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

[JayJuanGee]

If you're a trader and haven't bought back in yet you're doing it wrong.


disclaimer: i just hodl

If you are not a trader, then you are not really in a position to suggest what traders should be doing because, as you said, you just hodl.

Your form of trading is not to trade, but you are suggesting what traders should do?  Hm?  Go figure.

Even though I am quibbling a bit with your ability to make such a statement, I do largely agree that because of the recent large attempts at downward price manipulation within what appears to be an upwardly price inclination, a large portion of a BTC trader's portfolio should be BTC heavy at this point.  Personally, I am about 97.5% bitcoin and 2.5% fiat... and I think that I am aspiring towards 95%/5% (that would make me more comfortable), but I have to let the price come to me rather than attempting to force it (or maybe if prices consolidate for a little bit in this $410-ish range, then I will be able to readjust my allocations within the consolidation zone).

[BitconAssociation]

< >
Zero cost txs / near zero cost txs => bring zero-cost abuse or near-zero cost abuse.

When that happens => cost to transact increases to bypass the abuser's queue.

Yup. Just goes to show you that miners don't care about Bitcoin. Otherwise, they wouldn't fill blocks with junk low-fee transactions. It's as if they never heard of rational self-interest, or doing it wrong on purpos.
What we need is some sort of a central authority to continuously adjust the Bitcoin protocol to compensate for such irrational behaviors.

[European Central Bank]

What we need is some sort of a central authority to continuously adjust the Bitcoin protocol to compensate for such irrational behaviors.

Doesn't that automatically stop it from being bitcoin any more?

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[BitconAssociation]

What we need is some sort of a central authority to continuously adjust the Bitcoin protocol to compensate for such irrational behaviors.

Doesn't that automatically stop it from being bitcoin any more?

Not at all! That's what developers are for.
They understand Bitcoin and are able to interpret, in code, the teachings of Satoshi, within today's complex socioeconomic context.
Developers must familiarize themselves with the everchanging financial landscape to foster consensus within representatives of Bitcoin's Financial Majority, which is to say CEOs of mining farms and various exchanges.

[Meuh6879]

disclaimer: i just hodl

you MUST buy now !

[bankingbtc]

Coin



Explanation

the price seems to be getting back slowly but surely, also for me it is good to see that ethereum price is dropping a little bit, i believe only in bitcoins and nothing else, its the future of all money in my opinion

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[Andre#]

Bitcoin looking healthy again.

Yes, and blocks are still maxxed out.

The blocks are hardly maxed out ----- unless you are just making up shit in order to attempt to exaggerate some problem that is not even close to what the loud mouth FUDsters are attempting to portray.


Blocks floating around 65% at the moment... ... but they had  experienced some peaks approaching 90% in recent days (within the past week)

At the time of writing, these were the latest blocks.

401423: 0 MB
401422: 976.48 MB
401421: 974.79 MB
401420: 974.77 MB
401419: 906.65 MB
401418: 0 MB
401417: 974.64 MB
401416: 912.66 MB
401415: 976.45 MB
401414: 974.72 MB
401413: 965.86 MB
401412: 974.55 MB
401411: 974.74 MB

Looks pretty maxed out to me (with thousands tx waiting in tradeblock's mempool). I guess I must be making it up, then.

BTW, you also could have looked at ChartBuddy.

Explanation

Explanation

Explanation

ChartBuddy knows his shit -- I'm only making it up.

[hdbuck]

Bitcoin looking healthy again.

Yes, and blocks are still maxxed out.

The blocks are hardly maxed out ----- unless you are just making up shit in order to attempt to exaggerate some problem that is not even close to what the loud mouth FUDsters are attempting to portray.


Blocks floating around 65% at the moment... ... but they had  experienced some peaks approaching 90% in recent days (within the past week)

At the time of writing, these were the latest blocks.

401423: 0 MB
401422: 976.48 MB
401421: 974.79 MB
401420: 974.77 MB
401419: 906.65 MB
401418: 0 MB
401417: 974.64 MB
401416: 912.66 MB
401415: 976.45 MB
401414: 974.72 MB
401413: 965.86 MB
401412: 974.55 MB
401411: 974.74 MB

Looks pretty maxed out to me (with thousands tx waiting in tradeblock's mempool). I guess I must be making it up, then.

