Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 4834. (Read 26607966 times)

Is that your own gif, NIZZAONE?

Explanation

You are talking about $10 million per coin then, especially if you expect that your 0.21BTC is going to be worth millions (minimum entry-size for "millions" is $2 million).



Lookie uie poo-ie - a pessimist.   


For further clarification, FTFY


FTFY, too...


Lookie uie-pooie.  Sucking up to the nocoiner.   


You are forgiven.   kind of.   


Regulations so that people stop making so much money?

hamster in a wheel
gon' send him to outer space
never will come down



pls 4 give me  

Not likely, they are the recipients of Brrrrr.



I have noticed this in quit a few instances as well.

I cannot disagree with you, but I will still state that there are going to be significant amount of differences between the mature investor (just referring to someone who has already built a decently-sized investment portfolio not referring to smartness, sophistication or age) and the person who has no other investments or very few investments.

The mature investor has to first get off zero and has to likely figure out the amount of allocation that s/he is going to make towards bitcoin, if any, and surely I am with you in terms of the more aggressive approaches being much likely to be better, especially if we are talking about anyone with a 4 year or longer investment horizon.  Any mature investor also would need to consider how to get from zero to his/her target investment allocation.. and then potentially be studying bitcoin along the way too in order to tweak his her target amounts and/or other bitcoin allocation/management strategies.

The brand new investor might be a bit easier to advise in terms of suggesting to just start with bitcoin.. but let's say for example, the person only has a few hundred dollars of cashflow per month that could be invested, there could be some questions regarding how aggressive to be in terms of also making sure that such brand new investor does not get himself/herself into a pickle in terms of managing cashflow including having some kind of emergency that causes some possible need to cash out some or all BTC at a time that is not of his/her own choosing. 

Poor cashflow management for the newbie, or even unnecessary risk taking by more mature investors could put either one in either underperforming positions or even losing money on an investment that should be profitable given that it is likely part of a unprecedented wealth transferring system.

My mother just send me this photo, took it from out of her apartment in Rio…

Small protest, people want BTC regulations
 

Oh, I think it will most certainly happen.  I can imagine merchants offering all kinds of incentives to connect to their nodes like they do with lines of credit today.  Including lines of credit.  Because merchants will figure out having a well connected payment node will make them money, and save them money.  And of course eventually there will be so many connected nodes with big channels that payments will work better and better as the network grows.  But one of the best incentives is if you have a channel to the grocery chain's node then payments can be basically free.  

Also (and somewhat disturbingly) the whole "buyer's card" thing also gets tossed in this scenario, because the data will be directly in the hands of the seller... they will know what you bought, when you bought it, etc.  Which is the reason for those little dumb cards now.

So like I said... I think the store will not only encourage you to open a channel to their node they might pay for it.

On the other hand, for many grandmas with smart phones all the channel management etc will be handled by the players building this stuff.  There is some pretty deep money to be made taking a seat at the table where Strike is currently one of the only ones sitting.

Where the real innovation lies for this?  Making all these things into a standards.  Everyday folks are not going to take the time to learn what lightning is.  They just need a way to pay for their stuff.  And the tech will do all of this on the back end.

This is where some folks are frightened by the centralization that this will incur.  And I understand that. But it is unavoidable.  There is no way to build these systems in a way that people will not take the "easy route".  Like a gmail account... The banks and merchants who do this well are going to have a really big seat at the table.

But like I frequently point out.  No one HAS to use ANY of it if they do not want to.  And "power users" will be able to keep their sovereignty as long as we keep the requirements to run a node low enough.

Explanation

I have no doubt that before I'm 6 feet under, my tiny stash could be worth in the $millions.
However, seeing how a loaf of bread and a gallon of milk at that future point in time will cost $1999.99, that's not really saying a lot.....



Says the clown with "I
need 3 Bitcoins. Urgently .."
in their avatar.

Pretty sure you are just an idiot troll
who knows how, and loves to get quoted in the wob,
so I give you credit for that.   (< I know... this one is not a highcoo, oh well.... )

I will get to some of your post later on but what do you think about merchants creating and operating their own Lightening node. I think that would be more profitable for them and while not every merchant might have the knowledge to do it I think the bigger companies would open their own nodes and dictate their own fees. That could be problematic if Google started doing that because they could demand higher fees and still get business while smaller businesses would need to charge more for the product and would need to use lightening nodes which already exist or create their own with fees which would not compete with Google.

This probably is not good investment advice but I think diversifying instead of investing all you can in Bitcoin would be a poor choice. Bitcoin is the most revolutionary thing that exists today and even if it is not used as a mainstream currency the potential to earn on it is bigger than any market I have invested in previously. I have researched many hours on what the best things are to invest in and my conclusion is the property market is always ok to invest in because there will always be demand and Bitcoin because the demand in freedom is always going to be higher than what we have in fiat. I think diversifying is good because you are not risking all your eggs in 1 basket but I think if you are not investing all you can afford into Bitcoin now you will lose out.

Another interesting twist in the lightning vs Bitcoin vs credit card models:

Credit cards charge a flat fee of ~3% for each purchase.  So when you go the the computer store and buy your $2500 Macbook $75 of this goes straight to the chain of people who facilitate the CC purchase.  But this *seems* to be invisible to you.  Because the laptop cost $2500, and you PAID $2500.  But the store only received 2425.00.  (Of course taxes are a totally different animal).  So the math involved in getting this all right for the supply chain from the semi manufacturers to the seller takes that 3% into account in the suggested retail price.

