Fall due to Coinbase trying to push through XT and change leadership ?

[danielW]

Is the recent fall partly due to coinbase CEO plan to push through XT contentious fork and change leadership team of reference client away from the current cypherpunks?

Certainly we had a previous fall from 280 -> 220 right after XT was announced. There was no doubt then.


Its more ambiguous now because the fall was preceded by a very quick run up. Yet It occurred immediately when the story about Coinbase trying to push contentious fork started spreading, and a raise in threads and discussion about XT. The fall was very rapid.

It seems that progress with XT and increase chance of conflicting fork is badly judged by market.

[1714963845]

1714963845

[1714963845]

1714963845

[Morecoin Freeman]

The bitcoin price was pumped from $230 to $500 in 5 weeks. What did you expect? lol

[danielW]

The bitcoin price was pumped from $230 to $500 in 5 weeks. What did you expect? lol

 The rapid fall occurred immediately when story about XT spread.

It is hard to judge the impact like I said. Does not mean that pointing out pattern or timing is irrelevant.



We have pattern of big news in XT causing big falls. The previous fall was not preceded by rapid run-up. This fall was coming, but it still was possibly triggered by XT news. The size of retreat could have also been impacted but thats hard to judge.

[frankenmint]

The bitcoin price was pumped from $230 to $500 in 5 weeks. What did you expect? lol

 The rapid fall occurred immediately when story about XT spread.

It is hard to judge the impact like I said. Does not mean that pointing out pattern or timing is irrelevant.



We have pattern of big news in XT causing big falls. The previous fall was not preceded by rapid run-up. This fall was coming, but it still was possibly triggered by XT news. The size of retreat could have also been impacted but thats hard to judge.

I think its both dangerous and foolish to think that sentiment regarding XT is fueling the price correction - you can't consider the ponzi schemes?  you can't consider the fact that the run-up had no viable explanation either?  you can't consider that there were no large developments within the cryptocurrency landscape that would bolster demand for BTC?  >>> those are all the reasons why I don't feel it has anything to do w/ Coinbase.

[r0ach]

In one paragraph why you have to be seriously out of your mind to try and stop bigger blocks:

The key to linking things together is recognizing that the only two things that give currency value are network effect and rarity.  The network effect of Bitcoin is hugely affected by the number of transactions you can fit per block.  For example, if Bitcoin could only do 10 transactions per day, only someone that's mentally insane would argue that doesn't create a huge glass ceiling for network effect, the main place the currency derives value from.  TPS obviously does matter and keeping 1MB blocks is detrimental to price. 

[solid12345]

I think its both dangerous and foolish to think that sentiment regarding XT is fueling the price correction - you can't consider the ponzi schemes?  you can't consider the fact that the run-up had no viable explanation either?  you can't consider that there were no large developments within the cryptocurrency landscape that would bolster demand for BTC?  >>> those are all the reasons why I don't feel it has anything to do w/ Coinbase.

No large developments? We had alot of developments, Europe declaring BTC is vat tax free, the Chinese government officially looking the other way, the opening of Gemini paving the way for Wallstreet entry, the last government auction to get out of the way, alot has happened in the last few weeks.

Also it's silly to assume one Russian guy with a mugshot on his website brought in hundreds of millions of dollars in volume in just 2 weeks.

[brg444]

In one paragraph why you have to be seriously out of your mind to try and stop bigger blocks:

The key to linking things together is recognizing that the only two things that give currency value are network effect and rarity.  The network effect of Bitcoin is hugely affected by the number of transactions you can fit per block.  For example, if Bitcoin could only do 10 transactions per day, only someone that's mentally insane would argue that doesn't create a huge glass ceiling for network effect, the main place the currency derives value from.  TPS obviously does matter and keeping 1MB blocks is detrimental to price.  

Bitcoin's network effect does not operate solely as a function of its transactional capacity.

It is impossible for Bitcoin to differentiate itself through its transaction throughput. Only its censorship resistance and decentralized nature makes it unique.

Seeing as a large majority of Bitcoin users are only interested in holding for the near future we have to assume this will be true of prospective adopters and therefore it is wrong to propose that Bitcoin's TPS put a glass ceiling on Bitcoin's network effect.

[Cconvert2G36]

In one paragraph why you have to be seriously out of your mind to try and stop bigger blocks:

The key to linking things together is recognizing that the only two things that give currency value are network effect and rarity.  The network effect of Bitcoin is hugely affected by the number of transactions you can fit per block.  For example, if Bitcoin could only do 10 transactions per day, only someone that's mentally insane would argue that doesn't create a huge glass ceiling for network effect, the main place the currency derives value from.  TPS obviously does matter and keeping 1MB blocks is detrimental to price. 

Bitcoin's network effect does not operate solely as a function of its transactional capacity.

It is impossible for Bitcoin to differentiate itself through its transaction throughput. Only its censorship resistance and decentralized nature makes it unique.

