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

[paul2000]

anyone remember the web with the countdown to the halving?
Thanks

It's http://bitcoinclock.com/
Just a suggestion, don't mind, I think you should have asked this somewhere else like in Beginners & Help or Bitcoin Discussion...

Isn't it refreshing to find a straightforward question and answer that actually relates to that bitcoin stuff on this thread? First time in a few months for me, but maybe I've been distracted.

I also immediately got confused and disorientated 

[1715375688]

1715375688

[1715375688]

1715375688

[1715375688]

1715375688

[JorgeStolfi]

its hard to reach consensus on some technical detail like block size limit, you think all the miners/devs are going to agree to fuck with the inflation rate and kill bitcoin as we know it...

The miners have nothing to gain by increasing the block size limit.  On the other hand, if they succeeded in delaying the next halving by 2 years, at the current BTC price, they would get about 320 million dollars extra revenue. 

The last reward halving (on 20111-11-11) did not have any visible effect on price.  The price kept rising gradually from the recent low of ~10 to ~13, and lingered there until 2013-01-06, when the first 2013 rally started.  Thus, a postponement of the 2016 halving, by itself, would probably have little effect on the price -- unless the purists go around spreading their FUD and causing the chickens to scramble out in panic...

[inca]

wow shorts are actually increasing....

you'd think they'd cover knowing its going to be >300 in <2weeks

Retail gonna short.

[Dump3er]

Trolls keep trollin', meanwhile bid support at 250 rising steadily...

still relevant

Oh, does it mean, bear market is done??? 

[sporket]

Started reading a sob story about Burt, The Bitcoin Criminal, and all I could think of was this song I used to listen to in my tender formative years:

 ♬
I used to know a man named Burt
When I was but a lad
He was an old acquaintance
Of my mom and my dad

I don't think that I met him
More than just once
But I still recall him well
I'm not goddamn dunce




And you would not believe
What it was that he had done
He blew his own fucking guts out
With his own fucking gun

Yeah, mom and folks
They were shocked as you can imagine
When they heard about old Burt
And I said to myself
I said "Ouch, that's gotta hurt!"

Sorry if somewhat OT.

[12345mm]

awwww man that is fucking gruesome ... reminds me of college when i witnessed a hazing incident go horribly wrong ... duct taped bound frat pledges in the back of a pickup truck were meant to be intentionally scared by heading head on with another vehicle driven by other members of the frat ... and they were supposed to swerve to avoid a head on collision ... they did not manage to avoid the head on collision , either because they mis-timed their swerve or because they fucked up / panicked on who was supposed to swerve left/right ... in any case , one of the pledges got vaulted into the back of the pickup truck cab headfirst , whereby his nose was mostly ... ummm ... separated from his face ... and was hanging down over his mouth ... yeaaaahhh ...

[tarmi]

Started reading a sob story about Burt, The Bitcoin Criminal

The feds went through my Sunday school materials and threw the picture of Jesus in the middle of the floor.

Luke 23:34
"Father, forgive them; for they don't know what they are doing."

[aztecminer]

does everyone still have all their bitcoins ?? #obamatheconfiscater #actsofdesperation #bankruptusa #needsmoneytoservicethedebt

[Sitarow]

its hard to reach consensus on some technical detail like block size limit, you think all the miners/devs are going to agree to fuck with the inflation rate and kill bitcoin as we know it...

The miners have nothing to gain by increasing the block size limit.  On the other hand, if they succeeded in delaying the next halving by 2 years, at the current BTC price, they would get about 320 million dollars extra revenue.  

The last reward halving (on 20111-11-11) did not have any visible effect on price.  The price kept rising gradually from the recent low of ~10 to ~13, and lingered there until 2013-01-06, when the first 2013 rally started.  Thus, a postponement of the 2016 halving, by itself, would probably have little effect on the price -- unless the purists go around spreading their FUD and causing the chickens to scramble out in panic...

You speak in what if's with little knowledge of the subject or that mater what "miners" want. No alts for starters...  A larger block size would solve transaction limits as was the original intent.

[Anotherthing]

does everyone still have all their bitcoins ?? #obamatheconfiscater #actsofdesperation #bankruptusa #needsmoneytoservicethedebt

Not everyone, apparently

...In addition to the [four year] prison sentence, FAIELLA, 55, of Fort Myers Beach, Florida, was sentenced to three years of supervised release and was ordered to forfeit $950,000, representing the amount of funds involved in the offense that were intended to promote illegal activity.

http://www.justice.gov/usao/nys/pressreleases/January15/RobertFaiellaSentencingPR.php

[NUFCrichard]

Trolls keep trollin', meanwhile bid support at 250 rising steadily...

still relevant

I can't get too excited about being supported at $250 to be honest.
Looking at the number of trades and the amount of investment in bitcoin this year, the price is a bit of a joke.

I guess we should be happy of a good buying opportunity, but only of the market wakes up and reverses the long down treand too, there is no point in being technically right, but losing money anyway!

[inca]

Shorts up to 24541.

Hmm.

Swap interest rate on shorts up to 0.07% per day, long swap interest down to 0.094%

[ChartBuddy]

Coin
Explanation

[shmadz]

Shorts up to 24541.

Hmm.

