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

[sidhujag]

Exactly

Reminds me of arguments with my brother. He'd pull that same shit.

Heh your brother is probably smarter than you.

[1714880335]

1714880335

[1714880335]

1714880335

[1714880335]

1714880335

[1714880335]

1714880335

[bambou]

I see no reason why fees can't pay for a pretty hefty pow network when there's no block reward but thousands of transactions a second and $30k-$70k coins. Any artificial scarcity on this front now will strangle Bitcoin.

Start with there is no "thousands of transactions a second and $30k-$70k coins" as of now, in reality y' know..

No, now there's block rewards paying for a pretty hefty and oversized pow network.

You not happy already freely spamming a network that takes a difficulty of 60,813,224,039 and 456,026,187 GH/s?

Show some gratitude young man, now where is the mass adoption thing kicking in again?

[ChartBuddy]

Coin
Explanation

[Fatman3001]

I see no reason why fees can't pay for a pretty hefty pow network when there's no block reward but thousands of transactions a second and $30k-$70k coins. Any artificial scarcity on this front now will strangle Bitcoin.

Start with there is no "thousands of transactions a second and $30k-$70k coins" as of now, in reality y' know..

No, now there's block rewards paying for a pretty hefty and oversized pow network.

You not happy already freely spamming a network that takes a difficulty of 60,813,224,039 and 456,026,187 GH/s?

Show some gratitude young man, now where is the mass adoption thing kicking in again?

What? Please explain.

Edit: Ah, I forgot. I'm in the wrong forum.

[billyjoeallen]

Miners revenues are mandatory to ensure the network's security.

While the block reward tends to 0, it is natural for a fee market to emerge, or else there would not be any incentives left for the miners to keep spending the resources that a POW system requires.

Meanwhile, you can enjoy transacting for nearly nothing.

It is possible to have too much security.  Would you hire an army to guard a child's piggy bank? The compensation for miners should be proportional to the security they actually provide.  It costs almost a million dollars/day to secure a network with a 3-4 Billion dollar market cap.  How much do you think the New York Fed spends guarding their gold vaults under 33 Liberty ST. ? I would be very surprised if it was anywhere close to 1 million/day.  

If miners can provide 90% as much security for 10% of the current cost/transaction, that is a increase in value to network users.  If they keep stonewalling any blocksize increase, they risk losing market share to competing altcoins.  

I'm not selling my BTC, but i'm not reinvesting my arbitrage profits either. I'm using them to buy bitshares.

If small blockers were truly committed to decentralization, they wouldn't be limiting Bitcoin's utility.  A settlement network between trusted third parties is absolutely not what Satoshi or any of us early adopters had in mind.  It's supposed to be a peer-to-peer electronic cash system. It always was.

[bambou]

Edit: Ah, I forgot. I'm in the wrong forum.

Indeed, the masters of the multialtoverse are here:




Edit: Impressive.

[bambou]

Miners revenues are mandatory to ensure the network's security.

While the block reward tends to 0, it is natural for a fee market to emerge, or else there would not be any incentives left for the miners to keep spending the resources that a POW system requires.

Meanwhile, you can enjoy transacting for nearly nothing.

It is possible to have too much security.  Would you hire an army to guard a child's piggy bank? The compensation for miners should be proportional to the security they actually provide.  It costs almost a million dollars/day to secure a network with a 3-4 Billion dollar market cap.  How much do you think the New York Fed spends guarding their gold vaults under 33 Liberty ST. ? I would be very surprised if it was anywhere close to 1 million/day. 

If miners can provide 90% as much security for 10% of the current cost/transaction, that is a increase in value to network users.  If they keep stonewalling any blocksize increase, they risk losing market share to competing altcoins. 

I'm not selling my BTC, but i'm not reinvesting my arbitrage profits either. I'm using them to buy bitshares.

If small blockers were truly committed to decentralization, they wouldn't be limiting Bitcoin's utility.  A settlement network between trusted third parties is absolutely not what Satoshi or any of us early adopters had in mind.  It's supposed to be a peer-to-peer electronic cash system. It always was.

So the caping is preventing utility? Or "mass adoption" maybe?

What is actually forcing miners to spend millions to secure a system that should not be as powerful?

Seriously, you need to take a deep breath.

[JayJuanGee]

Will we see an article in Ledger revealing your findings any time soon?

I do have a half-written tech report detailing how a cartel of miners could force a change in the rules; but that has become common (if still denied) knowledge by now, so it would probably be rejected for that (if not for ideologocal reasons).

I wrote a few other reports and analyses here on bitcointalk, but nothing deep enough to be worth submitting to a journal, unfortunately.

I enjoyed your take on the "religious schism" between Core and XT playing out in fast motion...the inquisition...the banishing of the heretics...etc etc.  What I would love to see--although it would be difficult and perhaps infeasible at this point in time--is a scholarly article addressing the politics of Bitcoin governance.  How do we come to consensus?  What does "consensus" really mean in the context of Bitcoin?

PeterR  ---- you are dreaming!!!!   

You should realize by now that Stolfi doesn't really want to contribute anything meaningful or potentially useful to any dialogue regarding bitcoin.

[Meuh6879]

What is actually forcing miners to spend millions to secure a system that should not be as powerful?

they trust.
they are right.
like you and me.




it's already to late for normal people.

[SheHadMANHands]

[Fatman3001]

Miners revenues are mandatory to ensure the network's security.

While the block reward tends to 0, it is natural for a fee market to emerge, or else there would not be any incentives left for the miners to keep spending the resources that a POW system requires.

Meanwhile, you can enjoy transacting for nearly nothing.

