Topic: Bitcoin crashes when those investing realise 2 things (Read 10472 times)

Maybe he hopes because past do not predict future

What do you mean you "hope so" he is telling you what has ALREADY happened.

Tx fees have already been reduced from 10 mBTC to 1 mBTC to 0.5mBTC to 0.1mBTC just in the last four years.

Actually... that argument would have merit. Coins aren't legal tender, and it's considered rude as fuck to pay for something in pennies (if the store will even tolerate it).

If there were sub-pennies, which'd be utterly worthless by any definition (really, a penny is worthless), and you tried using them to pay for something, a cashier would probably throw the coins in your face. It costs the store more money to have the cashier wait for you to count, and then to double-check than the profit from the transaction is worth.

Bitcoin kind of has this problem, in a way. In calculating fees, 1BTC is way more valuable than a hundred-million satoshis, which I don't think would even be spendable. Because of the cost to store that shit in the blockchain, it will probably never be spendable unless a bitcoin costs something like $1B each. In a way, bitcoins become less fundamentally valuable as they increase in price, because your average transaction amount is going to decrease, while fees for smaller transactions is more harsh than with larger transactions (or at the least, static). We need more scalability solutions in place (even if it is just a bunch of universities hosting the full blockchain as a public service in exchange for donations) before Bitcoin starts increasing the number of digits after the radix point and decreasing fees.

I'd hope so. Or maybe by then off-chain transactions could do the trick.

The transaction fee is adjusted as the price increases

0.01 -> 0.0005 -> 0.0001

The "a" has been corrected, but the issue remains

You may be right about divisibility, but you don't adress another issue: if the transaction fee remains at its actual value, bitcoin transaction will become more and more expensive (Paypal could become cheaper, for example)...

Really dude? I mean, really? I can't get my $1 chicken sandwich for 1000 of whatever those units are of my dollar? That's bullshit.

haha yeah, I find I'm doing a hole lot of catching up on the boards these days and in general.  but it seems the more things change the more things stay the same especially when trolling is involved.   

Your late to the party.  The resident troll tired of this (reason #287 on why Bitcoin will fail) and is now on to the next reason.  Generally speaking a short attention span so you got to be quick.

The second I finished reading the OP I laughed to myself.  How can someone make such illogical claims is beyond me but I'm glad to see people are on the same page and aren't agreeing with such insane logic.  the fact the BTC is easily divisible is a plus...
I mean c'mon man!

I honestly think the OP is Peter Schiff. I could be wrong, but it sure sounds like him.

I've noticed one very common trait among trolls:

They never get riled up.  They never get emotionally involved.  They never act irritated when 45 people don't see their point.

They just calmly keep typing shit that drives everyone else crazy.

They do this because they are doing it on purpose.  To get a rise out of others.

They aren't emotionally or intellectually vested in what they are saying at all.

revans fits this description.

wow this thread has been great....read  a few pages earlier in the day,got some laughs.Decided to check it later got some more laughs.The only thing I can think of is that the op is either

A.Troll

B.A bear who sold early and possibly dissuaded others from investing and is now trying to justify those positions

C.Incapable of understanding even the most basic concepts of mathematics

D.An Idiot

E.All of the above



Maybe he thinks they are like diamonds-wherein often 10 1/10th carat diamonds are not worth the same as one 1 carat diamond of the dame quality....Either way it frightens me people like this exist and can operate a computer.

People so stupid will be late adopters and so will not be able to acquire enough bitcoins to significantly damage the value if they then decide to panic sell when smaller units start to be used.

@oda.krell

You are obviously quite smart, I don't think any of the 'idiot' comments were directed at you.

@D&T

Had you actually read my (very handwavy, very speculative) argument why a price drop could be the result of the way humans compute value, you would see that your  Canadian dollar example is still compatible with my (handwavy, speculative) hypothesis.

@oda.krell

So you believe in an appeal to stupidity?  Paraphrased it is "I am smart and won't be fooled by this utter nonsense, but the masses are stupid and can't educated themselves so it will fail".

This also assumes there is a massive amount of very rich but also very stupid people.   The good news is free markets are self correcting.  If these hypothetical very rich but very stupid people sell off in masses there will be a transfer of wealth to marginally smarter but less rich people.  Tada.  Problem is self correcting.

However anecdotally we have seen this is just nonsense.  Canada recently eliminated their penny.  The sub division of the Canadian dollar was reduced by a factor of 5x.  By your logic we should have seen the Canadian dollar skyrocket 500% against other currencies as the ultra rich but ultra stupid people in the world suddenly believed in mass the scarcity of the Canadian dollar was greatly increased and dump other assets to buy the more "valuable" Canadian dollar.  Of course we saw no such change in exchange rates or prices.

As I wrote in a comment above (which was torn to pieces immediately), since the value of a traded item (like btc) is determined by an (often irrational) market, it is not the end of the argument to say that increasing divisibility formally doesn't change the value of the base unit.

Here's an (abbreviated) version of my argument for why increasing divisibility could potentially drive down price. (Note: I'm saying "could", not "necessarily will").

(1) Markets, including the btc market, act irrational all the time. Example 1: "round number" (10$, 100$, etc) are major points of resistance and support, for no deeper reason than that our little monkey brains seems to like such numbers. Example 2: Most of us don't feel like that, but I've seen several newcomers complain that "price per coin is too high now, to still enter the market". The answer by us is always: price per 1 btc is irrelevant, but on the other hand, many of us are willing to entertain the idea to "switch" to mBTC to make the entrance level appear lower.

(2) The above are just general examples of markets being "irrational". You could say they prove nothing yet about divsibility and btc evaluation. Obviously, I don't have any proof anyway, hence my cautiousness "it *could* conceivably drive price down". But here's one slightly more concrete argument for *why* it might actually affect the market's valuation of the base unit if divisibility increases. We need three assumptions (which you might or might not share, but they're at least conceivably true): (i) price is determined "bottom up", instead of "top down", i.e. each market participant runs some (unconscious, probably) calculation that determines the value of the base unit based on the sum of all sub-units. (ii) there is a "smallest possible value" our brains can conceive. (iii) an item is never valued at 0 (if it has any worth at all). With those three assumptions in place (REMINDER! I didn't say they're necessarily true. Just that they're not completely implausible to me!), the argument is: Let N be the total number of sub-units of a bitcoin. Assume that for some market participant, each subunit already is valued at the smallest possible value X he can conceive/assign to an item. Now increase the number of subunits by any factor > 1. From (iii) we know that each subunit needs to be assigned a value, and by (ii) we know that X is already the smallest item. So each new subunit is valued at X. So the value of the base unit, for this market participant, increased by the factor we increased divisibility with.

BIG FAT HONKING DISCLAIMER, because I'm getting tired of the respectless atmosphere in so many discussions in here:

I'm not saying "increasing divisibility drives down price to 0".

And I do actually think OP was trolling with his original claim, which is much bigger than what I'm saying.

And if you read my argument carefully, it doesn't say anywhere that I am sure that price would drop, just that I could clearly see the possibility that it happens, based on the intuitive understanding (and lack of formal understanding) of the average market participant.

IF, AFTER ALL OF THE ABOVE, you still feel the need to tell me that I'm an idiot for "not knowing that increasing divisibility doesn't change anything about the value of a coin", then... well, go fuck yourself :/

+ 2.1 quadrillion