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

[empowering]

...
I'm not disagreeing with you.  My slant on this is the question is not what we believe, but how we act on those beliefs.
Bitcoin, at the outset, rejected centralization.  Individual miners using their spare CPU cycles to mine etc., etc.
That's history.
The real mining is done by megafarms, the remaining small miners point their rigs at megapools.  Some don't even buy gear, just "invest" in "cloud mining."
You gotta admit, already not much of the original decentralisation left.  Miners don't care about the voice that they have, my guess is most wouldn't know how to go about using it.  Empty concept.  They distribute the risks--paying a central entity (pool) to increase the odds of having a steady paycheck.
Bitcoiners invest in "Bitcoin banks" (NeoBee), no matter how absurd such a thing is.
Bitcoiners ape *everything that we once wanted to leave behind*, including centralization.

Christianity, and other utopias like Communism, are also all wonderful blueprints to live by--at the conceptual level.  The problem is, just like Bitcoin, they tend to get corrupted, rot on exposure to IRL, and, eventually, become irrelevant.  Tell me you can't already see this happening with Bitcoin
[/grumbling]

TL;DR:  All the signs are pointing to Bitcoin becoming progressively more centralized and, therefore, irrelevant.  Sad but true.

Important word=  Competition , in this case between miners/new hardware operating on the network....

but also from .......

Other Cryptocurrency....

If Bitcoin for whatever reason falls out of favour, then the market can decide if it is now irrelevant, or not... if it is, and the free market is allowed to operate, then users and maybe miners, are free to decide and move on.... as long as the free market is allowed to make the decision, and there is no enforcement then either centralisation, or maybe more accurate specialisation can do its worse... OR Bitcoin, and the network will solve the problem (free miners dished out with  aount of BTC, dual use technologies, or even a hardfork to render farms useless idk but not the point)

Point is if the free market is allowed to operate, then consumers/users get to decide, and then the market will do , what the market wil do.. and with it the Bitcoin price.

Free market is a tautology.  It is not Fairy Godmother.  Free market doesn't magically make good stuff succeed and bad stuff fail.
Unless you believe in the Lizard People, free market is responsible* for every economic system on Earth, including those with central planning, exorbitant taxation and draconian regulations.

TL;DR:  Saying "free market will decide" is saying "whatever will be will be"--NOT interesting.
*If only by failing to prevent.

Hmm I do not agree...  besides markets have rarely been allowed to be actually free... and also the free market does not make good stuff succeed, and bad stuff fail... it is the other way around good stuff in a free market has a chance at succeeding and bad stuff in a free market is free to not be supported by customers and to fail... there are other factors in play of course... apart from for rigged markets..

besides surely then by your logic then... the "bad stuff" in this case being centralisation specialisation of BTC mining in this case ,being the "bad stuff" or making BTC "bad stuff" then it will not magically make BTC fail then according to your logic? because the free market doesn't magically make good stuff succeed and bad stuff fail.

Or by saying "irrelevant" are you more talking about what BTC had written on the tin when it first popped up? as opposed to it failing?

[xyzzy099]

Free market is a tautology.  It is not Fairy Godmother.  Free market doesn't magically make good stuff succeed and bad stuff fail.
Unless you believe in the Lizard People, free market is responsible* for every economic system on Earth, including those with central planning, exorbitant taxation and draconian regulations.

TL;DR:  Saying "free market will decide" is saying "whatever will be will be"--NOT interesting.
*If only by failing to prevent.

I can't speak to what everyone means when they say "free market", but I think this term is mostly used in this forum to mean "free" in the libertarian sense.  That is, my freedom ends where it starts to impinge on your freedom, and vice versa.  This means that a "free market" is explicitly NOT one in which you are free to restrict my economic freedom, nor I yours.

From context, I gather that your definition of "free market" is simply 'the exercise of free will', and thus much broader than the meaning intended by the people you are responding to.

[NotLambchop]

...
Free market is a tautology.  It is not Fairy Godmother.  Free market doesn't magically make good stuff succeed and bad stuff fail.
Unless you believe in the Lizard People, free market is responsible* for every economic system on Earth, including those with central planning, exorbitant taxation and draconian regulations.

