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

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[aztecminer]

Say goodbye to the $300s people

not going to happen.. it will crash right back down to 360m- 370 cuz the pumpers cant maintain higher .. this pump reminds me of how they used to crash pms after someone would talk trash.. they would do it just to discredit that person.. and we would all BUY more ... lol . ...i talk TONS of trash not because i am losing... but rather... because i am WINNING and continue to win.. i have a Win Win position . ... and the desperate govy desperately pumping bitcoin while mulling over negative interest rates for the USD after their 1/4th interest rate hike FAILURE keep LOSING. negative interest rates is the final act of desperation by the federal reserve... .. the 'interest to infinity' debt slavery system of the 'in god we trust' usd is FAILING...  and as the 'interest to infinity' debt system begins its final gasps for breathe.. bitcoin can't even scale....

[JayJuanGee]

We're already seeing blocks fill up on this pump. I'm curious as to how a rally can be sustained when confirmation times take hours.

the question is: will confirmation times for bigger transactions (lets say 100$+) really take longer? i mean if i want to transfer for example 5 BTC to an exchange i just make the fee 3$ or whatever and that's it!

the only TXs that will really suffer are the small and micro ones.

All of my most recent transfers of BTC over the past 6 months or so have included a transaction fee of between .0001 and .0002 BTC, which was generally between $.07 to $.09, and varying transaction sizes of .045BTC and 30BTC..., so your description of a possible $3 transaction fee seems to be quite excessive and outside of actual expected experiences... and really, there may be a bit of an incentive to transfer larger amounts because the transaction fee is the same no matter the amount transferred.

[billyjoeallen]

Bitcoin now has a rather nice flag formation after the rise from 200-500 with little media fanfare. The alt's are waking up and the halving is approaching. The only thing keeping bitcoin back is the blocksize debate which will soon resolve either by a HF with majority of miner support, or with Core acquiescing to the demands of the market and miners (3 weeks!) and fixing a 2mb blocksize HF in the roadmap.

The Chinese will stick with Core, they are quite conservative with respect to leadership. I'd be surprised to see Core implement 2MB blocks in addition to segregated witness, but we'll see.

And so long, farewell, auf wiedersehen 300s!

I'm actually pleasantly surprised with the steady price increase recently. Does anyone know the reasoning behind the increase? Does it have anything to do with the lack of users moving to classic or something, and now that the investors see that, they're buying again?

Or has Classic caused the increase as more users flock to it?

i think thats the reason. miners are hesitant and so a contentious HF is for the moment highly unlikely. 95% HF in 2017 is therefore highly likely.

@ImI:  Why do you keep framing the issue as if a hard fork is inevitable?  Why is a hardfork needed in the first place?  I think that threatening and even engaging in action to employ a hard fork is what causes so much contentious behavior from a large number of persons who become more entrenched in their positions because the solution is framed as being a hardfork.

There seems to be no reason for a hardfork, except one that strives to fundamentally change bitcoin's currently existing consensus based governance mechanism. 

ANY blocksize increase will require a hard fork, Numbnuts. The issue at hand is whether or not a contentious hard fork will be necessitated by Core dragging their heels.  The consensus-based governance mechanism is broken.  Maxwell and crew do not know business or economics. The problem with most people who do not know economics is not that they are ignorant, but that they believe in economic models that are incorrect.  It's not like physics. Economics is counterintuitive and people with the least amount of bias and a lack of intellectual rigor almost always get it wrong.  Smart people are often the worst offenders because they assume competence in one field automatically translates into the economics field, but it doesn't.

There is no such thing as a free lunch. The closest we can get is improved efficiency, and Core is intentionally making Bitcoin less efficient because reasons.  There is a cost associated with this.  If you pay higher fees OR you pay by waiting longer, that cost is taken out of price. That's why the 5 year logarithmic uptrend is broken.  This matters much more than some lame $30 pump. That is transient.

[JayJuanGee]

Bitcoin now has a rather nice flag formation after the rise from 200-500 with little media fanfare. The alt's are waking up and the halving is approaching. The only thing keeping bitcoin back is the blocksize debate which will soon resolve either by a HF with majority of miner support, or with Core acquiescing to the demands of the market and miners (3 weeks!) and fixing a 2mb blocksize HF in the roadmap.

The Chinese will stick with Core, they are quite conservative with respect to leadership. I'd be surprised to see Core implement 2MB blocks in addition to segregated witness, but we'll see.

And so long, farewell, auf wiedersehen 300s!

I'm actually pleasantly surprised with the steady price increase recently. Does anyone know the reasoning behind the increase? Does it have anything to do with the lack of users moving to classic or something, and now that the investors see that, they're buying again?

Or has Classic caused the increase as more users flock to it?

i think thats the reason. miners are hesitant and so a contentious HF is for the moment highly unlikely. 95% HF in 2017 is therefore highly likely.

@ImI:  Why do you keep framing the issue as if a hard fork is inevitable?  Why is a hardfork needed in the first place?  I think that threatening and even engaging in action to employ a hard fork is what causes so much contentious behavior from a large number of persons who become more entrenched in their positions because the solution is framed as being a hardfork.

There seems to be no reason for a hardfork, except one that strives to fundamentally change bitcoin's currently existing consensus based governance mechanism. 

afaik (chinese) miners are determined to HF to 2MB. so i dont see is as "inevitable" but i expect it to happen.

It would be interesting to see your source for this. 

Surely there may be some discussion of various hardfork possibilities, but when push comes to shove, there seems to be no need for a hardfork, if a very large majority are already inclined to agree to the change from 1mb to 2mb (if that is what you are talking about).

On the other hand, if they feel that there is a need for a hardfork, because there are other controversial provisions, then that would be a different story.

At this point, a hard fork seems far from inevitable, and even though this is a speculation thread, when we are talking about something that is not even currently on the table, it seems to be quite "out there" - even though technically still within the realms of speculation.

[ImI]

We're already seeing blocks fill up on this pump. I'm curious as to how a rally can be sustained when confirmation times take hours.

the question is: will confirmation times for bigger transactions (lets say 100$+) really take longer? i mean if i want to transfer for example 5 BTC to an exchange i just make the fee 3$ or whatever and that's it!

the only TXs that will really suffer are the small and micro ones.

All of my most recent transfers of BTC over the past 6 months or so have included a transaction fee of between .0001 and .0002 BTC, which was generally between $.07 to $.09, and varying transaction sizes of .045BTC and 30BTC..., so your description of a possible $3 transaction fee seems to be quite excessive and outside of actual expected experiences... and really, there may be a bit of an incentive to transfer larger amounts because the transaction fee is the same no matter the amount transferred.

indeed 3$ is exaggerated. my point was that TXs bigger than just a few $s will most likely have no issues in an eventual TX-jam.

[aztecminer]

We're already seeing blocks fill up on this pump. I'm curious as to how a rally can be sustained when confirmation times take hours.

the question is: will confirmation times for bigger transactions (lets say 100$+) really take longer? i mean if i want to transfer for example 5 BTC to an exchange i just make the fee 3$ or whatever and that's it!

the only TXs that will really suffer are the small and micro ones.

All of my most recent transfers of BTC over the past 6 months or so have included a transaction fee of between .0001 and .0002 BTC, which was generally between $.07 to $.09, and varying transaction sizes of .045BTC and 30BTC..., so your description of a possible $3 transaction fee seems to be quite excessive and outside of actual expected experiences... and really, there may be a bit of an incentive to transfer larger amounts because the transaction fee is the same no matter the amount transferred.

$3.00 just to move money currency ?? #outrageous #abusivehightaxes #weneedMagnaCarta

[adamstgBit]

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

[adamstgBit]

[adamstgBit]

[adamstgBit]

http://www.pymnts.com/news/2016/netflix-cfo-bullish-on-bitcoin-payments/

[JayJuanGee]

We're already seeing blocks fill up on this pump. I'm curious as to how a rally can be sustained when confirmation times take hours.

Yeah, right, whatever.   


