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

[stoat]

Another polite warning to diversify in to ETH. 

[BitUsher]

It would be helpful to acknowledge that Prohashing is a scrypt mining pool for altcoin mining. What a shocking statement coming from them    Let me know when Coinbase, bitpay or any other large merchant starts recommending an alt.

Point taken. But did they used to pay out in Bitcoin? If so, it is one valid data point.

Even in a great upheaval, the movement happens at the margins. Best stay alert.

They pay out in multiple alts . If their margins are so tight that they cannot afford an extra 3-4 pennies per tx for a small group of users than that is certainly troubling. They should simply pass on that fee to their clients if they cannot afford it because many clients are dumping a portion of these mined alts for btc anyways and it is less expensive to pay 4 pennies more than any exchange fee.

Charlie Lee’s been trying to sell Brian Armstrong on adding Litecoin. If demand keeps growing for alts because of this I imagine it’s only a matter of time.

That would be shocking ... but welcome ... perhaps litecoin can implement some of those large blocks they want as well... it would be a good idea and good testbed as litecoin appears to be uninteresting and with little utility.

[Fatman3001]

Another polite warning to diversify in to ETH. 

An extremely polite warning to drop the spamming.

[bargainbin]

...
It would be helpful to acknowledge that Prohashing is a scrypt mining pool for altcoin mining. What a shocking statement coming from them    Let me know when Coinbase, bitpay or any other large merchant starts recommending an alt.

Won't you just post another rolly-eyes emoji & cry claim the merchant isn't large enough/spreading FUD?

... If their margins are so tight that they cannot afford an extra 3-4 pennies per tx for a small group of users than that is certainly troubling. They should simply pass on that fee to their clients if they cannot afford it because many clients are dumping a portion of these mined alts for btc anyways and it is less expensive to pay 4 pennies more than any exchange fee.

They have too many clients, most probably poors -- don't want to spam up Blogchain.

[gentlemand]

Charlie Lee’s been trying to sell Brian Armstrong on adding Litecoin. If demand keeps growing for alts because of this I imagine it’s only a matter of time.

That would be shocking ... but welcome ... perhaps litecoin can implement some of those large blocks they want as well... it would be a good idea and good testbed as litecoin appears to be uninteresting and with little utility.

I would find it pretty amusing if all the hostile arseholes squabbling in Bitcoinland were abandoned completely by the people who really count - the users.

It sets a dangerous precedent though. How do we know something like LTC or any other alt can handle the pressure? It's had a very relaxing life so far. They all have the luxury of lack of spotlight. The same old shit would pop up wherever the heat was pointed.

There should've been more vision when Bitcoin was still under the radar. All this crap is firefighting when it should have been set up to cruise into the future by this point.

[AlexGR]

Statement today from Prohashing:

We're a business. Altcoins are now cheaper to use than bitcoin. Therefore, we use altcoins wherever possible. Businesses exist to earn money, and bitcoin is now cutting into our profits by siphoning off fees and wasting developer time in answering angry customer service "you're stealing my money because I never received it!" E-Mails.
This original post isn't some deceit to try to game people into buying or using altcoins for whatever reason. It's simply a statement that we can provide better service by issuing payouts in litecoin or any of these other networks. If we can encourage people to use altcoins, we can increase everyone's profit by cutting fees, and we can also write more features because we won't have to spend time reassuring customers that we aren't thieves.
Feel free to disagree on the merits of the post, but I don't think it's helpful to assume bad faith.


Live and learn

Lol... The last 4 LTC blocks (the equivalent of 1 BTC block), LTC had 4-2-3-6 txs, of which 4 are the block rewards (so actual txs = 11).

Last BTC block had over 2000 txs. It's averaging between 2k and 3k txs per block (last 6: 2165/3079/2496/2300/2782/3012).

[BitUsher]

I would find it pretty amusing if all the hostile arseholes squabbling in Bitcoinland were abandoned completely by the people who really count - the users.

It sets a dangerous precedent though. How do we know something like LTC or any other alt can handle the pressure? It's had a very relaxing life so far. They all have the luxury of lack of spotlight. The same old shit would pop up wherever the heat was pointed.

There should've been more vision when Bitcoin was still under the radar. All this crap is firefighting when it should have been set up to cruise into the future by this point.

I know you may find this shocking , but I want you to be happy and find a coin that suits your needs, and the evidence thus far reflects a majority of the users, miners, and developers support cores scaling plan for now. If this situation were reversed than I would be happy as well as I am not principally motivated by getting rich quickly or going mainstream immediately at all costs.

With or without each other, 1 coin or two ... what matters most is consumer choice and the freedom to follow through on a project that interests oneself and aligns with ones values.

[Fatman3001]

One good thing though: there seems to be remarkably few empty blocks in the last hours.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[JayJuanGee]

Can't wait until small block retards are proved to be irresponsible idiots by empirical data points.

We should make a list of them, so in the future we will never forget who they were and humiliate them forever.

There's no such thing as a small block retard.

People have ideas and inclinations based on information that they have, and there's a lot of misinformation out there regarding what's even going on with the block chain; how much is spam, whether an increase is currently justified and/or wether segregated witness will take care of some if not all of this spamming blockage to the extent blockage exists and if not what would be better additional solutions going forward once segregated witness is in place.

Yeah people have different ideas and most of them are dumb ideas.

That's why it's important to relie on the empirical facts to judge who are right and who are the fucking irresponsible retards. It's darwinian selection. It's a process way more efficient than pointless debating.

So now we are going to see that full block are not good at all and see who were the dangerous retards who thought full blocks were somehow cool.

It's like the bolcheviks. They have ideas and they thought they were right. They talked badly of people who disagree with them. Then the testing of their ideas prove that they were huge retards and that they had their head full shit. Gmaxwell and Adam Back are the Lenin of their time. The sooner the market route around them, the better.

It seems to me you have a very precise idea of your own position at least.

I don't have such brutal and clear opinion on this issue. And from the grasp of complexity I was able to see, it seems impossible for me to have a clear point of view of the situation as we're still lacking data.

Yeah small blocks have problems, but what do you want? Bigger and bigger blocks? You do realize that in order to scale the Visa transactions we would need 800GB blocks... Seems complicated to me...

Yep. In that respect, when dealing with money and likely to continue to be attacked by governments and financial institutions, security is much more important than trying to grow too fast and to act as if you are visa when you don't have institutionalized protections.

Size is the most powerful protection. The most economic transactions flow through Bitcoin the harder it is to attack it.

"Trying to grow too fast"   Transactions double every year. That's just natural growth. If you don't like growth go use some altcoins before Bitcoin become one.

You are ridiculous.

You are not saying much of anything in your above post.. or at least whatever you seem to be saying is quite unclear.  You seem to be attempting to suggest that currently bitcoin is suffering from some kind of pending emergency, when actually the opposite is the case, and bitcoin happens to be super secure with a tremendous amount of hashing power.. which is really a great thing to have during such infancy years and while bitcoin is still suffering multiple spam / ddos attacks (and still remaining robust under such attacks).

O.k.  let me presume that you are a supporter of XT and or classic.  Just for a moment, if we remove their fatal flaws (that is their attempts to make changes to bitcoin governance), and we only focus on their blocksize change proposals, then we see that XT had a schedule of changes (doubling the blocksize limit every couple of years), and classic had an immediate blocksize limit increase.

What are you saying that you want?

Are you only talking about blocksize limit increases, or are you talking about governance?  You seem to be using words to talk about blocksize limit increase, but your insistence on such (seemingly right away) makes it sound as if you have a hidden agenda and what you really want is some kind of change to bitcoin governance.. which is a much more complicated issue.

So clearly state exactly what you are proposing and why the current path of implementing seg wit first is supposedly not sufficient in order to achieve what you want?  Hello goofball.  

[BitUsher]

One good thing though: there seems to be remarkably few empty blocks in the last hours.

Antpool was getting a nice ribbing today for mining empty blocks because they don't want to pause their miners for a few seconds. Perhaps they stopped , but comments on twitter suggested they will continue this practice most have avoided lately regardless of it limiting the capacity of the network. Somewhat hypocritical being they are one of the more sympathetic large pools to classic besides slush.... but as Satoshi envisioned, we should be fine with security even if miners are selfishly competing for their own self interest and care little about the ecosystem.  

Is this what the dreaded "fee market event" or "blockopolapse" is supposed to look like? My txs are immediately confirming on the next block with 4-6 pennies more than the average last week? Any more predictions for the end of the world?

[JayJuanGee]

... Bitcoin is not currently broken in spite the many loud mouth fudding about Bitcoin supposedly being broken.

Lambie... you certainly have your moments of not hilariousness, yet I wonder why the mods let you stick around this thread (and this forum) for so long when it seems fairly obvious that you are just here to troll and to fill up the thread with your various "entertaining"  and distracting nonsense.

[AlexGR]

One good thing though: there seems to be remarkably few empty blocks in the last hours.

