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

[alevlaslo]

Satoshi is the one who first recieved a patent for this name, it is not even necessary to be the Creator of bitcoin. I advised them to get a patent for large blocks, but they decided to just take a larger

[jbreher]

Even if you have a good plan and you largely follow your plan, there can still be a decent amount of trepidation during the process of the BTC price going UP like a bat out of hell...

In many cases, can cause a large number of folks to second guess their plans... and gosh, when the price comes down to less than 1/5 of what it had been, then there is a kind of opportunity cost regret...

Takes some decently strong willpower to go through all of that - and even the longer term BTC HODLers seem to weather through the situation with some ongoing trepidations - so it does make some sense that even the longer term HODLers should skim, at least a small amount of BTC, off the top whenever there is a decently-sized BTC run, even if such shaving/skimming will merely provide partial rather than complete relief for the seemingly long enduring and decently uncertain BTC price correction period.

So build the shaving/skimming into the plan. That's all I'm saying.

This is Bitcoin. If your plan does not consider the possibility that the price overshoots by at least an order of magnitude more than you -- in your wildest dreams -- would dare to hope, then u r doing it rong.

[infofront]

But if we want Bitcoin to succeed as the financial backbone of the planet, what are our choices?
1) SV's openness to storing arbitrarily huge amounts of data may lead to a small number of players at each task within the system, governed only by open competition. As a bonus, in the huge data scenario it becomes the backbone of the Internet.
2) BTC has already abandoned being the default money for the world, being utterly unable to even onboard the world to LN in less than a quarter century.
3) BCH is headed towards unlimited numbers of txs, albeit each one limited in size. At the cost of the perhaps unforgivable sin of centralized checkpointing.

So far, SV still looks like the preferable route forward to me. Current market share notwithstanding.

1) Significantly altered bitcoin's game theoretics
2) Significantly altered bitcoin's game theoretics, but those changes can (will?) be rolled back by miners
3) Significantly altered bitcoin's game theoretics

You missed one:
4) The Real Bitcoin™

[JayJuanGee]

Even if you have a good plan and you largely follow your plan, there can still be a decent amount of trepidation during the process of the BTC price going UP like a bat out of hell...

In many cases, can cause a large number of folks to second guess their plans... and gosh, when the price comes down to less than 1/5 of what it had been, then there is a kind of opportunity cost regret...

Takes some decently strong willpower to go through all of that - and even the longer term BTC HODLers seem to weather through the situation with some ongoing trepidations - so it does make some sense that even the longer term HODLers should skim, at least a small amount of BTC, off the top whenever there is a decently-sized BTC run, even if such shaving/skimming will merely provide partial rather than complete relief for the seemingly long enduring and decently uncertain BTC price correction period.

So build the shaving/skimming into the plan. That's all I'm saying.

This is Bitcoin. If your plan does not consider the possibility that the price overshoots by at least an order of magnitude more than you -- in your wildest dreams -- would dare to hope, then u r doing it rong.

At least in regards to skimming BTC on the way up and never running out of either bitcoin or fiat, you and I are largely saying the same thing, even if we might phrase things differently, depending on when we type our statement(s).  

I doubt that either of us will run out of either bitcoin or fiat unless we make a purposeful elect to do so (perhaps based on other considerations, such as cashing out because we only expect to live x amount of time longer - where x is a decently short period of time).  Sucks to be mortal.    

On the other hand, if you continue to believe that bcash SV is the real bitcoin then those kinds of considerations might relieve you of more BTC than what would otherwise be a prudent approach... I am talking about maintaining a BTC plan and not getting distracted by false/snake oil imitations.

[jbreher]

But if we want Bitcoin to succeed as the financial backbone of the planet, what are our choices?
1) SV's openness to storing arbitrarily huge amounts of data may lead to a small number of players at each task within the system, governed only by open competition. As a bonus, in the huge data scenario it becomes the backbone of the Internet.
2) BTC has already abandoned being the default money for the world, being utterly unable to even onboard the world to LN in less than a quarter century.
3) BCH is headed towards unlimited numbers of txs, albeit each one limited in size. At the cost of the perhaps unforgivable sin of centralized checkpointing.

