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

[ImI]

still no buying panic. very good sign.

[1714656038]

1714656038

[1714656038]

1714656038

[1714656038]

1714656038

[BitUsher]

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.

Luke will give the HF over to antpool in July. What remains to be seen is will he include segwit with the HF code or not? If not , than will antpool create a new implementation and pay some other developer to fork the main branch and include the 2MB HF with segwit (3.8 to 4MB average capacity)? The Irony is the person delivering the 2MB HF code is the person that would prefer the miners to set a blocksize limit of 0.5MB now.

What do I assume will happen? Luke will indeed fulfill his end of the bargain as he is an honest and honorable man, But my guess* is he will include a free second HF version(Keccek SHA 3 ) that could be used as an option if the community decides to.

https://github.com/luke-jr/bitcoin/commit/8d3a84c242598ef3cdc733e99dddebfecdad84a6

Of course the miners and the community can decide what version they prefer or write their own as this is not a decision for developers to make.
Fun times ahead.

*Backup guess = the HF code offered will include Tonal Support and automatically include hashed scripture messages within all txs with prayers to Saint Matthew and as a convenience detect and ignore all txs involved in gambling.

[StraightAArdvark]

still no buying panic. very good sign.

Bitcoin and BTCeanies, my friend. Lack of buying panic is one of the things the two have in common.
I, too, remain cautiously optimistic. Let's see how this plays out.

[BitUsher]

still no buying panic. very good sign.

Bitcoin and BTCeanies, my friend. Lack of buying panic is one of the things the two have in common.
I, too, remain cautiously optimistic. Let's see how this plays out.

Things are much different than 2013.

More liquid markets , more mature exchanges with better tools, no willybot, less volatile currency.
This is going to continue as a sustained bull run and not a bubble. Sorry daytraders    Investors that Hodl will win here.

China Appears to be telegraphing the price movements and you have a 1-2 day delay on arbitrage. If you trade in the west It is dirt simple to know when to buy as you can see Chinese exchanges sitting at 591-596 which will continue to pull the west up. Anybody that isn't dumping their fiat into Bitcoin right now is leaving cash on the table.

[dumbfbrankings]

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.

Insulting your betters, it's just your M.O. eh JJG?

What part of THERE IS NO SEGWIT WITHOUT HF MAX BLOCK SIZE INCREASE do you not understand?

Maybe it's better that someone else holds your bitcoin as an entry in a database. If you had to secure your own... you would have lost them already.

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.

Luke will give the HF over to antpool in July. What remains to be seen is will he include segwit with the HF code or not? If not , than will antpool create a new implementation and pay some other developer to fork the main branch and include the 2MB HF with segwit (3.8 to 4MB average capacity)? The Irony is the person delivering the 2MB HF code is the person that would prefer the miners to set a blocksize limit of 0.5MB now.

What do I assume will happen? Luke will indeed fulfill his end of the bargain as he is an honest and honorable man, But my guess* is he will include a free second HF version(Keccek SHA 3 ) that could be used as an option if the community decides to.

https://github.com/luke-jr/bitcoin/commit/8d3a84c242598ef3cdc733e99dddebfecdad84a6

Of course the miners and the community can decide what version they prefer or write their own as this is not a decision for developers to make.
Fun times ahead.

*Backup guess = the HF code offered will include Tonal Support and automatically include hashed scripture messages within all txs with prayers to Saint Matthew and as a convenience detect and ignore all txs involved in gambling.

Heh. 

That actually sounds exactly like something he would do. Shake your hand with a sly self-righteous smile and then spit in your face when it came time to deliver on the agreed terms.

I mean, this is the guy who earnestly believes the sun orbits around the earth. And that masturbation=eternal damnation while romping in the marriage bed with 13 year olds is A-OK.

[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. 

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.

Thanks for having a temporary human moment, when even you admit that you are full of shit.


hahahahaha

And, we will see what happens when push comes to shove...


Sure it is all fine and dandy to make various idle threats to withdraw poole mining power - but it is a very risky move to actually attempt some kind of politically divisive action, and then potentially lose mining power when miners move to other pools because they don't want to support such unnecessary and wreckless attempts at blackmailing (that even under decent scenarios seems likely to fail)

[TERA]

Cup and handle and handle and handle and handle in full effect.

[StraightAArdvark]

still no buying panic. very good sign.

Bitcoin and BTCeanies, my friend. Lack of buying panic is one of the things the two have in common.
I, too, remain cautiously optimistic. Let's see how this plays out.

Things are much different than 2013.

I'm sure you're right. This time it's totally different

[BitUsher]

That actually sounds exactly like something he would do. Shake your hand with a sly self-righteous smile and then spit in your face when it came time to deliver on the agreed terms.

Delivering 2 proposals would be going above and beyond and giving the community 2 extra HF choices instead of one. This would be fulfilling his end of the agreement and going above and beyond. Having many implementations is a good thing right? More choices and all.

Sure it is all fine and dandy to make various idle threats to withdraw poole mining power - but it is a very risky move to actually attempt some kind of politically divisive action, and then potentially lose mining power when miners move to other pools because they don't want to support such unnecessary and wreckless attempts at blackmailing (that even under decent scenarios seems likely to fail)

Antpool does indeed seem to be reinterpreting the agreement (to assume that those devs magically spoke for core as a whole and could make decisions for the community) with the assumption that was very carefully and clearly refuted before they signed the agreement.

I don't think their threats to withhold segwit will last long and hold as much weight as the threat to switch PoW algo's or dump BTC for alts*

* All these threats are credible but unlikely. In business, smart negotiators give credible threats, and are willing to walk away from the table, but it is unlikely to happen and compromises will be made and the long negotiation will continue.

[marcus_of_augustus]

[JayJuanGee]

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.

Insulting your betters, it's just your M.O. eh JJG?

What part of THERE IS NO SEGWIT WITHOUT HF MAX BLOCK SIZE INCREASE do you not understand?

Maybe it's better that someone else holds your bitcoin as an entry in a database. If you had to secure your own... you would have lost them already.

You should go to the doctor, dumbfbrankings.

It's like you have ADD......   

You cannot stay on the topic for longer than one or two sentences, per 100 postings..... Oh, I see that you only have 93 postings?   Why is it that I feel that I know you?  Oh it's because you are lambie... Hi lambie...


Anyhow, your ADD seems to cause you to resort to talking about me, which is mostly not relevant to the particular topic, even if you were to happen to get any of your stream of consciousness facts correct, and I am not admitting anything here... except I admit that you are a goofball.   

[dumbfbrankings]

Sure it is all fine and dandy to make various idle threats to withdraw poole mining power - but it is a very risky move to actually attempt some kind of politically divisive action, and then potentially lose mining power when miners move to other pools because they don't want to support such unnecessary and wreckless attempts at blackmailing (that even under decent scenarios seems likely to fail)

Free help:

The word is spelled pool. Four letters. P-O-O-L. This about the 5th time I've seen this asshattery from you. Stop it.

That actually sounds exactly like something he would do. Shake your hand with a sly self-righteous smile and then spit in your face when it came time to deliver on the agreed terms.

Delivering 2 proposals would be going above and beyond and giving the community 2 extra HF choices instead of one. This would be fulfilling his end of the agreement and going above and beyond. Having many implementations is a good thing right? More choices and all.

I'm all for it, and the people (who have invested millions of $ into securing the network) he shook hands with will love it too. However, I would prefer the keccak fork to be 1MB4EVA, or maybe 0.5 MB to cut down on spam miners are currently using to bloat my hdd and stutter my netflix.

[marcus_of_augustus]

... the spurious, infantile, excessive trollery is definitely different this time around. It has some real, ugly menace and venom behind it, like a kind of sickness or cancerous evil protesting it's right to continued existence in the glare of the truth, you might say.

[Assmaster2000]

^^^

Rupert Bear makes Angsty Dragon his bitch

[Paashaas]

My crystalball tells me we gonna break the $600 range today, so when i come home from work everybody is happy again.

[Mrpumperitis]

for many being at this price is a first...welcome to crypto...the party just begining, no one has missed anything...buy btc, buy eth, both will do u proud as fiat collapses around them.   hell even ltc, dao and a bit of dash will go well with them.
 heres how see it..bit of my own plans and my advice for all my friends for yrs btw....
 you must own 1%minmum each gdcoin,( devteam etc) forvevr if u wanna be the one in a million when these coins take over oneday.
so 21mill BTC, u must own 21 BTC
100m ETH,u ust own 100 ETH
80mill LTC , 80 LTC
ETC ETC LOL

[JayJuanGee]

Sure it is all fine and dandy to make various idle threats to withdraw poole mining power - but it is a very risky move to actually attempt some kind of politically divisive action, and then potentially lose mining power when miners move to other pools because they don't want to support such unnecessary and wreckless attempts at blackmailing (that even under decent scenarios seems likely to fail)

Antpool does indeed seem to be reinterpreting the agreement (to assume that those devs magically spoke for core as a whole and could make decisions for the community) with the assumption that was very carefully and clearly refuted before they signed the agreement.

I don't think their threats to withhold segwit will last long and hold as much weight as the threat to switch PoW algo's or dump BTC for alts.