Antpool was getting a nice ribbing today for mining empty blocks because they don't want to pause their miners for a few seconds. Perhaps they stopped , but comments on twitter suggested they will continue this practice most have avoided lately regardless of it limiting the capacity of the network. Somewhat hypocritical being they are one of the more sympathetic large pools to classic besides slush.... but as Satoshi envisioned, we should be fine with security even if miners are selfishly competing for their own self interest and care little about the ecosystem.  

Is this what the dreaded "fee market event" or "blockopolapse" is supposed to look like? My txs are immediately confirming on the next block with 4-6 pennies more than the average last week? Any more predictions for the end of the world?

Last week it was at 40-50 satoshi/byte, now it's at 60 satoshi/byte (actually the 51-60 range has 0 wait), so it's unikely you are paying 4-6 pennies more (unless your wallet is overpaying). More like 0-2.

https://bitcoinfees.21.co/

[BldSwtTrs]

Can't wait until small block retards are proved to be irresponsible idiots by empirical data points.

We should make a list of them, so in the future we will never forget who they were and humiliate them forever.

There's no such thing as a small block retard.

People have ideas and inclinations based on information that they have, and there's a lot of misinformation out there regarding what's even going on with the block chain; how much is spam, whether an increase is currently justified and/or wether segregated witness will take care of some if not all of this spamming blockage to the extent blockage exists and if not what would be better additional solutions going forward once segregated witness is in place.

Yeah people have different ideas and most of them are dumb ideas.

That's why it's important to relie on the empirical facts to judge who are right and who are the fucking irresponsible retards. It's darwinian selection. It's a process way more efficient than pointless debating.

So now we are going to see that full block are not good at all and see who were the dangerous retards who thought full blocks were somehow cool.

It's like the bolcheviks. They have ideas and they thought they were right. They talked badly of people who disagree with them. Then the testing of their ideas prove that they were huge retards and that they had their head full shit. Gmaxwell and Adam Back are the Lenin of their time. The sooner the market route around them, the better.

It seems to me you have a very precise idea of your own position at least.

I don't have such brutal and clear opinion on this issue. And from the grasp of complexity I was able to see, it seems impossible for me to have a clear point of view of the situation as we're still lacking data.

Yeah small blocks have problems, but what do you want? Bigger and bigger blocks? You do realize that in order to scale the Visa transactions we would need 800GB blocks... Seems complicated to me...

Yep. In that respect, when dealing with money and likely to continue to be attacked by governments and financial institutions, security is much more important than trying to grow too fast and to act as if you are visa when you don't have institutionalized protections.

Size is the most powerful protection. The most economic transactions flow through Bitcoin the harder it is to attack it.

"Trying to grow too fast"   Transactions double every year. That's just natural growth. If you don't like growth go use some altcoins before Bitcoin become one.

You are ridiculous.

You are not saying much of anything in your above post.. or at least whatever you seem to be saying is quite unclear.  You seem to be attempting to suggest that currently bitcoin is suffering from some kind of pending emergency, when actually the opposite is the case, and bitcoin happens to be super secure with a tremendous amount of hashing power.. which is really a great thing to have during such infancy years and while bitcoin is still suffering multiple spam / ddos attacks (and still remaining robust under such attacks).

O.k.  let me presume that you are a supporter of XT and or classic.  Just for a moment, if we remove their fatal flaws (that is their attempts to make changes to bitcoin governance), and we only focus on their blocksize change proposals, then we see that XT had a schedule of changes (doubling the blocksize limit every couple of years), and classic had an immediate blocksize limit increase.

What are you saying that you want?

Are you only talking about blocksize limit increases, or are you talking about governance?  You seem to be using words to talk about blocksize limit increase, but your insistence on such (seemingly right away) makes it sound as if you have a hidden agenda and what you really want is some kind of change to bitcoin governance.. which is a much more complicated issue.

So clearly state exactly what you are proposing and why the current path of implementing seg wit first is supposedly not sufficient in order to achieve what you want?  Hello goofball.  

Governance and blocksize issues are connected.

If we are stuck today with 1Mb it's because Back, Maxwell and Hill want it like that. Their vision, and agenda, is to make Bitcoin a clearinghouse.

I think this is the dumbest idea ever. I will do everything that I can to make their plan fail in order to protect the value of my bictoins and to protect the value Bitcoin could offer to mankind.

By raising the blocksize limit right now with Classic, we would let Bitcoin breath and quietly growth, and we would get rid of those toxic people.

It's not a problem if people choose to stay with Core for now though. What is important is the choice to hard fork our way out of the power of Back/Maxwell/Hill exists. And the more economic reality will hit the face of small blockists with rising fees, disgruntled users and altcoin market cap exploding, the less the support for Core there will be.

Until the day where the HF will happen because bitcoiners will see the light and stopped being fooled by Blockstream. Meanwhile I will be there all along to explain how dumd Back and Maxwell are so their support start to crumble sooner rather than later.

[8up]

One good thing though: there seems to be remarkably few empty blocks in the last hours.

Antpool was getting a nice ribbing today for mining empty blocks because they don't want to pause their miners for a few seconds. Perhaps they stopped , but comments on twitter suggested they will continue this practice most have avoided lately regardless of it limiting the capacity of the network. Somewhat hypocritical being they are one of the more sympathetic large pools to classic besides slush.... but as Satoshi envisioned, we should be fine with security even if miners are selfishly competing for their own self interest and care little about the ecosystem.  

Is this what the dreaded "fee market event" or "blockopolapse" is supposed to look like? My txs are immediately confirming on the next block with 4-6 pennies more than the average last week? Any more predictions for the end of the world?

Last week it was at 40-50 satoshi/byte, now it's at 60 satoshi/byte (actually the 51-60 range has 0 wait), so it's unikely you are paying 4-6 pennies more (unless your wallet is overpaying). More like 0-2.

https://bitcoinfees.21.co/

the last month in words: exponential fee rise in bitcoin vs exponential price rise in ethereum. which one do you prefer!?

[BitUsher]

Last week it was at 40-50 satoshi/byte, now it's at 60 satoshi/byte (actually the 51-60 range has 0 wait), so it's unikely you are paying 4-6 pennies more (unless your wallet is overpaying). More like 0-2.

https://bitcoinfees.21.co/

I have been watching my txs closely and using different wallets. It really depends upon the moment and the wallet used as their isn't a consistent dynamic fee solution across all wallets. so yes, some wallets are indeed overpaying from my txs... most notably Core appears to more aggressively raise the tx fee and some others are underestimating the appropriate tx fee causing a 2-3 block delay.

 There is definitely no crisis , but some odd bugs to fix and improvements that we can implement to better handle a fee market. This is a wakeup call to developers to make improvements before users start moving to better wallets.

the last month in words: exponential fee rise in bitcoin vs exponential price rise in ethereum. which one do you prefer!?

When should I expect an exponential fee rise? How high will it get and when do you predict?

FYI - An exponential fee rise in ethereum would be much worse than bitcoin because ETH is treated as fuel for a turing complete script that can inefficiently burn through the fuel in loops and therefore higher fees would exponentially make using ethereum more costly rather than just running a script on a server or oracle.  

[bargainbin]

... How do we know something like LTC or any other alt can handle the pressure? It's had a very relaxing life so far. They all have the luxury of lack of spotlight. The same old shit would pop up wherever the heat was pointed. ...

Many ways to stay safe. One is to be perpetually aggressive/threatening & invest (or, as it happened, think that already have) in weapons/heavy armor.
The other is simply not picking fights.
The problem with Bitcoin, from the git-go (actually from this bullshit), Bitcoiners adopted the former

[8up]

systems must also be adaptive. otherwise they die. life and death in this sense are also only seperated by time.

the nice thing is. we will find out, if we were too fast too slow or exactly right. other cryptos will try different settings; and one of these will probably be far superior to the settings the divided bitcoin community set for itself.

Let them do it. Who cares?

And if it's acceptable, feasible and seems fitting for Bitcoin, then Bitcoin can incorporate it down the road. Bitcoin is not currently broken in spite the many loud mouth fudding about Bitcoin supposedly being broken.

i fear, this assumption was/is wrong.

[8up]

the last month in words: exponential fee rise in bitcoin vs exponential price rise in ethereum. which one do you prefer!?

When should I expect an exponential fee rise? How high will it get and when do you predict?

[/quote]

you have a kind of hostage situation here. if shit hits the fan and people want to sell into fiat or alts (read bankrun), they will have to move their coins to exchanges first. believe me. this will lead to good ol' gox drama, when transactions where in limbo for several hours, while markets crashed. people will bid higher and higher to get their transaction thru...

this is when we will see exponential fee prices.

[xyzzy099]

The problem with Bitcoin, from the git-go (actually from this bullshit), Bitcoiners adopted the former

Just curious...  I have noticed that whenever you include a URL in a post, the base of the URL pretty much always gets replaced with "https://bitcointalk.org".  Any idea how that happens?