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

[Ibian]

it's clear. how can you not see? the argument is "grounded". there is a strong difference between experts and smart scammers.

That's not how you make a grounded argument.  There is accepted economic philosophy.  You have to tie your argument to it otherwise its inconsistent with observable reality.  You can point to two simultaneous events and claim observation is proof that one causes the other.

It's a community of 5 year olds.

Okay you can quit with the school yard comments now. You are making your own case against you.

[B1tUnl0ck3r]

A network is only as useful, and hence valuable, as the number of people who can use it. The transaction rate is the limit on that. More volume means more people means more money means higher price.

the higher fees induced by the 1mb limitation restrain the number of potential users. If someone can't have way more than the minimum fees while would he join the network?

thanks for this comment.

[traincarswreck]

A network is only as useful, and hence valuable, as the number of people who can use it. The transaction rate is the limit on that. More volume means more people means more money means higher price.

No.  think about what you have said.  Some networks only few people can use and they are very valuable.  You are wrong.

As for the guy you talked about above, could you link some of his stuff?

Do you mean Szabo? Everything is cited and linked to the rabbit hole: https://medium.com/@rextar4444/the-myth-of-bitcoin-cash-2-re-solving-nashian-and-szabonian-views-on-the-emergence-of-money-b3c83a5d019f

[traincarswreck]

the higher fees induced by the 1mb limitation restrain the number of potential users. If someone can't have way more than the minimum fees while would he join the network?

thanks for this comment.

The potential users does not define the value of a network, nor does its number of users: https://medium.com/@rextar4444/my-previous-previous-explained-how-bitcoins-usefulness-as-a-settlement-system-is-able-to-scale-23bfdc02689f

https://medium.com/@rextar4444/bitcoins-most-valuable-usecase-7f5c6e95be22


You see we are holding tacit assumptions that aren't grounding.  We are perpetuating myths and half truths.  I'm banned from r/btc because I would put and end to these myths.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

You're always welcome here my learned friend

[r0ach]

There is no founded argument that increasing 7tps increasing the value.  Economics doesn't support it.  

This is the dumbest sentence I've ever seen on this forum.  The burden of proof isn't even on others to prove increasing throughput increases value, the burden of proof is actually on you to prove that bitcoin has any value whatsoever as a settlement network and that 4 TPS would somehow allow it to fill this role.  

I've already explained numerous times why bitcoin has zero value as a settlement layer:

1)  It has built-in rent seeking middlemen (transaction validators) and doesn't remove counter party risk since you're always relying on all kinds of external parties to facilitate transactions

2)  Alternatives already exist before the creation of bitcoin that are far superior for settlement such as gold and silver that actually do remove counter party risk and don't have built-in rent seeking middlemen

3)  Network effect assumes infinite scalability, which bitcoin doesn't have.  Trying to force everyone onto a highly scaling constrained system with giant fees is a pro-usury stance

4)  Due to the above , bitcoin has a reverse Schelling point where there's huge incentive to fork or use a different system rather than pay extortion usury fees.  Low scaling = inveitable rough consensus attack/split.

5)  Bitcoin is a currency and not money.  The value of a currency is entirely based on transaction flow, not stock (how much commerce it can facilitate by scaling)

6)  The greater fool theory only works if other people actually need what you have and nobody needs an imaginary "virtual commodity" when they can just create their own.  They do however need things like silver.  Cornering the market on bitcoin doesn't actually give you any type of power over others, while cornering real commodities like oil or silver does.

[B1tUnl0ck3r]

No.  think about what you have said.  Some networks only few people can use and they are very valuable.  You are wrong.

Would you mind sharing one example please?

You see we are holding tacit assumptions that aren't grounding.  We are perpetuating myths and half truths.  I'm banned from r/btc because I would put and end to these myths.

No worry I will not ban you, at most put you on my ignore list if your comprehension limitation start to be boring.

There is no founded argument that increasing 7tps increasing the value.  Economics doesn't support it. 

This is the dumbest sentence I've ever seen on this forum.  The burden of proof isn't even on others to prove increasing throughput increases value, the burden of proof is actually on you to prove that bitcoin has any value whatsoever as a settlement network and that 4 TPS would somehow allow it to fill this role. 

I've already explained numerous times why bitcoin has zero value as a settlement layer:

1)  It has built-in rent seeking middlemen (transaction validators) and doesn't remove counter party risk since you're always relying on all kinds of external parties to facilitate transactions

2)  Alternatives already exist before the creation of bitcoin that are far superior for settlement such as gold and silver that actually do remove counter party risk and don't have built-in middlemen

3)  Network effect assumes infinite scalability, which bitcoin doesn't have.  Trying to force everyone onto a highly scaling constrained system with giant fees is a pro-usury stance

4)  Due to the above , bitcoin has a reverse Schelling point where there's huge incentive to fork or use a different system rather than pay extortion usury fees.  Low scaling = inveitable rough consensus attack/split.

5)  Bitcoin is a currency and not money.  The value of a currency is entirely based on transaction flow, not stock (how much commerce it can facilitate by scaling)

thanks, I would happily send your way a silver flake but this is all have got : 

those rent seekers... what a plague.

[Ibian]

A network is only as useful, and hence valuable, as the number of people who can use it. The transaction rate is the limit on that. More volume means more people means more money means higher price.

No.  think about what you have said.  Some networks only few people can use and they are very valuable.  You are wrong.

As for the guy you talked about above, could you link some of his stuff?

Do you mean Szabo? Everything is cited and linked to the rabbit hole: https://medium.com/@rextar4444/the-myth-of-bitcoin-cash-2-re-solving-nashian-and-szabonian-views-on-the-emergence-of-money-b3c83a5d019f

This will be my final reply to you until you say something useful, backed up by something more substantial than "you are wrong, you little five year old idiot you". We are not talking about "some network", we are talking about bitcoin. So go on and explain.

[r0ach]

After seeing every other industry try to low labor costs and outsource to India, the computer graphics industry tried it and it totally failed because Indians were unable to compete in art or creativity.  Now here we have traincarswreck/sidhujag from India who is unable to do anything besides parrot Nick Szabo, one of the ringleaders of the Ethereum scam while pretending he's the word of god.  If you're unable to explain or back some type of view on your own, don't bother posting.

[traincarswreck]

After seeing every other industry try to low labor costs and outsource to India, the computer graphics industry tried it and it totally failed because Indians were unable to compete in art or creativity.  Now here we have traincarswreck/sidhujag from India who is unable to do anything besides parrot Nick Szabo, one of the ringleaders of the Ethereum scam while pretending he's the word of god.  If you're unable to explain or back some type of view on your own, don't bother posting.

I'm not from india you dumb mutt. Nothing you have said so far is correct.  You just keep repeating it.  And I'm not parroting szabo I'm reference his explanations and citing them and quoting them and explaining them.

[deepcolderwallet]

And BCC is already 3rd @ coinmarketcap, already passed Ripple.
Funny that they're using the Bittrex price, although it's not possible to deposit BCC on Bittrex, I tried and they show "BCC wallet is under maintenance".

So scammy...

[Torque]

I've already explained numerous times why bitcoin has zero value as a settlement layer:

1)  It has built-in rent seeking middlemen (transaction validators) and doesn't remove counter party risk since you're always relying on all kinds of external parties to facilitate transactions

2)  Alternatives already exist before the creation of bitcoin that are far superior for settlement such as gold and silver that actually do remove counter party risk and don't have built-in rent seeking middlemen

You keep saying this. Over and over again. But it's NOT TRUE AT ALL if you want to transact in PMs with someone not just down the street (like in another state or another country). Or want to transact a HUGE amount of PMs. In both scenarios which you need armored cars and middlemen seeking transport/transaction/storage fees.

You keep saying this. Over and over again. But it's NOT TRUE AT ALL if you want to transact in PMs with someone not just down the street (like in another state or another country). Or want to transact a HUGE amount of PMs. In both scenarios which you need armored cars and middlemen seeking transport/transaction/storage fees.

You keep saying this. Over and over again. But it's NOT TRUE AT ALL if you want to transact in PMs with someone not just down the street (like in another state or another country). Or want to transact a HUGE amount of PMs. In both scenarios which you need armored cars and middlemen seeking transport/transaction/storage fees.

You keep saying this. Over and over again. But it's NOT TRUE AT ALL if you want to transact in PMs with someone not just down the street (like in another state or another country). Or want to transact a HUGE amount of PMs. In both scenarios which you need armored cars and middlemen seeking transport/transaction/storage fees.

You keep saying this. Over and over again. But it's NOT TRUE AT ALL if you want to transact in PMs with someone not just down the street (like in another state or another country). Or want to transact a HUGE amount of PMs. In both scenarios which you need armored cars and middlemen seeking transport/transaction/storage fees.

You keep saying this. Over and over again. But it's NOT TRUE AT ALL if you want to transact in PMs with someone not just down the street (like in another state or another country). Or want to transact a HUGE amount of PMs. In both scenarios which you need armored cars and middlemen seeking transport/transaction/storage fees.

(Yes r0ach, I've just repeated myself over and over again. Like you seem to be fond of doing.)

[marcus_of_augustus]

this is the calm before the storm ... you can't say you haven't been warned.

When the hashpower begins swinging from one chain to another it's going to get very messy and both coins will become unpredictable, unstable and at times very difficult to use. One logical conclusion out of this is when Bcash adopts merged-mining ... or the hashpower wars will drag on until the bitcoin landscape becomes derelict and eventually a failed experiment.

Edit: Bcash adopting merged-mining is probably unlikely given the dominance of Bitmain h/ware on that chain that needs ASICboost to retain profitability and segwit header code conflicts with this type of miner cheating/shortcut.

[traincarswreck]

Would you mind sharing one example please?

