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

[bitChipper]

Are we going back to the $7000 levels this week?

The word possibly comes to mind. But I wouldn't bet on it.

Early this morning, while waking and hitting the snooze button I kept having this dream that I would look at my phone and see bitcoin at $4100...in my dream I kept thinking "no way"...

could it be an omen? am i a prophet?

criticism and jokes of my superstition are welcome, so are donations, thanks  

The only omen here is the omen that you are going to die young if you don't figure out a way to get your mind on other things. You, my friend, need a vacation.

Normally I do not fret about the price of btc, this was the first ever btc related dream i had, normally my early morning dreams are lucid or a bit....wet if ya know whata mean??

[1680004924]

1680004924

[1680004924]

1680004924

[1680004924]

1680004924

[Hueristic]

You are likely correct that there is a sliding scale when it comes to fungibility, and I think that most free market types are going to perceive the most value in bitcoin being associated with greater levels of fungibility... so yeah, you are right that lesser fungibility may maintain some value, but the amount of decrease in value may be a lot greater than what you seem to be projecting it to be.  For example if confidence is lost because coins get blacklisted, then surely that seems problematic to me if it is allowed to occur.  So if any 3rd party such as coinbase or fed government tries to label coins, then there would likely be some effort by the bitcoin community to either not use their services or to move coins to other location and clean them of their blacklisting.

I think there is an argument to be made that zero fungibility may cause an increase in value as governments would accept and regulate such a state. I can see a scenario where your address will be issued and monitored. If this becomes a future scenario then TPTB would actually cause an increase in the value as institutional investment would increase exponentially. and Ironically BTC would become the exact opposite of what it was intended yet as a side effect continue to make early adopters rich.

there it is...perfect timing

I almost gave you a congrats merit for this.

Also glad there was a screenshot as I didn't know you had laughing man avatar that alone is merit worthly.

[fluidjax]

In fact, talking about bitcoin fungibility and taint and worrying about segwit is silly.  Bitcoin is already not very fungible. The fact the ledger is public, transparant and you can view the history of each satoshi brings fungibility down quite a bit.  Businesses have blacklisted coins or customers based onthe history of coin transactions.

This. Blacklisting stuff I might buy then find I cant spent unless I trick the next person.

Interchangeability is fungibilty, serial numbers don't stop 10$ notes being interchangeable. But if a set of serial numbers were invalidated somehow then it could be an argument.

https://www.slaughterandmay.com/media/787381/the_uk_anti-money_laundering_regime_stautory_offences_and_the_role_of_the_fsa.pdf

The British Bankers’ Association Money Laundering Advisory Panel (the “BBA Panel”) raised with the Home Office their view that the requirements of the consent regime in this context cannot easily be reconciled with POCA’s wide definition of criminal property and the principle of fungibility. The BBA Panel explained their view that money in a bank account is fungible
and that as a matter of property law a bank account is a single “indistinguishable mixed fund”. Consequently, once a payment has been made into a mixed bank account, that payment cannot be distinguished from the other funds in the account and, accordingly, if the payment was a suspicious transaction the payment funds could have effectively tainted the rest of the account and, possibly, any other account held by the same individual. This would result in all subsequent transactions on the suspect accounts becoming acts of money laundering under POCA.

Looking at how the lawyers treat bank accounts with tainted money, we may have a fight ahead of us,  they may treat any BTC balances tainted with 'bad' bitcoins, as all bad.

[xhomerx10]

Miners don't need anything like $6000/BTC to remain profitable.

I'd put it closer to $2000, even lower if you take the money laundering angle into account.

 Let's try to figure this out.

