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

[ZephramC]

if it reaches $1000 i will dump 150btc, call it a day and do something else with my life. even if it reaches the sun later, no regrets. ive tried enough

Many people will dump around $1000. That is psychological resistance. See the dumps of 27/11 - 28/11 2013.

It's rather logical. That's why I always put my orders a few dollars before the too round numbers xD

That is why dumps also occur at prices like 950$, 1050$, 1040$. 

[peonminer]

2016-01-27     07:00 PM GMT   Fed Interest Rate Decision - Most Likely 0.5%



Bitcoin primed and ready for action:

[mOgliE]

if it reaches $1000 i will dump 150btc, call it a day and do something else with my life. even if it reaches the sun later, no regrets. ive tried enough

Many people will dump around $1000. That is psychological resistance. See the dumps of 27/11 - 28/11 2013.

It's rather logical. That's why I always put my orders a few dollars before the too round numbers xD

That is why dumps also occur at prices like 950$, 1050$, 1040$. 

Yeah xD

And that is why you've got to find the real dumping price and get few cents before/after ^^

[nor9865]

I need to cash some out, I don't need the moon at this point. I'd settle for low geosynchronous orbit.

im cashing out 40btc in a few days and the 150 i will have left, i dont need that much cash for the time being. ill just keep it if it rockets i will dump later, if it dies i will be happy i was part of the biggest event that happened after the big bang.

[bitcoinboy12]

I guess the price will remain within the 390-400 range for the next few more days as it seems there's not much traction for it go upwards. However if whales decided to pump it up, then we'll be moving or else we just have to wait for the consensus.

[nor9865]

can anybody has a decent explanation about why the price is moving up and down $388 to $405???

for one thing: price cannot go below 350 .. or below 300 ... its hovering in the rest spot safe zone where it is too high to buy and to low to sell ... bitcoin is in gimpmode right now cuz of blockchain cant scale and the halvening .

there is no such thing as cannot. am sure you want to say must not. (ill give you the benefit of the doubt for that one)

and IMHO if it goes slightly under $380 you will see dumps coming from nowhere and shooting the price down $300. TBH if it does reach $380, ill run to dump 40 ASAP.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[CuntChocula]

...
Bitcoin primed and ready for action:
...

plz no

http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/OB-DQ785_0512cq_F_20090512124702.jpg

[Fatman3001]

A new candidate for The Bitcoin Anthem.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YcXMhwF4EtQ

Sometimes,
I find another world inside my mind.
When I realize the crazy things we do.
It makes me feel ashamed to be alive.
It makes me want to run away and hide.

-chorus-
Its all about the money,
its all about the dum dum duh dee dum dum.
I don't think its funny.
To see us fade away.
Its all about the money,
its all about the dum dum duh dee dum dum.
and I think we got it all wrong anyway.

We find stranges ways,
of showing them how much we really care.
When in fact we don't seem to care at all.
This pretty world is gettin out of hand.
So tell me how we failed to understand.

-chorus x2-
Its all about the money,
its all about the dum dum duh dee dum dum.
I don't think its funny.
to see us fade away.
Its all about the money,
its all about the dum dum duh dee dum dum.
and I think we got it all wrong anyway.

[aztecminer]

I think btc will boom in the near future.

Look at the altcoin market people.

I think shit is gonna hit the fan soon.

i just do not see how bitcoin can do anything if it can't scale.. right now i am trying to figure out how cutting the mining of coins will make a difference if bitcoin cannot scale. last year we were talking about this scaling issue was supposed to be fixed early this year.. we are moving into February and where's the fix ?? bitcoin is worth $400 even though it cant scale ..

[mOgliE]

I think btc will boom in the near future.

Look at the altcoin market people.

I think shit is gonna hit the fan soon.

i just do not see how bitcoin can do anything if it can't scale.. right now i am trying to figure out how cutting the mining of coins will make a difference if bitcoin cannot scale. last year we were talking about this scaling issue was supposed to be fixed early this year.. we are moving into February and where's the fix ?? bitcoin is worth $400 even though it cant scale ..

Sorry if I seem stupid but... What do you mean about scaling? The fact that blocks are full?

[AlexGR]

I have not yet seen a single cryptocurrency that hasn't resorted to dev intervention under circumstances of bloat/flood attack. Whether it is about fees or block size, something has to give in order to stop it or restrain it.

Which flood attack? The couple of "stress tests" that we had last year?

The network is in constant saturation by dust and spam that want to be processed for free or near zero cost. A stress test is just a more focused version of the same issue.

Near-zero to zero fee txs equals near-zero to zero fee attacks. Attacks which do not have serious economic disincentives betray a broken underlying game theory.

If that's a problem, a minimum fee should be introduced.

It is a problem but we also face political pressure. You can get crucified for doing the right fee with populist bullshit like "ohhh the devs are raising the fees, they want to make BTC expensive for users" crap.

