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

[ChartBuddy]

Coin
Explanation

[JayJuanGee]

The dollar weakened, so assets denominated in dollars went up, all things else being equal.  

Fundamental issues as I see them:

1. Bitcoin is a poor unit of account because it is too volatile (although this is decreasing)
2. Bitcoin is a poor medium of exchange (network capacity of 7 TPS is far too low)
3. Bitcoin is a poor store of value (not enough liquidity to be an easily marketable commodity)

This seems strange considering Bitcoin's properties of being recognizable, transportable, fungible, divisible, and scarce.  

It seems to me that the most likely path to mainstream adoption would be through microtransactions, when a unit of account need not be closely correlated with store-of-value, but of course nobody wants to invest in microtransaction applications with the network capacity/block size limit uncertainty.  It's impossible to build a business model based on an unknown fee structure.  

What random straw man arguments!!!!!

NONE of your listed fundamental issues are problematic for bitcoin at this stage in its life, and maybe NOT even into the future.  Bitcoin remains a growing phenomenon with ongoing development, and its infrastructure is well capable of expanding capacity as soon as people begin to jump on board.  Surely there is a bit of a catch 22 because additional people may be hesitant to jump on board if they are worried about future devaluation... but as more people jump on board, the price increases causing more interest and causing more need to expand, build and modify existing systems, including user friendliness.

[JayJuanGee]

The dollar weakened, so assets denominated in dollars went up, all things else being equal. 

Fundamental issues as I see them:

1. Bitcoin is a poor unit of account because it is too volatile (although this is decreasing)
2. Bitcoin is a poor medium of exchange (network capacity of 7 TPS is far too low)
3. Bitcoin is a poor store of value (not enough liquidity to be an easily marketable commodity)

This seems strange considering Bitcoin's properties of being recognizable, transportable, fungible, divisible, and scarce. 

It seems to me that the most likely path to mainstream adoption would be through microtransactions, when a unit of account need not be closely correlated with store-of-value, but of course nobody wants to invest in microtransaction applications with the network capacity/block size limit uncertainty.  It's impossible to build a business model based on an unknown fee structure. 

0. Bitcoin supporters are so batshit insane that many folks simply don't want to be associated with them.

That's not a valid reason at all. Economics is all about incentives. Given a strong enough incentive, racists will hire minorities, Sexists will hire women, Anti-semites will do business with Jews and Homophobes will provide goods and services to gays. History is littered with sane people lining up to be associated with whackjobs when they had an incentive to do so. 

" It's not personal, Sonny. It's strictly business." ~Michael Corleone

BJA ::::  Looks like you beat me to it and you addressed your batshit insane ideas by providing the solution to the problem.. ... in other words, HAVE A LITTLE PATIENCE.... people are going to come to bitcoin.. just a matter of time... whether this year or next or increasingly building over the next 5 years.           

[billyjoeallen]

The dollar weakened, so assets denominated in dollars went up, all things else being equal.  

Fundamental issues as I see them:

1. Bitcoin is a poor unit of account because it is too volatile (although this is decreasing)
2. Bitcoin is a poor medium of exchange (network capacity of 7 TPS is far too low)
3. Bitcoin is a poor store of value (not enough liquidity to be an easily marketable commodity)

This seems strange considering Bitcoin's properties of being recognizable, transportable, fungible, divisible, and scarce.  

It seems to me that the most likely path to mainstream adoption would be through microtransactions, when a unit of account need not be closely correlated with store-of-value, but of course nobody wants to invest in microtransaction applications with the network capacity/block size limit uncertainty.  It's impossible to build a business model based on an unknown fee structure.  

What random straw man arguments!!!!!

NONE of your listed fundamental issues are problematic for bitcoin at this stage in its life, and maybe NOT even into the future.  Bitcoin remains a growing phenomenon with ongoing development, and its infrastructure is well capable of expanding capacity as soon as people begin to jump on board.  Surely there is a bit of a catch 22 because additional people may be hesitant to jump on board if they are worried about future devaluation... but as more people jump on board, the price increases causing more interest and causing more need to expand, build and modify existing systems, including user friendliness.

That's the most perfect example of a circular argument I can Imagine. You need a reason to "jump on board" other than "people are jumping on board".  Investors are forward thinking, so future problems, particularly FORESEEABLE problems such as scalability, affect investment NOW.

[JorgeStolfi]

Moscow Exchange stops trading on all markets

You guys in Russia should trade Bitcoin instead.

