Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 19700. (Read 26608588 times)

get ya some europe! happy new years!

http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/january-1-2016-the-new-bank-bail-in-system-goes-into-effect-in-europe


better get your money out the 'interest to infinity' debt slavery system. this is surely an act of desperation.. it shows us how bad things have become .. if this were not true then they would not require a bank bail-in system in place ..

metals is probably the best place to move your fiat.. maybe bitcoin.. but that is a us govy manipulated market that is not guaranteed to succeed... as a matter of fact.. bitcoin has some issues to overcome, which might not be able to overcome and still be successful... a new system will have to come though because the 'interest to infinity' debt slavery system is failing. they are not admitting it is failing because they still think they have some chance or something.. its hard to see into the minds of people whose brains are coated with flouride and aluminum. they are stupid enough to poison themselves then they are dumb enough do really dumb stuff... like bank bail-ins... hey lets take all the sheeples purchasing power see how that works out.

They could already pay Amazon to run a node.

What would be interesting would be to have a method for rewarding people for running nodes. Possibly by putting a Bitcoin address in the comment or something?

I think it is important not to immediately dismiss the fact that cryptocurrencies have value, different market sizes, and different liquidity functions. We already are seeing how the economics are playing out. The big players have ALREADY gone to bitcoin. If you examine the current digital landscape, CoinBase, Circle, Bitpay, Yogabbagabba hey, etc etc etc lol, they use bitcoin not another currency. Large banks are either looking at integrating with Bitcoin or attempting to weaken it. You don't see such similar actions with any of the altcoins to any significant degree as compared to bitcoin. As such I think it is safe to say that bitcoin is being used by big players. This doesn't mean bitcoin has the most liquidity, offers the easiest means of transfering money, or provides currency stability.

If you bought $500k of bitcoin off an exchange, how would that impact the bitcoin market as compared to $500k LTC or $500k Dogecoin, or $500k ethereum. The bigger question is on which exchange is the transaction taking place? An exchange with sufficiently deep orderbooks might have no impact whereas on a different exchange you could see a drastically different effect. So you need to look not only at the liquidity of the single asset but also transferrable assets and slippage. It could be easier to cash out in one coin than another and there seems to be links in market movements between various crypto commodities. I think it's dangerous to only see the competing nature of variable cryptos and not recognize that they also operate hand in hand.

I guess the question would be, whether the market has seen an uptick in litecoin usage given the recent bitcoin block size debacle. If you examine the bitcoin/ltc price ration, the answer, apparently, would be no.

I think an interesting question would be if litecoin had the same hashpower as bitcoin, what would happen to bitcoin usage?


If you can have coke or pepsi but generic cola is 1/5 the price, why do so many people keep drinking coke and pepsi?

It's actually the average of the blocks in the previous hour. Some were more. Empty blocks bring the average down too even though they don't contribute to processing transactions.

 

The poor generation somehow is going to lead the way for a coin to grow 10x the size of Bitcoin.

^^What Chubby said.

Coin



Explanation

What I'm getting at is that I don't understand how the economics will play out. Bitcoin can't "decide" that it is going to be used by the big players and everything else goes to litecoin. You'd want to use the unit with the most liquidity and broadest support if you're going to transfer large amounts of money. Todays BTC value is driven by speculation about its future utility. If that future utility is intentionally bottlenecked, the price will plummet. And any idea of a meaningful and functional fee market with a highly illiquid asset is a joke.

We might think that Bitcoins lead is astronomical, but imagine if it stops working properly, for months, because the number of legitimate fee-paying customers went up much faster than anticipated. Or, it's working, but the rising fees makes whatever made it relevant to mainstream irrelevant again. Litecoin works. And they're not going to close the gates when the plebs come running.

So, the facebook generation or the twitteraty or similar starts using Litecoin, taking with them massive liquidity and a market cap 10 times (or more) that of Bitcoin. Why would you buy a car with Bitcoin instead of Litecoin? Why would you transfer 50 million USD from the US to China using Bitcoin rather than Litecoin?

Because Bitcoin is gold and Litecoin is silver? They're not. They're competing cryptos. And that's why we need to plan for success. Or pray success doesn't come too soon.

