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

[marcus_of_augustus]

what a shame.

bit worse than a shame ... it's a fucking shitshow travesty.

Now BUg pumpers are gonna be forever wondering if there is another zero-day BUg out there waiting to wipe out all there bitcoins shortly after they hardfork??! WTF?

If Peter Todd was malicious and greedy he could have made mega-bank on this by keeping it to himself until they forked and then shorted majorly the BU fork and killed it dead anonymously without telling them what was happening, they wouldn't have had a clue what hit them ... and made a killing too.

What's the bet that the DAO attacker is sitting on a BUg zero-day ... just waiting for the fork.

Stuff is toxic, it's finished. Woo is finished too.

[1715246939]

1715246939

[1715246939]

1715246939

[1715246939]

1715246939

[1715246939]

1715246939

[1715246939]

1715246939

[marcus_of_augustus]

what a shame.

for who? even the most fervent unlimited supporter might not be very impressed if the entire system seized up. i'll bet there are many more surprises hiding too.

they shouldn't have put their heads above the parapet until their game was 100% immaculate. if you want to influence a 20 billion dollar deal expect to have your every move gone over with thousands of microscopes.

this ain't play time any more and this is more than an internet spat for the lulz.

its a shame that BU does not have as much peer review and scrutiny.

I dislike the idea of having one team ( mostly all employed by 1 company ) having so much leverage.

no just stop it with the bullshit please. I really resent the insinuation that all Core are employed by Blockstream (or the banks by some crazy extension) ... some asshole was on reddit saying all Core devs are paid by AXA (the banks) ... I mean what a complete asshole lying thing to be saying in public. If he was saying that to my face he would be out cold on the ground in under a minute, guaranteed.

1 company does not "have so much leverage", that's just wrong and lies.

If BU guys had any confidence in their ideas they would have submitted a patch to core for review, like everyone else and argued their merits in an open court..... they are free to try and propagate their own code but they better be prepared for an even more rigourous test (the real world) ... but they are better off putting it up on the Core repo and getting real feedback and testing first, not in some BS echo chamber full of emotional, butthurt, raving idiots.

[Killerpotleaf]

what a shame.

for who? even the most fervent unlimited supporter might not be very impressed if the entire system seized up. i'll bet there are many more surprises hiding too.

they shouldn't have put their heads above the parapet until their game was 100% immaculate. if you want to influence a 20 billion dollar deal expect to have your every move gone over with thousands of microscopes.

this ain't play time any more and this is more than an internet spat for the lulz.

its a shame that BU does not have as much peer review and scrutiny.

I dislike the idea of having one team ( mostly all employed by 1 company ) having so much leverage.

no just stop it with the bullshit please. I really resent the insinuation that all Core are employed by Blockstream (or the banks by some crazy extension) ... some asshole was on reddit saying all Core devs are paid by AXA (the banks) ... I mean what a complete asshole lying thing to be saying in public. If he was saying that to my face he would be out cold on the ground in under a minute, guaranteed.

1 company does not "have so much leverage", that's just wrong and lies.

If BU guys had any confidence in their ideas they would have submitted a patch to core for review, like everyone else and argued their merits in an open court..... they are free to try and propagate their own code but they better be prepared for an even more rigourous test (the real world) ... but they are better off putting it up on the Core repo and getting real feedback and testing first, not in some BS echo chamber full of emotional, butthurt, raving idiots.

i guess i should apologize for the conspiracy theory.

and also apologize for my past speculations that BU was safe to use, i'm sure I've somehow stipulated that somewhere.

**BU is an experimentally beta  with known security hole, use at your own risk**  

[Ted E. Bare]

Good they find this error now and not at a critical time. Isn't the scaling debate being used to FUD the price since traders sold at the bottom? I'm getting sick of this kind of manipulation. The idea behind bitcoin is beautiful but unfortunately some greedy people are willing to hurt our project. They will not get any coin from me.

[r0ach]

Normally, raising interest rates makes a currency stronger.

The only problem with that assumption is that holding fiat cash is still basically the same thing as holding sovereign debt when they can monetize or devalue the debt at any time.  There is no point in holding cash of a nation with a parabolic debt chart because it's obviously not a safety net.  Nobody wants Venezuelan money just because they raise interest rates.

Another thing is that as the USD index increases, most of the world's debt is denominated in USD, so countries who were already insolvent and unable to pay default even faster, causing cascading deflationary collapse to bring down the whole system.  Rising USD index is a systemic risk and there is no scenario in which the USD just magically becomes twice as strong, thus doubling everyone's debts and doubling the amount of goods they have to send to America, without everyone completely boycotting the dollar.  USD index is already up huge since 2014.  The only question is how high can it go before it blows up the system.

Then tell me how things are controlled, because it is always controlled somehow.

The voting mechanism of bitcoin is supposed to be where a Nash equilibrium exists so nobody can collude on any change, so the only changes that can go through are non-zero sum game win/win changes for all.  I would say neither segwit or a block size increase actually fits that description in whole, so if bitcoin was actually functioning as designed, it would likely not morph into either one.  Bitcoin is supposed to be highly resistant to change and both of them have their drawbacks, so how would either go through?  

On the other hand, I don't believe bitcoin has value as a settlement layer because metals act as a far superior store of value and you'd need to get TPS up to something like 5000 where it's not a settlemenet layer to justfiy it's existence.

[huanglui]

A slightly late good morning Bitcoinland.

Still creeping upward I see... currently $1252USD (Bitcoinaverage).

Gotta love the slow steady growth. The last day on which we had a red candle was also a day on which we had an ATH.

Is it safe to say that 3 digits are a thing of the past, barring some unforeseen, serious calamity?

