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

[Syke]

Market cap of scam coins is illusory.

I posted earlier about how United Bitcoin had a daily volume of $450k on Quione with an order book depth of $560.  That’s not a typo - the total order book depth was less than $1k.

Good point. It would be interesting to see a dominance figure based on actual order book sizes.

[Anon136]

Market cap of scam coins is illusory.

I posted earlier about how United Bitcoin had a daily volume of $450k on Quione with an order book depth of $560.  That’s not a typo - the total order book depth was less than $1k.

Thanks for the perspective. That number freaked me out when I saw it and perhaps I got a little emotional. You have a very good point. Another example would be something like ripple that claims a marketcap of 34billion but some massive % of the currency supply is locked up and held off market while coinmarketcap still multiplies the price times that locked up off market supply to arrive at the market capitalization.

But a troll account from 2010 wouldn't know that, right?  

Do you really think I'm a troll?

[jojo69]

whoa JimboToronto you and yours safe indoors?
Rosewater?

[Torque]

But a troll account from 2010 wouldn't know that, right?  

Do you really think I'm a troll?

If you're not then why are you appearing to troll?

I presumed that you've had plenty of years to do research. We've been talking about the fallacy of the % dominance factor on CMC for a few years now.

It's become completely meaningless. Just add new shitcoins to the list, give 'em a bogus market cap, and Bitcoin's % dominance automatically decreases. The more shitcoins get added to the list, the more Bitcoin's % dominance falls.

Good point. It would be interesting to see a dominance figure based on actual order book sizes.

Because it would reveal the truth is precisely why you never will see that.

[d_eddie]

"Beat me to it" quotes of the day (Torque was first). Here go my last merits.

Oh well, I think jbreher is worth talking to sometimes... JUST-DON'T-EVER-MENTION-BCASH-TO-HIM. *THAT*'s not worth it. Never forget that rule and everything will be fine.

That's his... uhm, religion. Apart from that handicap, discussions with jbreher are mostly fine.

Removal of the 21M cap: soon!

Perhaps you'd be so kind as to provide even the slightest shred of evidence for your absurd assertion?

Perhaps you'd be so kind as to quit calling Bitcoin "Bitcoin Segwit"?

Word. This also really helps gears grind here, so to say. It's like it's my own religion.

TLDR; jbreher, you're a much more varied read than other thread heretics. Don't hurt people's religious feelings with unkornly utterances, and I promise I won't feed the troll in you. Gonna try, with a little help from my frieh-eh-eh-eh eh-ehh.

[Anon136]

But a troll account from 2010 wouldn't know that, right?  

Do you really think I'm a troll?

If you're not then why are you appearing to troll?

I presumed that you've had plenty of years to do research. We've been talking about the fallacy of the % dominance factor on CMC for a few years now.

It's become completely meaningless. Just add new shitcoins to the list, give 'em a bogus market cap, and Bitcoin's % dominance automatically decreases.

I am aware of the phenomena. I have talked about it before myself but always in terms of off market currency supply like in the form of ripple foundation holdings or dash masternode reserve requirements.

I haven't been active in this thread for years. If you have been I think you would know this. I started frequenting this thread a couple months ago and I certainly don't read even most of the posts. Far too many come through in a day to read even most of them.

I found HairyMaclairy's post to be insightful and illuminating. Even though I was aware of some of the shortcomings of market capitalization calculations I hadn't realized it was quite as bad as the example that he gave and it hadn't occurred to me that there is as direct of a connection between the total number of altcoins and the bitcoin dominance as there is. It hadn't occurred to me that there was a mechanism where one could make an infinite number of altcoins and they would never stop degrading the dominance of bitcoin (since all you would need is 1 trade to set a price and no requirement for any amount of liquidity at all) while not actually representing any real effect on the real world. I guess I kind of intuitively thought there would be a sort of diminishing return on the effect of new altcoins on dominance, and there certainly was early on, but I just now was forced to think through the mechanism that has caused me to realize that the returns probably plateaued at some point and stopped diminishing.

