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

[JayJuanGee]

No offense but you are an economic illiterate (we have all weak spot, myself I am bad at computer science and coding).

What you are saying about supply moving along with demand makes no sense whatsoever in the context of the blocksize limit. You don't understand what perfectly inelastic means, it means fixed with no way to moving it. In order to learn you first need to understand what you know and what you don't know.

I might not be expressing myself very well, but I know economics sufficiently well, and actually I had done quite a bit of work around various economic ideas in the past... so you seem to be making wrong assumptions about me.

  Currently, I am attempting to use layman's expressions to describe that there is no problem rather than getting caught up in technicalities in which you are suggesting various technicalities without explaining what you mean, so instead of suggesting that I don't know what I am talking about possibly you need to explain what you perceive is the problem.. and explain the problem because you are the one suggesting that there is a problem and that we should be concerned about it.  So the burden is on you to show the problem and to convince others about the problem that you perceive.  Such burden is not on me to identify the problem that you perceive.

 I am suggesting that behavior is going to change with a shrinking supply that will allow for sufficient and acceptable adapting that will be sufficient to manage while seg wit and any other changes are being implemented that may not include a blocksize limit increase, and you are suggesting that some unacceptable results will occur if the block limit is not increased.   Ultimately we disagree about impact and we also disagree about whether there is currently a problem... so it may not really matter whether I am using one term differently from you... because we are going to likely come to different conclusions.  I think that many people in this space understand the issues sufficiently and disagree on the means forward, and XT/classic supporters are still arguing about a case they lost... but don't want to give up.

   On the Circle

    1. Do not take offense at the following argument, for there is nothing offensive in it, unless one does not consider that the circle may be spoken of in a geometrical sense. If I say that the circle describes four identical radii, and you say: not four, but one, then we have a right to ask one another: why? But I don't want to talk about that kind of description of the circle, but of the perfect description of a circle.
    2. The circle is the most perfect flat figure. I am not going to say why in particular that is so. But this fact arises of itself in our consciousness in any consideration of flat figures.
    3. Nature is so created that the less noticeable the laws of formation, the more perfect the thing.
    4. Nature is also so created that the more impenetrable a thing, the more perfect it is.
    5. On perfection, I would say the following: perfection in things is a perfect thing. It is always possible to study a perfect thing or, in other words, in a perfect thing these is always something not studied. If a thing should prove to have been completely studied, then it would cease to be perfect, for only that which is incomplete is perfect -- that is to say the infinite.
    6. A point is infinitely small and thereby attains perfection, but at the same time it remains inconceivable. Even the smallest conceivable point would not be perfect.
    7. A straight line is perfect, for there is no reason for it not to be infinitely long on both sides, to have neither end nor beginning, and thereby be inconceivable. But by putting pressure on it and limiting it on both sides, we render it conceivable, but at the same time imperfect.
    If you believe this, then think on.
    8. A straight line, broken at one point, forms an angle. But a straight line which is broken simultaneously at all its points is called a curve. A curve does not have to be of necessity infinitely long. It may be such that we can grasp it freely at a glance and yet at the same time remain inconceivable and infinite. I am talking about a closed curve, in which the beginning and the end are concealed. And the most regular, inconceivable, infinite and ideal curve will be a circle.

Thoughts?

Your analogy seems aimed at merely filling space.. and an ineffective attempt at causing more abstraction than necessary.

If you are with us jump on board, otherwise get the fuck out of the way, newbie.     

[1715614136]

1715614136

[1715614136]

1715614136

[1715614136]

1715614136

[1715614136]

1715614136

[r0ach]

Monero dev makes shockingly obvious discovery Ethereum is a centralized scamcoin

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1485051.0

[JayJuanGee]

So looks like we're holding steady with $1.6 million worth of fiat coming in on a daily basis.

After the halving we will not see that amount daily until the price is $900.

Things gonna get real.....








and





SCARY   

[adamstgBit]

a lot of investors are not putting money into bitcoin, because they think that it might not be THE crypto 10 years from now,
they think it could be displaced by ETH or somthing like it.
once ETH falls apart while bitcoin increases capacity that FUD will be removed.
poeple will being to understand that bitcoin IS whatever we want it to be, and thats why nothing can displace it.
the big wow factor will be when >75% hashing power + economic majority HardFork bitcoin to 2MB blocks.

[JayJuanGee]

Small blockists are killing Bitcoin.

https://bitcoinfees.21.co/

Which fee should I use?

The fastest and cheapest transaction fee is currently 40 satoshis/byte, shown in green at the top.
For the median transaction size of 226 bytes, this results in a fee of 9,040 satoshis (0.03$).

It's short-sighted.

What is important is not today but the future.

In the future there'll be more capacity to satisfy actual txs (not spammy near-zero cost txs). That much is a given.

So why the price is stagnating and VC investment is decreasing? Sure you computer geeks folks are cleverer than all the economic minded people on the planet.

"Economic minded people" = the only model they understand is one of centralization, trust and counterparties. Trustless peer to peer economy is a foreign concept.

Well no, economic models tend to account for centralization, trust, and counterparties. Amongst other things. The most discriptive/predictive ones tend to get complex, with maths and stuff.
You, of course, reject them because
1. Decentralization itself is your objective (as opposed to maximizing wealth, knowledge, hippy stuff, etc.). If a model leads to solutions which do not require decentralization, into the trash it goes. Like rating cake recipes by the amount of Drano used. Angel food cake doesn't use Drano decentralization? Bad cake!
2. You simply don't understand conventional economics.

Some people who think they understand "economics" by insisting on turning a decentralized system into a centralized one, simply don't get what Bitcoin is about.

If Bitcoin is about maximizing the use of Drano decentralization, you're right. Some people see blockchains as interesting data structures, and play with them/try to adopt them to their needs. Naturally, they're starting to distance themselves from Bitcoin due to militant, dogmatic zealots like you.

Client-server databases are better for centralized systems. You don't need inefficient blockchains to do this work in a centralized manner.

Perhaps. But that's no reason for you to be upset

nice how you seem to miss the whole point, and then to twist the matter around.

Yes, there can be a lot of complexity in economic models, but if they either do not capture the ideas properly or are aimed at obfuscation, derailing and distracting, then those kinds  of non-sense complex models need to be discounted into oblivion.

Anyhow, the point remains that placing bitcoin into the wrong economic model is going to cause skewed, misleading and screwy results.  And, that seems to be one of the issues with several mainstream economist who either do not understand bitcoin, or they are merely attempting to misalign it in order to side with mainstream status quo financial models (and minimizing the recognition that some of their centralized financial bubble creation days are numbered - though benefit of the doubt, it still could take 10, 20 or more years to get there).

[r0ach]

the big wow factor will be when >75% hashing power + economic majority HardFork bitcoin to 2MB blocks.

It's already going to 2MB blocks + segwit with 2017 hard fork anyway, which should be an effective 3.x MB block size.  That's why there's not much of a reason to make a big deal out of it unless someone tries to renig.  Also, weak blocks make raising block size not an actual problem and weak blocks is already planned here:

http://coinjournal.net/blockstream-president-adam-back-shares-roadmap-scaling-bitcoin/

There's not even any argument that Bitcoin will or won't be scaled, it's just that people believe core is doing it too slowly, but that's just how it is when you actually have to develop and test things first for something where if you make a mistake would implode billions of dollars.

[hd060053]

Monero dev makes shockingly obvious discovery Ethereum is a centralized scamcoin

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1485051.0

dont post this here, go to altcoin discussion...

[Denker]

a lot of investors are not putting money into bitcoin, because they think that it might not be THE crypto 10 years from now,
they think it could be displaced by ETH or somthing like it.
once ETH falls apart while bitcoin increases capacity that FUD will be removed.
poeple will being to understand that bitcoin IS whatever we want it to be, and thats why nothing can displace it.
the big wow factor will be when >75% hashing power + economic majority HardFork bitcoin to 2MB blocks.

Yepp that's how I see the situation as well.
Good thing is we have a bit more time to accumulate.
And I will definitely do that everytime I can.
Once this baby starts to take off, getting more of it or getting in could become really expensive.

[hd060053]

in the last days, price went up and also shorts on bitfinex went up. It needs some more time but then the pump can be started 

[adamstgBit]

the big wow factor will be when >75% hashing power + economic majority HardFork bitcoin to 2MB blocks.

It's already going to 2MB blocks + segwit with 2017 hard fork anyway, which should be an effective 3.x MB block size.  That's why there's not much of a reason to make a big deal out of it unless someone tries to renig.  Also, weak blocks make raising block size not an actual problem and weak blocks is already planned here:

http://coinjournal.net/blockstream-president-adam-back-shares-roadmap-scaling-bitcoin/

There's not even any argument that Bitcoin will or won't be scaled, it's just that people believe core is doing it too slowly, but that's just how it is when you actually have to develop and test things first for something where you make a mistake would implode billions of dollars.

There is no guarantee it will happen it can only happen if mostly everyone wants it to happen. that much has been made clear as day in the past year. ( to the point were people are afraid nothing can ever happen because getting "mostly everyone" to agree is "impossible" )
when the HF happens and we get our first 2MB block 10mins later.
people's heads will explode.
dont kid yourself the 2MB HF will be a BIG DEAL.

[hdbuck]

the big wow factor will be when >75% hashing power + economic majority HardFork bitcoin to 2MB blocks.

It's already going to 2MB blocks + segwit with 2017 hard fork anyway, which should be an effective 3.x MB block size.  That's why there's not much of a reason to make a big deal out of it unless someone tries to renig.  Also, weak blocks make raising block size not an actual problem and weak blocks is already planned here:

http://coinjournal.net/blockstream-president-adam-back-shares-roadmap-scaling-bitcoin/

There's not even any argument that Bitcoin will or won't be scaled, it's just that people believe core is doing it too slowly, but that's just how it is when you actually have to develop and test things first for something where you make a mistake would implode billions of dollars.

There is no guarantee it will happen it can only happen if mostly everyone wants it to happen. that much has been made clear as day in the past year. ( to the point were people are afraid nothing can ever happen because getting "mostly everyone" to agree is "impossible" )
when the HF happens and we get our first 2MB block 10mins later.
people's heads will explode.
dont kid yourself the 2MB HF will be a BIG DEAL.

lol, big deal yeah, massive dump.

but it aint going to happen, gonna need a tad bit more than a buncha whiny shits to fuck with Bitcoin.

[dumbfbrankings]

...
dont kid yourself the 2MB HF will be a BIG DEAL.

Excited for Segwit Omnibus Changeset hdbuck??! Yay status quo!



Don't worry, your The Realest Bitcoin Client won't understand or validate any of it.



All seven of you...       

[adamstgBit]

SegWit or DIE!

hard to believe core has so much support...

[hv_]

SegWit or DIE!

hard to believe core has so much support...

Is there sb out who can bREAKE the ICE and unfreeze the block size limit?

[AlexGR]

Small blockists are killing Bitcoin.

https://bitcoinfees.21.co/

Which fee should I use?

The fastest and cheapest transaction fee is currently 40 satoshis/byte, shown in green at the top.
For the median transaction size of 226 bytes, this results in a fee of 9,040 satoshis (0.03$).

It's short-sighted.

What is important is not today but the future.

In the future there'll be more capacity to satisfy actual txs (not spammy near-zero cost txs). That much is a given.

So why the price is stagnating and VC investment is decreasing? Sure you computer geeks folks are cleverer than all the economic minded people on the planet.

"Economic minded people" = the only model they understand is one of centralization, trust and counterparties. Trustless peer to peer economy is a foreign concept.

Well no, economic models tend to account for centralization, trust, and counterparties. Amongst other things. The most discriptive/predictive ones tend to get complex, with maths and stuff.
You, of course, reject them because
1. Decentralization itself is your objective (as opposed to maximizing wealth, knowledge, hippy stuff, etc.). If a model leads to solutions which do not require decentralization, into the trash it goes. Like rating cake recipes by the amount of Drano used. Angel food cake doesn't use Drano decentralization? Bad cake!
2. You simply don't understand conventional economics.

I do not "reject" them. Bitcoin's success *depends* on them.

We are in a town where there are 100 ice-cream shops (bank wires, western union, paypal and paypal clones, mobile payment systems, credit cards etc) but all these shops are offering just one flavor (=centralization).

A new ice-cream shop opens and provides a new flavor, breaking the 100% "monopoly" of the previous flavor.

This creates a booming market for the new entrant which starts at 0% and has enormous growth potential. Even if the new entrant captures ...just 1% of the pie of the centralized system, booom. We are talking about prices in 5 digits. And it will capture it. Why? Because the decentralized system has features that the centralized doesn't. They serve different needs, have different problems / weaknesses and different limitations.

