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

[BTC_Markets]

Market Sentiment

Longs | Shorts

BitcoinMarkets Flair *
50% | 50%

OKCoin Elite Traders
50% | 48%

OKCoin Futures Position Ratio
39.26% | 34.65%

Bitfinex (24h)
75.9% | 24.1%

Whaleclub.co Top Traders
46.64% | 53.36%

* calculates flair changes from bullish to bearish and vice-versa in the past 24 hours

[1714469367]

1714469367

[1714469367]

1714469367

[1714469367]

1714469367

[1714469367]

1714469367

[1714469367]

1714469367

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[JorgeStolfi]

Ignoring the miners long term incentives to benefit the ecosystem and assuming short term selfish behavior only, the miners will be incentivized by more tx fees when the capacity more than doubles. When margins are extremely tight these incentives are more than enough to encourage the right behavior.

You seem to be assuming that the "fee market" will set in and space in blocks will be a scarce resource.  But, if a sizable fraction of the traffic adopts SW, the fee market will be delayed by another 2 years at least.  Large junk traffic generators like SatoshiDice can avoid paying higher fees by using the SW format, while miners and full non-mining nodes will see their bandwidth demands increase beyond the 1 MB mark, just as if the block size limit had been raised to 4 MB right now.

[koryu]

looks like the phase of criticalness begins, anybody scared?

[Tzupy]

Just a couple of hours left for dumpers to break support and crash... If not, some sideways and then a push to about 430$...

[snapter]

That price action is so sustainable.

Also, the only active troll on the forum is Strollfi.

Good work, fellows

Have you seen the nonsense spam posts in the bitcoin discussion board? There has been a troll consistently spamming that board with nonsense posts for days. Here is an example of one. Those are real troll posts and it's not JorgeStolfi posting them.

Parian
Revegetate
Resmelts
Butle

[BitUsher]

Ignoring the miners long term incentives to benefit the ecosystem and assuming short term selfish behavior only, the miners will be incentivized by more tx fees when the capacity more than doubles. When margins are extremely tight these incentives are more than enough to encourage the right behavior.

You seem to be assuming that the "fee market" will set in and space in blocks will be a scarce resource.  But, if a sizable fraction of the traffic adopts SW, the fee market will be delayed by another 2 years at least.  Large junk traffic generators like SatoshiDice can avoid paying higher fees by using the SW format, while miners and full non-mining nodes will see their bandwidth demands increase beyond the 1 MB mark, just as if the block size limit had been raised to 4 MB right now.

I don't pretend to assume how quickly bitcoin will scale, although I would rather have better optimised solutions like SW vs BIP101 to address capacity with a list of backstop hardfork options for  last minute solutions in un-expected growth spurts -

In Bitcoin Core we should keep patches
ready to implement them as the need and the will arises, to keep the
basic software engineering from being the limiting factor.

I believe it is quite likely capacity demand won't increase as quickly as some suggest as people are naturally resistant to trusting new and volatile currencies but in cases where this isn't true than having a slight delay in confirmations while a pretested hardfork is deployed isn't the end of the world. (Paypal and visa go down all the time after all and chaos doesn't ensue)

Large junk traffic generators like SatoshiDice can avoid paying higher fees by using the SW format, while miners and full non-mining nodes will see their bandwidth demands increase beyond the 1 MB mark

Lite wallets and SPV nodes will be upgraded automatically to take full advantage of SW and users will naturally upgrade without much thought. SatoshiDice will be constrained to compete with everyone else and have no advantages.

just as if the block size limit had been raised to 4 MB right now.

This is false as the average load for 100% full blocks would be around 2MB with only approaching short of 4MB for heavy multisig.

There are other technical nuances that benefit full nodes with SW such as-
Existing full nodes already do not validate signatures in the far past-- with SW they could also skip transferring them among other benefits .

Here is an example if you have any doubts as to why you are incorrect-

Yea, the exact impact depend on usage patterns.

If your case is a counting one input, one output, pay to hash transactions the sizes work out to

4 (version) + 1 (vin count) + 32 (input id) + 4 (input index) + 4 (sequence no) + 1 (sig len) + 0 (sig) + 1 (output count) + 1 (output len) + 36 + (32 byte witness program hash, push overhead, OP_SEGWIT) + 8 (value) + 4 (nlocktime) = 96 non-witness bytes

1 (witness program length) + 1 (witness program type) + 33 (pubkey) + 1 (checksig) + 1 (witness length) + 73 (signature) = 110.

96x + 0.25*110x = 1000000; x = 8097 or 13.5 TPS for 600 second blocks; (this is without the code in front of me, so I may well have slightly miscounted an overhead; but it's roughly that)... which is around double if you were assuming 7 tps as your baseline. Which is why I said double the capacity in my post... but YMMV.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[peonminer]

Market Sentiment

Longs | Shorts

BitcoinMarkets Flair *
50% | 50%

* calculates flair changes from bullish to bearish and vice-versa in the past 24 hours

https://youtu.be/9jK-NcRmVcw

[JorgeStolfi]

Lite wallets and SPV nodes will be upgraded automatically to take full advantage of SW and users will naturally upgrade without much thought.

Not so "automatically".  The reason why the devs like soft forks is that they can deploy the protocol changes without having to alert everybody to upgrade (and therefore to explain *why* the change is good for them).

SatoshiDice will be constrained to compete with everyone else and have no advantages.

What I meant is that big junk generating businesses can upgrade to exploit SW immediately, while the majority of the occasional clients will take months to do so.

the average load for 100% full blocks would be around 2MB with only approaching short of 4MB for heavy multisig.

Phew, for a moment I was afraid that Blockstream had relented and proposed SW as a way to increase the capacity and avoid congestion.  But with users inertia and a bit of help from junk generators, the "fee market" may still begin in six months or so. 

So everything is back to the status quo in diebus bello, and the Bitcoin Stalling Conference had the outcome that everybody expected.   

[BitUsher]

Not so "automatically".  The reason why the devs like soft forks is that they can deploy the protocol changes without having to alert everybody to upgrade (and therefore to explain *why* the change is good for them).

 Are you insinuating that SW isn't good for them? They will eventually change as most users do update their wallets regularly and this has 100% consensus with devs.

What I meant is that big junk generating businesses can upgrade to exploit SW immediately, while the majority of the occasional clients will take months to do so.

Users can decide to immediately use bitcoin core or wallets that have the upgrade if they want. You are assuming that we are already at 100% capacity and SatoshiDice is going to rush in to exploit the extra bandwidth. We aren't using our capacity now, what makes you think that building bigger capacity will insure that it immediately gets filled?

Its a bit odd that you are both so skeptical of bitcoin but so optimistic at the same time expecting huge growth in usage and tx's(whether you think those tx are legitimate or not is inconsequential as it represents growth in the ecosystem). Or perhaps you are hoping that blockstream and core fails to deliver scalable capacity improvements and bitcoin bloats from spam so it becomes technically unusable? This would explain a lot of your vitriol for them.

Phew, for a moment I was afraid that Blockstream had relented and proposed SW as a way to increase the capacity and avoid congestion.  But with users inertia and a bit of help from junk generators, the "fee market" may still begin in six months or so.  

So everything is back to the status quo in diebus bello, and the Bitcoin Stalling Conference had the outcome that everybody expected.  

SW is indeed a piece of the puzzle to increase capacity along with the list of changes that are being outlined in the provided link that you appear to have ignored. ETA for SW moving over from sidechain testnet to main bitcoin testnet this month and deployment in late 15 or jan 16'

Why are you so interested in Bitcoin's well being and against the "fee market"? Why not be an impartial academic observer and watch as these events unfold? Do you have some sort of stake in large blocks being the primary means of growing capacity vs these more holistic approaches that take into consideration many variables ?

I suppose you could have been watching this drama for so long that you have built a natural preference for certain "teams" and irrationally invest in an outcome you have no stake in. Happens all the time with sports fanatics. Is this the case with you?

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

Along with CLTV, SW is another piece of the LN puzzle solved. Seems like Blockstream wins again.

[JayJuanGee]

If we don't break 400 soon, we will see an epic dump.

Save my words

Aaaaaaaand it... broke $400

When referring to BTC price generically, we go by Bitstamp's price, here unless otherwise specified.


Accordingly, Bitstamp has not yet gone beyond $400 in the past week - I believe $399.91 is as close as it has been to $400.

[LFC_Bitcoin]

$396.09 on Stamp as I type this, so near yet so far from the magic $400.

Incredible how we can't get over that last $4.

[JorgeStolfi]

Not so "automatically".  The reason why the devs like soft forks is that they can deploy the protocol changes without having to alert everybody to upgrade (and therefore to explain *why* the change is good for them).

Are you insinuating that SW isn't good for them? They will eventually change as most users do update their wallets regularly and this has 100% consensus with devs.

I meant that, in general, the devs like soft forks because they can be deployed in "stealth mode", without alerting all the users and nodes -- and therefore avoiding "wasteful" questionings and explanations.  See BIP66 last July, and BIP65 that was just enabled yesterday.

In this case too, the devs seem to be decided to roll out SW without waiting for it to be scrutinized and approved by the community.  (No independent applications will break, of course,  unless they deserve to break.)

I don't know whether SW is good for the devs overall, but some features at least are needed for their planned "bitcoin 2.0" products.  I have yet to see why it is good for clients, or even for the relay nodes (the witnesses still have to be relayed, and blockchain pruning can be done even without SW.  IN fat, that is what the UTXO database is -- a pruned and indexed copy of the blockchain.

You are assuming that we are already at 100% capacity and SatoshiDice is going to rush in to exploit the extra bandwidth. We aren't using our capacity now, what makes you think that building bigger capacity will insure that it immediately gets filled?

I am not assuming that.

I am assuming that, with a 1 MB limit, the network will each saturation in mid 2016. (Although there has been an extra increase in November, so that may happen in Q1 already.)  I am also assuming that, six months after SW is deployed, half the traffic will still be using the old format.  Then, even with half the traffic in SW format, the network will saturate anyway  in 2016, but perhaps in the second half only. 

ETA for SW is moving over from sidechain testnet to main bitcoin testnet this month and deployment in late 15 or jan 16'

I am totally confident that the core devs will deploy such a change in 1 month, with holidays in the middle. 

[DeathAngel]

Manipulative bearwhales control this shit. Why can't we break 400.

[peonminer]

$396.09 on Stamp as I type this, so near yet so far from the magic $400.

Incredible how we can't get over that last $4.

ac·cu·mu·la·tion
əˌkyo͞om(y)əˈlāSH(ə)n/
noun
the acquisition or gradual gathering of something.
"the accumulation of wealth"
a mass or quantity of something that has gradually gathered or been acquired.
plural noun: accumulations
"the accumulation of BTCitcoin by willybot v 2.1 during the great rise of December 2015 was rather obvious, we were seeing volume like never before"
synonyms:   buildup, mass, pile, heap, stack, collection, stock, store, stockpile, reserve, hoard;

[BitUsher]

I meant that, in general, the devs like soft forks because they can be deployed in "stealth mode", without alerting all the users and nodes -- and therefore avoiding "wasteful" questionings and explanations.  See BIP66 last July, and BIP65 that was just enabled yesterday.

In this case too, the devs seem to be decided to roll out SW without waiting for it to be scrutinized and approved by the community.  (No independent applications will break, of course,  unless they deserve to break.)

The development process is open, you can join the mailing list if you want to be in on their "secrets" , SW has been discussed to death since 2011.... where have you been?

I can certainly tell you haven't coded much, if any, before as the real reason devs prefer soft-fork is because of the possible bugs and complications that rolling out hard forks that aren't backwards compatible create.

You appear to be holding unfounded and irrational conspiracies which can easily be proven false.  

I am assuming that, with a 1 MB limit, the network will each saturation in mid 2016. (Although there has been an extra increase in November, so that may happen in Q1 already.)  I am also assuming that, six months after SW is deployed, half the traffic will still be using the old format.  Then, even with half the traffic in SW format, the network will saturate anyway  in 2016, but perhaps in the second half only.  

This assumption doesn't match the data. Nodes Upgrading to the newest softforks is actually increasing in velocity. http://data.bitcoinity.org/bitcoin/block_version/5y?c=block_version&r=week&t=a

BIP 65 already reach activation in short order. 0.11.2 was released only in Nov 13.

I suppose its easy to be critical and make armchair disagreements without much concern of their validity when you don't have a stake in bitcoin. I would love to see you short/daytrade bitcoin as it may bring more accuracy to your comments as it would incentivize you to better fact check.

[ImI]

looks fuckin bullish to me