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

[BitUsher]

your overstating the effect of a "bandaid solution" of raising the block limit sooner rather then later.


or do you blieve 1MB FOREVER =  longterm health??

No, I want much larger blocks as I have stated multiple times.

The first idea is to make Bitcoin more scalable first by optimizing it because even at 1MB we are seeing problems.
The second idea is to get LN and payment channels in the wild to insure we don't continue to keep delaying these because we have enough capacity.

The fear from raising the blocksize as a temporary bandaid is that it will work and get people comfortable with HF's that simply bumps up the blocksize without developing payment channels. This isn't speculation ... look at Classics Road map -

https://github.com/bitcoinclassic/documentation/blob/master/roadmap/roadmap2016.md

There is absolutely no mention of payment channels but they suggest adopting dynamic blocksizes in 3rd Q this year which do not address any centralization concerns. Gavin has gone on record suggesting that no limits would be just fine for bitcoin and many classic supporters want everything on the chain. Kicking the can could lead us down the path where we don't treat bitcoin like a settlement layer... This would be disastrous!

If you don't think so do the math on 128MB blocks + thin/weak blocks vs 8MB blocks + LN + thin/weak blocks.

fine then,

 the endless debate with 0 progress for years is hurting bitcoin image

better?

I don't agree with this. With the difficulty in a political coup making changes to bitcoin it shows investors and outsiders how resilient bitcoin is from an attack and how raising the 21million limit will be next to impossible if going from 1-2 Mb limit on something far less controversial than changing the inflation rate would be.\

[Adrian-x]

O.k... take for example, when a few months ago, he said that Coinbase was going to support Classic XT etc...

FTFU - Coinbase said they were going to test XT...

Ok. thanks.. I was kind of shooting off the cuff.. by memory... but what you say sounds exactly correct... and much more accurate than what I said.. but my point, in part, was that Armstrong has been increasing and increasing and increasing his involvement in the debate, rather than merely making statements regarding what his company was going to do.. he is currently seeming to be involved in an ongoing battle of persuasion to convince a lot others what they should do, too... which for me is beginning to come off as a bit much and causing me desires to remove some of my dinero from their system.

Armstrong's is working in the best interests of his investors. His investors are invested in a decentralized control of Bitcoin where they can leverage there competitive advantage.

A lot of people are ignoring the centralized authoritative control over the direction bitcoin development is taking, but the fact remains as much as I dislike Coinbase there company's success is built on the success of the same Bitcoin I'm invested in.

Blockstream are working to change bitcoin in a way that will undermine Coinbase, it will undermine the Bitcoin I'm invested in. Should Bitcoin be optimized today as a settlement network their company vision and business model is dead in the water.  That in its self is not a reason to not optimist bitcoin to be a settlement network. I have a preference to see bitcoin evolve organically, I think its premature to limit the block size as a stimulus to catalyse bitcoin as a settlement network. I want to decentralize financial control and totally disrupt incumbent financial players.

I want as many people as is technically feasible to settle directly with each other on the blockchain, that doesn't mean I don't want to see LN, or off chane networks, it just means I want LN or Coinbase to succeed or fail on there own merits I don't want to see anyone controlling the development direction in bitcoin to favor one or the other business models. 

   

[ZyclonRacerX]

...I don't agree on your timeline......

Here are a few reasons why you should:

> I can walk up to kiosk and wave my credit card or bank card and pay for anything under $30 in less than 3 seconds.

> I've got several credit cards and I haven't paid a penny for them or to use them for years.  But I still get all sorts of payment protection insurance and free replacement cards whenever I want.

> My cards are linked to my bank account. As long as I get paid, I don't have to do any extra work to use my cards that give me quick and easy access to as many cups of coffee as my brain can handle before getting completely wired.

If I use Bitcoin to pay for $3 of coffee and cake, first I need to do some extra work; then I incur exchange fees; and then I have to pre-pay for the LN; before I get charged a fee for a transaction I can get for free, with less cost and for less effort.

That. Also boldface bit that LN fans don't mention for some reason..

[JayJuanGee]

FACT blocksize will increase
FACT core plans to do it
FACT the network could benefit from this increase today
FACT we are waiting a full year before we do it, because we have some unproven code that could MAY increase "effective blocksize" by 1.75x if Core can figure out why it's forking the crap out of the testnet.

FACT run to eth for short trem profits 

I think that I understand that you are engaging in a bit of hyperbole, here, yet?   I really wonder about ETH versus BTC today? 

