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

[Andre#]

I WANNA F*CK  A THOUSAND WOMAN  REST OF MY LIFE!!!!      

404 MONEY NOT FOUND 

That would be

402 Payment Required

http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec10.html

[1714700524]

1714700524

[bitebits]

Quite a few Americans and Europeans who come here love it enough to stay.

Those are the rich people holding dollars, euro or bitcoin. They are able to create their own reality wherever they move.
Brazil has a net emigration rate, a majority is apparently able to leave the country.

[Sturgeon]

look we will going to $400 and then slowly at $500

keep your bitcoin safety at your wallet

[billyjoeallen]

Kind of off-putting to see all this "demanding" by the users ... if you want something build it. This is not the customer-supplier relationship that has been sold to you by Gavin, Hearn and the data-mining crowd. They want something from you for providing "convenient solutions, easy answers and goodies", your financial privacy. It is the same thing Google and Facebook and etc did to the web. Provide the goodies for free and meanwhile they pipe your humanity out the back-door.

Do you not know how economics work? The users are the reason everyone else's role exists. Miners are nothing without us. Core devs are just employees.  We own it.  Google and Facebook give their customers what they want. That's why they are still around and so many others are not.  I will not be held hostage by my employees.  I will sell as soon as a competitor appears who is more sensitive to my desires. 

Unbelievable fucking arrogance.  It's worse than the goddamned cable company.

[Sturgeon]

I WANNA F*CK  A THOUSAND WOMAN  REST OF MY LIFE!!!!      

404 MONEY NOT FOUND 

That would be

402 Payment Required

http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec10.html

10.4.5 404 Not Found

The money has not found anything matching the Request-URI. No indication is given of whether the condition is temporary or permanent. The 410 (Gone) status code SHOULD be used if the server knows, through some internally configurable mechanism, that an old resource is permanently unavailable and has no forwarding address. This status code is commonly used when the server does not wish to reveal exactly why the request has been refused, or when no other response is applicable.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin

Explanation

[ChartBuddy]

Coin

Explanation

[Andre#]

The Economist predicts transactions could take over an hour by early next year if there's no change. Are they wrong?

That is nonsense.  Someone with no idea of how things work just tossed a number.

Once the average traffic (transactions issued per day by all users) exceeds the effective capacity of the network (about 240'000 tx/day, 2.8 tx/s), there will be a steadily growing backlog of unconfirmed transactions.  There will not be a fixed delay: the average delay will keep increasing, day after day.

If the traffic were to be 300'000 tx/day (3.5 tx/s), for example, the backlog would grow at the rate of ~60'000 tx per day (~0.7 tx/s).  The transactions received in one day will take 300'000/240'000*24 = 30 hours to be confirmed; so the average delay for 1-confirmation will keep growing by 6 hours every day.  

If the transactions were serviced first-in, first-out, then all transactions sent in the same hour would be delayed by about the same (but always growing) number of hours.   Since the processing priority is largely determined by the fees paid, however, some transactions may be processed in the next block, independently of the backlog, while others will be delayed even more than they would with the fair policy.   However, there will be no way to estimate the fee needed to get your transaction confirmed in the next block, or within X hours; because that depends on the fees of transactions that will be issued before your confirmation -- by clients who will want their transactions to be processed before yours.

But that regime cannot last for long, of course.  Clients will give up on bitcoin, until traffic drops below the capacity -- say to 220'000 tx/day (~2.6 tx/s). Then, part of the time, there will be no backlog: all transactions will confirm in the next block, even if they pay the minimal fee.  However, the traffic varies a lot depending on time of day and day of the week.  During peak hours and peak days, the traffic will be quite a bit more than 2.8 tx/s. Then there will be a temporary backlog, lasting several hours, that will be cleared slowly when the traffic subsides.  

As before, the backlog and the average confirmation delay will keep growing while the traffic exceeds the capacity.  The delay for your transaction, specifically, will depend on its fee, on the transactions that are waiting in the queue, and on the transactions that will be issued by other clients until your transaction is confirmed.  On some occasions, many transactions may get delayed by several hours, perhaps by a day or two.

It's still unclear to me how users will react to unconfirming txs. I suspect wallet developers will adapt their software, trying to estimate the right fee for the time of a tx, and by allowing re-issuing tx with a higher fee if stuck. But it will be frustrating for users.

Let me put this another way:

I bought bitcoin because it never even occurred to me that it wouldn't scale.  Many new users don't know now that it doesn't scale, but when we run up against the hard limit and your beloved transaction fee market kicks off, everyone will know and nobody likes paying high fees for something they are used to getting nearly free.

The investors/speculators are the only reason this thing works at all.  You are taking us for granted.  We do not exist simply to facilitate drug deals.  WE buy the coins. WE supply the liquidity. If you don't give us what we want, we invest elsewhere.  Without us, nobody pays the miners and everything grinds to a halt.

I  tend to agree, as more and more users become aware that Bitcoin doesn't scale, combined with frustrating user experiences of txs getting stuck, and txs becoming more and more expensive, for sure a part of the users will turn away from Bitcoin. It will make the price drop, since most of it comes from the future expectations of Bitcoin.

Of course, if LN is up and running before it plays out like this, and it doesn't degrade the user experience, Bitcoin won't fall off the cliff.  However, the Core client devs take quite a risk by taking Bitcoin hostage like this. I know I'll vote with my feet. Once I see evidence of the downward spiral, I'll sell my stash. I bet I won't be the only one, and the option of another cryptocurrency taking over becomes a very real possibility.

Because one thing is sure, cryptocurrencies are here to stay.

[marcus1986]

Looks like we are going to $450 and then slowly to $600 

[TReano]

Looks like we are going to $450 and then slowly to $600  

... why do people always aim for highs... we had the big push to the upside.. If we would be ready to go higher we would already be..

We are likely going to push up to max. 450$ but I don't think we are going stay at this level, people are just going to short there and make easy money with a smart s/l...

[fonsie]

Looks like we are going to $450 and then slowly to $600 

Is that a fact or is it what you hope it will do?

To me it seems the rally lost it's fuel and the chinese are not the HODLING kind of people. Everybody also seems a bit too bullish at the moment, which means down she will go... I'm HOPING for 320$, but what the fuck do I know...

[Mota]

Let me put this another way:

I bought bitcoin because it never even occurred to me that it wouldn't scale.  Many new users don't know now that it doesn't scale, but when we run up against the hard limit and your beloved transaction fee market kicks off, everyone will know and nobody likes paying high fees for something they are used to getting nearly free.

The investors/speculators are the only reason this thing works at all.  You are taking us for granted.  We do not exist simply to facilitate drug deals.  WE buy the coins. WE supply the liquidity. If you don't give us what we want, we invest elsewhere.  Without us, nobody pays the miners and everything grinds to a halt.

I  tend to agree, as more and more users become aware that Bitcoin doesn't scale, combined with frustrating user experiences of txs getting stuck, and txs becoming more and more expensive, for sure a part of the users will turn away from Bitcoin. It will make the price drop, since most of it comes from the future expectations of Bitcoin.

Of course, if LN is up and running before it plays out like this, and it doesn't degrade the user experience, Bitcoin won't fall off the cliff.  However, the Core client devs take quite a risk by taking Bitcoin hostage like this. I know I'll vote with my feet. Once I see evidence of the downward spiral, I'll sell my stash. I bet I won't be the only one, and the option of another cryptocurrency taking over becomes a very real possibility.

Because one thing is sure, cryptocurrencies are here to stay.

This discussion is getting annoying. Of course people who pay no transaction fees are getting stuck, but that is not a cause for greater blocksizes. You think you have the power because you buy bitcoins? You do NOT pay the miners, the system does. It's actually your attitude that is pretty arrogant, not the other way around. Do you know what would happen when the miners decide to cut back their hashing power? I do. VERY few blocks found for a LONG time! You have to realize that mining is not cheap, and miners do require those fees more and more since block rewards diminish. https://blockchain.info/de/charts/network-deficit  
The times when people were willing to get negative balances for their mining are long gone, the market regulates itself.

That being said, I am all for bigger blocks, but not because of the - excuse my french - bullshit arguments some people tend to bring forward.
At this point I would like to quote Sam & Max:
Max: My innocence has been shattered by this blatant tourist trap. I want my money back!
Sam: We didn't pay anything.
Max: Well, somebody better give me some money!

The thing is, even with bigger blocks people will have to pay fees. People who want free transactions will always complain the moment there is a chance they will have to pay something or risk getting no service.

[celebreze32]

That is a sensible view, and close to what bitcoin was conceived and built for. 

However, Satoshi's stated goal was to remove the need for a trusted third party in peer-to-peer payments.  That is not the same as "censorship resistant" and does not imply it.  It does not imply anonymity or privacy, much less immunity from laws.  These goals that were tacked onto it afterwards, by others; it is not surprising that bitcoin fails to

Satoshi made Bitcoin the opposite of "censorship resistant" if used with default settings. Anyone can track where your coins have come from, and where you sent them to through the blockchain. However Satoshi provided instructions on how to run a wallet through Tor, and how to mix them through coinjoin if you desire anonymity. He left the choice of whether to implement anonymity or not to the user.

[equipoise]

That is a sensible view, and close to what bitcoin was conceived and built for. 

However, Satoshi's stated goal was to remove the need for a trusted third party in peer-to-peer payments.  That is not the same as "censorship resistant" and does not imply it.  It does not imply anonymity or privacy, much less immunity from laws.  These goals that were tacked onto it afterwards, by others; it is not surprising that bitcoin fails to

Satoshi made Bitcoin the opposite of "censorship resistant" if used with default settings. Anyone can track where your coins have come from, and where you sent them to through the blockchain. However Satoshi provided instructions on how to run a wallet through Tor, and how to mix them through coinjoin if you desire anonymity. He left the choice of whether to implement anonymity or not to the user.

Satoshi also talked about ring signatures, which are implemented in Monero and most probably will never be implemented in Bitcoin.

[medialab101]

Looks like we are going to $450 and then slowly to $600  

... why do people always aim for highs... we had the big push to the upside.. If we would be ready to go higher we would already be..

We are likely going to push up to max. 450$ but I don't think we are going stay at this level, people are just going to short there and make easy money with a smart s/l...

.... why do people not bother to look back at past bubbles... expand it out and see that there were deep retraces lasting days before the parabolic uptrend resumed... compressed onto a 2 year graph it looks like a straight line up but there are important details being overlooked...

[kromtar]

You guys are boring with the fucking blocksize shit, there will be lots of thing to handle what bitcoin is not designed to do, for example iota for micro-transaction, an lots of other that will come...

Bitcoin will be the secure core of internet of things and everythin else will work arround bitcoin, like it or not so stop this shit, it's all about decentralize everything and no one will interfere or control the system anymore.

[Dotto]

Organic steady grow... I like this better, GO BABY, GO!

[ChartBuddy]

Coin

Explanation

[Andre#]

Let me put this another way:

I bought bitcoin because it never even occurred to me that it wouldn't scale.  Many new users don't know now that it doesn't scale, but when we run up against the hard limit and your beloved transaction fee market kicks off, everyone will know and nobody likes paying high fees for something they are used to getting nearly free.

The investors/speculators are the only reason this thing works at all.  You are taking us for granted.  We do not exist simply to facilitate drug deals.  WE buy the coins. WE supply the liquidity. If you don't give us what we want, we invest elsewhere.  Without us, nobody pays the miners and everything grinds to a halt.

I  tend to agree, as more and more users become aware that Bitcoin doesn't scale, combined with frustrating user experiences of txs getting stuck, and txs becoming more and more expensive, for sure a part of the users will turn away from Bitcoin. It will make the price drop, since most of it comes from the future expectations of Bitcoin.

Of course, if LN is up and running before it plays out like this, and it doesn't degrade the user experience, Bitcoin won't fall off the cliff.  However, the Core client devs take quite a risk by taking Bitcoin hostage like this. I know I'll vote with my feet. Once I see evidence of the downward spiral, I'll sell my stash. I bet I won't be the only one, and the option of another cryptocurrency taking over becomes a very real possibility.

Because one thing is sure, cryptocurrencies are here to stay.

This discussion is getting annoying. Of course people who pay no transaction fees are getting stuck, but that is not a cause for greater blocksizes.

You are twisting it. It's about people who pay too little tx fee. Where it isn't clear when it's too little. It would even be better if there would be a minimum fee, so you know what is needed.

You think you have the power because you buy bitcoins? You do NOT pay the miners, the system does.

I have the power because I own bitcoins. The power to sell, that is. The inflation as a result of issuance of bitcoins to miners (currently 9% annually), is the price I pay.

It's actually your attitude that is pretty arrogant, not the other way around. Do you know what would happen when the miners decide to cut back their hashing power? I do. VERY few blocks found for a LONG time! You have to realize that mining is not cheap, and miners do require those fees more and more since block rewards diminish. https://blockchain.info/de/charts/network-deficit  
The times when people were willing to get negative balances for their mining are long gone, the market regulates itself.

No need to resort to name calling. When miners hash less, difficulty will drop, and the network will get less secure. As you say, the market regulates itself. So let it do so, the network will be as secure as needed.

That being said, I am all for bigger blocks, but not because of the - excuse my french - bullshit arguments some people tend to bring forward.

You mean like your twisted opening argument? Or some of the others that followed?

The thing is, even with bigger blocks people will have to pay fees. People who want free transactions will always complain the moment there is a chance they will have to pay something or risk getting no service.

At least we can agree on people will have to pay fees. Free transactions are not guaranteed.

[Fatman3001]

Kind of off-putting to see all this "demanding" by the users ... if you want something build it.

Kind of off-putting to see all these senior members of the Bitcoin community telling people who care about Bitcoin to not have an opinion.

It's ugly. It's sad.

If any of you right wing nutters want to look at the face of tyranny, look no further.

Look at how Gmaxwell, Theymos and Beck treat the Bitcoin community. Look at all the goons trying to shut us up rather than showing the way forward.

This isn't github. If you look down on me because I have an opinion, then you're the problem.