BTC feeling the realtive market Cap decline

[jubalix]

its so tragic to see the %BTC decline of market cap, when there is much usage of btc now, and what did we do at the very inflection point devolved in a scaling war with implications of this on every issue of importance.

It seems many Bit coiners ignore this, or discount it, just call everything else a scam.

[1714717756]

1714717756

[1714717756]

1714717756

[1714717756]

1714717756

[cellard]

its so tragic to see the %BTC decline of market cap, when there is much usage of btc now, and what did we do at the very inflection point devolved in a scaling war with implications of this on every issue of importance.

It seems many Bit coiners ignore this, or discount it, just call everything else a scam.

How is BTC declining? it's the solid number one coin and we are coming from an awesome uptrend hitting all time highs pretty much daily... so I don't get it.

You mean the marketcap dominance? Well, a lot of people is speculating into other coins because they want to get rich quick, and some altcoins can give %500 gains.

LTC has had %700 gains since it started going up thanks to segwit. Who doesn't hate themselves for not buying in? I want to buy some too, because as long as segwit is not in BTC, LTC has uptrend potential.

So yeah, the scaling wars have made that BTC is not as high as it could be, but nontheless, BTC performance is still spectacular.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

Bitcoin is at an all time high.   Enough said.  You must be in the parallel universe where it's at an all time low.

Bitcoin is doing just fine,  drama aside.   As mentioned above,  the altcoins are just being inflated to a ludicrous level.

[Lauda]

its so tragic to see the %BTC decline of market cap, when there is much usage of btc now, and what did we do at the very inflection point devolved in a scaling war with implications of this on every issue of importance.

Step 1) Blame the people who thinking that miners = law in crypto.
Step 2) Blame the trash code and dangerous hostile takeover attempt called BU (aka BTU altcoin).

It seems many Bit coiners ignore this, or discount it, just call everything else a scam.

Are you trying to tell me that the shitcoins Ripple and NEM are the next big crypto?


99% of the coins are scam. 99% of the ETH ICOs are vaporware or have no real use-cases. Those are undeniable facts. We are currently in a massive altcoin bubble. Once/when it bursts, there will be a lot of people crying and blaming Bitcoin.

[jubalix]

its so tragic to see the %BTC decline of market cap, when there is much usage of btc now, and what did we do at the very inflection point devolved in a scaling war with implications of this on every issue of importance.

Step 1) Blame the people who thinking that miners = law in crypto.
Step 2) Blame the trash code and dangerous hostile takeover attempt called BU (aka BTU altcoin).

It seems many Bit coiners ignore this, or discount it, just call everything else a scam.

Are you trying to tell me that the shitcoins Ripple and NEM are the next big crypto?


99% of the coins are scam. 99% of the ETH ICOs are vaporware or have no real use-cases. Those are undeniable facts. We are currently in a massive altcoin bubble. Once/when it bursts, there will be a lot of people crying and blaming Bitcoin.

BTC could be way higher, and so more useful and stronger, as it near the 10K mark, and the alts lets as a % cap, but still higher.

Rather we have increase in use that is stuck in the mem pool and the market looking on saying I want my coin to be able to have reasonable dev options.

The biggest issue on the table now is the implication that dev can be stuck for years.

BTC needs to scale and can scale, but it is stuck in internecine warfare, the participants of which are so locked in to thier own world view they are burning down their own houses

this makes the use case for alts much more persuasive, and tangible, so yes, XRP and NEM are possible contenders, especially NEM as it hardly get talked about unlike say dash, so it still seems to have quite a bit of room to grow. Also its in japan and has a commercial dev on minjin which helps.

LTC shows as clearly as we have just where BTC could go. There should be no argument that doing something is better than nothing.

[Lauda]

BTC could be way higher, and so more useful and stronger, as it near the 10K mark, and the alts lets as a % cap, but still higher.

I suspect $5k-10k is a reasonable target if Segwit were to get activated soon. Just observe the behavior with alts who have activated it or are currently locked it.

Rather we have increase in use that is stuck in the mem pool and the market looking on saying I want my coin to be able to have reasonable dev options.

The Bitcoin development process and team is by far superior to any other altcoin.

The biggest issue on the table now is the implication that dev can be stuck for years.

The developer do not decide anything, thus this statement makes no sense. The developer can merely propose and develop changes.

BTC needs to scale and can scale, but it is stuck in internecine warfare, the participants of which are so locked in to thier own world view they are burning down their own houses

BTC is and will scale: Segwit -> LN + Sidechains + Tumblebit + Mimblewimble.

this makes the use case for alts much more persuasive, and tangible, so yes, XRP and NEM are possible contenders, especially NEM as it hardly get talked about unlike say dash, so it still seems to have quite a bit of room to grow. Also its in japan and has a commercial dev on minjin which helps.

Both XRP and NEM are complete shitcoins.

LTC shows as clearly as we have just where BTC could go. There should be no argument that doing something is better than nothing.

Then go complain to your pool/miners which are holding the network hostage. Segwit will activate, with or without the miners.

[jubalix]

BTC could be way higher, and so more useful and stronger, as it near the 10K mark, and the alts lets as a % cap, but still higher.

I suspect $5k-10k is a reasonable target if Segwit were to get activated soon. Just observe the behavior with alts who have activated it or are currently locked it.

Yes agree, but that said I feel a blocksize increase would do near the same...I am pro doing something not just segwit. I think the miners must have some legitimate arguments or they would not be pushing so hard.

Rather we have increase in use that is stuck in the mem pool and the market looking on saying I want my coin to be able to have reasonable dev options.

The Bitcoin development process and team is by far superior to any other altcoin.

Even if this is the case you can have the best DEV in the world, but if you can't get it's product running its near worthless

The biggest issue on the table now is the implication that dev can be stuck for years.

The developer do not decide anything, thus this statement makes no sense. The developer can merely propose and develop changes.

Ok, I mean development in general, not 'dev's' per se.

BTC needs to scale and can scale, but it is stuck in internecine warfare, the participants of which are so locked in to thier own world view they are burning down their own houses

BTC is and will scale: Segwit -> LN + Sidechains + Tumblebit + Mimblewimble.

maybe maybe not .... and it could be too late, post the Flippening

this makes the use case for alts much more persuasive, and tangible, so yes, XRP and NEM are possible contenders, especially NEM as it hardly get talked about unlike say dash, so it still seems to have quite a bit of room to grow. Also its in japan and has a commercial dev on minjin which helps.

Both XRP and NEM are complete shitcoins.

See this is what FIAT and everyone else said about BTC, you must be able to extend the same argument of BTC'rs to ALTs...

LTC shows as clearly as we have just where BTC could go. There should be no argument that doing something is better than nothing.

Then go complain to your pool/miners which are holding the network hostage. Segwit will activate, with or without the miners.

I am not arguing in specific pools or even segwit etc but towards the implication in general stagnation

In general this type of response misses the forest for the trees, my argument is stagnation is death not the form of either which are probably both ok. The fact that both sides (and a few other "sides) have devolved into fundamentalism and their minds seem to be shut off to the bigger picture.

That implication is the BIG issue on the table that is going take alot of time to heal as far as the market is concerned.

[Lauda]

Yes agree, but that said I feel a blocksize increase would do near the same...I am pro doing something not just segwit. I think the miners must have some legitimate arguments or they would not be pushing so hard.

No. A block size increase without a fix for quadratic validation time would open an attack vector. Any malicious miner could take over Bitcoin.

Even if this is the case you can have the best DEV in the world, but if you can't get it's product running its near worthless

Bitcoin Core is constantly being improved. Consensus changes are something else and not to be taken lightly.

maybe maybe not .... and it could be too late, post the Flippening

There is no such thing as the "Flippening". That is complete bullshit made up by r/btc fanatics who are actually deeply invested in altcoins.

See this is what FIAT and everyone else said about BTC, you must be able to extend the same argument of BTC'rs to ALTs...

The difference being that BTC isn't a scam in reality, but both XRP and NEM are.

I am not arguing in specific pools or even segwit etc but towards the implication in general stagnation

In general this type of response misses the forest for the trees, my argument is stagnation is death not the form of either which are probably both ok. The fact that both sides (and a few other "sides) have devolved into fundamentalism and their minds seem to be shut off to the bigger picture.

That implication is the BIG issue on the table that is going take alot of time to heal as far as the market is concerned.

Bitcoin is digital cold, not mutable trash like ETH. As such, any consensus changes will take a considerable amount of time to happen. If this was not the case, it would mean that Bitcoin is also easily changed by an attacker. Therefore, Bitcoin would not have value.

[Yuhee]

Maybe but because its part of the business that sometimes you have to do some maintanance even if it cost some decline in time. BTC has the highest price in the marketcap and probably the most mined. Also segwit has done something to improve transactions but i think it is still not enough to stop any hardfork issues. But still we hope that blockchain could be fixed as long as it takes so that no more issues like this would arise again.

[Sadlife]

What decline?
You mean the increasing of it's price to $1500 in just a week or the increase of volume percentage trading ?
Honestly i dont see any decline there, with latest legalization in japan and institutional investors has started to invest in bitcoin,  so i suggest stop spreading lies.

[mace15]

What decline?
You mean the increasing of it's price to $1500 in just a week or the increase of volume percentage trading ?
Honestly i dont see any decline there, with latest legalization in japan and institutional investors has started to invest in bitcoin,  so i suggest stop spreading lies.

So true, I dont understand why saying the decline. Bitcoin is going strong and increasing its price indeed. Many investors are still into bitcoin thats why its been soaring high its prices. So, I dont see any news btc decline in any form.

[jubalix]

Yes agree, but that said I feel a blocksize increase would do near the same...I am pro doing something not just segwit. I think the miners must have some legitimate arguments or they would not be pushing so hard.

No. A block size increase without a fix for quadratic validation time would open an attack vector. Any malicious miner could take over Bitcoin.

I am not pro either, and of course quadratic validation, and mutability and other such issues should be fixed.  Implicit is that rational and a non contentious code or even as compromise such code would be included.

Even if this is the case you can have the best DEV in the world, but if you can't get it's product running its near worthless

Bitcoin Core is constantly being improved. Consensus changes are something else and not to be taken lightly.

No Consensus are to be well considered, there may come a point though where it become deleterious, which I posit it is, now.

maybe maybe not .... and it could be too late, post the Flippening

There is no such thing as the "Flippening". That is complete bullshit made up by r/btc fanatics who are actually deeply invested in altcoins.

See your sort of missing the point.

New terms arise as a way to encapsulate a lot of attributes and make them selves amenable to discussion. You seem to be arguing that a term should not be made up

Then you add, and this seem to be you main argument, it because the makers of the term benefit from it.

I think there is some *cough* currency to the idea.

The alt market cap, tech, desire, all point that way. The spill over from not being able to get your transaction in the blockchain at a reasonable price. I have experienced this and the frustration of it first hand.

See this is what FIAT and everyone else said about BTC, you must be able to extend the same argument of BTC'rs to ALTs...

The difference being that BTC isn't a scam in reality, but both XRP and NEM are.

You need actual substantive arguments, not just ad hominem attacks.

I am not arguing in specific pools or even segwit etc but towards the implication in general stagnation

In general this type of response misses the forest for the trees, my argument is stagnation is death not the form of either which are probably both ok. The fact that both sides (and a few other "sides") have devolved into fundamentalism and their minds seem to be shut off to the bigger picture.

That implication is the BIG issue on the table that is going take alot of time to heal as far as the market is concerned.

Bitcoin is digital cold, not mutable trash like ETH. As such, any consensus changes will take a considerable amount of time to happen. If this was not the case, it would mean that Bitcoin is also easily changed by an attacker. Therefore, Bitcoin would not have value.

And ok, if you don't like the ETH roll back you can use ETC. I am not sure this is then a real concern for you, you have the choice of either.

Nor do i think this would mean BTC would be easily attacked, the argument does not really translate as cleanly as you imply. Thier have been arguably clear errors in BTC such a the one that allowed the generation of many etxtra coins and that was rolled back. Now ETH DAO was a different issue, it did what it was supposed to do, but some lazy devs did not plug a known hole.

I do admit there are a lot of vectors.

I do agree that one positive out of this stagnation is if you want to look at a blockchain that is really really hard to change, well bitcoins lives up to that.

[jubalix]

What decline?
You mean the increasing of it's price to $1500 in just a week or the increase of volume percentage trading ?
Honestly i dont see any decline there, with latest legalization in japan and institutional investors has started to invest in bitcoin,  so i suggest stop spreading lies.

When compared to where it could be and in terms of market share, and versus say ETH, LTC, and NEM.

I know it may look health but step back, see where we could be.

We are what 200$~300 more than 2013?

[Reid]

Why is it that everytime there is a little decline it becomes a big issue to some people.
The hike is really higher than the decline so we should be thankful with that.
Our bitcoins now are getting more valuable thanks to new investors and the users.
We should not be creating something like this issues which could be the reasons in making it fall.

[cellard]

BTC is and will scale: Segwit -> LN + Sidechains + Tumblebit + Mimblewimble.

I have been hearing people claim this, yet, im I haven't seen a single argument with some evidence of things pointing on this direction to be honest.

I want to have segwit in BTC as soon as possible, I just don't see how. There's lots of money being made on LTC because it's the closest thing to BTC with segwit, and I suspect miners have big positions in LTC and have been accumulating for years planning something like this, so they may even benefit from a flippening, at the end of the day they continue being mining moguls in LTC to...

How do we get segwit in BTC again? I dont believe in UASF. I only believe in miner consensus, anything other than that, and LTC will continue benefiting as it got segwit without any turbulence. I wish I could see UASF as a viable way, just don't see how it couldn't potentially end up wrong.

[Lauda]

I am not pro either, and of course quadratic validation, and mutability and other such issues should be fixed.  Implicit is that rational and a non contentious code or even as compromise such code would be included.

Well then, increasing the block size before fixing quadratic validation time would be a grave mistake. Segwit is the first step towards fixing it.

See your sort of missing the point.

New terms arise as a way to encapsulate a lot of attributes and make them selves amenable to discussion. You seem to be arguing that a term should not be made up  Then you add, and this seem to be you main argument, it because the makers of the term benefit from it. I think there is some *cough* currency to the idea. The alt market cap, tech, desire, all point that way. The spill over from not being able to get your transaction in the blockchain at a reasonable price. I have experienced this and the frustration of it first hand.

No. You're the one who is missing the point. Alts:
1) No scaling issues because they don't have scale. They have almost no use-cases besides speculation and some niche.
2) They don't have governance problems that grew from the first point, meaning they are also insignificant.
3) Some of them do not compete with Bitcoin.
4) Others scale much worse than Bitcoin (see ETH, Monero, Zcash).

The flippening is a made up term for something that has no meaning. People will develop and work with whatever they want. Nobody in their right mind would switch to ETH (yet some have, I know).

You need actual substantive arguments, not just ad hominem attacks.

There is no ad hominem as I'm not attacking any character. Please do not use logical fallacies when you don't understand them. NEM and XRP are trash. Use Google and then your brain based on the stuff that you find out.

And ok, if you don't like the ETH roll back you can use ETC. I am not sure this is then a real concern for you, you have the choice of either.

Nor do i think this would mean BTC would be easily attacked, the argument does not really translate as cleanly as you imply. Thier have been arguably clear errors in BTC such a the one that allowed the generation of many etxtra coins and that was rolled back. Now ETH DAO was a different issue, it did what it was supposed to do, but some lazy devs did not plug a known hole.

This comparison is bullshit and does not work. The DAO exploit did not break the ETH specification. The Bitcoin bug completely broke the initial specification that Bitcoin had. The difference is major. Additionally, we are talking about fundamentally different stuff considering that DAO is a "dapp" (which are just buzzwords nowadays) built on ETH. ETH has consensus failures every now and then due to their incompetent development teams and unnecessary complexity of their system.

How do we get segwit in BTC again? I dont believe in UASF. I only believe in miner consensus, anything other than that, and LTC will continue benefiting as it got segwit without any turbulence. I wish I could see UASF as a viable way, just don't see how it couldn't potentially end up wrong.

"I only believe in miner consensus" is nonsense. If miners form a cartel that changes the supply to 42 million coins, you agree to it? What when those miners agree to censor your transactions, do you also agree with them then? UASF can and will work. You should educate yourself on this matter (and this is not something that we should discuss in this thread but rather UASF threads):
1) http://uasf.co/
2) https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0149.mediawiki

[Paashaas]

Mark my words; all alt coins will be replaced by side chains.

Rootstock is a much better smart contract solution that ETH.

Monero will be replaced by Mimblewimble ore TubmleBit.

[franky1]

Step 1) Blame the people who thinking that miners = law in crypto.
Step 2) Blame the trash code and dangerous hostile takeover attempt called BU (aka BTU altcoin).

1) blame blockstream for giving pools the vote/veto power.
1) blame blockstreamists for thinking that twitter = law
1) blame blockstreamists for not realising that saying no/abstaining is a right bitcoiners have to object to something they dont want
1) blame blockstream for making cludgy code that was an altcoin (elements:sgwit)

2) blame blockstreamists for thinking blockstream should OWN and control bitcoin by thinking saying no to blockstream is then a 'takeover' when the reality is the opposite. its preventing a takeover.
2) blame blockstreamists for thinking that everyone should just allow in blockstreams trojan (letting rule changes in via the soft exploit)
2) blame blockstream for not even bothering to listen to the community to recode something btter that could unite the community
2) blame blockstream for causing more debate by backing out of MANY promises and showing no regard to the community

[ebliever]

its so tragic to see the %BTC decline of market cap, when there is much usage of btc now, and what did we do at the very inflection point devolved in a scaling war with implications of this on every issue of importance.