I own zero ETH, and I own quite a bit of BTC..... but for some reason, I feel very close to zero inclination to convert even .0001BTC to ETH... Maybe it is just me?  Good luck everyone, but I feel pretty good in my BTC at the moment especially compared with the current status of ETH.  On the other hand, if I owned a little bit of ETH, I probably would be inclined to convert it to BTC, but that inclination is probably merely a bit of a personal bias that I am experiencing at the moment.   

[Adrian-x]

It can be made a reality pretty easily if we co-locate the miners and nodes into a single data center - or a few data centers well interconnected with big fat lines, in a way that even 1gb blocks at 3000tx/sec would not be an issue. But then you don't really have a peer to peer bitcoin. You have a (centralized) client/server one with plenty of attack vectors, including physical raids.

No I don't see it, were do you get customers to make this vision a reality, if you think it's pretty easily JUST DO IT?

[BitUsher]

I think that I understand that you are engaging in a bit of hyperbole, here, yet?   I really wonder about ETH versus BTC today?  

I own zero ETH, and I own quite a bit of BTC..... but for some reason, I feel very close to zero inclination to convert even .0001BTC to ETH... Maybe it is just me?  Good luck everyone, but I feel pretty good in my BTC at the moment especially compared with the current status of ETH.  On the other hand, if I owned a little bit of ETH, I probably would be inclined to convert it to BTC, but that inclination is probably merely a bit of a personal bias that I am experiencing at the moment.  

If they are serious about buying Eth as a potential fear their values aren't aligned with bitcoin and they really cannot see how technically Eth is ridiculous. Once Eth switches to PoS there will be a strong incentive to fork Ethereum as a sidechain on bitcoin where all bitcoin holders are rewarded free æthereum to run their DAPPs. Of course there is still the problem of finding a DAPP that makes business sense but at least geeks will have their toys and be able to make atomic transfers between BTC and  æthereum and never need to buy any fuel whatsoever .

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=563925.0

There already exist multiple ethereum forks with much cheaper "fuel" that can run the exact same DAPPs... but at least ethereum has slightly better PoW security than the alternative forks... Vitalik is doing away with that advantage soon so get ready for free fuel to all bitcoin users!

[Adrian-x]

1) storage costs are insignificant. ($300 = 6TB)

2) a legitimate constraint. (I say the market should find a balance.) FYI SegWit increases network tragic for less transactions it has positive effect of reducing the insignificant storage cost at the expense of using more of the valuable bandwidth cost.  

3) the processing cost is not a energy cost but a lost opportunity cost, time is money. (SegWit here increases this too)
 

Are you pricing things in VPN hosting rental numbers , because many cannot and will not be able to run nodes from their home because of bandwidth limits and softcaps. The ISP's have oversold their bandwidth and with everyone torrenting and streaming HD the demand for bandwidth is higher than the supply.

Thinking the scaling issues are about transaction fees of a few cents is asinine, it's about letting bitcoin grow organically. We are all paying $5-10.00 in subsidized transaction fees anyway, we need allow economies of scale to grow to replace those subsidies.

limiting block size to what we have today with no increase in total market cap = fees/tx will need to gravitate to the $5-10 per transaction to keep the security we have today.
 

Yes, I agree that we need 5-10 USD of security per tx if not higher. Do you agree that the only way to scale is by having the mainchain be a settlement network? Have you done the math on 128MB blocks + thin/weak blocks vs 8MB blocks + LN + thin/weak blocks?

There really isn't a comparison between the two. One can scale and the other one lacks throughput and is centralized.

no I cant afford a VPN service, nor do I trust the VPN host, I only run a full node on my work PC and my Home Server. Bandwidth is not an issue where I live, nor would it be an issue if blocks were 10X larger.

I don't have an opinion on what transaction costs should be, I just know if someone was paying $5-$10 to encourage me to make transactions I may buy a coffee. (for the record bitcoin is too valuable to wast on coffee - my 4 $2 transaction have cost me over $3700's in lost value today.)

regarding the maths yes, someone did it a while ago they projected the revenue and size of block in relation to halving with $0.05 transaction fees. with regards to block chain growth is not a concern at this time. It was on r/bitcoin and it's unfortunately been censored, I'm sorry I didn't make a copy as I have wanted to reference it many times.

[JayJuanGee]

O.k... take for example, when a few months ago, he said that Coinbase was going to support Classic XT etc...

FTFU - Coinbase said they were going to test XT...

