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

[orpington]

Oh it is coming. And when it comes we will light up the world.

Even then I am sure that all the bigblocker trolls will remain here. If having their own fork did not satisfy them nothing will -except of course destroying bitcoin.

true. their real goal.

They would then continue posting on bitcoinisnowdeadtalk.org on how successful big blocks were.

[1714797118]

1714797118

[1714797118]

1714797118

[1714797118]

1714797118

[cAPSLOCK]

I have yet to see anyone explain how increasing the blocksize increases centralization. It seems to be some idea that just took hold and that everyone believes in, because they believe in it.

And it doesn't end. There will always be a need for improvements because there will always be competitors ready to take over if we stagnate. stagnation is death.

Lightning requires segwit. Which is to say, it will be as worthless as segwit is.

Increasing the block size will require more storage, faster CPUs, and more network resources.

The further we go, the more we price out smaller miners and move mining to the cartels which is already a problem.

Congrats.  It's now been explained to you.

[realr0ach]

Since Bitcoin’s only true value lies in ‘decentralisation’

Then I guess it's value is already zero.

[Ibian]

I have yet to see anyone explain how increasing the blocksize increases centralization. It seems to be some idea that just took hold and that everyone believes in, because they believe in it.

And it doesn't end. There will always be a need for improvements because there will always be competitors ready to take over if we stagnate. stagnation is death.

Lightning requires segwit. Which is to say, it will be as worthless as segwit is.

Increasing the block size will require more storage, faster CPUs, and more network resources.

The further we go, the more we price out smaller miners and move mining to the cartels which is already a problem.

Congrats.  It's now been explained to you.

More processing for more work. Yes. And the problem with that would beee.... that you are upset at physics?

Whatever system is used, industry level players will do better than home hobbyists. Storage is cheap and getting cheaper, and 2 mb blocks, for example, would certainly not tax the typical home connection so I don't see the problem. It would not require more processing power as the block reward is split among miners relative to their contribution, not per-flop. Miners would keep their relative positions.

[Wekkel]

Since Bitcoin’s only true value lies in ‘decentralisation’

Then I guess it's value is already zero.

In the long run, we are all dead.

Meanwhile, let me enjoy BTC $50k soon and the ability to stock up on some Gold, just in case.

[Peter R]

That is not relevant in the least. It will make it better than it is now.

We need improvements. Before we hit $100+ fees would be nice.

Why does BTC need improvements?  If it is digital gold -- designed to be held and not spent -- then high fees that make it more difficult to use could be seen as a feature.  Plus small blocks make it easier to run full nodes, which is important to many people. 

[realr0ach]

Since Bitcoin’s only true value lies in ‘decentralisation’

Then I guess it's value is already zero.

In the long run, we are all dead.

Meanwhile, let me enjoy BTC $50k soon and the ability to stock up on some Gold, just in case.

Bitcoin = The Mississippi scheme:

[Icygreen]

And once again ... Satoshi was wrong.
Good to have geniuses like your Torque. Thank you for enlightening us with your wisdom.
Now ... if Satoshi was so wrong, why do not we just rewrite the white paper?

.....

Oh! Stupid Satoshi, you were so wrong.

Quit being a trite tool. It's the reason people here don't take you seriously and many have you on ignore.

It doesn't matter what Satoshi originally envisioned as Bitcoin's proposed/intended usage, it only matters how the people that buy it actually use it. It saw almost nil usage as a currency even back when transaction fees were low. Disregarding transaction fees and long confirmation times, it's deflationary nature alone, combined with all the hoop jumping required just to acquire it, nearly kills it as a daily currency. It functions much better as a decentralized digital asset that stores value. That's a fact and nothing you can allude to wrt "Satoshi's original vision" can change that.

Even pre-teens and teens use paper currencies around the world on a daily basis, but hell they can't even purchase Bitcoin without being 18+ yrs old and having a drivers license and a bank account first. How about that fkn irony, Satoshi? Should we add an addendum in the white paper for that too?

Grow the fk up and quit making tool statements.

Torque, you're wrong. People need a coin. Having a decentralized asset, outside the influence of governments, of course it is important; but for ordinary people, it is much more important to have a decentralized currency.

I do not agree either that bitcoin was not used as a currency. The great success of bitcoin came from the hand of black markets. The world could see that it was a real, useful alternative, and outside the influence of governments. And if it were still cheap to make payments, I'm sure the commerce would continue to develop.
Until recently, we saw an organic development of the ecosystem, in which savers, traders, commerce, investors grew symbiotically. Today, commerce has no alternative, and simply bitcoin is being used as an asset for the speculation of the new rich.

I have already told my experience here many times, but Bitcoin for me and many other people, in a third world country, represents much more than an asset. And that is the vision that I always discuss, because here it is much more important to have decentralized money. The rich already have hundreds of assets with which to have fun, and it bothers me to think that bitcoin becomes one more of them.

Edit:My first bitcoins I bought them on the street, without a bank account.


For the other two comments of shit, I do not defend a dogma, but a vision. I like the side chains, but it seems to me that the blockchain must be accessible to anyone.

I get what Torque is pointing at.
Here's a quote from Andreas book that lays it out plainly and I tend to agree.
"Bitcoin isn’t currency. That’s a really important thing to realize. Currency is an app that runs on the bitcoin network. Bitcoin is the internet of money, and currency is just the first application."
So... considering this, is everyone right?

