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

[Richy_T]

Do you have a decent link?

No. It was all through the threads on r/btc. Maxwell was the worst for disingenuous arguments and Luke was just insane, as ever but I think people like bluematt (it I remember correctly) gave it a fair shot.

[1715188496]

1715188496

[1715188496]

1715188496

[1715188496]

1715188496

[1715188496]

1715188496

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[Elwar]

It is rare I will agree with whiney Cobra, but I do, in this case.  His namecoin example is a good one.  I have exactly one other coin that I believe offers something BTC cannot natively.

Just about all the rest of it???  ETH for example.  All that functionality can be built atop BTC.  Will it be?  Or will ETH (or one of it's killers) continue to exist?  Dunno.

I spend about an hour a day at the gym on the elliptical watching development meetings for this very thing.

A protocol to run smart contracts, tokens, DeFi, etc. on the Lightning Network.

I search for it with a search for Bitcoin RGB on Youtube.

I am learning quite a bit. One interesting part of it is single use seals and client side activation.

Just today I saw that they can do a decentralised DNS quite easily on this setup.

It's still in development though so that's why it's just developer meetings at the moment.

No token. No billions to the first movers. Just plain functionality added on top of Bitcoin. The developers plan on being compensated by providing technical support to those that want to implement it and need some help.

[Torque]

Since shitting on ETH seems OK, have a personal story to tell; I was contracted to evaluate Etherum security in 2016 (or it might have been 2017) because the customer wanted to build a service on top of it. After installing the official client which is a clusterfuck of different languages (Go, Python, Java, C#, etc), the client started downloading updates directly from GitHub during runtime (which means any hacked commit could potentially compromise the client instantly), so that was bad, but it didn't end there, the client crashed a lot so testing became hard, shortly after testing some more I advised the customer to not use Etherum to build anything because it's simply not stable enough. The customer was stubborn and had some kind of FOMO about his business partners building frameworks on top of ETH already, so it ended that I just refused to continue but he was welcome to hire some else to do it. Shortly after this the first Etherum rollback happened due to malicious transactions (can't remember the details, but was not surprised), so it was obviously not "distributed" in a true sense then, emperor of rollbacks (Vitalik) had final word. After this I never touched it again, maybe it has improved security wise, probably not.

Thanks for you story.

And to think that there are ETFs for that clusterfk of a shitcoin, with people investing tens of millions. Unbelievable. People don't even know what they are backing.

_{(Well actually after the Enron, Theranos, and WeWork debacles, nothing is unbelievable to me anymore.)}

[Hueristic]

Do you have a decent link?

No. It was all through the threads on r/btc. Maxwell was the worst for disingenuous arguments and Luke was just insane, as ever but I think people like bluematt (it I remember correctly) gave it a fair shot.

Haha, no wonder I've never seen that conversation!

Fucking hate redditt.

I always enjoyed reading  bluematt 's insights.

Hah, good tweet he just dropped.

Being a Bitcoin Core developer is a thankless job. I once told another now-former developer that “Bitcoin will never succeed because of our work, but it may succeed in spite of our flaws”.

So much respect for those who have contributed longer than I and contribute today.

[modrobert]

Regarding ASIC mining, I have fond memories of backing Butterfly labs in 2013 even when most users in this forum had doubts, they eventually pulled through producing the first ASIC ever made after several delays, though the controversy was wild to say the least. I wasn't just a miner back then, had an online shop selling modchips for game consoles  accepting Bitcoin since 2011 (so it wasn't just alpaca socks).

Did they actually ever get that out? I know their FPGA made it but I remember all sorts of drama with fake demos and some fuss with Inaba when it came to the ASIC.

avalon had the 1st ASIC miner.

bfl did eventually deliver their asics, very very late and seemingly delivered mainly by carrier pigeons. i have one of their FPGAs and a couple SC series.


made out on the FPGA, not so much on the ASICs.

   
There was a queue system, ordered one on "Tue, Oct 9, 2012" and received it on "Jul 16, 2013", not sure about carrier pigeons, got mine via USPS.

Got a flashback about the competition when Avalon was mentioned, didn't know they were first out, but that could be correct, at least about review samples. A lot of drama ("Are they mining instead of shipping the orders?"), people got tired of waiting, eager to get their mining going. Most of us ordinary customers didn't get our hands on ASIC for a long time, that's for sure.

Butterfly labs had a clever way of designing the ASIC so when the wafer had broken cores they could still sell with lower hash rating (the SHA256 cores were laid out in a redundant way, lower cost, high yield).

[JayJuanGee]

Hello gentlemen. How have things been going?

A country accepts bitcoin as legal tender yet the price barely moves. I would have thought this would be a rocket launching event.

While we already know that fast moves upward don't usually sustain higher level prices.

My sense was that we took the stairs up and the elevator down... and sure perceptions can vary.

Quite nice analogy, even though we ran up parts of the stairs for some shorter periods of time.

Sure many of us could be wrong, but I have heard so many bitcoin price analysts asserting that part of the reason that they believe that this particular bull run is not over (yet) is because the run up to $64,895 does not seem to be like a blow off top in a similar kind of way that blow off tops usually had been occurring in bitcoin in historical periods that we could identify a gradual, but then the blow off top happens in about the last 4-6 weeks in which the BTC price doubles or more than doubles during that time while it had already gone up considerably previous to the blow off top.

In any event, no one should have 100% confidence that blow -off tops of the past are going to play out the same with a way higher market cap, so there could end up being very wrongly expectations regarding how bitcoin's modern day or future blow off tops would compare with past blow off tops, and even I will admit to denying that December 2017 had constituted a blow off top, and probably I was pretty stubborn about that all the way until around November 2018 - around 11 months later... hahahahaha  whatever.

In any event it surely seem that not only does the timeline for the run up between about September 2020 from $10k-ish and April to $64,895, has a decent amount of gradualness of it throughout, though admittedly once we got past the previous ATH of $19,666 (which I would really characterize as the entering into no man's land at $17,250 around November 17) then the BTC price ran pretty hot at that time until about $42k on about January 7, without any meaningful correction, so in January we had a 3 -week correction until we began to run UPpity again from February 7.  

From February 7 we could describe it either as an UPity with three-ish corrections until May 10, or we could describe it as a mostly up until getting into the mid-$50ks and then largely a flat thereafter until May 10.  The former does seem a bit more fair of a description, but I could see either one being reasonably argued as sufficiently representative regarding what happened.

So really we had a sever correction that started on May 11-ish and then last for about a week until we got to our flattish location since about May 18 - 2-3 weeks now bouncing around mostly in the $30ks and wondering which way we are going to go.

So one question remains which way are we going to go from here - which positive newses does seem to give quite a bit of hope to a scenario that the bottom of $30,066 must be "in" even though we still are hovering within fairly easy striking distance to testing support in that area another time.   I personally am sticking with my assertion from previous times that I am not going to sleep with much confidence in respect to such bottom being "in" until we get above $46k and even more comfortable once we get above $50k, and sure maybe I am asking for too much before personally starting to feel confidence about the bottom being in.

So even if all of that happens and we get back above $46k to $50k, we still would have the question regarding whether we are going to new heights or not, which gets back to the question regarding if we already had a strong enough blow off top in April - ish and if a depiction of largely being in $50k to $64k for a good 3 months really could constitute a  blow off top within the meaning of bitcoin blow off tops, or if something more needs to happen in regards to UPpity before the top would be "in" for this cycle.

Seems to me that there are still pretty decent odds for a top for this cycle in the $250k to $500k arena.. and surely such top could end up falling outside of that range too that would still end up being quite a bit higher than $65k on the one end but even as far as $1.5million in a seemingly extreme more bullish than expected scenario.. but either way we could have our tippity-top coming in this calendar year or a dragging out of such a tippity top into as far as mid-to-late 2022 which might seem to be outside of previous BTC price prediction model expectations, but who proclaims that king daddy is willing to be constrained to price prediction models or squiggly lines on charts, especially when in the process of both a battle and also the greatest wealth transfer in history is underway.. seems that constraints and restraints would not really be reasonable if such a thing were to be happening, no?

[cAPSLOCK]

I just don't see that.  Banks don't need small blocks to remain necessary.

FYI, small block force a side chain solution which is centralized and that in lies the problem.

I just don't understand why dynamic blocks are just not discussed, it smells of agenda.

Maybe it's not an agenda, but a blind spot?

I think it's just equated with fancy big blocks.

And not all layer-2 is centralized.  Lightning has the capacity to be very well distributed, and is currently.  My humble node is routing payments all over.  

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[vapourminer]

ok so i am wearing my honey badger tshirt from back in the day. like, way back in the day. and its been years since i wore it.

so i expect big things, naturally. while i do not think me wearing it will trigger a "face melting" price event i have duct taped my face in place, just in case.

JJG how does this rate in the "top 50 stupid things" list and any tips on how to get on it?

[JayJuanGee]

I'm gonna have to give you a -1 WO for that level of boldness, and might even have to amp it up to -1.5 WO for your horrible gif creation talents (if we might be so bold as to label as that?)... Since yesterday many people have told me... sent me pms, just saying.


that's all.

your forking with me right?

these feeble attempts to steer the conversation away from the true matter at hand here...rocket gifs...or your lack there of

charlatan

I am the real deal, dude.

Just like that guy, proud"something something"

Beginning to feel like that bear market again.

Complete fakeout, anyone that sells now is infected with Mindrust Syndrome.

I have not but I could use some walking-around money so it's a matter of timing.

Understandable that each of us has to do what we has to do (or what we want to do), and of course, having had invested in bitcoin relatively early whether our average price per BTC is in the double digits, triple digits or even the lower 4 digits, we are going to feel quite a bit of flexibility in terms of doing what we want to do whenever we want to do it, and the BTC price might not matter too much.. especially 1) the lower down that we are on that average price of BTC acquisition ladder or 2) the larger number of BTC that we have and also 3) the higher that we might be above our target richie status levels... Actually we could have any one of the above three or a combination of the three that causes us to NOT give too many shits about if BTC price happens to be in a 40% to 53% correction arena at the time that we sell some of them.. especially if our "walking around" money or petty cash or whatever we like to be calling it might be running low.

Having the bounce from 53% correction ($30k-ish) to only a 43% correction ($37k-ish) can bring some confidence about NOT selling at the absolute bottom of a potentially temporary dip, but surely the other aspect is that we cannot really know whether we are in a temporary dip or if we might happen to be in a longer dip.. so who knows and if there are feelings that some "walking around" monies could come in handy, then let it be so!!!!

By the way, I have been in the process of freeing up some cash in the past couple of months and surely NOT a very comfortable time to be "freeing up cash,"  and I am still not 100% sure regarding how much I will need to "free up" in the end, so I was waiting to report on that matter when my situation gets into a bit less of a "work-in-progress" status.

So far my current status of "freeing up" some monies does not seem to be as impactful to my overall BTC portfolio as was my November 2018 freeing up some monies, which actually so many construction bills came due right around the same time ... and sure not at the best of times, but still managed through it. with really only screwing up a couple of percentage (2-3%) of my BTC holdings, and yeah I suppose that there were cashflow issues involved too.. and gosh it can be hard to calculate with very much specificity, even though I do know how my tax reporting numbers came out... and this time seems to be a wee bit less impactful, but I will likely know more later.. see what the BTC price does and also see what the total demand on my cashflow end up being... one funny thing is that if the quantity of BTC is similar, then right now the BTC price is 10x higher, so the cashflow expectations would likely need to be 10x higher too in order to have a similar level of relative impact, and arguments could be made that I am dealing potentialities of 10x the amount.. but seems to be a bit less, and thus my tentative conclusion that the overall situation this time seems to be less likely to be as impactful as the 2018 situation.

ok so i am wearing my honey badger tshirt from back in the day. like, way back in the day. and its been years since i wore it.

so i expect big things, naturally. while i do not think me wearing it will trigger a "face melting" price event i have duct taped my face in place, just in case.

JJG how does this rate in the "top 50 stupid things" list and any tips on how to get on it?

hahahaha

I can see that you are not taking my earlier comment very well (nohomo), and yes, duct tape does seem to work quite well for nearly anything.  #Justsaying.

[marcus_of_augustus]

I just don't see that.  Banks don't need small blocks to remain necessary.

FYI, small block force a side chain solution which is centralized and there in lies the problem.

I just don't understand why dynamic blocks are just not discussed, it smells of agenda.

... there is no discussion with dynamic blocks because think about for longer than 2 seconds, it goes like this:

"Hmmm, dynamic blocks what's that about?"
"Well the blocks can take any size up to a limit ...."
"Oh a dynamic block size with a limit, what size should we make that?" ... and there it ends, it's the same discussion.

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[Hueristic]

I just don't see that.  Banks don't need small blocks to remain necessary.

FYI, small block force a side chain solution which is centralized and there in lies the problem.

I just don't understand why dynamic blocks are just not discussed, it smells of agenda.

... there is no discussion with dynamic blocks because think about for longer than 2 seconds, it goes like this:

"Hmmm, dynamic blocks what's that about?"
"Well the blocks can take any size up to a limit ...."
"Oh a dynamic block size with a limit, what size should we make that?" ... and there it ends, it's the same discussion.

Why not a adjustable limit based on a previous median timeframe?

[Richy_T]

Why not a adjustable limit based on a previous median timeframe?

It depends on what purpose you want the limit for. If it's to protect from unusually high loads as the original limit was for then something along the lines you suggest would work (and I've shown support for similar schemes). If, for some reason I can't fathom, you think 1 million bytes per block is a magically correct number for all time then it's not even open for consideration (and you might also not see a problem with foot-binding).

[Hueristic]

Thanks, getting the gist of it.

Since shitting on ETH seems OK, have a personal story to tell; I was contracted to evaluate Etherum security in 2016 (or it might have been 2017) because the customer wanted to build a service on top of it. After installing the official client which is a clusterfuck of different languages (Go, Python, Java, C#, etc), the client started downloading updates directly from GitHub during runtime (which means any hacked commit could potentially compromise the client instantly), so that was bad, but it didn't end there, the client crashed a lot so testing became hard, shortly after testing some more I advised the customer to not use Etherum to build anything because it's simply not stable enough. The customer was stubborn and had some kind of FOMO about his business partners building frameworks on top of ETH already, so it ended that I just refused to continue but he was welcome to hire someone else to do it. Shortly after this the first Etherum rollback happened due to malicious transactions (can't remember the details, but was not surprised), so it was obviously not "distributed" in a true sense then, emperor of rollbacks (Vitalik) had final word. After this I never touched it again, maybe it has improved security wise, probably not.

Shit, I missed this.

Thanks for sharing, not only is shitting on Eth allowed it is a prerequisite to hat adoption and is wholeheartedly encouraged.

[Hueristic]

Why not a adjustable limit based on a previous median timeframe?

It depends on what purpose you want the limit for. If it's to protect from unusually high loads as the original limit was for then something along the lines you suggest would work (and I've shown support for similar schemes). If, for some reason I can't fathom, you think 1 million bytes per block is a magically correct number for all time then it's not even open for consideration (and you might also not see a problem with foot-binding).

I have no numbers to present. I am just spitballing and am trying to figure out the root of why this hasn't been fixed as it seems to be a pretty academic problem.

I would think that having an agreed upon median would allow the algo to stabilize itself depending on market forces.

This is the first time I have known that this was the issue and appreciate Marcus boiling it down so nicely.

Oh and obviously a limit is just to stop bloat and spam attacks but a dynamic exponential cost seems to be a effective method of mitigation afa that goes.

*I don't know what "foot-binding" is.

[marcus_of_augustus]

... whatever scheme you think you can up with imposing a new limit ( a dynamic limit is the same problem which you seem to have ignored since the dynamic limit also needs to have it's own limit) you'll need a hard fork for that .... and after the bigblockers contaminated all further possibilities of hard-forks with disingenuity, arguing in bad faith and various political machinations that split the development and mining community, I can confidently say bitcoin, as we know it, will never have another hard fork, i.e. any fork will be forked off by opportunists into new coins and the un-hardforked coin will always be known as bitcoin.

[Hueristic]

... whatever scheme you think you can up with imposing a new limit ( a dynamic limit is the same problem which you seem to have ignored since the dynamic limit also needs to have it's own limit) you'll need a hard fork for that .... and after the bigblockers contaminated all further possibilities of hard-forks with disingenuity and arguing in bad faith that split the development and mining community, I can confidently say bitcoin, as we know it, will never have another hard fork, i.e. any fork will be forked off by opportunists into new coins and the un-hardforked coin will always be known as bitcoin.

Well I didn't ignore it I said it could be set on a median which would depend on a timeframe.

IOW lets say we wanted to make the timeframe the last month so whats that like 4300 blocks and we take the average transaction size from those and that is the base number and then we decide on a bounding range to allow for upper limit before the fee kicks in. The range of the blocksize would stabalize with the market forces setting it. It could shrink as well if the transaction count goes down over the median timeframe. All the variable could be set by the devs as they have a much better understanding of the underlying structure. but this is a pretty academic approach that I'm not wondering why I've never seen it discussed. but to be fair I stayed out of all the block threads because it was just a fucking nightmare to follow and I didn't feel competent enough to have an opinion on the subject.

AFA never having another hard fork, I agree with you if something cannot be soft forked in then its DOA. And that is bitcoins biggest failure as far as I can see, there are far too many that put their own priorities before the networks. Its become like government where nothing can get done without all out war.

[DaRude]

I just don't see that.  Banks don't need small blocks to remain necessary.

FYI, small block force a side chain solution which is centralized and there in lies the problem.

I just don't understand why dynamic blocks are just not discussed, it smells of agenda.

... there is no discussion with dynamic blocks because think about for longer than 2 seconds, it goes like this:

"Hmmm, dynamic blocks what's that about?"
"Well the blocks can take any size up to a limit ...."
"Oh a dynamic block size with a limit, what size should we make that?" ... and there it ends, it's the same discussion.

Why not a adjustable limit based on a previous median timeframe?

Because on top of compromising decentralization for usability (the degree of compromise can and has been argued to death, and no there's no free lunch here) it introduces new attack vectors