The model we currently see in the lightning network the fees are paid by the BUYER.  If i send you 5,157,320 satoshis (currently ~2.5kUSD) you GET exactly that many satoshis. As a side note this is a fairly BIG lightning invoice... but also possible today thanks to wumbo channels and multi-path-payments. It would still be hard to get this one through without a channel to the seller, but it will get easier over time.  Fees paid for a transaction this size will vary WILDLY based on the available nodes and how many hops needed to make the payment.  But we could expect to pay somewhere between 500-50000 sats for this payment.

Bitcoin on chain payments ALSO charge the sender the fee. But there is a very interesting difference to fee structures on lightning.  And one that is quite useful to commerce.  It is an interesting twist that currently if you send ANY AMOUNT onchain it will, as of this post, cost you about $0.36usd to see it make a block within an hour (2sat/b).  This is true if you send ten cents or if you send $10,000,000. This illustrates the problem with micropayments that Satoshi and Hal Finney and others discussed here in the early days.

The lightning network charges fees TWO ways.

-A flat fee
-a fee rate

Both denominated in millisats (0.000000000001 BTC) you will often see a 1000 milisat fee, with fee rate that can be between 1-2%.  This means a lightning network payment might see fees that are often less than, but approaching the fees on credit cards.  Sometimes more, sometimes less.  But the structure is particularly useful for micropayments because you can charge even less than a satoshi for very small transactions.  And people pushing the limits and using giant liquidity pay an arguably fairer price.

But this will hit the buyer.  When you buy your $2500 macbook you could easily pay $25-50 in fees to get that payment across (again assuming you are connected well enough to make that large payment.

We should see several interesting dynamics come into play.

1. Prices will likely drop at merchants that take Bitcoin, and discounts for payment in bitcoin will be offered.
2. Wallets will begin to intelligently choose between on and off chain payments at certain thresholds.
3. Real competition in the lightning node fee markets will develop as you will not have the near monopolies the CCs currently are.
4. It will make sence to open channels to retailers you frequent the most.  The grocery store, and perhaps even the computer store.  And then you may be able to reduce your fees to 0, or close to it.

Banks will eventually do complex channel management, and i predict we might even see payment apps, that can use the lightning network branded by the bank.  Strike has shown the way, and banks may begin to realize they can do FIAT denominated electronic payments by using the lightning network backend.

When you think about it a little and start to see the future.. it's pretty amazing, in my opinion.

Explanation

it is likely a bank advert try to hurt btc

Imo this is how the lightening network should operate in the future. I said in another topic that the problem with Bitcoin is the fees and the complexity of setting up Lightening nodes but if we can get people to not charge much for operating a Lightening node then the incentive for people adopting Bitcoin compared to credit cards will go up. Atm vendors are accepting credit cards because they are instant and they have no fees but in time when Bitcoin gets more popular vendors will be encouraged to accept Bitcoin but the only problem for them would be people would still be more likely to pay with their credit cards because of the fees. Although if we can get more people like you setting up Lightening nodes with little fees the incentive of customers paying in Bitcoin increases and then more vendors will want to accept Bitcoin increasing its adoption and improving the price for all of us.

The only problem we have a lot of people do not see past that they can earn money while operating a node and processing transactions but if they saw that reducing their commission for increased adoption would benefit them more. I have to ask does what you earn processing transactions pay for the electricity that you are using to operate the node because those are some very small fees.

Each of us likely have differing ways of describing matters.  We can say something like bitcoin is not guaranteed, and it has a four year cycle that has so far played out, and we can also suggest that it seems to be the best investment that has existed and likely facilitating the largest wealth transfer in history.. while at the same time none of it is guaranteed... and bitcoin is also an asymmetric bet that seems to have a very large high upside potential .. that is also not guaranteed.. so bitcoin can have all these wonderful things going for it that justifies investing into it and at the same time not being guaranteed.


Who cares what people say about shitcoins?  It's not really on topic here to be comparing and contrasting various shitcoins.  It's a slippery slope that does not lead us anywhere


Of course, there are also other places that bitcoiners can invest, yet I am also having some difficulties understanding why we need to get into discussing any details about those kinds of options, without first figuring out what the bitcoin approach might be, and then just generally people might have other things that they are already invested into before they even get to investing into bitcoin, they are simultaneously investing into or they might not have a large enough investment portfolio in order to have a lot of different assets contained within their portfolio... seems a bit off topic if we are talking about other investments before figuring out the bitcoin component first. at least in this thread.

Of course, historically I have frequently posted about the mature investor who already has some kind of investment portfolio and therefor I have always suggested for that kind of investor to figure out a way to allocate 1% to 10% into bitcoin, and there is largely ONLY vague reference to what the other investments might be because that would be largely off topic here.. and then if there is a brand new investor who does not have any other investments, then we would be more interested in establishing his/her bitcoin investment rather than figuring out what other investments that person might have or be considering... and I am not even opposed to starting out with only bitcoin and cash, and then once the bitcoin and cash portfolio is built up, then perhaps figuring out diversification after that, yet again there seems to be hardly any need to discuss what those other investments might be, if any.

Good point.

"Bitcoin is death" is another popular meme that seems weird to me.

Occasionally you see some themes that are pro-bitcoin on the surface, but sending strange subliminal messages.

Explanation