Ethereum, which is hot these days, says, you know Bitcoin is kind of ...idealistic in its approach, we'll just use fees to prevent abuse:

https://github.com/ethereum/wiki/wiki/White-Paper#fees

"Because every transaction published into the blockchain imposes on the network the cost of needing to download and verify it, there is a need for some regulatory mechanism, typically involving transaction fees, to prevent abuse."


Free or nearly free txs = free or nearly free abuse. If you allow that = you are a joke coin that can be attacked by script-kiddies.

In BTC the last line of defense, in absence of serious fees requirement, is the block size.

When you have scaling issues you can't allow abuse like that. Some people are like, who cares, let's make the blockchain a few TBs, make the limit as large as it gets, we can afford hard disks... and we don't even need to run full nodes, we'll all use SPV. Yet, even BTC "competitors" (supposing someone doesn't want to listen to arguments by "core" or "classic") say there is centralization danger when you bloat the blockchain:

https://github.com/ethereum/wiki/wiki/White-Paper#scalability

"Scalability

One common concern about Ethereum is the issue of scalability. Like Bitcoin, Ethereum suffers from the flaw that every transaction needs to be processed by every node in the network. With Bitcoin, the size of the current blockchain rests at about 15 GB, growing by about 1 MB per hour. If the Bitcoin network were to process Visa's 2000 transactions per second, it would grow by 1 MB per three seconds (1 GB per hour, 8 TB per year). Ethereum is likely to suffer a similar growth pattern, worsened by the fact that there will be many applications on top of the Ethereum blockchain instead of just a currency as is the case with Bitcoin, but ameliorated by the fact that Ethereum full nodes need to store just the state instead of the entire blockchain history.

The problem with such a large blockchain size is centralization risk. If the blockchain size increases to, say, 100 TB, then the likely scenario would be that only a very small number of large businesses would run full nodes, with all regular users using light SPV nodes. In such a situation, there arises the potential concern that the full nodes could band together and all agree to cheat in some profitable fashion (eg. change the block reward, give themselves BTC). Light nodes would have no way of detecting this immediately. Of course, at least one honest full node would likely exist, and after a few hours information about the fraud would trickle out through channels like Reddit, but at that point it would be too late: it would be up to the ordinary users to organize an effort to blacklist the given blocks, a massive and likely infeasible coordination problem on a similar scale as that of pulling off a successful 51% attack."


Now note that Ethereum is soaring these days despite "fees" and "more scaling issues" due to all the apps that will be running on top of it. The market says it's the "next big thing". Or that it's a pump & dump. We'll see.

Let's hope, once we get to 2mb, miners will be more selective with the trash txs.

Will only happen once  the subsidy is the same order of magnitude as the sum of fees in a block. As long as the subsidy is very high, you are left to chose from (1) hugely increasing the number of tx or (2) hugely increasing tx fees. For neither there's any demand now.

There's also the BTC price increase factor.

Subsidy of 25 BTCs at 500$ is the same as subsidy of 12.5 BTCs at 1000$.

The first miners mining 50 BTCs were getting paid much less (in usd) than the current miners at 25 BTC. Likewise for fees. ~0.3 BTC in fees today are, let's say ~120-130$, when it used to be ...nothing (in usd terms), even when people were using 0.01 for a fee.

I was thinking that an ideal way to eliminate spam would be for the miners/nodes to agree to not process txs that use a fee lower than 10 cents. We'd probably go down to 200-600kb blocks right away (depending the load) with plenty of room to spare - and probably everything would go in in the first block. But having prices in USD doesn't work in terms of code (which deals with BTC fractions).

[aztecminer]

can anybody has a decent explanation about why the price is moving up and down $388 to $405???

for one thing: price cannot go below 350 .. or below 300 ... its hovering in the rest spot safe zone where it is too high to buy and to low to sell ... bitcoin is in gimpmode right now cuz of blockchain cant scale and the halvening .

there is no such thing as cannot. am sure you want to say must not. (ill give you the benefit of the doubt for that one)

and IMHO if it goes slightly under $380 you will see dumps coming from nowhere and shooting the price down $300. TBH if it does reach $380, ill run to dump 40 ASAP.

yeah that is what i mean.. its not that bitcoin cant go below 300.. it must not go below $300 as that would negate part of the reasons for the marshal's pump in the first place ....... however.. it is starting to become evident that the fix for bitcoins scaling problem is not in yet...

[aztecminer]

I think btc will boom in the near future.

Look at the altcoin market people.

I think shit is gonna hit the fan soon.

i just do not see how bitcoin can do anything if it can't scale.. right now i am trying to figure out how cutting the mining of coins will make a difference if bitcoin cannot scale. last year we were talking about this scaling issue was supposed to be fixed early this year.. we are moving into February and where's the fix ?? bitcoin is worth $400 even though it cant scale ..

