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

[bones261]

Women vote more uniformly than men, which means the moment women got the vote, women controlled politics. And women always vote for more security at the expense of freedom. Which, as every american knows, means you will get neither.

This explains why there's no women into bitcoin. Bitcoin is all freedom and very risky.

Women's nature is passive. There's no way to change it, despite what hysterical feminists want.

Passive or passive-aggressive? There is a difference... Oh well, what the hell do I know about women? 

[1714544189]

1714544189

[1714544189]

1714544189

[Ibian]

We are currently declining, and millions if not billions of people will soon die. Places like Venezuela are just the start.

Is this your opening line of conversation at the dinner table?

Anyway, seems like we're having another crack at 6,000. There was a little more resistance than I was expecting. Perhaps traders are wary as the combined crypto cap is forming a double top.

I eat alone.

[Ibian]

I...well, I guess if you want to call it triggered you can.

You will take away my sister's, my mother's, my lover's, my daughter's franchise when you overrun our trenches.  I would say best of luck, but in this I really don't wish you any.

Cheers mate

?

[Ibian]

Women vote more uniformly than men, which means the moment women got the vote, women controlled politics. And women always vote for more security at the expense of freedom. Which, as every american knows, means you will get neither.

This explains why there's no women into bitcoin. Bitcoin is all freedom and very risky.

Women's nature is passive. There's no way to change it, despite what hysterical feminists want.

Passive or passive-aggressive? There is a difference... Oh well, what the hell do I know about women? 

Both.

[LewisPirenne]

Since we are discussing politics, we might as well discussing Bitcoin politics.  As people may know already, BCH is set to hard fork on Nov. 13, 2017 to change their EDA/DAA.  
https://bitsonline.com/bitcoin-cash-hard-fork/
Now while people may laugh it off as just another joke from an ALT.  I believe the date is chosen to deliberately cause max disruption.  

As we know, the S2X fork is set to happen around Nov 14, 2017 and that the next BTC difficulty adjustment will likely increase difficulty by at least 10%.  So with another difficulty adjustment around Nov 10, we would likely see difficulty rise to at least 15~20% higher than the current level.

As we discussed before, S2X coin is now trading far below the S1X/Core at the current rate (6:1).  So the NYA miners are looking at 80%~90% mining loss right off gate if they choose to follow the S2X chain.  There is no EDA either, so as more miners bail, the remaining miners would face an impossible task in getting to 100 blocks to collect their pay at the current projected difficulty.  We also know that at least 30% of current hashrate is "mercenary" in that they are profit seeking and will jump to the currently most profitable chain, based on BCH experience.  

So by changing the BCH algorithm on Nov 13, it seeks to draw in the most opportunistic miners right before the S2X fork, so that remaining miners would have a better chance of enforcing a NYA outcome and make S2X succeed.  We already know that F2Pool pulled out of NYA and that ViaBTC would offer its miners the option to mine either S1X or S2X chain.  By making BCH profitable to mine on Nov. 13, miners who would have bailed on NYA on Nov 14 because S2X price is so unprofitable, would be unavailable on S1X/Core chain.

By trying to draw as much of profit-seeking hashrate to BCH instead of having them jump over to S1X chain right from the start, I presume the purpose is to try to crash the S1X price, or at least try to narrow the huge price difference between S1X and S2X so that people like Roger Ver, who make the 1000 BTC swap bet, can at least cover their ass and not look as bad.  It could also make the forking debacle more drawn out than expected, as its ultimately a power struggle between miners and hodlers.  Miners have to pay for electricity and depreciation, while it's free for hodler to hodl and not making any tx.  So narrowing the price difference between S1X and S2X would make miners' struggle easier.  

[ragnar0k]

Not that I care, but since we are OT I might just troll a bit.
I like how people use fascism as an alternative to nazism (I guess it is more of a mouthfull), though most are probably unable to tell the difference between the two.
That is not to say it wasn't an oppressive regime, but well, was definitely not what most people think. I don't see fascism (and I mean fascism per se, not what nazism wanted fascism to do) as particularly evil when compared to certain communist regimes (Castro or Stalin).

