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

[realr0ach]

i bet you'd have those on the bsv subreddits and forums complaining that they can't keep up, and being mad about spam. Especially since that community is moreso mad broke kids who missed out on real btc and want a redo.

You just inadvertently highlighted the reason none of these designed to centralize crypto scams like bitcoin are going anywhere.  Nobody will ever put up with the idea that someone who flash mines the entire supply of some obscure, imaginary, valueless token over a four year period somehow becomes the new oligarch ruler of the world.  It's not even really a four year period since virtually nobody knew about it at the start.  It's basically a zero year, no opportunity period for most normal humans.

People know physical metals have been mined for 5000+ years, and while not completely fair because nothing is, the opportunity for people to get into them has been around their entire lifetimes, before their lifetimes, and will still exist afterwards.  Bitcoin is this retarded thing that just drops out of the sky and before anyone even knows what the hell it is, there's basically a sign at the door that says, "Sorry, distribution already done.  You are now a slave and these are your new owners."

Of course, such a ridiculous scam distribution plan could only work in the first place if Bitcoin actually had some type of fundamentals, but since transaction validators are designed to centralize, it has none and so this whole conversation is pointless to even talk about them in the same sentence with metals.

[Toxic2040]

tl;dr yes

BREAKING and WTF 🤯🤯🤯🤯 Bitfinex is planning on a exchange token sale + IEO... plan to raise $1B in $USDT.... This is really a WTF situation 🤦🏻‍♀️🤦🏻‍♀️
https://twitter.com/DoveyWan/status/1122984364130701312

Probably best to see what Tuesday brings while we continue to work on Elmer. There will be plenty gnashing of teeth and the burning of midnight oils before all is said and done.  #dyor

[realr0ach]

BREAKING and WTF 🤯🤯🤯🤯 Bitfinex is planning on a exchange token sale + IEO... plan to raise $1B in $USDT.... This is really a WTF situation 🤦🏻‍♀️🤦🏻‍♀️
https://twitter.com/DoveyWan/status/1122984364130701312

TLDR:  "We don't have any money.  Our HSBC drug money we used to artificially manipulate the market higher was seized.  Give us more money."

[Last of the V8s]

@DoveyWan

Folks are selling the allocation of its IEO in a few channels, i was super skeptical at first but later confirmed by of one of BFX equity share holders

If it’s a fraud then don’t be scammed if it’s not a fraud then WTF

What’s the official BFX twitter account?

bullsheeit

fuckery

stupidity

greed

[realr0ach]

^Am I the only one here that remembers Last of the V8s was the ONLY person shilling FOR Bitfinex ever in this thread?  He will back any lie or scam imaginable as long as he thinks it's price positive for his BTC balance.  He basically pulled a mirror image of Roger Ver back when Ver said "MtGox is perfectly fine and trustworthy".

[Last of the V8s]

@garbisbfx already proved himself out of the loop. Community service manager...

[realr0ach]

@garbisbfx already proved himself out of the loop. Community service manager...

Lol.  That's exactly what I was about to type.  It's the fucking tech support guy who has no clue what's going on.  His job is 'Hardening the Gentoo install' - copyright Market Karpeles*.

*until some type of plausible deniability vector is needed to steal all customer funds

[realr0ach]

Since JayJuanGee & Last of the V8s claimed "everything r0ach says about Bitfinex is FUD", I assume we can depend on them to pony up the $1 billion to keep operations functional?  A $1 billion shortfall....AHAHAHA.

[Last of the V8s]

lol.
confirmed
https://twitter.com/zirui_z/status/1122993005324009472
According to @zhaodong1982 there’s a high possibility that @bitfinex is going to do an IEO, and some big whales already reserved $300m of the allocations in #USDT

[HairyMaclairy]

And “resurfaces” is the wrong term as it implies that the need has previously surfaced, which it has not.  The need may never surface.

You've already banished it from your revisionist history?

There were some high fees in 2017. There was no need for a block size increase as demonstrated by the failure of BCH.

If it was “necessary”, BCH would have won.  

The result was a BTC dominance drop from an overwhelming ~85% to abut half. Are you prepared for a drop to about a quarter next time the stream is blocked? You're whistling past your own graveyard.

Do you actually believe that the value of Bitcoin is diminished every time some scammer comes up with ‘X on a blockchain’ and manipulates the price on some exchange with zero liquidity to create a meaningless market cap?


You are smarter than that.

[realr0ach]

lol.
confirmed
https://twitter.com/zirui_z/status/1122993005324009472
According to @zhaodong1982 there’s a high possibility that @bitfinex is going to do an IEO, and some big whales already reserved $300m of the allocations in #USDT

It seems there are some Chinese scammers that feel it's awfully important to keep the scam exchange Bitfinex afloat.  Hmmm...I wonder why.  It's almost as if back when you clicked on the Chinese scam exchange Huobi back in the day and noticed that EVERY SINGLE TRADE was fake and there were no actual buyers or sellers, they then moved over to Bitfinex after the govt went after them there.  Gotta keep those prices manipulated to keep people paying $5000 for...a timestamp.

[malevolent]

If it's really true, they could have milked the market when it was near the peak over a year ago. I have a hard time believing they'll actually gather enough money seeing how more people seem to be opening their eyes to what kind of a joke BFX always was.

[realr0ach]

If the entire US govt wasn't crooked, they would be sending in Seal Team 6 in black helicopters to come in through the windows of this exchange.  Nevermind, the entire seal team was sent on a suicide mission and they all died in a helicopter to cover up the lose ends of the Bin Laden compound attack story.  Maybe they can send one F35 to fly towards it, fail in mid-flight, then heroically crash into the Bitfinex building and blow it up.

[jbreher]

You could keep using your legacy non-segwit coins BUT... I guess you would have some problem forcing other people to send you coins that fulfill your "full legacy trace" requirement. In fact you probably already have that problem, don't you?

Not at all. To a first order approximation (i.e., the overwhelming majority), I have no reason to move BTC in or out. But for those coins that I do move: If someone wants me to pay to their SegWit address, that's no skin off my nose; For inbound, I provide a legacy address to pay to. Easy peasy.

Ok.

So then if the condition of Bitcoin blocks having a very reasonable 80% peak (maybe hourly averaged) capacity by whatever means, even if that implies only a moderate blocksize increase plus other L2 alleviating solutions... your confidence/preference in Bitcoin would be restored and not keep insisting that BSV is better because: Bigger blocks (even if noone use them), no segwit, no LN, etc?

I am just trying to determine if your main concern is only about congestion or if there additional unsolvable (like considering bigger blocks is ALWAYS better) issues here.

It would alleviate much of my worries about BTC's future. All things being equal (unfortunately they never are), I have lingering concerns about the way The SegWit Omnibus Changeset was constructed and more concerningly how it was activated. But seeing as we're discussing an unplanned hypothetical, I'm not about to invest in a full analysis.

There is also the fact that it is the stated aim of the SV protocol devs that they wish to essentially return the protocol back to that which was bequeathed by satoshi, and then leave it unmolested for all subsequent time (with the caveat that some black swan event may necessitate a change). I see a lot of value in providing a stable platform for other innovation to be built atop, rather than the constant churn and shifting sands endemic to a 'devs gotta dev' mentality at the base layer.

But hey - if BTC adopted an attitude that returned them to the economic model that existed from inception until blockapocolypse (namely, block cap always large enough to accommodate the sustained tx demand), that'd take one of the most on-target arrows out of my 'flaws of BTC' quiver now, wouldn't it?

[El duderino_]

whatever exchanges do...... ^1BTC=1BTC

Good Night WO-brothers, finished episode 3 and of to my HODL-station

[El duderino_]

^
And cockr0ach please .... leave it for a sec go jerk off or something.....

[El duderino_]

Saw a small go to sleep pump NICE

[Last of the V8s]

If it's really true, they could have milked the market when it was near the peak over a year ago. I have a hard time believing they'll actually gather enough money seeing how more people seem to be opening their what kind of a joke BFX always was.

There's a theory that they can scam Chinese whales one more time, even while Western punters pull out.
And the bigger and the more blatant the scam, the bigger the fundraise...

[Hueristic]

This is under the assumption that the block size wouldn't grow when needed, blocks aren't full without outside attacks so there's no evidence that when the time comes we won't increase the block size to a common sense size.

Well, other than the evidence that blocks were kept small the last time they became persistently full. Which, in itself, is pretty strong evidence.

Once the need resurfaces (and it most certainly will), how long do you think it will take to implement the necessary change?

If it was urgent it could probably be done in 48 hours.   But it won’t be urgent.  

It ain't just a river in Egypt.

I would mostly agree with the bear here.
The last full block crisis resulted in inaction, to force people onto segwit. I presume the next full block crisis will result in inaction, to force people onto lightning.

Dude wtf you weren't supposed to tell them!!

Some people just can't keep a secret.

This is under the assumption that the block size wouldn't grow when needed, blocks aren't full without outside attacks so there's no evidence that when the time comes we won't increase the block size to a common sense size.

Well, other than the evidence that blocks were kept small the last time they became persistently full. Which, in itself, is pretty strong evidence.

Once the need resurfaces (and it most certainly will), how long do you think it will take to implement the necessary change?

That was a short spam attack period, you know damn well that was artificial and everyone knew it.

Yes, I remember people posting the addresses of the spammers at the time. That's the good thing about 1mb blocks, spamming gets expensive.

Big blocks are a disaster if there isn't sufficient utility. Say you had 32 MB blocks and only < 2 MB of actual traffic. Someone could easily spam 28 MB per block for peanuts. Sustained over 1 day: 4032 MB of garbage for almost free. Good idea indeed.

Addressing the issue is like balancing on a tight rope with the winds gusting and you cannot walk to either end all you do is shift your balance (the variable you control). I still have not seen a decent argument against dynamic recursive blocks. I've asked many times in this thread and never been linked to a good argument against them, maybe you have a link?

[infofront]

sell BTC and buy BSV, will equal in price

[img ]https://www.FULLofSHITand DESPERATE/x/WD9D77oj/[/img]

NO

BSV only one altcoin which can go in the direction opposite to the falling crypto market

Go fuck yourself

Even the Roach is occasionally able to deliver more engaging content, alev. Cut it. Thanks.

I normally delete his shill posts, but I think it's more fun for everyone just to point and laugh.