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

[Feri22]

I really don't care what you think at all, i just want that other users see there is other side of story and not just the FUD and incorrect information you are spreading

[ChartBuddy]

Coin
Explanation

[aztecminer]

Food for thought:

If bitcoinXT doesn't get adopted it has proven that bitcoin will not be replaced by a better alt-coin.

BictoinXT is just an alt-client...same as Toshi from Coinbase and others

It is surprising how there are so many people that don't know what they are talking about and yet they have very strong opinion about it

There were already more clients before XT...the Bitcoin client development should not be centralized...You never know what real intentions of Blockstream are...And i don't think for profit company should lead development of open source decentralised software...they can develop, sure, but they can't be the only one, because these guys can be corrupted

I know, I agree with you 100%. Forking is the best way to vote (=just my opinion)

It's just something we have to remember for next year when some idiot comes telling us that bitcoin will be replaced by a better altcoin.
We can just say then:

A) It already happend, XT
B) It didn't work, XT tried

And put him on ignore....  

cant wait for gavin and hearn to be muted tho.

the sooner they fork off the better for bitcoin and its price.

I think you are wrong...Gavin was chosen by Satoshi and the mistake Gavin did in my opinion is that he was too kind and let github access to 4 other people, who turned against him and Adam from Blockstream even proposed revoking his commit access, which i think is pretty sneaky under the belt move...and if you want to follow this guy, go ahead, from your post history i would bet you will not like sane and kind people anyway

Im not following anyone. Altho i might be interested about what some people might say, i will never trust them with my bitcoins.
Gavin is a low life traitor/dictator, and should be banned from touching any bitcoin related code.
May he enjoy the rest of his pityful life hanging around in MIT/CIA/Google offices with his Hearn fella.

Good friggin riddance!

Well you are....you are following every single decision Bitcoin core developers have made...

Gavin a Low life traitor/dictator? Haha, thats kind of funny   No, he is not...he made the testnet in bitcoin and many other very important improvements, without them the Bitcoin software would not be where it is now...I think Gavin just wants the best for BTC and regular users and it is just not possible to please 100% of users, because there will be always people like you or some dark market type of guys, who want anonymity for illegal things etc...Gavin made a move, controversal a bit, sure, but it speeded up the work of Bitcoin core...and i think that it is most important...because as we all say...there may not be dictator to say bitcoin community what to do or not to do...the bitcoin client development must be decentralised...thats why i think the BitcoinXT is a good thing...and if you look on alt client Toshi from Coinbase, it is interesting as well...if you meant someone is traitor to speak with police, CIA or whatever, than we are all traitors i guess...

"blockchain blacklists" will guarantee that bitcoin will meet much more resistance if it ever tries to become a primary or reserve type currency in the usa and/or world. only FREEDOM is ever going to be successful.

[Norway]

hdbuck is now ignored by me


EDIT:




The trolls have been fed too much lately  

[coinpr0n]

It looks like not even those "capital controls in China" have the strength to move this thing up.

[QuestionAuthority]

So what's this weeks high going to be $229.50? Or should we shoot for the moon and predict $230.25. lol

[adamstgBit]

So what's this weeks high going to be $229.50? Or should we shoot for the moon and predict $230.25. lol

well we just saw some strong volume on the hourly, things might get interesting and we might be pushing 235 pretty soon! or 225 again 

[findftp]

The consensus seems to be that this is bull, and not the real Satoshi.

Where can I find more about this consensus?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1153748.0

Thanks, but what a bunch of morons in that thread.
I only read retarded opinions which prove nothing.

Why would satoshi prove himself to be real for a bunch of idiots? I would do exactly the same if I was Satoshi, including not spending my coins... Again this system (bitcoin) is worth below zero it only functions with him.
Just like kids. You can't keep raising them after adulthood. You need to let it go.
Knowing this, there is no other benefit for him to sign a message other than satisfying his ego and become a very famous man again, a man who would be even more unable to distance himself from bitcoin again.

[adamstgBit]

[QuestionAuthority]

So what's this weeks high going to be $229.50? Or should we shoot for the moon and predict $230.25. lol

well we just saw some strong volume on the hourly, things might get interesting and we might be pushing 235 pretty soon! or 225 again 

It's fascinating that when you don't have a samurai nut job like Karpeles running the main exchange how stable Bitcoin price gets. The Beanie Baby exchange rate fluctuates more than Bitcoin now.

[TReano]

So Bitstamp is now also faking volume?

[JorgeStolfi]

Again, it is possible that the devs do not see how wrong that argument is?

The max block size that was put into the rules in 2010 was not "1 MB" but "a value small enough to prevent big-block attack but still much larger than traffic so that it would not create spurious scarcity, and every transaction would be confirmed as quickly as possible." 

Can you provide source for this or did you just make it up?

For example, there are these comments by Satoshi on 2010-10-03, when the block size limit had already been lowered to 1 MB.  Jeff Garzik had proposed a patch that would raise the max block size to 7.16 MB, so that bitcoin would be able to handle PayPal's average traffic at the time:

Don't use this patch, it'll make you incompatible with the network, to your own detriment.
We can phase in a change later if we get closer to needing it.

It can be phased in, like:

if (blocknumber > 115000)
    maxblocksize = largerlimit

It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete.  When we're near the cutoff block number, I can put an alert to old versions to make sure they know they have to upgrade.

Up to that date, the traffic had been less than 1800 tx/day on average (today it is 120'000 tx/day), which means ~7 kB per block (today it is ~450 kB/block). 

With 1 MB max size limit, the capacity at the time was the same as today, ~200'000 tx/day or ~750 kB/block.  (It is less than 1 MB/block because certain optimizations by the miners force them to mine some number of empty blocks). 

So, by setting the max block size to 1 MB, the devs at the time set the capacity to about 110 times the demand.  Obviously the intent was not to create "capacity scarcity", any time soon...

But today the capacity is only ~65% more than the demand.

There is NO evidence that the centralization of mining that happened so far was due to the natural growth in the block sizes, or that such growth would affect it in the foreseeable future.  That is just one of several dishonest FUD arguments that Adam Back used at one point.  The economies of scale that resulted in concentration of mining are due to the savings in the costs of equipment, space, electricity, cooling, personnel, management, etc.  that exist  for bulk purchasers and for certain geographic locations. 

You are again completely fabricating a straw man...? That's absolutely not what I'm saying and I don't believe I've ever read anything of the sort by Adam.

As for increasing block size having an effect on mining centralization if we do not proceed carefully and by increments there are several technical aspects that can lead to this conclusion.

Sorry, the "That" in my quote is not the previous phrase, that you bolded, but the claim that I was replying to: that increasing the block size would lead to increased mining centralization.  That is one of several baseless claims that Adam made (after "increasing the block size limit will cause the number of full nodes to decrease").

My reply in bold is that mining already got centralized over the last 2-3 years; but the causes of the centralization are well understood, and growth of the traffic was not among them.  Those causes will continue for the foreseeable future, and keeping or raising the block size limit will make no difference for mining centralization.

[adamstgBit]

Again, it is possible that the devs do not see how wrong that argument is?

The max block size that was put into the rules in 2010 was not "1 MB" but "a value small enough to prevent big-block attack but still much larger than traffic so that it would not create spurious scarcity, and every transaction would be confirmed as quickly as possible." 

Can you provide source for this or did you just make it up?

For example, there are these comments by Satoshi on 2010-10-03, when the block size limit had already been lowered to 1 MB.  Jeff Garzik had proposed a patch that would raise the max block size to 7.16 MB, so that bitcoin would be able to handle PayPal's average traffic at the time:

Don't use this patch, it'll make you incompatible with the network, to your own detriment.
We can phase in a change later if we get closer to needing it.

It can be phased in, like:

if (blocknumber > 115000)
    maxblocksize = largerlimit

It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete.  When we're near the cutoff block number, I can put an alert to old versions to make sure they know they have to upgrade.

Up to that date, the traffic had been less than 1800 tx/day on average (today it is 120'000 tx/day), which means ~7 kB per block (today it is ~450 kB/block). 

With 1 MB max size limit, the capacity at the time was the same as today, ~200'000 tx/day or ~750 kB/block.  (It is less than 1 MB/block because certain optimizations by the miners force them to mine some number of empty blocks). 

