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

[JayJuanGee]

i think this is it!

>440 in a few hours!

I CAN FEEL IT!

Can you feeeeeel it?
Can you feeeheheheheheeel it?
Can you feeeeeeeeeeeeeheheel it?
Can you feeeeeeeeel it?
Raw paaaawar! raw pahahawhar!
Raw power! raw pahahawhar!
Can you feeeeeeeeeeeehhhl it?

I CAN FEEL IT!!!!!!!!

I






C


A

N



FFFFFFF


EEEEEEEEEE

LLLLLLL



I


T


!!!!!!!!!!!

[adamstgBit]

i think this is it!

>440 in a few hours!

I CAN FEEL IT!

So?  


That means you did not go as short as you were planning, yesterday?  


Hopefully, you are a little more balanced than 99% BTC and only 1% fiat.....

The proportion of my  BTC/fiat allocation in my trading accounts changes kind of slowly when the price is not moving too much... Currently I am about 94.35% BTC and 5.65% fiat.

if i sold a satoshi every time i threw a hissy fit on the forum .... i'd have no reason to throw a hissy fit on the forum anymore.

i didnt sell anything, and i wont till 750.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[billyjoeallen]

Dear City Council:

We, the residents, business owners, employees,  developers and tourists would like some clarification on your proposed plan to upgrade the goat trail that leads into town into an actual road. We understand that you plan on only making it one lane until after the skyscrapers are built but will make it a toll road to keep out the riffraff cluttering the highways.

We know you have plans for a Lightning Train some time in the future, but until then you will focus on the goat trail.  Your proposal for almost doubling the capacity by putting extra saddles on each specially modified goat is something we fully support, but we still would like to know when the trail will be paved.

So if you could clear this up for us, that would be great, because elections are coming up in three weeks.  It would be chaotic and probably harmful if there was a change of government and we don't want that to happen. No way. We totally love you guys.

Sincerely,
Everybody.

[blunderer]

^^So good, I stole your previous version.
Regret nothing.

[adamstgBit]

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[adamstgBit]

[AZwarel]

It is fascinating, that anyone seriously thinking we are going to stay at 1/2/4 etc MB blockchain size.

The arguments fearing node centralization are laughable (like everyone back in 2010 - incl. Satoshi - knew). Bitcoin has like minimum a million users with PCs capable to run a node today, yet, less than 1% choose to run a node (the numbers may be waaay worse than that, like 5k "node runners" out of 5million users/holders).

Increasing the blocksize, lets say to 20 MB won't matter regarding the broadcast speed, mempool load, HDD space for the average user to run/not run a node - because they do not do it today, not even with 1MB/ avg. 10 min. They won't change a thing.

Today, if someone runs a node (or more than one) would do it even with 20 MB limits (many would do with way more hardware constrains, would even pay for it - like i do - just out of principle).
It is not technical properties, which are constrain node running, it is knowledge/care.

Does anyone with "smalblock" sentiment really thinks Bitcoin can growth even to 1% of today's financial network transaction volume without scaling the blockchain size to terrabytes in the next 5 years?

"The Blockchain" can bring so much utility besides money transactions! And that is exactly what it needs to be - and what most of us were fascinated about, land/property registry, ownership titles, escrow in an uncheatable global ledger, so no, not a settlement layer. "IT IS ON THE BLOCKCHAIN" should be a proverb for "as final as set in stone"- in the 10/100k$ area, because the account units can do more than coffee buys, yet, those daily 100,000 "coffee buys" will be the big thing to bring the first 1 billionth user. The average Joes, who so many look down here, yet, they are 95% of the population. Bitcoin needs them, we can not have a global financial system without the global....

I can not grasp, how experienced - and certainly well meaning, and i am saying this honestly and respectuflly - bitcoiners miss this point, which is: if blockchain can satisfy more than pure value transaction in its p2p concept, it will magnify in value/unit wise, which is all what WE want.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

It is fascinating, that anyone seriously thinking we are going to stay at 1/2/4 etc MB blockchain size.

The arguments fearing node centralization are laughable (like everyone back in 2010 - incl. Satoshi - knew). Bitcoin has like minimum a million users with PCs capable to run a node today, yet, less than 1% choose to run a node (the numbers may be waaay worse than that, like 5k "node runners" out of 5million users/holders).

Increasing the blocksize, lets say to 20 MB won't matter regarding the broadcast speed, mempool load, HDD space for the average user to run/not run a node - because they do not do it today, not even with 1MB/ avg. 10 min. They won't change a thing.

