Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 18252. (Read 26710153 times)

The technology to scale Bitcoin to those user levels and keep it censorship-proof doesn't exist. That's the reality of the situation.

Bitcoin doesn't need to be used for every transaction under the sun. It does, however, need to remain censorship-proof, otherwise it's no different than any other payment system.

Bitcoin can not compete with centralized solutions, nor should it. Banks and credit cards are perfectly fine for everyday transactions. Bitcoin should remain as the censorship-proof solution, which will, simply by existing, keep other solutions honest, or at least more honest than they otherwise would have been.

If we ignore the properties which makes Bitcoin useful and unique, in the hopes of getting the "mainstream" on board, those properties might cease to exist. Bitcoin users need to stop being spoiled by the early days of cheap, quick transactions and understand the need for fees and a network which can be maintained in a world where the ability to freely exchange information may be severely hindered. You can be certain that if Bitcoin ever does become a threat to the status quo, there will be significant efforts to prevent the information required to keep the Bitcoin network running from being easily shared.

My Bitcoin node (with the 1MB spam filter in place, mind you) happily uses bandwidth well above what you can expect from all but the highest tier services from the most modern ISPs. Increasing the amount of data that nodes must share will certainly have an effect on the amount of nodes available for sharing that data, which is detrimental to the decentralization required to keep transactions censorship-proof.

@Jay I just realized, you are just rehashing what you are being fed.

You've been brainwashed, my friend. You have lost the ability to think for yourself and look at the evidence objectively.

I guess it's like trying to convince a Scientologist they've been pulled into a long con.

You are showing images of blocks being full, and so fucking what?  I already outlined four ways in which bitcoin is not affected.  Therefore, your picture of a full block remains irrelevant. By the four were: 1) transaction times, 2) transaction fees, 3) bitcoin price and 4) seg wit that provides a package of solutions and is imminent.   

I am not looking at testnet.  Largely, we are agreeing to the same facts about the blocks floating in the about 75% full territory

https://blockchain.info/charts/avg-block-size




 I am not saying anything like that.  You are suggesting that there are some kinds of dire consequences to the current state of bitcoin, like a kind of impeding doom.. hahahahaha.. .makes little sense unless you make up facts and logical conclusions, that you seem to be doing.



So what?  Let them use banks and credit cards if they believe those solutions to be better.  Overall, banks and credit cards cannot offer secure decentralized immutable storage/transfer of value.  Sooner or later various folks are going to find bitcoin to be useful for what it provides, and many of us who are already informed about bitcoin and already have various bitcoin systems (and investments) set up are going to continued to be advantaged as more and more folks continue to migrate over to bitcoin with the recognition of actual ways that bitcoin is differentiated from other assets  - no need to rush the matter  and no need to make shit up about bitcoin supposedly being broken or inferior when those inferences are not true - yet the extent to which folks get value out of bitcoin will still be in their recognition of areas in which bitcoin adds value and also as likely more user-friendly systems are continued to be built and introduced around bitcoin's infrastructure... including various ways that are seeming to be more possible to arise out of ways to build upon seg wit innovations.



Sounds like you are in a bit of a rush to get more people on board, when it is quite possible that rushing such adoption could cause various sacrifices in what makes bitcoin into what it is.



O.k. Yeah, go ahead and argue that Bitcoin is niche, even when it is solving one of the most important issues to establish secure decentralized immutable transaction/storage of value.   Many other applications can be built on bitcoin, but if bitcoin gives up what it is actually providing (which is such paradigm shifting niche), then yeah there would not be any distinction and differentiation between bitcoin and banks/credit cards. 

In the end, there is no real reason to rush bitcoin into becoming something that it is not in such a way that would actually have the potential to break it and to put it at more risk than necessary.  A thing that is already as powerful as bitcoin need not be tweaked or adapted in controversial ways - especially when there is already largely consensus regarding the way forward that includes the implementation and building upon seg wit and various seg wit related solutions.  Great days ahead for our lillie fiend, AKA bitcoin.   

What are you talking about?

If a poster asserts that the blocks are full and also suggests or predicts that BTC prices are not going up until the blocks are not full anymore, then that person is arguing that there is some kind of problem?

That argument is not supported by actual facts nor logic, yet you are asserting that I should let such nonsense slide?

You, Andre, also have no facts nor logic to support any kind of big block allegation that you want to assert as some kind of solution to a non-existing problem

The network is at capacity. How is that FUD? The evidence is there. Look at it. Or, are you looking at testnet or something?

What you're basically saying is:

The train is full. You can get on this train if you pay more and we'll pull someone off the train. They'll have to wait for another train, or pay more than you offer.

With that sort of attitude, users will just continue to use banks and credit cards. They don't bump users transactions.

There should be 100m people using bitcoin right now. Stop making it a niche application and giving banks time to adjust and offer something shitty, but will give customers a reason to not move over to Bitcoin.

Wait, you don't contest the data being correct? What's happening JJG, letting it slide? That wall of bricks didn't even come from blockchain.info, you know.

O.k.  I had a further explanation in there, and you chose to edit out my explanation.  I could provide some further facts as well, yet the burden is not upon me to prove anything.

In essence, you various big blockers have a burden to establish that there is some kind of problem with facts and/or logic.  So why do you want to spew out the nonsense and irrelevant information about the fullness of the block when it really does not matter?  We have ongoing decent transaction times that are largely unchanged in the past couple of years, we have fees that remain relatively low in the past couple of years, we have BTC prices that are largely in the upwards direction in the past couple of years and we have fairly meaningful solutions (referring to developments related to seg wit) that are largely vetted, largely non controversial and largely about to go live.

Nonetheless, you, and some of your big blocker ilk, want to spew out nonsensical information to imply that bitcoin is in some kind of crisis situation, and you do not have either material facts nor decent logic that reasonably supports such vague FUD laden assertions.

http://www.simple.gy/bitcoin/

Take your Ray Charles glasses off when looking at the facts.

Fallout 4 (same spirit like Stalker).

Confirmed.

I'm sure that you go out of your way to pay more in taxes than required by law.

Seems like a lot of the nut jobs want to frame issues as if they are not using any public resources in order to suggest that they they do not owe any taxes.



Yeah, let's keep spewing out nonsense about blocks being supposedly full.  That kind of framing will keep us in "reality."


The reality of the matter was the assertion in fall 2015 that blocks were about to become full, there was a kind of emergency issue and therefore growth could not occur.  We went from $200s to $500 and then back into $360-$460.    Then the claim continued to be made that blocks were full, etc and bitcoin was doomed, and then we went from upper $400s to upper $700s and floated back down to the current $560 to $630 range.  I doubt that there is much of any kind of real correlation with price movements and the mythical idea about bitcoin being broken due to blocksize limit issue.

We've already had the halving pump to keep the miners happy.

We're not going to see any action until the blocks are allowed to grow.

Apart from police and fire, he probably pays privately for everything else; uses a helicopter, etc. So he is not consuming public resources.

still, he's a complete twat for not paying tax.

As I said... spring and fall, at least here in the northern hemisphere.

I recall the good ole days of May through June 2016, and those days were not too bad, either.       
 

Yes I remember quite well. I also remember October 2015. That was pretty good too.

Seems like spring (2011 and 2013) and autumn (2013 and 2016) are upsurge times.

The big thing is to not crash too badly afterward.

Are you wishing for a 2013 revival? Do you remember?
Below the historical price chart from September 30th 2013 to December 31 same year.



The big jump https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCxQPzxbNPs
 

Good morning Bitcoinland.

New week, same old price... $612 at Bitcoinaverage.

C'mon Bitcoin, it's October... time to start moving up.

Hahahahaha


Even I agree with Torque sometimes.