TL;DR:  Saying "free market will decide" is saying "whatever will be will be"--NOT interesting.
*If only by failing to prevent.

Hmm I do not agree...  besides markets have rarely been allowed to be actually free...

Allowed by whom?  What, other than the free market, allowed the [obviously undesirable] "not free market" to happen?  Our masters The Lizard People?

...and also the free market does not make good stuff succeed, and bad stuff fail... it is the other way around good stuff in a free market has a chance at succeeding and bad stuff in a free market is free to not be supported by customers and to fail... there are other factors in play of course... apart from for rigged markets..

Sure.  Bad stuff, like not_free_market, is free to be unsupported.  Unfortunately, it obviously was supported--after thousands of years free market dialectic, it's finally with us

besides surely then by your logic then... the "bad stuff" in this case being centralisation specialisation of BTC mining in this case ,being the "bad stuff" or making BTC "bad stuff" then it will not magically make BTC fail then according to your logic? because the free market doesn't magically make good stuff succeed and bad stuff fail.

Where have I suggested that free market would make bitcoin fail?  I even left a TL;DR: for you,

TL;DR:  Saying "free market will decide" is saying "whatever will be will be"--NOT interesting.

Or are by saying "irrelevant" are you more talking about what BTC had written on the tin when it first popped up? as opposed to it failing?

Not sure what you're asking.

[grappa_barricata]

There is a little lizard inside your skull.

[NotLambchop]

Free market is a tautology.  It is not Fairy Godmother.  Free market doesn't magically make good stuff succeed and bad stuff fail.
Unless you believe in the Lizard People, free market is responsible* for every economic system on Earth, including those with central planning, exorbitant taxation and draconian regulations.

TL;DR:  Saying "free market will decide" is saying "whatever will be will be"--NOT interesting.
*If only by failing to prevent.

I can't speak to what everyone means when they say "free market", but I think this term is mostly used in this forum to mean "free" in the libertarian sense.  That is, my freedom ends where it starts to impinge on your freedom, and vice versa.  This means that a "free market" is explicitly NOT one in which you are free to restrict my economic freedom, nor I yours.

From context, I gather that your definition of "free market" is simply 'the exercise of free will', and thus much broader than the meaning intended by the people you are responding to.

From wikip:

...A free market contrasts with a controlled market or regulated market, in which government intervenes in supply and demand through non-market methods such as laws creating barriers to market entry or directly setting prices (etc., etc.)

What freedoms are you talking about, in particular?  For instance, your notion that my freedoms should stop where yours begin seems overbroad.  Can I take from you what I believe to be rightfully mine?

[Xer0]

Zombie BTC - still not dead

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[empowering]

...
Free market is a tautology.  It is not Fairy Godmother.  Free market doesn't magically make good stuff succeed and bad stuff fail.
Unless you believe in the Lizard People, free market is responsible* for every economic system on Earth, including those with central planning, exorbitant taxation and draconian regulations.

TL;DR:  Saying "free market will decide" is saying "whatever will be will be"--NOT interesting.
*If only by failing to prevent.

Hmm I do not agree...  besides markets have rarely been allowed to be actually free...

Allowed by whom?  What, other than the free market, allowed the [obviously undesirable] "not free market" to happen?  Our masters The Lizard People?

Figure it out.

...and also the free market does not make good stuff succeed, and bad stuff fail... it is the other way around good stuff in a free market has a chance at succeeding and bad stuff in a free market is free to not be supported by customers and to fail... there are other factors in play of course... apart from for rigged markets..

Sure.  Bad stuff, like not_free_market, is free to be unsupported.  Unfortunately, it obviously was supported--after thousands of years free market dialectic, it's finally with us

Things change

besides surely then by your logic then... the "bad stuff" in this case being centralisation specialisation of BTC mining in this case ,being the "bad stuff" or making BTC "bad stuff" then it will not magically make BTC fail then according to your logic? because the free market doesn't magically make good stuff succeed and bad stuff fail.

Where have I suggested that free market would make bitcoin fail?  I even left a TL;DR: for you,

TL;DR:  Saying "free market will decide" is saying "whatever will be will be"--NOT interesting.

I was not sure what you meant, you state that BTC will become irrelevant   , so the next question should make sense....  

