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

[dumbfbrankings]

IGNORED

I invented buy on the way down and sell on the way up.
and for the most part this is exactly what i have done too.
by adding a health dose of speculation, i've tried to perfect this technique and only start buying / selling toward the end of a trend.

a few months ago I fucked up and SOLD a rather large chunk of my stash, preemptively pricing in the seemingly high possibility of a continuous hardfork. what a big fat mistake that turned out to be... oh well... anyway, my current speculation suggests the bull trend will continue for at least 1 more year ( just waiting for LN to be released  ).

A few points...

Did you mean contentious hardfork? We should get a good understanding of how those work over the next couple days. (FWIW, I disagree with the ETH hardfork to bailout theDAO, but do think it will provide extremely valuable data as to how a network split is resolved by mining and exchange activity.)

A capability-bifurcated node network through segwit softfork is ugly, and some would say immoral. People like Mircea Popescu can and will proclaim pure segwit to segwit transactions to be a merge mined altcoin, and he won't be wrong. It further cements the idea that dramatic changes can be foisted upon the network without node consent, with only the approval of a handful of mining pool ops. Leaving regular full nodes blind to the fact that anything had changed isn't a positive imo, and it will be used in the future once the precedent is fully accepted and normalized. People who tout protocol immutability as an intrinsic value should be screaming against soft forks, yet they cheerlead them.

A successful HF to increase Bitcoin's capacity is about the most bullish scenario I can imagine, too bad it has been successfully painted with a black brush to the point we may never see one in Bitcoin. After all, anything that could be done in a clean HF with full node consent can be SF'd in a "creative" way with only miner consent.

I don't get your last statement, we stay bullish for at least a year while we wait for the hub and spoke gift card BTC-IOU to emerge into functional form? Do you sell if/when it crosses the vapor barrier?

We know that 0.13 rc1 is minutes away from release, and it won't contain segwit... so the network operates at capacity for how much longer? Where do these new users and use cases fit in to provide a bullish scenario? Are we just banking on world financial armageddon to happen so scared plebs send their savings on wires to exchanges and become a new generation of baghodlers while we buy boats and lambos?

the validity of the direction we have taken for scaling  ( segwit +LN ) is irrelevant. it will only become relevant to price when its released. for now all that matters for price is that we make progress in that direction. we will push higher and higher as we inch closer and closer to the release. when it is released THEN we will be in a position to evaluate its validity / usefulness, but not before.

Who's we? I can assure you it's not me, I didn't sign on for this, at least not in this crufty soft-fork-via-opcode-sneak-mode form.

The critical question is whether the miners will bend the knee.  [and it will indeed be that, given the apparent likelihood that their side of the hk agreement was turned to confetti before it was even signed (the warning signs were so clear with that scuffle over adam back's title on the document... lawyers were consulted, that's for sure.)]

It will be a (the) crucial moment and decision in the history of Bitcoin.

[1714922048]

1714922048

[1714922048]

1714922048

[1714922048]

1714922048

[adamstgBit]

IGNORED

I invented buy on the way down and sell on the way up.
and for the most part this is exactly what i have done too.
by adding a health dose of speculation, i've tried to perfect this technique and only start buying / selling toward the end of a trend.

a few months ago I fucked up and SOLD a rather large chunk of my stash, preemptively pricing in the seemingly high possibility of a continuous hardfork. what a big fat mistake that turned out to be... oh well... anyway, my current speculation suggests the bull trend will continue for at least 1 more year ( just waiting for LN to be released  ).

A few points...

Did you mean contentious hardfork? We should get a good understanding of how those work over the next couple days. (FWIW, I disagree with the ETH hardfork to bailout theDAO, but do think it will provide extremely valuable data as to how a network split is resolved by mining and exchange activity.)

A capability-bifurcated node network through segwit softfork is ugly, and some would say immoral. People like Mircea Popescu can and will proclaim pure segwit to segwit transactions to be a merge mined altcoin, and he won't be wrong. It further cements the idea that dramatic changes can be foisted upon the network without node consent, with only the approval of a handful of mining pool ops. Leaving regular full nodes blind to the fact that anything had changed isn't a positive imo, and it will be used in the future once the precedent is fully accepted and normalized. People who tout protocol immutability as an intrinsic value should be screaming against soft forks, yet they cheerlead them.

A successful HF to increase Bitcoin's capacity is about the most bullish scenario I can imagine, too bad it has been successfully painted with a black brush to the point we may never see one in Bitcoin. After all, anything that could be done in a clean HF with full node consent can be SF'd in a "creative" way with only miner consent.

I don't get your last statement, we stay bullish for at least a year while we wait for the hub and spoke gift card BTC-IOU to emerge into functional form? Do you sell if/when it crosses the vapor barrier?

We know that 0.13 rc1 is minutes away from release, and it won't contain segwit... so the network operates at capacity for how much longer? Where do these new users and use cases fit in to provide a bullish scenario? Are we just banking on world financial armageddon to happen so scared plebs send their savings on wires to exchanges and become a new generation of baghodlers while we buy boats and lambos?

the validity of the direction we have taken for scaling  ( segwit +LN ) is irrelevant. it will only become relevant to price when its released. for now all that matters for price is that we make progress in that direction. we will push higher and higher as we inch closer and closer to the release. when it is released THEN we will be in a position to evaluate its validity / usefulness, but not before.

Who's we? I can assure you it's not me, I didn't sign on for this, at least not in this crufty soft-fork-via-opcode-sneak-mode form.

The critical question is whether the miners will bend the knee.  [and it will indeed be that, given the apparent likelihood that their side of the hk agreement was turned to confetti before it was even signed (the warning signs were so clear with that scuffle over adam back's title on the document... lawyers were consulted, that's for sure.)]

It will be a (the) crucial moment and decision in the history of Bitcoin.

good point...

people's individual feelings toward the direction we have be forced to go along with, and how they react to this, is far too complex for me to come up with any conclusion on its effect on price. for my sanity's sake i must assume most poeple dont give a crap about the details, i assume all they care about is progress is made.

I agree the network adopting segwit and later LN is will be a historical moment in bitcoin.
segwit+LN is a fundamental shift ( way more then a 2MB HF would have been ) it WILL change the game, for the better or worst?? no way to know...

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

This thing that's happening to that coin that shall not be named is the perfect gift. This is without a doubt a contentious hard fork; will the lesser chain continue on? Shouldn't it? Replay attacks what? Regenerated alts from genesis blocks who?
Is this in our future? For some measly megabits?

[JayJuanGee]

[edited out]

I only have 1 problem with all this.

I think the short term is what's hard to predict. because we really do not know what cards various actors have up their sleeves.
but in the long run, all we've done here is create a huge amount of opportunities, who builds what at what time is kinda irrelevant in the long run.

its like 2MB HF and THEN Segwit
or
Segwit and then 2MB HF later.

in the long run... what the fuck does it matter?

or think of the Twins ETF, if it wasn't them that did it, do you really think no one else would of stepped up?

the past is cast in stone
the future is unavoidable
today is gift, this is why we call it the present.

if its not us that grabs the vanishing liquidity sub 700 it'll be them.

BTW, its almost 9:00am in china  

You are still seeming to frame the future in terms of inevitability, and sure, after it already happens, then we can describe the future in terms of what has already happened, and the past only becomes inevitable because it already happened; however, before it actually happens, there are a lot of different trajectories that are possible, and going down one trajectory could preclude another trajectory and accordingly change history (and the future) forever.

Maybe I am talking in riddles, and maybe even preaching the obvious, but in the present, we cannot project any one future.  We have millions of possible futures, but only one of them is going to take place.

So, when we are looking at the present, and we are looking at the future possibilities, we are going to attempt to project and predict the most likely set of events, and we are going to find some issues to be more important than others.  Likely, it is not going to make a difference in respect to the bitcoin's price whether I eat beef or pork for lunch; however, it could make a difference if some big whale, such as Roger Ver, decided to cash out his total stash of bitcoins and to publicly rage quit (and invest all of it in Ether) or it would likely make a difference to bitcoin's prices if Coinbase get's ddosed and attacked and assert that they lost 500k coins.  We chose which events we believe to be more important and to give them weight, and my choosing to drink coke or pepsi also is not that important in the scheme of things.

Maybe in the long run, the above kinds of material events will kind of become a wash, but some events can cause trajectories and change history in a permanent way, and some events are results of a few individuals or a few strategically placed individuals or even the contagion of a few large institutions.

So, maybe you have highlighted some differences in our thinking because there is no way that I consider the future in some kind of fatalistic manner, even though in retrospect, it may seem as if it were obvious, after it has already happened... but it is no way obvious before hand or even in the present.. just a bundle of probabilities with some probabilities being more likely and more important than others.

[JayJuanGee]

[edited out].
 

Who's we? I can assure you it's not me, I didn't sign on for this, at least not in this crufty soft-fork-via-opcode-sneak-mode form.

You are coming across as a nitwit libertarian (nothing against normal libertarians) who expects that they have to consent to everything otherwise it does not count.  Fuck that stupid shit.  We are born into systems that have a lot of rules, and the status quo has some power.  There is no problem to disagree with the status quo and to attempt to change it, but trying to act like it does not exist comes off as pure fantasy.

Yeah, I saw your stupid ass attempts to fight the status quo likely soft fork situation in bitcoin and attempting to argue that a hardfork is preferable... additional, one-sided nonsense, fantasy and propaganda attempts.

The "we" that Adam refers to is likely just a recognition that seg wit is pretty much a done deal without any meaningful resistance.

The critical question is whether the miners will bend the knee.  [and it will indeed be that, given the apparent likelihood that their side of the hk agreement was turned to confetti before it was even signed (the warning signs were so clear with that scuffle over adam back's title on the document... lawyers were consulted, that's for sure.)]

It will be a (the) crucial moment and decision in the history of Bitcoin.

Nope, not so crucial.. Seg Wit is pretty much a done deal, and the overwhelming majority largely agrees to it, in spite of some loud mouth and stubborn trolls in various bitcoin forums... eg. reddit   r/btc and your nonsense fantasy propaganda attempts.

[dumbfbrankings]

This thing that's happening to that coin that shall not be named is the perfect gift. This is without a doubt a contentious hard fork; will the lesser chain continue on?

It is a gift. We get to analyze something we haven't really seen before in a coin with a relatively high value. I bet the non-DAO bailout side will live on, in some form. Just like a losing 1MB4EVA with keccak side would live on, in some form.

Shouldn't it?

Not a question of should, but "can" it? If it can and people want it to, then it should.

Replay attacks what? Regenerated alts from genesis blocks who?
Is this in our future? For some measly megabits?

It's for much more than a megabyte. It's for the literal destiny of the project... and more succinctly: money.


....

[adamstgBit]

You are still seeming to frame the future in terms of inevitability

future is not malleable, just because it hasn't been written yet doesn't mean it is not predictable.


i am a deterministic existentialist

existentialism says that  we exist before our purpose, and no "god" has a "divine plan" for us, we make that "plan" up for ourselves.
- existence precedes essence

determinism says that, that the past, present, and future is identifiable as an unbreakable chain of circumstances of which no single link in such a chain could possibly be avoided or altered. so if there was a entity that knew everything about everything he could predict the future, because for any one moment there is only ONE possible physical further moment.
- The Truth

and so i say:


Existence precedes essence, but the the truth precedes all.


i am am no god, But i've seen enough, we will be moving UP there is simply no way around this.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

Contentious things some guy I know thinks:
-Anything less than 99% is a social consensus attack on the protocol;
-No amount of megabytes will satisfy the demands of people convinced the free world is waiting for a bump to beat a path to our door;
--the world isn't waitng to beat a path to our door;
-Something about superintelligence.

[savetherainforest]

You are still seeming to frame the future in terms of inevitability

future is not malleable, just because it hasn't been written yet doesn't mean it is not predictable.


[...]

Jay ... think in perspective of "String Theory". And think of the wave length of the gravitational fields from the infinite possibilities of parallel Universes.

Meaning that if you where to time travel you would basically jump from a predestined Universe to another since the wave length of the gravitational fields that you use to jump from one to another is always moving, always in a pattern and always different from the perspective of the constant of Time.

Meaning that what Adam said, means that all history is already written and even if you manage to change it by managing to jump from one Universe to the same Universe in a time travel scenario, the temporal divergence even if it would be 0.00000000(1)% between them... That would mean that the someone who time traveled has created a new scenario, meaning he/she created a New Universe with a mathematical predestined physical state!

[JayJuanGee]

You are still seeming to frame the future in terms of inevitability

future is not malleable, just because it hasn't been written yet doesn't mean it is not predictable.


i am a deterministic existentialist

existentialism says that  we exist before our purpose, and no "god" has a "divine plan" for us, we make that "plan" up for ourselves.
- existence precedes essence

determinism says that, that the past, present, and future is identifiable as an unbreakable chain of circumstances of which no single link in such a chain could possibly be avoided or altered. so if there was a entity that knew everything about everything he could predict the future, because for any one moment there is only ONE possible physical further moment.
- The Truth

and so i say:


Existence precedes essence, but the the truth precedes all.


i am am no god, But i've seen enough, we will be moving UP there is simply no way around this.

I don't object to your making a prediction or the substance of that prediction, yet I just hope that I don't have to sell some of my BTC merely because of the possible kicking in of the reverse adam indicator (RAI) that seems to happen whenever you emphasize certainty in your BTC predictions (especially in respect to the future).    

You are still seeming to frame the future in terms of inevitability

future is not malleable, just because it hasn't been written yet doesn't mean it is not predictable.


[...]

Jay ... think in perspective of "String Theory". And think of the wave length of the gravitational fields from the infinite possibilities of parallel Universes.

Meaning that if you where to time travel you would basically jump from a predestined Universe to another since the wave length of the gravitational fields that you use to jump from one to another is always moving, always in a pattern and always different from the perspective of the constant of Time.

Meaning that what Adam said, means that all history is already written and even if you manage to change it by managing to jump from one Universe to the same Universe in a time travel scenario, the temporal divergence even if it would be 0.00000000(1)% between them... That would mean that the someone who time traveled has created a new scenario, meaning he/she created a New Universe with a mathematical predestined physical state!

Oh yeah, thanks.  That helps. 

[adamstgBit]

You are still seeming to frame the future in terms of inevitability

future is not malleable, just because it hasn't been written yet doesn't mean it is not predictable.


[...]

Jay ... think in perspective of "String Theory". And think of the wave length of the gravitational fields from the infinite possibilities of parallel Universes.

Meaning that if you where to time travel you would basically jump from a predestined Universe to another since the wave length of the gravitational fields that you use to jump from one to another is always moving, always in a pattern and always different from the perspective of the constant of Time.

Meaning that what Adam said, means that all history is already written and even if you manage to change it by managing to jump from one Universe to the same Universe in a time travel scenario, the temporal divergence even if it would be 0.00000000(1)% between them... That would mean that the someone who time traveled has created a new scenario, meaning he/she created a New Universe with a mathematical predestined physical state!

even if you accept the idea that we could time travel within our same universe and then change its future, this does not produce an anomaly, it would simply be part of the unbreakable chain of events which can not be avoided or altered.

[savetherainforest]

You are still seeming to frame the future in terms of inevitability

future is not malleable, just because it hasn't been written yet doesn't mean it is not predictable.


[...]

Jay ... think in perspective of "String Theory". And think of the wave length of the gravitational fields from the infinite possibilities of parallel Universes.

Meaning that if you where to time travel you would basically jump from a predestined Universe to another since the wave length of the gravitational fields that you use to jump from one to another is always moving, always in a pattern and always different from the perspective of the constant of Time.

Meaning that what Adam said, means that all history is already written and even if you manage to change it by managing to jump from one Universe to the same Universe in a time travel scenario, the temporal divergence even if it would be 0.00000000(1)% between them... That would mean that the someone who time traveled has created a new scenario, meaning he/she created a New Universe with a mathematical predestined physical state!

even if you accept the idea that we could time travel within our same universe and then change its future, this does not produce an anomaly, it would simply be part of the unbreakable chain of events which can not be avoided or altered.

Yeah... the temporal divergence would grow from 0.001% to 88.3% for example. And in one Universe can be war and total chaos and in the other one peace and total Fibonacci order! 

[dumbfbrankings]

Contentious things some guy I know thinks:
-Anything less than 99% is a social consensus attack on the protocol;

Let me introduce you to the 1% malcontent you have now deemed god-king.

-No amount of megabytes will satisfy the demands of people convinced the free world is waiting for a bump to beat a path to our door;

The free world isn’t waiting for a bump, but they do see that new sign at the door. We gracefully rose from peanuts to 1MB over 6 years, no reason for the miners to let it get bloated with free tx immediately to the new max.

--the world isn't waitng to beat a path to our door;

yeah, and those that showed up, saw the sign and turned heel.

-Something about superintelligence.

1 huge Muddled Mint leaf, crushed superintelligence, 1/2 oz mint-infused simpleton syrup, 2 oz of power, 2-4-8 dashes of bitters… we call it… “The IPO”.

[adamstgBit]

 JayJuanGee, seeing how you got trapped by in this market when you starting buying at the top and all the way down. Seemingly without your consent you bought more and more as we went lower and lower, and now you are being "forced" to take profits because of the choice you made a year ago to subscribe to a cool and calculated trading strategy...

you of all people should appreciate the idea i put forth.

the only hope humans have of actually having "free will" is understanding the inevitability of the future, using that knowledge to try and see into the future and then fucking do somthing to change the foreseen future.

I foresee that if i dont GTFO of this from i will not have sex tonight 
it might be to late tho... 

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

Contentious things some guy I know thinks:
-Anything less than 99% is a social consensus attack on the protocol;

Let me introduce you to the 1% malcontent you have now deemed god-king.

[iCEBREAKER]

an hour and 19 minutes since the last block. They are averaging 23 minutes per block and they're all full.

this will cause the price to slump, which will kick more hashpower off the networks, causing further backlogs and higher fees in a viscous feedback loop. I told you bastards this would happen.

it's the FUDocalypse!!

FIXED IT.   

[JayJuanGee]

JayJuanGee, seeing how you got trapped by in this market when you starting buying at the top and all the way down. 

It was beginning to seem as if we were approaching a truce, and then you come out with this blowtorch, hand grenade chaos launcher of a statement.   


The above statement comes off as very judgmental, and also seems to assume some facts that are not in evidence.

I would not characterize my position as trapped, exactly, because even though I invested quite a lot into bitcoin, I really did not invest beyond my ability to easily lose such investment.  I did not leverage, I did not take anything from my living expenses, and I also maintained quite a few other of my mainstream investments.
 
I'm not sure what else I can say without reiterating my whole investment history, but in essence, I did not materially increase my investment or continue to double down.  In fact, I allocated a certain amount that I was going to invest in the first 6 months, between late November 2013 to early June 2013, and I pretty much stuck to my allocation and then when I used those funds, and then I would reassess the situation.

By about mid-June 2014, my average cost per BTCV was around $630.

I will grant you that I did invest quite a lot around upper $300s in late 2014, and I was pretty much "all in" with my reassessment and my allocation of what I had intended to invest into BTC, yet my average cost per BTC in late 2014 was in the mid $500s.

I don't really call any of this trapped because I just continued to dollar cost average invest from late 2014 to early 2015; however in early 2015, I had run into some cash flow issues, so I could not buy BTC for a few months, until about April/May 2015, but I did not sell any of the BTC that I held, and April/May 2015, I resumed dollar cost averaging.   

By October 2015, when I set up a plan to begin to trade BTC, my average cost per BTC was about $502, and so I began to trade, and today my average cost per BTC is about $440.  Furthermore, I have dollars and BTC stacked on both ends, so I hardly feel trapped.  I keep saying this, but stubbornly, you continue with your own seemingly judgmental narrative.

I have given you quite a few details, but still even this level of detail does not describe my whole financial situation, and how I do not feel trapped in spite of your ongoing suggestions in that direction.

Seemingly without your consent you bought more and more as we went lower and lower, and now you are being "forced" to take profits because of the choice you made a year ago to subscribe to a cool and calculated trading strategy...

I still think that you have this wrong.  I don't believe that I was coerced, and I never really claimed to be doing anything other than I was doing.  My first phase was to accumulate and to buy on dips, and that is what I did.  I never sold BTC, and I just continued to buy whenever I had money, and sometimes I would strategically attempt to time some of the purchases in order to continue to accumulate, largely this strategy through late 2014, but continued through most of 2015 too, and to this day, I still continue to buy BTC with some of my extra cash flow, to the extent that I have any.

I did not claim to start trading or even try to trade BTC until October 2015, and that is when I began to post about trading.  In fact, through 2014 and most of 2015, I kind of continued to assert that I was not a trader, because I never sold any BTC, which was true (up until October 2015, whenever I sold BTC, I always replaced within days).

you of all people should appreciate the idea i put forth.

I appreciate that you have a right to have your own views and to argue that your views are applicable to your own actions; however, I do not appreciate that you would think that I should subscribe to such views or expect that other readers of this thread would necessarily agree with such thinking, at least not necessarily in the way that you frame it.

the only hope humans have of actually having "free will" is understanding the inevitability of the future, using that knowledge to try and see into the future and then fucking do somthing to change the foreseen future.

That's a bit too fatalistic for my thinking, but I have no problem with you coming from that point of view or even believing that the world is such.  Surely, I believe that individuals have some limited abilities to control things in society, but we also have levels of control and  our choices have ramifications, as well (on us and sometimes on other people).

I foresee that if i dont GTFO of this from i will not have sex tonight 
it might be to late tho... 

Agreed.. too much farting around on the forum could interfere with possibilities of getting laid.

[jbreher]

Who's we? I can assure you it's not me, I didn't sign on for this, at least not in this crufty soft-fork-via-opcode-sneak-mode form.

We are born into systems that have a lot of rules, and the status quo has some power.  

"There you go again"
- Ronnie Raygun

We've been over this. The status quo is completely violated by The SegWit Omnibus Changeset.

Ignorance or obstinance on your part?

[JayJuanGee]

Who's we? I can assure you it's not me, I didn't sign on for this, at least not in this crufty soft-fork-via-opcode-sneak-mode form.

We are born into systems that have a lot of rules, and the status quo has some power.  

"There you go again"
- Ronnie Raygun

We've been over this. The status quo is completely violated by The SegWit Omnibus Changeset.

Ignorance or obstinance on your part?

Yes, jbreher, we've been over some variation of this topic, and we disagree mostly because you are making shit up and not really attempting to have any kind of civilized conversation.

In fact, Seg wit is largely a non-controversial and upcoming implementation and supplementation of bitcoin protocol features, and accordingly. largely, seg wit is an agreed to change (by all of the powers that be in bitcoin, and even naysayers such as Gavin Andresen and Jeff Garzik).  It was proposed in late 2015, and the code was written and put on testnet in about May 2016, and it is continuing to be tested and is nearing time for implementation in a more active form into the protocol and live, yet as many of us actively researching bitcoiners realize (even if we do not have a technical background regarding specifics), seg wit has not been completely implemented yet or gone live (and some of us may not even know the exact process or the timeline for when seg wit is going live), but in any event if there are some objections along the way of seg wit's going live and if there are controversial aspects about seg wit, then it seems quite likely that any of these kinds of problems or controversies can continue to be discussed, because seg wit seems to be a kind of work in progress in terms of everything that it achieves and how it is implemented into the existing protocol and how consensus and adoption is achieved by miners, as well.  

Anyhow, surely there is going to continue to be discussion of seg wit at various points during the process of its going live by persons who are more technically involved with testing and identifying bug issues to the extent that any bug issues might exist, and we will continue to learn about seg wit, too... to the extent that we may need to learn more about technical aspects or other aspects that are relevant to it's success or failure.

So I don't understand why you are attempting to confuse matters by attempting to suggest that there is some kind of controversy in respect to the implementation path for seg wit when you have little to no evidence of such controversy (except perhaps to the extent that you may start citing either yourself, folks at reddit r/btc, or maybe BJA, all of whom seem to be caught up on desires to have XT or Classic, which have both been rejected and are largely DED, at the moment)

[jbreher]

Who's we? I can assure you it's not me, I didn't sign on for this, at least not in this crufty soft-fork-via-opcode-sneak-mode form.

We are born into systems that have a lot of rules, and the status quo has some power.  

"There you go again"
- Ronnie Raygun

We've been over this. The status quo is completely violated by The SegWit Omnibus Changeset.

Ignorance or obstinance on your part?

Yes, jbreher, we've been over some variation of this topic, and we disagree mostly because you are making shit up and not really attempting to have any kind of civilized conversation.

I am not making anything up. The SegWit Omnibus Changeset is a far larger change to Bitcoin protocol than is a simple maxblocksize bump. Period. To assert otherwise is insanity. Or stupidity. Or obstinance. So which is it in your case?

In fact, Seg wit is largely a non-controversial

Well, no. The fact that the discussion is still occurring is evidence of controversy. By definition. English much?