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

[8up]

I don't necessarily disagree with you that there will be people that want more than 21m coins.

An argument like that will never be presented "we want more coins and high inflation for the lolz".

It will be presented as "we want cheap txs".... Arguments like "People want cheap txs, who are you to stop that".... Populist bullshit like "bigger blocks" and the "dangers" of "fullblockalypse".

There is no comparison between a hard fork to raise the blocksize and a hard fork to increase the 21 milion cap on supply. The former is a minor property that almost everyone agrees will need to be changed at some point. I owned Bitcoins for years before I even know there was a max blocksize.  I knew of the 21 MM limit before I bought my first coin.  

A slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

Dude increasing the 21 M limit and increasing the block size is the same thing.

oh really? I'd like to hear an explanation. How the hell is it the same thing? It's not even remotely the same thing.

I explained it to you many times already but fine. Things (w/e they are) only have value if the supply is limited and they have a purpose. How limited something is determines it's value (together with its utility value). The block size at the moment is in limited supply (1 MB roughly every 10 minutes), so a place on that has a certain implied value (this will be the fee in the long term, right now it's not very visible because of the huge subsidy which skews actual fees). The value of the sum of the fees determines the amount of security because this is how the miners are paid (the miner market is a commodity market so it will approach break-even long term. Total fees will equal security). Therefore if the block size is increased the value of size on the block chain goes down and thus the amount miners get paid goes down and so does the security.

Security is the most important thing giving value to XMR units and so a lower security will lower the intrinsic value of Bitcoin.

Similarly increasing the 21M coin limit will also lower the intrinsic value of Bitcoin because it inflates the supply (more unit available).

Next to all this there is the precedent reasoning mentioned above. Right now I trust Bitcoin to never inflate supply of either limited unit (XMR or block chain size) and therefore value Bitcoin as such. If they inflate it I will be forced to estimate future watering down of XMR and blockchain size (and thus watering down of value) in my intrinsic value calculations and therefore I will be prepared to pay a lower price for Bitcoins as an investment. The market will do the same.

IF GAME THEORY > PRECEDENT {SUCCESS}
ELSE {FAILURE}

[1714627132]

1714627132

[1714627132]

1714627132

[1714627132]

1714627132

[1714627132]

1714627132

[1714627132]

1714627132

[conspirosphere.tk]

1. The network capacity is half a million transactions per day no matter how high the fees are. Fees don't change capacity.

2. If people are forced onto layers, then the fees that go to securing the network will go to the layers also, depriving the miners of needed compensation when the blockreward gets halved. If the 1 MB limit is never raised, then the network will eventually be funded by those same half million people even if billions are using it in layers and side chains.  That will present a security problem. 

extrapolating out hashing difficulty, the mining network in a couple of years will be several gigawatts, all funded by fees because the block reward will be next to nothing. That means that fees will have to reflect a cost of hundreds of dollars per transaction if we keep the 1 MB limit! 

1. Economics is about dealing with scarce resources, not free shit, especially of the self-defeating kind.

2. Therefore the upper-layers managers will do exactly what you ask: paying higher btc fees thanks to the higher volume that they manage -not work at a loss and compensating it with volume :-D

[Fatman3001]

I don't necessarily disagree with you that there will be people that want more than 21m coins.

An argument like that will never be presented "we want more coins and high inflation for the lolz".

It will be presented as "we want cheap txs".... Arguments like "People want cheap txs, who are you to stop that".... Populist bullshit like "bigger blocks" and the "dangers" of "fullblockalypse".

There is no comparison between a hard fork to raise the blocksize and a hard fork to increase the 21 milion cap on supply. The former is a minor property that almost everyone agrees will need to be changed at some point. I owned Bitcoins for years before I even know there was a max blocksize.  I knew of the 21 MM limit before I bought my first coin.  

A slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

Dude increasing the 21 M limit and increasing the block size is the same thing.

oh really? I'd like to hear an explanation. How the hell is it the same thing? It's not even remotely the same thing.

I explained it to you many times already but fine. Things (w/e they are) only have value if the supply is limited and they have a purpose. How limited something is determines it's value (together with its utility value). The block size at the moment is in limited supply (1 MB roughly every 10 minutes), so a place on that has a certain implied value (this will be the fee in the long term, right now it's not very visible because of the huge subsidy which skews actual fees). The value of the sum of the fees determines the amount of security because this is how the miners are paid (the miner market is a commodity market so it will approach break-even long term. Total fees will equal security). Therefore if the block size is increased the value of size on the block chain goes down and thus the amount miners get paid goes down and so does the security.

Security is the most important thing giving value to XMR units and so a lower security will lower the intrinsic value of Bitcoin.

Similarly increasing the 21M coin limit will also lower the intrinsic value of Bitcoin because it inflates the supply (more unit available).

Next to all this there is the precedent reasoning mentioned above. Right now I trust Bitcoin to never inflate supply of either limited unit (XMR or block chain size) and therefore value Bitcoin as such. If they inflate it I will be forced to estimate future watering down of XMR and blockchain size (and thus watering down of value) in my intrinsic value calculations and therefore I will be prepared to pay a lower price for Bitcoins as an investment. The market will do the same.

XMR is Monero

[bargainbin]

1. The network capacity is half a million transactions per day no matter how high the fees are. Fees don't change capacity.

2. If people are forced onto layers, then the fees that go to securing the network will go to the layers also, depriving the miners of needed compensation when the blockreward gets halved. If the 1 MB limit is never raised, then the network will eventually be funded by those same half million people even if billions are using it in layers and side chains.  That will present a security problem.  

extrapolating out hashing difficulty, the mining network in a couple of years will be several gigawatts, all funded by fees because the block reward will be next to nothing. That means that fees will have to reflect a cost of hundreds of dollars per transaction if we keep the 1 MB limit!  

1. Economics is about dealing with scarce resources, not free shit, especially of the self-defeating kind.

No, economics is the social science that describes the factors that determine the production, distribution and consumption of goods and services.
You're thinking BTCeanie BTCabies.

2. Therefore the upper-layers managers will do exactly what you ask: paying higher btc fees thanks to the higher volume that they manage -not work at a loss and compensating it with volume :-D

What is a non sequitur?

...
XMR is Monero

You mean that secure, private, untraceable cryptocurrency that's been doing amazingly well, unlike BTC (which is only pseudo-private and is neither secure nor untraceable [arguably])?

[billyjoeallen]

I explained it to you many times already but fine. Things (w/e they are) only have value if the supply is limited and they have a purpose. How limited something is determines it's value (together with its utility value). The block size at the moment is in limited supply (1 MB roughly every 10 minutes), so a place on that has a certain implied value (this will be the fee in the long term, right now it's not very visible because of the huge subsidy which skews actual fees). The value of the sum of the fees determines the amount of security because this is how the miners are paid (the miner market is a commodity market so it will approach break-even long term. Total fees will equal security). Therefore if the block size is increased the value of size on the block chain goes down and thus the amount miners get paid goes down and so does the security.

This is a basic error in the understanding of economics. a limited supply doesn't determine value. This is the Beany Baby argument of many of Bitcoin's detractors and it is fallacious.  My shit is in limited supply, but it isn't valuable because of that.  It isn't valuable at all because there are substitutes, assuming someone wanted to buy shit in the first place. 

Higher fees will reduce dust, but it will also prevent transactions of marginal utility.  The margins is where growth occurs, so higher fees will also prevent growth. 

There is a reason why we are still trading at <40% of the ATH more than two years ago.  This is the reason. Smallblockers, you don't understand economics.

[wachtwoord]

I explained it to you many times already but fine. Things (w/e they are) only have value if the supply is limited and they have a purpose. How limited something is determines it's value (together with its utility value). The block size at the moment is in limited supply (1 MB roughly every 10 minutes), so a place on that has a certain implied value (this will be the fee in the long term, right now it's not very visible because of the huge subsidy which skews actual fees). The value of the sum of the fees determines the amount of security because this is how the miners are paid (the miner market is a commodity market so it will approach break-even long term. Total fees will equal security). Therefore if the block size is increased the value of size on the block chain goes down and thus the amount miners get paid goes down and so does the security.