If last week's ETF rejection couldn't take it below $1000 for more than a few seconds, I don't see any minor market movements doing it.

Slow and steady, go Bitcoin go.

I will hold all my BTCs. I will not dump.

[AlexGR]

The voting mechanism of bitcoin is supposed to be where a Nash equilibrium exists so nobody can collude on any change, so the only changes that can go through are non-zero sum game win/win changes for all.

I think the problem lies in the external vs internal game theory aspect.

The internal game theory (incentives and disincentives of players within the ecosystem of bitcoin) are theoretically ok. The problem begins with the external game theory. Meaning that actors outside bitcoin (say banks, governments / agencies) can pay bad miners more than their block reward losses for misbehaving.

So there can be a paradox where the internal game theory of disincentivizing a miner to misbehave might be adequate (the miner will behave ok for fear of not losing funds), but this will not be adequate if parties from outside the ecosystem (banks, governments / agencies) are willing to fund bad actors with multiple times the money that they would earn through honest mining.

And then you have people saying, oh if you find a block, I'll give you 2x/5x/10x this block reward, as long as you run this very "innocent" software for your mining node

The miner would easily go that route, especially if he had little to lose in terms of invested hardware in the long run. In another paradoxical way, mining centralization and heavy mining investments (which act as a disincentive to disrupt bitcoin), have delayed the corruption of short-sighted / bribed PoW mining. If mining was done by ordinary people with ordinary hardware, who wouldn't sign up for a pool that promised +XXX% payout - thus handing out majority voting to corrupt pools?

I think the invested vote (PoW + PoS hybrid), where the stakeholders in Bitcoin act as a last line of defense to corrupt mining, might be a better way to go about it - but this too can be bought out as third parties can afford to lose their stake value because from an external-game theory perspective, if it costs you, say, 10 billion USD to buy a stake in BTC and then burn it to the ground (by choosing to harm BTC with this vote), it's still more profitable than having the multi-trillion fiat or banking systems go bust due to BTC succeeding (assuming scaling is solved technologically - which is a certainty over the long run, as processors, storage, networks become better).

[podyx]

Waiting for you lames to realize that the only way is up

[r0ach]

(assuming scaling is solved technologically - which is a certainty over the long run, as processors, storage, networks become better).

I don't think so if you had to do everything on-chain.  You need to get bitcoin to something like 5000 TPS for it to be used as a currency and valued for it's utility instead of a settlement layer, which it's not very good at because bitcoin is a poor store of value compared to metals.  Going the settlement layer route is a recipe for failure in the long run and that's what all on-chain scaling is.

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

If Peter Todd was malicious and greedy he could have made mega-bank on this by keeping it to himself until they forked and then shorted majorly the BU fork and killed it dead anonymously without telling them what was happening, they wouldn't have had a clue what hit them ... and made a killing too.

He is malicious.  He didnt 'discover' it - he simply saw the hotfix and went for damage. Welcome to Bitcoin.

Anonymity never entered the equation.

[AlexGR]

(assuming scaling is solved technologically - which is a certainty over the long run, as processors, storage, networks become better).

I don't think so if you had to do everything on-chain. You need to get bitcoin to something like 5000 TPS for it to be used as a currency and valued for it's utility instead of a settlement layer, which it's not very good at because bitcoin is a poor store of value compared to metals.  Going the settlement layer route is a recipe for failure in the long run and that's what all on-chain scaling is.

20 years ago (q1 1997), I had a 486/133 (oc @160 roughly around a P90), 16MB RAM, a 4 GB HDD and a 28.8 or 33kbps modem.

In 20 years, processing power/storage/networks have seen gains of 1000x or more.

In 20 years, if we get another 1000x, we'll easily cover 5000TPS and more. I think we'll now see more than 1000x, as AI is introduced in technological research and development - and there is a lot of things that we currently perform in an unoptimized manner.

Going back to 97, if we run Bitcoin back then, it would be considered DOA - a joke that can't even do a tx/sec, and that would demand enormous CPU power, network resources for the home user, filling their HDD fast, etc etc. But now, in 2017, it's "ok" for use.

In 20 years from now it will be able to do way more than visa level txs. On-chain. And that's assuming zero progress in software solutions (which of course won't be the case).

In a way, Bitcoin cannot be judged statically, with the tech of a certain era, as Bitcoin's capabilities can multiply with technological progression. Technological progression is what ensures that Bitcoin will scale. It's not a matter of if, but when. When will people be able to run nodes that handle thousands of tx/sec, from their home connection, with their home pc or other device? Is it 2025, 2030, 2035, 2040? That's the only question...

[Killerpotleaf]

my BU NODE IS BACK UP BITCHES 

[spooderman]

I dislike the idea of having one team ( mostly all employed by 1 company ) having so much leverage.

105 core devs.

5 of whom work for blockstream.

just stop.

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

I dislike the idea of having one team ( mostly all employed by 1 company ) having so much leverage.

105 core devs.

5 of whom work for blockstream.

just stop.

5 developers who account for the vast majority of commits. And dictating road map.

Seriously, just stop.

[r0ach]

my BU NODE IS BACK UP BITCHES 

[Killerpotleaf]

[Paashaas]

[Dafar]

BTCcoin Unavaliable

[chopstick]

Kore is like the Ku Klux Klan

THEIR REIGN OF TERROR IS ENDING

[Killerpotleaf]

Yes.  You seem to be giving considerably greater odds to the possibility of a fork than me.

But, sure, I could see some of the passionate nutjobs attempting to pull such a trigger and even pulling such a trigger way too prematurely.

the chain split is very likely at this point because both sides seem to have = pull but if no one ever "pulls the trigger" we're doomed.

at this point the only real question is how bad is it gonna be 50/50 being worst case 95/5 best case