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

[Adrian-x]

where's trolfi these days?

he's hanging out on reddit surprisingly he's defending our beloved Bitcoin to the bitter end.

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/45rqb3/heres_adam_back_stalling_master_hei_gavin_lets/czzykx4?context=3

No he's insulting Bitcoin and advocating GavinCoin

GavinCoin WTF is that, Gavin is the longest standing developer he's taking heat for personal attacks, the only questionable thing hes done is visit the CIA and the CFR, and that was to tell them how bitcoin worked.

You just need to look at what he's produced to know he's pro bitcoin.  

GavinCoin means squat, try looking for facts!

He's trying to make Bitcoin inflationary. He's a socialist. He's an enemy of Bitcoin.

GavinCoin is a fork of Bitcoin that increases the block size or the coin supply.

such ignorance off block chain transactions backed by Bitcoin fractional reserves will be inflationary.

You need to interact with the blockchain directly to avoid inflation! all those who think Satoshi's bitcoin is broken can support GMaxCore and watch TPTB take it over. First on the list PwC clients.

[1713498371]

1713498371

[Fatman3001]

...
That's like saying becoin is more crazy than billyjoeallen. It's probably true, but so what?

Yeah, but bja makes perfect sense in the parts that aren't broken, becoin is batshit through & through.

Yah, he's been talking so much sense lately that his China->US->Nazi Germany leap of grey matter caught me off guard.

If THAT's what you took from what I wrote, then either you're not listening or I'm communicating improperly. I was saying that the U.S. is a low standard for censorship resistance/freedom.  In some ways, China may be more free, I don't know. It doesn't matter.  I don't want to get off subject, which is that somebody has a kill switch. It doesn't matter if that someone is Motherfucking Aristotle.  If there is a kill switch, Bitcoin is not censorship resistant. 

I'm as unimpressed with aspects of US politics as the next guy, but granting becoins idiotic remark about China being more democratic than the US any validity is daft to the extreme.

[Spaceman_Spiff]

where's trolfi these days?

he's hanging out on reddit surprisingly he's defending our beloved Bitcoin to the bitter end.

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/45rqb3/heres_adam_back_stalling_master_hei_gavin_lets/czzykx4?context=3

No he's insulting Bitcoin and advocating GavinCoin

GavinCoin WTF is that, Gavin is the longest standing developer he's taking heat for personal attacks, the only questionable thing hes done is visit the CIA and the CFR, and that was to tell them how bitcoin worked.

You just need to look at what he's produced to know he's pro bitcoin.  

GavinCoin means squat, try looking for facts!

He's trying to make Bitcoin inflationary. He's a socialist. He's an enemy of Bitcoin.

I liked you better before.  You seem to have become very hostile and unnuanced. I mean like that comment  before about a block size increase being the same thing as lifting the 21M cap.  Come on dude.  Such nonsense ( and I am not against Core by the way, very grateful for the good work the devs do)

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[Adrian-x]

Meh dont mind this adrianx cypherdoc fanboy, he is clueless.

what you doing here mr x? papa peter r got a lollipop for you in that cicrlejerking forum of yours.

I'm just here to see who pipes up to cry fowl when I dump. ;-) you don't seem too concerned about bitcoin anymore now that Monero's doing well.

[bargainbin]

...
GavinCoin means squat, try looking for facts!

He's trying to make Bitcoin inflationary. He's a socialist. He's an enemy of Bitcoin The People.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

Meh dont mind this adrianx cypherdoc fanboy, he is clueless.

what you doing here mr x? papa peter r got a lollipop for you in that cicrlejerking forum of yours.

I'm just here to see who pipes up to cry fowl when I dump. ;-) you don't seem too concerned about bitcoin anymore now that Monero's doing well.

Quiet you! This is important.

And there are many whales, same as there are many peers, but a marquess is not a prince, but trumps an earl.

 

[Dotto]

if you know how much power the network is consuming (about a gigawatt or 1 million kilowatts)
and you know how much power costs ($0.10/kWh)
and you now how many transactions are being processed (~4TPS)
We can figure out how much each transaction really costs unsubsidized by speculators.

@ $0.10/kWh X (1,000,000 kilowatts)= $100,000/hr

4 transactions/sec X (3600seconds/hr) = 14,400 transactions/hr

$100,000/14400 transactions = $6.94 PER TRANSACTION

Feel free to check my math, but that's about how efficient the bitcoin network is currently at maximum capacity. If there are fewer transactions, it is even less efficient.  Security and decentralization are very important factors, but this is not competitive with ACH and SWIFT, or even credit cards.  The way to increase efficiency is by massively increasing the number of transactions while keeping the total power costs almost the same.

THAT is why we want to lift the blocksize limit.  We have a very very expensive, inefficient network. Security is great, but too much armor on your armored truck will limit it's cargo capacity. 

BJA tend to be a dick, but sometimes bring us quality posts as that one. Nice analisys

[AlexGR]

It's not anyone's place to say how big a transaction has to be to be legitimate. If we have real economic freedom, we get to decide that for ourselves.

This is not a case of freedom, it's a case of using an inefficient technology and bloating it for the lolz, at practically zero cost - which shouldn't be happening.

All abuse scenarios will typically play out if people are "free" to play them out. If you want to have a robust and resilient system, you can't allow the "Freedom" to abuse and kill the system. Was Satoshi a fool for implementing a 1MB restriction instead of allowing the "freedom" to have 10 or 20mb of txs per block? Of course not. Was Satoshi a fool for having a fee system in place? Wouldn't it be more "popular" if he said "let's do the freeTXs4all, 4evah"? Wouldn't it be more "popular" if he said "every microtx in the planet should go through BTC" instead of saying "eh, well, we are not very suited for microtxs right now"?... Wouldn't it be more "popular" if he said that the BTC blockchain can store all kind of data structures in it, instead of requiring different blockchains for different applications and admitting that one-blockchain-for-all-uses doesn't scale?

You don't want nonmonetary uses of the blockchain, but it is precisely colored coin type property title transfers that are likely to pay high fees relative to their BTC value.  In fact without them, it's hard to imagine who besides middlemen performing settlements would pay.  

The other day I received 250$ in paypal. I hadn't used paypal in a while and, despite having mentioned what they charge quite often / knowing what they charge in theory, I *still* got blown away by the charges.

I got charged something like 10.5$ in fees for receiving the money.

I got charged ~6$ for converting to euros

I got charged ~3.5$ by my bank for the incoming wire (outgoing wire by paypal was "Free")

Of the 250$, I lost 20$ in paypal fees, conversions and bank wire. The sender of the money also lost some in currency conversion to $$$, fees, etc.

Btw, after I pressed the withdraw button in paypal, my withdrawal was put under "review" for "my security". This would delay the money to my bank account by +1 working days.

This is the bullshit reality of our money transfer industry. Money taking ages to get transferred, having third parties controlling your money, charging you insane amounts for fees, etc etc. There is a huge market for BTC whether at 0.03 USD, 0.3 USD or 3 USD fee. I'm not saying we need 3 USD fees, I'm just saying that there are A LOT of payment scenarios which even if you pay 3 USD for BTC fees, you'll still do it waaaaaay cheaper than through banks, paypal etc etc - so there is a market even if the fees were 100x or 200x what they currently are.

that's all wrong. Let's say we are talking about water instead of blockspace. We have a small community with a creek running through it and water is basically free. I think the water market will grow in the future because our settlement is growing and future industrial uses of water will make it scarce enough to become a commodity.  You think the community isn't growing fast enough for that to ever happen naturally so you pass a law forbidding anyone from washing their car or watering their lawn.  You have it backwards.  Who's going to move to a community where you can't water your lawn?

The fallacy of this line of thinking is twofold:

1) It presupposes we have 1mb forevah, when this is not the case

2) It presupposes a 0/1 binary thinking where you go from being able to transact in an affordable manner, to not being able to transact due to very high fees. It's not like 1 cent or 100 USD in fees as our only 2 options. It could be 10 cents, 20 cents, 50 cents, 1 USD etc. This is not an on/off switch. It's a potentiometer / an analog progressive switch.

We need a critical mass of users before a fee market becomes a necessity.

If users are going to be put off by, say, 10-20 cents in fees, then perhaps they can buy plenty of lube and go get fucked by the banks and the paypals instead. Having 1-2-3 cents in fees and complaining that it's the end of the world if we go upwards and that it's crippling adoption, when RL banking payments are charging the hell out of us (and they are being used everyday by billions of people) and we get fucked by them constantly, is somewhat hypocritic.

Besides the main selling point of BTC shouldn't be an addiction to near-zero cost txs (which we know that is not sustainable in the long run), but rather its decentralized nature and its advantages over central banks (as a token/currency) and commercial banks in terms of controlling your money, paying without trusted 3rd parties which could withhold or confiscate your money, the non reversibility of (confirmed) txs etc etc.

[JayJuanGee]

where's trolfi these days?

he's hanging out on reddit surprisingly he's defending our beloved Bitcoin to the bitter end.

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/45rqb3/heres_adam_back_stalling_master_hei_gavin_lets/czzykx4?context=3

No he's insulting Bitcoin and advocating GavinCoin

GavinCoin WTF is that, Gavin is the longest standing developer he's taking heat for personal attacks, the only questionable thing hes done is visit the CIA and the CFR, and that was to tell them how bitcoin worked.

You just need to look at what he's produced to know he's pro bitcoin.  

GavinCoin means squat, try looking for facts!

Personally, in earlier days (even just a few months ago) when I had heard Gavin speak, I had frequently thought that he came off as genuine, a neutral presenter and truly interested in the success of bitcoin.

Mostly, he still comes off as being fairly smart; however, it appears that his steadfast quest for a blocksize increase, has detracted from some of his credibility concerning whether he really is interested in the success of bitcoin or whether he is allowing some hidden agenda matters fog his presentation, especially that he's no longer seeming to present information in a neutral way, but instead spinning in order to attempt to get his way (that it's imperative that block size needs to be increased and bitcoin's governance be tweaked)

https://letstalkbitcoin.com/blog/post/lets-talk-bitcoin-282-bitcoin-classic-with-gavin-andresen

The above link to a recent interview (this week).  Sure Gavin agrees that seg wit is good invention, but he also suggests that seg wit is less important and useful than an outright blocksize increase (which is fairly obvious partisanship on his behalf because he is talking conclusory rather than really engaging with the various benefits that seg wit seems posed to bring to the bitcoin space). 

By not discussing the differences between soft fork and hard fork, he also seems to be suggesting that a hardfork is necessary (almost acting as if it inevitable) and framing his presentations in such a way in which all outcomes assume some kind of hardfork is going to take place (seems a fairly big assumption).. The reality of the matter is that a hard fork is not necessary under a number of scenarios, and he seems to be ignoring the possible non hardfork scenarios.  For example, if the same can be achieved by softfork, then that would likely be the better route to take, especially if you value allowing for productive continued development of the bitcoin space and for supporting of a consensus seeking precedent in bitcoin. 

Maybe Gavin is feeling a bit burned in his recent attempts at being a "benevolent dictator" (his words, not mine) and even Gavin having had asserted that a benevolent dictator would be a good thing for bitcoin in the short term.  In September 2015, he was going around asserting that Mike Hearn would be the benevolent dictator of XT (assuming XT would be hardforked into becoming the "new" bitcoin).  I mean, jesus fucking christ, a guy has to lose some credibility in the community by the subsequent rage quit of someone who just a few months earlier would have had the potential of becoming the "benevolent dictator" of the "new" bitcoin.

Anyhow, Gavin comes off as a bit bitter about bitcoin consensus and bitcoin governance and seems to strongly suggest that bitcoin's governance has to be fixed, but then is a bit dodgy about that being the problem and continuing to insist that a technical fix is an emergency, while at the same time taking digs at the "broken" nature of bitcoin's governance .

In any event, his various assumptions and presentations of issues are losing their coherence and interferes with his objectivity and credibility as a trustworthy speaker.

[marcus_of_augustus]

Meh dont mind this adrianx cypherdoc fanboy, he is clueless.

what you doing here mr x? papa peter r got a lollipop for you in that cicrlejerking forum of yours.

