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

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[adamstgBit]

Coin



Explanation

what's these new purple, red and white squares, below the full block?

[Gyrsur]

Coin



Explanation

what's these new purple, red and white squares, below the full block?

the new satoshi code which counts down to a hard fork.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[JayJuanGee]

^^What do they call Whoppers in that crazy language of yours? Anything like German, with those gigantic sausage words? (apparently I'm not the only one to find them obscene, because Google just informed me:
"The German language has lost its longest word thanks to a change in the law to conform with EU regulations. Rindfleischetikettierungsueberwachungsaufgabenuebertragungsgesetz - meaning "law delegating beef label monitoring" - was introduced in 1999 in the state of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania."

Ha ha, EU outlawed German

Whoppers

Hahahaha... whoppers... That's crazy talk, in your crazy language.



At this moment, I am again torn in my thinking about whether the next 5% adjustment leg will be up or down..

I am kind of thinking up for the next leg... so maybe we could get one or two upward legs (5% each), before re-tracing downwards... and before returning up thereafter?


I don't know if the $300s is a forever gone past, but likely, we are going to need to experience some pretty decent and convincing FUD.. accompanied by some actual dumping volume in order to achieve such.... in that sense $420s is much more possible than $300s...  maybe lower $420s are like 41% chance in the next week, and $390s is about less than 10% chance in the next two weeks?

Nonetheless, recent decent (and somewhat pleasantly surprising) upwards BTC price movements seems as if we may have one or two legs up before coming back down?  I put this prediction of a next upward or two at about 52% up and 48% down for the first leg and maybe 51, 49 for a second leg.  

Thoughts anybody, regarding a more plausible scenario?

[adamstgBit]

^^What do they call Whoppers in that crazy language of yours? Anything like German, with those gigantic sausage words? (apparently I'm not the only one to find them obscene, because Google just informed me:
"The German language has lost its longest word thanks to a change in the law to conform with EU regulations. Rindfleischetikettierungsueberwachungsaufgabenuebertragungsgesetz - meaning "law delegating beef label monitoring" - was introduced in 1999 in the state of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania."

Ha ha, EU outlawed German

Whoppers

Hahahaha... whoppers... That's crazy talk, in your crazy language.



At this moment, I am again torn in my thinking about whether the next 5% adjustment leg will be up or down..

I am kind of thinking up for the next leg... so maybe we could get one or two upward legs (5% each), before re-tracing downwards... and before returning up thereafter?


I don't know if the $300s is a forever gone past, but likely, we are going to need to experience some pretty decent and convincing FUD.. accompanied by some actual dumping volume in order to achieve such.... in that sense $420s is much more possible than $300s...  maybe lower $420s are like 41% chance in the next week, and $390s is about less than 10% chance in the next two weeks?

Nonetheless, recent decent (and somewhat pleasantly surprising) upwards BTC price movements seems as if we may have one or two legs up before coming back down?  I put this prediction of a next upward or two at about 52% up and 48% down for the first leg and maybe 51, 49 for a second leg.  

Thoughts anybody, regarding a more plausible scenario?

step out side look up at the sky

you see it now?

MOOOOOOOOOOOON
┗(°0°)┛

http://www.timeanddate.com/moon/canada/montreal

99.9% MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOON

[adamstgBit]

this support looks promising.

[billyjoeallen]

World’s First Virtual Nation Constitution Released on Ethereum’s Blockchain
https://news.bitcoin.com/worlds-first-virtual-nation-constitution-released-ethereums-blockchain/
With the tough stuff like constitution all buttoned down, the remaining 3-5% left to do -- turning your imaginary country into a 4realsies one -- shouldn't take more than Two Weeks^TM.

The United States didn't even have a Constitution until 1787 and it wasn't fully ratified for several more years.  You need a nation before you create rules to govern it.  These guys seems to not understand that.

Civilization only needs three laws.:
1. Respect people's self ownersip and property
2. Don't initiate or threaten violence.
3. Keep your promises.

You can make any rules you want, as long as they don't break those laws.  That's why I don't really see a need for a constitution. Anything more is too much. 

