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

[Fatman3001]

ledgerjournal is run by a charlatan.
bitcoin could not care less about academics circlejerkers

Who is this madman people keep talking about?

Peter R. Rizun is not a madman, but he has been taking a lot of flak in this debate.

It might be healthy to run an independant site if you find his approach a bit too enthusiastic.

In any event, bct users like hdbuck, iCEBREAKER and brg444 are not good sources of info or judgement.

[hdbuck]

I don't necessarily disagree with you that there will be people that want more than 21m coins.

An argument like that will never be presented "we want more coins and high inflation for the lolz".

It will be presented as "we want cheap txs".... Arguments like "People want cheap txs, who are you to stop that".... Populist bullshit like "bigger blocks" and the "dangers" of "fullblockalypse".

There is no comparison between a hard fork to raise the blocksize and a hard fork to increase the 21 milion cap on supply. The former is a minor property that almost everyone agrees will need to be changed at some point. I owned Bitcoins for years before I even know there was a max blocksize.  I knew of the 21 MM limit before I bought my first coin.  

A slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

Dude increasing the 21 M limit and increasing the block size is the same thing.

What? Whaaaaaat?
I'm clearly not aware of that! What are you talking about? What's the link between block size and coins cap?

It is called instigating a _precedent_, changing a protocol parameter such as the 21M limit is 1 line of code, just like the blocksize limit.

Anyway, glad to see that such governance coup is impossible and that nobody, not even core can do anything about it.

Ah ok what he means is not that block size would mean more than 21millions coins but just that both are an important part of btc that shouldn't be changed.

So what do you do about the increasing adoption then? You just stop people from using btc?

Increasing adoption has nothing to do with blocksize cap, but the *trust* in the system to prevent any politicized human interference.

Adoption will follow the need to bypass traditional financial systems, even if it become more expensive to do so (it obviously should).

Nobody is forcing anyone in or out of bitcoin.

But by using Bitcoin you have abide to its protocol, and that is all.

[fred930]

The Bitstamp price fell back below $400 down to $396. The pump to $410 was very fast and I thought it would run out of steam, but now I don't know what it will do. There's a wall at $392 and another at 382. Will it go through those walls or go back up past 400 again?

[yugo23]

So what do you do about the increasing adoption then? You just stop people from using btc?

Anyone can adopt bitcoin by paying the damned fees at market price.
Shills, saboteurs, trolls, academics, and useful idiots are invited to fork off.
Clear enough?

Hmm... Perfectly clear yeah... As polite as usual from what I see...

But paying the fees is not the problem. I don't care about paying the fees. What I care about is that if there is more transactions that can be added into the block, the fees will only get higher until enough people refuse to pay them for the number of transactions to be small enough to get in the blocks no? Which means we can have only a limited amount of tx everyday... Limit already reached today with maybe 1 million bitcoiners! So how do you want to reach teh billion? That's impossible!

Did I miss something?

[yugo23]

I don't necessarily disagree with you that there will be people that want more than 21m coins.

An argument like that will never be presented "we want more coins and high inflation for the lolz".

It will be presented as "we want cheap txs".... Arguments like "People want cheap txs, who are you to stop that".... Populist bullshit like "bigger blocks" and the "dangers" of "fullblockalypse".

There is no comparison between a hard fork to raise the blocksize and a hard fork to increase the 21 milion cap on supply. The former is a minor property that almost everyone agrees will need to be changed at some point. I owned Bitcoins for years before I even know there was a max blocksize.  I knew of the 21 MM limit before I bought my first coin.  

A slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

Dude increasing the 21 M limit and increasing the block size is the same thing.

What? Whaaaaaat?
I'm clearly not aware of that! What are you talking about? What's the link between block size and coins cap?

It is called instigating a _precedent_, changing a protocol parameter such as the 21M limit is 1 line of code, just like the blocksize limit.

Anyway, glad to see that such governance coup is impossible and that nobody, not even core can do anything about it.

Ah ok what he means is not that block size would mean more than 21millions coins but just that both are an important part of btc that shouldn't be changed.

So what do you do about the increasing adoption then? You just stop people from using btc?

Increasing adoption has nothing to do with blocksize cap, but the *trust* in the system to prevent any politicized human interference.

Adoption will follow the need to bypass traditional financial systems, even if it become more expensive to do so (it obviously should).

Nobody is forcing anyone in or out of bitcoin.

But by using Bitcoin you have abide to its protocol, and that is all.

I'm not talking about coins cap but block size.

Block size = limit number of tx = limit number of bitcoiners no?
If you can't make more than X tx a day it means you can't have much more than X people using btc in their daily life... Which means you limit the adoption of bitcoin... Which means it will never be able to replace the fiat system.

I find it both sad and not compatible with the btc ideology. Maybe I'm misunderstanding something though.

[billyjoeallen]

I don't necessarily disagree with you that there will be people that want more than 21m coins.

An argument like that will never be presented "we want more coins and high inflation for the lolz".

It will be presented as "we want cheap txs".... Arguments like "People want cheap txs, who are you to stop that".... Populist bullshit like "bigger blocks" and the "dangers" of "fullblockalypse".

There is no comparison between a hard fork to raise the blocksize and a hard fork to increase the 21 milion cap on supply. The former is a minor property that almost everyone agrees will need to be changed at some point. I owned Bitcoins for years before I even know there was a max blocksize.  I knew of the 21 MM limit before I bought my first coin.  

A slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

Dude increasing the 21 M limit and increasing the block size is the same thing.

What? Whaaaaaat?
I'm clearly not aware of that! What are you talking about? What's the link between block size and coins cap?

It is called instigating a _precedent_, changing a protocol parameter such as the 21M limit is 1 line of code, just like the blocksize limit.

Anyway, glad to see that such governance coup is impossible and that nobody, not even core can do anything about it.

This is a bullshit argument. See "slippery slope" reference above.  The only way miners would want to eliminate the 21MM cap is because they aren't getting enough in fees to remain profitable, which will be MORE likely to happen if those fees are going to third parties in sidechains and layers instead of them. 

Nobody else would want to increase total bitcoins as it would devalue their existing holdings.

[spiderbrain]

I don't necessarily disagree with you that there will be people that want more than 21m coins.

An argument like that will never be presented "we want more coins and high inflation for the lolz".

It will be presented as "we want cheap txs".... Arguments like "People want cheap txs, who are you to stop that".... Populist bullshit like "bigger blocks" and the "dangers" of "fullblockalypse".

There is no comparison between a hard fork to raise the blocksize and a hard fork to increase the 21 milion cap on supply. The former is a minor property that almost everyone agrees will need to be changed at some point. I owned Bitcoins for years before I even know there was a max blocksize.  I knew of the 21 MM limit before I bought my first coin.  

A slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

Dude increasing the 21 M limit and increasing the block size is the same thing.

oh really? I'd like to hear an explanation. How the hell is it the same thing? It's not even remotely the same thing.

Indeed.

[conspirosphere.tk]

we can have only a limited amount of tx everyday... Limit already reached today with maybe 1 million bitcoiners! So how do you want to reach teh billion? That's impossible!

Did I miss something?

1. Limit is reached today thanks to the tons of dust due to low fees
2. Anyone can build systems on top of bitcoin to make instant and almost free transactions for micropayments and not only micro.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[yugo23]

we can have only a limited amount of tx everyday... Limit already reached today with maybe 1 million bitcoiners! So how do you want to reach teh billion? That's impossible!

Did I miss something?

1. Limit is reached today thanks to the tons of dust due to low fees
2. Anyone can build systems on top of bitcoin to make instant and almost free transactions for micropayments and not only micro.

Well I don't have quantitative analysis for your one and didn't understand your two so...

Anyway limiting the number of tx everyday is a bit strange. Why not setting no limit but imposing a high fee? I don't care to pay a high fee, what I want is that bitcoin is used and might replace fiat one day!

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

There's plenty of code, there's plenty of stubbornness, there's not enough analysis. The block size problem should have been dealt with two years ago. And if someone had done the legwork back then it would have been done two years ago. The one project trying to do this kind of stuff, ledgerjournal.org, is run by a fairly controversial member of the community. His project needs to be strengthened and there also needs to be different voices on the scene. If you want to make a difference in Bitcoin then this is a good entry point.

I didn't know about ledgerjournal, thanks.

ledgerjournal is run by a charlatan.
bitcoin could not care less about academics circlejerkers

hdbuck is very particular about the circles he jerks in.

[Andre#]

I don't necessarily disagree with you that there will be people that want more than 21m coins.

An argument like that will never be presented "we want more coins and high inflation for the lolz".

It will be presented as "we want cheap txs".... Arguments like "People want cheap txs, who are you to stop that".... Populist bullshit like "bigger blocks" and the "dangers" of "fullblockalypse".

There is no comparison between a hard fork to raise the blocksize and a hard fork to increase the 21 milion cap on supply. The former is a minor property that almost everyone agrees will need to be changed at some point. I owned Bitcoins for years before I even know there was a max blocksize.  I knew of the 21 MM limit before I bought my first coin.  

A slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

Dude increasing the 21 M limit and increasing the block size is the same thing.

What? Whaaaaaat?
I'm clearly not aware of that! What are you talking about? What's the link between block size and coins cap?

It is called instigating a _precedent_, changing a protocol parameter such as the 21M limit is 1 line of code, just like the blocksize limit.

Anyway, glad to see that such governance coup is impossible and that nobody, not even core can do anything about it.

But that precedent already exists, since the max blocksize was lowered from 33 MB to 1 MB in mid 2010. Hence, instigating a precendent is not a valid argument.

[billyjoeallen]

we can have only a limited amount of tx everyday... Limit already reached today with maybe 1 million bitcoiners! So how do you want to reach teh billion? That's impossible!

Did I miss something?

1. Limit is reached today thanks to the tons of dust due to low fees
2. Anyone can build systems on top of bitcoin to make instant and almost free transactions for micropayments and not only micro.

1. The network capacity is half a million transactions per day no matter how high the fees are. Fees don't change capacity.

2. If people are forced onto layers, then the fees that go to securing the network will go to the layers also, depriving the miners of needed compensation when the blockreward gets halved. If the 1 MB limit is never raised, then the network will eventually be funded by those same half million people even if billions are using it in layers and side chains.  That will present a security problem. 

extrapolating out hashing difficulty, the mining network in a couple of years will be several gigawatts, all funded by fees because the block reward will be next to nothing. That means that fees will have to reflect a cost of hundreds of dollars per transaction if we keep the 1 MB limit! 

[wachtwoord]

I don't necessarily disagree with you that there will be people that want more than 21m coins.

An argument like that will never be presented "we want more coins and high inflation for the lolz".

It will be presented as "we want cheap txs".... Arguments like "People want cheap txs, who are you to stop that".... Populist bullshit like "bigger blocks" and the "dangers" of "fullblockalypse".

There is no comparison between a hard fork to raise the blocksize and a hard fork to increase the 21 milion cap on supply. The former is a minor property that almost everyone agrees will need to be changed at some point. I owned Bitcoins for years before I even know there was a max blocksize.  I knew of the 21 MM limit before I bought my first coin.  

A slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

Dude increasing the 21 M limit and increasing the block size is the same thing.

oh really? I'd like to hear an explanation. How the hell is it the same thing? It's not even remotely the same thing.

I explained it to you many times already but fine. Things (w/e they are) only have value if the supply is limited and they have a purpose. How limited something is determines it's value (together with its utility value). The block size at the moment is in limited supply (1 MB roughly every 10 minutes), so a place on that has a certain implied value (this will be the fee in the long term, right now it's not very visible because of the huge subsidy which skews actual fees). The value of the sum of the fees determines the amount of security because this is how the miners are paid (the miner market is a commodity market so it will approach break-even long term. Total fees will equal security). Therefore if the block size is increased the value of size on the block chain goes down and thus the amount miners get paid goes down and so does the security.

Security is the most important thing giving value to XMR units and so a lower security will lower the intrinsic value of Bitcoin.