BTW, you also could have looked at ChartBuddy.

Explanation

Explanation

Explanation

ChartBuddy knows his shit -- I'm only making it up.

would you fork off already? you pitiful inflative little whiner?

[AlexGR]

Looks pretty maxed out to me (with thousands tx waiting in tradeblock's mempool). I guess I must be making it up, then.

Anyone can activate a script and broadcast millions of transactions. When the cost to transact is near zero, the cost to spam the system tends to near zero as well. This means that the transaction backlog is to be expected under these circumstances and it won't change whether the blocksize is 1mb or 1gb - as long as people can spam it for free or near-zero cost.

[BitconAssociation]

Looks pretty maxed out to me (with thousands tx waiting in tradeblock's mempool). I guess I must be making it up, then.

Anyone can activate a script and broadcast millions of transactions. When the cost to transact is near zero, the cost to spam the system tends to near zero as well. This means that the transaction backlog is to be expected under these circumstances and it won't change whether the blocksize is 1mb or 1gb - as long as people can spam it for free or near-zero cost.

Why do those dumb miners include all those spam transactions, don't they know about rational self interest?
Can't we have them arrested for bloating our blockchain? Isn't that illegal?

EDIT, GREAT IDEA: Let's script some nodes that will instantly start DoSing any node relaying transactions with < 8c fee. Anyone here good with computers?

[JayJuanGee]

Bitcoin looking healthy again.

Yes, and blocks are still maxxed out.

The blocks are hardly maxed out ----- unless you are just making up shit in order to attempt to exaggerate some problem that is not even close to what the loud mouth FUDsters are attempting to portray.


Blocks floating around 65% at the moment... ... but they had  experienced some peaks approaching 90% in recent days (within the past week)

At the time of writing, these were the latest blocks.

401423: 0 MB
401422: 976.48 MB
401421: 974.79 MB
401420: 974.77 MB
401419: 906.65 MB
401418: 0 MB
401417: 974.64 MB
401416: 912.66 MB
401415: 976.45 MB
401414: 974.72 MB
401413: 965.86 MB
401412: 974.55 MB
401411: 974.74 MB

Looks pretty maxed out to me (with thousands tx waiting in tradeblock's mempool). I guess I must be making it up, then.

BTW, you also could have looked at ChartBuddy.

Explanation

Explanation

Explanation

ChartBuddy knows his shit -- I'm only making it up.

I've cited my sources as blockchain.info charts, and you cited your sources as chartbuddy?  If someone could explain why blockchain.info is lacking in credibility, then that may be helpful.  I really do not understand the significance of chartbuddy because I put through several transactions during supposed congested periods last week, and my experiences reflected those described in blockchain.info, which was relatively quick confirmations and finalization of transactions (in spite claims of fulblocalypse).

So, yeah, I don't think that these various claims of fullblocks really materialize into real world problems, and yes, I think that the blockchain is suffering from various spam/ddos attacks yet is still functioning pretty fucking well in spite of attempts to make it seem full and in spite of attempts to describe some kind of supposed tragedy in the alleged clogged up nature of the blockchain.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[Adrian-x]

Surely, there may be some more spam/ddos attacks on the bitcoin network in the coming days that could return bitcoin transactions to peaking at 90% or possibly more, but so far, the blockchain seems to have been handling such attacks pretty well

All is working as Satoshi said:

I am not claiming that the network is impervious to DoS attack.  I think most P2P networks can be DoS attacked in numerous ways.  (On a side note, I read that the record companies would like to DoS all the file sharing networks, but they don't want to break the anti-hacking/anti-abuse laws.)

If we started getting DoS attacked with loads of wasted transactions back and forth, you would need to start paying a 0.01 minimum transaction fee.

...although the min fee is much lower nowadays. But the essence is the same. If there was no abusing of the network we could be sending coins for free right now due to the max blocksize being more than accommodating for our genuine transaction needs.

Zero cost txs / near zero cost txs => bring zero-cost abuse or near-zero cost abuse.

