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

[billyjoeallen]

I don't expect the fees to rise significantly.  After some initial mega-jams, things should settle down with the average traffic somewhat below the capacity (say, 2.6 tx/s, as in my example).   In that state,  the minimum fee will usually provide confirmation within a day, and confirmation in less than 1 hour will usually be achieved with relatively modest fees.   The traffic will not increase further because of the unpredictable delays, which will occur even if everybody ends up paying 100 $/tx of fees.

I wonder what's going to happen to the price during these megajams. By which I mean I wonder if it will fall, drop, plummet or crash.  Gox took us to the moon because BTC was the only exit. OTOH, if FIAT is the only exit, it's reasonable to assume the reverse will happen.

[JorgeStolfi]

That would be an ideal time for someone to launch a competing coin.  I figure it would take <$1 Billion to overcome Bitcoin's first mover advantage and then the banksters will just keep running the world as if we never existed. 

Well, bitcoin is not to be used for ordinary e-commerce payments, its first move advantage is not worth much.

Litecoin and Dogecoin are already there.  WIth some PR and a couple of legal exchanges in the US and Europe, Litecoin or some other new coin could take over many uses of bitcoin, if it offered faster service and/or lower fees.  That would cost a few M$, but much less than 1 G$.  Bitcoin's recurrent traffic jams at peak hours would be the best marketing, for free.

[Cconvert2G36]

Jorge doesn't "invest" in fiat. Only silly MMM victims poor people would do such a thing. Maybe he will, or already has, "protested" for them.

[billyjoeallen]

Well, bitcoin is not to be used for ordinary e-commerce payments...

Why not?

[brg444]

...

That would be an ideal time for someone to launch a competing coin.  I figure it would take <$1 Billion to overcome Bitcoin's first mover advantage and then the banksters will just keep running the world as if we never existed.  

lmao you really should lay off whatever you are tripping on.

You think it would take less or more?   Surely you know that it's possible at some number with the right technical design and promotion.  You seem to be not understanding what's at stake here.

it would take broad consensus amongst the community that this altcoin is the new future of money.

i mean they can pump there coin all they want, all they really do is create a very large honey pot no one dare touch.

??   our entire market cap is a fraction of what Facebook paid for Whatsapp.  They don't need our community at all.  All we're doing is their test marketing and technical research for them. A few tweaks, a few power players (in finance, not crypto) backing, and they capture everyone who wants low cost electronic cash without all the anarcho-capitalist drug market baggage. Oh yeah, and it'll scale.

What type of moron..... I can't...

[Cconvert2G36]

...

That would be an ideal time for someone to launch a competing coin.  I figure it would take <$1 Billion to overcome Bitcoin's first mover advantage and then the banksters will just keep running the world as if we never existed.  

lmao you really should lay off whatever you are tripping on.

You think it would take less or more?   Surely you know that it's possible at some number with the right technical design and promotion.  You seem to be not understanding what's at stake here.

it would take broad consensus amongst the community that this altcoin is the new future of money.

i mean they can pump there coin all they want, all they really do is create a very large honey pot no one dare touch.

??   our entire market cap is a fraction of what Facebook paid for Whatsapp.  They don't need our community at all.  All we're doing is their test marketing and technical research for them. A few tweaks, a few power players (in finance, not crypto) backing, and they capture everyone who wants low cost electronic cash without all the anarcho-capitalist drug market baggage. Oh yeah, and it'll scale.

What type of moron..... I can't...

Image no workey. Can we stop the Grover Dill impression? 2MB, can I get a 2MB?

[ChartBuddy]

Coin

Explanation

[JorgeStolfi]

Well, bitcoin is not to be used for ordinary e-commerce payments...

Why not?

That is the stated Blocksrteam/small-blockian view: bitcoin should be used only for large-value settlements between institutions, like the Lightning network hubs -- not for ordinary e-purchases by ordinary citizens.

[Kanapka]

Well, bitcoin is not to be used for ordinary e-commerce payments...

Why not?

That is the stated Blocksrteam/small-blockian view: bitcoin should be used only for large-value settlements between institutions, like the Lightning network hubs -- not for ordinary e-purchases by ordinary citizens.

Still: why the Blocksrteam/small-blockian view states that Bitcoin should only be used by lang-value things?

