Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[MICRO]

Did anybody notice HUGE spike on bitcoinaverage ? What was that about ? 1btc=4404$

[JayJuanGee]

amazing gif

What is it?

[David M]

Now I'm really rich!

[ensurance982]

Another worrisome aspect of the blockchain statistics is that the "effective fee" for bitcoin payments is about 4% -- since the mining community earns 4000 BTC/day to process transactions whose estimated output volume (minus changeback) is 100'000 BTC/day.  Since mining is still a substantially free market, the actual cost must be not much below that value. 

Currently users do not pay that 4% fee, because it is paid by all the long-term holders of bitcoins, that lose 4000*365/12'000'000 = 12%/year of their value because of mining inflation.  (And, of course, that loss is more than offset by the price increase due to speculative demand.)  But since that fee will some day become a real transaction fee paid by users, it seems to be a bit too high for a service that is still often touted as "free" or "much cheaper than bank transfers".

But it gets worse if that 100'000 BTC/day blockchain traffic volume is indeed partly "fake" (transactions with no change in ownership).  In the final future when the mining costs will be paid by the users, the fake transactions will disappear and the cost will be borne by the real ones only.  But if 30% (say) of the volume now is fake, the "effective fee" now is not 4% but 4000/(0.70 x 100'000) = 5.7%.  If 50% of the volume is fake, the fee is 8%, and if 90% is fake, it is 40%.  So what is the "effective fee" now, and what will it be in that final future?

Putting on my triple-layer aerodynamic tinfoil hat, I would suspect that the blockchain traffic is being inflated with fake volume by The Powers That Wanna Be, in order to keep that calculation at 4% -- and thus preserve the illusion that bitcon can be a competitive payment method in that distant future.

That really is an interesting analysis. But I still believe it's more or less a self-regulating market. The only thing that concerns me is if miners really stop including transactions because the fees is too low...

[wingsfan23]

What is it?

Bitcoin hodler astronauts launching to the moon

[hdbuck]

Now I'm really rich!

or not

[David M]

or not

Killjoy. :-)

[vuduchyld]

Now I'm really rich!

I saw that, too!

[ensurance982]

Now I'm really rich!

I saw that, too!

Where the hell is that coming from? What happened? I mean, it's obviously a glitch of some sort. But what happened?

[JayJuanGee]

What is it?

Bitcoin hodler astronauts launching to the moon

looks like they fell into the cargo room and were NOT prepared for take off... hopefully, no injuries had ensued...

[MICRO]

Now I'm really rich!

I saw that, too!

Where the hell is that coming from? What happened? I mean, it's obviously a glitch of some sort. But what happened?

It showed btc at 4404$ on bitcoin average so probably some miss placed order on some exchange

[justusranvier]

Another worrisome aspect of the blockchain statistics is that the "effective fee" for bitcoin payments is about 4% -- since the mining community earns 4000 BTC/day to process transactions whose estimated output volume (minus changeback) is 100'000 BTC/day.  Since mining is still a substantially free market, the actual cost must be not much below that value.  

Currently users do not pay that 4% fee, because it is paid by all the long-term holders of bitcoins, that lose 4000*365/12'000'000 = 12%/year of their value because of mining inflation.  (And, of course, that loss is more than offset by the price increase due to speculative demand.)  But since that fee will some day become a real transaction fee paid by users, it seems to be a bit too high for a service that is still often touted as "free" or "much cheaper than bank transfers".

But it gets worse if that 100'000 BTC/day blockchain traffic volume is indeed partly "fake" (transactions with no change in ownership).  In the final future when the mining costs will be paid by the users, the fake transactions will disappear and the cost will be borne by the real ones only.  But if 30% (say) of the volume now is fake, the "effective fee" now is not 4% but 4000/(0.70 x 100'000) = 5.7%.  If 50% of the volume is fake, the fee is 8%, and if 90% is fake, it is 40%.  So what is the "effective fee" now, and what will it be in that final future?

Putting on my triple-layer aerodynamic tinfoil hat, I would suspect that the blockchain traffic is being inflated with fake volume by The Powers That Wanna Be, in order to keep that calculation at 4% -- and thus preserve the illusion that bitcon can be a competitive payment method in that distant future.

That really is an interesting analysis. But I still believe it's more or less a self-regulating market. The only thing that concerns me is if miners really stop including transactions because the fees is too low...

The transaction rate of Bitcoin is artificially capped.

We can expect that 4% value will drop by orders of magnitude when that artificial cap is lifted.

Also, it will be cut in half soon (every 4 years).

[Ibian]

Cointrader had a buy at a price of half a million. Fat fingers, pr stunt, glitch?

[MICRO]

Cointrader had a buy at a price of half a million. Fat fingers, pr stunt, glitch?

Hahah so they are fucked up But it was rly nice WOW moment

[vuduchyld]

Looks like all of the alts were screwed up, too.  Wasn't just BTC.

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[Davyd05]

what will North America do upon waking to the retrace? make it a reversal?

I don't think reversal will be easy now after good upside movement, may be they will hold or push the price to upwards.

That is what I meant, the upward play was the retrace of the recent dumping,  and I mean reversal as a continuation of the buying to confirm the bear trap.

[Peter R]

This graphs tucks the last 8 months in a tiny corner, with the previous 4.5 years taking almost all the space.

It shows the fact that the market cap has historically grown as the square of N, where N is a proxy for the number of users in the network.  To complain that it's "tucking" the most recent data into a "tiny corner" is to completely miss the point of the graph.  

How long will this relationship hold?  No one knows.  

If that tiny corner were magnified, the match would not be as impressive, I am afraid.

If you zoom into nearly any section of the graph, the match is not as impressive.  What's impressive is that the market cap has grown as the square of N over 4 years and over 4 orders of magnitude of market cap growth.  

The "TX per day" parameter does not follow the price since late May, and both it and the "new addresses per day" deviate a lot from price from December to February.  I don't know how these discrepancies could be explained, but they cast doubt on the model.

The current deviations are within the range of past deviations, so we can't really say anything yet.  I think the model must break down at some point should bitcoin adoption continue to grow, because the extrapolated price per BTC at Visa-levels of transactions per day are unfathomable  

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation