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

[becoin]

Writing the new financial history. Correcting old trader manuals:

Martin Zweig once said that you should never fight the Fed Bitcoin. That is, never bet against a determined Central Bank Enslaved Crowd. If we’ve learned anything over the last 7 8 years it’s that Zweig’s comment is a lot more right wrong  than wrong right.

[1715658646]

1715658646

[1715658646]

1715658646

[Torque]

Altcoins just keep rising smh

Funny, over the years I've observed a pretty repeatable pattern with alt coins:

1) What always precedes an altcoin's parabolic rise is delusion and hubris

2) What always follows it is:
- a mega crash, usually caused by a hack, serious flaw, unknown bug, insider theft, etc.
- a community left in shock, disbelief
- finally acceptance
- and then an excruciatingly slow decent into eventual quiet irrelevance

 

[gentlemand]

Funny, over the years I've observed a pretty repeatable pattern with alt coins:

1) What always precedes an altcoin's parabolic rise is delusion and hubris

2) What always follows it is:
- a mega crash, usually caused by a hack, serious flaw, unknown bug, insider theft, etc.
- a community left in shock, disbelief
- finally acceptance
- and then an excruciatingly slow decent into eventual quiet irrelevance

 

Hmm. I think it's a constantly changing thing. The first alt bubble in 2013 really was a shit show. I'm not sure there's a single coin from back then that ever recovered.

The current crop are a bit more resilient. It's getting to a point where if you just sit there you'll eventually get your money back. I think that's all down to Poloniex really rather than any 'fundamentals'.

The appetite for bonkers gains from alts is bottomless. Bitcoin needs to progress beyond the level it's at now to differentiate itself enough. The ETF would've done it. I think that's the cause for the alt pump.

[BrewMaster]

Altcoins just keep rising smh

another big drama is circling bitcoin like last year and they are using this to their own advantage. in fact that is how Ether rose to the moon the first big pump! and they (ether and others) are doing it again...

[kurious]

Funny, over the years I've observed a pretty repeatable pattern with alt coins:

1) What always precedes an altcoin's parabolic rise is delusion and hubris

2) What always follows it is:
- a mega crash, usually caused by a hack, serious flaw, unknown bug, insider theft, etc.
- a community left in shock, disbelief
- finally acceptance
- and then an excruciatingly slow decent into eventual quiet irrelevance

 

Hmm. I think it's a constantly changing thing. The first alt bubble in 2013 really was a shit show. I'm not sure there's a single coin from back then that ever recovered.

The current crop are a bit more resilient. It's getting to a point where if you just sit there you'll eventually get your money back. I think that's all down to Poloniex really rather than any 'fundamentals'.

The appetite for bonkers gains from alts is bottomless. Bitcoin needs to progress beyond the level it's at now to differentiate itself enough. The ETF would've done it. I think that's the cause for the alt pump.

Just noticed on Coinmarketcap that BTC dominance has slipped a little to 78.9%.

Since alts are mostly bought with BTC, but BTC has not dropped, it implies more money is coming into the market, but going (perhaps via BTC) directly to alts.

Dash and ETH seem to be doing best out of it, Monero keeping up, but Dash has gone near-parabolic up to nearly $100.

Sooner or later this surely must come tumbling back down - it's doing 30% a day....

There will be tears.

[Kramerc]

My eye-balled target for btc dominance is ~70% before making a strong recovery. Timing is difficult but buying alts during bitcoin's calmness sounds like a good plan.

Once btc starts moving again, I expect alts to go back down.

[Torque]

The appetite for bonkers gains from alts is bottomless. Bitcoin needs to progress beyond the level it's at now to differentiate itself enough. The ETF would've done it. I think that's the cause for the alt pump.

Like I said earlier in this thread, all the shark trader $$$ that were ready to trade a bitcoin "pump" on the ETF news didn't get what they were hoping for.  So they decided to pump that cash on margin into a few of the latest 'new-whiz-bang' altcoins instead, hoping to whip narrow-minded n00bs into a get rich quick frenzy. And the pumpers always have a known 'crash reason' in their back pocket before doing the pumping (e.g. hack, flaw, etc.), so they can mega short on the way down.

But we've seen this all a million times before with other alts (Steem anyone? Nxt anyone? Blackcoin, Darkcoin anyone? Dogecoin anyone?).  I think the overall crypto community is much older and wiser now.  They see the patterns and the cons now.

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

Funny, over the years I've observed a pretty repeatable pattern with alt coins:

1) What always precedes an altcoin's parabolic rise is delusion and hubris

2) What always follows it is:
- a mega crash, usually caused by a hack, serious flaw, unknown bug, insider theft, etc.
- a community left in shock, disbelief
- finally acceptance
- and then an excruciatingly slow decent into eventual quiet irrelevance

 

And how do you see bitcoin being any different, considering the overwhelming instinct of those involved to absolutely screw each other over?

[gentlemand]

But we've seen this all a million times before with other alts (Steem anyone? Nxt anyone? Blackcoin, Darkcoin anyone? Dogecoin anyone?).  I think the overall crypto community is much older and wiser now.  They see the patterns and the cons now.

If alts survive and stick around long enough they'll breed their own holders. There are blatant one time orgasms like Blackcoin but there are ETH and XMR fans who've been into it for years now and probably won't be going anywhere else.

The fiat/BTC derision has a very similar flavour to the BTC/alt derision which is a little unseemly. It's still very much a developing landscape. Lots could happen.

[Holliday]

First of you loudmouths harping about 'crappy BU code' who can actually exploit this so-called weakness is welcome to my stacks.

I have no idea what your jurisdiction is, but aren't you encouraging someone to break the law here? Which... again depending on your jurisdiction, may also be illegal.

My (admittedly drunkenly-expressed) point is... in the grand scope of things, this bug was inconsequential. The only thing at risk was connectivity. Yeah, it was an issue. Now its over. We move on. So what?

I think, in the grand scope of things, the way the bug was handled is the bigger issue (even though the bug itself was terrible). Every step of the way BU handled the situation poorly. The code was apparently barely reviewed in the first place. Publishing the fix on a public technical platform, such as github, does little to warn the actual users, while highlighting the issue for any savvy malevolent attackers! What was BU's plan to inform users, after-the-fact ridicule memes on r/Bitcoin? Then... they have the nerve to blame Core for their own fuck up. This is hardly inconsequential.

It's a shit show, and I'm expected to trust these people with the Bitcoin network?

[Killerpotleaf]

I'm expected to trust these people with the Bitcoin network?

this is the problem... you shouldn't have to trust anyone with the Bitcoin network, the network should be able to choose what it wants, not what one team wants.

you're looking for someone to trust, obviously its easier to TRUST core more than BU devs, this is perfectly rational, they have dozens more devs, and these devs have been at it for twice as long as BU devs.

but we shouldn't trust any of these people( BU or Core), we should trust in the network to be able to pick and choose between BIP these teams produce, and NOT trust a team to choose whats best for the network.

we need dev teams with competing interest to produce different proposals, the more we have to choose from the better!

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

Funny, over the years I've observed a pretty repeatable pattern with alt coins:

1) What always precedes an altcoin's parabolic rise is delusion and hubris

2) What always follows it is:
- a mega crash, usually caused by a hack, serious flaw, unknown bug, insider theft, etc.
- a community left in shock, disbelief
- finally acceptance
- and then an excruciatingly slow decent into eventual quiet irrelevance

 

And how do you see bitcoin being any different, considering the overwhelming instinct of those involved to absolutely screw each other over?

Because the shark scammers that PnD'ed Bitcoin in the beginning years have run out of hacks, flaws, DDoS attacks, media-created FUD, etc. to work with. Bitcoin is more rock-solid, distributed, and secure now than it has ever been in its 8 year history. The only thing they have left is to try and divide the community and slow things down.

But that's losing it's effectiveness now too.

Ask James Hilliard. If you think bitcoin doesnt contain zero day vulnerabilities, think again.
And thats not even getting into the general network fuckery that any sizeable player (like James in conjunction with random hackers) can bring into play.
It only workes when the invested are making money. screw everyone else.   

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

I think, in the grand scope of things, the way the bug was handled is the bigger issue (even though the bug itself was terrible). Every step of the way BU handled the situation poorly. The code was apparently barely reviewed in the first place.

I think you need to readjust your shit code parameters there, buddy.  If you think for one second that crappy "assert-as-input-checking" is unique to BU or Classic then you are deluding yourself. This sloppy coding style in endemic in the bitcoin codebase (wbat is now called "Core"), and any attempt to characterize it as a BU thing is dishonest.

Have a read of this for some examples

It's a shit show, and I'm expected to trust these people with the Bitcoin network?

Welcome to Bitcoin! Thank$ for your fiat.

[blandana]

I'm expected to trust these people with the Bitcoin network?

this is the problem... you shouldn't have to trust anyone with the Bitcoin network, the network should be able to choose what it wants, not what one team wants.

you're looking for someone to trust, obviously its easier to TRUST core more than BU devs, this is perfectly rational, they have dozens more devs, and these devs have been at it for twice as long as BU devs.

but we shouldn't trust any of these people( BU or Core), we should trust in the network to be able to pick and choose between BIP these teams produce, and NOT trust a team to choose whats best for the network.

we need dev teams with competing interest to produce different proposals, the more we have to choose from the better!

I agree, however much people may not like the possibility of BU catching on it is still possible.  With Bitcoin being the first cryptocurrency (at least the first publicly released one as far as I know) it is certainly possible to improve it just like the tire went from a stone wheel to a rubber coating.  This being said however I do believe BU will have their work cut out for them getting enough people to trust them after their recent news.

[r0ach]

I always envy the German ingenuity

Let us not forget about Japanese ingenuity as well:

[savetherainforest]

FOMO buying happening. wow. thought bitcoin would just settle but testing $1300 again. wow. this thing just needs some good news and will go ATH again

How about raising the debt ceiling of the US to about 40 trillion?? How does that sound as "some good news" ?? (don't take it to heart... its just a guesstimate!)

[r0ach]

Because the shark scammers that PnD'ed Bitcoin in the beginning years have run out of hacks, flaws, DDoS attacks, media-created FUD, etc. to work with. Bitcoin is more rock-solid, distributed, and secure now than it has ever been in its 8 year history. The only thing they have left is to try and divide the community and slow things down.

I consider everything about the bitcoin price a scam until we have an exchange leading the market that is NOT Bitfinex.  There is zero difference in Finex and Gox.  The price could be $20,000 or $2 at any second with this fraud exchange.

[Holliday]

I'm expected to trust these people with the Bitcoin network?

this is the problem... you shouldn't have to trust anyone with the Bitcoin network, the network should be able to choose what it wants, not what one team wants.

you're looking for someone to trust, obviously its easier to TRUST core more than BU devs, this is perfectly rational, they have dozens more devs, and these devs have been at it for twice as long as BU devs.

but we shouldn't trust any of these people( BU or Core), we should trust in the network to be able to pick and choose between BIP these teams produce, and NOT trust a team to choose whats best for the network.

we need dev teams with competing interest to produce different proposals, the more we have to choose from the better!

Way to ignore the meat of my post and focus on my flippant comment at the end.

When I say "trust these people with the Bitcoin network", I'm referring to their ability to employ responsible techniques when dealing with their own code base and when dealing with those who choose to run their software. I'm talking about all the BUtcoiners, who are so worried about paying some tiny ass fee because they want to use the best tool for censorship-proof value transfer in the world to purchase a fucking cup of coffee, pushing this shit down our throats and having the entire fucking network run according to it's fucked up rules.

You run BU and you apparently don't give a shit about how this entire event surrounding this bug went down. I'd be pissed. I was certainly pissed when rnike heam's migration to leveldb caused a fork.

[Holliday]

I think, in the grand scope of things, the way the bug was handled is the bigger issue (even though the bug itself was terrible). Every step of the way BU handled the situation poorly. The code was apparently barely reviewed in the first place. Publishing the fix on a public technical platform, such as github, does little to warn the actual users, while highlighting the issue for any savvy malevolent attackers! What was BU's plan to inform users, after-the-fact ridicule memes on r/Bitcoin? Then... they have the nerve to blame Core for their own fuck up. This is hardly inconsequential.
 

I think you need to readjust your shit code parameters there, buddy.  If you think for one second that crappy "assert-as-input-checking" is unique to BU or Classic then you are deluding yourself. This sloppy coding style in endemic in the bitcoin codebase (wbat is now called "Core"), and any attempt to characterize it as a BU thing is dishonest.

Have a read of this for some examples

Maybe you have reading comprehension issues, but I just said I'm less worried about the shit code than the way the entire thing was handled. Oh, no, you intentionally ignored that part and focused on something else entirely.

It's a shit show, and I'm expected to trust these people with the Bitcoin network?

Welcome to Bitcoin! Thank$ for your fiat.

Bwhahahahahahahahahaha.

[r0ach]

because they want to use the best tool for censorship-proof value transfer in the world

If it was censorship proof you could just steal a bunch of bitcoins then simply dump them on Coinbase...but you can't.  Anything that's not fungible is a permissioned ledger by default.