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

Isn't calling Lightning like solutions not Bitcoin kind of a stretch?

[Cconvert2G36]

Isn't calling Lightning like solutions not Bitcoin kind of a stretch?

Isn't calling Lightning like solutions Bitcoin kind of a stretch?

[billyjoeallen]

Well, bitcoin is not to be used for ordinary e-commerce payments...

Why not?

That is the stated Blocksrteam/small-blockian view: bitcoin should be used only for large-value settlements between institutions, like the Lightning network hubs -- not for ordinary e-purchases by ordinary citizens.

I know that, but that is because of certain technicalconstraints.  If Bitcoin could scale without jeopardizing its security, and censorship resistance, why would they not want it to be used for e-commerce?
It just doesn't make sense. It's one thing to argue that there are technical limits and trade-offs. It is quite another to argue that, given solutions to these issues, they wouldn't want to implement them.  

An ideal cryptocurrency would be infinitely scalable, instant, completely censorship resistant and inexpensive to use, right?  So we should make bitcoin as close to that as possible, right? It's as if they think consumers exist to serve producers instead of the other way around.  That is a basic economic fail.  

[Cconvert2G36]

Spot the silly volume here.

[JorgeStolfi]

That is the stated Blocksrteam/small-blockian view: bitcoin should be used only for large-value settlements between institutions, like the Lightning network hubs -- not for ordinary e-purchases by ordinary citizens.

Still: why the Blocksrteam/small-blockian view states that Bitcoin should only be used by [large]-value things?

Well, you should ask them.  They seem to believe that it would make bitcoin more attarctive or valuable.  I myself don't see why.

What I can see is that Blockstream will profit (or thinks that it will profit) if e-commerce uses of bitcoin get pushed to off-chain solutions, like the Lightning network; because their business plan seems to be to provide software tools for such off-chain services (like the Liquid inter-exchange settlement tool that they just announced).

Perhaps the e-commerce traffic that will not fit in the Bitcoin blockchain will be picked up by Viacoin, the altcoin created by Core developer BTCDrak, which has hired Peter Todd as CTO.

[Tmdz]

I like where the markets are going for now, slow growth.  We all knew the crazy growth and bubble had to deflate ..it was only a matter of time.  But a steady 380 and likely some highs tomorrow morning could make for a good trade  Were sitting in a good position for the time being about 100 above what it was 2 weeks ago is something to be happy about.  Im pretty new to btc but monitoring the market is teaching me a lot. 

[ChartBuddy]

Coin

Explanation

[orpington]

the only chart that explains everything:

[medialab101]

Next leg up incoming. Shooting for $550

[Holliday]

That is the stated Blocksrteam/small-blockian view: bitcoin should be used only for large-value settlements between institutions, like the Lightning network hubs

As a small-blockian myself, I can say the above is not my view.

Bitcoin should be used primarily for transactions where capital controls or other forms of monetary censorship exist.

The amount of data required to keep the Bitcoin network functioning should remain small enough that it is difficult to censor, especially considering it is needed most in places where censorship exists.

-- not for ordinary e-purchases by ordinary citizens.

This, however, is my view.  There is simply no reason to use censorship-proof money for ordinary purchases. It's a terrible waste of resources for starters. A decentralized system has no reason to compete with centralized systems. They each do different things well. Using Bitcoin to buy goods from Amazon is like using a chainsaw to mow your lawn. Yeah, a chainsaw will certainly cut grass, but there are much better tools for the job.

All transactions do not need to be censorship-proof in a world where censorship-proof transactions exist. The possibility of censorship-proof transactions by itself will cut down on censorship because it will be seen as futile. So, it's important that any decision to change Bitcoin be considered in this light, and it's imperative not to make changes which move in the opposite direction (such as drastically increasing the amount of data needed to be shared in order to keep the network functioning).

[billyjoeallen]

regarding blocksize limit: let's say you we're looking at buying a Ferrari. The car has a 10 MPH governor on  it that cannot be removed without voiding the warrantee. Would you buy it? What would be the point? It's just a really expensive golf cart. 

But at some price level, you would buy it, say "screw the warrantee", pull off the governor, and drive it anyway. That price would have to be substantially lower than  MSRP.