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

[JorgeStolfi]

A good currency should be inflation-free.

A fellow computer nerd, I presume? 

[1715155769]

1715155769

[1715155769]

1715155769

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

I'm still not sure which team to support. "big blockers" or "small blockers".

Still waiting on the team mascots to decide which is better.

Don't bother, this whole argument is just a sham after all...

http://qntra.net/2015/12/the-false-dilemma-of-xt-versus-blockstream/

So I read that and it has lots of words but basically says nothing.  It claims some type of Alex Jones' style "false left/right paradigm", then doesn't even describe a legit pathway forward or how each side is blocking that from occurring.  IMO, Bitcoin will need to scale to at least 8-10MB blocks even with a Lightning Network because the masses have to retain access to the main chain for it to function.

Its an irrelevant  op-ed from someone who now finds himself in a no-mans-land of trying to defend a position (do nothing) that nobody is interested in.

[BldSwtTrs]

Regarding what Satoshi expected Bitcoin to be: no one should care.

In my opinion, he is an outstanding genius but nobody is smart enough to understand the best use of Bitcoin in the future.

The only mechanism able to make Bitcoin fullfil its potentialities is the market. The market is a mechanism of agregation of knowledge and no human being can outsmart it, the market is collective intelligence at play.

1 000 000 average people are more knowlegeable  than one outstanding genius. 1 000 000 people are more knowledgeable than 20 decently intelligent Blockstream employees.

[flagpara]

Regarding what Satoshi expected Bitcoin to be: no one should care.

In my opinion, he is an outstanding genius but nobody is smart enough to understand the best use of Bitcoin on the future.

The only mechanism able to make Bitcoin fullfil its potentialities is the market. The market is a mechanism of agregation of knowledge and no human being can outsmart it, the market is collective intelligence at play.

1 000 000 average people are smartermore knowlegeable  than one outstanding genius. 1 000 000 people more knowledgeable than 20 decently intelligent Blockstream employees.

Lots of people would disagree with you bro. You're basically saying the more we are the smarter we get. Numerous scientific studies are explaining the contrary! It all depends of the way you canalize things, and it can be done very badly.

Free market would have the same consequences in btc than in real life currency. I don't want to get the same thing here than outthere :/

[fisheater22]

[...]

Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

[BldSwtTrs]

A good currency should be inflation-free.

A fellow computer nerd, I presume? 

Nope, an economics geek  

I am really bad at computer science but I think I have some valuable knowledge in the field of economics. And I am pretty convinced that the deflationary characteritic of Bitcoin is an asset, not a liability.

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

Free market would have the same consequences in btc than in real life currency.

Real life currencies don't operate in a free market - they are heavily manipulated. And that has been the cause of most of its problems.

If central banks had stuck to their original premise of being a safety net, instead of a 'guiding hand', things might have been better...  

[BldSwtTrs]

Regarding what Satoshi expected Bitcoin to be: no one should care.

In my opinion, he is an outstanding genius but nobody is smart enough to understand the best use of Bitcoin on the future.

The only mechanism able to make Bitcoin fullfil its potentialities is the market. The market is a mechanism of agregation of knowledge and no human being can outsmart it, the market is collective intelligence at play.

1 000 000 average people are smartermore knowlegeable  than one outstanding genius. 1 000 000 people more knowledgeable than 20 decently intelligent Blockstream employees.

Lots of people would disagree with you bro. You're basically saying the more we are the smarter we get. Numerous scientific studies are explaining the contrary! It all depends of the way you canalize things, and it can be done very badly.

Free market would have the same consequences in btc than in real life currency. I don't want to get the same thing here than outthere :/

The market canalize dispersed knowledge with appropriate incentives.

When you ask people about what they don't know, it is a mess. But within the market, there is a selection process where knowledge is rewarded and ignorance is penalized, so the result is not a mere average, but a selection and an aggregation of refined knowledge.

The more you gather knowledgeable people around a problem*, the more you allow them to follow the path they deem the most promising**, the higher the probabilby is that the problem will be resolved in an efficient and creative way.

*by allow profit to play its incentive role
**by preventing a small group of people to reduce the options of other

And real life currencies are managed by a small group of people, not by the market. If you want Bitcoin to stay special, you should reject the power of a small group of people over it.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[fisheater22]

... If central banks had stuck to their original premise of being a safety net ...

If cars had stuck to their original premise of being alligators with wheels

[tomothy]

Market prices tend to rise with increased demand. That is a market function. And when you are still lower than your closest competitor, people will still prefer your service over theirs. If a bank wire costs 10$ and takes days and a btc transfer costs 1$ and takes minutes, why would I use SWIFT instead of BTC?

True, Bitcoin today enjoys a 91% market share of crypto. However, in the overall scope of a USD $7B asset class adrift in a many-$T sea, that market share is not unassailable. Indeed, should the masses finally decide to adopt crypto, I would expect them to adopt one that they can actually _use_, rather than one that prevents them from participating due to an arbitrary limitation. Any of dozens of shitcoins are waiting in the wings to meet this market need, jealously awaiting a chance to procure adoption by delivering real value in comparison to Bitcoin.