A club membership where limited entry creates privilege and prestige. This can go right up to the level of multinational coalition.  But I don't like your question because it doesn't speak to my point.  People assume metcalfes law means the more people accessible to a network the more valueable it is.  This is not metcalfe law.  Metcalfes law is a formula that tells you how many possible connections can be made, the assumption that those connection imply value is asinine.

Think about a fax system.  What that would imply is that the very last person in the world to get a fax machine adds the value times every single person in the world.  But not everyone even sends faxes to each other and there would be no added value if we just start randomly faxing people.

metcalfes law is a measure of POTENTIAL value.  Yet there is nothing to say the value could be filled.  You could a water system for a city and that would create enormous value, but if you create 100 systems for the same city, you will cause more problems then you fix.

Notice Szabo use of the word potential and redundancies:

Metcalfe's Law states that a value of a network is proportional to the square of the number of its nodes.  In an area where good soils, mines, and forests are randomly distributed, the number of nodes valuable to an industrial economy is proportional to the area encompassed.  The number of such nodes that can be economically accessed is an inverse square of the cost per mile of transportation.  Combine this  with Metcalfe's Law and we reach a dramatic but solid mathematical conclusion: the potential value of a land transportation network is the inverse fourth power of the cost of that transportation. A reduction in transportation costs in a trade network by a factor of two increases the potential value of that network by a factor of sixteen. While a power of exactly 4.0 will usually be too high, due to redundancies, this does show how the cost of transportation can have a radical nonlinear impact on the value of the trade networks it enables.  This formalizes Adam Smith's observations: the division of labor (and thus value of an economy) increases with the extent of the market, and the extent of the market is heavily influenced by transportation costs (as he extensively discussed in his Wealth of Nations).

http://unenumerated.blogspot.ca/2014/10/transportation-divergence-and.html

Right, causes Ver's claim that increasing the tps and users implies more value is a childs view of economics.  Like why can't we just print more money for everyone (sound familiar (hint bch)?)

Furthermore the big block agenda fights for the average joe, average joe brings very little value to the network compared to, for example, two nations that want to settle on the block chain.  you need many many average joe's to matter value wise compared to international settlement. You can't weight the users the same.

If we used metcalfes law the way much of the community has misten it to be, you could just get everyone to start sending everyone bitcoins and we would all be rich because the price would skyrocket forever.

[notme]

this is the calm before the storm ... you can't say you haven't been warned.

When the hashpower begins swinging from one chain to another it's going to get very messy and both coins will become unpredictable, unstable and at times very difficult to use. One logical conclusion out of this is when Bcash adopts merged-mining ... or the hashpower wars will drag on until the bitcoin landscape becomes derelict and eventually a failed experiment.

Edit: Bcash adopting merged-mining is probably unlikely given the dominance of Bitmain h/ware on that chain that needs ASICboost to retain profitability and segwit header code conflicts with this type of miner cheating/shortcut.

Either chain adopting merged mining would be admitting defeat.  Merged mining implies you are deferring to the other chain as a source of truth/security.

[traincarswreck]

This is the dumbest sentence I've ever seen on this forum.  The burden of proof isn't even on others to prove increasing throughput increases value, the burden of proof is actually on you to prove that bitcoin has any value whatsoever as a settlement network and that 4 TPS would somehow allow it to fill this role.  

Szabo made the conjecture and asked if anyone wanted to help him code publically.  The burden was on him, and so his next step would be to provide empirical evidence through an experiment with an anonymous  paper that could be peer reviewed without the bias of knowing who wrote it.

Wait did you all forget how academics works?

[pfrtlpfmpf]

This will be my final reply to you until you say something useful, backed up by something more substantial than "you are wrong, you little five year old idiot you". We are not talking about "some network", we are talking about bitcoin. So go on and explain.

Get fucked moron.

Now, now, stay civilized, guys. i´m back at 0.02 percent at just lending, but don´t underestimate the power of "compounding interest" Still have no idea, what bccchchcc is all about  

[ulfsaar]

this is the calm before the storm ... you can't say you haven't been warned.

When the hashpower begins swinging from one chain to another it's going to get very messy and both coins will become unpredictable, unstable and at times very difficult to use. One logical conclusion out of this is when Bcash adopts merged-mining ... or the hashpower wars will drag on until the bitcoin landscape becomes derelict and eventually a failed experiment.

Edit: Bcash adopting merged-mining is probably unlikely given the dominance of Bitmain h/ware on that chain that needs ASICboost to retain profitability and segwit header code conflicts with this type of miner cheating/shortcut.

I don't think miners will swing. When price settles down and exchanges accept deposits, can this coin maintain its current price? I don't think these guys will, maintaining it at this level will dip to their deepest pocket.

[Icygreen]

Hahaha,  what is "Blockchair" ?     And they want us to take it seriously.   https://blockchair.com/bitcoin-cash/blocks

[Elwar]

So the combined sale of both BTC and BCH comes to over $3100.