Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 19221. (Read 26608384 times)

Whoppers

What is SUPPOSED to happen according to economic theory is that as quantity of money creation decreases (halvings), velocity of money (transactions) is supposed to go up to compensate, maintaining the balance of MV=PQ.  This clearly cannot happen if scaling is slower than halvings.  

Somebody please tell me the error of my thinking, or a slow liquidation becomes a serious consideration.  

1) They don't effect the velocity (v). They effect the quantity (M).  So because MV=PQ, a decrease in M MUST be compensated by a proportional increase in V in order for the equation to balance out. If it doesn't, then either price or quantity (or both) on the other side must adjust.

Yeah heavy and unexpected!

I just closed a short because the price wouldn't drop
I just closed a short at loss then open a long right before the bump ><

I feel like the dumb guy paying for everyone else ><

Ouch!
That was a heavy dump!
Finex and stamp had been down to 416!

That's a very good read. It also could explain why this thread is becoming more and more toxic 

Please read also this article (I really hope you do!):

http://joi.ito.com/weblog/2016/02/22/my-view-on-the-.html

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/i-m-a-former-green-beret-here-s-how-i-would-bring-down-bitcoin-1456165726

billyjoeallen (imposter account)
NotLambChop (and plethora of sockpups, currently blunderer, bargainbin)
BlindMayorBitcoin
aztecminer (imposter account)

Just got home to see I missed the action by minutes.

No one else here? I only see Chartbuddy.

1) I want the price of goods (P) to go down relative to Bitcoin so Bitcoin's purchasing power goes up. I want the Quantity of goods and services available to purchase (q) to go up, so taken together, I want the left side of the equation to equal the right side, which of course it logically has to.  

If the rate of quantity increase goes down, then the rate of velocity increase needs to go up.  Get that? we are beyond algebra and into calculus, but scaling can't be diminishing or even constant, but needs to be accelerating  for the equation to balance out and for price to continually go down while quantity goes up.  

2) you need 100% proof of reserves, so if you are exchanging tokens on one network for tokens on another network, you can't still have the original tokens or you have more than you started with (x+1>x) so you have a money multiplier.

and Yes, I don't know enough about the LN to discuss technical details. I'm only talking what it NEEDS to be in order to prevent effectively fractional reserve banking. Like I said, I could be making a mistake somewhere, so I am not arguing that LN is a bad idea. I just have questions.

I think I also need to clarify two things, in order to be absolutely innocent of trolling accusations.

A) I am in favor of the round table agreement- not because I like the terms. I absolutely do not like the terms as I believe the scaling is too slow for the reason I explained above. I am in favor of the agreement because I think it will either result in a change in leadership or rules within Core (which I think is sorely needed), or it will result in loss of support for Core by the miners and therefor a change in leadership of code development from Core to something else, probably Classic.

B) Here's my position on the miners: More hashpower is not only good, but absolutely necessary in order for Bitcoin to maintain it's first mover advantage over competing coins or potentially competing coins.  There is a huge danger in mining being concentrated in China as it creates a POSSIBLE central point of failure if there is (another) Chinese crackdown.  So if we can't get rid of the miners and miners are concentrated in China, what is there to do to reacquire censorship resistance? Only one thing: Increase hashpower outside of China massively, and at a rate substantially faster than hashpower within China is growing. I have no idea how we are going to do that given China's cheaper electricity and labor.