Swap interest rate on shorts up to 0.07% per day, long swap interest down to 0.094%

Wait a minute, you telling me I could loan out a couple hundred coins and be making .14 per day?

That's more than I make from mining! What's the catch? Where's the risk?

[God27]

its hard to reach consensus on some technical detail like block size limit, you think all the miners/devs are going to agree to fuck with the inflation rate and kill bitcoin as we know it...

The miners have nothing to gain by increasing the block size limit.  On the other hand, if they succeeded in delaying the next halving by 2 years, at the current BTC price, they would get about 320 million dollars extra revenue.  

The last reward halving (on 20111-11-11) did not have any visible effect on price.  The price kept rising gradually from the recent low of ~10 to ~13, and lingered there until 2013-01-06, when the first 2013 rally started.  Thus, a postponement of the 2016 halving, by itself, would probably have little effect on the price -- unless the purists go around spreading their FUD and causing the chickens to scramble out in panic...

You speak in what if's with little knowledge of the subject or that mater what "miners" want. No alts for starters...  A larger block size would solve transaction limits as was the original intent.

It would be easier to reach a consensus on some technical detail with a protocol that didn't get taken over by a certain few too fast and so early on old API technology.  It seemed like satoshi knew from the start there was a chance of this happening but not as early as it did.  

If there were enough people using this network, is there a chance they would have a word on the consensus process comparable to banks?
https://rippletest.net/

[rolling]

Shorts up to 24541.

Hmm.

Swap interest rate on shorts up to 0.07% per day, long swap interest down to 0.094%

Wait a minute, you telling me I could loan out a couple hundred coins and be making .14 per day?

That's more than I make from mining! What's the catch? Where's the risk?

You'd have to trust leaving those coins on an exchange.

[JorgeStolfi]

You speak in what if's with little knowledge of the subject or that mater what "miners" want. No alts for starters...  A larger block size would solve transaction limits as was the original intent.

Did you read the posts?

Adam wrote that it was so difficult to get consensus on even trivial changes like increasing block size, imagine on postponing the halving.  I just pointed out that the miners will have no monetary gain with larger blocks, but would have a huge one with the postponement.

Last time I checked, the top 4-6 miners had more than 51% and were all in China.  Do we know what they may want?  

Since that "attack" would not be risk free, the top miners will not want to risk it unless they have much more than 51%.  Also, if the price more than doubles before that, say 800 $/BTC by early 2016, they would probably regain a comfortable profit margin and may be happy with it.

But with the price at 800 $/BTC, on the other hand, postponing the halving would give them ~500 M$ of extra revenue per year...

[dreamspark]

You speak in what if's with little knowledge of the subject or that mater what "miners" want. No alts for starters...  A larger block size would solve transaction limits as was the original intent.

Did you read the posts?

Adam wrote that it was so difficult to get consensus on even trivial changes like increasing block size, imagine on postponing the halving.  I just pointed out that the miners will have no monetary gain with larger blocks, but would have a huge one with the postponement.

Last time I checked, the top 4-6 miners had more than 51% and were all in China.  Do we know what they may want?  

Since that "attack" would not be risk free, the top miners will not want to risk it unless they have much more than 51%.  Also, if the price more than doubles before that, say 800 $/BTC by early 2016, they would probably regain a comfortable profit margin and may be happy with it.

But with the price at 800 $/BTC, on the other hand, postponing the halving would give them ~500 M$ of extra revenue per year...

Sorry but thats bullsh*t, if the block halving changed the price would crumble. So they would have no monetary gain at all. It makes no economical sense, you suggest that the miners could agree on it and everyone who pays their bills (the buyers) would just be like ah okay. Not gonna happen.

Edit: Lets also not forget that 51% is where it becomes possible, its still a hard thing to do and to pull off succesfully would likely require much more than that.

[tarmi]

again this story about short squeeze?

 


better look at those fake bids so nicely stacked in close 240 + range. 7 k to 240 and then like 4 k till 220. but keep buying in 250+ range pigs.

we need you.

[adamstgBit]

You speak in what if's with little knowledge of the subject or that mater what "miners" want. No alts for starters...  A larger block size would solve transaction limits as was the original intent.

Did you read the posts?

Adam wrote that it was so difficult to get consensus on even trivial changes like increasing block size, imagine on postponing the halving.  I just pointed out that the miners will have no monetary gain with larger blocks, but would have a huge one with the postponement.

Last time I checked, the top 4-6 miners had more than 51% and were all in China.  Do we know what they may want?  

Since that "attack" would not be risk free, the top miners will not want to risk it unless they have much more than 51%.  Also, if the price more than doubles before that, say 800 $/BTC by early 2016, they would probably regain a comfortable profit margin and may be happy with it.

But with the price at 800 $/BTC, on the other hand, postponing the halving would give them ~500 M$ of extra revenue per year...

in any case, if one small group starts to mine this 25mill BTC bitcoin fork, it doesn't it mean everyone else can't continue to mine the original 21mill BTC bitcoin. And there would be HUGE incentive for poeple like me (highly invested but never got a miner) to get a miner and add hashrate to the original 21mill BTC bitcoin.

it would be like this massive cryptonic-hashrate-cyber war
fucking wonderful!