Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 24706. (Read 26713582 times)

I like this slow creeping up to 350$ much more than huge jump and then crash . I think this price climb is worth more .

you are a well respected academic in your field of study -

The last paragraph in my quote above is not mine, of course; it was inserted by @walsoraj.

A weird sense of humor, or the desperation of a bag-holder? 

But it is true: I did sell all my BTC to invest in XRP, months ago.  And I have been doubling my XRP holdings every day since then, as I did before with BTC.

Bitcoin was meant to be an e-payment method (decentralized, trutless, etc.).  A fixed bitcoin supply is not necessary for that goal.  Indeed, bitcoin is being used in that role, in spite of still having 10%/year inflation (and even higher in the past).  And dollars and euros work fine as payment methods, in spite of their "horrendous" 1-2%/year inflation rate.

Thus, the argument that "raising the emission limit would destroy the value of bitcoin" does not sound convincing.  Hoarders would be very unhappy, of course.  Miners, however, may someday find it advantageous, especially by the time they are expected do depend on transaction fees instead of block rewards.  Block reward is steady and predictable, whereas fees depend on transaction volume -- which will probably shrink substantially if fees became mandatory.   People who use bitcoin for payments may not care, or may prefer block rewards because they provides "free" transactions.

It has been argued that, if some miners tried to change the protocol, the rest of the network would stick to the old one.  However, this correction mechanism has never been tested, and it seems difficult to predict what would happen, in all possible scenarios.  (After all, it was "proved", with the same certainty, that altcoins would die as soon as they were born.)  What if those "some miners" had 70% of the hash rate?  What if a large subset of the users became convinced that the change was necessary for the health of the network, or got some immediate benefit from it (such as no-fee transactions)? What if payment processors and merchants accepted only the "new" bitcoin?  

(By the way, some bitcoiners seem to be trying to convince people to adopt bitcoin by telling them that money sucks.  I sense a problem with that marketing strategy: it seems that many people have used money sometime in their lives, and may even have enjoyed the experience -- unlikely as that may sound.  )

If you already have your mind set on what you want to believe that is your thing.

I see a future where cryptocurrencies are used for all kinds of things, can be traded on p2p exchanges (a working algorithm for exchanging different cryptocurrencies that are based on blochchains exists)
and there are different coins for different usage scenarios.
An MMO could base its ingame currency on a cryptocurrency and in that community it makes sense to use it. Why would you want or need bitcoin for this, especially if you can easily exchange one for the other on exchanges.

But you go on believing that bitcoin will reach world dominance.
I simply find it a very narrow vision of the future

you cannot double zero...

The primary purpose of money is a store of value, so that it can proxy for products and services in commerce. It must retain value over time to properly function. If it doesn't then the whole economy is badly distorted, made inefficient.

Hoarding is simply the same as saving. Savings are what makes capitalism a viable economic model. Inflation is a stealth tax from those who have last use of new money (the poor, middle class) to the pockets of those who have first use of new money (the banks, wealthy, government).

lmao those are not respectable market cap... $100m? lmao..... this must be comedy hour on bitcointalk

The irony is that they don't. Or would you honestly claim that for Litecoin there is any real improvement.
All it takes is regional acceptance on a larger level to make a coin relevant for people in that area.

We can argue all we want about if, in the long term, these alts have merit but the reality is that they exist and some have quite respectable market caps for offering very little innovation.

That chart appears to be from last December 2013 or January 2014... there was some kind of glitch in the charts, and that was the first time that I had heard about Doge coin...

Alt coins need to offer something pretty good to overcome the network effect of bitcoin. So far, they don't. And with sidechains on the horizon, it's possible "real" altcoins never will.

Arguments on the network effect only work to a certain degree. An analogy would be to claim that something like Facebook or Google will be the sole existing service simply because it has the biggest network.

Bitcoin was meant to be an e-payment method (decentralized, trutless, etc.).  A fixed bitcoin supply is not necessary for that goal.  Indeed, bitcoin is being used in that role, in spite of still having 10%/year inflation (and even higher in the past).  And dollars and euros work fine as payment methods, in spite of their "horrendous" 1-2%/year inflation rate.

Thus, the argument that "raising the emission limit would destroy the value of bitcoin" does not sound convincing.  Hoarders would be very unhappy, of course.  Miners, however, may someday find it advantageous, especially by the time they are expected do depend on transaction fees instead of block rewards.  Block reward is steady and predictable, whereas fees depend on transaction volume -- which will probably shrink substantially if fees became mandatory.   People who use bitcoin for payments may not care, or may prefer block rewards because they provides "free" transactions.

It has been argued that, if some miners tried to change the protocol, the rest of the network would stick to the old one.  However, this correction mechanism has never been tested, and it seems difficult to predict what would happen, in all possible scenarios.  (After all, it was "proved", with the same certainty, that altcoins would die as soon as they were born.)  What if those "some miners" had 70% of the hash rate?  What if a large subset of the users became convinced that the change was necessary for the health of the network, or got some immediate benefit from it (such as no-fee transactions)? What if payment processors and merchants accepted only the "new" bitcoin?  

(By the way, some bitcoiners seem to be trying to convince people to adopt bitcoin by telling them that money sucks.  I sense a problem with that marketing strategy: it seems that many people have used money sometime in their lives, and may even have enjoyed the experience -- unlikely as that may sound.  )

Sorry about that, sometimes my other personalities get on my nerves.  Never mind.

My holdings are easy to compute: I learned about bitcoin ~350 days ago, and I have been doubling my hoard every day since then. 

I am not the Great Manipulator, of course.  Watashi-wa Nakamoto Satoshi-san desu, but don't tell that to anyone.

There are a large number of alt-coins that have done worse than BTC in the last year - probably, quite a few of them that was sufficiently in existence in the last year has done worse than bitcoin in the last year... it would be easier to count the ones that did NOT do worse than BTC in the last year than to count the ones that did do better than BTC.

Ah that explains so much.

I dumped the 200,000 ripple i was given in January for 5.5 bitcoins (at the time around $4000 I think). That same ripple today is worth about 2.8 bitcoins, or $1000 ish.

Ripple holders .... the only people who've done worse than btc holders this year

Also I doubt you're doubling your holdings everyday, or you'd quickly run out of cash http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheat_and_chessboard_problem