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

[Paashaas]

It is the original. It is simply Bitcoin with the maxblocksize set large enough to accommodate the current demand.

If you got some balls, sell all youre BTC for BCC and move youre ass out of the BTC forum and join Roger and friends at /rbtc.

Dont try to eat from 2 sides 

[jbreher]

It is the original. It is simply Bitcoin with the maxblocksize set large enough to accommodate the current demand.

Regarding Bitcoin Cash:

I hope the whole damn thing ends up completely consolidated into a single, gigantic Chinese data center.

With 128 MB blocks.

Where the mega miner can make dev changes directly to the code and adopt his/her own changes without user concern.

Perhaps even change it to closed source. And get rid of the coin cap.

Behind the Great Firewall.

Where the Chinese Govt. can block it at any time they wish.

Sounds perfectly like Satoshi's vision, yeah?

No. What you describe as 'your hope' sounds very little like satoshi's vision. Bitcoin Cash today -- and I believe also tomorrow -- does sound a lot like satoshi's vision.

[Ibian]

Whoever, if anyone, thinks this new clone coin has better fundamentals than the original, could you explain why?

I can in one number : 7tps.

I wanted a 10mb block size, then 100 and 1000 but I make a concession and will see how it goes with time.

Then it has the history, making all the cold hodler have the amount. Mining gears are the same. And there is no useless and dangerous complications resulting from offchain txs.

I can understand the arguments of those who don't want to change the 1mb, and don't want segwit. Keeping the code as is. However as soon as the intentions behind is to push for segwit (to earn the fees) or to push another chain, I think it's dishonest toward those who started it all.

It's people that don't understand fundamentals.

There is no founded argument that increasing 7tps increasing the value.  Economics doesn't support it.  There is no grounded arguments.  There are only people that have no understanding of economics that are screaming like roger "It obvious you dummies" .

Sometimes when the experts and knowledgeable people disagree with what seems like common sense, its because the problem is more complex than you think and the solution not so obvious.

A network is only as useful, and hence valuable, as the number of people who can use it. The transaction rate is the limit on that. More volume means more people means more money means higher price.

As for the guy you talked about above, could you link some of his stuff?

[B1tUnl0ck3r]

The exchanges wallets will remain blocked until the owners decide.  This is really a shameless manipulation but par for an unregulated industry.
Watch out when the floodgates open.

If you don't have the private keys...

Which exchange will be the first to allow it do you think?

it's clear. how can you not see? the argument is "grounded". there is a strong difference between experts and smart scammers.

That's not how you make a grounded argument.  There is accepted economic philosophy.  You have to tie your argument to it otherwise its inconsistent with observable reality.  You can point to two simultaneous events and claim observation is proof that one causes the other.

It's a community of 5 year olds.

92% correlation, rather than me argumenting, prove that the graph doesn't work in the past time (it stops in september 2015) and see if it isn't true.

you are very messed up in your mind, learn the difference between science and philosophy and try to sustain consistancy in your argumentation if you don't want to be taken for a fool playing with concept he doesn't get, but simply repeat (or is) the opinions of others.

In mathematics, certain kinds of mistaken proof are often exhibited, and sometimes collected, as illustrations of a concept of mathematical fallacy. There is a distinction between a simple mistake and a mathematical fallacy in a proof: a mistake in a proof leads to an invalid proof just in the same way, but in the best-known examples of mathematical fallacies, there is some concealment in the presentation of the proof. For example, the reason validity fails may be a division by zero that is hidden by algebraic notation. There is a striking quality of the mathematical fallacy: as typically presented, it leads not only to an absurd result, but does so in a crafty or clever way.[1] Therefore, these fallacies, for pedagogic reasons, usually take the form of spurious proofs of obvious contradictions. Although the proofs are flawed, the errors, usually by design, are comparatively subtle, or designed to show that certain steps are conditional, and should not be applied in the cases that are the exceptions to the rules.

The traditional way of presenting a mathematical fallacy is to give an invalid step of deduction mixed in with valid steps, so that the meaning of fallacy is here slightly different from the logical fallacy. The latter applies normally to a form of argument that is not a genuine rule of logic, where the problematic mathematical step is typically a correct rule applied with a tacit wrong assumption. Beyond pedagogy, the resolution of a fallacy can lead to deeper insights into a subject (such as the introduction of Pasch's axiom of Euclidean geometry[2] and the five colour theorem of graph theory). Pseudaria, an ancient lost book of false proofs, is attributed to Euclid.[3]

Mathematical fallacies exist in many branches of mathematics. In elementary algebra, typical examples may involve a step where division by zero is performed, where a root is incorrectly extracted or, more generally, where different values of a multiple valued function are equated. Well-known fallacies also exist in elementary Euclidean geometry and calculus.

just to know, what would you prefer? segwit? ln? as is? bigger blocks? Would you mind expressing your actual wish?