 I'll assume that most of the network is made up of miners similar to the Antminer S9 running @ ~0.1 J/GH;

 Presently, it requires 45,724 kWh to produce a single Bitcoin.  One of the cheapest places in the world for electricity is Quebec, Canada and the best possible rate - class LG customers (large load and not primarily related to an industrial activity) - shows a base rate of $0.0343 per kWh plus $13.14 per kW (which works out to an additional $0.01825 /kWh based on a steady 24/7 consumption) for a total of

   $0.05255 per kWh before taxes

+ $0.0068315 per kWh tax (13% harmonized tax**)
-----------------
   $0.0593815 per kWh

 
 Multiply that by the 45,724 kWh required per Bitcoin

 CAD $2715.1597 which means the electricity costs alone for one Bitcoin are

  US $2045.18

 It should be noted that you need 1,361 Antminer S9s to do this today but the network difficulty has increased by an average of 7.8% per diff reset period over the previous 12 months so the cost will increase significantly as the network grows.  In fact, in about 10 hours, it's going to cost ~US$2110.00 to mine one Bitcoin in Montreal, Quebec at the best possible rate.


**actual tax rate may be slightly higher as this number is based on HST in Ontario where the provincial tax portion of the HST is slightly lower than the provincial tax portion in Quebec.

[jojo69]

made my first 3 ladder transactions in 5 days overnight

[Speculatoross]

Don't sell your Bitcoin
http://robbiecoach.com/dont-sell-your-bitcoins/


Funny thing, this guy's logo looks to be like "Roach" lol

[Ibian]

Yogi is right this time you guys. When you are prompted to make a choice between two things, then that is two things. In this case a legacy wallet or a segwit wallet.

Segwit was a mistake. Just the fact that it is opt-in instead of being standard for the entire network is a problem.

For the record, my wallets are and will remain legacy types. I just don't trust it.

[fluidjax]

Yogi is right this time you guys. When you are prompted to make a choice between two things, then that is two things. In this case a legacy wallet or a segwit wallet.

Segwit was a mistake. Just the fact that it is opt-in instead of being standard for the entire network is a problem.

For the record, my wallets are and will remain legacy types. I just don't trust it.

You are scared of a 51% attack?

[mindrust]

That's retarded hundreds of segwit blocks got mined already. Any coin you'll buy from an exchange will probably have a segwit history.

If any pool/organisation was retarded enough to revert all these transactions after the soft fork, it may trigger the next world war. Guns would talk. Don't buy the FUD from retarded bcash shills. It won't be happening.

[infofront]

BUY BUY BUY !!!

https://www.ledauphine.com/france-monde/2018/06/19/soupcons-d-escroquerie-les-freres-bogdanoff-en-garde-a-vue

Suspicions of fraud: the Bogdanoff brothers in police custody

According to BFM TV, the brothers Igor and Grichka Bogdanoff were placed in custody on Tuesday in Paris, in a police station in the 16th arrondissement.

The TV presenters were arrested "on rogatory commission of an investigating judge seized of an open judicial investigation of the head of fraud on vulnerable person and attempt of fraud", according to the investigators.

This is not the first time that the famous twins are in trouble with the law. Last November, Igor Bogdanoff was placed under judicial control. This followed the complaint of his ex-partner, Julie Jardon, who accused him of having entered his home.

Shit. ((They)) are trying to sabotage CRAB-17.

[shahzadafzal]

In 1998, Nick Szabo designed a mechanism for a decentralized digital currency he called "bit gold"

In 2008, Satoshi Nakamoto designed a decentralized digital currency he called "bitcoin".


https://i.imgur.com/KvZhOGol.jpg

So when Satoshi gives Hal Finney his bitcoin address in an email it's:

1NSwywA5Dvuyw89sfs...

Shortly after in the same email Satoshi says:

I just thought of something. Eventually there'll be some interest in brute force scanning bitcoin addresses to find one with the first few characters customized to your name, kind of like getting a phone number that spells out something. Just by chance I have my initials.

Reddit source

[Ibian]

Yogi is right this time you guys. When you are prompted to make a choice between two things, then that is two things. In this case a legacy wallet or a segwit wallet.

Segwit was a mistake. Just the fact that it is opt-in instead of being standard for the entire network is a problem.

For the record, my wallets are and will remain legacy types. I just don't trust it.

You are scared of a 51% attack?

It is needlessly complicated. Increasing the blocksize to 2 mb would have worked exactly as well and been standard for everyone. Deliberately complicating things when simple solutions will do is never a good sign.

[fluidjax]

Yogi is right this time you guys. When you are prompted to make a choice between two things, then that is two things. In this case a legacy wallet or a segwit wallet.

Segwit was a mistake. Just the fact that it is opt-in instead of being standard for the entire network is a problem.

For the record, my wallets are and will remain legacy types. I just don't trust it.

You are scared of a 51% attack?

It is needlessly complicated. Increasing the blocksize to 2 mb would have worked exactly as well and been standard for everyone. Deliberately complicating things when simple solutions will do is never a good sign.

Segwit is fairly well proven, the only demonstrated weakness comes from a 51% attack.
A 2mb block size increase at face value is simple, but, it required a hard fork, the effects of which would have many consequences.
Therefore it was not a simple solution, the only non hard forking solution was to use segwit.

[Dabs]

For the record, my wallets are and will remain legacy types. I just don't trust it.

Want to trade some Segwit tainted coins for your legacy type coins? Would you accept a payment with segwit tainted coins?

Seems you are willing to pay the transaction fee, I'll make sure my tx is included in the next block or two.

... Don't forget Coin Join, Shuffle, Join Market, and a bunch of alts doing the same thing using masternodes like Dash. Just a matter of time before it gets widespread on top of bitcoin.

[Ibian]

Yogi is right this time you guys. When you are prompted to make a choice between two things, then that is two things. In this case a legacy wallet or a segwit wallet.

Segwit was a mistake. Just the fact that it is opt-in instead of being standard for the entire network is a problem.

For the record, my wallets are and will remain legacy types. I just don't trust it.

You are scared of a 51% attack?

It is needlessly complicated. Increasing the blocksize to 2 mb would have worked exactly as well and been standard for everyone. Deliberately complicating things when simple solutions will do is never a good sign.

Segwit is fairly well proven, the only demonstrated weakness comes from a 51% attack.
A 2mb block size increase at face value is simple, but, it required a hard fork, the effects of which would have many consequences.
Therefore it was not a simple solution, the only non hard forking solution was to use segwit.

And instead, we have legacy wallets and segwit wallets. Was that really a worthwhile tradeoff?

[infofront]

Yogi is right this time you guys. When you are prompted to make a choice between two things, then that is two things. In this case a legacy wallet or a segwit wallet.

Segwit was a mistake. Just the fact that it is opt-in instead of being standard for the entire network is a problem.

For the record, my wallets are and will remain legacy types. I just don't trust it.

You are scared of a 51% attack?

It is needlessly complicated. Increasing the blocksize to 2 mb would have worked exactly as well and been standard for everyone. Deliberately complicating things when simple solutions will do is never a good sign.

Segwit is fairly well proven, the only demonstrated weakness comes from a 51% attack.
A 2mb block size increase at face value is simple, but, it required a hard fork, the effects of which would have many consequences.
Therefore it was not a simple solution, the only non hard forking solution was to use segwit.

And instead, we have legacy wallets and segwit wallets. Was that really a worthwhile tradeoff?

Yes. What are you implying?

[Ibian]

Yogi is right this time you guys. When you are prompted to make a choice between two things, then that is two things. In this case a legacy wallet or a segwit wallet.

Segwit was a mistake. Just the fact that it is opt-in instead of being standard for the entire network is a problem.

For the record, my wallets are and will remain legacy types. I just don't trust it.

You are scared of a 51% attack?

It is needlessly complicated. Increasing the blocksize to 2 mb would have worked exactly as well and been standard for everyone. Deliberately complicating things when simple solutions will do is never a good sign.

Segwit is fairly well proven, the only demonstrated weakness comes from a 51% attack.
A 2mb block size increase at face value is simple, but, it required a hard fork, the effects of which would have many consequences.
Therefore it was not a simple solution, the only non hard forking solution was to use segwit.

And instead, we have legacy wallets and segwit wallets. Was that really a worthwhile tradeoff?

Yes. What are you implying?

I'm not implying anything. I'm saying that it is needlessly confusing.

Marketing is everything, no matter the product. What kind of problems would a blocksize increase have caused that makes it worth confusing well over 99% of the world as to what the fuck they are getting into?

[BTCMILLIONAIRE]

I fail to see how SegWit is confusing. It solved some problems and the plebs who would get confused by it don't really have to use it (or realize that they are using it).

