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

[conspirosphere.tk]

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2016/06/adriano.htm

The IMF ladies and gentlemen. Internet of Trust.

They still banging on about blockchain being the underlying and interesting technology while not grasping that you need a 'native token' i.e. bitcoin to use it.

You can build your own blockchain.. then you have an altcoin. but it's not going to be as secure as the bitcoin network.

All they care for is a system which ensures to them the faculty of cheating us all the time like fiat.

[Assmaster2000]

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

Are you all gone mad? ... Nothing is relevant! People die! People lose their homes to fires and floods! People get in to accidents where they lose their hardware! They throw bitcoins in trash cans then after 1 year it grows to almost 1$ million ... Almost 1 million coins are exterminated, extinct! .. they don't exist anymore!

... no one knows it's there until - BLAMMO! Eyes melt, skin explodes, everybody dead. So immoral, working on the thing can drive you mad. That's what happened to this friend of mine.
So he had a lobotomy.
Now he's well again

All [banksters] care for is a system which ensures to them the faculty of cheating us all the time like fiat.

And for what? For a little bit of money. There's more to life than a little money, you know. Don'tcha know that? And here ya are, and it's a beautiful day. Well. I just don't understand it.

[600watt]

fun fact:

A group of researchers tried to estimate the number of grains of sand in the world – every grain of every desert and beach. Their estimate was 7.5 x 1018 grains of sand – seven quintillion, five hundred quadrillion.

Currently the Bitcoin network takes just 6 seconds to make as many guesses as their are grains of sand on earth and only one of those guesses is correct every 10 minutes. That’s one hell of a game.

https://seebitcoin.com/2016/06/understanding-bitcoin-the-childhood-game-that-rules-the-network/

[AZwarel]

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

Good morning:)

Thanks, i have read it like a year ago, it is a fascinating read(!), i think i even linked it somewhere in a reply long ago. Still, i think Szabo's whole point is that money is an abstraction, a creation of the human mind for "...to solve problems of cooperation that other animals cannot.." and cryptos are the ultimate proof, that this abstraction can exist purely as information, completely detached from the physical form.

That is precisely why i am saying that it can not have a traditional production cost, because it is pure information, a number only - actually, more like an entropic state.

The empirical evidence is this: buyers/sellers on the market does not care, how much computing went to the same bitcoin units of 2010, or 2016, 1 bitcoin= 1 bitcoin, regardless of electricity burned to "compute" it - as i have written here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=178336.msg15108324#msg15108324, there is no production, every new block will enable a new UTXO in the coinbase transaction, DESPITE the computational power used - the same with 1 laptop humming on the desk, or a gigantic asic farm factory, 1 block will release the same amount of BTC/as defined by the blockheight as unspent transaction output.

Saying that "production costs" - whatever that would mean to generate a random number basically - reflecting in the market value of BTC is saying people are checking price tags in a supermarket by calculating how much it cost the producer to make a bottle of milk. They do not care. They will check the competing MARGINAL UTILITY of the goods satisfying their needs, they could not care - or has the ability to calculate - about production costs.

Same with bitcoin. Does anyone care, if that bitcoin was mined with 100 Ghash/sec machine, or 1,4 Exahash/sec gigafarm? Does that by itself make bitcoin more $value in the open market? It does not.

[Assmaster2000]

fun fact:

A group of researchers tried to estimate the number of grains of sand in the world – every grain of every desert and beach. Their estimate was 7.5 x 1018 grains of sand – seven quintillion, five hundred quadrillion.

Currently the Bitcoin network takes just 6 seconds to make as many guesses as their are grains of sand on earth and only one of those guesses is correct every 10 minutes. That’s one hell of a game.

https://seebitcoin.com/2016/06/understanding-bitcoin-the-childhood-game-that-rules-the-network/

Bonus:
Like a team of seven quintillion, five hundred quadrillion monkeys poking at seven quintillion, five hundred quadrillion typewriters, the Beetcoin network is also likely to compose all of humanity's greatest literary works.
Caveat:
The monkeys can't tell a masterpiece from a pile of doodie, so without a team of seven quintillion, five hundred quadrillion IRL human readers, the effort produces nothing of value (unless consuming roughly seven quintillion, five hundred quadrillion kilos of bananas & creating roughly seven quintillion, five hundred quadrillion kilos of monkey poop could be said to have value).

[Assmaster2000]

Saying that "production costs" - whatever that would mean to generate a random number basically - reflecting in the market value of BTC is saying people are checking price tags in a supermarket by calculating how much it cost the producer to make a bottle of milk. They do not care. They will check the competing MARGINAL UTILITY of the goods satisfying their needs, they could not care - or has the ability to calculate - about production costs.

I think the point he's trying to make is if it costs $5 to produce a gallon of milk, you won't see any $2.99/gal milk at the supermarket. Which is true.
Surprisingly, bitcoin isn't milk, there's no minimum production cost. 2 netbooks,at a cost of pennies an hour, could produce the same milk 25 BTC every ~10mins currently mined by seven quintillion, five hundred quadrillion monkeys pricey megafarms.

[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,

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?

And that is where the problem lies. No sane investor will start making hula hoops BEFORE making a gross calculation about demand!!!!! That is a paramount of importance for my argument, that you can not separate production (supply) from consumption (demand), not even in theory. The whole point of production in the end is satisfying needs, profit is just an incentive to do it the most efficient way (that is why market economy leads to abundance, and socialist planning leads to shortages and lines).

So in your example, not necessarily both of us would go bankrupt, because if i shut my factory down, the gross supply of hulas going down, and may or may not find a new marginal utility among the buyers (aka, it increases in price/unit, till it reaches 5$, or not, still depends on the demand. But that is what marketing is for, to create "surplus demand"!).

The same as two bakeries next to each other: if all equals* (price/unit of bread, quality, opening hours, etc), and the total supply of the two bakery is S, but demand is S-n, than one of those bakers will go bankrupt, but that does not mean that making bread is unprofitable. It just means that too many investor resource used up on that particular good at that particular space/time.

We can denominate costs in $. Value is subjective, but of course can be given an average $ rate/time continuum (which can be 1 second or 10 years). Kinda of like this: i value that good for x, we denominate it in price. The seller wants x+c+n, lets say x+c is the total cost of his production, and n is the value he wants to acquire from the whole process of making the good. Now, i can either rearrange my valuation of the good, and pay the higher price (which is my cost side) of x+c+n, but the utility of the good for me stayed x. The price i pay is my cost, the good i get for it is the value the good represents to me(!), price is an average of market discovery, value is totally arbitrary/subjective.

*btw, never anything equals, there are no perfectly equal goods, producers, decisions, there is information asymmetry in physics which forbids that uniformity even in theory (my factory cannot occupy the same space/time as yours, i can not use the same materials as you do, i can not employ the same employees, etc.).

[AZwarel]

Saying that "production costs" - whatever that would mean to generate a random number basically - reflecting in the market value of BTC is saying people are checking price tags in a supermarket by calculating how much it cost the producer to make a bottle of milk. They do not care. They will check the competing MARGINAL UTILITY of the goods satisfying their needs, they could not care - or has the ability to calculate - about production costs.

I think the point he's trying to make is if it costs $5 to produce a gallon of milk, you won't see any $2.99/gal milk at the supermarket. Which is true.
Surprisingly, bitcoin isn't milk, there's no minimum production cost. 2 netbooks,at a cost of pennies an hour, could produce the same milk 25 BTC every ~10mins currently mined by seven quintillion, five hundred quadrillion monkeys pricey megafarms.

Yes, thank you, that is my point. Hmm never thought about explaining this way, "bitcoin isn't milk" :-D

[DaRude]

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

Good morning:)

Thanks, i have read it like a year ago, it is a fascinating read(!), i think i even linked it somewhere in a reply long ago. Still, i think Szabo's whole point is that money is an abstraction, a creation of the human mind for "...to solve problems of cooperation that other animals cannot.." and cryptos are the ultimate proof, that this abstraction can exist purely as information, completely detached from the physical form.

That is precisely why i am saying that it can not have a traditional production cost, because it is pure information, a number only - actually, more like an entropic state.

The empirical evidence is this: buyers/sellers on the market does not care, how much computing went to the same bitcoin units of 2010, or 2016, 1 bitcoin= 1 bitcoin, regardless of electricity burned to "compute" it - as i have written here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=178336.msg15108324#msg15108324, there is no production, every new block will enable a new UTXO in the coinbase transaction, DESPITE the computational power used - the same with 1 laptop humming on the desk, or a gigantic asic farm factory, 1 block will release the same amount of BTC/as defined by the blockheight as unspent transaction output.

