Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 17557.

Ibian

legendary

Activity: 2268

Merit: 1278

Quote from: Torque on March 19, 2017, 03:07:01 PM

Quote from: Ibian on March 19, 2017, 02:59:23 PM

So just a question to the small blocker crowd. Are you against the price going up? Because that will be the effect if the transaction volume stays at this level forever.

So to play devil's advocate, let me ask you a counter question:
Does the price not moving up from here (but stays the same relative to inflation) somehow violate the principles, tenants, or intended usage of bitcoin?

Another question:
How much of that current transaction volume is NOT traders trading to make a fiat profit? Hmmm? 2-3%, maybe?

It would mean bitcoin never becomes more than a curiosity in the footnotes of history. A proof of concept at the absolute best. Why would we want that?

It doesn't matter what the purpose and intent of any part of the current transaction volume is. Especially when nobody can prove claims of that sort one way or another. Everyone pays their fees. And that's another thing that needs to be considered, bitcoin absolutely must be able to resist "spam attacks" or whatever jargon people cook up next time it happens. Otherwise it is simply not good enough for mass adoption.

And you did not answer the question.

r0ach

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Dafar on March 19, 2017, 11:03:58 AM

I dont think the risk/reward of the situation is reflected at a price of $1000+ right now.

It's not. I expected the price to do this already without factoring a BU hardfork in at all. So right now I feel like the market has not priced in any hardfork. Meaning if no fork occurs, I guess it can hold this position, but if one does happen, it would likely dump:

Quote from: r0ach on March 11, 2017, 01:00:12 AM

This declining head and shoulders will probably make it dump again then bounce to $1050 or something:

I'm out again at $1168 (no idea why the price is that high right now) and will let this market marinate.

alexeft

legendary

Activity: 854

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Killerpotleaf on March 19, 2017, 04:07:49 PM

Quote from: alexeft on March 19, 2017, 04:03:41 PM

Quote from: jbreher on March 19, 2017, 03:53:06 PM

Quote from: Holliday on March 19, 2017, 12:12:19 PM

Storage isn't the real concern. It's RAM (in the short term) and bandwidth (in the slightly longer run).

RAM is cheap and getting cheaper. Bandwidth is cheap and getting cheaper.

Quote from: alexeft on March 19, 2017, 12:17:23 PM

At larger blocks (hence more tps) and larger databases, SSDs will be the only way to go. You can trade SSD for RAM all you want, but the truth is that expensive resources will be needed that are not easily available. Hence, decentralization goes down the drain.

For Bitcoin to be bitcoin, we need average JOE to be able to run a full client easily.

The expectation that the future health of the network depends upon people who will not spend 0.2 BTC on their machines is ludicrous.

No doubt those are becoming cheap and limits will have to be raised at some point. But this is not it.
At 1-2 $ per transaction, confirmation time is 10-20 minutes.

The rest are people who won't pay either because they are not in such a hurry, or because they are just spammers. No need to fill up our disks with that.

look if a spammer is willing to pay 50cents pre TX and help support the network.
i'm OK with that.

but we all know this isn't spam...

Exactly how do we know that?

Killerpotleaf

sr. member

Activity: 812

Merit: 250

A Blockchain Mobile Operator With Token Rewards

Quote from: alexeft on March 19, 2017, 04:03:41 PM

Quote from: jbreher on March 19, 2017, 03:53:06 PM

Quote from: Holliday on March 19, 2017, 12:12:19 PM

Storage isn't the real concern. It's RAM (in the short term) and bandwidth (in the slightly longer run).

RAM is cheap and getting cheaper. Bandwidth is cheap and getting cheaper.

Quote from: alexeft on March 19, 2017, 12:17:23 PM

At larger blocks (hence more tps) and larger databases, SSDs will be the only way to go. You can trade SSD for RAM all you want, but the truth is that expensive resources will be needed that are not easily available. Hence, decentralization goes down the drain.

For Bitcoin to be bitcoin, we need average JOE to be able to run a full client easily.

The expectation that the future health of the network depends upon people who will not spend 0.2 BTC on their machines is ludicrous.

No doubt those are becoming cheap and limits will have to be raised at some point. But this is not it.
At 1-2 $ per transaction, confirmation time is 10-20 minutes.

