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

[infofront]

It seems really odd to me that Core hasn't just implemented a 2MB blocksize. Even if there's no technical need, there's a social need. Instead, they've let a deep division in the community grow much deeper.

Infofront, I like you and always value your input, but I'm not sure where to start with that comment.

Nothing should be altered to the Bitcoin protocol just to appease a vocal subset of end users that compromises/sacrifices the totality of the Bitcoin network's technical aspects, including it's future scalability, it's decentralization, or it's security. Absolutely nothing.

Also a division is not a deep division if it's like 90/10. Or even 80/20. The minority outlier is irrelevant, and if the don't like it they can always move over to another cryptocurrency that suits them.

I'm always open to criticism  

As bitserve said above, it would've been politically prudent to increase the blocksize 2X. Politics are unavoidable, have been ever present in bitcoin, and cannot be ignored. Besides, I doubt such a small increase would have anything but a trivial effect on network security. Maybe a few Raspberry Pi nodes would go offline?

We'll see how deep the division in the community is when Segwit2x forks off. However it turns out, I think we'll all be worse off than if the forks had been avoided altogether.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

It seems really odd to me that Core hasn't just implemented a 2MB blocksize. Even if there's no technical need, there's a social need. Instead, they've let a deep division in the community grow much deeper.

Infofront, I like you and always value your input, but I'm not sure where to start with that comment.

Nothing should be altered to the Bitcoin protocol just to appease a vocal subset of end users that compromises/sacrifices the totality of the Bitcoin network's technical aspects, including it's future scalability, it's decentralization, or it's security. Absolutely nothing.

Also a division is not a deep division if it's like 90/10. Or even 80/20. The minority outlier is irrelevant, and if the don't like it they can always move over to another cryptocurrency that suits them.

I'm always open to criticism  

As bitserve said above, it would've been politically prudent to increase the blocksize 2X. Politics are unavoidable, have been ever present in bitcoin, and cannot be ignored. Besides, I doubt such a small increase would have anything but a trivial effect on network security. Maybe a few Raspberry Pi nodes would go offline?

We'll see how deep the division in the community is when Segwit2x forks off. However it turns out, I think we'll all be worse off than if the forks had been avoided altogether.

If Segwit2x doesn't implement replay protection I imagine it'll be us that forks off.

[bitserve]

The real state bubble exploded years ago. Maybe in some places/locations/type of property there is still some overprice.... but there are LOTS of great buying opportunities.

I don't think you've studied real estate whatsoever.  The previous real estate bubble that crashed has mostly re-inflated right back into the same bubble as before.  I guess a few rural places might have been left out, but not any contested places or high traffic areas.  Also, back in the old days (when really old people like JimboToronto were alive) you could buy a house with like 2-3x the average yearly salary.  Now home prices are like 10x the average yearly salary.

This was solely a function of the bankers manipulating the market into a state permanent NINJA loans and getting the government to backstop their losses if it all blows up on them by everyone defaulting.  Meaning if banks did not exist and everyone had to pay cash for houses, the prices would be extremely low since nobody can extend the payment process over 30 years.  If everyone on the planet can take out a 30 year NINJA loan, this means people who wouldn't even need a loan to buy a house before now need to take out a loan to get one too.

People buying up all the houses using zero collateral (many times the bankers themselves) create artificial scarcity, thus skyrocketing prices so you're required to labor decades more than normal for the same house.  It's in the banker's interest to create housing bubbles because it forces the entire population into taking out loans which they otherwise would not need, or a giant transfer of wealth from the bottom 99% to the top 0.000000001% in other words.

The housing market is starting to look up, though.  Pretty soon we'll all be saying "remember back in the old days before the bankers were holocausted (this time for real)?":

While I do agree with most of your arguments there, I think you haven't look at the link I posted. You usually talk about "cost of production".... well, there you have an example of a new apartment that is CLEARLY BELOW cost of construction.

My point is that there are many good investments you can find in real state nowadays. And that even if there is still also many overpriced places/locations it is not as much as when the bubble was in full effect.

Do you think the "way overpriced" apartments in the middle of manhattan, that cost several million dollars, are going to devaluate to half or even more ? I don't think so.

A bubble is when something is several times more expensive than it should be. I don't see real state going several times cheaper than what it is today. Plus you can find bargains with more upside than downside potential.

[becoin]

As bitserve said above, it would've been politically prudent to increase the blocksize 2X. Politics are unavoidable, have been ever present in bitcoin, and cannot be ignored.

Political ambitions should not be ignored but must not be stimulated. 2X blocksize increase doesn't solve any technical problem. ANY! It only satisfies political ambitions of big blocktards and will stimulate further extortions by Chinese mining cartel.

[Torque]

However it turns out, I think we'll all be worse off than if the forks had been avoided altogether.

Yes, but this is a fallacy.

Bitcoin forks can be created by anyone, at any time. Trying to change rules to appease some vocal subset wouldn't stop or block such ability. In fact it is a feature by design. There is no "avoiding it" and there's no one that Bitcoin should have to appease or answer to except for the majority of it users, and to implement/include things that insure it's own long term survival. The existing attributes and rules do just that. They can also be tweaked as time goes on.

Miners will continue to mine and secure the network as long as there is economic incentive to do so and as long as sufficient demand extends them a profit, i.e., end users are still buying it and using it daily. Otherwise, vocal miners don't need to be "appeased" and certainly not under any kind of threats or hostile strong arming.

Just look at the oil commodity sector. You don't see major oil drillers going "Look, you [OPEC] raise the price of oil back to > $100/barrel, or we will shut down all our drilling rigs and walk off the jobs tomorrow!!!" They will continue to drill oil as long as there is enough demand they make a profit, or until they go bankrupt.

[r0ach]

You usually talk about "cost of production".... well, there you have an example of a new apartment that is CLEARLY BELOW cost of construction.

Sunk cost fallacy affects items worse the further away you get from the base of Exter's pyramid.  A house isn't like gold or silver which is both portable and virtually indestructable, it realies on numerous external factors like schools, crime, jobs, govt, etc.  They say Detroit is a clear case of, "a house is only worth as much as there are jobs there to support it".  That and most people don't want to live in a neighborhood where all 10 of your neighbors are named Tyrone.

[bitserve]

You usually talk about "cost of production".... well, there you have an example of a new apartment that is CLEARLY BELOW cost of construction.

Sunk cost fallacy affects items worse the further away you get from the base of Exter's pyramid.  A house isn't like gold or silver which is both portable and virtually indestructable, it realies on numerous external factors like schools, crime, jobs, govt, etc.  They say Detroit is a clear case of, "a house is only worth as much as there are jobs there to support it".  That and most people don't want to live in a neighborhood where all 10 of your neighbors are named Tyrone.

It's funny you resort to the "sunk cost fallacy" when it comes to real state (or with Bitcoin) but you don't when it comes to cost of extraction of PM's. What's the reason for such incoherency?

And no, I don't see how PM's are not affected by "external factors" too. See Executive Order 6102 as an example. Or VAT TAX for silver in Europe.

[conspirosphere.tk]

Anyone going to walk away from crypto if BCH wins?

In that case I'll just turn into a Litecoin maximalist. Because none of this craziness happened in LTC.

[JimboToronto]

Good morning Bitcoinland.

No new ATH yet today. Pretty much consolidating sideways... currently $4250USD/$5350CAD (Bitcoinaverage).

AltcoinCash however has risen to $571USD/$723CAD (Coinmarketcap), so the net result for double holders has been OK.

The past month has been very good for us long-term Bitcoin holders.

[infofront]

However it turns out, I think we'll all be worse off than if the forks had been avoided altogether.

Yes, but this is a fallacy.

Bitcoin forks can be created by anyone, at any time. Trying to change rules to appease some vocal subset wouldn't stop or block such ability. In fact it is a feature by design. There is no "avoiding it" and there's no one that Bitcoin should have to appease or answer to except for the majority of it users, and to implement/include things that insure it's own long term survival. The existing attributes and rules do just that. They can also be tweaked as time goes on.

A 2MB blocksize increase by Core would've preempted any need for Segwit2X. It may have even have avoided the BCC fork.

It's healthy for the miners and economic nodes to try to force features into bitcoin. This whole process keeps Core honest, and makes sure bitcoin doesn't just become a technocracy, run by a bunch of computer scientists in an ivory tower. You don't have to give into every whim by the miners, but you need to manage them and give them small concessions (like 2MB blocks, IMO).

We'll see how secure Core remains if/when 80%+ hashing power switches to the fork. I'd agree that doesn't seem very economically sustainable ATM, though.

Miners will continue to mine and secure the network as long as there is economic incentive to do so and as long as sufficient demand extends them a profit, i.e., end users are still buying it and using it daily. Otherwise, vocal miners don't need to be "appeased" and certainly not under any kind of threats or hostile strong arming.

