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

[shmadz]

am so glad i trusted my instincts and bought 100 at $372.58  
390 it is right now and variation upwards more than downwards.

am so glad I distrust anything from an account that was bought.

What's the matter, couldn't find anything else to do with your life?

but if it drops to $380-$385 am dumping all and do something else with my life.

[bargainbin]

^^Well, you know... "I'm kickin' this shit. Tomorrow."

[JayJuanGee]

am so glad i trusted my instincts and bought 100 at $372.58  
390 it is right now and variation upwards more than downwards.

Yep. You seem to be much more engaged in short-term trading big with your purported stash rather than trading bigger swings, as was my earlier understanding.

 Accordingly seems to be risky and emotional business when you try to trade large amounts by guessing the price direction. Each of us has our style, and your style is likely going to put you in emotional stress again because the short term swings are not as certain as you are making them out to be and you are accordingly appearing to rely up on quite a bit of luck and trading of an amount that is larger than you are comfortable because you want to make a lot.

To me it seems like a gambling style rather than a protection of your principal style, but I suppose that's your comfort- level -?even though you are also seeming to want to get directions from this thread. .

[Divitiae miserae]

am so glad i trusted my instincts and bought 100 at $372.58  
390 it is right now and variation upwards more than downwards.

am so glad I distrust anything from an account that was bought.

What's the matter, couldn't find anything else to do with your life?

but if it drops to $380-$385 am dumping all and do something else with my life.

I wonder what's the point of buying an account if one's willing to reveal that. Some people have more money than sense.

its a bought account from mid last year

[JayJuanGee]

am so glad i trusted my instincts and bought 100 at $372.58  
390 it is right now and variation upwards more than downwards.

am so glad I distrust anything from an account that was bought.

What's the matter, couldn't find anything else to do with your life?

but if it drops to $380-$385 am dumping all and do something else with my life.

Yeah. He's all the fuck over the place with his assertions, and likely just making shit up for effects.

Another drama queen.

[Richy_T]

So if I want to buy an mp3 from an artist, and the artist charges me 0.99$ for it, paypal will take ~0.40$ of it. Paypal becomes the artist's 60-40% partner. So this option is clearly not viable. If you go through bitcoin, the artist can keep like 98-95% of the money.

As Leo says, we need to go deeper.

https://www.paypal.com/webapps/mpp/merchant-fees

What Paypal calls "micropayments" are 5%+5c per transaction. For $1, that's 10c, getting dangerously close to the 4c you're always talking about.

Personally, I would put the upper end of micro-transactions at 10c tops and probably down to 5c and maybe lower. What you would like to see as fees for a transaction come out as a ridiculous portion of the cost.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[Richy_T]

Can't prioritize both - as the ol' bearded coder explains, there are 'engineering trade-offs' that need to be made when working with reality.

If you're not a central-control poopy-head, you don't prioritize either, you get out of the way and let the market decide.

[AlexGR]

So if I want to buy an mp3 from an artist, and the artist charges me 0.99$ for it, paypal will take ~0.40$ of it. Paypal becomes the artist's 60-40% partner. So this option is clearly not viable. If you go through bitcoin, the artist can keep like 98-95% of the money.

As Leo says, we need to go deeper.

https://www.paypal.com/webapps/mpp/merchant-fees

What Paypal calls "micropayments" are 5%+5c per transaction. For $1, that's 10c, getting dangerously close to the 4c you're always talking about.

Personally, I would put the upper end of micro-transactions at 10c tops and probably down to 5c and maybe lower. What you would like to see as fees for a transaction come out as a ridiculous portion of the cost.

If I'm reading this correctly, you have to pay a subscription too for having a merchant/business account.

[AlexGR]

So if I want to buy an mp3 from an artist, and the artist charges me 0.99$ for it, paypal will take ~0.40$ of it. Paypal becomes the artist's 60-40% partner. So this option is clearly not viable. If you go through bitcoin, the artist can keep like 98-95% of the money.

I'm confused. I thought you previously argued for small blocks and not worrying about scaling so much?

I'm in favor of the rational use of the blockchain, not necessarily pro-small blocks or big blocks. You can say I'm against block abuse. I wouldn't mind bigger blocks accompanied with a mandatory fee increase to prevent abuse and keep blockchain activity for transactions, instead of spamming or third-party storage.

Isn't it kind of clear that at 3-ish tx per second, Bitcoin won't be used for small payments like this as the fees will have to grow rather a lot higher than they are now?

The 3tx/s is what we have right now but it won't be forever, obviously. With the available software, hardware and networks we are at the low-end of tx capabilities. That will change in the future as all of these evolve. So there'll come a time* when more and more low-value txs will be processed, either directly or indirectly (sidechains), through BTC.

* Not that they aren't currently being processed. I mean that in a post-crowding-the-dust-out scenario.

So if you assume the cost comes down from 10% of value stored annually to 2% or so, the cost per tx is still 1.4 USD, and that's extrapolating from the current situation where there's not that much competition for blockspace. Now, you can still cram some more tx into 1 MB blocks than we currently have, but then again that should also create competition for tx inclusion, so more tx currently is more likely to raise fees than lower them.

If tx per second doesn't rise and you can still send 1 USD cheaper than PayPal in a few years time, that means hardly anyone actually uses Bitcoin.

By the time the subsidy goes down significantly (let's say the halving down to 900 or 450 BTC - which are 2-3 halvings ahead), 2 things will have happened

1) Higher tx capabilities - perhaps 10-20-50x or more, whether directly or with sidechains
2) Much higher BTC price to compensate for subsidy losses. As inflation lowers, BTC becomes stronger price-wise, thus mining 3600 BTCs at 400$ would give the miners less than say mining 900 BTCs at 10.000$.

Isn't it time the white paper was copyrighted and 'cleansed'? Make it pay per view too. I think it's becoming an annoyance for higher minds than us.

Along with satoshi saying bitcoin is not suitable for micropayments perhaps

Bitcoin isn't currently practical for very small micropayments.  Not for things like pay per search or per page view without an aggregating mechanism, not things needing to pay less than 0.01.  The dust spam limit is a first try at intentionally trying to prevent overly small micropayments like that.

Bitcoin is practical for smaller transactions than are practical with existing payment methods.  Small enough to include what you might call the top of the micropayment range.  But it doesn't claim to be practical for arbitrarily small micropayments.

That's very clear, isn't it? Currently, my bank debit card (via MasterCard's Maestro network) is the means of payment to pay for short term parking (e.g. €0.50). In fact, it's currently the only way in my town to pay for that. If Satoshi said that "Bitcoin is practical for smaller transactions than are practical with existing payment methods", then he meant that payments even less than €0.50 are supposedly practical with Bitcoin. That's even quite a bit less than the evergreen example of a cup of coffee.

TL;DR: Satoshi expected coffee and parking micropayments to be paid with his peer-to-peer electronic cash, but not very much smaller micropayments (like cents or fractions of a cent).

Key word that Satoshi used: "currently". He realized the problems of the system in terms of scaling right now but expected this will change in the future. We can try to bring the future closer by working on software solutions and waiting for hardware solutions so that it can scale better and more txs fit without problems. However it will be crucial to not allow spam to fill the blocks and for this to happen you must have economic disincentives in place that crowds out the spam: much higher fees than we have right now.

Even at 5c mandatory fee for BTC, a 50c micropayment would be possible with BTC fees being 10% of the whole payment cost. I doubt MasterCard charges less for that. Personally, where I live, I get a warning when trying to pay certain services (post office comes to mind) with something like "an additional 0.35 euro will be charged for credit/debit card transactions". It's like "pay with cash or else +0.35 euro". So if I wanted to buy a 0.72euro stamp for mailing a small envelope inside my country, I would get a +0.35euro "cap" on top of it.

The problem with very low BTC fees is that you can't get cheap txs without getting cheap blockchain abuse. If you get first block inclusion for 0.05 USD and a spammer can get +10 to 20 blocks inclusion for his spam at 0.01 USD, the blockchain can be spammed and bloated for peanuts. So this must be fixed.

[rebuilder]

I'm confused. I thought you previously argued for small blocks and not worrying about scaling so much?

I'm in favor of the rational use of the blockchain, not necessarily pro-small blocks or big blocks. You can say I'm against block abuse. I wouldn't mind bigger blocks accompanied with a mandatory fee increase to prevent abuse and keep blockchain activity for transactions, instead of spamming or third-party storage.
------SNIP-----
By the time the subsidy goes down significantly (let's say the halving down to 900 or 450 BTC - which are 2-3 halvings ahead), 2 things will have happened

1) Higher tx capabilities - perhaps 10-20-50x or more, whether directly or with sidechains
2) Much higher BTC price to compensate for subsidy losses. As inflation lowers, BTC becomes stronger price-wise, thus mining 3600 BTCs at 400$ would give the miners less than say mining 900 BTCs at 10.000$.

I don't have time to for a proper reply right now, so I'll just settle for two points : 
-If the miners decide transactions you call abuse make sense for them to include in blocks, why does this bother  you?
-of your numbered points, #2 is obviously wrong. Security in this context is measured as cost to attack vs. potential profit, yes?It follows that as BTC valuation, and therefore the value stored on the network, goes up, you must correspondingly increase spending, in fiat terms, on mining to maintain the same level of security. By this view, it's the BTC cost of mining that is relevant.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[AlexGR]

I'm confused. I thought you previously argued for small blocks and not worrying about scaling so much?