This is a basic error in the understanding of economics. a limited supply doesn't determine value. This is the Beany Baby argument of many of Bitcoin's detractors and it is fallacious.  My shit is in limited supply, but it isn't valuable because of that.  It isn't valuable at all because there are substitutes, assuming someone wanted to buy shit in the first place. 

Higher fees will reduce dust, but it will also prevent transactions of marginal utility.  The margins is where growth occurs, so higher fees will also prevent growth. 

There is a reason why we are still trading at <40% of the ATH more than two years ago.  This is the reason. Smallblockers, you don't understand economics.

Learn to read, limited supply and utility.

[hdbuck]

I don't necessarily disagree with you that there will be people that want more than 21m coins.

An argument like that will never be presented "we want more coins and high inflation for the lolz".

It will be presented as "we want cheap txs".... Arguments like "People want cheap txs, who are you to stop that".... Populist bullshit like "bigger blocks" and the "dangers" of "fullblockalypse".

There is no comparison between a hard fork to raise the blocksize and a hard fork to increase the 21 milion cap on supply. The former is a minor property that almost everyone agrees will need to be changed at some point. I owned Bitcoins for years before I even know there was a max blocksize.  I knew of the 21 MM limit before I bought my first coin.  

A slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

Dude increasing the 21 M limit and increasing the block size is the same thing.

What? Whaaaaaat?
I'm clearly not aware of that! What are you talking about? What's the link between block size and coins cap?

It is called instigating a _precedent_, changing a protocol parameter such as the 21M limit is 1 line of code, just like the blocksize limit.

Anyway, glad to see that such governance coup is impossible and that nobody, not even core can do anything about it.

But that precedent already exists, since the max blocksize was lowered from 33 MB to 1 MB in mid 2010. Hence, instigating a precendent is not a valid argument.

satoshi himself did it, and not without taking into consideration the huge risks such fork event would bring.

luckily the network was small enough and the consensus was overwhelming back then.

besides he did it to prevent spam and limit the transaction overflow attack vector, and as far as i am concerned nothing changed so far.

thinking you can now contentiously change the protocol without causing a network split, hence damaging it along with its value, is utter delusion: money is at stake here.

it is not that core devs or blockstream or whatever do not want to do it, it is more like they know they can't succeed at doing it.

time to move on.

[wachtwoord]

XMR is Monero

Yeah I know XBT. I was posting in the Monero section at the same time (my only other crypto holding).

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[bargainbin]

...
Learn to read, limited supply and utility.

Limiting supply of money makes sense (if unlimited = worthless).*
Limiting supply of monetary transactions only makes sense if you're crazy, because reduces the utility of money.
*though not as self-evident as it seems, because China since late '80s.

[hdbuck]

...
Learn to read, limited supply and utility.

Limiting supply of money makes sense (if unlimited = worthless).
Limiting supply of monetary transactions only makes sense if you're crazy, because reduces the utility of money.

tell that to the central bankers and their cashless society wet dream.

[billyjoeallen]

1. The network capacity is half a million transactions per day no matter how high the fees are. Fees don't change capacity.

2. If people are forced onto layers, then the fees that go to securing the network will go to the layers also, depriving the miners of needed compensation when the blockreward gets halved. If the 1 MB limit is never raised, then the network will eventually be funded by those same half million people even if billions are using it in layers and side chains.  That will present a security problem. 

extrapolating out hashing difficulty, the mining network in a couple of years will be several gigawatts, all funded by fees because the block reward will be next to nothing. That means that fees will have to reflect a cost of hundreds of dollars per transaction if we keep the 1 MB limit! 

