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

[Richy_T]

Saturation from dust, spam, worthless micro-txs, faucets, dice, "stress tests", scripts that are purposefully wasting space in the blockchain for minimal fees, etc = nobody should even bother.

If you want to block these things, block them with policy. Not by artificially limiting everybody. IMO, not enough has been done to encourage fine-grain control over transactions which are included in a block. It should almost have its own mini-scripting language IMO.

Saturation from legit txs should get a bump to accommodate for new capacity.

This is a fair statement.

[1714236957]

1714236957

[1714236957]

1714236957

[ssmc2]

300's will soon be history, just like the 200's and 100's before it. Get your $3xx coins while you can.

[peonminer]

Wait for iiiiiiiit....

[AlexGR]

Saturation from dust, spam, worthless micro-txs, faucets, dice, "stress tests", scripts that are purposefully wasting space in the blockchain for minimal fees, etc = nobody should even bother.

If you want to block these things, block them with policy. Not by artificially limiting everybody. IMO, not enough has been done to encourage fine-grain control over transactions which are included in a block. It should almost have its own mini-scripting language IMO.

Restricted space => creates fee competition => dust will become non-economically viable to move around.

So you have a policy right there. It doesn't yet work because blocks are half-full (~500kb on average) so you can still move dust with near zero cost (if you have the patience to wait), but the policy will work when legitimate transactions increase in volume to approach the block size limit. We are not there yet.

There is no "artificial limitation on everybody". Those who pay a competitive fee are included next block, even if the block size is ...100kb.

[Richy_T]

Restricted space => creates fee competition => dust will become non-economically viable to move around.

Restricted space => fee competition
More adoption+fee competition => expensive fees
Expensive fees => stalled adoption
Stalled adoption => declining interest
Declining interest => what are we even trying to do here?

This, however, is not a description of how bitcoin will fail but how bigger blocks are inevitable.

I suggest you go back and reread what Jorge wrote also. He describes well how the block size limit encourages attacks on Bitcoin

Also, it is not on developers to be setting up fee markets. It should be the realm of, well, the market.

[AlexGR]

Restricted space => creates fee competition => dust will become non-economically viable to move around.

Restricted space => fee competition
More adoption+fee competition => expensive fees
Expensive fees => stalled adoption

That's where the chain breaks.

Expensive is a relative term compared to your competition.

How much does a bank charge for an international bank wire?

If BTC costs < Western Union costs, Bank costs, etc = adoption continues to grow because your competition is still much more expensive than you. The money transfer industry won't go to zero fees overnight to compete with BTC.

[brg444]

Restricted space => creates fee competition => dust will become non-economically viable to move around.

Restricted space => fee competition
More adoption+fee competition => expensive fees
Expensive fees => stalled adoption
Stalled adoption => declining interest
Declining interest => what are we even trying to do here?

This, however, is not a description of how bitcoin will fail but how bigger blocks are inevitable.

I suggest you go back and reread what Jorge wrote also. He describes well how the block size limit encourages attacks on Bitcoin

Also, it is not on developers to be setting up fee markets. It should be the realm of, well, the market.

Not all Bitcoin users are created equal. Not all individuals have the same financial pain threshold.

Expensive fees might deter direct adoption of Bitcoin by less financially priviledged persons but has absolutely no impact for the faction of individuals controlling the largest portion of monetary wealth worldwide.

Contrary to popular belief Bitcoin's immediate target market is NOT mainstream consumers.

[adamstgBit]

Restricted space => creates fee competition => dust will become non-economically viable to move around.

Restricted space => fee competition
More adoption+fee competition => expensive fees
Expensive fees => stalled adoption
Stalled adoption => declining interest
Declining interest => what are we even trying to do here?

This, however, is not a description of how bitcoin will fail but how bigger blocks are inevitable.

I suggest you go back and reread what Jorge wrote also. He describes well how the block size limit encourages attacks on Bitcoin

Also, it is not on developers to be setting up fee markets. It should be the realm of, well, the market.

Not all Bitcoin users are created equal. Not all individuals have the same financial pain threshold.

Expensive fees might deter direct adoption of Bitcoin by less financially priviledged persons but has absolutely no impact for the faction of individuals controlling the largest portion of monetary wealth worldwide.

Contrary to popular belief Bitcoin's immediate target market is NOT mainstream consumers.

no it impacts the financially privileged as well, they can no longer speculate bitcoin will be currency.

