Coin
Explanation
Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 19223. (Read 26608364 times)
February 22, 2016, 07:00:51 PM
February 22, 2016, 06:40:14 PM
Looks like Hearns rage quit has failed. Im guessing another FUD attempt will ocure soon to try and keep price below $500.
These media propaganda stunts (and other arguable creative efforts of spreading BTC FUD) seem to becoming less and less effective...
You're too smart for them; bought @ $1200, like a boss
Yes!!!!! Exactly!!!! You are such a wonderful troll to keep track of these kinds of important details to suggest that I bought at $1,200, as if that were the first and last thing that I ever did in bitcoin. < snip >
Not the last, but, thus far, the funniest. I mean, talk about knee-slappers -- bought @ $1,200, can you imagine?
Like meeting the guy who bought the most expensive tulip bulb ever, just before El bubblo popped
I will agree with the overall depiction that I bought very near the top, but I did not buy anywhere near the top, regarding various prices available at that particular moment that I bought. I bought on Localbitcoins, and there were a lot of prices way higher than my buy price (and even within 48 hours on both sides of my buying the 1.24 btc).
Also, surely when you are attempting to look for humor, and you are reading out of context and you are trying to get a bit of a cheap thrill, then yep, you can probably find some humor in that... .. but really, in the end, you are acting pretty childish in your attempts to selectively frame one factor out of many.
Are you able to build a little better case?
Sure:
> bought @ $1,200
Like a boss
The funny thing about your string of posts is that no matter what facts are presented to you and no matter what the reality, you attempt to stick to your original narrow vision, and repeat over and over and over in order to attempt to make your point... and at the same time, you do not explain anything about your own efforts in this space, beyond tacitly admitting to the fact that you are a paid shill.
hahahahhahaha
You little fuck!!!
February 22, 2016, 06:21:15 PM
In a way, the strongest arguments of smallblockers and bigblockers are strikingly similar:
Smallblockers: Nodes are cheap, but they will get exponentially more expensive as Bitcoin scales. This will eventually lead to centralization and a loss of one of Bitcoin's essential properties.
Bigblockers: transaction fees are cheap, but they will get exponentially more expensive as bitcoin grows. This will eventually lead to a competitive disadvantage for our network.
The difference as I see it is that nodes will only get exponentially more expensive with regard to harddrive space and bandwidth, not in Bitcoin or even fiat terms. As harddrive space and bandwidth are both getting less expensive, the argument, while valid, is less of a problem than exponentially higher fees. This is especially true because if bitcoin goes up in value, you are having to pay a greater amount of an increasingly expensive resource.
Smallblockers: Nodes are cheap, but they will get exponentially more expensive as Bitcoin scales. This will eventually lead to centralization and a loss of one of Bitcoin's essential properties.
Bigblockers: transaction fees are cheap, but they will get exponentially more expensive as bitcoin grows. This will eventually lead to a competitive disadvantage for our network.
The difference as I see it is that nodes will only get exponentially more expensive with regard to harddrive space and bandwidth, not in Bitcoin or even fiat terms. As harddrive space and bandwidth are both getting less expensive, the argument, while valid, is less of a problem than exponentially higher fees. This is especially true because if bitcoin goes up in value, you are having to pay a greater amount of an increasingly expensive resource.
February 22, 2016, 06:00:52 PM
February 22, 2016, 05:55:42 PM
February 22, 2016, 05:48:20 PM
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.
Sidechains, lighting network, etc are no substitute because they effectively trade Bitcon IOUs and not actual bitcoin. You get the same problem that the fiat world has: a fractional reserve money multiplier than can either run positive or negative and screw up the balance.
Somebody please tell me the error of my thinking, or a slow liquidation becomes a serious consideration.
Apart from some other concerns you raise, which I think have merit, I would like to respond to 2 things where I believe you to be wrong:Sidechains, lighting network, etc are no substitute because they effectively trade Bitcon IOUs and not actual bitcoin. You get the same problem that the fiat world has: a fractional reserve money multiplier than can either run positive or negative and screw up the balance.
Somebody please tell me the error of my thinking, or a slow liquidation becomes a serious consideration.
1) I don't know where you get the assumption that the halvings are supposed to have an effect on velocity of money.
2) I think bitcoins paid through LN are economically the same as on-chain transactions. Yes you could describe it as some kind of IOU, but it is mathematically/informatically based on the same bitcoins, these bitcoins are "anchored", so you should treat these like regular bitcoins. It's not the same thing as a paper IOU (or a digital one) where the only "link" is the trust you have in the issuer of the IOU.
EDIT: actually, maybe LN might have some effect on money velocity in the future, by allowing (especially by machines) much more and faster transactions.
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.
2) yes, you could have some sort of "proof of burn" to prevent LN from operating as a fractional reserve and then you'd be right. Centralized third party actors could also have cryptographically proven 100% reserves (or less reserves, provided they honestly disclosed this).
Adam is right. This is FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and doubt), but it is genuine fear, uncertainty and doubt.
