Wall Observer

[JayJuanGee]

this is the video I was looking for it's watchers of this stuff I think are buying in.
[ id=Z9DqVWZXhE8;m=4;s=46[/MEDIA]

Both of your recently posted videos are interesting. Thanks.

The first one appears to be from 3 months ago, and the second one within the past few days.

In the first video, his valuation of bitcoin was $386, based on bitcoin's network effect and fees to market cap.. blah blah blah... In the second video, he upgraded his valuation to $697. Overall he remains a bit bullish about bitcoin, yet his method of valuation seems a bit arbitrary or at least not really tied to some actual valuation (though it remains an attempt to value based on the network effect, so if fees go up, then value goes up... hahahahahahah.. ).

In any event, his assessment leans towards a mainstream acceptance and recognition of intrinsic financial value in bitcoin.

 

[adamstgbit]

check it out

[doublepost=1458699592][/doublepost]

Both of your recently posted videos are interesting. Thanks.

The first one appears to be from 3 months ago, and the second one within the past few days.

In the first video, his valuation of bitcoin was $386, based on bitcoin's network effect and fees to market cap.. blah blah blah... In the second video, he upgraded his valuation to $697. Overall he remains a bit bullish about bitcoin, yet his method of valuation seems a bit arbitrary or at least not really tied to some actual valuation (though it remains an attempt to value based on the network effect, so if fees go up, then value goes up... hahahahahahah.. ).

In any event, his assessment leans towards a mainstream acceptance and recognition of intrinsic financial value in bitcoin.

i think he is basing his targets on total TX fees pre block or somthing like that

697$ target has nothing to do with " mainstream acceptance "

my god mainstream acceptance and recognition of intrinsic financial value in bitcoin. imples a price of 32,000$ minimum surely.

 

[AdrianX]

also could be actual users buying in... the other cryptos remain entirely speculative.

I suspect the network is growing quite a bit, we just don't see it as there is a lot of selling going on too.

 

[adamstgbit]

all hands Battle stations!! we are about to break on through to the other side!!! target 420!

 

[AdrianX]

@JayJuanGee I think he has confirmation bias, when it comes to his methods, but I do think it's all about network growth so he's at an advantage when it comes to understanding.

The second video struck me (and was the reason I posted it) he seems totally ignorant of the on chain v off chain scaling debate.

I think a lot of new bitcoin owners over the next few months could have to read a few Blockstreams white papers to better understands what they just bought.

 

[JayJuanGee]

check it out

[id=ckRPUqnFlIs;t=17[/MEDIA]
[doublepost=1458699592][/doublepost]
i think he is basing his targets on total TX fees pre block or somthing like that

697$ target has nothing to do with " mainstream acceptance "

my god mainstream acceptance and recognition of intrinsic financial value in bitcoin. imples a price of 32,000$ minimum surely.

The girl in your above-linked video (daily decrypt) has some real goofy and illogical ideas in her attempt to find a problem and/or corruption where none exists. In any event, she is falling victim to quite large exaggerations, while striving to make them sound logical.

Regarding the $697 of Charles Morris in the tech news video and his evaluation of bitcoin based on network effect.. Morris seems to be in no way predicting mass adoption any time in the near future, and instead suggests that mass adoption is a hell-of-a long way into the future, if at all.

Nonetheless, in order to assess the value of bitcoin, Morris continues to assert that we have to continue to assess its network effect and to recognize that it continues to expand in quite vast ways.. and that bitcoin's network effect is far and above any of the alt competitors, and as the network effect grows, the valuation targets for Bitcoin grows....

Morris kind of loosely asserts that any of the alts in the top 10 have the potential to come into the mix and to displace bitcoin's network effect; however, I believe that he is giving way too much credit to the other alts, and he does kind of admit that he does not grapple in details of bitcoins and presumably he's not into the various details of other alts, either.


I think that the $32k target is quite out of his conceptualization of possibilities, and even though I like to entertain the idea of explosive price growth, I really think we gotta make a lot closer progress towards the $3k to $5k arena, and then see what happens at that point, before we can have much confidence in setting the next price point (which could well be in the $32k arena).

 

[ChartBuddy]

Coin Explanation

 

[ChartBuddy]

Coin Explanation

 

[hedgewizard]

are you talking about the idea of letting miners vote on incresing the blocksize
"dynamic blocksize"

I think its in the miners best interest to have block size at just the right size.
they will want to keep some fee pressure, to ensure everyone pays a small fee,
and at the same time they will want enough space in each block to include as many fees as possible.

IMO they are the perfect canadiens to determine blocksize.

Well "just the right size" is perhaps different for different size miners. I don't know if fee pressure outweighs the incentive for being awarded the coin minting subsidy again and again regarding a dynamic blocksize. questions come to my mind

All assuming a dynamic blocksize is put into effect, as one example of how a large miner might operate, what is stopping them from purposefully pushing blocksize up to use propagation time to force more orphans on small miners. And what kind of network growth rate prediction based mitigating measures can be put into place to prevent algorithmic blocksize adjustment from being exploited?

