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

[JayJuanGee]

Couldn't they artificially pump up the price so all that mining hardware that must have cost fortunes,
can pay for itself as soon as possible?

If they could, why didn't they do it before their hardware became unprofitable, to simply boost their profits?
And why would anyone invest in a virtual asset which could be so easily manipulated?

Because the mining gear that accounts for the 220 mil GH/s network hash rate increase, came online only recently. Probably early
november.That investment needs to brake even fast. There is clearly demand out there, even at these prices but not to sustain it with out China's "help".

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.

You are coming off as a conspiratory-ridden troller, and really not someone who wants to engage in any kind of meaningful way regarding bitcoin.

If you really sold most of your coins at $450, like you said, and you do not believe in bitcoin, then get the fuck out of here and take your profits and invest in something more secure, in your opinion.

What are you talking about? What conspiracy? What $450? What's wrong with you?

Edit: OK, remember you now.

...
[4] Don't argue with JayJuanGee. I think he has Assburgers.

I don't understand the purpose of your lame attempt at an ad hominem attack.


Part of my earlier point was to attempt to get you to respond to your stupid ass internally contradictory position. 

On the one hand, you  seem to be saying that you wuv u sum bitcoin, and you want bitcoin to succeed.  On the other hand you are picking apart and emphasizing conspiracies suggesting that bitcoin is bound for failure due to Chinese manipulation  - and at the same time conceding that you sold nearly all your bitcoins at $450 because you be hopen dat bitcoin be goin down a bit so u can pik up a few moar.....

What da fug!!!!!!    you need to be a bit more consistent no?  you seem to wanna have your cake and eat it to, and you merely coming off as desperate, inconsistent and probably oversold.       

[inca]

Newbie = welcome to ignore

[MinermanNC]

Seriously guys, step back & look at what's going on:

Bitcoin is centralized, soon won't be cheap to use, requires middlemen/payment processors/trusted third parties, is getting regulated, number of full nodes has been falling over the past couple of years...
And it clearly doesn't scale
What's left to salvage here (unless, of course, you're an early adopter)?
Wouldn't it be smarter to start from scratch?

Probably true

Wouldn't it be smarter to start from scratch?

Isn't that what alt coins are?   even though many have some unique and more efficient algo's etc. none have been able to catch BTC...

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

^What he said. Don't make me open up my Multibit!

Multibit, eh?

Hmmm....

You might wanna check it again in the morning.

MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!!!

[JayJuanGee]

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   

Do that thing where you tell everyone to sell again

Last time you did we rocketed from $380 to $475

Agreed.... 


Do it Adam!!!!!   Do it, do it, do it!!!!!     

[Fatman3001]

^What he said. Don't make me open up my Multibit!

Multibit, eh?

Hmmm....

You might wanna check it again in the morning.

MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!!!

Just thinking about it is sort of like thinking back to when you've been kicked in the nuts.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

They have the incentive but they are not configured accordingly. Not all of them. That's why dust/spam/no-fee and "stress test" txs get processed.

Have you used the network lately? No-fee transactions aren't getting included, and definitely won't be once priority is removed. Dust and spam should not be subjectively determined, fee per kb is all that matters. Miners have a very real incentive to keep their blocks to a reasonable size, it's called orphan risk.

I send a zero fee transaction yesterday. It was included in the first block.

I never pay a fee if I don't have to and still I'm in favor of rising fees, by limiting supply (of space).

Enjoy it while it lasts.

At some point there will have to be a fees market because of the halvenings, right? Has anyone crunched the numbers? Are there studies? What will it look like?

Everybody agrees that there will be a fee market. Some just want to force it now, before the drop to 12.5 btc per block, which I think is ridiculously early and would be using the wrong (artificial vs market determined) mechanism. In the future, miners will be much more sensitive to their fee pricing, and the fee load will be spread over many more network users.

I just assume that technology will keep apace with increases. Is there any in principle reason that bigger and bigger blocks would necessarily lead to more centalization?




