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

[inca]

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.

Enough yapping. But I suppose that is all you can do apart from help the price higher when you cover.

[1715451581]

1715451581

[1715451581]

1715451581

[jl2012]

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...

Yes but ONLY IF Bitstamp, Bitfinex, Bitpay, BTC-E, Second Market BIT, Winklevoss fund, etc accept these "Bitcoin"

[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.

Enough yapping. But I suppose that is all you can do apart from help the price higher when you cover.

I am tempted to move more funds to bitfinex and short sell more, actually.

but I dont trust them that much.

bistamp feels safe.

that support at 250 is laughable. I mean, bears are just waiting for more walls to be placed in that area.

and you are a fucking bull sockpuppet inca. I piss on you.

[JorgeStolfi]

Sorry but thats bullsh*t, if the block halving changed the price would crumble.

Already replied to that.  It is a subjective prediction of how "the bitcoiners" would behave. My view of "the bitcoiners" and their motivations is obviously very different from yours.

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.

Today, the new investors (those who buy or earn coins and hold them for a while) are quite happily paying 900'000 $/day to the miners, plus who-knows-how-much to the earlier investors who are selling; money that will never come back to the system.  The new investors cannot be entirely conscious of that.  So, if the halving were to be postponed, they would probably not take notice, and continue pouring in the same daily amounts, either way.

By the way, don't expect the price to immediately double when the next halving happens.  The miners will put 1800 fewer coins per day on the markets, but many earlier investors will start selling their coins once the price rises a little.  In other words, there is lots of hidden liquidity in the old hoards, that will readily absorb the 450'000 k$/day that the miners will stop receiving.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin
Explanation

[Fatman3001]

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.

I might have fallen and hit my head, but I thought the 51% attack was related to transactions. To change the halving you would have to change the bitcoin client. Those "bad miners" would be mining an alt.

[tarmi]

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...

Yes but ONLY IF Bitstamp, Bitfinex, Bitpay, BTC-E, Second Market BIT, Winklevoss fund, etc accept these "Bitcoin"

fuck them. no miners no network.

[WeltMaster]

Do not panic bears!!

This is just the usual blip upward before this market resumes its march to oblivion.

Keep adding more shorts!!!

Remember:

"The price always goes back down"

[Fatman3001]

Do not panic bears!!

This is just the usual blip upward before this market resumes its march to oblivion.

Keep adding more shorts!!!

Remember:

"The price always goes back down"

I can't wait till we reach minus territory, that's where the real shorting starts.

To Hades!!!

[JorgeStolfi]

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!

I discussed that "attack" at length in another thread.  It will be a small group of half a dozen miners, but it will have more than half of the global hashpower.  WIth that power they can still profitably mine the 25 M chain and jam the original one so that it becomes unusable and un-mineable. 

So, for the individual miner, he either joins the cartel on the 25 M chain, and keeps earning as much BTC as before, or keeps mining the old chain, and has all his blocks orphaned by the cartel jamming.  For the typical miner, switching should be a no-brainer.

Moreover, each client who has N coins on the original chain will get another N coins on the 25 M chain, accessible through teh same keys, whether he wants them or not. So each client can upgrade his software (at any time, before or after the fork) and use his coins, or refuse to upgrade and have his coins blocked until if and when the "attack" fails.  On the other hand, if he upgrades and the attack then fails, his coins will still be there on the 21 M chain, unspent.  Again, for the typical user, the decision to upgrade should be a no-brainer.

[D05GTO]

It will be a small group of half a dozen miners, but it will have more than half of the global hashpower.

That's about the stupidest thing I've ever heard.   Even with Memristor technology it would take more than a small group to jam out the global hashpower.  There's billions in infrastructure and it would require trillions to topple.  Not worth the effort.  If you had trillions why bother with taking over the bitcoin hash, just buy most of it up and it's yours.

[jl2012]

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!

I discussed that "attack" at length in another thread.  It will be a small group of half a dozen miners, but it will have more than half of the global hashpower.  WIth that power they can still profitably mine the 25 M chain and jam the original one so that it becomes unusable and un-mineable.  

In that case, bitcoin is DEAD. Both the 21M and 25M forks are dead. No one will trust the miners in the 25M fork because that can easily extend it to a 250M fork in the same way. Finally, miners will just mine for nothing valuable.

Congratulations, you have just rediscovered 51% attack.

On the other hand, if he upgrades and the attack then fails, his coins will still be there on the 21 M chain, unspent.  Again, for the typical user, the decision to upgrade should be a no-brainer.

Yes, but with the reason above, no one will exchange anything valuable with those bitcoin, no matter the 21M or 25M fork

[Sitarow]

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!

I discussed that "attack" at length in another thread.  It will be a small group of half a dozen miners, but it will have more than half of the global hashpower.  WIth that power they can still profitably mine the 25 M chain and jam the original one so that it becomes unusable and un-mineable. 

So, for the individual miner, he either joins the cartel on the 25 M chain, and keeps earning as much BTC as before, or keeps mining the old chain, and has all his blocks orphaned by the cartel jamming.  For the typical miner, switching should be a no-brainer.

Moreover, each client who has N coins on the original chain will get another N coins on the 25 M chain, accessible through teh same keys, whether he wants them or not. So each client can upgrade his software (at any time, before or after the fork) and use his coins, or refuse to upgrade and have his coins blocked until if and when the "attack" fails.  On the other hand, if he upgrades and the attack then fails, his coins will still be there on the 21 M chain, unspent.  Again, for the typical user, the decision to upgrade should be a no-brainer.

If the need presents itself the more probable outcome would be to change the hashing algorithm use cpu's and kill all asic behemoths and adjust the difficulty to the new hardware scale than what you suggest.

[adamstgBit]

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!

I discussed that "attack" at length in another thread.  It will be a small group of half a dozen miners, but it will have more than half of the global hashpower.  WIth that power they can still profitably mine the 25 M chain and jam the original one so that it becomes unusable and un-mineable. 

So, for the individual miner, he either joins the cartel on the 25 M chain, and keeps earning as much BTC as before, or keeps mining the old chain, and has all his blocks orphaned by the cartel jamming.  For the typical miner, switching should be a no-brainer.

Moreover, each client who has N coins on the original chain will get another N coins on the 25 M chain, accessible through teh same keys, whether he wants them or not. So each client can upgrade his software (at any time, before or after the fork) and use his coins, or refuse to upgrade and have his coins blocked until if and when the "attack" fails.  On the other hand, if he upgrades and the attack then fails, his coins will still be there on the 21 M chain, unspent.  Again, for the typical user, the decision to upgrade should be a no-brainer.

first no one comes close to having 50% of the network hashrate https://blockchain.info/pools

second they would need 101% of the network hash rate 50% dedicated to securing their BS version of bitcoin, and the other 50% dedicated attacking the one and only true Bitcoin.

third the great-massive-online-cryptonic-hashrate-cyber-war would make Bitcoins hashrate double overnight.

forth, who's to say we wouldn't come up with a defence against such an attack ( lets all agree to ignore BS blocks coming from the attacker )

lastly, everyone would sell there BS version of bitcoin BTC never to reinvest at any price, because we would CRUSH THEM.

[Fatman3001]

It will be a small group of half a dozen miners, but it will have more than half of the global hashpower.

That's about the stupidest thing I've ever heard.   Even with Memristor technology it would take more than a small group to jam out the global hashpower.  There's billions in infrastructure and it would require trillions to topple.  Not worth the effort.  If you had trillions why bother with taking over the bitcoin hash, just buy most of it up and it's yours.

True, just rape the market and buy most of the coins. Much easier.

Hey!... Tarmi! Are you trying to take over Bitcoin?

[jl2012]

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!

I discussed that "attack" at length in another thread.  It will be a small group of half a dozen miners, but it will have more than half of the global hashpower.  WIth that power they can still profitably mine the 25 M chain and jam the original one so that it becomes unusable and un-mineable. 

So, for the individual miner, he either joins the cartel on the 25 M chain, and keeps earning as much BTC as before, or keeps mining the old chain, and has all his blocks orphaned by the cartel jamming.  For the typical miner, switching should be a no-brainer.