They already are.

[ElectricMucus]

The dollar weakened, so assets denominated in dollars went up, all things else being equal. 

Fundamental issues as I see them:

1. Bitcoin is a poor unit of account because it is too volatile (although this is decreasing)
2. Bitcoin is a poor medium of exchange (network capacity of 7 TPS is far too low)
3. Bitcoin is a poor store of value (not enough liquidity to be an easily marketable commodity)

This seems strange considering Bitcoin's properties of being recognizable, transportable, fungible, divisible, and scarce. 

It seems to me that the most likely path to mainstream adoption would be through microtransactions, when a unit of account need not be closely correlated with store-of-value, but of course nobody wants to invest in microtransaction applications with the network capacity/block size limit uncertainty.  It's impossible to build a business model based on an unknown fee structure. 

0. Bitcoin supporters are so batshit insane that many folks simply don't want to be associated with them.

That's not a valid reason at all. Economics is all about incentives. Given a strong enough incentive, racists will hire minorities, Sexists will hire women, Anti-semites will do business with Jews and Homophobes will provide goods and services to gays. History is littered with sane people lining up to be associated with whackjobs when they had an incentive to do so. 

" It's not personal, Sonny. It's strictly business." ~Michael Corleone

You've got it all in reverse, Women won't hire sexists, Jews won't hire Antisemites and Homosexuals won't hire Homophobes. Bitcoiners are the ones who want to bring on economic Armageddon, want to evade taxes, subvert the government and who hold a fundamentalist attitude.
It's the Bitcoiners that subscribe to the us versus them mentality not normal people.

[Fatman3001]

hashtagging in here? really?

Aztec can hashtag as much as he wants. This way I can understand a bit better what the fuck he is on about. Most of his posts nowadays are just undefined raging fury simmering in the deep.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin
Explanation

[billyjoeallen]

0. Bitcoin supporters are so batshit insane that many folks simply don't want to be associated with them.

That's not a valid reason at all. Economics is all about incentives. Given a strong enough incentive, racists will hire minorities, Sexists will hire women, Anti-semites will do business with Jews and Homophobes will provide goods and services to gays. History is littered with sane people lining up to be associated with whackjobs when they had an incentive to do so. 

" It's not personal, Sonny. It's strictly business." ~Michael Corleone

You've got it all in reverse, Women won't hire sexists, Jews won't hire Antisemites and Homosexuals won't hire Homophobes. Bitcoiners are the ones who want to bring on economic Armageddon, want to evade taxes, subvert the government and who hold a fundamentalist attitude.
It's the Bitcoiners that subscribe to the us versus them mentality not normal people.

Do I? Women complain all the time that their bosses are sexist. Many minorities, possibly even most of them believe or suspect that their employers are racists. So why work for them? Because to them, it's better than the alternatives. It's all about the incentives, Man.   

I could argue that your characterization of bitcoiners is a straw man, but there's no point because it's irrelevant.  The price of gold isn't determined by the goldbug's whack conspiracy theories. It's determined by supply and demand. It doesn't fucking matter. The issue holding bitcoin back is scalability and network capacity.  Everything else is incidental. Branding only matters when deciding between two or more nearly identical choices. Coke or Pepsi. Visa or Mastercard.

[aztecminer]

hashtagging in here? really?

Aztec can hashtag as much as he wants. This way I can understand a bit better what the fuck he is on about. Most of his posts nowadays are just undefined raging fury simmering in the deep.

i'm bigtime bearish on gimpcoin right now... and bitcoin too.

[JayJuanGee]

The dollar weakened, so assets denominated in dollars went up, all things else being equal.  

Fundamental issues as I see them:

1. Bitcoin is a poor unit of account because it is too volatile (although this is decreasing)
2. Bitcoin is a poor medium of exchange (network capacity of 7 TPS is far too low)
3. Bitcoin is a poor store of value (not enough liquidity to be an easily marketable commodity)

This seems strange considering Bitcoin's properties of being recognizable, transportable, fungible, divisible, and scarce.  

It seems to me that the most likely path to mainstream adoption would be through microtransactions, when a unit of account need not be closely correlated with store-of-value, but of course nobody wants to invest in microtransaction applications with the network capacity/block size limit uncertainty.  It's impossible to build a business model based on an unknown fee structure.  

What random straw man arguments!!!!!

