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

[Fatman3001]

Toomim on wechat (I think). Gives a little more insight to what has happened, and what he thinks, agree or disagree... worth a read if you can handle it... loooong.

http://pastebin.com/B8YQr5TQ

There's even some stuff relevant to the WO-thread here:

1|申屠青春:2016-01-20 07:29:30:Chinese central bank want to issue digital currency...
1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:29:43:(indeed. big news)
1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:29:49:(thanks for the update)
1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:30:02:oh darn, i already sold my bitcoin to pay for electricity a few days ago...
1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 07:30:06:wish i had waited
1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 07:30:12:
1|申屠青春:2016-01-20 07:30:20:[Grin]

Guy Cohen has a great line in adversarial cross examination! weasel words, statements dressed as questions, the lot.
And finally this: (referring to nodes)

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:03:39:or someone can fake it as well ?

So, its just iceBreaker/Adam Back, just better trained.

This is funny: (afer JT describes core_POW change as an alt coin)

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:11:15:With you permission, I want to call it Core + PoW change fork
1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:11:21:And not altcoin
1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:11:23:Ok ?

Even funnier....

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:22:33:Let's assume Core is implementing both changes
1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:22:38:And we have different PoW
1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 09:22:45:they
1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:22:54:sure
1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:23:02:(It's bad translation from Hebrew)
1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:23:08:We as a community

From hebrew.  No forks in hebrew.

He has a serious isue with core-pow being called an altcoin, I'm surprised JT didnt pick up on it and leverage it.

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:30:12:That both ClassicCoin and CoreCoin are alt coins and the OldCoreCoins are the real one
1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:30:22:I know that there are some people still using old clients
1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:30:28:And call those coins BTC
1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 09:30:34:right, the original bitcoin has a 32 MB blocksize limit
1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 09:30:39:we stopped using Bitcoin years ago
1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 09:30:41:indeed

So we have been buying alt-coins for the last 4 years according to Mr. Cohen.  

I'll stop now as I'm bored as you probably are.


Still, I think Toomim did prety good, for someone with no legal/PR training.

It's clear that Toomin assumed Guy Corems stated objective was the real goal of the conversation and accepted it.

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 06:19:32:guy, are you in here?
1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 06:19:46:Hi Jonathan
1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 06:19:54:Thanks for logging in
1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 06:20:01:Care to discuss possible governance change ?
1|申屠青春:2016-01-20 06:21:39:@jl2012 那是反社会了，马上被弹劾。
1|申屠青春:2016-01-20 06:22:05:下台
1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 06:22:46:in public?
1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 06:22:53:Yes
1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 06:22:55:i'm open to a possible governance change
1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 06:22:58:The only right way to do it
1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 06:23:06:olivier will probaby get annoyed with me for doing it in public
1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 06:23:08:and marshall
1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 06:23:11:and mike
1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 06:23:14:please do
1|teksongbu:2016-01-20 06:23:19:why?
1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 06:23:22:Thay's the correct way to do it, IMHO
1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 06:23:34:Bitcoin world should be open free and clear of intrigues

But it becomes clear that he has something else in mind:

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 10:05:39:i think the majority of devs want to work on the majority coin, and won't want to play chicken once it's clear which one that is
1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 10:05:58:Why do you object to my vision of comeptition ?
1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 10:06:04:Isn't competition good ?
1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 10:06:17:I mean, you didn't want to git-cherry pick ?

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 10:29:45:Once you are forced to do Hard Fork once
1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 10:30:04:And see that it's not hat terrible (my believe, not core), they'll do it more often

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

But it becomes clear that he has something else in mind:

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 10:05:39:i think the majority of devs want to work on the majority coin, and won't want to play chicken once it's clear which one that is
1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 10:05:58:Why do you object to my vision of comeptition ?
1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 10:06:04:Isn't competition good ?
1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 10:06:17:I mean, you didn't want to git-cherry pick ?

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 10:29:45:Once you are forced to do Hard Fork once
1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 10:30:04:And see that it's not hat terrible (my believe, not core), they'll do it more often

The opening gambits made it clear that this was not going to go pleasantly. But considering his meticulous approach and questioning style, I fell he comprehensively failed to fluster JT, and simply became angry at the end. I think he tried to tease out some statement from JT that all hell would break loose during a HF, but couldn't make that point stick - JT shut him down pretty well.

How many times did he say "I'll get to that later" (which is code for "I know nothing more on that topic") ?

tl;dr It shouldn't have happened.

[BitUsher]

https://twitter.com/AaronvanW/status/690120783281156097

Confirmed: Chinese mining pools are sticking with Bitcoin Core.

Context and more details? I knew it was coming from the conversations , but just didn't expect it this quickly.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin


Explanation

[Fatman3001]

But it becomes clear that he has something else in mind:

1|Jonathan Toomim:2016-01-20 10:05:39:i think the majority of devs want to work on the majority coin, and won't want to play chicken once it's clear which one that is
1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 10:05:58:Why do you object to my vision of comeptition ?
1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 10:06:04:Isn't competition good ?
1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 10:06:17:I mean, you didn't want to git-cherry pick ?

1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 10:29:45:Once you are forced to do Hard Fork once
1|Guy Corem:2016-01-20 10:30:04:And see that it's not hat terrible (my believe, not core), they'll do it more often

The opening gambits made it clear that this was not going to go pleasantly. But considering his meticulous approach and questioning style, I fell he comprehensively failed to fluster JT, and simply became angry at the end. I think he tried to tease out some statement from JT that all hell would break loose during a HF, but couldn't make that point stick - JT shut him down pretty well.

How many times did he say "I'll get to that later" (which is code for "I know nothing more on that topic") ?

tl;dr It shouldn't have happened.

As you've said earlier I think JT did pretty good as well, and it does shine a light on much of what happened.  But I would prefer it if the guy on the other end was someone closer to Core willing to speak more openly. Not friggin Guy Corem. This just shows that Bitcoin Classic is open. We knew that.

https://twitter.com/AaronvanW/status/690120783281156097

Confirmed: Chinese mining pools are sticking with Bitcoin Core.

Context and more details? I knew it was coming from the conversations , but just didn't expect it this quickly.

[oda.krell]

Blocks are full. Let's see what happens.

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/41whvw/maximum_of_transactions_second_that_bitcoin_can/cz5v60m

It's the FULLBLOCALYPSE_TM

I think I'm done arguing. It just has to play out now.

(I was actually going to use that word but couldn't remember it exactly.)

big blocker capitulation is close ... they have no logical ground to stand on and the whole edifice is crumbling, Crassic was just the Hearn echo swansong

52% to 72% of hashpower*, two of the most respected developers**, plus what looks like a majority of community sentiment in favor*** are saying otherwise. Oh, right, and I forgot to mention loaded posted he's in favor of 2MB****


* Depending on whether you believe rumors of "false pledges of 2MB allegiance" by some pools.

**  Yes, yes, we know... "Gavin is a government shill!", "paid for by the banks", etc.

*** In here, across all forums of btctalk, perhaps doubtful -- but much less so on r/bitcoin and r/btc.

**** On reddit. Caveat: not via signed message, so could be fake.

[BitUsher]

https://twitter.com/AaronvanW/status/690120783281156097

Confirmed: Chinese mining pools are sticking with Bitcoin Core.

Context and more details? I knew it was coming from the conversations , but just didn't expect it this quickly.

You are incredulous or simply lack details of the announcement? Aaron van Wirdum is a respected journalist so I would give a little credence to his announcement and wait to verify.

52% to 72% of hashpower*, two of the most respected developers**, plus what looks like a majority of community sentiment in favor*** are saying otherwise. Oh, right, and I forgot to mention loaded posted he's in favor of 2MB****

* Depending on whether you believe rumors of "false pledges of 2MB allegiance" by some pools.

I believe most miners are indeed in favor of 2MB capacity , but also understand that is what segwit provides.

[Fatman3001]

https://twitter.com/AaronvanW/status/690120783281156097

Confirmed: Chinese mining pools are sticking with Bitcoin Core.

Context and more details? I knew it was coming from the conversations , but just didn't expect it this quickly.

You are incredulous or simply lack details of the announcement? Aaron van Wirdum is a respected journalist so I would give a little credence to his announcement and wait to verify.

Yeah, let's do that "wait to verify" thingy.

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

https://twitter.com/AaronvanW/status/690120783281156097

Confirmed: Chinese mining pools are sticking with Bitcoin Core.

Context and more details? I knew it was coming from the conversations , but just didn't expect it this quickly.

You are incredulous or simply lack details of the announcement? Aaron van Wirdum is a respected journalist so I would give a little credence to his announcement and wait to verify.

Thats hilarious. Adam back quotes him on twitter every now and again, but his earlier tweet which included"more to follow" was bullshit as well. About the atempt to fud the f2p announcement.

Respected my ass. Puppet more like.

edit: added tweet link.

[mmitech]

Blocks are full. Let's see what happens.

