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

[aztecminer]

Good morning Bitcoinland.

Still stuck around $440, eh?

Let's get this thing moving up.

blocks are 92% full when u said that .. in case u didnt notice.

[aztecminer]

Coin



Explanation

if nobody notice this morning: blocks are 97% full atm.

[Gyrsur]

Good morning Bitcoinland.

Still stuck around $440, eh?

Let's get this thing moving up.

blocks are 92% full when u said that .. in case u didnt notice.

^^BS!

https://blockchain.info/de/charts/avg-block-size

[billyjoeallen]

There is still a huge amount of upward momentum in this market, judging by the moving averages.  The problem is, if we continue on this trajectory, blocks will fill first, then fees will double. Then fees will quadruple, octuple, etc. until even the mathematincally challenged pumpmonkeys start to extrapolate what this means. Even though fees are still cheap, they will be only so for a very short period of time.

we have the capacity for a half million active users at most. Even if we ALL go away and get replaced by high rollers doing drug deals or speculating on the halving or whatever, and even if SegWit almost doubles the capacity, then what? Things just stagnate until we go through another two year clusterfuck to kick the can again? Rinse and repeat?

and what if through some miracle we get through all of that with flying colors and market cap goes to 100 Billion. Do you think the PBoC and the Communist Party of China will be happy with that and just let it continue to grow?

I'm starting to think the best way for me to liquidate my stash is just to sell a coin a week for however many years it takes, regardless of whether the price goes up or down.  The objective of traders is to make money, of course, but the purpose of traders is SUPPOSED to be to function as liquidity providers who reduce volatility.

The problem as I see it is that the traders who make the biggest profit in this market actually create volatility, withholding liquidity when it is needed and dumping when the market is already crashing.  I may have made a fundamental miscalculation.  This could just be growing pains or this could be something endemic to disinflationary currency. 

What is SUPPOSED to happen according to economic theory is that as quantity of money creation decreases (halvings), velocity of money (transactions) is supposed to go up to compensate, maintaining the balance of MV=PQ.  This clearly cannot happen if scaling is slower than halvings.  Even if Core changes their own governance rules to ratify this roundtable agreement, scaling may be slower than halvings.   Sidechains, lighting network, etc are no substitute because they effectively trade Bitcon IOUs and not actual bitcoin. You get the same problem that the fiat world has: a fractional reserve money multiplier than can either run positive or negative and screw up the balance.  At some point, Bitcoin may hit stall speed and enter into an unrecoverable dive.  What scares the shit out of me is this may have already happened.  27 months since the ATH, we're trading at <50%. 

Somebody please tell me the error of my thinking, or a slow liquidation becomes a serious consideration. 

[Alley]

Looks like Hearns rage quit has failed.  Im guessing another FUD attempt will ocure soon to try and keep price below $500.

[mOgliE]

Coin



Explanation

if nobody notice this morning: blocks are 97% full atm.

Well the important is not that few blocks are full.

The important is to see if there are still non full block to make the low fees tx go through the network.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[toknormal]

Bitcoin/USD 3-Day chart.

Warming up main engines.

[8up]

There is still a huge amount of upward momentum in this market, judging by the moving averages.  The problem is, if we continue on this trajectory, blocks will fill first, then fees will double. Then fees will quadruple, octuple, etc. until even the mathematincally challenged pumpmonkeys start to extrapolate what this means. Even though fees are still cheap, they will be only so for a very short period of time.

we have the capacity for a half million active users at most. Even if we ALL go away and get replaced by high rollers doing drug deals or speculating on the halving or whatever, and even if SegWit almost doubles the capacity, then what? Things just stagnate until we go through another two year clusterfuck to kick the can again? Rinse and repeat?

and what if through some miracle we get through all of that with flying colors and market cap goes to 100 Billion. Do you think the PBoC and the Communist Party of China will be happy with that and just let it continue to grow?

I'm starting to think the best way for me to liquidate my stash is just to sell a coin a week for however many years it takes, regardless of whether the price goes up or down.  The objective of traders is to make money, of course, but the purpose of traders is SUPPOSED to be to function as liquidity providers who reduce volatility.

The problem as I see it is that the traders who make the biggest profit in this market actually create volatility, withholding liquidity when it is needed and dumping when the market is already crashing.  I may have made a fundamental miscalculation.  This could just be growing pains or this could be something endemic to disinflationary currency. 

What is SUPPOSED to happen according to economic theory is that as quantity of money creation decreases (halvings), velocity of money (transactions) is supposed to go up to compensate, maintaining the balance of MV=PQ.  This clearly cannot happen if scaling is slower than halvings.  Even if Core changes their own governance rules to ratify this roundtable agreement, scaling may be slower than halvings.   Sidechains, lighting network, etc are no substitute because they effectively trade Bitcon IOUs and not actual bitcoin. You get the same problem that the fiat world has: a fractional reserve money multiplier than can either run positive or negative and screw up the balance.  At some point, Bitcoin may hit stall speed and enter into an unrecoverable dive.  What scares the shit out of me is this may have already happened.  27 months since the ATH, we're trading at <50%. 

Somebody please tell me the error of my thinking, or a slow liquidation becomes a serious consideration. 

+1

I agree, besides I see one last bubble coming, that will bring (due to its "success") the end of Bitcoin with it. Luckily a much more "decentralized" digital-currency ecosystem will follow. The fall will be hard for many early adopters.

[adamstgBit]

There is still a huge amount of upward momentum in this market, judging by the moving averages.  The problem is, if we continue on this trajectory, blocks will fill first, then fees will double. Then fees will quadruple, octuple, etc. until even the mathematincally challenged pumpmonkeys start to extrapolate what this means. Even though fees are still cheap, they will be only so for a very short period of time.

we have the capacity for a half million active users at most. Even if we ALL go away and get replaced by high rollers doing drug deals or speculating on the halving or whatever, and even if SegWit almost doubles the capacity, then what? Things just stagnate until we go through another two year clusterfuck to kick the can again? Rinse and repeat?

and what if through some miracle we get through all of that with flying colors and market cap goes to 100 Billion. Do you think the PBoC and the Communist Party of China will be happy with that and just let it continue to grow?

I'm starting to think the best way for me to liquidate my stash is just to sell a coin a week for however many years it takes, regardless of whether the price goes up or down.  The objective of traders is to make money, of course, but the purpose of traders is SUPPOSED to be to function as liquidity providers who reduce volatility.

The problem as I see it is that the traders who make the biggest profit in this market actually create volatility, withholding liquidity when it is needed and dumping when the market is already crashing.  I may have made a fundamental miscalculation.  This could just be growing pains or this could be something endemic to disinflationary currency.  

What is SUPPOSED to happen according to economic theory is that as quantity of money creation decreases (halvings), velocity of money (transactions) is supposed to go up to compensate, maintaining the balance of MV=PQ.  This clearly cannot happen if scaling is slower than halvings.  Even if Core changes their own governance rules to ratify this roundtable agreement, scaling may be slower than halvings.  Sidechains, lighting network, etc are no substitute because they effectively trade Bitcon IOUs and not actual bitcoin. You get the same problem that the fiat world has: a fractional reserve money multiplier than can either run positive or negative and screw up the balance.  At some point, Bitcoin may hit stall speed and enter into an unrecoverable dive.  What scares the shit out of me is this may have already happened.  27 months since the ATH, we're trading at <50%.  

Somebody please tell me the error of my thinking, or a slow liquidation becomes a serious consideration.  

+1

I agree, besides I see one last bubble coming, that will bring (due to its "success") the end of Bitcoin with it. Luckily a much more "decentralized" digital-currency ecosystem will follow. The fall will be hard for many early adopters.

tl; dr; pure FUD every word is pure FUD.

[bargainbin]

...
tl; dr; pure FUD every word is pure FUD.

Chillax; sexy human females are waiting for you and your bitcoins @ Xotika.TV

[Spaceman_Spiff]

What is SUPPOSED to happen according to economic theory is that as quantity of money creation decreases (halvings), velocity of money (transactions) is supposed to go up to compensate, maintaining the balance of MV=PQ.  This clearly cannot happen if scaling is slower than halvings.  

Sidechains, lighting network, etc are no substitute because they effectively trade Bitcon IOUs and not actual bitcoin. You get the same problem that the fiat world has: a fractional reserve money multiplier than can either run positive or negative and screw up the balance.  

Somebody please tell me the error of my thinking, or a slow liquidation becomes a serious consideration.  

Apart from some other concerns you raise, which I think have merit, I would like to respond to 2 things where I believe you to be wrong:

1) I don't know where you get the assumption that the halvings are supposed to have an effect on velocity of money.  

2) I think bitcoins paid through LN are economically the same as on-chain transactions.  Yes you could describe it as some kind of IOU, but it is mathematically/informatically based on the same bitcoins, these bitcoins are "anchored", so you should treat these like regular bitcoins. It's not the same thing as a paper IOU (or a digital one) where the only "link" is the trust you have in the issuer of the IOU.

EDIT: actually, maybe LN might have some effect on money velocity in the future, by allowing (especially by machines) much more and faster transactions.

[adamstgBit]

...
tl; dr; pure FUD every word is pure FUD.

Chillax; sexy human females are waiting for you and your bitcoins @ Xotika.TV

i can't i'm saving myself a big load to blow on my GF's face.

[bargainbin]

...
tl; dr; pure FUD every word is pure FUD.

Chillax; sexy human females are waiting for you and your bitcoins @ Xotika.TV

i can't i'm saving myself a big load to blow on my GF's face.

Saving. Delayed gratification. That's what good Libertarian secs is all about

[mOgliE]

Bitcoin/USD 3-Day chart.

Warming up main engines.

I'm a bit afraid by your chart... I shouldn't have oppened a short no?

[Adrian-x]

Good morning Bitcoinland.

Still stuck around $440, eh?

Let's get this thing moving up.

blocks are 92% full when u said that .. in case u didnt notice.

