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

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

I hate to see other coins succeed.

[1714808692]

1714808692

[1714808692]

1714808692

[BitconAssociation]

<> If Bitcoin loses the property of being The One True Crypto Money, it is just one other in a sea of competing currencies. A sea of competing currencies, with new ones created at will, can not ever be non-inflationary. <>

So The Dream is to have One Money to Rule Them All?
And this obsession with "inflationary." So hard for me to understand.
If 1 BTC buys me 1 Cow today, 2 Cows a year from now, and 4 Cows the year after that, I don't care about base money inflation.
If, OTOH, 1 BTC buys me 2 Cows today & only 1 Cow tomorrow, I also don't care if the sum total of biitcoins has doubled or halved.
Do you?

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[Loimu]

I hate to see other coins succeed.

Me too - and absolutely love seeing them crash and burn. Like ETH does now. Magnificento!

[BitconAssociation]

I hate to see other coins succeed.

Me too - and absolutely love seeing them crash and burn. Like ETH does now. Magnificento!

Up only 4.5% in 24hrs = crash & burn?
And BTC, down 2% in 24hrs = moonlanding?

[Mervyn_Pumpkinhead]

<> If Bitcoin loses the property of being The One True Crypto Money, it is just one other in a sea of competing currencies. A sea of competing currencies, with new ones created at will, can not ever be non-inflationary. <>

So The Dream is to have One Money to Rule Them All?
And this obsession with "inflationary." So hard for me to understand.
If 1 BTC buys me 1 Cow today, 2 Cows a year from now, and 4 Cows the year after that, I don't care about base money inflation.
If, OTOH, 1 BTC buys me 2 Cows today & only 1 Cow tomorrow, I also don't care if the sum total of biitcoins has halved.
Do you?

It's the wet dream for many that buying bitcoin will finally make them rich, without the necessary work and skill that is regularly needed to earn riches.
There are those who are attracted to the technical innovation part, and there are those who are attracted to the easy riches part. The last type is especially excited about the "inflationary" part.

[BitconAssociation]

<> If Bitcoin loses the property of being The One True Crypto Money, it is just one other in a sea of competing currencies. A sea of competing currencies, with new ones created at will, can not ever be non-inflationary. <>

So The Dream is to have One Money to Rule Them All?
And this obsession with "inflationary." So hard for me to understand.
If 1 BTC buys me 1 Cow today, 2 Cows a year from now, and 4 Cows the year after that, I don't care about base money inflation.
If, OTOH, 1 BTC buys me 2 Cows today & only 1 Cow tomorrow, I also don't care if the sum total of biitcoins has halved.
Do you?

It's the wet dream for many that buying bitcoin will finally make them rich, without the necessary work and skill that is regularly needed to earn riches.
There are those who are attracted to the technical innovation part, and there are those who are attracted to the easy riches part. The last type is especially excited about the "inflationary" part.

I'm just wondering if people fail to imagine scenarios in which
1. base money doubles; simultaneously, the number of Cows quadruples.
2. Base money halves; simultaneously, there are no Cows left to buy because all ded;
    no one fed them because more profitable to stick deflationary money in mattress than to feed filthy Cows.

[AlexGR]

Except if everyone else does it as well. Then you're stuck.

That is not how fee markets work , there are upper limits to how much spammers and users will spend on fees. My wallets adjust just fine and insure I always get in the next block. There is never a moment where I have to worry that my tx will time out within the new 72 hour mempool window.

Which means you want to limit btc usage to important tx. Which means btc will never scale and will never be able to be used on an everyday basis.

Never is a big word.

Right now bitcoin is transacting (outputs minus change) 220mn per day in 250k txs.

https://blockchain.info/charts/estimated-transaction-volume-usd?showDataPoints=true&timespan=1year&show_header=true&daysAverageString=1&scale=0&address=

This is ~880$ per average tx and it means ~80bn* USD per year.

If you implement segwit + 2mb blocks (2.7txs x 1.65 x 2) you get 8.9tx/s.

With a steady volume (I'm not even following the upward trend in value transacted), you get 880$ x 8.9 x 60 x 1440 = 677mn USD per day and 247bn USD per year.

Paypal does 228bn USD. At that point we've already "scaled" financially past Paypal with our "pitiful" 9 tx/s, and with fees being at ridiculous costs like 0.02-0.05$.

