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

[VB1001]

"Bitcoin price by the 210,000 block halving cycles"

https://twitter.com/ChartsBtc/status/1113855239881252864

[1558519708]

1558519708

[1558519708]

1558519708

[1558519708]

1558519708

[1558519708]

1558519708

[JayJuanGee]

Billionaire Brock Pierce takes out first-ever Bitcoin-backed mortgage to buy a $1.2m home in Amsterdam.

https://bitcoinist.com/billionaire-brock-pierce-takes-out-first-ever-bitcoin-backed-mortgage/

The guy's a billionaire and he's taking a mortgage?

I think that he is just attempting to be an "innovator" in terms of using bitcoin supporting systems.   He is a self-proclaimed "angel" investor, but he is also known to frequently tend towards acting like a  "drama queen."

[bitserve]

Billionaire Brock Pierce takes out first-ever Bitcoin-backed mortgage to buy a $1.2m home in Amsterdam.

https://bitcoinist.com/billionaire-brock-pierce-takes-out-first-ever-bitcoin-backed-mortgage/

The guy's a billionaire and he's taking a mortgage?

I think that he is just attempting to be an "innovator" in terms of using bitcoin supporting systems.   He is a self-proclaimed "angel" investor, but he is also known to frequently tend towards acting like a  "drama queen."

Yup, that's more like it.

Also, what he isn't probably telling is that even if she put some BTC (probably an oversized amount for higher margin) as collateral, he also proved his net worth to the bank. And banks make you sign that even if you stop paying the mortgage and the collateral (the home, the btc, etc) is insufficient, they can go against the rest of your net worth... present and future.

So it is just a publicity stunt. I would like to see some guy with 0 IRL net worth, no income, no anything, but just some BTC stash to get a mortgage using it as the sole collateral (and without being a highly oversized amount of it).

[JayJuanGee]

Still unanswered: How LN is going to help when Layer 1 is already clogged to the point of uselessness.

We will cross that bridge when we get there.  

If this price pump continues, we could get there next week. Unfortunately, there is no solution on the horizon under discussion.

And, get the fuck out of here with your exaggeration that there is no plan in BTC..

OK, JJG. Tell me what the plan is to deal with the fact that once blocks are persistently full, then average fees rise uncontrollably, average wait times raise uncontrollably, LN channel openings and closings get economically prohibitive, and number of new entrants gets hard-capped.

What is the plan, JJG - what is the plan?

Bitcoin don't no need additional plan, especially by some dumb dumb like me (or even you or even Gavin Andresen) trying to outline some kind of future projection about some kind of ideal route forward.. blah blah blah..  because there is nothing broken about bitcoin, even if no additional changes were to happen, and there are market forces in bitcoin, incentives in place, fees adjust and scaling developments as we go.  

Take your technical speculation mumbo jumbo (I am smarter than you technically) phoney baloney to some technical thread, and argue with those technical peeps that know and care about those kinds of things, because bitcoin gives no shits about what I think about its plan in regards to technicalities or lack of a plan in that direction... because I doesn't know nuttin about exactly how everything is going to play out.. except that I know technically knowing folks have been lording over technical nonsense for years about how bitcoin is broken, that is why we have 2,000 shit coins that make bitcoin better on a technical level, yet bitcoin seems to be doing quite well to adjust as she goes.. rather than getting broken with some dumbass BIG blocker emergency "technical" upgrade that does not need to happen because it costs more than it benefits to implement 20 lanes when, so far, we have a 2 lane town.. but we have enough room to add the other 18 lanes later.. perhaps, 2 lanes or 4 lanes at a time rather than all at once when they are NOT needed except based on unsubstantiated technical speculations like you spout out on a regular basis.

Said another way, there is nuttin broken in bitcoin, so stop trying to assume facts that are not in evidence...

bitcoin has been scaling with the increases in usage, and it is likely to continue to accomplish such.

"Go bitcoin go... "

As some "moar reasonable than you" peeps like to say.  

[VB1001]

OKEx:Bitcoin Is 'not Cash' but Functionally Superior to Gold

The management at OKEx, a Hong Kong-headquartered digital asset exchange, have published a blog post in which they argue that Bitcoin (BTC) “might serve better as a store-of-value (SoV).”

https://www.cryptoglobe.com/latest/2019/04/okex-bitcoin-is-not-cash-but-functionally-superior-to-gold/

 

[bitserve]

Can we just not let the arguing with jbreher polarize sides as if there was no middle more reasonable field?

Bitcoin is scaling the right way. But that doesn't mean it won't have a moderate and reasonable block size increase in the (near?) future.

L2 is the way to go, but block size will also need some (linear, not exponential as that's what L2 is for) capacity upgrade sometime.

[JayJuanGee]

whoa

Am I bottoming for Bob there?

Stop fretting, jojo. 

Bob is a self-proclaimed "power top," so you are in good hands, because of purported experientially speaking. 

[Toxic2040]

$4,883

I’m expecting a test of $4,200. Hopefully, it holds!

Ack! $4,200 ....hurts my eyes! The horror! Ack!

My eye..quack.

I fomo bought $200 worth of bitcoins today from the $5000 price tag. After all those years, I still fall for this old trick.

I bought some from $15k too after all. $5k looked very cheap compared to that.

How will they both look in a foreseeable future, thats the real main thing... of-course you absolute don't need no HOPIUM, but still always good to hear

I buy high and sell low dont you see? It is a Wall required course.

[jbreher]

Can people stop engaging Jbreher. If I want to read his bullshit I'll go to /r/btc. He's beyond salvation.

He seems ok as a person but his bitcoin views seem a bit silly. He’s clearly a really intelligent guy so I see his pro BCH & BCHSV agendas as very suspicious.

I think he’s very likely to be a paid shill.

You can consider it likely if you want. But I am not paid for my advocacy of Bitcoins in any flavor, be it SV, BCH, or BTC. Meantime, half of y'all are whoring out your reputations to shill some crap product in y'all's sigs. Imagine the irony.

[VB1001]

Crypto Bull Tom Lee: “The Fair Value of Bitcoin Right Now is $14,000”

Ever-the-optimist when it comes to crypto, Tom Lee has stated that he thinks a fair price for Bitcoin is $14,000. He bases this opinion on the cost to mine a Bitcoin and what he considers a traditional markup on commodities.

The managing partner and head of research at Fundstrat Global Advisors also stated that the ongoing bear market of 2018/19 was over. He believes that infrastructure developments and the accumulation of Bitcoin by so-called whales is behind the change in price trends seen thus far in 2019.

https://www.newsbtc.com/2019/04/04/crypto-lee-bitcoin-14000/

[micgoossens]

And the fair value of Bcash?? LoL

[Biodom]

[ edited out]

Jbreher should be joining his BCHABC - BTC-SV friends at r/btc. He can shit on Segwit/LN and Core dev. 24/7.

He will be loved over there  but here he's  just a moron.

Likely, jbreher "feels" as if he is performing a greater service these here parts.  Doing "god's work," so to speak.*


* NO jbreher.  I don't mind at all putting words into your mouth(or brain)...    The only kind of contributory service that you seem to be providing around here is as a common grounds "punching bag."  Thanks for that.   NOT

The only "feels" I see are coming from his opposition. Every post I've skimmed that was directed against him today was essentially completely worthless. All personal attacks and ideological horseshit over rigorous arguments.

I second it. His technical points are well taken. I haven't seen the real answer besides that answers would be provided in due time.
Personally, I am fully on btc team as the only fork coins I ever had came from forks, not by buying.

That said, I wished that we would be a bit farther along in LN and possibly in LN onboarding.
two points that he (jbreher) contends: fees are bound to go sky high and LN cannot onboard all earthlings if every on-boarding event is a single on-block tx (not batched).
While we were largely not looking, next block fees went up to $1 (from 2c in Jan).
It is still OK for largish tx, but makes little sense when you need to stitch together many UTXO (consolidate, as miners do).
I also don't like dismissive attitudes of someone's position when this position is clearly articulated.
Instead of calling names, provide an argument.

[micgoossens]

let us go again THX

[jbreher]

OK. I mean, BTC can support a fuckload of people if none of them ever makes a tx. But that's not a usable MoE nor SoV. Not to mention the fact that to even get there will take literally decades. Like forty years for each person alive to make a single tx to buy into the system.

Have you ever considered that it doesn't have to reach every person alive to be a success?

As I pointed out above -- an assertion for which you took me to task -- a hard cap on the number of participants.

It's already an astounding success -- far more than anybody could have possibly imagined when it was getting started.

Many of us imagined all this and more.

Use of LN requires on-chain txs. Once the chain is full, LN breaks. We're bearing down on Blockpocolypse II, and there is still no relief valve.

1. Blockpocalypse 1 never happened. Its a fear-inducing term used by bcashers and SVers to make themselves feel righteous about choosing their particular shitcoin.

2. The chain has never been full. Again, you're trying to claim that the chain will be unusable which has never happened. Expensive or slow is hardly the same thing as "unusable."

2a. Allow me to put a finer point on it. 'Blocks became persistently full'. Better? Good. But you knew that's precisely what I meant, did you not?

2b. Yes, the system became unusable for a number of important use cases. And it will again when blocks again become persistently full.

1. Whether or not you want to refer to such a state as 'Blockpocolypse' is up to you. But it is an apt label for block size limitations being the reason for the exit of many participants.

Not to mention the relative irrelevance of LN in general. The average BTC on-chain tx is currently around $20,000.00.
What's LN channel max value again?

LN isn't meant for huge transactions. Its meant for every-day transacting. It wasn't developed for Wall Street or whales to shift around millions.

Great. I see you agree to my assessment that LN is not a capable replacement for real Bitcoin.

That's kind of an aside, however, as the entire point is to have capacity to accommodate the demand. Which is the economic model that nurtured Bitcoin until Blockstream threw out all the sane devs.

What demand?

The demand in excess of about a half-mil txs a day -- a number BTC is trending incessantly towards, and is already perilously close to.

In the meantime, you're hanging your hopes on a Rube Goldberg monstrosity that is years away from delivering on its promises.

[jojo69]

Can we just not let the arguing with jbreher polarize sides as if there was no middle more reasonable field?

Bitcoin is scaling the right way. But that doesn't mean it won't have a moderate and reasonable block size increase in the (near?) future.

L2 is the way to go, but block size will also need some (linear, not exponential as that's what L2 is for) capacity upgrade sometime.

and are we really just giving blockstream inc. a pass?

[bitserve]

[ edited out]

Jbreher should be joining his BCHABC - BTC-SV friends at r/btc. He can shit on Segwit/LN and Core dev. 24/7.

He will be loved over there  but here he's  just a moron.

Likely, jbreher "feels" as if he is performing a greater service these here parts.  Doing "god's work," so to speak.*


* NO jbreher.  I don't mind at all putting words into your mouth(or brain)...    The only kind of contributory service that you seem to be providing around here is as a common grounds "punching bag."  Thanks for that.   NOT

The only "feels" I see are coming from his opposition. Every post I've skimmed that was directed against him today was essentially completely worthless. All personal attacks and ideological horseshit over rigorous arguments.

I second it. His technical points are well taken. I haven't seen the real answer besides that answers would be provided in due time.
Personally, I am fully on btc team as the only fork coins I ever had came from forks, not by buying.

That said, I wished that we would be a bit farther along in LN and possibly in LN onboarding.
two points that he (jbreher) contends: fees are bound to go sky high and LN cannot onboard all earthlings if every on-boarding event is a single on-block tx (not batched).
While we were largely not looking, next block fees went up to $1 (from 2c in Jan).
It is still OK for largish tx, but makes little sense when you need to stitch together many UTXO (consolidate, as miners do).
I also don't like dismissive attitudes of someone's position when this position is clearly articulated.
Instead of calling names, provide an argument.

He is technically right in that BTC should increase its blocksize soon. He is wrong in that any of the forks have anything to do with Bitcoin nor will ever do. There is only one Bitcoin and that is BTC. If that ever changes, say goodbye to crypto (all of it) as a store of value.

He is also wrong in that scaling should come on blocksize alone. The only functional way to really scale massively is via L2. You can increase capacity by increasing blocksize, but you can only SCALE by L2.

He is right in some things, wrong in others.... why are we still discussing this over and over?

BCH, BSV, etc etc are not and will not ever be Bitcoin. Same as LTC (for which I have some preference) won't be either, nor DOGE or BTG. There is nothing to argue about that.

I would prefer if we started discussing about a (reasonable and linear ie 2x, maybe even 4x) block size increase of *Bitcoin*. That would be way more productive, if at all.

[Lambie Slayer]

[edited out]

From "time to time"  

Its Thursday, so Ill think Ill drop some truth on you old friend

You really wonder if Mic being so friendly to others on this forum is healthy? Of course it is. Being consistently cranky, salty, confrontational, toxic etc in your every day life to everyone around you is extremely unhealthy and wreaks havoc on your physical and mental health. Study after study has demonstrated the negative health consequences of living life as an obstinate prick. It shortens your lifespan and decreases your health and quality of life(Thursdays for instance) for the duration of your shorter life.

Instead of jealously criticizing Mr. Goose for being friendly and well liked here, you should emulate some of his character traits and you will stay alive to hodl longer and maybe bag on JJG thursdays will be called off even.  

You are offering like a two for one service there, lambie.



For free, too.

What would this thread be without you?  Thank you so much for the much needed and frequently not so well said input regarding these kinds of current ongoing thread/forum dynamics.  

Surely, you are an "asset" and in case anyone did not know, we could just ask you.  Perhaps we don't even need to ask?  Thanks again.

The truth needs no thanks good sir, but you're welcome

[jbreher]

Still unanswered: How LN is going to help when Layer 1 is already clogged to the point of uselessness.

We will cross that bridge when we get there.  

If this price pump continues, we could get there next week. Unfortunately, there is no solution on the horizon under discussion.

And, get the fuck out of here with your exaggeration that there is no plan in BTC..

OK, JJG. Tell me what the plan is to deal with the fact that once blocks are persistently full, then average fees rise uncontrollably, average wait times raise uncontrollably, LN channel openings and closings get economically prohibitive, and number of new entrants gets hard-capped.

What is the plan, JJG - what is the plan?

Bitcoin don't no need additional plan,

So you admit that the bolded statement of yours above was an untruthful attack.

[bitserve]

Can we just not let the arguing with jbreher polarize sides as if there was no middle more reasonable field?

Bitcoin is scaling the right way. But that doesn't mean it won't have a moderate and reasonable block size increase in the (near?) future.

L2 is the way to go, but block size will also need some (linear, not exponential as that's what L2 is for) capacity upgrade sometime.

and are we really just giving blockstream inc. a pass?

I am not sure what you mean. Some say blockstream wants to focus on L2 (something that I consider extremely important for scaling) and also that they won't ever allow a block size increase (something that I am not sure if it is just FUD, because that sounds simply stupid).

My point of view is that Bitcoin needs both L2 and a gradual blocksize increase, being L2 responsible for most of the massive scaling and block size increase enough to support L2 and bigger/not so frequent tx's directly on-chain.

Also I am pretty sure whatever is done need to be done via CONSENSUS. Other than that would not be Bitcoin, but just a worthless copycat (and we already have enough of those, don't we?)

[jojo69]

It seems to me that we have ceded a great deal of influence on BTC development to a single corporate entity.