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

[BitUsher]

So anyhow, even if the persons involved in the agreement were sufficient agents to bind action, the action does not bind any kind of specific outcome beyond intending to take reasonable measures to figure out consensus in respect to whether a hardfork may be practical after some testing and release of seg wit.

Nope , it binds the developers that signed to deliver a tested HF proposal to the miners by July, but makes no promises that it will be accepted by core, other developers, or the community.

Luke can literally change a few lines of code , hand that to them , and that would satisfy the deal.

Do I think this will happen? No. I believe that luke may be trying to include some HF wishlist items as well, and thus why he feels pressure, but who knows?  

[1714004236]

1714004236

[1714004236]

1714004236

[1714004236]

1714004236

[1714004236]

1714004236

[StraightAArdvark]

This whole concept of "production cost must equal/below product value" is fishy, failed labor theory thinking, marxist bs, totally debunked and failing basic logic since 100+ years.

And you were doing so well up to here The cost of production does need to below retail price, otherwise you're losing money. "Value" is a different variable altogether, so having price (cost) on one side and "value" on the other is comparing apples to oranges.
Nothing Marxist about any of this.

@TERA, which exchange are you watching?

[Mrpumperitis]

as halving approaches...true intentions of the biggesst btc players will start becoming clearer...better get alooooooooooooooooooooooot of popcorn,lol
we gonaa have fireworks display from all depts lol

[TERA]

there was a 900 wall on finex just a minute ago

[marcus_of_augustus]

... all the best pumps have started on huobi in the current run.

[TERA]

watching both

[dumbfbrankings]

So anyhow, even if the persons involved in the agreement were sufficient agents to bind action, the action does not bind any kind of specific outcome beyond intending to take reasonable measures to figure out consensus in respect to whether a hardfork may be practical after some testing and release of seg wit.

Nope , it binds the developers that signed to deliver a tested HF proposal to the miners by July, but makes no promises that it will be accepted by core, other developers, or the community.

Luke can literally change a few lines of code , hand that to them , and that would satisfy the deal.

Do I think this will happen? No. I believe that luke may be trying to include some HF wishlist items as well, and thus why he feels pressure, but who knows?  

Blockstream's entire future is dependent on Segwit. Jihan holds the power to deny them what they need, until they give him what he wants (and can get elsewhere). Playing cute tricks and alienating/insulting the miners (who, so far, would prefer to continue using Core software) seems like a fairly stupid move in this game.

https://www.reddit.com/user/Jihan_Bitmain

[AZwarel]

This whole concept of "production cost must equal/below product value" is fishy, failed labor theory thinking, marxist bs, totally debunked and failing basic logic since 100+ years.

And you were doing so well up to here The cost of production does need to below retail price, otherwise you're losing money. "Value" is a different variable altogether, so having price (cost) on one side and "value" on the other is comparing apples to oranges.
Nothing Marxist about any of this.

That is labor theory of value thinking what you are saying, if you think that as a macroeconomic phenomenon: "The cost of production does need to below retail price, otherwise you're losing money"

A whole industry can only be "unprofitable" if they produce mud pies*. If i am losing money, that means i made a bad speculation about future demand, and i oversupplied the market, AND my production costs are greater than the guy next to me. Not that the market does not appreciate my precious product and too evil to buy it from me for the "fair price". I either go bankrupt hence reducing the supply on the market totallity or make demand for my product.

How could the definition of value be different on the production side, and on the consumer side? Price (cost) is just the numerical expression in some unit of account of the value of anything that can act as an economic good.

*mud pies, as anything that clearly has diminishing demand, or below niche application, yet mass produced to nothingness. Like whats going on in the world right now, with 0% interest money founding production capacities producing shit that has no real market, unless it is bought with borrowed money as well --> mega super world debt crisis.

[TERA]

1. Bitcoin is an equity,  not a consumer good. There are other sellers besides miners who hold 16,000,000 coins.
2. The mining cost is a variable which can go to 0.
3. Miners can and will sell at a loss to cover equipment costs or if they have a negative outlook.

[AZwarel]

1. Bitcoin is an equity,  not a consumer good. There are other sellers besides miners who hold 16,000,000 coins.
2. The mining cost is a variable which can go to 0.
3. Miners can and will sell at a loss to cover equipment costs or if they have a negative outlook.

That is what i am trying to tell :-)

It is just so many hooked up with this myth that mining costs somehow influence bitcoin prices. They are not.

[StraightAArdvark]

This whole concept of "production cost must equal/below product value" is fishy, failed labor theory thinking, marxist bs, totally debunked and failing basic logic since 100+ years.

And you were doing so well up to here The cost of production does need to below retail price, otherwise you're losing money. "Value" is a different variable altogether, so having price (cost) on one side and "value" on the other is comparing apples to oranges.
Nothing Marxist about any of this.

That is labor theory of value thinking what you are saying, if you think that as a macroeconomic phenomenon: "The cost of production does need to below retail price, otherwise you're losing money"

A whole industry can only be "unprofitable" if they produce mud pies. If i am losing money, that means i made a bad speculation about future demand, and i oversupplied the market,

With you thus far...

AND my production costs are greater than the guy next to me.

