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

[brg444]

Bitcoin's killer app is whenever bank lets you create a savings account in bitcoin and you don't have to worry about ever losing your keys.

Bitcoin's killer app is its deflationary nature and scarce supply in a world of inflationary money and quantitative easing.

they will make more when the "cripplecoin" miners vote to make more .. they have to because people lose bitcoins all the time by losing their private keys to their cold storage wallets and stuff.. precious metals is a much more true deflationary and scarce supply than cryptos...

Do you realise how retarded you sound?

Bitcoin could run fine under 10 bitcoins with some little magic.

[1714300678]

1714300678

[aztecminer]

Bitcoin's killer app is whenever bank lets you create a savings account in bitcoin and you don't have to worry about ever losing your keys.

Bitcoin's killer app is its deflationary nature and scarce supply in a world of inflationary money and quantitative easing.

they will make more when the "cripplecoin" miners vote to make more .. they have to because people lose bitcoins all the time by losing their private keys to their cold storage wallets and stuff.. precious metals is a much more true deflationary and scarce supply than cryptos...

Do you realise how retarded you sound?

Bitcoin could run fine under 10 bitcoins with some little magic.

obviously... you missed the point.. once all the precious metals are mined from the earth you cant mine any more just by tweaking the program code.. the way things are going it will be the "cripplecoiner" mining companies who will vote/decide if the cap on bitcoin production is raised .

[rolling]

I think there is some confusion on this board. A mining pool does not really control the hashing power on that pool. If they try to do something strange with the hashing power, the miners behind the pool move their miners to another pool. Antpool would probably be less than 5% of the network if they didn't allow outside miners. The only real exception (with more than about 5%) is Bitfury who does independently control 20% of the network right now and growing.

[JorgeStolfi]

Mining profitability does not make mining less distributed because gold rush. If economies of scale concentrates industry then why is all industry not concentrated?

Industry does get concentrated.  For example, many car makers that were independent in the early 20th century got absorbed by the big ones -- Ford, GM, Chrysler in the US.  There are thousands of other examples. 

Customs barriers and national economic policies are one obstacle for the concetration of  traditional industries.  In some countries, anti-trust / fairi-competition laws also prevent total centralization.  Neither of these obstacles exists for bitcoin.

Miners don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater because they realize this is still low valuation. By the time it will be even possible to be worth cheating the system, it will be to strong to do so. They are better off just looking for other means to cheat the system, like politicking the politboro of governance.

Miners are not fools to kill their cash cow; but there are many things they can do to squeeze more milk out of it, that will not be bad enough to scare bitcoiners away.

[JorgeStolfi]

Strange, I saw quite a few articles about great Bitcoin adoption in Brazil. Not that that is anything great, it would be better if another country was named, instead of that shithole that's going down the drain.

Brazil currently has many big problems, but fortunately bitcoin still does not seem to be one of them.  Perhaps Brazilians are indeed smarter than the folks in your bithole.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin
Explanation

[ChartBuddy]

Coin
Explanation

[ChartBuddy]

Coin
Explanation

[ChartBuddy]

Coin
Explanation

[ChartBuddy]

Coin
Explanation

[billyjoeallen]

Strange, I saw quite a few articles about great Bitcoin adoption in Brazil. Not that that is anything great, it would be better if another country was named, instead of that shithole that's going down the drain.

Brazil currently has many big problems, but fortunately bitcoin still does not seem to be one of them.  Perhaps Brazilians are indeed smarter than the folks in your bithole.

I wonder if your opinion would change if there are bank depositor bail-ins and capital controls.   

[cbeast]

Mining profitability does not make mining less distributed because gold rush. If economies of scale concentrates industry then why is all industry not concentrated?

Industry does get concentrated.  For example, many car makers that were independent in the early 20th century got absorbed by the big ones -- Ford, GM, Chrysler in the US.  There are thousands of other examples. 

Customs barriers and national economic policies are one obstacle for the concetration of  traditional industries.  In some countries, anti-trust / fairi-competition laws also prevent total centralization.  Neither of these obstacles exists for bitcoin.

Bitcoin is permission-less. There is nothing stopping anyone from competing. There are some places where government subsidizes mining, but there are other places where energy is very cheap. Currently the subsidies are the biggest incentive for mining. There is no need to regulate that, but energy isn't the only resource needed for mining. Bandwidth is also needed to allow adoption. There isn't any adoption to concentrate at the moment.

Miners don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater because they realize this is still low valuation. By the time it will be even possible to be worth cheating the system, it will be to strong to do so. They are better off just looking for other means to cheat the system, like politicking the politboro of governance.

Miners are not fools to kill their cash cow; but there are many things they can do to squeeze more milk out of it, that will not be bad enough to scare bitcoiners away.

Businesses milk their production to death all the time. It's an exit strategy. The Chinese miners could switch tomorrow to a pre-mined bank owned Chinacoin and spend billions marketing it. Bitcoin would be left with a sudden hashrate drop and the miners would be well rewarded by the Party.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin
Explanation

[Wary]

Sorry, I should have defined the difference between "new owners" and "current owners"...

- what I mean is that the "current owners" are incentivized by profit, hence their incentive to sell.

The "new owners" in this scenario, would be individuals or state-level actors that are not incentivized by profit. (Indeed, who would run unprofitable hardware except some "otherwise-incentivized" participant?)

These "new owners" would have no profit margin, no scenario in which they could turn a profit, thus their only motive now is to attack the network. Their only incentive for running this specialized hardware at a loss would be to harm the network.

Makes sense?

Yes, thanks. Although I think that if a state decide to kill bitcoin, it won't do it by purchasing secondhand mineries. It would use instruments it's more used to: police, legislation, banks etc.