Or are by saying "irrelevant" are you more talking about what BTC had written on the tin when it first popped up? as opposed to it failing?

Not sure what you're asking.

I am asking , if you are not saying specialisation "will make BTC fail" then what are you saying?  you state "not relevant"  so by that are you saying it is no longer doing what it first set out to do (ie "what it said on the tin") i.e be decentralised.... and therefore you state ...........irrelevant.

 I am asking what you mean by irrelevant... if it is not that BTC will fail, what does it mean?  that it will just no longer be important?  no longer be desired ? no longer be used? no longer be the solution to "centralisation" ?

[adamstgBit]

dumps!

[xyzzy099]

What freedoms are you talking about, in particular?  For instance, your notion that my freedoms should stop where yours begin seems overbroad.  Can I take from you what I believe to be rightfully mine?

Of course you could, if you could if your could provide sufficient proof to support your claim.

My perception is that you are too focused on semantics.

Have you read Isaiah Berlin's paper on positive and negative liberty?  ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Concepts_of_Liberty )

I think that paper illustrates the point I am trying to make, insofar as 'free markets' are part of what can be called 'liberty'.

[grappa_barricata]

[cbeast]

Zombie BTC - still not dead

You are onto something. Bitcoin fits in well with the zombie apocalypse crowd.

[NotLambchop]

...
I am asking , if you are not saying specialisation "will make BTC fail" then what are you saying?  you state "not relevant"  so by that are you saying it is no longer doing what it first set out to do (ie "what it said on the tin") i.e be decentralised.... and therefore you state ...........irrelevant.

 I am asking what you mean by irrelevant... if it is not that BTC will fail, what does it mean?  that it will just no longer be important?  no longer be desired ? no longer be used? no longer be the solution to "centralisation" ?

I am saying that centralization is hurting BTC ==> making it more like the stuff it aimed to replace ==> making it irrelevant.

I did not say Bitcoin is certain to fail.  If that's what I meant, I would have said "BTC will fail."
I did not suggest that Bitcoin is a solution to centralization, I'm not even sure what that means.
By "irrelevant" i mean unimportant, sorta' like Christianity and Communism are today.
I hope that answers your questions, if not--ask away.  But no need for boldface.

[empowering]

Free market is a tautology.  It is not Fairy Godmother.  Free market doesn't magically make good stuff succeed and bad stuff fail.
Unless you believe in the Lizard People, free market is responsible* for every economic system on Earth, including those with central planning, exorbitant taxation and draconian regulations.

TL;DR:  Saying "free market will decide" is saying "whatever will be will be"--NOT interesting.
*If only by failing to prevent.

I can't speak to what everyone means when they say "free market", but I think this term is mostly used in this forum to mean "free" in the libertarian sense.  That is, my freedom ends where it starts to impinge on your freedom, and vice versa.  This means that a "free market" is explicitly NOT one in which you are free to restrict my economic freedom, nor I yours.

From context, I gather that your definition of "free market" is simply 'the exercise of free will', and thus much broader than the meaning intended by the people you are responding to.

From wikip:

...A free market contrasts with a controlled market or regulated market, in which government intervenes in supply and demand through non-market methods such as laws creating barriers to market entry or directly setting prices (etc., etc.)

What freedoms are you talking about, in particular?  For instance, your notion that my freedoms should stop where yours begin seems overbroad.  Can I take from you what I believe to be rightfully mine?

A free market is a market where prices of goods and services are free to find their own level (equilibrium) via forces of supply and demand and without intervention from central planning/government in the form of price fixing, bailouts of failing too big to fail parties,interfering with the suppy and demand chain, creating barriers to entry via various mechanisms,  over regulation, etc  yes it does encourage, no demand,  more personal responsibility from individual and companies alike, which in my view is a good thing... if a company has taken the piss, they should pay the price... and if there is criminal liability pay that price which yes would be via a central planning system, but it is different from a free trade trade system, ie break no laws and trade freely, break laws and expect to have your hands clipped together...... stealing and fraud are still stealing and fraud,

However if an individual was foolhardy enough, or unlucky enough to have not done their due dilligence, or to have all of their eggs in one basket, and they get burned, then they will have learned a lesson, and have to pick themselves up and move on... harsh as it sounds, within a generation peoples behaviour would change and adapt and people would be better off... and technology at the moment is offering up a chance to eliminate some of the "trust" issues and so therefore if there are no trust issues, and there is no intervention needed, then a free competition based, market would be able to operate.