^^BS!

https://blockchain.info/de/charts/avg-block-size

Some Miners mine empty blocks, usually if it's found before they have time to fill it up with transactions. Empty blocks are usual mines within a minute or less of the previous block. Because these blocks can't have transactions in them they bring down the full block average, these blocks do not contribute to the capacity of the network but are reflected in the average. Some miners limit there block size to the 750KB dealt recommended by the Core Developers, these blocks are 100% full at 750KB, this also  skews the average.

its worth noting when Gavin first proposed making bigger blocks the biggest objection from the Core developers was its not needed and if it is ever needed the limit could be changed quickly. well it's needed and they now saying next year.

[Matias]

Good morning Bitcoinland.

Still stuck around $440, eh?

Let's get this thing moving up.

blocks are 92% full when u said that .. in case u didnt notice.

^^BS!

https://blockchain.info/de/charts/avg-block-size

How is that 92% calculated?

https://blockchain.info/en/charts/avg-block-size?timespan=60days&showDataPoints=false&daysAverageString=7&show_header=true&scale=0&address=

[adamstgBit]

Good morning Bitcoinland.

Still stuck around $440, eh?

Let's get this thing moving up.

blocks are 92% full when u said that .. in case u didnt notice.

^^BS!

https://blockchain.info/de/charts/avg-block-size

Some Miners mine empty blocks, usually if it's found before they have time to fill it up with transactions. Empty blocks are usual mines within a minute or less of the previous block. Because these blocks can't have transactions in them they bring down the full block average, these blocks do not contribute to the capacity of the network but are reflected in the average. Some miners limit there block size to the 750KB dealt recommended by the Core Developers, these blocks are 100% full at 750KB, this also  skews the average.

its worth noting when Gavin first proposed making bigger blocks the biggest objection from the Core developers was its not needed and if it is ever needed the limit could be changed quickly. well it's needed and they now saying next year.

they also said they wanted more time to come up with another solution other then simply rising blocksize

do you segwit?

I think the 2MB should come before the SegWit. Not SegWit comes before 2MB. SegWit is more difficult to implement.

segwit is supposedly available as of april. so if we were to make 2mb in a core relase today.. and had 75% miner consensus in 7 days of blockdata(1000) blocks.. bringing us up to march.. and then a 1 month grace period (even i have to admit thats a little short) then that would be a mad rush and still not beat segwit.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[Adrian-x]

There is still a huge amount of upward momentum in this market, judging by the moving averages.  The problem is, if we continue on this trajectory, blocks will fill first, then fees will double. Then fees will quadruple, octuple, etc. until even the mathematincally challenged pumpmonkeys start to extrapolate what this means. Even though fees are still cheap, they will be only so for a very short period of time.

we have the capacity for a half million active users at most. Even if we ALL go away and get replaced by high rollers doing drug deals or speculating on the halving or whatever, and even if SegWit almost doubles the capacity, then what? Things just stagnate until we go through another two year clusterfuck to kick the can again? Rinse and repeat?

and what if through some miracle we get through all of that with flying colors and market cap goes to 100 Billion. Do you think the PBoC and the Communist Party of China will be happy with that and just let it continue to grow?

I'm starting to think the best way for me to liquidate my stash is just to sell a coin a week for however many years it takes, regardless of whether the price goes up or down.  The objective of traders is to make money, of course, but the purpose of traders is SUPPOSED to be to function as liquidity providers who reduce volatility.

The problem as I see it is that the traders who make the biggest profit in this market actually create volatility, withholding liquidity when it is needed and dumping when the market is already crashing.  I may have made a fundamental miscalculation.  This could just be growing pains or this could be something endemic to disinflationary currency.  

What is SUPPOSED to happen according to economic theory is that as quantity of money creation decreases (halvings), velocity of money (transactions) is supposed to go up to compensate, maintaining the balance of MV=PQ.  This clearly cannot happen if scaling is slower than halvings.  Even if Core changes their own governance rules to ratify this roundtable agreement, scaling may be slower than halvings.  Sidechains, lighting network, etc are no substitute because they effectively trade Bitcon IOUs and not actual bitcoin. You get the same problem that the fiat world has: a fractional reserve money multiplier than can either run positive or negative and screw up the balance.  At some point, Bitcoin may hit stall speed and enter into an unrecoverable dive.  What scares the shit out of me is this may have already happened.  27 months since the ATH, we're trading at <50%.  

Somebody please tell me the error of my thinking, or a slow liquidation becomes a serious consideration.  

+1

I agree, besides I see one last bubble coming, that will bring (due to its "success") the end of Bitcoin with it. Luckily a much more "decentralized" digital-currency ecosystem will follow. The fall will be hard for many early adopters.

tl; dr; pure FUD every word is pure FUD.

LOL, where does the value for bitcoin come from, go down that rabbit hole it's the number of users holders and buyers (nicely correlated with metcalfe's law and transaction voluem) and a limited money supply nicely preserved by code and miners. This simple equation MV=PT illustrates why limiting the transaction volume and the quantity of money is a bad idea, (bitcoin has never grown under the notion of limited transaction volume) Bitcoin coders need to understand a little more about economics to be a true asset to bitcoin's development.