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

[Ibian]

Why is btrash doing so well ?

Probably because of the upcoming fork.
...

Proponents are looking forward to a 32 MB block size increase and op-code additions that could bring ethereum-like characteristics to the BCH network.

Jesus Titty-Fucking Christ.

The cancer that is BCash cannot die soon enough, along with Roger Ver.

Bigger blocks is a good thing. The problem is that they are being deceptive cunts. If we had chosen big blocks and they had chosen segwit, we would still think the same thing about them, and for the same reason. And be applauding ourselves for making the correct choice.

It's the people, not the tech.

[Derpinheimer2]

Why is btrash doing so well ?

Probably because of the upcoming fork.
...

Proponents are looking forward to a 32 MB block size increase and op-code additions that could bring ethereum-like characteristics to the BCH network.

Jesus Titty-Fucking Christ.

The cancer that is BCash cannot die soon enough, along with Roger Ver.

Bigger blocks is a good thing. The problem is that they are being deceptive cunts. If we had chosen big blocks and they had chosen segwit, we would still think the same thing about them, and for the same reason. And be applauding ourselves for making the correct choice.

It's the people, not the tech.

Bigger blocks are a bandaid. I was all for 2x when we needed the capacity. It is not a scaling solution. Its for people who spend 10 minutes researching crypto and think they're geniuses.

[Ibian]

Why is btrash doing so well ?

Probably because of the upcoming fork.
...

Proponents are looking forward to a 32 MB block size increase and op-code additions that could bring ethereum-like characteristics to the BCH network.

Jesus Titty-Fucking Christ.

The cancer that is BCash cannot die soon enough, along with Roger Ver.

Bigger blocks is a good thing. The problem is that they are being deceptive cunts. If we had chosen big blocks and they had chosen segwit, we would still think the same thing about them, and for the same reason. And be applauding ourselves for making the correct choice.

It's the people, not the tech.

Bigger blocks are a bandaid. I was all for 2x when we needed the capacity. It is not a scaling solution. Its for people who spend 10 minutes researching crypto and think they're geniuses.

It's necessary. Just a matter of when.

[Ibian]

It's necessary. Just a matter of when.

I'm not saying BTC doesn't need to eventually move over to larger blocks, but I support their slower, safer, forward-thinking, incremental approach to things.

BCH is just fucking retards running around in a China Shop, breaking and buying everything in sight, because they have more money than brains.

It's shameful, amateurish behavior, and it's fucking with BTC-proper.

I'm not convinced that segwit was the better choice. In general, doing something in a simple way is better than doing it in a complicated way. But it is what we have now.

[RewFrew]

Those little dumps below 10K are very healthy for the next bitcoin ups.

Support this time: 9200$

We are not going below 9200$.

[bitserve]

You... you quoted yourself in agreement.

Also, I fail to see why someone would buy loads of ETH to short it. I can't see a way for that to be profitable. You can't short your own position and make money.

Yeah, it makes total sense I do agree with myself, doesn't it?

Now seriously, I quoted it because I posted it several days ago before ETC started to pump and that's the reason I guess some people also thought the same. Or maybe it's just a random pump... who knows.

About the shorting ETH thing... well, that's how pump and dumps work.... some people pump it from point A, then more people FOMO in and keep raising the price to point B or C. Now the initial pumpers dump (or short) on the later.. profit! At least theoretically.

[Rosewater Foundation]

Who's dumping all the rat poison squared? Is there a flippening drama unfolding?
I hate flippening drama

[Torque]

Segwit is working. LN is working. Transaction confirmation times are low, and fees are the lowest they've been in a long time. On LN they are non-existent. And the whole solution is supporting decentralization in the best way possible.

And yet people STILL want to bitch and find something wrong with the solution. And still bring up the block size shit like it even matters right now.

I'm so tired of the bullshit and I will call out anyone who brings that tired argument up again.

Sorry BCash shilling fucktards, but your goose is cooked. You lost. It's over. In fact, BCash never stood a chance. It was DOA.

[Rosewater Foundation]

PS. I only merited fake r0ach when he outed himself to fake Tera

Ever seen a roach get squeezed?

It was the whiteness of r0ach the silver whale and the color of his bullion above all things that appalled me.

[jbreher]

It's necessary. Just a matter of when.

I'm not saying BTC doesn't need to eventually move over to larger blocks, but I support their slower, safer, forward-thinking, incremental approach to things.