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/41whvw/maximum_of_transactions_second_that_bitcoin_can/cz5v60m

It's the FULLBLOCALYPSE_TM

I think I'm done arguing. It just has to play out now.

(I was actually going to use that word but couldn't remember it exactly.)

big blocker capitulation is close ... they have no logical ground to stand on and the whole edifice is crumbling, Crassic was just the Hearn echo swansong

52% to 72% of hashpower*, two of the most respected developers**, plus what looks like a majority of community sentiment in favor*** are saying otherwise. Oh, right, and I forgot to mention loaded posted he's in favor of 2MB****


* Depending on whether you believe rumors of "false pledges of 2MB allegiance" by some pools.

**  Yes, yes, we know... "Gavin is a government shill!", "paid for by the banks", etc.

*** In here, across all forums of btctalk, perhaps doubtful -- but much less so on r/bitcoin and r/btc.

**** On reddit. Caveat: not via signed message, so could be fake.

I said that I will never speculate about price again since I started developing, even though I am in the speculation sub-forum I am going to hold to my word and not speculate about the price...


I am not against raising the block size, I am strongly in favor because Bitcoin is at the edge of technical death, most blocks are full and there is a ton of unconfirmed transactions waiting (with valid fees paid) to be included in the next blocks and the number is going up exponentially. One of the fundamental points of Bitcoin is failing, Bitcoin is no longer cheap/free especially for small transactions and this will be even worse if the price goes up.

Raising the Block size to 2 MB will not solve the problem, it will just buy us some more time, a month, two or maybe even 6 months but we will hit the cap again and when we hit that cap we better have a better solution prepared because we can't fork Bitcoin every 6 months or so to raise the block size cap.

Bitcoin is already failing as a payment system, even if we raise the block size today to 32MB, technically we wont be able to make more than 100 transaction a second, and at this rate of adoption this means certain death.


 

[BitUsher]

Yeah, let's do that "wait to verify" thingy.

Details and context being revealed ....(I look forward to more data confirming before making any judgments)

https://www.bikeji.com/t/3144
http://www.weibo.com/3884337005/De95fs0cx?from=page_1005053884337005_profile&wvr=6&mod=weibotime

The translation:

Yesterday, Jeff(Garzik?), a developer of Bitcoin Classic, took a flight to Beijing from New York, to attend a meeting with the Chinese Bitcoin businesses, including Haobtc, OKCoin, Bitmain, Bither, LIGHTNINGASIC, with the aim of gaining further support for Bitcoin Classic. When talking about Bitcoin Classic's releases, Jeff stated that a hard fork is needed for the upgrading and improvement of the source code(the original Chinese are weasel words and possibly syntactically incorrect), yet(and) without providing a clear long-term roadmap(about what lies ahead of the 2MB increase?), which led to almost universal dissatisfaction among those present, whom further expressed their withdrawal of support for Bitcoin Classic, and the need to reach a wider consensus within the community before a decision can be made.

[oda.krell]

52% to 72% of hashpower*, two of the most respected developers**, plus what looks like a majority of community sentiment in favor*** are saying otherwise. Oh, right, and I forgot to mention loaded posted he's in favor of 2MB****

* Depending on whether you believe rumors of "false pledges of 2MB allegiance" by some pools.

I believe most miners are indeed in favor of 2MB capacity , but also understand that is what segwit provides.

True. I believe the (likely) majority I cite above doesn't really care how a total tx capacity increase is achieved, only that it is achieved.

That said:

1. Segwit likely constitutes a somewhat smaller increase in tx capacity than a maxblocksize change to 2MB. Bitcoin core itself mentions "1.6MB to 2MB", depending on the type of transaction.

2. What the consensus (I claim exists) really shows is that - technical questions aside - the economical assumptions of the smallblockers arguments are rejected by miners, community, and large economic entities (several of the major companies, and at least a few known cases of major capital holders).


In other words: 2MB maxblocksize or not, segwit now or later -- in any case, the majority of the Bitcoin economy seems to be against artificial transaction scarcity.

This last point is something the economically motivated smallblock proponents (as opposed to the technically motivated ones) need to wrap their head around, but seem unwilling to do, so far at least.

[BitUsher]

In other words: 2MB maxblocksize or not, segwit now or later -- in any case, the majority of the Bitcoin economy seems to be against artificial transaction scarcity.

Source? Hopefully you aren't basing this off of an unscientific Toomin like poll with small sample sizes and no controls of sample data.
I would also like to analyze the questions posed in the poll as that can greatly effect the responses.

