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

[abz99]

"A one-off [CNY] devaluation during New Year gives China breathing room" -- Arthur Hayes, BitMEX Crypto Trader Digest @BitMEXdotcom - THIS may send Bitcoin price to the MOON!

[1714240494]

1714240494

[1714240494]

1714240494

[1714240494]

1714240494

[1714240494]

1714240494

[jaberwock]

"the absence of CNY currency volatility may dampen the price of Bitcoin" -- Arthur Hayes, BitMEX Crypto Trader Digest @BitMEXdotcom

why?

with less chinese volatility people that complain about Bitcoin being manipulated by the chinese may be less afraid and enter the market

or just create another excuse about why bitcoin is a bad investment

[boyshx]

seems like chinese new year had no effect on bitcoin prices so just like I said nothing is certain with bitcoin, good thing I didn't short waiting for a dip to buy back cheaper.

[Dafar]

Fuck Bitcoin Unlimited

[abz99]

"the absence of CNY currency volatility may dampen the price of Bitcoin" -- Arthur Hayes, BitMEX Crypto Trader Digest @BitMEXdotcom

why?

with less chinese volatility people that complain about Bitcoin being manipulated by the chinese may be less afraid and enter the market

or just create another excuse about why bitcoin is a bad investment

As far as I can understand position of Arthur Hayes it is because of the current pure speculative nature of Bitcoin.  Here is an excerpt:
"All of a sudden, the PBOC turned on the lights at the club. In response to pressure from regulators, Chinese exchanges ceased offering margin trading on January 11th. The very next day, XBTH17 entered backwardation. Existing loans were allowed to expire, but no new loans could be taken out.

Margin loans had 2 to 30 day terms. As loans expired, credit whales need to unwind their trades. That meant selling futures and buying spot with released CNY. This helped move the futures’ basis into backwardation.

The Fear Uncertainty and Doubt (FUD) surrounding what the PBOC would or wouldn’t do prompted speculators to short Bitcoin via futures. There was no more margin trading therefore futures were the only bearish instrument available. Even today, the PBOC has released no statement as to what policy actions will be undertaken as a result of their “investigations”.

In short:

Margin Book Unwind + FUD = Futures Backwardation"

[becoin]

Oh gawd ... when did this place become infested with the BU idiots again?!! FFS.

It happens always when idiots short bitcoin and price goes the other way. They become bigblocktards just to cause noise in the community and eventually a price drop.

[Torque]

"the absence of CNY currency volatility may dampen the price of Bitcoin" -- Arthur Hayes, BitMEX Crypto Trader Digest @BitMEXdotcom

why?

with less chinese volatility people that complain about Bitcoin being manipulated by the chinese may be less afraid and enter the market

or just create another excuse about why bitcoin is a bad investment

Your first thought is correct.

But whale traders (*cough* exchange owners/miners *cough*) are now worried that without 100X margin trading to incite huge volatility, they won't make the profits that they are Accustomed To^TM. And without that, bitcoin becomes just another run-in-the-mill small-cap speculative investment like all the others.  Made up FUD wouldn't even work any more to significantly move the market. Miners would only get transaction fees.

All the shitty traders would have to migrate to shitty alt-coins to make any money. *shudder*

Aww waaah! Now only long term investors, merchants, and everyday users can benefit from Bitcoin.     Whatever shall we do???

[Ted E. Bare]

Bears still waiting for 800's?

[Miz4r]

It has to do with the issue of trust. It should come as no surprise, that people in the ecosystem of Bitcoin - an invention with the stated purpose of not having to trust a single central authority - will not trust central authorities. You might be convinced of technological superiority of core's approach (for the record: I am on the fence about this) but failing to realize this simple issue about trust isn't helping anyone and keeps fostering an unnecessary divide in the community.

I don't understand this argument at all. How exactly is Core a central authority and how do you solve this perceived problem of trust by instead trusting this other 'central authority' called BU? I don't need to trust Core at all, I don't worry they're going to break Bitcoin one day since the consensus rules are not easily changed and requires the entire ecosystem to pretty much agree. If BU was the main software that ran the network I would be very worried though, since with them I am not so sure the consensus rules wouldn't be changed on a whim. By the way Core is not a company or corporation and doesn't speak with one voice, anyone can contribute to it and a great number of developers with diverse opinions about many Bitcoin related issues do and peer review each other. Let's not throw away what we have here because we're impatient about scaling Bitcoin or disagree on how to do it exactly.

Is it really that hard to understand, that people are going to be skeptical of centrally mandated policies? Especially when they are coming from people who have been shown to engage in censorship and breaking promises, while being funded by the very financial institutions their product is officially meant to replace?

How does Core exactly engage in censorship and breaking promises? They have done none of these things, it's this kind of talk and theories that fuel the flames of division. Say it often enough and people start to believe it. I've seen a lot of open discussions about how to scale Bitcoin and in the end it all boils down to a simple thing. Most Core developers but also many experts outside the Core community believe that it's important we keep nodes relatively cheap to run in order to keep the most important aspect of Bitcoin which is decentralization. Onchain scaling therefore is limited and will never be able to support global adoption without sacrificing decentralization, so true scaling to meet global demand needs to come from 2nd layer solutions like lightning. I personally fully agree with this. There are people who disagree however and don't think it's a problem if nodes can only be run in big datacenters, and although I think that's very dangerous it's perfectly okay if someone has that opinion. However you don't need to be a rocket scientist to see that this is a very contentious issue and there's no way that Bitcoin can just hardfork to satisfy these people. So why the need for all the strife and division? We can all just agree to disagree here, we've discussed this long and hard enough by now. Complaints about censorship on a Bitcoin subreddit does not change anything. I have pretty much seen and heard all the arguments for and against a hard fork for a simple increase to 2MB, Segwit as a soft fork or Segwit as a hard fork (+ increase). Segwit as a soft fork is the only viable option here that has any chance to be accepted any time soon, and then hopefully a hard fork later if enough people calmed down again to allow consensus to form for another increase. People just need to learn to not get caught up in the drama that's mostly instigated by those who see Bitcoin as a threat and want it to fail.

[doc12]

Oh gawd ... when did this place become infested with the BU idiots again?!! FFS.

It's a walking disaster, a true shit show in terms of network systems thinking and an even worse fuck-up in terms of software implementation.

When will you guys grow a brain and at some point and leave that fucking huge shillfest mess behind already?!

Word!

Too bad they are using Bitcoin-Mainnet as a Testbed for thair so called "alternative implementation" piece of shit.  

[Paashaas]

Segwit (soft-fork) is the best possible update Bitcoin can have, it opens the doors to mainstream with side-chains. That cannot be achieved with only bigger blocks, only idiots believe you can hard-fork the network from 1mb to 1Gig, the internet cant even handle that kind of size.

[Dafar]

It has to do with the issue of trust. It should come as no surprise, that people in the ecosystem of Bitcoin - an invention with the stated purpose of not having to trust a single central authority - will not trust central authorities. You might be convinced of technological superiority of core's approach (for the record: I am on the fence about this) but failing to realize this simple issue about trust isn't helping anyone and keeps fostering an unnecessary divide in the community.

I don't understand this argument at all. How exactly is Core a central authority and how do you solve this perceived problem of trust by instead trusting this other 'central authority' called BU? I don't need to trust Core at all, I don't worry they're going to break Bitcoin one day since the consensus rules are not easily changed and requires the entire ecosystem to pretty much agree. If BU was the main software that ran the network I would be very worried though, since with them I am not so sure the consensus rules wouldn't be changed on a whim. By the way Core is not a company or corporation and doesn't speak with one voice, anyone can contribute to it and a great number of developers with diverse opinions about many Bitcoin related issues do and peer review each other. Let's not throw away what we have here because we're impatient about scaling Bitcoin or disagree on how to do it exactly.

Is it really that hard to understand, that people are going to be skeptical of centrally mandated policies? Especially when they are coming from people who have been shown to engage in censorship and breaking promises, while being funded by the very financial institutions their product is officially meant to replace?

How does Core exactly engage in censorship and breaking promises? They have done none of these things, it's this kind of talk and theories that fuel the flames of division. Say it often enough and people start to believe it. I've seen a lot of open discussions about how to scale Bitcoin and in the end it all boils down to a simple thing. Most Core developers but also many experts outside the Core community believe that it's important we keep nodes relatively cheap to run in order to keep the most important aspect of Bitcoin which is decentralization. Onchain scaling therefore is limited and will never be able to support global adoption without sacrificing decentralization, so true scaling to meet global demand needs to come from 2nd layer solutions like lightning. I personally fully agree with this. There are people who disagree however and don't think it's a problem if nodes can only be run in big datacenters, and although I think that's very dangerous it's perfectly okay if someone has that opinion. However you don't need to be a rocket scientist to see that this is a very contentious issue and there's no way that Bitcoin can just hardfork to satisfy these people. So why the need for all the strife and division? We can all just agree to disagree here, we've discussed this long and hard enough by now. Complaints about censorship on a Bitcoin subreddit does not change anything. I have pretty much seen and heard all the arguments for and against a hard fork for a simple increase to 2MB, Segwit as a soft fork or Segwit as a hard fork (+ increase). Segwit as a soft fork is the only viable option here that has any chance to be accepted any time soon, and then hopefully a hard fork later if enough people calmed down again to allow consensus to form for another increase. People just need to learn to not get caught up in the drama that's mostly instigated by those who see Bitcoin as a threat and want it to fail.

It's all propaganda fueled by Ver.

These idiots think the entire bitcoin world revolves around r/bitcoin, and that Core = r/bitcoin and that somehow Core is involved in the moderation policy that happens in r/bitcoin.

[doc12]

It has to do with the issue of trust. It should come as no surprise, that people in the ecosystem of Bitcoin - an invention with the stated purpose of not having to trust a single central authority - will not trust central authorities. You might be convinced of technological superiority of core's approach (for the record: I am on the fence about this) but failing to realize this simple issue about trust isn't helping anyone and keeps fostering an unnecessary divide in the community.

I don't understand this argument at all. How exactly is Core a central authority and how do you solve this perceived problem of trust by instead trusting this other 'central authority' called BU? I don't need to trust Core at all, I don't worry they're going to break Bitcoin one day since the consensus rules are not easily changed and requires the entire ecosystem to pretty much agree. If BU was the main software that ran the network I would be very worried though, since with them I am not so sure the consensus rules wouldn't be changed on a whim. By the way Core is not a company or corporation and doesn't speak with one voice, anyone can contribute to it and a great number of developers with diverse opinions about many Bitcoin related issues do and peer review each other. Let's not throw away what we have here because we're impatient about scaling Bitcoin or disagree on how to do it exactly.

Is it really that hard to understand, that people are going to be skeptical of centrally mandated policies? Especially when they are coming from people who have been shown to engage in censorship and breaking promises, while being funded by the very financial institutions their product is officially meant to replace?

How does Core exactly engage in censorship and breaking promises? They have done none of these things, it's this kind of talk and theories that fuel the flames of division. Say it often enough and people start to believe it. I've seen a lot of open discussions about how to scale Bitcoin and in the end it all boils down to a simple thing. Most Core developers but also many experts outside the Core community believe that it's important we keep nodes relatively cheap to run in order to keep the most important aspect of Bitcoin which is decentralization. Onchain scaling therefore is limited and will never be able to support global adoption without sacrificing decentralization, so true scaling to meet global demand needs to come from 2nd layer solutions like lightning. I personally fully agree with this. There are people who disagree however and don't think it's a problem if nodes can only be run in big datacenters, and although I think that's very dangerous it's perfectly okay if someone has that opinion. However you don't need to be a rocket scientist to see that this is a very contentious issue and there's no way that Bitcoin can just hardfork to satisfy these people. So why the need for all the strife and division? We can all just agree to disagree here, we've discussed this long and hard enough by now. Complaints about censorship on a Bitcoin subreddit does not change anything. I have pretty much seen and heard all the arguments for and against a hard fork for a simple increase to 2MB, Segwit as a soft fork or Segwit as a hard fork (+ increase). Segwit as a soft fork is the only viable option here that has any chance to be accepted any time soon, and then hopefully a hard fork later if enough people calmed down again to allow consensus to form for another increase. People just need to learn to not get caught up in the drama that's mostly instigated by those who see Bitcoin as a threat and want it to fail.