What will happen, at most, is that shitcoins will be used for low-value txs and btc will be used for high value txs. You want to gamble for a few cents => you use a shitcoin. You want to buy a chewing gum => you use a shitcoin. You want to transfer 500$ or $5 mn, you use BTC.

Why?

If everyone uses litecoin why would Bitcoin be better for larger transactions?

Isn't this similar to arguing about apples and oranges?
To me, it seems more likely that since crypto currencies occupy multiple spaces in realty, both a unit with inherent value, a representative direct transfer of said inherent value, and as a secure proof of existence ledger based on the security/hash power of the underlying item, that use cases would naturally gravitate to these options?

so with an altcoin like litecoin, it has a relatively fast transfer speed and nominal value worth but on the other hand, it's hash-power isn't necessarily as strong as bitcoin

then you have bitcoin which has a slower transfer speed, but possibly due to scarcity and first mover recognition, larger fiat value, but more importantly operates as a stronger public ledger.

so, if you are going to buy a cup of coffee, or transact a nominal value equivalent of a cup of coffee, or register an item of similar value, and then record that or transfer it to another individual, there are certain use cases which will naturally lend themselves to this option as they do not need enormous security behind it

on the other hand
if you are buying a car, or leasing a car, or perhaps a fleet of cars, or a multi-year,million dollar commercial property lease; this is a deal with significant financial liability associated with it; here as time is not necessarily an immediate concern but the concern is more over the duration of the contractual option and that proof of two parties entering into this agreement, you would want something harder to tamper with and more secure, which naturally would lead you to supporting a blockchain with more hash power.

I apologize if this doesn't come out as clear as I would like it to but in essence I'm arguing that it is naive to think Bitcoin will do everything for everyone. It won't. Already, you are divided into groups of people; those with bitcoins and those without. There is already a higher barrier of entry for someone without bitcoin than with bitcoin and this will only grow more divergent as the network continues to age.  I think that is one of the main issues surrounding the current block size debate. Who is bitcoin 'for,' can it realistically be for 'everyone' and who decides that? I think it's more important to see that it has opened the door and the genie is out of the bottle. It's difficult not to recognize how cryptocurrencies are an inherent threat to the status quo as central planners lack control. I think you will ultimately begin to see state sponsored mining entities in both an offensive and defensive capacity and that banks will be unable to simply use the system without contributing to it or open themselves up to massive liability.

If citigroup uses bitcoin to confirm a lease; and that lease has not been entered into the public ledger after the person leaves with the vehicle, and there is an accident; you could see how a confirmation delay could result in a sticky situation concerning liability. But enough already. The battle is over the block size & core and who bitcoin is for. I think a fork is inevitable and once block size increases, wall street will move in en masse. Until then, this is all a distraction to suppress asset price to facilitate accumulation.

[birr]

So, 435 or 420 will fall eventually.  My bet will be on momentum when that happens. 

Does the monkey have anything to say?

[ssmc2]

Buy orders at 380 seem about right, if you're into that kinda thing.

[Fatman3001]

I'm still not sure which team to support. "big blockers" or "small blockers".

Still waiting on the team mascots to decide which is better.

Don't bother, this whole argument is just a sham after all...

http://qntra.net/2015/12/the-false-dilemma-of-xt-versus-blockstream/

So I read that and it has lots of words but basically says nothing.  It claims some type of Alex Jones' style "false left/right paradigm", then doesn't even describe a legit pathway forward or how each side is blocking that from occurring.  IMO, Bitcoin will need to scale to at least 8-10MB blocks even with a Lightning Network because the masses have to retain access to the main chain for it to function.

Its an irrelevant  op-ed from someone who now finds himself in a no-mans-land of trying to defend a position (do nothing) that nobody is interested in.

I've always wondered if this position, which is quite common in Bitcoin, is an expression of some kind of conformist cowardice or a genuinely delusional point of view. The guy in the article seems to assume intention where there is none.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

Paxful, a website that claims to do "peer to peer" matching of Bitcoin buyers and sellers, issued a desperate plea on their blog (archived) threatening to move to an altcoin as they get priced out of Bitcoin. Because Paxful specializes in facilitating very small trades any pricing of transaction fees in an actual market obliterates their market niche, and Bitcoin is definitely moving towards a healthy market for block inclusion fees. Paxful claims to:


do over 5% of the total blockchain volume by number of transactions

They further explain that many of these transactions are users transacting a dollar's equivalent at a time in order to buy single ads. Advertising purchasers appear to dominate Paxful's customer base after they heavily courted backpage.com users when all backpage's methods for receiving fiat money were suspended.

[Fatman3001]

Market prices tend to rise with increased demand. That is a market function. And when you are still lower than your closest competitor, people will still prefer your service over theirs. If a bank wire costs 10$ and takes days and a btc transfer costs 1$ and takes minutes, why would I use SWIFT instead of BTC?

