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

[wakasaki808]

bottomed, and now it will rise
(prepare your pockets)

[1714634356]

1714634356

[1714634356]

1714634356

[1714634356]

1714634356

[1714634356]

1714634356

[1714634356]

1714634356

[hdbuck]

watta bunch of whinny little babies.

1000tps or 26GB blocks or just beg for new people to buy in is beyond pathetic.




this is has nothing to do with bitcoin, if you cant handle reality, no one is forcing you to use it.

[LFC_Bitcoin]

bottomed, and now it will rise
(prepare your pockets)

Breaching 250 tonight would be bullish
I'm not sure if it's possible but it'd be nice to be as far away from 200 again as soon as possible.
Cheap coins right here people, buy & HODL, buy & HODL

[betterangels]

I bought at 220

bottom is here, tonight >250

[dragonseer]

... and really some of the extent of your drama or exaggeration seems to be attempting to cause an effect rather than really talking about the real state of bitcoin today.

That's partially true and I'll be the first to admit it. I want the price to go down IF it leads to cause the core devs to implement a workable scale patch or else leads to some other group replacing them. I want bitcoin to succeed as an electronic peer to peer cash system as it was designed, not as some cloistered settlement network only used by the same assholes who run the current system. 

Fiat money is debt. It is lent into existence. That makes the entire global financial system a giant pyramid scheme. I don't have to wish for economic Armageddon to see one coming (or more likely a series of disasters  eventually having the same effect). I don't have to cause it or contribute to causing it. It's going to happen as a mathematical certainty.  If we don't find a way to escape the system, we will go down with it.   

A network capacity of seven transactions/sec is a life boat with very few seats.

Because this argument surfaces here all the time, I'll down put my thoughts on how this whole scaling issue is a problem that only exists because Bitcoin, or it's community, doesn't know to have a relationship with other coins. Let's say you have a Merchant that takes Litecoins, Quark, whatever as a peer to peer cash system at their place of business. At the end of the business day, the merchant consolidates their transactions into one Bitcoin transaction. This seems to be the same scenario that is being talked about as a 'Lightning Sidechain', except Core developers aren't invoking the dirty word of 'altcoin'. In this case, Bitcoin doesn't need to fork, because it isn't trying to be a single solution to this problem, and I'm not sure BIP 100, BIP 101 or whatever will enable Bitcoin to cope with this 'Mass Adoption' scenario anyway.

[JayJuanGee]

The dollar weakened, so assets denominated in dollars went up, all things else being equal.  

Fundamental issues as I see them:

1. Bitcoin is a poor unit of account because it is too volatile (although this is decreasing)
2. Bitcoin is a poor medium of exchange (network capacity of 7 TPS is far too low)
3. Bitcoin is a poor store of value (not enough liquidity to be an easily marketable commodity)

This seems strange considering Bitcoin's properties of being recognizable, transportable, fungible, divisible, and scarce.  

It seems to me that the most likely path to mainstream adoption would be through microtransactions, when a unit of account need not be closely correlated with store-of-value, but of course nobody wants to invest in microtransaction applications with the network capacity/block size limit uncertainty.  It's impossible to build a business model based on an unknown fee structure.  

What random straw man arguments!!!!!

NONE of your listed fundamental issues are problematic for bitcoin at this stage in its life, and maybe NOT even into the future.  Bitcoin remains a growing phenomenon with ongoing development, and its infrastructure is well capable of expanding capacity as soon as people begin to jump on board.  Surely there is a bit of a catch 22 because additional people may be hesitant to jump on board if they are worried about future devaluation... but as more people jump on board, the price increases causing more interest and causing more need to expand, build and modify existing systems, including user friendliness.

That's the most perfect example of a circular argument I can Imagine. You need a reason to "jump on board" other than "people are jumping on board".  Investors are forward thinking, so future problems, particularly FORESEEABLE problems such as scalability, affect investment NOW.

