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

[finkelsteinMonster]

Curious fact: Free Piston engines are more common than you think. Diesel pile drivers are a form of free piston engines, and are pretty common, apparently
https://youtu.be/H7mwqHn3G1Y?t=319

[1715654718]

1715654718

[1715654718]

1715654718

[JayJuanGee]

Segwit is agreed to

...by some unquantifiable subset of actual stakeholders...

while 2mb increase is

...by some similarly unquantifiable -- though mostly complementary -- subset of actual stakeholders.

... Therefore, segwit comes first.... why do some people keep whining about matters that are pretty much already settled. 

Obviously because they are not 'pretty much already settled'.

Neither XT nor classic were able to achieve support,

Hmmm. Neither has any implementation of The SegWit Omnibus Proposal as of yet. Funny, that.

so they are currently dead (or pretty close to being dead

I'm still pushing for BU. So sue me.

Both XT and Classic attempted to create artificial deadlines in order to cause an emergency..

Well, no. Don't lie to try to make a point. Both XT and Classic were proposed solutions to what their proposers saw as an actual emergency. I still agree with their viewpoint.

those two fake proposals.

Obviously an improper use of English. What is your definition of 'fake proposal'?

You seem to be attempting to attempting to convince others that your position (to increase the blocksize limit because of a supposed emergency) has some legitimacy because there were biased people opposing your supposedly legitimate position.  That's real baloney to characterize the situation like that when the reality of the matter was that your side could not muster up enough support to persuade bitcoin core developers, miners etc regarding the necessity and/or efficacy of the proposals of your side largely as proposed through XT/Classic, which were the "fake proposals" because they purported to do something (fix a supposed technical problem of 1mb blocksize limit) different from what they actually did (attempt to change bitcoin governance by making it easy to change bitcoin and to more easily implement hardforks - which would have likely killed disruptive and innovative nature of bitcoin - it's decentralized permissionless immutability). 

[AlexGR]

Arguably, not having "decentralized" doesn't mean those 100 shops are offering "just one flavor."

They are. The centralized and trusted flavor. There are multiple consequences of these natures which give the "icecream" of those 100 shops the same taste.

Reversible transactions, funds locked or frozen just because a third party (company or governments) decided so, safety and capital mobility issues with haircuts, capital controls etc etc.

That's the nature of that game. The other game is different.

[r0ach]

A song for the shill Lambchop to mourn over the rise of Bitcoin and the death of Eth:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrMLMV6E4CM

[SomaliRebel]

Arguably, not having "decentralized" doesn't mean those 100 shops are offering "just one flavor."

They are. The centralized and trusted flavor. There are multiple consequences of these natures which give the "icecream" of those 100 shops the same taste.

Reversible transactions, funds locked or frozen just because a third party (company or governments) decided so, safety and capital mobility issues with haircuts, capital controls etc etc.

That's the nature of that game. The other game is different.

No, they're not. Stop stubbornly choking down Gizzards 'n Bolts, cleanse your palate, and soon you too will be able to tell the difference between legacy ice cream flavors. And grasp why the world would rather drink from the dick of a goat than eat your shitty Gizzards 'n Bolts.

Let me repeat: Gizzards 'n Bolts ice cream is gross, is not gonna catch on because disgusting.
Why is this so hard to get across?

[JayJuanGee]

Yes. Let's just argue that Black is white.

You already have by arguing that a fixed cap on block size is anything other than identical to a resource with an inelastic supply.

I made that above-referenced quote by responding to Fatty's post, in which I was pointing out his internal inconsistency.

Regarding my earlier arguments, I will let them stand for themselves because I believe that they were sufficiently made.  Just to repeat in a minor way, in essence my previous points were that the burden is on you and your fellow XT/Classic proponents to point out both that there is a problem (that you want us to assume) and why something that your proposing is an efficacious fix of the problem.  In fact, your peeps are not able to persuasively achieve either, through either logic or presentation of facts.      sucks to be in that camp of misinformed but very vocal naysayers 

[JayJuanGee]

RIGHT NOW we need to compete with visa, mastercard, paypal, and

"There you go again" - Ronald Reagan

Lying to try to make a point, that is. Show me more than one quote which supports your claim that bigblockers assert we need to scale to visa levels today.

