I"M BACK BABY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Nice! Another $2.5 million US, a couple more years of testing & development, and that baby will be on par with circa 1990 BBS software!

Tens of millions, assuming just 1 x "tens" (=10 million), is ~40 times than the current 250k txs/day.

Allowing for 90% fullness, and not all blocks at 100% (if some miners opt to mine less), you'd need ~44.5 mb blocks.

For two tens (=20 million), you need ~89mb blocks.

It will never be free to fill up a block.  There is always a cost.  However, when the block is 1 MB and it is already close to full with normal transactions, the cost to fill it is affordable to some.  If the block is much larger, it would be much more expensive to fill it and cause transaction delays.  Miners will always set a minimum price/kb to include data in a block.

This thread is about Bitcoin, the shit-tier asset subnormals *spend* money on.

>couldn't have answered it better than becoin
Because you're no brighter than he is?

Learn the difference between money and commodity and you'll know something about "basic economics".

I know damn well where it's from, but you didn't answer my question.  Utilization can only grow until it hits the limit, at which point it can't continue to grow.  In the process, of course I understand that low value transactions will be replaced by relatively higher value transactions that merit higher fees, but there is still a limit and because of the correlation between price and utilization, there is a limit on price. We can debate what that limit is, but it's there.  There is a price beyond which a network congestion failure is an inevitable certainty if capacity is constant.  This should be so obvious, it bewilders me that I even have to say it. What is the cognitive disconnect of smallblockers who think capacity limits aren't also price limits? 

Look, if price keeps going up, it's going to attract new users, traders, speculators etc. This is obvious. There is no way to stop it. The growth will continue to come until something prevents them from participating, like a physical inability to get their transactions processed. What else could stop them? The ONLY thing that I think would do it is if the price stopped rising. Do you have another idea?

So either we will eventually get a network congestion failure or a complete halt in price appreciation without additional capacity.  This is not an opinion. This is a logical certainty. 

If Bitcoin is not allowed to grow, won't price decline?

when I buy a bitcoin post halving I am not competing with others to buy the 1800 just minted. I am competing with others in a 15 million bitcoin market. The lessening of supply by 1800 is peanuts and will not move the price.

yes if miners keep their coins they are in effect buying them but at what price? Or rather what price do they wish to sell to pay for electricity etc. I understand alot of minors sell off market to big buyers at much lower prices than the "going' retail bitcoin price.

you are right my 3% is just a guess. But there is no way of being accurate - all i know is the price rise as a result of halving is very very unlikely.
what is your guess for the price in mid july? Post it and we will see who is more accurate then.

Based on your sig, If Bitcoin is not allowed to grow, won't price decline? I mean it seems impossible to have price appreciation without growth. There is no way to stop growth that won't also stop appreciation.

"And it leads to an obvious but crazy conclusion: if decentralisation is what makes Bitcoin good, and growth threatens decentralisation, then Bitcoin should not be allowed to grow." -Mike Hearn
Yes, yes, and again yes. Until better solution is found, growth should not be achieved simply at the cost of centralization!

by now not only should all the halving be built into the price but so should each persons views on consensus, centralisation of mining etc.

So I see it staying the price it is now ie $400+/- 5%.

However it seems many posters have confused the halving issue - its not reducing potential 'supply" much at all ie the ability of people to buy coins. We already have millions you can buy and we are just halving the rate new coins come to the market.

So once these people see after the halving there is no price rise a share will sell so the price will fall a little. I guess it will take  1 month after halving for them to all sell off some/all of their holdings and it will drop the price about 3%. so the price will then be $388+/-5.

So sell some of your coins about mid June and and buy them back mid August for less. A 3% gain is not much in bit coin terms but it is virtually guaranteed. Who does not love free money.

Who is they?

 You are talking about the overall BTC market price? 

BTC's Market price is determined by a large number of diverse people and entities with diverse agendas, and likely a lot of them consider what others are doing in order to decide their own behaviors (whether buying, selling or holding), and at the same time, some individuals/entities follow formulas based on their own perspectives and risk tolerances in order to front-run what they believe others are likely to do. 

I will concede that some "they s" are more powerful and influential than other "they s" in moving BTC's market prices, but even so, those they s likely do not determine with any kind of precision BTC's price movements.

My bet is nothing much happens. There's a whole lot of noise taking up attention elsewhere.

You are not in the Monero speculation thread .

Some speculation: Now that Adam and most other high volume posters left (by getting banned or voluntarily), this topic's (and subsequently website) traffic has dropped drastically. This could be an unintended irreversible trend towards other places. What does this cost the owner of this website in loss of ad revenue, and will he stick to his guns after realizing what has actually happened?

Never a dull day in Bitcoinland, that's for sure.

Decision point comes closer. And it doesn't look good for Bitcoin.

Transferred 100% out of cold storage into several exchanges.

Hodler for 4 years no more.

...It's a slidebar situation, not a binary one. The more you push the slidebar higher, the more problems you create. And pushing it just to satisfy the need for spam is irrational.