Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 19123. (Read 26607956 times)
March 02, 2016, 06:00:44 PM
The issue is that Core is not responding to requests to officially accept the HK-agreement. As long as they play this silly "Lets wait and see"-game the price will suffer.
Its unbelievable how irresponsible some of core are acting! If BTC goes 200$ they will be quick to adopt the agreement i guess.
March 02, 2016, 06:00:39 PM
March 02, 2016, 06:00:28 PM
The price drop means nothing. Bitcoin is the way of the future. More people know about it. It will be accepted at more merchants. More and more people are finding out about it. And the price will increase again for sure.
March 02, 2016, 05:55:00 PM
Could be ether a problem?
Now a lot of $ go to eht :/
Now a lot of $ go to eht :/
March 02, 2016, 05:46:15 PM
In other news: today, Bitcoin is down to 82.5% market share of the crypto space. Lower than any other data point in my recent memory.
March 02, 2016, 05:43:23 PM
Of course, the design (hope) is that the doubled scarcity (halved rate of new production) will cause price to ~2x. But we know that the market will front-run this expectation to some extent, and maybe lag a bit as well. But for miners, the instant is the instant - revenues suddenly halved.
By no means do I think it is fatal - we've been through it before. I'm just puzzled why it is not more nearly continuous. Same for the difficulty adjustment.
By no means do I think it is fatal - we've been through it before. I'm just puzzled why it is not more nearly continuous. Same for the difficulty adjustment.
March 02, 2016, 05:34:20 PM
>Replace megamine with any other business.
Any other business suddenly losing half of its revenue?
Like the auto industry suddenly being able to sell only half as many cars? (hoping against hope that the cars it does sell will somehow double in price)?
Not finding anything readily analogous & rekindling hope at the same time
Any other business suddenly losing half of its revenue?
Like the auto industry suddenly being able to sell only half as many cars? (hoping against hope that the cars it does sell will somehow double in price)?
Not finding anything readily analogous & rekindling hope at the same time
March 02, 2016, 05:24:42 PM
^You're just making it seem intuitively wronger. Wait, dumbening isn't even a word...
>it should be largely negated by a company's incentive to plan for the future
But you got sort of a prisoner's dilemma thing happening -- let's say 3 major megamines, and it only makes sense to scale down if *others don't*. You don't know what others will do, so?
*it might be reasonable to keep mining at a loss, hoping that competition runs out of $$$ faster than you, it might make sense to make backroom deals & cooperate, so many different possibilities...
>it should be largely negated by a company's incentive to plan for the future
But you got sort of a prisoner's dilemma thing happening -- let's say 3 major megamines, and it only makes sense to scale down if *others don't*. You don't know what others will do, so?
*it might be reasonable to keep mining at a loss, hoping that competition runs out of $$$ faster than you, it might make sense to make backroom deals & cooperate, so many different possibilities...
Replace megamine with any other business. You just try your best to make rational decisions that net you the most profit over the longest amount of time. If rational economic behavior is innately irrational, we're all doomed. Hardcore collusion could get a keccak response, all variables in this mess of an equation.
Look, I know I'm never going to convince you this bird'll fly. I'm having a hard enough time convincing myself these days...
March 02, 2016, 05:07:59 PM
^You're just making it seem intuitively wronger. Wait, dumbening isn't even a word...
>it should be largely negated by a company's incentive to plan for the future
But you got sort of a prisoner's dilemma thing happening -- let's say 3 major megamines, and it only makes sense to scale down if *others don't*. You don't know what others will do, so?
*it might be reasonable to keep mining at a loss, hoping that competition runs out of $$$ faster than you, it might make sense to make backroom deals & cooperate, so many different possibilities...
>it should be largely negated by a company's incentive to plan for the future
But you got sort of a prisoner's dilemma thing happening -- let's say 3 major megamines, and it only makes sense to scale down if *others don't*. You don't know what others will do, so?
*it might be reasonable to keep mining at a loss, hoping that competition runs out of $$$ faster than you, it might make sense to make backroom deals & cooperate, so many different possibilities...
March 02, 2016, 05:00:48 PM
March 02, 2016, 04:55:22 PM
The big mines with the latest gear running at <4 cents kWh (a huge portion of the network now), won't be unprofitable at all.
It'll be the smaller guys with more expensive power that hit the switch, and continued expansion by the majors will suck up their exit if there is profit to be had.
Edit: btw I agree with both of you that there aren't huge negatives to a smoothed function. If non-granularity is a negative, it should be largely negated by a company's incentive to plan for the future, which is known in the case of coins per block. Planning for a price that can fluctuate between $1200 and $150 in the space of a couple years is tougher than this.
It'll be the smaller guys with more expensive power that hit the switch, and continued expansion by the majors will suck up their exit if there is profit to be had.
Edit: btw I agree with both of you that there aren't huge negatives to a smoothed function. If non-granularity is a negative, it should be largely negated by a company's incentive to plan for the future, which is known in the case of coins per block. Planning for a price that can fluctuate between $1200 and $150 in the space of a couple years is tougher than this.