Thanks, that does address at least one of my concerns.
2)why would you need to burn the btc? I think you need to read about LN some more (actually so do I about the technical details, but I think I have most of the big picture down). You are trading "spending rights" for actual bitcoins that are locked in a special transaction. If you start of with 10 btc, after the payment channel closes, there will still be 10 btc. During the use of the channel, there is only ever 10 btc worth being exchanged. How on earth does this resemble fractional reserve banking?
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.
February 22, 2016, 05:41:16 PM
Looks like Hearns rage quit has failed. Im guessing another FUD attempt will ocure soon to try and keep price below $500.
These media propaganda stunts (and other arguable creative efforts of spreading BTC FUD) seem to becoming less and less effective...
You're too smart for them; bought @ $1200, like a boss
Yes!!!!! Exactly!!!! You are such a wonderful troll to keep track of these kinds of important details to suggest that I bought at $1,200, as if that were the first and last thing that I ever did in bitcoin. < snip >
Not the last, but, thus far, the funniest. I mean, talk about knee-slappers -- bought @ $1,200, can you imagine?
Like meeting the guy who bought the most expensive tulip bulb ever, just before El bubblo popped
I will agree with the overall depiction that I bought very near the top, but I did not buy anywhere near the top, regarding various prices available at that particular moment that I bought. I bought on Localbitcoins, and there were a lot of prices way higher than my buy price (and even within 48 hours on both sides of my buying the 1.24 btc).
Also, surely when you are attempting to look for humor, and you are reading out of context and you are trying to get a bit of a cheap thrill, then yep, you can probably find some humor in that... .. but really, in the end, you are acting pretty childish in your attempts to selectively frame one factor out of many.
Are you able to build a little better case?
Sure:
> bought @ $1,200
Like a boss
February 22, 2016, 05:34:43 PM
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/12168909/Get-ready-to-be-showered-by-helicopter-money.html
too funny ... after ZIRP and NIRP have crapped out, next up we get HIRP ... and DIRP then I spose?
too funny ... after ZIRP and NIRP have crapped out, next up we get HIRP ... and DIRP then I spose?
February 22, 2016, 05:34:35 PM
Looks like Hearns rage quit has failed. Im guessing another FUD attempt will ocure soon to try and keep price below $500.
These media propaganda stunts (and other arguable creative efforts of spreading BTC FUD) seem to becoming less and less effective...
You're too smart for them; bought @ $1200, like a boss
Yes!!!!! Exactly!!!! You are such a wonderful troll to keep track of these kinds of important details to suggest that I bought at $1,200, as if that were the first and last thing that I ever did in bitcoin. < snip >
Not the last, but, thus far, the funniest. I mean, talk about knee-slappers -- bought @ $1,200, can you imagine?
Like meeting the guy who bought the most expensive tulip bulb ever, just before El bubblo popped
I will agree with the overall depiction that I bought very near the top, but I did not buy anywhere near the top, regarding various prices available at that particular moment that I bought. I bought on Localbitcoins, and there were a lot of prices way higher than my buy price (and even within 48 hours on both sides of my buying the 1.24 btc).
Also, surely when you are attempting to look for humor, and you are reading out of context and you are trying to get a bit of a cheap thrill, then yep, you can probably find some humor in that... .. but really, in the end, you are acting pretty childish in your attempts to selectively frame one factor out of many.
Are you able to build a little better case?
Also, how about providing some details about your own petty existence in the bitcoin (or other related investment within the context of this thread), or instead, probably your only real investment is trolling the thread, and possibly you are paid in bitcoin... o.k ... good for you. You have a job to do (trolling), and you are getting paid.. good for you.
February 22, 2016, 05:32:11 PM
Down to the 430/435 and then boom! Straight to 500! ^^
February 22, 2016, 05:30:56 PM
Sometimes the last cut is the deepest. 
That's why it's the last.
Ok. I'll take the hint.
What hint? It's pure logic.
It's like when idiots complain about their car keys always being in the last place they look. Why would you keep looking?
February 22, 2016, 05:27:19 PM
Looks like Hearns rage quit has failed. Im guessing another FUD attempt will ocure soon to try and keep price below $500.
These media propaganda stunts (and other arguable creative efforts of spreading BTC FUD) seem to becoming less and less effective...
You're too smart for them; bought @ $1200, like a boss
Yes!!!!! Exactly!!!! You are such a wonderful troll to keep track of these kinds of important details to suggest that I bought at $1,200, as if that were the first and last thing that I ever did in bitcoin. < snip >
Not the last, but, thus far, the funniest. I mean, talk about knee-slappers -- bought @ $1,200, can you imagine?
Like meeting the guy who bought the most expensive tulip bulb ever, just before El bubblo popped
February 22, 2016, 05:27:04 PM
Looks like Hearns rage quit has failed. Im guessing another FUD attempt will ocure soon to try and keep price below $500.
These media propaganda stunts (and other arguable creative efforts of spreading BTC FUD) seem to becoming less and less effective... because overall the word is getting out regarding bitcoin's underlying value... even though you are likely correct that there are going to be continuous attempts at such FUD spreading, and likely for years to come (whether prices are being kept below $500 or below $10K)
I'm going to speculate that they are now starting to work in reverse. At some point a good nerd rage war is going to drag in other nerd and geeks who would not have considered getting involved in bitcoin but can't resist a juicy intellectual stoush, passive-aggressiveness, handbag throwing, it's got it all
They are over-egging the FUD pudding.Any publicity is good publicity is the oxygen bitcoin thrives on ... drug markets, ransomware, volatility, central-bank bitching, infighting, etc, etc haven't stopped the crazy train yet.
Overall, I agree with you in that there can be some backlash and unintended consequences in trying to control the message too much, and a lot of people (probably especially geeks as you suggested) already largely understand that there is a lot of misinformation and propaganda out there, and they begin to see through aspects of the matrix... .. yet in the end, it takes a long time to see through, and even the most enlightened and skeptical continue to be fooled by some of the ongoing propaganda... and none of us are really outside of that, as long as we are living in the real world and we are not bots.
February 22, 2016, 05:22:09 PM
...
you are just plain wrong, likely mis-informed by the company you keep. The necessary LN bitcoin TXs that open and close channels will be immediately identifiable by the bitcoin miners who can demand as high fees as they feel necessary to provide their precious adjudication services for the LN. ...
you are just plain wrong, likely mis-informed by the company you keep. The necessary LN bitcoin TXs that open and close channels will be immediately identifiable by the bitcoin miners who can demand as high fees as they feel necessary to provide their precious adjudication services for the LN. ...
Interesting point. I wonder why they choose not to up their fees now? You should let them in on this cool thing you've just discovered, they might cut you in on teh profitz
I could have copyrighted the use of "satoshi" for the smallest unit when I standardised/named it,
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.50647
that might have been profitable ... but Satoshi deserves all the kudos.
Add copyright law to the list of shit you don't understand,
Regardless, not an answer. Why don't the miners "demand as high fees as they feel necessary to provide their precious adjudication services" now, hmm?
@BlindMayorBitcorn: ignore them, they know nothing of Rod's incisive commentary re. depth vis-a-vis sequential order of cuts!
February 22, 2016, 05:21:27 PM
Looks like Hearns rage quit has failed. Im guessing another FUD attempt will ocure soon to try and keep price below $500.
These media propaganda stunts (and other arguable creative efforts of spreading BTC FUD) seem to becoming less and less effective...
You're too smart for them; bought @ $1200, like a boss
Yes!!!!! Exactly!!!! You are such a wonderful troll to keep track of these kinds of important details to suggest that I bought at $1,200, as if that were the first and last thing that I ever did in bitcoin.
Contrary, to your implied misrepresentative assertion, $1,200 is just one of the things that I did in bitcoin (helrow??? more than 2 years ago)... and I have disclosed many times, that I bought 1.24 btc at $1,200... so fucking what.
What have you done, Lambie (Bargainbin), besides trolling this forum for nearly 2 years, if not more?
February 22, 2016, 05:18:23 PM
February 22, 2016, 05:16:16 PM
Sometimes the last cut is the deepest.
That's why it's the last.
Ok. I'll take the hint.
February 22, 2016, 05:07:43 PM
...
you are just plain wrong, likely mis-informed by the company you keep. The necessary LN bitcoin TXs that open and close channels will be immediately identifiable by the bitcoin miners who can demand as high fees as they feel necessary to provide their precious adjudication services for the LN. ...
you are just plain wrong, likely mis-informed by the company you keep. The necessary LN bitcoin TXs that open and close channels will be immediately identifiable by the bitcoin miners who can demand as high fees as they feel necessary to provide their precious adjudication services for the LN. ...
Interesting point. I wonder why they choose not to up their fees now? You should let them in on this cool thing you've just discovered, they might cut you in on teh profitz
I could have copyrighted the use of "satoshi" for the smallest unit when I standardised/named it,
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.50647
that might have been profitable ... but Satoshi deserves all the kudos.
February 22, 2016, 05:04:02 PM
...
Any publicity is good publicity is the oxygen bitcoin thrives on ... drug markets, ransomware, volatility, central-bank bitching, infighting, etc, etc haven't stopped the crazy train yet.
Any publicity is good publicity is the oxygen bitcoin thrives on ... drug markets, ransomware, volatility, central-bank bitching, infighting, etc, etc haven't stopped the crazy train yet.
You forgot rampant theft (mostly from other bitcoiners), endemic failure, murder (of course, failed -- just like everything else lol), kidnapping and, as always, child porn
February 22, 2016, 05:01:36 PM
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)
billyjoeallen (imposter account)
NotLambChop (and plethora of sockpups, currently blunderer, bargainbin)
BlindMayorBitcoin
aztecminer (imposter account)
Why is there nothing parenthetical after my name? What am I?
You are "A FACTOR" to contend with.
Jump to: