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

[jbreher]

...bullcrap...

I'm surprised nobody from the DT list has left you a red feedback till now. Amazes me how you made this far without them.

Anyway, not so long ago I discovered my new ability.

And you are the one from the first batch who has the honor. Enjoy it Craig.

You are leaving red feedback for a person, solely on the mere suspicion that that person is CSW?

Methinks the days your 'new ability' will be with you are numbered. For irresponsible abuse.

[jbreher]

The entire industry is misguided. Save it! Stop buying (pumping) this BSV shit. It's gonna crash soon.

That article you shared looks nice, but honestly, we're all convinced here already. I don't think that any of us is currently buying even a single BSV satoshi.

It seems you have a habit of posting your thoughts before thinking them through.

[jbreher]

Thursday is a hugely epic day. Stay tuned for official announcements and decrees.  

Umm... The Day After Laszlo's Pizza Day day?

[jbreher]

lol.jpg

SV user not affected. Troll harder. C'mon - I think you have it in you. That was weaksauce.

[jbreher]

let´s quickly check how sustainable bSV is rewarding miners with fees to secure the network:

Today's earned fees across Bitcoin forks...

Bitcoin: $1.8M of fees earned by miners
Bitcoin Cash: $461 of fees earned by miners
Bitcoin SV: $16 of fees earned by miners
Bitcoin Gold: $2 of fees earned by miners

Yet the SV blockchain continues. Funny, that.

[jbreher]

You guys think we will ever see BCash @$4k again within any bullrun? I feel like I lost a fortune by not selling @4k and kept that scam hodling.

You will not find anyone here who thinks that BCH will ever be $4k again

False statement is false.

XD

Well have you been to the Altcoins section? Everyone and their mother thinks Shitcoin X is going to upser Bitcoin and be worth 1mil.

Yes, but Shitcoin X can't trace back to the Satoshi Genesis block, and Shitcoin X's protocol does not have more in common with the original Bitcoin protocol than does that of BTC.

Like our little reality tv show move of trying to copy write Bitcoin and the Genesis paper. The fucker can't prove he's Satoshi and hell has essentially disproved it, but knows how to rile up new comers to crypto during runs doesn't he?

::le sigh:: ...aaaand we're back to 'Aussie man bad!'

And we still have not discussed the fact that Majormax was flamingly wrong in his/her blanket statement.

[jbreher]

easier said than done...I thought I had it licked last time

What works for me is an honest assessment of my needs, wants, and expectations. In my case, the assessment must be worked out before the prices get to life-changing levels. This produces a plan whose outcome I'm happy with.

In the heat of frenzied bulls raging, there is still some wiggle room for tweaking a few percentage points, as jbreher admitted, but the actual execution of the plan requires little thought.

What d_eddie said.

[alevlaslo]

Satoshi is the one who first recieved a patent for this name, it is not even necessary to be the Creator of bitcoin. I advised them to get a patent for large blocks, but they decided to just take a larger

[jbreher]

Even if you have a good plan and you largely follow your plan, there can still be a decent amount of trepidation during the process of the BTC price going UP like a bat out of hell...

In many cases, can cause a large number of folks to second guess their plans... and gosh, when the price comes down to less than 1/5 of what it had been, then there is a kind of opportunity cost regret...

Takes some decently strong willpower to go through all of that - and even the longer term BTC HODLers seem to weather through the situation with some ongoing trepidations - so it does make some sense that even the longer term HODLers should skim, at least a small amount of BTC, off the top whenever there is a decently-sized BTC run, even if such shaving/skimming will merely provide partial rather than complete relief for the seemingly long enduring and decently uncertain BTC price correction period.

So build the shaving/skimming into the plan. That's all I'm saying.

This is Bitcoin. If your plan does not consider the possibility that the price overshoots by at least an order of magnitude more than you -- in your wildest dreams -- would dare to hope, then u r doing it rong.

[infofront]

But if we want Bitcoin to succeed as the financial backbone of the planet, what are our choices?
1) SV's openness to storing arbitrarily huge amounts of data may lead to a small number of players at each task within the system, governed only by open competition. As a bonus, in the huge data scenario it becomes the backbone of the Internet.
2) BTC has already abandoned being the default money for the world, being utterly unable to even onboard the world to LN in less than a quarter century.
3) BCH is headed towards unlimited numbers of txs, albeit each one limited in size. At the cost of the perhaps unforgivable sin of centralized checkpointing.

So far, SV still looks like the preferable route forward to me. Current market share notwithstanding.

1) Significantly altered bitcoin's game theoretics
2) Significantly altered bitcoin's game theoretics, but those changes can (will?) be rolled back by miners
3) Significantly altered bitcoin's game theoretics

You missed one:
4) The Real Bitcoin™

[JayJuanGee]

Even if you have a good plan and you largely follow your plan, there can still be a decent amount of trepidation during the process of the BTC price going UP like a bat out of hell...

In many cases, can cause a large number of folks to second guess their plans... and gosh, when the price comes down to less than 1/5 of what it had been, then there is a kind of opportunity cost regret...

Takes some decently strong willpower to go through all of that - and even the longer term BTC HODLers seem to weather through the situation with some ongoing trepidations - so it does make some sense that even the longer term HODLers should skim, at least a small amount of BTC, off the top whenever there is a decently-sized BTC run, even if such shaving/skimming will merely provide partial rather than complete relief for the seemingly long enduring and decently uncertain BTC price correction period.

So build the shaving/skimming into the plan. That's all I'm saying.

This is Bitcoin. If your plan does not consider the possibility that the price overshoots by at least an order of magnitude more than you -- in your wildest dreams -- would dare to hope, then u r doing it rong.

At least in regards to skimming BTC on the way up and never running out of either bitcoin or fiat, you and I are largely saying the same thing, even if we might phrase things differently, depending on when we type our statement(s).  

I doubt that either of us will run out of either bitcoin or fiat unless we make a purposeful elect to do so (perhaps based on other considerations, such as cashing out because we only expect to live x amount of time longer - where x is a decently short period of time).  Sucks to be mortal.    

On the other hand, if you continue to believe that bcash SV is the real bitcoin then those kinds of considerations might relieve you of more BTC than what would otherwise be a prudent approach... I am talking about maintaining a BTC plan and not getting distracted by false/snake oil imitations.

[jbreher]

But if we want Bitcoin to succeed as the financial backbone of the planet, what are our choices?
1) SV's openness to storing arbitrarily huge amounts of data may lead to a small number of players at each task within the system, governed only by open competition. As a bonus, in the huge data scenario it becomes the backbone of the Internet.
2) BTC has already abandoned being the default money for the world, being utterly unable to even onboard the world to LN in less than a quarter century.
3) BCH is headed towards unlimited numbers of txs, albeit each one limited in size. At the cost of the perhaps unforgivable sin of centralized checkpointing.

So far, SV still looks like the preferable route forward to me. Current market share notwithstanding.

1) Significantly altered bitcoin's game theoretics
2) Significantly altered bitcoin's game theoretics, but those changes can (will?) be rolled back by miners
3) Significantly altered bitcoin's game theoretics

You missed one:
4) The Real Bitcoin™

As in TMSR, or pre-(what was it)-0.85 Bitcoin? OK. Add it to the list. Again, I believe its tx per unit time will be its downfall, just like BTC.

YMMV. Objects in mirror may be closer than they appear. Not to be used for the other purpose. This furniture product is not a gateway to Narnia. Keep chain from testicles.

eta: If rollback occurs upon 2), then it collapses into 4), no?

Further edit: in regards to 'Significantly altered bitcoin's game theoretics', specifics would be helpful. Up until the blockalypse, Bitcoin was utterly unaffected by any block size limitation (+/- a day or two). Something else you're thinking of?

