Time Market Capitalization Avg. Transaction Value Median Transaction Value Tweets GTrends Active Addresses Top100ToTotal Fee in Reward Bitcoin (BTC) Stats. Transactions count, value, Bitcoins sent, difficulty, blocks count, network hashrate, market capitalization... 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.

[index] [5741] [18684] [33904] [369] [19726] [27408] [25202] [13122] [32909] [19271]

Bitcoin Usage BREAKS RECORDS In The United States. 24 Years Ago Most Couldn’t Even Use The Internet.

Sign in to make your opinion count. Sign in. 605 22. Don't like this video? Sign in to make your opinion count. ... and will Bitcoin survive the changes? Finally, should Bitcoin users be entitled ... We help you buy, use, and store your Bitcoin securely. You can read the latest news. We also provide helpful tools and real-time market price and chart information, as well as Bitcoin mining and ... Using PowerShell - Count of users in a specific OU 1. Prepare - DC31 : Domain Controller(Yi.vn) 2. Step by step : Count of users in HR OU, IT OU and QA OU - ... 🔴 Bitcoin LIVE: BTC Valentine's Day Stream 🔴 Ep. 883 - Crypto Technical Analysis Mitch Ray 474 watching Live now Bitcoin Cryptocurrency Crash Course with Andreas Antonopoulos - Jefferson ... Bitcoin underwent multiple rejections in the $11,000 region over recent weeks, suggesting the asset remains rangebound. Fortunately for bulls, there are on-c...

#