It seems many Bit coiners ignore this, or discount it, just call everything else a scam.

You are right of course. But as you've noticed, a lot of people are trying very hard not to get your point.

[jubalix]

I am not pro either, and of course quadratic validation, and mutability and other such issues should be fixed.  Implicit is that rational and a non contentious code or even as compromise such code would be included.

Well then, increasing the block size before fixing quadratic validation time would be a grave mistake. Segwit is the first step towards fixing it.

Your changeing the goal posts here and not including why.

First it was fixing quadratic, now you want segwit (the rest of it as well). You need to set out more precisely enumerate up front the list of non negotiable's in your mind and why to properly elucidiate and do justice to your position.

See your sort of missing the point.
New terms arise as a way to encapsulate a lot of attributes and make them selves amenable to discussion. You seem to be arguing that a term should not be made up  Then you add, and this seem to be you main argument, it because the makers of the term benefit from it. I think there is some *cough* currency to the idea. The alt market cap, tech, desire, all point that way. The spill over from not being able to get your transaction in the blockchain at a reasonable price. I have experienced this and the frustration of it first hand.

No. You're the one who is missing the point. Alts:
1) No scaling issues because they don't have scale. They have almost no use-cases besides speculation and some niche.
2) They don't have governance problems that grew from the first point, meaning they are also insignificant.
3) Some of them do not compete with Bitcoin.
4) Others scale much worse than Bitcoin (see ETH, Monero, Zcash).

Many scale better, or have solutions now, LTC, NEM much better TPS, possibly Byteball, IOTA. 3~4 TPS just is not sufficient for the usage we see wanting to use the BlockChain.

The USE case can be divided in to the current use case and the inchoate use case, which envisage what may be dealt with by say LTC + segwit, ETH or NEM. Indeed the promise of BTC is the inchoate use case as against FIAT which is probally its largest current driver. So your argument seems a little too temporally bound to the here and now .

The flippening is a made up term for something that has no meaning. People will develop and work with whatever they want. Nobody in their right mind would switch to ETH (yet some have, I know).

All terms are made up terms. You have no credible argument here. It has a meaning that many could attribute to it as to when BTC becomes less important in all aspects that an ALT and cannot recover.

You don't have to switch to eth, you can have both I am not sure why you think its a binary out come for the investor. Say you have 100 BTC, you take out 0.25 btc for the ETH ICO, and you have the same % of ETH and you have of BTC.

It does not effect you value in BTC much at all, but you have secured a roughly equivalent percentage stake in ETH. This mean those who do not diversify risk being left behind, those that do judiciously become agnostic and safe either way.

Why are you stuck/persist in this binary mindset?

You need actual substantive arguments, not just ad hominem attacks.

There is no ad hominem as I'm not attacking any character. Please do not use logical fallacies when you don't understand them. NEM and XRP are trash. Use Google and then your brain based on the stuff that you find out.

You are attacking the character of the coins NEM and XRP, by name calling them. You are not setting out a bundle of reasons for your objections. Rather just use an expletive. Maybe that expletive is justified, but you gave no reasons as to why, excepting now we have extracted a few, as in use case,

And ok, if you don't like the ETH roll back you can use ETC. I am not sure this is then a real concern for you, you have the choice of either.

Nor do i think this would mean BTC would be easily attacked, the argument does not really translate as cleanly as you imply. Thier have been arguably clear errors in BTC such a the one that allowed the generation of many etxtra coins and that was rolled back. Now ETH DAO was a different issue, it did what it was supposed to do, but some lazy devs did not plug a known hole.

This comparison is bullshit and does not work. The DAO exploit did not break the ETH specification. The Bitcoin bug completely broke the initial specification that Bitcoin had. The difference is major. Additionally, we are talking about fundamentally different stuff considering that DAO is a "dapp" (which are just buzzwords nowadays) built on ETH. ETH has consensus failures every now and then due to their incompetent development teams and unnecessary complexity of their system.

Even if your right, ETC is available to anyone that does not like ETH/DOA, which you did not address, and is orthognal to any of your issues raised.

In the alternative, your not right because the code base allowed something to occur in eth that cannot occur now via the DOA or DOA like attacks. The is by class similar to what happened to BTC. In fact in the BTC case, new coins were created, in the ETH/DOA case it was a reallocation of existing coins.