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

[jbreher]

Here is my 2 satoshi for what it's worth:

Block size, if handled correctly, will end up having nothing to do with scaling and everything to do with regulating compensation for miners. If miners are not being given enough incentive to provide sufficient security to the blockchain than blocks are too big, if the opposite is the case than blocks are too small. Scaling will have to come from second layer solutions. Some transactions will always need to be on chain, the value that people place on putting transactions on chain needs to be enough to compensate the miners, and in the absence of the ability to regulate demand, the only alternative is to regulate the supply of on chain space inorder to increase its price to the level necessary to accomplish this.

Yet we have known since Adam Smith that the hidden hand of the marketplace will ensure that the optimal solution is arrived at by letting prices find their own equilibrium. This has been more formalized in more recent times in that the price and quantity of a good will be set at the point where the demand/price curve and the supply/price curve intersect. Further still, dead losses are incurred any time production quotas are enforced. Given this, why do you assert the utility of a production quota on transaction throughput? Why not trust miners to set the tx throughput supply to maximize profit under the demand and supply curves?

[Rosewater Foundation]

Sorry BCash shilling fucktards, but your goose is cooked. You lost. It's over. In fact, BCash never stood a chance. It was DOA.

OTOH, BCH/BTC is quite positive -- ~20% -- on the week.

Cheers!

Cheap knock-off flippening drama. No wonder you're making your presence known.
Humbug.

No. Once again, I did not insert BCH into discourse. I was merely replying to Torque's objectively flawed assertion.

Daytraders gotta daytrade. You're all over this place when your pet project is pumping.

[Peter R]

Bigger blocks are a bandaid....

It's necessary. Just a matter of when.

Maybe as a soft fork.  

I suspect BTC won't be able to increase the block size limit directly (i.e., as a HF) without another blockchain split.

[jbreher]

Daytraders gotta daytrade. You're all over this place when your pet project is pumping.

Butthurt segwit maximalists misdirect their ire when Bitcoin Cash is enjoying a period of appreciation. Very loudly and very emphatically. Lashing out -- however inappropriately and however impotently -- against what they perceive as the foil of their pain. I merely reply.

I'm actually always all over this place. However, the most persistent and egregious untruths that would go unchallenged without my retort are false assertions about Bitcoin Cash.

I think of it as a service.

Cheers!

[Anon136]

Yet we have known since Adam Smith that the hidden hand of the marketplace will ensure that the optimal solution is arrived at by letting prices find their own equilibrium. This has been more formalized in more recent times in that the price and quantity of a good will be set at the point where the demand/price curve and the supply/price curve intersect. Further still, dead losses are incurred any time production quotas are enforced. Given this, why do you assert the utility of a production quota on transaction throughput?

The internal market dynamics of a crypto currency protocol is a completely synthetic environment. It's like the internal legers of a corporation. You need management to make decisions in a corporation, "the invisible hand" can not run your corporation for you and for the exact same reasons it can not manage the internal dynamics of a crypto currency. It can punish protocols that chose poorer strategies and reward those that choose better strategies, but it can not chose your strategies for you. In that sense it regulates the internal dynamics of crypto currency protocols but only in that sense.

Why not trust miners to set the tx throughput supply to maximize profit under the demand and supply curves?

Because miners do not have the same set of incentives that users have and the bitcoin exists to serve users not miners, miners too exist to serve users. Admittedly that's just my opinion, but I think most people here can agree with it.

[Paashaas]

I'll grant that Core's approach to scaling is slower than Cash's, but it certainly ain't safer.

Strange, i only see that argument coming from BCasher's, didn't expect less from Bcash shit noobs like you

[jbreher]

Because miners producers do not have the same set of incentives that users consumers have and the bitcoin product exists to serve users consumers not miners producers, miners producers too exist to serve users consumers.

So...
Cryptocurrencies -- specifically the market for tx inclusion -- are the one and only special case where the laws of economics do not apply?

(As an aside, I'm quite sure that, when the producers shut off their alarm clock at oh-dark-thirty, and wearily drag themselves out of bed to face another long grim day of producing, that doing it for the benefit of the exalted consumers ain't first and foremost on their minds)

[jbreher]

I'll grant that Core's approach to scaling is slower than Cash's, but it certainly ain't safer.

Strange, i only see that argument coming from BCasher's, didn't expect less from Bcash shit noobs like you

Once again, Paashaas yields a glancing and ineffectual blow, completely devoid of any cogent rebuttal.

[realr0ach]

Another day, another representative of the Jew World Order trying to disarm the population while flooding them with rapefugees that want to murder them (The Kalergi Plan):

[JimboToronto]

I cannot believe this shit.

I hop on a plane to Mexico with the price pushing $10k and less than 36 hours later it drops to $9.2k.

As Yogi Berra said, deja vu all over again.

Now someone will blame me for this crap. Go figure.

 

[Anon136]

Because miners producers do not have the same set of incentives that users consumers have and the bitcoin product exists to serve users consumers not miners producers, miners producers too exist to serve users consumers.

So...
Cryptocurrencies -- specifically the market for tx inclusion -- are the one and only special case where the laws of economics do not apply?

(As an aside, I'm quite sure that, when the producers shut off their alarm clock at oh-dark-thirty, and wearily drag themselves out of bed to face another long grim day of producing, that doing it for the benefit of the exalted consumers ain't first and foremost on their minds)

I don't have the patience to get into the weeds with you right now. I'm sure I could debate with you until the sun came up and you wouldn't yield, even if I was right and well articulated. Hopefully someone understood what I was saying.

[Derpinheimer2]

You... you quoted yourself in agreement.

Also, I fail to see why someone would buy loads of ETH to short it. I can't see a way for that to be profitable. You can't short your own position and make money.

Yeah, it makes total sense I do agree with myself, doesn't it?

Now seriously, I quoted it because I posted it several days ago before ETC started to pump and that's the reason I guess some people also thought the same. Or maybe it's just a random pump... who knows.

About the shorting ETH thing... well, that's how pump and dumps work.... some people pump it from point A, then more people FOMO in and keep raising the price to point B or C. Now the initial pumpers dump (or short) on the later.. profit! At least theoretically.

oh ok, but a pump and dump is not the same thing as shorting, just fyi.

Shorting involves borrowing something and selling it with the intent to buy back cheaper.

[TERA2]

If anyone ever wants to know why I sound cynical then this is why. God it's going to be so fun to quote all those arrogant posts if new lows come.

fun to revel in the misery of others???

sounds kinda sociopathic, 'bro'

L'Chaim, eh...?

No I just want specific people who were assholes to me to shut up or admit how stupid they were.

[cAPSLOCK]

It's necessary. Just a matter of when.

I'm not saying BTC doesn't need to eventually move over to larger blocks, but I support their slower, safer, forward-thinking, incremental approach to things.

I'll grant that Core's approach to scaling is slower than Cash's, but it certainly ain't safer.

Core is the name of the WALLET you trolling fuck.

Wait... did't I put you on ignore a million years ago??? I must have been curious and undid it.  Everyone does something stupid now and then.

[jbreher]

It's necessary. Just a matter of when.

I'm not saying BTC doesn't need to eventually move over to larger blocks, but I support their slower, safer, forward-thinking, incremental approach to things.

I'll grant that Core's approach to scaling is slower than Cash's, but it certainly ain't safer.

Core is the name of the WALLET you trolling fuck.

True to form. Do you feel your statement has shown my assertion to be false? Because your reply is a mere irrelevancy.

You obnoxious fuck. 

[bones261]

It's necessary. Just a matter of when.

I'm not saying BTC doesn't need to eventually move over to larger blocks, but I support their slower, safer, forward-thinking, incremental approach to things.

I'll grant that Core's approach to scaling is slower than Cash's, but it certainly ain't safer.

Core is the name of the WALLET you trolling fuck.

True to form. Do you feel your statement has shown my assertion to be false? Because your reply is a mere irrelevancy.

You obnoxious fuck.  

What do you expect? I'm sure if I decided to post in the BCH thread and called it BCASH, all of your friends would jump down my throat. If you can't bare to refer to BTC as Bitcoin, then just refer to it as BTC here. Fair enough?

[Elwar]

It's necessary. Just a matter of when.

I'm not saying BTC doesn't need to eventually move over to larger blocks, but I support their slower, safer, forward-thinking, incremental approach to things.

I'll grant that Core's approach to scaling is slower than Cash's, but it certainly ain't safer.

Core is the name of the WALLET you trolling fuck.

True to form. Do you feel your statement has shown my assertion to be false? Because your reply is a mere irrelevancy.

You obnoxious fuck.  

What do you expect? I'm sure if I decided to post in the BCH thread and called it BCASH, all of your friends would jump down my throat. If you can't bare to refer to BTC as Bitcoin, then just refer to it as BTC here. Fair enough?

Actually, calling it bcash on the BCH/USD Wall Observer thread is not only accepted, but encouraged.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3386487.msg35480059#msg35480059

[infofront]

Why is btrash doing so well ?

Probably because of the upcoming fork.
...

Proponents are looking forward to a 32 MB block size increase and op-code additions that could bring ethereum-like characteristics to the BCH network.

Jesus Titty-Fucking Christ.

The cancer that is BCash cannot die soon enough, along with Roger Ver.

Bigger blocks is a good thing. The problem is that they are being deceptive cunts. If we had chosen big blocks and they had chosen segwit, we would still think the same thing about them, and for the same reason. And be applauding ourselves for making the correct choice.

It's the people, not the tech.

Perhaps, but we do have better tech.

[becoin]

What's the drama? Bitmain's corporate bond (aka bcash) appreciated against bitcoin?

[jbreher]

It's necessary. Just a matter of when.

I'm not saying BTC doesn't need to eventually move over to larger blocks, but I support their slower, safer, forward-thinking, incremental approach to things.

I'll grant that Core's approach to scaling is slower than Cash's, but it certainly ain't safer.

Core is the name of the WALLET you trolling fuck.

True to form. Do you feel your statement has shown my assertion to be false? Because your reply is a mere irrelevancy.

You obnoxious fuck.  

What do you expect? I'm sure if I decided to post in the BCH thread and called it BCASH, all of your friends would jump down my throat.

Maybe. Personally, I just shrug it off. It is yet another irrelevancy meant to divert from the substance of dialogue. By calling it Core, I wasn't meaning to denigrate BTC. I erred. Sorry.

Though cAPSLOCK is still an obnoxious fuck.

If you can't bare to refer to BTC as Bitcoin, then just refer to it as BTC here. Fair enough?

If I do, can I expect that others will refrain from calling BCH BCash?

Yeah - that's what I thought.