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

[AlexGR]

It doesn't matter if we need it now. We will need it, and soon. The failure to upgrade well ahead of time is part of why the price is as low as it is, and why adoption isn't higher.

From my perspective, the segwit upgrade is being done ahead of time as >1mb is not really needed right now, nor will it be in 2 months.

If it was getting closer to getting needed, we'd see some serious signs:

- you'd see pools use 1mb soft-limits instead of 250/750 - raising the avg block at something closer to 1, like 0.95mb, instead of 0.6-0.8mb (which have 20-40% more space)
- you'd see fee pressure building up and you would definitely not have 0.04-0.06$ for first block inclusion or 0.003$ to 0.02$ for any-block-inclusion.
- you'd see miners not mining empty blocks leaving money on the table (because there is no money on the table as the fees are too low)
- you'd see serious arguments from the opposition and not lies, propaganda or distorted statistics

[AlexGR]

Western union and paypal base their fees on the amount of money moved. Bitcoin bases its fees on size of actual transactions in data terms. Very different business models. Pretending that you can directly compare them is fraudulent.

Bitcoin is not a business.

[BitconAssociation]

Too much politics. Is there some technical reason we can't have both bigger blocks and better blocks? Is this more than jockeying for power?

That's the plan: Segwit = 1.7mb to 3mb (depending use), plus solves tx malleability.

Obviously, all these "disagreements" aren't about the ~300kb difference between segwit and a 2mb hf.

Okay. So, why not change a one to a two now while we wait for the other, presumably more convoluted, stuff to get done?

When you are dealing with billions of dollars, it would be irresponsible to suddenly change without any actual techinical reason (besides a bunch of loud mouthed cunts complaining).

You disagree that we will need greater transaction capacity in the foreseeable future?

I don't know.   You seem to be attempting to attribute a claim to me that I am not making.  Most people, including myself, seem to believe that some kind of increased blocksize limit is going to have to take place down the road (the extent to which the time-line for such capacity increase is foreseeble seems somewhat speculative).

Too terse and jam-packed with infos; fleshed out the first paragraph 4 u.

I don't know.   You seem to be attempting to attempt to attribute a claim to me that I am not attempting to make, and/or have attempted to make in the past or am in the process of currently making.  Had i have attempted to make such claim, which you are attempting to attribute to me, to wit that we will need greater transaction capacity in the foreseeable future, which as stated previously, I have not attempted to make, nor am likely to make in the foreseeable future, my line of argument would be quite unlike the one to be pursued below, i.e the one i find fitting to pursue in light of your nasty and manipulative misinterpretation of my intended claim, which, as I believe I have conclusively conveyed, was not the claim that i have attempted to make.

Most people, including myself, i.e. I and many, though not all, people who are not myself, or, in layman's terms "the others," of whom there are more than one or several, and, implicitly, significantly more than one, that is up to as many as all, though I'm not attempting to imply that all the people concur with the claim which I have not made, thou such an claim would be justifiable, nay, almost begging, though make such a claim which you are attempting to attribute to me I have not made, seem to believe that some kind or another of increased blocksize limit is going to have to take place, or rather, will be appropriate, down the road (the extent to which the time-line, that is to say the time dimension of the space-time continuum, which accounts for sequentuality and temporaity of the topic at hand by allowing flux in the system that, otherwise, would be doomed to the stasis of pure persistance, which is to say "our world as we know it," for such capacity increase is foreseeble, in as much as anything could be said to be foreseeable to a predictable degree of certitude, seems somewhat, albeit not altogether, speculative).

It surely seems that greater transaction capacity is going to be needed at some point, because it is anticipated that bitcoin is going to continue to grow.  

At this point, Seg wit is in the works and it is getting closer and closer to implementation (so it seems), and there are various plans to consider the extent to which additional increases to capacity are going to be needed after seg wit is brought live.  

So, yeah, seems pretty likely that increased users and increased transactions are going to cause for increased needs for larger block size limits.  

At this point, it does not seem to be an emergency as it is made out to be, except for a bunch of loud mouths making the problem out to be greater than it really is.  That is part of the problem.. too much whining about a supposed, alleged and speculative problem that doesn't really exist beyond the attempts at fabricating such and other innocent people seeming to believe such fabrications and the loud mouths rather than actual..

Even though there is some truth that down the road there are likely going to need to be various expansions to capacity, the matter is not as urgent and dire as it is made out to be, and no one is really arguing that expansions will never be needed.  Those are kinds of strawmen arguments to suggest that core advocates do not believe that a blocksize increase will be needed down the road.

Western union and paypal base their fees on the amount of money moved. Bitcoin bases its fees on size of actual transactions in data terms. Very different business models. Pretending that you can directly compare them is fraudulent.

Bitcoin is not a business.

Correct. That's why he's telling you that you can't compare not_a_business to a_business, it don't work.

[rebuilder]

Some optimism for you guys: In the end, everyone gets to say they were right! The big-blockers will get their bigger blocks eventually. The small-blockers will feel content knowing they were right about the sky not being about to fall down immediately. The 1MB4EVA hard core will get to blame any and all subsequent problems Bitcoin experiences on the folly of changing the sacred blocksize.

[Ibian]

Western union and paypal base their fees on the amount of money moved. Bitcoin bases its fees on size of actual transactions in data terms. Very different business models. Pretending that you can directly compare them is fraudulent.

Bitcoin is not a business.

It is to miners. And speculators. And investors. Who cares what druggies think.

[adamstgBit]

Some optimism for you guys: In the end, everyone gets to say they were right! The big-blockers will get their bigger blocks eventually. The small-blockers will feel content knowing they were right about the sky not being about to fall down immediately. The 1MB4EVA hard core will get to blame any and all subsequent problems Bitcoin experiences on the folly of changing the sacred blocksize.

can't argue with that!

[BitconAssociation]

...
If Bitcoin "can't scale", with given network parameters intact since 2010, then perhaps someone can answer me how did it climb from a few dollars per day in transactions in 2010 to doing 150-230 million USD per day? It would seem impossible if we heard all the trolls.

Pray tell why? Bitcoin always had the capacity for 3tps, initially there were a few tx a day, now we hit max capacity, and 'soon as the idiot VC money catches on to the fact that we can't grow, we'll be down to a few tx a day once again.
What don't you get?

And why is it that it can still scale from 200 million per day to 2 billion USD per day, doing over 600 billion USD per year and getting a volume that exceeds paypal and western union, multiplied by two (!), without even increasing the basic system by 1 transaction per second?

Sure, Bitcoin can surpass both Visa & PayPal combined, doing a single transaction per year. The bonus, for you, would be that Bitcoin's market cap would have to be hypreshitloadazillion dollars. Which, according to you, will happen. Because we live in an overaccomodating world, which is just dying to make you filthy rich. Because you're a Visionary, a Seer and Shaper, the One who is Worthy.

[coins101]

...
a) The fee market
.

The idea of an forcing / manipulating an increase in the fee market is a complete load of bollocks.

Matching Visa levels of transactions per second with $0.01 fees per transaction would generate more in fees than the current block reward.  

The required size of each block to achieve this could be dealt with with competition for the increased fee income.

Constrain growth to increase fees is something technology nerds would do. Business people would drive growth instead.

Why should economic decisions be in the hands of tech nerds?  That's the key question.

[JayJuanGee]

Currently, I'm considering removing a large majority of my coins from Coinbase, because of their various recent stances in the blocksize limit debate that seem to purposeful attempts at disrupting and dividing the bitcoin community (to the extent that there is such a community). 

lol nice,

my advice to you is JUST DO IT

I have coins on their exchange and coins in the regular wallet and coins in the vault.

As you likely realize, with many things related to bitcoin, I like to brainstorm about my actions and my contemplated actions (especially when I am making fairly significant changes), and that's part of the explanation why I have a 5800+ post count on this forum.

I will probably leave a few coins in coinbase in each of the three locations (wallet, vault and exchange); however, I am in the process of removing some coins from the vault (apparently, it takes 48 hours), and thereafter I will transfer about 90% of my holdings out of there.  I may change the amount later, but 90% is my initial projection.  Upon reflection, this becomes a bit troubling for me, because I had accumulated most of my coins through Coinbase, and until now, they have held the most coins for me than any other location.  I have my coins distributed, but still at this point Coinbase still has about 50% of all my coins.  After this move (probably two transactions on the blockchain), they will have less than 10% of all my coins.

Also, it is a bit ironic that I have been a bitcoin user for more than 2 years, and it surely does take a long time to learn about bitcoin and to create a number of wallets and even now, I am trying to consider other wallet solutions (and some of them just seem too technical and complicated and somewhat filled with one kind of risk or another - whether that be 3rd party risk or the risk of me screwing it up, somehow).

[adamstgBit]

...
a) The fee market
.

The idea of an forcing / manipulating an increase in the fee market is a complete load of bollocks.

Matching Visa levels of transactions per second with $0.01 fees per transaction would generate more in fees than the current block reward.  

The required size of each block to achieve this could be dealt with with competition for the increased fee income.

Constrain growth to increase fees is something technology nerds would do. Business people would drive growth instead.

Why should economic decisions be in the hands of tech nerds?  That's the key question.

+1

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[adamstgBit]

Currently, I'm considering removing a large majority of my coins from Coinbase, because of their various recent stances in the blocksize limit debate that seem to purposeful attempts at disrupting and dividing the bitcoin community (to the extent that there is such a community).  

lol nice,

my advice to you is JUST DO IT

I have coins on their exchange and coins in the regular wallet and coins in the vault.

As you likely realize, with many things related to bitcoin, I like to brainstorm about my actions and my contemplated actions (especially when I am making fairly significant changes), and that's part of the explanation why I have a 5800+ post count on this forum.

I will probably leave a few coins in coinbase in each of the three locations (wallet, vault and exchange); however, I am in the process of removing some coins from the vault (apparently, it takes 48 hours), and thereafter I will transfer about 90% of my holdings out of there.  I may change the amount later, but 90% is my initial projection.  Upon reflection, this becomes a bit troubling for me, because I had accumulated most of my coins through Coinbase, and until now, they have held the most coins for me than any other location.  I have my coins distributed, but still at this point Coinbase still has about 50% of all my coins.  After this move (probably two transactions on the blockchain), they will have less than 10% of all my coins.

Also, it is a bit ironic that I have been a bitcoin user for more than 2 years, and it surely does take a long time to learn about bitcoin and to create a number of wallets and even now, I am trying to consider other wallet solutions (and some of them just seem too technical and complicated and somewhat filled with one kind of risk or another - whether that be 3rd party risk or the risk of me screwing it up, somehow).

bitaddress.org

you need to save this html page,
remove internet wire ( or reboot with a linux live cd or usb )
print out the paper wallet
reboot.
cut the private in half ( use scissors ), hide one half of the key in your ass and the other in a bank vault.

this will give you the most secure / simplest wallet solution i can think of.

sounds like you needed to take out a good % off BTC of the exchange for a while now...
exchanges can implode anytime.
MtGox wasn't the first and it wont be the last.

[aztecminer]

just posted this into pms forum in regards to Peter Schiffs reply regarding bitcoin:


"it seems as though only the govy can make money anymore. when taking 30-40% of an entities money, it makes it hard for them to make a profit.


bitcoin has become another manipulated joke. the blocks are 95-100% full. within a couple weeks the fees will go up because no one will be able to send bitcoins anywhere due to the blocks being full. and in the middle of that fiasco bitcoin pumped $200.00 during the Marshall’s Auction.. bitcoin was obviously manipulated by the US federal govy to maximize the profit of their bitcoin auction. now we are floating around $400.00 even though there is a major league flaw. you MIGHT maybe be able to make a short term fiat profit, or you might lose big due to the risk.


they want everyone out of pms and into bitcoin. that is partly the reason for the big pump to $400 that happened in November last year … if u are chasing bitcoin then u are not buying pms ….think on that for awhile before u decide bitcoin is a bonafide place to stash fiat currency . bitcoin is nothing more than a glorified manipulated fiat currency THAT IS CURRENTLY BROKEN."


if you want, u can pump bitcoin some more prove how wrong i am ... maybe this time it will actually get me to change my mind .

[ssmc2]

I just bought a rug on Overstock. Paid a 4 cent fee, transaction went right through. Turns out bitcoin works! Who knew

[adamstgBit]

did someone forget to tell Peter Schiff the blocksize debate is all for show?

[JayJuanGee]

Too much politics. Is there some technical reason we can't have both bigger blocks and better blocks? Is this more than jockeying for power?

That's the plan: Segwit = 1.7mb to 3mb (depending use), plus solves tx malleability.

Obviously, all these "disagreements" aren't about the ~300kb difference between segwit and a 2mb hf.

Okay. So, why not change a one to a two now while we wait for the other, presumably more convoluted, stuff to get done?

When you are dealing with billions of dollars, it would be irresponsible to suddenly change without any actual techinical reason (besides a bunch of loud mouthed cunts complaining).

You disagree that we will need greater transaction capacity in the foreseeable future?

I don't know.   You seem to be attempting to attribute a claim to me that I am not making.  Most people, including myself, seem to believe that some kind of increased blocksize limit is going to have to take place down the road (the extent to which the time-line for such capacity increase is foreseeble seems somewhat speculative).

Too terse and jam-packed with infos; fleshed out the first paragraph 4 u.

I don't know.   You seem to be attempting to attempt to attribute a claim to me that I am not attempting to make, and/or have attempted to make in the past or am in the process of currently making.  Had i have attempted to make such claim, which you are attempting to attribute to me, to wit that we will need greater transaction capacity in the foreseeable future, which as stated previously, I have not attempted to make, nor am likely to make in the foreseeable future, my line of argument would be quite unlike the one to be pursued below, i.e the one i find fitting to pursue in light of your nasty and manipulative misinterpretation of my intended claim, which, as I believe I have conclusively conveyed, was not the claim that i have attempted to make.

Most people, including myself, i.e. I and many, though not all, people who are not myself, or, in layman's terms "the others," of whom there are more than one or several, and, implicitly, significantly more than one, that is up to as many as all, though I'm not attempting to imply that all the people concur with the claim which I have not made, thou such an claim would be justifiable, nay, almost begging, though make such a claim which you are attempting to attribute to me I have not made, seem to believe that some kind or another of increased blocksize limit is going to have to take place, or rather, will be appropriate, down the road (the extent to which the time-line, that is to say the time dimension of the space-time continuum, which accounts for sequentuality and temporaity of the topic at hand by allowing flux in the system that, otherwise, would be doomed to the stasis of pure persistance, which is to say "our world as we know it," for such capacity increase is foreseeble, in as much as anything could be said to be foreseeable to a predictable degree of certitude, seems somewhat, albeit not altogether, speculative).

It surely seems that greater transaction capacity is going to be needed at some point, because it is anticipated that bitcoin is going to continue to grow.  

At this point, Seg wit is in the works and it is getting closer and closer to implementation (so it seems), and there are various plans to consider the extent to which additional increases to capacity are going to be needed after seg wit is brought live.  

So, yeah, seems pretty likely that increased users and increased transactions are going to cause for increased needs for larger block size limits.  

At this point, it does not seem to be an emergency as it is made out to be, except for a bunch of loud mouths making the problem out to be greater than it really is.  That is part of the problem.. too much whining about a supposed, alleged and speculative problem that doesn't really exist beyond the attempts at fabricating such and other innocent people seeming to believe such fabrications and the loud mouths rather than actual..

Even though there is some truth that down the road there are likely going to need to be various expansions to capacity, the matter is not as urgent and dire as it is made out to be, and no one is really arguing that expansions will never be needed.  Those are kinds of strawmen arguments to suggest that core advocates do not believe that a blocksize increase will be needed down the road.

Western union and paypal base their fees on the amount of money moved. Bitcoin bases its fees on size of actual transactions in data terms. Very different business models. Pretending that you can directly compare them is fraudulent.

Bitcoin is not a business.

Correct. That's why he's telling you that you can't compare not_a_business to a_business, it don't work.

I did not read all of your rewriting of my sentences because it seems like a complete waste of time because it really boils down to a childish form of an ad hominem attack. 

Don't you have better things to do with your time? 

O.k.. yep, the job of a troller is to attack and to distract with non-sense, and I suppose in that regard you are attempting to earn your money with such efforts? 

And, since you are getting paid for these kinds of trolling efforts (hopefully you get paid well, maybe ?? I hope.  Is it by the post or by the hour or a salary? 

I imagine you are getting paid by the post (in BTC how ironic), maybe .01 or more BTC per post? or some other rate,... I'm kind of guessing the rate.  The best paying signature campaigns receive around .0015 per posts, yet the best paying ones explicitly require that posters do not spam or troll, and even the best paying signature campaigns are not going to bring anywhere near enough money to live (maybe .2BTC or so per month).  Even if you live in some very cheap place, you need to be able to make 1 BTC per month or so to live, no?  I suppose it could be a supplemental income too, even with all your creative efforts?

Since you are getting paid for your distracting efforts, then I suppose, there is some kind of value.  In this regard, you get paid and your employer gets some of the value of your efforts as part of the troll/shill team.  I hope that you are making at least a couple of BTC per month for your attempts (before you get banned).

[ZyclonRacerX]

I just bought a rug on Overstock. Paid a 4 cent fee, transaction went right through. Turns out bitcoin works! Who knew

Enjoy your rug. If you bought it with a CC, you could have done it faster, sans 4c fee, & with all the perks CC offer

[adamstgBit]

I just bought a rug on Overstock. Paid a 4 cent fee, transaction went right through. Turns out bitcoin works! Who knew

Enjoy your rug. If you bought it with a CC, you could have done it faster, sans 4c fee, & with all the perks CC offer

you can't put a price on the good feeling you get using bitcoin, silly nub.

[JayJuanGee]

Currently, I'm considering removing a large majority of my coins from Coinbase, because of their various recent stances in the blocksize limit debate that seem to purposeful attempts at disrupting and dividing the bitcoin community (to the extent that there is such a community).  

lol nice,

my advice to you is JUST DO IT

I have coins on their exchange and coins in the regular wallet and coins in the vault.

As you likely realize, with many things related to bitcoin, I like to brainstorm about my actions and my contemplated actions (especially when I am making fairly significant changes), and that's part of the explanation why I have a 5800+ post count on this forum.

I will probably leave a few coins in coinbase in each of the three locations (wallet, vault and exchange); however, I am in the process of removing some coins from the vault (apparently, it takes 48 hours), and thereafter I will transfer about 90% of my holdings out of there.  I may change the amount later, but 90% is my initial projection.  Upon reflection, this becomes a bit troubling for me, because I had accumulated most of my coins through Coinbase, and until now, they have held the most coins for me than any other location.  I have my coins distributed, but still at this point Coinbase still has about 50% of all my coins.  After this move (probably two transactions on the blockchain), they will have less than 10% of all my coins.

Also, it is a bit ironic that I have been a bitcoin user for more than 2 years, and it surely does take a long time to learn about bitcoin and to create a number of wallets and even now, I am trying to consider other wallet solutions (and some of them just seem too technical and complicated and somewhat filled with one kind of risk or another - whether that be 3rd party risk or the risk of me screwing it up, somehow).

bitaddress.org

you need to save this html page,
remove internet wire ( or reboot with a linux live cd or usb )
print out the paper wallet
reboot.
cut the private in half ( use scissors ), hide one half of the key in your ass and the other in a bank vault.

this will give you the most secure / simplest wallet solution i can think of.

sounds like you needed to take out a good % off BTC of the exchange for a while now...
exchanges can implode anytime.
MtGox wasn't the first and it wont be the last.

You may be correct that it is good to take more off of exchanges, but I was not completely considering removing my coins because of exchange risk.

It is true that some people have been suggesting that Coinbase actions have been weird lately, but I was considering taking off coins more because of the seemingly unfair and unnecessary political actions of Armstrong... seemingly aimed at causing and/or exacerbating political divisiveness within the bitcoin space.

[BitconAssociation]

Too much politics. Is there some technical reason we can't have both bigger blocks and better blocks? Is this more than jockeying for power?

That's the plan: Segwit = 1.7mb to 3mb (depending use), plus solves tx malleability.

Obviously, all these "disagreements" aren't about the ~300kb difference between segwit and a 2mb hf.

Okay. So, why not change a one to a two now while we wait for the other, presumably more convoluted, stuff to get done?

When you are dealing with billions of dollars, it would be irresponsible to suddenly change without any actual techinical reason (besides a bunch of loud mouthed cunts complaining).

You disagree that we will need greater transaction capacity in the foreseeable future?

I don't know.   You seem to be attempting to attribute a claim to me that I am not making.  Most people, including myself, seem to believe that some kind of increased blocksize limit is going to have to take place down the road (the extent to which the time-line for such capacity increase is foreseeble seems somewhat speculative).

Too terse and jam-packed with infos; fleshed out the first paragraph 4 u.

I don't know.   You seem to be attempting to attempt to attribute a claim to me that I am not attempting to make, and/or have attempted to make in the past or am in the process of currently making.  Had i have attempted to make such claim, which you are attempting to attribute to me, to wit that we will need greater transaction capacity in the foreseeable future, which as stated previously, I have not attempted to make, nor am likely to make in the foreseeable future, my line of argument would be quite unlike the one to be pursued below, i.e the one i find fitting to pursue in light of your nasty and manipulative misinterpretation of my intended claim, which, as I believe I have conclusively conveyed, was not the claim that i have attempted to make.

Most people, including myself, i.e. I and many, though not all, people who are not myself, or, in layman's terms "the others," of whom there are more than one or several, and, implicitly, significantly more than one, that is up to as many as all, though I'm not attempting to imply that all the people concur with the claim which I have not made, thou such an claim would be justifiable, nay, almost begging, though make such a claim which you are attempting to attribute to me I have not made, seem to believe that some kind or another of increased blocksize limit is going to have to take place, or rather, will be appropriate, down the road (the extent to which the time-line, that is to say the time dimension of the space-time continuum, which accounts for sequentuality and temporaity of the topic at hand by allowing flux in the system that, otherwise, would be doomed to the stasis of pure persistance, which is to say "our world as we know it," for such capacity increase is foreseeble, in as much as anything could be said to be foreseeable to a predictable degree of certitude, seems somewhat, albeit not altogether, speculative).

It surely seems that greater transaction capacity is going to be needed at some point, because it is anticipated that bitcoin is going to continue to grow.  

At this point, Seg wit is in the works and it is getting closer and closer to implementation (so it seems), and there are various plans to consider the extent to which additional increases to capacity are going to be needed after seg wit is brought live.  

So, yeah, seems pretty likely that increased users and increased transactions are going to cause for increased needs for larger block size limits.  

At this point, it does not seem to be an emergency as it is made out to be, except for a bunch of loud mouths making the problem out to be greater than it really is.  That is part of the problem.. too much whining about a supposed, alleged and speculative problem that doesn't really exist beyond the attempts at fabricating such and other innocent people seeming to believe such fabrications and the loud mouths rather than actual..

Even though there is some truth that down the road there are likely going to need to be various expansions to capacity, the matter is not as urgent and dire as it is made out to be, and no one is really arguing that expansions will never be needed.  Those are kinds of strawmen arguments to suggest that core advocates do not believe that a blocksize increase will be needed down the road.

Western union and paypal base their fees on the amount of money moved. Bitcoin bases its fees on size of actual transactions in data terms. Very different business models. Pretending that you can directly compare them is fraudulent.

Bitcoin is not a business.

Correct. That's why he's telling you that you can't compare not_a_business to a_business, it don't work.

I did not read all of your rewriting of my sentences because it seems like a complete waste of time because it really boils down to a childish form of an ad hominem attack.  

Don't you have better things to do with your time?  

O.k.. yep, the job of a troller is to attack and to distract with non-sense, and I suppose in that regard you are attempting to earn your money with such efforts?  

And, since you are getting paid for these kinds of trolling efforts (hopefully you get paid well, maybe ?? I hope.  Is it by the post or by the hour or a salary?  

I imagine you are getting paid by the post (in BTC how ironic), maybe .01 or more BTC per post? or some other rate,... I'm kind of guessing the rate.  The best paying signature campaigns receive around .0015 per posts, yet the best paying ones explicitly require that posters do not spam or troll, and even the best paying signature campaigns are not going to bring anywhere near enough money to live (maybe .2BTC or so per month).  Even if you live in some very cheap place, you need to be able to make 1 BTC per month or so to live, no?  I suppose it could be a supplemental income too, even with all your creative efforts?

Since you are getting paid for your distracting efforts, then I suppose, there is some kind of value.  In this regard, you get paid and your employer gets some of the value of your efforts as part of the troll/shill team.  I hope that you are making at least a couple of BTC per month for your attempts (before you get banned).

So trying to get you to post like a human being is not merely an exerciser in futility, it also makes me a paid shill?
I suppose i shouldn't mention all








the





fucking

blank lines either. Might turn me into a witch, so I won't.