Jump to content

Bitcoin $50 transaction fees and understanding the crypto space


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, youngdude said:

Good post. What jumped out to be is far from your central points though.

At $50+ fees again, is this a leading indicator to the bull run's end in your opinion?

No idea. Galgitron (who is always missed from Twitter, if you are reading this mate come back and at least post on this forum!) is the one who always talked about this, and that's where I found this site on BTC metrics. He was firmly of the belief that the previous BTC bull run ended because BTC 'broke'. You can read this in his infamous Weekend at Bitcoin's blog post. He also thought this would happen again. Personally I don't know. 

From Galgitron's blog:

Quote

 

From a distance, like a stalker ex, I watched that Bitcoin ***** sleep with just about everybody. Droves of Bitcoin evangelists pouring out of the woodwork, loudly proclaiming their allegiance, further herding countless sheeple to the slaughter that I knew only too well was coming, and it did.

I remember clearly watching Bitcoin’s transaction rate climb during the 2017 runup. Watched the backlogged transaction count climb into the sky. Watched the transactions fees kick and punch each and every user right in the ******* face, over and over, and yet they just kept coming like endless Mr. Smiths. “I want some Bitcoins!!”, “Give me my Bitcoins!!”. Whales were dumping their BTC as fast as they possibly could, taking all these sheeples’ hard earned money, while selling them a dream that was SIMULTANEOUSLY being PROVEN IMPOSSIBLE IN FRONT OF THEIR EYES!! The Bitcoin network just couldn’t keep up! (oh just ignore that, come get your Bitcoins!)

Bitcoin’s meteoric ascension into popularity sent its network consumption sky-rocketing towards the glass-ceiling of maximum throughput, which means ******* NOTHING to most people, particularly the so-called financial experts that continued preaching the virtues of Bitcoin, no, nobody saw it coming except the super-sexy technical wizards (I am a technical wizard). At breakneck speed, Bitcoin shot up in network saturation until it hit the glass-ceiling so hard that it broke Bitcoin’s neck. CRRR UNCH… Head cocked over in the most gruesome snapped-cervical arrangement, dangling by a thin piece of sinew. The network was at a near standstill, fees astronomical; completely unusable.

Bitcoin...was dead.

Whales be like.. Oh ****…

Sheeple be like… I want some bitcoins!! Give me my Bitcoins!!

Whales be like.. Uhh.. are you people looking at the same Bitcoin we are? You do see the broken neck right?

Sheeple be like… I want some bitcoins!! Give me my Bitcoins!!

Whales be like... Dude, I'm telling you, it's over. Look, Bitcoin completely blew up! Are you daft??

Sheeple be like... Yes I'm daft, I love you, please slap me again, I'll do anything for Bitcoins!! (gagging choking sounds)

Whales look at each other with their big eyes, thinking to themselves, “Really? Are they really that ******* stupid?”... But, hey, they shrugged their shoulders… alrighty then.. Come get your Bitcoins!!

And the madness continued.

[...]

Bitcoin DIED in the great bull run of 2017. It broke its neck on its built-in glass-ceiling, and the whales now have it on life support. Not only that, but they are animating Bitcoin’s body like a PUPPET to continue the greatest defrauding OF ALL TIME!!! (time...time…)

Now let’s make one thing perfectly perfectly clear. Being able to trade Bitcoin, does not require Bitcoin to be ‘alive’, any more than trading Tulips has anything to do with actual Tulips. The mere act of ‘trading’ Bitcoin, is to speculate that Bitcoin will eventually do something to ADD VALUE, but trading ‘isn’t’ adding value by itself. Trading is a ‘guess’ by the masses what Bitcoin should be worth once it actually starts contributing its value.

 

 

Edited by Seoulite
added quote from the blog
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great set of observations and facts, friend. Thank you for sharing. 
Several points jumped out at me as I read your post... 

Saylor's own self confidence in his beliefs and expectations are, in part bolstered by his past successes, of which none can dispute. This gives him a confirmation bias that he's a visionary, and infallible of being in error with his core assessments and assumptions. This is not an uncommon occurrence with successful people. 

His characterization of gold's clumsy bulkiness is misleading. Transferring the value locked away in gold holdings is routinely handled thru existing services on a daily basis. Liquidating vaulted gold into fiat is similar to converting BTC into fiat, and both require the services of financial institutions.

His disingenuous description of alt-coins as little LANs in a garage is proof he's either an ignorant fool, or lying like a politician. 

Finally, he's ignoring the "elephant in the room," which is capital destruction; caused by miners consuming excessive energy to service the network. This is the real "fiat leak." The market must perpetually accept burning value to maintain the network (unlike gold, I might add). Eventually, the utility BTC provides bears too high a cost to remain competitive with alternatives. BTC's doomed to wither and die.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, JASCoder said:

His characterization of gold's clumsy bulkiness is misleading. Transferring the value locked away in gold holdings is routinely handled thru existing services on a daily basis. Liquidating vaulted gold into fiat is similar to converting BTC into fiat, and both require the services of financial institutions.

Thanks for this. I don't know about it, but reading what you've written it strikes me that he's saying gold is difficult to change to fiat so people don't often do it, while at the same time arguing that you should hold 500 bitcoin for hundreds of years, not spend it just borrow off its value. So... like gold then?

There's so many things about this space that I don't get. In 20 years time are we gonna look back on this period as a kind of collective madness? Does anyone know how people looked back on the tulip bubble after it was over?

Edited by Seoulite
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it's the top off the bullrun just based on high fees on Bitcoin. 

Most activity happens off-chain anyway I think. On exchanges. Most don't even know what the fee is, probably just that it's too high to send funds for fun. 

Edited by Skippy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Skippy said:

I don't think it's the top off the bullrun just based on high fees on Bitcoin. 

Most activity happens off-chain anyway I think. On exchanges. Most don't even know what the fee is, probably just that it's too high to send funds for fun. 

That is my impression as well, which is why I included some caveats on the transaction data. But it still doesn't explain why someone who is supposedly so big in the space doesn't know that other chains are host to a lot of activity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for sharing, very interesting to read such opinions. I think a comparison with gold is difficult at this time. Gold is old and well established. Cryptocurrencies have to prove themselves as better alternatives for real problems for at least several decades. Several decades are a long time in IT.

In my opinion, it depends a lot from your personal point of view:
- If you're comparing gold with bitcoin there are advantages. It’s faster and cheaper to transport.
- If you're comparing gold with any crypto, you discover other aspects and solutions.

I don't think it has to do with intelligence primary. It's more about how you rate bitcoins dominance and inviolability. I understand a maxi’s point of view if I'm assuming bitcoin will simply dominate crypto space forever.
Another reason could be, people tend to simplify unconsciously unknown things. No one can have a detailed knowledge of so many cryptos. I'm observing similar behavior in traditional media. For many people cryptos are bitcoin. Therefore, people don't know the unknown. It's standard human behavior. We all do that.
As mentioned before, bitcoin is successfully in some aspects. People assume something is the best because of it's success. Time will tell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Seoulite said:

Why does the number keep going up? Because people keep putting money in. Why do people keep putting money in? Because the number keeps going up! 

This is 95% of crypto! 

This is why the bitcoinmaxis MUST push the "store of value" narrative. Because a narrative is all there is. Satoshi said bitcoin was meant for PAYMENTS not to emulate gold or something. So by changing the narrative post-hoc to SoV, they are implicitly admitting that bitcoin's architecture has failed as a p2p payments vehicle. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excellent post.

Over the years, through laziness, I became a bit of an XRP maxi.  I really took very little interest in other altcoins.  Since SEC's outrage I was forced to look around and I discovered ADA in which I take and interest as well as in XRP.  It is human nature to focus on what interests we have.  Every time we focus we downgrade everything outside that focus.  This is just human nature.

I think BTC does not have strong fundamentals, but it is a strong meme.  Strong memes can last generations, but they can also collapse.  Paper money is a meme too and it developed utility inside the capitalist models of trade which is why it has lasted, but it is in danger of running out of road because they have have been printing money which is undermining peoples beliefs in paper/fiat money.  And we have had so many financial crashes.  It is a meme that has had it time and is fading.  Memes can simply pop like bubbles.

I guess BTC might find a place in the new payment structures that are gradually replacing the old system set up at Bretton Woods.  This is the dream of BTC maxis.  I think they are depending on BTC ecosystem inside the new digital internet of value as being too big to fail.  This is their big hope and BTC dominance is so huge and believed in that it is possible that they might succeed.  I think the odds are against them.  

If BTC dominance fails, BTC fails.  I think BTC dominance will be eaten away by utility driven alt coins like XRP, ADA, VET and many others, which is why I think BTC is doomed and will not touch it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with @Julian_Williams here. They are just BTC maxis. Crypto-space can be very confusing and people try SO HARD to understand how everything works and how everything will affect the future. Which coins will last.

At some point, the psychology just kicks in: people want to believe their coin is the best. I am an XRP maxi and I know it. Deep inside I just hope for the best and really stopped reading about other stuff long ago; it doesn't matter what the whitepaper reads. It doesn't matter if the code is good. Nobody will know what coins will rise and which will perish. Maybe someone does... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, Julian_Williams said:

Since SEC's outrage I was forced to look around and I discovered ADA in which I take and interest as well as in XRP.  It is human nature to focus on what interests we have.  Every time we focus we downgrade everything outside that focus.  This is just human nature.

I mean I get this to an extent, but if that's the case why does he speak so confidently about something that is so wrong? It's like saying, "Guys, there's only like a few million people in China." Why doesn't he say something like this: "I don't follow other projects, I'm too focused on BTC" or "Some other projects are doing some interesting things, but nothing as interesting as BTC". Instead he just says something that is laughably wrong, and dangerously misleading to BTC maxis who think 'ah this guy is really plugged into the crypto space so I can trust what he says about the space as a whole'. It's like the term 'shitcoin'. If it was ever true, then it is out of date by about 5 or 6 years, maybe more. To use it now is just to show that you don't actually know anything about crypto, you only know 'Number Goes Up'.

Edited by Seoulite
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Seoulite said:

 Instead he just says something that is laughably wrong, and dangerously misleading to BTC maxis who think 'ah this guy is really plugged into the crypto space so I can trust what he says about the space as a whole'. It's like the term 'shitcoin'. If it was ever true, then it is out of date by about 5 or 6 years, maybe more. To use it now is just to show that you don't actually know anything about crypto, you only know 'Number Goes Up'.

but but but but but... isn't this what crypto is all about...  rising (numbers), transferring/moving money out of the old system into the knew, create a nouveau riche and get rid of the status quo?! 

And honestly, the majority of people don't know anything about technology, or even understand what's written in a whitepaper, probably an iq under 100 and 'knows' a guy. So he who controls the mass, controls the number, imagine more people entering the crypto space, they are all in on where the numbers are rising.

... give me bitcoin , I want my bitcoin , bitcoin yeah !!! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.