That's where you loose me. If you're making hula hoops & you need to sell 10k hulas/day @$5 to make ends meet, and your buddy, the other hula manufacturer needs to do the same, you're both up shit's creek. Him going out of business won't help you much either -- you both grossly overestimated hula demand

Not that the market does not appreciate my precious product and too evil to buy it from me for the "fair price". I either go bankrupt hence reducing the supply on the market totallity or make demand for my product.

How could the definition of value be different on the production side, and on the consumer side? Price (cost) is just the numerical expression in some unit of account of the value of anything that can act as an economic good.

I denominate cost in $, how do you denominate value?  Or are you using "value" as just another word for cost?

[Mrpumperitis]

[StraightAArdvark]

1. Bitcoin is an equity,  not a consumer good. There are other sellers besides miners who hold 16,000,000 coins.
2. The mining cost is a variable which can go to 0.

With you up to here.

3. Miners can and will sell at a loss to cover equipment costs or if they have a negative outlook.

What do you mean by "at a loss"? Not below the price of electricity it takes to mine the coin, that just drives you deeper into the red.
There could be some Mexican standoffs where miners may mine at a total loss, to bankrupt the competition, but this is strictly a short-term thing.

[marcus_of_augustus]

It is just so many hooked up with this myth that mining costs somehow influence bitcoin prices. They are not.

... all empirical evidence to the contrary.

Just keep telling yourself whatever myth you like to keep yourself inside your comfort zone. Regardless, money is what does and if you aren't well enough informed with the money markets you'll most likely lose 'money' speculating on bitcoin.

Start here http://szabo.best.vwh.net/shell.html for some insight to get rid of all that bullshit confusion you just spread everywhere

[Torque]

1. Bitcoin is an equity,  not a consumer good. There are other sellers besides miners who hold 16,000,000 coins.
2. The mining cost is a variable which can go to 0.
3. Miners can and will sell at a loss to cover equipment costs or if they have a negative outlook.

That is what i am trying to tell :-)

It is just so many hooked up with this myth that mining costs somehow influence bitcoin prices. They are not.

Don't be stupid.  There is a major difference between selling at a 'small' loss (i.e., just in the red), vs. selling for nothing.  Mining costs absolutely do put a floor on what miners will be willing to sell coins on the market.  The floor was around 200 just last fall, and was tested multiple times.  Now hashrate has risen significantly since then.

Just ask gold miners or oil producers how far they are willing to sell below production costs, and for how long.

[marcus_of_augustus]

http://satoshi.nakamotoinstitute.org/posts/bitcointalk/65/

The price of any commodity tends to gravitate toward the production cost.  If the price is below cost, then production slows down.  If the price is above cost, profit can be made by generating and selling more.  At the same time, the increased production would increase the difficulty, pushing the cost of generating towards the price.

In later years, when new coin generation is a small percentage of the existing supply, market price will dictate the cost of production more than the other way around.

At the moment, generation effort is rapidly increasing, suggesting people are estimating the present value to be higher than the current cost of production.

... does that spell it out clearly enough for you?

[StraightAArdvark]

1. Bitcoin is an equity,  not a consumer good. There are other sellers besides miners who hold 16,000,000 coins.
2. The mining cost is a variable which can go to 0.
3. Miners can and will sell at a loss to cover equipment costs or if they have a negative outlook.

That is what i am trying to tell :-)

It is just so many hooked up with this myth that mining costs somehow influence bitcoin prices. They are not.

Don't be stupid.  There is a major difference between selling at a 'small' loss (i.e., just in the red), vs. selling for nothing.  Miner costs absolutely put a floor on what miners will be willing to sell coins on the market.

Just ask gold miners or oil producers how far they are willing to sell below production costs, and for how long.

OK, let's say you're a miner, and it costs you $1,000 to mine 1BTC, on the average.
1. Miners try to sell coins for $1,000 to cover their costs.
2. No one buys.
3 ? ? ?
Wat do?
I'll tell you wat do.
1. You go out of business, go bankrupt, like KNC is doing.
2. You dropping out drops the difficulty (eventually).
3. This drops "production costs" for other miners.
4. When enough miners (1), the miners which didn't drop out are able to sell their coins for what the market is willing to pay, reestablishing equilibrium, per Satoshi's design

[Torque]

1. Bitcoin is an equity,  not a consumer good. There are other sellers besides miners who hold 16,000,000 coins.
2. The mining cost is a variable which can go to 0.
3. Miners can and will sell at a loss to cover equipment costs or if they have a negative outlook.

That is what i am trying to tell :-)

It is just so many hooked up with this myth that mining costs somehow influence bitcoin prices. They are not.

Don't be stupid.  There is a major difference between selling at a 'small' loss (i.e., just in the red), vs. selling for nothing.  Miner costs absolutely put a floor on what miners will be willing to sell coins on the market.

Just ask gold miners or oil producers how far they are willing to sell below production costs, and for how long.

OK, let's say you're a miner, and it costs you $1,000 to mine 1BTC, on the average.
1. Miners try to sell coins for $1,000 to cover their costs.
2. No one buys.
3 ? ? ?
Wat do?

A: They start turning off mining rigs. Hashrate falls. Just like Satoshi's model predicts. Then an equilibrium on mining production is found vs. demand = exchange rate.

[TERA]

For some reason, watching a coin drop is very pleasing to me.

[Mrpumperitis]

For some reason, watching a coin drop is very pleasing to me.

youve become Desensitised to this as the yrs have passed bro ,lol