It's all propaganda fueled by Ver.

These idiots think the entire bitcoin world revolves around r/bitcoin, and that Core = r/bitcoin and that somehow Core is involved in the moderation policy that happens in r/bitcoin.

Dont forget the mighty dark lord corp blockstream tamtam wuuahaaaaa run for your lives

[Killerpotleaf]

Oh gawd ... when did this place become infested with the BU idiots again?!! FFS.

It's a walking disaster, a true shit show in terms of network systems thinking and an even worse fuck-up in terms of software implementation.

When will you guys grow a brain and at some point and leave that fucking huge shillfest mess behind already?!

Word!

Too bad they are using Bitcoin-Mainnet as a Testbed for thair so called "alternative implementation" piece of shit.  

effective blocksize + relying on LN working out is using Mainnet as a Testbed too?

[doc12]

Oh gawd ... when did this place become infested with the BU idiots again?!! FFS.

It's a walking disaster, a true shit show in terms of network systems thinking and an even worse fuck-up in terms of software implementation.

When will you guys grow a brain and at some point and leave that fucking huge shillfest mess behind already?!

Word!

Too bad they are using Bitcoin-Mainnet as a Testbed for thair so called "alternative implementation" piece of shit.  

effective blocksize + relying on LN working out is using Mainnet as a Testbed too?

Sorry but Segwit has been tested excessively on Bitcoin Testnet and an seperate network...

and it does not even introduce such serious changes to bitcoin like BU does. BU changes the consensus mechanism, maybe the most important part of bitcoin ...

[Killerpotleaf]

Oh gawd ... when did this place become infested with the BU idiots again?!! FFS.

It's a walking disaster, a true shit show in terms of network systems thinking and an even worse fuck-up in terms of software implementation.

When will you guys grow a brain and at some point and leave that fucking huge shillfest mess behind already?!

Word!

Too bad they are using Bitcoin-Mainnet as a Testbed for thair so called "alternative implementation" piece of shit. 

effective blocksize + relying on LN working out is using Mainnet as a Testbed too?

Sorry but Segwit has been tested excessively on Bitcoin Testnet and an seperate network...

and it does not even introduce such serious changes to bitcoin like BU does. BU changes the consensus mechanism, maybe the most important part of bitcoin ...

if you believe consensus mechanism = hardcoded limits

you're too far gone to be saved.

[doc12]

Oh gawd ... when did this place become infested with the BU idiots again?!! FFS.

It's a walking disaster, a true shit show in terms of network systems thinking and an even worse fuck-up in terms of software implementation.

When will you guys grow a brain and at some point and leave that fucking huge shillfest mess behind already?!

Word!

Too bad they are using Bitcoin-Mainnet as a Testbed for thair so called "alternative implementation" piece of shit.  

effective blocksize + relying on LN working out is using Mainnet as a Testbed too?

Sorry but Segwit has been tested excessively on Bitcoin Testnet and an seperate network...

and it does not even introduce such serious changes to bitcoin like BU does. BU changes the consensus mechanism, maybe the most important part of bitcoin ...

if you believe consensus mechanism = hardcoded limits

you're too far gone to be saved.

Conspiratists argumentation detected ... good bye. Ignore

How to spot a BU supporter ? Look for a tin foil hat with "blockstream"-defense engraving.

[Killerpotleaf]

its time we face the music, we must split the blockchain, its the only way, there can be no consensus, we must agree to disagree, and part ways amicably.

[matt4054]

its time we face the music, we must split the blockchain, its the only way, there can be no consensus, we must agree to disagree, and part ways amicably.

So, what are you waiting for? 

[Killerpotleaf]

its time we face the music, we must split the blockchain, its the only way, there can be no consensus, we must agree to disagree, and part ways amicably.

So, what are you waiting for? 

the fork.