It is possible to have too much security.  Would you hire an army to guard a child's piggy bank? The compensation for miners should be proportional to the security they actually provide.  It costs almost a million dollars/day to secure a network with a 3-4 Billion dollar market cap.  How much do you think the New York Fed spends guarding their gold vaults under 33 Liberty ST. ? I would be very surprised if it was anywhere close to 1 million/day. 

If miners can provide 90% as much security for 10% of the current cost/transaction, that is a increase in value to network users.  If they keep stonewalling any blocksize increase, they risk losing market share to competing altcoins. 

I'm not selling my BTC, but i'm not reinvesting my arbitrage profits either. I'm using them to buy bitshares.

If small blockers were truly committed to decentralization, they wouldn't be limiting Bitcoin's utility.  A settlement network between trusted third parties is absolutely not what Satoshi or any of us early adopters had in mind.  It's supposed to be a peer-to-peer electronic cash system. It always was.

So the caping is preventing utility? Or "mass adoption" maybe?

What is actually forcing miners to spend millions to secure a system that should not be as powerful?

Seriously, you need to take a deep breath.

It's the network that is spending millions on miners.

What bothers me more about small block proponents than their actual position is that they can't convincingly argue in favor of it. Almost as if they haven't thought it properly through. Or simply don't know what they're talking about.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin
Explanation

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

Real news:

Bitcoin Price Hits Highest Level Since August

 

[billyjoeallen]

Miners revenues are mandatory to ensure the network's security.

While the block reward tends to 0, it is natural for a fee market to emerge, or else there would not be any incentives left for the miners to keep spending the resources that a POW system requires.

Meanwhile, you can enjoy transacting for nearly nothing.

It is possible to have too much security.  Would you hire an army to guard a child's piggy bank? The compensation for miners should be proportional to the security they actually provide.  It costs almost a million dollars/day to secure a network with a 3-4 Billion dollar market cap.  How much do you think the New York Fed spends guarding their gold vaults under 33 Liberty ST. ? I would be very surprised if it was anywhere close to 1 million/day.  

If miners can provide 90% as much security for 10% of the current cost/transaction, that is a increase in value to network users.  If they keep stonewalling any blocksize increase, they risk losing market share to competing altcoins.  

I'm not selling my BTC, but i'm not reinvesting my arbitrage profits either. I'm using them to buy bitshares.

If small blockers were truly committed to decentralization, they wouldn't be limiting Bitcoin's utility.  A settlement network between trusted third parties is absolutely not what Satoshi or any of us early adopters had in mind.  It's supposed to be a peer-to-peer electronic cash system. It always was.

So the caping is preventing utility? Or "mass adoption" maybe?

What is actually forcing miners to spend millions to secure a system that should not be as powerful?

Seriously, you need to take a deep breath.

Yes, capping is preventing utility and impeding mass adoption.  7 transactions/sec cannot support mass adoption.  Nobody is FORCING miners to spend millions. They-- like any investors--are expecting a ROI on sunk capital.  Miners are employees of the network. Hodlers are the owners.  

The thing you got most wrong is that Bitcoin is NOT powerful. It's a network with a 7 TPS capacity. It is a very SECURE network with relatively little power.  We could octuple the power with BIP101 at a relatively low cost to security.  If we don't, we will lose market share. It's as simple as that.

[hdbuck]

Miners revenues are mandatory to ensure the network's security.

While the block reward tends to 0, it is natural for a fee market to emerge, or else there would not be any incentives left for the miners to keep spending the resources that a POW system requires.

Meanwhile, you can enjoy transacting for nearly nothing.

It is possible to have too much security.  Would you hire an army to guard a child's piggy bank? The compensation for miners should be proportional to the security they actually provide.  It costs almost a million dollars/day to secure a network with a 3-4 Billion dollar market cap.  How much do you think the New York Fed spends guarding their gold vaults under 33 Liberty ST. ? I would be very surprised if it was anywhere close to 1 million/day. 

If miners can provide 90% as much security for 10% of the current cost/transaction, that is a increase in value to network users.  If they keep stonewalling any blocksize increase, they risk losing market share to competing altcoins. 

I'm not selling my BTC, but i'm not reinvesting my arbitrage profits either. I'm using them to buy bitshares.

If small blockers were truly committed to decentralization, they wouldn't be limiting Bitcoin's utility.  A settlement network between trusted third parties is absolutely not what Satoshi or any of us early adopters had in mind.  It's supposed to be a peer-to-peer electronic cash system. It always was.

So the caping is preventing utility? Or "mass adoption" maybe?

What is actually forcing miners to spend millions to secure a system that should not be as powerful?

Seriously, you need to take a deep breath.

Yes, capping is preventing utility and impeding mass adoption.  7 transactions/sec cannot support mass adoption.  Nobody is FORCING miners to spend millions. They-- like any investors--are expecting a ROI on sunk capital.  Miners are employees of the network. Hodlers are the owners. 

The thing you got most wrong is that Bitcoin is NOT powerful. It's a network with a 7 TPS capacity. It is a very SECURE network with relatively little power.  We could octuple the power with BIP101 at a relatively low cost to security. If we don't, we will lose market share. It's as simple as that.

you are simple as that.

[nioc]

Real news:

Bitcoin Price Hits Highest Level Since August

  

 "but accelerated at 14:00 UTC when the price jumped from $243.01 to $246.15 over a 15-minute span."

My oh my I can't believe it  Up $3.14  WOW

Thanks for posting as I never read that rag.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin
Explanation

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

Real news:

Bitcoin Price Hits Highest Level Since August

  

 "but accelerated at 14:00 UTC when the price jumped from $243.01 to $246.15 over a 15-minute span."

My oh my I can't believe it  Up $3.14  WOW

Thanks for posting as I never read that rag.

I wonder if they will cover Dumpsgiving with the same gusto

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

[ChartBuddy]

Coin
Explanation