The last six months regarding the average block size look pretty stable to me, with a slightly upward trend in the chart.. and that upward trend in the approximately 60% capacity arena potentially could be nearly completely resolved by seg wit.

https://blockchain.info/charts/avg-block-size?timespan=180days&showDataPoints=false&daysAverageString=1&show_header=true&scale=0&address=

After seg wit goes into effect, then we can assess the situation and regroup... ..

In other words, transactions etc seem to be going pretty well on the technical side of bitcoin, and maybe some of the public is coming to realize that there are really not any technical problems in bitcoin, and accordingly, if you keep doubling down in selling your supposedly existing coins based on these upward BTC price movements, we may be relieved of you from bitcoin and your baloney posts very, very soon.     

However, I understand when you a guy is dealing with fictitious coins, he really doesn't ever run out of coins.


On the other hand, if you do happen to have some coins, and you really are selling them as you claim, then I can imagine you sticking around the forum, after you have run out of coins and while BTC prices go past $450 and then $600 and then $800 and further into the $2k to $5k price arena, and then you will continue to participate to attempt to talk down BTC prices in order that you would be able to get back in at a lower price than your sell prices in the $200s to $400s.  And, when prices drop from $3800 to $1800, you will stick out your tongue and proclaim that you were right all along. blah blah blah.

I remember, not that long ago, you were supposedly selling considerable amounts of BTC while the prices were below $280 and arguing that BTC prices were going down?  but that strategy did not go too well, right?

retard .. peeps like billyjoe keep coins in cold storage... i think $400 is break even for me..  all we gotta do is ride out obama another 10 months and wait for the cia leadership shuffle and wala all new ballgame.............. #GimpedCoin

I understand that BullyJA is all over the place when he is making various assertions regarding what he is going to do, and that is part of my point to assert that it is a lot easier to be all over the place when you are making things up.

Anyhow, he also seemed to be asserting that he was going to continue to double down until he used up all of his supposedly existing coins, and yesterday at about $380, he said that he had shorted about 40btc, and then a bit later he said 80 BTC and then a bit later, in the upper $380s, he asserted that he had put 150BTC.  At that rate, he should be out of coins soon, hopefully, then potentially, we all could be relieved of his drama, and he can rest assured in fiat or some scam altcoin.

[ImI]

afaik (chinese) miners are determined to HF to 2MB. so i dont see is as "inevitable" but i expect it to happen.

It would be interesting to see your source for this.  

mostly IRC

Surely there may be some discussion of various hardfork possibilities, but when push comes to shove, there seems to be no need for a hardfork, if a very large majority are already inclined to agree to the change from 1mb to 2mb (if that is what you are talking about).

HF doesnt mean two competing forks. its just means to hardcode 1MB -> 2MB at block number xyz. even if we have 100% consensus we will have to HF

[adamstgBit]

[Alley]

Aztecminer likely sold his account to a shill.  A year ago he was bullish and a active miner.

[aztecminer]

We're already seeing blocks fill up on this pump. I'm curious as to how a rally can be sustained when confirmation times take hours.

Yeah, right, whatever.  


The last six months regarding the average block size look pretty stable to me, with a slightly upward trend in the chart.. and that upward trend in the approximately 60% capacity arena potentially could be nearly completely resolved by seg wit.

https://blockchain.info/charts/avg-block-size?timespan=180days&showDataPoints=false&daysAverageString=1&show_header=true&scale=0&address=

After seg wit goes into effect, then we can assess the situation and regroup... ..

In other words, transactions etc seem to be going pretty well on the technical side of bitcoin, and maybe some of the public is coming to realize that there are really not any technical problems in bitcoin, and accordingly, if you keep doubling down in selling your supposedly existing coins based on these upward BTC price movements, we may be relieved of you from bitcoin and your baloney posts very, very soon.      

However, I understand when you a guy is dealing with fictitious coins, he really doesn't ever run out of coins.


