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

[adamstgBit]

Adam, how the hell are we gonna take over 25% of global remittances at 7 transactions per second?

BIP100 then BIP200 and then...

or maybe sidechains will help wtv man 25% of global remittances  is baked in the cake 32,000$ is coming.

Baked in? When and if the code the majority of the network runs is scalable, THEN I'll believe bitcoin is undervalued. 

BIP100 is the LEAST scalable of proposed upgrades and even it is a looooong way from implementation.

once/if it's been agreed on i can't see it take more then a week to implement...

the longer you wait for it to become clear that bitcoin will improve its scalability the higher the price will be.

buy now while poeple still believe bitcoin is about to die because of this issue  

[billyjoeallen]

Adam, how the hell are we gonna take over 25% of global remittances at 7 transactions per second?

BIP100 then BIP200 and then...

or maybe sidechains will help wtv man 25% of global remittances  is baked in the cake 32,000$ is coming.

Baked in? When and if the code the majority of the network runs is scalable, THEN I'll believe bitcoin is undervalued. 

BIP100 is the LEAST scalable of proposed upgrades and even it is a looooong way from implementation.

once/if it's been agreed on i can't see it take more then a week to implement...

the longer you wait for it to become clear that bitcoin will improve its scalability the higher the price will be.

buy now while poeple still believe bitcoin is about to die because of this issue  

Once/if BIP100 is implemented, miners STILL have to vote to increase blocksize and by how much.  You are taking a lot of things for granted.

[adamstgBit]

Adam, how the hell are we gonna take over 25% of global remittances at 7 transactions per second?

BIP100 then BIP200 and then...

or maybe sidechains will help wtv man 25% of global remittances  is baked in the cake 32,000$ is coming.

Baked in? When and if the code the majority of the network runs is scalable, THEN I'll believe bitcoin is undervalued. 

BIP100 is the LEAST scalable of proposed upgrades and even it is a looooong way from implementation.

once/if it's been agreed on i can't see it take more then a week to implement...

the longer you wait for it to become clear that bitcoin will improve its scalability the higher the price will be.

buy now while poeple still believe bitcoin is about to die because of this issue  

Once/if BIP100 is implemented, miners STILL have to vote to increase blocksize and by how much.  You are taking a lot of things for granted.

miners will probably make a vote where blocklimit is always about 2X avg block size
ok ok BIP100 might suck for various reasons
the point is the debate went from
no increase Vs increase
to
BIP101 vs BIP100
its only a matter of time until somehow some way blocklimit is increased

i strongly suggest buying the rumor

[xyzzy099]

Adam, how the hell are we gonna take over 25% of global remittances at 7 transactions per second?

BIP100 then BIP200 and then...

or maybe sidechains will help wtv man 25% of global remittances  is baked in the cake 32,000$ is coming.

Baked in? When and if the code the majority of the network runs is scalable, THEN I'll believe bitcoin is undervalued. 

BIP100 is the LEAST scalable of proposed upgrades and even it is a looooong way from implementation.

You know, there is NO solution on the table from ANYONE that results in a Bitcoin that is both scalable AND decentralized.

To handle the transaction volume of Visa would require every block to be 10-20 GB (Yes, GB, not MB).  At that block-size, decentralization, which I consider to be a fundamental requirement of what we call Bitcoin, would be long gone.

I agree that we can increase the block size some as a stop-gap measure - but block-size increases alone will not save Bitcoin.

Hopefully, the upcoming conference will yield some fresh ideas.

[BrewCrewFan]

CCMF!

[abercrombie]

are we rich yet??   

[billyjoeallen]

miners will probably make a vote where blocklimit is always about 2X avg block size
ok ok BIP100 might suck for various reasons
the point is the debate went from
no increase Vs increase
to
BIP101 vs BIP100
its only a matter of time until somehow some way blocklimit is increased

i strongly suggest buying the rumor

No the debate went from "we don't have a scaling problem" to "We have a scaling problem that is unfixable unless everyone agrees on how to fix it". 

What if "Some how some way" means that the market has to crash before the devs come to an agreement?

[Fakhoury]

Adam, how the hell are we gonna take over 25% of global remittances at 7 transactions per second?

BIP100 then BIP200 and then...

or maybe sidechains will help wtv man 25% of global remittances  is baked in the cake 32,000$ is coming.

Baked in? When and if the code the majority of the network runs is scalable, THEN I'll believe bitcoin is undervalued. 

BIP100 is the LEAST scalable of proposed upgrades and even it is a looooong way from implementation.

You know, there is NO solution on the table from ANYONE that results in a Bitcoin that is both scalable AND decentralized.

To handle the transaction volume of Visa would require every block to be 10-20 GB (Yes, GB, not MB).  At that block-size, decentralization, which I consider to be a fundamental requirement of what we call Bitcoin, would be long gone.

I agree that we can increase the block size some as a stop-gap measure - but block-size increases alone will not save Bitcoin.

Hopefully, the upcoming conference will yield some fresh ideas.

What conference and when it will be held ?

[xyzzy099]

What conference and when it will be held ?

https://scalingbitcoin.org/montreal2015/

[ChartBuddy]

Coin
Explanation

[billyjoeallen]

You know, there is NO solution on the table from ANYONE that results in a Bitcoin that is both scalable AND decentralized.

To handle the transaction volume of Visa would require every block to be 10-20 GB (Yes, GB, not MB).  At that block-size, decentralization, which I consider to be a fundamental requirement of what we call Bitcoin, would be long gone.

I agree that we can increase the block size some as a stop-gap measure - but block-size increases alone will not save Bitcoin.

Hopefully, the upcoming conference will yield some fresh ideas.

Cryptomining, like any other specialized activity, benefits from economies of scale. This is unavoidable. You can minimize it, but you can't eliminate it unless you centralize some other aspect of the network, such as CODE DEVELOPMENT. 

The problem isn't technical. it's political. You have these little Napoleons who crowned themselves emperors in the name of protecting the revolution.

[Fakhoury]

What conference and when it will be held ?

https://scalingbitcoin.org/montreal2015/

Thank you

[aztecminer]

they saying more longs opened on BFX.. that true ?? just what we needed! https://www.reddit.com/r/BitcoinMarkets/comments/3iopp5/daily_discussion_friday_august_28_2015/

i know redit.. shoulda never posted that here now i am reading it everyday! I have hard time reading BFX graphs but i can see volume on bitcoinwisdom. i wonder why coinbase exchange shows no volume.

sorry BFX i think margin trading is too risky for me.. i am waaay too paranoid trade on margin. i bail immediately.

[xyzzy099]

You know, there is NO solution on the table from ANYONE that results in a Bitcoin that is both scalable AND decentralized.

To handle the transaction volume of Visa would require every block to be 10-20 GB (Yes, GB, not MB).  At that block-size, decentralization, which I consider to be a fundamental requirement of what we call Bitcoin, would be long gone.

I agree that we can increase the block size some as a stop-gap measure - but block-size increases alone will not save Bitcoin.

Hopefully, the upcoming conference will yield some fresh ideas.

Cryptomining, like any other specialized activity, benefits from economies of scale. This is unavoidable. You can minimize it, but you can't eliminate it unless you centralize some other aspect of the network, such as CODE DEVELOPMENT. 

The problem isn't technical. it's political. You have these little Napoleons who crowned themselves emperors in the name of protecting the revolution.

A centralized Bitcoin will be just as dead as a slow Bitcoin.  It very much IS a technical problem.

[coins101]

Pools aren't miners. Meh.

[billyjoeallen]

You know, there is NO solution on the table from ANYONE that results in a Bitcoin that is both scalable AND decentralized.

To handle the transaction volume of Visa would require every block to be 10-20 GB (Yes, GB, not MB).  At that block-size, decentralization, which I consider to be a fundamental requirement of what we call Bitcoin, would be long gone.

I agree that we can increase the block size some as a stop-gap measure - but block-size increases alone will not save Bitcoin.

Hopefully, the upcoming conference will yield some fresh ideas.

Cryptomining, like any other specialized activity, benefits from economies of scale. This is unavoidable. You can minimize it, but you can't eliminate it unless you centralize some other aspect of the network, such as CODE DEVELOPMENT. 

The problem isn't technical. it's political. You have these little Napoleons who crowned themselves emperors in the name of protecting the revolution.

A centralized Bitcoin will be just as dead as a slow Bitcoin.  It very much IS a technical problem.

My point is that it is already centralized. A big reason why we are still trading in the $200s is because it is centralized. The cost of putting mining decentralization ahead of scaling and capacity is that we have concentrated power in the hands of Core devs who make money routing around the very bottlenecks they created.

[xyzzy099]

You know, there is NO solution on the table from ANYONE that results in a Bitcoin that is both scalable AND decentralized.

To handle the transaction volume of Visa would require every block to be 10-20 GB (Yes, GB, not MB).  At that block-size, decentralization, which I consider to be a fundamental requirement of what we call Bitcoin, would be long gone.

I agree that we can increase the block size some as a stop-gap measure - but block-size increases alone will not save Bitcoin.

Hopefully, the upcoming conference will yield some fresh ideas.

Cryptomining, like any other specialized activity, benefits from economies of scale. This is unavoidable. You can minimize it, but you can't eliminate it unless you centralize some other aspect of the network, such as CODE DEVELOPMENT. 

The problem isn't technical. it's political. You have these little Napoleons who crowned themselves emperors in the name of protecting the revolution.

A centralized Bitcoin will be just as dead as a slow Bitcoin.  It very much IS a technical problem.

My point is that it is already centralized. A big reason why we are still trading in the $200s is because it is centralized. The cost of putting mining decentralization ahead of scaling and capacity is that we have concentrated power in the hands of Core devs who make money routing around the very bottlenecks they created.

If you're right, Bitcoin is already essentially dead.

I think Bitcoin is working as intended at the moment, but we can agree to disagree, if you don't see it that way.

[abercrombie]

Mt Gox Bitcoins Reportedly Moved To BitFinex, The Day Before Black Monday

Posted by Luke Parker on 28 August 2015

However, just before the major downturn, one Reddit user posted interesting evidence that some of the coins bought at, or belonging to, the defunct bitcoin exchange, MtGox, had just been moved to Bitfinex.

[Nas]

Mt Gox Bitcoins Reportedly Moved To BitFinex, The Day Before Black Monday

Posted by Luke Parker on 28 August 2015

However, just before the major downturn, one Reddit user posted interesting evidence that some of the coins bought at, or belonging to, the defunct bitcoin exchange, MtGox, had just been moved to Bitfinex.

Why not? Karpeles needed to liquidate them before collapsing. I'm almost sure that Bitfinex was not the only exchange they trade for government currency.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin
Explanation