Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 18637. (Read 26708052 times)
June 15, 2016, 07:20:40 PM
I love this part...
June 15, 2016, 07:18:57 PM
dafuq
June 15, 2016, 07:16:46 PM
Up
June 15, 2016, 07:14:53 PM
I think the transaction times getting worse and worse.
Only for some spammers and cheapskates who should be using lower-security off-chain options anyway ...
imo the cost of doing nothing, is an order of magnitude more detrimental to price and adoption, then the known and hugely exaggerated cost of >2MB blocks.
but what's done is done.
June 15, 2016, 07:12:43 PM
volume is dieing down.
time to PUMP it up another 20%
time to PUMP it up another 20%
good timing!
June 15, 2016, 07:10:52 PM
all i'm saying is i dont buy the idea that we CANNOT have stable prices with a fixed monetary supply
Well I think it's time you bought it
You run a fairground. At the entrance people buy tokens - 1 token counts for 2 rides. Inside the fairground, there is only 1 currency: token currency. (Call it Bitcoin if you like).
Each day, you have an average of 100 people inside the gates at any one time, each person buys on average 5 tokens. So you maintain a "money supply" of 500 tokens which are constantly being recycled, even though the ride capacity is not fully utilised.
Then one Saturday, due to excellent weather, you get a 50% surge in visitors. Now you have 3 choices:
1. inflate the prices so that 1 ride costs 1 token instead of half a token
2. turn people away
3. get more tokens (inflate the money supply) and keep prices the stable
Sure, you can have stable prices with a fixed monetary base, but only if demand for liquidity remains stable (which is cannot in a dynamic economy).
I understand what you are trying to say, but that analogy is a plain fallacy.
The cap on your "token driven fairground economy" isn't the number of tokens on that Saturday afternoon, but the capacity of your riders. You could use solution no.1, or 3. still the number of people/hour who can use the rides is hard limited by spacetime:)
Also, i think you made a grave error in the calculation, which is you only spoke about supply side; if people really want to ride the marry-go-round, they will compete, like paying more than the usual 2 tokens/ride(!!) - that is a clear price function, if demand > supply, price goes up, even if temporarily, and especially with fixed money supply (isn't that the whole point of prices, to allocate resources for needs for the highest marginal utility ?).
Solution number 2. is not a choice only in case if none the would be buyers agree to pay more than the usual 2 tokens. Otherwise, the fairground owner will have a blast day :-). Or, you should calculate which solution is better: 1/2 the token price/ride versus the max number of people served paying the original 1/1 price.
So, in short, the whole idea, that fixed money supply can not serve an economic system seems flawed to me, because it does not matter, which side of the equation you take as given (supply or demand), you can always put temporary market multipliers to either side. (in other words, deflation is the exact thing as inflation mathematically, but in deflation demand drives the multiplier, in inflation the supply does.)
EDIT: don't get me wrong, i have read your post about the derivates, fascinating stuff, still i disagree. If Bitcoin is a near 100% liquid base, M0, than it is like a child play, to make technical solutions - sidechain tokens representing the same function as derivatives, still not over the fixed supply (!) to mitigate future risk. The whole problem of today's monetary system is that the overwhelming majority of derivatives represents way more than simple risk mitigation contracts - casino gambles basically. See this chart for that example:
http://i2.wp.com/money.visualcapitalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/all-the-worlds-money-and-markets-dv.png?w=1130
EDIT2: do not get me wrong, i love Your thoughts and writing, very comprehensive, i love the deepnes behind them, i just happen to disagree on this one -maybe i am totally wrong, please do your best to disprove me :-) . Respect!
June 15, 2016, 07:10:47 PM
Fucking bulls, this could flip the 6h PSAR to bullish! 
June 15, 2016, 07:09:18 PM
I think the transaction times getting worse and worse.
Only for some spammers and cheapskates who should be using lower-security off-chain options anyway ...
June 15, 2016, 07:09:12 PM
I think the transaction times getting worse and worse.
I thought this as well.
June 15, 2016, 07:08:12 PM
holly fuck! here we go again!
June 15, 2016, 07:07:48 PM
I think the transaction times getting worse and worse.
June 15, 2016, 07:06:59 PM
We are leading the race and not China this time, is this normal ?
It's $709 and in China $706.
It's $709 and in China $706.
June 15, 2016, 07:06:50 PM
Finex above Huobi.
The west is taking control
The west is taking control
June 15, 2016, 07:06:31 PM
finex is giving a go
June 15, 2016, 07:01:18 PM
I remember you used to write somewhat coherently on raising the blocksize, if not everything else, what happened? Drank too deeply from Gregory's cup?
You are arguing for microtransactions when it's impossible to have microtransactions on a blockchain. Yes, 5 cent and 20 cent transactions are still cheap because even if you raised blocksize 10x higher, the transaction fee would still eventually become so high that only $10,000 transactions and more would be valid even with 8-10MB blocks. The only thing that would allow you to do microtransactions is a second tier system like Lightning Network or off-chain solutions like Circle and Coinbase debit cards. Anything directly on chain will always be expensive.
In short, you make no valid points because you are arguing for microtransactions directly on-chain when it's not possible.
Miners are not the producers of blockchain space they are the producers of hashing power (securing the blockchain), if there are such things as 'producers' of blockchain space, it is the broad ecosystem of fully-validating nodes.
(NB: Nice try at derailing the economics of the argument in your "Massive on-chain scaling" biased favour though.)
June 15, 2016, 06:58:29 PM
I remember you used to write somewhat coherently on raising the blocksize, if not everything else, what happened? Drank too deeply from Gregory's cup?
You are arguing for microtransactions when it's impossible to have microtransactions on a blockchain. Yes, 5 cent and 20 cent transactions are still cheap because even if you raised blocksize 10x higher, the transaction fee would still eventually become so high that only $10,000 transactions and more would be valid even with 8-10MB blocks. The only thing that would allow you to do microtransactions is a second tier system like Lightning Network or off-chain solutions like Circle and Coinbase debit cards. Anything directly on chain will always be expensive.
In short, you make no valid points because you are arguing for microtransactions directly on-chain when it's not possible.
Quote where I argued that microtransactions should be on-chain. Oh, I didn't, you just erected a straw man.
My argument is that the only people who should be setting pricing for block space are the producers of that space, the miners. You argue that production quotas determined by an infallible priesthood of blockstream devs are the only thing protecting Bitcoin from inevitable collapse.
Free market capitalism vs central planning by corrupt technocrats... My... how Bitcoiners have changed.
we could write a 50 document about how a block size limit of 4MB would be perfectly acceptable
but the truth is the limit itself is unacceptable because of the reason pointed out by dumbfbrankings
plus we know miners cannot make blocks TOO big since the bigger there block is the higher the chance it will get orphaned. there is absolutely no reason for a limit.
June 15, 2016, 06:47:57 PM
The blockchains down, wtf....
Jew banker shills have sunk to an all new low of desperation attempts in disinfo tactics.
Yah fine now, sweet
June 15, 2016, 06:43:54 PM
I remember you used to write somewhat coherently on raising the blocksize, if not everything else, what happened? Drank too deeply from Gregory's cup?
You are arguing for microtransactions when it's impossible to have microtransactions on a blockchain. Yes, 5 cent and 20 cent transactions are still cheap because even if you raised blocksize 10x higher, the transaction fee would still eventually become so high that only $10,000 transactions and more would be valid even with 8-10MB blocks. The only thing that would allow you to do microtransactions is a second tier system like Lightning Network or off-chain solutions like Circle and Coinbase debit cards. Anything directly on chain will always be expensive.
In short, you make no valid points because you are arguing for microtransactions directly on-chain when it's not possible.
Quote where I argued that microtransactions should be on-chain. Oh, I didn't, you just erected a straw man.
My argument is that the only people who should be setting pricing for block space are the producers of that space, the miners. You argue that production quotas determined by an infallible priesthood of blockstream devs are the only thing protecting Bitcoin from inevitable collapse.
Free market capitalism vs central planning by corrupt technocrats... My... how Bitcoiners have changed.
June 15, 2016, 06:38:43 PM
June 15, 2016, 06:38:12 PM
The blockchains down, wtf....
Jew banker shills have sunk to an all new low of desperation attempts in disinfo tactics.
Jump to: