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

[marcus_of_augustus]

...
How secure should the network be? What's the sweet spot between cost and security?

The 'optimum' network security level is a variable that should increase with an increase in network value, since it is safe-guarding more as value increases.

We're currently paying ~10% of the network's worth, per year, to secure it. In other words, we're paying $1 to store $10 for a year.

1. Is this optimal?
2. If a bank charged you 10%, yearly, to store your money, would you use it?

... you've conflated the income from the issuance of scarce tokens, that will be in circulation in perpetuity facilitating all future transactions, with the cost of securing the network.

[-Greed-]

The pump group is sick about getting price up. We crossed 450 USD and 3000 CNY. No one wants to buy. Still. Everyone is waiting to dump some coins at a higher price.

I don't really give a crap about someone's money but the manupulators need to stop this before it's too late. This pump is doomed.

The other way is there's a scam behind some exchange (most likely a Chinese). This will be bad for Bitcoin. Expect a storm...

[_biO_]

The pump group is sick about getting price up. We crossed 450 USD and 3000 CNY. No one wants to buy. Still. Everyone is waiting to dump some coins at a higher price.

I don't really give a crap about someone's money but the manupulators need to stop this before it's too late. This pump is doomed.

The other way is there's a scam behind some exchange (most likely a Chinese). This will be bad for Bitcoin. Expect a storm...

Did it ever occur to you that bitcoin may just be worth a lot more than it's current price?

[Tzupy]

Come on, bulls... You can pump this another 10$ (but NOT much more that that!) so I can open my short...

[peonminer]

...
How secure should the network be? What's the sweet spot between cost and security?

The 'optimum' network security level is a variable that should increase with an increase in network value, since it is safe-guarding more as value increases.

We're currently paying ~10% of the network's worth, per year, to secure it. In other words, we're paying $1 to store $10 for a year.

1. Is this optimal?
2. If a bank charged you 10%, yearly, to store your money, would you use it?

... you've conflated the issuance of scarce tokens, that will be in circulation in perpetuity facilitating all future transactions, with the cost of securing of the network.

Cost of issuing tokens, you say? OK, I'll rephrase:
Would you use a bank which charged you 10% of your balance, yearly, to secure your money & print 'USDtokens' (which it would distribute to people other than yourself)?

Your arguments are that of the utmost moot. I cackle in automated response to the disgustingly misleading filth that you spew. USD inflation yearly % + FED rates about to be hiked + TAXES + being an eternal slave to central banky's debt + limitless bank fees to use their toilet paper jew confetti = Much higher than 10%. The 10% rate you conjured up with your fear pr0n witchcraft, I might add.

#nomorefeedinglambie

[marcus_of_augustus]

...
How secure should the network be? What's the sweet spot between cost and security?

The 'optimum' network security level is a variable that should increase with an increase in network value, since it is safe-guarding more as value increases.

We're currently paying ~10% of the network's worth, per year, to secure it. In other words, we're paying $1 to store $10 for a year.

1. Is this optimal?
2. If a bank charged you 10%, yearly, to store your money, would you use it?

... you've conflated the issuance of scarce tokens, that will be in circulation in perpetuity facilitating all future transactions, with the cost of securing of the network.

Cost of issuing tokens, you say? OK, I'll rephrase:
Would you use a bank which charged you 10% of your balance, yearly, to secure your money & print 'USDtokens' (which it would distribute to people other than yourself)?

If they could cryptographically prove they were only ever going to issue 21million of those USDtokens, and that proof was backed by the security of the largest distributed hashing power on the planet, maybe I would.

[koryu]

just the order books in the west look bearish, most indicators still bullish. so I keep on hodling 

[Sitarow]

[peonminer]

...
How secure should the network be? What's the sweet spot between cost and security?

The 'optimum' network security level is a variable that should increase with an increase in network value, since it is safe-guarding more as value increases.

We're currently paying ~10% of the network's worth, per year, to secure it. In other words, we're paying $1 to store $10 for a year.

1. Is this optimal?
2. If a bank charged you 10%, yearly, to store your money, would you use it?

... you've conflated the issuance of scarce tokens, that will be in circulation in perpetuity facilitating all future transactions, with the cost of securing of the network.

Cost of issuing tokens, you say? OK, I'll rephrase:
Would you use a bank which charged you 10% of your balance, yearly, to secure your money & print 'USDtokens' (which it would distribute to people other than yourself)?

Your arguments are that of the utmost moot. I cackle in automated response to the disgustingly misleading filth that you spew. USD inflation yearly % + FED rates about to be hiked + TAXES + being an eternal slave to central banky's debt + limitless bank fees to use their toilet paper jew confetti = Much higher than 10%. The 10% rate you conjured up with your fear pr0n witchcraft, I might add.

#nomorefeedinglambie

Nothing conjured about the 10+% yearly BTC inflation -- 25 BTC is printed out of thin air every block. These blocks are mined at a rate faster than 1 every 10 minutes. You do the math.

Regarding taxes, banks don't charge those, governments do. You wouldn't know that -- you don't pay taxes. Because on the dole, you stupid skinhead hick

Again, your ignorance is strikingly that of a monkey that stumbled into your crack stash.

The Fed's income comes primarily from the interest on government securities that it has acquired...

http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/about_12799.htm

gov·ern·ment se·cu·ri·ties
noun
bonds or other promissory certificates issued by the government.

DEFINITION of 'Government Security'
A bond (or debt obligation) issued by a government authority, with a promise of repayment upon maturity that is backed by said government. A government security may be issued by the government itself or by one of the government agencies.

 These securities are considered low-risk, since they are backed by the taxing power of the government.

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/g/governmentsecurity.asp

How is the Federal Reserve System structured?

The Federal Reserve System was designed to give it a broad perspective on the economy and on economic activity in all parts of the nation. It is a federal system, composed of a central, independent governmental agency--the Board of Governors--in Washington, D.C., and 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks, located in major cities throughout the nation.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/about_12593.htm



Try once more, you illiterate filth spewing ignoramus. The note one is forced to use via banks, is forcibly under a penance as soon as it is created. Show me where Bitcoin forces each hodler to pay someone 10% a year of the stash.

[marcus_of_augustus]

...
How secure should the network be? What's the sweet spot between cost and security?

The 'optimum' network security level is a variable that should increase with an increase in network value, since it is safe-guarding more as value increases.

We're currently paying ~10% of the network's worth, per year, to secure it. In other words, we're paying $1 to store $10 for a year.

1. Is this optimal?
2. If a bank charged you 10%, yearly, to store your money, would you use it?

... you've conflated the issuance of scarce tokens, that will be in circulation in perpetuity facilitating all future transactions, with the cost of securing of the network.

Cost of issuing tokens, you say? OK, I'll rephrase:
Would you use a bank which charged you 10% of your balance, yearly, to secure your money & print 'USDtokens' (which it would distribute to people other than yourself)?

If they could cryptographically prove they were only ever going to issue 21million of those USDtokens, and that proof was backed by the security of the largest distributed hashing power on the planet, maybe I would.

And if they just said "look, it's not in our best interest to ever issue more than 21M tokens, because reasons," would you still?
What if their word was backed by a shitton of Chinese hardware, capable of doing one thing and one thing only, and already nearly obsolete?

... now you've gone so far into hypotheticals that your analogy has been stretched beyond its usefulness and your arguments are simply ridiculously incomprehensible.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[rebuilder]

Are you saying that you don't understand leaving everything as it is and let the free fee market do its job?

We should probably take this to a different thread, I'm already feeling guilty about going off on this tangent here. But quickly:

We already didn't 'leave everything as it is'. This is an entirely artificial system with a number of arbitary design choices. The 1MB block limit is an obvious example, and wasn't even originally intended to serve an economic function beyond limiting spam. It's not needed for a fee market: as block subsidy decreases fees must increase or miners will shut off. Thus, when the block subsidy is insufficient to pay for mining costs, miners are incentivized to require fees in order to accept transactions.

If you say X is the amount of transactions the network should, at most, be able to handle, you're making a policy decision. If you say there should be no limit and miners should decide whether they want to include 0-fee transactions, you're also making a policy decision. You can't pretend one is more of a "free market" solution than the other.

The network is considered roughly secure against economically sensible attacks when the cost of an attack is greater than the profit gained.In rough terms, the greater [network value] / [cost to gain 51% of hashrate] is, the less secure the network becomes. To increase security, you need to either decrease network value or increase the cost of gaining a percentage of hashrate. Both the small-blocks and large-blocks solutions essentially hope that a balance is naturally found where the cost of running the network doesn't hamper usage to the point that fees and subsidies aren't sufficient to provide security.

I don't have a solution here, but I think we're turning a blind eye to this issue of security vs. cost when that's the real question that needs addressing.

[peonminer]

Dear Nazi Wannabe Trailer Trash peonminer:
'Government bonds' and 'Taxes' are not one and the same.  Ofc, I wouldn't expect you to know this, living on the dole like you do

Just another way of telling your buddy (The US govn't and its people) you are controlled by the Federal Reserve. The 'bonds' are the 'tax' for using the toilet paper jew confetti. Please reference my post owning you, here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=178336.msg13260184#msg13260184 ; You wouldn't know that though, because you are too politically correct about every tiny aspect, that you have Uncle Sam's big toe permanently affixed to the inside of your lips. Tell me, if I give you $1, and you give me a 'bond' to pay $1.20 back at the end of the year, where will the $.20 come from? Me. When I print more money. Which has more debt attached. Which makes you my slave. You little cunt bitch.

/fin

/ignores

[TERA]

Omg the moon is exploding

[Elwar]

If FOMO hasn't begun to kick in yet, just wait until we tip past 504 and the volume begins to surge..

FOMO has come and gone. Now it's



@Elwar re. 'I don't mind transacting with third parties as long as I can hold a deflationary currency': What are you doing with Bitcoin?! 10+% monetary base inflation, 25BTC printed out of thin air every < 10 minutes!

Hmm...I started converting my USD to bitcoins when each one had the buying power of $17. Now they have the buying power of $462.

Either bitcoins are deflationary or the USD has gone into hyperinflation.

$1.5 million per day going toward bitcoin's "inflation" (which has been steadily eaten up by adoption) vs trillions of dollars pumped into the economy out of nowhere.

Along with the fact that the US holds a $19 trillion debt which requires being paid back in USD. The only two possible ways of dealing with this debt is either devaluing the USD by a lot so that the interest payments are manageable (currently the 4th largest spending item behind national defense) or taxing us all to hell. I have safeguarded myself from both scenarios by 1. converting all of my USD to bitcoins and 2. leaving the US and never paying taxes again.

[JayJuanGee]

Are you saying that you don't understand leaving everything as it is and let the free fee market do its job?

We should probably take this to a different thread, I'm already feeling guilty about going off on this tangent here. But quickly:

We already didn't 'leave everything as it is'. This is an entirely artificial system with a number of arbitary design choices. The 1MB block limit is an obvious example, and wasn't even originally intended to serve an economic function beyond limiting spam. It's not needed for a fee market: as block subsidy decreases fees must increase or miners will shut off. Thus, when the block subsidy is insufficient to pay for mining costs, miners are incentivized to require fees in order to accept transactions.

If you say X is the amount of transactions the network should, at most, be able to handle, you're making a policy decision. If you say there should be no limit and miners should decide whether they want to include 0-fee transactions, you're also making a policy decision. You can't pretend one is more of a "free market" solution than the other.

The network is considered roughly secure against economically sensible attacks when the cost of an attack is greater than the profit gained.In rough terms, the greater [network value] / [cost to gain 51% of hashrate] is, the less secure the network becomes. To increase security, you need to either decrease network value or increase the cost of gaining a percentage of hashrate. Both the small-blocks and large-blocks solutions essentially hope that a balance is naturally found where the cost of running the network doesn't hamper usage to the point that fees and subsidies aren't sufficient to provide security.

I don't have a solution here, but I think we're turning a blind eye to this issue of security vs. cost when that's the real question that needs addressing.

hahahahahaha

Why move to another thread when this one allows for all topics quasi-bitcoin related, and since the bitcoin is the world, there is NEARlY NO topic that is not covered by its magnanimous glory.

[Richy_T]

He can wait forever, if he does not want to pay a damned fee for the service.
The free shit party is happening in some other place.

What's a fair price for the last seat on a lifeboat on the Titanic?

Then what if I told you there were a bunch of other lifeboats but we're keeping them back because we think there should be a fee "market?"

Edited to add the quotes around "market"

[Richy_T]

Still, it's full of geniuses lamenting the scarcity of the blockspace and the consequent fees, ignoring that economics is all about scarcities.
And since that's way too much ignoring, they must be trolls for hire.

There is scarcity and then there is artificial scarcity. One is a natural consequence of the laws of physics, the other is typically someone trying to screw others over.

[Cconvert2G36]

-snip-

If you say X is the amount of transactions the network should, at most, be able to handle, you're making a policy decision. If you say there should be no limit and miners should decide whether they want to include 0-fee transactions, you're also making a policy decision. You can't pretend one is more of a "free market" solution than the other.

No need to pretend. If there is any policy decision involved... it is a decision to allow the free market of transaction processors to determine their production levels while taking into account their costs/competition/and network health as a whole (a miner's success is nearly synonymous with the success of Bitcoin). Make huge blocks that take forever to verify and your chance of being orphaned goes up, denying you income. That's the free market at work. Bloat the chain to the point that the node network is in a handful of datacenters... confidence in the protection of decentralization is lost, value of your revenue plummets... free market incentives again.

The network is considered roughly secure against economically sensible attacks when the cost of an attack is greater than the profit gained.In rough terms, the greater [network value] / [cost to gain 51% of hashrate] is, the less secure the network becomes. To increase security, you need to either decrease network value or increase the cost of gaining a percentage of hashrate. Both the small-blocks and large-blocks solutions essentially hope that a balance is naturally found where the cost of running the network doesn't hamper usage to the point that fees and subsidies aren't sufficient to provide security.

I don't have a solution here, but I think we're turning a blind eye to this issue of security vs. cost when that's the real question that needs addressing.

I take issue with your use of [network value]. What's the point of spending $100 million (probably much more) to end up killing the golden goose? Mutually assured destruction is at work here, for both of these issues. Satoshi understood free market incentives, he designed the system around them, we should let them work.

[Dotto]

Seems the bitch is going north again.

We all know how this ends














cought, CCMF, cought