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

[jbreher]

If there's no need to transact outside of (vetted) exchanges, there's no reason to burn so much electricity in Chinese chicken coops to keep a ridiculous POW scheme running.  

Absolute twaddle. Reducing the proportion of the wealth of the populace that the vampire squid is able to hoover up though legalistically-chartered theft is reason enough. Even if it were not for the fact that the legacy financial system already consumes a huge share of humanity's electricity production.

[lama-hunter]

There is incoming another PRice rising i think of the BTC

The 500$ will be crashed soon What do you Guys think ?

regards
lama-hunter

[Ibian]

If you are good enough, you could do it with a thousand bucks. If you suck, you could turn a million bucks into twenty grand in a year.

I guess we won't get statistical information... not that Homo statisticus' (Bitcoin) average trader exists, but it's indicative. Anecdotal (but actual) evidence is welcome too.

The average trader loses money. It's close to the Parato ratio 80:20 losers:winners. Not that many of the losers will admit that.

holding fiat has burned me zero times

Well, aside from the constant devaluation.

Well see, fiat is meant to discourage you from holding it, because it's money. It's meant to encourage you to *invest* in useful shit, like real businesses that do actual stuff, or spend it on shit you enjoy, like hookers and blow.
And it has almost succeeded in your case, but not quite. You did figure out that you shouldn't just hodl fiat, but then went on to 'invest' in what amounts to little more than an elaborate pyramid scheme. Oh well, nothing's perfect, all has fallen short of His glory. Even fiat.

I hear what you're saying, but it comes back to economics. You can't have SUSTAINABLE growth without capital formation (savings). You can't build wealth without deferring gratification. A fisherman who wants to be more productive than catching fish by hand has to take time away from fishing to make a fishing rod.  Then he catches more fish faster, but he has to take time away from that to make a net or a trot line. 

 Fiat and artificially low interest rates are designed to increase the velocity of money at the expense of capital formation. This will destroy the economy in the long run. We're in the process of watching that play out now. 

So which is it? For or against fiat?

When you ask an economist a question like that, they will respond with "as compared to what?" The question is meaningless otherwise.

That's what we call a non-answer.

[lama-hunter]

If you are good enough, you could do it with a thousand bucks. If you suck, you could turn a million bucks into twenty grand in a year.

I guess we won't get statistical information... not that Homo statisticus' (Bitcoin) average trader exists, but it's indicative. Anecdotal (but actual) evidence is welcome too.

The average trader loses money. It's close to the Parato ratio 80:20 losers:winners. Not that many of the losers will admit that.

holding fiat has burned me zero times

Well, aside from the constant devaluation.

Well see, fiat is meant to discourage you from holding it, because it's money. It's meant to encourage you to *invest* in useful shit, like real businesses that do actual stuff, or spend it on shit you enjoy, like hookers and blow.
And it has almost succeeded in your case, but not quite. You did figure out that you shouldn't just hodl fiat, but then went on to 'invest' in what amounts to little more than an elaborate pyramid scheme. Oh well, nothing's perfect, all has fallen short of His glory. Even fiat.

I hear what you're saying, but it comes back to economics. You can't have SUSTAINABLE growth without capital formation (savings). You can't build wealth without deferring gratification. A fisherman who wants to be more productive than catching fish by hand has to take time away from fishing to make a fishing rod.  Then he catches more fish faster, but he has to take time away from that to make a net or a trot line. 

 Fiat and artificially low interest rates are designed to increase the velocity of money at the expense of capital formation. This will destroy the economy in the long run. We're in the process of watching that play out now. 

So which is it? For or against fiat?

When you ask an economist a question like that, they will respond with "as compared to what?" The question is meaningless otherwise.

That's what we call a non-answer.

You could also say a State Movement

[billyjoeallen]

...
Well see, fiat is meant to discourage you from holding it, because it's money. It's meant to encourage you to *invest* in useful shit, like real businesses that do actual stuff, or spend it on shit you enjoy, like hookers and blow.
And it has almost succeeded in your case, but not quite. You did figure out that you shouldn't just hodl fiat, but then went on to 'invest' in what amounts to little more than an elaborate pyramid scheme. Oh well, nothing's perfect, all has fallen short of His glory. Even fiat.

I hear what you're saying, but it comes back to economics. You can't have SUSTAINABLE growth without capital formation (savings).

Such an odd thing to say.
>SUSTAINABLE
What does that mean? What timeframe are we talking about?
>SUSTAINABLE growth
Is this even desirable? If so, why?
>SUSTAINABLE growth without capital formation (savings)
'Capital formation' does not mean 'money'. "Capital formation refers to net additions of capital stock such as equipment, buildings and other intermediate goods."--Investopedia

You can't build wealth without deferring gratification. A fisherman who wants to be more productive than catching fish by hand has to take time away from fishing to make a fishing rod.  Then he catches more fish faster, but he has to take time away from that to make a net or a trot line.

Relevance here? How does fiat figure into making nets & fishing rods?

Fiat and artificially low interest rates are designed to increase the velocity of money at the expense of capital formation. This will destroy the economy in the long run. We're in the process of watching that play out now.  

>Fiat and artificially low interest rates
Define natural interest rate of fiat.
>at the expense of capital formation

>This will destroy the economy in the long run.

>We're in the process of watching that play out now.
Please offer some sort of data. I'm doing just fine ('s far as anecdotal stuff goes)

If you want a capital good, say a tractor or a factory, how do you pay for it? Where does the resources used to produce such goods ultimately come from? If you are using fiat printed out of thin air and lent into existence through fractional reserve banking, then those resources are being stolen from existing holders of fiat (savers).  If you have a sound money system, then you either save to buy the capital goods or you borrow from somebody who did.  Either way, the capital formation comes from savings.

Bitcoin has nearly unlimited potential to replace the existing monetary system, but that won't mean shit if the scaling issue isn't solved.  Anyone can copy the code, tweek it to scale and with enough money can make an altcoin to overcome it's first mover advantage.  

Fiat is artificial surplus. Crypto is artificial scarcity.  Both have their strengths and weaknesses.

[aztecminer]

If you are good enough, you could do it with a thousand bucks. If you suck, you could turn a million bucks into twenty grand in a year.

I guess we won't get statistical information... not that Homo statisticus' (Bitcoin) average trader exists, but it's indicative. Anecdotal (but actual) evidence is welcome too.

The average trader loses money. It's close to the Parato ratio 80:20 losers:winners. Not that many of the losers will admit that.

holding fiat has burned me zero times

Well, aside from the constant devaluation.

Well see, fiat is meant to discourage you from holding it, because it's money. It's meant to encourage you to *invest* in useful shit, like real businesses that do actual stuff, or spend it on shit you enjoy, like hookers and blow.
And it has almost succeeded in your case, but not quite. You did figure out that you shouldn't just hodl fiat, but then went on to 'invest' in what amounts to little more than an elaborate pyramid scheme. Oh well, nothing's perfect, all has fallen short of His glory. Even fiat.

oops wrong. fiat is NOT money.. fiat is a currency...... GOLD and SILVER is money. ... u probably better not do anymore investing right now until u learn what money is.

[Lauda]

It would be nice if the price closed at this price level for 2015. 2016 is definitely going to be more exciting than this year was. Due to the huge amount of posts here and me being to unable so much time into the thread, could someone share some information directly (price changes that are expected)? It would be very appreciated.

[LFC_Bitcoin]

Good to see a bit of stability in the price today, daily change is - 1.22 USD according to Stamp.
A week or two of sideways before we start another rise would be good

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

It would be nice if the price closed at this price level for 2015. 2016 is definitely going to be more exciting than this year was. Due to the huge amount of posts here and me being to unable so much time into the thread, could someone share some information directly (price changes that are expected)? It would be very appreciated.

Lambie? Care to comment?

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[billyjoeallen]

. The very notion that one should be able to store wealth, passively, by simply taking it out of circulation, is absurd. A ridiculous mental construct, fails both logically and ethically.

Perhaps you need to look up the definition of "store". That's how you store anything, by taking it out of circulation.

There's this little story of the ant and the grasshopper. Maybe you've heard of it?

It's so unethical for the people who produce wealth to be able to hold onto it, right?  People who live beyond their means really NEED that wealth, don't they?

So here's a logic question for you: if you punish people who produce wealth and you reward people who consume wealth, do you think there will be more or less wealth in the future? Will you see more production or consumption?

[WeltMaster]

watching charts like

[ImI]

2700 incoming 

[billyjoeallen]

If you are good enough, you could do it with a thousand bucks. If you suck, you could turn a million bucks into twenty grand in a year.

I guess we won't get statistical information... not that Homo statisticus' (Bitcoin) average trader exists, but it's indicative. Anecdotal (but actual) evidence is welcome too.

The average trader loses money. It's close to the Parato ratio 80:20 losers:winners. Not that many of the losers will admit that.

holding fiat has burned me zero times

Well, aside from the constant devaluation.

