Bitcoin Forum
November 23, 2020, 10:48:52 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.20.1 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Poll
Question: When ATH?
Nov. 2020 - 44 (35.5%)
Dec. 2020 - 43 (34.7%)
Jan. 2021 - 12 (9.7%)
Feb. 2021 - 5 (4%)
Mar. 2021 - 5 (4%)
After Mar. 2021 - 15 (12.1%)
Total Voters: 124

Pages: « 1 ... 27220 27221 27222 27223 27224 27225 27226 27227 27228 27229 27230 27231 27232 27233 27234 27235 27236 27237 27238 27239 27240 27241 27242 27243 27244 27245 27246 27247 27248 27249 27250 27251 27252 27253 27254 27255 27256 27257 27258 27259 27260 27261 27262 27263 27264 27265 27266 27267 27268 27269 [27270] 27271 27272 27273 27274 27275 27276 27277 27278 27279 27280 27281 27282 27283 27284 27285 27286 27287 27288 27289 27290 27291 27292 27293 27294 27295 27296 27297 27298 27299 27300 27301 27302 27303 27304 27305 27306 27307 27308 27309 27310 27311 27312 27313 27314 27315 27316 27317 27318 27319 27320 ... 27585 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion  (Read 24377181 times)
This is a self-moderated topic. If you do not want to be moderated by the person who started this topic, create a new topic. (151 posts by 39 users deleted.)
JayJuanGee
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2450
Merit: 3458


How much alt coin diversification is needed? 0%?


View Profile
September 19, 2020, 08:54:12 AM
Last edit: September 19, 2020, 09:13:05 AM by JayJuanGee

You would think an MIT grad and subsequent computer simulations modeler would've understood Bitcoin back in 2013.

I'm no MIT grad and I got it almost immediately back then.

Hell within a few days of research, I completely understood how groundbreaking a breakthrough it was, and how it would fundamentally change the financial world.

While that all makes sense, one must first actually stick their head in the rabbit hole before one can start to understand.

edit: 'tis one of my regrets that I did not give the rabbit hole more than a cursory glance at first sight. Oh well. C'est la guerre.

Huh, jbreher?

What's your rabbit hole story?  You may have said.  I cannot remember specifics.

You did not start buying BTC right away?  At least small amounts?  You may have sold too many too soon.  I think that i heard you reveal something like that, previously.

I've said a little. Perhaps not a lot. I was made aware in 2010. I already had a huge revulsion for the tenets of partial reserve banking, so I was primed. But I was A Busy Guy. No time to look into a neckbeard curiosity that had 'little chance of panning out' (i.e., I walked past the rabbit hole and noticed it's presence, but did not stick my head in).

O.k.  Well that is fair enough.  I think that with anything, we might not appreciate the gravity or importance of whatever that thing is, because I can hardly even imagine trying to study bitcoin at any time between 2007 and 2013, I had way too many other things on my plate to juggle, and sometimes I am even surprised that I made it through those years with the various things that I was juggling through that period (not that bitcoin was really even around or an option in 2007 or 2008 - and surely, most normies - meaning non-technical/non cypherpunk folks -like myself- would not have even heard of bitcoin in 2009 or even 2010 for that matter).


Even at that, I was buying well before I registered hereupon.  Ponderate upon that if you must.

Sure, that is a bit much to ponder, and I am not going to deny that you have much more of a technical (and software/computer specific) background than me, too.  My profession was much more general and social sciency than your background... so there is that different angle that might make it somewhat difficult for me to ponder too much.

No, I've not sold a whole lot. 'Divestment phase' != 'Liquidating out for stinky fiat'. At least not in my reading.

Thanks for clarifying that, and I don't really want to go there with you in regards to how you might be divesting or liquidating, and seems that we may have been using the terms a wee bit differently.

We both likely agree that there are likely longer term problems of holding too much fiat, but I doubt that we would disagree that holding some fiat can be quite helpful for living in the "real world" including if we have real world living expenses, and yeah I heard you updated from your shitty van to a nicer one (not that you are living in it.. hahahahaha... nothing wrong with that).. a couple years ago.. so that is great, those life pleasures cost monies.


I did ...lose a whole lot. In a boating accident couple of scammy scams. As said earlier, C'est la guerre.

I have had some decently BIG sized losses along the way, too, and of course, no one really likes losing money, but like you seem to be implying some of the losses might come with the territory, too.

I have probably been interacting with you since mid-to-late 2014.. perhaps early 2015, and seems that you had accumulated some BTC in Bitcoin's pre-2013 era.

Sure, maybe a lot of us do not accumulate as many BTC as we retroactively conclude that we should have, and of course, June 2011 would have given you a whole year to accumulate single digit BTC and then a bit more than another 1/2 year to acquire BTC in the teens (below $20).

Yup. Even after (significant) losses, my all-in cost for what I still hold is about $20 each.

I have a similar situation in terms of accounting for all or most of my losses, the amount of BTC price appreciation is still quite great, even if calculating all of the losses, even though the losses do bring up the cost per BTC - if attempting to make overall calculations.

Furthermore, I have found that sometimes the specifics can also get a little lost in the whole process of calculating, because for example, if there is a desire to calculate some costs and losses within a certain kind of category, then sometimes we might totally forget about some profits are losses that had already been totally accounted for and "written off" as compared with overall assets (and categories of assets) that we still might hold and be potentially juggling around from time to time.

By the way, I am no way trying to inquire about the size of your BTC stash because I hardly have any interest in comparing stash sizes or whatever or even proclaiming that I own more than a few BTC, but we must concede that it can make a whole hell of a lot of difference if guy might have acquired 500 BTC or more for $20 each or if a guy might be working with a stash of 10 or fewer BTC, which surely we should be able to imagine that amounts of BTC are more than just trivial amounts.  