March 02, 2016, 04:52:32 PM
^Yeah, this is just a tangent, not related to the Core/Classic drama. Just something that seems intuitively ...wrong.
But could be missing something, so just asking.
But could be missing something, so just asking.
The entire thing seems intuitively wrong to you...
Yeah, but on a different level -- V1 buzz bomb may seem intuitively wrong to me too, which won't keep me from pointing out peculiarities of design (on top of its moral implications)
March 02, 2016, 04:46:27 PM
^Yeah, this is just a tangent, not related to the Core/Classic drama. Just something that seems intuitively ...wrong.
But could be missing something, so just asking.
But could be missing something, so just asking.
The entire thing seems intuitively wrong to you...
March 02, 2016, 04:42:30 PM
^Yeah, this is just a tangent, not related to the Core/Classic drama. Just something that seems intuitively ...wrong.
But could be missing something, so asking.
Re. edit: so how do you see it being done? Miners playing chicken & seeing who drops first, mining at a loss for a while to kill competition? Even then, the bigger reward granularity -> bigger hashrate fluctuation. I think.
But could be missing something, so asking.
Re. edit: so how do you see it being done? Miners playing chicken & seeing who drops first, mining at a loss for a while to kill competition? Even then, the bigger reward granularity -> bigger hashrate fluctuation. I think.
March 02, 2016, 04:39:49 PM
Obviously I don't know, but my guess is that it is to front load the distribution... for subsidizing the growth of transactions hard and early, attracting the most amount of mining power at the most vulnerable time for the network, the beginning.
Right, but that could still be done while also ...
Quote
Having it be smoothed or stepped
I'm not all that concerned about it, that's why the difficulty adjusts. In a free market, the price of the (now more costly to produce) commodity could rise to compensate as well. The 1MB cap exacerbates the potential problem in the intervening 1000 blocks or so. Maybe that'll give our "benevolent" central planners a kick to the teeth.
Edit: The people who run PH/s of mining power have seen this coming from miles out. It's not like they'll just flip the breaker on their multi megawatt facility at block 420,000.
March 02, 2016, 04:26:27 PM
Obviously I don't know, but my guess is that it is to front load the distribution... for subsidizing the growth of transactions hard and early, attracting the most amount of mining power at the most vulnerable time for the network, the beginning.
Right, but that could still be done while also ...
Quote
Having it be smoothed or stepped
March 02, 2016, 04:24:51 PM
The halving schedule is pretty extreme, at the beginning. It becomes less and less extreme quite quickly as the number of transactions scales up with their accompanying fees...
To a miner, a halving is a halving. This has a good chance in causing step-function reductions in security, as hashpower becomes unprofitable overnight.
I doubt that we are going to witness extreme secondary changes "overnight" as a response to halving...
surely, "overnight" we are going to have half as many bitcoin's mined per each block, yet there is going to be some spreading out of the timeline with any responses, and in the end, even though there may be a short-term drop in hashpower, it is very likely that hashpower is going to continue to increase (possibly on continued exponential levels).
March 02, 2016, 04:22:04 PM
The halving schedule is pretty extreme, at the beginning. It becomes less and less extreme quite quickly as the number of transactions scales up with their accompanying fees...
Wait... we're supposed to be scaling up the number of transactions!!?!
Yeah, just have a hard time rationalizing why it had to be *halving* -- why not 10percenting, but more often? Wait... we're supposed to be scaling up the number of transactions!!?!
Obviously I don't know, but my guess is that it is to front load the distribution... for subsidizing the growth of transactions hard and early, attracting the most amount of mining power at the most vulnerable time for the network, the beginning. Giving outsized rewards to those who recognized and supported the network before there was big money involved. Having it be smoothed or stepped is another question, I'm not as sure about that one, just that it becomes exponentially less important over time.
As long as I'm making guesses, his decision to leave us with the 1MB hard coded max block size limit is his test to see if we're fit for survival without him.
March 02, 2016, 04:21:03 PM
The halving schedule is pretty extreme, at the beginning. It becomes less and less extreme quite quickly as the number of transactions scales up with their accompanying fees...
To a miner, a halving is a halving. This has a good chance in causing step-function reductions in security, as hashpower becomes unprofitable overnight.
Seems to me a closer approximation to a continuous function might have been better design. But what do I know? I'm a bear. Waiting for mah dinner.
March 02, 2016, 04:20:21 PM
Somebody could explain me? :
Quote
I believe one way or another "second layer solution" or otherwise, bitcoin will scale
Don't worry about it too much, it's just another in a long line of adam's vague and internally contradictory polls without meaningful conclusion.
The "second layer solution" means payment channels and hubs, I think. Or altcoins.
Yes, fairly vague, yet conceptually, "second layer solutions" include segregated witness, sidechains and lightning network, also... These kinds of "second layer solutions" are built on the bitcoin platform or at least while using bitcoin's platform as a springboard.
I doubt that the poll is really referring to alts, except to the extent that alts could be absorbed into bitcoin's platform in some way or as possible sidechains (using aspects of segregated witness innovations).
Jump to: