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

[rebuilder]

Insurance is different from security. Thats not hard to comprehend is it?

It's about finding the balance between security and cost. For rough purposes, security = miner revenue. If we're defending against a 51% attack, we should be able to estimate the minimum cost of mining sufficient to provide security: It should be more than the profits an attacker can gain at any given time, but not much  more.

Currently, the cost seems too high to me in terms of % of value spent on mining yearly. Largely this is because of the block subsidy, so hopefully as the block subsidy dwindles, fees *will not* go up proportionally. I'm hoping we're currently overspending on security - if that's not the case and the current resource usage is necessary for network security, I think we have much bigger problems than transaction rate.

[aztecminer]

Sometimes you are so fucking contradictory that I am not even sure whether you can recognize your own lack of coherence.


You claim to be a libertarian and wanting to allow the free "market" to cause effects within such amorphous powers, then at the same time, you are complaining that the free market is over doing the bitcoin computing power because, in your infinite wisdom, they are too secure and "they" are causing you to have to pay more than is necessary in some amorphous and unsubstantiated claim that you have about having extra costs on yourself and presumably other bitcoin users... and what the fuck does it matter anyhow? even if there happens to develop 10x the computing power (excess capacity) to secure the blockchain, because these various individuals have been making their own internal calculations and they have been deciding to take various risks on the gamble that they are going to profit from such apparently excessive cumulative investment of mining power.  

Who gives a shit?  In the end, if we leave it to such free market and let individuals to decide for themselves if it is worth it to them to keep investing in mining,  it is all going to work itself out, no?, and some balance between price and security will work itself out, no?, without you trying to dictate what you believe is best.  

like you said, you can vote with your feet too, and leave bitcoin, which would surely be nice for you to exercise such option instead of continuing to propound end-of-the world ideas about the bitcoin network supposedly being developed as too secure.

Markets, aren't perfect, but they are better than planned economies.  It's Hyek's economic calculation problem.  Prices convey information. I thought I was paying for blockspace when I was paying for bitcoin, but if I have to pay twice, well, that's a price I'm not yet willing to pay.  I guess we'll find out if anyone else is willing to pay twice but I'd rather watch that from the sidelines.

NOBODY HAS YET SHOWN that they are willing to pay high xaction fees. The market WILL decide.

The issue I have to deal with is to get my cash out of a Honk Kong exchange before the network backlog makes that difficult or impossible. So that means I have to sell one here, buy one there to sell the next one here or I expose myself to exchange rate volatility. I suspect that's possibly a reason why the price hasn't tanked yet.

Artificial scarcity of coins in addition to artificial scarcity of blockspace is just too much scarcity for me, so i'm gonna make myself scarce but I gotta cash out first.

keep a few coins in cold storage and then buy a bunch metals while they are down... that will really leave em pissed if u do that. .. then they might do something spiteful like pump or crash bitcoin some more.

[aztecminer]

Sometimes you are so fucking contradictory that I am not even sure whether you can recognize your own lack of coherence.


You claim to be a libertarian and wanting to allow the free "market" to cause effects within such amorphous powers, then at the same time, you are complaining that the free market is over doing the bitcoin computing power because, in your infinite wisdom, they are too secure and "they" are causing you to have to pay more than is necessary in some amorphous and unsubstantiated claim that you have about having extra costs on yourself and presumably other bitcoin users... and what the fuck does it matter anyhow? even if there happens to develop 10x the computing power (excess capacity) to secure the blockchain, because these various individuals have been making their own internal calculations and they have been deciding to take various risks on the gamble that they are going to profit from such apparently excessive cumulative investment of mining power.  

Who gives a shit?  In the end, if we leave it to such free market and let individuals to decide for themselves if it is worth it to them to keep investing in mining,  it is all going to work itself out, no?, and some balance between price and security will work itself out, no?, without you trying to dictate what you believe is best.  

like you said, you can vote with your feet too, and leave bitcoin, which would surely be nice for you to exercise such option instead of continuing to propound end-of-the world ideas about the bitcoin network supposedly being developed as too secure.

Markets, aren't perfect, but they are better than planned economies.  It's Hyek's economic calculation problem.  Prices convey information. I thought I was paying for blockspace when I was paying for bitcoin, but if I have to pay twice, well, that's a price I'm not yet willing to pay.  I guess we'll find out if anyone else is willing to pay twice but I'd rather watch that from the sidelines.

NOBODY HAS YET SHOWN that they are willing to pay high xaction fees. The market WILL decide.

The issue I have to deal with is to get my cash out of a Honk Kong exchange before the network backlog makes that difficult or impossible. So that means I have to sell one here, buy one there to sell the next one here or I expose myself to exchange rate volatility. I suspect that's possibly a reason why the price hasn't tanked yet.

Artificial scarcity of coins in addition to artificial scarcity of blockspace is just too much scarcity for me, so i'm gonna make myself scarce but I gotta cash out first.

keep a few coins in cold storage and then buy a bunch metals while they are down... that will really leave em pissed if u do that. .. then they might do something spiteful like pump or crash bitcoin some more.

add crash metals to the spiteful reactions list.. if u hold back some on first buy then can buy when they crash down.. that will really piss em off ... although they might try lure u back to bitcoin if u were to do that.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[tabnloz]

What happens to people who are on welfare or government paid housing for poor people if hyperinflation occurs?

All signs point to deflationary collapse.  The govt will then print endless trillions to try and stop it, but none of the money will circulate in local economies.  I'm not really sure what happens at that point.  I'm guessing a mixture of both. Some things will be getting pumped to the moon while others deflate in price.

It seems like the excess printing would eventually have to spill over to the normal economy, but you can probably collapse before that happens, so their printing basically does nothing in that case.

The US gets hyperinflation only if the market loses confidence in the government. According to people like Armstrong, the excessive printing would be a symptom not the reason for going hyper. Whilst the USD is the (slowly losing grip) reserve dollar, I think you're right, we'll see deflation. Everything points to it: rising rates, overseas economies declining, debt bombs everywhere, taxes on foreign investment withdrawn. If a good ol' recession arrives on the back of King Dollar, we'll see a range of cutting measures: either more 'forward guidance' ( aka "patience") or outright QE4, maybe even helicopter money. This will probably be late 2016 which bodes well for bitcoin - post halving, weakening dollar, hopefully block debate settled and an economic crisis in the making.

So the question is what happens after that? I also have no clue but I guess that it may be when the post 2008 game is up, everybody realizes that there is no recovery and the debt chickens come home to roost. Governments will tax everything that moves & people get the hell out of anything government, piling into everything private (stocks, gold, bitcoin, real estate). Of course we might also go full japanese and muddle along for 30 years.

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

From my understanding, there is going to be an intentional wait until blocks are full before there will be any increase in capacity so the fee market can develop.

That was Blockstreams game plan from day one.

Its why there  was such vehement  opposition to big blocks, despite it being a relatively minor change. Yet the latest proposals put forward by core will make unprecedented changes to the way bitcoin works, with the added 'bonus' of allowing bigger blocks ( and ...whisper... will finally allow LN/Elements to actually work!!)

The only good thing in this debate is watching trolls like hdbuck and brg444 running around unsure of whether to sh*t or to fart and basically tear into one another.

I'd get the popcorn out just for that.   

[wachtwoord]

Insurance is different from security. Thats not hard to comprehend is it?

It's about finding the balance between security and cost. For rough purposes, security = miner revenue. If we're defending against a 51% attack, we should be able to estimate the minimum cost of mining sufficient to provide security: It should be more than the profits an attacker can gain at any given time, but not much  more.