I'm just here to see who pipes up to cry fowl when I dump. ;-) you don't seem too concerned about bitcoin anymore now that Monero's doing well.

you're here because Crassic has failed and the level of self-delusion in bitco.in has gotten too thick to see anything clearly ... I'm afraid it's not much better here the level of troll and shit-posting Crassic has created is a great credit to Gavin ... the bitcoin haters must be having a field day on the back of his "stepping back from development" community dividing efforts ... at least he could have done the admirable thing and flounced off in a drama queen ragequit like his mate Hearn and left us in peace.

[hdbuck]

where's trolfi these days?

he's hanging out on reddit surprisingly he's defending our beloved Bitcoin to the bitter end.

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/45rqb3/heres_adam_back_stalling_master_hei_gavin_lets/czzykx4?context=3

No he's insulting Bitcoin and advocating GavinCoin

GavinCoin WTF is that, Gavin is the longest standing developer he's taking heat for personal attacks, the only questionable thing hes done is visit the CIA and the CFR, and that was to tell them how bitcoin worked.

You just need to look at what he's produced to know he's pro bitcoin. 

GavinCoin means squat, try looking for facts!

Personally, in earlier days (even just a few months ago) when I had heard Gavin speak, I had frequently thought that he came off as genuine, a neutral presenter and truly interested in the success of bitcoin.

Mostly, he still comes off as being fairly smart; however, it appears that his steadfast quest for a blocksize increase, has detracted from some of his credibility concerning whether he really is interested in the success of bitcoin or whether he is allowing some hidden agenda matters fog his presentation, especially that he's no longer seeming to present information in a neutral way, but instead spinning in order to attempt to get his way (that it's imperative that block size needs to be increased and bitcoin's governance be tweaked)

https://letstalkbitcoin.com/blog/post/lets-talk-bitcoin-282-bitcoin-classic-with-gavin-andresen

The above link to a recent interview (this week).  Sure Gavin agrees that seg wit is good invention, but he also suggests that seg wit is less important and useful than an outright blocksize increase (which is fairly obvious partisanship on his behalf because he is talking conclusory rather than really engaging with the various benefits that seg wit seems posed to bring to the bitcoin space). 

By not discussing the differences between soft fork and hard fork, he also seems to be suggesting that a hardfork is necessary (almost acting as if it inevitable) and framing his presentations in such a way in which all outcomes assume some kind of hardfork is going to take place (seems a fairly big assumption).. The reality of the matter is that a hard fork is not necessary under a number of scenarios, and he seems to be ignoring the possible non hardfork scenarios.  For example, if the same can be achieved by softfork, then that would likely be the better route to take, especially if you value allowing for productive continued development of the bitcoin space and for supporting of a consensus seeking precedent in bitcoin. 

Maybe Gavin is feeling a bit burned in his recent attempts at being a "benevolent dictator" (his words, not mine) and even Gavin having had asserted that a benevolent dictator would be a good thing for bitcoin in the short term.  In September 2015, he was going around asserting that Mike Hearn would be the benevolent dictator of XT (assuming XT would be hardforked into becoming the "new" bitcoin).  I mean, jesus fucking christ, a guy has to lose some credibility in the community by the subsequent rage quit of someone who just a few months earlier would have had the potential of becoming the "benevolent dictator" of the "new" bitcoin.

Anyhow, Gavin comes off as a bit bitter about bitcoin consensus and bitcoin governance and seems to strongly suggest that bitcoin's governance has to be fixed, but then is a bit dodgy about that being the problem and continuing to insist that a technical fix is an emergency, while at the same time taking digs at the "broken" nature of bitcoin's governance .

In any event, his various assumptions and presentations of issues are losing their coherence and interferes with his objectivity and credibility as a trustworthy speaker.

Bitcoin governance does not have to "be fixed" in any way.
It is working perfectly and any attempt at highjacking it will miserably fail.

[600watt]

where's trolfi these days?

he's hanging out on reddit surprisingly he's defending our beloved Bitcoin to the bitter end.

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/45rqb3/heres_adam_back_stalling_master_hei_gavin_lets/czzykx4?context=3

No he's insulting Bitcoin and advocating GavinCoin

GavinCoin WTF is that, Gavin is the longest standing developer he's taking heat for personal attacks, the only questionable thing hes done is visit the CIA and the CFR, and that was to tell them how bitcoin worked.

You just need to look at what he's produced to know he's pro bitcoin.  

GavinCoin means squat, try looking for facts!

He's trying to make Bitcoin inflationary. He's a socialist. He's an enemy of Bitcoin.

I liked you better before.  You seem to have become very hostile and unnuanced. I mean like that comment  before about a block size increase being the same thing as lifting the 21M cap.  Come on dude.  Such nonsense ( and I am not against Core by the way, very grateful for the good work the devs do)

it is weird how this debate about blocksize has become such a fucked up poisoned clusterfucked fuck up. is that normal? is this how schisms happen? frustrating as hell.

[Fatman3001]

Meh dont mind this adrianx cypherdoc fanboy, he is clueless.

what you doing here mr x? papa peter r got a lollipop for you in that cicrlejerking forum of yours.

I'm just here to see who pipes up to cry fowl when I dump. ;-) you don't seem too concerned about bitcoin anymore now that Monero's doing well.

You've changed, man.

[marcus_of_augustus]

if you know how much power the network is consuming (about a gigawatt or 1 million kilowatts)
and you know how much power costs ($0.10/kWh)
and you now how many transactions are being processed (~4TPS)
We can figure out how much each transaction really costs unsubsidized by speculators.

@ $0.10/kWh X (1,000,000 kilowatts)= $100,000/hr

4 transactions/sec X (3600seconds/hr) = 14,400 transactions/hr

$100,000/14400 transactions = $6.94 PER TRANSACTION

Feel free to check my math, but that's about how efficient the bitcoin network is currently at maximum capacity. If there are fewer transactions, it is even less efficient.  Security and decentralization are very important factors, but this is not competitive with ACH and SWIFT, or even credit cards.  The way to increase efficiency is by massively increasing the number of transactions while keeping the total power costs almost the same.

THAT is why we want to lift the blocksize limit.  We have a very very expensive, inefficient network. Security is great, but too much armor on your armored truck will limit it's cargo capacity. 

BJA tend to be a dick, but sometimes bring us quality posts as that one. Nice analisys

except that it is wrong .. so he is a dick and he is incorrect.

Bitcoin secures other chains through merged-mining already so the number of transactions "that bitcoin is securing" he uses is wrong ... also he hasn't accounted for the fact that the mining reward should be partially amortised over the total transactional life of each bitcoin, the cost of "digging the bitcoin up" is a one time deal but it contributes to the security for the many hundreds or thousands of transactions for the total monetary lifetime of a coin.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

where's trolfi these days?

he's hanging out on reddit surprisingly he's defending our beloved Bitcoin to the bitter end.

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/45rqb3/heres_adam_back_stalling_master_hei_gavin_lets/czzykx4?context=3

No he's insulting Bitcoin and advocating GavinCoin

GavinCoin WTF is that, Gavin is the longest standing developer he's taking heat for personal attacks, the only questionable thing hes done is visit the CIA and the CFR, and that was to tell them how bitcoin worked.

You just need to look at what he's produced to know he's pro bitcoin.  

GavinCoin means squat, try looking for facts!

He's trying to make Bitcoin inflationary. He's a socialist. He's an enemy of Bitcoin.

I liked you better before.  You seem to have become very hostile and unnuanced. I mean like that comment  before about a block size increase being the same thing as lifting the 21M cap.  Come on dude.  Such nonsense ( and I am not against Core by the way, very grateful for the good work the devs do)

it is weird how this debate about blocksize has become such a fucked up poisoned clusterfucked fuck up. is that normal? is this how schisms happen? frustrating as hell.

The cruel abuses of this war have led even good men to lose heart, shoes.

[BldSwtTrs]

>1000 Classic nodes.

Are you afraid small blockists?

[Dotto]

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.

No

[bargainbin]

...
Bitcoin governance does not have to "be fixed" in any way.
It is working perfectly and any attempt at highjacking it will miserably fail.

[BldSwtTrs]

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.

No

Yes no at all. How comes that ridiculously stupid argument is still a thing?