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

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

Why?? Do you think that pointing you out as a fool should be a monopolized industry as well 

"Speak of the devil...."

Just sayin', dude.  So far you have argued that the definition of cash is 'wrong' and that satoshi got bitcoin wrong day one.

You think everyone is wrong, and you constantly support this by suggesting that we should all just 'educate' ourselves.

But in reality, all you have is your version of what you believe to be true.  Your 'truth' is that bitcoin is fundamentally broken, and the only way to fix it is by going off-chain. And to make that more profitable in the short term, you need a fee market to drive traffic to it - ergo SmallBlocks. Which is fine. But it is flawed.

I contend that:
1. Bitcoin isn't broken.  Its evolving - everything is on the table. There is no 'single' solution.
2. Its utility value far outweighs your ludicrous need to have it solely as a 'store of value'
3. Off-chain solutions provide an invaluable aid to scaling bitcoin, but they must compete on a level playing field with on-chain transactions.
4. Any solution that depends on artificially throttling capacity is flawed.

[1714631582]

1714631582

[1714631582]

1714631582

[1714631582]

1714631582

[1714631582]

1714631582

[1714631582]

1714631582

[billyjoeallen]

Bitcoin has an history and infrastructure that cannot be easily replicated.

Newsflash, dipshit: Bitcoin's infrastructure is as a payments network. Bitcoin's history means zip diddly squat if some other alt is backed by a bank with a 50 Billion dollar market cap.

In crypto 5 might as well be 5000 when referring to the competition.

against another grass roots bootstrapped alt, yes. Against an alt backed by a Fortune 500 company or billionaire with a slick multi-million dollar marketing campaign, no.

Your point about gold's transaction throughput is laughable. The limits on gold transaction and its very real cost is considerable given its physical nature. Even 7 tps accross the world is better than the transportability of gold.

yes, but your fees make the divisibility of BTC much more limited.  I'm pretty sure there are far more than seven global gold transactions per second. Even more when you count micropayments, like buying shots of Goldschlager. And, other than Government thugs, no assholes arguing that we should minimize them.

Comparing Bitcoin's network effect to MySpace where there is essentially no cost to the users for switching networks confirms you as just another simple noob. Did you buy this account? You can't have possibly registered in 2011 and utter such idiocy.

What's the cost of trading BTC for any alt on any one of a dozen exchanges? A fraction of a percent?  The only costs are paying your goddamn miner fees and waiting for your confirmations. It's not the switchers like me you need to worry about. It's the people who enter crypto going straight to the alt that better suits their needs.

[Fatman3001]

In other words:

The value of Bitcoin is its utility,
The utility of Bitcoin is its ability to store wealth.

Any alarm bells ringing?

Circular argument, anyone?

Seems like you're twisting things a bit. Maybe I ought to clarify?

The value of Bitcoin is in being deflationary, censorship resistant form of money.

I don't see what's so hard to grasp about this 

Not twisting, clarifying. "I don't see what's so hard to grasp about this  "

[hdbuck]

Some people around here just rely on CCMFs and cheap cheering without even grasp the basics of economics.

Praying the exact antithesis of some moonlading with their small bitcoin holdings.

[brg444]

Bitcoin has an history and infrastructure that cannot be easily replicated.

Newsflash, dipshit: Bitcoin's infrastructure is as a payments network. Bitcoin's history means zip diddly squat if some other alt is backed by a bank with a 50 Billion dollar market cap.

In crypto 5 might as well be 5000 when referring to the competition.

against another grass roots bootstapped alt, yes. Against an alt backed by a Fortune 500 company or billionaire with a slick multi-million dollar marketing campaign, no.

Your point about gold's transaction throughput is laughable. The limits on gold transaction and its very real cost is considerable given its physical nature. Even 7 tps accross the world is better than the transportability of gold.

yes, but your fees make the divisibility of BTC much more limited.  I'm pretty sure there are far more than seven global gold transactions per second. Even more when you count micropayments, like buying shots of Goldschlager. And, other than Government thugs, no assholes arguing that we should minimize them.

Comparing Bitcoin's network effect to MySpace where there is essentially no cost to the users for switching networks confirms you as just another simple noob. Did you buy this account? You can't have possibly registered in 2011 and utter such idiocy.

What's the cost of trading BTC for any alt on any one of a dozen exchanges? A fraction of a percent?  The only costs are paying your goddamn miner fees and waiting for your confirmations. It's not the switchers like me you need to worry about. It's the people who enter crypto going straight to the alt that better suits their needs.

 

It's early but that might just deserve our award for stupid post of the day.

Might as well say people will throw themselves at Govcoin while you're at it  

This is just beyond hilarious. Why the fuck would you even think a centralized payment network supported "by a Fortune 500 company or billionaire with a slick multi-million dollar marketing campaign" would bother creating a cryptocurrency. Do you understand the necessity for the blockchain and POW design and why it is totally worthless and ridiculously inefficient under centralized control?

By the way I'm certain Germany would kill to be able to get the Fed to return their gold to them even if they'd have to wait for the next block  

And finally of course you would totally miss the point about "the cost" of switching network. I encourage anyone to invest into an alt that suits their needs ...... and it's gone!

"Newsflash dipshit" Bitcoin would be worth absolutely fuck all if it was valued for the success (or lack thereof) of its "payment network". It's only worth anything because people have decided to trust a portion of their wealth into it.

Are you cypherdoc's brother by any chance? This sounds like some of the stupid shit he'd say to hopelessly defend his points.

[Fatman3001]

Some people around here just rely on CCMFs and cheap cheering without even grasp the basics of economics.

Praying the exact antithesis of some moonlading with their small bitcoin holdings.

[brg444]

Why?? Do you think that pointing you out as a fool should be a monopolized industry as well 

"Speak of the devil...."

Just sayin', dude.  So far you have argued that the definition of cash is 'wrong' and that satoshi got bitcoin wrong day one.

You think everyone is wrong, and you constantly support this by suggesting that we should all just 'educate' ourselves.

But in reality, all you have is your version of what you believe to be true.  Your 'truth' is that bitcoin is fundamentally broken, and the only way to fix it is by going off-chain. And to make that more profitable in the short term, you need a fee market to drive traffic to it - ergo SmallBlocks. Which is fine. But it is flawed.

I contend that:
1. Bitcoin isn't broken.  Its evolving - everything is on the table. There is no 'single' solution.
2. Its utility value far outweighs your ludicrous need to have it solely as a 'store of value'
3. Off-chain solutions provide an invaluable aid to scaling bitcoin, but they must compete on a level playing field with on-chain transactions.
4. Any solution that depends on artificially throttling capacity is flawed.

I can tell you woke up in a good mood   I can count at least 2-3 strawmen just from this one post! Impressive!

I retort that:
1. Bitcoin isn't broken. It will simply never scale to accommodate mainstream consumption levels under existing design. Maybe you wanna try Visa or Square?
2. It's principal utility is absolutely as I've described it: a deflationary, censorship resistant form of money. The inefficient and rather handicapped "payment network" sitting on top is a necessary by-product but unfortunately design with security and decentralization in mind, not worldwide payment processing.
3. False dichotomy here. Both provide their own benefits and trade-offs.
4. It is more of an absolutely necessary throttle on resource consumption to prevent deadly centralization of the system.

[billyjoeallen]

If I'm not buying blockspace when I'm buying bitcoin, then what the hell am I buying? You can't charge rent on something you've already sold. That's not how business works. That's how the State works.

"Which is better - to be ruled by one tyrant three thousand miles away or by three thousand tyrants one mile away?" ~ Mather Byles

I dunno, Mather. Looks like the same shitty deal to me.

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

Are you cypherdoc's brother by any chance? This sounds like some of the stupid shit he'd say to hopelessly defend his points.

It must be 4am where you are. You should get some sleep. You are starting to blub.

[brg444]

Are you cypherdoc's brother by any chance? This sounds like some of the stupid shit he'd say to hopelessly defend his points.

It must be 4am where you are. You should get some sleep. You are starting to blub.

We don't all get the chance to rotate at the troll desk 

[ChartBuddy]

Coin
Explanation

[brg444]

If I'm not buying blockspace when I'm buying bitcoin, then what the hell am I buying? You can't charge rent on something you've already sold. That's not how business works. That's how the State works.

"Which is better - to be ruled by one tyrant three thousand miles away or by three thousand tyrants one mile away?" ~ Mather Byles

I dunno, Mather. Looks like the same shitty deal to me.

How can you possibly equate buying bitcoin with buying block space  

How's that supposed to work? How many "blockspace" do I get for 1 bitcoin?

[Fatman3001]

Are you cypherdoc's brother by any chance? This sounds like some of the stupid shit he'd say to hopelessly defend his points.

It must be 4am where you are. You should get some sleep. You are starting to blub.

We don't all get the chance to rotate at the troll desk 

Sounds like a rotten deal. You should renegotiate.

[becoin]

If I'm not buying blockspace when I'm buying bitcoin, then what the hell am I buying? You can't charge rent on something you've already sold. That's not how business works. That's how the State works.

Wait!
You are the buyer when you buy bitcoins. The seller has to buy blockspace to send the bitcoins your way!

[JorgeStolfi]

Blocksize limit already exists in the consensus rules, nobody from Blockstream forced it into them.

Again, it is possible that the devs do not see how wrong that argument is?

The max block size that was put into the rules in 2010 was not "1 MB" but "a value small enough to prevent big-block attack but still much larger than traffic so that it would not create spurious scarcity, and every transaction would be confirmed as quickly as possible." 

Blockstream now wants to change the max block size into "a value that makes block space scarce so that the fees will rise, even if transactions will be delayed by many blocks."  Is it possible that they don't realize that keeping the 1 MB limit as tre traffic crashes into it is a radical change in the protocol?

That new parameter -- the scarcity control -- happens to be 1 MB now, but they admit that they may set it to higher values in the future.  But always to values that will keep space in the blocks scarce.  Who decides how scarce?  Well, the devs ... or maybe the miners, but by grace and privilege of the devs...

[ Controlling the fees by defining the scarcity of block space ] is better [ than setting the fees directly ] because the block size limit also serves [ as ... ] a "check" on inherent economies of scale within mining which, removed, would necessarily lead to a precipitated centralization of mining.

There is NO evidence that the centralization of mining that happened so far was due to the natural growth in the block sizes, or that such growth would affect it in the foreseeable future.  That is just one of several dishonest FUD arguments that Adam Back used at one point.  The economies of scale that resulted in concentration of mining are due to the savings in the costs of equipment, space, electricity, cooling, personnel, management, etc.  that exist  for bulk purchasers and for certain geographic locations. 


[/quote]

[billyjoeallen]

This is just beyond hilarious. Why the fuck would you even think a centralized payment network supported "by a Fortune 500 company or billionaire with a slick multi-million dollar marketing campaign" would bother creating a cryptocurrency. Do you understand the necessity for the blockchain and POW design and why it is totally worthless and ridiculously inefficient under centralized control?

Centralized control works for linux. It's better than the decision-making gridlock of the core devs.

To answer your question, we already have centralized control of code development, but an alt could have better management of code development. Maybe they just want a crypto that scales better and starting over from scratch is easier than convincing people like you to improve Bitcoin. They could pay for the marketing by selling pre-mined coins and kickstart mining with a guaranteed price floor. 

The maximum it would take to absolutely guarantee a 100MM market cap would be $100,000,000 but would almost certainly be a fraction of that.  Throw in a plunge protection team to smooth out the most extreme volatility and you'd have a coin anyone and everyone would want to buy or mine.

[brg444]

This is just beyond hilarious. Why the fuck would you even think a centralized payment network supported "by a Fortune 500 company or billionaire with a slick multi-million dollar marketing campaign" would bother creating a cryptocurrency. Do you understand the necessity for the blockchain and POW design and why it is totally worthless and ridiculously inefficient under centralized control?

Centralized control works for linux. It's better than the decision-making gridlock of the core devs.

To answer your question, we already have centralized control of code development, but an alt could have better management of code development. Maybe they just want a crypto that scales better and starting over from scratch is easier than convincing people like you to improve Bitcoin. They could pay for the marketing by selling pre-mined coins and kickstart mining with a guaranteed price floor.  

The maximum it would take to absolutely guarantee a 100MM market cap would be $100,000,000 but would almost certainly be a fraction of that.  Throw in a plunge protection team to smooth out the most extreme volatility and you'd have a coin anyone and everyone would want to buy or mine.

 

You're hopeless. How can you possibly hold on to your bitcoins while entertaining these thoughts. This is really all kinds of wrong I'd be embarassed if I were you 

I hope for your sake you are trolling me  

[billyjoeallen]

If I'm not buying blockspace when I'm buying bitcoin, then what the hell am I buying? You can't charge rent on something you've already sold. That's not how business works. That's how the State works.

"Which is better - to be ruled by one tyrant three thousand miles away or by three thousand tyrants one mile away?" ~ Mather Byles

I dunno, Mather. Looks like the same shitty deal to me.

How can you possibly equate buying bitcoin with buying block space  

How's that supposed to work? How many "blockspace" do I get for 1 bitcoin?

Easy. 1/21,000,000th of the whole chain.  I answered your question, now you answer mine. If I'm not buying space on the blockchain when I'm buying bitcoin, what am I buying?

[brg444]

If I'm not buying blockspace when I'm buying bitcoin, then what the hell am I buying? You can't charge rent on something you've already sold. That's not how business works. That's how the State works.

"Which is better - to be ruled by one tyrant three thousand miles away or by three thousand tyrants one mile away?" ~ Mather Byles

I dunno, Mather. Looks like the same shitty deal to me.

How can you possibly equate buying bitcoin with buying block space  

How's that supposed to work? How many "blockspace" do I get for 1 bitcoin?

Easy. 1/21,000,000th of the whole chain.  I answered your question, now you answer mine. If I'm not buying space on the blockchain when I'm buying bitcoin, what am I buying?

You are buying space on the ledger, not the block. You need to pay to move these bitcoins to a different address on the ledger.

So for 1 bitcoin I get 1/21,000,000th of the whole chain? Are you for real? Were you hit over the head with something?

[billyjoeallen]

Blocksize limit already exists in the consensus rules, nobody from Blockstream forced it into them.

Again, it is possible that the devs do not see how wrong that argument is?

The max block size that was put into the rules in 2010 was not "1 MB" but "a value small enough to prevent big-block attack but still much larger than traffic so that it would not create spurious scarcity, and every transaction would be confirmed as quickly as possible." 

Blockstream now wants to change the max block size into "a value that makes block space scarce so that the fees will rise, even if transactions will be delayed by many blocks."  Is it possible that they don't realize that keeping the 1 MB limit as tre traffic crashes into it is a radical change in the protocol?

That new parameter -- the scarcity control -- happens to be 1 MB now, but they admit that they may set it to higher values in the future.  But always to values that will keep space in the blocks scarce.  Who decides how scarce?  Well, the devs ... or maybe the miners, but by grace and privilege of the devs...

[ Controlling the fees by defining the scarcity of block space ] is better [ than setting the fees directly ] because the block size limit also serves [ as ... ] a "check" on inherent economies of scale within mining which, removed, would necessarily lead to a precipitated centralization of mining.

There is NO evidence that the centralization of mining that happened so far was due to the natural growth in the block sizes, or that such growth would affect it in the foreseeable future.  That is just one of several dishonest FUD arguments that Adam Back used at one point.  The economies of scale that resulted in concentration of mining are due to the savings in the costs of equipment, space, electricity, cooling, personnel, management, etc.  that exist  for bulk purchasers and for certain geographic locations. 

[/quote]

That was well put, Professor. It's too bad you don't have a wallet. That is worth a tip.