Similarly increasing the 21M coin limit will also lower the intrinsic value of Bitcoin because it inflates the supply (more unit available).

Next to all this there is the precedent reasoning mentioned above. Right now I trust Bitcoin to never inflate supply of either limited unit (XMR or block chain size) and therefore value Bitcoin as such. If they inflate it I will be forced to estimate future watering down of XMR and blockchain size (and thus watering down of value) in my intrinsic value calculations and therefore I will be prepared to pay a lower price for Bitcoins as an investment. The market will do the same.

[bargainbin]

... Security is the most important thing giving value to XMR units and so a lower security will lower the intrinsic value of Bitcoin. ...

Good morning, everyone!

[8up]

I don't necessarily disagree with you that there will be people that want more than 21m coins.

An argument like that will never be presented "we want more coins and high inflation for the lolz".

It will be presented as "we want cheap txs".... Arguments like "People want cheap txs, who are you to stop that".... Populist bullshit like "bigger blocks" and the "dangers" of "fullblockalypse".

There is no comparison between a hard fork to raise the blocksize and a hard fork to increase the 21 milion cap on supply. The former is a minor property that almost everyone agrees will need to be changed at some point. I owned Bitcoins for years before I even know there was a max blocksize.  I knew of the 21 MM limit before I bought my first coin.  

A slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

Dude increasing the 21 M limit and increasing the block size is the same thing.

oh really? I'd like to hear an explanation. How the hell is it the same thing? It's not even remotely the same thing.

I explained it to you many times already but fine. Things (w/e they are) only have value if the supply is limited and they have a purpose. How limited something is determines it's value (together with its utility value). The block size at the moment is in limited supply (1 MB roughly every 10 minutes), so a place on that has a certain implied value (this will be the fee in the long term, right now it's not very visible because of the huge subsidy which skews actual fees). The value of the sum of the fees determines the amount of security because this is how the miners are paid (the miner market is a commodity market so it will approach break-even long term. Total fees will equal security). Therefore if the block size is increased the value of size on the block chain goes down and thus the amount miners get paid goes down and so does the security.

Security is the most important thing giving value to XMR units and so a lower security will lower the intrinsic value of Bitcoin.

Similarly increasing the 21M coin limit will also lower the intrinsic value of Bitcoin because it inflates the supply (more unit available).

Next to all this there is the precedent reasoning mentioned above. Right now I trust Bitcoin to never inflate supply of either limited unit (XMR or block chain size) and therefore value Bitcoin as such. If they inflate it I will be forced to estimate future watering down of XMR and blockchain size (and thus watering down of value) in my intrinsic value calculations and therefore I will be prepared to pay a lower price for Bitcoins as an investment. The market will do the same.

IF GAME THEORY > PRECEDENT {SUCCESS}
ELSE {FAILURE}

[conspirosphere.tk]

1. The network capacity is half a million transactions per day no matter how high the fees are. Fees don't change capacity.

2. If people are forced onto layers, then the fees that go to securing the network will go to the layers also, depriving the miners of needed compensation when the blockreward gets halved. If the 1 MB limit is never raised, then the network will eventually be funded by those same half million people even if billions are using it in layers and side chains.  That will present a security problem. 

extrapolating out hashing difficulty, the mining network in a couple of years will be several gigawatts, all funded by fees because the block reward will be next to nothing. That means that fees will have to reflect a cost of hundreds of dollars per transaction if we keep the 1 MB limit! 

1. Economics is about dealing with scarce resources, not free shit, especially of the self-defeating kind.

2. Therefore the upper-layers managers will do exactly what you ask: paying higher btc fees thanks to the higher volume that they manage -not work at a loss and compensating it with volume :-D

[Fatman3001]

I don't necessarily disagree with you that there will be people that want more than 21m coins.

An argument like that will never be presented "we want more coins and high inflation for the lolz".

It will be presented as "we want cheap txs".... Arguments like "People want cheap txs, who are you to stop that".... Populist bullshit like "bigger blocks" and the "dangers" of "fullblockalypse".