Don't underestimate the scaling of value transacted. It's a very important side of scaling.


* Western union at 85bn USD in the consumer market: http://ir.westernunion.com/News/Press-Releases/Press-Release-Details/2016/Western-Union-Cross-Border-Platform-Connects-Consumers-to-over-One-Billion-Bank-Accounts/default.aspx  => "The Western Union Company completed 255 million consumer-to-consumer transactions worldwide, moving $85 billion of principal between consumers, and 484 million business payments."

[Mervyn_Pumpkinhead]

I'm just wondering if people fail to imagine scenarios in which
1. base money doubles; simultaneously, the number of Cows quadruples.
2. Base money halves; simultaneously, there are no Cows left to buy because all ded;
    no one fed them because more profitable to stick deflationary money in mattress than to feed filthy Cows.

I think that most are imagining a scenario, where there is a honey badger, riding an unicorn on Jupiter .. and that's enough for most to remain a believer.

[BitconAssociation]

<>
Paypal does 228bn USD. At that point we've already "scaled" financially past Paypal with our "pitiful" 9 tx/s, and with fees being at ridiculous costs like 0.02-0.05$.

Don't underestimate the scaling of value transacted. It's a very important side of scaling.

So if it's possible to make 1 Bitcoin transaction per year, but it's a darn big one,* we beat PayPal at its own game
*a trillion gudzillion dollars, so BTC market cap will have to be at least that, which it will be, because math & bonus.

[AlexGR]

<>
Paypal does 228bn USD. At that point we've already "scaled" financially past Paypal with our "pitiful" 9 tx/s, and with fees being at ridiculous costs like 0.02-0.05$.

Don't underestimate the scaling of value transacted. It's a very important side of scaling.

So if it's possible to make 1 Bitcoin transaction per year, but it's a darn big one,* we beat PayPal at its own game
*a trillion gudzillion dollars, so BTC market cap will have to be at least that, which it will be, because math & bonus.

Bitcoin's strength right now is in moving any amount of money, even ridiculously high amounts, in a few minutes with a pretty low fee. That's what it does best, under the current parameters - not micropayments.

Micropayments can exhaust the 250.000 txs/day limit (even 500.000 txs or 1mn txs with 4mb blocks) and if you waste them to move around 1 dollar, you'll be doing 250k / 1mn USD per day in volume.

OR, you can use these same transactions for higher value transfers (~1000$ on avg), hitting 250mn - 1bn USD per day in volume.

It's a no-brainer.

[jbreher]

So The Dream is to have One Money to Rule Them All?

Not the dream - the promise. Hence 21M.

And this obsession with "inflationary." So hard for me to understand.
If 1 BTC buys me 1 Cow today, 2 Cows a year from now, and 4 Cows the year after that, I don't care about base money inflation.

You describe the properties of a deflationary money. Again, the promise. If currency units are created willy-nilly, there is inherently inflation. You're speaking against yourself.

If, OTOH, 1 BTC buys me 2 Cows today & only 1 Cow tomorrow, I also don't care if the sum total of biitcoins has doubled or halved.
Do you?

Yes, I do. i do not want my store of value to lose value over time. As do most rational people.

protip: Currency is not wealth. 'Stuff' is wealth. The amount of 'Stuff' in existence, plus created, is not determined by the amount of currency units. As more and more currency units chase after the same amount of 'Stuff', each currency unit buys less 'Stuff'.

I posit to you that for the majority of Bitcoiners, the 21M cap figures very heavily in their decision to get involved. If Bitcoin is not The One True Crypto, then it is just one more in an ever-expanding inflationary sea of equivalents.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[BitconAssociation]

So The Dream is to have One Money to Rule Them All?

Not the dream - the promise. Hence 21M.

And this obsession with "inflationary." So hard for me to understand.
If 1 BTC buys me 1 Cow today, 2 Cows a year from now, and 4 Cows the year after that, I don't care about base money inflation.

You describe the properties of a deflationary money. Again, the promise. If currency units are created willy-nilly, there is inherently inflation. You're speaking against yourself.

Your first mistake. If the sum total of money has decreased (deflationary money), but the number of Cows has decreased harder, my deflated Money won't buy more Cows; It will buy FEWER Cows.

If, OTOH, 1 BTC buys me 2 Cows today & only 1 Cow tomorrow, I also don't care if the sum total of biitcoins has doubled or halved.
Do you?

Yes, I do. i do not want my store of value to lose value over time. As do most rational people.

Define "value"
What is it that you're trying to store, exactly?

protip: Currency is not wealth. 'Stuff' is wealth. The amount of 'Stuff' in existence, plus created, is not determined by the amount of currency units. As more and more currency units chase after the same amount of 'Stuff', each currency unit buys less 'Stuff'.

Allow me to share a tip also: "The amount of 'Stuff' in existence" fluctuates. It can increase or decrease. If it increases proportionally to the increase in base money, your Money buys you roughly as much as it did before. If "The amount of 'Stuff' in existence" decreases, your Money will buy you less.
The interrelation between these two quantities is called "monetary policy," "... the process by which the monetary authority of a country controls the supply of money, often targeting an inflation rate or interest rate to ensure price stability and general trust in the currency."

Assuming that non-inflationary, or deflationary, currency means that your money will buy you more in the future is folly; life don't work like that. That's why *THE WHOLE WORLD* is relying on inflationary currencies, and NOBODY on deflationary. Because it's a recipe for failing economy.
Either that, or because Saurian Jews.

I posit to you that for the majority of Bitcoiners, the 21M cap figures very heavily in their decision to get involved.

Yes, the majority of Bitcoiners now.  They also can't spell or form coherent thoughts/sentences. Because the dregs. Because lack of education. Because not much different from MMM/other ponzi "investors."
It wasn't always like that.
Sad.

[rebuilder]

It's a no-brainer.

Can you give me an example where production quotas have led to more efficient production of a good than the free market method?

[AlexGR]

It's a no-brainer.

Can you give me an example where production quotas have led to more efficient production of a good than the free market method?

The quota is a given due to hardware and software limitations. It's not like right now you can remove the 1mb limit and you'll be successfully mining 20-100-1000mb blocks. It can't happen. That's the reality of it. So you make the best use of what you have. That's how all technologies evolve.

In the 90's, when email started getting traction, as soon as people had a few kb / a few mb mailboxes, mailbombing begun as an attack vector. You could literally clog one's email address, making it unable to receive any email because you simply carbon copied the same email 100 or 1000 times, or put a small attachment and sent it 10 times. If people were as "bitchy" back then, they would be saying "oh what's this crap with this email thing, this can never work, it's DOA, it can't scale" etc etc.

Well, here we are 20+ years later having gigabytes for email storage and email working fine. But, in the meantime, technology evolved to allow it to happen.

[Laosai]

I hate to see other coins succeed.

Ahahah xD

Well on a more serious manner, I hate useless shit succeeding. Eth is not a coin, it's not a currency and shouldn't be treated as one.

And let's be serious, if they wanted our sympathy, they shouldn't have spammed reddit like that...

[Dotto]

eth down 10% in 2 minutes and still falling.

Stick with your legacy banking system. Crypto doesn't want you.

Edit: 15% in 3 minutes. Magnificent crash!

eth+15% in the last 24h. What the crash are you saying?

[rebuilder]

AlexGR: So, in the 90's, did the IETF dictate a cap on e-mail size? No? Somehow it survived, though.

I repeat: I'd like an example of a centrally planned production quota winning out in efficiency over a free-market supply-and-demand model.

[BitconAssociation]

It's a no-brainer.

Can you give me an example where production quotas have led to more efficient production of a good than the free market method?

The quota is a given due to hardware and software limitations. It's not like right now you can remove the 1mb limit and you'll be successfully mining 20-100-1000mb blocks. It can't happen. That's the reality of it. So you make the best use of what you have. That's how all technologies evolve.

In the 90's, when email started getting traction, as soon as people had a few kb / a few mb mailboxes, mailbombing begun as an attack vector. You could literally clog one's email address, making it unable to receive any email because you simply carbon copied the same email 100 or 1000 times, or put a small attachment and sent it 10 times. If people were as "bitchy" back then, they would be saying "oh what's this crap with this email thing, this can never work, it's DOA, it can't scale" etc etc.
<snip>

As such attack vectors became apparent, successful mailbox providers realized the folly of allowing "a few kb / a few mb mailboxes," and limited mailbox size to a few hundred bites.

...of course, literally *no one* ever did that. Email account caps grew and grew. That's why we killed email in the cradle, by forgetting to limit mailbox size & devising crazy spam filters instead.