• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Merged Bitcoin - Part 3

Roger Ramjets said:
My bad. I should have quoted from reputable sources to back up my assertion
Click to expand...
Or you could have added "IMO" or provided a chain of reasoning.

in the absence of that I could only comment on what was in front of me - a declarative statement accompanied by an article that didn't say anything of the sort.
 
jeremyp said:
jeremyp said:
Nobody needs to predict that bitcoin will fail, because it has failed. In the last year it has lost nearly half of its value. That's a bubble bursting if ever I saw one.
Click to expand...
I'm not saying Bitcoin has failed because its price has dropped. That's one aspect of it. There was a bubble, now it's burst.

Loom at this chart of Bitcoin trading volumes. It's not very popular anymore. This is why I say it is a failure. Nobody is using it. Nobody is speculating with it. Nobody is talking about it any more, except on threads like this on obscure forums
Click to expand...
You never provided any argument other than price falling to support your assertion that bitcoin has "failed". Your sudden switch to low trading volumes is unconvincing.
 
psionl0 said:
Or you could have added "IMO" or provided a chain of reasoning.

in the absence of that I could only comment on what was in front of me - a declarative statement accompanied by an article that didn't say anything of the sort.
Click to expand...
Really? So you always put IMHO in front of everything you didn't provide a source for? :P
 
psionl0 said:
You never provided any argument other than price falling to support your assertion that bitcoin has "failed". Your sudden switch to low trading volumes is unconvincing.
Click to expand...
You criticised me for only talking about price (which is false, by the way). When I bring up something else e.g. volumes, you declare it as "unconvincing", even though it is prima facie evidence that people don't care about Bitcoin anymore.

Go on. Tell me why it is not convincing.

Then take a look around you. We've moved on from crypto currency. Nobody cares about it anymore. The scam du jour is now AI.
 
jeremyp said:
Go on. Tell me why it is not convincing.
Click to expand...
Your suddenly bringing in a trading volume chart as if trading volumes were the reason all along why you say that bitcoin has "failed" is unconvincing.

Showing only the volumes of btc traded on an exchange is not telling the whole story anyway. If you look at the blockchain itself you will see a different picture (https://www.blockchain.com/explorer/charts/n-transactions). Of course, how much of this transaction volume is "in house" (transfers between wallets owned by the same entity) is not given in that chart so it is much more complex.

Finally, if we assume that your chart actually told the whole story, you would still need to factor out the fact that the the higher the price of btc, the fewer that can be bought or sold for a given amount of USD. When trading volumes are expressed in USD we get a different picture again. (https://research.glassnode.com/true-bitcoin-volume/).
 
i took it to be understood that trading volume was relevant the whole time. bitcoin trading volume being what it is is obviously not an encouraging picture imo
 
So I looked at jeremyp's chart more closely and one thing stood out - 78% of the volume was on exchanges based in China and Hong Kong. The most popular exchange in the West - coinbase - accounted for only 3.4%.

But more importantly, the vast majority of it occurred from late 2015 through 2016. During this time the price increased from ~$380 to $982, a relatively moderate (for Bitcoin) 2.6 times. This cannot be the reason for the huge volume increase, or the equally dramatic collapse in early 2017. Something else was going on here. Unfortunately this distorts the data so much that 'normal' volumes are barely visible on the graph.

But even without that 'anomaly' the chart doesn't explicitly say anything about how popular Bitcoin is. For that we need to compare its trading volume to other 'asset classes'. For June 2026 we see the volume is ~467k BTC or US$30 billion. Tradeweb reported June 2026 total trading volume of US$69.7 Trillion. Bitcoin was 0.4% of that.
 
Roger Ramjets said:
But even without that 'anomaly' the chart doesn't explicitly say anything about how popular Bitcoin is. For that we need to compare its trading volume to other 'asset classes'. For June 2026 we see the volume is ~467k BTC or US$30 billion. Tradeweb reported June 2026 total trading volume of US$69.7 Trillion. Bitcoin was 0.4% of that.
Click to expand...
But you compared it to ALL asset classes.

It would be ridiculous (for example) to say that nobody is interested in a particular stock any more because trade in that stock amounts to less than 1 % of the trade in the stock market. There must be hundreds (at least) of different stocks being traded in a stock exchange. Not all of them can account for a significant proportion of the trade.
 
Last edited:
No, that's silly. It's literally just that Bitcoin is presented as the future of financial transactions, but really it's less than half a percent of everything. Not compared to only other crypto, like in your stock market comparison, but mostly compared to just the plain old trading in the plain old currency it was supposed to replace.
 
What, again? They've already had more than one fork. And a change where older clients could no longer sync to the blockchain.
 
HansMustermann said:
No, that's silly. It's literally just that Bitcoin is presented as the future of financial transactions, but really it's less than half a percent of everything. Not compared to only other crypto, like in your stock market comparison, but mostly compared to just the plain old trading in the plain old currency it was supposed to replace.
Click to expand...
I have always said that bitcoin will NOT replace other currencies and it was NEVER intended to.

Of course, truth is always the first casualty of war.
 
dirtywick said:
https://news.bitcoin.com/bitcoins-a...warf-every-previous-split-combined-heres-why/

bitcoin to hard fork in august, with most bitcoin held by exchanges and corporations it seems they’ll decide which fork is “bitcoin” and which is not
Click to expand...

Interesting tid bit about this fork:
There is also a specific controversy baked into the eCash chain design. The ledger is copied 1:1 at the fork, but approximately 500,000 to 600,000 of the roughly 1.1 million dormant coins tied to Satoshi Nakamoto through the so-called Patoshi pattern will be manually reassigned on the new chain to early investors, developers, and project funders. While critics call this controversial, Sztorc has explained on several occasions that this has zero effect on Nakamoto’s bitcoins.
Click to expand...

Incidentally, I'm not so sure that the exchanges and corporations will be the ones who decide which fork becomes the "original" bitcoin. I suspect that this would largely be decided by which fork their customers choose to do the bulk of their buying and selling on.
 
Last edited:
psionl0 said:
I have always said that bitcoin will NOT replace other currencies and it was NEVER intended to.

Of course, truth is always the first casualty of war.
Click to expand...
You say a lot about Bitcoin not being this or that, but your nihilist debating tactic doesn't change the fact that it was pitched as the "future of money". Perhaps you forgot the original title of this thread.

The truth is, Bitcoin was indeed intended to replace fiat currency.
Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System
Commerce on the Internet has come to rely almost exclusively on financial institutions serving as trusted third parties to process electronic payments... The cost of mediation increases transaction costs, limiting the minimum practical transaction size and cutting off the possibility for small casual transactions... A certain percentage of fraud is accepted as unavoidable...
Click to expand...
A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution. Digital signatures provide part of the solution, but the main benefits are lost if a trusted third party is still required to prevent double-spending. We propose a solution to the double-spending problem... What is needed is an electronic payment system based on cryptographic proof instead of trust
Click to expand...
The inventor of Bitcoin outright stated that it was needed to enable efficient small casual internet transactions. If true it would likely have become the primary payment method for online purchases. In practice however, due to flaws in the design It spectacularly failed to achieve this goal. Instead it has become yet another financial instrument for speculators to game the system. Perhaps that's why 'Satoshi Nakamoto' is too embarrassed to show his face.
 
Last edited:
Roger Ramjets said:
Perhaps you forgot the original title of this thread.
Click to expand...
As I have said before, most of the stuff you see on this thread is either fear or hype such as that sprouted by the libertarian who originally started the bitcoin thread. Of course, this person doesn't speak for Satoshi Nakamoto.

Roger Ramjets said:
Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System
The inventor of Bitcoin outright stated that it was needed to enable efficient small casual internet transactions.
Click to expand...
I don't see that in anything you quoted.

You only have to read the introduction in that white paper:
Commerce on the Internet has come to rely almost exclusively on financial institutions serving astrusted third parties to process electronic payments. While the system works well enough for most transactions . . .
Click to expand...
As I have pointed out before, this does not suggest that bitcoin is intended to replace the global banking system. Rather, it was intended as an alternative if you did not want a financial institution to be able to reverse a particular transaction.
 
Last edited:
dirtywick said:
news.bitcoin.com

Bitcoin’s August Hard Fork May Dwarf Every Previous Split Combined — Here’s Why

Bitcoin's August 2026 hard fork triggers forced decisions for ETFs, Strategy's 818K BTC, and regulators holding billions at stake.
news.bitcoin.com news.bitcoin.com

bitcoin to hard fork in august, with most bitcoin held by exchanges and corporations it seems they’ll decide which fork is “bitcoin” and which is not.
Click to expand...
What the hell.

I think ecash will be ignored. Maybe Satoshi will be flushed out.
 
Last edited:
psionl0 said:
Your suddenly bringing in a trading volume chart as if trading volumes were the reason all along why you say that bitcoin has "failed" is unconvincing.
Click to expand...
Nothing sudden about it. I talked about trading volumes before on this thread.

psionl0 said:
Showing only the volumes of btc traded on an exchange is not telling the whole story anyway. If you look at the blockchain itself you will see a different picture (https://www.blockchain.com/explorer/charts/n-transactions). Of course, how much of this transaction volume is "in house" (transfers between wallets owned by the same entity) is not given in that chart so it is much more complex.
Click to expand...
So you're saying the transaction volume doesn't tell the whole story.

psionl0 said:
Finally, if we assume that your chart actually told the whole story, you would still need to factor out the fact that the the higher the price of btc, the fewer that can be bought or sold for a given amount of USD. When trading volumes are expressed in USD we get a different picture again. (https://research.glassnode.com/true-bitcoin-volume/).
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what you think the graphs are telling you. They tell me that there is very little interest in buying and selling Bitcoin. It even admits that only 25% of transactions involve different people or entities.

Nobody cares about Bitcoin anymore.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom