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

[JayJuanGee]

I found this bitcoin article to be insightful and informative,


http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/01/25/bitcoin-not-dead/

The article puts some perspective on the various seemingly emergency attempts at pushing for bigger blocks with the mining of bitcoin... and that those attempts at bigger blocks seem to be intended to make an emergency are likely ways to cripple/undermine decentralized aspect of bitcoin in various regards.

With the author's initial classification of bitcoin as a currency, recently, I have been becoming a bit irked with those kinds of comments to attempt to classify bitcoin as a currency.

Surely, the author is very bullish and positive about the real paradigm changing peer to peer aspects of bitcoin, and so he does not imply anything negative in his assertion that bitcoin is serving as a kind of currency.

I would suggest that even though bitcoin has some currency attributes, bitcoin remains way too new in size and familiarity and infrastructure to really compete in any kind of meaningful way like any kind of real and regular currency (even though it does have some aspects of currency, for sure)..

In my current thinking, bitcoin remains way too small to really fit the currency definition, so for me, the term “currency” is a bit too imprecise, yet, it seems that years from now, if bitcoin continues to expand, bitcoin could become a very real contender in various currency circles.. and surely become a paradigm shifting form of medium of exchange and storage of value, and surely bitcoin’s various strengths is one of the perceived threats of bitcoin and that is something that seems to becoming more and more unstoppable and worthy for some legacy financial institutions to consider ways to fight bitcoin and to make various attempts at undermining bitcoin because bitcoin continues to threaten legacy financial institutions in profit generation.   

I think that the below-linked YouTube clip (which is 11 minutes), kind of relates to parts of my earlier post (especially my last paragraph discussing currency).

Accordingly, in the below youtube clip Trace Mayer discusses  - Seven bitcoin network effects, which is certainly an ongoing building up of various aspects of bitcoin that are making bitcoin a very strong and ongoing phenomenon that has considerable future potential.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPQP8axBU60

The seven network effects:
1)   Speculators (betting on the price)
2)   Merchants (selling items for bitcoins)
3)   Consumers  (buying items with bitcoins)
4)   Miners (bitcoin security with an amazing amount of computer power)
5)   Developers (specifically software developers)
6)   Financialization (more sophisticated forms of speculation through wallstreet)
7)   Currency (Specifically world reserve settlement currency)

I think that partly, Trace’s discussion of the 7th network effect of “world reserve currency” relates to my earlier points regarding this currency point.    So in this regard, the concept of currency seems to have several levels of meaning, and if people attempt to put too much emphasis on the currency aspect of bitcoin, when currency seems to be a further down the road process (especially, if we are talking about world reserve currency).   

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

Obnoxious signature. That's so last straw.

[CuntChocula]

I think that the below-linked YouTube clip (which is 9911 minutes), kind of relates to parts of my earlier post ...














https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04cF1m6Jxu8

[Cconvert2G36]

Even a guy like satoshi could dump his 1mn coin stash in BTCC by buying 5-10 alts, and then buying BTCs.

You really are worried about this, aren't you?

No I'm not worried the least about satoshi moving his coins. He's not here to daytrade etc. I'm just saying how it could go down between BTC < alts > BTCC with alts as a vehicle, without even needing to pass through $$$.

What's bizarre is that you are adding an extra step. Say miners choose to fork to classic's 2MB, Core changes the PoW and lowers difficulty through their own hard fork... What's preventing an altcoin exchange from listing CoreCoins with all the other alts? (Your argument actually presupposes that they do.) The step of buying some other crap just to buy CoreCoin doesn't make any sense, you'd just sell classic bitcoin for core bitcoin directly, no? No fiat/verification required.

Actually I expect that in such a scenario most exchanges will not have dual trading but will rather use an event like that as an opportunity to confiscate BTCs as their own and replace them with BTCCs. Especially if they have political reasons of siding with BTCC. So you either find a reliable dual exchange that has both BTC and BTCC (which may be hard to find or even DDOSed), or you move with alts as a vehicle of +1 step.

First, your notation is confusing, difficult to determine if BTCC means Core (with new PoW) Bitcoin, or Classic (with larger capacity) Bitcoin.

Altcoin exchanges list almost anything, even coins with market caps = to that of a mid size car. I'm 99.999% sure that the 1MB4EVA group will be large enough encourage an exchange to list CoreBTC. The ones that will allow you to deposit 5-10 obscure alts will allow you to trade CoreBTC and ClassicBTC in the event of a PoW change enabled minority fork.

Also, holdings before the fork will be valid on both chains. I fully expect some unprecedented rage dumping if Core digs in their heels and miners fork away, but I'd rather have fiat sitting on the exchange (some don't require verification for coin in/coin out) to buy the panic vs buying bags full of (even more volatile) alts to ride out the storm.

Let's hope we never find out.