How do you propose that the miners are incentivized to protect the security of the blockchain if there is no scarcity enforced on the size of the Blockchain?

I agree that scarcity is necessary for creating proper bitcoin infrastructure. However, I think the scarcity should be natural, rather than artificial one.

If the scarcity is artificial one, like the 1M limit, and is determined by political means, it would be handled by political methods as well. All efforts will go to political and bureaucratic struggle. This is a way to soviet-style economy.

If the scarcity is natural one, like propagation time and is caused by technical reasons, it would be handled by technical methods. All efforts will go to solving these technical obstacles. This is the way to the Moon

[Elwar]

who will bother to open an account with coinbase to buy bitcoins so they can buy stuff while paying a high fee ?? whats the point.. pay high fees.. instead use a debit card doesnt cost end user nothing to use a debit card and its easy.. no reason to use bitcoin that has multiples of issues that we all are aware of .. and if you are a gun owner and support the second amendment then you need to oppose the implementation of the "blockchain blacklists" code. i happen to be one of the "dwayne" brothers and i think your "blockchain blacklists" is a real cute trick. obviously there is only once choice.. cripple bitcoin with low bandwidth, slow payments with high fees ...... RIP XT or bitcoin make your choice.

about to get smacked down by the bear troll fud (i gotta get me one these cameras!) : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JIhCNbdIFT4

Indeed. What is the point of buying bitcoins to buy stuff? That is the question maybe you should ask yourself.

Did you consider maybe you did not have the right idea about what Bitcoin's real utility is?

Bitcoin's utility is using it to buy stuff online. And it is close to being to the point where you can drop your bank.

It is merely a currency, you switch to whatever currency is best for the situation. I live in Germany but work for the military so I have access to the military base. Everything on the military base requires dollars, everything else requires euros. I am used to going back and forth between currencies. I don't "buy dollars" and watch the value fluctuate. I convert some euros to dollars and get enough for things I might need for that week. I convert bitcoins to euros with enough currency to pay for things in the near future. My reserve currency is bitcoins because it is easier to store and travel with bitcoins than with cash and that is what I am paid in. I don't worry too much about the value fluctuation other than spending more when the price goes up a lot and holding off when the price drops.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin
Explanation

[shmadz]

Sorry, I should have defined the difference between "new owners" and "current owners"...

- what I mean is that the "current owners" are incentivized by profit, hence their incentive to sell.

The "new owners" in this scenario, would be individuals or state-level actors that are not incentivized by profit. (Indeed, who would run unprofitable hardware except some "otherwise-incentivized" participant?)

These "new owners" would have no profit margin, no scenario in which they could turn a profit, thus their only motive now is to attack the network. Their only incentive for running this specialized hardware at a loss would be to harm the network.

Makes sense?

Yes, thanks. Although I think that if a state decide to kill bitcoin, it won't do it by purchasing secondhand mineries. It would use instruments it's more used to: police, legislation, banks etc.

How do you propose that the miners are incentivized to protect the security of the blockchain if there is no scarcity enforced on the size of the Blockchain?

I agree that scarcity is necessary for creating proper bitcoin infrastructure. However, I think the scarcity should be natural, rather than artificial one.

If the scarcity is artificial one, like the 1M limit, and is determined by political means, it would be handled by political methods as well. All efforts will go to political and bureaucratic struggle. This is a way to soviet-style economy.

If the scarcity is natural one, like propagation time and is caused by technical reasons, it would be handled by technical methods. All efforts will go to solving these technical obstacles. This is the way to the Moon

If the 1M limit is artificial scarcity, what about the 21M limit? Is that not also artificial? Should we remove that artificial boundary as well?

[Andre#]

Are we nearly there yet?

As always we are here.

I used btc today.  Anybody else?

Yep, I paid my home delivered ribs with btc. Which is a) easier as I don't have to log into my bank account and b) saves me 1 euro of payment charges.

[Wary]

How do you propose that the miners are incentivized to protect the security of the blockchain if there is no scarcity enforced on the size of the Blockchain?

I agree that scarcity is necessary for creating proper bitcoin infrastructure. However, I think the scarcity should be natural, rather than artificial one.

If the scarcity is artificial one, like the 1M limit, and is determined by political means, it would be handled by political methods as well. All efforts will go to political and bureaucratic struggle. This is a way to soviet-style economy.

If the scarcity is natural one, like propagation time and is caused by technical reasons, it would be handled by technical methods. All efforts will go to solving these technical obstacles. This is the way to the Moon

If the 1M limit is artificial scarcity, what about the 21M limit? Is that not also artificial? Should we remove that artificial boundary as well?

Good answer. It's a pleasure to talk with you . However, I gave some reasons why natural limit is better than artificial, and if you try to apply these reasons to 21M, you will see why they won't apply.
 
The 21M limit's goal was to create money. It wasn't mean to be changed. That's why there is no political struggle around changing this limit and no resources are wasted on it.
The 1M limit's goal was not to create some blocksize money inside of bitcoin money. It was to resolve a technical problem, or, to be more precise, to postpone the need of resolving it. (The similar decision was to exclude "dust". It's another artificial limit and it have to be repelled and replaced by economic incentives too). Now, as a consequence of such solution, we can see a lot of smart people wasting their time and energy (and damaging Bitcoin's reputation, along the way) into political fight around this artificial boundary, instead of directing this energy into actually solving the technical problems that caused this limit in the first time. It's happening because the limit is artificial.

P.S. BTW, I have a post about free market applicability to bitcoin https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1166172.0

[ChartBuddy]

Coin
Explanation