Ok. thanks.. I was kind of shooting off the cuff.. by memory... but what you say sounds exactly correct... and much more accurate than what I said.. but my point, in part, was that Armstrong has been increasing and increasing and increasing his involvement in the debate, rather than merely making statements regarding what his company was going to do.. he is currently seeming to be involved in an ongoing battle of persuasion to convince a lot others what they should do, too... which for me is beginning to come off as a bit much and causing me desires to remove some of my dinero from their system.

Armstrong's is working in the best interests of his investors. His investors are invested in a decentralized control of Bitcoin where they can leverage there competitive advantage.

A lot of people are ignoring the centralized authoritative control over the direction bitcoin development is taking, but the fact remains as much as I dislike Coinbase there company's success is built on the success of the same Bitcoin I'm invested in.

Blockstream are working to change bitcoin in a way that will undermine Coinbase, it will undermine the Bitcoin I'm invested in. Should Bitcoin be optimized today as a settlement network their company vision and business model is dead in the water.  That in its self is not a reason to not optimist bitcoin to be a settlement network. I have a preference to see bitcoin evolve organically, I think its premature to limit the block size as a stimulus to catalyse bitcoin as a settlement network. I want to decentralize financial control and totally disrupt incumbent financial players.

I want as many people as is technically feasible to settle directly with each other on the blockchain, that doesn't mean I don't want to see LN, or off chane networks, it just means I want LN or Coinbase to succeed or fail on there own merits I don't want to see anyone controlling the development direction in bitcoin to favor one or the other business models. 

Sure... fair enough that you described your perception of what the interests are here, yet I don't agree that you are reflecting it accurately when you suggest that coinbase is aiming for decentralized bitcoin and that somehow blockstream is in control of core's direction.

I personally see the current situation as classic, xt, coinbase and other advocates of change failing to meet their burdens of evidence and/or persuasion and therefore, core sticks with the status quo.  At the same time the advocates of classic, xt and coinbase etc are very vocal and emotional about the lack of change because they believe that they have sufficiently met the burden of evidence and/or persuasion... or that being louder is going to carry some weight in the decision making regarding change or future direction of bitcoin etc. 

There is no ruling out future changes so long as any such proposed changes are presented as convincing to a large majority of the stakeholders in order to test and adopt the changes.  At this point, no one is really controlling bitcoin.. it remains decentralized, and the fact that neither xt or classic were implemented helps to show that it remains decentralized.. sure at some point some version of various aspects of each xt and/or classic may be incorporated.. just like seg wit is currently in the works.  whether it is blockstream, coinbase or any other company, they will need to work around these anticipated directions, and I am repeating that I am pulling a lot of my money out of coinbase because I continue to perceive that they are continuing to be too pushy in the space in their efforts to achieve consensus by stick rather than carrot... or maybe just having less activism from Coinbase would be more appealing to me under these current circumstances.

[AlexGR]

the thing is high fees hurting bitcoin IMAGE.
thats the biggest down side

There are no high fees in bitcoin.

fine then,

 the endless debate with 0 progress for years is hurting bitcoin image

better?

the simple fact that the video "what is bitcoin" where it says "no fee", which now needs to be changed to "only ~5cent fees"
is a huge setback.

Americans (I guess you are also exhibiting the same pattern even if you are a Canadian) always blow my mind. They are burning fuel by the gallons, they can buy all types of junk for hundreds or thousands of dollars, they've been born in such abundance and quality of life that they can afford to say things like "ohh fuck bloat, I'll just buy a hard disk that costs 300$" (which is the wage of a developing nation worker) and the next minute they'll be saying things like "I don't want to pay 1-2-5 cents in fees" or they'll be pushing for the massive destruction of value, such as in the case of a contentious hard fork, saying that this will somehow lift some obstacle and increase their ...value. It's plain stupidity.

Only people who are taking abundance for granted can be pushing for situations where the destruction of value can be promoted as "solution" to issues that they are lucky enough to don't even have to care about, like the 2-3-5 cents in fees.

You know, there are very poor countries where even the 2-3-5 cents are actually money that one can do something in their life, like buy something to eat. I would respect those if they actually complained. But you know why they would not complain? Because they would understand that all alternative payment systems are asking them not 2-3-5 cents, but 100 times that. The cost to transfer around 200$ over the globe, through a bank wire, a western union transfer or paypal is in the tens of dollars, if you include all fees and commissions.