Sorry if I seem stupid but... What do you mean about scaling? The fact that blocks are full?

bitcoin cannot continue to grow because it cannot handle the additional traffic . #gimpcoin

[hdbuck]

I think btc will boom in the near future.

Look at the altcoin market people.

I think shit is gonna hit the fan soon.

i just do not see how bitcoin can do anything if it can't scale.. right now i am trying to figure out how cutting the mining of coins will make a difference if bitcoin cannot scale. last year we were talking about this scaling issue was supposed to be fixed early this year.. we are moving into February and where's the fix ?? bitcoin is worth $400 even though it cant scale ..

Sorry if I seem stupid but... What do you mean about scaling? The fact that blocks are full?

bitcoin cannot continue to grow because it cannot handle the additional traffic . #gimpcoin

Such broken thinking. What are you still doing around? Sell now.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[Richy_T]

I was thinking that an ideal way to eliminate spam would be for the miners/nodes to agree to not process txs that use a fee lower than 10 cents. We'd probably go down to 200-600kb blocks right away (depending the load) with plenty of room to spare - and probably everything would go in in the first block. But having prices in USD doesn't work in terms of code (which deals with BTC fractions).

It's all price controls and cartels with you, isn't it?

[Andre#]

I have not yet seen a single cryptocurrency that hasn't resorted to dev intervention under circumstances of bloat/flood attack. Whether it is about fees or block size, something has to give in order to stop it or restrain it.

Which flood attack? The couple of "stress tests" that we had last year?

The network is in constant saturation by dust and spam that want to be processed for free or near zero cost. A stress test is just a more focused version of the same issue.

Near-zero to zero fee txs equals near-zero to zero fee attacks. Attacks which do not have serious economic disincentives betray a broken underlying game theory.

If that's a problem, a minimum fee should be introduced.

It is a problem but we also face political pressure. You can get crucified for doing the right fee with populist bullshit like "ohhh the devs are raising the fees, they want to make BTC expensive for users" crap.

If I look at the last eight blocks (395,151-395,158) I see that 16,093 tx were processed for a fee of 3.08 BTC. That's 0.000191 BTC/tx or USD 0.0766 . I'm not sure how much zero-fee transactions are in there, but with an average of 7.7 cents, how much higher should the minimum fee bee in your opinion?

Free or nearly free txs = free or nearly free abuse. If you allow that = you are a joke coin that can be attacked by script-kiddies.

In BTC the last line of defense, in absence of serious fees requirement, is the block size.

[...]

I was thinking that an ideal way to eliminate spam would be for the miners/nodes to agree to not process txs that use a fee lower than 10 cents. We'd probably go down to 200-600kb blocks right away (depending the load) with plenty of room to spare - and probably everything would go in in the first block. But having prices in USD doesn't work in terms of code (which deals with BTC fractions).

10 cents is a lot, I think. But apparently 7.7 is already the average, so there's little in between.

One thing I don't understand. If big blocks are such an issue for Chinese miners, why don't they refuse to include tx with too low a fee?

[AlexGR]

I was thinking that an ideal way to eliminate spam would be for the miners/nodes to agree to not process txs that use a fee lower than 10 cents. We'd probably go down to 200-600kb blocks right away (depending the load) with plenty of room to spare - and probably everything would go in in the first block. But having prices in USD doesn't work in terms of code (which deals with BTC fractions).

It's all price controls and cartels with you, isn't it?

It's about game theory and economic disincentives in order to defend against system(+atic) abuse. If you read the Ethereum link provided above, you'll see some subtle criticism against bitcoin for leaving the abuse disincentives (fees) to be ...determined by the free market. Litecoin also didn't leave the abuse prevention fees to be determined by the free market: The imposed a fee patch. Monero also saw first hand the effects of a bloat attack and raised fees.

As you can understand this is not about me.

If you made a coin tomorrow, and someone started killing it for the lolz, you'd patch it up with some kind of fee increase / block restriction. Common sense.

[cbeast]

I was thinking that an ideal way to eliminate spam would be for the miners/nodes to agree to not process txs that use a fee lower than 10 cents. We'd probably go down to 200-600kb blocks right away (depending the load) with plenty of room to spare - and probably everything would go in in the first block. But having prices in USD doesn't work in terms of code (which deals with BTC fractions).

It's all price controls and cartels with you, isn't it?

It's about game theory and economic disincentives in order to defend against system(+atic) abuse. If you read the Ethereum link provided above, you'll see some subtle criticism against bitcoin for leaving the abuse disincentives (fees) to be ...determined by the free market. Litecoin also didn't leave the abuse prevention fees to be determined by the free market: The imposed a fee patch. Monero also saw first hand the effects of a bloat attack and raised fees.

As you can understand this is not about me.

If you made a coin tomorrow, and someone started killing it for the lolz, you'd patch it up with some kind of fee increase / block restriction. Common sense.

Who's qualified to determine those fees, Alan Greenspan?