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

[Sitarow]

That is not what I see...

[JorgeStolfi]

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.

You cannot kill a cryptocurrency, remember? 

If the idealists do as above, there will be a "rebel bitcoin" with a tiny mining network, and the "cartel's bitcoin", with all the old hashpower (since the ASIC miners would not have other choice than to mine it).  Guess which one will keep most of the value of the original bitcoins.  It is like the Captain "defeating" a mutiny by taking off alone in a small lifeboat, and declaring it to be the real ship.

Moreover, even the rebels will still have their coins waiting for them on the cartel's chain; so why would they not sell and trade them? Ignoring those coins would be their loss, not the cartel's.

[SilenceOfTheLamb]

...
the new world order isn't near its happening, its a slow methodical day in day out gradual kind of change, hardly anyone takes a step back to and look at all the little changes creating the new world order right before your very eyes, it is happening right now.
...

You've opened my eyes, Adam.  Thank you!

http://s30.postimg.org/s6k5zxa5d/clockwork_horror.jpg

[ensurance982]

Well I don't buy the swap theories, actually. They have proven to be of practically no real help in predicting any movements before and I don't think that they'll to that now. Maybe the shorts will be closed at some point and the uptrend gets going big time - finally.

[dreamspark]

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.

That's all on the pretence that there will be 21 million coins. I think your living on cloud cuckoo if you think that everyone would just be okay with a change to the amount of coins or the date of the halving. I'd sell mine immediately as would thousands and thousands of others. Bitcoin has no value if it becomes inflationary.

New investors are not putting that much money into the system per day. Not all coins are sold and no they would not be happy to continue to once the word is out that bitcoin is broken which it would. Your arguments are valid, and you convey them in a way that makes it difficult to prove right or wrong but I can say with all confidence that a change to the amount of coins or when the halving takes place will destroy Bitcoin and thus the incomes of the people who you suggest would be happy to change it.

[Sitarow]

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.

You cannot kill a cryptocurrency, remember?  

If the idealists do as above, there will be a "rebel bitcoin" with a tiny mining network, and the "cartel's bitcoin", with all the old hashpower (since the ASIC miners would not have other choice than to mine it).  Guess which one will keep most of the value of the original bitcoins.  It is like the Captain "defeating" a mutiny by taking off alone in a small lifeboat, and declaring it to be the real ship.

Moreover, even the rebels will still have their coins waiting for them on the cartel's chain; so why would they not sell and trade them? Ignoring those coins would be their loss, not the cartel's.

you forget that they would instantly have over 51% of the network closer to 100% and there would be no confidence as to the transactions integrity.

P.S. considering they also would own the asic manufacturing and technology for the old hashing algorithm.

BTW what I stated was the outcome to a real proposal if the odd chance that the present mining algorithm would have been compromised via a back door. In essence making all existing ASIC use for BTC obsolete and make the old BTC network compromised and useless.

In other words. If the conditions present themselves the btc blockchain network and participants will make the most prudent choice that will have majority consensus. No one given the option would eat spoiled food or in this case trade on a defunct chain.

P.S.S Exchanges that would fail to move over would cause panic in the ALT coin space as exchanges would not know as to the authenticity of the BTC being traded for alts effectively making alts valueless.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin
Explanation

[dewdeded]

Who cares about miners? They have no vote and nothing to say.
Relevant are only the 3 till 5 admins/owners of the biggest mining pools. They decide.

[Sitarow]

Who cares about miners? They have no vote and nothing to say.
Relevant are only the 3 till 5 admins/owners of the biggest mining pools. They decide.

Pool's operator's do not = miners.

[Brewins]

51% attacks will never happen again. They would be too expensive, and it would kill the income of the big mining pool owners.

[adamstgBit]

Who cares about miners? They have no vote and nothing to say.
Relevant are only the 3 till 5 admins/owners of the biggest mining pools. They decide.

no they don't

the moment they "decide" something stupid everyone leaves the pool

this is why i find it silly to say big mining pools are a threat to bitcoins decentralization

pools have to act how there users what them to act or they won't use that pool, the users have all the power.

[JimboToronto]

Who cares about miners? They have no vote and nothing to say.
Relevant are only the 3 till 5 admins/owners of the biggest mining pools. They decide.

Miners do decide in which pools to participate. That is their vote.

At least it offers more choice than a 2-party political system.

[dewdeded]

But to decide & leave, they a) would have to be aware of an (maybe disguised) attack or manipulation and b) there must be big enough and trust-worthy alternatives available to go to.

I think most/same of you guys are clearly over-estimating & exaggerating the power and influence of the miners (in discussions with trolls and serious BTC-critical posters).
From my POV it makes real discussions unobjective.

[SilenceOfTheLamb]

Who cares about miners? They have no vote and nothing to say.
Relevant are only the 3 till 5 admins/owners of the biggest mining pools. They decide.

no they don't

the moment they "decide" something stupid everyone leaves the pool

this is why i find it silly to say big mining pools are a threat to bitcoins decentralization

pools have to act how there users what them to act or they won't use that pool, the users have all the power.

The "every miner's vote counts" would be a bit more meaningful if hashpower was dispersed amongst small, private miners (cue Archie Bunker Those Were The Days).  It's not--the majority is divvied up among a few megamine operators.

[ensurance982]

51% attacks will never happen again. They would be too expensive, and it would kill the income of the big mining pool owners.

There just has to be another pool with incredibly good conditions. Maybe even a pool that really wants to surpass the others and for some time pays out more than they  actually make, in order to attract more miners.

[JorgeStolfi]

New investors are not putting that much money into the system per day. Not all coins are sold

This seems to be a common folklore, but is it true?  

I recall an interview with a Chinese miner, made many months ago, where he said how much he kept of what he mined.  Unfortunately I don't recall whether it was 50% or 10%.  Are there other data points?

Assuming that it was 50%, and the guy was telling the truth, and he has been able to keep that fraction in spite of the falling price, and he is representative of all miners, even so the miners must be taking ~450'000 $ out of the system, every day.

[ new investors ] would not be happy to continue to once the word is out that bitcoin is broken which it would.

Well, I believe that bitcoin is broken in that respect: mining will inevitably become centralized, ane eventually it will be controlled by a cartel of miners.  And the cartel can  do arbitrarily nasty things: not just dictate the minimum fee, or starve competing miners (which everybody knows that they can do, right?), but even force all users and services to accept changes in the protocol -- such as postponing the next halving.  That is one reason why I am skeptical about its longterm success.

(By the way, they could postpone the next halving but speed up all the subsequent ones, so as to preserve the 21 M limit that people seem to be so attached to.)

Discussions of the 51% attack usually start with the tacit assumption that the attacker wants to destroy bitcoin, or do some petty crime like double-spending, that would immediately destroy it.  However, cartels and monopolies do not get created to destroy their business, but to maximize their revenue -- usually by charging far more than they could charge in a free market.  

[Wandererfromthenorth]

This guy makes good points (read the other posts also):


https://twitter.com/patio11/status/583697371378257920

[fichtn12345]

Who cares about miners? They have no vote and nothing to say.
Relevant are only the 3 till 5 admins/owners of the biggest mining pools. They decide.

no they don't

the moment they "decide" something stupid everyone leaves the pool

this is why i find it silly to say big mining pools are a threat to bitcoins decentralization

pools have to act how there users what them to act or they won't use that pool, the users have all the power.

hmmm... same power as 'the consumers have all the power, not the big companies'?
i guess it would be too cool if there was no marketing (-lies)...

[ensurance982]

This guy makes good points (read the other posts also):



https://twitter.com/patio11/status/583697371378257920





Basically, bitcoiners don't know how remittances actually work.

Does it actually matter as long as the remittance service works and the people get their money from point a to point b?

[adamstgBit]

This guy makes good points (read the other posts also):



https://twitter.com/patio11/status/583697371378257920





Basically, bitcoiners don't know how remittances actually work.

the problem with all these stupid arguments is that they're all BS

the point is yesterday someone on the other side of the globe, paid me some BTC in exchange for some physical coins.

The transaction was instant, painless, and at no cost.

bitcoin works.