I.E...  

1) Do you want to increase the block size for bitcoin to have very small fees for everyday tx's?

vs

2) Do you want the bitcoin chain to remain efficient and lean with a decentralized p2p payment layer that keeps tx's small for everyday purchases?

Users would likely say yes to both the above even when they are very different plans.

[soullyG]

Adam, time for a new poll - what size blocks do you want?

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

In other words: 2MB maxblocksize or not, segwit now or later -- in any case, the majority of the Bitcoin economy seems to be against artificial transaction scarcity.

Source? Hopefully you aren't basing this off of an unscientific Toomin like poll with small sample sizes and no controls of sample data.
I would also like to analyze the questions posed in the poll as that can greatly effect the responses.

I.E...  

1) Do you want to increase the block size for bitcoin to have very small fees for everyday tx's?

vs

2) Do you want the bitcoin chain to remain efficient and lean with a decentralized p2p payment layer that keeps tx's small for everyday purchases?

Users would likely say yes to both the above even when they are very different plans.

What percentage of the mining pool is represented by "Haobtc, OKCoin, Bitmain, Bither, LIGHTNINGASIC" ? 

[BitUsher]

Adam, time for a new poll - what size blocks do you want?

I believe many of these polls are worthless as they don't consider the nuances, timeframe, and dependencies.

Most everyone *wants* bigger blocks. In order for the lighting network to succeed, we must have much larger blocks!

What percentage of the mining pool is represented by "Haobtc, OKCoin, Bitmain, Bither, LIGHTNINGASIC" ? 

We probably shouldn't jump to conclusions being that none of them are running classic nodes yet and the latest news indicate that they are sticking with core. The true vote is one that has commitment and resources behind it and not merely a nod of approval towards both core and classic.

[oda.krell]

In other words: 2MB maxblocksize or not, segwit now or later -- in any case, the majority of the Bitcoin economy seems to be against artificial transaction scarcity.

Source? Hopefully you aren't basing this off of an unscientific Toomin like poll with small sample sizes and no controls of sample data.
I would also like to analyze the questions posed in the poll as that can greatly effect the responses.

I.E...  

1) Do you want to increase the block size for bitcoin to have very small fees for everyday tx's?

vs

2) Do you want the bitcoin chain to remain efficient and lean with a decentralized p2p payment layer that keeps tx's small for everyday purchases?

Users would likely say yes to both the above even when they are very different plans.

I've already answered that: hashpower (slight majority to strong majority) plus major companies plus the fact that only a fringe of the posters in here, and nearly none on reddit or otherwhere, defend artificial scarcity means (most likely) an economic majority rejects the latter, but seems to be doubtful about technical issues (or doesn't understand them).

You'd rather see a poll? Sure, we can have one, maybe in this thread, or anywhere in this forum - however, I'm pretty sure whatever result we get will be challenged on grounds of manipulation, brigading, whatever.

The real test will be in case we're getting a hardfork. I don't think these should be taken lightly, but I'm also not convinced they are the 'death sentence' some make them out to be. This really runs down to a few basic psychological assumptions people seem to make: will "getting used to hardforks" inevitably mean crypto will be subverted, and capital diluted? Or can they become a (carefully) employed tool to bring about required major changes in the software, without dividing the network beyond repair. I'm leaning towards the latter, in case that wasn't clear already.

[aztecminer]

I am doubting myself for being bearish but at the same time this pump does not make too much sense.
I feel like this should dump back down. What am I missing here?

It makes sense if you stop thinking about Bitcoin as an organic market, and start thinking about it as a Cash Cow controlled by Chinese Bitcoin Cowboys. Crash down to Long RLZ, and then right back up to Short RLZ within a few days? It's bullshit. It is a rigged casino designed to deprive the majority of thier funds. Perma bulls get the thrill of seeing their USD wealth inflate when 'they' pump but get that sinking feeling in their gut when they see their USD wealth evaporate when BTC crashes, and bears vice versa.

An organic market is 'the herd'. And it is possible to develop an acumen in the reading of charts and the use of statistical based tools, to forecast future herd movements. Bitcoin is not so much the herd, as the herd being rounded up by the Bitcoin Cowboys. 'They' have this market on the end of a piece of string like a fucking Yo Yo.

