Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 7492. (Read 26586469 times)

I agree with this point.

But there are some other things from the last run up that I am curious about whether we see again.

Orchestrated spam transactions.  Empty blocks mined.  I've read all the arguments that those are perfectly legit, and from a certain perspective I agree. But the game has changed since then...

oh right

we were supposed to be watching for a bottom in GRIN

thanks for the reminder

Dear customer, we are sorry for the interruption of service. Please stand by as we are rebooting JJG.exe and your observing experience will continue as soon as possible.

I remember some of you guys used to grin a lot... How's your sh!tcoin doing?

---

18 Months In, Few People Use, Mine or Buy Privacy Coin Grin

https://www.coindesk.com/18-months-few-people-use-mine-buy-privacy-coin-cryptocurrency-grin

Of course, you are 100% innocent.

As you were soldier.   

WTF are you on about, now? I'm just pointing out the fact, lest I be accused by some idiot of 'bringing THAT up again'.

I must respect that you are GREAT at shirking responsibility, for whatever that's worth.



 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewFBuYHldeY&list=RDCLAK5uy_klY80tDUG8t6V0eXb5ttfGqRZZb8c5JZg&index=2


No Context.

Why would having more miners make any difference in fees. Any miner will mine the highest value transactions, that's just like saying wheels will fall into potholes.

*shakes head*

My _deeper_ point? What, pray tell, may that be? I have made a couple of points, and they may be considered purely on face value.

The observant will note that the interjection of 'bcash' into the conversation was not of my doing, but rather that of JJG's.

That's interesting. I guess the more society gets fucked up, the worse the economic system gets for the common man, the more they need bread and circuses to distract them from the brutal crushing reality of living in a dying empire with a dying economic and currency system.

Good thing that we have two versions of bcash (I mean scam coins) to help us to recognize that there might be a better way.    


Maybe I am almost rolling off my chair with laughter while considering your deeper point, jbreher...

 




Let's get Craig Wright to teach them.....



 

Pretty much everyone has heard of Bitcoin. That's a rather different thing. Doesn't help that 85% of what they 'know' about Bitcoin is utter bollocks.

Riddle me this: in a free market, how does one 'artificially lift the fees'? One does not. One cannot. The condition of rising fees is a natural and completely predictable consequence of implementing a centrally-managed quota on the production of block space.


Serious question: Do you expect the miners to _not_ prioritize the more profitable txs? Do you expect them to have made these multi-million-dollar investments just out of altruism?

Perhaps some ponderation upon Satoshi's greatest innovation -- of aligning economic incentive with processing txs -- might be in order.

Hopefully, eventually does not take a long time, because "eventually" we are all going to be dead, too.    

well, more like soonish, not soon, really.
Apart from buying 1 full btc for less than 10K, one can also buy a few miners (10 S17 60th/s are about 1btc shipped without adding taxes, which are 27.6% in US, lower everywhere else).
600 th/s makes at currently difficulty 1.7 btc/year, so maybe you would make around 1.3 btc if difficulty would start rising. Makes sense to do only if you have almostfree electricity AND you simply want to average OR a steady cash flow. Upside-fees, which could give you up to 30% more.

More millionaires than bitcoins. Especially available bitcoins. Things will eventually get interesting.

Ha, I just read it today.
Conclusion: everything (in sciences that are not exactly natural) is bs, UNLESS you wrote out an exact protocol before you started the experiments and never deviated from such protocol.
A sidenote: I personally believe that there is some validity in ESP, don't know how to explain it from a scientific view point, let's leave it at that.

Like you, Indymoney, I find myself a little bit confused by such a statement from btc_macro because I would not presume that very many people would be very prudent to put all of their wealth into bitcoin, so presuming that a millionnaire is someone who has a million dollars worth of net wealth, then likely only a portion of that value would be contained in quasi-liquid investments. 

I am not sure if we can remove the value of the home from the assessment of what is a millionnaire, because many persons who are assessed to be millionnaires would have a decent amount of their wealth in their personal home and affiliated real estate property.... but there likely could be some formula to consider the home and personal property as quasi-liquid value, even if we understand that real estate and homes do not tend to be very liquid.

Personally, I recommend that all people who have at least a 4-year timeline for their investment (meaning that they anticipate that they are not likely to need the money in at least 4 years - no impending death or anything like that), invest 1% to 10% of their quasi-liquid value into bitcoin.  Of course, there are some people who would be willing to be way more aggressive than my recommendation, especially if bitcoin starts to catch on, as seems to be a presumption of a possible outcome that is in the btc_macro proposition in the tweet.

So, for me, if I think of someone who has an investible portfolio of $1million, then the more aggressive stance would be to have 10% of that value in bitcoin, and therefore to own a whole bitcoin then BTC would have to be $100k or less per BTC for a person of that investment stature to be exercising reasonable prudence within my investment framework.

Currently, someone with a $1million investable portfolio could easily and prudently acquire around 10.3BTC, if choosing to put 10% of that portfolio into BTC.  For sure, I accept that there are quite a few variants for how people thinking about what is prudent investing, and currently we have a situation in which NOT too many investors, whether millionnaires or not, or even institutions, are failing/refusing to put even 1% of their quasi-liquid investment capital into bitcoin, so I would imagine that in the future, there will be more interest from a lot of folks to at least get off zero and at least get to 1% which most likely mean that they would not be able to own a whole bitcoin because they are currently NOT sufficiently enlightened to see what is likely to happen with bitcoin's price in the coming 5-10 years (and likely sooner than that).

He does that.



https://getpocket.com/explore/item/daryl-bem-proved-esp-is-real?utm_source=pocket-newtab

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daryl_Bem