And regardless, once mainstream adoption is actually possible everything will be so dumbed down that even knowing what SW or LN are will be completely redundant for daily use. Or rather, unless an understanding of the back-end becomes 100% irrelevant Bitcorns won't become mainstream.

[mindrust]

Yogi is right this time you guys. When you are prompted to make a choice between two things, then that is two things. In this case a legacy wallet or a segwit wallet.

Segwit was a mistake. Just the fact that it is opt-in instead of being standard for the entire network is a problem.

For the record, my wallets are and will remain legacy types. I just don't trust it.

You are scared of a 51% attack?

It is needlessly complicated. Increasing the blocksize to 2 mb would have worked exactly as well and been standard for everyone. Deliberately complicating things when simple solutions will do is never a good sign.

Segwit is fairly well proven, the only demonstrated weakness comes from a 51% attack.
A 2mb block size increase at face value is simple, but, it required a hard fork, the effects of which would have many consequences.
Therefore it was not a simple solution, the only non hard forking solution was to use segwit.

And instead, we have legacy wallets and segwit wallets. Was that really a worthwhile tradeoff?

Yes. What are you implying?

I'm not implying anything. I'm saying that it is needlessly confusing.

Marketing is everything, no matter the product. What kind of problems would a blocksize increase have caused that makes it worth confusing well over 99% of the world as to what the fuck they are getting into?

All you had to do was typing "why big blocks are bad" on your search bar...

Here is the first result and probably almost everything you need to know:
https://amp.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/6lmpll/explaining_why_big_blocks_are_bad/

You're thinking adversarially because you have the historical context of previous attempts that were squashed by governments. For Bitcoin to survive, it must be small, nimble and able to run anywhere. Essentially a coachroach.

We can't play lose and fast with Bitcoin. There is too much at stake here. Sovereign immutable digital gold is off the charts innovation and is changing the face of finance forever

From a commentor... Tldr; security reasons...

[Ibian]

Yogi is right this time you guys. When you are prompted to make a choice between two things, then that is two things. In this case a legacy wallet or a segwit wallet.

Segwit was a mistake. Just the fact that it is opt-in instead of being standard for the entire network is a problem.

For the record, my wallets are and will remain legacy types. I just don't trust it.

You are scared of a 51% attack?

It is needlessly complicated. Increasing the blocksize to 2 mb would have worked exactly as well and been standard for everyone. Deliberately complicating things when simple solutions will do is never a good sign.

Segwit is fairly well proven, the only demonstrated weakness comes from a 51% attack.
A 2mb block size increase at face value is simple, but, it required a hard fork, the effects of which would have many consequences.
Therefore it was not a simple solution, the only non hard forking solution was to use segwit.

And instead, we have legacy wallets and segwit wallets. Was that really a worthwhile tradeoff?

Yes. What are you implying?

I'm not implying anything. I'm saying that it is needlessly confusing.

Marketing is everything, no matter the product. What kind of problems would a blocksize increase have caused that makes it worth confusing well over 99% of the world as to what the fuck they are getting into?

All you had to do was typing "why big blocks are bad" on your search bar...

Here is the first result and probably almost everything you need to know:
https://amp.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/6lmpll/explaining_why_big_blocks_are_bad/

You're thinking adversarially because you have the historical context of previous attempts that were squashed by governments. For Bitcoin to survive, it must be small, nimble and able to run anywhere. Essentially a coachroach.

We can't play lose and fast with Bitcoin. There is too much at stake here. Sovereign immutable digital gold is off the charts innovation and is changing the face of finance forever

From a commentor... Tldr; security reasons...

2 mb is not "big". Besides that, try actually explaining what you see as a problem. If you can't explain something then you don't understand it.

Edit: From the link: "Good luck stopping massive nodes in China, Korea, Japan, Russia, Switzerland, Iceland, Amsterdam, Netherlands, and even Mars."

This guy is not being genuine. Aside from fucking Ares, Amsterdam is in the Netherlands. He included that bit to make people who simply wanted bigger blocks look ridiculous. Try a better fucking source.