I frequently hear a lot of bullshit being circulated around these interwebs regarding some kind of "clear, unambiguous and binding commitment" to implement a hardfork increase in the blocksize limit. 

I have not been studying the HK agreement in detail, but I do recall reading it around the time that it was agreed to and circulated, and I remember a lot of the then complaints from XT/Classic supporting folks that the agreement doesn't really bind anything... which is actually the case, even though they are now trying to change the agreement to cause it to be more binding than it is.

In essence, even taken the language of the agreement, it was sufficiently broad concerning what they were agreeing to being fairly open concerning time lines and that there would be attempts to suss out or at least to measure the extent of consensus regarding what to do.

So anyhow, even if the persons involved in the agreement were sufficient agents to bind action, the action does not bind any kind of specific outcome beyond intending to take reasonable measures to figure out consensus in respect to whether a hardfork may be practical after some testing and release of seg wit.

[Mrpumperitis]

Sure it is all fine and dandy to make various idle threats to withdraw poole mining power - but it is a very risky move to actually attempt some kind of politically divisive action, and then potentially lose mining power when miners move to other pools because they don't want to support such unnecessary and wreckless attempts at blackmailing (that even under decent scenarios seems likely to fail)

Antpool does indeed seem to be reinterpreting the agreement (to assume that those devs magically spoke for core as a whole and could make decisions for the community) with the assumption that was very carefully and clearly refuted before they signed the agreement.

I don't think their threats to withhold segwit will last long and hold as much weight as the threat to switch PoW algo's or dump BTC for alts.

I frequently hear a lot of bullshit being circulated around these interwebs regarding some kind of "clear, unambiguous and binding commitment" to implement a hardfork increase in the blocksize limit.  

I have not been studying the HK agreement in detail, but I do recall reading it around the time that it was agreed to and circulated, and I remember a lot of the then complaints from XT/Classic supporting folks that the agreement doesn't really bind anything... which is actually the case, even though they are now trying to change the agreement to cause it to be more binding than it is.

In essence, even taken the language of the agreement, it was sufficiently broad concerning what they were agreeing to being fairly open concerning time lines and that there would be attempts to suss out or at least to measure the extent of consensus regarding what to do.

So anyhow, even if the persons involved in the agreement were sufficient agents to bind action, the action does not bind any kind of specific outcome beyond intending to take reasonable measures to figure out consensus in respect to whether a hardfork may be practical after some testing and release of seg wit.

shhhhh jjg m8,lol let em fight, its all a facade  

[AZwarel]

Why people talk about "cost of production"? Blocks are 10 min average in the long run, no matter if 2 laptop CPUs, or 100k exahash does the computation, there is no real "cost element" for the protocol to work.

Mining isn't "production". Just because the network needed a way to gradually release new available units to incentivize SECURITY of itself through the Proof of Work consensus, the new units are not the goal of mining. Also, bitcoin units are not "used up" when transacted, every bitcoin introduced in a coinbase transaction is "immortal". Even "lost privatkey" coins, they will just sit in their address for eternity.

This whole concept of "production cost must equal/below product value" is fishy, failed labor theoryof value thinking, marxist bs, totally debunked and failing basic logic since 100+ years.

It does not matter from a utility point of view if there are max 21mil, or a single bitcoin, since it can be divided up to infinitely to smaller sub units, there is no real "production" - it is more like discovery, since all future bitcoins are already algorithmically guaranteed to exist, they just need to be "unlocked", if you must use a describing word.

It is a necessary human psychological trick in play to give out "new coins", to make mining happening, which gives security for the network, which gives decentralized trust to build up, which gives value to the units for users, which prompts more security through more miners going for the coins...you get the point. BUT the new coins will have the same value as old, cpu mined ones, no matter how much cost got sinked in asic farms!!!

In another, new viewpoint, and clarification:
The supply will not be smaller on the halvening at all (existing coins will still exist after it), the additional new unit generation TIME will increase by 2 (the same 25 new coins will be generated in ~20 min average instead of 10mins)! So given a same demand has to wait 2x the time to get access in the network (as UTXOs), or decide to pay the extra value for "frontrunning the queue". Depending on the time preference of the market actor, it is a self fulfilling prophecy which might trigger a run up in price.

Also, since the difficulty is dynamic and adapts to make coin release constant through time, it means that production can never be unprofitable in the long run, as the unprofitable miners leave the race, more new coins will be distributed for the remaining miners, hence mining profit% tends to be constant in the long run for every miner still in race, hence "production cost" can not have influence on coin value (and never had, as long as minimum security levels are reached).

Movement in hash rate is either a technical (hardware, electricity prices, other costs like cooling in northern ares, etc) sign, or fueled by bitcoin value increase, NOT the other way around!

[TERA]

finally some wall action