So far, SV still looks like the preferable route forward to me. Current market share notwithstanding.

1) Significantly altered bitcoin's game theoretics
2) Significantly altered bitcoin's game theoretics, but those changes can (will?) be rolled back by miners
3) Significantly altered bitcoin's game theoretics

You missed one:
4) The Real Bitcoin™

As in TMSR, or pre-(what was it)-0.85 Bitcoin? OK. Add it to the list. Again, I believe its tx per unit time will be its downfall, just like BTC.

YMMV. Objects in mirror may be closer than they appear. Not to be used for the other purpose. This furniture product is not a gateway to Narnia. Keep chain from testicles.

eta: If rollback occurs upon 2), then it collapses into 4), no?

Further edit: in regards to 'Significantly altered bitcoin's game theoretics', specifics would be helpful. Up until the blockalypse, Bitcoin was utterly unaffected by any block size limitation (+/- a day or two). Something else you're thinking of?

[HairyMaclairy]

::le sigh:: ...aaaand we're back to 'Aussie man bad!'

Truth is a defence to defamation

[Phil_S]

Get your ass to Mars!

https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-invites-public-to-submit-names-to-fly-aboard-next-mars-rover

[jbreher]

::le sigh:: ...aaaand we're back to 'Aussie man bad!'

Truth is a defence to defamation

Yet, only in honest discourse is understanding to be reached.

[HairyMaclairy]

::le sigh:: ...aaaand we're back to 'Aussie man bad!'

Truth is a defence to defamation

Yet, only in honest discourse is understanding to be reached.

You seem to be a lovely chap.  I don’t know why you persist in defending such comic book villains.

Lodging a copywright claim over the Bitcoin whitepaper which has an MIT open source license printed on the front page?  It’s both hilarious and pathetic.

[infofront]

But if we want Bitcoin to succeed as the financial backbone of the planet, what are our choices?
1) SV's openness to storing arbitrarily huge amounts of data may lead to a small number of players at each task within the system, governed only by open competition. As a bonus, in the huge data scenario it becomes the backbone of the Internet.
2) BTC has already abandoned being the default money for the world, being utterly unable to even onboard the world to LN in less than a quarter century.
3) BCH is headed towards unlimited numbers of txs, albeit each one limited in size. At the cost of the perhaps unforgivable sin of centralized checkpointing.

So far, SV still looks like the preferable route forward to me. Current market share notwithstanding.

1) Significantly altered bitcoin's game theoretics
2) Significantly altered bitcoin's game theoretics, but those changes can (will?) be rolled back by miners
3) Significantly altered bitcoin's game theoretics

You missed one:
4) The Real Bitcoin™

As in TMSR, or pre-(what was it)-0.85 Bitcoin? OK. Add it to the list. Again, I believe its tx per unit time will be its downfall, just like BTC.

YMMV. Objects in mirror may be closer than they appear. Not to be used for the other purpose. This furniture product is not a gateway to Narnia. Keep chain from testicles.

eta: If rollback occurs upon 2), then it collapses into 4), no?

Pretty much - it's based on 0.5.3. And as to that question - yes. I was hesitant to give TRB a new number. We could call it 2.5.

As for more TX/s, I'm leaning toward the TMSR/Shelby school of thought that the 1MB blocksize is an immutable part of the protocol. Do you think Bitcoin was intended to scale to the masses?

Further edit: in regards to 'Significantly altered bitcoin's game theoretics', specifics would be helpful. Up until the blockalypse, Bitcoin was utterly unaffected by any block size limitation (+/- a day or two). Something else you're thinking of?

"Originally, Bitcoin's block size was limited by the number of database locks required to process it (at most 10000). This limit was effectively around 500-750k in serialized bytes, and was forgotten until 2013 March. In 2010, an explicit block size limit of 1 MB was introduced into Bitcoin by Satoshi Nakamoto. He added it hidden in two commits[1][2][3] in secret. This limit was effectively a no-op due to the aforementioned forgotten limit."

[HairyMaclairy]

We don’t need LN to scale. 

Just use centralized solutions like Liquid to scale for low security transactions.

[rdbase]

::le sigh:: ...aaaand we're back to 'Aussie man bad!'

