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

[JayJuanGee]

I'm as curious about theymos' response to those circumstances as I am about your response to this comment. Would you say I have an obsession with your opinion? You're just one person not representative of the bitcoin ecosystem, yet here I am. Talking to you through the internet.

The odd thing is you mentioned him when he wasn't in the conversation and wasn't related to the topic in any meaningful way. Why does his opinion matter so much to you that you would single him out in such an offtopic matter ?

I do not see the activation threshold being lowered below the original 75activates/95enforced for a soft fork.... If anything Segwit activation threshold will likely be increased to 95% due to it being deployed with BIP 9 (Version Bits) . If it gets delayed due to Classic miners rejecting a capacity increase so be it.

Believe it or not, Many core developers do indeed believe they need a large consensus of 75/95 for softforks and 95-99% for HFs as they are in the service of the community and have an ethical responsibility to protect the ecosystem... This isn't a stalling tactic like some classic supporters seem to conspire about.

You are correct, that if some classic supporters get together to obstruct the achieving of consensus, then bitcoin merely stays in its current status.

There could be 5 or 10% holding back, for the mere sake of it, but that could cause it's own problems and even a certain amount of pressure from the remaining 90% .. hopefully, it does not come to that, but that bridge is possible and would need to be considered and maybe crossed if and when it gets to that point.

[bargainbin]

Yup, with over 5% of the hashpower & over 30% of the nodes voting against, either that 95% min for consensus or the need for consensus will shortly be forgotten.
Oceania was always at war with Eurasia

There seems to be some fuzzy logic going on here.

Of course there's fuzzy logic going on here. Don't use jargon you don't understand.

Looks like you are attempting to employ your own diversion from the topic by pointing fingers.   I fully explained what I meant in my post, and if you want some further explanation of some "jargon", then let me know. < snip >

Ignorant fuck:
"Fuzzy logic," the jargon you're misusing, means "non-Boolean logic." It does not mean shitty/sloppy logic.
The rest of your post is, per usual, more drawn-out bland bullshit peppered with buzzwords. Which you hope against hope other idiots would mistake for erudition.
Which, of course, they do not.
And if the meaningless, insipid tripe you type up ain't enough, you pad it out with shitloads of blank lines. You annoying fuck.

[JimboToronto]

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the price keeps creeping upwards, albeit on low volume.

Oops. I didn't mean to change the subject.  

[JayJuanGee]

Yup, with over 5% of the hashpower & over 30% of the nodes voting against, either that 95% min for consensus or the need for consensus will shortly be forgotten.
Oceania was always at war with Eurasia

There seems to be some fuzzy logic going on here.

Of course there's fuzzy logic going on here. Don't use jargon you don't understand.

Looks like you are attempting to employ your own diversion from the topic by pointing fingers.   I fully explained what I meant in my post, and if you want some further explanation of some "jargon", then let me know. < snip >

Ignorant fuck:
"Fuzzy logic," the jargon you're misusing, means "non-Boolean logic." It does not mean shitty/sloppy logic.
The rest of your post is, per usual, more drawn-out bland bullshit peppered with buzzwords. Which you hope against hope other idiots would mistake for erudition.
Which, of course, they do not.
And if the meaningless, insipid tripe you type up ain't enough, you pad it out with shitloads of blank lines. You annoying fuck.

Well, look on the bright-side negative nancy. 

At least you are getting paid for all of your troubles, sir smartie pants, aka lambie.

[spiderbrain]

The rest of your post is, per usual, more drawn-out bland bullshit peppered with buzzwords. Which you hope against hope other idiots would mistake for erudition.
Which, of course, they do not.

Ad hominem is below par, but... it's funny because it's true =D

[spiderbrain]

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the price keeps creeping upwards, albeit on low volume.

Oops. I didn't mean to change the subject.  

Discussing the price of bitcoin? Controversial!

[bargainbin]

Up in the sky! The price!

[marcus_of_augustus]

^^ meet the new shit show same as the old shit show ... 

[BlackSpidy]

I'm as curious about theymos' response to those circumstances as I am about your response to this comment. Would you say I have an obsession with your opinion? You're just one person not representative of the bitcoin ecosystem, yet here I am. Talking to you through the internet.

The odd thing is you mentioned him when he wasn't in the conversation and wasn't related to the topic in any meaningful way. Why does his opinion matter so much to you that you would single him out in such an offtopic matter ?

Hmm, well... funny thing about reddit, people share links there too. One comment led me directly into Theymos' response about the 95% BIP9 standard being possibly lowered. Made me wonder. "what standard is he using? Seems it's only because it comes from Bitcoin Core development team. I wonder what he'd say if it goes through with less than 75.001% hash power. How will the community respond? What would those who back that decision say then?". I abbreviated that whole thought into just mentioning the person that brought up that possibility.

Sorry, I thought it was something I cleared up when I said "I observe how some proponents of it justify the change with a consensus below that benchmark (theymos being one of them [the most known one])". But seems like you needed me to give you the step-by-step playthrough.

I do not see the activation threshold being lowered below the original 75activates/95enforced for a soft fork.... If anything Segwit activation threshold will likely be increased to 95% due to it being deployed with BIP 9 (Version Bits) . If it gets delayed due to Classic miners rejecting a capacity increase so be it.

Believe it or not, Many core developers do indeed believe they need a large consensus of 75/95 for softforks and 95-99% for HFs as they are in the service of the community and have an ethical responsibility to protect the ecosystem... This isn't a stalling tactic like some classic supporters seem to conspire about.

Really? I would love to see when and where those Core devs expressed the views you said they expressed in that bolded section there.
I wonder why Segwit gets a consideration of lowering the threshold by 15%... Oh, well ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ it's a mystery for the ages.

[BitUsher]

I wonder why Segwit gets a consideration of lowering the threshold by 15%... Oh, well ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ it's a mystery for the ages.

All softforks in the past have had a 75% activation and 95% enforcement policy , this is nothing new.

Really? I would love to see when and where those Core devs expressed the views you said they expressed in that bolded section there.

They repeatedly state them so its should be no mystery unless you completely ignore the dev mailing list , #bitcoin-core-dev , or the core slack channel. I'm not going to repost a book of comments but here is one example among many ...

https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-January/012309.html
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-February/012385.html
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-February/012372.html
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-February/012385.html
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-February/012411.html


P.S... I don't follow theymos around like he is a celebrity , so cannot read your mind when you mention him out of nowhere. Next time It would be more productive to talk about the principles or positions instead of him as I could care less what he thinks.  


One of the issues I see when individuals talk to developers they disagree with is that the developers are often so interested in answering the question accurately or talking about what is and not possible that they aren't so focused on considering being misinterpreted or taken out of context. Thus it may be helpful to clarify in what special cases or circumstances would it be acceptable for either a soft-serve HF or lowering the activation threshold is acceptable before assuming it is merely being used to force a fork through. Perhaps there is a context where a single miner with 5 % of hashing power is refusing to accept a SF/HF and they don't represent a pool of users... that situation is far different than many classic supporters mining 5% hashing blocks .  

[Tzupy]

https://www.tradingview.com/chart/BTCCNY/rpaz5X3V-China-breaks-triangle-US-does-not/

Give me a sign!!!!!

OH?  That's the sign?

Should I sell now in order to be ahead of the game?


Even with that charting of a breaking down in China, I am only slightly bearish for the next 3% break out...  maybe 52.75% betting on down... 

The mid $420s resistance has been proving a bit more formidable than I had expected, and possibly could be a few more weeks to get passed that point.

I do understand that when we are suffering from overall relative low volume, that leaves quite a bit of control to manipulators.. and it seems that bears tend to push their agenda a bit more in the low volume scenarios... and recently no one seems to getting too excited about possibilities of getting left behind.

Despite the worsening market indicators, price has been more resilient than I expected.
Two months ago, similar indicator crossings resulted in large drops. Now I am trying to figure out how much slower the current market is moving.

Don't fight it, Tzupy.     


I recall earlier that you had recognized an overall uptrend, so even if we are having a large number of downward price pressures, there is only so much that the price can be pushed down when the overall trend remains up.   

I am not fighting the market... Since it became obvious that the crash window was missed, I closed my short.
Am not going long yet, I seriously doubt the bulls can pump to 450+ (480 would be right) to keep the upward channel viable.
I currently believe the bulls will try to build the new higher high and will fail, and then the panic selling will begin.
Even if they will succeed, there will be a correction afterwards to get back in, at maybe 5-10% higher than current price, so I won't miss much.

[bargainbin]

Yup, with over 5% of the hashpower & over 30% of the nodes voting against, either that 95% min for consensus or the need for consensus will shortly be forgotten.
Oceania was always at war with Eurasia

Lol, https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4banq1/will_classic_block_segwit_activation/d17iqo8

[–]theymos -4 points 1 day ago
IMO it's unlikely that miners will refuse to take a scaling option that's sitting right in front of them.
But if 95% can't be achieved, it's possible to switch to a lower percentage.
[...]
It's also possible to do a softfork with less than 50% mining power

Who's your daddy?

[JimboToronto]

Good morning Bitcoinland. $415ish?

No wonder this thread has become the Fork Observer. There's no Bitcoin price movement to track or discuss.

Ho freaking hum.

[noobtrader]

Yup, with over 5% of the hashpower & over 30% of the nodes voting against, either that 95% min for consensus or the need for consensus will shortly be forgotten.
Oceania was always at war with Eurasia

Lol, https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4banq1/will_classic_block_segwit_activation/d17iqo8

[–]theymos -4 points 1 day ago
IMO it's unlikely that miners will refuse to take a scaling option that's sitting right in front of them.
But if 95% can't be achieved, it's possible to switch to a lower percentage.
[...]
It's also possible to do a softfork with less than 50% mining power

Who's your daddy?

so what??? bitcoin price still rising

[hdbuck]

Dat impotent gov troll nonstop bitching is so irrelevant.