To try to rein this post back to wall speculation.. How can we avoid causing similar price effecting contentions we experience now arguing between static block sizes with these potentially faulty predictions for managing dynamic blocksize?

I suppose it is possible ISP's (and great firewalls) get their shit together and give everyone great bandwidth/latency in a timely manner /s

Edit: im not sure from your post but maybe you were suggesting a static blocksize is better whether a one time deal or scheduled flat increases. I like the idea that a dynamic blocksize could be a set it and forget it approach if it can be implemented well

 

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

That forum is completely dead. I actually got sucked in for a while thinking that was an actual free discussion. It's such a relief to be on here now where people can say whatever. However, the lack of core fans here is a little bit disappointing, in the name of rational argument.

Can we agree in advance to be extra-charitable to any Core fans that do show up? Mostly only those who are comfortable coming out swinging will dare to set foot here, so that also means kindly deflecting their initial volley of blows and getting down to a true meeting of the minds where maybe some actual view-changing can happen.

No community escapes the harm that arises from groupthink even if it is on the "right side."

 

[rebuilder]

Zanglebert Bingledack: There are no sides. That idea is harmful, because it activates tribal reflexes. The blocksize debate has long since ceased to be about technical details for most participators, and has become a matter of group identity. That needs to stop, not that I'm optimistic on that front.
[doublepost=1458722771][/doublepost]

All assuming a dynamic blocksize is put into effect, as one example of how a large miner might operate, what is stopping them from purposefully pushing blocksize up to use propagation time to force more orphans on small miners. And what kind of network growth rate prediction based mitigating measures can be put into place to prevent algorithmic blocksize adjustment from being exploited?

POW mining will centralize. It's hard to see any way around that. As long as economies of scale apply, bigger will be more efficient.

This isn't news, either - IIRC, Satoshi said he foresaw mining being done mainly by a few big players, although he did expect they might do so at a loss to secure their interest. (again, IIRC.)

Not to say Satoshi's predictions are gospel, but he did design the system and apparently accepted that consequence of POW mining, so it's hardly surprising it's happening. The original design just didn't intend for widely decentralized mining to last long.

 

[ChartBuddy]

Coin Explanation

 

[hedgewizard]

POW mining will centralize. It's hard to see any way around that. As long as economies of scale apply, bigger will be more efficient.

Hopefully we can still enable people to get their foot in the door with no pressures besides scaling efficiency. pools and hopefully an even playing field can do much to help

 

[8up]

who's buying??
i mean i can't imagine poeple are going around telling friends " there is a huge debate going on, blockstream is taking over, BTC can't scale, its a bandaid solution, BUY BUY BUY!!!!!!!! "

so if fresh fiat isn't buying... and older timers in the thick of things are losing faith. then who's buying!?

world financial crisis >>> bitcoin/crypto scaling crisis

 

[spiderbrain]

Can we agree in advance to be extra-charitable to any Core fans that do show up? Mostly only those who are comfortable coming out swinging will dare to set foot here, so that also means kindly deflecting their initial volley of blows and getting down to a true meeting of the minds where maybe some actual view-changing can happen.

No community escapes the harm that arises from groupthink even if it is on the "right side."

Absolutely. I like rational argument, which I why I don't spend much time on BCT any more
[doublepost=1458731416,1458730813][/doublepost]

Hopefully we can still enable people to get their foot in the door with no pressures besides scaling efficiency. pools and hopefully an even playing field can do much to help

I think the original dream of bitcoin being a decentralised level playing field for digital cash is long gone. ASICs close to killed it, which is why I like the structure of DASH, and there are probably many other coins I don't appreciate yet out there. But their time is later and they won't have a future if bitcoin doesn't make it.

The slightly more centralised way Bitcoin is heading is still 1000 times better that the bankrupt global financial system we currently have. Better to admit where it's heading than cripple it to try and keep it "pure", which is the impression I get from the core team.

 

[ChartBuddy]

Coin Explanation

 

[Tomothy]

So, we didn't break ~$420. Coiling to spring tomorrow?
I'd really like this block size debate to just be finished.

 

[Fatman3002]

Regarding LN. My worry is regular main chain nodes. If the idea is that LN nodes will compete for block space on the main chain and pay large fees to be included, and end users are pushed off the main chain; is it going to be attractive to run a regular node if you can't have your txs on the main chain? Are we going to have profit driven LN nodes represent a majority of nodes? I get the feeling that the LN solution might incentivize the network to centralize even further.

 

[ChartBuddy]

Coin Explanation

 

[rebuilder]

is it going to be attractive to run a regular node if you can't have your txs on the main chain?

Is it attractive now?