Author

Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 21818. (Read 26608070 times)

legendary
Activity: 3431
Merit: 1233
money which the bitcoin holders have put into the system, and expect to get back from it ---
I've put dollars into bitcoin but I don't expect to get back dollars. I expect to get back goods and services.

Bad excuses, goods and services providers will get dollars back immediately
Not all of them and not 100% of the bitcoins they get. You should read bitpay's report for 2014.
newbie
Activity: 5
Merit: 0
money which the bitcoin holders have put into the system, and expect to get back from it ---
I've put dollars into bitcoin but I don't expect to get back dollars. I expect to get back goods and services.

Bad excuses, goods and services providers will get dollars back immediately from shady exchangers or bitpay&coinbase, don't act like you don't know about it.
legendary
Activity: 3431
Merit: 1233
money which the bitcoin holders have put into the system, and expect to get back from it ---
I've put dollars into bitcoin but I don't expect to get back dollars. I expect to get back goods and services.
legendary
Activity: 2380
Merit: 1823
1CBuddyxy4FerT3hzMmi1Jz48ESzRw1ZzZ
hero member
Activity: 910
Merit: 1003
Tim Swanson thinks transactions cost 25 BTC divided by the number of transactions in a block. That's a complete misunderstanding of not just what the block reward does but of what Bitcoin even is. He has gathered some interesting data, but his analysis is unlikely to be of much use as he has no fundamental understanding of Bitcoin in the first place.

Tim Swanson (who understands bitcoin's economy much better than most bitcoin gurus) is looking at the miners as an entity that performs a service to the "bitcoin system" (validating and securing transactions) in return for a payment (the block rewards and transaction fees).

Right now, that entity gets 25 BTC (~6000 USD) for each validated block, and the average block contains 750 transactions.  So the miners are being paid ~8 USD for each transaction that they process, on average.

In percentage terms, the transactions in a block move about 280'000 USD, on average (excluding presumed "return change" outputs); so the miners' revenue is about 2% of the money that they move.

There is not much room for misunderstanding there.  Right now,  the bitcoin network is way too expensive for the service that it renders.  If the price were to rise to 2'400 $/BTC before the next halving, and the volume numbers doubled until then (which is what they barely did over the last 2 years), the miners would be paid ~40 dollars per transaction , or 10% of the transaction amount, on the average.

As you all know, those 8 bucks (or 40 bucks) come entirely from the pockets of new investors -- the people who are buying bitcoins today to increase their holdings.  For the price to increase to 2'400 $/BTC over the next year, there would have to be a 10x increase in the money brought in by those investors.  I hope that everybody here is aware of that.

The money earned by the miners will never get back to the system; therefore, the only hope that those new investors have of recovering their money is that there will be enough new investors' money coming in tomorrow to pay for tomorrow's mining and to buy those bitcoins that they are buying today, hpefully with some premium. 

Thus, at current prices and rewards, the bitcoin protocol is creating every day another million dollars of naked debt: money which the bitcoin holders have put into the system, and expect to get back from it --- but which has been given to the miners, and will not be returned by them.

By pushing the cost of the network to those new investors, the protocol allows the users and entrepreneurs to entertain the illusion that transactions have almost zero cost, and therefore are cheaper than international bank payments and remittances.  This whacky "business model" cannot go on indefinitely.

hero member
Activity: 546
Merit: 500
Warning: Confrmed Gavinista
I am pretty much the only one who read this PoS, or I'm surrounded by douches.

Its always better to be arguing with one smart guy than to find yourself agreeing with 10 fools.
legendary
Activity: 1554
Merit: 1014
Make Bitcoin glow with ENIAC
If you're short now you're either crazy or stupid. Or both. Grin

There are a lot of crazy stupid people on this thread it seems. Though they seem to have gone totally silent after the price inexplicably failed to crash to $160 last week.

Now all the TA people agree that we will head to 210-220 or 150-160. Will be interesting to see where we are when I wake up tomorrow. Wouldn't be surprised if we were in the 260s.

Good Night Y'all!
legendary
Activity: 1176
Merit: 1000
If you're short now you're either crazy or stupid. Or both. Grin

There are a lot of crazy stupid people on this thread it seems. Though they seem to have gone totally silent after the price inexplicably failed to crash to $160 last week.
legendary
Activity: 2002
Merit: 1040
If you're short now you're either crazy or stupid. Or both. Grin
legendary
Activity: 1554
Merit: 1014
Make Bitcoin glow with ENIAC
Come on shorters. Try and push it down a bit further so i can buy in.

Yeah!

legendary
Activity: 1176
Merit: 1000
Come on shorters. Try and push it down a bit further so i can buy in.
legendary
Activity: 2380
Merit: 1823
1CBuddyxy4FerT3hzMmi1Jz48ESzRw1ZzZ
legendary
Activity: 1168
Merit: 1000
I'm reading a bit of this Tim Swanson report Strider linked to and his analytical skills leaves a bit to be desired. I am not in any way suggesting that Brian Armstrongs assertion is unassailable, but Mr. Swansons attack on it is not worth much.

"Two months ago Brian Armstrong, the CEO of Coinbase, said:

Ripple, Stellar, and Altcoins are all a distraction. Bitcoin is way too far ahead. We should be focused on bitcoin and sidechains.

This is empirically untrue. If Bitcoin was “too far ahead,” then axiomatically no one would be working on all these other projects as they would clearly see this trend and focus on one platform. "


That one is cringe worthy. 
legendary
Activity: 1554
Merit: 1014
Make Bitcoin glow with ENIAC
I'm reading a bit of this Tim Swanson report Strider linked to and his analytical skills leaves a bit to be desired. I am not in any way suggesting that Brian Armstrongs assertion is unassailable, but Mr. Swansons attack on it is not worth much.

"Two months ago Brian Armstrong, the CEO of Coinbase, said:

Ripple, Stellar, and Altcoins are all a distraction. Bitcoin is way too far ahead. We should be focused on bitcoin and sidechains.

This is empirically untrue. If Bitcoin was “too far ahead,” then axiomatically no one would be working on all these other projects as they would clearly see this trend and focus on one platform. "



Edit: OK, I guess the answer to this:


1. It's not true that bitcoin (a token) and the underlying technology (a distributed ledger) are inseparable. As the Tim Swanson report showed (http://www.ofnumbers.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Permissioned-distributed-ledgers.pdf).


Do you have a quote of what you are referring to? Or at least a chapter or a page to back up your statement?

I haven't read too closely (not closely at all, which is why I asked for a quote) but the kinds of networks where the blockchain and the token is separable it seems that no value is transferred. It will function purely as a ledger and the value will have to be transferred otherwise. If true, that seems quite limiting.

...was Hyperledger and it's ilk. The fact that none of you could simply say "Hyperledger" tells me that I am pretty much the only one who read this PoS, or I'm surrounded by douches.
legendary
Activity: 2380
Merit: 1823
1CBuddyxy4FerT3hzMmi1Jz48ESzRw1ZzZ
legendary
Activity: 1162
Merit: 1007
Tim Swanson thinks transactions cost 25 BTC divided by the number of transactions in a block. That's a complete misunderstanding of not just what the block reward does but of what Bitcoin even is. He has gathered some interesting data, but his analysis is unlikely to be of much use as he has no fundamental understanding of Bitcoin in the first place.

Tim Swanson is one of the few widely published that really seems to understand Bitcoin if you ask me. I think his advocacy of so-called permissioned ledgers stems from the premise that decentralization hurts the ability of Bitcoin to integrate into the current legal/regulatory pigeon-holes. I personally don't find that compelling, but that seems to me to be the nut of his argument.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

To create a digital version of the US Dollar that retains its "cash-like" properties, David Andolfatto (VP, Federal Reserve Bank of St Louis) argues here that miners would be needed to process transactions in order to keep "Fedcoin" free from KYC requirements:

Quote from: David Andolfatto
...the e-version of the USD will probably be subject to KYC restrictions, which is unlike paper cash. To the paper cash feeling, we'd need to let the book-keeping done by disinterested third parties, like Bitcoin miners.

So here we have a Fed Official arguing that decentralized transaction processing is actually needed to fit within the existing regulatory/legal framework.  The Fed can't use a "permissioned ledger" because then those granting permission would also be responsible for AML/KYC checks.  This is opposite to the idea that "decentralization hurts the ability ... to integrate into the current legal/regulatory pigeon-holes."

Quote from: David Andolfatto
...to keep Fedcoin free of KYC restrictions, we probably don't want the Fed involved in processing these payments.

legendary
Activity: 1554
Merit: 1014
Make Bitcoin glow with ENIAC

You bunch of dicks

I asked for something a bit less than a 66 page analysis and you throw a 318 page book back at me

FFFFFFFFFF UUUUUUUUUUUUU

Stick to the CCMF gifs, dude.
Don't suckerpunch me just because you can't build a valid argument. If you can't explain it then you haven't understood it.

Will this do?

https://youtu.be/25N-4zrk390


Nope, I'm on my friggin android phone again. In a setting where I would be an idiot to open one of your links.

My bad, it was a dead link alright, but i fixed it now. OK!

I'll check it later but I can give you a courtesy lol.

LOL

Edit: ok, I'm back. I stand by my LOL. Good point, well made.
hero member
Activity: 546
Merit: 500
Warning: Confrmed Gavinista

You bunch of dicks

I asked for something a bit less than a 66 page analysis and you throw a 318 page book back at me

FFFFFFFFFF UUUUUUUUUUUUU

Stick to the CCMF gifs, dude.
Don't suckerpunch me just because you can't build a valid argument. If you can't explain it then you haven't understood it.

Will this do?

https://youtu.be/25N-4zrk390


Nope, I'm on my friggin android phone again. In a setting where I would be an idiot to open one of your links.

My bad, it was a dead link alright, but i fixed it now. OK!
legendary
Activity: 1106
Merit: 1007
Hide your women
The way I see it: some banks are starting to invest in bitcoin companies (but not bitcoin the currency itself) simply because they suspect that something will come out of this whole crypto thing. It doesn't have to be bitcoin the currency itself, it doesn't have to be a "coin", maybe a payment network, maybe another technology, a distributed ledger system, who knows.

Yeah, like investing in pets.com was a good idea just in case this whole "internet thing" takes off.

Blockchain tech only works if you have enough mining power to secure the ledger. If Big Money is starting to pay attention, then it's only a matter of time for them to discover that recreating the entire infrastructure just to keep us early adopters from making money is more risky and more expensive than paying us off.  Perhaps you remember the "information superhighway" that was supposed to supersede the Internet. Nope. They just built on top of it.

They will build on top of Bitcoin because They love making profits more than they hate guys like me. It's the smart thing to do.
legendary
Activity: 1554
Merit: 1014
Make Bitcoin glow with ENIAC

You bunch of dicks

I asked for something a bit less than a 66 page analysis and you throw a 318 page book back at me

FFFFFFFFFF UUUUUUUUUUUUU

Stick to the CCMF gifs, dude.
Don't suckerpunch me just because you can't build a valid argument. If you can't explain it then you haven't understood it.

Will this do?

https://youtu.be/25N-4zrk390


Nope, I'm on my friggin android phone again. In a setting where I would be an idiot to open one of your links.
Jump to: