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

[Fatman3001]

Fantasizing about *buying* a huge speedboat as BTC continues to tank.  Like making wedding plans on the tilting promenade deck of the Titanic.
Deliciously, perversely grotesque
*Fatman, you really don't want a forty(+?)ft (pleasure) speedboat, not even if you live on the water somewhere in BVI & shit gold nuggets.

Don't worry TwatTony I know a guy who knows a guy who really likes to polish boats.

Happiest days in a boat owner's life: The day he buys his boat & the day he sells it.  True fact, x100 for offshore speedboat.

My much much better half is a safety valve on that one. But I might rent one for a week(-end[day«couple of hours»]).

[JorgeStolfi]

Bitcoin was created to be exactly what it is and to be used in whatever way one sees fit. Why are people still engaging that argument, and those people, as if it and they had any merit?

Because a tool that was carefully designed for one purpose is usually inadequate for other purposes, even if it happen to be the best tool available for them.

Bitcoin was designed from top to bottom with the assumption that it would be used as a currency that did not require trusted third parties.  For example, that is why it has blocks every 10 minutes (it should have been much less, but technical constraints prevented it). 

Satoshi did not expect mining to be industrialized and concentrated in half a dozen companies; not at this stage of adoption at least.  Had he known that the price today would be 230 USD/BTC, he might have scheduled the block reward to be 0.001 BTC/block today, so the mining industry would earn 0.144 BTC per day --  not enough for 1 guy doing GPU mining.  But that low reward might have made bitcoin more attractive to speculators... Frankly, I don't see how the mining centralization problem could have been avoided without demurrage...

[Ibian]

I don't know enough about Keynes (or Economics) to tell whether I am a Keynesian.  But I certainly do not "hate people saving their money", quite the opposite:  I wish people (and my compatriots especially) would consume less and invest more.  But I would like to see them choose productive investments; and hoarding currency (or gold) is not productive.

Hoarding currency is bad for the individual, because all currency will lose value eventually. (As you well know, I am sure that will happen to bitcoin, too, even if there may be another bubble or two.)  Hoarding currency is also bad for society because it harms the currency, by destabilizing its value.

Let me reming people that this discussion started when someone asked for my idea of a good cryptocurrency.  Well, among other things, a good cryptocurrency should be designed so that no one will be tempted to hoard it.

Screw you bitch. Having enough savings that I don't have to work for the rest of my life gives me options and freedom that most people can't even dream of. Spending most of your life working for others merely for food and a shelter is the life of a slave.

[JorgeStolfi]

Who are you to state that bitcoin was created to be a currency? Are you Satoshi? Bitcoin is a protocol.

https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

an electronic payment system based on cryptographic proof instead of trust, allowing any two willing parties to transact directly with each other without the need for a trusted third party.

[gentlemand]

Let me reming people that this discussion started when someone asked for my idea of a good cryptocurrency.  Well, among other things, a good cryptocurrency should be designed so that no one will be tempted to hoard it.

It already exists in the form of Freicoin. If I don't spend it it slowly eats itself. Er, it can fuck right off.

[Ibian]

Bitcoin was created to be exactly what it is and to be used in whatever way one sees fit. Why are people still engaging that argument, and those people, as if it and they had any merit?

Because a tool that was carefully designed for one purpose is usually inadequate for other purposes, even if it happen to be the best tool available for them.

Bitcoin was designed from top to bottom with the assumption that it would be used as a currency that did not require trusted third parties.  For example, that is why it has blocks every 10 minutes (it should have been much less, but technical constraints prevented it). 

Satoshi did not expect mining to be industrialized and concentrated in half a dozen companies; not at this stage of adoption at least.  Had he known that the price today would be 230 USD/BTC, he might have scheduled the block reward to be 0.001 BTC/block today, so the mining industry would earn 0.144 BTC per day --  not enough for 1 guy doing GPU mining.  But that low reward might have made bitcoin more attractive to speculators... Frankly, I don't see how the mining centralization problem could have been avoided without demurrage...

Prove it. All of it.

[JorgeStolfi]

Screw you bitch. Having enough savings that I don't have to work for the rest of my life gives me options and freedom that most people can't even dream of. Spending most of your life working for others merely for food and a shelter is the life of a slave.

Great, let's all do that then. 

Imagine if only we could give 0.003 bitcoins to every person on the planet. Once 1 bitcoin becomes worth a billion dollars, no one will have to work anymore.  Bitcoin cannot just put an end to hunger and corruption in the world, it can also abolish work!

[Fatman3001]

Bitcoin was created to be exactly what it is and to be used in whatever way one sees fit. Why are people still engaging that argument, and those people, as if it and they had any merit?

Because a tool that was carefully designed for one purpose is usually inadequate for other purposes, even if it happen to be the best tool available for them.

Bitcoin was designed from top to bottom with the assumption that it would be used as a currency that did not require trusted third parties.  For example, that is why it has blocks every 10 minutes (it should have been much less, but technical constraints prevented it). 

Satoshi did not expect mining to be industrialized and concentrated in half a dozen companies; not at this stage of adoption at least.  Had he known that the price today would be 230 USD/BTC, he might have scheduled the block reward to be 0.001 BTC/block today, so the mining industry would earn 0.144 BTC per day --  not enough for 1 guy doing GPU mining.  But that low reward might have made bitcoin more attractive to speculators... Frankly, I don't see how the mining centralization problem could have been avoided without demurrage...

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=532.msg6306#msg6306

Sorry to spoil your fun there Professor.

[JorgeStolfi]

@ Jorge and others that still don't get it.

bitcoin: The price we pay to store information on the blockchain.

Bitcoin: The protocol that employs the open source ledger of information that is secured via payment of bitcoin.

You have my permission to capitalize the word any way you like it. 

[JayJuanGee]

Why so much agro and upset about Jorge's posts? He's not threatening you (or perhaps he is somehow?). He has a view and he expresses and articulates that view pretty well. I don't agree with much of what he says either but I appreciate that his posts are coherent, quite well written and free from personal attacks or vitriol. In fact, he's very gracious in his responses to many of you that get all so incensed that he's expressing the views that he is; and this is indicative that some of what he's saying has seriously hooked your innards and is tearing at you in some manner. That you're responding in such an affronted way says to me you're not 100% sure and his line of thought on this stuff causes internal conflict.

If you don't agree with his take on Bitcoin (and crypto in general), just point out calmly and unemotionally where his logic, assumptions or beliefs are flawed. I think it's very good to have someone like him putting the ideas up he does as it makes for interesting consideration of his views versus alternatives.

Isn't this what a thread like this is about?

Your gracious friend has been trolling this forum for years now. I agree that there is no need to get all fired up about it, but to "point out calmly and unemotionally where his logic, assumptions or beliefs are flawed" is even more of a waste.

He has some ideas that (I think) are the very antithesis of what crypto is all about. Suggesting that there'll inevitably have to be a rethink on the 21 million cap and that an increase will eventually happen is the slippery slope to Bitcoin being just another manipulated disaster like we're seeing with almost all fiat currencies (and, obviously to get it to be manipulatable like that, will require some dramatic action and reallocation of mining resources away from the current Bitcoin community). In fact he basically seems to have a line of thought that takes the current monetary system's "features" and attributes and retrospectively applies them to Bitcoin like "it's just how money works and if Bitcoin doesn't hold these properties it will fail". That I find to be backward thinking as it's failing to see the paradigm of how central bankers and Wall Street "run" the monetary system is THE problem and to use it as a framework of sorts for how crypto needs to operate is everything crypto isn't and should never be (but any conversation about 'money' is by nature controversial and complex).

My point though is he appears to have many people quite riled up and that's unfortunate. His points simply need to be deconstructed and the flaws pointed out. But if it's a waste of time doing that (and I haven't been in this thread for more than a few months) then probably best to just let him post and not respond.

Either way I don't find his posts to be trollish in their nature (but maybe his "graciousness" is hiding a whole other agenda I'm not aware of) and I appreciate he's expressing his view and that's perfectly okay.

People are riled up, somewhat, with Stofl because his posts are generally deceptive and misleading and accordingly disingenuous...

Many times, he has actually admitted to being a troll of these forms...

In other words, trolls deal in disingenuous arguments and distractions and really attempt to incite others with their ridiculous points... surely from time to time Stofli makes decent points, but that generally is the exception rather than the rule...   most of the time he is misleading and spinning... ..

surely we can ignore him or communicate rationally with him, but sometimes he needs to be called out because otherwise some people, including what appears to be yourself, will begin to believe some of his several stupid ass misleading posts.

Okay. Perhaps I haven't experienced enough of him yet to see the dis-ingenuity in full flight. As always with people on these forums, there's their face-value appearance and then their deeper hidden agenda which may take longer to pick up on.

Yes, his (Stolfi's) mostly courteous front can be very misleading concerning his credibility  - and likely causes people to give much more credit to him than he deserves.  Surely, sometimes he makes some decent points or brings up some interesting topics, but frequently, his points are skewed in a level of unrealism that any real supposed academic who is acting with honesty would give more validity to points that are contrary to his own agenda.

But one always has to ask what the driver for someone's modus operandi is. If he's so down on Bitcoin and thinks it's so likely to fail, why is he here?

He has been attacked a lot for mostly the whole time that he has been participating in this forum, and pretty much he is an admitted troll.  Surely, he has made certain claims over his membership time, but mostly he asserts that he is NOT financially invested in BTC... but some of that disclosure is likely NOT true... He asserts that he is totally funded by his academics etc... but any academician needs to maintain relevancy, and likely spending so much time on bitcoin, he has chosen to make bitcoin a part of his new specialty, and likely he is going to attempt to gain financially from building supposed expertise as an "anti-bitcoiner."  I don't really have any problem with people gaining financially or even status or prestige by being on one side of a battle or another, but Stofli has continued to attempt to hold out a kind of facade to assert and proclaim that he parsing out neutral analysis (even though generally negative towards bitcoin) in part because of his NOT being invested in bitcoin.....     Also, goes to his whole attempt to bring credibility to his participation in these forums by proclaiming to be a "professor."  Who the fuck cares whether he is a professor or not?  He should be able to bring credibility to himself and his various positions through the arguments themselves, rather than attempting to proclaim and project some kind of expertise with a supposed title... his supposed professorship is irrelevant, except to the extent that he has used it as his bitcoin presence in these forums to attempt to bring further credibility to his various bullshit and misleading posts.

I think this is the same question we all need to ask ourselves. I'd expect that he has doubts about his views too, hence can't stay away because he's inevitably drawn to a debate like this to challenge the parts of his thinking that don't quite believe the outward position he's stated.

Yes we all have various doubts about our views from time to time on any topic.  But a part of being genuine is to be a bit more forthright about the doubts that we have. Frequently, Stolfi is presenting points that any logical person could NOT really believe and especially problematic when coming from someone who is asserting to be a professor.... which misleads people into thinking some speculative long shot possibility about some point 100 years into the future should be prioritized as an urgent matter... that is called bullshit and disingenuous.

I'm here because I'm fascinated by Bitcoin (and crypto in general) and I believe my investment in it may bring a good return. The "fascinated" part extends out from my awareness that this technology just might be the one thing that saves humanity from the greed and stupefying madness of a world population that, not only has no real understanding of money, doesn't even know that it's completely lacking that understanding and consequently is being seriously worked over by some very dark forces. The average person from a westernised nation today walks this planet completely and utterly clueless as to what the fundamental attributes of money are and why the manipulation via the Fed's QE and ZIRP is just putting off for another day the inevitable financial reckoning that's going to catch the masses out. I think Greenspan, Bernanke and Yellen and their Wall Street banking cronies will one day be recast as criminals that led us all on this merry dance into disaster. And just maybe, the existence of Bitcoin (and it's potential to travel through this coming mess relatively unscathed....and I said "potential"; many trials and tribulations for it yet) will alter the course of history and create a surging discourse amongst the public as to what the true nature of 'money' is.

Yes, agreed.  Each of us has varying ways of expressing why we are interested and/or invested in bitcoin, and surely your expression above is NOT inconsistent with quite a few people who are bullish about bitcoin while taking account of the various manipulations of various mainstream fiat systems.... in other words, you are partly hedging your bets into bitcoin and crypto because you consider them to be helpful in addressing the various problematic aspects of fiat systems... Lots of people likely would agree with your above assertions.

But there are soooo many differing views on this subject. I for one pretty much listen to them all as the potential to be caught by confirmation bias within groups like this and not even realise you're on a pathway with other lemmings on the way to the cliff's edge is ever present.

Yes, it could be problematic to listen too much to a bunch of bitcoin bulls because or even problematic to invest based on someone who is a bull and who is talking his book.

For that reason I welcome the Stolfis and others with extreme views adverse to what the bulk of us in cryptoland hold (even if they are "trolling"....take what's useful; leave the rest) because they help me check my reasoning and assumptions, and I believe that's a good thing.

I don't have a problem hearing various negative views or even sorting the various arguments etc; however, trolling by definition is a problem because it is distracting and aims to incite rather than to really engage in meaningful discussion.  There are ways to present counter evidence and make arguments against bitcoin without being disingenuous and without putting out false arguments and even misstating relevant facts.  Some of the trolls, including Stolfi has a pattern and tendency to mislead.... .. and frequently the bullshit should be pointed out for what it is, rather than accepted as if he is contributing to the dialogue in some kind of positive way.  Again, NOT every post of Stolfi can be characterized as such, because in fact he attempts to build his credibility by being a more sophisticated troll.. and when he does actually put out FUD, sometimes very genuine and intellectually honest people, including yourself, are mislead by some of his FUD spreading.

[Norway]

Let me reming people that this discussion started when someone asked for my idea of a good cryptocurrency.  Well, among other things, a good cryptocurrency should be designed so that no one will be tempted to hoard it.

It already exists in the form of Freicoin. If I don't spend it it slowly eats itself. Er, it can fuck right off.

2% inflation goal is the current system. Which is failing (like Freicoin, lol!).

I predict this: On thursday, we will see Janet Yellen studder and come up with excuses (China? Europe? US employment? Another factor?) before she says it's too early to hike the rate. Just like a junkie saying that it's too early to pay for the drugs.

And just like the desperate junkie, she will hint that the rate will be hiked "very soon".

[Ibian]

Screw you bitch. Having enough savings that I don't have to work for the rest of my life gives me options and freedom that most people can't even dream of. Spending most of your life working for others merely for food and a shelter is the life of a slave.

Great, let's all do that then. 

Imagine if only we could give 0.003 bitcoins to every person on the planet. Once 1 bitcoin becomes worth a billion dollars, no one will have to work anymore.  Bitcoin cannot just put an end to hunger and corruption in the world, it can also abolish work!

Everyone won't do that. That's the whole reason it works. There will always be suckers who have some kind of weird hangup over having a lot of money and so choose to avoid it (subconsciously, all the while complaining about those filthy rich people who screwed them over), and idiots who won't have the ability to handle money. Which are you?

[JorgeStolfi]

among other things, a good cryptocurrency should be designed so that no one will be tempted to hoard it.

It already exists in the form of Freicoin. If I don't spend it it slowly eats itself. Er, it can fuck right off.

So it works! 

[Ibian]

among other things, a good cryptocurrency should be designed so that no one will be tempted to hoard it.

It already exists in the form of Freicoin. If I don't spend it it slowly eats itself. Er, it can fuck right off.

So it works! 

You are invested in it, I assume? After all, you preach about the merits of money that loses value over time so surely you would be? And if not, of course that error will be rectified in the very near future, yes?

[ChartBuddy]

Coin
Explanation

[TReano]

so this time it's different?

[JayJuanGee]

Economists have know for 500 years that a currency must have some inflation, otherwise people will hoard it and it will not be available for use as a currency.

What economists advocated this position in 1515?

I've never come across these scholars in my actual academic work, or even the notion of economics as a discipline per se existing at that time,  so whatever you've discovered must be truly groundbreaking.

500 years? Try 2000 years - have a look at Diocletian controls over inflationary debasement of specie in the roman empire.  Not quite the same thing, but this has been an issue for a bit.

In a more contemporary context

2000 years and the fuckers still can't get it right.

A problem is to attempt to present economics as if there is only ONE prevailing thought or that only one perspective will work...

Yes BTC has a fixed supply and a fixed inflation schedule, and that causes it to be deflationary overall.    That may make bitcoin problematic for if it were to become the only currency - but at this time, currency is only one aspect of bitcoin. 

Currently, bitcoin likely occupies far less than .1 % of any currency, payment system, storage of value, etc.; however, in the future if BTC becomes much more focused as a go to store of value, then maybe at that point, there will need to be some attention focused on creating some kind of inflation system that goes beyond the 21 million...

On the other hand, at this time, the supposed inflation problem remains very speculative because BTC occupies so little space in the overall financial scheme of things.

[gentlemand]

So it works!  

Creating a coin that forces you into pointless spending is just as creaky and unworldly as how you often seem to feel about BTC. I prefer to be in control of my own spending, not have its power eaten by some asshole developer.

Crypto land is sorely short of people who can look outside their tiny theoretical enclave and take into account how real humans operate.

[JorgeStolfi]

You are invested in [ freicoin ], I assume? After all, you preach about the merits of money that loses value over time so surely you would be? And if not, of course that error will be rectified in the very near future, yes?

No I am not invested in it, or in any crypto.  I may have read about Freicoin before, but did not know (or forgot) that it has demurrage.  If it does, it would be silly to invest in it, no?  That is the whole point...

[JorgeStolfi]

Bitcoin was created to be exactly what it is and to be used in whatever way one sees fit. Why are people still engaging that argument, and those people, as if it and they had any merit?

Because a tool that was carefully designed for one purpose is usually inadequate for other purposes, even if it happen to be the best tool available for them.

Bitcoin was designed from top to bottom with the assumption that it would be used as a currency that did not require trusted third parties.  For example, that is why it has blocks every 10 minutes (it should have been much less, but technical constraints prevented it). 

Satoshi did not expect mining to be industrialized and concentrated in half a dozen companies; not at this stage of adoption at least.  Had he known that the price today would be 230 USD/BTC, he might have scheduled the block reward to be 0.001 BTC/block today, so the mining industry would earn 0.144 BTC per day --  not enough for 1 guy doing GPU mining.  But that low reward might have made bitcoin more attractive to speculators... Frankly, I don't see how the mining centralization problem could have been avoided without demurrage...

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=532.msg6306#msg6306

Sorry to spoil your fun there Professor.

I know that quote, but it does not deny what I wrote.  He knew that the protocol would not work if a majority of the mining power were to collude.  If he ever became convinced that mining would become concentrated as much as it is now, he would have given up on bitcoin and ... wait ...   

Here is what he wrote a few months earlier:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=12.msg54#msg54