Today, if someone runs a node (or more than one) would do it even with 20 MB limits (many would do with way more hardware constrains, would even pay for it - like i do - just out of principle).
It is not technical properties, which are constrain node running, it is knowledge/care.

Does anyone with "smalblock" sentiment really thinks Bitcoin can growth even to 1% of today's financial network transaction volume without scaling the blockchain size to terrabytes in the next 5 years?

"The Blockchain" can bring so much utility besides money transactions! And that is exactly what it needs to be - and what most of us were fascinated about, land/property registry, ownership titles, escrow in an uncheatable global ledger, so no, not a settlement layer. "IT IS ON THE BLOCKCHAIN" should be a proverb for "as final as set in stone"- in the 10/100k$ area, because the account units can do more than coffee buys, yet, those daily 100,000 "coffee buys" will be the big thing to bring the first 1 billionth user. The average Joes, who so many look down here, yet, they are 95% of the population. Bitcoin needs them, we can not have a global financial system without the global....

I can not grasp, how experienced - and certainly well meaning, and i am saying this honestly and respectuflly - bitcoiners miss this point, which is: if blockchain can satisfy more than pure value transaction in its p2p concept, it will magnify in value/unit wise, which is all what WE want.

I think I disagree with this. Bitcoin is an incentives machine. Nobody should be expected to do anything on principle.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[cr7]

We really need to go up again, I'm tired with marijuana and 420 jokes.

Last time things started to rise in the weekend, will it repeat?

[adamstgBit]

It is fascinating, that anyone seriously thinking we are going to stay at 1/2/4 etc MB blockchain size.

The arguments fearing node centralization are laughable (like everyone back in 2010 - incl. Satoshi - knew). Bitcoin has like minimum a million users with PCs capable to run a node today, yet, less than 1% choose to run a node (the numbers may be waaay worse than that, like 5k "node runners" out of 5million users/holders).

Increasing the blocksize, lets say to 20 MB won't matter regarding the broadcast speed, mempool load, HDD space for the average user to run/not run a node - because they do not do it today, not even with 1MB/ avg. 10 min. They won't change a thing.

Today, if someone runs a node (or more than one) would do it even with 20 MB limits (many would do with way more hardware constrains, would even pay for it - like i do - just out of principle).
It is not technical properties, which are constrain node running, it is knowledge/care.

Does anyone with "smalblock" sentiment really thinks Bitcoin can growth even to 1% of today's financial network transaction volume without scaling the blockchain size to terrabytes in the next 5 years?

"The Blockchain" can bring so much utility besides money transactions! And that is exactly what it needs to be - and what most of us were fascinated about, land/property registry, ownership titles, escrow in an uncheatable global ledger, so no, not a settlement layer. "IT IS ON THE BLOCKCHAIN" should be a proverb for "as final as set in stone"- in the 10/100k$ area, because the account units can do more than coffee buys, yet, those daily 100,000 "coffee buys" will be the big thing to bring the first 1 billionth user. The average Joes, who so many look down here, yet, they are 95% of the population. Bitcoin needs them, we can not have a global financial system without the global....

I can not grasp, how experienced - and certainly well meaning, and i am saying this honestly and respectuflly - bitcoiners miss this point, which is: if blockchain can satisfy more than pure value transaction in its p2p concept, it will magnify in value/unit wise, which is all what WE want.

I think I disagree with this. Bitcoin is an incentives machine. Nobody should be expected to do anything on principle.

there is a huge incentive

imagine tomorrow you wake up and the news is there are only 100nodes up on the network and altho you dont understand everything your read you get that this is NOT GOOD

what do you do next?

thats right you ( and the first 5000 others to read the news ) make a free AWS account and fire up a Bitcoin Node.

basically all reasons for not bumping the limit is pure speculation, terrible speculation.

[AZwarel]

It is fascinating, that anyone seriously thinking we are going to stay at 1/2/4 etc MB blockchain size.

The arguments fearing node centralization are laughable (like everyone back in 2010 - incl. Satoshi - knew). Bitcoin has like minimum a million users with PCs capable to run a node today, yet, less than 1% choose to run a node (the numbers may be waaay worse than that, like 5k "node runners" out of 5million users/holders).

Increasing the blocksize, lets say to 20 MB won't matter regarding the broadcast speed, mempool load, HDD space for the average user to run/not run a node - because they do not do it today, not even with 1MB/ avg. 10 min. They won't change a thing.

Today, if someone runs a node (or more than one) would do it even with 20 MB limits (many would do with way more hardware constrains, would even pay for it - like i do - just out of principle).
It is not technical properties, which are constrain node running, it is knowledge/care.

Does anyone with "smalblock" sentiment really thinks Bitcoin can growth even to 1% of today's financial network transaction volume without scaling the blockchain size to terrabytes in the next 5 years?

"The Blockchain" can bring so much utility besides money transactions! And that is exactly what it needs to be - and what most of us were fascinated about, land/property registry, ownership titles, escrow in an uncheatable global ledger, so no, not a settlement layer. "IT IS ON THE BLOCKCHAIN" should be a proverb for "as final as set in stone"- in the 10/100k$ area, because the account units can do more than coffee buys, yet, those daily 100,000 "coffee buys" will be the big thing to bring the first 1 billionth user. The average Joes, who so many look down here, yet, they are 95% of the population. Bitcoin needs them, we can not have a global financial system without the global....

I can not grasp, how experienced - and certainly well meaning, and i am saying this honestly and respectuflly - bitcoiners miss this point, which is: if blockchain can satisfy more than pure value transaction in its p2p concept, it will magnify in value/unit wise, which is all what WE want.

I think I disagree with this. Bitcoin is an incentives machine. Nobody should be expected to do anything on principle.

Yes, and no

Yes, it is an incentives machine for the 99,8%. Hence they do not run nodes, there is no incentive (material) to run one, unless they have serious investments (lots of BTCs), so a healthy network is in their best interest - or we run it on principle, even if it is in the negative. That is why i say, that if we reach even 1% of global financial volume, thousands of merchants, corporations, server farms, miner conglomerates will run nodes, just to be able to check those 10k payments/minute coming from the global customer base, since they CAN, and can not, or want to rely on 3rd parties  -that is the whole point!

That is the exact reason i laugh at smallblockers: they still pretend that a global financial computer network should and can be done by average Joes who can barely install apps safely to their mobile phones.

In the future -just as Satoshi said - it will either be server farm, corporations, merchants, universities, economics research institutes, wealthy individuals who are going to run nodes, or none of us ("there will be either huge transaction volume, or none").

[AZwarel]

It is fascinating, that anyone seriously thinking we are going to stay at 1/2/4 etc MB blockchain size.

The arguments fearing node centralization are laughable (like everyone back in 2010 - incl. Satoshi - knew). Bitcoin has like minimum a million users with PCs capable to run a node today, yet, less than 1% choose to run a node (the numbers may be waaay worse than that, like 5k "node runners" out of 5million users/holders).

Increasing the blocksize, lets say to 20 MB won't matter regarding the broadcast speed, mempool load, HDD space for the average user to run/not run a node - because they do not do it today, not even with 1MB/ avg. 10 min. They won't change a thing.

Today, if someone runs a node (or more than one) would do it even with 20 MB limits (many would do with way more hardware constrains, would even pay for it - like i do - just out of principle).
It is not technical properties, which are constrain node running, it is knowledge/care.

Does anyone with "smalblock" sentiment really thinks Bitcoin can growth even to 1% of today's financial network transaction volume without scaling the blockchain size to terrabytes in the next 5 years?

"The Blockchain" can bring so much utility besides money transactions! And that is exactly what it needs to be - and what most of us were fascinated about, land/property registry, ownership titles, escrow in an uncheatable global ledger, so no, not a settlement layer. "IT IS ON THE BLOCKCHAIN" should be a proverb for "as final as set in stone"- in the 10/100k$ area, because the account units can do more than coffee buys, yet, those daily 100,000 "coffee buys" will be the big thing to bring the first 1 billionth user. The average Joes, who so many look down here, yet, they are 95% of the population. Bitcoin needs them, we can not have a global financial system without the global....

I can not grasp, how experienced - and certainly well meaning, and i am saying this honestly and respectuflly - bitcoiners miss this point, which is: if blockchain can satisfy more than pure value transaction in its p2p concept, it will magnify in value/unit wise, which is all what WE want.

I think I disagree with this. Bitcoin is an incentives machine. Nobody should be expected to do anything on principle.

there is a huge incentive

imagine tomorrow you wake up and the news is there are only 100nodes up on the network and altho you dont understand everything your read you get that this is NOT GOOD

what do you do next?

thats right you ( and the first 5000 others to read the news ) make a free AWS account and fire up a Bitcoin Node.

basically all reasons for not bumping the limit is pure speculation, terrible speculation.

Thank You, i am trying to explain this for months, you worded it perfectly! Technical mumbo-jumbo limits << my incentive to not lose all my BTC value

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

Ok. I'm flip flopping again. Hold please.

The immaterial incentive is what keeps getting to me. It seems too abstract to be an incentive. Like a tragedy of the commons thing.

[billyjoeallen]

It is fascinating, that anyone seriously thinking we are going to stay at 1/2/4 etc MB blockchain size.

The arguments fearing node centralization are laughable (like everyone back in 2010 - incl. Satoshi - knew). Bitcoin has like minimum a million users with PCs capable to run a node today, yet, less than 1% choose to run a node (the numbers may be waaay worse than that, like 5k "node runners" out of 5million users/holders).

Increasing the blocksize, lets say to 20 MB won't matter regarding the broadcast speed, mempool load, HDD space for the average user to run/not run a node - because they do not do it today, not even with 1MB/ avg. 10 min. They won't change a thing.

Today, if someone runs a node (or more than one) would do it even with 20 MB limits (many would do with way more hardware constrains, would even pay for it - like i do - just out of principle).
It is not technical properties, which are constrain node running, it is knowledge/care.

Does anyone with "smalblock" sentiment really thinks Bitcoin can growth even to 1% of today's financial network transaction volume without scaling the blockchain size to terrabytes in the next 5 years?

"The Blockchain" can bring so much utility besides money transactions! And that is exactly what it needs to be - and what most of us were fascinated about, land/property registry, ownership titles, escrow in an uncheatable global ledger, so no, not a settlement layer. "IT IS ON THE BLOCKCHAIN" should be a proverb for "as final as set in stone"- in the 10/100k$ area, because the account units can do more than coffee buys, yet, those daily 100,000 "coffee buys" will be the big thing to bring the first 1 billionth user. The average Joes, who so many look down here, yet, they are 95% of the population. Bitcoin needs them, we can not have a global financial system without the global....

I can not grasp, how experienced - and certainly well meaning, and i am saying this honestly and respectuflly - bitcoiners miss this point, which is: if blockchain can satisfy more than pure value transaction in its p2p concept, it will magnify in value/unit wise, which is all what WE want.

I think I disagree with this. Bitcoin is an incentives machine. Nobody should be expected to do anything on principle.

Right now the biggest reason to run a new node is to vote. If we reject as a matter of principle that a contended hard fork should ever take place, then that incentive is gone and so is the negotiating power we have with core. If you support Core, run a core node. If you support Classic, run a Classic node. This way nodecount will grow and they will all validate the same transactions until after a supermajority is reached and then a graceperiod.

No node, no vote. That is incentive enough, no matter which implementation you like. SwampNode cost me $137 bucks. 

[AZwarel]

Also, i have never ever seen a scientific, measurable, technical, economical, psychological research/prognosis with hard data and testing about what a limit increase would ACTUALLY do to decentralization - i bet all the miner pools and their thousands of contributors would still run a node, the node hardware can not possibly be more expensive than 0,01% of the mining costs...

As a scientist i am basically agnostic in the matter, but i see no real life data showing doom is coming with greater (much greater than 2MB in the long run) blocks.

But, i see - and everyone with common sense - the math, that not increasing in several magnitudes in blocksize in the future is mathematically//physically hindering the growing of the network before we hit that sweetspot of "global network effect".

[billyjoeallen]

Random thought: What if Satoshi left because he lost his private keys and it's just too painful for him to think about?

[AZwarel]

Ok. I'm flip flopping again. Hold please.

The immaterial incentive is what keeps getting to me. It seems too abstract to be an incentive. Like a tragedy of the commons thing.

Do not get me wrong. I am a die hard capitalist :-) Actually, i am following the self-interested altruism thought school. Which bitcoin shoots perfectly. I do not run nodes because i am "nice". I run it because i have a vested interest in the network's success and survival, for my own selfish goals. And what Adam said, there would be alas 5000 more who would do the same in hours if they would feel their money is in trouble.

That is why, in the future, if we expand this beautiful network to 100millions, 10 and 10 thousands of corporations will run a node, more than today. But, first we need to get there, by let in 100x more economic value/block happening on the blockchain. I hope you understand.