Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion

[ChartBuddy]

Coin
Explanation

[ChartBuddy]

Coin
Explanation

[inca]

We appear to have crashed 2 dollars.

Bfxdata showing another 3k shorts opened within that decline.

Cue short covering in 3,2,1!

[HarryPotHead]

OT side note: http://www.shitexpress.com/ Pay BTC to have a piece of shit sent in a box to someone.

This could really boost adoption... 

Am now bullish this is going mainstream with this shit. Who doesn't want to send a turd in a box to a friend. I voted crash below the other day lookis like I am a winner how low do we go?

[Wandererfromthenorth]

drama intensifies

http://np.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/37u6ca/okcoins_response_to_czs_lies_and_desperate/

[adamstgBit]

OT side note: http://www.shitexpress.com/ Pay BTC to have a piece of shit sent in a box to someone.

This could really boost adoption... 

Am now bullish this is going mainstream with this shit. Who doesn't want to send a turd in a box to a friend. I voted crash below the other day lookis like I am a winner how low do we go?

I think "briefly break below" is still on the table.

6K dumped in 10mins in the late am's, smells like downward manipulation, will it stick?

[ChartBuddy]

Coin
Explanation

[inca]

Well thanks shorters. A slight discount on my new coins today

[LFC_Bitcoin]

Well thanks shorters. A slight discount on my new coins today

Keep fighting the good fight inca, it'll pay off in the long run.
We keep adding to our stash & hopefully one day we'll be the ones coming on here, laughing & trolling at butt hurt bears/shorters & trolls.
Haha, moon one day my friend 

[ChartBuddy]

Coin
Explanation

[U2l3iU]

Well thanks shorters. A slight discount on my new coins today

Keep fighting the good fight inca, it'll pay off in the long run.
We keep adding to our stash & hopefully one day we'll be the ones coming on here, laughing & trolling at butt hurt bears/shorters & trolls.
Haha, moon one day my friend 

http://i60.tinypic.com/28m1k43.jpg

[LFC_Bitcoin]

'THE LIST' is forever growing.
Keep coming back Lamby my friend, we enjoy slamming you on ignore.
One day the forum might break because the server can't handle the ignore lists with hundreds of thousands of socks ignored.
On we go.........

[biggus dickus]

drama intensifies

http://np.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/37u6ca/okcoins_response_to_czs_lies_and_desperate/

Czs claims OKcoin is using fractional reserves which raises the question of whether the company is still solvent. OKcoin will refute anything he says but I'm not trading there if there is any possibility it will turn into another Gox.

[coins101]

Well this will be a mess:

http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/message/34155307/

Gavin Andersen forking bitcoin, well joining a fork, then pushing for everyone to join 

[adamstgBit]

Well this will be a mess:

http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/message/34155307/

Gavin Andersen forking bitcoin, well joining a fork, then pushing for everyone to join  

if your mining at a pool do you even need the latest TX history? can't the pool deal with validating TX and let its miners simple hash away at the problem without worrying about downloading the latest block super fast?

if so upping the limit doesn't really affect miners, of course it make solo mining more costly, but literally no one does this unless they are already a huge operation in which case getting a good internet connection is no problem...

and is it really all that hard to download 10-20MB? doesn't that take like 10seconds tops, even on a relatively cheap home connection?

cant solo miners get the next problem to solve right away and slowly download the block while hashing away at the problem?


I not sure, but i think there is a all of fuss about nothing

[adamstgBit]

Well this will be a mess:

http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/message/34155307/

Gavin Andersen forking bitcoin, well joining a fork, then pushing for everyone to join  

Are we on fork? Where is dev?!

there's no fork

and if there is,

the fork with the 1MB limit is likely to get TX spam attacks backlogging it for years.

fighting this update (coming in a year BTW), is like trying to convince your wife not buy a new purse, you can try but you will fail miserably.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin
Explanation

[adamstgBit]

the fork with the 1MB limit is likely to get TX spam attacks backlogging it for years.

fighting this update (coming in a year BTW), is like trying to convince your wife not buy a new purse, you can try but you will fail miserably.

Dennis: Ah, now we see the violence inherent in the system!

what's good is that the violence can only really come from the bottom up, not the top down. we have a system where the will of the majority always wins. If the majority wanted to keep the 1MB limit, then the coins held on that chain would remain valuable, making the TX spam attack economically unfeasible.

maybe in the future, a government will want to go to war or do something that the majority of the poeple don't want, they will fork their blockchain so that the government coins are gone or redistributed or wtv, suddenly the government is afraid of its poeple and not the other way around.
this is good.

[JorgeStolfi]

if your mining at a pool do you even need the latest TX history? can't the pool deal with validating TX and let its miners simple hash away at the problem without worrying about downloading the latest block super fast?

Correct me please if I am wrong, but I believe that most miners in pools do not even know what is in the block that they are mining; they only get the header and hash of the transactions.  If so, they will not be affected by block size increase.  Is this correct?

I feel that the full implications of yesterday's stress test still have not sunk in.  Before, for many opponents of 20MB blocks, it seemed to be a case of "not seeing is not believing".  Still now, it seems that they would rather ignore the test than reverse their positions.

On the other hand, even an increase to 20MB a year from now already seems too little, too late...

[adamstgBit]

if your mining at a pool do you even need the latest TX history? can't the pool deal with validating TX and let its miners simple hash away at the problem without worrying about downloading the latest block super fast?

Correct me please if I am wrong, but I believe that most miners in pools do not even know what is in the block that they are mining; they only get the header and hash of the transactions.  If so, they will not be affected by block size increase.  Is this correct?

I feel that the full implications of yesterday's stress test still have not sunk in.  Before, for many opponents of 20MB blocks, it seemed to be a case of "not seeing is not believing".  Still now, it seems that they would rather ignore the test than reverse their positions.

On the other hand, even an increase to 20MB a year from now already seems too little, too late...

yes i believe this is the case right now, meaning that the argument against the 20MB limit is pretty fucking lame.

not sure what exactly the stress test proved, you can successfully spam the network with TX but no one cares because TX with a fee still go through ahead of minimal fee spam TX's. If you spam the network we will allow it but the confirmation time on that spamming will be slow, fucking inconvenient isn't it?

20MB limit update is in preparation for higher TX vol in the future, we are not really bumping up against the TX limit these days, we only barely manage to go over it on a few occasions where the network was experiencing much higher than normal TX volume, with no serious consequence other than slightly slower confirmation time during this random period.

its not to little too late, its nice to see the community think about and solve these potential future problems before they become an issue.