[Brewins]

It's happening again!

(sub 480 )

[hyphymikey]

Someone is finally selling the coins that were between 510 and 520 on stamp.

[adamstgBit]

bitfinex longs are down.

[NotLambchop]

What freedoms are you talking about, in particular?  For instance, your notion that my freedoms should stop where yours begin seems overbroad.  Can I take from you what I believe to be rightfully mine?

Of course you could, if you could if your could provide sufficient proof to support your claim.

My perception is that you are too focused on semantics.
...

Not at all.
Many people sincerely feel that private property is theft, i.e. it doesn't and shouldn't belong to you.  How would you handle those?
Some people feel that if they're starving while you have plenty, they are entitled to take it from you.  How would you handle those?
Do you see where this is going?
You mention proof.  "Proof" is an empty concept unless everyone agrees on the premises and rules of derivation (they don't--hence wars, revolutions, and forum posts).

[empowering]

...
I am asking , if you are not saying specialisation "will make BTC fail" then what are you saying?  you state "not relevant"  so by that are you saying it is no longer doing what it first set out to do (ie "what it said on the tin") i.e be decentralised.... and therefore you state ...........irrelevant.

 I am asking what you mean by irrelevant... if it is not that BTC will fail, what does it mean?  that it will just no longer be important?  no longer be desired ? no longer be used? no longer be the solution to "centralisation" ?

I am saying that centralization is hurting BTC ==> making it more like the stuff it aimed to replace ==> making it irrelevant.

I did not say Bitcoin is certain to fail.  If that's what I meant, I would have said "BTC will fail."
I did not suggest that Bitcoin is a solution to centralization, I'm not even sure what that means.
By "irrelevant" i mean unimportant, sorta' like Christianity and Communism are today.
I hope that answers your questions, if not--ask away.  But no need for boldface.

I used boldface to make the answers stand out...

Ok so I was just confirming, that basically you are saying BTC wil become irrelevant because it will no longer  "do what it says on the tin"

and you do not know what "a solution to centralization means?"  

well, you infer that Bitcoin was only relevant because it is decentralised .........what made it relevant?  because it was offering a solution to ......  ... ... centralisation..... right or no?   so therefore if it is offering a solution to "centralisation" surely then it can bee seen as a "solution to centralization"

[grappa_barricata]

A free market is a market where prices of goods and services are free to find their own level (equilibrium) via forces of supply and demand and without intervention from central planning/government in the form of price fixing, bailouts of failing too big to fail parties,interfering with the suppy and demand chain, creating barriers to entry via various mechanisms,  over regulation, etc  yes it does encourage, no demand,  more personal responsibility from individual and companies alike, which in my view is a good thing... if a company has taken the piss, they should pay the price... and if there is criminal liability pay that price which yes would be via a central planning system, but it is different from a free trade trade system, ie break no laws and trade freely, break laws and expect to have your hands clipped together...... stealing and fraud are still stealing and fraud,

However if an individual was foolhardy enough, or unlucky enough to have not done their due dilligence, or to have all of their eggs in one basket, and they get burned, then they will have learned a lesson, and have to pick themselves up and move on... harsh as it sounds, within a generation peoples behaviour would change and adapt and people would be better off... and technology at the moment is offering up a chance to eliminate some of the "trust" issues and so therefore if there are no trust issues, and there is no intervention needed, then a free competition based, market would be able to operate.

I would like to add that a 'free market world' is a world were solutions to problems are allowed to compete and the best and most efficient survive until appropriate, while the ones that were wacky to start with, or became so with time, are allowed to fade out. It is an environment were problem-solving solutions evolve. No man or group of men can determine if a solution is appropriate, mostly because any living being (or complex system for that matter) strive for self-preservation at the cost of others. Hence the need for total global deregulation. A 'free market world' is like a giant computer. If the human system is allowed to perfect itself, unbounded by puny human minds, then we can prosper beyond imagination.