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

[gentlemand]

Technically speaking, he is right although all that has happened have created a spin on the events that if we don't include cheap spam in the blockchain then ...bitcoin won't grow... Like bitcoin needs spam growth and not legit tx growth.

I'm not referring to technicalities. I'm referring to the distinctly trollish, catty and defensive edge of his communiques.

[1714718242]

1714718242

[1714718242]

1714718242

[Adrian-x]

If we don't get a block increase before June 2017, I predict that we'll have a node count below 4000 by the end of 2017.

mmmnope

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/48bvjy/in_may_2015_gavin_calculated_that_blocks_will_be/

Bitcoin is under attack, and I'm not sure you see it as your salary probably is dependent on this very state.

it startes with this PR war.


Controversial  - that words been redefined in Bitcoin,
Consensus - well that's been redefined too,
Decentralized - another word with a radically distorted definition
Censored - well that's got a new meaning too,
now
Full blocks  - that's now undergoing a redefinition. Thanks for your contribution.

[blunderer]

Wealth is not linearly distributed but closer to logarithmic with a vast majority of wealth concentrated in a few hands (currently even dangerously so for civic stability considerations), the mainstream is not where wealth is concentrated so for a monetary adoption targeting the mainstream is a losing proposition.

Bitcoin doesn't necessarily need more transactions as much as higher value transactions, the value of a monetary network is not simply the number of connections but the total value of connections, i.e., number * value.

Because what the super-rich really crave is a dysfunctional p2p network at war with itself. They're just waiting for *all* the mining to become centralized in Communist China, and then there'll be no stopping those Wall St. institutional investors. It'll be bigger then Gemini!

[marcus_of_augustus]

Wealth is not linearly distributed but closer to logarithmic with a vast majority of wealth concentrated in a few hands (currently even dangerously so for civic stability considerations), the mainstream is not where wealth is concentrated so for a monetary adoption targeting the mainstream is a losing proposition.

Bitcoin doesn't necessarily need more transactions as much as higher value transactions, the value of a monetary network is not simply the number of connections but the total value of connections, i.e., number * value.

wait so bitcoin does not need more people, just more money?

but what about africa?

Think of it like high-grading that the gold miners do when prices get low. The lower value ore (spam) will be thrown out and the higher value transactions will get preferentially selected. As higher and higher net worth users get selected by the fee market to use the planet's premier secure monetary system the value of the token to use that system will increase. Lower value users will still get to use lower value security systems that aggregate their lower value transactions and anchor them in the blockchain (like first, business and economy classes in a crowded aircraft)

[hdbuck]

Wealth is not linearly distributed but closer to logarithmic with a vast majority of wealth concentrated in a few hands (currently even dangerously so for civic stability considerations), the mainstream is not where wealth is concentrated so for a monetary adoption targeting the mainstream is a losing proposition.

Bitcoin doesn't necessarily need more transactions as much as higher value transactions, the value of a monetary network is not simply the number of connections but the total value of connections, i.e., number * value.

wait so bitcoin does not need more people, just more money?

but what about africa?

Think of it like high-grading that the gold miners do when prices get low. The lower value ore (spam) will be thrown out and the higher value transactions will get preferentially selected. As higher and higher net worth users get selected by the fee market to use the planet's premier secure monetary system the value of the token to use that system will increase. Lower value users will still get to use lower value security systems that aggregate their lower value transactions and anchor them the blockchain (like first, business and economy classes in a crowded aircraft)

im just messing around man, 100% agree.

[Fatman3001]

Technically speaking, he is right although all that has happened have created a spin on the events that if we don't include cheap spam in the blockchain then ...bitcoin won't grow... Like bitcoin needs spam growth and not legit tx growth.

I'm not referring to technicalities. I'm referring to the distinctly trollish, catty and defensive edge of his communiques.

Somewhere along the way he turned from funny to bitchy.

[gentlemand]

Somewhere along the way he turned from funny to bitchy.

Someone's gonna give him a walloping with their handbag or scratch his eyes out at the next roundtable if he doesn't shape up.

[marcus_of_augustus]

Wealth is not linearly distributed but closer to logarithmic with a vast majority of wealth concentrated in a few hands (currently even dangerously so for civic stability considerations), the mainstream is not where wealth is concentrated so for a monetary adoption targeting the mainstream is a losing proposition.

Bitcoin doesn't necessarily need more transactions as much as higher value transactions, the value of a monetary network is not simply the number of connections but the total value of connections, i.e., number * value.

Because what the super-rich really crave is a dysfunctional p2p network at war with itself. They're just waiting for *all* the mining to become centralized in Communist China, and then there'll be no stopping those Wall St. institutional investors. It'll be bigger then Gemini!

We are at least 3-4 orders of magnitude in value growth away from the 'super-rich' being able to adopt bitcoin and 2-3 orders in magnitude from Wall St. 'insitutionals' being able to adopt/use. The p2p network and surrounding infrastructure (and troll-box 'communities' like this thread) will all look very different when those times comes around, troll/shills like yourself will probably have moved on maybe being paid to pump bitcoin by then.

[Cconvert2G36]

Technically speaking, he is right although all that has happened have created a spin on the events that if we don't include cheap spam in the blockchain then ...bitcoin won't grow... Like bitcoin needs spam growth and not legit tx growth.

There are a lot of actors in the forum, twitters, news etc, proclaiming the fullblockalypse, but the reality of the matter is that there is no fullblockalypse due to the fact that actual blockchain use is low and the rest of the free space is topped off with spam. That's why fees don't rise. If every tx was legitimate, and there was an actual crowding of txs competing for the limited space, fees would have gone through the roof.

Anyway, instead of NACK, he could say "ACK with the condition that default min fees also rise to combat spam".

Yes, I know you believe people using the network are spammers. You believe in the Core developers becoming being economic central planners... setting max production quotas. Only in the name of keeping you safe from terrorism decentralized tho.

A proponent of free market economics would say this is a decision to be left to the producers of block space... the miners.

In a sense, by 80% of them leaving their future to be decided by Blockstream... they have. 

As brg444 likes to say, we have voice and exit...

[AlexGR]

Technically speaking, he is right although all that has happened have created a spin on the events that if we don't include cheap spam in the blockchain then ...bitcoin won't grow... Like bitcoin needs spam growth and not legit tx growth.

I'm not referring to technicalities. I'm referring to the distinctly trollish, catty and defensive edge of his communiques.

Somewhere along the way he turned from funny to bitchy.

Who cares, it's not like the default value is a network consensus parameter. Anyone can set it to whatever they like, whether 0kb / 0 txs mined or 1000kb. I doubt that people are running huge server farms and can't pull a cli parameter on their own.

[marcus_of_augustus]

Wealth is not linearly distributed but closer to logarithmic with a vast majority of wealth concentrated in a few hands (currently even dangerously so for civic stability considerations), the mainstream is not where wealth is concentrated so for a monetary adoption targeting the mainstream is a losing proposition.

Bitcoin doesn't necessarily need more transactions as much as higher value transactions, the value of a monetary network is not simply the number of connections but the total value of connections, i.e., number * value.

wait so bitcoin does not need more people, just more money?

but what about africa?

Think of it like high-grading that the gold miners do when prices get low. The lower value ore (spam) will be thrown out and the higher value transactions will get preferentially selected. As higher and higher net worth users get selected by the fee market to use the planet's premier secure monetary system the value of the token to use that system will increase. Lower value users will still get to use lower value security systems that aggregate their lower value transactions and anchor them the blockchain (like first, business and economy classes in a crowded aircraft)

im just messing around man, 100% agree.

i know  

we could play this faux troll-tennis all day, it's good to get a friendly foil lobbin' up the worst gimme arguments from the blockheads for smashing away

[Lauda]

mmmnope

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/48bvjy/in_may_2015_gavin_calculated_that_blocks_will_be/

Bitcoin is under attack, and I'm not sure you see it as your salary probably is dependent on this very state.

it startes with this PR war.

Correct. The sudden influx of transactions today means that somebody is trying 'to make' Gavin look like his prediction was accurate when it fact it wasn't. There is a claim from 'experts' (albeit exact information not available I think) from the roundtable that only 40% of the blocks are actually full (if you exclude the spam). The mempool was ~1.5k 2 days ago (this says a lot). However, it also seems like the price doesn't really care.

[AlexGR]

Technically speaking, he is right although all that has happened have created a spin on the events that if we don't include cheap spam in the blockchain then ...bitcoin won't grow... Like bitcoin needs spam growth and not legit tx growth.

There are a lot of actors in the forum, twitters, news etc, proclaiming the fullblockalypse, but the reality of the matter is that there is no fullblockalypse due to the fact that actual blockchain use is low and the rest of the free space is topped off with spam. That's why fees don't rise. If every tx was legitimate, and there was an actual crowding of txs competing for the limited space, fees would have gone through the roof.

Anyway, instead of NACK, he could say "ACK with the condition that default min fees also rise to combat spam".

Yes, I know you believe people using the network are spammers. You believe in the Core developers becoming being economic central planners... setting max production quotas. Only in the name of keeping you safe from terrorism decentralized tho.

A proponent of free market economics would say this is a decision to be left to the producers of block space... the miners.

In a sense, by 80% of them leaving their future to be decided by Blockstream... they have. 

As brg444 likes to say, we have voice and exit...

You do realize that bitcoin transactions are near-zero-cost, don't you? What central planning and quotas are you telling me about? What protection from decentralization or spam? We are at almost 70gb, with most of it being crap.

[Fatman3001]

Technically speaking, he is right although all that has happened have created a spin on the events that if we don't include cheap spam in the blockchain then ...bitcoin won't grow... Like bitcoin needs spam growth and not legit tx growth.

I'm not referring to technicalities. I'm referring to the distinctly trollish, catty and defensive edge of his communiques.

Somewhere along the way he turned from funny to bitchy.

Who cares, it's not like the default value is a network consensus parameter. Anyone can set it to whatever they like, whether 0kb / 0 txs mined or 1000kb. I doubt that people are running huge server farms and can't pull a cli parameter on their own.

I think your brain is glitching.

[Chef Ramsay]

Attempting to get this thread back on some sort of track

[Fatman3001]

Somewhere along the way he turned from funny to bitchy.

Someone's gonna give him a walloping with their handbag or scratch his eyes out at the next roundtable if he doesn't shape up.

Meehh..... Let me see Gavin and Peter Todd duke it out covered in oil with only their glasses and some sumo nappies on.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[bargainbin]

Wealth is not linearly distributed but closer to logarithmic with a vast majority of wealth concentrated in a few hands (currently even dangerously so for civic stability considerations), the mainstream is not where wealth is concentrated so for a monetary adoption targeting the mainstream is a losing proposition.

Bitcoin doesn't necessarily need more transactions as much as higher value transactions, the value of a monetary network is not simply the number of connections but the total value of connections, i.e., number * value.

Because what the super-rich really crave is a dysfunctional p2p network at war with itself. They're just waiting for *all* the mining to become centralized in Communist China, and then there'll be no stopping those Wall St. institutional investors. It'll be bigger then Gemini!

We are at least 3-4 orders of magnitude in value growth away from the 'super-rich' being able to adopt bitcoin and 2-3 orders in magnitude from Wall St. 'insitutionals' being able to adopt/use. The p2p network and surrounding infrastructure (and troll-box 'communities' like this thread) will all look very different when those times comes around, troll/shills like yourself will probably have moved on maybe being paid to pump bitcoin by then.

Lol @ orders of magnitude. The super-rich,* whose massive dongs investments you've been daydreaming about, are not interested in this dysfunctional joke that Bitcoin has become. Bitcoin can't cope *with a single Chinese exchange* operating on the blockchain, forget fucking world economy.
In other words, stop daydreaming about the super-rich & teh Wall st. -- they are, and will always be, way out of your league. Saying this as a friend, 'cos this is what's gonna happen to you if you let your fantasies get the better of you:

*And also the moderately rich, the merely comfortable, and the sane poors.

[Cconvert2G36]

You do realize that bitcoin transactions are near-zero-cost, don't you? What central planning and quotas are you telling me about? What protection from decentralization or spam? We are at almost 70gb, with most of it being crap.

Uh, really? The malicious miner DoS protection limit set in 2010 turned central economic policy tool.

At what point is it not near-zero-cost? How much competitive advantage do you want to sacrifice at 25BTC per block reward? Why do we have a block reward at all if not to subsidize growth in the early phase of the network?

I know (to you) the transactions are spam and the blockchain is crap, we went over that part already.

[brg444]

v.0.12.0 has only been out for a week!