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

[blunderer]

... No you're not competing with the other 15mil bitcoin market, as most of those bitcoins are NOT for sale. That's basic economics. ...

Nah, that's not basic economics, that's Beanie economics. If Exxon gasoline is in short supply, it doesn't mean it's suddenly more valuable & you can charge more at your Exxon gas station. There are alternatives -- people will simply switch to Shell.
Tacking on "That's basic economics" at the end only shows that you're yet to grasp basic economics.

[Fakhoury]

halving is not priced in, if it does go up due to halving it will be 2 or months after halving. Prices are set on the margin and monetary pricing is always very sticky, i.e. hovering around big numbers for long times and then moving rapidly to next big number 'set-point', due to unit denomination psychology.

I agree with you but if you don't mind, could you please elaborate the bolded part.

[becoin]

... No you're not competing with the other 15mil bitcoin market, as most of those bitcoins are NOT for sale. That's basic economics. ...

Nah, that's not basic economics, that's Beanie economics. If Exxon gasoline is in short supply, it doesn't mean it's suddenly more valuable & you can charge more at your Exxon gas station. There are alternatives -- people will simply switch to Shell.
Tacking on "That's basic economics" at the end only shows that you're yet to grasp basic economics.

Learn the difference between money and commodity and you'll know something about "basic economics".

[DaRude]

The halving is priced in or we will see a huge pump? How many percent are your bets?

My bet is nothing much happens. There's a whole lot of noise taking up attention elsewhere.

I'll be VERY surprised if we'll have this stable market all the way up to the halving in supply. I mean how accurate do you think they price these things in?

Based on your sig, If Bitcoin is not allowed to grow, won't price decline? I mean it seems impossible to have price appreciation without growth. There is no way to stop growth that won't also stop appreciation.

"And it leads to an obvious but crazy conclusion: if decentralisation is what makes Bitcoin good, and growth threatens decentralisation, then Bitcoin should not be allowed to grow." -Mike Hearn
Yes, yes, and again yes. Until better solution is found, growth should not be achieved simply at the cost of centralization!

Quote is from Hearn's rage quit. By growth he's talking about giving free access to something that is limited in supply by design. Think it's obvious that it won't work. Make a block 80MB and if it's free (or almost free) to fill up someone will. Utilization can continue to grow even if it costs few cents extra for a space in a block.

I know damn well where it's from, but you didn't answer my question.  Utilization can only grow until it hits the limit, at which point it can't continue to grow.  In the process, of course I understand that low value transactions will be replaced by relatively higher value transactions that merit higher fees, but there is still a limit and because of the correlation between price and utilization, there is a limit on price. We can debate what that limit is, but it's there.  There is a price beyond which a network congestion failure is an inevitable certainty if capacity is constant.  This should be so obvious, it bewilders me that I even have to say it. What is the cognitive disconnect of smallblockers who think capacity limits aren't also price limits? 

Look, if price keeps going up, it's going to attract new users, traders, speculators etc. This is obvious. There is no way to stop it. The growth will continue to come until something prevents them from participating, like a physical inability to get their transactions processed. What else could stop them? The ONLY thing that I think would do it is if the price stopped rising. Do you have another idea?

So either we will eventually get a network congestion failure or a complete halt in price appreciation without additional capacity.  This is not an opinion. This is a logical certainty. 

If Bitcoin is not allowed to grow, won't price decline?

Well yes at it's very basic can't argue against this.

The flaw in your logic is that currently even with 1MB block we can technically reach 100% utilization in every single block. i.e. all of BTCs (15MM) can fit in a single block (if all of BTCs are transfered to few input addresses). Here's one transaction for BTC195K that only took up 7kb https://blockchain.info/tx/1c12443203a48f42cdf7b1acee5b4b1c1fedc144cb909a3bf5edbffafb0cd204

It bewilders me that i have to explain to you there there can't be a network congestion failure, just a fee market economy. If you send a transaction now with 0 fees and it doesn't confirm is that a network congestion failure too?

Again there is no such thing as a "physical inability to get their transactions processed" just a fee might be prohibitive and not worth it for a particular transaction.

[DaRude]

... No you're not competing with the other 15mil bitcoin market, as most of those bitcoins are NOT for sale. That's basic economics. ...

Nah, that's not basic economics, that's Beanie economics. If Exxon gasoline is in short supply, it doesn't mean it's suddenly more valuable & you can charge more at your Exxon gas station. There are alternatives -- people will simply switch to Shell.
Tacking on "That's basic economics" at the end only shows that you're yet to grasp basic economics.

Learn the difference between money and commodity and you'll know something about "basic economics".

NLC 'tis you? And couldn't have answered it better than becoin

[blunderer]

... No you're not competing with the other 15mil bitcoin market, as most of those bitcoins are NOT for sale. That's basic economics. ...

Nah, that's not basic economics, that's Beanie economics. If Exxon gasoline is in short supply, it doesn't mean it's suddenly more valuable & you can charge more at your Exxon gas station. There are alternatives -- people will simply switch to Shell.
Tacking on "That's basic economics" at the end only shows that you're yet to grasp basic economics.

Learn the difference between money and commodity and you'll know something about "basic economics".

This thread is about Bitcoin, the shit-tier asset subnormals *spend* money on.

>couldn't have answered it better than becoin
Because you're no brighter than he is?

[DaRude]

... No you're not competing with the other 15mil bitcoin market, as most of those bitcoins are NOT for sale. That's basic economics. ...

Nah, that's not basic economics, that's Beanie economics. If Exxon gasoline is in short supply, it doesn't mean it's suddenly more valuable & you can charge more at your Exxon gas station. There are alternatives -- people will simply switch to Shell.
Tacking on "That's basic economics" at the end only shows that you're yet to grasp basic economics.

Learn the difference between money and commodity and you'll know something about "basic economics".

This thread is about Bitcoin, the shit-tier asset subnormals *spend* money on.

>couldn't have answered it better than becoin
Because you're no brighter than he is?

Ah personal attacks. Well, he very well might be, haven't talked to him? much. Think this convo is over thanks for playing. Good bye.

[blunderer]

...
>couldn't have answered it better than becoin
Because you're no brighter than he is?

Ah personal attacks. Well, he very well might be, haven't talked to him? much. Think this convo is over thanks for playing. Good bye.

Proof, right there

[notme]

Quote is from Hearn's rage quit. By growth he's talking about giving free access to something that is limited in supply by design. Think it's obvious that it won't work. Make a block 80MB and if it's free (or almost free) to fill up someone will. Utilization can continue to grow even if it costs few cents extra for a space in a block.

It will never be free to fill up a block.  There is always a cost.  However, when the block is 1 MB and it is already close to full with normal transactions, the cost to fill it is affordable to some.  If the block is much larger, it would be much more expensive to fill it and cause transaction delays.  Miners will always set a minimum price/kb to include data in a block.

[DaRude]

Quote is from Hearn's rage quit. By growth he's talking about giving free access to something that is limited in supply by design. Think it's obvious that it won't work. Make a block 80MB and if it's free (or almost free) to fill up someone will. Utilization can continue to grow even if it costs few cents extra for a space in a block.

It will never be free to fill up a block.  There is always a cost.  However, when the block is 1 MB and it is already close to full with normal transactions, the cost to fill it is affordable to some.  If the block is much larger, it would be much more expensive to fill it and cause transaction delays.  Miners will always set a minimum price/kb to include data in a block.

The argument is not that more space is bad. The argument is that at certain point the cost (in centralization) outweighs the benefit of trying to keep transactions few cents cheaper.

1mb is already filled up (arguably by spam but nevertheless) how long will it take to fill 2mb? Then 4mb if bitcoin will start to take off? Do you think that 8mb is viable? What about 16mb? At what size do you feel the size of the block will centralize the network to the point where you start to get worried and thinking that maybe letting satoshidice pay 2 cents per transaction is not worth it?

[billyjoeallen]

So either we will eventually get a network congestion failure or a complete halt in price appreciation without additional capacity.  This is not an opinion. This is a logical certainty.  

... this idiotic statement refuses to acknowledge that there are already a great number of bitcoin transactions that do not take place on the bitcoin network, and they can also lead to price appreciation from an increased network effect.

Your argument is simplistically idiotic because it is the equivalent of saying that if you cannot use FedWire then USdollar usage cannot increase.

 
ok, Moron. Let me use an extreme example to illustrate my point (as you seem to be too stupid to grasp what most high school kids could understand).  Imagine bitcoin trades at $1,000,000/BTC next month for some reason. Would not millions, tens of millions of people want to jump in on that?  How are millions going to do it with a capacity of a half million xaction/day? They would try. You know how crazy people get in a mania.

Dollars existed before FedWire. Bitcoin derivatives did not exist before Bitcoin. Of course it's theoretically possible for Bitcoin value to increase without transaction volume increasing, but that's not how the real world works.  You are trying to make reality fit your model in stead of the other way around.

[AlexGR]

Imagine bitcoin trades at $1,000,000/BTC next month for some reason. Would not millions, tens of millions of people want to jump in on that?  How are millions going to do it with a capacity of a half million xaction/day? They would try. You know how crazy people get in a mania.

Tens of millions, assuming just 1 x "tens" (=10 million), is ~40 times than the current 250k txs/day.

Allowing for 90% fullness, and not all blocks at 100% (if some miners opt to mine less), you'd need ~44.5 mb blocks.

For two tens (=20 million), you need ~89mb blocks.

[DaRude]

Imagine bitcoin trades at $1,000,000/BTC next month for some reason. Would not millions, tens of millions of people want to jump in on that?  How are millions going to do it with a capacity of a half million xaction/day? They would try. You know how crazy people get in a mania.

Tens of millions, assuming just 1 x "tens" (=10 million), is ~40 times than the current 250k txs/day.

Allowing for 90% fullness, and not all blocks at 100% (if some miners opt to mine less), you'd need ~44.5 mb blocks.

For two tens (=20 million), you need ~89mb blocks.

For some reason people fail to see that. And think raising a block to 4mb will solve all the problems

[hdbuck]

Imagine bitcoin trades at $1,000,000/BTC next month for some reason. Would not millions, tens of millions of people want to jump in on that?  How are millions going to do it with a capacity of a half million xaction/day? They would try. You know how crazy people get in a mania.

Tens of millions, assuming just 1 x "tens" (=10 million), is ~40 times than the current 250k txs/day.

Allowing for 90% fullness, and not all blocks at 100% (if some miners opt to mine less), you'd need ~44.5 mb blocks.

For two tens (=20 million), you need ~89mb blocks.

For some reason people fail to see that. And think raising a block to 4mb will solve all the problems

It's never been about the blocksize.

Forking just to make sure they can dictacte whatever they feel like whining for, because democracy, because mass adoption blablabluh.

Still it ain't happening, bitcoin does not work that way.

Been over a year so by now the shit blocking their sight might dissolve a bit and hopefully they will soon move on.

[Dekker3D]

And again after few more years, another issue like this will re-surface so we're going to argue about raising the blockchain again to 8MB.

[conspirosphere.tk]

We can debate what that limit is, but it's there. 

I recently paid more than 50 USD to wire 1000 USD from a US bank to a Singapore account, that is 5%+. And BTC tx are still almost free, notwithstanding their immense advantages on depending on banks.

[Tzupy]

https://www.tradingview.com/chart/BTCCNY/rpaz5X3V-China-breaks-triangle-US-does-not/

Give me a sign!!!!!

OH?  That's the sign?

Should I sell now in order to be ahead of the game?


Even with that charting of a breaking down in China, I am only slightly bearish for the next 3% break out...  maybe 52.75% betting on down... 

The mid $420s resistance has been proving a bit more formidable than I had expected, and possibly could be a few more weeks to get passed that point.

I do understand that when we are suffering from overall relative low volume, that leaves quite a bit of control to manipulators.. and it seems that bears tend to push their agenda a bit more in the low volume scenarios... and recently no one seems to getting too excited about possibilities of getting left behind.

Despite the worsening market indicators, price has been more resilient than I expected.
Two months ago, similar indicator crossings resulted in large drops. Now I am trying to figure out how much slower the current market is moving.

[LFC_Bitcoin]

And again after few more years, another issue like this will re-surface so we're going to argue about raising the blockchain again to 8MB.

Pretty predictable isn't it. This shit is both annoying on a personal level & damaging to bitcoin. Nobody is ever going to succeed in this game whilst this crap rumbles on.

[European Central Bank]

Ain't the crap gonna be here forever? I guess we'll have to wait for that miracle second layer that deals with this stuff once and for all.

[hdbuck]

And again after few more years, another issue like this will re-surface so we're going to argue about raising the blockchain again to 8MB.

Pretty predictable isn't it. This shit is both annoying on a personal level & damaging to bitcoin. Nobody is ever going to succeed in this game whilst this crap rumbles on.

bitcoin already won.

everything else is noise.