The rest are people who won't pay either because they are not in such a hurry, or because they are just spammers. No need to fill up our disks with that.

look if a spammer is willing to pay 50cents pre TX and help support the network.
i'm OK with that.

but we all know this isn't spam...

alexeft

legendary

Activity: 854

Merit: 1000

Quote from: jbreher on March 19, 2017, 03:53:06 PM

Quote from: Holliday on March 19, 2017, 12:12:19 PM

Storage isn't the real concern. It's RAM (in the short term) and bandwidth (in the slightly longer run).

RAM is cheap and getting cheaper. Bandwidth is cheap and getting cheaper.

Quote from: alexeft on March 19, 2017, 12:17:23 PM

At larger blocks (hence more tps) and larger databases, SSDs will be the only way to go. You can trade SSD for RAM all you want, but the truth is that expensive resources will be needed that are not easily available. Hence, decentralization goes down the drain.

For Bitcoin to be bitcoin, we need average JOE to be able to run a full client easily.

The expectation that the future health of the network depends upon people who will not spend 0.2 BTC on their machines is ludicrous.

No doubt those are becoming cheap and limits will have to be raised at some point. But this is not it.
At 1-2 $ per transaction, confirmation time is 10-20 minutes.

The rest are people who won't pay either because they are not in such a hurry, or because they are just spammers. No need to fill up our disks with that.

jbreher

legendary

Activity: 3080

Merit: 1688

lose: unfind ... loose: untight

Quote from: suzanne5223 on March 19, 2017, 09:33:01 AM

Wait a minute. Is BU another bitcoin or just a mining software cause I thought it was a software used to mine bitcoin.

BU is just Bitcoin. It is a fork of pre-segwit core, which has been modified to allow the market dictate max block size. The first time a miner mines a block larger than 1MB, it will result in the forking of the Bitcoin chain into two. Whether or not both forks have a viable future is currently unknowable. Whichever ends up the majority fork will no doubt be considered the real Bitcoin by the world at large. The expectation among the BU community is that the BU branch will be the overwhelming winner.

Quote from: Holliday on March 19, 2017, 12:12:19 PM

Storage isn't the real concern. It's RAM (in the short term) and bandwidth (in the slightly longer run).

RAM is cheap and getting cheaper. Bandwidth is cheap and getting cheaper.

Quote from: alexeft on March 19, 2017, 12:17:23 PM

At larger blocks (hence more tps) and larger databases, SSDs will be the only way to go. You can trade SSD for RAM all you want, but the truth is that expensive resources will be needed that are not easily available. Hence, decentralization goes down the drain.

For Bitcoin to be bitcoin, we need average JOE to be able to run a full client easily.

The expectation that the future health of the network depends upon people who will not spend 0.2 BTC on their machines is ludicrous.

Quote from: alexeft on March 19, 2017, 02:56:42 PM

It's not. For BU to reach 75%, Segwit must stay at 25% and 8MB must vanish!

Well, no. 8MB will happily validate larger blocks up to the 8MB limit. That'll likely be several years of BU compatibility. IOW, 8MB is counted into the tipping point.

Ted E. Bare

hero member

Activity: 658

Merit: 503

Bear with me

Quote from: willope on March 19, 2017, 03:42:27 PM

"Thumbs Up" if you bought at $200 and now are just sitting with popcorn and waiting to get free BTU altcoins.

Cool

I'm invested since $300, does that count?

willope

sr. member

Activity: 366

Merit: 261

"Thumbs Up" if you bought at $200 and now are just sitting with popcorn and waiting to get free BTU altcoins.

Cool

JayJuanGee

legendary

Activity: 3962

Merit: 11519

Self-Custody is a right. Say no to"Non-custodial"

Quote from: eddie13 on March 19, 2017, 03:07:57 PM

Quote from: JayJuanGee on March 19, 2017, 02:49:00 PM

Anyhow, seems like you want to get in the weeds, again for no real purpose except trying to prescribe what bitcoin ought to be rather than figure out how to use bitcoin for what it is.

That's right, except I am perfectly capable of using it for what it is, I just want it to be a world killer rather than just some obscure thing..
I want Bitcoin to make governments think twice before they oppress their people, not just remain irreverent in the grand scheme..

The price of Bitcoin is just a side effect, I don't much care about profits, I want a tool of liberty for the people in the world that need it..

You cannot achieve those things overnight, and there is no reason to believe that bitcoin, in its current state, has deviated from those kinds of possibilities.