Moreover, each client who has N coins on the original chain will get another N coins on the 25 M chain, accessible through teh same keys, whether he wants them or not. So each client can upgrade his software (at any time, before or after the fork) and use his coins, or refuse to upgrade and have his coins blocked until if and when the "attack" fails.  On the other hand, if he upgrades and the attack then fails, his coins will still be there on the 21 M chain, unspent.  Again, for the typical user, the decision to upgrade should be a no-brainer.

first no one comes close to having 50% of the network hashrate https://blockchain.info/pools

second they would need 101% of the network hash rate 50% dedicated to securing their BS version of bitcoin, and the other 50% dedicated attacking the one and only true Bitcoin.

third the great-massive-online-cryptonic-hashrate-cyber-war would make Bitcoins hashrate double overnight.

forth, who's to say we wouldn't come up with a defence against such an attack ( lets all agree to ignore BS blocks coming from the attacker )

lastly, everyone would sell there BS version of bitcoin BTC never to reinvest at any price, because we would CRUSH THEM.

With merge mining, only 51% is enough.

[JorgeStolfi]

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

Yes but ONLY IF Bitstamp, Bitfinex, Bitpay, BTC-E, Second Market BIT, Winklevoss fund, etc accept these "Bitcoin"

The funds, and anyone who only holds bitcoins without moving them, can just wait for the outcome and then upgrade or not, as appropriate.

Like other active bitcoin users, the exchanges and payment processors will have to choose between upgrading their software and working only with the 25 M chain, or sticking to the 21 M chain and having all their coins frozen, until if and when the "attack" fails.   While trading inside each exchange could continue with no problems, all bitcoin withdrawals and deposits would be blocked.  For those companies too, switching (and urging clients to switch) should be a no-brainer.

[inca]

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

Yes but ONLY IF Bitstamp, Bitfinex, Bitpay, BTC-E, Second Market BIT, Winklevoss fund, etc accept these "Bitcoin"

The funds, and anyone who only holds bitcoins without moving them, can just wait for the outcome and then upgrade or not, as appropriate.

Like other active bitcoin users, the exchanges and payment processors will have to choose between upgrading their software and working only with the 25 M chain, or sticking to the 21 M chain and having all their coins frozen, until if and when the "attack" fails.   While trading inside each exchange could continue with no problems, all bitcoin withdrawals and deposits would be blocked.  For those companies too, switching (and urging clients to switch) should be a no-brainer.

If what you say is true then why has it not happened yet?

[Sitarow]

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

Yes but ONLY IF Bitstamp, Bitfinex, Bitpay, BTC-E, Second Market BIT, Winklevoss fund, etc accept these "Bitcoin"

The funds, and anyone who only holds bitcoins without moving them, can just wait for the outcome and then upgrade or not, as appropriate.

Like other active bitcoin users, the exchanges and payment processors will have to choose between upgrading their software and working only with the 25 M chain, or sticking to the 21 M chain and having all their coins frozen, until if and when the "attack" fails.   While trading inside each exchange could continue with no problems, all bitcoin withdrawals and deposits would be blocked.  For those companies too, switching (and urging clients to switch) should be a no-brainer.

If what you say is true then why has it not happened yet?

Because if the need presents itself the more probable outcome would be to change the hashing algorithm use cpu's and kill all asic behemoths and adjust the difficulty to the new hardware scale than what Jorge suggest.

[adamstgBit]

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

Yes but ONLY IF Bitstamp, Bitfinex, Bitpay, BTC-E, Second Market BIT, Winklevoss fund, etc accept these "Bitcoin"

The funds, and anyone who only holds bitcoins without moving them, can just wait for the outcome and then upgrade or not, as appropriate.

Like other active bitcoin users, the exchanges and payment processors will have to choose between upgrading their software and working only with the 25 M chain, or sticking to the 21 M chain and having all their coins frozen, until if and when the "attack" fails.   While trading inside each exchange could continue with no problems, all bitcoin withdrawals and deposits would be blocked.  For those companies too, switching (and urging clients to switch) should be a no-brainer.

it would not be a no-brainer, it would be a spectacular show

there would be a hotfix implemented within hours to ignore the attackers blocks until we can find his mining-bunker and blow it up to high heavens