[DaRude]

BTC606 ask wall @ $17.500 on Finex oops OT

[marcus_of_augustus]

I get what Torque is pointing at.
Here's a quote from Andreas book that lays it out plainly and I tend to agree.
"Bitcoin isn’t currency. That’s a really important thing to realize. Currency is an app that runs on the bitcoin network. Bitcoin is the internet of money, and currency is just the first application."
So... considering this, is everyone right?

Basically, yes.

Everyone can be right because they are all using semantics, spin and double-speak to push their control agendas. It's like asking Methodists, Anglicans and Mormons about Jesus of Nazareth's teachings.

The final outcome is a sect of coder-monks that live in isolation (on top of mountain in Tibet or Switzerland), take vows of poverty and extreme purity of syntax, to work on the one true bitcoin client ... that's the one I'll be running on my machines.

[jojo69]

BTC... oops OT

LOL!

[marcus_of_augustus]

Hi. We are here to talk to you about Satoshi's vision.

[realr0ach]

Hi. We are here to talk to you about Satoshi's vision.

[cAPSLOCK]

That is not relevant in the least. It will make it better than it is now.

We need improvements. Before we hit $100+ fees would be nice.

Why does BTC need improvements?  If it is digital gold -- designed to be held and not spent -- then high fees that make it more difficult to use could be seen as a feature.  Plus small blocks make it easier to run full nodes, which is important to many people. 

It does bother me that someone as (I think?) intelligent as you can only see this problem in 1 dimension and black and white...

That is assuming the above quote is sarcasm, and not a sudden change of heart or a hacked account.

By the way, I do not think bitcoin is/will be only a store of value... likely many of us do not.  Also it is a straw man to assume small blockers want "no improvements".  We want different ones from BCash.

[windjc]

That is not relevant in the least. It will make it better than it is now.

We need improvements. Before we hit $100+ fees would be nice.

Why does BTC need improvements?  If it is digital gold -- designed to be held and not spent -- then high fees that make it more difficult to use could be seen as a feature.  Plus small blocks make it easier to run full nodes, which is important to many people.  

How come you can't articulate the simple following explanation:

In what if any way is Bcash superior to LTC, DASH and DOGE as transactional currency?

[Peter R]

That is not relevant in the least. It will make it better than it is now.

We need improvements. Before we hit $100+ fees would be nice.

Why does BTC need improvements?  If it is digital gold -- designed to be held and not spent -- then high fees that make it more difficult to use could be seen as a feature.  Plus small blocks make it easier to run full nodes, which is important to many people. 

It does bother me that someone as (I think?) intelligent as you can only see this problem in 1 dimension and black and white...

That is assuming the above quote is sarcasm, and not a sudden change of heart or a hacked account.

By the way, I do not think bitcoin is/will be only a store of value... likely many of us do not.  Also it is a straw man to assume small blockers want "no improvements".  We want different ones from BCash.

It will be interesting to watch BTC development move forward.  There was a huge portion of the community pushing for bigger blocks who have now shifted there holdings towards BCH.  These people will now support keeping BTC crippled at 1 MB, as they believe that shifting value from BTC -> BCH is now the best solution.  So we have a situation where both small-blockers will be pushing for no block size limit increase AND big-bockers (like me) will also be pushing for no block size limit increase.  So I think it will be difficult for BTC to scale if Lightning Network (LN) doesn't work out as planned.

Of course, if your of the view that use cases besides "holding" aren't important, then BTC is fine as is.  

[realr0ach]

By the way, I do not think bitcoin is/will be only a store of value...

Bitcoin can only derive value from flow, not stock.  The idea an imaginary object can be a store of value is absurd.  In other words, the second people are unable to perform regulatory arbitrage, or arbitrage against the dollar with bitcoin, it's value becomes zero.  If the govt attempts to ban gold or silver, due to them being real commodities instead of imaginary commodities and having real world use cases, their value generally doesn't go below cost of production.

It's pretty obvious the Jewish occupied US govt attempts to prevent people from using physical metals instead of dollars.  Knowing that all they have to do to defeat bitcoin is shutting down the exchanges and/or making it illegal, which cuts off both regulatory arbitrage and dollar arbitrage, the real question is, WHY haven't they done it?  One can only conclude the Jewish occupied US govt backs bitcoin due to not exercising these easily available actions against it.

[Peter R]

That is not relevant in the least. It will make it better than it is now.

We need improvements. Before we hit $100+ fees would be nice.

Why does BTC need improvements?  If it is digital gold -- designed to be held and not spent -- then high fees that make it more difficult to use could be seen as a feature.  Plus small blocks make it easier to run full nodes, which is important to many people.  

How come you can't articulate the simple following explanation:

In what if any way is Bcash superior to LTC, DASH and DOGE as transactional currency?

I view money as a ledger.  Or "money as memory," as per the work of Kocherlakota. From this viewpoint, it is the information encoded in the ledger about who owns which coins that is of value.  The actual mechanism used to update that ledger is just a technical decision -- which is the best paper to write on?  Which is the best pen?

Bitcoin Cash (BCH) and Bitcoin Core (BTC) share the same ledger up until August 1.  At this point, the "ledger updating mechanisms" diverged (BCH allowed more information about the state of the ledger to be updated every ten minutes to facilitate growth).

Switching to DOGE would be like ripping up the "ledger of money" because the pen we were using to update it ran out of ink.  Instead, just get a better pen and keep updating the same ledger.  



 

[Ibian]

Lightning requires segwit. Which is to say, it will be as worthless as segwit is.

This is one of the most ignorant and myopic statements I have ever seen someone make on these forums.

Sheeeeit !

Care to elaborate?

[marcus_of_augustus]

the wannabe control freakery trolling is intensifying to extreme levels ... shorts about to explode?