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

[nakaone]

I assume that 95-99% of this forum would not have heard of bitcoin if the emission would have been infinite from the beginning. satoshis incentive design for bitcoin is from an economics perspective the schumpeterian wet dream for raising awareness for an invention.

For all I know, computer types were first attracted to bitcoin for the pleasure of helping to test a smart solution to an old technical problem.  Then libertarians got interested because they saw in bitcoin a way to build an economy independent of  government and banks.  Then drug users and sellers adopted it as a way to pay for drugs without the DEA knowledge (so they thought).  At some point, others noticed the value going up like crazy, and bought into it as a get-filthy-rich-quick scheme.

I suspect that a majority of the people in this forum are from the latter group.  The finite supply of bitcoins is important only for that group, because it is part of the argument that "proves" that the price will be astronomical one day.  But it is not essential, even to them; that argument would have been only a little less convincing if the supply was programmed to increase 5%/year, forever.  So much so, that they are not bothered by the current 5-10% inflation rate.

you completely underestimate the power of market capitalization - even the get rich quick guys do their job. a higher market capitalization leads to higher level of investment around the technology, it leads to a better usability of the tokens aka "currency" - schumpeter once called a piece of gods work that money always moves to a place where it leads to the highest benefits (we can argue about that - but regarding technology and invention this probably true).

the point is that the market capitalization does its job - bitcoin is a value network with the function to transfer money. the first does its job in creating the latter.


even your investment in spam avoidance aka ripples would not be existent without this effects, this would probably be better for your personal wealth - but at least you are financing the development of quite a sound network aka ripple

[1714751880]

1714751880

[1714751880]

1714751880

[1714751880]

1714751880

[oda.krell]

Yeah, but is it possible to sell 0 btc to buy 0 xrp?

Pretty sure that just makes him full of shit, if he's claiming to have something and double it daily but really has zero, it's not clever semantics, it's bullshit.

It's a kind of nerd type, mathematically inspired humor: it's vacuously true of his non-existing Bitcoin position that he sold it. It is then vacuously true of his non-existing gains from that sale that he used it to buy Ripple. And so on.

Maybe not your kind of humor, but let's stop calling the old statist geezer a troll. He's just a bit rigid in his thinking

[mmitech]

The way Winklevoss failed (hilariously BTW) at Money 2020 represents the way the average Bitcoiner act when trying to solve "problems", how fucking stupid is explaining what is money to thousands of payments experts at such an event ?!!!  some Bitcoiners think that they are experts about a subject they have no fucking Idea about or minimum knowledge, they go from ignorance to a minimum knowledge about something then they just go full retard and act like experts on the subject...which is really annoying.

 

[findftp]

I assume that 95-99% of this forum would not have heard of bitcoin if the emission would have been infinite from the beginning. satoshis incentive design for bitcoin is from an economics perspective the schumpeterian wet dream for raising awareness for an invention.

For all I know, computer types were first attracted to bitcoin for the pleasure of helping to test a smart solution to an old technical problem.  Then libertarians got interested because they saw in bitcoin a way to build an economy independent of  government and banks.  Then drug users and sellers adopted it as a way to pay for drugs without the DEA knowledge (so they thought).  At some point, others noticed the value going up like crazy, and bought into it as a get-filthy-rich-quick scheme.

I suspect that a majority of the people in this forum are from the latter group.  The finite supply of bitcoins is important only for that group, because it is part of the argument that "proves" that the price will be astronomical one day.  But it is not essential, even to them; that argument would have been only a little less convincing if the supply was programmed to increase 5%/year, forever.  So much so, that they are not bothered by the current 5-10% inflation rate.

It seems you were too late for the get-filthy-rich-quick scheme party and are now butthurt, but hey, you can still have an academic interest.

Very true, I know a few people like this. They will capitulate when bitcoin reaches a price where no significant wealth increase is possible anymore.
But hey, we, the early speculators can then offload all our gazillions of coins to them and become filthy rich.
And then they get angry on the rich, trying to become rich as well.
But they fail, because the majority is too late, as always.

Without poor, no rich.

[spooderman]

I assume that 95-99% of this forum would not have heard of bitcoin if the emission would have been infinite from the beginning. satoshis incentive design for bitcoin is from an economics perspective the schumpeterian wet dream for raising awareness for an invention.

For all I know, computer types were first attracted to bitcoin for the pleasure of helping to test a smart solution to an old technical problem.  Then libertarians got interested because they saw in bitcoin a way to build an economy independent of  government and banks.  Then drug users and sellers adopted it as a way to pay for drugs without the DEA knowledge (so they thought).  At some point, others noticed the value going up like crazy, and bought into it as a get-filthy-rich-quick scheme.

I suspect that a majority of the people in this forum are from the latter group.  The finite supply of bitcoins is important only for that group, because it is part of the argument that "proves" that the price will be astronomical one day.  But it is not essential, even to them; that argument would have been only a little less convincing if the supply was programmed to increase 5%/year, forever.  So much so, that they are not bothered by the current 5-10% inflation rate.

