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

[Emelectrol]

looks like bcash will overtake btc soon enough

What's up? someone farted?

[Ibian]

So the pareto distribution is fucking hax, you know?

Back in the bad old days before bitcoin, I had no money and made no money.

Now I have money and I use that money to make more money. Just made about $300 shuffling money around. That's like two days worth of hard work for low end jobs. Actual effort expended today, about an hour. And a bit of chatting people up which I frankly don't include under the banner of "work" since it's an excuse for me to ramble.

Today was a slow day.

And this is just a side income compared to, uh, sitting back and watching the price go up. I don't strictly speaking need to do it.

Apparently, once you start winning you just keep winning.

Also being poor is expensive.

More like the system was designed to penalize people who actually produce something while rewarding people who produce nothing (aka jewish money changers).  So you've discovered that emulating a jewish money changer is the most productive use of your time...until everyone does it and the system collapses from peak financialization scams.

You can't unsnort your drugs dude. You dun goofed, get over it.

The pareto distribution also works the other way. When you fuck up, and actively decide to keep fucking up, then you just keep losing. It's a choice.

[OWZ1337]

Roger Ver pumping his dogshit coin on CNBC meh maybe the big bankers are doubling down on BeeCash? :-D weeeee

[Ibian]

Roger Ver pumping his dogshit coin on CNBC meh maybe the big bankers are banking on BeeCash :-D weeeee

Naw, they are just trying to undermine confidence in bitcoin as a concept.

[Gab0]

I'm getting pretty tired of all this failure.   

but ... it really is a failure. Bitcoin is giving away its network effect, which is reflected in its market dominance. The network effect of a currency, of a payment method, is much larger and stronger than that of an investment, and bitcoin is losing the network effect. Bitcoin may continue to rise, but it is a purely speculative increase, since it is not based on cases of real use. Today bitcoin is only useful in speculative terms, since it is very expensive to transfer it.

We are all happy that the price increases, but if you move away a bit, the bigger picture shows that bitcoin is not doing it all right.

I've been thinking about your argument that the network should only incorporate well-tested updates and changes and testing. It's true, but ... this is a problem that Gavin Andresen in 2013 began to discuss, and nobody in the Core group took it into account, and today, here we are, with 50% of market dominance and paying fees of $ 20. The current development group has had enough time to deal with the problem and have shown their incompetence.
Neither did they themselves expect the rates to reach these prices, and here we are.

[jojo69]

The current development group has had enough time to deal with the problem and have shown their incompetence.

ahhh, I see

[Gab0]

I presume they are partly motivated by the failure of Bitcoin with this backlog and I do consider it a kind of soft failure, for user experience its not acceptable.  Whoever thinks 20 dollar fees is ok is not right with the world, most arent cruising at that altitude.

They've done nothing to implement Segwit which for all we know might clear up fees completely right now if fully rolled out. Bitmain is in bed with them. That says it all.

If it is fully implemented, it would only reduce the fees by 40%.
Bitcoin Core has not implemented Segwit either and nobody seems to bother him.

[realr0ach]

but ... it really is a failure.

Failure as a *decentralized* payment network - yes.

Failure as a 100% speculative pump and dump - no.

There might as well just be one centralized exchange with an item called "widgets" that serve no purpose beyond having a fixed supply for people to bid up and down.

[Gab0]

The current development group has had enough time to deal with the problem and have shown their incompetence.

ahhh, I see

I believe that, as a community, it is important to begin to accept that fact. They can be very good engineers, but they are pretty bad at economics.
Was not Peter Todd the one who argued that bitcoin should have an inflation system integrated?







Many of them believed that bitcoin was broken, even they thought it could not work, while it worked perfectly fine.

[rolling]

I wish people would do some math and realize that a block size increase is a temporary solution. Bigger blocks don't come without an expense to the system. If blocks were a gigabyte, they wouldn't propagate efficiently through the network and the blockchain would be enormous and grow at a ridiculous rate.

As the block subsidy shrinks over time, miners are going to drive the fee market anyway to recover income even if the block size does increase. High fees calculated in USD are inevitable.

Bitcoin can't be all things to all people. It can't cover all use cases. There will be alts for most use cases. Bitcoin is more likely to be the tool for big transfers and high value smart contracts, even a $1000 fee for a billion dollar asset/transfer is a bargain.

I've said it before, you don't use the world's most secure network to buy coffee.

[realr0ach]

They can be very good engineers, but they are pretty bad at economics.
Was not Peter Todd the one who argued that bitcoin should have an inflation system integrated?

You are out of your league in this topic, as it's obvious the security model for bitcoin gets worse the more transaction fees make up the bulk of block reward in comparison to fixed emission.  There are also different adversarial mining problems in each circumstance.  There's far more variables in bitcoin than people believe of things that can go haywire.  Another issue is that adversarial mining is like a free win to shut down your opponents assuming you have more hashpower than they do.  

This is actually quite a big piece of evidence that there's a lot of Chinese miners and others who are colluding in a pump and dump fashion because otherwise you would see far more things like adversarial mining going on. You would likely only see none if...everyone was colluding.  Some people do believe the Chinese colluded in order to shut down KNC and try and corner the market, though.  

[Gab0]

I wish people would do some math and realize that a block size increase is a temporary solution.

That's exactly what it's about, to gain time, not to lose network effect and market dominance while you find other solutions.

Bitcoin can't be all things to all people. It can't cover all use cases. There will be alts for most use cases. Bitcoin is more likely to be the tool for big transfers and high value smart contracts, even a $1000 fee for a billion dollar asset/transfer is a bargain.

So you are other of those who think that Satoshi was wrong? and that its system does not serve the purposes for which I believe it? And that you, like so many others, are the enlightened ones who came to save us from the stupid Satoshi and his faulty system, telling us what really works?

[Ibian]

temporary solution

So, a solution.

We are in a crisis. Segwit has failed. Bigger blocks work. So get over the fucking ideology and implement bigger blocks. Keep segwit for all anyone cares, it doesn't matter.

[Syke]

So you are other of those who think that Satoshi was wrong? and that its system does not serve the purposes for which I believe it? And that you, like so many others, are the enlightened ones who came to save us from the stupid Satoshi and his faulty system, telling us what really works?

Satoshi never designed bitcoin for micropayments. He knew sending .01 btc wasn't part of the plan.

[Rosewater Foundation]

temporary solution

So, a solution.

We are in a crisis. Segwit has failed. Bigger blocks work. So get over the fucking ideology and implement bigger blocks. Keep segwit for all anyone cares, it doesn't matter.

There is no crisis.
SegWit hasn't failed.
Bigger blocks work to eliminate full nodes.

You trolling us?

[Ibian]

So you are other of those who think that Satoshi was wrong? and that its system does not serve the purposes for which I believe it? And that you, like so many others, are the enlightened ones who came to save us from the stupid Satoshi and his faulty system, telling us what really works?

Satoshi never designed bitcoin for micropayments. He knew sending .01 btc wasn't part of the plan.

That's 175 bucks dude. Not a fucking micropayment.

[rolling]

I wish people would do some math and realize that a block size increase is a temporary solution.

That's exactly what it's about, to gain time, not to lose network effect and market dominance while you find other solutions.

Bitcoin can't be all things to all people. It can't cover all use cases. There will be alts for most use cases. Bitcoin is more likely to be the tool for big transfers and high value smart contracts, even a $1000 fee for a billion dollar asset/transfer is a bargain.

So you are other of those who think that Satoshi was wrong? and that its system does not serve the purposes for which I believe it? And that you, like so many others, are the enlightened ones who came to save us from the stupid Satoshi and his faulty system, telling us what really works?

Satoshi is not a god. He had a good idea that a team of other people refined and perfected to make what it is.

I'm saying reality prevents bitcoin from becoming all things to all people. Every purchase, every stock trade, every asset, every device, every forum post, every medical record, etc can't be on the bitcoin blockchain. It can't cover all use cases. Do some math. Multiply people on the planet by each each use case times the number of occurrences per day. Add it up. Tell me how bitcoin can be all things to all people.

[Ibian]

temporary solution

So, a solution.

We are in a crisis. Segwit has failed. Bigger blocks work. So get over the fucking ideology and implement bigger blocks. Keep segwit for all anyone cares, it doesn't matter.

There is no crisis.
SegWit hasn't failed.
Bigger blocks work to eliminate full nodes.

You trolling us?

Ever-increasing fees with no end in sight is a crisis. I predict hundred dollar fees within a year if nothing is done to increase throughput. And nobody fucking uses segwit, that makes it a failure. IT SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN OPTIONAL.

[Gab0]

So you are other of those who think that Satoshi was wrong? and that its system does not serve the purposes for which I believe it? And that you, like so many others, are the enlightened ones who came to save us from the stupid Satoshi and his faulty system, telling us what really works?

Satoshi never designed bitcoin for micropayments. He knew sending .01 btc wasn't part of the plan.

Is it necessary to quote the title of White Paper? Can you offer a reference in which Satoshi affirms what you say? I do not think that 10 dollars will be included in the catagory of micro payment. LN will be useful for real micro payments, cents or even less.

[rolling]

Ever-increasing fees with no end in sight is a crisis. I predict hundred dollar fees within a year if nothing is done to increase throughput. And nobody fucking uses segwit, that makes it a failure. IT SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN OPTIONAL.

If bitcoin is worth $100k each then I think $100 fees are reasonable. No crisis.