Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 19917. (Read 26608198 times)

The JIDF, pro-central banking, Zionist shills are back after they've already created 5000 other spam accounts.  Your spam accounts are useless now that everyone knows where they originate from.  You'll have to think up a new strategy besides being a weak, Woody Allen figure trying to manipulate things from behind a curtain because it doesn't work anymore:

Have the thieves stolen any timestamps from you, by bloating the blockchain? How many microtransactions did they make off with?
How many equities and derivatives markets with low overhead and transparency?
If not obvious, no, no they did not. They may have made it difficult for others to use your bloated blockchain, but have made off with none of your goodies.
If I burn down your house, sure, you have to rebuild it/buy a new one, just as if I have stolen it. But I didn't steal it. See what I'm saying?

>>>brg444
I think he meant "makes small transactions impractical." Imagine if every fiat transaction cost you a dollar to make. Sure, you still have pennies and dimes and stuff, but your prices can't go down to a penny anymore, thus "less divisible for practical purposes."

I hope so. We'll have to see what people do with their Christmas bonus in their wage packet

Anyone else have that strong sensation that we're going to have a nice Xmas gift of above 500?

Timestamps aren't valuable? microtransactions aren't valuable? equities and derivatives markets with low overhead and transparency aren't valuable? Low friction trade isn't valuable?

I suggest you look up "valuable" in the dictionary.

 

You should really stop posting. It's like you can't help but embarass yourself.

Coin



Explanation

I'm one of those storers of value. The ways I measure that value include the access to blockspace for colored coins and timestamps etc.  With less access, there is less value. 

You'll never get unit of accounters with a value that fluctuates so wildly. 

Money has five properties: Recognizable, portable, fungible, scarce and divisible.

Small blocks make bitcoin less divisible for practical purposes. Lack of divisibility is one reason why gold is no longer used as money, even in black markets. Been tracking gold prices lately?  You want that to happen for Bitcoin?

Either shopping at a bazaar where all the dealers use different fiat money & you have to exchange money all the time is a nightmare, or it's not. It's certainly not as frictionless as everybody using the *same* kind of money, no?
Given a choice, which would *you* choose?
Why would anyone hold bitcoins (the tokens), if no one uses the particular instance of blockchain (the Bitcoin blockchain)?
Wouldn't LTC be the gold standard (since everyone uses it)? I feel like I've reduced the problem to 2+2, you agree that it's 2+2, but insist that it's still not 4.

The only reason exchanges don't let you convert shitcoins directly into fiat (please, not as a grammar nazi, but as a gearhead: FIAT=acronym, Italian car manufacturer; fiat=money as we know it) is because legit exchanges don't want to bother. If an exchange can legally handle fiat, it can legally turn shitcoins directly into fiat. Without the pointless extra step of first turning them into BTC.
Fiat is the least volotile, just convert straight into fiat. Hey, make it easy on yourself, use fiat throughout & avoid all this rigamarole.


Not too familiar with NXT, but doesn't it have its own tokens, imaginatively called NXT?

>>>billyjoeallen: the whole lock analogy is inappropriate. The bloating thieves don't get anything of value by bloating the blockchain, shit inside house stays inside.  What they do is essentially piss on your stoop, thus decreasing the attractiveness of your neighborhood and, potentially, dropping property values.

choochoo

If there was a gang of thieves prowling the neighborhood with most doors unlocked who were targeting houses with locked doors on the suspicion that those houses had more valuables, then it would increase not decrease your risk.

That may be a stretch to imagine, but I have to work with your metaphor. The point is that we have to judge RELATIVE risks.  That is not only not a fallacy but is prudent.  There is a risk associated with larger blocks. I'm not denying that. But we are not even having a meaningful discussion if you refuse to admit that there are risks associated with NOT allowing bigger blocks. 

What we have to do is weigh the risks and see which one is greater.  If you are not willing to do that, then I have to assume you are not even arguing in good faith and the only appropriate response to you is ridicule.

Bitcoin has already demonstrated functionality with 2 of the 3 main uses of money;

1) medium of exchange (Bitcoin the value transfer network)

2) store of value (bitcoin the currency)

When the medium of exchangers are in the ascendancy the network gets abused, value goes down. When the store of valuers are dominating the network gets nurtured, value goes up.

Expect this to see-saw continually until the "unit of accounters" arrive on the scene.

My "no" was not in terms of dissimilarity but in terms of "the worst of both worlds". You make it sound like it's a nightmare scenario when it is not.


Bitcoin as a network protocol, blockchain technology etc, yes. Bitcoin as the BTC currency, BTC blockchain etc, no.


1) Convertibility to FIAT (BTC is the gateway to fiat)

2) Volatility reasons. Bitcoin is much more stable as a store of value than most altcoins which have very large fluctuations.

If DOGE goes down 10% without me locking it into BTC, it's like having sold 30 cups of coffee (of the 300 total) for free.


Is NXT an uber-complex cryptoccurency for developing something to that effect? http://multigateway.org/

Right on!
*Reducing* the blocksize is what really needs to be done. Make garbage transactions (all transactions below 1,000 BTC) impossible, due to cost. The 'I want more shit for free' brigade will pretty much *have* to hodl then.
Scarcity maximized => price skyrockets => everybody's happy

Breakout a'comin

This type of idiocy is often repeated but absolutely misguided.

The term CASH stems from the notion that Bitcoin, like cash, is a bearer instrument, not that it should be freely spent on trinklets at no cost.

The logic fallacy:

When someone leaves their house, don't they lock the door? The answer is yes.

If one leaves their house they have less than 0.01% of their house being broken into. YET THEY LOCK THE DOOR.

By your rationale it would be dumb to do so... "just because one left their house doesn't automatically mean that his house will be broken into, I mean look at the statistics of how few times this has happened!!!".

The security assumption you are making, stated simply, is that just because something isn't been done on a regular basis, it's ok if we leave the gap for it to get abused. If you design systems like that you will be fucked pretty swiftly. If you want to make a robust system you start by assuming the WORST POSSIBLE SCENARIOS and trying to find mitigation strategies for dealing with them. Otherwise some other guy will say "so, let's start looking for vulnerabilities here" and they will find them if you have made assumptions of "reasonable behavior".

If BTC was made for reasonable behavior assumptions it would be a joke-coin that would not be worth billions - it would have been violated plenty of times already, in every possible way that isn't "sealed off".


That's true even with a 1MB block yet many miners are filling it with dust and near zero fee txs. This is not rational behavior.

Can the network be based on the security assumption that miners will always be rational regarding what transactions they process? I believe the answer is no, especially since they have a track record where they obviously do not behave rationally and have assisted in the bloating of the blockchain for zero cost and increased risk for the miner who might get orphaned. So you have to circumvent human stupidity at the protocol level.


Even if the fees are raised significantly it'll still be way lower than many current fees that are charged for a whole range of transactions. Besides, you are making the assumption that most people already have at their disposal paypal, banks, cards, etc and that Bitcoin is just another means of payment that they can choose from. If you already have access to paypal, banks, cards, etc, Bitcoin might be near useless to you as it offers nothing new compared to what you did yesterday. Perhaps a bit less fees or something, at the expense of market volatility where you could lose way more money from currency fluctuations compared to a predictable set-fee charge.

However, in many cases, Bitcoin is the most people will get in terms of online transactions. This applies for BILLIONS OF PEOPLE who are possible candidates to use it. Whether they are kids playing a MMORPG and wanting to buy/sell virtual stuff (and aren't of legal age to use banks/cards etc, thus using Bitcoins), or being in a country where sending $$$ internationally through the banks is problematic due to currency restrictions, etc etc.

Bitcoin is more revolutionary for countries of the non-western world than it is for the western world. Even for its property as money (and not money-transfer service) which can be considered hard currency compared to local inflationary currency.

Not seeing the difference. I'll quote your 'solutions,' and show that they are identical to using different fiat currencies:
We use Forex.
I convert my pesos to rubles, send them to you.
We use a payment processor.
Where's the difference?

I see. So if no one uses the BTC bloccahin, and everyone uses LTC, we're still all using Bitcoin, correct?

You mean I could first trade my cryptopesos into BTC, pay fee, then convert that BTC into your cryptorubles, pay fee again, and give you the cryptorubles?
Why would I do that?

But why involve Bitcoin at all? If [crypto]rubles is your chain of choice, why not have the exchange convert all the small transactions directly into cryptorubles, and, at the end of the day, withdraw it in a single transaction?

Who is running this "decentralized exchange'? What's the incentive? How many nodes? All the nodes will need to have copies of each and every blockchain, no? You think that is a trivial coding problem?!
Your 'decentralized exchange' sounds like an uber-complex cryptocurrency in itself. Why not simplify it significantly by having it issue its own tokens?

Coin



Explanation