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

[JayJuanGee]

moon is obv 5000$ folks

10K for me. Moon is 10K.

Currently, I'm still thinking $3-5k for the next price upsurge - but since BTC experienced such a prolonged bear run this past phase, therefore $10k could be within reasonable grasp for the next BTC price run. 

I'm thinking that Moon is probably around $100k or more, but it could be around $32k, if we were to go there on this next/upcoming price surge; however, we will probably need to experience a few bubbles and corrections before we are able to reach $100k levels, because the BTC infrastructure really doesn't seem ready (whether that is psychological or various lackings in consumer friendliness infrastructure for $100k levels yet...  -

In other words, I really doubt that we can reach moon in the next couple of bubbles.. and maybe even when we start approaching what we currently consider "the moon," we are going to still recognize considerable upside potential without realizing that we are on "the moon" yet... so maybe once we start approaching 5 figure valuations of BTC, the moon will be considered as $1 or $2 million?

[1714779111]

1714779111

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

Hi there. I’m BlindMayorBitcorn, Hero member at Bitcointalk. AMA!

 

[AlexGR]

Total transaction fees per block=average transaction fee*number of transactions. So you either increase the fee or you increase the number of transactions or your security goes down.

There is also the factor of what type of value are we talking about per transaction.

If you are moving around 50 cents you can't pay 20 cents in fees.

If you are moving around 1000 dollars => you don't mind.

So if value per transaction increases, because, say, people start considering that BTC is better, faster and cheaper than SWIFT, Western Union etc, you can have a lot of transaction volume with (relative) high fees which are still very competitive compared to your "competitors".

We probably are over-secure right now. But by how much? And if fees increase because the number of transactions can't go up, there is a limit to what people will pay, especially for a service which is seen as having damaged usability (i.e. submit a transaction with a fair fee and still have long confirmation times).

Again, short and long are somewhat relative. From bank to bank, from paypal to bank, for western union etc, it takes days... That's eons of time compared to bitcoin.

For small txs you can go with 0-conf.

[Cconvert2G36]

Gentlemen.

As the mempool fills, and our great (totally not captured) technocrats continue to implement what's best for Bitcoin. I'd like to remind you that a new moon is cresting the horizon. Some say $5000 incoming, some say $32000, these are all low-ball estimates.

Some may say that it will take 9-12 months to roll out a complicated accounting trick to gain us 0.75MB of effective space. I say nay, it might happen tomorrow. Wumpus, sipa, and gmax have your best interests at heart. They have heard a panel representing 90% of hashing power state that they are ready for 2MB, and they have graciously and courageously rejected it... to keep you safe.

Institutional investors are very aware that the current number of users and transactions are more than enough to support mining security as the block reward dwindles. This is why they continue to pile in at ever increasing rates. There is not a private, for profit, company that is ready to use the blockchain as their own personal settlement network, this is a lie proffered by conspiritards.

For the first time in Bitcoin's history, everything is looking poised for success, and I've never had more confidence in our future.

Keep the price in the 400's gentlemen, at least for this week.

[podyx]

It's not just the location of the moon but the lengths of time involved.  The Bulls wanted 1000 by Christmas, not mid 2017.

Well I didn't neccessarily imply $1000 in the chart, I meant it would go into bubble territory at that point, meaning a price of $5k-$15k

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[fisheater22]

...
Again, short and long are somewhat relative. From bank to bank, from paypal to bank, for western union etc, it takes days... That's eons of time compared to bitcoin.

For small txs you can go with 0-conf.

What's the point of transferring money "From bank to bank, from paypal to bank, for western union etc.," if you can't spend it? Because that's what transferring "bitcoin, the store of value-but-not-money" is.
Unless you mean the novelty of transferring binary strings on the blockchain, ofc, but that sorta wears thin pretty quick. For me, at least.

[rebuilder]

AlexGR: That's true about transaction types, but realistically the total spent on fees+subsidy will have to go down a lot either way. Security being cost to attack vs. cost to defend, it makes more sense to look at mining costs as percent of market cap than miner revenue in currency.

edit: erm, meant to say potential profit vs. cost to attack, which is determined by the amount spent on defense

[brg444]

Gentlemen.

As the mempool fills, and our great (totally not captured) technocrats continue to implement what's best for Bitcoin. I'd like to remind you that a new moon is cresting the horizon. Some say $5000 incoming, some say $32000, these are all low-ball estimates.

Some may say that it will take 9-12 months to roll out a complicated accounting trick to gain us 0.75MB of effective space. I say nay, it might happen tomorrow. Wumpus, sipa, and gmax have your best interests at heart. They have heard a panel representing 90% of hashing power state that they are ready for 2MB, and they have graciously and courageously rejected it... to keep you safe.

Institutional investors are very aware that the current number of users and transactions are more than enough to support mining security as the block reward dwindles. This is why they continue to pile in at ever increasing rates. There is not a private, for profit, company that is ready to use the blockchain as their own personal settlement network, this is a lie proffered by conspiritards.

For the first time in Bitcoin's history, everything is looking poised for success, and I've never had more confidence in our future.

Keep the price in the 400's gentlemen, at least for this week.

Rollout of the softwork is planned to take no more than 3-4 months and will indeed provide 75% immediate increase in capacity and in all likelyhood significantly more seeing as most hosted wallets responsible for a large quantity of today's transactions have clear economic incentives to upgrade to SW ASAP.

Damn, Core really did pull a rabbit out their hat 

[Dilla]

Hi there. I’m BlindMayorBitcorn, Hero member at Bitcointalk. AMA!

 

Congratulations!

[AlexGR]

What's the point of transferring money "From bank to bank, from paypal to bank, for western union etc.," if you can't spend it? Because that's what transferring "bitcoin, the store of value-but-not-money" is.

There is nothing preventing you from spending it, so...

AlexGR: That's true about transaction types, but realistically the total spent on fees+subsidy will have to go down a lot either way. Security being cost to attack vs. cost to defend, it makes more sense to look at mining costs as percent of market cap than miner revenue in currency.

We have no idea on the price direction. If BTC crashes to 10$, then subsidy and fees are already too low. If BTC goes to 45.000 a subsidy of a single coin will be like 100 current coins of 450$. USD prices are very relevant if a miner wants to pay their power bill, equipment, etc.

[fisheater22]

What's the point of transferring money "From bank to bank, from paypal to bank, for western union etc.," if you can't spend it? Because that's what transferring "bitcoin, the store of value-but-not-money" is.

There is nothing preventing you from spending it, so...

Well sure there is, unless I want to pay double (and possibly more) for each cup of coffee, but Bitcoin didn't set out to be "like money, only more expensive and inconvenient," AFAIK.
If unclear, bank transactions take days, occasionally, not because of the slow 300 baud modems used by legacy finance, and not because bankster electrons move slower, but *because what's being transferred is a different thing altogether.*

[Cconvert2G36]

Damn, Core really did pull a rabbit out their hat 

How do they do it? Incredible.

[rebuilder]

We have no idea on the price direction. If BTC crashes to 10$, then subsidy and fees are already too low. If BTC goes to 45.000 a subsidy of a single coin will be like 100 current coins of 450$. USD prices are very relevant if a miner wants to pay their power bill, equipment, etc.

If the price goes down, profit from an attack will likely go down as well, and vice versa if price goes up. Correspondingly, the amount spent on security in currency should likewise go down, or up. The cost of "sufficient" security as percentage of market cap should remain roughly the same.

Does this make sense?

[AlexGR]

Well sure there is, unless I want to pay double (and possibly more) for each cup of coffee.

The world revolves around fiat. You go to your nearest Bitcoin ATM, pull 200$ out and buy your coffees and stuff with cash. So, how is it not spendable?

A real block in spending would be if the government has cut the road from fiat <=> btc, banned btc trading, banned btc transactions and retail businesses from accepting it and is short of doing anal probes if you are even remotely related with cryptocurrencies... that's more of an issue compared to fees that can be bypassed with sidechains, altcoins, cash, etc. We'll see how it goes in terms of the scaling solution implemented.

[Richy_T]

Again, short and long are somewhat relative. From bank to bank, from paypal to bank, for western union etc, it takes days... That's eons of time compared to bitcoin.

Only where the banking system is completely backward (i.e. the US) Much of Europe has near-instantaneous inter-bank transfers. And that's for small amounts too such as $30 for topping up a phone.

The scenario you present has the problem that it is absolutely dependent on lots of high-value transactions that can't be fulfilled elsewhere. A free market allows for other options, even at the same time. If your scenario is not the success story for Bitcoin, you have left no other option.

The block size limit is effectively a price control and such centralized decision making has never had a good history.

