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

[ssmc2]

This shit's gonna go sideways for a while longer, until everyone starts proclaiming "Bitcoin has stabilized permanently!"  Then BOOM. #MoonrocketshipMars. When everyone least expects it.

[Fatman3001]

Bitcoin expert on Bloomberg:  Increasing the block size limit will increase the supply of bitcoins and cause the price to fall, by the law of supply and demand.  

Oh, and in matters of bitcoin should trust only the opinion of people with Ph. D.  

Well, I can agree with that part.  

Jeebus! You should invite him to the wo-thread. One expert to another.

Edit: I finally saw the clip. I should have known that you would misrepresent the content. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me 476 239 times, shame on me. (That's right Bush! That's how it goes! Roughly.)

[aztecminer]

Boring price movement. Will we ever get over 300 again, sick of this bear market.

I wouldn't class it as a bear market any more. Just a pretty stagnant one.

another boring week .. it doesnt look like anyone is doing anything. i think the drop from 240 was leveraged longs closing over at bitfinex. and then came the bitfinex buy wall. its always bitfinex something going on at bitfinex.

[Fakhoury]

This shit's gonna go sideways for a while longer, until everyone starts proclaiming "Bitcoin has stabilized permanently!"  Then BOOM. #MoonrocketshipMars. When everyone least expects it.

This. Is. Gentlemen.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin
Explanation

[wonkytonky]

So can we finally dump to sub 200$?

There is obviously nobody interested to push this to 300...

it will not happen.   had massive dubble bottom on BFX    and thats because of the margin domino effect.
other exchanges have a higher high..  around 200 ..

the weekly looks like it's time for reversal..


buy  220 225  sell 310 zone..    and wait until we get out of this sideways. (+316$)

people have called reversal like 10 times now...

Remember the last "This time is different!!111" pump?

Yea...

ppl is not me.. .. first time i say it

[nioc]

Bitcoin has stabilized permanently.

[ssmc2]

Bitcoin has stabilized permanently.

Here we go! 

[ChartBuddy]

Coin
Explanation

[ChartBuddy]

Coin
Explanation

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

Bitcoin expert on Bloomberg:  Increasing the block size limit will increase the supply of bitcoins and cause the price to fall, by the law of supply and demand.  

Oh, and in matters of bitcoin should trust only the opinion of people with Ph. D.  

Well, I can agree with that part.  

Wow. SO much waffling in 4 minutes, all the time failing to make a single point regarding the substantive issue...

Bullish!  

[Jacksp]

When is the red line to recieve the btc from gox?

[billyjoeallen]

cui bono? Who benefits from small blocks?  Some one or group of people is stalling the scaling upgrade for reasons other than decentralization, security, etc.  From the videos of the conference, i get the idea that some is pulling strings behind the scenes to manipulate the hold outs. The technical objections seem contrived, like the arguments of a mob lawyer.

Why do the haterz hate so much? Luddites? I don't think so.  I think it's something more cynical than that. I don't think the power behind the small blockers is ideological or technical. It's political.The big blockers didn't seem to grasp that we're up against someone or group that plays dirty.  So who is it? Not the pawns on the chessboard, but the power that's moving the pieces. Who is it? Cui bono?

and that MC was painfully terrible.

It was revealed that the Bitcoin XP thing was just a ploy to implement Mike Hearn's blacklisting code. I used to support it until I saw that.

First of all, it's "XT" not XP/
Second of all, the node switch is to allow miners to not deal with slow onion routers if they chose. It's optional.

Thirdly, I didn't even mention XT. I said bigger blocks. Scaling. It doesn't matter as much how they do it so long as they do it soon.

This is what I'm talking about. These bullshit objections that we've answered dozens of times. It's like small blockers WANT Bitcoin to be insignificant and irrelevant. Seven transactions per second tops is insuficient to make bitcoin more than a curiosity. It has to scale

[ChartBuddy]

Coin
Explanation

[bcdev]

Bitcoin has stabilized permanently.

Am I doing this right?

[billyjoeallen]

Bitcoin expert on Bloomberg:  Increasing the block size limit will increase the supply of bitcoins and cause the price to fall, by the law of supply and demand.  

Oh, and in matters of bitcoin should trust only the opinion of people with Ph. D.  

Well, I can agree with that part.  

Ok, to play devil's advocate he's sort of right in a way that laymen will misinterpret and not understand. Recall the basic economics equation MV=PQ
basically, money supply (M) multiplied by velocity (V) equals Price of goods (P) times quantity of goods (Q).

Increasing block size means that bitcoin will have the POTENTIAL of greater velocity, which (if M remains constant or growing at a constant rate) means that (assuming quantity of goods remains constant) Price of goods goes up in BTC which means that the value of Bitcoin will fall.

that's a lot of assumptions that I don't think are warranted.  Q will likely go up massively as the utility of the network expands. For example: people will buy blockspace for timestamps, title records, etc.  also microtransactions.

[HeXaN]

XT   - 132 (29.5%)
Core   - 223 (49.8%)
IDK   - 93 (20.8%)

Core lost 50%!

[Andre#]

Bitcoin expert on Bloomberg:  Increasing the block size limit will increase the supply of bitcoins and cause the price to fall, by the law of supply and demand. 

Oh, and in matters of bitcoin should trust only the opinion of people with Ph. D. 

Well, I can agree with that part. 

Anthem Blanchard (Anthem Vault CEO):
"Increasing the number of transactions per block will lower the price of bitcoin (the currency, with a small b), because ultimately more transactions will go through. [...] We have to really understand why they [the Core developers] aren't on board, and that's not really clear, yet."

Total bullshit, of course, except for the last part. Indeed, it isn't clear why the Core-devs want to limit the number of transactions to 2.7 per second, resulting in an artificial scarcity of transactions some time next year, effectively halting the growth of Bitcoin. They say that more transactions leads to centralization (implying that a crippled Bitcoin is better than a more centralized Bitcoin), but that is rather illogical. So yes, we do need to understand why the Core-devs try to enforce something illogical.

I don't even want to say anything about James McQuivey (a principal analyst, really?), who confirms that more transactions leads to more bitcoins. Jeez... 

p.s. I have a Ph.D.

[bcdev]

Bitcoin expert on Bloomberg:  Increasing the block size limit will increase the supply of bitcoins and cause the price to fall, by the law of supply and demand. 

Oh, and in matters of bitcoin should trust only the opinion of people with Ph. D. 

Well, I can agree with that part. 

Did he really just call Gavin Andresen and Mike Hearn "outliers" and talked about their lack of phd?
And his statement that higher TPS will lead to lower price... How much does he earn for talking such truths? [I assume he's right because he has phd, right?]

[Andre#]

Bitcoin expert on Bloomberg:  Increasing the block size limit will increase the supply of bitcoins and cause the price to fall, by the law of supply and demand.  

Oh, and in matters of bitcoin should trust only the opinion of people with Ph. D.  

Well, I can agree with that part.  

Ok, to play devil's advocate he's sort of right in a way that laymen will misinterpret and not understand. Recall the basic economics equation MV=PQ
basically, money supply (M) multiplied by velocity (V) equals Price of goods (P) times quantity of goods (Q).

Increasing block size means that bitcoin will have the POTENTIAL of greater velocity, which (if M remains constant or growing at a constant rate) means that (assuming quantity of goods remains constant) Price of goods goes up in BTC which means that the value of Bitcoin will fall.

that's a lot of assumptions that I don't think are warranted.  Q will likely go up massively as the utility of the network expands. For example: people will buy blockspace for timestamps, title records, etc.  also microtransactions.

You assume the quantity of goods remains constant. In this case, you can make that assumption for a closed system where all goods need to be exchanged for BTC. But that's not how it is. Bitcoin competes usually with at least one other local currency. So Q changes with the amount of goods traded for BTC, i.e. it depends on the popularity of BTC. If transactions become scarce, the price of transactions will rise, and Bitcoin will be less attractive as a currency. Hence, the price of BTC will drop, as it will become  less competitive compared to the alternative local fiat currency.

Summarized, if the transactions are throttled, Bitcoin will become less attractive, and hence, cheaper.