[d_eddie]

Since we are discussing politics, we might as well discussing Bitcoin politics.  As people may know already, BCH is set to hard fork on Nov. 13, 2017 to change their EDA/DAA.  
https://bitsonline.com/bitcoin-cash-hard-fork/
Now while people may laugh it off as just another joke from an ALT.  I believe the date is chosen to deliberately cause max disruption.
As we know, the S2X fork is set to happen around Nov 14, 2017 and that the next BTC difficulty adjustment will likely increase difficulty by at least 10%.  So with another difficulty adjustment around Nov 10, we would likely see difficulty rise to at least 15~20% higher than the current level.

As we discussed before, S2X coin is now trading far below the S1X/Core at the current rate (6:1).  So the NYA miners are looking at 80%~90% mining loss right off gate if they choose to follow the S2X chain.  There is no EDA either, so as more miners bail, the remaining miners would face an impossible task in getting to 100 blocks to collect their pay at the current projected difficulty.  We also know that at least 30% of current hashrate is "mercenary" in that they are profit seeking and will jump to the currently most profitable chain, based on BCH experience.  

So by changing the BCH algorithm on Nov 13, it seeks to draw in the most opportunistic miners right before the S2X fork, so that remaining miners would have a better chance of enforcing a NYA outcome and make S2X succeed.  We already know that F2Pool pulled out of NYA and that ViaBTC would offer its miners the option to mine either S1X or S2X chain.  By making BCH profitable to mine on Nov. 13, miners who would have bailed on NYA on Nov 14 because S2X price is so unprofitable, would be unavailable on S1X/Core chain.

By trying to draw as much of profit-seeking hashrate to BCH instead of having them jump over to S1X chain right from the start, I presume the purpose is to try to crash the S1X price, or at least try to narrow the huge price difference between S1X and S2X so that people like Roger Ver, who make the 1000 BTC swap bet, can at least cover their ass and not look as bad.  It could also make the forking debacle more drawn out than expected, as its ultimately a power struggle between miners and hodlers.  Miners have to pay for electricity and depreciation, while it's free for hodler to hodl and not making any tx.  So narrowing the price difference between S1X and S2X would make miners' struggle easier.  

Your post makes lots of sense. But maybe there's an alternative explanation?
Couldn't it be just an attempt to revive the vanishing BCH price, rather than to reduce the S1X/S2X price gap?
I mean, a way to repay back the "faithful" miners who mined BCH at a loss for a long time.
In any case, I'm waiting at the window with the bucket of my residual BCH ready to dump.

[yemiforu]

truely information is power indeed

[LewisPirenne]

Your post makes lots of sense. But maybe there's an alternative explanation?
Couldn't it be just an attempt to revive the vanishing BCH price, rather than to reduce the S1X/S2X price gap?
I mean, a way to repay back the "faithful" miners who mined BCH at a loss for a long time.
In any case, I'm waiting at the window with the bucket of my residual BCH ready to dump.

The point is that while the act itself may be self-interested, the date chosen is deliberate, since they can do the algo change at any time and ease the suffering of "mysterious miner" even today.  But they had to chose a date right before S2X fork and hence it is a scheme to help the S2X succeed.  Whether the scheme will succeed or not, who knows, but these kind of attacks are good in that it tests whether bitcoin can resist centralization.  It is better for the attack to come from within rather than from the governments.  

[Elwar]

[d_eddie]

Your post makes lots of sense. But maybe there's an alternative explanation?
Couldn't it be just an attempt to revive the vanishing BCH price, rather than to reduce the S1X/S2X price gap?
I mean, a way to repay back the "faithful" miners who mined BCH at a loss for a long time.
In any case, I'm waiting at the window with the bucket of my residual BCH ready to dump.

The point is that while the act itself may be self-interested, the date chosen is deliberate, since they can do the algo change at any time and ease the suffering of "mysterious miner" even today.  But they had to chose a date right before S2X fork and hence it is a scheme to help the S2X succeed.  Whether the scheme will succeed or not, who knows, but these kind of attacks are good in that it tests whether bitcoin can resist centralization.  It is better for the attack to come from within rather than from the governments.  

Of course the date is deliberate, but what I meant is that the chosen date is likely to maximize the impact of the action, whether it is support to the S2X attack or a simple attempt at pumping BCH. The date choice alone does not necessarily point to an attack (other considerations could indeed reinforce the hypothesis of a coordinated attack).

[Torque]

It is better for the attack to come from within rather than from the governments.  

And how would you know that these patsies and muppets aren't being coerced or paid by govt or big corp aligned interests? The logic behind what they are constantly trying to do only makes sense in light of such. Absent of that, it really makes zero sense.

[LewisPirenne]

It is better for the attack to come from within rather than from the governments.  

And how would you know that these patsies and muppets aren't being coerced or paid by govt or big corp aligned interests? The logic behind what they are constantly trying to do only makes sense in light of such. Absent of that, it really makes zero sense.

Of course, we could already be facing some sort of "Divide-and-Conquer" tactics with various "Two-Minute Hate" figures planted on both side.  But given the relative incompetence from figures such as Roger Ver over the past year, I would presume that a real government attack would be much more devastating, e.g. ban and then nationalize Chinese miners, then simply 51% attack and force a PoW change/hardfork. 

[d_eddie]

It is better for the attack to come from within rather than from the governments.  

And how would you know that these patsies and muppets aren't being coerced or paid by govt or big corp aligned interests? The logic behind what they are constantly trying to do only makes sense in light of such. Absent of that, it really makes zero sense.

Yes, there probably is a certain government sponsoring the whole operation, but the point remains that this is a technical stress test performed with technical means - not a full-fledged open government campaign with electric power monitoring, localbitcoins infiltration and similar non-crypto means.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

The corporations in the space are legally mandated and by design incentivized to maximize shareholder profit. Bitcoin's longterm viability _as Bitcoin_ doesn't necessarily factor in for them.

[bones261]

Unfortunately, the vast majority of people do not have the resources to set up their own seastead. If they want to participate, they would just have to ride along under the rule of some privileged fat cat. I suppose some of us losers could get together, and form a collective. However, in the end, I'm sure the individuals with the most Machiavellian traits will lord over the rest. In the end, the privileged few will enjoy all of the benefits and the rest of us will continue to be mere chattel subject to our master's mercy, or lack thereof.

Perhaps my views have been swayed a little too much by the books, "Animal Farm" and "Lord of the Flies." However, these two works of fiction seem to have more underlying truth to them then most of the fiction we get fed on a daily basis with the MSM.

[Torque]

Of course, we could already be facing some sort of "Divide-and-Conquer" tactics with various "Two-Minute Hate" figures planted on both side.  But given the relative incompetence from figures such as Roger Ver over the past year, I would presume that a real government attack would be much more devastating, e.g. ban and then nationalize Chinese miners, then simply 51% attack and force a PoW change/hardfork.

They might one day. But even if they went all hardcore and deployed that nuclear option, they are still missing one thing. Bitcoin is completely 100% voluntary. All that existing Bitcoin would be dumped for fiat or traded for another coin in the blink of an eye. It would render their existing mining operations completely bankrupt within 24 hrs.

Sure, what is left behind wouldn't be Bitcoin^TM anymore, in name only, but I think existing Bitcoin end users understand the difference between a cryptocurrency that is 100% centrally controlled and planned like a PayPal 2.0, and one that isn't. They would migrate to the decentralized one. The name brand is not as important as some people think, it's the core attributes and principles behind it that matter.

[marcus_of_augustus]

Women vote more uniformly than men, which means the moment women got the vote, women controlled politics. And women always vote for more security at the expense of freedom. Which, as every american knows, means you will get neither.

They have a saying in Danish the rough translation is something like this ... " ... power was first with the priests and then they let women into clergy, then the power was in the teachers, then they let women into teaching, then power was in politics and then they let women have the vote, now the power is in finance ... "

I guess the new version ends "... then they let women into banking, then the power was in Bitcoin ... "

[LewisPirenne]

They might one day. But even if they went all hardcore and deployed that nuclear option, they are still missing one thing. Bitcoin is completely 100% voluntary. All that existing Bitcoin would be dumped for fiat or traded for another coin in the blink of an eye. It would render their existing mining operations completely bankrupt within 24 hrs.

Sure, what is left behind wouldn't be Bitcoin^TM anymore, in name only, but I think existing Bitcoin end users understand the difference between a cryptocurrency that is 100% centrally controlled and planned like a PayPal 2.0, and one that isn't. They would migrate to the decentralized one. The name brand is not as important as some people think, it's the core attributes and principles behind it that matter.

I think many people would agree that the reason why BTC even has $100 billion marketcap is precisely because of its ability to resist centralization/censorship.  We also know that a centralized govt blockchain would just be a tool for control/tracking/taxation/central-bank-wealth-reappropriation and leads to a dystopian future.  Hence so long as BTC remains decentralized, it would have serious value for people who want to unplug from the Matrix.

[savetherainforest]

Since we are discussing politics, we might as well discussing Bitcoin politics.  As people may know already, BCH is set to hard fork on Nov. 13, 2017 to change their EDA/DAA.  
https://bitsonline.com/bitcoin-cash-hard-fork/
Now while people may laugh it off as just another joke from an ALT.  I believe the date is chosen to deliberately cause max disruption.  

As we know, the S2X fork is set to happen around Nov 14, 2017 and that the next BTC difficulty adjustment will likely increase difficulty by at least 10%.  So with another difficulty adjustment around Nov 10, we would likely see difficulty rise to at least 15~20% higher than the current level.

As we discussed before, S2X coin is now trading far below the S1X/Core at the current rate (6:1).  So the NYA miners are looking at 80%~90% mining loss right off gate if they choose to follow the S2X chain.  There is no EDA either, so as more miners bail, the remaining miners would face an impossible task in getting to 100 blocks to collect their pay at the current projected difficulty.  We also know that at least 30% of current hashrate is "mercenary" in that they are profit seeking and will jump to the currently most profitable chain, based on BCH experience.  

So by changing the BCH algorithm on Nov 13, it seeks to draw in the most opportunistic miners right before the S2X fork, so that remaining miners would have a better chance of enforcing a NYA outcome and make S2X succeed.  We already know that F2Pool pulled out of NYA and that ViaBTC would offer its miners the option to mine either S1X or S2X chain.  By making BCH profitable to mine on Nov. 13, miners who would have bailed on NYA on Nov 14 because S2X price is so unprofitable, would be unavailable on S1X/Core chain.

By trying to draw as much of profit-seeking hashrate to BCH instead of having them jump over to S1X chain right from the start, I presume the purpose is to try to crash the S1X price, or at least try to narrow the huge price difference between S1X and S2X so that people like Roger Ver, who make the 1000 BTC swap bet, can at least cover their ass and not look as bad.  It could also make the forking debacle more drawn out than expected, as its ultimately a power struggle between miners and hodlers.  Miners have to pay for electricity and depreciation, while it's free for hodler to hodl and not making any tx.  So narrowing the price difference between S1X and S2X would make miners' struggle easier.  

Dude... u'r like a version of Anti-JJG. I kept reading and when I reached like 80% of your post, I was like: "Wtf?? How did I read so much?!?" ... Anyway, good job! Well Played!



*Edit(0):  Btw... to be on topic.. What I got out of your post is that Ver will try to bet against the tide with some solid info and manipulation. And a lot of people, entities, exchanges will go broke/bust. My conclusion is that people need to get their stuff out of the exchanges and not do any bets so everyone could be fine and safe. (My own opinion and advice.) .. Cold storage all the way!!  ... While other stupid people gamble away with their money on some manipulation move.