YOU ARE CORRECT

That is all you know, despite everyone pouring knowledge and superior understandings unto your black hole of an existence.

Now can everyone stop feeding this cunt please?

[MrPiggles]

has anyone here ever published a kindle book?

I wonder if I take bitcoin will I sell any. Free publicity if I tell people an author is taking bitcoin without converting it to fiat on r/bitcoin anyway

[Spaceman_Spiff]

Hoarding currency is a very stupid way of saving. 
Saving is a tax on workers: you work now, but instead of buying a car right away with your salary, you buy it only months or years later; in the meantime someone else uses that car.  That may benefit capitalists, but what drives capitalism is productive investment in factories etc., and what makes the capitalist economy spin is spending, not saving. 

Please explain how saving is a tax on workers.  
What drives capitalism imho is indeed as you say 'productive investment'.  I don't see how 'spending, not saving' gets in there.  In order to have something to invest, you first need savings.  Delaying your spendings on consumption goods to invest in efficiency improving production methods etc. allows for the creation of more or better quality goods, or with fewer work involved, so later you can get more shit for the same amount of effort.  Spending everything right here, right now achieves just the opposite.  

Inflation is a diffuse tax, whereby government takes from society an amount equal to the amount of currency that exists times the inflation rate.  Each person pays that tax proportionally to the amount of currency that he has and how long he keeps it before spending it.

Yes, but don't middle class people typically have a larger percentage of their savings in fiat in a bank account, compared to wealthy individuals, making it an uneven tax?  For a wealthy individual it makes more sense to spend a large amount of his time investigating how best to invest his capital in various things, like housing, companies, art etc.. On the other hand, spending days to figure out how to get 0,5% more on your 300 dollar savings doesn't make much sense, so you might as well park it in a savings account.

Like any tax, inflation tax not inherently evil: a good government should give it back to society as public services and infrastructure.  A  bad government may waste it (for example by rescuing failed banks), or use it for evil ends, but that is a separate problem.  But it is debatable whether inflation tax, as way to support the government, is more fair and effective than revenue tax, consumption tax, etc.. Experience seems to say it isn't: countries that abuse it generally have lousy economies.  Anyway, it is not a simple, black on white issue.

Agreed.

[oda.krell]

Now can everyone stop feeding this cunt please?

No. He's stubbornly wrong, but polite and intelligent (though misguided) in his arguments. If this community cannot tolerate that much dissent, it'd be too pathetic to be true.

[NotLambchop]

...

Inflation is a diffuse tax, whereby government takes from society an amount equal to the amount of currency that exists times the inflation rate.  Each person pays that tax proportionally to the amount of currency that he has and how long he keeps it before spending it.

Yes, but don't middle class people typically have a larger percentage of their savings in fiat in a bank account, compared to wealthy individuals, making it an uneven tax?  For a wealthy individual it makes more sense to spend a large amount of his time investigating how best to invest his capital in various things, like housing, companies, art etc.. On the other hand, spending days to figure out how to get 0,5% more on your 300 dollar savings doesn't make much sense, so you might as well park it in a savings account.

We have graduated income tax, property tax, etc., etc. to compensate for that.

For this truly is the best of all possible worlds
And in this world
The best of all worlds
Why I'm the best of all short-order fry cooks --This guy:

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

Now can everyone stop feeding this cunt please?

No. He's stubbornly wrong, but polite and intelligent (though misguided) in his arguments. If this community cannot tolerate that much dissent, it'd be too pathetic to be true.

+1

[JorgeStolfi]

If you see the quote about bank bailouts in the genesis block, then clearly satoshi has political/ economical motives.  I strongly disagree about the finite supply being only important for the late speculators as well.

"Clearly" to you, perhaps, not at all for me.

The purpose of including a newspaper headline in the genesis block was merely to prove that the block was created on that date, and not earlier. (Otherwise he could have pre-mined a few thousand blocks in advance, in secret, and use them later to steal other people's bitcoins.)

The headline of The Times on that day happened to be about bank bailout.  Did he choose that newspaper and that day on purpose?  I have seen no evidence that he did so.  And that quote seems to be the only "proof" that Satoshi's motivation to develop bitcoin was to rid the world of banks.

(Bitcoin will not get rid of banks or bank bailouts.  Their main business is to lend money that they don't quite have, and people will still want that service, even if money means bitcoin instead of dollars.)

[mmitech]

Now can everyone stop feeding this cunt please?

No. He's stubbornly wrong, but polite and intelligent (though misguided) in his arguments. If this community cannot tolerate that much dissent, it'd be too pathetic to be true.

I happen to pay attention to that guy and many of his post make sense, we people usually hate truth and like to contradict it to make it fit our hopes, wishes and delusions...but when did you became one of the delusional bull-tards? I used to enjoy most of your posts, sad that you started to act like an imbecile lately.  

[JorgeStolfi]

It seems you were too late for the get-filthy-rich-quick scheme party and are now butthurt, but hey, you can still have an academic interest.