On the other hand, if you do happen to have some coins, and you really are selling them as you claim, then I can imagine you sticking around the forum, after you have run out of coins and while BTC prices go past $450 and then $600 and then $800 and further into the $2k to $5k price arena, and then you will continue to participate to attempt to talk down BTC prices in order that you would be able to get back in at a lower price than your sell prices in the $200s to $400s.  And, when prices drop from $3800 to $1800, you will stick out your tongue and proclaim that you were right all along. blah blah blah.

I remember, not that long ago, you were supposedly selling considerable amounts of BTC while the prices were below $280 and arguing that BTC prices were going down?  but that strategy did not go too well, right?

retard .. peeps like billyjoe keep coins in cold storage... i think $400 is break even for me..  all we gotta do is ride out obama another 10 months and wait for the cia leadership shuffle and wala all new ballgame.............. #GimpedCoin

I understand that BullyJA is all over the place when he is making various assertions regarding what he is going to do, and that is part of my point to assert that it is a lot easier to be all over the place when you are making things up.

Anyhow, he also seemed to be asserting that he was going to continue to double down until he used up all of his supposedly existing coins, and yesterday at about $380, he said that he had shorted about 40btc, and then a bit later he said 80 BTC and then a bit later, in the upper $380s, he asserted that he had put 150BTC.  At that rate, he should be out of coins soon, hopefully, then potentially, we all could be relieved of his drama, and he can rest assured in fiat or some scam altcoin.

so what... i talk trash all time too. .. and it appears bitcoin was pumped to discredit him.. just like the govy does in the pm market... except now after two years of smashing down pms the 'interest to infinity' debt slavery system is crashing and bitcoin is nowhere near ready, and neither is cryptos.. they have FAILED to get us to liquidate our cold storage .. if they pump too much we make profits, if they go down to much we buy more... IT IS NOT US WHO ARE LOSING! ... its them who are losing . all ya gotta do is listen to the desperate janet yellen talk about negative interest rates after their 1/4th interest rate hike FAILED to see it is THEY who are losing.. yeah the same turds who keep trying to make us LOSE... and the most funniest part about it is they haven't learned that they keep LOSING. and that they are going to keep LOSING. i been doing this for years.. its always the same thing.. PUMP this shiat up see if it hurts me... hhahhahhahha .. crash it down.. see if it hurts mes ... hhahhahhahha.. go sideways trapped in a range.. see if i care.. sorry LOSERS your strategies are failures.. #GimpedCoin is still GIMPED .

its the attitude of 'we're gonna pump it cuz billyjoe shorted' that pisses me off and completely turns me against bitcoin.. cuz they aint winning.. they are LOSING and fronting like they are winning. #GimpedCoin

[adamstgBit]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQleT6BtCbE

[JayJuanGee]

Bitcoin now has a rather nice flag formation after the rise from 200-500 with little media fanfare. The alt's are waking up and the halving is approaching. The only thing keeping bitcoin back is the blocksize debate which will soon resolve either by a HF with majority of miner support, or with Core acquiescing to the demands of the market and miners (3 weeks!) and fixing a 2mb blocksize HF in the roadmap.

The Chinese will stick with Core, they are quite conservative with respect to leadership. I'd be surprised to see Core implement 2MB blocks in addition to segregated witness, but we'll see.

And so long, farewell, auf wiedersehen 300s!

I'm actually pleasantly surprised with the steady price increase recently. Does anyone know the reasoning behind the increase? Does it have anything to do with the lack of users moving to classic or something, and now that the investors see that, they're buying again?

Or has Classic caused the increase as more users flock to it?

i think thats the reason. miners are hesitant and so a contentious HF is for the moment highly unlikely. 95% HF in 2017 is therefore highly likely.

@ImI:  Why do you keep framing the issue as if a hard fork is inevitable?  Why is a hardfork needed in the first place?  I think that threatening and even engaging in action to employ a hard fork is what causes so much contentious behavior from a large number of persons who become more entrenched in their positions because the solution is framed as being a hardfork.

There seems to be no reason for a hardfork, except one that strives to fundamentally change bitcoin's currently existing consensus based governance mechanism. 

ANY blocksize increase will require a hard fork, Numbnuts.

You seem to be creating a false dichotomy.

Let's say for example seg wit gets implemented as planned within the next few months, and then there is continued discussion about whether a blocksize increase is still needed.

At that point, if 90 percent or more agree that a block size increase is needed then maybe could do a hard fork, to coerce the other 10%...


On the other hand, there are ways to design changes in soft forks rather than hard forks.  Have you ever heard about a soft fork?

A soft fork achieves all the same things, it is just voluntary, rather than forced... and maybe in the end, achieves all of the same goals without being as coercive nor as sudden and controversial.

The issue at hand is whether or not a contentious hard fork will be necessitated by Core dragging their heels. 

Oh that is the issue.    yeah, right?

We already know that they are not dragging their heels because seg wit is sufficiently fast and sufficiently adequate for the time being to address immediate concerns.  Once seg wit goes into effect then there may be a need to continue to address and maybe go down the blocksize increase road

The consensus-based governance mechanism is broken. 

yes, you and others have come to that conclusion, and that is why a hard fork is being proposed.  It is not being proposed for technical reasons, but instead to change the consensus-based governance mechanism by attempting to cause turmoil and to create situations to show that such governance is broken.. when, really, it is not... just appears to be at the moment based on the introduction of an unnecessary hardfork.

Maxwell and crew do not know business or economics. The problem with most people who do not know economics is not that they are ignorant, but that they believe in economic models that are incorrect. 

O.k.  Do they need to know business and economics?

Leave that to others? 

Why is it relevant? 

Bitcoin  is currently not broken.... except for attempts to make it look broken.

 It's not like physics. Economics is counterintuitive and people with the least amount of bias and a lack of intellectual rigor almost always get it wrong.  Smart people are often the worst offenders because they assume competence in one field automatically translates into the economics field, but it doesn't. 

i would think that there are a lot of things people know and don't know, and I was of the belief that bitcoin is not exactly a business that anyone is running.. and it is what it is.. and adjustments are made along the way based on a variety of inputs.

There is no such thing as a free lunch. The closest we can get is improved efficiency, and Core is intentionally making Bitcoin less efficient because reasons.  There is a cost associated with this.  If you pay higher fees OR you pay by waiting longer, that cost is taken out of price. That's why the 5 year logarithmic uptrend is broken.  This matters much more than some lame $30 pump. That is transient.

None of these matters are problems..

You have been calling for downfalls in the price of bitcoin for several years.. but you have your on and off moments depending your book and how much attention that you want to get with your various bitcoin is broken proclamations.

[blunderer]

JayJuanGee






a




y
J






u


a














n


G
e














e
!
What is it with you & negative space?

[JayJuanGee]

We're already seeing blocks fill up on this pump. I'm curious as to how a rally can be sustained when confirmation times take hours.

the question is: will confirmation times for bigger transactions (lets say 100$+) really take longer? i mean if i want to transfer for example 5 BTC to an exchange i just make the fee 3$ or whatever and that's it!

the only TXs that will really suffer are the small and micro ones.

All of my most recent transfers of BTC over the past 6 months or so have included a transaction fee of between .0001 and .0002 BTC, which was generally between $.07 to $.09, and varying transaction sizes of .045BTC and 30BTC..., so your description of a possible $3 transaction fee seems to be quite excessive and outside of actual expected experiences... and really, there may be a bit of an incentive to transfer larger amounts because the transaction fee is the same no matter the amount transferred.

indeed 3$ is exaggerated. my point was that TXs bigger than just a few $s will most likely have no issues in an eventual TX-jam.

O.k.  maybe transactions used to be free, and now they are $.09 and maybe later they will be more... however, we are no where near $3

And, yep you are likely correct that it will be good to have lower fees for micro transactions, if BTC is going to move into a fee based model..

but even that scenario is very speculative, at this point...   because from my understanding there are still some microtransactions being done on the blockchain for free, and maybe they take longer to confirm, but since they are microtransactions, it may be less important to get quicker confirmations.  a transaction of 100 satoshis is less critical than  a transaction of 100btc