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

[Syke]

doubtful that the chinese will speed us through 4000 CNY.

massive barrier there, i think the west need to drag china from 3999 to 5001 before they will start carrying again.

Chinese are very superstitious, and the number 4 is very bad to them.

I'd be fine with the west taking us to 5000 CNY.

[1714612368]

1714612368

[SheHadMANHands]

the creep continues..

[Ted E. Bare]

Will the bears buy back in after 600? They sure should. Maybe they'll join us at 700?

[Assmaster2000]

Will the bears buy back in after 600? They sure should. Maybe they'll join us at 700?

Because bitcoin is hip and happenin'?

[marcus_of_augustus]

Some very interesting trend analysis showing why bitcoin can't fail!

http://imgur.com/jBM4tq6

is that the legendary, flared tongue Argentinosaurus that Satoshi talked about?

... it is becoming clear now he meant dragons not dinosaurs.

[SheHadMANHands]

Will the bears buy back in after 600? They sure should. Maybe they'll join us at 700?

Because bitcoin is hip and happenin'?

Money is the simplest blockchain application (Bitcoin).  Logically it's protocol architecture shouldn't include the weight and unnecessary complexity of a smart contract system.  You put that shit on top (lisk).  

From a security perspective (think wealth storage), simplicity wins out.  A house with fewer windows and doors leaves less potential security holes.  Ethereum will probably never be the "internet of money", and it's yet to demonstrate the utility of it's smart contracts.  I believe it will (and hodling ether), but it isn't a sure thing.  Bitcoin, at least, already works as money and as a store of wealth.

So, yes.  Bitcoin is fucking hip as hell.  The original.   

[JayJuanGee]

Segwit RC soon to be deployed -

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8149

Get ready for a price boost when Segwit comes out of RC unscathed and miners start accepting it bring to an end one chapter of this drama and sending bitcoin in the right direction for scaling.

Thanks for the update

He purposefully ignored forgot a critical component of the mining pool vote to change Bitcoin's operation:



https://www.reddit.com/user/Jihan_Bitmain

Segwit will not be active on the network until Core releases binaries for the 2017 HF.

Yeah...
Good luck with that retarded and destructive approach...
DUMB
 

The party in need of (extreme) luck would be Blockstream, if they intend to see segwit activated without Antpool.

The specifics of the HK agreement were clear, and Jihan will be holding them to their word.

Besides, you don’t run a node. You have an exchange hold some bitcoin for you… which makes your opinions on protocol, node policy, and network capacity just embarrassing. Pls resume writing paragraphs of piffle as you farm up those sig ad penny shavings, friend.

Maybe it would help if you did not distort the facts?

The facts are more or less that XT/Classic failed to provide sufficient evidence or logic to support a protocol change that would involve a hard increase in the blocksize limit.  Accordingly, since there remains a lack of consensus for such position, there is no obligation for anyone to attempt to implement such a unnecessary change... that is only supported by a very small minority.... accordingly, the status quo continues, in which bitcoin is not broken.. and likely seg wit will be implemented and also achieve a consensus after a large majority of sensible folks realize that it is not controverted.

furthermore, your attempt to characterize the situation as some kind of blockstream manipulation is nonsense.  Bitcoin is decentralized, and therefore changes are difficult to achieve by any small group, whether that be blockstream, or the less popular but more whiny-vocal XT/Core criers over spilled milk.

That's part of the reason why I said good luck with attempting to continue to open cans of worms that really don't need to be opened, because bitcoin ain't broken and there is no emergency requiring such proposed remedies, such as making an immediate increase in the currently 1mb blocksize limit.

[marcus_of_augustus]

Cost of production is doubling in less than a month ... that will set the new floor for bitcoin price to the $840-960 range (at the minimum without difficulty increases) in the medium term.

Cost of production for a monetary good is the economic defence against counterfeiting.  While gold is money, and sometimes attracts a monetary premium substantially above it's cost of production, for someone to produce gold "from nothing" they need to expend an equivalent amount of resources to the cost of production.  Over long terms the price of the monetary good may be attracted to its cost of production but ultimately that is as cheap as you can acquire it for, as long as it is still desirable as a monetary good.  For the same reason the lowest value of fiat paper money is the cost of the paper it is printed on and the ink, i.e. it's cost of production (about a few cents for a $100 bill).

While bitcoin is still valued as a monetary good, that can be transported in minutes across the internet as a final settlement for bearer instruments exchanged on a censorship-resistant network, it still needs to defend against counterfeiting.  The cost of production defends against counterfeiting since this is as cheap as you can produce bitcoin.  If bitcoin becomes more desirable for other reasons of its utility, such as store of value, medium of exchange (network effect increasing), etc., then it may easily attract a monetary good premium on top of the cost of production, but the cost of production has invariably set the floor for the lower bound on bitcoin prices, as long as it has remained a monetary good.

Bitcoin is still monetising.

[BitUsher]

Drivechain sidechains now on the bitcoin testnet--

https://www.instagram.com/p/BGVU6oWufgm/

[Assmaster2000]

Will the bears buy back in after 600? They sure should. Maybe they'll join us at 700?

Because bitcoin is hip and happenin'?

Money is the simplest blockchain application (Bitcoin).  Logically it's protocol architecture shouldn't include the weight and unnecessary complexity of a smart contract system.  You put that shit on top (lisk).  

From a security perspective (think wealth storage), simplicity wins out.  A house with fewer windows and doors leaves less potential security holes.  Ethereum will probably never be the "internet of money", and it's yet to demonstrate the utility of it's smart contracts.  I believe it will (and hodling ether), but it isn't a sure thing.  Bitcoin, at least, already works as money and as a store of wealth.

So, yes.  Bitcoin is fucking hip as hell.  The original.   

Lol @ security, when Thermos suggested destroying Satoshi's coins because worried that early addies are hackable
But shit, why even talk about that, when we both know that Bitcoin is simply a convenient gambling/money laundering vehicle, with usability/security providing a plausible backstory ("Officer, this isn't illegal gambling, we're investing here, honest!")

The problem with your barebones analogy is Bitcoin's already a junkwagon: no "good bones" here, no elegance. Just a bunch of angry nutters trying to tear each other a fresh one

[SheHadMANHands]

The facts are more or less that XT/Classic failed to provide sufficient evidence or logic to support a protocol change that would involve a hard increase in the blocksize limit.  Accordingly, since there remains a lack of consensus for such position, there is no obligation for anyone to attempt to implement such a unnecessary change... that is only supported by a very small minority.... accordingly, the status quo continues, in which bitcoin is not broken.. and likely seg wit will be implemented and also achieve a consensus after a large majority of sensible folks realize that it is not controverted.

Incredible how easy it is to manipulate opinion online.  There was a conscious effort to give the appearance that there was more support among the community for a contentious hard fork than there really was.  Every time something Classic was brought up, market dumped.  Now that the smoke has cleared, Bitcoin is mooning.  Hmm...  wonder what the market wanted. 

[Elwar]

Sold my house this week. My mortgage was the last thing requiring me to have a bank account. Last mont my landlord started taking bitcoins for rent. He is happy.

So all this time you've been telling us your landlord accepts BTC, you were just lying? And I trusted you...

I paid my rent in bitcoin. Bitwa.la allows you to send a SEPA transfer. He was ok with that. Now it's direct.

Let me understand this. You convert your paycheck from the US army into bitcoins via BitWage, and then you use Bitwa.la to pay your landlord via a SEPA transfer. BitWage charges you a fee, Bitwa.la charges you a fee, and the SEPA itself is a bank service. So you've added 3 middlemen, fees, and ridiculous complications for what us Luddites do via a seamless p2p cash-in-hand, 0-fee exchange

Why do I feel you're playing me? Other than you never mentioning that you were paying off the filthy fiat loan you got from bankster j00z to buy a house?

BitWage charges 1%. Biwala charges 1%.

I am paid in dollars. My rent is in euros. The exchange fee the guys at work pay is 4 to 5 percent.

Plus bitcoin is my main currency. It is made to gain value over time as opposed to federal reserve notes which are built with the purpose of losing value over time. Losing 1% up front does not keep me up at night.

[ImI]

The facts are more or less that XT/Classic failed to provide sufficient evidence or logic to support a protocol change that would involve a hard increase in the blocksize limit.  Accordingly, since there remains a lack of consensus for such position, there is no obligation for anyone to attempt to implement such a unnecessary change... that is only supported by a very small minority.... accordingly, the status quo continues, in which bitcoin is not broken.. and likely seg wit will be implemented and also achieve a consensus after a large majority of sensible folks realize that it is not controverted.

Incredible how easy it is to manipulate opinion online.  There was a conscious effort to give the appearance that there was more support among the community for a contentious hard fork than there really was.  Every time something Classic was brought up, market dumped.  Now that the smoke has cleared, Bitcoin is mooning.  Hmm...  wonder what the market wanted. 

market wants peace and stability. nevertheless if core would come out tomorrow with a 2MB HF that activates in lets say early 2017 markets would do another leg up.

[StraightAArdvark]

Every time something Classic was brought up, market dumped.  Now that the smoke has cleared, Bitcoin is mooning.  Hmm...  wonder what the market wanted. 

Another bitcoin expert was telling me that the price is going up because halving, but ...you tell me it ain't so?

[SheHadMANHands]

Will the bears buy back in after 600? They sure should. Maybe they'll join us at 700?

Because bitcoin is hip and happenin'?

Money is the simplest blockchain application (Bitcoin).  Logically it's protocol architecture shouldn't include the weight and unnecessary complexity of a smart contract system.  You put that shit on top (lisk).  

From a security perspective (think wealth storage), simplicity wins out.  A house with fewer windows and doors leaves less potential security holes.  Ethereum will probably never be the "internet of money", and it's yet to demonstrate the utility of it's smart contracts.  I believe it will (and hodling ether), but it isn't a sure thing.  Bitcoin, at least, already works as money and as a store of wealth.

So, yes.  Bitcoin is fucking hip as hell.  The original.  

Lol @ security, when Thermos suggested destroying Satoshi's coins because worried that early addies are hackable
But shit, why even talk about that, when we both know that Bitcoin is simply a convenient gambling/money laundering vehicle, with usability/security providing a plausible backstory ("Officer, this isn't illegal gambling, we're investing here, honest!")

The problem with your barebones analogy is Bitcoin's already a junkwagon: no "good bones" here, no elegance. Just a bunch of angry nutters trying to tear each other a fresh one

If you repent now, Satoshi will forgive you.

If you buy him lunch.

[JayJuanGee]

The facts are more or less that XT/Classic failed to provide sufficient evidence or logic to support a protocol change that would involve a hard increase in the blocksize limit.  Accordingly, since there remains a lack of consensus for such position, there is no obligation for anyone to attempt to implement such a unnecessary change... that is only supported by a very small minority.... accordingly, the status quo continues, in which bitcoin is not broken.. and likely seg wit will be implemented and also achieve a consensus after a large majority of sensible folks realize that it is not controverted.

Incredible how easy it is to manipulate opinion online.  There was a conscious effort to give the appearance that there was more support among the community for a contentious hard fork than there really was.  Every time something Classic was brought up, market dumped.  Now that the smoke has cleared, Bitcoin is mooning.  Hmm...  wonder what the market wanted. 

That's true, and a large number of those nut jobs continue to attempt to spread the misinformation, and to make it seem as if they have some kind of "economic majority" even while the facts seem quite clearly going against their position... ..

[StraightAArdvark]

Sold my house this week. My mortgage was the last thing requiring me to have a bank account. Last mont my landlord started taking bitcoins for rent. He is happy.

So all this time you've been telling us your landlord accepts BTC, you were just lying? And I trusted you...

I paid my rent in bitcoin. Bitwa.la allows you to send a SEPA transfer. He was ok with that. Now it's direct.

Let me understand this. You convert your paycheck from the US army into bitcoins via BitWage, and then you use Bitwa.la to pay your landlord via a SEPA transfer. BitWage charges you a fee, Bitwa.la charges you a fee, and the SEPA itself is a bank service. So you've added 3 middlemen, fees, and ridiculous complications for what us Luddites do via a seamless p2p cash-in-hand, 0-fee exchange

Why do I feel you're playing me? Other than you never mentioning that you were paying off the filthy fiat loan you got from bankster j00z to buy a house?

BitWage charges 1%. Biwala charges 1%.

I am paid in dollars. My rent is in euros. The exchange fee the guys at work pay is 4 to 5 percent.

BULLSHIT. Go wash your mouth out with soap. You can't even lie right. (unless you work with retarded people. Do you work with retarded people?)

Plus bitcoin is my main currency. It is made to gain value over time as opposed to federal reserve notes which are built with the purpose of losing value over time. Losing 1% up front does not keep me up at night.

How is it that you still can't understand that it doesn't matter what money does over time when you pay your bills with it? Once the bill is paid, that money is out of your hands, don't worry about it. You get paid monthly, you pay your rent monthly. What's wrong with you?

[JayJuanGee]

The facts are more or less that XT/Classic failed to provide sufficient evidence or logic to support a protocol change that would involve a hard increase in the blocksize limit.  Accordingly, since there remains a lack of consensus for such position, there is no obligation for anyone to attempt to implement such a unnecessary change... that is only supported by a very small minority.... accordingly, the status quo continues, in which bitcoin is not broken.. and likely seg wit will be implemented and also achieve a consensus after a large majority of sensible folks realize that it is not controverted.

Incredible how easy it is to manipulate opinion online.  There was a conscious effort to give the appearance that there was more support among the community for a contentious hard fork than there really was.  Every time something Classic was brought up, market dumped.  Now that the smoke has cleared, Bitcoin is mooning.  Hmm...  wonder what the market wanted. 

market wants peace and stability. nevertheless if core would come out tomorrow with a 2MB HF that activates in lets say early 2017 markets would do another leg up.

You are just making shit up. 

Why implement or attempt to implement some kind of change to bitcoin that is not needed and may even cause damage (because it is not needed) merely because some know nothings are hypothesizing that such a change is needed?

I think that there is plenty of understanding that we gotta see how seg wit plays out first before adding some new and unjustified layer.

[Assmaster2000]

Will the bears buy back in after 600? They sure should. Maybe they'll join us at 700?

Because bitcoin is hip and happenin'?

Money is the simplest blockchain application (Bitcoin).  Logically it's protocol architecture shouldn't include the weight and unnecessary complexity of a smart contract system.  You put that shit on top (lisk).  

From a security perspective (think wealth storage), simplicity wins out.  A house with fewer windows and doors leaves less potential security holes.  Ethereum will probably never be the "internet of money", and it's yet to demonstrate the utility of it's smart contracts.  I believe it will (and hodling ether), but it isn't a sure thing.  Bitcoin, at least, already works as money and as a store of wealth.

So, yes.  Bitcoin is fucking hip as hell.  The original.  

Lol @ security, when Thermos suggested destroying Satoshi's coins because worried that early addies are hackable
But shit, why even talk about that, when we both know that Bitcoin is simply a convenient gambling/money laundering vehicle, with usability/security providing a plausible backstory ("Officer, this isn't illegal gambling, we're investing here, honest!")

The problem with your barebones analogy is Bitcoin's already a junkwagon: no "good bones" here, no elegance. Just a bunch of angry nutters trying to tear each other a fresh one

If you repent now, Satoshi will forgive you.

If you buy him lunch.

Satoshi doesn't go out for lunch. For the same reason he doesn't reveal his identity: Transgender surgery gone tragically wrong.

Rupert unloads another bag on Miss Honey Badger.

[dumbfbrankings]

The facts are more or less that XT/Classic failed to provide sufficient evidence or logic to support a protocol change that would involve a hard increase in the blocksize limit.  Accordingly, since there remains a lack of consensus for such position, there is no obligation for anyone to attempt to implement such a unnecessary change... that is only supported by a very small minority.... accordingly, the status quo continues, in which bitcoin is not broken.. and likely seg wit will be implemented and also achieve a consensus after a large majority of sensible folks realize that it is not controverted.

Incredible how easy it is to manipulate opinion online.  There was a conscious effort to give the appearance that there was more support among the community for a contentious hard fork than there really was.  Every time something Classic was brought up, market dumped.  Now that the smoke has cleared, Bitcoin is mooning.  Hmm...  wonder what the market wanted. 

The market wanted one of the most powerful miners to block the rewrite of Bitcoin contained in the Segwit Omnibus Change-set unless Blockstream relented on their stubborn refusal to HF increase the max block size, obviously.

See how fun this is?


Nah, I kid, you're probably correct that investors just really like a global wealth storage and transfer system with a throughput of ~3.5 tps.