So if somebody wants the new ice-cream flavor, why not? Are you opposed to us having more flavors to choose from? I mean you love your CC but isn't it ok if another one loves his BTC? As the CC suits your needs, BTC serves his needs. The only reason to be unhappy is if you own one of the old ice-cream shops (=banks etc) and fear the loss of the market share that is looming on the horizon, simply because now there is a choice for something different.

[Assmaster2000]

Serious question: Our Bitcoin committee is trying to decide which of Bitcoin's twin greatest minds -- r0ach or JJG -- to nominate for the coveted Nobel Brain Prize in Smartitude.

Frankly, we're torn. Our complicated and pricey laboratory apparata has failed to conclusively differentiate, via rigorous application of scientific methods and procedures, the greater of the two minds, due to them both being so ginormously huge.
Our team is tempted to nominate them both, but we worry: Would forcing two sovereign individuals [who are not gay] to share this, the highest of accolades, dilute and/or cheapen the experience for them?

Thoughts?

[r0ach]

Serious question: Our Bitcoin committee is trying to decide which of Bitcoin's twin greatest minds -- r0ach or JJG -- to nominate for the coveted Nobel Brain Prize in Smartitude.

Frankly, we're torn. Our complicated and pricey laboratory apparata has failed to conclusively differentiate, via rigorous application of scientific methods and procedures, the greater of the two minds, due to them both being so ginormously huge.
Our team is tempted to nominate them both, but we worry: Would forcing two sovereign individuals [who are not gay] to share this, the highest of accolades, dilute and/or cheapen the experience for them?

Thoughts?

[SomaliRebel]

Small blockists are killing Bitcoin.

https://bitcoinfees.21.co/

Which fee should I use?

The fastest and cheapest transaction fee is currently 40 satoshis/byte, shown in green at the top.
For the median transaction size of 226 bytes, this results in a fee of 9,040 satoshis (0.03$).

It's short-sighted.

What is important is not today but the future.

In the future there'll be more capacity to satisfy actual txs (not spammy near-zero cost txs). That much is a given.

So why the price is stagnating and VC investment is decreasing? Sure you computer geeks folks are cleverer than all the economic minded people on the planet.

"Economic minded people" = the only model they understand is one of centralization, trust and counterparties. Trustless peer to peer economy is a foreign concept.

Well no, economic models tend to account for centralization, trust, and counterparties. Amongst other things. The most discriptive/predictive ones tend to get complex, with maths and stuff.
You, of course, reject them because
1. Decentralization itself is your objective (as opposed to maximizing wealth, knowledge, hippy stuff, etc.). If a model leads to solutions which do not require decentralization, into the trash it goes. Like rating cake recipes by the amount of Drano used. Angel food cake doesn't use Drano decentralization? Bad cake!
2. You simply don't understand conventional economics.

I do not "reject" them. Bitcoin's success *depends* on them.

We are in a town where there are 100 ice-cream shops (bank wires, western union, paypal and paypal clones, mobile payment systems, credit cards etc) but all these shops are offering just one flavor (=centralization).

Arguably, not having "decentralized" doesn't mean those 100 shops are offering "just one flavor."
Cherry Garcia and Chunky Monkey aren't "just one flavor," even though neither one contains chewy gizzards or rusty bolts. I'll even tell you why none of the hundred stores offer Gizzards 'n Bolts flavor: because it's a shitty flavor that no one in his right mind ever buys, that's why.

A new ice-cream shop opens and provides a new flavor, breaking the 100% "monopoly" of the previous flavor.

Again, there is no monopoly, people simply don't like Gizzards 'n Bolts.

This creates a booming market for the new entrant which starts at 0% and has enormous growth potential.

No. The reason a few quarts of Gizzards 'n Bolts got sold is not because it's a flavor the world has been waiting for, but because those quart containers were a convenient way to deal dope and launder money, in plain daylight. Unfortunately, the jackboots are on to that shit, hence dropping sales

Even if the new entrant captures ...just 1% of the pie of the centralized system, booom.

Please trust me when I say this: Gizzards 'n Bolts ice cream is kill, is not gonna catch on, not gonna capture 1% of the market.
Taste it FFS!

[doc12]

So are there any recent news on the segwit update ? Will it be integrated into core next month ?

No news on this topic in the last weeks it seems.

[Fatman3001]

So are there any recent news on the segwit update ? Will it be integrated into core next month ?

No news on this topic in the last weeks it seems.

Yah, where's segwit?

I heard April so only 10.5 months to go.