For some reason, you seem to be making too much out of problems that don't really exist.  Surely, they are issues, but certainly NOT to any level that you are making them out to be (scale or die, for example.... hahahahaha).  My response may seem circlular, yet the circularity sense of it likely comes mostly from the sense that these adoption matters take time, and they are difficult to measure.  

Bitcoin continues to develop in a lot of ways on a global schedule.  It is becoming more known, and more people are learning about it and more systems are being developed for getting in and for getting out.  Surely, some people do get out of bitcoin, but their exit is likely NOT forever and likely NOT in total.  Again... patience my friend... don't rush a good thing.

Yes, I would like the price to go up too, and sure, I would like to accumulate a few more coins while the price is down; however, in the end, there is going to be ups and downs in the price and manipulation etc etc... and really some of the extent of your drama or exaggeration seems to be attempting to cause an effect rather than really talking about the real state of bitcoin today.

I agree with billyjoeallen.

and would like to add that once this block limit debate is over and we have a release that somehow will make sure Bitcoin can handle 1000's of TPS, investors will be more willing. Weather sidechain or increased  block limit  does the trick, won't make much difference. the way i see it we'll end up needing both solutions to make Bitcoin handle the same level of TPS VISA can do.

waiting for more poeple to join in, to make Bitcoin able to support more poeple joining in, creates a catch 22 effect that slows / delays  adoption. kinda mad at the devs for being so indecisive. but all in good time, this will get resolved one way or another, taking advantage of the FUD surrounding all this by buying BTC is just good speculation.

Hahahahahahaha   



You say that you agree with BJA; however, your words seems to support what I am saying.  This whole matter is NOT as big of a "crisis" as it is being made out to be.

the matter is going to get resolved one way or another, and the mere issue or making it of an issue, seems only to be an advantage that downward manipulators are pushing in order to drive pressure down and to lessen confidence, etc, etc etc...

In the end, this still seems a great price to be holding and accumulating.. even though we may again experience more downward price pressures, there has been considerable difficulties keeping BTC prices below $220 for any kind of sustainable period of time...

we need a little more fud and a little more negative nay sayer drama in order to attempt to drive BTC prices below $220 for any period of more than a day or two...

[JayJuanGee]

... and really some of the extent of your drama or exaggeration seems to be attempting to cause an effect rather than really talking about the real state of bitcoin today.

That's partially true and I'll be the first to admit it. I want the price to go down IF it leads to cause the core devs to implement a workable scale patch or else leads to some other group replacing them. I want bitcoin to succeed as an electronic peer to peer cash system as it was designed, not as some cloistered settlement network only used by the same assholes who run the current system. 

Fiat money is debt. It is lent into existence. That makes the entire global financial system a giant pyramid scheme. I don't have to wish for economic Armageddon to see one coming (or more likely a series of disasters  eventually having the same effect). I don't have to cause it or contribute to causing it. It's going to happen as a mathematical certainty.  If we don't find a way to escape the system, we will go down with it.   

A network capacity of seven transactions/sec is a life boat with very few seats.

Point taken there, and in that regard, I must admit that I have some sympathy for your thinking that you want to pressure some folks in the BTC development and political space to get with the program and to agree to the adoption of some workable long term solution that allows BTC to move forward rather than stagnating in some much lesser tier than it should occupy.


and yes, maybe I agree that it is going to be more difficult to foresee to da moon and/or CCMF, when the direction forward remains with some (maybe too much) in fighting concerning direction forward.

[Fatman3001]

Is it still time to hire some strippers (of both sexes, of course) for that kumbaya session devs are having in Canada?

Nerd egos are stubborn things, might be a good idea to soften up the mood. Make 'em mellow.

[billyjoeallen]

... and really some of the extent of your drama or exaggeration seems to be attempting to cause an effect rather than really talking about the real state of bitcoin today.

That's partially true and I'll be the first to admit it. I want the price to go down IF it leads to cause the core devs to implement a workable scale patch or else leads to some other group replacing them. I want bitcoin to succeed as an electronic peer to peer cash system as it was designed, not as some cloistered settlement network only used by the same assholes who run the current system. 

