Gee, and I thought you were just being facetious. So you really think Peter R's explanation of how competition works to drive down prices is incorrect, and deserves ridiculed dismissal?
First of all, there is no perfect competition. Some businesses will always gain an edge. As happens over and over again, an oligarchy is eventually formed. If left unchecked, a cartel is then formed. Then the cartel can charge whatever price the market will bear. Of course. Until some new entrant decides to compete, charging some lesser profit over cost of production, thereby amassing near-instant market share. The only way to prevent this is through imposition of some external force. For some products and services, this price is quite high indeed. As can be seen from the current tx market with Bitcoin, the cost people are willing (albeit grudgingly) to expend on a transaction is quite high. Pennies is not going to be that price. It will be magnitudes of orders higher.
What you are witnessing in terms of the transaction cost is the effect of an artificial production quota - an instance of the canonical external force. |
|
|
|
I thought this was supposed to be P2P trustless electronic cash. Not connect to some hub and pay additional fees. However, Mr Wright seems to think that if I run a node, and not mining, that I'm just a fat wallet wasting network resources. Such plebs as us should just connect via SPV and pay fees. Wow, Mr Wright, that's really going to help the unbanked of Africa.  I'd expect there will always be some form or "free service" available (both for Merkle-branch proofs and for transaction confirmations). But I suspect timely-confirmations will cost around a penny and that timely SPV proofs will cost several-orders of magnitudes less. You have too much faith in many of these pool operators, who would be running the mining and the nodes. You really think they are going to charge pennies when they can command dollars? If they were making absurd profits by overcharging their customers, then new businesses would start up additional SPV-servicing nodes and charge slightly-lower prices to win over customers and claim some of that juicy profit. Eventually, a market forms where the marginal return on investment for new SPV-servicing nodes is close to the risk-free interest rate in the economy. This is microeconomics 101.  Sorry, couldnt resist.... idonotthinkthat mememeanswhatyouthinkitmeans.png Sorry, couldnt resist....  Youre right ,I dont have a frikkin clue what it means beyond the obvious. Feel free to enlighten my ignorance.... Gee, and I thought you were just being facetious. So you really think Peter R's explanation of how competition works to drive down prices is incorrect, and deserves ridiculed dismissal? |
|
|
|
I thought this was supposed to be P2P trustless electronic cash. Not connect to some hub and pay additional fees. However, Mr Wright seems to think that if I run a node, and not mining, that I'm just a fat wallet wasting network resources. Such plebs as us should just connect via SPV and pay fees. Wow, Mr Wright, that's really going to help the unbanked of Africa. I'd expect there will always be some form or "free service" available (both for Merkle-branch proofs and for transaction confirmations). But I suspect timely-confirmations will cost around a penny and that timely SPV proofs will cost several-orders of magnitudes less. You have too much faith in many of these pool operators, who would be running the mining and the nodes. You really think they are going to charge pennies when they can command dollars? If they were making absurd profits by overcharging their customers, then new businesses would start up additional SPV-servicing nodes and charge slightly-lower prices to win over customers and claim some of that juicy profit. Eventually, a market forms where the marginal return on investment for new SPV-servicing nodes is close to the risk-free interest rate in the economy. This is microeconomics 101. Sorry, couldnt resist.... idonotthinkthat mememeanswhatyouthinkitmeans.png Sorry, couldnt resist.... |
|
|
|
Bitcoin Segwit2x hard fork Scheduled for December 28 2017 after calling off a month ago. Source: http://b2x-segwit.ioNot really. The tech aspects of this new fork are divergent from those of the failed S2X fork. |
|
|
|
Jbreher recently mentioned the tx capacity of an average computer. I quote: The only serious investigation into the matter has proven that your average 'home' computer today can handle a simple block size increase that will net us about 100 tx/s. And with a fix to core's crappy multithreading design, can handle block size increase up to about 500 tx/s. And that is without looking for other sw architecture improvements.
Jbreher is usually accurate in his factual statements, and his math is usually flawless. However, he does have his bigblocker agenda in his mind when he posts. He failed to mention bandwidth and latency, which are the real bottlenecks - more so than storage or computing power. It is true that I am a bigblocker. However, facts have no agenda. Bandwidth at 100 tx/s: 3Mb/s. That's b as in bits, not B as in bytes. What latency do you think is relevant? The only reason for the chain to be of blocks instead of transactions is to remove latency as an issue in arriving at consensus. |
|
|
|
So anyone buying their other half or family members some BTC for Christmas?
I've given each of the progeny (3 kids, 2 inlaws, 2 grandkids) 1 BTC each of the last three xmases. I see no reason to divert. This year, they'll be wrapped in Ledger Nano Ss. is that a tax write off? (serious question btw.. my tax knowledge is zero, tho that will be changing in near future, no doubt) Well, I am married. And US-ian. Which means that up to $28K per individual carries some sort of tax preference. Not sure the details - that's a matter for my preparer. |
|
|
|
So anyone buying their other half or family members some BTC for Christmas?
I've given each of the progeny (3 kids, 2 inlaws, 2 grandkids) 1 BTC each of the last three xmases. I see no reason to divert. This year, they'll be wrapped in Ledger Nano Ss. |
|
|
|
Thanks for the link. This seems important. |
|
|
|
But I ask you this then in return, why has he not been perma-banned from the WO thread?
For all our disagreements, Torque, I never would have pictured you as devolving into special snowflake mode. Hmm. |
|
|
|
I think many of us overestimated its development status when -almost half a year ago- thought it be the final push into mainstream readiness for Bitcoin.
We tried to tell you... and were soundly excoriated for it. At the same time, maybe also underestimated the rate of new users/investors that were to come in the following months.
We tried to... Ok, you sure have a point there. But you guys are wrong in that *just* a blocksize increase is an scalable solution. It isn't. You are going to have to do better than a simple assertion. The only serious investigation into the matter has proven that your average 'home' computer today can handle a simple block size increase that will net us about 100 tx/s. And with a fix to core's crappy multithreading design, can handle block size increase up to about 500 tx/s. And that is without looking for other sw architecture improvements. How many years' worth of simple blocksize scaling do you think that will net us? Even if only one (as if), that would immediately eliminate the blockapocalypse. We don't know whether or not that would be sufficient for Moore's Theory to carry us the rest of the way to ubiquity. But it would at least provide time for LN to mature, and solve today's (and tomorrow's) pressing issues. Core is either completely deluded in terms of economics and game theory, or they have a different goal than has publicly divulged. In the end, it matters not which of these two postulates is the correct one. Either way, you've all been led asunder. And that's from a tech side... from a "marketing" perspective... Do you really think trying to destroy confidence in the main cryptocurrency as a store of value would do any good in the long run trust over *ANY* cryptocurrencies?
(stuff about a clearly inapplicable analogy deleted) How much confidence destroying is going on with the current situation? If we would have had a block increase, we would not be in backpedaling apology mode. Especially in so public a manner. Rip the bandage off already. |
|
|
|
You can't send "money" or "wealth" over the internet
I think I see your axiomatic misconception, r0ach. You are conflating money and wealth. Money is not wealth. It is a representation of wealth. It is information about wealth. And information can certainly be sent over then internet. because everything digital is either valueless due to no scarcity, or just an artificial scarcity con job.
How do you justify calling this scarcity artificial? In practice it has proven itself to be very real. |
|
|
|
I think many of us overestimated its development status when -almost half a year ago- thought it be the final push into mainstream readiness for Bitcoin.
We tried to tell you... and were soundly excoriated for it. At the same time, maybe also underestimated the rate of new users/investors that were to come in the following months.
We tried to... But neither BCash or other alt coins are a solution to that, nor ever will be. Because....? |
|
|
|
Oh well I guess he's like just part of the furniture around here.