At the moment, it's more profitable to mine BCC. The hashpower on that coin would've been used to mine BTC, which means the BTC network is less secure now than if the fork had been avoided.

Just look at the oil commodity sector. You don't see major oil drillers going "Look, you [OPEC] raise the price of oil back to > $100/barrel, or we will shut down all our drilling rigs and walk off the jobs tomorrow!!!" They will continue to drill oil as long as there is enough demand they make a profit, or until they go bankrupt.

That analogy doesn't hold up very well, since the bitcoin miners aren't trying to coerce anyone into price fixing (at least not explicitly). But we do see politics trump short term economic interest even in the oil sector.  The US has had success over the years coercing Saudi Arabia to have it's way with OPEC.

[Spaceman_Spiff_Original]

However it turns out, I think we'll all be worse off than if the forks had been avoided altogether.

Yes, but this is a fallacy.

Bitcoin forks can be created by anyone, at any time. Trying to change rules to appease some vocal subset wouldn't stop or block such ability. In fact it is a feature by design. There is no "avoiding it" and there's no one that Bitcoin should have to appease or answer to except for the majority of it users, and to implement/include things that insure it's own long term survival. The existing attributes and rules do just that. They can also be tweaked as time goes on.

A 2MB blocksize increase by Core would've preempted any need for Segwit2X. It may have even have avoided the BCC fork.

It's healthy for the miners and economic nodes to try to force features into bitcoin. This whole process keeps Core honest, and makes sure bitcoin doesn't just become a technocracy, run by a bunch of computer scientists in an ivory tower. You don't have to give into every whim by the miners, but you need to manage them and give them small concessions (like 2MB blocks, IMO).

We'll see how secure Core remains if/when 80%+ hashing power switches to the fork. I'd agree that doesn't seem very economically sustainable ATM, though.

I think I agree.  It is sometimes hard to judge these situations, but your words mirror some worries/sentiment that I have.

[Meuh6879]

Segwit pause, i guess ...



https://www.xbt.eu/ = Still 702 blocks to wait for Segwit Activation.

[becoin]

However it turns out, I think we'll all be worse off than if the forks had been avoided altogether.

Yes, but this is a fallacy.

Bitcoin forks can be created by anyone, at any time. Trying to change rules to appease some vocal subset wouldn't stop or block such ability. In fact it is a feature by design. There is no "avoiding it" and there's no one that Bitcoin should have to appease or answer to except for the majority of it users, and to implement/include things that insure it's own long term survival. The existing attributes and rules do just that. They can also be tweaked as time goes on.

A 2MB blocksize increase by Core would've preempted any need for Segwit2X. It may have even have avoided the BCC fork.ave it's way with OPEC.

No. If 2mb blocksize increase would've been accepted then big blocktards would've needed Segwit4X.

[Torque]

Some of you younger guys really need to stop peeing your wittle panties over this whole BCH fork and SegWit2x thing.

It's really unbecoming of a true Bitcoin hodler and believer.  

[Lauda]

Bitcoin Community Rallies Against BitPay: https://twitter.com/i/moments/898288070591520768. Fight back; the revolution will not be centralized nor corporation controlled.
Expect some stronger swings due to the shady practices of BitPay et. al. and don't forget to ditch them while you're at it. I dislike the current dump.

[YourMother]

I don't understand the panic, really  

The next shitcoin (x2) is about to render the previous scam coin (BCH) obsolete, so it makes sense that the big players, who got thousands or tens of thousands of bch for free, would pump it and lure every newbie in (and generate as much liquidity as possible) before unloading everything and gtfo ASAP. More free money to be made with the next one...

[HanvanBitcoin]

I don't understand the panic, really  

The next shitcoin (x2) is about to render the previous scam coin (BCH) obsolete, so it makes sense that the big players would pump it and lure every newbie in before unloading everything and gtfo ASAP. More free money to be made with the next one...

exactly, allot of people that fall for this may loose allot of money 

[infofront]

No. If 2mb blocksize increase would've been accepted then big blocktards would've needed Segwit4X.

Maybe. Maybe Jihan would've been happy with a 2MB concession, and happy that he saved face. And maybe Ver and all the other useful idiots would've followed him.

If not, Core could've been politically savvy and dragged the 4X fight out another 3-5 years, like with 2X. By then, maybe Bitmain's stranglehold over mining would've lessened.

[becoin]

By then, maybe Bitmain's stranglehold over mining would've lessened.

... or maybe would've escalated?

[HanvanBitcoin]

Where will this drop end   Waiting to buy back in