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

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

What is the use of a decentralized bitcoin if nobody uses it because it is too expensive?

wat the derp

I mean the fees per transaction. I expressed wrong.

Fees are high because there's a spam attack. There's no trick to it. It's just a simple trick.

[1714812014]

1714812014

[1714812014]

1714812014

[Last of the V8s]

https://gateway.ipfs.io/ipfs/QmSJm9XGHXyxRaMFfLN2scunbMyopCU7xPxz3WQHLfLKQy/#/
 
Bitcoin Security Threat Model
A security review of the Bitcoin cryptocurrency
JWWeatherman
October 2017

[Ibian]

It isn't much cheaper to spam bigger blocks. Why is this attack so one-sided?

I asked myself this too... spamming bch mempool would be only 8 times more costly, even more cheap because 1 bch is 1/5 of a btc in usd terms.

Why are we not attacking bch? Seems that we are have not evil manipulators on our side

It's a little thing called morals.

I'm not fucking kidding. Puling others down is their thing. We build ourselves up. Basic difference in psychological profiles.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

It isn't much cheaper to spam bigger blocks. Why is this attack so one-sided?

I asked myself this too... spamming bch mempool would be only 8 times more costly, even more cheap because 1 bch is 1/5 of a btc in usd terms.

Why are we not attacking bch? Seems that we are have not evil manipulators on our side

It's a little thing called morals.

I'm not fucking kidding. Puling others down is their thing. We build ourselves up. Basic difference in psychological profiles.

No I think Gentlemand is right. There's no incentive. No one uses the damn thing.

[Last of the V8s]

It isn't much cheaper to spam bigger blocks. Why is this attack so one-sided?

I asked myself this too... spamming bch mempool would be only 8 times more costly, even more cheap because 1 bch is 1/5 of a btc in usd terms.

Why are we not attacking bch? Seems that we are have not evil manipulators on our side

It's a little thing called morals.

I'm not fucking kidding. Puling others down is their thing. We build ourselves up. Basic difference in psychological profiles.

one of us did ddos bithumb earlier on. but in general you're right, we're saintly.

[jbreher]

"Bitcoin is a worldwide cryptocurrency and digital payment system called the first decentralized digital currency, as the system works without a central repository or single administrator."

Perhaps if you could make a cogent case showing how Bitcoin Segwit is in any way more decentralized than Bitcoin Cash, you might have a point. But so far, all I've seen from you or others is mere hand waving.

Actually he has very good point. What you call Bitcoin Segwit can do ALL the things so called Bitcoin Cash can do and a lot more. This is why BCH is dead. It was born dead.

Well, no. Maybe at some point in the future. But for now, Bitcoin Segwit is useless for any but higher value transactions. You can tell yourself that you like it this way, but Bitcoin Cash supports everything that Bitcoin Segwit does, plus these cheaper items.

[Gab0]

What is the use of a decentralized bitcoin if nobody uses it because it is too expensive?

wat the derp

I mean the fees per transaction. I expressed wrong.

Fees are high because there's a spam attack. There's no trick to it. It's just a simple trick.

I know. And that was the reason for my first question. What are you doing bitcoin for being more resistant to such attacks and keeping the rates low in the long term?
As I understand it, an increase in block size is a solution; but if there are more alternatives it would be good to be able to listen to them.

[AZwarel]

This is why I don't see any problem with the fees. If you can't afford those fees just use fiat banking. Bitcoin is for people that do value their money, financial freedom and privacy.

Your vision of what should be bitcoin, is far from being the one that initially captivated so many people, developers, investors, etc...
In a third world country, it is really important to have a payment system that is not banked. At the beginning bitcoin was very useful and very popular for those reasons. I do not plan to pay my coffee with bitcoin (and I hope I can do it with LN at some point), but every day bitcoin loses more and more utility in my country. And I'm frustrated to see that every day bitcoin becomes a tool for large investors, banks or investment funds, and ordinary people, on the street, are excluded.
And it seems to me, according to my humble opinion and what I have researched, that an increase to 2MB of block size is far from representing a danger or a problem to decentralization (especially when working on the optimization of block size) .
This increase would be a gesture of goodwill towards the community and would avoid all these discussions and hatred.

Fees are high - apart from the spam attack -, because demand for blockspace is higher than the supply (and always will be). 2MB/4MB/1024MB wouldn't change it, there are near infinite demand for using the blockchain's utilities; time will always be an unchangeable limit for competing transactions, no matter the blocksize.

Stop bitching about it, that is what called free market, those who value the utility/time/cost of their transactions will outcompete those who do not, same as with every goods/services with free market valuation.

Also, how are high fees a sign of failure?
Classic socialist person thinking:
"this restaurant is full, it is clearly failing because I can not eat here, RIGHT NOW, for the price i esteem "FAIR" for a table, bruh bruh "
Sorry, you just got outpriced by the market.

It really is a bad analogy and does not seem to understand free market capitalism. On the other hand, his vision condemns the countries of the third world to stay out of this system, which seems to me an erroneous idea if we want bitcoin to be successful.
[...]
The free market means, among other things, free competition. Bitcoin competes for the network effect, and so far only outperforms other currencies by the inertia of being the first.

What is the use of a decentralized bitcoin if nobody uses it because it is too expensive (transaction fees)?

You are saying, literally: "nobody uses it, because so many users use it and that makes it costly.

Can you not see the cognitive dissonance in that?
That was my restaurant analogy, and it is a perfect fit. Also, there is a logical fallacy arguing that "the free market rule" and "oh but what about the poor people" in the same sentence.

Pick one, because the laws of economics - just like the laws of physics - doesn't give a shit about human's subjective concepts like "fairness".

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

What is the use of a decentralized bitcoin if nobody uses it because it is too expensive?

wat the derp

I mean the fees per transaction. I expressed wrong.

Fees are high because there's a spam attack. There's no trick to it. It's just a simple trick.

I know. And that was the reason for my first question. What are you doing bitcoin for being more resistant to such attacks and keeping the rates low in the long term?
As I understand it, an increase in block size is a solution; but if there are more alternatives it would be good to be able to listen to them.

If we had bigger blocks malicious miners could fill those, too. Cheap as chips. Then we'd be PayPal2.0 AND slow and expensive. Bollocks.

[gentlemand]

No I think Gentlemand is right. There's no incentive. No one uses the damn thing.

There are two primary factors that they sank their teeth into and ran with to cause all this excitement - the cancellation of Segwit2X and piss taking with the EDA.

In case we hadn't noticed neither of these will ever, ever, ever happen again.

The EDA goes away forever tomorrow. I suppose they could revive and cancel 2X again for fun but that card might have been played for good. They're going to have to be rather creative to come up with a more compelling narrative in future.

[pfrtlpfmpf]

Bitcoins are a store of value, nothing else, and that´s that.

[practicaldreamer]

This is why I don't see any problem with the fees. If you can't afford those fees just use fiat banking. Bitcoin is for people that do value their money, financial freedom and privacy.

In other words: 3rd world, go f*** yourself.

But honestly i think it's good that we finally are able to clearly see what the underlying differences are what Bitcoin should be and what not. My impression is that lots and lots of folks still don't understand that there is a big gap in the Bitcoin community when it comes to that.

With Lightning the 3rd world will have access to bitcoin payment channels. And the BTC ecosystem will still be decentralised and working in everyones interests and to our mutual benefit.

On the other hand (and we have several hundred years of precedence to give a concise answer to this) when did centralised corporate interests ever give a flying fuck about the little man, third world or otherwise ??

[AZwarel]

You have the balls to say that paying high fees is financial freedom. FREEDOM  
Otherwise I can go back to banksters, why? Different faces, same slavery problem

No, you pay high fees, BECAUSE it is giving you freedom. If you value the cost less than you value the freedom granted, do not use it. It is OPT-IN.
In other words:
The demand for financial sovereignty through the use of the - voluntary(!)- network of Bitcoin is higher than the supply right now, that is why it is expensive, not because of technical limitations. And spam attack, ofc  

Freedom has a cost. No one forces you to pay it.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

No I think Gentlemand is right. There's no incentive. No one uses the damn thing.

There are two primary factors that they sank their teeth into and ran with to cause all this excitement - the cancellation of Segwit2X and piss taking with the EDA.

In case we hadn't noticed neither of these will ever, ever, ever happen again.

The EDA goes away forever tomorrow. I suppose they could revive and cancel 2X again for fun but that card might have been played for good. They're going to have to be rather creative to come up with a more compelling narrative in future.

Did you manage to cash out anything anywhere near the 0.5? You called it, you earned it.

[Ludwig Von]

What is the use of a decentralized bitcoin if nobody uses it because it is too expensive?

wat the derp

I mean the fees per transaction. I expressed wrong.

The concern about high fees is real. And that this is important for countries with unstable currencies, corrupt banksters and governments is no longer an exclusivity of developing countries.
The divide between rich and poor now is fully global.

And BTC is a way to circumvent these issues also globally. Whether BTC must be the means of exchange directly or via a gateway and how either or and should be implemented is subjected to
a general consensus of all stakeholders. Not just part of them. As always this takes time, more than everyone wishes.

The big shots that are telling that they are adressing these problems by splitting up the system are just spraying mist and delusion over their all to real intentions : grab the power. Even if they
will only be in charge of ruins and devastation, they will prefer that over just beeing a participant in a healthy ecosystem.

We are dealing with, I 'm sorry to say, psychopats, originating of a certain place on earth.

[Torque]

If you hold the same amount (in coins) of BTC and BCH basically nothing has changed for you.

A few days ago they held a combined USD of ~7800 and it's the same now (though it's currently down to ~7500 but was touching 8000 a few hours ago)

Totally irrelevant.

I know, right? That's like saying "If you own bitcoin and equal levels of all the shitcoins that currently exist then nothing has changed for you....you'll be just fine." 

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

If you hold the same amount (in coins) of BTC and BCH basically nothing has changed for you.

A few days ago they held a combined USD of ~7800 and it's the same now (though it's currently down to ~7500 but was touching 8000 a few hours ago)

Totally irrelevant.

I know, right? That's like saying "If you own bitcoin and equal levels of all the shitcoins that currently exist then nothing has changed for you....you'll be just fine."  

Hold both because hedging must the party line. There may be a script.
You don't hedge Bitcoin

[Ibian]

It isn't much cheaper to spam bigger blocks. Why is this attack so one-sided?

I asked myself this too... spamming bch mempool would be only 8 times more costly, even more cheap because 1 bch is 1/5 of a btc in usd terms.

Why are we not attacking bch? Seems that we are have not evil manipulators on our side

It's a little thing called morals.

I'm not fucking kidding. Puling others down is their thing. We build ourselves up. Basic difference in psychological profiles.

No I think Gentlemand is right. There's no incentive. No one uses the damn thing.

One does not exclude the other. But humans are not logical creatures. We feel first, and then rationalize our feelings.

They like to tear others down, so they do, with no logic or justification for it, even at personal expense. Like the scorpion and the frog.

We like open competition, which means being the best we can be. We focus on improving bitcoin, not on tearing altcoins down.

That there may be rational reasons for not attacking them in the way they attack us is just incidental.

[Gab0]

This is why I don't see any problem with the fees. If you can't afford those fees just use fiat banking. Bitcoin is for people that do value their money, financial freedom and privacy.

Your vision of what should be bitcoin, is far from being the one that initially captivated so many people, developers, investors, etc...
In a third world country, it is really important to have a payment system that is not banked. At the beginning bitcoin was very useful and very popular for those reasons. I do not plan to pay my coffee with bitcoin (and I hope I can do it with LN at some point), but every day bitcoin loses more and more utility in my country. And I'm frustrated to see that every day bitcoin becomes a tool for large investors, banks or investment funds, and ordinary people, on the street, are excluded.
And it seems to me, according to my humble opinion and what I have researched, that an increase to 2MB of block size is far from representing a danger or a problem to decentralization (especially when working on the optimization of block size) .
This increase would be a gesture of goodwill towards the community and would avoid all these discussions and hatred.

Fees are high - apart from the spam attack -, because demand for blockspace is higher than the supply (and always will be). 2MB/4MB/1024MB wouldn't change it, there are near infinite demand for using the blockchain's utilities; time will always be an unchangeable limit for competing transactions, no matter the blocksize.

Stop bitching about it, that is what called free market, those who value the utility/time/cost of their transactions will outcompete those who do not, same as with every goods/services with free market valuation.

Also, how are high fees a sign of failure?
Classic socialist person thinking:
"this restaurant is full, it is clearly failing because I can not eat here, RIGHT NOW, for the price i esteem "FAIR" for a table, bruh bruh "
Sorry, you just got outpriced by the market.

It really is a bad analogy and does not seem to understand free market capitalism. On the other hand, his vision condemns the countries of the third world to stay out of this system, which seems to me an erroneous idea if we want bitcoin to be successful.
[...]
The free market means, among other things, free competition. Bitcoin competes for the network effect, and so far only outperforms other currencies by the inertia of being the first.

What is the use of a decentralized bitcoin if nobody uses it because it is too expensive (transaction fees)?

You are saying, literally: "nobody uses it, because so many users use it and that makes it costly.

Can you not see the cognitive dissonance in that?
That was my restaurant analogy, and it is a perfect fit. Also, there is a logical fallacy arguing that "the free market rule" and "oh but what about the poor people" in the same sentence.

Pick one, because the laws of economics - just like the laws of physics - doesn't give a shit about human's subjective concepts like "fairness".

On that point you're right. I had not understood correctly. My apologies.
But, equity does not matter, but competitiveness does. That is my point.

[Torque]

I know, right? That's like saying "If you own bitcoin and equal levels of all the shitcoins that currently exist then nothing has changed for you....you'll be just fine."  

Hold both because hedging must the party line. There may be a script.

On a related note:
Growing up and for decades afterward, you'll hear the establishment, educators, financial advisors, banksters, family, friends, and colleagues all tell you that you should completely diversify all of your investments in your portfolio. Because they're all worried that you'll lose it all on a big risk. They want to protect you. Companies will even create these nice, safe 401ks full of safe return investments that won't lose much in a correction or crash.

And you could lose it all on a big risk investment. Or you may just get rich. Like the rich elites do every year, making big risky investments and winning, getting richer every year.

But you know why they push so hard the "diversify your portfolio to be safe" narrative to Average Joe? It has nothing to do with your protection. It has to do with this one thing: they know that if tens of millions of Average Joe working folk were allowed to suddenly get rich by making big risky bets and be able to retire early, the whole ponzi scheme of keeping every one of those Average Joes on the hamster wheel until they are 65 comes crashing down. They desperately need the income taxation each Average Joe produces for decades, and the only way to guarantee that is to keep every single able bodied person working until they retire or die. Hence their constant dissuading of high risk for the "average person".