Saying that "production costs" - whatever that would mean to generate a random number basically - reflecting in the market value of BTC is saying people are checking price tags in a supermarket by calculating how much it cost the producer to make a bottle of milk. They do not care. They will check the competing MARGINAL UTILITY of the goods satisfying their needs, they could not care - or has the ability to calculate - about production costs.

Same with bitcoin. Does anyone care, if that bitcoin was mined with 100 Ghash/sec machine, or 1,4 Exahash/sec gigafarm? Does that by itself make bitcoin more $value in the open market? It does not.

Yep understandably people are struggling with the concept of fixed supply. In real life if production costs are much less than the market price of the item, you got a huge profit margin so either you or someone will increases the supply, considering constant demand, this will cause the price to go down. Works the other way around too, it's not sustainable if production costs are greater than the market price, so business will go bankrupt thus decreasing the supply, with constant demand price goes up.

In bitcoin land, instead of supply we adjust difficulty. If mining is very profitable, noobs will start buying USB miners at the retail stores cause a rise in hashrate which will increase difficulty. When mining costs are greater than price, electricity bills pile up, business with higher production costs go bankrupt causing the hashrate to drop and difficulty to adjust down.

[AZwarel]

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?

Appealing to authority is a really funny attempt on a bitcoin forum...even Satoshi was wrong on many things, and Bitcoin is so new, that there is literally no theory of explaining how it fits into the traditional theory (it does not). Btw, the quote says it clearly: "...generation effort is rapidly increasing, suggesting people are estimating the present value to be higher than the current cost of production".

Value/BTC drives up mining expenditure, not the other way around. It is speculation on future market value, that triggers buying asic farms (sinking capital), which they will not turn off. 10% loss is better than 100% loss.

How exactly the "production" of bitcoin can slow down, when the network automatically adjusts to keep the "production" exactly the same average of 10 mins/block??? That is the whole point of the dynamic adjustment, that you can NOT increase or decrease coin generation in the long time/large scale, no matter how many trillion-billion-fillion hashes you add.

We could mine the same coins with 2 laptops. Or we could mine them with turning the Moon into a gigantic ASIC (cooling is kinda cheap in space). They would generate the same amount of coins after the 1st difficulty adjustment.

Also, no. Bitcoin isn't like oil, it is not consumed up. Blockchain space, that might act, as a commodity, that's why there are fees (other than spam prevention).

[Fatman3001]

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?  

And if they don't agree with that interpretation they can shift all their hashing power to Classic. You can do this "Legally Blonde" act as long as you want, but there are actual consequences to this agreement that some in Core might want to keep in mind. At the very least, new talks should be had instead of all this mudslinging across the interwebs. I and Marcus can do the mudslinging. That should be enough.

[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?

And that is where the problem lies. No sane investor will start making hula hoops BEFORE making a gross calculation about demand!!!!! That is a paramount of importance for my argument, that you can not separate production (supply) from consumption (demand), not even in theory. The whole point of production in the end is satisfying needs, profit is just an incentive to do it the most efficient way (that is why market economy leads to abundance, and socialist planning leads to shortages and lines).

We're dealing with hula hoops.
1. Before the first [hula hoop, smart phone, beetcoin] was made, there was exactly zero demand for hulas. Supply generates demand, [plug in some trying network effect analogies here]. The shrewd hula entrepreneur does not aim to satisfy demand, his business plan is to ride the crest of increasing demand, demand that he, himself is helping to create. Accurate estimates become much less likely.

2. The Hula magnate doesn't know how many other disruptive visionaries will manufacture hulas, so tries to reduce his cost of production via economies of scale (helicopter hangars & Chinese chicken coops chuck full of hula gear).

3. There's also the real world. Success of a real business is not a profit/loss balance sheet. Disruptive visionary sells his paradigm-changing brainchild to *investors*, who go on to fund his & his clan's lifestyles while the enterprise is in operation. The investors, in turn, may use the storefront to move large sums of money, etc., etc. The business doesn't need to succeed in the vulgar sense, see nearly every BTC business ever.
 