Currently, the cost seems too high to me in terms of % of value spent on mining yearly. Largely this is because of the block subsidy, so hopefully as the block subsidy dwindles, fees *will not* go up proportionally. I'm hoping we're currently overspending on security - if that's not the case and the current resource usage is necessary for network security, I think we have much bigger problems than transaction rate.

The huge amount of security is the reason no one even tries to attack it. It serves a purpose. It's the reason Bitcoin is already a store of value.

Bitcoin sucks as a payments system and that's fine. A new payment system is not interesting in the slightest. Only security for storings vasts amounts of wealth. The plebis should leave and make their own socialistic coin (Freicoin anyone?).

The time for deadbeats is done.

[becoin]

That was Blockstreams game plan from day one.

What plan? To keep Satoshi bitcoin and not allow XT altcoin fork?

[conspirosphere.tk]

So the question is what happens after that? I also have no clue but I guess that it may be when the post 2008 game is up, everybody realizes that there is no recovery and the debt chickens come home to roost. Governments will tax everything that moves & people get the hell out of anything government, piling into everything private (stocks, gold, bitcoin, real estate). Of course we might also go full japanese and muddle along for 30 years.

The only question which bothers me is if when a 2008-style credit event happens with a vengeance, gold -and by extension bitcoin- will instant-crash 30% or so like in 2008, or not. I tend to expect a general price crash shortly followed by a run to quality (gold and bitcoin), again kinda post-2008.

[rebuilder]

The huge amount of security is the reason no one even tries to attack it. It serves a purpose. It's the reason Bitcoin is already a store of value.

Bitcoin sucks as a payments system and that's fine. A new payment system is not interesting in the slightest. Only security for storings vasts amounts of wealth. The plebis should leave and make their own socialistic coin (Freicoin anyone?).

The time for deadbeats is done.

Obviously security is important. But 10% of the stored value yearly to provide that security?  That compounds rather drastically over time, are you really saying we should not fret about it?

The obvious conclusion is that whatever the target group, users will not pay that amount. No-one is going to "store their wealth" in Bitcoin if it costs them 10% yearly to do so. Miners will simply have to settle for less in fees than they currently get as subsidy and the blockchain will hopefully remain secure enough to be attractive.

Pushing for higher miner fees is barking up the wrong tree. Either we manage with lower fees or the system fails, if you ask me. This will be the case regardless of transaction rate.

[oda.krell]

Insurance is different from security. Thats not hard to comprehend is it?

It's about finding the balance between security and cost. For rough purposes, security = miner revenue. If we're defending against a 51% attack, we should be able to estimate the minimum cost of mining sufficient to provide security: It should be more than the profits an attacker can gain at any given time, but not much  more.

Currently, the cost seems too high to me in terms of % of value spent on mining yearly. Largely this is because of the block subsidy, so hopefully as the block subsidy dwindles, fees *will not* go up proportionally. I'm hoping we're currently overspending on security - if that's not the case and the current resource usage is necessary for network security, I think we have much bigger problems than transaction rate.

The huge amount of security is the reason no one even tries to attack it. It serves a purpose. It's the reason Bitcoin is already a store of value.

Bitcoin sucks as a payments system and that's fine. A new payment system is not interesting in the slightest. Only security for storings vasts amounts of wealth. The plebis should leave and make their own socialistic coin (Freicoin anyone?).

The time for deadbeats is done.

You probably know I appreciate, respect even your opinions on a number of issues in here, but that is one hell of an all-over-the-place, strawman-y argument I must say. From "store of value" to "not intended as cash" (as if the two are mutually exclusive), from "network security" to "no capped total emission"... it doesn't make much sense.

There's an interesting argument to be had about the exact balance between different usage cases, but the blunt rhetorical tools being brought out too often (by either side) are rather unhelpful.

[conspirosphere.tk]

Finally gunna start paying your taxes, parasite?

The parasite is the state extortion racket, and its pawns.

[Elwar]

Insurance is different from security. Thats not hard to comprehend is it?

It's about finding the balance between security and cost. For rough purposes, security = miner revenue. If we're defending against a 51% attack, we should be able to estimate the minimum cost of mining sufficient to provide security: It should be more than the profits an attacker can gain at any given time, but not much  more.

Currently, the cost seems too high to me in terms of % of value spent on mining yearly. Largely this is because of the block subsidy, so hopefully as the block subsidy dwindles, fees *will not* go up proportionally. I'm hoping we're currently overspending on security - if that's not the case and the current resource usage is necessary for network security, I think we have much bigger problems than transaction rate.

The huge amount of security is the reason no one even tries to attack it. It serves a purpose. It's the reason Bitcoin is already a store of value.

Bitcoin sucks as a payments system and that's fine. A new payment system is not interesting in the slightest. Only security for storings vasts amounts of wealth. The plebis should leave and make their own socialistic coin (Freicoin anyone?).

The time for deadbeats is done.

>vasts amounts of wealth


>The time for deadbeats is done.
Finally gunna start paying your taxes, parasite?

Nobody should have to pay taxes.

The government giving away free money has nothing to do with the immorality of stealing from people in the first place.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[rebuilder]

...
Pushing for higher miner fees is barking up the wrong tree. Either we manage with lower fees or the system fails, if you ask me. This will be the case regardless of transaction rate.

Can't we just hardfork to a new, better block reward schedule (print more money)?

What good would that do? The mining subsidy is the single biggest reason miners suck off such a large portion of wealth stored in BTC at the moment. Mining subsidy coupled with bullish price expectations, that is. (An inflation-corrected BTCUSD chart would probably be pretty illuminating...)

[Richy_T]

A segregated witness softfork will be done ASAP (within 3-6 months, probably)

LOL. Double that at least. And in the meantime, we will have the halvening which will slow down block production significantly, exacerbating the problem.

[soullyG]

A segregated witness softfork will be done ASAP (within 3-6 months, probably)

LOL. Double that at least. And in the meantime, we will have the halvening which will slow down block production significantly, exacerbating the problem.

Surely the rate of block production stays the same, the block reward is what gets lowered?

[flagpara]

...
Pushing for higher miner fees is barking up the wrong tree. Either we manage with lower fees or the system fails, if you ask me. This will be the case regardless of transaction rate.

Can't we just hardfork to a new, better block reward schedule (print more money)?

What good would that do? The mining subsidy is the single biggest reason miners suck off such a large portion of wealth stored in BTC at the moment. Mining subsidy coupled with bullish price expectations, that is. (An inflation-corrected BTCUSD chart would probably be pretty illuminating...)

Sorry, was making a[n inappropriate] joke. Many Bitcoin proponents don't realize that BTC base money is being 'printed out of thin air' at a rate of 10%+ per year. Also don't particularly care when made aware of it. So...

I agree. I find it incredible that nobody cares about the fact that btc is literaly produced from nothing at an incredible rate.
This being done mainly by quite huge companies of industrial farming. I'm not sure we're heading towards satoshi dream.

[Richy_T]

hopefully as the block subsidy dwindles, fees *will not* go up proportionally.

Total transaction fees per block=average transaction fee*number of transactions. So you either increase the fee or you increase the number of transactions or your security goes down.

We probably are over-secure right now. But by how much? And if fees increase because the number of transactions can't go up, there is a limit to what people will pay, especially for a service which is seen as having damaged usability (i.e. submit a transaction with a fair fee and still have long confirmation times). So you end up in a situation with low block reward due to halving an low fees due to low number of transactions * perceived value for performing transactions.

So how much would people be willing to pay for a Bitcoin blockchain transaction? Well, there should be some data from the recent stress test where blocks did fill up and there is likely to be some more data coming soon as transactions continue to rise. My guess is 2-10c.

I also suspect that we are over-secured by at least 400% currently. Though that's for the market to decide.

As to the road map? Want to like it but it just seems like more stalling to me. We shall see.