Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 5675. (Read 26608922 times)

 Would have been more believable if he had said "Iran".  China doesn't need Bitcoin since they already hold massive amounts of US debt.  They could easily use this leverage to slow US economic growth.  Bitcoin not required.

THIS is the guy who is joining the "Crypto whatever Initiative" as well as sending his  CRYPTO company public next week.

All is fine.

I vote for Bitcoin as it currently functions on-chain. And I vote for 2nd-layer solutions for coffee purchases. We've all seen what's happened with BCH (a.k.a. bcash LOL) and BSV (a.k.a. Craig Wrong - Calvin Ayre pedo-island coin)...

I trust Bitcoin's future in the capable hands of the brilliant coders in the core development team, that slowly and extra-carefully add new elements in the code (SegWit being the most important of them so far), all under a strict consensus scheme. It's easy to criticize and suggest changes, big blocks, changes in PoW, some even want PoS FFS, but it's not at all obvious how those changes could affect the robustness and stability of the network. Just let 2nd-layer solutions handle coffee-sized purchases, and if they fail, get rid of them and develop new ones—the core network remains unaffected. It's a win-win. Don't mess with something that's proven to be the most successful network ever invented, with 100% uptime since 2009.

If anything, higher fees can serve as a spam deterrent: "Wanna transact on-chain? You'd better be serious about it." Just imagine having to pay $0.10 for every email you send. Email spam would be zero. I'm OK with that. Let 2nd-layer solutions gather your yearly espressos, cappuccinos and lattes with near-zero fees, and commit them all in a large $1000 on-chain transaction, with a $5 fee.

My 2 sats.

Edit: Updated my 2nd-layer solution example with more realistic numbers.

Personally, I don't even consider that there is a problem with trying to present various flat tire theories in regard to bitcoin supposedly being the flat tire - but there continues to be something that is quite off in regards to Richy_T's ongoing presentation of the supposed flat tire matter and bringing up stupid-ass arguments that have been beaten to death and largely rebutted by facts and logic, but he seems to be wanting to package them as if they are ongoing concerns - and just assuming a lot of baloney in regards to what bitcoiners want or what they should want in terms of being able to perform small transactions on chain for low fees and therefore seems to be speculating about factual scenarios that do not actually exist - kind of taking jbrehers place who was taking jstolfi's place.. and yeah there were some others along the way, too who liked to beat up on bitcoin regularly and assuming hypotheticals that were just pie in the sky in terms of present situation or future development.

Another problem that seems to thread through Richy_T's ongoing whining about some of the scaling matters, is that he seems to be ongoingly suggesting that the solutions are being presented through some other coins rather than really attempting to figure out how such potential solutions could be developed on bitcoin - so he is implicitly in a kind of pumpening of other coins even if he is not really specifying the various amorphous coins that supposedly have better solutions for transaction fees that he seems to want to be able to engage in low transaction fees onchain for small transactions - and largely he is just ongoingly bashing bitcoin in amorphous kinds of ways with old talking points.. while amorphously pumping other coins as if they were somehow better than bitcoin... blah blah blah.

*sigh* that Thiel quote is grossly misrepresented.  But whatevs...  There is no stopping the FUD train.

FTFY

Good afternoon WO!
Observing @ $57,820

Top 10 at best. Probably top 5. With the caveat that some in the top 10 shouldn't even be there (looking at you, XRP) and there is always going to be a bit of churn and some coins will temporarily obtain high market caps due to shenanigans.

No no no. Going that much back makes no sense. It was completely unreliable territory price-wise.

Oh, in that case, nevermind then?

Bitcoin will always be losing some marketshare in terms of marketcap against all other altcoins simply because anyone can create a fork or a new coin or token, and it could possibly have some value to some people, maybe even in the millions of dollars, and ... bitcoin loses marketshare.

With more than 7000 different altcoins and tokens, it's no surprise. It's just that, everything beyond the first or top 50 is not really relevant. Some are experimental and have billions in value, which takes away from bitcoins "marketshare".

But if you never look at any other altcoins, then Bitcoin, all by itself, with it's 1 trillion market cap, is much better today than it was last year. I would personally still keep an eye on ETH and the stablecoins, and maybe the other "eth killers" like ADA and DOT.

Even UNI has a bigger cap than LTC ... which in turn is higher than BCH or BSV.

Use case #1 also implies that the true value of BTC per whole coin is indeed going to 100 million USD. Eventually. It will take decades maybe. Around the year 2050 we will find out. Some of us will be gone, others will have just "matured" ... We will see... we will see...

I think we DO agree mostly.  And I agree that BTC as a store of value is use case #1.  It's just that the digital, ephemeral nature of BTC lends itself to technological solutions with few boundaries which will happen quickly and take it into the realm of a transactional asset as well.  I also think use case #1 is really the only one we should be focusing on now... at least in certain contexts.

I guess we don't all agree. I stand corrected.

Sidechains may have a major use case in the future, we will see.  Right now they are just experimental.

The main chain as a store of value is what is giving us this price and is the driver behind any significant price increases going forward.

We don't need a swiss army knife, we just need a stable store of value. That's what the world needs.

Au contraire...he was talking about the FUTURE, maybe.
If this year we would go as hard as we went in Q1, then, together with over-performance last year, it very well may be 200%.
Not to criticize, but what is the significance of two brown lines (why there are two of them)?

Sans graphs, from $20 (two pizzas) for 10000 btc to $57245/btc is 28622500X appreciation, which comes down to an average of 476% a year (in 11 years), so 200% might be a somewhat solid number.

The key problem with Trump was that he was far too easy to sway and manipulate. The people who wound up manipulating him just turned out to be a pretty.... interesting bunch. Couple that with his whole "one I make a decision I never go back" and you have a recipe for disaster.

When you have no destination, any road can get you there.

I have to weigh in on this 1 millionth Big/Small block detour.

People still see this as entirely black and white.  Bitcoin chose small therefore it = digital gold.  Period.

This completely ignores the fact that more and more folks are working on the tech behind doing transactions on layers.  Spending bitcoin quickly (and even in a trust minimized way) is already working somewhat, and will only work better and better with MANY choices and tradeoffs.  Just like you can spend the USD with credit cards, checks, cash, payal etc, and see that settle in your account daily, and have those banks settle via FEDwire Bitcoin is starting to work the same way.

With ONE importnt difference.  WE are fedwire.  You do not have to be a bank to use the BTC blockchain.

"But it will be too expensive to transact on the base chain!"  Says who?  You can still do it.  Anyone can do it.  Having small transactions priced out is compitition and we have chosen that path to secure the best distributed/decentralized ffuture possible for the base layer.

Someone fleeing their oppressive country cannot use Fedwire to take their savings with them.  But they can bitcoin. (Or lightning, or liquid, etc)

Bitcoin WILL be used transactionally.  Folks (ex Saylor) are knowingly downplaying this right now EXACTLY because the longer we can keep the "digital gold only" narrative going the longer the reserve banks will drag their asses.

But we should know better gents...

There is no denial. The issue has been resolved. We had a fork. Big blockers went to their own fork.

The market has decided how much that fork is worth compared to bitcoin. Arguing that the market is wrong is psychotic.

What you see as needing fixed, is a feature critical to the current value and use case for BTC. That case is a store of value, not a transactional currency. You might have a good argument that the fork is a better transactional currency and you can see what the price of such a currency is worth.

The fact is, credit/debit cards, bank accounts, bank apps, etc, work just fine for transactions. The market has decided the store of value use case is what is worth $57k+. This use case benefits from people holding on to the coin and not transacting it unless they really need to. This use case will eventually lead to corporations and governments making transactions in the billions or trillions of dollars each. The whole world will benefit from the instant settlement of these large transactions.

Clogging or inflating the system with low value transactions hurts the possibility of this future. The block size limit is exactly what controls for and eliminates the low value transactions and you are advocating for getting rid of it!

You are advocating for destroying bitcoin, that's why your commentary is not welcomed. This isn't an echo chamber, it's just a place where the people who understand the above choose to hang out. You are constantly discussing this topic when nobody else even mentioned it. You are the only one bringing it up.

Stop trying to undermine what we've built here and people will stop telling you to get lost.

Endless warfare with the 55000 USD to 59000 USD range. Honeybadger is going to tear faces off soon, maybe COIN debut trading day will bring the volume for BTC next week.

My gf took out her pension fund and "ordered" me to invest it into btc. Guess I'll have to put a ring on her soon enough.

Little... but still good!

OK, now I have to reply to this accusation. I wasn't talking about shitcoins. Pay attention. Someone asked why Bitcoin was losing market dominance and I suggested it was capacity issues with Bitcoin. It's everyone else who jumps on with suggestions of using shitcoins for some reason.