True, Bitcoin today enjoys a 91% market share of crypto. However, in the overall scope of a USD $7B asset class adrift in a many-$T sea, that market share is not unassailable. Indeed, should the masses finally decide to adopt crypto, I would expect them to adopt one that they can actually _use_, rather than one that prevents them from participating due to an arbitrary limitation. Any of dozens of shitcoins are waiting in the wings to meet this market need, jealously awaiting a chance to procure adoption by delivering real value in comparison to Bitcoin.

What will happen, at most, is that shitcoins will be used for low-value txs and btc will be used for high value txs. You want to gamble for a few cents => you use a shitcoin. You want to buy a chewing gum => you use a shitcoin. You want to transfer 500$ or $5 mn, you use BTC.

Why?

If everyone uses litecoin why would Bitcoin be better for larger transactions?

Isn't this similar to arguing about apples and oranges?
To me, it seems more likely that since crypto currencies occupy multiple spaces in realty, both a unit with inherent value, a representative direct transfer of said inherent value, and as a secure proof of existence ledger based on the security/hash power of the underlying item, that use cases would naturally gravitate to these options?

so with an altcoin like litecoin, it has a relatively fast transfer speed and nominal value worth but on the other hand, it's hash-power isn't necessarily as strong as bitcoin

then you have bitcoin which has a slower transfer speed, but possibly due to scarcity and first mover recognition, larger fiat value, but more importantly operates as a stronger public ledger.

so, if you are going to buy a cup of coffee, or transact a nominal value equivalent of a cup of coffee, or register an item of similar value, and then record that or transfer it to another individual, there are certain use cases which will naturally lend themselves to this option as they do not need enormous security behind it

on the other hand
if you are buying a car, or leasing a car, or perhaps a fleet of cars, or a multi-year,million dollar commercial property lease; this is a deal with significant financial liability associated with it; here as time is not necessarily an immediate concern but the concern is more over the duration of the contractual option and that proof of two parties entering into this agreement, you would want something harder to tamper with and more secure, which naturally would lead you to supporting a blockchain with more hash power.

I apologize if this doesn't come out as clear as I would like it to but in essence I'm arguing that it is naive to think Bitcoin will do everything for everyone. It won't. Already, you are divided into groups of people; those with bitcoins and those without. There is already a higher barrier of entry for someone without bitcoin than with bitcoin and this will only grow more divergent as the network continues to age.  I think that is one of the main issues surrounding the current block size debate. Who is bitcoin 'for,' can it realistically be for 'everyone' and who decides that? I think it's more important to see that it has opened the door and the genie is out of the bottle. It's difficult not to recognize how cryptocurrencies are an inherent threat to the status quo as central planners lack control. I think you will ultimately begin to see state sponsored mining entities in both an offensive and defensive capacity and that banks will be unable to simply use the system without contributing to it or open themselves up to massive liability.

If citigroup uses bitcoin to confirm a lease; and that lease has not been entered into the public ledger after the person leaves with the vehicle, and there is an accident; you could see how a confirmation delay could result in a sticky situation concerning liability. But enough already. The battle is over the block size & core and who bitcoin is for. I think a fork is inevitable and once block size increases, wall street will move in en masse. Until then, this is all a distraction to suppress asset price to facilitate accumulation.

What I'm getting at is that I don't understand how the economics will play out. Bitcoin can't "decide" that it is going to be used by the big players and everything else goes to litecoin. You'd want to use the unit with the most liquidity and broadest support if you're going to transfer large amounts of money. Todays BTC value is driven by speculation about its future utility. If that future utility is intentionally bottlenecked, the price will plummet. And any idea of a meaningful and functional fee market with a highly illiquid asset is a joke.

We might think that Bitcoins lead is astronomical, but imagine if it stops working properly, for months, because the number of legitimate fee-paying customers went up much faster than anticipated. Or, it's working, but the rising fees makes whatever made it relevant to mainstream irrelevant again. Litecoin works. And they're not going to close the gates when the plebs come running.

So, the facebook generation or the twitteraty or similar starts using Litecoin, taking with them massive liquidity and a market cap 10 times (or more) that of Bitcoin. Why would you buy a car with Bitcoin instead of Litecoin? Why would you transfer 50 million USD from the US to China using Bitcoin rather than Litecoin?

Because Bitcoin is gold and Litecoin is silver? They're not. They're competing cryptos. And that's why we need to plan for success. Or pray success doesn't come too soon.

Edit: Look at BMBs post above as well.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

^^What Chubby said.

[brg444]

So, the facebook generation or the twitteraty or similar starts using Litecoin, taking with them massive liquidity and a market cap 10 times (or more) that of Bitcoin. Why would you buy a car with Bitcoin instead of Litecoin? Why would you transfer 50 million USD from the US to China using Bitcoin rather than Litecoin?

 

The poor generation somehow is going to lead the way for a coin to grow 10x the size of Bitcoin.

[Richy_T]

I take it that means the last block was 860KB.  Getting  closer. 

It's actually the average of the blocks in the previous hour. Some were more. Empty blocks bring the average down too even though they don't contribute to processing transactions.