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

[Torque]

If you think the vision of "digital gold" will win then maybe you should hold 2 BTC per BCH.  

Here's why you're wrong:

Yes I believe Bitcoin is digital gold. That's why I buy and hold it. Rarely spend it. Holding is what gives it value, as well as a store of value.

Even if I thought that BCash was good for spending (which I don't), I don't have to hold it. I can just buy and spend it whenever I want, on the fly, as needed.  But why even do that when fiat will do the same thing.

Gresham's Law at work, dude.

[JayJuanGee]

Any vets out there caring to calm my nerves with some words of wisdom?

The market is waking up the fact that BTC is digital gold designed to be held and not spent -- that high fees and transaction friction are a feature and not a bug.  The market may reprice BTC as a result.  

My advice as a veteran since $49 is to take some profit if you're well into the green to soothe your nerves, and to make sure you hold at least 1 BCH for every 1 BTC you hold.

We are currently in a price battle, and an ongoing attack on bitcoin.

You are selectively and seemingly disingenuously attempting to assess your own wishful parts of an attack state as if it were a permanent status.

You are also hoping that bcash is going to get some kind of inroads into bitcoin's network.. but it still remains a long shot, even if you are attempting to suggest that Bcash is undervalued as compared to bitcoin, and that is why you are advising 50/50 at these current prices...  good luck with your pump and dump... .





NOT

[Peter R]

If you think the vision of "digital gold" will win then maybe you should hold 2 BTC per BCH.  

Here's why you're wrong:

Yes I believe Bitcoin is digital gold. That's why I buy and hold it. Rarely spend it. Holding is what gives it value, as well as a store of value.

Even if I thought that BCash was good for spending (which I don't), I don't have to hold it. I can just buy and spend it whenever I want, on the fly, as needed.  But why even do that when fiat will do the same thing.

Gresham's Law at work, dude.

I'm wrong because I say that I do not know for sure whether BTC or BCH will win in the end?  That I hedge my portfolio to account for the risks as I perceive them?  

It sounds like you think it is wiser to dump all of one's BCH and hold only BTC.  Is that true?

[Rosewater Foundation]

If you think the vision of "digital gold" will win then maybe you should hold 2 BTC per BCH. 

Here's why you're wrong:

Yes I believe Bitcoin is digital gold. That's why I buy and hold it. Rarely spend it. Holding is what gives it value, as well as a store of value.

Even if I thought that BCash was good for spending (which I don't), I don't have to hold it. I can just buy and spend it whenever I want, on the fly, as needed.  But why even do that when fiat will do the same thing.

Gresham's Law at work, dude.

I'm wrong because I say that I do not know for sure whether BTC or BCH will win in the end?  That I hedge my portfolio to account for the risks as I perceive them? 

It sounds like you think it is wiser to dump all of one's BCH and hold only BTC.  Is that true?

Of course. It's a centralized shitcoin. Where have you been?

[Gab0]

If you think the vision of "digital gold" will win then maybe you should hold 2 BTC per BCH.  

Here's why you're wrong:

Yes I believe Bitcoin is digital gold. That's why I buy and hold it. Rarely spend it. Holding is what gives it value, as well as a store of value.

Even if I thought that BCash was good for spending (which I don't), I don't have to hold it. I can just buy and spend it whenever I want, on the fly, as needed.  But why even do that when fiat will do the same thing.

Gresham's Law at work, dude.

Have you had the opportunity to read about the "Thiers' Law"?
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3w2vqo/thiers_law_the_reverse_of_greshams_law_rolnick/

Edit: Either way, does not the law say that you mention that bad money expels good money? I do not understand your logic.

[Neo_Coin]

....
Have you had the opportunity to read about the "Thiers' Law"?
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3w2vqo/thiers_law_the_reverse_of_greshams_law_rolnick/

Edit: Either way, does not the law say that you mention that bad money expels good money? I do not understand your logic.

---->  http://nakamotoinstitute.org/mempool/hyperbitcoinization/    <----

[DaRude]

How does it feel to know that the whole Bcash one trick pony can loose most of its market cap the second Core feels that the benefit of raising the blocksize to 2mb outweighs the risk? That's their worst case scenario, and by the time 2mb is spammed to hell and people start bitchin' again LN should be right around the corner.

It is that fear that keeps me from shifting more of my BTC holdings to BCH.  

I believe that if BTC cannot raise the block size limit in the medium-term (3 - 12 months) then BCH will fully take its place as the dominant crypto.  

However, if BTC is able to raise the block size limit, I could see BCH dying.  But I think the political machine that BS/Core built to prevent the block size limit from being lifted will come back to bite them.  Why won't all the same arguments against a block size limit be used again?  If BTC tries to increase the limit, will this result in yet another fork and another form of Bitcoin (e.g., will this next fork have replay protection or not)?  Will that really work?  Or will people just decide that BCH is the solution for lower fees and more reliable confirmation times?

That would depend on Ver's pockets. If they're deep enough for BCH to come close to say ~40% and sustain it for meaningful period of time, that would put enough pressure on core to implement Segwit2x but on their terms and with their deadlines. If BCH stays at around ~10% they'll just hold out till the LN goes live. 2mb block would most certainly create another fork and with all of the money on the table you can be sure that there will be a well sponsored 1mb group to divide the community as much as possible. In any case i don't see any future for BCH once LN goes live, who would in their right minds pick a risky 0 block confirms over guaranteed instant LN?

TL;DR Whatever market share BTC looses now to people who want low fees right meow would come right back once LN goes live. If BCH manages to put enough pressure on BTC they'll just bump the blocks to 2mb to hold off until LN goes live. In no scenario i see BCH still being a significant player once LN is out.

[natewelt]

Just bought more BCH and LTC. I have plenty of BTC and other alts. First time my BTC stash is under 40% of my crypto holdings. I'm all about diversification...

[Torque]

Edit: Either way, does not the law say that you mention that bad money expels good money? I do not understand your logic.

Gresham's Law:
Bad money tends to circulate, pushing good money into holding (aka storage).

And oh boy, are the BCash crew pushing it as a better form of spending, thus circulating money (ie. lower transaction fees).

Same with Litecoin. I remember when even Coblee was saying "Bitcoin is for holding, and Litecoin is for spending." He was basically shooting litecoin in the foot with such statements.

But let's be real for a second.

1. e-Commerce is rarely if ever happening with crypto. It just isn't. Even if the coin is supposedly "better or faster" for spending.

2. Traders want lower transaction fees for more trading and no fee friction. That's it.

3. Miners HATE hodlers, because they get no transaction fee revenue if coins just sit.

4. The establishment would love nothing better than HFT on-chain. But of course, they will never ever achieve such a thing.

[Gab0]

....
Have you had the opportunity to read about the "Thiers' Law"?
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3w2vqo/thiers_law_the_reverse_of_greshams_law_rolnick/

Edit: Either way, does not the law say that you mention that bad money expels good money? I do not understand your logic.

---->  http://nakamotoinstitute.org/mempool/hyperbitcoinization/    <----

It seems to me that the process of "Hyperbitcoinization" responds very well to the budgets of the "Thiers' Law".

Thanks for your reference. I had the opportunity to read this text a couple of years ago, but it never hurts to read it again. It has a very good translation into Spanish.

Edit:

"The reverse of Gresham's Law, that good money drives out bad money whenever the bad money becomes nearly worthless, has been named "Thiers' Law" by economist Peter Bernholz, in honor of French politician and historian Adolphe Thiers. "Thiers' Law will only operate later [in the inflation] when the increase of the new flexible exchange rate and of the rate of inflation lower the real demand for the inflating money."

[HairyMaclairy]

Just bought more BCH and LTC. I have plenty of BTC and other alts. First time my BTC stash is under 40% of my crypto holdings. I'm all about diversification...

At this stage there are more old school bitcoiners that sank their battleship in shit coins than there are old schoolers left.  You have the goose that lays the golden egg and you are willingly giving it up.  Not a smart idea.  The internet is a winner takes all economy.

[natewelt]

Just bought more BCH and LTC. I have plenty of BTC and other alts. First time my BTC stash is under 40% of my crypto holdings. I'm all about diversification...

At this stage there are more old school bitcoiners that sank their battleship in shit coins than there are old schoolers left.  You have the goose that lays the golden egg and you are willingly giving it up.  Not a smart idea.  The internet is a winner takes all economy.

You can't see into the future so I don't know how you can claim it's not a smart idea. So far it has worked out and if I exchange my alts back to BTC I'd have more BTC.

Diversifying is not only smart. It is usually more profitable. Get with the program.

[Ludwig Von]

Edit: Either way, does not the law say that you mention that bad money expels good money? I do not understand your logic.

Gresham's Law:
Bad money tends to circulate, pushing good money into holding (aka storage).

And oh boy, are the BCash crew pushing it as a better form of spending, thus circulating money (ie. lower transaction fees).

Same with Litecoin. I remember when even Coblee was saying "Bitcoin is for holding, and Litecoin is for spending." He was basically shooting litecoin in the foot with such statements.

But let's be real for a second.

1. e-Commerce is rarely if ever happening with crypto. It just isn't. Even if the coin is supposedly "better or faster" for spending.

2. Traders want lower transaction fees for more trading and no fee friction. That's it.

3. Miners HATE hodlers, because they get no transaction fee revenue if coins just sit.

4. The establishment would love nothing better than HFT on-chain. But of course, they will never ever achieve such a thing.

What commerce expects from a currency is in the first place stability of value. So none of the current cryptos is suitable. And indeed traders love the opposite, volatility. So basically in the end lower fees will not stimulate commerce, but trading. And probably HFT and all the casino wizzardry. The whole argumentation by the big blockers is just mist and smoke screens for one thing : the third motivation Peter R. metioned for WuVer : get filthy rich on the back of all others.

[Gab0]

But let's be real for a second.

1. e-Commerce is rarely if ever happening with crypto. It just isn't. Even if the coin is supposedly "better or faster" for spending.

2. Traders want lower transaction fees for more trading and no fee friction. That's it.

3. Miners HATE hodlers, because they get no transaction fee revenue if coins just sit.

4. The establishment would love nothing better than HFT on-chain. But of course, they will never ever achieve such a thing.

I do not agree Torque. The first use of bitcoin came hand in hand with black markets. It was at that moment that the world learned that there was an alternative form of payment to the conodic system. We can disagree, but I think it is very important that bitcoin is kept as a form of payment. Its use in a real system prevents, or makes more difficult its speculative manipulation; as it currently happens with gold.

Soon we will see if LN serves these purposes or not.

[HairyMaclairy]

Just bought more BCH and LTC. I have plenty of BTC and other alts. First time my BTC stash is under 40% of my crypto holdings. I'm all about diversification...

At this stage there are more old school bitcoiners that sank their battleship in shit coins than there are old schoolers left.  You have the goose that lays the golden egg and you are willingly giving it up.  Not a smart idea.  The internet is a winner takes all economy.

You can't see into the future so I don't know how you can claim it's not a smart idea. So far it has worked out and if I exchange my alts back to BTC I'd have more BTC.

Diversifying is not only smart. It is usually more profitable. Get with the program.

I have insurance, which is mostly Monero and ETH and less than 10% of my portfolio.  This protects me in case of a wipe out event in Bitcoin (which would be recovered in any event by the dev team as the stakes are too high). But we both know that when the first Bitcoin ETF is announced early next year, Bitcoin will go vertical and your BTC/Alt pairs will collapse, including my Monero and ETH pairs.  Don’t confuse blowing your portfolio on shit coins with insurance.  Insurance is an expense, not an investment.

[natewelt]

Just bought more BCH and LTC. I have plenty of BTC and other alts. First time my BTC stash is under 40% of my crypto holdings. I'm all about diversification...

At this stage there are more old school bitcoiners that sank their battleship in shit coins than there are old schoolers left.  You have the goose that lays the golden egg and you are willingly giving it up.  Not a smart idea.  The internet is a winner takes all economy.

You can't see into the future so I don't know how you can claim it's not a smart idea. So far it has worked out and if I exchange my alts back to BTC I'd have more BTC.

Diversifying is not only smart. It is usually more profitable. Get with the program.

I have insurance, which is mostly Monero and ETH and less than 10% of my portfolio.  This protects me in case of a wipe out event in Bitcoin. But we both know that when the first Bitcoin ETF is announced early next year, Bitcoin will go vertical and your BTC/Alt pairs will collapse, including my Monero and ETH pairs.

I disagree that we both know that will happen. The only alts I own are mostly in the top 25 by market cap and few outliers that I like the concept of so I have faith in them. There's space for alts and master Bitcoin. I'm still HODLING some Bitcoin from 2014 when I got in so I love Bitcoin. I just love diversification and playing the game also it makes life more interesting.

Edit: Also if my alts keep gaining on BTC in terms of their exchange rate I may convert them all back to BTC only time will tell. I don't have an allegiance to one coin. I know many on here do and that's great, but that's not my style.

[Torque]

So basically in the end lower fees will not stimulate commerce, but trading.

Just like corporate tax cuts will not stimulate wage growth or the economy, but more company stock buy-backs and maybe a tiny, one-time employee bonus for show.

Lol  

[HairyMaclairy]

I just love diversification and playing the game also it makes life more interesting.

It’s great to play the game with lunch money but I’m not putting my retirement funds in it.

[conspirosphere.tk]

Just bought more BCH and LTC. I have plenty of BTC and other alts. First time my BTC stash is under 40% of my crypto holdings. I'm all about diversification...

At this stage there are more old school bitcoiners that sank their battleship in shit coins than there are old schoolers left.  You have the goose that lays the golden egg and you are willingly giving it up.  Not a smart idea.  The internet is a winner takes all economy.

I don't know any old peeps in crypto spending a dime on BitCH. It's just astroturfing by shills for hire and their following of poor fools.


https://g.co/trends/o6jPX

[gentlemand]

The idea of paying for it.... why would you?