So in your example, not necessarily both of us would go bankrupt, because if i shut my factory down, the gross supply of hulas going down, and may or may not find a new marginal utility among the buyers (aka, it increases in price/unit, till it reaches 5$, or not, still depends on the demand. But that is what marketing is for, to create "surplus demand"!).

In my example, both of us will go bankrupt because both of us grossly overestimated hoop demand (which dwindled/failed to materialize). To model beetcoin/halvening situation, our gross revenues are cut in half, so our net goes into negative, because fixed costs. This doesn't assure that both of us *will* go bankrupt, but such an outcome isn't impossible.

[AZwarel]

Yep understandably people are struggling with the concept of fixed supply. In real life if production costs are much less than the market price of the item, you got a huge profit margin so either you or someone will increases the supply, considering constant demand, this will cause the price to go down. Works the other way around too, it's not sustainable if production costs are greater than the market price, so business will go bankrupt thus decreasing the supply, with constant demand price goes up.

In bitcoin land, instead of supply we adjust difficulty. If mining is very profitable, noobs will start buying USB miners at the retail stores cause a rise in hashrate which will increase difficulty. When mining costs are greater than price, electricity bills pile up, business with higher production costs go bankrupt causing the hashrate to drop and difficulty to adjust down.

Actually, that is a way better explanation than mine, Thanks for it!
Yeah, i think some confuse the total supply of bitcoins in a given time period with the individual miner's share from that total fixed supply (which can be increased by additional "production costs" aka, buying more hashpower).

But increased individual cost/reward does not change the total fixed supply pool, nor the market valuation of a given bitcoin unit's price.

[DARKHOLDER]

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?  

And if they don't agree with that interpretation they can shift all their hashing power to Classic. You can do this "Legally Blonde" act as long as you want, but there are actual consequences to this agreement that some in Core might want to keep in mind. At the very least, new talks should be had instead of all this mudslinging across the interwebs. I and Marcus can do the mudslinging. That should be enough.

Any predictions where btc go next few days?? it hold 580$ floor?

[Spaceman_Spiff]

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?

Doesn't the fact that supply is fixed suggest that production cost follows the price?

... therein lies the magic, difficulty ratchets up cost and price ratchets up difficulty ... it's a virtuous circle from which the counterfeiters cannot escape.

Yes, but nothing ratches up price, so it is the driving factor, no?

... utility, expectation and speculation all ratchet up price at different times.

Yes, but we were discussing the relationship between price and production costs.

[StraightAArdvark]

Or we could mine them with turning the Moon into a gigantic ASIC (cooling is kinda cheap in space).

Radiant only, no air, much weird radiation, possibly scorching sun.
Prohibitively expensive
Edit: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/72179/cooling-down-a-container-in-outer-space

[AZwarel]

"How exactly the "production" of bitcoin can slow down, when the network automatically adjusts to keep the "production" exactly the same average of 10 mins/block??? That is the whole point of the dynamic adjustment, that you can NOT increase or decrease coin generation in the long time/large scale, no matter how many trillion-billion-fillion hashes you add.

We could mine the same coins with 2 laptops. Or we could mine them with turning the Moon into a gigantic ASIC (cooling is kinda cheap in space). They would generate the same amount of coins after the 1st difficulty adjustment.

Radiant only, no air, much weird radiation, possibly scorching sun.
Prohibitively expensive
Edit: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/72179/cooling-down-a-container-in-outer-space

That was not my point, and you know it, and do not quote out of context please...also, it gives "to the Moon" a new meaning

[StraightAArdvark]

^Respect my inner nerd!  I was around here when mining IPOs were telling people how waste heat wasn't waste heat, how it will be used to heat apartments and how Novec immersion cooling would drive power-generating turbines. It hurt. These scars never heal...

https://i.imgur.com/t6PaXVe.gif

And only hours to the (>$15) drop. Not trading advice, have been wrong before.
But not often

И нa cтapyxy бывaeт пpopyxa

[Syke]

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.

And with the new higher-efficiency miners coming, the electricity cost to produce a bitcoin is about 10% of its current value. We're way above the potential price floor. This current rally is going to cause a lot of new miners to come online and drive the difficulty way up.

[soullyG]

Testing support at the low $580 mark before we can move up tonight