I'm in favor of the rational use of the blockchain, not necessarily pro-small blocks or big blocks. You can say I'm against block abuse. I wouldn't mind bigger blocks accompanied with a mandatory fee increase to prevent abuse and keep blockchain activity for transactions, instead of spamming or third-party storage.
------SNIP-----
By the time the subsidy goes down significantly (let's say the halving down to 900 or 450 BTC - which are 2-3 halvings ahead), 2 things will have happened

1) Higher tx capabilities - perhaps 10-20-50x or more, whether directly or with sidechains
2) Much higher BTC price to compensate for subsidy losses. As inflation lowers, BTC becomes stronger price-wise, thus mining 3600 BTCs at 400$ would give the miners less than say mining 900 BTCs at 10.000$.

I don't have time to for a proper reply right now, so I'll just settle for two points : 
-If the miners decide transactions you call abuse make sense for them to include in blocks, why does this bother  you?

There are a lot of reasons why this isn't ideal both in terms of blockchain abuse and politics. For example you have all the political pressure going on with "ohhh fullblockalypse" when the blocks are getting filled with crap and some people want to perform a power grab based on a perceived "problem".

Spam fills blocks => a "savior" comes along and says the solution is to increase block size to fill blocks with more spam under the pretext of scaling txs => you have both a power grab and more inefficiency to deal with.

-of your numbered points, #2 is obviously wrong. Security in this context is measured as cost to attack vs. potential profit, yes? It follows that as BTC valuation, and therefore the value stored on the network, goes up, you must correspondingly increase spending, in fiat terms, on mining to maintain the same level of security. By this view, it's the BTC cost of mining that is relevant.

I was just responding to the $$$/tx part, not trying to do a broader security analysis of incentives and disincentives, mining costs etc.

[adamstgBit]

Spam fills blocks => a "savior" comes along and says the solution is to increase block size to fill blocks with more spam under the pretext of scaling txs => you have both a power grab and more inefficiency to deal with.

is 100x 50cent bets spam?

the idea is to have enough TX on the network so that fee's replace block subsidy.

i say, let the BMO's blockchain app spam away!

[adamstgBit]

had we went with the 8MB limit that almost pasted >6 months ago i bet we would be seeing  8MB blocks FULL of fees...

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[CuntChocula]

...
the idea is to have enough TX on the network so that fee's replace block subsidy.

i say, let the BMO's blockchain app spam away!

The idea, for now, is to build up userbase. That's the point of block rewards.

[Richy_T]

I'm confused. I thought you previously argued for small blocks and not worrying about scaling so much?

I'm in favor of the rational use of the blockchain, not necessarily pro-small blocks or big blocks. You can say I'm against block abuse. I wouldn't mind bigger blocks accompanied with a mandatory fee increase to prevent abuse and keep blockchain activity for transactions, instead of spamming or third-party storage.
------SNIP-----
By the time the subsidy goes down significantly (let's say the halving down to 900 or 450 BTC - which are 2-3 halvings ahead), 2 things will have happened

1) Higher tx capabilities - perhaps 10-20-50x or more, whether directly or with sidechains
2) Much higher BTC price to compensate for subsidy losses. As inflation lowers, BTC becomes stronger price-wise, thus mining 3600 BTCs at 400$ would give the miners less than say mining 900 BTCs at 10.000$.

I don't have time to for a proper reply right now, so I'll just settle for two points : 
-If the miners decide transactions you call abuse make sense for them to include in blocks, why does this bother  you?
-of your numbered points, #2 is obviously wrong. Security in this context is measured as cost to attack vs. potential profit, yes?It follows that as BTC valuation, and therefore the value stored on the network, goes up, you must correspondingly increase spending, in fiat terms, on mining to maintain the same level of security. By this view, it's the BTC cost of mining that is relevant.

Going to leapfrog off your quote as you already did the trimming for me but he forgot that another way to compensate for subsidy losses is for miners to stop mining. We are arguably over-secured at the moment. As the subsidy decreases, a true market arises.

[adamstgBit]

We need the network to fill ~50MB blocks  ( or maybe like 20MB with segwit ) at that point it's going to be generating at least 12.5BTC in fees each block which is more than enough.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

We need the network to fill ~50MB blocks  ( or maybe like 20MB with segwit ) at that point it's going to be generating at least 12.5BTC in fees each block which is more than enough.

Do you think we should expect an exponetial decrease in full-nodes? And do you think that will be lame?