Last, but not least, there are countries, in which people suffer from fluctuating currency rates and who appreciate Bitcoin's store of value characteristics as their national currency slides downwards. And then there are all those who already enjoy the privilege of being in a country with stable or strong currency and who are like "fuck that, let's now destroy bitcoin's value for the lolz through a hardfork... let's fork the currency because, well... I don't like core devs".

I know I haven't directly addressed the point about the ...video and the fees, but the answer is there, between the lines.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[AlexGR]

It can be made a reality pretty easily if we co-locate the miners and nodes into a single data center - or a few data centers well interconnected with big fat lines, in a way that even 1gb blocks at 3000tx/sec would not be an issue. But then you don't really have a peer to peer bitcoin. You have a (centralized) client/server one with plenty of attack vectors, including physical raids.

No I don't see it, were do you get customers to make this vision a reality, if you think it's pretty easily JUST DO IT?

The point was that while it is doable, it is not a desirable outcome because it practically stops being a decentralized peer-to-peer version of Bitcoin.

[JayJuanGee]

I think that I understand that you are engaging in a bit of hyperbole, here, yet?   I really wonder about ETH versus BTC today?  

I own zero ETH, and I own quite a bit of BTC..... but for some reason, I feel very close to zero inclination to convert even .0001BTC to ETH... Maybe it is just me?  Good luck everyone, but I feel pretty good in my BTC at the moment especially compared with the current status of ETH.  On the other hand, if I owned a little bit of ETH, I probably would be inclined to convert it to BTC, but that inclination is probably merely a bit of a personal bias that I am experiencing at the moment.  

If they are serious about buying Eth as a potential fear their values aren't aligned with bitcoin and they really cannot see how technically Eth is ridiculous. Once Eth switches to PoS there will be a strong incentive to fork Ethereum as a sidechain on bitcoin where all bitcoin holders are rewarded free æthereum to run their DAPPs. Of course there is still the problem of finding a DAPP that makes business sense but at least geeks will have their toys and be able to make atomic transfers between BTC and  æthereum and never need to buy any fuel whatsoever .

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=563925.0

There already exist multiple ethereum forks with much cheaper "fuel" that can run the exact same DAPPs... but at least ethereum has slightly better PoW security than the alternative forks... Vitalik is doing away with that advantage soon so get ready for free fuel to all bitcoin users!

I appreciate your seemingly technical explanation, and I don't really attempt to follow ETH too much, except how it may relate in aspects to BTC and that finding out some things about ETH is kind of unavoidable in recent times when ETH had done about a 12x increase in about 2 months.

Could you say that above you suggesting that such future changes in the ETH space is going to cause a more than 99% decrease in the value of ETH; however, it could take several months for ETH to crash?  I personally get the sense that ETH's crash is going to be much more severe than Bitcoin's 2014 crash.  Recall that Bitcoin went from $1,200-ish to less than $200 in about one year.  I get the sense that ETH is going to crash from $12 to less than $2 in a much quicker time span and thereafter, ETH is likely not to recover in any kind of monetary sense... but maybe that is just my shooting from the hip (rather than really being knowledgeable about ETH in any kind of meaningful way).

[BitUsher]

no I cant afford a VPN service, nor do I trust the VPN host, I only run a full node on my work PC and my Home Server. Bandwidth is not an issue where I live, nor would it be an issue if blocks were 10X larger.

Ahhh , I see the problem , you prefer anecdotal evidence of one rather than looking at trends and statistics to show the scope of the problem.

with regards to block chain growth is not a concern at this time. It was on r/bitcoin and it's unfortunately been censored, I'm sorry I didn't make a copy as I have wanted to reference it many times.

Here are the numbers which indicate how ridiculous scaling on the chain is for mass adoption-

Bitcoin Classic Big Block Future- 7 billion people making 20 blockchain tx day

○ 24,000 MB blocks or 3456 GB a day or 1,261,440 GB a year
○ ~500 Mbit/s best-case with IBLT @ 20tx/day/person

Bitcoin Core Payment Channel Future- 7 billion people making 20 blockchain tx day

○ 133 MB blocks - unlimited transactions count
○ ~3 Mbit/s with IBLT

[Adrian-x]

O.k... take for example, when a few months ago, he said that Coinbase was going to support Classic XT etc...

FTFU - Coinbase said they were going to test XT...