U will know how to read market signals. Look back at the consolidation formation prior to break out. It was saying bear all the fkn way. It was as though the formation was intentionaly designed to trick as many people as possible, and for those who had the audacity to still see it as Long (I was one of them), we even got a move down to take out lowest low, and wipe out all the long Stop Orders. 'They' did not want the public getting in on this at the bottom. 'They' wanted the public chasing the momentum. 'They' want the public to be buying Bitcoin right now! Buying 'their' Bitcoin, that they picked up $350-$380. Although, after that vicious engulfing Doji candle that hit right into 61.8% Short RLZ, only the most fucking stupid of investors are going to enter Bitcoin here, enter they still will, and last I checked, PoC is sitting up at $435...a likely upside target when all is said and done, but will I be attempting to ride it up? NOOOO!

Point is, everything about the crash, and everything about this 'miracle' rise, has fuck all to do with fundamentals, and everything to do with rigged market machinations. Rise was too fast, and it came from nowhere. Reminds me a bit of the March 2014 parabolic rise when Bitcoin surged from $580 - $710. Too much, too soon. Just not fucking sustainable, manufactured as fuck and we all know what happened next.

As soon as the 'top' is confirmed, I will be hunting shorts on Bitcoin targetting $310 area, cos that is where this fucker is going. But if that V bottom was anything to go by, I guess I shouldn't expect a nice easy double top M market structure to trade....I suspect only the chosen and the highly risk tolerant will get to short with the choice trade entry points.

i'm not sure its really "the chinese" doing this.. it might be coming from chinese exchanges... the part ur missing is how it was well timed with the marshal's auction. must not lose sight of that fact...

i think the biggest challenge facing bitcoin rocketing on up is the continued weakness of the bitfinex exchange..

while bitcoin is being a biatch.. keep buying suppressed pms .. that totally puts it in em hard . .. imagine buying a bitcoin for less than 15.00 a coin and suddenly during the reset it's value goes to triple or quadruple digits... they can't pump the pms right now, the only thing they can do is keep them suppressed.. pumping pms would cause everyone to rush into pms.. thats not the plan. pms won't make their big move until the financial implosion is in full force and noone can get any pms at that time because there will be no supply. the wait will be longer, but then ur waiting on the reset that is coming.  if you need a place to store your pms, consider a vault in singapore. i think is possible to use ripple to get pms in a vault in singapore... from there u can move into several currencies, or have the pms shipped to u.

keep in mind the rate hike was forced! ... and we can see the immediate affect on the stock market has been instant crash mode. this shows us the fed has lost control. they also moved a bunch fed balance to the treasury (20 billion) for who knows what reasons... everything is getting weird... hardball bitcoin.. can't get a buy in ?? then buy pms and leave em pissed.. they can pump or crash bitcoin all pissed off about it.. too bad sorry charlie.

[BitUsher]

I've already answered that: hashpower (slight majority to strong majority)

This is in question as the miners are making political nods to both sides : Core and Classic. Additionally, this information along with Bitfury's article that strongly rejects all of classics principles lead me to doubt the sincerity of those commitments.

Technically , there is 0 miner support for Classic and 100% for Core right now. Until the miners start switch code , the vote hasn't happened.(Faking support like slush did with XT doesn't count either )

Details and context being revealed ....(I look forward to more data confirming before making any judgments)

https://www.bikeji.com/t/3144
http://www.weibo.com/3884337005/De95fs0cx?from=page_1005053884337005_profile&wvr=6&mod=weibotime

The translation:

Yesterday, Jeff(Garzik?), a developer of Bitcoin Classic, took a flight to Beijing from New York, to attend a meeting with the Chinese Bitcoin businesses, including Haobtc, OKCoin, Bitmain, Bither, LIGHTNINGASIC, with the aim of gaining further support for Bitcoin Classic. When talking about Bitcoin Classic's releases, Jeff stated that a hard fork is needed for the upgrading and improvement of the source code(the original Chinese are weasel words and possibly syntactically incorrect), yet(and) without providing a clear long-term roadmap(about what lies ahead of the 2MB increase?), which led to almost universal dissatisfaction among those present, whom further expressed their withdrawal of support for Bitcoin Classic, and the need to reach a wider consensus within the community before a decision can be made.

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

What percentage of the mining pool is represented by "Haobtc, OKCoin, Bitmain, Bither, LIGHTNINGASIC" ? 

We probably shouldn't jump to conclusions being that none of them are running classic nodes yet and the latest news indicate that they are sticking with core. The true vote is one that has commitment and resources behind it and not merely a nod of approval towards both core and classic.

I asked what the percentage of mining is represented by that list. I'm not jumping to any conclusions, but you clearly are - the tweet you quoted says "Chinese mining pools are sticking with Bitcoin Core"