Seeing as a large majority of Bitcoin users are only interested in holding for the near future we have to assume this will be through of prospective adopters and therefore it is wrong to propose that Bitcoin's TPS put a glass ceiling on Bitcoin's network effect.

You seem pretty confident that no investment is being deterred by 3 TPS. I would argue that much of what is invested into bitcoin is on the basis of "what it can be", not necessarily "what it is today". 3 TPS being permanent would certainly dissuade me from future investment.

Thankfully, even the Core devs seem to be coalescing towards a modest increase in capacity to allow time for alternative scaling solutions to move from theory to reality.

[joecooin]

Bitcoin's network effect does not operate solely as a function of its transactional capacity.

It is impossible for Bitcoin to differentiate itself through its transaction throughput. Only its censorship resistance and decentralized nature makes it unique.

Seeing as a large majority of Bitcoin users are only interested in holding for the near future we have to assume this will be through of prospective adopters and therefore it is wrong to propose that Bitcoin's TPS put a glass ceiling on Bitcoin's network effect.

+1

thank you!

[brg444]

In one paragraph why you have to be seriously out of your mind to try and stop bigger blocks:

The key to linking things together is recognizing that the only two things that give currency value are network effect and rarity.  The network effect of Bitcoin is hugely affected by the number of transactions you can fit per block.  For example, if Bitcoin could only do 10 transactions per day, only someone that's mentally insane would argue that doesn't create a huge glass ceiling for network effect, the main place the currency derives value from.  TPS obviously does matter and keeping 1MB blocks is detrimental to price. 

Bitcoin's network effect does not operate solely as a function of its transactional capacity.

It is impossible for Bitcoin to differentiate itself through its transaction throughput. Only its censorship resistance and decentralized nature makes it unique.

Seeing as a large majority of Bitcoin users are only interested in holding for the near future we have to assume this will be through of prospective adopters and therefore it is wrong to propose that Bitcoin's TPS put a glass ceiling on Bitcoin's network effect.

You seem pretty confident that no investment is being deterred by 3 TPS. I would argue that much of what is invested into bitcoin is on the basis of "what it can be", not necessarily "what it is today". 3 TPS being permanent would certainly dissuade me from future investment.

Thankfully, even the Core devs seem to be coalescing towards a modest increase in capacity to allow time for alternative scaling solutions to move from theory to reality.

Bitcoin can be a reserve currency for the world's next financial system without ever challenging transactional capacities of centralized services like VISA, Paypal, etc.

See my post on reddit referring to an old Hal Finney btctalk post for reference: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3sb5nj/most_bitcoin_transactions_will_occur_between/

[joecooin]

You seem pretty confident that no investment is being deterred by 3 TPS. I would argue that much of what is invested into bitcoin is on the basis of "what it can be", not necessarily "what it is today". 3 TPS being permanent would certainly dissuade me from future investment.

You seem to be pretty confident that Bitcoin was built to attract investment and deliver fast ROI (aka "make money fast"!).

I believe it was not. It was built as a decentralised alternative financial and economic system and we are only at the beginning of that.

It was not built to give up decentralisation by lifting the sky on blocksize to let facebook users exchange pocket money for 'likes' or something. There's something more serious behind Bitcoin than that. That's the grand experiment. And it is successfull and nobody will stop it anymore. If you think different then just invest your money in Mastercard shares or something.

Thankfully, even the Core devs seem to be coalescing towards a modest increase in capacity to allow time for alternative scaling solutions to move from theory to reality.

Of course they are. And don't worry, scalability will adapt without handing the blockchain over to governments.

Joe

[Cconvert2G36]

You seem pretty confident that no investment is being deterred by 3 TPS. I would argue that much of what is invested into bitcoin is on the basis of "what it can be", not necessarily "what it is today". 3 TPS being permanent would certainly dissuade me from future investment.

You seem to be pretty confident that Bitcoin was built to attract investment and deliver fast ROI (aka "make money fast"!).

I believe it was not. It was built as a decentralised alternative financial and economic system and we are only at the beginning of that.

It was not built to give up decentralisation by lifting the sky on blocksize to let facebook users exchange pocket money for 'likes' or something. There's something more serious behind Bitcoin than that. That's the grand experiment. And it is successfull and nobody will stop it anymore. If you think different then just invest your money in Mastercard shares or something.

Thankfully, even the Core devs seem to be coalescing towards a modest increase in capacity to allow time for alternative scaling solutions to move from theory to reality.

Of course they are. And don't worry, scalability will adapt without handing the blockchain over to governments.

Joe

Hyperbole much?

They're going to raise the TPS capacity modestly? Good. The 1MB4EVA crowd may be ridiculous, but they exist.

[brg444]

You seem pretty confident that no investment is being deterred by 3 TPS. I would argue that much of what is invested into bitcoin is on the basis of "what it can be", not necessarily "what it is today". 3 TPS being permanent would certainly dissuade me from future investment.