When that happens => cost to transact increases to bypass the abuser's queue.

on the day of the satoshi quote: 1BCT = $0.07

a 0.01BTC fee on that day, cost adjusted for today value is $0.0007

[AlexGR]

Surely, there may be some more spam/ddos attacks on the bitcoin network in the coming days that could return bitcoin transactions to peaking at 90% or possibly more, but so far, the blockchain seems to have been handling such attacks pretty well

All is working as Satoshi said:

I am not claiming that the network is impervious to DoS attack.  I think most P2P networks can be DoS attacked in numerous ways.  (On a side note, I read that the record companies would like to DoS all the file sharing networks, but they don't want to break the anti-hacking/anti-abuse laws.)

If we started getting DoS attacked with loads of wasted transactions back and forth, you would need to start paying a 0.01 minimum transaction fee.

...although the min fee is much lower nowadays. But the essence is the same. If there was no abusing of the network we could be sending coins for free right now due to the max blocksize being more than accommodating for our genuine transaction needs.

Zero cost txs / near zero cost txs => bring zero-cost abuse or near-zero cost abuse.

When that happens => cost to transact increases to bypass the abuser's queue.

on the day of the satoshi quote: 1BCT = $0.07

a 0.01BTC fee on that day, cost adjusted for today value is $0.0007

Yes, it was enough to pay anything above zero back then, because spamming was done at zero cost.

Now spamming is ranging from zero to near-zero cost (0-1 cents, 2 at most), so you need to pay an extra cent or two compared to the spammer.

The principle is the same, regardless of price. You outbid the spammer and transact as usual.

[2015Bubble]

huobi going uppish?
but but ..
ETH not going down ?
Kinda interesting point.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[ahpku]

50 minutes since last block sucks if you are waiting for a transaction  

hodlers still not affected tho

...

The Awakening Conscience by William Holman Hunt

[Andre#]

Bitcoin looking healthy again.

Yes, and blocks are still maxxed out.

The blocks are hardly maxed out ----- unless you are just making up shit in order to attempt to exaggerate some problem that is not even close to what the loud mouth FUDsters are attempting to portray.


Blocks floating around 65% at the moment... ... but they had  experienced some peaks approaching 90% in recent days (within the past week)

At the time of writing, these were the latest blocks.

401423: 0 MB
401422: 976.48 MB
401421: 974.79 MB
401420: 974.77 MB
401419: 906.65 MB
401418: 0 MB
401417: 974.64 MB
401416: 912.66 MB
401415: 976.45 MB
401414: 974.72 MB
401413: 965.86 MB
401412: 974.55 MB
401411: 974.74 MB

Looks pretty maxed out to me (with thousands tx waiting in tradeblock's mempool). I guess I must be making it up, then.

BTW, you also could have looked at ChartBuddy.

Explanation

Explanation

Explanation

ChartBuddy knows his shit -- I'm only making it up.

I've cited my sources as blockchain.info charts, and you cited your sources as chartbuddy?  If someone could explain why blockchain.info is lacking in credibility, then that may be helpful.  I really do not understand the significance of chartbuddy because I put through several transactions during supposed congested periods last week, and my experiences reflected those described in blockchain.info, which was relatively quick confirmations and finalization of transactions (in spite claims of fulblocalypse).

So, yeah, I don't think that these various claims of fullblocks really materialize into real world problems, and yes, I think that the blockchain is suffering from various spam/ddos attacks yet is still functioning pretty fucking well in spite of attempts to make it seem full and in spite of attempts to describe some kind of supposed tragedy in the alleged clogged up nature of the blockchain.

Those list of block sizes, I actually got them from blockchain.info as well. So I don't think that blockchain.info lacks credibility. I don't know about the average block sizes chart, though. The chart says the all time high was 876 B, which doesn't tell the whole story regarding block fullness if empty blocks and soft limited blocks are counted as well.

Of course, the "real world problems" of delayed transactions can be solved for a big part once all people are properly trained to guess the right fee, and wallets are updated to make as good a fee advise as possible. And sooner or later the use cases which require cheap transactions will be dropped. And all will be fine.

I just hope it doesn't come to that. I don't want Bitcoin's growth to stop. It seems we differ in that wish, and that's fine. Time will tell which crypto can deliver the desired volume, and how.