Well anyway I definitely am not above trolling, I have trolled once or twice in my life, but I haven't done it anywhere on bitcointalk except maybe a little bit in the dash thread.

[Last of the V8s]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=178336.msg34306588#msg34306588
such a reasonable dude

[yefi]

I found HairyMaclairy's post to be insightful and illuminating. Even though I was aware of some of the shortcomings of market capitalization calculations I hadn't realized it was quite as bad as the example that he gave and it hadn't occurred to me that there is as direct of a connection between the total number of altcoins and the bitcoin dominance as there is.

To be honest, I don't think it is quite so bad. Anomalous data tends to get reported and excluded - and it is going to be more common on obscure exchanges and for minor coins.

To broadly sweep aside the rise of the alts as mere wash trading seems like wishful thinking. I don't like this shit any more than the next oldtimer, but newcomers want their penny stocks and to cart their wealth off a cliff.

[jbreher]

Would there be Many on the list besides jbreher if i would pay out in bcash....??   

Haha. I'd guess you'd get a few takers. A win is a win, right?

However, I've not participated in any of your contests so far.

many didn't  participated what i don't understand.... just a freeroll why wouldn't one not participate??

No disrespect intended, but... I'd rather not see the WO thread cluttered up with an unrelated topic. To participate would be hypocritical.

And yes, I realize that several of you would find this ironic. On two levels. Whatevs.

[Ibian]

"Beat me to it" quotes of the day (Torque was first). Here go my last merits.

Oh well, I think jbreher is worth talking to sometimes... JUST-DON'T-EVER-MENTION-BCASH-TO-HIM. *THAT*'s not worth it. Never forget that rule and everything will be fine.

That's his... uhm, religion. Apart from that handicap, discussions with jbreher are mostly fine.

It's a pretty big fucking handicap. Might as well try getting away with saying that apart from wanting to kill us all, muslims are pretty decent people.

[jbreher]

Failure to provide evidence of your claim is duly noted.

You should already be aware of such a standard that there is no burden to provide evidence when rebutting off topic claims.. those can be summarily dismissed without any kind of evidence whatsoever, because providing evidence would be to sustain and perhaps pursue the off-topicness, which deserves to go to another thread.

Diversion and dissemblance duly detected.

[jbreher]

The 'way Bitcoin is supposed to work' is any manner that anyone might try and succeed in making it work. Due precisely to its permissionless nature.

You're literally describing and making the case for Bitcoin development as it has been going since day 1.

Exactly.

[d_eddie]

"Beat me to it" quotes of the day (Torque was first). Here go my last merits.

Oh well, I think jbreher is worth talking to sometimes... JUST-DON'T-EVER-MENTION-BCASH-TO-HIM. *THAT*'s not worth it. Never forget that rule and everything will be fine.

That's his... uhm, religion. Apart from that handicap, discussions with jbreher are mostly fine.

It's a pretty big fucking handicap. Might as well try getting away with saying that apart from wanting to kill us all, muslims are pretty decent people.

Yes, yes, it's the same.

[figmentofmyass]

Zeroconf is not built atop 'trust Wu, Ver and Wright'. It is built atop 'we don't have overwhelming tx backlog that makes doublespends hard to detect'.

without a backlog, it's still batshit crazy to accept 0-conf. people have double spent against both bitpay and coinbase; peter todd did it publicly once. if you close out the invoice before confirmation, there's nothing stopping the consumer from pushing a higher-fee transaction using the same inputs.

the "tx backlog" really seems like a red herring. 0-conf has an inherently weaker trust model. satoshi acknowledged this:

As you figured out, the root problem is we shouldn't be counting or spending transactions until they have at least 1 confirmation.  0/unconfirmed transactions are very much second class citizens.  At most, they are advice that something has been received, but counting them as balance or spending them is premature.

accepting 0-conf transactions doesn't mean trusting "Wu, Ver and Wright".....it means trusting the payor not to steal back his money from you.

