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

[ssmc2]

If BTC appreciation were actually due to Chinese currency controls, we ought to be taking off right now, as you just can't buy physical USD in China this week.

And yet we're not taking off.  Thank your Core Development friends for that.

we're not taking off because china devaluations theory is bunk..

the nasdaq guy likely is totally clueless about the bandwidth problem ..

i hear people all the time talking about how great bitcoin is who don't have a clue about the flaw that is obvious to all of us here in the forum ..

the real reason we are at this price is because the federal govy pumped bitcoin using back channels so they could make a quick profit on the marshal's auction ..

however, now after pumping bitcoin they are faced with the looming bandwidth problem ..

it probably would have been smarter, wiser, better to fix the bandwidth problem BEFORE they PUMPED it ..

Man, you really have turned into a crackpot.  I wonder if it happened overnight, or whether it was a slow, gradual decline into lunacy.

Maybe his account was bought

[1714841864]

1714841864

[1714841864]

1714841864

[1714841864]

1714841864

[1714841864]

1714841864

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[dropt]

Maybe his account was bought

This is a suitable explanation.

[rebuilder]

Who is to say some Bitcoin devs won't fork bitcoin because they disagree on whether miners should allow free blocks or be forced to mine them, "as it was intended to".

Some will say "bitcoin miners are supposed to mine transactions / bitcoin will die if nobody mines txs / we can't pay ridiculous money to the mining cartel" and some will say "they should be free to choose / the market has to provide incentives to the miners (fees) in order to mine the txs".

Some miners who feel they can cope with the upgrade will be in favor - because that will put into a disadvantage their opponent miners, and some who have smaller "pipes" or worse propagation will probably reject it.

So the miners would be considering an advantage gained from having better resources than their competitors vs. cutting their own profits from fees, which, as block rewards continue to dwindle can only become a bigger issue for them.

Sure, anyone could fork Bitcoin to force miners to accept feeless tx, or to force a pricepoint for tx. I don't recall any developer suggesting the transaction price needs to be fixed by policy, and I believe it would be a fool's errand anyway. You can't fight economic forces in a voluntary system like Bitcoin. You can try, but you'll just get out-competed.

Actually, scratch thst: I do believe some developers are saying the transaction price point needs fixing - anyone proposing a blocksize limit as an economic measure is doing just that: tampering with price discovery.

[AlexGR]

Who is to say some Bitcoin devs won't fork bitcoin because they disagree on whether miners should allow free blocks or be forced to mine them, "as it was intended to".

Some will say "bitcoin miners are supposed to mine transactions / bitcoin will die if nobody mines txs / we can't pay ridiculous money to the mining cartel" and some will say "they should be free to choose / the market has to provide incentives to the miners (fees) in order to mine the txs".

Some miners who feel they can cope with the upgrade will be in favor - because that will put into a disadvantage their opponent miners, and some who have smaller "pipes" or worse propagation will probably reject it.

So the miners would be considering an advantage gained from having better resources than their competitors vs. cutting their own profits from fees, which, as block rewards continue to dwindle can only become a bigger issue for them.

Sure, anyone could fork Bitcoin to force miners to accept feeless tx, or to force a pricepoint for tx. I don't recall any developer suggesting the transaction price needs to be fixed by policy, and I believe it would be a fool's errand anyway. You can't fight economic forces in a voluntary system like Bitcoin. You can try, but you'll just get out-competed.

Actually, scratch thst: I do believe some developers are saying the transaction price point needs fixing - anyone proposing a blocksize limit as an economic measure is doing just that: tampering with price discovery.

You could "sell" a fork attempt not by saying that you have to force miner fees. It's more "eloquent" to proclaim "doom" by all those bad miners who do not mine txs and how this deviates from the vision of Satoshi, who intended blocks with transactions - not series of empty blocks and a full mempool where transactions are stuck. See how better that sounds?

[xyzzy099]

its all about the probability of an orphan block. if we could minimize that probability it would be a big step in the right direction. maybe we should diminish the advantage of 0 tx blocks by making all blocks equally large no matter how much real TXs are in there. so every block would have the same disadvantage of a full block no matter if those are TXs or just some clutter to fill up the 1MB or 2MB

The reason there are one transaction blocks is that the miners don't know which transactions which are in the mempool are valid. The minute you add a minimum requirement, miners will just fill it with dummy transactions they know to be valid but are not in the mempool. You gain nothing but waste space.

Not sure what you mean here...  The mempool is, by definition, the set of transactions a node has received and validated, but have not yet been included in a block, right?

Maybe I am missing some context or something?

[Fatman3001]

Maybe his account was bought

This is a suitable explanation.

Have you ever bothered to click the link in his signature?

That's not an endorsement signature. He is: Vegas Luna. Though, in this place he is close to sane.

(not really though, but he has guns)

[luigi1111]

its all about the probability of an orphan block. if we could minimize that probability it would be a big step in the right direction. maybe we should diminish the advantage of 0 tx blocks by making all blocks equally large no matter how much real TXs are in there. so every block would have the same disadvantage of a full block no matter if those are TXs or just some clutter to fill up the 1MB or 2MB

The reason there are one transaction blocks is that the miners don't know which transactions which are in the mempool are valid. The minute you add a minimum requirement, miners will just fill it with dummy transactions they know to be valid but are not in the mempool. You gain nothing but waste space.

Not sure what you mean here...  The mempool is, by definition, the set of transactions a node has received and validated, but have not yet been included in a block, right?

Maybe I am missing some context or something?

I think he means "valid to include in the next block", because they don't (yet) know which ones were included in the header they are building on.

[xyzzy099]

its all about the probability of an orphan block. if we could minimize that probability it would be a big step in the right direction. maybe we should diminish the advantage of 0 tx blocks by making all blocks equally large no matter how much real TXs are in there. so every block would have the same disadvantage of a full block no matter if those are TXs or just some clutter to fill up the 1MB or 2MB

The reason there are one transaction blocks is that the miners don't know which transactions which are in the mempool are valid. The minute you add a minimum requirement, miners will just fill it with dummy transactions they know to be valid but are not in the mempool. You gain nothing but waste space.

Not sure what you mean here...  The mempool is, by definition, the set of transactions a node has received and validated, but have not yet been included in a block, right?

Maybe I am missing some context or something?

I think he means "valid to include in the next block", because they don't (yet) know which ones were included in the header they are building on.

Ah, I see where the confusion is.  To my mind, a "miner" is the entity building the block, not just someone hashing a header provided by an actual miner.

But those 'miners' have no control over what transactions are included in the block anyway...

[Patel]

I am predicting a drop to 350 ish fairly soon... then moon within the next 6 months.

[Richy_T]

Not sure what you mean here...  The mempool is, by definition, the set of transactions a node has received and validated, but have not yet been included in a block, right?

Maybe I am missing some context or something?

Correct. But between when a block has been mined and when it has been transferred and processed, other miners do not know which transactions in their mempool were included in that block and thus do not know which transactions are safe to start mining on. So they mine empty while they're waiting because you don't want that hashpower sitting idle and the block reward is pretty tempting on its own.

If you look at the timings, most empty blocks come very quickly after the previous blocks for this reason.

[xyzzy099]

Not sure what you mean here...  The mempool is, by definition, the set of transactions a node has received and validated, but have not yet been included in a block, right?

Maybe I am missing some context or something?

Correct. But between when a block has been mined and when it has been transferred and processed, other miners do not know which transactions in their mempool were included in that block and thus do not know which transactions are safe to start mining on. So they mine empty while they're waiting.

If you look at the timings, most empty blocks come very quickly after the previous blocks for this reason.

Yeah, ok, I see what your are trying to say now.

[noobtrader]

I am predicting a drop to 350 ish fairly soon... then moon within the next 6 months.

cant we reach the moon without visiting below 3xx

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[600watt]

I am predicting a drop to 350 ish fairly soon... then moon within the next 6 months.

cant we reach the moon without visiting below 3xx

not if you ask guys that have sold at 360....   

[soullyG]

Maybe his account was bought

This is a suitable explanation.

Have you ever bothered to click the link in his signature?

That's not an endorsement signature. He is: Vegas Luna. Though, in this place he is close to sane.

(not really though, but he has guns)

Holy shit what the hell did I just read

This is an investigation into the Atlantean Mermaids war with the Andromeda Martians who invaded our solar system during its protostar stage with a wandering brown dwarf and the catastrophe that happened. The book presents 21 Polestar Science Theories that range from astronomy, astrophysics, particle physics, quantum physics, string theory, M-brane theory, and more. In-depth research of the solar system and a closer look at Mars and the gas giants. The book reveals the destiny or fate of the human race in the future intergalactic war with the Andromeda.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[r0ach]

I am predicting a drop to 350 ish fairly soon... then moon within the next 6 months.

I don't see it going to $350 under any circumstance.  If the rally is over, which it might be for a while according to macro wedge breaking trend, then it would find strong support around $410 still.  If there's a dump, that's where it will go.  If a second dump occurred days/a week later after that, it would find big resistance again at 390's.  Worst case scenario would be $360, but would probably require a long time to get there, and by the time it did, would be time to go up again for getting closer to halving.


  

[dropt]

Maybe his account was bought

This is a suitable explanation.

Have you ever bothered to click the link in his signature?

That's not an endorsement signature. He is: Vegas Luna. Though, in this place he is close to sane.

(not really though, but he has guns)

I haven't. I didn't know he had a signature as I turned them off about the time sig campaigns started.

Edit: Now I kind of want to buy his book.

[tomothy]

So, essentially sideways between ~415-~460 for the next one to two  months?
Assuming Gemini launches alts on their exchange, which might be Soon(TM) there could be some btc/alt/pumpage.
Then blocksize will magically reach consensus and increase and we'll be just about time for the halving and start of higher highs?

With regards to 2mb limit... I wanted to throw my $0.02 for bitcoin core/classic/unlimited.
So it's recognized, essentially, that behind the great firewall of china, lies ~+50% BTC hashpower y network strength.
China has difficulty getting data out due to that firewall delaying everything.
So... the faster and sooner you can bump above 1mb, this could help places maybe outside china and mitigate/limit
 the impact of china btc mining? It seems that, yes, need an increase at some point for big bank applications but also china mining power clearly has to be of concern to big banks and usg.
Maybe? or No higher highs until we drop below 400 again?