Topic: rpietila Wall Observer - the Quality TA Thread ;) - page 10. (Read 907212 times)

Profit! As long as computing resources keep growing then bigger blocks do not pose a problem. If we ever reach a point where computing resources, including bandwidth, stop increasing, then it's a good time to stop increasing block sizes.

4. You will keep making bigger and bigger blocks, then what?

Lightning Network will probably never exist, first of all.

Secondly, yes it is possible to scale through a blocksize increase to VISA-level transactions. The only difference is you would need large servers. But, the technology exists, it is possible, and it would be FAR, FAR cheaper than what VISA or Mastercard are doing.

Stop holding back your own technology. Even if LN does suddenly magically exist 5 years from now, by then it will be TOO LATE. The peoples of this world need a scaling bitcoin, now. And the easiest way to do this is through a blocksize increase, which is in line with Satoshi's original vision. Stop submitting yourself to the brainwashing.

1) The two bubbles we've had in the past seven months are plenty bubbly for me.
2) Lightning network is inelegant.

I feel Bitcoin is a crazy strong buy at <800. It is just not going away. What is the downside? Umm.. going to $500 (-38%) and retaining the unexpiring call? What's the upside immediately? $3000 (+275%) and even more in 12 months' time. Just my 2 cents.

Bitcoin is unlikely to stay above 1K+ without proper scaling solutions set in place.

Segwit is not a scaling solution.

Bitcoin is poised to benefit in massive ways from the global economic turmoil that is just around the corner.

But will it be sustainable without a blocksize increase or some other solution? No, I don't think so, and then the present scenario will repeat. A rapid rise followed by a rapid drop. People around the world are gonna be really pissed off if they have to pay a $20 fee everytime they need to move or use their bitcoin they just purchased to avoid the collapse of their local currency.

+1.

Never hope. Always set your bid/ask such that you are happy either way.

There is not TA that can predict the current crash. You think you have shit figured out, then BOOM you wake up with a price crashing in a damn straight line, this is ridiculous.

...

It depends on how you define inflation. Bitcoin has no inflation if you examine the total supply of bitcoins to be 21 million. The same applies to gold - there is some fixed amount of gold on planet earth assuming no heavenly body will crash on Tellus. The amount will not increase (to make new gold discoveries will not affect the entire gold supply).

I championed for a higher tail emission than the one selected. Gold is a special case as it already exists, and has the multimillennial status. Not that the existing gold is "fairly" acquired by its owners, nor the current mining is "fair" but it nevertheless is the case that gold has its role.

Gold's tail emission is about 1.0% at the moment, given the official figures for gold existing in the world. Most of the gold is mined in the 1900s so the figures can be off for 2 reasons: either most of the ancient gold stocks are unaccounted (this is possible mainly in the scenario that most of what we have been told about human origins is bullshit), OR most of the gold mined has been exported to another dimension by aliens. Despite my tendency to find truth in some of the most fantastic theories, I still subscribe to the official gold stocks figures myself, although wonder where all the gold is stored as it is not in Ft. Gox.

But having a completely non-inflationary currency is unworkable for the reason that the initial supply has to come from somewhere. "No inflation" exactly equals "100% premine", yet the first is taken as a virtue, the latter an abomination.

If it is possible to store real purchasing power (which it may or may not be in practice, since the liquid ways of holding it can be inflated and taxed or economy may contract due to the suppression; the uninflatable things such as land can be rendered illiquid, taxed 100% or more of their annual yield (causing a real net loss for holdings) or simply taken away by force), then any annual inflation has to be smaller than the economic growth in that currency.

Here is wisdom - in that currency basically allows nearly unlimited economic growth, as for an economy of $1 million to grow to the GDP of the world ($100,000 billion), even in the space of one hundred years, corresponds to a brisk 20.2% annual growth. Hence, any inflation below that is essentially a win-win situation for all the old and new holders of the currency, and raises the purchasing power of everyone.

I am afraid Bitcoin and Monero will both be relegated to be legacy currencies because their inflation rate does not scale enough with the realised growth in usership. I am aware that making a trustless software that is able to gauge actual userbase, change the emission rate on the go, and allocate coins to the new users with a non-wasteful mechanism is difficult to make.

The trusted setup for such is already employed in Kansanmarkka.

I agree on this point on Monero. I would prefer fixed amount of coins and I tried to promote it (and suggested to smoothen the emission curve from quite early). I guess it would also have had a positive impact on the progress of development as the value of Monero would have gone up earlier.
But now I am fine with the emission and most likely Monero will gain some value against bitcoin from the current value but thanks to the tail emission most likely the most extreme valuations are not likely (that doesn't mean Monero will not reach trillions of dollars market cap - even more inflationary currencies have managed to do so).

No it doesn't. The Monero meetup participant you talked to clearly had no clue what he was talking about. Larger blocks (or cheaper transactions) makes Bitcoin less valuable not more.

The largest problem I have with Monero is the tail emission. It's my second favorite crypto (after XBT of course)

In order for crypto to become to become "asset class among metals, land, RE, bonds and fiat," it will need to be able to handle transaction volumes, on the main chain.

If crypto ever is to become an asset class among metals, land, RE, bonds and fiat, it will have to be x1000 higher than now.

So we are in front of 3 questions:

- whether (after 8 years of consecutive ATHs and continuous progress, if it still was a fad...)

- how (BTC can keep its position, or something else...)

- when (how high do we go now, how high next time...)

^ That explains the Scrooge McDuck outfit

But for once I totally agree with you TC. Actually when you are not speculating but talking about FIRE our financial lifestyles are quite similar it seems. Are you more leaning towards ERE or MMM?