There is no comparison between a hard fork to raise the blocksize and a hard fork to increase the 21 milion cap on supply. The former is a minor property that almost everyone agrees will need to be changed at some point. I owned Bitcoins for years before I even know there was a max blocksize.  I knew of the 21 MM limit before I bought my first coin.  

A slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

Dude increasing the 21 M limit and increasing the block size is the same thing.

oh really? I'd like to hear an explanation. How the hell is it the same thing? It's not even remotely the same thing.

I explained it to you many times already but fine. Things (w/e they are) only have value if the supply is limited and they have a purpose. How limited something is determines it's value (together with its utility value). The block size at the moment is in limited supply (1 MB roughly every 10 minutes), so a place on that has a certain implied value (this will be the fee in the long term, right now it's not very visible because of the huge subsidy which skews actual fees). The value of the sum of the fees determines the amount of security because this is how the miners are paid (the miner market is a commodity market so it will approach break-even long term. Total fees will equal security). Therefore if the block size is increased the value of size on the block chain goes down and thus the amount miners get paid goes down and so does the security.

Security is the most important thing giving value to XMR units and so a lower security will lower the intrinsic value of Bitcoin.

Similarly increasing the 21M coin limit will also lower the intrinsic value of Bitcoin because it inflates the supply (more unit available).

Next to all this there is the precedent reasoning mentioned above. Right now I trust Bitcoin to never inflate supply of either limited unit (XMR or block chain size) and therefore value Bitcoin as such. If they inflate it I will be forced to estimate future watering down of XMR and blockchain size (and thus watering down of value) in my intrinsic value calculations and therefore I will be prepared to pay a lower price for Bitcoins as an investment. The market will do the same.

XMR is Monero

[bargainbin]

1. The network capacity is half a million transactions per day no matter how high the fees are. Fees don't change capacity.

2. If people are forced onto layers, then the fees that go to securing the network will go to the layers also, depriving the miners of needed compensation when the blockreward gets halved. If the 1 MB limit is never raised, then the network will eventually be funded by those same half million people even if billions are using it in layers and side chains.  That will present a security problem.  

extrapolating out hashing difficulty, the mining network in a couple of years will be several gigawatts, all funded by fees because the block reward will be next to nothing. That means that fees will have to reflect a cost of hundreds of dollars per transaction if we keep the 1 MB limit!  

1. Economics is about dealing with scarce resources, not free shit, especially of the self-defeating kind.

No, economics is the social science that describes the factors that determine the production, distribution and consumption of goods and services.
You're thinking BTCeanie BTCabies.

2. Therefore the upper-layers managers will do exactly what you ask: paying higher btc fees thanks to the higher volume that they manage -not work at a loss and compensating it with volume :-D

What is a non sequitur?

...
XMR is Monero

You mean that secure, private, untraceable cryptocurrency that's been doing amazingly well, unlike BTC (which is only pseudo-private and is neither secure nor untraceable [arguably])?

[billyjoeallen]

I explained it to you many times already but fine. Things (w/e they are) only have value if the supply is limited and they have a purpose. How limited something is determines it's value (together with its utility value). The block size at the moment is in limited supply (1 MB roughly every 10 minutes), so a place on that has a certain implied value (this will be the fee in the long term, right now it's not very visible because of the huge subsidy which skews actual fees). The value of the sum of the fees determines the amount of security because this is how the miners are paid (the miner market is a commodity market so it will approach break-even long term. Total fees will equal security). Therefore if the block size is increased the value of size on the block chain goes down and thus the amount miners get paid goes down and so does the security.

This is a basic error in the understanding of economics. a limited supply doesn't determine value. This is the Beany Baby argument of many of Bitcoin's detractors and it is fallacious.  My shit is in limited supply, but it isn't valuable because of that.  It isn't valuable at all because there are substitutes, assuming someone wanted to buy shit in the first place. 

Higher fees will reduce dust, but it will also prevent transactions of marginal utility.  The margins is where growth occurs, so higher fees will also prevent growth. 

There is a reason why we are still trading at <40% of the ATH more than two years ago.  This is the reason. Smallblockers, you don't understand economics.