Agreed, but every day without an inch of movement from Blockstream, increases the possibility. The fact that they start bringing up PoW changes when backed into a corner gives even more weight to the idea that they would rather go to war than compromise to 2MB.

[peonminer]

I think that the below-linked YouTube clip (which is 9911 minutes), kind of relates to parts of my earlier post ...














https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04cF1m6Jxu8

Epilepsy much?

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

Even a guy like satoshi could dump his 1mn coin stash in BTCC by buying 5-10 alts, and then buying BTCs.

You really are worried about this, aren't you?

No I'm not worried the least about satoshi moving his coins. He's not here to daytrade etc. I'm just saying how it could go down between BTC < alts > BTCC with alts as a vehicle, without even needing to pass through $$$.

What's bizarre is that you are adding an extra step. Say miners choose to fork to classic's 2MB, Core changes the PoW and lowers difficulty through their own hard fork... What's preventing an altcoin exchange from listing CoreCoins with all the other alts? (Your argument actually presupposes that they do.) The step of buying some other crap just to buy CoreCoin doesn't make any sense, you'd just sell classic bitcoin for core bitcoin directly, no? No fiat/verification required.

Actually I expect that in such a scenario most exchanges will not have dual trading but will rather use an event like that as an opportunity to confiscate BTCs as their own and replace them with BTCCs. Especially if they have political reasons of siding with BTCC. So you either find a reliable dual exchange that has both BTC and BTCC (which may be hard to find or even DDOSed), or you move with alts as a vehicle of +1 step.

First, your notation is confusing, difficult to determine if BTCC means Core (with new PoW) Bitcoin, or Classic (with larger capacity) Bitcoin.

Altcoin exchanges list almost anything, even coins with market caps = to that of a mid size car. I'm 99.999% sure that the 1MB4EVA group will be large enough encourage an exchange to list CoreBTC. The ones that will allow you to deposit 5-10 obscure alts will allow you to trade CoreBTC and ClassicBTC in the event of a PoW change enabled minority fork.

Also, holdings before the fork will be valid on both chains. I fully expect some unprecedented rage dumping if Core digs in their heels and miners fork away, but I'd rather have fiat sitting on the exchange (some don't require verification for coin in/coin out) to buy the panic vs buying bags full of (even more volatile) alts to ride out the storm.

Let's hope we never find out.

Agreed, but every day without an inch of movement from Blockstream, increases the possibility. The fact that they start bringing up PoW changes when backed into a corner gives even more weight to the idea that they would rather go to war than compromise to 2MB.

That was just Luke Jr.'s way of telling you to get right with the Lord. Were you listening?

[JayJuanGee]

Obnoxious signature. That's so last straw.

you mean me? 

you must be filling in for the chunky one, again?  Sounds like the kind of thing that he would say...

[ImI]

Agreed, but every day without an inch of movement from Blockstream, increases the possibility. The fact that they start bringing up PoW changes when backed into a corner gives even more weight to the idea that they would rather go to war than compromise to 2MB.

it shows lack of reason. miners seem to be much more reasonable at the moment and thats in a way how bitcoin was intended anyways. its the miners (and users) who decide where to go.

[CuntChocula]

I think that the below-linked YouTube clip (which is 9911 minutes), kind of relates to parts of my earlier post ...














https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04cF1m6Jxu8

Epilepsy much?

Lev Nikolaevich Myshkin's the name. You can call me Prince.
For reasons unknown, Google thinks I'm a cunt.  Err... Darn my epilepsy, cut cunt COUNT!

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

I think that the below-linked YouTube clip (which is 9911 minutes), kind of relates to parts of my earlier post ...














https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04cF1m6Jxu8

Epilepsy much?

Lev Nikolaevich Myshkin's the name. You can call me Prince.
For reasons unknown, Google thinks I'm a cunt.  Err... Darn my epilepsy, cut cunt COUNT!

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

Obnoxious signature. That's so last straw.

you mean me? 

you must be filling in for the chunky one, again?  Sounds like the kind of thing that he would say...

LOL. Ok you're forgiven.

[Cconvert2G36]

That was just Luke Jr.'s way of telling you to get right with the Lord. Were you listening?

Yeah, the only things sillier than Luke-Jr's musings on how miners are disconnected from the incentives of the larger Bitcoin economy are... well, his posts on just about anything else. See: posts today about renaming Bitcoin LJR... comedy gold with near unmatched purity.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

That was just Luke Jr.'s way of telling you to get right with the Lord. Were you listening?

anti-Papist shillery

Somebody put the devil in your head, boy!

[nor9865]

www.Circle.com or www.Coinbase.com are easy solutions with minimal to no fees. You can also use www.LocalBitcoins.com for a swift cash deposit at an above preev price. Nor, do you mind me asking what your average buy price is for your stockpile? Pure curiosity.

I thought that he already said around $280, so even selling at $380, he would be up $100 per BTC.. something like that.

ohhh he meant at what price i bought them. sorry i thought you said at what price i am selling them..

[shmadz]

There are still miners out there with old versions of the software and running the defaults. Thus, if there's not too much of a backlog, it's quite possible zero fee transactions will get included.

So if zero fee transactions are actually a problem, perhaps it is better that we do have a bit of miner centralization so we have professional miners who actually pay attention to what they are doing instead of a bunch of amateurs not acting in their rational self-interest as was supposed to happen.

Don't amateurs mainly hash for pools? It seems hard to believe there's any significant hashrate operated by hobbyists who actually run their own bitcoind for mining.

Good point. And mainly so I think. In fact, some of the offenders seem to be large pools. Antpool and slush appear to be still mining with a 750000 soft limit so it would be interesting to see if they were mining 0 fee transactions also.

I send 0 fee transactions all the time and so far they've always* gone through, so there's definitely still a decent percentage of miners that accept them. The only time I pay a fee is if I'm using a web wallet or phone wallet where the fee is built in, or if I'm sending coin to an exchange to make a trade and time is of the essence.


* (I did have 1 unconfirmed from a test during the mtgox malleability fiasco, but it actually went through, just my client thought it didn't)

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[Cconvert2G36]

There are still miners out there with old versions of the software and running the defaults. Thus, if there's not too much of a backlog, it's quite possible zero fee transactions will get included.

So if zero fee transactions are actually a problem, perhaps it is better that we do have a bit of miner centralization so we have professional miners who actually pay attention to what they are doing instead of a bunch of amateurs not acting in their rational self-interest as was supposed to happen.

Don't amateurs mainly hash for pools? It seems hard to believe there's any significant hashrate operated by hobbyists who actually run their own bitcoind for mining.

Good point. And mainly so I think. In fact, some of the offenders seem to be large pools. Antpool and slush appear to be still mining with a 750000 soft limit so it would be interesting to see if they were mining 0 fee transactions also.

Antpool has two blocks over 900000 in the last hour so...

Also, priority hasn't been completely killed off yet.

[gentlemand]

I send 0 fee transactions all the time

GET HIM

[JayJuanGee]

www.Circle.com or www.Coinbase.com are easy solutions with minimal to no fees. You can also use www.LocalBitcoins.com for a swift cash deposit at an above preev price. Nor, do you mind me asking what your average buy price is for your stockpile? Pure curiosity.

I thought that he already said around $280, so even selling at $380, he would be up $100 per BTC.. something like that.

ohhh he meant at what price i bought them. sorry i thought you said at what price i am selling them..

I'm not going to go back through the posts, but my recollection, more or less, was that you asserted that you hold about 190 BTC, and you were becoming somewhat anxious regarding when to sell them.. but also Peonminer was asking you about your average buy price.


I had understood that you had made a couple of purchases, and that your profits would be around $100 per coin, if you sold at current price.

I don't recall whether you specified if that was your average buy price only for the 40 coins or if your total portfolio had an average buy price in the upper $200s.


You know many of us who have been buying BTC for a while, and even trading BTC to some extent have made a large number of transactions, and we come up with a variety of ways to attempt to calculate our average costs per BTC and the extent to which we are profitable or not. 

I personally think that these profitability considerations are all valid, and also, I am totally accepting of the fact that posters have a considerable variety in their ways of calculating their investment in bitcoin and the extent to which they may be profitable or not.

You do not necessarily need to disclose either your total number of coins or your average buy price or your framework; however, sometimes it can be helpful towards considering what to do and how to perceive your situation... and peonminer was asking you about your average price per btc for your whole BTC holdings... which is up to you whether you disclose such details.

[unent]

There are still miners out there with old versions of the software and running the defaults. Thus, if there's not too much of a backlog, it's quite possible zero fee transactions will get included.

So if zero fee transactions are actually a problem, perhaps it is better that we do have a bit of miner centralization so we have professional miners who actually pay attention to what they are doing instead of a bunch of amateurs not acting in their rational self-interest as was supposed to happen.

Don't amateurs mainly hash for pools? It seems hard to believe there's any significant hashrate operated by hobbyists who actually run their own bitcoind for mining.

Good point. And mainly so I think. In fact, some of the offenders seem to be large pools. Antpool and slush appear to be still mining with a 750000 soft limit so it would be interesting to see if they were mining 0 fee transactions also.

I send 0 fee transactions all the time and so far they've always* gone through, so there's definitely still a decent percentage of miners that accept them. The only time I pay a fee is if I'm using a web wallet or phone wallet where the fee is built in, or if I'm sending coin to an exchange to make a trade and time is of the essence.


* (I did have 1 unconfirmed from a test during the mtgox malleability fiasco, but it actually went through, just my client thought it didn't)

What's the longest wait you had for a transaction to go through? When the spam attacks were running people who paid fees were waiting over half a day, and the backlog took a week to clear. Did you try sending any zero fee transactions while those attacks were ongoing?