Ok. thanks.. I was kind of shooting off the cuff.. by memory... but what you say sounds exactly correct... and much more accurate than what I said.. but my point, in part, was that Armstrong has been increasing and increasing and increasing his involvement in the debate, rather than merely making statements regarding what his company was going to do.. he is currently seeming to be involved in an ongoing battle of persuasion to convince a lot others what they should do, too... which for me is beginning to come off as a bit much and causing me desires to remove some of my dinero from their system.

Armstrong's is working in the best interests of his investors. His investors are invested in a decentralized control of Bitcoin where they can leverage there competitive advantage.

A lot of people are ignoring the centralized authoritative control over the direction bitcoin development is taking, but the fact remains as much as I dislike Coinbase there company's success is built on the success of the same Bitcoin I'm invested in.

Blockstream are working to change bitcoin in a way that will undermine Coinbase, it will undermine the Bitcoin I'm invested in. Should Bitcoin be optimized today as a settlement network their company vision and business model is dead in the water.  That in its self is not a reason to not optimist bitcoin to be a settlement network. I have a preference to see bitcoin evolve organically, I think its premature to limit the block size as a stimulus to catalyse bitcoin as a settlement network. I want to decentralize financial control and totally disrupt incumbent financial players.

I want as many people as is technically feasible to settle directly with each other on the blockchain, that doesn't mean I don't want to see LN, or off chane networks, it just means I want LN or Coinbase to succeed or fail on there own merits I don't want to see anyone controlling the development direction in bitcoin to favor one or the other business models. 

Sure... fair enough that you described your perception of what the interests are here, yet I don't agree that you are reflecting it accurately when you suggest that coinbase is aiming for decentralized bitcoin and that somehow blockstream is in control of core's direction.

I personally see the current situation as classic, xt, coinbase and other advocates of change failing to meet their burdens of evidence and/or persuasion and therefore, core sticks with the status quo.  At the same time the advocates of classic, xt and coinbase etc are very vocal and emotional about the lack of change because they believe that they have sufficiently met the burden of evidence and/or persuasion... or that being louder is going to carry some weight in the decision making regarding change or future direction of bitcoin etc. 

There is no ruling out future changes so long as any such proposed changes are presented as convincing to a large majority of the stakeholders in order to test and adopt the changes.  At this point, no one is really controlling bitcoin.. it remains decentralized, and the fact that neither xt or classic were implemented helps to show that it remains decentralized.. sure at some point some version of various aspects of each xt and/or classic may be incorporated.. just like seg wit is currently in the works.  whether it is blockstream, coinbase or any other company, they will need to work around these anticipated directions, and I am repeating that I am pulling a lot of my money out of coinbase because I continue to perceive that they are continuing to be too pushy in the space in their efforts to achieve consensus by stick rather than carrot... or maybe just having less activism from Coinbase would be more appealing to me under these current circumstances.

I see bitcoin first and foremost as a value exchange protocol and code second,  the change to the economic incentives that preserve bitcoin as the biggest threat we see today, and while the Core Developers will have the code peer reviewed they have no economic insight to suggest their changes are economically sound, let alone a peer review of any economic impact study.


The evidence is there, the problem is FUD a result of the inability to appropriately assess the risks. I may just rate the relative risks differently.  Blockstream's conflict of interest and the fact many of the Core Developers have a salary dependant on not understanding the risks is beyond suspicious.

[adamstgBit]

the thing is high fees hurting bitcoin IMAGE.
thats the biggest down side

There are no high fees in bitcoin.

fine then,

 the endless debate with 0 progress for years is hurting bitcoin image

better?

the simple fact that the video "what is bitcoin" where it says "no fee", which now needs to be changed to "only ~5cent fees"
is a huge setback.

Americans (I guess you are also exhibiting the same pattern even if you are a Canadian) always blow my mind. They are burning fuel by the gallons, they can buy all types of junk for hundreds or thousands of dollars, they've been born in such abundance and quality of life that they can afford to say things like "ohh fuck bloat, I'll just buy a hard disk that costs 300$" (which is the wage of a developing nation worker) and the next minute they'll be saying things like "I don't want to pay 1-2-5 cents in fees" or they'll be pushing for the massive destruction of value, such as in the case of a contentious hard fork, saying that this will somehow lift some obstacle and increase their ...value. It's plain stupidity.

Only people who are taking abundance for granted can be pushing for situations where the destruction of value can be promoted as "solution" to issues that they are lucky enough to don't even have to care about, like the 2-3-5 cents in fees.

