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

[AliceGored]

Due to economy of scale and some miners having lower verification costs, it creates a race to the bottom of purging all but the most efficient miner (centralization).  With increasing block sizes, there would likely be some huge miner that accepts 0.00000001 fee transactions while doing so would cause others to go bankrupt.  Or the mega miner could just accept tiny or 0 fee transactions in the short term in order to bankrupt opponents.  Hence a minimum transaction fee puts a floor on how low of a race to the bottom tactic you can enact.  

Minimum transaction fee is the spam prevention mechanism of Bitcoin, not block size!  The miners are unable to create one themselves because it would require collusion and it's also an attack vector they use against each other!  That is why I say developers have to create a minimum transaction fee for each block size interval they set in order to scale Bitcoin.

Oh wise central planners. Please pick the best arbitrary economic variables possible... and only with unanimous neckbeard consensus in irc. These miners are hell bent on choking out this golden goose given the chance.

You keep looking but you can't find the woods
While you're hiding in the trees

[marcus_of_augustus]

this place is just a nonstop bankster troll thread ... total dump now you have bitched yourselves to the banksters

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[AliceGored]

this place is just a nonstop bankster troll thread ... total dump now you have bitched yourselves to the banksters

Amen, fuggin' bankster basic bitch total dumpers all up in here. Someone should just nuke their accounts, clean the joint up.

[Fatman3001]

Any word on that ETF those Twinkletossers were going to set up?

[r0ach]

Due to economy of scale and some miners having lower verification costs, it creates a race to the bottom of purging all but the most efficient miner (centralization).  With increasing block sizes, there would likely be some huge miner that accepts 0.00000001 fee transactions while doing so would cause others to go bankrupt.  Or the mega miner could just accept tiny or 0 fee transactions in the short term in order to bankrupt opponents.  Hence a minimum transaction fee puts a floor on how low of a race to the bottom tactic you can enact.  

Minimum transaction fee is the spam prevention mechanism of Bitcoin, not block size!  The miners are unable to create one themselves because it would require collusion and it's also an attack vector they use against each other!  That is why I say developers have to create a minimum transaction fee for each block size interval they set in order to scale Bitcoin.

Oh wise central planners. Please pick the best arbitrary economic variables possible... and only with unanimous neckbeard consensus in irc. These miners are hell bent on choking out this golden goose given the chance.

You keep looking but you can't find the woods
While you're hiding in the trees

Except you don't understand it's impossible for Bitcoin to not have central bankers unless it has an unlimited block size and no min transaction fee.  Now that we've established Bitcoin already has central bankers (the developers with the miners having a veto override), they should actually use the correct variable in order to block spam (min transaction fee) instead of using the wrong one (block size).

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

Due to economy of scale and some miners having lower verification costs, it creates a race to the bottom of purging all but the most efficient miner (centralization).  With increasing block sizes, there would likely be some huge miner that accepts 0.00000001 fee transactions while doing so would cause others to go bankrupt.  Or the mega miner could just accept tiny or 0 fee transactions in the short term in order to bankrupt opponents.  Hence a minimum transaction fee puts a floor on how low of a race to the bottom tactic you can enact.  

Minimum transaction fee is the spam prevention mechanism of Bitcoin, not block size!  The miners are unable to create one themselves because it would require collusion and it's also an attack vector they use against each other!  That is why I say developers have to create a minimum transaction fee for each block size interval they set in order to scale Bitcoin.

Oh wise central planners. Please pick the best arbitrary economic variables possible... and only with unanimous neckbeard consensus in irc. These miners are hell bent on choking out this golden goose given the chance.

You keep looking but you can't find the woods
While you're hiding in the trees

Except you don't understand it's impossible for Bitcoin to not have central bankers unless it has an unlimited block size and no min transaction fee.  Now that we've established Bitcoin already has central bankers (the developers with the miners having a veto override), they should actually use the correct variable in order to block spam (min transaction fee) instead of using the wrong one (block size).

Sounds good to me. IDK.

@Fats How's that sound to you?

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[AliceGored]

Due to economy of scale and some miners having lower verification costs, it creates a race to the bottom of purging all but the most efficient miner (centralization).  With increasing block sizes, there would likely be some huge miner that accepts 0.00000001 fee transactions while doing so would cause others to go bankrupt.  Or the mega miner could just accept tiny or 0 fee transactions in the short term in order to bankrupt opponents.  Hence a minimum transaction fee puts a floor on how low of a race to the bottom tactic you can enact.  