Yes, I was too late for that, but I could have joined the lose-half-your-life-savings party.  I missed that too, unfortunately. 

[flynn]

... (Otherwise he could have pre-mined a few thousand blocks in advance, in secret, and use them later to steal other people's bitcoins.) ...

hhmmm? and how on Earth would he do that ?

[raid_n]

You can both feel free to invest in Freicoin, I'll stick with bitcoin as is thank you very much.

I'm only trying to point out that people should avoid adopting a black or white stance on bitcoin.
It is not an all-or-nothing thing where either bitcoin succeeds or some other alt does but they do not want to accept the possibility of co-existence.

Ask two different people a question and you might get three different answers .

I can both believe in the success of bitcoin and the existence of several successful altcoins.

Either way I'm sure there are exciting job opportunities in the field for years to come so my outlook is bright even if I am not heavily invested

[justusranvier]

I'm only trying to point out that people should avoid adopting a black or white stance on bitcoin.
It is not an all-or-nothing thing where either bitcoin succeeds or some other alt does but they do not want to accept the possibility of co-existence.

Unfortunately for your desires, reality does not cooperate with that position.

Money is an all-or-nothing proposition because of opportunity cost.

Every Bitcoin one holds is held at the exclusion of every other possible use for that money, especially other currencies.

The act of holding Freicoin instead of Bitcoin has a calculable cost associated with that action.

If the benefits of holding Freicoin do not exceed that cost, then nobody will hold Freicoin.

When we're talking about the opportunity costs associated with currencies, then it's even worse for small currencies.

The opportunity costs associated with not holding the largest currency increase greater-than-linearly based on the relative difference in adoption between the two currencies.

[JorgeStolfi]

... (Otherwise he could have pre-mined a few thousand blocks in advance, in secret, and use them later to steal other people's bitcoins.) ...

hhmmm? and how on Earth would he do that ?

He posts the genesis block of the secret chain, without the headline, mines a million bitcoins, and spends them all to buy a pizza and a coke.  The pizza parlor waits, say, six confirmations before delivering the pizza.  At that time the chain is N blocks long.  Then he posts the first N+1 blocks of the secret blockchain, according to which his million coins were not paid to the parlor, but just moved to another address of his own.  This chain is adopted by the network, since it is one block longer than the legitimate one.  Now he has a pizza and a coke, and still has all of his million bitcoins; whereas the parlor's address is now  empty.

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[raid_n]

I'm only trying to point out that people should avoid adopting a black or white stance on bitcoin.
It is not an all-or-nothing thing where either bitcoin succeeds or some other alt does but they do not want to accept the possibility of co-existence.

Unfortunately for your desires, reality does not cooperate with that position.

Money is an all-or-nothing proposition because of opportunity cost.

Every Bitcoin one holds is held at the exclusion of every other possible use for that money, especially other currencies.

The act of holding Freicoin instead of Bitcoin has a calculable cost associated with that action.

If the benefits of holding Freicoin do not exceed that cost, then nobody will hold Freicoin.

When we're talking about the opportunity costs associated with currencies, then it's even worse for small currencies.

The opportunity costs associated with not holding the largest currency increase greater-than-linearly based on the relative difference in adoption between the two currencies.

By your logic shouldn't we already have a single global currency because that is where we would logically converge to?

"Every Bitcoin one holds is held at the exclusion of every other possible use for that money, especially other currencies."

Such is the nature of speculation. You believe currency x will be worth more in the future than currency y hence you hold x instead of y.
The thing is there is no guarantee for this and over time outlooks can change.

I personally think it is likely bitcoin will be worth more in the future, hence I have a few.
But do I know this for certain? No. which is why I am not "all in". Do you know for a fact that bitcoin will always be number 1? Can you guarantee that ripple or ether or nxt, for some obscure and unfathomable reason does not outgrow bitcoin and appears to be more valuable for a majority of people?

[edit]

What I think is that you are implying the convergence to a monopoly, a single globally accepted digital currency.
I don't think it is in the nature of humanity to agree. There will always be people wanting something else

[flynn]

... (Otherwise he could have pre-mined a few thousand blocks in advance, in secret, and use them later to steal other people's bitcoins.) ...

hhmmm? and how on Earth would he do that ?

He posts the genesis block of the secret chain, without the headline, mines a million bitcoins, and spends them all to buy a pizza and a coke.  The pizza parlor waits, say, six confirmations before delivering the pizza.  At that time the chain is N blocks long.  Then he posts the first N+1 blocks of the secret blockchain, according to which his million coins were not paid to the parlor, but just moved to another address of his own.  This chain is adopted by the network, since it is one block longer than the legitimate one.  Now he has a pizza and a coke, and still has all of his million bitcoins; whereas the parlor's address is now  empty.

You realize that

1- after 6 confirmations, the pizza is cold

2- after 6 confirmations from other parties, your precious premined blocks are useless and won't be accepted anymore by the blockchain, never, ever ? Unless you're trying to say that he would make some sort of 51% attack forcing his blocks in the chain, publicly ruining the whole project for the gain of a pizza ...