You seem to be pretty confident that Bitcoin was built to attract investment and deliver fast ROI (aka "make money fast"!).

I believe it was not. It was built as a decentralised alternative financial and economic system and we are only at the beginning of that.

It was not built to give up decentralisation by lifting the sky on blocksize to let facebook users exchange pocket money for 'likes' or something. There's something more serious behind Bitcoin than that. That's the grand experiment. And it is successfull and nobody will stop it anymore. If you think different then just invest your money in Mastercard shares or something.

Thankfully, even the Core devs seem to be coalescing towards a modest increase in capacity to allow time for alternative scaling solutions to move from theory to reality.

Of course they are. And don't worry, scalability will adapt without handing the blockchain over to governments.

Joe

Hyperbole much?

They're going to raise the TPS capacity modestly? Good. The 1MB4EVA crowd may be ridiculous, but they exist.

Any linear increase of transaction throughput by increase of the blocksize is irrelevant to the actual job of scaling Bitcoin.

The 1MB4EVA crowd was mostly a reaction to the alarmists' original proposal of fatally hampering Bitcoin's decentralized nature by way of expedited bloating of the blockchain.

Remember that the original proposal suggested a 20MB blocksize increase.

[Zarathustra]

In one paragraph why you have to be seriously out of your mind to try and stop bigger blocks:

The key to linking things together is recognizing that the only two things that give currency value are network effect and rarity.  The network effect of Bitcoin is hugely affected by the number of transactions you can fit per block.  For example, if Bitcoin could only do 10 transactions per day, only someone that's mentally insane would argue that doesn't create a huge glass ceiling for network effect, the main place the currency derives value from.  TPS obviously does matter and keeping 1MB blocks is detrimental to price. 

Exactly.

[brg444]

In one paragraph why you have to be seriously out of your mind to try and stop bigger blocks:

The key to linking things together is recognizing that the only two things that give currency value are network effect and rarity.  The network effect of Bitcoin is hugely affected by the number of transactions you can fit per block.  For example, if Bitcoin could only do 10 transactions per day, only someone that's mentally insane would argue that doesn't create a huge glass ceiling for network effect, the main place the currency derives value from.  TPS obviously does matter and keeping 1MB blocks is detrimental to price. 

Exactly.

The past 2 years have clearly shown that Bitcoin transaction levels are not correlated to its market value.

[Asrael999]

more likely to be selling and or spending for China Singles Day

[Zarathustra]

In one paragraph why you have to be seriously out of your mind to try and stop bigger blocks:

The key to linking things together is recognizing that the only two things that give currency value are network effect and rarity.  The network effect of Bitcoin is hugely affected by the number of transactions you can fit per block.  For example, if Bitcoin could only do 10 transactions per day, only someone that's mentally insane would argue that doesn't create a huge glass ceiling for network effect, the main place the currency derives value from.  TPS obviously does matter and keeping 1MB blocks is detrimental to price.  

Exactly.

The past 2 years have clearly shown that Bitcoin transaction levels are not correlated to its market value.

The past 5 years have clearly shown that Bitcoin transaction levels are correleated to its market value.
Thousandfold increase of both levels. @r0ach is 100 percent right.

[brg444]

In one paragraph why you have to be seriously out of your mind to try and stop bigger blocks:

The key to linking things together is recognizing that the only two things that give currency value are network effect and rarity.  The network effect of Bitcoin is hugely affected by the number of transactions you can fit per block.  For example, if Bitcoin could only do 10 transactions per day, only someone that's mentally insane would argue that doesn't create a huge glass ceiling for network effect, the main place the currency derives value from.  TPS obviously does matter and keeping 1MB blocks is detrimental to price.  

Exactly.

The past 2 years have clearly shown that Bitcoin transaction levels are not correlated to its market value.

The past 5 years have clearly shown that Bitcoin transaction levels are correleated to its market value.
Thousandfold increase of both levels. @r0ach is 100 pct right.

 

How pleasant the world must be living with such a simple mind.

[Zarathustra]

In one paragraph why you have to be seriously out of your mind to try and stop bigger blocks:

The key to linking things together is recognizing that the only two things that give currency value are network effect and rarity.  The network effect of Bitcoin is hugely affected by the number of transactions you can fit per block.  For example, if Bitcoin could only do 10 transactions per day, only someone that's mentally insane would argue that doesn't create a huge glass ceiling for network effect, the main place the currency derives value from.  TPS obviously does matter and keeping 1MB blocks is detrimental to price.  

Exactly.

The past 2 years have clearly shown that Bitcoin transaction levels are not correlated to its market value.

The past 5 years have clearly shown that Bitcoin transaction levels are correleated to its market value.
Thousandfold increase of both levels. @r0ach is 100 pct right.

 

How pleasant the world must be living with such a simple mind.

Your selective correlation joke is ridiculous and transparent. Correlation goes like that:

[brg444]

Yep, safe to say we're way outside the mean.

Negative correlation for the last two years. What gives?