Edit: Look at BMBs post above as well.

I've always wondered if this position, which is quite common in Bitcoin, is an expression of some kind of conformist cowardice or a genuinely delusional point of view. The guy in the article seems to assume intention where there is none.

Buy orders at 380 seem about right, if you're into that kinda thing.

Does the monkey have anything to say?

Isn't this similar to arguing about apples and oranges?
To me, it seems more likely that since crypto currencies occupy multiple spaces in realty, both a unit with inherent value, a representative direct transfer of said inherent value, and as a secure proof of existence ledger based on the security/hash power of the underlying item, that use cases would naturally gravitate to these options?

so with an altcoin like litecoin, it has a relatively fast transfer speed and nominal value worth but on the other hand, it's hash-power isn't necessarily as strong as bitcoin

then you have bitcoin which has a slower transfer speed, but possibly due to scarcity and first mover recognition, larger fiat value, but more importantly operates as a stronger public ledger.

so, if you are going to buy a cup of coffee, or transact a nominal value equivalent of a cup of coffee, or register an item of similar value, and then record that or transfer it to another individual, there are certain use cases which will naturally lend themselves to this option as they do not need enormous security behind it

on the other hand
if you are buying a car, or leasing a car, or perhaps a fleet of cars, or a multi-year,million dollar commercial property lease; this is a deal with significant financial liability associated with it; here as time is not necessarily an immediate concern but the concern is more over the duration of the contractual option and that proof of two parties entering into this agreement, you would want something harder to tamper with and more secure, which naturally would lead you to supporting a blockchain with more hash power.

I apologize if this doesn't come out as clear as I would like it to but in essence I'm arguing that it is naive to think Bitcoin will do everything for everyone. It won't. Already, you are divided into groups of people; those with bitcoins and those without. There is already a higher barrier of entry for someone without bitcoin than with bitcoin and this will only grow more divergent as the network continues to age.  I think that is one of the main issues surrounding the current block size debate. Who is bitcoin 'for,' can it realistically be for 'everyone' and who decides that? I think it's more important to see that it has opened the door and the genie is out of the bottle. It's difficult not to recognize how cryptocurrencies are an inherent threat to the status quo as central planners lack control. I think you will ultimately begin to see state sponsored mining entities in both an offensive and defensive capacity and that banks will be unable to simply use the system without contributing to it or open themselves up to massive liability.

If citigroup uses bitcoin to confirm a lease; and that lease has not been entered into the public ledger after the person leaves with the vehicle, and there is an accident; you could see how a confirmation delay could result in a sticky situation concerning liability. But enough already. The battle is over the block size & core and who bitcoin is for. I think a fork is inevitable and once block size increases, wall street will move in en masse. Until then, this is all a distraction to suppress asset price to facilitate accumulation.

If cars had stuck to their original premise of being alligators with wheels

Coin



Explanation

The market canalize dispersed knowledge with appropriate incentives.

When you ask people about what they don't know, it is a mess. But within the market, there is a selection process where knowledge is rewarded and ignorance is penalized, so the result is not a mere average, but a selection and an aggregation of refined knowledge.

The more you gather knowledgeable people around a problem*, the more you allow them to follow the path they deem the most promising**, the higher the probabilby is that the problem will be resolved in an efficient and creative way.

*by allow profit to play its incentive role
**by preventing a small group of people to reduce the options of other

And real life currencies are managed by a small group of people, not by the market. If you want Bitcoin to stay special, you should reject the power of a small group of people over it.

Real life currencies don't operate in a free market - they are heavily manipulated. And that has been the cause of most of its problems.

If central banks had stuck to their original premise of being a safety net, instead of a 'guiding hand', things might have been better...  

Nope, an economics geek  

I am really bad at computer science but I think I have some valuable knowledge in the field of economics. And I am pretty convinced that the deflationary characteritic of Bitcoin is an asset, not a liability.

Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

Lots of people would disagree with you bro. You're basically saying the more we are the smarter we get. Numerous scientific studies are explaining the contrary! It all depends of the way you canalize things, and it can be done very badly.

Free market would have the same consequences in btc than in real life currency. I don't want to get the same thing here than outthere :/