Both you and I likely recognize some newbies (or even trolls) coming into the WO thread and proclaiming their various trading strategies, and blah blah blah, they are selling it all and blah blah blah, and they are working with fractions of a BTC as their whole stash, and sure these days fractions of a BTC can add up to a lot of money, but some of those shittwats were coming into this thread in 2015 (when BTC prices were largely in the mid $200s for most of the year) and trading fractions of a BTC while proclaiming their BTC strategies as if they were working with some kind of meaningful bank.



So, sure, there could have been some selling too much too soon.

Not at all. I have sold ... a little. For a good price. Anyone else here claiming they sold some at $20250?

(yes, I know you are wedded to stamp's numbers. But GDAX went above 20250)


Get out of here.... when we are talking about stamp, we are referring to price movements and price dynamics and general reference shit like that...

So sure, I understand that the price went higher on some exchanges at the peak in 2017, and even in S.Korea they had some prices in the $30k arena.. and sure some people might have been able to get their dollars out of those higher priced areas.. so sure, it can be a bit of a fair disclosure to have sold some BTC towards the top and above the top and all of that .. but neither you nor I have been working like that, for the most part both of us have been attempting to practice some variation of incrementalism, but sure, maybe even an incrementalist is going to engage in some lump summing here and there along the way.

I doubt that we are competing against each other in that regard.


Bueller...?

... Bueller...?*

*Fun factoid: The guy who played that teacher -- Ben Stein -- used to be President Richard M Nixon's speechwriter.

Another factoid I let slip a while back: At the top of the market in late 2017, I sold enough to buy My Personal Lambotm.  
I know about your mercedes or whatever it is.  No problem.  And, surely you are having some other pleasures along the way, too.

You know what, if you had put even any kind of decent stash in bitcoin at all and have average BTC prices of below $20-ish, then you should have no compunction at all about shaving off some BTC here and there along the way, unless you failed/refused to establish any kind of significant stash and maybe you only have less than 100 BTC, then you might be a bit more worried about shaving off some BTC along the way, here and there.  Perhaps?

Some of us are well into the divestment phase.  

Probably one of the first times that you mentioned that mostly "divestment phase" perspective of yourself.   Shocked Shocked

Again, not at all. From the same time frame as above: I have already stated that I have retired. Which means I need to fund my Lavish Lambo Lifestyletm* off my accumulated holdings. Hence, Divestment phase.

You are being a bit back and forth here... so you gotta admit that.  I had heard that you quit your regular job a couple of years ago.. so anyhow, that still would not necessarily mean that you are "well into the divestment phase" of your BTC unless you choose to start to make such divestments.  

People can retire from their regular JOBs, but that does not necessarily mean that they are immediately starting to draw into their BTC plan - so anyhow, you seem to be a bit all over the place in the way that you have been sharing some of these ideas.

All of a sudden,  you want to hold ur lil selfie out as a kind of baller?  Go figure?

I mean, if you can't connect 'retired from wage slave status' (even at a job I loved - and one upon which Bitcoin, computer networking, and pretty much any tech-touching field is utterly dependent upon my contributions to such) with 'divestment phase'? Well, then that's on you.

You can describe it how you like.  Whatever.. it is getting to be a bit much and a bit scrambled in my thinking.

Of course, you do not need to go on some beach and detach yourself from the world, anyhow, there might NOT be any need to go too much into any kind of detail in regards to how you might be getting more involved in shitcoins or whatever area that you might be aiming to divert this discussion.

*(Rhetorical question - if it is well within your means, is the Lavish Lambo Lifestyletm actually ... lavish?)

You had not been a lavish kind of guy in the past.  You were more of a practical kind of guy.. sure lavish here and there, but you hung onto your van for years and years, but now, you are wanting to hold ur lil selfie out as the lavish lambo kind of guy?

Don't get me wrong.  I have no problems in changing lifestyles and all of that, but for some strange reason you seem like you are leaning towards wanting to sell something rather than merely discussing what you may have meant by all of a sudden being "well into divestment" when you were not seemingly in that stage just a few years ago.. and even stating that you were not planning to make any sudden changes.. blah blah blah..

Could be one of the reasons that you seem to have a decent amount of relative valuing of dollars rather than bitcoin?  

How long have we known each other? If I valued USD more than Bitcoin, I'd have liquidated.

Fair enough.  I may have phrased that accusation, a bit badly.   Tongue Tongue

On the other hand, such a purported status would not seem to justify your seeming tendency to have been spending many years gambling with long shot bcash nonsenses.

So sue me. (I've got a pretty big war chest - you better be sure of your case).

You been taking litigation lessons from diptwats? Craig and Calvin.

Get the fuck out of here with your confrontation, nonsense.

No, I just think that a Bitcoin that has not been intentionally crippled by an insane, economically-ignorant restrictive production quota upon transaction capacity has more inherent value than one which has been so crippled. And that my thesis will be proven prescient come Blockalypse II. But you know this already.

Yes.  I have heard your nonsense proclamations previously, which largely amount to bashing bitcoin and pumping your shitcoin... Not really interested in getting into those details.. .. and so you are not really saying anything new that needs to be addressed, are you?

You also know that I am not in the BCH camp. I was until they started adopting pages from the Core/Blockstream playbook, and started adding gratuitous protocol changes. At which point, the standard-bearer for satoshi's original design was advanced by BSV.

I could give less than two shits about your desire to distinguish one variant of bcash from another variant of bcash.  They are both just differing variations of trash, and we need not attempt to further (and repeatedly) flesh out the details of any of that here (even if there might be some new developments), do we?

The confirmed science and math that Satoshi didn't understand has to do with how poorly this system functions as a currency. We tried it for a few years. It doesn't work. It's only a bad speculative vehicle, which now people realize and have been dumping for 4 years. The project failed. Neat idea, but fractional reserve banking is clearly better based on all proven and confirmed science and math. I'm glad Satoshi tried this out, but now we know it doesn't work and we can go back to the way things are proven to work best.

Too bad Satoshi wasn't a smart guy like Craig Wright.

To be fair, for the entire interval of satoshi's public involvement, transaction volume never came anywhere near the (relatively very high level for the time) blocksize cap that he enacted under prodding from his most significant collaborator.

Plus, he explicitly explained exactly how trivial it would be to increase said blocksize cap such that transaction volume was never artificially throttled. Extending to exemplary code. To the eventual exasperation of those of us who would like the system to exceed such exceedingly tiny limits. As reliance on such economicallly braindead external exigencies is extreme folly.

In other words, pretty much long settled that BIG blocks are not the way to go,

'Settled'? Au contraire mon frere.

I mean, if you think that the wise decision is to outsource your strategy to the 100 IQ masses, knock yourself out.

No - at the point that we've not even started up the S-Curve inflection point of adoption, it is waaaaay too early to be calling any sort of eventual winner.

Oh gawd!!!!!    Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes

Looks like you are all riled up at the moment, and not planning on giving up on your shitcoin any time soon (which I had not anticipated you to be going in the giving up direction, anyhow).  Currently, I am not really interested in repeating our battle in the direction of these various ongoing pie in the sky aspirations of yours and your shitcoin bed buddies.


Yep.

I was a bit struck too (or maybe the better word choice would be "awed"?), by the jbreher strategic placement of that unimportant metric.
Goat says: "Bitcoin is NOT Illegal in Thailand. There is no law against Bitcoin in Thailand!"
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1606171732
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1606171732

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1606171732
Reply with quote  #2

1606171732
Report to moderator
1606171732
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1606171732

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1606171732
Reply with quote  #2

1606171732
Report to moderator
friends1980
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1120
Merit: 492


★Bitvest.io★ Play Plinko or Invest!


View Profile
September 19, 2020, 09:25:42 AM


El Royal Dudeness, is this the Dude drinking a scented candle, and if so, which scent?



[edit: original way of beating bad breath though]

Gwynneth Paltrow's vijayjay.
(...)

Talking about a gap in the market...
vapourminer
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3066
Merit: 1698


what is this "brake pedal" you speak of?


View Profile
September 19, 2020, 09:39:48 AM
Last edit: September 19, 2020, 09:58:01 AM by vapourminer

Almost all bitcoin transactions in the future will be done on exchanges, between bank accounts, or through digital warehouses without any bitcoin moving on chain. I'm not holding mine like that but you know most people and companies will, out of fear or because they don't know any other way.

Nice list.  You are basically describing a centralized shitcoin that’s like meta-Paypal 2.0 with magic “blockchain” pixie dust sprinkled on top.  Who needs it?  (Not the banks, who do not like transparent blockchains for their own use!  There is a reason why JPMorgan Chase (!) paid the erstwhile Zcash Company to adapt zk-SNARKs to their own bigbank confidentiality requirements.  See also Greg Maxwell’s discussions of bigcorp interest in Confidential Transactions—which are accordingly implemented in Blockstream’s Liquid.  Only idiots make their own finances publicly transparent; bigcorps are not so stupid.)

Notably, you omitted Lightning Network, and other off-chain things not under the control of banks and other regulated corporations.

The end game is bitcoin becomes the settlement layer for the world. Transaction costs are going way up in the future, you're not going to want to do on-chain transactions when it costs $1000+ to do so, but if you're settling a billions dollars, that's a tiny price to pay.

The fact is, whether we like it or not, very few individuals (other than those of us here) will hold private keys in 10 years. The transaction costs alone will ensure it.

That would turn Bitcoin into a bankers’ wet dream:  The totally controlled, centralized, regulated basis for a cashless dystopia in which everybody can be tracked, traced, and forced to ask permission to use money.

That is not a new allegation, and it’s not true.

The fact is, whether you the bankers like it or not, cryptographic cleverness will continue to enable technologies that put the individual in direct control of his own money.

most people ive talked to about bitcoin think like rolling is posting right now. so i talk about seeds private keys wallets lightning confirmations etc? i usually get wtf as an answer

so i tell them open an account at coinbase (USA) and yeah bad rap but ive had em for like seven years no problem. i tell them just leave it there. later i can explain the real deal but i gaurentee only one in five would care; the rest would leave the coin there and use it as their main wallet. so yeah those are gonna be off chain once coinbase hooks to all those merchant payment portals. all just internal database entries.

600watt
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2226
Merit: 1765



View Profile
September 19, 2020, 10:29:47 AM
Merited by Toxic2040 (3), Paashaas (1)

in his worldwide bestseller "Sapiens - A brief history of humankind" (which is a great book, that I can deeply recommend, even for historians) Harari explains why our ability to cooperate with strangers to build kingdoms and other large entities was an important driving force of history. shared beliefs (or intersubjective truths) like religions and money were the tools humans used to cooperate. progress was happening but was relatively slow. then came the invention of limited corporations (yet another shared belief/intersubjective truth) a few hundred years ago. since then we treat limited corporations as legal entities that can be sued and held liable for their actions/products. (before that the liability was always on the founder/owner and that crippled any progress for millennia.) Harari argues that it was the invention of limited companies that brought all the economic progress of the last couple of hundred years. he writes it was capitalism via limited companies, technology and science that were the main driving forces.

bitcoin is on its way to deliver another big leap forward: since the invention of the bitcoin consensus algorithm there now exists an entity that not only nobody is liable for, but nobody owns and controls it. and this algorithm is the first entity in history that you as an individual or through a company can sell energy for money directly to it. no permission needed, no license, and it does not matter from where or how you do it: if you deliver energy towards the consensus algorithm, it will pay you money and it cannot and will never cheat or behave unexpectedly. it is globally automated energy-for-money trading that anyone can participate.   on a global scale, 24/7, all year long the algo will pay everyone that delivers energy.

the energy sector will transform towards much greater efficiency, energy can be converted directly to money.

this is big.
criptix
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2310
Merit: 1136


View Profile
September 19, 2020, 10:38:43 AM
Merited by Hueristic (1)

I sighted a whale  Cool

https://twitter.com/michael_saylor/status/1306940165160656897?s=20


Quote
To acquire 16,796 BTC (disclosed  9/14/20), we traded continuously 74 hours, executing 88,617 trades ~0.19 BTC each 3 seconds. ~$39,414 in BTC per minute, but at all times we were ready to purchase $30-50 million in a few seconds if we got lucky with a 1-2% downward spike.


