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

[TReano]

I really wonder when this damn blocksize shit is going to be solved. It's becoming retarded.

[smooth]

Splitting a currency unit into two does not dilute the currency any more than moving the decimal point does.

In order to dilute you would need to create new units and issue them to someone other than existing holders.

Well mining does create new units, doesn't it? And instead of having +6mn coins, you then have +12mn due to parallel mining of +3600 coins on each fork.

No difference than moving the decimal still. Miners will mine in proportion to the market value of each new coin which means the share of supply held by each existing holder and each miner who spends a given amount of resources on mining will remain the same.

Or to put it another way. If 75% of the total Bitcoins are now mined and held by existing holders, then 75% of the total of GregBitcoins and GavinBitcoins will also already be mined and held by existing holders. So again there is no dilution of any existing holder.

Regarding existing holders, if you have your own keys you are relatively ok (minus the obvious destruction of USD value), but the situation with coins in online exchanges and wallets will be "problematic" if say an exchange with 500k BTCs, say 'ok my clients, now you have 500k BTCCs because we adopted this fork' (and we are keeping 500k BTCs of the other fork for ourselves). It would be like stealing BTCs and exchanging them for Gavincoins.

People need to do a bank run in every exchange (maybe even online wallets too) well before we reach the point of the hard fork, to ensure that they have control of their BTCs.

Yes, there are infrastructure issues and issues of fairness with respect to third party custody. Although likely irrelevant now, Cryptsy had something in their Terms of Service that explicitly gave them ownership. That's nuts.

Very real issues, but not the same as dilution.

[CuntChocula]

The LN would want to disable bitcoin settlements for the same general reasons that the US government decided to end the convertibility of the US dollar to gold or silver.

Hey, it is possible. That is another way of saying Bitcoin fails, which I don't consider unlikely necessarily.

I do think there is a significant incentive on the part of payment recipients to mitigate counterparty settlement risk by accepting payment on collateralized channels. In finance (outside of low-value consumer, and sovereign debt), collateral is the rule not the exception. Naked credit is the exception.

Well see how it works out. It is a certainty that LN will be deployed. It is not a certainty that it will work well or that people will use it.

So transacting in unbacked filthy fiat, is that "collateralized channels"?  Or "Naked credit"? These things are pretty confusing...

[ImI]

I really wonder when this damn blocksize shit is going to be solved. It's becoming retarded.

we are not even close to seeing the end of this imo. the fork will come and core, better said gmax/luke, will fight fiercely with the remining 25% hashpower or whatever hash they have. expect more "bitcoin is dead" press releases etc but this time from core-members...

[Fatman3001]

With a sharp constraint on the maximum blocksize there is currently _no_ rational reason to believe that Bitcoin would be secure at all once the subsidy goes down.

Bitcoin is valuable because poeple believe it has value, if there is a limited supply of block-space then there it can only be valuable to a limited number of people.

You see?!?!?!!?! Even the local drunk gets it!!!

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[Sitarow]

Splitting a currency unit into two does not dilute the currency any more than moving the decimal point does.

In order to dilute you would need to create new units and issue them to someone other than existing holders.

Well mining does create new units, doesn't it? And instead of having +6mn coins, you then have +12mn due to parallel mining of +3600 coins on each fork.

No difference than moving the decimal still. Miners will mine in proportion to the market value of each new coin which means the share of supply held by each existing holder and each miner who spends a given amount of resources on mining will remain the same.

Regarding existing holders, if you have your own keys you are relatively ok (minus the obvious destruction of USD value), but the situation with coins in online exchanges and wallets will be "problematic" if say an exchange with 500k BTCs, say 'ok my clients, now you have 500k BTCCs because we adopted this fork' (and we are keeping 500k BTCs of the other fork for ourselves). It would be like stealing BTCs and exchanging them for Gavincoins.

People need to do a bank run in every exchange (maybe even online wallets too) well before we reach the point of the hard fork, to ensure that they have control of their BTCs.

Yes, there are infrastructure issues and issues of fairness with respect to third party custody. Although likely irrelevant now, Cryptsy had something in their Terms of Service that explicitly gave them ownership. That's nuts.

Very real issues, but not the same as dilution.

Buy BTC and move them off the exchanges sure sounds reasonable and may even spike the value.

Thus the best solution is to keep your BTC in a wallet you have direct control over and then you will have the same coins on all network "forks".

[rokkyroad]

I really wonder when this damn blocksize shit is going to be solved. It's becoming retarded.

Maybe its time to tell bitcoin goodbye and put our money into another coin. Can we reach consensus?  

[CuntChocula]

Well mining does create new units, doesn't it? And instead of having +6mn coins, you then have +12mn due to parallel mining of +3600 coins on each fork.

No difference than moving the decimal still. ...

Money creation is no different than moving the decimal point? Is printing filthy fiat out of thin air also no different from moving the decimal point?

[smooth]

Well mining does create new units, doesn't it? And instead of having +6mn coins, you then have +12mn due to parallel mining of +3600 coins on each fork.

No difference than moving the decimal still. ...

Money creation is no different than moving the decimal point? Is printing filthy fiat out of thin air also no different from moving the decimal point?

If it is given to existing holders in proportion to their holdings, yes, it is the same.

If you print fiat out of thin air and give it to Jamie Dimon then no.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

I really wonder when this damn blocksize shit is going to be solved. It's becoming retarded.

Maybe its time to tell bitcoin goodbye and put our money into another coin. Can we reach consensus? 

Lucky7Coin had a trick in it that took out Craptsy. That must be quite a coin. Very features. 

[CuntChocula]

Well mining does create new units, doesn't it? And instead of having +6mn coins, you then have +12mn due to parallel mining of +3600 coins on each fork.

No difference than moving the decimal still. ...

Money creation is no different than moving the decimal point? Is printing filthy fiat out of thin air also no different from moving the decimal point?

If it is given to existing holders in proportion to their holdings, yes, it is the same.

If you print fiat out of thin air and give it to Jamie Dimon then no.

But mining doesn't distribute the money to existing holders -- mined coin goes to the miners. Or are we not talking about Bitcoin here?

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

With a sharp constraint on the maximum blocksize there is currently _no_ rational reason to believe that Bitcoin would be secure at all once the subsidy goes down.

Bitcoin is valuable because poeple believe it has value, if there is a limited supply of block-space then there it can only be valuable to a limited number of people.

You see?!?!?!!?! Even the local drunk gets it!!!

I'm trying! I have a disability. 

[adamstgBit]

Gold is God's shitcoin

put that in your pipe and smoke it!

[rokkyroad]

Lucky7Coin had a trick in it that took out Craptsy. That must be quite a coin. Very features.

Touche.

[marcus_of_augustus]

People need to do a bank run in every exchange (maybe even online wallets too) well before we reach the point of the hard fork, to ensure that they have control of their BTCs.

AlexGR raises an excellent point. If there is an upcoming contentious hardfork scheduled then the first things people are going to do is withdraw ALL their coins off the exchanges and out of any custodial services.

All those bitcoin alliance folks and corporates that have made their businesses out of holding on to other people's coins in custody should keep that mind whilst they are pushing for contentious hardforks.

[smooth]

Well mining does create new units, doesn't it? And instead of having +6mn coins, you then have +12mn due to parallel mining of +3600 coins on each fork.

No difference than moving the decimal still. ...

Money creation is no different than moving the decimal point? Is printing filthy fiat out of thin air also no different from moving the decimal point?

If it is given to existing holders in proportion to their holdings, yes, it is the same.

If you print fiat out of thin air and give it to Jamie Dimon then no.

But mining doesn't distribute the money to existing holders -- mined coin goes to the miners. Or are we not talking about Bitcoin here?

25% of the remaining supply is designated to go to miners. It still does after any such fork (as long as the issuance rules are not changed).

If you 1 BTC now, then you own 1/21m of the total that will ever exist. You still do if one such fork is created or 100 such forks. No difference. No dilution.

[Richy_T]

Nah.. I've been seeing 'Fullblockalypse' around for a while now...

It's my creation. I expect a satoshi any time you use it.

chart buddy should calculate "Estimated time till the Fullblockalypse"

Too much of a grey area. I actually think it will start to have seriously negative effects at an average block fullness of around 75% which we're pretty much at already. ChartBuddy reports verifiable facts

[CuntChocula]

People need to do a bank run in every exchange (maybe even online wallets too) well before we reach the point of the hard fork, to ensure that they have control of their BTCs.

AlexGR raises an excellent point. If there is an upcoming contentious hardfork scheduled then the first things people are going to do is withdraw ALL their coins off the exchanges and out of any custodial services.

To what end?

[smooth]

People need to do a bank run in every exchange (maybe even online wallets too) well before we reach the point of the hard fork, to ensure that they have control of their BTCs.

AlexGR raises an excellent point. If there is an upcoming contentious hardfork scheduled then the first things people are going to do is withdraw ALL their coins off the exchanges and out of any custodial services.

All those bitcoin alliance folks and corporates that have made their businesses out of holding on to other people's coins in custody should keep that mind whilst they are pushing for contentious hardforks.

Think of it as a hidden fractional reserve canary. The ones most opposed are the ones you should be most worried about. Maybe that's why they don't speak up.