[Paashaas]

Burger King Arnhem, the Netherlands accepts Bitcoin for youre burgers.



http://bitcoinist.net/burger-king-arnhem-now-accepts-bitcoin-payments/

[adamstgBit]

meanwhile in the fiat world
https://youtu.be/__dEBQaVcew?t=2m24s
this is old but it so funny

[billyjoeallen]

I wonder if the miners and pumpmonkeys understand that Adam Back and the other developers had no authority to negotiate on behalf of Core at the consensus toundtable, but only to make recommendations, develop code and present it to core for consideration of inclusion?

I further wonder if they understand that under current governance there is no way possible that these recommendations will be included in future versions of the Core client as any inclusion must be near unanimous, which these recommendations clearly won't be?

Core governance rules will change, Core leadership will change, both will change or nothing will change (other than the miner's support of Core, obviously). 

[Chef Ramsay]

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?

Oh lord, I hope your Rekt doesn't equal that of tarmi because of your hubris.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[JimboToronto]

Just got home to see I missed the action by minutes.

No one else here? I only see Chartbuddy.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[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.

1) They don't effect the velocity (v). They effect the quantity (M).  So because MV=PQ, a decrease in M MUST be compensated by a proportional increase in V in order for the equation to balance out. If it doesn't, then either price or quantity (or both) on the other side must adjust.

2) yes, you could have some sort of "proof of burn" to prevent LN from operating as a fractional reserve and then you'd be right. Centralized third party actors could also have cryptographically proven 100% reserves (or less reserves, provided they honestly disclosed this).  

Adam is right. This is FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and doubt), but it is genuine fear, uncertainty and doubt.

Thanks, that does address at least one of my concerns.

1) I still don't understand why you want prices to stay the same in this equation (and of course as lambie pointed out, the amount of money doesn't decrease, the rate of new money created slows down).  
2)why would you need to burn the btc?  I think you need to read about LN some more (actually so do I about the technical details, but I think I have most of the big picture down).  You are trading "spending rights" for actual bitcoins that are locked in a special transaction.  If you start of with 10 btc, after the payment channel closes, there will still be 10 btc.  During the use of the channel, there is only ever 10 btc worth being exchanged.  How on earth does this  resemble fractional reserve banking?

1) I want the price of goods (P) to go down relative to Bitcoin so Bitcoin's purchasing power goes up. I want the Quantity of goods and services available to purchase (q) to go up, so taken together, I want the left side of the equation to equal the right side, which of course it logically has to.  

If the rate of quantity increase goes down, then the rate of velocity increase needs to go up.  Get that? we are beyond algebra and into calculus, but scaling can't be diminishing or even constant, but needs to be accelerating  for the equation to balance out and for price to continually go down while quantity goes up.  

2) you need 100% proof of reserves, so if you are exchanging tokens on one network for tokens on another network, you can't still have the original tokens or you have more than you started with (x+1>x) so you have a money multiplier.

and Yes, I don't know enough about the LN to discuss technical details. I'm only talking what it NEEDS to be in order to prevent effectively fractional reserve banking. Like I said, I could be making a mistake somewhere, so I am not arguing that LN is a bad idea. I just have questions.

I think I also need to clarify two things, in order to be absolutely innocent of trolling accusations.

A) I am in favor of the round table agreement- not because I like the terms. I absolutely do not like the terms as I believe the scaling is too slow for the reason I explained above. I am in favor of the agreement because I think it will either result in a change in leadership or rules within Core (which I think is sorely needed), or it will result in loss of support for Core by the miners and therefor a change in leadership of code development from Core to something else, probably Classic.

B) Here's my position on the miners: More hashpower is not only good, but absolutely necessary in order for Bitcoin to maintain it's first mover advantage over competing coins or potentially competing coins.  There is a huge danger in mining being concentrated in China as it creates a POSSIBLE central point of failure if there is (another) Chinese crackdown.  So if we can't get rid of the miners and miners are concentrated in China, what is there to do to reacquire censorship resistance? Only one thing: Increase hashpower outside of China massively, and at a rate substantially faster than hashpower within China is growing. I have no idea how we are going to do that given China's cheaper electricity and labor.

1)  I don't get your reasoning.
2) LN uses the blockchain as it's proof of reserve.  No other proof is therefore needed.

[Karartma1]

Just got home to see I missed the action by minutes.

No one else here? I only see Chartbuddy.

I saw a small dump nothing exceptional that needed further actions. Down by ten dollars not much

[8up]

After first sell-off, ETH is now on the way to $30