[brg444]

Restricted space => creates fee competition => dust will become non-economically viable to move around.

Restricted space => fee competition
More adoption+fee competition => expensive fees
Expensive fees => stalled adoption
Stalled adoption => declining interest
Declining interest => what are we even trying to do here?

This, however, is not a description of how bitcoin will fail but how bigger blocks are inevitable.

I suggest you go back and reread what Jorge wrote also. He describes well how the block size limit encourages attacks on Bitcoin

Also, it is not on developers to be setting up fee markets. It should be the realm of, well, the market.

Not all Bitcoin users are created equal. Not all individuals have the same financial pain threshold.

Expensive fees might deter direct adoption of Bitcoin by less financially priviledged persons but has absolutely no impact for the faction of individuals controlling the largest portion of monetary wealth worldwide.

Contrary to popular belief Bitcoin's immediate target market is NOT mainstream consumers.

no it impacts the financially privileged as well, they can no longer speculate bitcoin will be currency.

Nonsense. Bitcoin is not limited to its blockchain and the obvious end game for transactional uses are open payment networks like Lightning.

The wealthy are mostly concerned with shielding their capital from dirty regulators hands and oversight. Bitcoin offers unparalleled value in that regard.

[hdbuck]

Restricted space => creates fee competition => dust will become non-economically viable to move around.

Restricted space => fee competition
More adoption+fee competition => expensive fees
Expensive fees => stalled adoption
Stalled adoption => declining interest
Declining interest => what are we even trying to do here?

This, however, is not a description of how bitcoin will fail but how bigger blocks are inevitable.

I suggest you go back and reread what Jorge wrote also. He describes well how the block size limit encourages attacks on Bitcoin

Also, it is not on developers to be setting up fee markets. It should be the realm of, well, the market.

Not all Bitcoin users are created equal. Not all individuals have the same financial pain threshold.

Expensive fees might deter direct adoption of Bitcoin by less financially priviledged persons but has absolutely no impact for the faction of individuals controlling the largest portion of monetary wealth worldwide.

Contrary to popular belief Bitcoin's immediate target market is NOT mainstream consumers.

no it impacts the financially privileged as well, they can no longer speculate bitcoin will be currency.

Nonsense. Bitcoin is not limited to its blockchain and the obvious end game for transactional uses are open payment networks like Lightning.

The wealthy are mostly concerned with shielding their capital from dirty regulators hands and oversight. Bitcoin offers unparalleled value in that regard.

Yup, with not reversible transactions, bitcoin is a terrible payment channel (also price volatility makes it even less convenient).

See bitcoin and the poor: http://trilema.com/2012/bitcoin-and-the-poor/

[adamstgBit]

Restricted space => creates fee competition => dust will become non-economically viable to move around.

Restricted space => fee competition
More adoption+fee competition => expensive fees
Expensive fees => stalled adoption
Stalled adoption => declining interest
Declining interest => what are we even trying to do here?

This, however, is not a description of how bitcoin will fail but how bigger blocks are inevitable.

I suggest you go back and reread what Jorge wrote also. He describes well how the block size limit encourages attacks on Bitcoin

Also, it is not on developers to be setting up fee markets. It should be the realm of, well, the market.

Not all Bitcoin users are created equal. Not all individuals have the same financial pain threshold.

Expensive fees might deter direct adoption of Bitcoin by less financially priviledged persons but has absolutely no impact for the faction of individuals controlling the largest portion of monetary wealth worldwide.

Contrary to popular belief Bitcoin's immediate target market is NOT mainstream consumers.

no it impacts the financially privileged as well, they can no longer speculate bitcoin will be currency.

Nonsense. Bitcoin is not limited to its blockchain and the obvious end game for transactional uses are open payment networks like Lightning.

The wealthy are mostly concerned with shielding their capital from dirty regulators hands and oversight. Bitcoin offers unparalleled value in that regard.

oh ya i always forget about that complicated idea with no real implementation....

wtv i'm fairly certain we'll never get to find out what will happen to bitcoin if we limit its main chain scalability.

8MB blocks here we come!

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[brg444]

Restricted space => creates fee competition => dust will become non-economically viable to move around.

Restricted space => fee competition
More adoption+fee competition => expensive fees
Expensive fees => stalled adoption
Stalled adoption => declining interest
Declining interest => what are we even trying to do here?

This, however, is not a description of how bitcoin will fail but how bigger blocks are inevitable.

I suggest you go back and reread what Jorge wrote also. He describes well how the block size limit encourages attacks on Bitcoin

Also, it is not on developers to be setting up fee markets. It should be the realm of, well, the market.

Not all Bitcoin users are created equal. Not all individuals have the same financial pain threshold.

Expensive fees might deter direct adoption of Bitcoin by less financially priviledged persons but has absolutely no impact for the faction of individuals controlling the largest portion of monetary wealth worldwide.

Contrary to popular belief Bitcoin's immediate target market is NOT mainstream consumers.

no it impacts the financially privileged as well, they can no longer speculate bitcoin will be currency.

Nonsense. Bitcoin is not limited to its blockchain and the obvious end game for transactional uses are open payment networks like Lightning.

The wealthy are mostly concerned with shielding their capital from dirty regulators hands and oversight. Bitcoin offers unparalleled value in that regard.

oh ya i always forget about that complicated idea with no real implementation....

wtv i'm fairly certain we'll never get to find out what will happen to bitcoin if we limit its main chain scalability.

8MB blocks here we come!

Bitcoin also used to be a complicated idea with no real implementation, development takes time

[inhuman]

hi, comparing with last top (around 2475 yuan) shouldn't western exchanges be at least 384 already?

[The KGB]

hi, comparing with last top (around 2475 yuan) shouldn't western exchanges be at least 384 already?

Houbi can be 50 dollar over Finex at some times.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[JayJuanGee]

damn should i buy back at a loss again?  

Personally, I get the sense that the quantities (or percentage that you are trading are too high).  In other words if you make the wrong short term call, then you should not be feeling a need to buy back at a loss and only within a few days (especially for someone who claims not to be a trader)....

[JayJuanGee]

traded the wave and made 10$, wow, what a waste of time.

Time to go out and enjoy saturday evening.

Yeah.  Sometimes it is way too much work and stress for the amount of profit that comes out of trading, even when you get lucky and get it mostly right.

[Cconvert2G36]

Restricted space => creates fee competition => dust will become non-economically viable to move around.

Restricted space => fee competition
More adoption+fee competition => expensive fees
Expensive fees => stalled adoption
Stalled adoption => declining interest
Declining interest => what are we even trying to do here?

This, however, is not a description of how bitcoin will fail but how bigger blocks are inevitable.

I suggest you go back and reread what Jorge wrote also. He describes well how the block size limit encourages attacks on Bitcoin

Also, it is not on developers to be setting up fee markets. It should be the realm of, well, the market.

Not all Bitcoin users are created equal. Not all individuals have the same financial pain threshold.

Expensive fees might deter direct adoption of Bitcoin by less financially priviledged persons but has absolutely no impact for the faction of individuals controlling the largest portion of monetary wealth worldwide.

Contrary to popular belief Bitcoin's immediate target market is NOT mainstream consumers.

no it impacts the financially privileged as well, they can no longer speculate bitcoin will be currency.

Nonsense. Bitcoin is not limited to its blockchain and the obvious end game for transactional uses are open payment networks like Lightning.

The wealthy are mostly concerned with shielding their capital from dirty regulators hands and oversight. Bitcoin offers unparalleled value in that regard.

Such a strange fantasy world you erect around yourself...

Titans of industry, meeting in back alleys or smoke filled basements to buy thousands of bitcoin... (surely they wouldn't send fiat wires to regulated exchanges that will have their identity and amounts on file, along with the addresses those coins were removed to.) Always wearing the finest tailored suits, their shoes custom made... Invariably one step ahead of those dirty regulators with their capital in hand (in massive stacks of untraceable, non-sequential, unmarked bills ofc)... When is the last time you met a wealthy person that wasn't almost pleading with you to help them pile all of their wealth into experimental internet tokens? It's almost a daily occurrence now.

Meanwhile, back in reality, some want Bitcoin used by more people, more of the time, for more things (even while, gasp, paying fees that are determined by the free market of transaction processors)... while staying distributed and decentralized.

Your toady mr buck is beyond help. Instead of thinking, he just throws up anything popescu wrote, like it's a tourettes tick. But I'll hold out hope for you brg444.

[gentlemand]

Your toady mr buck is beyond help. Instead of thinking, he just throws up anything popescu wrote, like it's a tourettes tick. But I'll hold out hope for you brg444.

Ignore and move on. Every second brings us closer to death. Why waste it attempting to talk someone out of an eternal rut?