I'd feel more well disposed towards him if I could use him as an armchair. Probably smells though. Forniphile? |
|
|
|
I think many of us overestimated its development status when -almost half a year ago- thought it be the final push into mainstream readiness for Bitcoin.
We tried to tell you... and were soundly excoriated for it. At the same time, maybe also underestimated the rate of new users/investors that were to come in the following months.
We tried to... |
|
|
|
The simple act of pinging one of these coins will give off a unique sound wave you can either tell by ear, or you can hold it up to the microphone of a cellphone and your free cellphone app will tell you if the resonance matches and if it's real or not. A fake silver alloy will not pass.
Last time I saw you post that, I responded asking for a link to -- or at least the name of -- that app. Unless I missed it, you did not reply. |
|
|
|
it seems that I am making way more money with $850 to $1,000 increments than I was making with smaller increments,
I would suggest that your touchy-feely analysis is just plain wrong. you seem to be pointing out that you have been taking some breaks from trading
Yes. The 'breaks' are motivated not by time matters, but rather that in a bull market any such trading will tend to make you fiat-rich and crypto-poor. Accordingly, I trade only when I want fiat. Of course, this last two weeks being a rather large episode, I need to plan a way to gracefully wind it down. when my increments are larger, I seem to end up leaving less money on the table when the price out runs me
You've not seen much of my sell side. Price does not outrun me. |
|
|
|
I also said my part too in regard to the problematic nature of the seeming structure of your orders. I am not trying to be a dick, but I am trying to assist your retarded ass, without being patronizing and perhaps you have some kind of explanation that would allow your system to make sense, but having your buy and sell orders so close together seems a bit naive and impractical (or did I say retarded earlier?), and I am saying those things in a loving way.  - even though I am doing it in a public thread, rather than privately. Look, fuckwad ( ::mwah!:: ) the way to maximize profits from volatility to to place your orders such that they are as close as you deem tolerable. Right? Placed at $250 (good call by the way), I can profit off every $250 cycle. If they were placed at (e.g.) $1000, the price could (and frequently does) make a dozen or so $250 cycles within that $1000. Yielding me $3000*unit rather than $1000*unit (or whatever BTC, if taking profit on the BTC side). And 3 is more than 1. RIGHT? And it really is not that burdensome. As I stated earlier, just check the other monitor every once in a while and enter an order or two when warranted. That said, just two days ago, I pulled off the $125 increment plan, having fulfilled my cash infusion desires. OTOH, several weeks ago, I had not been trading at all. But of late, I decided I wanted to make a large purchase. Mission accomplished, I will indeed be scaling back. Gradually. Retarded my ass. |
|
|
|
Funny thing is, if we could do atomic swaps between Bitcoin and BCH, there would be no need for anyone to ever hold BCH at all. Just convert from Bitcoin on the fly as needed.
So tell me - do atomic swaps happen on-chain(s)? That might be hard to accommodate when one of the chains is cloggeded. |
|
|
|
You seem to think the price is tanking because of a tweet from a person you disagree with? Well, no. I merely pointed out the time correlation. I said nothing about causation. What's the problem - reading or logic? |
|
|
|
I really want to see one final total panic sell, all the way down to $10,000 in a matter of minutes, all out hysteria, just like the old days.
That would be bracing! I have standing buy orders all the way down to there and further yet.  I've pulled enough fiat out this sucka in the last few weeks to get me through another crypto winter. See ya at the next halving? 'Cause we know it is inevitable that it will hit ATHs again some day. The only question being when. Well, unless it is killed off by a preference for the other fork, that is. Your orders are way too close together - especially for someone who is supposedly more experienced and for someone who has built some equity. Maybe he’s actually a bot? Actually that is a good point. A bot could actually reasonably set orders closer together than any real person would want to tolerate. OTOH, a bot that left a hole at $7500 would be a very funny bot indeed. It's actually not that time consuming. Just look over at the other monitor from time to time, and enter one order for each executing order. Although a bot might be handy... |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
