Author

Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 19989. (Read 26609669 times)

hero member
Activity: 644
Merit: 504
Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

edit: speaking of Popescu....

Quote
I don't think it's either practical nor feasible nor even desirable to use Bitcoin in the day to day dabble of pizzas, phone credits, hairspray and sneakers. People try to, because of the misguided belief that Bitcoin value is somehow related to or deriving from its crossection in the retail market. This happens to be completely untrue : you can't buy any pizza with SDRs, and yet that doesn't somehow make SDRs worthless. The belief itself may be a case of "everything appears a nail to the man holding a hammer", in the sense that people who have never interracted with any other aspect of economy besides the supermarket counter may genuinely imagine that's what economy is. Still, that makes no difference.
"Interraction" with the economy... like exchanging shares of blogs and gambling sites with other titans?


Peer to Peer Electronic Cash System
vs
Peer to Peer Electronic Wealth Storage System

I think we've distilled it down. I also think it can be both, but the former facilitates the latter.


I'm not even sure if you're trolling or actually stupid... maybe just shortsighted.

There's a time for everything. While Bitcoin is doing the thing called price discovery any attempt to compare it to cash in terms of velocity and ease of exchange is positively retarded and shows an absolute lack of economic aptitude.

"buttt bbbbbuttt buttt Satoshi told me I could send it all over the world NOW"

Oh well.. if spending bitcoins makes you "warm and fuzzy" inside go right ahead...
sr. member
Activity: 392
Merit: 250

edit: speaking of Popescu....

Quote
I don't think it's either practical nor feasible nor even desirable to use Bitcoin in the day to day dabble of pizzas, phone credits, hairspray and sneakers. People try to, because of the misguided belief that Bitcoin value is somehow related to or deriving from its crossection in the retail market. This happens to be completely untrue : you can't buy any pizza with SDRs, and yet that doesn't somehow make SDRs worthless. The belief itself may be a case of "everything appears a nail to the man holding a hammer", in the sense that people who have never interracted with any other aspect of economy besides the supermarket counter may genuinely imagine that's what economy is. Still, that makes no difference.
"Interraction" with the economy... like exchanging shares of blogs and gambling sites with other titans?


Peer to Peer Electronic Cash System
vs
Peer to Peer Electronic Wealth Storage System

I think we've distilled it down. I also think it can be both, but the former facilitates the latter.

sr. member
Activity: 378
Merit: 250
Market Sentiment

Longs | Shorts


BitcoinMarkets Flair Δ
38.87% | 61.12%

OKCoin Elite Traders
41% | 56.99%

OKCoin Futures Position Ratio
29.95% | 39.04%

Bitfinex  (24h)
75.09% | 24.9%

Whaleclub.co Top Traders
46.68% | 53.32%



Δ calculates flair changes from bullish to bearish and vice-versa in the past 24 hours
legendary
Activity: 2380
Merit: 1823
1CBuddyxy4FerT3hzMmi1Jz48ESzRw1ZzZ
legendary
Activity: 2380
Merit: 1823
1CBuddyxy4FerT3hzMmi1Jz48ESzRw1ZzZ
hero member
Activity: 644
Merit: 504
Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Restricted space => creates fee competition => dust will become non-economically viable to move around.

Restricted space => fee competition
More adoption+fee competition => expensive fees
Expensive fees => stalled adoption
Stalled adoption => declining interest
Declining interest => what are we even trying to do here?

This, however, is not a description of how bitcoin will fail but how bigger blocks are inevitable.

I suggest you go back and reread what Jorge wrote also. He describes well how the block size limit encourages attacks on Bitcoin

Also, it is not on developers to be setting up fee markets. It should be the realm of, well, the market.

Not all Bitcoin users are created equal. Not all individuals have the same financial pain threshold.

Expensive fees might deter direct adoption of Bitcoin by less financially priviledged persons but has absolutely no impact for the faction of individuals controlling the largest portion of monetary wealth worldwide.

Contrary to popular belief Bitcoin's immediate target market is NOT mainstream consumers.

no it impacts the financially privileged as well, they can no longer speculate bitcoin will be currency.

Nonsense. Bitcoin is not limited to its blockchain and the obvious end game for transactional uses are open payment networks like Lightning.

The wealthy are mostly concerned with shielding their capital from dirty regulators hands and oversight. Bitcoin offers unparalleled value in that regard.

Such a strange fantasy world you erect around yourself...

Titans of industry, meeting in back alleys or smoke filled basements to buy thousands of bitcoin... (surely they wouldn't send fiat wires to regulated exchanges that will have their identity and amounts on file, along with the addresses those coins were removed to.)

 Cheesy

Good one.

Of course everyone knows BitFinex is where whales meet to exchange large lots of coins Roll Eyes

edit: speaking of Popescu....

Quote
I don't think it's either practical nor feasible nor even desirable to use Bitcoin in the day to day dabble of pizzas, phone credits, hairspray and sneakers. People try to, because of the misguided belief that Bitcoin value is somehow related to or deriving from its crossection in the retail market. This happens to be completely untrue : you can't buy any pizza with SDRs, and yet that doesn't somehow make SDRs worthless. The belief itself may be a case of "everything appears a nail to the man holding a hammer", in the sense that people who have never interracted with any other aspect of economy besides the supermarket counter may genuinely imagine that's what economy is. Still, that makes no difference.

legendary
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1000
hmmmm...

-.-- --- ..- / .- .-. . / .- -. / .. -.. .. --- -

The wealthy tend to prefer tax avoidance rather than tax evasion.

Yea, so now they'll use a London trust denominated in Bitcoin for both at the same time. (Rockefellers, Rothschilds, etc)
legendary
Activity: 1554
Merit: 1014
Make Bitcoin glow with ENIAC
The wealthy are mostly concerned with shielding their capital from dirty regulators hands and oversight. Bitcoin offers unparalleled value in that regard.

hmmmm...

-.-- --- ..- / .- .-. . / .- -. / .. -.. .. --- -

The wealthy tend to prefer tax avoidance rather than tax evasion.
legendary
Activity: 2590
Merit: 3015
Welt Am Draht

Your toady mr buck is beyond help. Instead of thinking, he just throws up anything popescu wrote, like it's a tourettes tick. But I'll hold out hope for you brg444.

Ignore and move on. Every second brings us closer to death. Why waste it attempting to talk someone out of an eternal rut?
sr. member
Activity: 392
Merit: 250

Restricted space => creates fee competition => dust will become non-economically viable to move around.

Restricted space => fee competition
More adoption+fee competition => expensive fees
Expensive fees => stalled adoption
Stalled adoption => declining interest
Declining interest => what are we even trying to do here?

This, however, is not a description of how bitcoin will fail but how bigger blocks are inevitable.

I suggest you go back and reread what Jorge wrote also. He describes well how the block size limit encourages attacks on Bitcoin

Also, it is not on developers to be setting up fee markets. It should be the realm of, well, the market.

Not all Bitcoin users are created equal. Not all individuals have the same financial pain threshold.

Expensive fees might deter direct adoption of Bitcoin by less financially priviledged persons but has absolutely no impact for the faction of individuals controlling the largest portion of monetary wealth worldwide.

Contrary to popular belief Bitcoin's immediate target market is NOT mainstream consumers.

no it impacts the financially privileged as well, they can no longer speculate bitcoin will be currency.

Nonsense. Bitcoin is not limited to its blockchain and the obvious end game for transactional uses are open payment networks like Lightning.

The wealthy are mostly concerned with shielding their capital from dirty regulators hands and oversight. Bitcoin offers unparalleled value in that regard.

Such a strange fantasy world you erect around yourself...

Titans of industry, meeting in back alleys or smoke filled basements to buy thousands of bitcoin... (surely they wouldn't send fiat wires to regulated exchanges that will have their identity and amounts on file, along with the addresses those coins were removed to.) Always wearing the finest tailored suits, their shoes custom made... Invariably one step ahead of those dirty regulators with their capital in hand (in massive stacks of untraceable, non-sequential, unmarked bills ofc)... When is the last time you met a wealthy person that wasn't almost pleading with you to help them pile all of their wealth into experimental internet tokens? It's almost a daily occurrence now.

Meanwhile, back in reality, some want Bitcoin used by more people, more of the time, for more things (even while, gasp, paying fees that are determined by the free market of transaction processors)... while staying distributed and decentralized.

Your toady mr buck is beyond help. Instead of thinking, he just throws up anything popescu wrote, like it's a tourettes tick. But I'll hold out hope for you brg444.
legendary
Activity: 3920
Merit: 11299
Self-Custody is a right. Say no to"Non-custodial"
traded the wave and made 10$, wow, what a waste of time.

Time to go out and enjoy saturday evening.


Yeah.  Sometimes it is way too much work and stress for the amount of profit that comes out of trading, even when you get lucky and get it mostly right.
legendary
Activity: 3920
Merit: 11299
Self-Custody is a right. Say no to"Non-custodial"
damn should i buy back at a loss again?  Cheesy


Personally, I get the sense that the quantities (or percentage that you are trading are too high).  In other words if you make the wrong short term call, then you should not be feeling a need to buy back at a loss and only within a few days (especially for someone who claims not to be a trader)....
legendary
Activity: 2380
Merit: 1823
1CBuddyxy4FerT3hzMmi1Jz48ESzRw1ZzZ
member
Activity: 122
Merit: 10
hi, comparing with last top (around 2475 yuan) shouldn't western exchanges be at least 384 already?

Houbi can be 50 dollar over Finex at some times.
newbie
Activity: 1
Merit: 0
hi, comparing with last top (around 2475 yuan) shouldn't western exchanges be at least 384 already?
hero member
Activity: 644
Merit: 504
Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Restricted space => creates fee competition => dust will become non-economically viable to move around.

Restricted space => fee competition
More adoption+fee competition => expensive fees
Expensive fees => stalled adoption
Stalled adoption => declining interest
Declining interest => what are we even trying to do here?

This, however, is not a description of how bitcoin will fail but how bigger blocks are inevitable.

I suggest you go back and reread what Jorge wrote also. He describes well how the block size limit encourages attacks on Bitcoin

Also, it is not on developers to be setting up fee markets. It should be the realm of, well, the market.

Not all Bitcoin users are created equal. Not all individuals have the same financial pain threshold.

Expensive fees might deter direct adoption of Bitcoin by less financially priviledged persons but has absolutely no impact for the faction of individuals controlling the largest portion of monetary wealth worldwide.

Contrary to popular belief Bitcoin's immediate target market is NOT mainstream consumers.

no it impacts the financially privileged as well, they can no longer speculate bitcoin will be currency.

Nonsense. Bitcoin is not limited to its blockchain and the obvious end game for transactional uses are open payment networks like Lightning.

The wealthy are mostly concerned with shielding their capital from dirty regulators hands and oversight. Bitcoin offers unparalleled value in that regard.

oh ya i always forget about that complicated idea with no real implementation....

wtv i'm fairly certain we'll never get to find out what will happen to bitcoin if we limit its main chain scalability.

8MB blocks here we come!


Bitcoin also used to be a complicated idea with no real implementation, development takes time
legendary
Activity: 2380
Merit: 1823
1CBuddyxy4FerT3hzMmi1Jz48ESzRw1ZzZ
legendary
Activity: 1904
Merit: 1037
Trusted Bitcoiner

Restricted space => creates fee competition => dust will become non-economically viable to move around.

Restricted space => fee competition
More adoption+fee competition => expensive fees
Expensive fees => stalled adoption
Stalled adoption => declining interest
Declining interest => what are we even trying to do here?

This, however, is not a description of how bitcoin will fail but how bigger blocks are inevitable.

I suggest you go back and reread what Jorge wrote also. He describes well how the block size limit encourages attacks on Bitcoin

Also, it is not on developers to be setting up fee markets. It should be the realm of, well, the market.

Not all Bitcoin users are created equal. Not all individuals have the same financial pain threshold.

Expensive fees might deter direct adoption of Bitcoin by less financially priviledged persons but has absolutely no impact for the faction of individuals controlling the largest portion of monetary wealth worldwide.

Contrary to popular belief Bitcoin's immediate target market is NOT mainstream consumers.

no it impacts the financially privileged as well, they can no longer speculate bitcoin will be currency.

Nonsense. Bitcoin is not limited to its blockchain and the obvious end game for transactional uses are open payment networks like Lightning.

The wealthy are mostly concerned with shielding their capital from dirty regulators hands and oversight. Bitcoin offers unparalleled value in that regard.

oh ya i always forget about that complicated idea with no real implementation....

wtv i'm fairly certain we'll never get to find out what will happen to bitcoin if we limit its main chain scalability.

8MB blocks here we come!
legendary
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1002

Restricted space => creates fee competition => dust will become non-economically viable to move around.

Restricted space => fee competition
More adoption+fee competition => expensive fees
Expensive fees => stalled adoption
Stalled adoption => declining interest
Declining interest => what are we even trying to do here?

This, however, is not a description of how bitcoin will fail but how bigger blocks are inevitable.

I suggest you go back and reread what Jorge wrote also. He describes well how the block size limit encourages attacks on Bitcoin

Also, it is not on developers to be setting up fee markets. It should be the realm of, well, the market.

Not all Bitcoin users are created equal. Not all individuals have the same financial pain threshold.

Expensive fees might deter direct adoption of Bitcoin by less financially priviledged persons but has absolutely no impact for the faction of individuals controlling the largest portion of monetary wealth worldwide.

Contrary to popular belief Bitcoin's immediate target market is NOT mainstream consumers.

no it impacts the financially privileged as well, they can no longer speculate bitcoin will be currency.

Nonsense. Bitcoin is not limited to its blockchain and the obvious end game for transactional uses are open payment networks like Lightning.

The wealthy are mostly concerned with shielding their capital from dirty regulators hands and oversight. Bitcoin offers unparalleled value in that regard.

Yup, with not reversible transactions, bitcoin is a terrible payment channel (also price volatility makes it even less convenient).

See bitcoin and the poor: http://trilema.com/2012/bitcoin-and-the-poor/
hero member
Activity: 644
Merit: 504
Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Restricted space => creates fee competition => dust will become non-economically viable to move around.

Restricted space => fee competition
More adoption+fee competition => expensive fees
Expensive fees => stalled adoption
Stalled adoption => declining interest
Declining interest => what are we even trying to do here?

This, however, is not a description of how bitcoin will fail but how bigger blocks are inevitable.

I suggest you go back and reread what Jorge wrote also. He describes well how the block size limit encourages attacks on Bitcoin

Also, it is not on developers to be setting up fee markets. It should be the realm of, well, the market.

Not all Bitcoin users are created equal. Not all individuals have the same financial pain threshold.

Expensive fees might deter direct adoption of Bitcoin by less financially priviledged persons but has absolutely no impact for the faction of individuals controlling the largest portion of monetary wealth worldwide.

Contrary to popular belief Bitcoin's immediate target market is NOT mainstream consumers.

no it impacts the financially privileged as well, they can no longer speculate bitcoin will be currency.

Nonsense. Bitcoin is not limited to its blockchain and the obvious end game for transactional uses are open payment networks like Lightning.

The wealthy are mostly concerned with shielding their capital from dirty regulators hands and oversight. Bitcoin offers unparalleled value in that regard.
Jump to: