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

[willope]

"Thumbs Up" if you bought at $200 and now are just sitting with popcorn and waiting to get free BTU altcoins.

 

[1714262581]

1714262581

[Ted E. Bare]

"Thumbs Up" if you bought at $200 and now are just sitting with popcorn and waiting to get free BTU altcoins.

 

I'm invested since $300, does that count?

[jbreher]

Wait a minute. Is BU another bitcoin or just a mining software cause I thought it was a software used to mine bitcoin.

BU is just Bitcoin. It is a fork of pre-segwit core, which has been modified to allow the market dictate max block size. The first time a miner mines a block larger than 1MB, it will result in the forking of the Bitcoin chain into two. Whether or not both forks have a viable future is currently unknowable. Whichever ends up the majority fork will no doubt be considered the real Bitcoin by the world at large. The expectation among the BU community is that the BU branch will be the overwhelming winner.

Storage isn't the real concern. It's RAM (in the short term) and bandwidth (in the slightly longer run).

RAM is cheap and getting cheaper. Bandwidth is cheap and getting cheaper.

At larger blocks (hence more tps) and larger databases, SSDs will be the only way to go. You can trade SSD for RAM all you want, but the truth is that expensive resources will be needed that are not easily available. Hence, decentralization goes down the drain.

For Bitcoin to be bitcoin, we need average JOE to be able to run a full client easily.

The expectation that the future health of the network depends upon people who will not spend 0.2 BTC on their machines is ludicrous.

It's not. For BU to reach 75%, Segwit must stay at 25% and 8MB must vanish!

Well, no. 8MB will happily validate larger blocks up to the 8MB limit. That'll likely be several years of BU compatibility. IOW, 8MB is counted into the tipping point.

[alexeft]

Storage isn't the real concern. It's RAM (in the short term) and bandwidth (in the slightly longer run).

RAM is cheap and getting cheaper. Bandwidth is cheap and getting cheaper.

At larger blocks (hence more tps) and larger databases, SSDs will be the only way to go. You can trade SSD for RAM all you want, but the truth is that expensive resources will be needed that are not easily available. Hence, decentralization goes down the drain.

For Bitcoin to be bitcoin, we need average JOE to be able to run a full client easily.

The expectation that the future health of the network depends upon people who will not spend 0.2 BTC on their machines is ludicrous.

No doubt those are becoming cheap and limits will have to be raised at some point. But this is not it.
At 1-2 $ per transaction, confirmation time is 10-20 minutes.

The rest are people who won't pay either because they are not in such a hurry, or because they are just spammers. No need to fill up our disks with that.

[Killerpotleaf]

Storage isn't the real concern. It's RAM (in the short term) and bandwidth (in the slightly longer run).

RAM is cheap and getting cheaper. Bandwidth is cheap and getting cheaper.

At larger blocks (hence more tps) and larger databases, SSDs will be the only way to go. You can trade SSD for RAM all you want, but the truth is that expensive resources will be needed that are not easily available. Hence, decentralization goes down the drain.

For Bitcoin to be bitcoin, we need average JOE to be able to run a full client easily.

The expectation that the future health of the network depends upon people who will not spend 0.2 BTC on their machines is ludicrous.

No doubt those are becoming cheap and limits will have to be raised at some point. But this is not it.
At 1-2 $ per transaction, confirmation time is 10-20 minutes.

The rest are people who won't pay either because they are not in such a hurry, or because they are just spammers. No need to fill up our disks with that.

look if a spammer is willing to pay 50cents pre TX and help support the network.
i'm OK with that.

but we all know this isn't spam...

[alexeft]

Storage isn't the real concern. It's RAM (in the short term) and bandwidth (in the slightly longer run).

RAM is cheap and getting cheaper. Bandwidth is cheap and getting cheaper.

At larger blocks (hence more tps) and larger databases, SSDs will be the only way to go. You can trade SSD for RAM all you want, but the truth is that expensive resources will be needed that are not easily available. Hence, decentralization goes down the drain.

For Bitcoin to be bitcoin, we need average JOE to be able to run a full client easily.

The expectation that the future health of the network depends upon people who will not spend 0.2 BTC on their machines is ludicrous.

No doubt those are becoming cheap and limits will have to be raised at some point. But this is not it.
At 1-2 $ per transaction, confirmation time is 10-20 minutes.

The rest are people who won't pay either because they are not in such a hurry, or because they are just spammers. No need to fill up our disks with that.

look if a spammer is willing to pay 50cents pre TX and help support the network.
i'm OK with that.

but we all know this isn't spam...

Exactly how do we know that?

[r0ach]

I dont think the risk/reward of the situation is reflected at a price of $1000+ right now.

It's not.  I expected the price to do this already without factoring a BU hardfork in at all.  So right now I feel like the market has not priced in any hardfork.  Meaning if no fork occurs, I guess it can hold this position, but if one does happen, it would likely dump:

This declining head and shoulders will probably make it dump again then bounce to $1050 or something:



I'm out again at $1168 (no idea why the price is that high right now) and will let this market marinate.

[Ibian]

So just a question to the small blocker crowd. Are you against the price going up? Because that will be the effect if the transaction volume stays at this level forever.

So to play devil's advocate, let me ask you a counter question:
Does the price not moving up from here (but stays the same relative to inflation) somehow violate the principles, tenants, or intended usage of bitcoin?

Another question:
How much of that current transaction volume is NOT traders trading to make a fiat profit?  Hmmm? 2-3%, maybe?

It would mean bitcoin never becomes more than a curiosity in the footnotes of history. A proof of concept at the absolute best. Why would we want that?

It doesn't matter what the purpose and intent of any part of the current transaction volume is. Especially when nobody can prove claims of that sort one way or another. Everyone pays their fees. And that's another thing that needs to be considered, bitcoin absolutely must be able to resist "spam attacks" or whatever jargon people cook up next time it happens. Otherwise it is simply not good enough for mass adoption.

And you did not answer the question.

[Kramerc]

"Thumbs Up" if you bought at $200 and now are just sitting with popcorn and waiting to get free BTU altcoins.

 

Amen. I won't even dump my BTU altcoins initially. I expect Roger "the president" Ver to attempt a pump first.

[Torque]

So just a question to the small blocker crowd. Are you against the price going up? Because that will be the effect if the transaction volume stays at this level forever.

So to play devil's advocate, let me ask you a counter question:
Does the price not moving up from here (but stays the same relative to inflation) somehow violate the principles, tenants, or intended usage of bitcoin?

Another question:
How much of that current transaction volume is NOT traders trading to make a fiat profit?  Hmmm? 2-3%, maybe?

It would mean bitcoin never becomes more than a curiosity in the footnotes of history. A proof of concept at the absolute best. Why would we want that?

It doesn't matter what the purpose and intent of any part of the current transaction volume is. Especially when nobody can prove claims of that sort one way or another. Everyone pays their fees. And that's another thing that needs to be considered, bitcoin absolutely must be able to resist "spam attacks" or whatever jargon people cook up next time it happens. Otherwise it is simply not good enough for mass adoption.

And you did not answer the question.

Price will always reflect demand > supply.  Not how fast transactions can be made.

I'm sure that the block size limit will be raised or modified at some point. But if so it will be for purely technical reasons, like when it is in support of another technical function/solution, or the timing is right. And it will make sense to everyone involved.

Certainly not because some 20-something whiny bitch mega miner throws a hissy-fit because he personally feels that the whole network is suffering badly (but secretly just wants more mining control and more $$$$).

He should have more humility, as should Roger Ver. It's the users of bitcoin that decide the demand and thus the price, not the miners, exchanges, brokers, or merchants.

[GreekGeek]

"Thumbs Up" if you bought at $200 and now are just sitting with popcorn and waiting to get free BTU altcoins.

 

I bought @ 2 USD  does that count ?

[Ibian]

So just a question to the small blocker crowd. Are you against the price going up? Because that will be the effect if the transaction volume stays at this level forever.

So to play devil's advocate, let me ask you a counter question:
Does the price not moving up from here (but stays the same relative to inflation) somehow violate the principles, tenants, or intended usage of bitcoin?

Another question:
How much of that current transaction volume is NOT traders trading to make a fiat profit?  Hmmm? 2-3%, maybe?

It would mean bitcoin never becomes more than a curiosity in the footnotes of history. A proof of concept at the absolute best. Why would we want that?

It doesn't matter what the purpose and intent of any part of the current transaction volume is. Especially when nobody can prove claims of that sort one way or another. Everyone pays their fees. And that's another thing that needs to be considered, bitcoin absolutely must be able to resist "spam attacks" or whatever jargon people cook up next time it happens. Otherwise it is simply not good enough for mass adoption.

And you did not answer the question.

Price will always reflect demand > supply.  Not how fast transactions can be made.

I'm sure that the block size limit will be raised or modified at some point. But if so it will be for purely technical reasons, like when it is in support of another technical function/solution, or the timing is right. And it will make sense to everyone involved.

Certainly not because some 20-something whiny bitch mega miner throws a hissy-fit because he personally feels that the whole network is suffering badly (but secretly just wants more mining control and more $$$$).

Kindly answer the question.

[r0ach]

bitcoin absolutely must be able to resist "spam attacks" or whatever jargon people cook up next time it happens. Otherwise it is simply not good enough for mass adoption.

Bitcoin and mass adoption?  MatTheCat doesn't even know how to properly set transaction fees to get included into the next block and he's been using bitcoin since 2012.  He kept complaining transactions take 3 hours to get into the next block.  I had to tell him how to do it and I think he still doesn't know how after I told him.  Not to mention the fact normal humans would also have to learn things like RBF and other such peculiarities on top of that, of which they're not really capable.

The only way bitcoin is getting mass adoption is if it functions as the back end of some type of system, but that would likely defeat the entire purpose.  Some entity would just do a switcharoo and change it to a fiat back end while maintaining the same front end (which is what would probably happen with LN eventually).  Metals ownership is only around 3/4th's of 1% of the US population and it requires no technical knowledge.  Metals ownership will likely soar as the economy blows up, but I don't think bitcoin ownership can do better than metals unless it functions as a back end system (which as I said, is probably pointless as a back end).

Any system of bitcoin as a back end will always be used by the state as a scam to trick people into a digital only, ban on cash slave system.  But they can also easily co-opt bitcoin through the legal system, the attack vector of the enormous physical size of mining pools, the fact that network traffic and transactions aren't obfuscated, etc.  It's kind of difficult to beat the state with bitcoin no matter what.  You can hide from the state with metals because they're incapable of surveiling physical space of the entire planet, but they can easily lock down the digital domain.

[Torque]

So just a question to the small blocker crowd. Are you against the price going up? Because that will be the effect if the transaction volume stays at this level forever.

So to play devil's advocate, let me ask you a counter question:
Does the price not moving up from here (but stays the same relative to inflation) somehow violate the principles, tenants, or intended usage of bitcoin?

Another question:
How much of that current transaction volume is NOT traders trading to make a fiat profit?  Hmmm? 2-3%, maybe?

It would mean bitcoin never becomes more than a curiosity in the footnotes of history. A proof of concept at the absolute best. Why would we want that?

It doesn't matter what the purpose and intent of any part of the current transaction volume is. Especially when nobody can prove claims of that sort one way or another. Everyone pays their fees. And that's another thing that needs to be considered, bitcoin absolutely must be able to resist "spam attacks" or whatever jargon people cook up next time it happens. Otherwise it is simply not good enough for mass adoption.

And you did not answer the question.

Price will always reflect demand > supply.  Not how fast transactions can be made.

I'm sure that the block size limit will be raised or modified at some point. But if so it will be for purely technical reasons, like when it is in support of another technical function/solution, or the timing is right. And it will make sense to everyone involved.

Certainly not because some 20-something whiny bitch mega miner throws a hissy-fit because he personally feels that the whole network is suffering badly (but secretly just wants more mining control and more $$$$).

Kindly answer the question.

You mean the part about small blockers wanting the price to go up? Sure, that would be nice. But not required.

Now how about you go back and answer the last three questions I asked you.

[Ibian]

So just a question to the small blocker crowd. Are you against the price going up? Because that will be the effect if the transaction volume stays at this level forever.

So to play devil's advocate, let me ask you a counter question:
Does the price not moving up from here (but stays the same relative to inflation) somehow violate the principles, tenants, or intended usage of bitcoin?

Another question:
How much of that current transaction volume is NOT traders trading to make a fiat profit?  Hmmm? 2-3%, maybe?

It would mean bitcoin never becomes more than a curiosity in the footnotes of history. A proof of concept at the absolute best. Why would we want that?

It doesn't matter what the purpose and intent of any part of the current transaction volume is. Especially when nobody can prove claims of that sort one way or another. Everyone pays their fees. And that's another thing that needs to be considered, bitcoin absolutely must be able to resist "spam attacks" or whatever jargon people cook up next time it happens. Otherwise it is simply not good enough for mass adoption.

And you did not answer the question.

Price will always reflect demand > supply.  Not how fast transactions can be made.

I'm sure that the block size limit will be raised or modified at some point. But if so it will be for purely technical reasons, like when it is in support of another technical function/solution, or the timing is right. And it will make sense to everyone involved.

Certainly not because some 20-something whiny bitch mega miner throws a hissy-fit because he personally feels that the whole network is suffering badly (but secretly just wants more mining control and more $$$$).

Kindly answer the question.

You mean the part about small blockers wanting the price to go up? Sure, that would be nice. But not required.

Now how about you go back and answer the last three questions I asked you.

A higher price is absolutely required if bitcoin is to become anything of lasting importance. This is basic stuff we went over years ago, what the fuck dude?

[Torque]

A higher price is absolutely required if bitcoin is to become anything of lasting importance. This is basic stuff we went over years ago, what the fuck dude?

So if nothing were to change to the current block size limit, you're saying that bitcoin won't have a higher price 3-5 years from now? Or even a decade from now?

I'm seriously doubting that. In fact, with no changes I think it would continue to outpace all other equities for the next decade.

[r0ach]

Now how about you go back and answer the last three questions I asked you.

A higher price is absolutely required if bitcoin is to become anything of lasting importance. This is basic stuff we went over years ago, what the fuck dude?

I guess he forgot the halvings are designed to force a ponzi element where either the price goes up or a large percent of miners go bankrupt.  And then current cost of production always negatively affects previously mined coins if current cost of production goes below cost of production when you bought in if the halving fails to perform it's ponzi magic.  This is why I say the value of bitcoin is based on it's cost of production and not scarcity as I talked about in this post:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1442399.msg18167916#msg18167916

[alexeft]

A higher price is absolutely required if bitcoin is to become anything of lasting importance. This is basic stuff we went over years ago, what the fuck dude?

So if nothing were to change to the current block size limit, you're saying that bitcoin won't have a higher price 3-5 years from now? Or even a decade from now?

I'm seriously doubting that. In fact, with no changes I think it would continue to outpace all other equities for the next decade.

Me too!

[Ibian]

A higher price is absolutely required if bitcoin is to become anything of lasting importance. This is basic stuff we went over years ago, what the fuck dude?

So if nothing were to change to the current block size limit, you're saying that bitcoin won't have a higher price 3-5 years from now? Or even a decade from now?

I'm seriously doubting that. In fact, with no changes I think it would continue to outpace all other equities for the next decade.

Not orders of magnitudes higher, and it would eventually die if nothing changes. Is that what you want? I insist that you answer this question, otherwise we are all forced to guess.

[Torque]

A higher price is absolutely required if bitcoin is to become anything of lasting importance. This is basic stuff we went over years ago, what the fuck dude?

So if nothing were to change to the current block size limit, you're saying that bitcoin won't have a higher price 3-5 years from now? Or even a decade from now?

I'm seriously doubting that. In fact, with no changes I think it would continue to outpace all other equities for the next decade.

Not orders of magnitude higher, and it would eventually die. Is that what you want? I insist that you answer this question, otherwise we are all forced to guess.

Oh silly me, you're so right Ibian... just change the block size limit to 8MB (or whatever), and the price will do a 10X overnight! Right?

In fact, if this is the assured answer/solution then why don't the BU gang just fork now and create their own altcoin called BTU with a 16MB block size. People will dump all their BTC and flock to it immediately!! People who didn't want any BTC will line up in droves to buy BTU. I'm sure it will skyrocket in price overnight, amI right??

So what are they waiting for? Let's see it!