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

[JorgeStolfi]

Actually Lightning could use any cryptocurrency in place of bitcoin. Or even multiple cryptocurrencies, with some (or all) nodes and hubs doubling as currency exhanges.  That would let users choose the combination of speed, hashpower, and transaction fees that best suits their needs.  

That would introduce security issues. There is no evidence that other cryptocurrencies could stand up to the same level of attacks Bitcoin has successfully withstood. If you are using LN, then you wouldn't benefit from the other altcoin transaction specifications anyway.

If a bitcoin channel will cost $20 to set up and close (because of the on-chain transaction fees), while a litecoin channel will cost only $1, I bet that many users would use Litecoin for short-lived connections, in spite of them offering only Litecoin-level securuty.

[1715109550]

1715109550

[1715109550]

1715109550

[1715109550]

1715109550

[smooth]

Even more: Adam once claimed that the LN would achieve 10'000 transactions for every blockchain transaction.  Leaving aside what that would mean for the coin lock-in periods of the channels, the rate of 1:10'000 is so close to 0:10'000 that no one would notice if the LN just dropped bitcoin altogether, and from then on just shuffled its "cryptochecks" around indefinitely, without ever settling them. 

Of course, LN users would never accept that.  It would be like that time when the US government decided that dollars would no longer be convertible to gold or silver.  We all remember the revolts in the streets, and the huge bonfires where enraged dollar holders burned their then-worthless bills.  Right?

Conversely 1:10000 is so close to 0:10000 that you might as well just leave it on the Bitcoin blockchain. The benefit of not doing so would be negligible.

BTW, I'm pretty sure the LN people have stated that block size increases of some sort would be needed. I don't know where Blockstream stands on this. Maybe they want people to anchor their channels on their Improved Bitcoin Sidealtchain instead of Bitcoin.

[Karartma1]

Sorry, but this is really good. Just a big share. IDK. BAH.

Isn't it?

https://medium.com/@BitFuryGroup/keep-calm-and-bitcoin-on-4f29d581276#.89z3s67sc

By Valery Vavilov, Co-Founder BitFury

CONCLUSION

I believe in Bitcoin. I believe in the Blockchain. I know that the vast potential is just being realized. We wish Mr. Hearn all the best as he commences his work with our friends at R3CEV. It is important that we respect various input but simultaneously resist the temptation to give Mr. Hearn’s voice too much weight.

Bitcoin is not an instant payment network and not a fancy replacement for PayPal or Visa. It is first and foremost a decentralized system, which sacrifices speed in favor of security. A key feature provided by decentralization is permissionless entry for users and developers — and it is thanks to this component that Bitcoin has grown into much more than a currency and has become a platform for Blockchain innovations.

Most importantly, Bitcoin is a new world created for anyone — especially for someone like me — who didn’t grow up in a world where “trusted emissary” was a reality and the idea of “asset security” was something other people in other parts of the world enjoyed.

I believe in Bitcoin because I believe in democracy and I believe in open societies. And as Winston Churchill once said: “Democracy is the worst form of Government, except for all the others.” Open source projects are not perfect, but they unite the best and most innovative thinkers, and I am honored to be a part of this mission.

Is it just me or am I reading one of the most reasonable comments made by a Bitcoin insider so far?
Well said Valery

[rebuilder]

Actually Lightning could use any cryptocurrency in place of bitcoin. Or even multiple cryptocurrencies, with some (or all) nodes and hubs doubling as currency exhanges.  That would let users choose the combination of speed, hashpower, and transaction fees that best suits their needs.  

That would introduce security issues. There is no evidence that other cryptocurrencies could stand up to the same level of attacks Bitcoin has successfully withstood. If you are using LN, then you wouldn't benefit from the other altcoin transaction specifications anyway.

I don't think users - or anyone really - are capable of judging how secure any given cryptocurrency is relative to transaction cost, speed etc. It's a bit of a problem - ideally you'd like to see the market settle on an optimal security vs. cost ratio, but mostly users won't know security has dropped too low until something very bad happens. And if security drops low enough to really undermine the viability of a crypto, it's quite likely that coin will see a severe drop in valuation, leading to further drops in hashrate as miners go out of business.

I guess this would be a partial argument for why centralization of mining is inevitable, as only large miners with sufficient bankroll to survive bad patches will endure in the long run.

[mymenace]

Sorry, but this is really good. Just a big share. IDK. BAH.

Isn't it?

https://medium.com/@BitFuryGroup/keep-calm-and-bitcoin-on-4f29d581276#.89z3s67sc

By Valery Vavilov, Co-Founder BitFury

CONCLUSION

I believe in Bitcoin. I believe in the Blockchain. I know that the vast potential is just being realized. We wish Mr. Hearn all the best as he commences his work with our friends at R3CEV. It is important that we respect various input but simultaneously resist the temptation to give Mr. Hearn’s voice too much weight.

Bitcoin is not an instant payment network and not a fancy replacement for PayPal or Visa. It is first and foremost a decentralized system, which sacrifices speed in favor of security. A key feature provided by decentralization is permissionless entry for users and developers — and it is thanks to this component that Bitcoin has grown into much more than a currency and has become a platform for Blockchain innovations.

Most importantly, Bitcoin is a new world created for anyone — especially for someone like me — who didn’t grow up in a world where “trusted emissary” was a reality and the idea of “asset security” was something other people in other parts of the world enjoyed.

I believe in Bitcoin because I believe in democracy and I believe in open societies. And as Winston Churchill once said: “Democracy is the worst form of Government, except for all the others.” Open source projects are not perfect, but they unite the best and most innovative thinkers, and I am honored to be a part of this mission.

Is it just me or am I reading one of the most reasonable comments made by a Bitcoin insider so far?
Well said Valery

Bitcoin is the solution, everything just has to be built on and around it.

[rebuilder]

Even more: Adam once claimed that the LN would achieve 10'000 transactions for every blockchain transaction.  Leaving aside what that would mean for the coin lock-in periods of the channels, the rate of 1:10'000 is so close to 0:10'000 that no one would notice if the LN just dropped bitcoin altogether, and from then on just shuffled its "cryptochecks" around indefinitely, without ever settling them. 

Of course, LN users would never accept that.  It would be like that time when the US government decided that dollars would no longer be convertible to gold or silver.  We all remember the revolts in the streets, and the huge bonfires where enraged dollar holders burned their then-worthless bills.  Right?

Conversely 1:10000 is so close to 0:10000 that you might as well just leave it on the Bitcoin blockchain. The benefit of not doing so would be negligible.

I don't follow, smooth. Are you being sarcastic?

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[smooth]

Even more: Adam once claimed that the LN would achieve 10'000 transactions for every blockchain transaction.  Leaving aside what that would mean for the coin lock-in periods of the channels, the rate of 1:10'000 is so close to 0:10'000 that no one would notice if the LN just dropped bitcoin altogether, and from then on just shuffled its "cryptochecks" around indefinitely, without ever settling them. 

Of course, LN users would never accept that.  It would be like that time when the US government decided that dollars would no longer be convertible to gold or silver.  We all remember the revolts in the streets, and the huge bonfires where enraged dollar holders burned their then-worthless bills.  Right?

Conversely 1:10000 is so close to 0:10000 that you might as well just leave it on the Bitcoin blockchain. The benefit of not doing so would be negligible.

I don't follow, smooth. Are you being sarcastic?

Not at all. JorgeStolfi was saying that if you settle to the Bitcoin blockchain only 1/10000 of your tx then you might as well not do it at all and use a fiat LN system. I'm saying that at 1/10000 of your tx, the cost of using real Bitcoin (even with, hypothetically, expensive BTC transactions) would be so low there is no reason not to just stay with Bitcoin. I don't think people will want fiat LN.

[Andre#]

There's no entitlement that I can produce all kind of spam and they have to be included in one or a few blocks (for peanuts).

Guess what, there's no kind of requirement of that for miners either. Even with no block size limit at all. So moot point.

You pay the fee, you are in. In a timely manner.

Unless the block is full and yours happens to be amongst the lower fees *no matter what fee you actually attached* and *no matter what miners would be willing to include your transaction for*.

Go down the post office, pay first class for a parcel to your mother to arrive in time for her birthday then watch in amazement as she doesn't get her present and the post office guy explains "The guy over there wanted to pay more so we threw your parcel in the back of the storage room, LOL"

You pay the fee, you are in. In a timely manner.

OK, what is "the fee"? I want numbers.

I don't know why but the bolded bit really made me laugh.

Laugh? Strange, because it's exactly the problem we're facing.

[oda.krell]

There's no entitlement that I can produce all kind of spam and they have to be included in one or a few blocks (for peanuts).

Guess what, there's no kind of requirement of that for miners either. Even with no block size limit at all. So moot point.

You pay the fee, you are in. In a timely manner.

Unless the block is full and yours happens to be amongst the lower fees *no matter what fee you actually attached* and *no matter what miners would be willing to include your transaction for*.

Go down the post office, pay first class for a parcel to your mother to arrive in time for her birthday then watch in amazement as she doesn't get her present and the post office guy explains "The guy over there wanted to pay more so we threw your parcel in the back of the storage room, LOL"

You pay the fee, you are in. In a timely manner.

OK, what is "the fee"? I want numbers.

I don't know why but the bolded bit really made me laugh.

My post office guy does exactly the same, but tends to end his sentences in "top kek".

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[600watt]

I don't know why this didn't occur to me until just now, but with well over 50% hashing power in China, what happens if the Communist Party confiscates all the mines? Then instead of shutting them down, they merge the pools and double spend until the price crashes to pennies.

It wouldn't even do any good to fork away from them.  They have the ASICs, so they could just jump on the new fork and double spend again.

I think this is the biggest security threat to Bitcoin right now. This is a bigger threat than pools, massive miner farms, fewer nodes, anything.   

These mines are too big to hide. If the ChiComs don't know where they all are, they could easily find out.

The Red Chinese government is the only power on earth that could shut down Bitcoin right now, but they could do it with a few phone calls.   They have reasons for doing it too, from preserving the value of the Renmimbi to enforcing capital controls, to consumer protection to regulating commerce to protecting incumbent players or even propping up their preferred altcoin (Litecoin?)

jesus, the communists are the big threat to bitcoin? the c o m m u n i s t s ?!?! 



such ideology…


btw: when the feds decide to jail everyone for 20 years that touches bitcoin, and enforce this worldwide, how long would bitcoin survive?

[lottery248]

I don't know why this didn't occur to me until just now, but with well over 50% hashing power in China, what happens if the Communist Party confiscates all the mines? Then instead of shutting them down, they merge the pools and double spend until the price crashes to pennies.

It wouldn't even do any good to fork away from them.  They have the ASICs, so they could just jump on the new fork and double spend again.

I think this is the biggest security threat to Bitcoin right now. This is a bigger threat than pools, massive miner farms, fewer nodes, anything.  

These mines are too big to hide. If the ChiComs don't know where they all are, they could easily find out.

The Red Chinese government is the only power on earth that could shut down Bitcoin right now, but they could do it with a few phone calls.   They have reasons for doing it too, from preserving the value of the Renmimbi to enforcing capital controls, to consumer protection to regulating commerce to protecting incumbent players or even propping up their preferred altcoin (Litecoin?)

jesus, the communists are the big threat to bitcoin? the c o m m u n i s t s ?!?!  



such ideology…


btw: when the feds decide to jail everyone for 20 years that touches bitcoin, and enforce this worldwide, how long would bitcoin survive?

altcoin would probably be the best solution as of now, because feds would just ban bitcoin, but not the altcoins - FYI the altcoins could be created easily to bypass this kind of law; like Dash / monero AFAIK could get your transaction go traceless. unless the law could crack the cryptography, otherwise the bitcoin remains safe from this kind of crash.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[lottery248]

Coin



Explanation

as we can see, based on the recent hours, the bitcoin price remains stable after the fall of Mike. however as i can see, except the finex, the rest are having another panic on selling. as of 19:06 the price in china stands around 2550, equivalent to $387, not too far compared with finex.
we cannot see anything bright at all, and i told some of the people who minds, real life factor even unrelated to bitcoin could decide the bitcoin price. (seems darknet is being physically cracked down)

[pork pie]

..... (seems darknet is being physically cracked down)

What do you mean by physically cracked down? I have nothing to do with the darknet so I have to get news of anything happening to it here. The last big news I remember was when evolution closed because it said there was a new way for the feds to attack it. Have they devised another new way to attack the darknet?

[swan77]

https://i.imgur.com/1qAkzA5.png
https://i.imgur.com/EDloGrT.png

i love those full blocks! its a fckn good sign!

Do you really believe those chart buddy numbers?   I mean really, if you look at Blockchain.info, you get spikes between 45% and 75%, but currently, the average is around 60%.

They look like more than 75% full right now. That could create problems if you need a transaction confirming quickly. You could probably average the blocks out over a few hours to make it look like the average is below 75% full, but that doesn't help people who need transactions confirming quickly right now. There are times when the average is below 45%, and other times when it's above 90% (which is creating problems).

http://s12.postimg.org/6pezfgxh9/blockchain.jpg

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[AlexGR]

They look like more than 75% full right now. That could create problems if you need a transaction confirming quickly. You could probably average the blocks out over a few hours to make it look like the average is below 75% full, but that doesn't help people who need transactions confirming quickly right now. There are times when the average is below 45%, and other times when it's above 90% (which is creating problems).

https://blockchain.info/charts/avg-block-size?showDataPoints=true&timespan=30days&daysAverageString=1&scale=0&address=

0.71mb = there's an extra 40% capacity.

Ane people are still paying peanuts for the bulk of transactions (free or near free): http://www.cointape.com/

....with not much "urgency" in their tx confirmation - otherwise they'd bump their fees up by a few satoshis.

On the other hand those that pay more normal fees, get included in 0-1 blocks.

[BldSwtTrs]

They look like more than 75% full right now. That could create problems if you need a transaction confirming quickly. You could probably average the blocks out over a few hours to make it look like the average is below 75% full, but that doesn't help people who need transactions confirming quickly right now. There are times when the average is below 45%, and other times when it's above 90% (which is creating problems).

https://blockchain.info/charts/avg-block-size?showDataPoints=true&timespan=30days&daysAverageString=1&scale=0&address=

0.71mb = there's an extra 40% capacity.

Ane people are still paying peanuts for the bulk of transactions (free or near free): http://www.cointape.com/

....with not much "urgency" in their tx confirmation - otherwise they'd bump their fees up by a few satoshis.

On the other hand those that pay more normal fees, get included in 0-1 blocks.

There is something called the "future" which is important to take into consideration when thinking about stuff.