So next time you think it is some MM or wash trader, it might be a hedgefund buying bitcoins Wink



Btw. from the same whale wrt off-chain transactions:

https://twitter.com/michael_saylor/status/1306697752714383363?s=20

Quote
If #Bitcoin is treated as a treasury reserve asset, based on our model, 99.98% of all transactions will be off-chain, and assets-at-risk will be in cold storage 99.92% of the time.
BobLawblaw
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 350
Merit: 2750


Mostly recovered former angry guy


View Profile
September 19, 2020, 11:49:46 AM

Bitcorn is having some morning wood.
aesma
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246
Merit: 619


fly or die


View Profile
September 19, 2020, 12:04:04 PM

Green green green ding ding ding !
cAPSLOCK
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 2744
Merit: 1942


Inverse Bearish Spike Indicator!


View Profile
September 19, 2020, 12:33:52 PM
Last edit: September 19, 2020, 12:54:58 PM by cAPSLOCK
Merited by El duderino_ (7), AlcoHoDL (3), Hueristic (2), vapourminer (1), Paashaas (1), kurious (1), 600watt (1), jojo69 (1), P_Shep (1), HeRetiK (1), friends1980 (1), Toxic2040 (1), rolling (1), gappie (1)



The end game is bitcoin becomes the settlement layer for the world. Transaction costs are going way up in the future, you're not going to want to do on-chain transactions when it costs $1000+ to do so, but if you're settling a billions dollars, that's a tiny price to pay.

The fact is, whether we like it or not, very few individuals (other than those of us here) will hold private keys in 10 years. The transaction costs alone will ensure it.


**A little Saturday read inspired by your post... I will merit you, but I just dumped all my merit on Hal Finney.  You can't be mad about that right?***

This is a very hard thing for the old school bitcoiner to accept.  And some will reject it outright. In fact that is why Roger Ver went the way he did.  I think CSW is an actual pathological conman, but I think Ver fell in love with a version of Bitcoin that he began to see as doomed, ironically as it began to become successful. But I want to put forth a couple reasons I think what you said above is important and inevitable.  

1.  The banking infrastructure  and concept is STILL useful.
2.  We actually NEED it.

The first bitcoin transaction I did in 2011 was to a poker site (bitco.in, as Seals with Clubs did not even exist yet!)  The whole reason I went to the trouble to get my hands on some bitcoin was to play online poker with it.  But like so many of us, along this path I suddenly saw what being able to transact value without a middleman FELT LIKE.  The lightbulb turned on... one pill will make you smaller, etc.  And it stuck.  My poor wife.  She has had to listen to a decade of it.

For some reason it is not as hard for me to accept as it seems to be VER.  It is inevitable.  Bitcoin, if it does indeed begin to serve the world as even a semi-niche store of value will grow to magnitudes of it's current resource usage.  And I am not going to crank the blocksize debate up again, but to put it simply we can either keep bitcoin validation decentralized and thereby enforce the consensus, or we can let it be taken over by a small minority, and end up with a digital panopticon that would make most fundamentalist evangelical's vision of the "mark of the beast" look like Monopoly.  The fight is over which resource use grows... and the market has, in some way against all odds, chosen correctly: Fees.

I agree with the market here and I realize the future is not what, even Satoshi, seemed to have seen.  Although Hal got it.  And WAAAAAY back then too...

I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash. Most Bitcoin transactions will occur between banks, to settle net transfers. Bitcoin transactions by private individuals will be as rare as... well, as Bitcoin based purchases are today.

2010, y'all! Smiley

And we are watching this unfold right under our noses.  But most people don't really see it yet.  There are a lot of contenders, and people tend to look at the exchanges and talk about them being the bitcoin banks... and behold JUST THIS WEEK the news hit that Kraken was granted the whatever-it-is regulatory powers to become a BANK.  But even more than that, I think the underestimated and EXTREMELY Savvy @jack is already a little ahead of them in some ways with Square/Cash App. Not only is it one of the best places to buy bitcoin, but he is laying the groundwork for all commerce to be done using his application.  They just introduced some sort of payroll feature.  This makes Wells Fargo look like a fucking brontosaurus looking at the curious bright streak coming through the sky called Cash App. "Oooh pretty!"

And then we have Jack Mallers, the grandson of one of the founding fathers of the Chicago Board Options Exchange who is doing one of the most interesting projects laying down a REAL, WORKING payment layer for Bitcoin using the lightning network.  This ultra laid back hoodie wearing millennial (Gen Z-er?) stands to create an even bigger legacy than either of his ancestors.  He is quietly laying the groundwork for a bulletproof bitcoin payment network, that SETTLES on the main chain.

Boom.

Credit card terminals are not going away.  Banks are not going away. Loans and mortgages and myriad other financial instruments are not going away.  The vision of each bitcoiner living in a citadel guarding his 8 of 15 multisig seed word stashes served by his farm of nodes all running mixing protocols and so on is a "Mountain Man Fantasy".  And some of those mountain men will doubtless exist.  But in reality the VAST majority of humans could never handle that amount of responsibility.  They want to pay someone else to guard their value for them.  Someone who is an expert in the kind of security needed to safeguard value, and now with the added wrinkles and challenges presented by cryptography.  Perhaps someone who offers insurance against a failure or theft. Someone who does all the dirtywork behind the scenes so you can buy your iconic cup of coffee without having to remember a 19 character password.  

Those someones are called "banks".  Or, at least that's what they used to be called.  This level of disruption is big enough that they COULD end up with a different name.

Actually there is a very good reason for Bitcoin-backed banks to exist, issuing their own digital cash currency, redeemable for bitcoins. Bitcoin itself cannot scale to have every single financial transaction in the world be broadcast to everyone and included in the block chain. There needs to be a secondary level of payment systems which is lighter weight and more efficient. Likewise, the time needed for Bitcoin transactions to finalize will be impractical for medium to large value purchases.

Bitcoin backed banks will solve these problems. They can work like banks did before nationalization of currency. Different banks can have different policies, some more aggressive, some more conservative. Some would be fractional reserve while others may be 100% Bitcoin backed. Interest rates may vary. Cash from some banks may trade at a discount to that from others.

That was a very wise man seeing the rise of Cash App, Strike, and Kraken back when everyone else was just wanting to figure out how to get around all the regulations that made it hard to play online poker.  Insert Ver's scrunched up face here as he foams at the mouth taking about PEER TO PEER CASH!!! AND I AM SORRY I JUST GET SO EMOTIONAL!

No one can stop you from using the chain.  Ever.  That is CERTAINLY one of the things that makes bitcoin a "zero to one" invention.  But if you really want to compete for the kind of VALUE that Bitcoin will command and REQUIRE for on chain transactions??? ...better get that business plan ready.  And there are some fairly smart folks out there with a good head start on you already.  Bitcoin is not replacing credit cards... Bitcoin is replacing FedWire.

If we want Bitcoin to be successful then this is where we are going.  And we should really be glad.  It might not look like what we all thought it would 10 years ago (or 7 or 3 or last week), and part of the reason for that is our vision is limited.  We get hung up, like Ver, on shiny things that look more important than they are.

That feeling you got when you did your first few Bitcoin transactions?  It's not going away.  It's just changing form.  And you are one of the lucky ones that got to experience that first.  Most people will have the much more ho-hum feeling of just watching the mover and shakers roll out the new world for them...

Quote
Personally, I'm pulling out the champaign that market behaviour is indeed producing activity levels that can pay for security without inflation, and also producing fee paying backlogs needed to stabilize consensus progress as the subsidy declines.
-Greg Maxwell around the BTC all time high Dec 2017. https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-December/015455.html

Happy Saturday!
Paashaas
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2506
Merit: 2110



View Profile
September 19, 2020, 12:40:05 PM

cAPSLOCK how are you doing these says, still having bad says at work ore are you more relaxed than before?
cAPSLOCK
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 2744
Merit: 1942


Inverse Bearish Spike Indicator!


View Profile
September 19, 2020, 12:50:03 PM

cAPSLOCK how are you doing these says, still have bad says at work ore are you more relaxed than before?
Lol.  I am great.

I didn't meant to be overly whiny a couple days ago... I am a musician... one of my gifts is expressing emotion.  And I was so tired of my job that day.  And I know I am not the only one here, that even though we know where we are headed, are like a little kid in the car on the way to vacation. WHEN WILL WE GET THERE?!??!

But yeah... I was up at 0530 this morning because I could not sleep because of a change I put into the Electronic Medical Record for a 16 facility hospital system that had a small, but not insignificant error.  So I had to get up super early on Saturday to fix it.

My job is kinda stressful.  In some ways it's like being an air traffic controller for healthcare.

I still look forward to handing in my resignation. Although i REALLY REALLY appreciate, and for the most part enjoy my job.

Sometime in the next 5 years, I believe.

How are YOU doin? Smiley
rolling
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 713
Merit: 636


View Profile
September 19, 2020, 12:52:02 PM
Merited by cAPSLOCK (1), P_Shep (1)

how do you determine on-chain transations to cost so much?

He can’t.  His post is just a roundabout way of saying, “Bitcoin cannot scale, and will thus become a banker’s toy as bone-crushing transaction fees force everybody into the next generation of Paypal.”  Baloney.

Almost all bitcoin transactions in the future will be done on exchanges, between bank accounts, or through digital warehouses without any bitcoin moving on chain. I'm not holding mine like that but you know most people and companies will, out of fear or because they don't know any other way.

Nice list.  You are basically describing a centralized shitcoin that’s like meta-Paypal 2.0 with magic “blockchain” pixie dust sprinkled on top.  Who needs it?  (Not the banks, who do not like transparent blockchains for their own use!  There is a reason why JPMorgan Chase (!) paid the erstwhile Zcash Company to adapt zk-SNARKs to their own bigbank confidentiality requirements.  See also Greg Maxwell’s discussions of bigcorp interest in Confidential Transactions—which are accordingly implemented in Blockstream’s Liquid.  Only idiots make their own finances publicly transparent; bigcorps are not so stupid.)

Notably, you omitted Lightning Network, and other off-chain things not under the control of banks and other regulated corporations.

The end game is bitcoin becomes the settlement layer for the world. Transaction costs are going way up in the future, you're not going to want to do on-chain transactions when it costs $1000+ to do so, but if you're settling a billions dollars, that's a tiny price to pay.

I could see perhaps something on the order of magnitude of $100 (in today’s current value) on-chain transaction costs, but $1000+?  Smells like FUD.

Bitcoin needs to be accessible to even relatively poor individuals for long-lived channel management on a future L2:  Scrape together, say, $100 to open a channel that runs for years.  N.b., I am not saying it will cost that much!  Just taking that as a figure that will seem high to most people, it would be less expensive overall, amortized over the channel lifetime, than the ripoff fees that regulated money transmitters charge to the “unbanked” in many regions.  Proportionately, the poor always get ripped off the worst!  Speaking from experience—if I had back all of the money that I have ever paid to move small amounts of money without a bank account...

That is not some bleeding-heart egalitarian hogwash.  It is simply a functional description of what is necessary to be something other than just another bankers’ tool.

$1000+ tx fees would mean that Bitcoin is destined to fail—or worse, to become an abomination against financial freedom—and that I should dump it and get out right now.

Fortunately, I do not believe you.  On-chain scalability improvements, combined with off-chain layering, must and will keep “Be Your Own Bank” financial independence within the reach of ordinary individuals—including those who are not early-entrant “Bitcoin rich”.  Just look at the excellent work in Segwit v1, soon nascent, and then consider what the same types of continuing incremental improvements will bring to the baselayer—and what types of new protocols they will support.

The fact is, whether we like it or not, very few individuals (other than those of us here) will hold private keys in 10 years. The transaction costs alone will ensure it.

That would turn Bitcoin into a bankers’ wet dream:  The totally controlled, centralized, regulated basis for a cashless dystopia in which everybody can be tracked, traced, and forced to ask permission to use money.

That is not a new allegation, and it’s not true.

The fact is, whether you the bankers like it or not, cryptographic cleverness will continue to enable technologies that put the individual in direct control of his own money.

Sounds like the kind of rant the bigblockers went on just prior to forking off. You are welcome to get out now and go chase another shitcoin dream. Bitcoin will be just fine without you.

The free market will decide what Bitcoin becomes, not an opinion of what it should be. For better or for worse, those with all the money now, will largely be the ones with all the money in the future. Bitcoin is open to everyone including the banks, governments, and billionaires. This will push out the little guy, just like in every other industry in history.

99% of people don't have the mental ability to deal with private keys, wallets or anything of the sort. They want a bank account and a debit card. Their attention span is about 3 seconds. There is no way they will ever grasp crypto. They may want to invest in crypto or hold it but it will be at a bank or brokerage and governments will impose their restrictions on those accounts just like they are doing now.

On-chain will be for the big boys. If you don't like it, become one of the big boys by filling your bags now while BTC is still dirt cheap.
friends1980
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1120
Merit: 492


★Bitvest.io★ Play Plinko or Invest!


View Profile
September 19, 2020, 01:06:46 PM
Merited by Toxic2040 (1)

in his worldwide bestseller "Sapiens - A brief history of humankind" (which is a great book, that I can deeply recommend, even for historians)

(...)

bitcoin is on its way to deliver another big leap forward

(...)

Discovered and read it during the lockdown (thank you Wuhan), instant classic which you simply can't put down. You can borrow it for free on The Archive.
AlcoHoDL
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1106
Merit: 1184


Addicted to HoDLing!


View Profile
September 19, 2020, 01:09:27 PM


The end game is bitcoin becomes the settlement layer for the world. Transaction costs are going way up in the future, you're not going to want to do on-chain transactions when it costs $1000+ to do so, but if you're settling a billions dollars, that's a tiny price to pay.

The fact is, whether we like it or not, very few individuals (other than those of us here) will hold private keys in 10 years. The transaction costs alone will ensure it.


**A little Saturday read inspired by your post... I will merit you, but I just dumped all my merit on Hal Finney.  You can't be mad about that right?***

[...post too long for quoting, body removed, click here to go to it...]

Happy Saturday!

Very good post, thanks.

I hope jbreher and the other big blockers read it (I'm saying this in a positive way, not intending to offend anyone...).

Happy Saturday everyone!
600watt
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2226
Merit: 1765



View Profile
September 19, 2020, 01:17:01 PM
Merited by JayJuanGee (1)

banks existed for 500 years. their business model is to allocate our money over space and time. for 500 years there was no better way to send money to someone than using a bank. it became so embedded in our lives and minds that banks are custodians of our money that we started to believe it's natural that they keep&handle our money. now, with bitcoin achieving digital scarcity, that 500 year old business model is threatened. with bitcoin and some more adoption the "be your own bank" meme is true.

but... as mentioned by capslock, that does not mean they go away tomorrow. ever since desktop publishing the paperless office did not happen. there is the digital web with news sites, but you can still buy a printed newspaper. there are ebooks, but lots of people (like myself) prefer analog books.

if something was dominant for 500 years it will stay another 50 years even with business model gone digital and p2p.
nullius
Copper Member
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 448
Merit: 2043


There is only one Bitcoin.


View Profile WWW
September 19, 2020, 01:45:16 PM
Merited by Paashaas (1)

Ancient modern history dates back to ancient Greece? Mhe... when great Greek cholars like Thales, Hippocrates, Pythagoras, Socrates, Plato and Aristotle arrived in Egypt the great pyramids of Egypt where already ancient.

Perhaps that may be why the Greeks accorded the Egyptians a great respect for their antiquity.

Why the need to discount the Greeks?

The Greeks invented the philosophical, naturalistic way of thinking that is the foundation of modern science.  Other great civilizations existed; but outside of a few relatively isolated instances of inspired thinkers, their investigations of the natural world were mostly pragmatic, and they never even thought to be objective.  Insofar as is known to history, only the Greeks developed a trend toward doing what later became science and moreover, doing it for its own sake.  Thus, the modern world does indeed descend from the Greeks.

Without the Greeks, you would not now have the Internet with which to make that post, and there would be no TV and smartphones...  Wait, now I hate the Greeks.  Damn it, they also invented democracy.  Lunatics.  The ancient Egyptians, Hindus, and Chinese were much wiser and moreover, saner!

I love history it gets really crazy the more i search.

Most of what you think you know about history is wrong.

That’s not personal.  It is just a general observation.  Most of what people believe to be “history” is fake news, either twisted or just made up by somebody with an agenda somewhere along the line—the Bible being only the worst and most notorious example.  Indeed, if you want a neat demonstration of just how bad the problem is, peruse the idiot-bait on Wikipedia and follow the “verifiable” citations to so-called “scholars” who crank out arrant nonsense “supporting” or “investigating” the historicity of completely fictional stories.



I wrote the foregoing yesterday, but did not consider it to be finished.  I have not edited it, because I really think it’s done now:

in his worldwide bestseller "Sapiens - A brief history of humankind" (which is a great book, that I can deeply recommend, even for historians) Harari explains why our ability to cooperate with strangers to build kingdoms and other large entities was an important driving force of history. shared beliefs (or intersubjective truths) like religions and money were the tools humans used to cooperate. progress was happening but was relatively slow. then came the invention of limited corporations (yet another shared belief/intersubjective truth) a few hundred years ago. since then we treat limited corporations as legal entities that can be sued and held liable for their actions/products. (before that the liability was always on the founder/owner and that crippled any progress for millennia.) Harari argues that it was the invention of limited companies that brought all the economic progress of the last couple of hundred years. he writes it was capitalism via limited companies, technology and science that were the main driving forces.

Nice narrative.  And another case in point.

Ironically, just now when I saw this, I was writing a condemnation of Globalist Capitalism—another guise of International Communism, with stock market enterprises that own the State in lieu of State-owned enterprises.

Highlighting has been very purposefully selected, word by word.  The tail wagging this historical dog has been underlined.



Edit:

"Sapiens - A brief history of humankind"

Discovered and read it during the lockdown (thank you Wuhan), instant classic which you simply can't put down. You can borrow it for free on The Archive.

Being anti-copyright in principle, I just checked:  Several copies in multiple languages are available on libgen.  Just in case you do not want to “borrow” with DRM invading your computer, or fork over to a bigcorp propaganda mill.
cAPSLOCK
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 2744
Merit: 1942


Inverse Bearish Spike Indicator!


View Profile
September 19, 2020, 01:46:09 PM

banks existed for 500 years. their business model is to allocate our money over space and time. for 500 years there was no better way to send money to someone than using a bank. it became so embedded in our lives and minds that banks are custodians of our money that we started to believe it's natural that they keep&handle our money. now, with bitcoin achieving digital scarcity, that 500 year old business model is threatened. with bitcoin and some more adoption the "be your own bank" meme is true.

but... as mentioned by capslock, that does not mean they go away tomorrow. ever since desktop publishing the paperless office did not happen. there is the digital web with news sites, but you can still buy a printed newspaper. there are ebooks, but lots of people (like myself) prefer analog books.

if something was dominant for 500 years it will stay another 50 years even with business model gone digital and p2p.

I agree with this entirely.  Where I see nuance is in the realm of the definition of "bank".  Taken as a whole banks perform several ultimately essential functions.  Essential as in "somebody's gotta do em".  It's like plumbing.  Something we take for granted entirely, but an age old trade without which the world as we know it would not even be CLOSE to being able to exist.

Just as email replaced some of the functions of the post office, it did not replace them all.  And other functions like package delivery became MUCH more important in the internet age thanks to Amazon, EBay et al.

So the successful banks for the future will be the ones that isolate the still needed functions that work as the "plumbing" of digital society.

-Payments
-Security
-Contracts

I think these are the areas where banks will need to focus.  The first one scales bitcoin.  The second keeps it safe, and helps it remain legitimate.  The third?  Well that's the really fun one.  All kinda of conditional financial instruments will be coded into banking PLATFORMS.  Ethereum has the mindshare on this, but many will realize that a blockchain is actually NOT where we want to do contracts.  Contracts will be anchored in Bitcoin and run atop using proprietary trusted systems, just like it is now.

As those systems emerge, the ones that are proved to be needed, and can be replaced safely and efficiently in the FOSS world will be.

Ethereum has it backwards, IMHO.  It's a hammer looking for nails.  The tools we need will be developed FOR the needs, and most likely rooted into the security of Bitcoin.
 
LUCKMCFLY
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148
Merit: 1085



View Profile WWW
September 19, 2020, 02:01:20 PM

Hi guys, it's nice to read this type of article where you keep encouraging hodl ..

New Bitcoin bull run? Whales and institutions accumulating, data shows

Quote
Bitcoin continues to retest $11,000 as market data hint at an optimistic trend



Source: https://cointelegraph.com/news/new-bitcoin-bull-run-whales-and-institutions-accumulating-data-shows

Hueristic
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2548
Merit: 1796


Doomed to see the future and unable to prevent it


View Profile
September 19, 2020, 03:07:44 PM
Merited by El duderino_ (4), philipma1957 (1), JimboToronto (1), nullius (1)

I am in Bitcoin because, in my confirmed empirical experience, the banking system “doesn’t work well”. 

Banking is working Exactly as intended, to control people.
hv_
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1750
Merit: 690

Clean Code and Scale


View Profile WWW
September 19, 2020, 03:11:07 PM


The end game is bitcoin becomes the settlement layer for the world. Transaction costs are going way up in the future, you're not going to want to do on-chain transactions when it costs $1000+ to do so, but if you're settling a billions dollars, that's a tiny price to pay.

The fact is, whether we like it or not, very few individuals (other than those of us here) will hold private keys in 10 years. The transaction costs alone will ensure it.


**A little Saturday read inspired by your post... I will merit you, but I just dumped all my merit on Hal Finney.  You can't be mad about that right?***

[...post too long for quoting, body removed, click here to go to it...]

Happy Saturday!

Very good post, thanks.

I hope jbreher and the other big blockers read it (I'm saying this in a positive way, not intending to offend anyone...).

Happy Saturday everyone!

The electronic settlement layer of the world will be adopted cause of efficiency, cheap txs by good enough security and simplest stable protocol design where no consensus governance is ever neede cause it was set in stone 10y ago.

I wonder why it's hard to see and get real on that

But it ll take time, cause the globe still thinks best option is Corda (by Mike Hearn) , Hyperledger by IBM or DAML ... cause here they ve minimal governance/ compliance risks and easy smart contract solutions in once.

Why go on open system if risks are too high by any means?

Set things in stone is first option to reduce risks, not some 'high' market cap
nullius
Copper Member
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 448
Merit: 2043


There is only one Bitcoin.


View Profile WWW
September 19, 2020, 03:34:20 PM

Nice rant, rolling, loaded with bait-and-switch rhetorical chicanery, bold inversions of the truth, and some smug attempts to intimidate by bluster a nobody who is not thereby impressed.

What it boils down to, in translation:  “Banks and financial manipulators rule the world, whether you like it or not—nyah, nyah!

First, the bait and switch—I replied to this point, which I will quote at some length so as to make obvious the obvious:

how do you determine on-chain transations to cost so much?

He can’t.  His post is just a roundabout way of saying, “Bitcoin cannot scale, and will thus become a banker’s toy as bone-crushing transaction fees force everybody into the next generation of Paypal.”  Baloney.

[...]

The end game is bitcoin becomes the settlement layer for the world. Transaction costs are going way up in the future, you're not going to want to do on-chain transactions when it costs $1000+ to do so, but if you're settling a billions dollars, that's a tiny price to pay.

I could see perhaps something on the order of magnitude of $100 (in today’s current value) on-chain transaction costs, but $1000+?  Smells like FUD.

[...]

The fact is, whether we like it or not, very few individuals (other than those of us here) will hold private keys in 10 years. The transaction costs alone will ensure it.

That would turn Bitcoin into a bankers’ wet dream:  The totally controlled, centralized, regulated basis for a cashless dystopia in which everybody can be tracked, traced, and forced to ask permission to use money.

That is not a new allegation, and it’s not true.

The fact is, whether you the bankers like it or not, cryptographic cleverness will continue to enable technologies that put the individual in direct control of his own money.

Whereupon you ignore what I said (just as you pointedly omitted Lightning from your list of off-chain transaction media), and jump from quote-unquote “the transaction costs alone will ensure it” to:

99% of people don't have the mental ability to deal with private keys, wallets or anything of the sort. They want a bank account and a debit card. Their attention span is about 3 seconds. There is no way they will ever grasp crypto. They may want to invest in crypto or hold it but it will be at a bank or brokerage and governments will impose their restrictions on those accounts just like they are doing now.

So, which is it, rolling?

Is your argument that most people are passive, ovine meat-robots?  I would not argue with that.  I did not argue with your brief mention of that point in your prior post—which was tossed off seemingly obiter dictum, amidst your vehement insistence on the primacy of transaction costs.  Actually, mass stupidity is the principal point of a plurality of my recent writings.

Or is your argument that “transaction costs alone will ensure” that individuals who want financial freedom will be unable to control their own money unless they are rich?

Sounds like the kind of rant the bigblockers went on just prior to forking off. You are welcome to get out now and go chase another shitcoin dream. Bitcoin will be just fine without you.

You are the one throwing bigblocker “Bitcoin won’t scale!!!” arguments, only with the twist that you think that’s a good thing.  Or at least, a “hah hah, little guy, you’re just totally fucked—bow down to your masters!” thing.

Is your binning me with the bigblockers intentional irony, whereas you seem afraid to mention the Lightning Network?  You know—the thing the bigblockers don’t believe in, which makes scalable, decentralized, private, trustless, permissionless off-chain transaction costs negligible.

Boldface is rolling’s; highlighting is mine:
The free market will decide what Bitcoin becomes, not an opinion of what it should be. For better or for worse, those with all the money now, will largely be the ones with all the money in the future. Bitcoin is open to everyone including the banks, governments, and billionaires. This will push out the little guy, just like in every other industry in history.

= “STFU and kneel in awe of the ‘free market’, i.e. the slavemarket owned by banks, governments, and billionaires.”

That is your opinion.

Of course, Bitcoin is open to everyone.  As I recently noted, “I myself tend to distrust institutional corporate holders; but there is nothing that I can do to stop them.”  Bitcoin being open to everyone is my point.  Whereas I suggest that you contemplate your blatant self-contradiction that I have highlighted.

On-chain will be for the big boys. If you don't like it, become one of the big boys by filling your bags now while BTC is still dirt cheap.

It is the bluster of a typical proletarian—the type who probably believes that $10 million is a lot of money.

In substantial essence, you are a worshipper of plutocracy.  Too bad for you that the big boys won’t pat you on the head for wanting so very much to be one of them.  Anyway, Bitcoin doesn’t care for your opinions.  It will scale, whether you like it or not.



(Aside to Jay:  As you may have surmised, I am not your typical prole in terms of contact with actual wealth.  And I have a pretty good idea of how the world actually works.  I am much less idealistic about Bitcoin than I tend to let on:  It is a tool.  It is an excellent tool, and timely at this moment in history; but it is just that.)



Quote
Personally, I'm pulling out the champaign that market behaviour is indeed producing activity levels that can pay for security without inflation, and also producing fee paying backlogs needed to stabilize consensus progress as the subsidy declines.
-Greg Maxwell around the BTC all time high Dec 2017. https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-December/015455.html

I almost quoted that myself, in my prior reply to rolling—in anticipation that some people may object to my discussion of potential fees on the order of $100 value (which was explicitly admitted handwaving in the absence of the crystal ball that none of us has).  No, transactions cannot remain cup-of-coffee cheap—cannot, as Bitcoin slowly transitions to what is effectually a fee-based security model.  The amount of fees produced by the fee market set a practical upper bound on hashrate as block rewards fall toward the point of economic irrelevance.  In the long term, on-chain fees that are too low would cause Bitcoin to fail—wherefore the champagne.

Maxwell made that statement at a time when on-chain transaction fees were close to bank wire transfer rates.

Somehow, I seriously doubt that Maxwell, of all people, was arguing that the future of Bitcoin belongs to banks (!).  He is probably the single most out-of-context quoted personage in the Bitcoin world—other than Satoshi.

For my part, I think that Bitcoin will converge on optimal fees—neither too high, nor too low—as on-chain improvements pack more transactions into a block (e.g., forthcoming Segwit v1 will make much more efficient use of block space for certain types of transactions), and layering developments move most transactions off-chain.
Pages: « 1 ... 27220 27221 27222 27223 27224 27225 27226 27227 27228 27229 27230 27231 27232 27233 27234 27235 27236 27237 27238 27239 27240 27241 27242 27243 27244 27245 27246 27247 27248 27249 27250 27251 27252 27253 27254 27255 27256 27257 27258 27259 27260 27261 27262 27263 27264 27265 27266 27267 27268 27269 [27270] 27271 27272 27273 27274 27275 27276 27277 27278 27279 27280 27281 27282 27283 27284 27285 27286 27287 27288 27289 27290 27291 27292 27293 27294 27295 27296 27297 27298 27299 27300 27301 27302 27303 27304 27305 27306 27307 27308 27309 27310 27311 27312 27313 27314 27315 27316 27317 27318 27319 27320 ... 27585 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!