Fiat money is debt. It is lent into existence. That makes the entire global financial system a giant pyramid scheme. I don't have to wish for economic Armageddon to see one coming (or more likely a series of disasters  eventually having the same effect). I don't have to cause it or contribute to causing it. It's going to happen as a mathematical certainty.  If we don't find a way to escape the system, we will go down with it.   

A network capacity of seven transactions/sec is a life boat with very few seats.

Because this argument surfaces here all the time, I'll down put my thoughts on how this whole scaling issue is a problem that only exists because Bitcoin, or it's community, doesn't know to have a relationship with other coins. Let's say you have a Merchant that takes Litecoins, Quark, whatever as a peer to peer cash system at their place of business. At the end of the business day, the merchant consolidates their transactions into one Bitcoin transaction. This seems to be the same scenario that is being talked about as a 'Lightning Sidechain', except Core developers aren't invoking the dirty word of 'altcoin'. In this case, Bitcoin doesn't need to fork, because it isn't trying to be a single solution to this problem, and I'm not sure BIP 100, BIP 101 or whatever will enable Bitcoin to cope with this 'Mass Adoption' scenario anyway.

The network can only handle about half a million transactions per day reliably. Even IF we used alts for purchases and Bitcoin for settlements, it still wouldn't be fast enough.  Money is useful because it eliminated the need for a double coincidence of wants under barter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coincidence_of_wants.  There has to be a "most marketable commodity" and that commodity is by definition "money".  If ANY crypto becomes money, it can only do so if the network has the capacity to handle that function. 

We're not even close to dealing with "mass adoption" yet.  We need enough capacity to avoid gridlock before we even get started on that. 

[ChartBuddy]

Coin
Explanation

[Norway]

Is it still time to hire some strippers (of both sexes, of course) for that kumbaya session devs are having in Canada?

Nerd egos are stubborn things, might be a good idea to soften up the mood. Make 'em mellow.

Still time? The Backpage-situation graduated all the exotic dancers in Bitcoin 101. International payments to Canada to these entrepeneurs only take seconds / minutes (depending on of much they trust zero confirmations).

And they start saturday! Plenty of time! Let's feed those bras with digital cash!  

Hopefully, on monday you all will understand that scaling is not a big problem. Because all miners/nodes/pools/whatever do NOT need to confirm every bleeping transaction. The computer work can be easily shared. The big work isn't processing transactions. It's mining.  

[Wary]

Because this argument surfaces here all the time, I'll down put my thoughts on how this whole scaling issue is a problem that only exists because Bitcoin, or it's community, doesn't know to have a relationship with other coins. Let's say you have a Merchant that takes Litecoins, Quark, whatever as a peer to peer cash system at their place of business. At the end of the business day, the merchant consolidates their transactions into one Bitcoin transaction. This seems to be the same scenario that is being talked about as a 'Lightning Sidechain', except Core developers aren't invoking the dirty word of 'altcoin'. In this case, Bitcoin doesn't need to fork, because it isn't trying to be a single solution to this problem, and I'm not sure BIP 100, BIP 101 or whatever will enable Bitcoin to cope with this 'Mass Adoption' scenario anyway.

BY the way, consolidating thousands transactions into one won't necessarily save space. Instead of thousand small transactions, we will have one big one, but it must contain the same amount of information (who paid to whom) and therefore will take the same amount of space on blockchain. (Well, in case of a coffeehouse, the destination will be the same, but origin will be different, so the compression will be 1:2, rather than 1:1000. So it is not the solution).

I can see no way everybody's computers (and smartphones!) can keep everybody's transactions. Not at current network/processor/memory capacity. Increasing blocksize limit won't solve this problem, it will just make it more obvious.

To resolve the scalability problem we have to distribute transaction records in such a way that every transaction stored not on all computers, but on a small part of them. For example, every block is stored on 1000 randomly chosen nodes. The rest of nodes (billions of them) keep only header of it. Such network can grow indefinitely without affecting storage capacity requirements. When bandwith/storage capacity will grow, the 1000 will become 2,000, 10,000 etc. etc.

[GreekGeek]

has anyone seen this?

http://www.pressexaminer.com/bitcoin-might-face-a-new-challenge-in-two-days-from-now/73854

[ElectricMucus]

Because this argument surfaces here all the time, I'll down put my thoughts on how this whole scaling issue is a problem that only exists because Bitcoin, or it's community, doesn't know to have a relationship with other coins. Let's say you have a Merchant that takes Litecoins, Quark, whatever as a peer to peer cash system at their place of business. At the end of the business day, the merchant consolidates their transactions into one Bitcoin transaction. This seems to be the same scenario that is being talked about as a 'Lightning Sidechain', except Core developers aren't invoking the dirty word of 'altcoin'. In this case, Bitcoin doesn't need to fork, because it isn't trying to be a single solution to this problem, and I'm not sure BIP 100, BIP 101 or whatever will enable Bitcoin to cope with this 'Mass Adoption' scenario anyway.

BY the way, consolidating thousands transactions into one won't necessarily save space. Instead of thousand small transactions, we will have one big one, but it must contain the same amount of information (who paid to whom) and therefore will take the same amount of space on blockchain. (Well, in case of a coffeehouse, the destination will be the same, but origin will be different, so the compression will be 1:2, rather than 1:1000. So it is not the solution).

I can see no way everybody's computers (and smartphones!) can keep everybody's transactions. Not at current network/processor/memory capacity. Increasing blocksize limit won't solve this problem, it will just make it more obvious.

To resolve the scalability problem we have to distribute transaction records in such a way that every transaction stored not on all computers, but on a small part of them. For example, every block is stored on 1000 randomly chosen nodes. The rest of nodes (billions of them) keep only header of it. Such network can grow indefinitely without affecting storage capacity requirements. When bandwith/storage capacity will grow, the 1000 will become 2,000, 10,000 etc. etc.

This much is obvious, although hardliners who insist that the entire block chain must be verifiable  on every node will torpedo any attempt to make that happen,

[ChartBuddy]

Coin
Explanation

[Norway]

snip

snippety snip

To resolve the scalability problem we have to distribute transaction records in such a way that every transaction stored not on all computers, but on a small part of them. For example, every block is stored on 1000 randomly chosen nodes. The rest of nodes (billions of them) keep only header of it. Such network can grow indefinitely without affecting storage capacity requirements. When bandwith/storage capacity will grow, the 1000 will become 2,000, 10,000 etc. etc.

I agree that the workload must be distributed. Not just storage capacity, but also processing power and bandwidth. (But not mining, he he. That is the work that has to be hard.)

It should not be done randomly, but deterministic based on the characteristics of the transaction. Making a tree. That is easy to validate.


EDIT: I'm (bit)coining the expression now. The block tree! 

[billyjoeallen]

Is it still time to hire some strippers (of both sexes, of course) for that kumbaya session devs are having in Canada?

Nerd egos are stubborn things, might be a good idea to soften up the mood. Make 'em mellow.

Still time? The Backpage-situation graduated all the exotic dancers in Bitcoin 101. International payments to Canada to these entrepeneurs only take seconds / minutes (depending on of much they trust zero confirmations).

And they start saturday! Plenty of time! Let's feed those bras with digital cash!  

Hopefully, on monday you all will understand that scaling is not a big problem. Because all miners/nodes/pools/whatever do NOT need to confirm every bleeping transaction. The computer work can be easily shared. The big work isn't processing transactions. It's mining.  

I suspect backpagers buy the majority of my coins on bitquick.co.  it's nice because I can arbitrage the spread and buy back immediately at a lower rate on an exchange, but of course I'm really just selling my risk of getting my bank account seized in the event that some bureaucrat somewhere decides it's money laundering and retroactively applies the decision to me. So I have to constantly drain the account to minimize the risk. I also have to buy back in immediately to minimize the exchange rate risk because the most buyers come in during an uptrend.  A five dollar bump in three hours can wipe out any profit.

buying gas cards on purse.io is similarly problematic. I get a ~20% discount on the card, but I have to exchange the gamestop card for a shell card at a brick-and-mortar store which takes time and money, THEN I can only buy fuel at Shell stations which typically overcharge ~5% for fuel.

Once I have enough profit to cover living expenses, I crank up the premium I ask for on bitquick and crank up the discount I demand on purse.io.  If nobody bites, it's no big deal. If they do, that's less work for me in the future.

Arbitraging is the only way I know to make profits without burning through my stack, except of course lending out coins on bfx but the vig is still pretty low. For bigger profits that that, one must OBSERVE THE WALL and get lucky.

[brg444]

... and really some of the extent of your drama or exaggeration seems to be attempting to cause an effect rather than really talking about the real state of bitcoin today.

That's partially true and I'll be the first to admit it. I want the price to go down IF it leads to cause the core devs to implement a workable scale patch or else leads to some other group replacing them. I want bitcoin to succeed as an electronic peer to peer cash system as it was designed, not as some cloistered settlement network only used by the same assholes who run the current system. 

Fiat money is debt. It is lent into existence. That makes the entire global financial system a giant pyramid scheme. I don't have to wish for economic Armageddon to see one coming (or more likely a series of disasters  eventually having the same effect). I don't have to cause it or contribute to causing it. It's going to happen as a mathematical certainty.  If we don't find a way to escape the system, we will go down with it.   

A network capacity of seven transactions/sec is a life boat with very few seats.

All money is debt, bro

What do you know about Bitcoin anyway?

How's that supposed to work? How many "blockspace" do I get for 1 bitcoin?

Easy. 1/21,000,000th of the whole chain.  I answered your question, now you answer mine. If I'm not buying space on the blockchain when I'm buying bitcoin, what am I buying?

[Norway]

Is it still time to hire some strippers (of both sexes, of course) for that kumbaya session devs are having in Canada?

Nerd egos are stubborn things, might be a good idea to soften up the mood. Make 'em mellow.

Still time? The Backpage-situation graduated all the exotic dancers in Bitcoin 101. International payments to Canada to these entrepeneurs only take seconds / minutes (depending on of much they trust zero confirmations).

And they start saturday! Plenty of time! Let's feed those bras with digital cash!  

Hopefully, on monday you all will understand that scaling is not a big problem. Because all miners/nodes/pools/whatever do NOT need to confirm every bleeping transaction. The computer work can be easily shared. The big work isn't processing transactions. It's mining.  

I suspect backpagers buy the majority of my coins on bitquick.co.  it's nice because I can arbitrage the spread and buy back immediately at a lower rate on an exchange, but of course I'm really just selling my risk of getting my bank account seized in the event that some bureaucrat somewhere decides it's money laundering and retroactively applies the decision to me. So I have to constantly drain the account to minimize the risk. I also have to buy back in immediately to minimize the exchange rate risk because the most buyers come in during an uptrend.  A five dollar bump in three hours can wipe out any profit.

buying gas cards on purse.io is similarly problematic. I get a ~20% discount on the card, but I have to exchange the gamestop card for a shell card at a brick-and-mortar store which takes time and money, THEN I can only buy fuel at Shell stations which typically overcharge ~5% for fuel.

Once I have enough profit to cover living expenses, I crank up the premium I ask for on bitquick and crank up the discount I demand on purse.io.  If nobody bites, it's no big deal. If they do, that's less work for me in the future.

Arbitraging is the only way I know to make profits without burning through my stack, except of course lending out coins on bfx but the vig is still pretty low. For bigger profits that that, one must OBSERVE THE WALL and get lucky.

Chill, BJ! Life is fun! "Sell" your coins to them at a hotel room!

[HerrAndreas]

has anyone seen this?

http://www.pressexaminer.com/bitcoin-might-face-a-new-challenge-in-two-days-from-now/73854

Yes.
I.
now that you posted the link.