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

[600watt]

i sell physical Bitcoins

u lost faith?  

[adaseb]

Looks like a little pullback before advance.

Trade opportunity coming up.

[adamstgBit]

the liquidation of my assets for BTC has begun

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=73.0

That link only leads to the auctions board in the marketplace. I had a quick look and found this thread auctioning a $ 1,025,637.26 BTC account.

$ 1,025,637.26 BTC account for sale.

That isn't you is it?  

What are you selling, in which threads, and how many BTC are your total assets likely to fetch?

edit

I found this thread where you are selling what looks like a physical Bitcoin to me. You won't sell it for less than one Bitcoin will you, as it looks like it's worth that already?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1283727

i sell physical Bitcoins

u lost faith?  

there not funded....

selling fancy wallets

[Ultrafinery]

...
So you're saying... don't use bitcoin then? Great! Scale bitcoin by not using it!

Really what it sounds like. Must be missing something.

...
So if I download blockchain A (and the Bitcoin blockchain), and you download blockchain B (and the Bitcoin blockchain), what do we do if, for some weird reason, we want to do business?

Let's say I accept DASH but you only have LTC or DOGE. At that point there are several solutions:

1) I use an exchange account for deposits of coins that I do not regularly receive, so you do nothing but send your LTC or DOGE. I then convert those to DASH which I accept and withdraw them.
2) You first convert your LTC or DOGE to DASH which I accept, in some exchange, and send them to me.
3) We use a payment processor

In short, no different from you accepting only rubles, and me having only pesos. This sounds like the worst of both worlds, no?
Also, in all the options you have offered, how does Bitcoin factor in?
...

[conspirosphere.tk]

My point was that they're only making Bitcoin less relevant (people use alts, so they don't use Bitcoin as much).
I'm not against alts at all.

Neither me. They can be complementary especially if there is an huge crypto success worldwide. And still a single one could remain a sort of gold standard (if it's not sabotaged).

[brg444]

And downloading terabytes of blockchain bloat will?

Bitcoin is a protocol and while it is true that scaling issues exist, they are being worked on to find solutions. But nobody says we all have to use just one blockchain for storing everything, and doing so with zero cost.

Having a second blockchain does absolutely nothing to reduce bloat. In order to use a federated blockchain in a trustless manner requires the user to download the entire bitcoin blockchain plus the entire federated blockchain. This can be no smaller than the bitcoin blockchain would be if all transactions were done in bitcoin. What's the point?

Multiple blockchains do not reduce bloat on aggregate, they multiply it. However, you only download the blockchains you want. You are not forced to use 1000 blockchains if there are 1000 altcoins. You only download and use those that you like.

So you're saying... don't use bitcoin then? Great! Scale bitcoin by not using it!

Finally someone get it  

HODL Bitcoin spend fiat !

[adamstgBit]

the liquidation of my assets for BTC has begun

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=73.0

That link only leads to the auctions board in the marketplace. I had a quick look and found this thread auctioning a $ 1,025,637.26 BTC account.

$ 1,025,637.26 BTC account for sale.

That isn't you is it?  

What are you selling, in which threads, and how many BTC are your total assets likely to fetch?

edit

I found this thread where you are selling what looks like a physical Bitcoin to me. You won't sell it for less than one Bitcoin will you, as it looks like it's worth that already?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1283727

i sell physical Bitcoins

u lost faith?  

there not funded....

selling fancy wallets

i hope bidder don't think i'm selling 1BTC + the coin starting at 0.001BTC  

these wallets are VERY secure

[billyjoeallen]

Worrying about blockchain bloat when the whole damn thing can fit on a microSD chip is either stupid or disingenuous.

It can fit because it has a 1mb limit in place, and not, say, 20mb. It would require just 50 blocks to fill 1 gb if someone made a script to do just that.

You cannot have a multibillion dollar currency that has such an issue looming over its head.

If you have a currency where someone can throw 1 btc in fees to fill a 20mb block, then with 144btc spent you get around 3gb of bloat per day.

In a month you will need 4320 BTCs to fill 86.4gb, and in a year you'll have exceeded 1 TB for a cost of 51840 BTCs (21mn USD at current prices, much less in terms of USD if the government has hacked them or confiscated them).

Even if one is paying the fees, and is not basing his approach on waiting to confirm a lot of low fee or no fee transactions, the price is way too low for destroying a multibillion dollar currency / making it unusable / rendering it centralized.

If I were threatened by BTC and had the resources, I'd go for it. It's pretty cheap compared to what you get in return (a bloated system and the perception that "ah crap, crypto is done, it can't scale because it's way too bloated). What more could I say?

What we *really* need is to fit way more transactions in the same amount of space. And we also need a much higher fee structure, implemented ...yesterday if possible.

Are you trolling? That's a dumb argument.
 1) a 20MB block would not automatically mean all new blocks would be 20MB. We have a 1 MB limit now and most blocks are less than half that.
2) a large block runs the risk of getting orphaned because it propagates slower than a smaller block.  Miners know this and have an incentive to keep them small regardless of what the upper limit is.

You want a higher fee structure yesterday? Apparently you were sick the day they taught economics in economics class.  You don't gain business by raising prices, especially in a highly competitive environment. That's how you LOSE business.

[conspirosphere.tk]

So you're saying... don't use bitcoin then? Great! Scale bitcoin by not using it!

don't use it for crap, like ads/spam, dice with 0,0000000001 tx, and so. Do you trade physical gold daily? Me neither.

[billyjoeallen]

So you're saying... don't use bitcoin then? Great! Scale bitcoin by not using it!

don't use it for crap, like ads/spam, dice with 0,0000000001 tx, and so. Do you trade physical gold daily? Me neither.

It's not a peer-to-peer electronic gold system. It's by design a peer-to-peer electronic CASH system. There may come a time when microtransactions will need to be off chain, but that time will never come if we don't get a critical mass of users first.

[AlexGR]

In short, no different from you accepting only rubles, and me having only pesos. This sounds like the worst of both worlds, no?

Eh, no. Because the issue is pretty much solvable.

Also, in all the options you have offered, how does Bitcoin factor in?

First, most cryptocurrencies are based on the bitcoin protocol. So bitcoin is still in use, as a protocol, even if it isn't as a currency for a particular transaction.

If I use LTC, I still use the bitcoin protocol. The elements are pretty much the same.

Second, in some of the options, like having an exchange account, you can either use BTC, or not. For example you can accept 100 different altcoins and have it set to be converted to BTC on arrival and then make 1 fat BTC withdrawal in the end of the day (if you are a merchant). So you might have gotten paid for 300 coffees with DOGE, these money go to the payment processor or exchange, and in the end of the day you get, say, 2 BTC.

How would that work?

Code-wise it shouldn't be that difficult. It might be a lot of work but in essence it is a decentralized asset exchange, specifically for cryptocurrencies/altcoins, merging functionalities of different wallets in order to transact in multiple blockchains.

[conspirosphere.tk]

It's not a peer-to-peer electronic gold system. It's by design a peer-to-peer electronic CASH system. There may come a time when microtransactions will need to be off chain, but that time will never come if we don't get a critical mass of users first.

Gold is money. Everything else is a scam.

[billyjoeallen]

It's not a peer-to-peer electronic gold system. It's by design a peer-to-peer electronic CASH system. There may come a time when microtransactions will need to be off chain, but that time will never come if we don't get a critical mass of users first.

Gold is money. Everything else is a scam.

That's an assertion, not an argument. Money is simply the most marketable (liquid) commodity. In many languages the word "silver" is a synonym for money. It's the thing that eliminates the need for a double coincidence of wants. Using altcoins is basically the same as going back to barter. That's taking money backwards, not forwards.

[600watt]

It's not a peer-to-peer electronic gold system. It's by design a peer-to-peer electronic CASH system. There may come a time when microtransactions will need to be off chain, but that time will never come if we don't get a critical mass of users first.

Gold is money. Everything else is a scam.

the bug is strong with this one.  

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[Ultrafinery]

In short, no different from you accepting only rubles, and me having only pesos. This sounds like the worst of both worlds, no?

Eh, no. Because the issue is pretty much solvable.

Not seeing the difference. I'll quote your 'solutions,' and show that they are identical to using different fiat currencies:

1) I use an exchange account for deposits of coins that I do not regularly receive, so you do nothing but send your LTC or DOGE. I then convert those to DASH which I accept and withdraw them.

We use Forex.

2) You first convert your LTC or DOGE to DASH which I accept, in some exchange, and send them to me.

I convert my pesos to rubles, send them to you.

3) We use a payment processor

We use a payment processor.
Where's the difference?

Also, in all the options you have offered, how does Bitcoin factor in?

First, most cryptocurrencies are based on the bitcoin protocol. So bitcoin is still in use, as a protocol, even if it isn't as a currency for a particular transaction.

If I use LTC, I still use the bitcoin protocol. The elements are pretty much the same.

I see. So if no one uses the BTC bloccahin, and everyone uses LTC, we're still all using Bitcoin, correct?

Second, in some of the options, like having an exchange account, you can either use BTC, or not.

You mean I could first trade my cryptopesos into BTC, pay fee, then convert that BTC into your cryptorubles, pay fee again, and give you the cryptorubles?
Why would I do that?

For example you can accept 100 different altcoins and have it set to be converted to BTC on arrival and then make 1 fat BTC withdrawal in the end of the day (if you are a merchant). So you might have gotten paid for 300 coffees with DOGE, these money go to the payment processor or exchange, and in the end of the day you get, say, 2 BTC.

But why involve Bitcoin at all? If [crypto]rubles is your chain of choice, why not have the exchange convert all the small transactions directly into cryptorubles, and, at the end of the day, withdraw it in a single transaction?

How would that work?

Code-wise it shouldn't be that difficult. It might be a lot of work but in essence it is a decentralized asset exchange, specifically for cryptocurrencies/altcoins, merging functionalities of different wallets in order to transact in multiple blockchains.

Who is running this "decentralized exchange'? What's the incentive? How many nodes? All the nodes will need to have copies of each and every blockchain, no? You think that is a trivial coding problem?!
Your 'decentralized exchange' sounds like an uber-complex cryptocurrency in itself. Why not simplify it significantly by having it issue its own tokens?

[AlexGR]

Are you trolling? That's a dumb argument.
 1) a 20MB block would not automatically mean all new blocks would be 20MB. We have a 1 MB limit now and most blocks are less than half that.

The logic fallacy:

When someone leaves their house, don't they lock the door? The answer is yes.

If one leaves their house they have less than 0.01% of their house being broken into. YET THEY LOCK THE DOOR.

By your rationale it would be dumb to do so... "just because one left their house doesn't automatically mean that his house will be broken into, I mean look at the statistics of how few times this has happened!!!".

The security assumption you are making, stated simply, is that just because something isn't been done on a regular basis, it's ok if we leave the gap for it to get abused. If you design systems like that you will be fucked pretty swiftly. If you want to make a robust system you start by assuming the WORST POSSIBLE SCENARIOS and trying to find mitigation strategies for dealing with them. Otherwise some other guy will say "so, let's start looking for vulnerabilities here" and they will find them if you have made assumptions of "reasonable behavior".

If BTC was made for reasonable behavior assumptions it would be a joke-coin that would not be worth billions - it would have been violated plenty of times already, in every possible way that isn't "sealed off".

2) a large block runs the risk of getting orphaned because it propagates slower than a smaller block.  Miners know this and have an incentive to keep them small regardless of what the upper limit is.

That's true even with a 1MB block yet many miners are filling it with dust and near zero fee txs. This is not rational behavior.

Can the network be based on the security assumption that miners will always be rational regarding what transactions they process? I believe the answer is no, especially since they have a track record where they obviously do not behave rationally and have assisted in the bloating of the blockchain for zero cost and increased risk for the miner who might get orphaned. So you have to circumvent human stupidity at the protocol level.

You want a higher fee structure yesterday? Apparently you were sick the day they taught economics in economics class.  You don't gain business by raising prices, especially in a highly competitive environment. That's how you LOSE business.

Even if the fees are raised significantly it'll still be way lower than many current fees that are charged for a whole range of transactions. Besides, you are making the assumption that most people already have at their disposal paypal, banks, cards, etc and that Bitcoin is just another means of payment that they can choose from. If you already have access to paypal, banks, cards, etc, Bitcoin might be near useless to you as it offers nothing new compared to what you did yesterday. Perhaps a bit less fees or something, at the expense of market volatility where you could lose way more money from currency fluctuations compared to a predictable set-fee charge.

However, in many cases, Bitcoin is the most people will get in terms of online transactions. This applies for BILLIONS OF PEOPLE who are possible candidates to use it. Whether they are kids playing a MMORPG and wanting to buy/sell virtual stuff (and aren't of legal age to use banks/cards etc, thus using Bitcoins), or being in a country where sending $$$ internationally through the banks is problematic due to currency restrictions, etc etc.

Bitcoin is more revolutionary for countries of the non-western world than it is for the western world. Even for its property as money (and not money-transfer service) which can be considered hard currency compared to local inflationary currency.

[brg444]

So you're saying... don't use bitcoin then? Great! Scale bitcoin by not using it!

don't use it for crap, like ads/spam, dice with 0,0000000001 tx, and so. Do you trade physical gold daily? Me neither.

It's not a peer-to-peer electronic gold system. It's by design a peer-to-peer electronic CASH system. There may come a time when microtransactions will need to be off chain, but that time will never come if we don't get a critical mass of users first.

This type of idiocy is often repeated but absolutely misguided.

The term CASH stems from the notion that Bitcoin, like cash, is a bearer instrument, not that it should be freely spent on trinklets at no cost.

[ssmc2]

Breakout a'comin

[Ultrafinery]

...
This type of idiocy is often repeated but absolutely misguided.

The term CASH stems from the notion that Bitcoin, like cash, is a bearer instrument, not that it should be freely spent on trinklets at no cost.

Right on!
*Reducing* the blocksize is what really needs to be done. Make garbage transactions (all transactions below 1,000 BTC) impossible, due to cost. The 'I want more shit for free' brigade will pretty much *have* to hodl then.
Scarcity maximized => price skyrockets => everybody's happy