[HairyMaclairy]

::le sigh:: ...aaaand we're back to 'Aussie man bad!'

Truth is a defence to defamation

[Phil_S]

Get your ass to Mars!

https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-invites-public-to-submit-names-to-fly-aboard-next-mars-rover

[jbreher]

::le sigh:: ...aaaand we're back to 'Aussie man bad!'

Truth is a defence to defamation

Yet, only in honest discourse is understanding to be reached.

[HairyMaclairy]

::le sigh:: ...aaaand we're back to 'Aussie man bad!'

Truth is a defence to defamation

Yet, only in honest discourse is understanding to be reached.

You seem to be a lovely chap.  I don’t know why you persist in defending such comic book villains.

Lodging a copywright claim over the Bitcoin whitepaper which has an MIT open source license printed on the front page?  It’s both hilarious and pathetic.

[infofront]

But if we want Bitcoin to succeed as the financial backbone of the planet, what are our choices?
1) SV's openness to storing arbitrarily huge amounts of data may lead to a small number of players at each task within the system, governed only by open competition. As a bonus, in the huge data scenario it becomes the backbone of the Internet.
2) BTC has already abandoned being the default money for the world, being utterly unable to even onboard the world to LN in less than a quarter century.
3) BCH is headed towards unlimited numbers of txs, albeit each one limited in size. At the cost of the perhaps unforgivable sin of centralized checkpointing.

So far, SV still looks like the preferable route forward to me. Current market share notwithstanding.

1) Significantly altered bitcoin's game theoretics
2) Significantly altered bitcoin's game theoretics, but those changes can (will?) be rolled back by miners
3) Significantly altered bitcoin's game theoretics

You missed one:
4) The Real Bitcoin™

As in TMSR, or pre-(what was it)-0.85 Bitcoin? OK. Add it to the list. Again, I believe its tx per unit time will be its downfall, just like BTC.

YMMV. Objects in mirror may be closer than they appear. Not to be used for the other purpose. This furniture product is not a gateway to Narnia. Keep chain from testicles.

eta: If rollback occurs upon 2), then it collapses into 4), no?

Pretty much - it's based on 0.5.3. And as to that question - yes. I was hesitant to give TRB a new number. We could call it 2.5.

As for more TX/s, I'm leaning toward the TMSR/Shelby school of thought that the 1MB blocksize is an immutable part of the protocol. Do you think Bitcoin was intended to scale to the masses?

Further edit: in regards to 'Significantly altered bitcoin's game theoretics', specifics would be helpful. Up until the blockalypse, Bitcoin was utterly unaffected by any block size limitation (+/- a day or two). Something else you're thinking of?

"Originally, Bitcoin's block size was limited by the number of database locks required to process it (at most 10000). This limit was effectively around 500-750k in serialized bytes, and was forgotten until 2013 March. In 2010, an explicit block size limit of 1 MB was introduced into Bitcoin by Satoshi Nakamoto. He added it hidden in two commits[1][2][3] in secret. This limit was effectively a no-op due to the aforementioned forgotten limit."

[HairyMaclairy]

We don’t need LN to scale. 

Just use centralized solutions like Liquid to scale for low security transactions.

[rdbase]

::le sigh:: ...aaaand we're back to 'Aussie man bad!'

Truth is a defence to defamation

Yet, only in honest discourse is understanding to be reached.

You seem to be a lovely chap.  I don’t know why you persist in defending such comic book villains.

Lodging a copywright claim over the Bitcoin whitepaper which has an MIT open source license printed on the front page?  It’s both hilarious and pathetic.

Thats all he did and anyone can do it just like this so called TheRealSatoshiN!
https://twitter.com/realSatoshiN/status/1130996634853302272
"So I kick his balls. I registered my white paper long before 2009 in Belgium before publication. I am not stupid. satoshin"

[Paashaas]

More than 100 shops and restaurants where you can pay through Lightning in Arnhem Bitcoin City (Netherlands) .

https://www.arnhembitcoinstad.nl/