NONE of your listed fundamental issues are problematic for bitcoin at this stage in its life, and maybe NOT even into the future.  Bitcoin remains a growing phenomenon with ongoing development, and its infrastructure is well capable of expanding capacity as soon as people begin to jump on board.  Surely there is a bit of a catch 22 because additional people may be hesitant to jump on board if they are worried about future devaluation... but as more people jump on board, the price increases causing more interest and causing more need to expand, build and modify existing systems, including user friendliness.

That's the most perfect example of a circular argument I can Imagine. You need a reason to "jump on board" other than "people are jumping on board".  Investors are forward thinking, so future problems, particularly FORESEEABLE problems such as scalability, affect investment NOW.

For some reason, you seem to be making too much out of problems that don't really exist.  Surely, they are issues, but certainly NOT to any level that you are making them out to be (scale or die, for example.... hahahahaha).  My response may seem circlular, yet the circularity sense of it likely comes mostly from the sense that these adoption matters take time, and they are difficult to measure. 

Bitcoin continues to develop in a lot of ways on a global schedule.  It is becoming more known, and more people are learning about it and more systems are being developed for getting in and for getting out.  Surely, some people do get out of bitcoin, but their exit is likely NOT forever and likely NOT in total.  Again... patience my friend... don't rush a good thing.

Yes, I would like the price to go up too, and sure, I would like to accumulate a few more coins while the price is down; however, in the end, there is going to be ups and downs in the price and manipulation etc etc... and really some of the extent of your drama or exaggeration seems to be attempting to cause an effect rather than really talking about the real state of bitcoin today.

[ElectricMucus]

Do I? Women complain all the time that their bosses are sexist. Many minorities, possibly even most of them believe or suspect that their employers are racists. So why work for them? Because to them, it's better than the alternatives. It's all about the incentives, Man.  

I could argue that your characterization of bitcoiners is a straw man, but there's no point because it's irrelevant.  The price of gold isn't determined by the goldbug's whack conspiracy theories. It's determined by supply and demand. It doesn't fucking matter. The issue holding bitcoin back is scalability and network capacity.  Everything else is incidental. Branding only matters when deciding between two or more nearly identical choices. Coke or Pepsi. Visa or Mastercard.

Yeah, I think I've seen plenty of bigotry from you. You are even demonstrating that right now.

Gold is also not taking over the economy anytime soon, the difference is whackjob goldbugs aren't representative for the the people who own gold, it's mainly a cultural artefact to use it as jewelry (slightly more than half of it) the rest is industry, banks and only a small percentage of that is gold bullion.
With Bitcoin it's people like you. Yep you are representative of the Bitcoin community. Be proud.  

PS: You don't have to see the stigmatization of Bitcoin as justified or even rational. You just should acknowledge that it's happening.

[adamstgBit]

The dollar weakened, so assets denominated in dollars went up, all things else being equal.  

Fundamental issues as I see them:

1. Bitcoin is a poor unit of account because it is too volatile (although this is decreasing)
2. Bitcoin is a poor medium of exchange (network capacity of 7 TPS is far too low)
3. Bitcoin is a poor store of value (not enough liquidity to be an easily marketable commodity)

This seems strange considering Bitcoin's properties of being recognizable, transportable, fungible, divisible, and scarce.  

It seems to me that the most likely path to mainstream adoption would be through microtransactions, when a unit of account need not be closely correlated with store-of-value, but of course nobody wants to invest in microtransaction applications with the network capacity/block size limit uncertainty.  It's impossible to build a business model based on an unknown fee structure.  

What random straw man arguments!!!!!

NONE of your listed fundamental issues are problematic for bitcoin at this stage in its life, and maybe NOT even into the future.  Bitcoin remains a growing phenomenon with ongoing development, and its infrastructure is well capable of expanding capacity as soon as people begin to jump on board.  Surely there is a bit of a catch 22 because additional people may be hesitant to jump on board if they are worried about future devaluation... but as more people jump on board, the price increases causing more interest and causing more need to expand, build and modify existing systems, including user friendliness.

That's the most perfect example of a circular argument I can Imagine. You need a reason to "jump on board" other than "people are jumping on board".  Investors are forward thinking, so future problems, particularly FORESEEABLE problems such as scalability, affect investment NOW.

For some reason, you seem to be making too much out of problems that don't really exist.  Surely, they are issues, but certainly NOT to any level that you are making them out to be (scale or die, for example.... hahahahaha).  My response may seem circlular, yet the circularity sense of it likely comes mostly from the sense that these adoption matters take time, and they are difficult to measure.  

Bitcoin continues to develop in a lot of ways on a global schedule.  It is becoming more known, and more people are learning about it and more systems are being developed for getting in and for getting out.  Surely, some people do get out of bitcoin, but their exit is likely NOT forever and likely NOT in total.  Again... patience my friend... don't rush a good thing.

Yes, I would like the price to go up too, and sure, I would like to accumulate a few more coins while the price is down; however, in the end, there is going to be ups and downs in the price and manipulation etc etc... and really some of the extent of your drama or exaggeration seems to be attempting to cause an effect rather than really talking about the real state of bitcoin today.

I agree with billyjoeallen.

and would like to add that once this block limit debate is over and we have a release that somehow will make sure Bitcoin can handle 1000's of TPS, investors will be more willing. Weather sidechain or increased  block limit  does the trick, won't make much difference. the way i see it we'll end up needing both solutions to make Bitcoin handle the same level of TPS VISA can do.

waiting for more poeple to join in, to make Bitcoin able to support more poeple joining in, creates a catch 22 effect that slows / delays  adoption. kinda mad at the devs for being so indecisive. but all in good time, this will get resolved one way or another, taking advantage of the FUD surrounding all this by buying BTC is just good speculation.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin
Explanation

[billyjoeallen]

... and really some of the extent of your drama or exaggeration seems to be attempting to cause an effect rather than really talking about the real state of bitcoin today.

That's partially true and I'll be the first to admit it. I want the price to go down IF it leads to cause the core devs to implement a workable scale patch or else leads to some other group replacing them. I want bitcoin to succeed as an electronic peer to peer cash system as it was designed, not as some cloistered settlement network only used by the same assholes who run the current system. 

Fiat money is debt. It is lent into existence. That makes the entire global financial system a giant pyramid scheme. I don't have to wish for economic Armageddon to see one coming (or more likely a series of disasters  eventually having the same effect). I don't have to cause it or contribute to causing it. It's going to happen as a mathematical certainty.  If we don't find a way to escape the system, we will go down with it.   

A network capacity of seven transactions/sec is a life boat with very few seats.

[wakasaki808]

bottomed, and now it will rise
(prepare your pockets)

[hdbuck]

watta bunch of whinny little babies.

1000tps or 26GB blocks or just beg for new people to buy in is beyond pathetic.




this is has nothing to do with bitcoin, if you cant handle reality, no one is forcing you to use it.

[LFC_Bitcoin]

bottomed, and now it will rise
(prepare your pockets)

Breaching 250 tonight would be bullish
I'm not sure if it's possible but it'd be nice to be as far away from 200 again as soon as possible.
Cheap coins right here people, buy & HODL, buy & HODL

[betterangels]

I bought at 220

bottom is here, tonight >250

[dragonseer]

... and really some of the extent of your drama or exaggeration seems to be attempting to cause an effect rather than really talking about the real state of bitcoin today.

That's partially true and I'll be the first to admit it. I want the price to go down IF it leads to cause the core devs to implement a workable scale patch or else leads to some other group replacing them. I want bitcoin to succeed as an electronic peer to peer cash system as it was designed, not as some cloistered settlement network only used by the same assholes who run the current system. 

Fiat money is debt. It is lent into existence. That makes the entire global financial system a giant pyramid scheme. I don't have to wish for economic Armageddon to see one coming (or more likely a series of disasters  eventually having the same effect). I don't have to cause it or contribute to causing it. It's going to happen as a mathematical certainty.  If we don't find a way to escape the system, we will go down with it.   

A network capacity of seven transactions/sec is a life boat with very few seats.

Because this argument surfaces here all the time, I'll down put my thoughts on how this whole scaling issue is a problem that only exists because Bitcoin, or it's community, doesn't know to have a relationship with other coins. Let's say you have a Merchant that takes Litecoins, Quark, whatever as a peer to peer cash system at their place of business. At the end of the business day, the merchant consolidates their transactions into one Bitcoin transaction. This seems to be the same scenario that is being talked about as a 'Lightning Sidechain', except Core developers aren't invoking the dirty word of 'altcoin'. In this case, Bitcoin doesn't need to fork, because it isn't trying to be a single solution to this problem, and I'm not sure BIP 100, BIP 101 or whatever will enable Bitcoin to cope with this 'Mass Adoption' scenario anyway.