I'll grant that Core's approach to scaling is slower than Cash's, but it certainly ain't safer.

[jbreher]

I'm not convinced that segwit was the better choice.

I'm pert-near certain it wasn't.

In general, doing something in a simple way is better than doing it in a complicated way.

Abso-frickin-lutely.

But it is what we have now.

PorqueNoLosDos.png

[Ibian]

Segwit is working. LN is working. Transaction confirmation times are low, and fees are the lowest they've been in a long time. On LN they are non-existent. And the whole solution is supporting decentralization in the best way possible.

And yet people STILL want to bitch and find something wrong with the solution. And still bring up the block size shit like it even matters right now.

I'm so tired of the bullshit and I will call out anyone who brings that tired argument up again.

Sorry BCash shilling fucktards, but your goose is cooked. You lost. It's over. In fact, BCash never stood a chance. It was DOA.

You are being a tribalist again. That's not necessary if we actually did make the right choice.

[edgar]

If anyone ever wants to know why I sound cynical then this is why. God it's going to be so fun to quote all those arrogant posts if new lows come.

fun to revel in the misery of others???

sounds kinda sociopathic, 'bro'

L'Chaim, eh...?

[jbreher]

Sorry BCash shilling fucktards, but your goose is cooked. You lost. It's over. In fact, BCash never stood a chance. It was DOA.

OTOH, BCH/BTC is quite positive -- ~20% -- on the week.

Cheers!

[realr0ach]

If anyone ever wants to know why I sound cynical then this is why. God it's going to be so fun to quote all those arrogant posts if new lows come.

fun to revel in the misery of others???

sounds kinda sociopathic, 'bro'

L'Chaim, eh...?

Not if you look at it from the perspective of shitcoin shills trying to force a centralized, non-fungible, permissioned ledger, cashless society slave system onto humanity when physical silver and gold are already a superior system in the first place.  But TERA IS A NOOB and doesn't understand things like this.

[Rosewater Foundation]

Sorry BCash shilling fucktards, but your goose is cooked. You lost. It's over. In fact, BCash never stood a chance. It was DOA.

OTOH, BCH/BTC is quite positive -- ~20% -- on the week.

Cheers!

Cheap knock-off flippening drama. No wonder you're making your presence known.
Humbug.

[Anon136]

Why is btrash doing so well ?

Probably because of the upcoming fork.
...

Proponents are looking forward to a 32 MB block size increase and op-code additions that could bring ethereum-like characteristics to the BCH network.

Jesus Titty-Fucking Christ.

The cancer that is BCash cannot die soon enough, along with Roger Ver.

Bigger blocks is a good thing. The problem is that they are being deceptive cunts. If we had chosen big blocks and they had chosen segwit, we would still think the same thing about them, and for the same reason. And be applauding ourselves for making the correct choice.

It's the people, not the tech.

Bigger blocks are a bandaid. I was all for 2x when we needed the capacity. It is not a scaling solution. Its for people who spend 10 minutes researching crypto and think they're geniuses.

It's necessary. Just a matter of when.

Here is my 2 satoshi for what it's worth:

Block size, if handled correctly, will end up having nothing to do with scaling and everything to do with regulating compensation for miners. If miners are not being given enough incentive to provide sufficient security to the blockchain than blocks are too big, if the opposite is the case than blocks are too small. Scaling will have to come from second layer solutions. Some transactions will always need to be on chain, the value that people place on putting transactions on chain needs to be enough to compensate the miners, and in the absence of the ability to regulate demand, the only alternative is to regulate the supply of on chain space inorder to increase its price to the level necessary to accomplish this.

[Elwar]

Sorry BCash shilling fucktards, but your goose is cooked. You lost. It's over. In fact, BCash never stood a chance. It was DOA.

OTOH, BCH/BTC is quite positive -- ~20% -- on the week.

Cheers!

I actually started to pull out my private keys to start dumping BCH but realized I'm traveling and I don't have the full set of keys available. Oh well, will wait for the next pump.

[Rosewater Foundation]

[jbreher]

Sorry BCash shilling fucktards, but your goose is cooked. You lost. It's over. In fact, BCash never stood a chance. It was DOA.

OTOH, BCH/BTC is quite positive -- ~20% -- on the week.

Cheers!

Cheap knock-off flippening drama. No wonder you're making your presence known.
Humbug.

No. Once again, I did not insert BCH into discourse. I was merely replying to Torque's objectively flawed assertion.