You know, there are very poor countries where even the 2-3-5 cents are actually money that one can do something in their life, like buy something to eat. I would respect those if they actually complained. But you know why they would not complain? Because they would understand that all alternative payment systems are asking them not 2-3-5 cents, but 100 times that. The cost to transfer around 200$ over the globe, through a bank wire, a western union transfer or paypal is in the tens of dollars, if you include all fees and commissions.

Last, but not least, there are countries, in which people suffer from fluctuating currency rates and who appreciate Bitcoin's store of value characteristics as their national currency slides downwards. And then there are all those who already enjoy the privilege of being in a country with stable or strong currency and who are like "fuck that, let's now destroy bitcoin's value for the lolz through a hardfork... let's fork the currency because, well... I don't like core devs".

I know I haven't directly addressed the point about the ...video and the fees, but the answer is there, between the lines.

you call me an "American" O_O, ya well your mom's a bitch and you know what that makes you!
lol! just kidding.

I'm sorry if i sound all emotional about 5cent fees... but yes i do believe this hurts the image, maybe not the fee cost per say, but it's more about all the random "why are my TX not going thorught" and then asholes being like "you dumb ass you didnt pay the appropriate fee DUH! "

everything is NOT fine, sure it all works and still relatively cheap, but you can't say all this BS hasn't hurt bitcoin's image and price, in my view blocksizebitchfest has hurt bitcoin real bad on multiple levels. fuck there a huge devied in the comminty now, who's to blame?? idk the specific poeple dont matter, the point is blocksizebitchfest is a HUGE source of FUD from all angles and there is no end in sight.

[Adrian-x]

It can be made a reality pretty easily if we co-locate the miners and nodes into a single data center - or a few data centers well interconnected with big fat lines, in a way that even 1gb blocks at 3000tx/sec would not be an issue. But then you don't really have a peer to peer bitcoin. You have a (centralized) client/server one with plenty of attack vectors, including physical raids.

No I don't see it, were do you get customers to make this vision a reality, if you think it's pretty easily JUST DO IT?

The point was that while it is doable, it is not a desirable outcome because it practically stops being a decentralized peer-to-peer version of Bitcoin.

My point is its not doable, and thinking its doable so long as its centralized is part of the problem.

[ZyclonRacerX]

...
Americans (I guess you are also exhibiting the same pattern even if you are a Canadian) always blow my mind. They are burning fuel by the gallons, they can buy all types of junk for hundreds or thousands of dollars, they've been born in such abundance and quality of life that they can afford to say things like "ohh fuck bloat, I'll just buy a hard disk that costs 300$" (which is the wage of a developing nation worker) and the next minute they'll be saying things like "I don't want to pay 1-2-5 cents in fees" or they'll be pushing for the massive destruction of value, such as in the case of a contentious hard fork, saying that this will somehow lift some obstacle and increase their ...value. It's plain stupidity. ...

Envious foreigner:
Roughly half of humankind lives on $2 a day or less.
Those humans can't afford to run nodes.
They also can't afford the 8c fees you propose.
They can't afford to use Bitcoin, period.
You foreigners always blow my mind. How can you be so fucking ignorant?
Also: how come are you foreign guys always so poor?

[BitUsher]

I appreciate your seemingly technical explanation, and I don't really attempt to follow ETH too much, except how it may relate in aspects to BTC and that finding out some things about ETH is kind of unavoidable in recent times when ETH had done about a 12x increase in about 2 months.

Could you say that above you suggesting that such future changes in the ETH space is going to cause a more than 99% decrease in the value of ETH; however, it could take several months for ETH to crash?  I personally get the sense that ETH's crash is going to be much more severe than Bitcoin's 2014 crash.  Recall that Bitcoin went from $1,200-ish to less than $200 in about one year.  I get the sense that ETH is going to crash from $12 to less than $2 in a much quicker time span and thereafter, ETH is likely not to recover in any kind of monetary sense... but maybe that is just my shooting from the hip (rather than really being knowledgeable about ETH in any kind of meaningful way).

Yes, I agree the Eth crash may be worse , because there has been a serious amount of money pumping the coin and that money will run out and when early investors start offloading that will cause a quick loss in confidence. It may already be starting , but no one can predict markets.

[marcus_of_augustus]

In the beginning there was only darkness, then Satoshi said to Nakamoto "do we have consensus?" and then there was light.

[coins101]

.... 7 billion people making 20 blockchain tx day...

Is there any single electronic payment system that has more than 1bn users?  Probably all combined.

That's before taking into account babies, the elderly, those too poor to know what money actually is, etc.