[d_eddie]

(snip)
Do you really think I'm a troll?

If you're not then why are you appearing to troll?
(snip bona fide explanation)

"Thank you for the explanation!"
"Hairy... insightful!"
"Me... not above trolling... once or twice in my life... dash thread."

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=178336.msg34306588#msg34306588
such a reasonable dude

Anon136, a legend with 49/470 merit earned against 203/414. Over 4 times as much. Theymos's new ranking system indeed provides more useful information than the old. And prompt scouting is available, anyway.

Hey, mighty Theymos, do you hear us? We need more statistics, like "Imagination", "Magic Dust" or "Emep", which might stand for "Earned Merit per Eligible Post (ratio)".

[d_eddie]

Zeroconf is not built atop 'trust Wu, Ver and Wright'. It is built atop 'we don't have overwhelming tx backlog that makes doublespends hard to detect'.

without a backlog, it's still batshit crazy to accept 0-conf. people have double spent against both bitpay and coinbase; peter todd did it publicly once. if you close out the invoice before confirmation, there's nothing stopping the consumer from pushing a higher-fee transaction using the same inputs.

the "tx backlog" really seems like a red herring. 0-conf has an inherently weaker trust model. satoshi acknowledged this:

As you figured out, the root problem is we shouldn't be counting or spending transactions until they have at least 1 confirmation.  0/unconfirmed transactions are very much second class citizens.  At most, they are advice that something has been received, but counting them as balance or spending them is premature.

accepting 0-conf transactions doesn't mean trusting "Wu, Ver and Wright".....it means trusting the payor not to steal back his money from you.

+1 WOSmerit

Summarizing: with a tx backlog (I inexactly called it "cache") it's probably doable, but it's a shit solution anyway. If I could vote for 0-conf or RBF as a feature, I'd pick RBF anyway.

[Last of the V8s]

(snip)
Anon136, a legend with 49/470 merit earned against 203/414. Over 4 times as much. Theymos's new ranking system indeed provides more useful information than the old. And prompt scouting is available, anyway.

Hey, mighty Theymos, do you hear us? We need more statistics, like "Imagination", "Magic Dust" or "Emep", which might stand for "Earned Merit per Eligible Post (ratio)".

What's your denominator there? EMEP's 'per eligible post' might maybe be better.

[jbreher]

Zeroconf is not built atop 'trust Wu, Ver and Wright'. It is built atop 'we don't have overwhelming tx backlog that makes doublespends hard to detect'.

without a backlog, it's still batshit crazy to accept 0-conf. people have double spent against both bitpay and coinbase; peter todd did it publicly once. if you close out the invoice before confirmation, there's nothing stopping the consumer from pushing a higher-fee transaction using the same inputs.

In the relevant protocol model, it is not 'batshit crazy'. It is another parameter one uses into the calculation between shrink and volume. in the same way that WalMart makes a calculation between how much merchandise walks out the door unpaid vs hiring a dedicated shoplifting observer for each and every customer in the store.

the "tx backlog" really seems like a red herring. 0-conf has an inherently weaker trust model. satoshi acknowledged this:

As you figured out, the root problem is we shouldn't be counting or spending transactions until they have at least 1 confirmation.  0/unconfirmed transactions are very much second class citizens.  At most, they are advice that something has been received, but counting them as balance or spending them is premature.

Yes, it is indeed a weaker trust model. But one completely at the discretion of the affected party.

As opposed to SegWit's inherently weaker trust model that can affect everyone.

accepting 0-conf transactions doesn't mean trusting "Wu, Ver and Wright".....it means trusting the payor not to steal back his money from you.

Agreed.

[jbreher]

If I could vote for 0-conf or RBF as a feature, I'd pick RBF anyway.

You realize, of course, that RBF _requires_ persistently full blocks in order to work reliably, right?

[Toxic2040]

Some interesting dynamics starting to manifest on the chart. What I like to call spring compression has been taking place with this controlled accumulation. #dyor