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

[bitcoinsrus]

Hey guys, what happen if we hit 50k+ per coin. Does the mining fees still stand at 0.0001 btc or does it get lowered during time?

It's getting lowered all the time.

In the end the miners will decide the prices in the open market

Ok thx, i tho so, seems weird if it hit 1mil per coin and the fees is 100 bux per transaction

still better than the transaction fees of the future

[1715005087]

1715005087

[1715005087]

1715005087

[1715005087]

1715005087

[wachtwoord]

By the way, last week we went up in the weekend and stayed flat during the week. That's different   

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[soullyG]

Jesus fucking christ I'd rather read about China banning bitcoin and be inundated with bear fud than read 5 pages all about our resident academic.

Can we move on... Please ?!

While I agree ^Jorge with you in _{Jorge Stolfi} principle, it is ^{Jorge Jorge Jorge} important to reme_{Jorge ^Stolfi}mber that we are morally obliged to JORGE JORGE JORGE

Well that's not very subt- ALL GLORY TO THE HYPNOJORGE!

[oda.krell]

Jesus fucking christ I'd rather read about China banning bitcoin and be inundated with bear fud than read 5 pages all about our resident academic.

Can we move on... Please ?!

While I agree ^Jorge with you in _{Jorge Stolfi} principle, it is ^{Jorge Jorge Jorge} important to reme_{Jorge ^Stolfi}mber that we are morally obliged to JORGE JORGE JORGE

Well that's not very subt- ALL GLORY TO THE HYPNOJORGE!

I refuse to partake in such nons- ALL GLORY HYPNOJORGE!

[Adrian-x]

Imagine a room full of people, not a big room (a large garage maybe) and they and cooperating to build something.

I don't think that is a good analogy for this thread...  

Rather, a bar where a couple hundred random football fans are watching a game on TV and betting on it?  

Oh yes the unfair drinking game analogy. At least in you're analogy there is a winner. I don't follow sport it's a distraction from the game of Bitcoin, but yes I see your point.

Jorge, I think your conclusions are posted earlier are wrong. "Them" whoever them is has been distilled to a point of ignorance. I'm sure if you looked hard you can find a Keynesian who has a rebuttal to each point that concerns you.

[dreamspark]

  Me: "Goevernments can effectively ban bitcoin, see China for example."
   Them: "Bitcoin is like the internet, it will find a way around any obstacle."

Bad example, try torrents or something closer in anology to decentralization

  Me: "Bitcoins may be scarce, but there are plenty of cyptocoins with equivalent or better protocols"
  Them: "Cryptocoins will die and bitcoin will not."

The very best will likely be used in some situatioins as well. But network effect, first mover effect etc
Also if a country decides to print more money does that devalue my currency in my country?

  Me: "Bitcoin is now more prone to theft and fraud than credit cards, see the numbers."
   Them: "Bitcoin will be much safer when it matures."

Isn't that logical due to most the thefts, scams etc being because of 0 regulation rather than the bare minimum at least.

  Me: "Mining is already concentrated in a few companies, they may form a cartel and become like the bankers."
   Them: "It is a free market so that will not happen."

This is agree with you more on, thats why I have my coins already, first movers advantage etc.

  Me: "The Satoshi 2009 blockchain already assigns XX% of all the money to a few thousand people."
   Them: "Wealth distribution will improve with time."

How many people do you think who mined in 2009,20010, 2011 even 2012 still have all the coins they mined/bought now? Satoshis mined 1 million don't foget.

[cbeast]

Can you imagine what could be accomplished if we didn't have egos?

[hyphymikey]

Hurry hurry! Sell before we go to 600 lol

[adamstgBit]

[romneymoney]

Look, the thing is that although you make some useful points, and you are consistently polite in doing so, you are becoming increasingly strident. The fact that you very selectively choose what to argue - and a lot of people have made some very good points against some of your mistaken assumptions recently - means that it's not really worth engaging with you. Literally no point, because you appear to ignore anything that doesn't fit with what you already believe and move on.

Obviously I argue while I believe I am right.  If a reply is convincing, I let the poster have the last word.  Isn't that enough?

But there are MANY reasons why I am skeptical of bitcoin's success, and many of the replies that I get are not only unconvincing, thet are just countering facts with statements of faith:

   Me: "Goevernments can effectively ban bitcoin, see China for example."
  Them: "Bitcoin is like the internet, it will find a way around any obstacle."
This ship appears to be sailing in the USA on the side of no ban.  This is a real concern, but trend is good IMO.

   Me: "Bitcoins may be scarce, but there are plenty of cyptocoins with equivalent or better protocols"
  Them: "Cryptocoins will die and bitcoin will not."
Bitcoin adds more users per day than the entire user-base of all the alt-coins combined.  The network effect just widens the gap further.  (source: BITCOIN 2014 - Wences Casares (Xapo).  I did not verify these numbers, is this true?.

   Me: "Bitcoin is now more prone to theft and fraud than credit cards, see the numbers."
   Them: "Bitcoin will be much safer when it matures."
Bitcoin is becoming safer, check out Circle for one example of an insured BTC wallet.  Multisig is a nice solution to some of the problems.  The investment money pouring in now is working on that problem with much promise (not just faith).

   Me: "Mining is already concentrated in a few companies, they may form a cartel and become like the bankers."
   Them: "It is a free market so that will not happen."
Seems like a legit concern.  The small amount of collusion required to attain 51% seems dangerous.  This  Bitcoin 101 - The Nightmare of a 51% Attack   goes over some other scenarios where a malicious player could break the protocol

   Me: "The Satoshi 2009 blockchain already assigns XX% of all the money to a few thousand people."
   Them: "Wealth distribution will improve with time."
While not ideal, I don't see this as any major impediment.

And so on and on.  Obviously I am not convinced by such answers, but how can I argue with statements of faith?
1. Agree to disagree and move on
2. Admit that you may not be infallible and that perhaps it's not "faith" but rather reasoned thinking.  This is extremely hard for many on this forum to give respect to conflicting ideas.
3. Get convinced that you were in fact incorrect.  You need to start with number 2.

You obviously have so much ego and animosity that I am pretty sure it's affecting the accuracy of the conclusions.

[akujin]

$20 difference from btce to stamp....

[ejinte]

$20 difference from btce to stamp....

btce is our next mtgox?

[soullyG]

Well that's not very subt- ALL GLORY TO THE HYPNOJORGE!

I refuse to partake in such nons- ALL GLORY HYPNOJORGE!

Haha excellent, exactly what I imagined 

[wachtwoord]

$20 difference from btce to stamp....

btce is our next mtgox?

Well, by that analogy Stamp would be.

But those crazy Russians have always lagged a bit. It's harder (and more expensive) to get fiat out of there.

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[dreamspark]

[

Well, by that analogy Stamp would be.

But those crazy Russians have always lagged a bit. It's harder (and more expensive) to get fiat out of there.

Is it not expensive to get money in as well? I seem to remember hearing being charged 1% both ways?

[adamstgBit]

[marky89]

what's that from?

[YogoH]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF_WhMSKhIg