So, by setting the max block size to 1 MB, the devs at the time set the capacity to about 110 times the demand.  Obviously the intent was not to create "capacity scarcity", any time soon...

But today the capacity is only ~65% more than the demand.

There is NO evidence that the centralization of mining that happened so far was due to the natural growth in the block sizes, or that such growth would affect it in the foreseeable future.  That is just one of several dishonest FUD arguments that Adam Back used at one point.  The economies of scale that resulted in concentration of mining are due to the savings in the costs of equipment, space, electricity, cooling, personnel, management, etc.  that exist  for bulk purchasers and for certain geographic locations. 

You are again completely fabricating a straw man...? That's absolutely not what I'm saying and I don't believe I've ever read anything of the sort by Adam.

As for increasing block size having an effect on mining centralization if we do not proceed carefully and by increments there are several technical aspects that can lead to this conclusion.

Sorry, the "That" in my quote is not the previous phrase, that you bolded, but the claim that I was replying to: that increasing the block size would lead to increased mining centralization.  That is one of several baseless claims that Adam made (after "increasing the block size limit will cause the number of full nodes to decrease").

My reply in bold is that mining already got centralized over the last 2-3 years; but the causes of the centralization are well understood, and growth of the traffic was not among them.  Those causes will continue for the foreseeable future, and keeping or raising the block size limit will make no difference for mining centralization.

maybe you can argue its less decentralized then it was 3 years ago, but you can't say mining is centralized. is there 1 central place everyone does there minning? nope. there are several pool and lots of solo mining by totally independent entities.

but you're totally right when you say the current mining landscape wouldn't at all be affected by a block increas.

that argument is complete BS.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin
Explanation

[JayJuanGee]

So Bitstamp is now also faking volume?

What's your evidence?  Is this pure FUD spreading disinformation?

[aztecminer]

So Bitstamp is now also faking volume?

What's your evidence?  Is this pure FUD spreading disinformation?

lets fud the market like its 1999 ..

[klee]

ETH on Gox!!!!

 

[BitofaN1]

So Bitstamp is now also faking volume?

They don't need to fake anything.They are the new biggest western exchange thanks to Bitfinex's gross incompetence.
Speaking of Bitfinex, I received an e-mail from them:

Dear user: [Redacted]

After careful review of the trading activity in your account in and around our service disruption on August 25th, 2015, we have identified a discrepancy between your trade history and how those trades were booked to your account.  In most cases the discrepancy is a result of trades being double booked to your account.  In order to bring your account balance inline with your trade history, we need to put two adjusting entries to reflect a change of -xx.xxx BTC at an average price of 224.38.  Unfortunately, this adjustment will result an a negative currency in your trading wallet.  Please move funds between wallets or deposit additional to satisfy this adjustment.  If the negative balance still persist in 24 hours, we will make the adjustment ourselves to eliminate the negative balance.  We sincerely apologize for the inconvenience and will be additionally crediting back your trading fees during the affected period 15:00:00 UTC to 21:00:00 UTC.  Please do not hesitate to contact us with any questions.

After I got all my funds out from them, now they want me to move them back in to fix a negative balance issue in my trade balance?
For a second time??? (I already had negative balance before I left them witch got "resolved" by deducting said negative balance from my btc deposit).Still waiting for their mail to clarify wtf is going on over there.  

[phoenix1]

So Bitstamp is now also faking volume?

What's your evidence?  Is this pure FUD spreading disinformation?

lets fud the market like its 1999 ..

No idea if FUD or not (probably), but it is intersting to note that Stamp is doing more volume on this sideways move than BFX. I can think of 2 legitimate reasons

1) BFX did not go with BitLicense, Stamp did - perhaps that appeals to some, or is necessary if they are NY based
2) OKCoin not accepting US customers at the moment - perhaps some have moved to Stamp (possibly connected to the above)

Not ready to call foul at all yet, but I have noticed the change and am wondering why ...

EDIT: 3) Recent and ongoing problems with BFX trading engine is another good reason why some may have switched

[ChartBuddy]

Coin
Explanation