Truth is a defence to defamation

Yet, only in honest discourse is understanding to be reached.

You seem to be a lovely chap.  I don’t know why you persist in defending such comic book villains.

Lodging a copywright claim over the Bitcoin whitepaper which has an MIT open source license printed on the front page?  It’s both hilarious and pathetic.

Thats all he did and anyone can do it just like this so called TheRealSatoshiN!
https://twitter.com/realSatoshiN/status/1130996634853302272
"So I kick his balls. I registered my white paper long before 2009 in Belgium before publication. I am not stupid. satoshin"

[Paashaas]

More than 100 shops and restaurants where you can pay through Lightning in Arnhem Bitcoin City (Netherlands) .

https://www.arnhembitcoinstad.nl/

[infofront]

Shelby/Anonymint suggested I share this here:

https://steemit.com/trading/@anonymint/re-anonymint-re-anonymint-most-important-bitcoin-chart-ever-20190521t130454806z

It's his analysis on the Stocks-to-Flow model in relation to the future price of bitcoin. It's interesting stuff IMO.

[jbreher]

Stossel harping on a new documentary concerning money:

https://reason.com/video/stossel-money-money-money

Watched Stossel's piece, have not yet watched the documentary. The docu evidently concludes we need to return to gold. Though Bitcoin is at least mentioned.

[JayJuanGee]

::le sigh:: ...aaaand we're back to 'Aussie man bad!'

Truth is a defence to defamation

Yet, only in honest discourse is understanding to be reached.

You seem to be a lovely chap.  I don’t know why you persist in defending such comic book villains.

Lodging a copywright claim over the Bitcoin whitepaper which has an MIT open source license printed on the front page?  It’s both hilarious and pathetic.

Lodging such a copyright claim is also NOT an "honest discourse."

It seems misleading and disingenuous and an attempt at bullying (or a threat thereof).

[jbreher]

::le sigh:: ...aaaand we're back to 'Aussie man bad!'

Truth is a defence to defamation

Yet, only in honest discourse is understanding to be reached.

You seem to be a lovely chap.  I don’t know why you persist in defending such comic book villains.

Lodging a copywright claim over the Bitcoin whitepaper which has an MIT open source license printed on the front page?  It’s both hilarious and pathetic.

You are again devolving to 'Aussie man bad!'. I am not defending such comic book villains. I am trying to discuss the technical attributes of the various Bitcoins.

How about we set aside the irrelevancy of who supports what, and talk about the attributes of the underlying chains? Would that not be so much nicer? Like cAPSLOCK did above. Or do you lose too much of your easy ammo that way?

Incidentally, you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding in regards to intellectual property. Only a copyright owner can open source a work. Copyright and license are two totally different domains of IP law.

[Toxic2040]

lol.jpg

SV user not affected. Troll harder. C'mon - I think you have it in you. That was weaksauce.

I will give you a response jbreher partially out of respect for prior service and mostly out of gentlemanly manners. No one cares.

I will even be more brutally honest, more care than I can believe and far less care and will care then you hope for.

That being said, you constantly try and engage your narrative to get press time on bitcoins most watched thread. Its the same sort of slimy tactic that your cult of personality leader faketoshi has been employing since day one.

Frankly I am tired of it.

For me..it comes down to character and moral fortitude when all things are equal.

Newsflash..all things are not equal..never have been..never will be.

That you continue to support and advocate for such a person makes me question your moral compass at the very least.

You feel me?

Thats all the time I will devote on this subject..other than saying respect is a two way street. You want my respect?  Earn it...I think you have it in you.

tc

[Paashaas]

Updated.



https://twitter.com/100trillionUSD/status/1130862825340100609

[JayJuanGee]

Shelby/Anonymint suggested I share this here:

https://steemit.com/trading/@anonymint/re-anonymint-re-anonymint-most-important-bitcoin-chart-ever-20190521t130454806z

It's his analysis on the Stocks-to-Flow model in relation to the future price of bitcoin. It's interesting stuff IMO.

Yes.. quoting a banned troll should be taken with a decently-sized grain of salt...

Sure it is possible that he has become more reasonable, but who knows with shill/trolls who have demonstrated their previous bullshit that ultimately got them banned  from the forum?