Killerpotleaf

sr. member

Activity: 812

Merit: 250

A Blockchain Mobile Operator With Token Rewards

Quote from: Killerpotleaf on March 19, 2017, 02:45:40 PM

avoiding a split is paramount!

lets just get the Best BU dev Vs the Best Core dev in Dance Dance revolution competition

imagine the press we'd get.

eddie13

legendary

Activity: 2296

Merit: 2262

BTC or BUST

Quote from: chopstick on March 19, 2017, 03:01:18 PM

Also, YOU GUYS are the ones who came in and suddenly decided that Bitcoin should only be a settlement layer, and not the peer2peer cash electronic payments system that it was designed to be by Satoshi.

If you want to deviate from Satoshi's original vision with this nonsense, then Core should go and create their own altcoin instead of attempting a hostile takeover, enforcing an artificial blocksize limit and then FORCING people onto THEIR off-chain solutions. This is ethically and morally wrong, and so is their campaign of censorship they have engaged in to justify this.

THIS!!

To me it's plain to see that Satoshi had dreams of liberty rather than profits, evident by him not dumping his coins..

It seems all most people really care about is profits..

gembitz

hero member

Activity: 1848

Merit: 640

*Brute force will solve any Bitcoin problem*

Quote from: Holliday on March 19, 2017, 03:08:15 PM

Quote from: chopstick on March 19, 2017, 03:01:18 PM

If you want to deviate from Satoshi's original vision with this nonsense, then Core should go and create their own altcoin instead of attempting a hostile takeover, enforcing an artificial blocksize limit and then FORCING people onto THEIR off-chain solutions. This is ethically and morally wrong, and so is their campaign of censorship they have engaged in to justify this.

We have existing rules with a functioning network right now. Why would those of us who want to keep those rules have to go anywhere or do anything? That doesn't make any sense.

^spin doctors i tell you bitcoin is fine! there will be a winner in the game and the chain will continue on...zzz Cool

gembitz

hero member

Activity: 1848

Merit: 640

*Brute force will solve any Bitcoin problem*

Quote from: pennywise on March 19, 2017, 03:07:19 PM

No, the best solution is lightning network, that comes on top of segwit. If you're sending some really small transaction such as one rupee, there will be no fee.

^gomake a lightning network coin then noob! :-D

Holliday

legendary

Activity: 1120

Merit: 1012

Quote from: chopstick on March 19, 2017, 03:01:18 PM

If you want to deviate from Satoshi's original vision with this nonsense, then Core should go and create their own altcoin instead of attempting a hostile takeover, enforcing an artificial blocksize limit and then FORCING people onto THEIR off-chain solutions. This is ethically and morally wrong, and so is their campaign of censorship they have engaged in to justify this.

We have existing rules with a functioning network right now. Why would those of us who want to keep those rules have to go anywhere or do anything? That doesn't make any sense.

eddie13

legendary

Activity: 2296

Merit: 2262

BTC or BUST

Quote from: JayJuanGee on March 19, 2017, 02:49:00 PM

Anyhow, seems like you want to get in the weeds, again for no real purpose except trying to prescribe what bitcoin ought to be rather than figure out how to use bitcoin for what it is.

That's right, except I am perfectly capable of using it for what it is, I just want it to be a world killer rather than just some obscure thing..
I want Bitcoin to make governments think twice before they oppress their people, not just remain irreverent in the grand scheme..

The price of Bitcoin is just a side effect, I don't much care about profits, I want a tool of liberty for the people in the world that need it..

pennywise

member

Activity: 73

Merit: 10

No, the best solution is lightning network, that comes on top of segwit. If you're sending some really small transaction such as one rupee, there will be no fee.

Torque

legendary

Activity: 3794

Merit: 5474

Quote from: Ibian on March 19, 2017, 02:59:23 PM

So just a question to the small blocker crowd. Are you against the price going up? Because that will be the effect if the transaction volume stays at this level forever.

So to play devil's advocate, let me ask you a counter question:
Does the price not moving up from here (but stays the same relative to inflation) somehow violate the principles, tenants, or intended usage of bitcoin?

