Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 20782. (Read 26608361 times)

It's a bird! It's a plane! It's Jonas Gahr Støre!

hamasJonasGahrStøre       

LMAO

Coin
Explanation

He had a bigger hit with a song about his favourite bitch or something. No idea why he's named Bitcoin though.

What is the mission?

Who is this guy??

Maybe I'm late for the party. But have you seen this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xpw7b-zsnKw

Coin
Explanation

Crashing from $1200 to $10 is impossible indiscriminately ......... so Btc needs some times to rest For finishing it's mission ..........

Indeed, I misread the last part.

on second thought, if Q increases, Velocity increases and M is increasing at a rate of 3600 coins per day, then P also has to increase which would make the value of BTC plummet. Now as you say, this equation really only works in a closed system, so what is the only item that can ONLY be purchased with BTC?  Blockspace. Obviously the cost of blockspace will go down dramatically as supply increases, but that is what will make bitcoin more valuable in dollar terms. increased utility.  If you can buy more blockspace with your BTC, Q increases more or less exactly to the proportion of velocity (V) increasing.  So the equation remains in balance.

So I actually agree with you. Bitcoin buys one thing directly: the ability to write on the block chain. What we are really investing in is shares of the blockchain. As the blockchain size increases, it becomes more valuable in the greater economy, assuming the quality of the information it contains remains constant. That is a pretty big assumption however and I think quality will likely go down a little, but NOT IN PROPORTION to INCREASED SIZE. It costs BTC to spam the network. Spam is prevalent only where it is very cheap or free. There will be spam, but not nearly as much proportionally to (for example) my email inbox.  Factor in certain miners not including dust xactions and spam becomes only a miner (heh) nuisance.

Now miners may gripe that they are bearing a disproportional burden in policing spam, and that's true but only in BTC terms. We the users will pay them more fiat for BTC that can do more writing on the blockchain, so they will actually profit more in fiat terms.  

You assume the quantity of goods remains constant. In this case, you can make that assumption for a closed system where all goods need to be exchanged for BTC. But that's not how it is. Bitcoin competes usually with at least one other local currency. So Q changes with the amount of goods traded for BTC, i.e. it depends on the popularity of BTC. If transactions become scarce, the price of transactions will rise, and Bitcoin will be less attractive as a currency. Hence, the price of BTC will drop, as it will become  less competitive compared to the alternative local fiat currency.

Summarized, if the transactions are throttled, Bitcoin will become less attractive, and hence, cheaper.

Did he really just call Gavin Andresen and Mike Hearn "outliers" and talked about their lack of phd?
And his statement that higher TPS will lead to lower price... How much does he earn for talking such truths? [I assume he's right because he has phd, right?]

Anthem Blanchard (Anthem Vault CEO):
"Increasing the number of transactions per block will lower the price of bitcoin (the currency, with a small b), because ultimately more transactions will go through. [...] We have to really understand why they [the Core developers] aren't on board, and that's not really clear, yet."

Total bullshit, of course, except for the last part. Indeed, it isn't clear why the Core-devs want to limit the number of transactions to 2.7 per second, resulting in an artificial scarcity of transactions some time next year, effectively halting the growth of Bitcoin. They say that more transactions leads to centralization (implying that a crippled Bitcoin is better than a more centralized Bitcoin), but that is rather illogical. So yes, we do need to understand why the Core-devs try to enforce something illogical.

I don't even want to say anything about James McQuivey (a principal analyst, really?), who confirms that more transactions leads to more bitcoins. Jeez... 

p.s. I have a Ph.D.

Core lost 50%!

Ok, to play devil's advocate he's sort of right in a way that laymen will misinterpret and not understand. Recall the basic economics equation MV=PQ
basically, money supply (M) multiplied by velocity (V) equals Price of goods (P) times quantity of goods (Q).

Increasing block size means that bitcoin will have the POTENTIAL of greater velocity, which (if M remains constant or growing at a constant rate) means that (assuming quantity of goods remains constant) Price of goods goes up in BTC which means that the value of Bitcoin will fall.

that's a lot of assumptions that I don't think are warranted.  Q will likely go up massively as the utility of the network expands. For example: people will buy blockspace for timestamps, title records, etc.  also microtransactions.

Bitcoin has stabilized permanently.

Am I doing this right?

Coin
Explanation

First of all, it's "XT" not XP/
Second of all, the node switch is to allow miners to not deal with slow onion routers if they chose. It's optional.

Thirdly, I didn't even mention XT. I said bigger blocks. Scaling. It doesn't matter as much how they do it so long as they do it soon.

This is what I'm talking about. These bullshit objections that we've answered dozens of times. It's like small blockers WANT Bitcoin to be insignificant and irrelevant. Seven transactions per second tops is insuficient to make bitcoin more than a curiosity. It has to scale