I'm not going to go researching various post and get into some kind of parsing duel..

If you have been awake, you would have noticed plenty of these kinds of arguments being made over the past 6 months and even longer by a large number of XT/Classic supporters.  Basic awareness should establish such a basic point.

[Assmaster2000]

A song for the shill Lambchop to mourn over the rise of Bitcoin and the death of Eth:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrMLMV6E4CM

A typical bitcoiner being confronted by society: https://youtu.be/trmPapr7Djs
Come on out, guys, let's talk

[JayJuanGee]

the big wow factor will be when >75% hashing power + economic majority HardFork bitcoin to 2MB blocks.

It's already going to 2MB blocks + segwit with 2017 hard fork anyway, which should be an effective 3.x MB block size.  That's why there's not much of a reason to make a big deal out of it unless someone tries to renig.  Also, weak blocks make raising block size not an actual problem and weak blocks is already planned here:

http://coinjournal.net/blockstream-president-adam-back-shares-roadmap-scaling-bitcoin/

There's not even any argument that Bitcoin will or won't be scaled, it's just that people believe core is doing it too slowly, but that's just how it is when you actually have to develop and test things first for something where you make a mistake would implode billions of dollars.

There is no guarantee it will happen it can only happen if mostly everyone wants it to happen. that much has been made clear as day in the past year. ( to the point were people are afraid nothing can ever happen because getting "mostly everyone" to agree is "impossible" )
when the HF happens and we get our first 2MB block 10mins later.
people's heads will explode.
dont kid yourself the 2MB HF will be a BIG DEAL.

an increase in the blocksize limit could be a hard increase from 1mb to 2mb but it does not need to be accomplished via a hardfork, and I believe that core devs, miners and a lot of other big bitcoin stakeholders have come to realize that an actual hardfork is dangerous during contested times and potentially contested situations.  So, I am inclined to believe that it is more likely that any hard increase from 1mb to 2mb (or whatever the amount ends up being) will be deployed as a soft fork rather than a hard fork.  I'm no expert, but that's my current inclination.

[PoolMinor]

[JayJuanGee]

Serious question: Our Bitcoin committee is trying to decide which of Bitcoin's twin greatest minds -- r0ach or JJG -- to nominate for the coveted Nobel Brain Prize in Smartitude.

Frankly, we're torn. Our complicated and pricey laboratory apparata has failed to conclusively differentiate, via rigorous application of scientific methods and procedures, the greater of the two minds, due to them both being so ginormously huge.
Our team is tempted to nominate them both, but we worry: Would forcing two sovereign individuals [who are not gay] to share this, the highest of accolades, dilute and/or cheapen the experience for them?

Thoughts?

My thoughts are that in this one post, you are a clever dumbass, but likely your days of non-substantive trolling attempts and distracting the forum are numbered.  

[JayJuanGee]

Small blockists are killing Bitcoin.

https://bitcoinfees.21.co/

Which fee should I use?

The fastest and cheapest transaction fee is currently 40 satoshis/byte, shown in green at the top.
For the median transaction size of 226 bytes, this results in a fee of 9,040 satoshis (0.03$).

It's short-sighted.

What is important is not today but the future.

In the future there'll be more capacity to satisfy actual txs (not spammy near-zero cost txs). That much is a given.

So why the price is stagnating and VC investment is decreasing? Sure you computer geeks folks are cleverer than all the economic minded people on the planet.

"Economic minded people" = the only model they understand is one of centralization, trust and counterparties. Trustless peer to peer economy is a foreign concept.

Well no, economic models tend to account for centralization, trust, and counterparties. Amongst other things. The most discriptive/predictive ones tend to get complex, with maths and stuff.
You, of course, reject them because
1. Decentralization itself is your objective (as opposed to maximizing wealth, knowledge, hippy stuff, etc.). If a model leads to solutions which do not require decentralization, into the trash it goes. Like rating cake recipes by the amount of Drano used. Angel food cake doesn't use Drano decentralization? Bad cake!
2. You simply don't understand conventional economics.

I do not "reject" them. Bitcoin's success *depends* on them.

We are in a town where there are 100 ice-cream shops (bank wires, western union, paypal and paypal clones, mobile payment systems, credit cards etc) but all these shops are offering just one flavor (=centralization).

Arguably, not having "decentralized" doesn't mean those 100 shops are offering "just one flavor."
Cherry Garcia and Chunky Monkey aren't "just one flavor," even though neither one contains chewy gizzards or rusty bolts. I'll even tell you why none of the hundred stores offer Gizzards 'n Bolts flavor: because it's a shitty flavor that no one in his right mind ever buys, that's why.

A new ice-cream shop opens and provides a new flavor, breaking the 100% "monopoly" of the previous flavor.

Again, there is no monopoly, people simply don't like Gizzards 'n Bolts.

This creates a booming market for the new entrant which starts at 0% and has enormous growth potential.

No. The reason a few quarts of Gizzards 'n Bolts got sold is not because it's a flavor the world has been waiting for, but because those quart containers were a convenient way to deal dope and launder money, in plain daylight. Unfortunately, the jackboots are on to that shit, hence dropping sales

Even if the new entrant captures ...just 1% of the pie of the centralized system, booom.

Please trust me when I say this: Gizzards 'n Bolts ice cream is kill, is not gonna catch on, not gonna capture 1% of the market.
Taste it FFS!

hahahahaha   Somalirebel.. the fact that you answered with bullshit irrelevance shows that either you do not understand the concepts presented therein or that you had no answer to the substance of AlexGR's points...

A sad day for you paid shill trollers..   

[DaRude]

Small blockists are killing Bitcoin.

https://bitcoinfees.21.co/

Which fee should I use?

The fastest and cheapest transaction fee is currently 40 satoshis/byte, shown in green at the top.
For the median transaction size of 226 bytes, this results in a fee of 9,040 satoshis (0.03$).

It's short-sighted.

What is important is not today but the future.

In the future there'll be more capacity to satisfy actual txs (not spammy near-zero cost txs). That much is a given.

So why the price is stagnating and VC investment is decreasing? Sure you computer geeks folks are cleverer than all the economic minded people on the planet.

"Economic minded people" = the only model they understand is one of centralization, trust and counterparties. Trustless peer to peer economy is a foreign concept.

Well no, economic models tend to account for centralization, trust, and counterparties. Amongst other things. The most discriptive/predictive ones tend to get complex, with maths and stuff.
You, of course, reject them because
1. Decentralization itself is your objective (as opposed to maximizing wealth, knowledge, hippy stuff, etc.). If a model leads to solutions which do not require decentralization, into the trash it goes. Like rating cake recipes by the amount of Drano used. Angel food cake doesn't use Drano decentralization? Bad cake!
2. You simply don't understand conventional economics.

I do not "reject" them. Bitcoin's success *depends* on them.

We are in a town where there are 100 ice-cream shops (bank wires, western union, paypal and paypal clones, mobile payment systems, credit cards etc) but all these shops are offering just one flavor (=centralization).

Arguably, not having "decentralized" doesn't mean those 100 shops are offering "just one flavor."
Cherry Garcia and Chunky Monkey aren't "just one flavor," even though neither one contains chewy gizzards or rusty bolts. I'll even tell you why none of the hundred stores offer Gizzards 'n Bolts flavor: because it's a shitty flavor that no one in his right mind ever buys, that's why.

A new ice-cream shop opens and provides a new flavor, breaking the 100% "monopoly" of the previous flavor.

Again, there is no monopoly, people simply don't like Gizzards 'n Bolts.

This creates a booming market for the new entrant which starts at 0% and has enormous growth potential.

No. The reason a few quarts of Gizzards 'n Bolts got sold is not because it's a flavor the world has been waiting for, but because those quart containers were a convenient way to deal dope and launder money, in plain daylight. Unfortunately, the jackboots are on to that shit, hence dropping sales

Even if the new entrant captures ...just 1% of the pie of the centralized system, booom.

Please trust me when I say this: Gizzards 'n Bolts ice cream is kill, is not gonna catch on, not gonna capture 1% of the market.
Taste it FFS!

hahahahaha   Somalirebel.. the fact that you answered with bullshit irrelevance shows that either you do not understand the concepts presented therein or that you had no answer to the substance of AlexGR's points...

A sad day for you paid shill trollers..   

So you're here trolling to prevent people from trying "Gizzards 'n Bolts ice cream" instead of letting them try it and make up their own mind? The public will vote regardless how hard you try to prevent them from eating ice cream

[AlexGR]

Please trust me when I say this: Gizzards 'n Bolts ice cream is kill, is not gonna catch on, not gonna capture 1% of the market.
Taste it FFS!

As I said, the only reason for someone to be butthurt just because people now have more choices than the 100 shops all offering the same type of centralized-trusted flavor, is if they are themselves affiliated with these shops and fear that they will lose marketshare to the new option presented for those who want to try something new.

If it's such a failure there is nothing to worry about, let alone trying to convince people not to even try the new flavor

I mean if banks take a few days and many dollars to move money around the globe, why not use BTC which does that in a few minutes, with a couple cents fee? It's a new, superior, option - eliminating the trusted middle man (who could also pull a "bank holiday", a "depositor haircut" or "capital controls" on you).

From 0%, to 0.0001%, to 0.001%, to 0.01%, to 0.1%, to 1% of the market pie - these are all giant steps in terms of expansion. The dynamics of the new entrant are very rewarding.

[deadpoolx]

45 days... Halving, here we go.

[AlexGR]

http://moneymorning.com/2016/05/25/this-bitcoin-price-prediction-sees-a-2016-rise-to-1000/

A Bitcoin price prediction of $1,000 by the end of 2016 might seem over the top — except that the person making it is two-for-two in his previous predictions.
I'm talking about Vinny Lingham, a familiar name in the Bitcoin universe. He gained notoriety among cryptocurrency fans by founding mobile gift card app Gyft in 2012. Gyft allows customers to buy gift cards with Bitcoin.
...
His Bitcoin price predictions have been infrequent, but on the money.

Lingham made his first Bitcoin price prediction at a Bitcoin conference in San Jose in May 2013. At that point, the Bitcoin price was fresh off a run that took it from about $13.50 in December 2012 to $266 in April, then a drop back down to the $115 range.

Lingham boldly predicted that the price of Bitcoin would hit $1,000 by the end of 2013. The audience chuckled at his audacity. While many Bitcoin enthusiasts felt the digital currency would get back to $266 or even $300, few thought it would reach $1,000 so quickly.
....
Lingham made his next Bitcoin price prediction in a late March 2014 blog post…
...
But the Bitcoin community remained undaunted. Bitcoin price predictions of an imminent return to $1,000 — and not long after that, $2,000 — were typical.

Except for Lingham. He flat out said the Bitcoin price would not revisit $1,000 in 2014. Instead, he foresaw a lengthy period of Bitcoin price consolidation in the $350 to $550 range.
...
Now, a little more than two years later, Lingham has weighed in again. This time he's bullish, predicting a Bitcoin price of $1,000-plus by the end of 2016.
...

[Chef Ramsay]

A song for the shill Lambchop to mourn over the rise of Bitcoin and the death of Eth:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrMLMV6E4CM

You suck at this roach, let me help you:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDBlqu6KF4k

[jbreher]

...

Well, no. But thanks for playing.

[BitTraderCute]

i think block halving will make bitcoin failling , it's just a troll for making people trust bitcoin will rise 

[jbreher]

Yes. Let's just argue that Black is white.

You already have by arguing that a fixed cap on block size is anything other than identical to a resource with an inelastic supply.

I made that above-referenced quote by responding to Fatty's post, in which I was pointing out his internal inconsistency.

The only internal inconsistency was yours, in claiming that a certain item which is perfectly inelastic was actually elastic.