Another question:
How much of that current transaction volume is NOT traders trading to make a fiat profit? Hmmm? 2-3%, maybe?

gembitz

hero member

Activity: 1848

Merit: 640

*Brute force will solve any Bitcoin problem*

Quote from: chopstick on March 19, 2017, 03:01:18 PM

Quote from: travwill on March 19, 2017, 02:50:00 PM

It is idiotic to implement a solution, especially on that requires a hard fork, if it only solves your probably temporarily. Horrible IT practices to keep patching code and no matter how large you make the block sizes, they will in time fill up or require prioritization by miners.

IMHO it means much more to optimize Bitcoin with Segwit, take advantage of that "larger block" size it allows with more transactions, and then allow for off chain solutions to blossom that require Segwit. Bitcoin can remain the power settlement system that it will only ever be. Nothing more.

Thinking bitcoin will someday be some millions of transactions per second system is far fetched dreaming so make it all it can be and as optimized as possible, not even more centralized, less secure, and temporarily patched.

You guys keep engaging in the same circular arguments, over and over, and over and over.

It's getting ridiculous. How many times do I have to say it. This stupidity is forcing the rise of altcoins and there's a very real chance Bitcoin could lose the #1 spot if something is not done.

Also, YOU GUYS are the ones who came in and suddenly decided that Bitcoin should only be a settlement layer, and not the peer2peer cash electronic payments system that it was designed to be by Satoshi.

If you want to deviate from Satoshi's original vision with this nonsense, then Core should go and create their own altcoin instead of attempting a hostile takeover, enforcing an artificial blocksize limit and then FORCING people onto THEIR off-chain solutions. This is ethically and morally wrong, and so is their campaign of censorship they have engaged in to justify this.

^segwit is a bandaid in the solution is slightly bigger blocks!! 2mb is fine the small bandwidth people in india will have to upgrade!!! lol ~ nice troll on small blocks but its not 2013 anymore :-D

alexeft

legendary

Activity: 854

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Killerpotleaf on March 19, 2017, 02:59:32 PM

Quote from: alexeft on March 19, 2017, 02:56:42 PM

Quote from: chopstick on March 19, 2017, 02:51:47 PM

Oh by the way, I'd like to add.

BU hashrate is now at 43%.

8 mb hashrate is at 8%.

This means the big blocker side now effectively has 51% hashrate.

They won't fork until it's >75%, but it's coming

My prediction, the price will drop dramatically during the fork and all the FUD and chaos and negative news stories. This will be a good buying opportunity.

But after the smoke clears, and BU / big blocks retain dominance, marketshare will flow back into Bitcoin from the shitcoins like a tidal wave and we'll see new all time highs with bitcoin. Finally, 10K+ per coin will become possible.

It's gonna happen.

It's not. For BU to reach 75%, Segwit must stay at 25% and 8MB must vanish!

2MB classic node are compatible with BU so long as miners generate blocks <2MB

we do not need them to switch over.

we will have different implementations converge on one blockchain

meanwhile core will have nuked themselfs....

Please don't forget to tell me how it feels when it can't run anymore.

And don't forget that we already have centralization. It's called banks.

chopstick

legendary

Activity: 992

Merit: 1000

Quote from: travwill on March 19, 2017, 02:50:00 PM

It is idiotic to implement a solution, especially on that requires a hard fork, if it only solves your probably temporarily. Horrible IT practices to keep patching code and no matter how large you make the block sizes, they will in time fill up or require prioritization by miners.

IMHO it means much more to optimize Bitcoin with Segwit, take advantage of that "larger block" size it allows with more transactions, and then allow for off chain solutions to blossom that require Segwit. Bitcoin can remain the power settlement system that it will only ever be. Nothing more.

Thinking bitcoin will someday be some millions of transactions per second system is far fetched dreaming so make it all it can be and as optimized as possible, not even more centralized, less secure, and temporarily patched.

You guys keep engaging in the same circular arguments, over and over, and over and over.

It's getting ridiculous. How many times do I have to say it. This stupidity is forcing the rise of altcoins and there's a very real chance Bitcoin could lose the #1 spot if something is not done.

Also, YOU GUYS are the ones who came in and suddenly decided that Bitcoin should only be a settlement layer, and not the peer2peer cash electronic payments system that it was designed to be by Satoshi.

If you want to deviate from Satoshi's original vision with this nonsense, then Core should go and create their own altcoin instead of attempting a hostile takeover, enforcing an artificial blocksize limit and then FORCING people onto THEIR off-chain solutions. This is ethically and morally wrong, and so is their campaign of censorship they have engaged in to justify this.

Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 17557. (Read 26713448 times)