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

[fisheater22]

Yep. It's not great you guys :& Last chance to buy above 420?

[1714816115]

1714816115

[1714816115]

1714816115

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[jbreher]

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 ..

You persist in saying this. Yet you have not offered your theory as to the mechanism by which the gov accomplished this pump, let alone provide any evidence thereof.

[heartastack]

The elevator stopped working I think I'll take the window home today.

[billyjoeallen]

If you double the blocksize, you also double the fees miners get paid without increasing the rate at all!
This might increase the cost of mining by some tiny fraction but nowhere near 100%. So let's be generous and say 2MB blocks will cost miners 110% of 1 MB Blocks.

So how about this calculation:

scenario A: 12.5BTCblockreward+3BTCxactionfees=15.5 BTCminerreward

scenario B: (12.5BTCblockreward+6BTCxactionfees)/1.1=16.818BTCminerreward

And that doesn't even factor in the very likely probability that BTC exchange rate will go up significantly due to the added utility.

So why do miners object? Could it be that they will get no reward at all because they are mining over a slow internet connection (through TOR or behind the Great Firewall) that means they cannot compete with miners with faster connections?

All the other objections are just to obscure this one. The real one. Forget the decentralization argument. Forget the "any hard fork is too radical" rationalization. These are not honest people and they are taking wealth, not making wealth.

Maybe cause they want to show solidarity and are hoping for an organic growth of the core without intensifying the fighting and splitting in pro/against camps    imagine what would that do to a price

They are showing solidarity with each other, but open hostility to their customers, the users, the holders, the companies and the people that have done the most to promote Bitcoin. That is not how successful business is done.

"organic" growth is a stalling term. There's nothing organic about an arbitrary cap imposed by a cabal of sidechain peddlers and miners with slow connections.  The DDOS attacks and censorship wasn't decreasing the fighting.  Those tactics were used EXCLUSIVELY used by smallblockers. 

[lottery248]

Coin



Explanation

it is crashing from $430! how could this happen? anyone here gets any news about the issue to the bitcoin price?

The elevator stopped working I think I'll take the window home today.

what do you mean? how can you take the window home?

[suda123]

oh go all these mother fucking cheap coins, i can't wait to buy on my payday LOL

Im to busy watching the economy collapse to even care at this point, also in live view

https://www.google.com/finance?cid=7521596

[DaRude]

If you double the blocksize, you also double the fees miners get paid without increasing the rate at all!
This might increase the cost of mining by some tiny fraction but nowhere near 100%. So let's be generous and say 2MB blocks will cost miners 110% of 1 MB Blocks.

So how about this calculation:

scenario A: 12.5BTCblockreward+3BTCxactionfees=15.5 BTCminerreward

scenario B: (12.5BTCblockreward+6BTCxactionfees)/1.1=16.818BTCminerreward

And that doesn't even factor in the very likely probability that BTC exchange rate will go up significantly due to the added utility.

So why do miners object? Could it be that they will get no reward at all because they are mining over a slow internet connection (through TOR or behind the Great Firewall) that means they cannot compete with miners with faster connections?

All the other objections are just to obscure this one. The real one. Forget the decentralization argument. Forget the "any hard fork is too radical" rationalization. These are not honest people and they are taking wealth, not making wealth.

Maybe cause they want to show solidarity and are hoping for an organic growth of the core without intensifying the fighting and splitting in pro/against camps    imagine what would that do to a price

They are showing solidarity with each other, but open hostility to their customers, the users, the holders, the companies and the people that have done the most to promote Bitcoin. That is not how successful business is done.

"organic" growth is a stalling term. There's nothing organic about an arbitrary cap imposed by a cabal of sidechain peddlers and miners with slow connections.  The DDOS attacks and censorship wasn't decreasing the fighting.  Those tactics were used EXCLUSIVELY used by smallblockers.  

Again still think that's better than two (or more) waring factions trying to convince more people to stick to their chain

[JayJuanGee]

If you double the blocksize, you also double the fees miners get paid without increasing the rate at all!
This might increase the cost of mining by some tiny fraction but nowhere near 100%. So let's be generous and say 2MB blocks will cost miners 110% of 1 MB Blocks.

So how about this calculation:

scenario A: 12.5BTCblockreward+3BTCxactionfees=15.5 BTCminerreward

scenario B: (12.5BTCblockreward+6BTCxactionfees)/1.1=16.818BTCminerreward

And that doesn't even factor in the very likely probability that BTC exchange rate will go up significantly due to the added utility.

So why do miners object? Could it be that they will get no reward at all because they are mining over a slow internet connection (through TOR or behind the Great Firewall) that means they cannot compete with miners with faster connections?

All the other objections are just to obscure this one. The real one. Forget the decentralization argument. Forget the "any hard fork is too radical" rationalization. These are not honest people and they are taking wealth, not making wealth.

Maybe cause they want to show solidarity and are hoping for an organic growth of the core without intensifying the fighting and splitting in pro/against camps    imagine what would that do to a price

Maybe also there is a sense that "if it's not broke, then why fix it?"

[DaRude]

If you double the blocksize, you also double the fees miners get paid without increasing the rate at all!
This might increase the cost of mining by some tiny fraction but nowhere near 100%. So let's be generous and say 2MB blocks will cost miners 110% of 1 MB Blocks.

So how about this calculation:

scenario A: 12.5BTCblockreward+3BTCxactionfees=15.5 BTCminerreward

scenario B: (12.5BTCblockreward+6BTCxactionfees)/1.1=16.818BTCminerreward

And that doesn't even factor in the very likely probability that BTC exchange rate will go up significantly due to the added utility.

So why do miners object? Could it be that they will get no reward at all because they are mining over a slow internet connection (through TOR or behind the Great Firewall) that means they cannot compete with miners with faster connections?

All the other objections are just to obscure this one. The real one. Forget the decentralization argument. Forget the "any hard fork is too radical" rationalization. These are not honest people and they are taking wealth, not making wealth.

Maybe cause they want to show solidarity and are hoping for an organic growth of the core without intensifying the fighting and splitting in pro/against camps    imagine what would that do to a price

Maybe also there is a sense that "if it's not broke, then why fix it?"

Not broke ... yet. Don't think anyone can argue that 1MB 3tps is sustainable.

[JayJuanGee]

Will Bitcoin ever find a bottom?

is crypto done???

Yep.... bitcoin's current situation is so horrible that it is preparing to CRASH.....

UP!!!!!

 

It is crashing right now, if seeing it drop a dollar per minute is not foreboding then I don't know what is  

$433 then all the way down to $421. Ohhh the humanity!  

These ups and downs should be expected, especially since the volume has been so low in the past few weeks.  Accordingly, if the price is pushed either up or down, then there will be an increase in volume.   A person or entity with only a few million dollars (maybe $20 million) can be considerably effective in playing various price manipulation games when the volume is so low.

When the volume picks up, on the other hand, then it takes a bit more capital to attempt price manipulations.

[billyjoeallen]

If you double the blocksize, you also double the fees miners get paid without increasing the rate at all!
This might increase the cost of mining by some tiny fraction but nowhere near 100%. So let's be generous and say 2MB blocks will cost miners 110% of 1 MB Blocks.

So how about this calculation:

scenario A: 12.5BTCblockreward+3BTCxactionfees=15.5 BTCminerreward

scenario B: (12.5BTCblockreward+6BTCxactionfees)/1.1=16.818BTCminerreward

And that doesn't even factor in the very likely probability that BTC exchange rate will go up significantly due to the added utility.

So why do miners object? Could it be that they will get no reward at all because they are mining over a slow internet connection (through TOR or behind the Great Firewall) that means they cannot compete with miners with faster connections?

All the other objections are just to obscure this one. The real one. Forget the decentralization argument. Forget the "any hard fork is too radical" rationalization. These are not honest people and they are taking wealth, not making wealth.

Maybe cause they want to show solidarity and are hoping for an organic growth of the core without intensifying the fighting and splitting in pro/against camps    imagine what would that do to a price

Maybe also there is a sense that "if it's not broke, then why fix it?"

It IS broken. There was a five year exponential trend that was decisively broken, despite wider adoption, dozens of new use cases, and millions in VC investments. Why? Gavin, Garzik, and Hearn are experts who know what they are talking about.  I don't know code as well as them, but I know economics. It's the science of incentives. All you have to do to get a project to work is to get the incentives right, but if you get them wrong, nothing else matters.

You can have cancer for a long time before it kills you. You can have it for a long time before you even notice. Some problems don't go away when you ignore them. Some problems get worse. If your doctor tells you you have cancer, it may be wise to get a second opinion, but it's extremely dangerous to ignore him, particularly if there are noticeable symptoms.

Scale or die.

[JayJuanGee]

Yep. It's not great you guys :& Last chance to buy above 420?

If you think it's going down, then you buy at the lower price point.... so?   Where is that going to be?  $418?  $412?  $401?  $390?  $372?   or some other number? 

doesn't hurt to buy on the way down, if you are not sure about at what point it is going to stop... just gotta save enough money if it keeps going down to be able to buy moar.   

[r0ach]

"...if decentralisation is what makes Bitcoin good, and growth threatens decentralisation, then Bitcoin should not be allowed to grow.

Honestly it's hard to disagree with this statement.

Bitcoin is not built for decentralization in the first place.

You can't get decentralization without one of the following:

1) Having users expend PoW to process their own transactions just like how it was done with email.  IOTA doesn't seem to be quantifiable security-wise though...

or

2) A collateral bid (not flat rate), deterministic block production system with a fixed number of nodes where you're required to lock collateral for an extended period of time to be one.  This makes it so decentralization is built in at a protocol level by having a much greater limit on Sybil.  Mining is also really just a subsidized futures contract in the first place where you're required to lock collateral to speculate on it.  

I argued with Gavin that Bitcoin is designed to monopolize due to the following statement below, but he claimed you hit a nash equilibrium by gaining something like 30% hash rate (i forget the exact number).  Either way, my view is that centralization is built-in at a protocol level for PoW.  If he's right, then I guess it would not monopolize, but the pool makeup would probably always resemble something like it currently does with 4-10 major players.

The end game game theory of PoW is to form a monpoly with greater than 50% hash rate placed in multiple rathole pools (sybil attack) because if you don't do it, someone else can, so it's the only logical move to protect your investment.  In other words, you're accomplishing the attack you seek to prevent (but not executing it) to stop the other guy from doing it.  Since there's no way to know who owns the pools, it's a system of security through obscurity.

While being not so likely, for all you know, Satoshi owns every mining pool that's ever existed.  The point is, the system is designed to monopolize, while also being almost impossible to verify the real state of security of the system at any given time.  If you accept that as a security model, you're also accepting a security model of someone owning over 50% hash rate out in the open.

[JayJuanGee]

oh go all these mother fucking cheap coins, i can't wait to buy on my payday LOL

Im to busy watching the economy collapse to even care at this point, also in live view

https://www.google.com/finance?cid=7521596

The dow jones was down about 1.5% yesterday, and up about 1.5% today.... so overall flat over the past few days, though trending down over the past few months. 


I know my stock related investments (DJI related)  lost about 14% since May 2015.

[JayJuanGee]

If you double the blocksize, you also double the fees miners get paid without increasing the rate at all!
This might increase the cost of mining by some tiny fraction but nowhere near 100%. So let's be generous and say 2MB blocks will cost miners 110% of 1 MB Blocks.

So how about this calculation:

scenario A: 12.5BTCblockreward+3BTCxactionfees=15.5 BTCminerreward

scenario B: (12.5BTCblockreward+6BTCxactionfees)/1.1=16.818BTCminerreward

And that doesn't even factor in the very likely probability that BTC exchange rate will go up significantly due to the added utility.

So why do miners object? Could it be that they will get no reward at all because they are mining over a slow internet connection (through TOR or behind the Great Firewall) that means they cannot compete with miners with faster connections?

All the other objections are just to obscure this one. The real one. Forget the decentralization argument. Forget the "any hard fork is too radical" rationalization. These are not honest people and they are taking wealth, not making wealth.

Maybe cause they want to show solidarity and are hoping for an organic growth of the core without intensifying the fighting and splitting in pro/against camps    imagine what would that do to a price

Maybe also there is a sense that "if it's not broke, then why fix it?"

Not broke ... yet. Don't think anyone can argue that 1MB 3tps is sustainable.

Yes, that's why there are some adjustments in the works (seg wit and agreement that maybe some small upward adjustments are needed), besides XT that was originally proposed as if it were the ONLY solution.

[jbreher]

Mike Hearn's exit mic drop

https://medium.com/@octskyward/the-resolution-of-the-bitcoin-experiment-dabb30201f7#.m7ipd85nk

That's no mic drop. A mic drop is a victorious action, taken only when your wordplay has been so devastatingly erudite that there is no possible way your opponent would embarrass himself by trying to follow it up.

Mike's blog post is what is known colloquially as 'throwing in the towel'.

[lottery248]

chartbuddy is delaying for at least 3 minutes.
could anyone guess about the price of bitcoin? i wanna know if i should buy more or sell them. i am running out of idea on investing just in bitcoin.

Coin



Explanation

you have delayed more than 6 minutes. is the clock of the automated posting gone wrong?
btw seems that the people in US is in the rest.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[jbreher]

The Bitcoin Believer Who Gave Up

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/17/business/dealbook/the-bitcoin-believer-who-gave-up.html?_r=0

A surprisingly lucid article for mainstream press.