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

[hdbuck]

The Decentralist Perspective, or Why Bitcoin Might Need Small Blocks:

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/21919/decentralist-perspective-bitcoin-might-need-small-blocks/


take dat forkers.

[macsga]

There actually IS an "internal" value inside every bitcoin and it's the amount of resources (computers/miners/electricity) to build its block. As time goes by, the aforementioned "value" will rise because the difficulty to build one will be greater and the block reward will be halved.

By that argument, anything that required lots of resources to build, and cannot be easily replicated, should be worth as much as those resources, and gain value with time.  But there are many obvious counter-examples to this claim.  There are many old abandoned buildings that cost millions to build, may cost even more to build today, but now have negative value -- namely, the land is worth less with them on it than without them.

IMHO, your example fails to represent a meaningful and robust argument. Bitcoins are not getting old, nor they fall after not taking after them after 60y. Besides, there's a story about a Real Estate bubble that's been rolling around the news...

PS: I like your trolling. I like to do it myself sometimes

[klondike_bar]

The Decentralist Perspective, or Why Bitcoin Might Need Small Blocks:

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/21919/decentralist-perspective-bitcoin-might-need-small-blocks/
take dat forkers.

whats with the misconception that small miners need to run a fully-validating node?

anyone with <$100,000 worth of mining hardware will be mining through a pool (such as eligius, slush, etc) and only needs to be capable of downloading very basic speeds (<20kBps)
anyone with >$100,000 worth of hardware can afford to pay an extra $200/month to operate a top-of-the-line satellite/fibre node.
any pool with more than <$100,000 worth of hardware mining to it should be getting enough fees to host the pool in a location with insane levels of bandwidth (like a datacenter)

bitcoin becomes decentralised when the mining payout greatly exceeds the network difficulty. everyone, even in places with expensive electricity, can make money when the value of block reward+fees exceeds the deployment of new hashrate. In that case, its desirable to increse the number of users/transactions to produce more fees.

[Fatman3001]

PS: I like your trolling. I like to do it myself sometimes

macsga is lambie

BURN THE TROLL!!!

[Norway]

Great fun to see Peter Todd make a fool out of himself during the scaling conference today.

He had a speak under the title "Overview of Security Concerns".

He used this opportunity to:

1. Show the little up-and-down curve of XT-blocks, saying that the XT-nodes had been attacked and concluded a XT failiure.

2. Explain how chinese miners have a small advantage in mining because of propagation time and the chinese firewall.

3. Using this geographic concept of unfair mining to claim that small (USA?) miners are threatened by large miners (Chinese?).

He looked very small compared to the other speakers with good solutions for future growth.

Made me f***ing
BULLISH!

[JayJuanGee]

Feels good to remove the weed from the garden. Everybody should make a habit of reporting Lambie to the moderator. The system works!  

Back to bitcoin:
Can we stay in this range, 220-300, for another eight months?

Why?  would that actually be good for bitcoin?  I know that us HODLERS can acquire more BTC during that time; however, would that really be good for bitcoin?

It seems that Bitcoin needs to be at a price that is at least twice the current value to be practical for a lot of big user cases, and really the bitcoin infrastructure has been built quite a lot in the last 2 years, so accordingly, the bitcoin infrastructure could sustain a price of $1000 per BTC for an extended period of time to bring a little more practicality ... however, I kind of understand your point, that the $220 to $300 range does allow BTC to keep a bit of a lower profile, while continuing to be developed.... which could be a bit better to absorb mass adoption a little bit better, when mass adoption likely becomes more and more of an occurrence in bitcoinlandia.

He he, I don't WANT the price to stay in this range for eight more months. In fact, I want it to go to moon as soon as possible. But I have sympathy with guys who need a few more months to accumulate. Been doing that myself for one and a half year.

At the same time, I think it's interesting to see that bitcoin beats most fiat currencies as a store of value the last eight months. (In 2014, it was the worst currency, lol!)

The thing is: I don't think bitcoin can stay in this range for eight more months. And it will certainly not go to zero, like prof. Bitcorn & prof. Stolfi believe  

Agreed... if we look at the past 8 months, there has been a lot of difficulties in the various attempts to drive BTC prices below $220.... yes, there have been a couple of successful short periods of BTC bears to push BTC prices below $220, but definitely NOT long lasted.

Yes, I am someone who is continuing to accumulate BTX- even though I already have a pretty decent stash them.

At this point, I accumulated nearly 2/3 of my BTC holdings before October 2014 (actually between about November 2013 and September 2014), and the remaining 1/3 of my BTC holdings after that time period.

In some sense, I am glad to see BTC prices in the mid $200s, because between about January and April 2015, I was NOT able to buy very many BTC because of some negative developments in some of my other business activities - accordingly, I had to dedicate much of my available fiat to my other business activities, during that period. 

Between about May of this year and present, I have taken care of lot of those other business matters, and once again, I am able to continue to accumulate BTC with some spare fiat... so overall, I remain optimistic regarding BTC's expected price performance in the upcoming 8 months. 

Possibly, BTC prices could remain stagnant in a $220 to $290 range, and surely there could be successful efforts to drive BTC prices below $220 or even below $200; however, given the recent trade volume (especially over the past 4 weeks), I think that the bears are having quite a few real difficulties keeping BTC prices within a $220 to $290 price range.

Interesting times.. yes, interesting times in deed, "soon" to be gentlemen.... 

[Fatman3001]

...
IMHO, your example fails to represent a meaningful and robust argument.

I found it rather cromulent

Bitcoins are not getting old, nor they fall after not taking after them after 60y. ...

~10% of BTC market cap is spent yearly to maintain Bitcoin (mining).  Talk about high maintenance

MAN!!! You out-fact-troll stolfi in a single sentence!!! You embiggen us all!!!

[Norway]

Feels good to remove the weed from the garden. Everybody should make a habit of reporting Lambie to the moderator. The system works!  

Back to bitcoin:
Can we stay in this range, 220-300, for another eight months?

Why?  would that actually be good for bitcoin?  I know that us HODLERS can acquire more BTC during that time; however, would that really be good for bitcoin?

It seems that Bitcoin needs to be at a price that is at least twice the current value to be practical for a lot of big user cases, and really the bitcoin infrastructure has been built quite a lot in the last 2 years, so accordingly, the bitcoin infrastructure could sustain a price of $1000 per BTC for an extended period of time to bring a little more practicality ... however, I kind of understand your point, that the $220 to $300 range does allow BTC to keep a bit of a lower profile, while continuing to be developed.... which could be a bit better to absorb mass adoption a little bit better, when mass adoption likely becomes more and more of an occurrence in bitcoinlandia.

He he, I don't WANT the price to stay in this range for eight more months. In fact, I want it to go to moon as soon as possible. But I have sympathy with guys who need a few more months to accumulate. Been doing that myself for one and a half year.

At the same time, I think it's interesting to see that bitcoin beats most fiat currencies as a store of value the last eight months. (In 2014, it was the worst currency, lol!)

The thing is: I don't think bitcoin can stay in this range for eight more months. And it will certainly not go to zero, like prof. Bitcorn & prof. Stolfi believe  

Agreed... if we look at the past 8 months, there has been a lot of difficulties in the various attempts to drive BTC prices below $220.... yes, there have been a couple of successful short periods of BTC bears to push BTC prices below $220, but definitely NOT long lasted.

Yes, I am someone who is continuing to accumulate BTX- even though I already have a pretty decent stash them.

At this point, I accumulated nearly 2/3 of my BTC holdings before October 2014 (actually between about November 2013 and September 2014), and the remaining 1/3 of my BTC holdings after that time period.

In some sense, I am glad to see BTC prices in the mid $200s, because between about January and April 2015, I was NOT able to buy very many BTC because of some negative developments in some of my other business activities - accordingly, I had to dedicate much of my available fiat to my other business activities, during that period. 

Between about May of this year and present, I have taken care of lot of those other business matters, and once again, I am able to continue to accumulate BTC with some spare fiat... so overall, I remain optimistic regarding BTC's expected price performance in the upcoming 8 months. 

Possibly, BTC prices could remain stagnant in a $220 to $290 range, and surely there could be successful efforts to drive BTC prices below $220 or even below $200; however, given the recent trade volume (especially over the past 4 weeks), I think that the bears are having quite a few real difficulties keeping BTC prices within a $220 to $290 price range.

Interesting times.. yes, interesting times in deed, "soon" to be gentlemen.... 

Sounds like we have pretty much followed the same strategy. I am slightly in green now, I guess you are slightly in red at the moment. But that doesn't matter. I would rather have 10 BTC in the red, than 1 in the green.

We have seen the future
And we have bought a piece of it
This is gentlemen!
(Ehrm... Not right now, but later)

[becoin]

Great fun to see Peter Todd make a fool out of himself during the scaling conference today.

Don't make a fool out of yourself!
Peter is a brilliant mind.

[Fatman3001]

Sounds like we have pretty much followed the same strategy. I am slightly in green now, I guess you are slightly in red at the moment. But that doesn't matter. I would rather have 10 BTC in the red, than 1 in the green.

We have seen the future
And we have bought a piece of it
This is gentlemen!
(Ehrm... Not right now, but later)

SOON^TM

[Norway]

Great fun to see Peter Todd make a fool out of himself during the scaling conference today.

Don't make a fool out of yourself!
Peter is a brilliant mind.

Don't attack me. Attack what I write, and not just the sexy intro to my points. And watch the clip from the conference before you judge Peter

[Fatman3001]

Great fun to see Peter Todd make a fool out of himself during the scaling conference today.

Don't make a fool out of yourself!
Peter is a brilliant mind.

Doesn't mean he can't have a bad set.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin
Explanation

[billyjoeallen]

One of them is the expectation of huge increases in value, resulting from the fixed cap and the assumption that it would replace other means of payment.  That turned bitcoin into an allegedly safe and lucrative investment, and a speculation tool.  Most of the big problems that bitcoin is facing today are a consequence of that undue retargeting of the project.

Again, economics, Professor. "Hoarders" is just a disparaging term for savers. Any economy needs savings for capital formation.  If the very first cave man hadn't deferred consumption in order to have time to to make a spear that would make him a more efficient hunter, we'd all still be living in trees.

[Norway]

Great fun to see Peter Todd make a fool out of himself during the scaling conference today.

Don't make a fool out of yourself!
Peter is a brilliant mind.

Doesn't mean he can't have a bad set.

Todd is a clever manipulator with an agenda (same agenda as Blockstream). It became so obvious when he had the stage for himself and no one to argue with. I recomend you watch it, but the session with Peter R. was the best today, in my opinion.

Anyway, this openness with this conference and the fork option makes me really believe that bitcoin will survive and thrive.
The best code will win.
"Special interests" can't hijack the best code.

[Norway]

One of them is the expectation of huge increases in value, resulting from the fixed cap and the assumption that it would replace other means of payment.  That turned bitcoin into an allegedly safe and lucrative investment, and a speculation tool.  Most of the big problems that bitcoin is facing today are a consequence of that undue retargeting of the project.

Again, economics, Professor. "Hoarders" is just a disparaging term for savers. Any economy needs savings for capital formation.  If the very first cave man hadn't deferred consumption in order to have time to to make a spear that would make him a more efficient hunter, we'd all still be living in trees.

Agreed. Today's horder is tomorrow's investor.

Bitcoin gave me back the good feeling of saving. I haven't done that since I had a piggy bank shaped like a penguin. I was a kid, and the bank gave me the piggy bank penguin. No banks today try to make kids (or adults) save money. It's not a healthy development...

[Monopoly]

IF we will reach to %75 XT nodes the fork will occur ...... Is there any solution for avoid the fork ? or Bitcoin project will fail ?

[Fatman3001]

IF we will reach to %75 XT nodes the fork will occur ...... Is there any solution for avoid the fork ? or Bitcoin project will fail ?

We'll all switch to monopoly money. You'll be rich!!!

[Norway]

[billyjoeallen]

IF we will reach to %75 XT nodes the fork will occur ...... Is there any solution for avoid the fork ? or Bitcoin project will fail ?

no. if 75% of nodes switch, then XT becomes Bitcoin and core becomes a dead branch, a string of orphaned blocks.  Then all the money sitting on the sidelines will start pouring in because we will finally have a network that scales.