Minimum transaction fee is the spam prevention mechanism of Bitcoin, not block size!  The miners are unable to create one themselves because it would require collusion and it's also an attack vector they use against each other!  That is why I say developers have to create a minimum transaction fee for each block size interval they set in order to scale Bitcoin.

Oh wise central planners. Please pick the best arbitrary economic variables possible... and only with unanimous neckbeard consensus in irc. These miners are hell bent on choking out this golden goose given the chance.

You keep looking but you can't find the woods
While you're hiding in the trees

Except you don't understand it's impossible for Bitcoin to not have central bankers unless it has an unlimited block size and no min transaction fee.  Now that we've established Bitcoin already has central bankers (the developers with the miners having a veto override), they should actually use the correct variable in order to block spam (min transaction fee) instead of using the wrong one (block size).

That's like saying it's not possible to have a McLaren F1 without the Ameritech front bumperettes and a 1.8L. It is, and it's worth insisting on.

[r0ach]

Due to economy of scale and some miners having lower verification costs, it creates a race to the bottom of purging all but the most efficient miner (centralization).  With increasing block sizes, there would likely be some huge miner that accepts 0.00000001 fee transactions while doing so would cause others to go bankrupt.  Or the mega miner could just accept tiny or 0 fee transactions in the short term in order to bankrupt opponents.  Hence a minimum transaction fee puts a floor on how low of a race to the bottom tactic you can enact.  

Minimum transaction fee is the spam prevention mechanism of Bitcoin, not block size!  The miners are unable to create one themselves because it would require collusion and it's also an attack vector they use against each other!  That is why I say developers have to create a minimum transaction fee for each block size interval they set in order to scale Bitcoin.

Oh wise central planners. Please pick the best arbitrary economic variables possible... and only with unanimous neckbeard consensus in irc. These miners are hell bent on choking out this golden goose given the chance.

You keep looking but you can't find the woods
While you're hiding in the trees

Except you don't understand it's impossible for Bitcoin to not have central bankers unless it has an unlimited block size and no min transaction fee.  Now that we've established Bitcoin already has central bankers (the developers with the miners having a veto override), they should actually use the correct variable in order to block spam (min transaction fee) instead of using the wrong one (block size).

That's like saying it's not possible to have a McLaren F1 without the Ameritech front bumperettes and a 1.8L. It is, and it's worth insisting on.

Nonsensical response.

[AliceGored]

That's like saying it's not possible to have a McLaren F1 without the Ameritech front bumperettes and a 1.8L. It is, and it's worth insisting on.

Nonsensical response.

For someone who sees international jewry as the malevolent force behind all their personal socioeconomic shortcomings, you sure suffer from an occasional lack of imagination.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[Elwar]

Any word on that ETF those Twinkletossers were going to set up?

They last updated it in January 2015. Most people said that it usually takes a year from the last update so I figured it would have gone through.

Maybe they shifted focus to Gemini and aren't pushing the political buttons needed to get it through.

[Fatman3001]

@Fats How's that sound to you?

If I want to read nazis I stick with Hamsun and Heidegger.

[r0ach]

That's like saying it's not possible to have a McLaren F1 without the Ameritech front bumperettes and a 1.8L. It is, and it's worth insisting on.

Nonsensical response.

For someone who sees international jewry as the malevolent force behind all their personal socioeconomic shortcomings, you sure suffer from an occasional lack of imagination.

They're an ethnocentric, racial supremacist cult that inserts themselves into positions of power using extreme nepotism, causing the native inhabitants of whatever country they invade to have their wealth siphoned off and their media inundated with propaganda to help their self serving and/or Marxist agenda.  Anyone that claims otherwise is a bullshit artist.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[Karartma1]

Any word on that ETF those Twinkletossers were going to set up?

They last updated it in January 2015. Most people said that it usually takes a year from the last update so I figured it would have gone through.

Maybe they shifted focus to Gemini and aren't pushing the political buttons needed to get it through.

Or, maybe, since Gemini is still not as big as they thought it could be they are buying time. In either case, I don't see an etf could work right now. too much debate is going on.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[European Central Bank]

Any word on that ETF those Twinkletossers were going to set up?

They last updated it in January 2015. Most people said that it usually takes a year from the last update so I figured it would have gone through.

Maybe they shifted focus to Gemini and aren't pushing the political buttons needed to get it through.

I thought they had to create Gemini mainly for the etf application. No way was it gona impress the sec with the shitty exchanges that were around at the time.