It is the original. It is simply Bitcoin with the maxblocksize set large enough to accommodate the current demand.

If you got some balls, sell all youre BTC for BCC and move youre ass out of the BTC forum and join Roger and friends at /rbtc.

Dont try to eat from 2 sides  

And how to know otherwise when the segwiters will surrender and join the bigger block resistance?

[Ibian]

it's clear. how can you not see? the argument is "grounded". there is a strong difference between experts and smart scammers.

That's not how you make a grounded argument.  There is accepted economic philosophy.  You have to tie your argument to it otherwise its inconsistent with observable reality.  You can point to two simultaneous events and claim observation is proof that one causes the other.

It's a community of 5 year olds.

Okay you can quit with the school yard comments now. You are making your own case against you.

[B1tUnl0ck3r]

A network is only as useful, and hence valuable, as the number of people who can use it. The transaction rate is the limit on that. More volume means more people means more money means higher price.

the higher fees induced by the 1mb limitation restrain the number of potential users. If someone can't have way more than the minimum fees while would he join the network?

thanks for this comment.

[traincarswreck]

A network is only as useful, and hence valuable, as the number of people who can use it. The transaction rate is the limit on that. More volume means more people means more money means higher price.

No.  think about what you have said.  Some networks only few people can use and they are very valuable.  You are wrong.

As for the guy you talked about above, could you link some of his stuff?

Do you mean Szabo? Everything is cited and linked to the rabbit hole: https://medium.com/@rextar4444/the-myth-of-bitcoin-cash-2-re-solving-nashian-and-szabonian-views-on-the-emergence-of-money-b3c83a5d019f

[traincarswreck]

the higher fees induced by the 1mb limitation restrain the number of potential users. If someone can't have way more than the minimum fees while would he join the network?

thanks for this comment.

The potential users does not define the value of a network, nor does its number of users: https://medium.com/@rextar4444/my-previous-previous-explained-how-bitcoins-usefulness-as-a-settlement-system-is-able-to-scale-23bfdc02689f

https://medium.com/@rextar4444/bitcoins-most-valuable-usecase-7f5c6e95be22


You see we are holding tacit assumptions that aren't grounding.  We are perpetuating myths and half truths.  I'm banned from r/btc because I would put and end to these myths.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

You're always welcome here my learned friend

[r0ach]

There is no founded argument that increasing 7tps increasing the value.  Economics doesn't support it.  

This is the dumbest sentence I've ever seen on this forum.  The burden of proof isn't even on others to prove increasing throughput increases value, the burden of proof is actually on you to prove that bitcoin has any value whatsoever as a settlement network and that 4 TPS would somehow allow it to fill this role.  

I've already explained numerous times why bitcoin has zero value as a settlement layer:

1)  It has built-in rent seeking middlemen (transaction validators) and doesn't remove counter party risk since you're always relying on all kinds of external parties to facilitate transactions

2)  Alternatives already exist before the creation of bitcoin that are far superior for settlement such as gold and silver that actually do remove counter party risk and don't have built-in rent seeking middlemen

3)  Network effect assumes infinite scalability, which bitcoin doesn't have.  Trying to force everyone onto a highly scaling constrained system with giant fees is a pro-usury stance

4)  Due to the above , bitcoin has a reverse Schelling point where there's huge incentive to fork or use a different system rather than pay extortion usury fees.  Low scaling = inveitable rough consensus attack/split.

5)  Bitcoin is a currency and not money.  The value of a currency is entirely based on transaction flow, not stock (how much commerce it can facilitate by scaling)

6)  The greater fool theory only works if other people actually need what you have and nobody needs an imaginary "virtual commodity" when they can just create their own.  They do however need things like silver.  Cornering the market on bitcoin doesn't actually give you any type of power over others, while cornering real commodities like oil or silver does.

[B1tUnl0ck3r]

No.  think about what you have said.  Some networks only few people can use and they are very valuable.  You are wrong.

Would you mind sharing one example please?

You see we are holding tacit assumptions that aren't grounding.  We are perpetuating myths and half truths.  I'm banned from r/btc because I would put and end to these myths.

No worry I will not ban you, at most put you on my ignore list if your comprehension limitation start to be boring.

There is no founded argument that increasing 7tps increasing the value.  Economics doesn't support it. 

This is the dumbest sentence I've ever seen on this forum.  The burden of proof isn't even on others to prove increasing throughput increases value, the burden of proof is actually on you to prove that bitcoin has any value whatsoever as a settlement network and that 4 TPS would somehow allow it to fill this role. 

I've already explained numerous times why bitcoin has zero value as a settlement layer:

1)  It has built-in rent seeking middlemen (transaction validators) and doesn't remove counter party risk since you're always relying on all kinds of external parties to facilitate transactions

2)  Alternatives already exist before the creation of bitcoin that are far superior for settlement such as gold and silver that actually do remove counter party risk and don't have built-in middlemen

3)  Network effect assumes infinite scalability, which bitcoin doesn't have.  Trying to force everyone onto a highly scaling constrained system with giant fees is a pro-usury stance

4)  Due to the above , bitcoin has a reverse Schelling point where there's huge incentive to fork or use a different system rather than pay extortion usury fees.  Low scaling = inveitable rough consensus attack/split.

5)  Bitcoin is a currency and not money.  The value of a currency is entirely based on transaction flow, not stock (how much commerce it can facilitate by scaling)

thanks, I would happily send your way a silver flake but this is all have got : 

those rent seekers... what a plague.

[Ibian]

A network is only as useful, and hence valuable, as the number of people who can use it. The transaction rate is the limit on that. More volume means more people means more money means higher price.

No.  think about what you have said.  Some networks only few people can use and they are very valuable.  You are wrong.

As for the guy you talked about above, could you link some of his stuff?

Do you mean Szabo? Everything is cited and linked to the rabbit hole: https://medium.com/@rextar4444/the-myth-of-bitcoin-cash-2-re-solving-nashian-and-szabonian-views-on-the-emergence-of-money-b3c83a5d019f

This will be my final reply to you until you say something useful, backed up by something more substantial than "you are wrong, you little five year old idiot you". We are not talking about "some network", we are talking about bitcoin. So go on and explain.

[r0ach]

After seeing every other industry try to low labor costs and outsource to India, the computer graphics industry tried it and it totally failed because Indians were unable to compete in art or creativity.  Now here we have traincarswreck/sidhujag from India who is unable to do anything besides parrot Nick Szabo, one of the ringleaders of the Ethereum scam while pretending he's the word of god.  If you're unable to explain or back some type of view on your own, don't bother posting.

[traincarswreck]

After seeing every other industry try to low labor costs and outsource to India, the computer graphics industry tried it and it totally failed because Indians were unable to compete in art or creativity.  Now here we have traincarswreck/sidhujag from India who is unable to do anything besides parrot Nick Szabo, one of the ringleaders of the Ethereum scam while pretending he's the word of god.  If you're unable to explain or back some type of view on your own, don't bother posting.

I'm not from india you dumb mutt. Nothing you have said so far is correct.  You just keep repeating it.  And I'm not parroting szabo I'm reference his explanations and citing them and quoting them and explaining them.

[deepcolderwallet]

And BCC is already 3rd @ coinmarketcap, already passed Ripple.
Funny that they're using the Bittrex price, although it's not possible to deposit BCC on Bittrex, I tried and they show "BCC wallet is under maintenance".

So scammy...

[Torque]

I've already explained numerous times why bitcoin has zero value as a settlement layer:

1)  It has built-in rent seeking middlemen (transaction validators) and doesn't remove counter party risk since you're always relying on all kinds of external parties to facilitate transactions

2)  Alternatives already exist before the creation of bitcoin that are far superior for settlement such as gold and silver that actually do remove counter party risk and don't have built-in rent seeking middlemen

You keep saying this. Over and over again. But it's NOT TRUE AT ALL if you want to transact in PMs with someone not just down the street (like in another state or another country). Or want to transact a HUGE amount of PMs. In both scenarios which you need armored cars and middlemen seeking transport/transaction/storage fees.

You keep saying this. Over and over again. But it's NOT TRUE AT ALL if you want to transact in PMs with someone not just down the street (like in another state or another country). Or want to transact a HUGE amount of PMs. In both scenarios which you need armored cars and middlemen seeking transport/transaction/storage fees.

You keep saying this. Over and over again. But it's NOT TRUE AT ALL if you want to transact in PMs with someone not just down the street (like in another state or another country). Or want to transact a HUGE amount of PMs. In both scenarios which you need armored cars and middlemen seeking transport/transaction/storage fees.

You keep saying this. Over and over again. But it's NOT TRUE AT ALL if you want to transact in PMs with someone not just down the street (like in another state or another country). Or want to transact a HUGE amount of PMs. In both scenarios which you need armored cars and middlemen seeking transport/transaction/storage fees.

You keep saying this. Over and over again. But it's NOT TRUE AT ALL if you want to transact in PMs with someone not just down the street (like in another state or another country). Or want to transact a HUGE amount of PMs. In both scenarios which you need armored cars and middlemen seeking transport/transaction/storage fees.

You keep saying this. Over and over again. But it's NOT TRUE AT ALL if you want to transact in PMs with someone not just down the street (like in another state or another country). Or want to transact a HUGE amount of PMs. In both scenarios which you need armored cars and middlemen seeking transport/transaction/storage fees.

(Yes r0ach, I've just repeated myself over and over again. Like you seem to be fond of doing.)

[marcus_of_augustus]

this is the calm before the storm ... you can't say you haven't been warned.

When the hashpower begins swinging from one chain to another it's going to get very messy and both coins will become unpredictable, unstable and at times very difficult to use. One logical conclusion out of this is when Bcash adopts merged-mining ... or the hashpower wars will drag on until the bitcoin landscape becomes derelict and eventually a failed experiment.

Edit: Bcash adopting merged-mining is probably unlikely given the dominance of Bitmain h/ware on that chain that needs ASICboost to retain profitability and segwit header code conflicts with this type of miner cheating/shortcut.

[traincarswreck]

Would you mind sharing one example please?

A club membership where limited entry creates privilege and prestige. This can go right up to the level of multinational coalition.  But I don't like your question because it doesn't speak to my point.  People assume metcalfes law means the more people accessible to a network the more valueable it is.  This is not metcalfe law.  Metcalfes law is a formula that tells you how many possible connections can be made, the assumption that those connection imply value is asinine.

Think about a fax system.  What that would imply is that the very last person in the world to get a fax machine adds the value times every single person in the world.  But not everyone even sends faxes to each other and there would be no added value if we just start randomly faxing people.

metcalfes law is a measure of POTENTIAL value.  Yet there is nothing to say the value could be filled.  You could a water system for a city and that would create enormous value, but if you create 100 systems for the same city, you will cause more problems then you fix.

Notice Szabo use of the word potential and redundancies:

Metcalfe's Law states that a value of a network is proportional to the square of the number of its nodes.  In an area where good soils, mines, and forests are randomly distributed, the number of nodes valuable to an industrial economy is proportional to the area encompassed.  The number of such nodes that can be economically accessed is an inverse square of the cost per mile of transportation.  Combine this  with Metcalfe's Law and we reach a dramatic but solid mathematical conclusion: the potential value of a land transportation network is the inverse fourth power of the cost of that transportation. A reduction in transportation costs in a trade network by a factor of two increases the potential value of that network by a factor of sixteen. While a power of exactly 4.0 will usually be too high, due to redundancies, this does show how the cost of transportation can have a radical nonlinear impact on the value of the trade networks it enables.  This formalizes Adam Smith's observations: the division of labor (and thus value of an economy) increases with the extent of the market, and the extent of the market is heavily influenced by transportation costs (as he extensively discussed in his Wealth of Nations).

http://unenumerated.blogspot.ca/2014/10/transportation-divergence-and.html

Right, causes Ver's claim that increasing the tps and users implies more value is a childs view of economics.  Like why can't we just print more money for everyone (sound familiar (hint bch)?)

Furthermore the big block agenda fights for the average joe, average joe brings very little value to the network compared to, for example, two nations that want to settle on the block chain.  you need many many average joe's to matter value wise compared to international settlement. You can't weight the users the same.

If we used metcalfes law the way much of the community has misten it to be, you could just get everyone to start sending everyone bitcoins and we would all be rich because the price would skyrocket forever.

[notme]

this is the calm before the storm ... you can't say you haven't been warned.

When the hashpower begins swinging from one chain to another it's going to get very messy and both coins will become unpredictable, unstable and at times very difficult to use. One logical conclusion out of this is when Bcash adopts merged-mining ... or the hashpower wars will drag on until the bitcoin landscape becomes derelict and eventually a failed experiment.

Edit: Bcash adopting merged-mining is probably unlikely given the dominance of Bitmain h/ware on that chain that needs ASICboost to retain profitability and segwit header code conflicts with this type of miner cheating/shortcut.

Either chain adopting merged mining would be admitting defeat.  Merged mining implies you are deferring to the other chain as a source of truth/security.

[traincarswreck]

This is the dumbest sentence I've ever seen on this forum.  The burden of proof isn't even on others to prove increasing throughput increases value, the burden of proof is actually on you to prove that bitcoin has any value whatsoever as a settlement network and that 4 TPS would somehow allow it to fill this role.  

Szabo made the conjecture and asked if anyone wanted to help him code publically.  The burden was on him, and so his next step would be to provide empirical evidence through an experiment with an anonymous  paper that could be peer reviewed without the bias of knowing who wrote it.

Wait did you all forget how academics works?