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

[wachtwoord]

If Maxwell succeeds and forking Bitcoin from it's vision as a true P2P currency that anyone can use...

GMax has abdicated his bitcoin github commit access. This is a significant development. Stated reason 'personal'. Speculation on inferred subtext may include 'ragequit' - dunno. Net result: less support for 1MB4Eva within the core team.

BULLISH!

There's no question Greg's a smart guy, and one of Bitcoin's stronger intellects. His technical ability will be missed. However, he seemed ideologically blindered to smallblockianism. I think this is a net positive.

I saw this earlier and hope/think Greg will reconsider and keep fighting the good fight against Gavin's minions.

[jbreher]

That is why we have the minimum fee in place. It makes spam attacks economically unprofitable and drains bitcoin from the spammer.

We have run for 6 years without a fee market and no spam attack has taken place.

There's no minimum fee dictated by the protocol. You can send 0-fee transactions if you wish.

...and in times of congestion, your 0-fee transaction will not get included in any blocks. Fine. But what happens when everyone (e.g. more than 4-7 per second) is including a fee? Is it reasonable that nobody is granted access to the system but those prepared to pay 0.1 BTC? 1 BTC? 10 BTC? The central question is whether or not a protocol limited to 4 tps is reasonable. I reply with an emphatic 'NO'.

As for no spam attack, what else would you call the "stress tests" we had?

Let us amend that to 'no effective spam attack'.

But small blocks only make it cheaper for an attacker to clog the system. Large blocks make it more expensive to clog the system. With large blocks, the attacker must create more transactions, each accompanied by whatever minimum fee the miners on average set for their individual policies for fee threshold for block inclusion.

[Fatman3001]

If Maxwell succeeds and forking Bitcoin from it's vision as a true P2P currency that anyone can use...

GMax has abdicated his bitcoin github commit access. This is a significant development. Stated reason 'personal'. Speculation on inferred subtext may include 'ragequit' - dunno. Net result: less support for 1MB4Eva within the core team.

BULLISH!

There's no question Greg's a smart guy, and one of Bitcoin's stronger intellects. His technical ability will be missed. However, he seemed ideologically blindered to smallblockianism. I think this is a net positive.

The way he handled the anti-BitcoinXT "Satoshi"-email made me trust him quite a lot less. He does seem to have invested more of his ego in this blocksize debate than he could afford to lose. So it might be for the best for all concerned that he withdraws a bit.

In any event, he is not irreplaceable. If he were, Bitcoin wouldn't be worth much.

I saw this earlier and hope/think Greg will reconsider and keep fighting the good fight against Gavin's minions.

This is not LOTR, nor Warcraft. Genuine people have genuine disagreements. There are no minions.... on Gavin's side.

[BitofaN1]

So what you're saying is until now, miners could afford to make less money, but now that they're stuck with all the new HW, they have to get serious? Is that the gist of it, or am I missing something?
Chinese exchanges are in business to make money. Miners going broke doesn't add any new tools to the exchanges' manipulation arsenal. If they could manipulate the price, they're already doing it.

They cannot sustain price manipulation for prolonged periods of time.But by simulating these parabolic rises they're hoping to create enough FOMO so that they could unload slowly on the market at highest possible price for as long as possible, now that they have ROI as a reason.Hash rate was steadily increasing even when the price was in the low 200's, so Chinese miners were profitable even then, otherwise they wouldn't have had a reason to invest huge amounts of money in these new 16 nm Asic chips.

[Slaphead]

We are all Satoshi.
http://cointelegraph.com/news/115901/satoshi-nakamoto-writes-to-cointelegraph-about-the-nobel-prize

It's another bloody hoaxer who didn't sign his email or provide any other cryptographic proof he's Satoshi. Do we have to endure another "I am Satoshi" hoax every few weeks? Discussions about the last one haven't finished yet, and now we have another.

[Fatman3001]

We are all Satoshi.
http://cointelegraph.com/news/115901/satoshi-nakamoto-writes-to-cointelegraph-about-the-nobel-prize

I guess we should buy ether then.

[peonminer]

The hoaxes will be indefinite. It's beginning to appear as the community helping keep the scent far from the real Satoshi(s); Mixed with some random greed. This is good in the grand scheme of things (despite the greed). The cointelegraph article looks like a hoax to pump ETH.

The battle for $450+ is appearing that we could easily rocket to $680 once the forbearance is nullified. I think we will all be pleasantly surprised.

[billyjoeallen]

When will we start to skyrocket again?

I don't know, Newbie. As soon as you start buying, I guess. All I know is that if we don't get a new ATH or a scaling solution by the time of the halving, I'm dumping my cold storage coins.

All of them??

Probably. at least 90%. If it don't scale, they're on sale.

Agreed, Why anyone would be heavily invested in an artificially capped currency that most people can not use is beyond me.

Remember a fee market does not work. A fee market simply prices people out, it decides who can use and who cannot use Bitcoin. If Maxwell succeeds and forking Bitcoin from it's vision as a true P2P currency that anyone can use, then I'm out. And I've very been buying since 2011.

But it probably won't come to that, there are enough people that want to scale bitcoin that it will happen one way or another. If the core devs refuse to follow the wants of the user base, I could see a user led fork happening. If that happens I dump my long term coins on Maxwellcoin and hold them on the large block chain. Could be the best trade ever.

Word, Brother. I'm with you. A fee market will have to work at some point when the block reward goes away, but there aren't nearly enough people involved yet by several orders of magnitude. It's too greedy to monetize before we hit a critical mass and that plays right into the hands of our competition.

[AlexGR]

...and in times of congestion, your 0-fee transaction will not get included in any blocks. Fine.

It will get included later. That's spam for zero cost.

But what happens when everyone (e.g. more than 4-7 per second) is including a fee? Is it reasonable that nobody is granted access to the system but those prepared to pay 0.1 BTC? 1 BTC? 10 BTC? The central question is whether or not a protocol limited to 4 tps is reasonable. I reply with an emphatic 'NO'.

You are using a 0.1 BTC+ example. At 4 tps x 60 secs x 10 minutes, you are talking about 240 BTC in fees per block and 34.560 BTC per day. This is absurd and we all say NO.

A while ago I was sitting in front of a block explorer seeing the transactions as they happened in real time, in USD terms... there were many 0.03, 0.07$ transactions etc. This is bullshit.

Let us amend that to 'no effective span attack'.

The blockchain got larger, syncing times got slower, the attack left a permanent imprint. And consequent attacks will do the same. And if we had 10x blocks, it could be 10x the effect.

But small blocks only make it cheaper for an attacker to clog the system. Large blocks make it more expensive to clog the system.

Clogging of trash txs don't matter (in terms of quickly doing your legitimate tx). You skip them with a normal fee. Large blocks = no fee competition = attacker gets to bloat for free. FFS they already do that with 1MB blocks.

[Fatman3001]

The hoaxes will be indefinite. It's beginning to appear as the community helping keep the scent far from the real Satoshi(s); Mixed wit some random greed. This is good in the grand scheme of things. The cointelegraph article looks like a hoax to pump ETH.

The battle for $450+ is appearing that we could easily rocket to $680 once the forbearance is nullified. I think we will all be pleasantly surprised.

"I am agree with some analyst that if Bitcoin and Blockchain invention bring a Nobel Prize it will definitely be a good news for Bitcoin and digital currency"

It's not even a hoax, it's more like a joke.

Edit: "...the greedy aliens are disturbing me too much..."

Sort of looks like lambie.

[jbreher]

We are all Satoshi.
http://cointelegraph.com/news/115901/satoshi-nakamoto-writes-to-cointelegraph-about-the-nobel-prize

It's another bloody hoaxer who didn't sign his email or provide any other cryptographic proof he's Satoshi. Do we have to endure another "I am Satoshi" hoax every few weeks? Discussions about the last one haven't finished yet, and now we have another.

Not only is the letter stupid, but the article is stupid as well. Coin Telegraph really debased their reputation with this clickbait.

[Fatman3001]

We are all Satoshi.
http://cointelegraph.com/news/115901/satoshi-nakamoto-writes-to-cointelegraph-about-the-nobel-prize

It's another bloody hoaxer who didn't sign his email or provide any other cryptographic proof he's Satoshi. Do we have to endure another "I am Satoshi" hoax every few weeks? Discussions about the last one haven't finished yet, and now we have another.

Not only is the letter stupid, but the article is stupid as well. Coin Telegraph really debased their reputation with this clickbait.

Which is quite an impressive feat.

[adamstgBit]

We are all Satoshi.
http://cointelegraph.com/news/115901/satoshi-nakamoto-writes-to-cointelegraph-about-the-nobel-prize

It's another bloody hoaxer who didn't sign his email or provide any other cryptographic proof he's Satoshi. Do we have to endure another "I am Satoshi" hoax every few weeks? Discussions about the last one haven't finished yet, and now we have another.

Not only is the letter stupid, but the article is stupid as well. Coin Telegraph really debased their reputation with this clickbait.

they come up with new "clickbait" daily its what they do...

[adamstgBit]

hitting that 465 resistance again and again, who the fuck is nutty enough to break and buy through it? we should head down.... can't paint TOO many bubbles  

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[jbreher]

A while ago I was sitting in front of a block explorer seeing the transactions as they happened in real time, in USD terms... there were many 0.03, 0.07$ transactions etc. This is bullshit.

Cry me a river. What is the line between not-bullshit and bullshit? I don't measure it in size of transaction, I measure it in number of transactions. Do you personally run a full node? I do. If you do not personally run a node, WTF do you care about number of transactions? If you do, then why are you so damned cheap to spend another $USD 10 on HDD space, and another $USD 0.50/mo on bandwidth - especially as you're so incensed about small-value transactions?

[adamstgBit]

buyers are strong and numerous. bitcoins is back! feels good

[Fatman3001]

buyers are strong and numerous. bitcoins is back! feels good

crap

[fisheater22]

So what you're saying is until now, miners could afford to make less money, but now that they're stuck with all the new HW, they have to get serious? Is that the gist of it, or am I missing something?
Chinese exchanges are in business to make money. Miners going broke doesn't add any new tools to the exchanges' manipulation arsenal. If they could manipulate the price, they're already doing it.

They cannot sustain price manipulation for prolonged periods of time.But by simulating these parabolic rises they're hoping to create enough FOMO so that they could unload slowly on the market at highest possible price for as long as possible, now that they have ROI as a reason.Hash rate was steadily increasing even when the price was in the low 200's, so Chinese miners were profitable even then, otherwise they wouldn't have had a reason to invest huge amounts of money in these new 16 nm Asic chips.

Again, the scenario is exactly like any other in which more efficient gear comes on the market. This is exactly how mining is meant to work.

Let's play out this grossly oversimplified scenario:
You are A, one of the two miners (A and B) mining Bitcoin. A and B are mining at the edge of profitability when new, more efficient gear comes on the market.
Your options:
1. Don't buy new gear.
    1a. B does buy new gear, the difficulty goes up, you're out of business.
    1b. B also doesn't buy new gear, you both stay in business.
    1c.

[billyjoeallen]

A while ago I was sitting in front of a block explorer seeing the transactions as they happened in real time, in USD terms... there were many 0.03, 0.07$ transactions etc. This is bullshit.

Cry me a river. What is the line between not-bullshit and bullshit? I don't measure it in size of transaction, I measure it in number of transactions. Do you personally run a full node? I do. If you do not personally run a node, WTF do you care about number of transactions? If you do, then why are you so damned cheap to spend another $USD 10 on HDD space, and another $USD 0.50/mo on bandwidth - especially as you're so incensed about small-value transactions?

I do too. SwampNode is running BitcoinXT.  Cost me $118 bucks, so any crybabies whining about the node problem can stop wasting their time.