@Fatman Or that time I invested in RochambeauCoin on Cryptsy

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[billyjoeallen]

No fee doesn't mean free transactions. I paid for those transactions when I bought my stash. I pay for it with every coin I buy now. I was subsidizing the miners so the network can grow. Then you assholes came around and thought Bitcoin could be more useful if fewer people can use it. This isn't the vision I signed up for. This isn't the reason I held on through three crashes.

Over four hundred is a nice profit for me. If you think you can handle it without me, just keep the price this high until I pull my coins out of storage.

These were the rules from when you bought in. Now you guys are trying to change it. Fork the chain and make your own altcoin. If you succeed power to you.

You know damn well those were not the rules. The rules are 21 million coins peer-to-peer electronic cash system.  You're hanging your whole argument on a technicality that was just supposed to be a temporary kludge. 

We've been over and over this. Fuck you. You're the fucking attack vector. Good luck with your cripplecoin. We have the code to do it better now. It's only a matter of time before We Facebook your Myspace ass.

[MinermanNC]

At the end of the day, miners will control bitcoins future in a very precarious way. Maybe not centralizing per' se, but will have the ultimate sway in fee's and the security they provide in processing and so forth.

[billyjoeallen]

any trains coming? ccmf, or?

Now's your chance, TERA. You can buy and sell that giant stash of yours with little slippage either way. Oh, that's right. You're already margin long. Well double down I guess.

[wachtwoord]

No fee doesn't mean free transactions. I paid for those transactions when I bought my stash. I pay for it with every coin I buy now. I was subsidizing the miners so the network can grow. Then you assholes came around and thought Bitcoin could be more useful if fewer people can use it. This isn't the vision I signed up for. This isn't the reason I held on through three crashes.

Over four hundred is a nice profit for me. If you think you can handle it without me, just keep the price this high until I pull my coins out of storage.

These were the rules from when you bought in. Now you guys are trying to change it. Fork the chain and make your own altcoin. If you succeed power to you.

You know damn well those were not the rules. The rules are 21 million coins peer-to-peer electronic cash system.  You're hanging your whole argument on a technicality that was just supposed to be a temporary kludge. 

We've been over and over this. Fuck you. You're the fucking attack vector. Good luck with your cripplecoin. We have the code to do it better now. It's only a matter of time before We Facebook your Myspace ass.

Game on!

[jbreher]

The bigger the blockchain, the more unusable and more centralized it becomes.

Baldly unsubstantiated assertion. Actually two of them. I disagree with both.
1) The bigger the blockchain the more transactions it has processed > the more it has been used > the more usable it is.
2) The smaller bigger the blockchain, the more transactions can be processed in given interval > the less need to deal with off-chain 'solutions' > the less need to deal with centralized off-chain 'solution' providers > the less centralization.

Economic considerations should also be given for developing countries where bandwidth costs are high,

By ensuring that they have no recourse to direct transactions upon the blockchain? Logical inconsistency duly noted.

edit: emphasized

[Cconvert2G36]

Fatman, you mine. I wouldn't consider you a threat to decentralization. What size blocks do you figure would keep fees low and keep you running smoothly? If prices are higher, is there more competition for txn's? Or will small mines have a harder time solving blocks?

I doubt he's running a pool and solving blocks. Smaller miners are mostly worker bees communicating with the hive over stratum.

[Cconvert2G36]

So his machines would contribute hash to the pool that solves blocks? And get a cut of the reward based on how much hash he provided?

Right, they delegate those decisions to the pool operator.

[jbreher]

People that want a bigger block are just socialists that want their free transactions.

Bull. Fucking. Shit.

Do not ascribe to me characteristics which I do not possess. You seem to be so blinded by your ideology that you cannot even allow for your opposition to possess humanity within.

Fees is what pays for the security of the network. The block subsidy is temporary. The total value of the fees correlates directly into a level of security.

We don't need to rehash this truism. We all know this.

Fees will be lower overall with a larger block size (more supply) so security will be lower.

Another bald unsupported assertion. Show the analysis please.

An alternate hypothesis (one I deem more rational) is that per-transaction fees do not need to rise to untenable levels, should more transactions be allowed within each block. Well, that's not a hypothesis, that is a provable fact by appeal to simple arithmetic. The hypothesis is that total fees will be larger in this case than they will be in a smallblock world.

Here is another hypothesis, one many deem plausible: that faced with a Bitcoin with little utility because it does not support enough tps to allow a person to use it directly, and the option of XCoin (I hope there is not real coin named XCoin - this is just a variable) with all the characteristics of Bitcoin save its blocksize limitation, enough will adopt XCoin because it provides them real utility, such that XCoin will overtake Bitcoin in transaction volume, monetary volume, and mining concentration.

[JayJuanGee]

[more crazily formatted, incoherent anger]

What are you talking about? What conspiracy? What $450? What's wrong with you?

Edit: OK, remember you now.

...
[4] Don't argue with JayJuanGee. I think he has Assburgers.

To recap:
1. Never said that I sold at 450.
2. Never suggested a conspiracy.
3. You're unpleasant and also fucking insane. Enough. Welcome to my ignore list

Yes, you can deny 1 and 2, but the substance of your posts speak for themselves.. in that you are either incapable of explaining yourself at best or full of shit under worse interpretation.

Yes, from time to time, it can be unpleasant and maybe even a bit uncomfortable to engage in an actual substantive and meaningful discussion with another person on a quasi-anonymous forum rather than employing personal attacks... and then running away.

hopefully, somehow your failure/refusal to engage with me regarding your prior assertions will either find you some solace or improve your abilities in the future to present your opinions, facts and/or arguments with a bit more coherence, but I must admit, I have a few doubts about your emotional stability, especially since you seem a bit less than capable in accepting a bit of a challenge to your presentation of information... you may be a bit too used to mommie pampering you?

[jbreher]

People that want a bigger block are just socialists that want their free transactions.

So who's a member of the Free Shit Army now?

I send a zero fee transaction yesterday. It was included in the first block.

I never pay a fee if I don't have to...

[billyjoeallen]

Fees don't compensate for shit if the price is only $200/BTC. 

Good luck getting anymore VC money, much less wall street money for a network that doesn't scale. Good luck with the feds if the only people using it are drug dealers, tax cheats and terrorists. 

[MinermanNC]

People that want a bigger block are just socialists that want their free transactions.

Bull. Fucking. Shit.

Do not ascribe to me characteristics which I do not possess. You seem to be so blinded by your ideology that you cannot even allow for your opposition to possess humanity within.

Fees is what pays for the security of the network. The block subsidy is temporary. The total value of the fees correlates directly into a level of security.

We don't need to rehash this truism. We all know this.

Fees will be lower overall with a larger block size (more supply) so security will be lower.

Another bald unsupported assertion. Show the analysis please.

An alternate hypothesis (one I deem more rational) is that per-transaction fees do not need to rise to untenable levels, should more transactions be allowed within each block. Well, that's not a hypothesis, that is a provable fact by appeal to simple arithmetic. The hypothesis is that total fees will be larger in this case than they will be in a smallblock world.

Here is another hypothesis, one many deem plausible: that faced with a Bitcoin with little utility because it does not support enough tps to allow a person to use it directly, and the option of XCoin (I hope there is not real coin named XCoin - this is just a variable) with all the characteristics of Bitcoin save its blocksize limitation, enough will adopt XCoin because it provides them real utility, such that XCoin will overtake Bitcoin in transaction volume, monetary volume, and mining concentration.

Would be an uphill battle for another coin to muscle out BTC. All that makes good sense, but x-coin would probably have to be a new or very different algorithm, because many existing sha coins cannot duplicate and are mostly a clone of BTC to begin with. So for another coin it would have to have, new mining gear/softwares and all that development involved with Asics etc. to mine x-coin ... huge hurtles starting right there. So I'd say bitcoin just has to make the necessary changes for improving block size transactions. I think BTC isn't going away anytime soon?