Well see, fiat is meant to discourage you from holding it, because it's money. It's meant to encourage you to *invest* in useful shit, like real businesses that do actual stuff, or spend it on shit you enjoy, like hookers and blow.
And it has almost succeeded in your case, but not quite. You did figure out that you shouldn't just hodl fiat, but then went on to 'invest' in what amounts to little more than an elaborate pyramid scheme. Oh well, nothing's perfect, all has fallen short of His glory. Even fiat.

I hear what you're saying, but it comes back to economics. You can't have SUSTAINABLE growth without capital formation (savings). You can't build wealth without deferring gratification. A fisherman who wants to be more productive than catching fish by hand has to take time away from fishing to make a fishing rod.  Then he catches more fish faster, but he has to take time away from that to make a net or a trot line. 

 Fiat and artificially low interest rates are designed to increase the velocity of money at the expense of capital formation. This will destroy the economy in the long run. We're in the process of watching that play out now. 

So which is it? For or against fiat?

When you ask an economist a question like that, they will respond with "as compared to what?" The question is meaningless otherwise.

That's what we call a non-answer.

You could also say a State Movement

Look, i'd love to chat about economics and such, but I can't get over this scaling problem.  This network can only support about half a million active users, but it has a market cap of 6.7 billion dollars.  That's crazy overvalued until we get bigger blocks.

[brg444]

Look, i'd love to chat about economics and such, but I can't get over this scaling problem.  This network can only support about half a million active users, but it has a market cap of 6.7 billion dollars.  That's crazy overvalued until we get bigger blocks.

A bunch of nonsense once again.

Bitcoin is not a social network, it's not Facebook.

Its value is not determined by its number of users but the amount of capital that is trusted to it.

The network's capacity in that regard is arguably limitless.

[WeltMaster]

Anyone else expecting a dip to the low 400s, 415-430ish?

[billyjoeallen]

You're bringing ethics into this now? "Go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me" ring a bell?

This is why you can't argue logic with religious people. Sure, give me all your money now and you get pie in the sky when you die. There's always a point at which faith trumps reason.

Maybe that's true, but I don't want to get hung on a cross or eaten by lions. The treasures I have are my family right here on earth and if I can provide for them, then that's my reward.

[billyjoeallen]

I do not punish anyone for doing anything.
What you're essentially saying is "If I do something that currently nets me X dollars, why can't I have X+2 dollars, why are you punishing me?"

Because of time preferences. Now is worth more than later. You want me to have x-2 so people who spend all they make can spend more than they make. Less gets made that way, no matter how it is re-distributed.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

You're bringing ethics into this now? "Go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me" ring a bell?

This is why you can't argue logic with religious people. Sure, give me all your money now and you get pie in the sky when you die. There's always a point at which faith trumps reason.

Maybe that's true, but I don't want to get hung on a cross or eaten by lions. The treasures I have are my family right here on earth and if I can provide for them, then that's my reward.

You're not arguing logic with a religious person.
You're arguing logic with someone who understand that ethics have nothing to do with logic, and western ethics in particular are based on Judeo-Christian teachings.
TL;DR: Ethics are no different from religion, immune from logical analysis (not that people haven't tried). Good job ignoring the rest of the stuff I said.

Human morality is a production of natural selection. Behaving ethically is an evolutionarily stable strategy. Our religious fables are just fantastic narratives trying to explain or justify it.

[billyjoeallen]

You're bringing ethics into this now? "Go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me" ring a bell?

This is why you can't argue logic with religious people. Sure, give me all your money now and you get pie in the sky when you die. There's always a point at which faith trumps reason.

Maybe that's true, but I don't want to get hung on a cross or eaten by lions. The treasures I have are my family right here on earth and if I can provide for them, then that's my reward.

You're not arguing logic with a religious person.
You're arguing logic with someone who understand that ethics have nothing to do with logic, and western ethics in particular are based on Judeo-Christian teachings.
TL;DR: Ethics are no different from religion, immune from logical analysis (not that people haven't tried). Good job ignoring the rest of the stuff I said.

Human morality is a production of natural selection. Behaving ethically is an evolutionarily stable strategy. Our religious fables are just fantastic narratives trying to explain or justify it.

I basically agree with that, although I might quibble that there is a subtle difference between ethics and morality. It's a point only philosophers really care about, but I think the core developers must be discussing it BECAUSE THEY SURE AREN'T DOING ANYTHING TO FIX THE SCALING PROBLEM.