[fisheater22]

Well sure there is, unless I want to pay double (and possibly more) for each cup of coffee.

The world revolves around fiat. You go to your nearest Bitcoin ATM, pull 200$ out and buy your coffees and stuff with cash. So, how is it not spendable? ...to fees that can be bypassed with sidechains, altcoins, cash, etc. We'll see how it goes in terms of the scaling solution implemented.

Err, those "bitcoin ATMs" are usually bitcoin vending machines, that *sell* me BTC, often at 19 fucking % markup. They don't want to buy my BTC any more than Coca Cola vending machines want to buy my can of Coke. So no, no bitcoin ATMs to help me spend my (useless without real money, apparently) BTC.

If we're talking about what this world could be, then BTC is just a pointless level of complication. I can imagine a world without money, where people trust each other (and not just for zero-confirm transactions).

P.S. please try to understand that Bitcoin is only a store of value as much as it's useful, and it's usefulness plummets if it can't be used as money.

[AlexGR]

We have no idea on the price direction. If BTC crashes to 10$, then subsidy and fees are already too low. If BTC goes to 45.000 a subsidy of a single coin will be like 100 current coins of 450$. USD prices are very relevant if a miner wants to pay their power bill, equipment, etc.

If the price goes down, profit from an attack will likely go down as well, and vice versa if price goes up. Correspondingly, the amount spent on security in currency should likewise go down, or up. The cost of "sufficient" security as percentage of market cap should remain roughly the same.

Does this make sense?

Kind of. But it depends on how the miner views the situation. Say you have a crash in price but the miners don't pull the plug because they believe this is a temporary situation that will be corrected in a few weeks, instead of taking current BTC price at face value. Ok, some will shut down because they are on a tight budget and can't afford to lose money but others are braver and then you see a slash of price by 90% and the hashrate dropping just 20-40%. It will take a very long time sitting at a very low price to reach a similar equilibrium.

And it's also the outlook of the situation not in terms of securing the network but "gaining coins". That's the miner's interest. As long as the monetary base is still being distributed, some people will get the coins anyway. Whether it is 100 miners or 10.000 miners, the coins will be there for the taking. For non miners, the ideal scenario is "the more hashpower, the better". For the miners, if it makes economic sense to pursue it, they will pursue it. Earlier in the thread some people suggested the network is oversecure etc etc. But in the end of the day what matters for the miner is if he is making profit. If he pays x for setting up and electricity and gets 2x from the coins he mines => it's worth it for him => so why not. The actual question at that point is not why the network may be at 400% more security than necessary, but why isn't it at 800% when miner costs are far lower than their profits and the market isn't self-adjusting fast enough (which is reasonable to a large degree, especially after the price moving a lot and the infrastructure not being adjusted at the same pace).

[AlexGR]

Well sure there is, unless I want to pay double (and possibly more) for each cup of coffee.

The world revolves around fiat. You go to your nearest Bitcoin ATM, pull 200$ out and buy your coffees and stuff with cash. So, how is it not spendable? ...to fees that can be bypassed with sidechains, altcoins, cash, etc. We'll see how it goes in terms of the scaling solution implemented.

Err, those "bitcoin ATMs" are usually bitcoin vending machines, that *sell* me BTC, often at 19 fucking % markup. They don't want to buy my BTC any more than Coca Cola vending machines want to buy my can of Coke. So no, no bitcoin ATMs to help me spend my (useless without real money, apparently) BTC.

Your paradox begins and ends by applying future problems (extremely high BTC fees, which would imply a very high volume of transactions where people are REALLLYYY taking BTC seriously and are paying a lot for being able to transact with it - which are all indications that BTC is quite big at that point) by coupling it to today's anemic infrastructure, which is a fallacy.

P.S. please try to understand that Bitcoin is only a store of value as much as it's useful, and it's usefulness plummets if it can't be used as money.

If I have 10kg of gold in storage, as store of value, I'm not expecting to buy souvlakia and pizzas with it. I understand that I will have to sell a few grams or a few gold coins for fiat and then use fiat. That doesn't render gold useless.

The underlying equation that

gold = fiat

and fiat = anything else

makes gold spendable, for everything, indirectly, until the government says "gold transactions, selling, purchases, are all banned".

Likewise most altcoins are indirectly spendable -first through BTC- then through fiat.

[TERA]

You know that sentiment has reached adequately negative levels when people think that crypto is done,  over some mining issue