1. Economics is about dealing with scarce resources, not free shit, especially of the self-defeating kind.

2. Therefore the upper-layers managers will do exactly what you ask: paying higher btc fees thanks to the higher volume that they manage -not work at a loss and compensating it with volume :-D

Economics is about measuring efficiency. You think having an artificial scarcity makes something more valuable, but you can't raise the value of CocaCola by reducing the amount you bottle. People will just buy Pepsi. Some very loyal customers may be willing to pay more, but there is a limit to how much more you can charge. 

You can't make up a loss on volume, but you can make up a smaller profit.  Bitcoin fees are low now because it is an introductory offer, intended to attract new customers.  We need several orders of magnitude more customers before we can raise fees. 

[bargainbin]

...
Learn to read, limited supply and utility.

Limiting supply of money makes sense (if unlimited = worthless).
Limiting supply of monetary transactions only makes sense if you're crazy, because reduces the utility of money.

tell that to the central bankers and their cashless society wet dream.

That's pretty much what I'm doing: talking to central banker wannabees, who want to subvert Satoshi's p2p cash into a bank2bank settlement layer
Also, how is it that all you goldbugs confuse scarcity with limited supply?

[hdbuck]

Basically if you are not happy with bitcoin feel free to fork off into whatever altcoin you deem useful or valuable, you surely can migrate to some blockchain technology 2.0 vaporware.

Nobody is forcing you to use bitcoin, nobody cares about what you want.

You are free.

[Andre#]

I don't necessarily disagree with you that there will be people that want more than 21m coins.

An argument like that will never be presented "we want more coins and high inflation for the lolz".

It will be presented as "we want cheap txs".... Arguments like "People want cheap txs, who are you to stop that".... Populist bullshit like "bigger blocks" and the "dangers" of "fullblockalypse".

There is no comparison between a hard fork to raise the blocksize and a hard fork to increase the 21 milion cap on supply. The former is a minor property that almost everyone agrees will need to be changed at some point. I owned Bitcoins for years before I even know there was a max blocksize.  I knew of the 21 MM limit before I bought my first coin.  

A slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

Dude increasing the 21 M limit and increasing the block size is the same thing.

What? Whaaaaaat?
I'm clearly not aware of that! What are you talking about? What's the link between block size and coins cap?

It is called instigating a _precedent_, changing a protocol parameter such as the 21M limit is 1 line of code, just like the blocksize limit.

Anyway, glad to see that such governance coup is impossible and that nobody, not even core can do anything about it.

But that precedent already exists, since the max blocksize was lowered from 33 MB to 1 MB in mid 2010. Hence, instigating a precendent is not a valid argument.

satoshi himself did it, and not without taking into consideration the huge risks such fork event would bring.

luckily the network was small enough and the consensus was overwhelming back then.

besides he did it to prevent spam and limit the transaction overflow attack vector, and as far as i am concerned nothing changed so far.

Except that there's hardly any block space left for the spam attack vector. By doubling the max blocksize now we go back to the situation of 2014 regarding that attack vector.

thinking you can now contentiously change the protocol without causing a network split, hence damaging it along with its value, is utter delusion: money is at stake here.

it is not that core devs or blockstream or whatever do not want to do it, it is more like they know they can't succeed at doing it.

time to move on.

The Core devs are the only stakeholder that resist raising the max blocksize. That last (bold) line is totally twisted.

[billyjoeallen]

If we're all so worried about security and centralization, why aren't we concerned that over 70% of hashing power is in China? That effectively gives the Red Chinese government and the PBoC a kill switch.  They can nationalize the mines.  Then they can double spend.  Even if we fork off of them, they can just point to the new fork and double spend again (assuming we keep the SHA256 hashing).

Censorship resistance?  How do you figure? 

a blocksize upgrade is a tiny threat compared to that.

[hdbuck]

I don't necessarily disagree with you that there will be people that want more than 21m coins.

An argument like that will never be presented "we want more coins and high inflation for the lolz".

It will be presented as "we want cheap txs".... Arguments like "People want cheap txs, who are you to stop that".... Populist bullshit like "bigger blocks" and the "dangers" of "fullblockalypse".

There is no comparison between a hard fork to raise the blocksize and a hard fork to increase the 21 milion cap on supply. The former is a minor property that almost everyone agrees will need to be changed at some point. I owned Bitcoins for years before I even know there was a max blocksize.  I knew of the 21 MM limit before I bought my first coin.  

A slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

Dude increasing the 21 M limit and increasing the block size is the same thing.

What? Whaaaaaat?
I'm clearly not aware of that! What are you talking about? What's the link between block size and coins cap?

It is called instigating a _precedent_, changing a protocol parameter such as the 21M limit is 1 line of code, just like the blocksize limit.

Anyway, glad to see that such governance coup is impossible and that nobody, not even core can do anything about it.

But that precedent already exists, since the max blocksize was lowered from 33 MB to 1 MB in mid 2010. Hence, instigating a precendent is not a valid argument.

satoshi himself did it, and not without taking into consideration the huge risks such fork event would bring.

luckily the network was small enough and the consensus was overwhelming back then.

besides he did it to prevent spam and limit the transaction overflow attack vector, and as far as i am concerned nothing changed so far.

Except that there's hardly any block space left for the spam attack vector. By doubling the max blocksize now we go back to the situation of 2014 regarding that attack vector.

fact checking: ~0,6MB on 7d average
https://blockchain.info/fr/charts/avg-block-size?timespan=2year&showDataPoints=false&daysAverageString=7&show_header=true&scale=0&address=

and there'd still be spam in it, because low transaction cost.

And we've seen how efficient the limit was during the spam attack this summer.

https://tradeblock.com/bitcoin/historical/1d-f-txval_per_tot-01071-blksize_per_avg-01071

thinking you can now contentiously change the protocol without causing a network split, hence damaging it along with its value, is utter delusion: money is at stake here.

it is not that core devs or blockstream or whatever do not want to do it, it is more like they know they can't succeed at doing it.

time to move on.

The Core devs are the only stakeholder that resist raising the max blocksize. That last (bold) line is totally twisted.

fact checking: 1319 other version than core (22%)
https://bitnodes.21.co/dashboard/


they cannot and (smartly enough) would not CONTENTIOUSLY hardfork the network without taking the risk of being on the wrong side of the story, unlike the gavinista chimps who do not care about either harming the network, its security and decentralization.

you are fighting a lost cause really, it is time for your sanity to move on, enjoy the ride with us bitcoiners or gtfo.

[wachtwoord]

Nobody is forcing you to use bitcoin, nobody cares about what you want.

NO U!


You're like Icicles's sulky, retarded little brother.

You're the one that wants to change it. Good luck fighting us anyway. Money always wins.

[bargainbin]

...
fact checking: ~0,6MB on 7d average
https://blockchain.info/fr/charts/avg-block-size?timespan=2year&showDataPoints=false&daysAverageString=7&show_header=true&scale=0&address=

and there'd still be spam in it, because low transaction cost.
...

That bridge that's backed up for miles during rush hours?  Only 10% utilized, on the average

Nobody is forcing you to use bitcoin, nobody cares about what you want.

NO U!


You're like Icicles's sulky, retarded little brother.

You're the one that wants to change it. Good luck fighting us anyway. Money always wins.

Money? Or BTC? Because if you hodl BTC, you don't have a voice in Bitcoin's "economic majority"

[wachtwoord]

...
fact checking: ~0,6MB on 7d average
https://blockchain.info/fr/charts/avg-block-size?timespan=2year&showDataPoints=false&daysAverageString=7&show_header=true&scale=0&address=

and there'd still be spam in it, because low transaction cost.
...

That bridge that's backed up for miles during rush hours?  Only 10% utilized, on the average

Nobody is forcing you to use bitcoin, nobody cares about what you want.

NO U!


You're like Icicles's sulky, retarded little brother.

You're the one that wants to change it. Good luck fighting us anyway. Money always wins.

Money? Or BTC? Because if you hodl BTC, you don't have a voice in Bitcoin's "economic majority"

Either. Wealth wins.