[JayJuanGee]

https://www.tradingview.com/chart/BTCCNY/rpaz5X3V-China-breaks-triangle-US-does-not/

Give me a sign!!!!!

OH?  That's the sign?

Should I sell now in order to be ahead of the game?


Even with that charting of a breaking down in China, I am only slightly bearish for the next 3% break out...  maybe 52.75% betting on down... 

The mid $420s resistance has been proving a bit more formidable than I had expected, and possibly could be a few more weeks to get passed that point.

I do understand that when we are suffering from overall relative low volume, that leaves quite a bit of control to manipulators.. and it seems that bears tend to push their agenda a bit more in the low volume scenarios... and recently no one seems to getting too excited about possibilities of getting left behind.

Despite the worsening market indicators, price has been more resilient than I expected.
Two months ago, similar indicator crossings resulted in large drops. Now I am trying to figure out how much slower the current market is moving.

Don't fight it, Tzupy.     


I recall earlier that you had recognized an overall uptrend, so even if we are having a large number of downward price pressures, there is only so much that the price can be pushed down when the overall trend remains up.   

I am not fighting the market... Since it became obvious that the crash window was missed, I closed my short.
Am not going long yet, I seriously doubt the bulls can pump to 450+ (480 would be right) to keep the upward channel viable.
I currently believe the bulls will try to build the new higher high and will fail, and then the panic selling will begin.
Even if they will succeed, there will be a correction afterwards to get back in, at maybe 5-10% higher than current price, so I won't miss much.

Actually, this seems to be a pretty fair assessment of our current state of affairs in bitcoinlandia. 

Unless, we get some kind of positive news concerning resolution of the blocksize limit mythology or some other world currency / finance calamity, there does not seem to be enough umph in the system to carry prices passed certain resistance points, which one of the upper-most one of them seems to be around $467.   Actually, you also seem to be correct that if BTC prices were to get into the $480-ish territory (and maybe even $470s would be enough), then that kind of happening could actually cause enough psychological momentum to propel prices into the $500s----- and if we get into the $500s, then likely we are well on our way to the $650 territory....

Actually, I place the odds of getting into the $500s, hence passed $470, in the next three months to be in the below 20% arena... absent some surprise ubber bullish news developments (which don't seem too likely at the moment - that's probably why such would be a surprise.. hahahahahaha)..

[bargainbin]

Dat impotent gov troll ...

Impotent?



No rly, ask ur mom

[Meuh6879]

Someone ask me ?

[coins101]

https://www.tradingview.com/chart/BTCCNY/rpaz5X3V-China-breaks-triangle-US-does-not/

Give me a sign!!!!!

OH?  That's the sign?

Should I sell now in order to be ahead of the game?


Even with that charting of a breaking down in China, I am only slightly bearish for the next 3% break out...  maybe 52.75% betting on down... 

The mid $420s resistance has been proving a bit more formidable than I had expected, and possibly could be a few more weeks to get passed that point.

I do understand that when we are suffering from overall relative low volume, that leaves quite a bit of control to manipulators.. and it seems that bears tend to push their agenda a bit more in the low volume scenarios... and recently no one seems to getting too excited about possibilities of getting left behind.

Despite the worsening market indicators, price has been more resilient than I expected.
Two months ago, similar indicator crossings resulted in large drops. Now I am trying to figure out how much slower the current market is moving.

Don't fight it, Tzupy.     


I recall earlier that you had recognized an overall uptrend, so even if we are having a large number of downward price pressures, there is only so much that the price can be pushed down when the overall trend remains up.   

I am not fighting the market... Since it became obvious that the crash window was missed, I closed my short.
Am not going long yet, I seriously doubt the bulls can pump to 450+ (480 would be right) to keep the upward channel viable.
I currently believe the bulls will try to build the new higher high and will fail, and then the panic selling will begin.
Even if they will succeed, there will be a correction afterwards to get back in, at maybe 5-10% higher than current price, so I won't miss much.

Actually, this seems to be a pretty fair assessment of our current state of affairs in bitcoinlandia. 

Unless, we get some kind of positive news concerning resolution of the blocksize limit mythology or some other world currency / finance calamity, there does not seem to be enough umph in the system to carry prices passed certain resistance points, which one of the upper-most one of them seems to be around $467.   Actually, you also seem to be correct that if BTC prices were to get into the $480-ish territory (and maybe even $470s would be enough), then that kind of happening could actually cause enough psychological momentum to propel prices into the $500s----- and if we get into the $500s, then likely we are well on our way to the $650 territory....

Actually, I place the odds of getting into the $500s, hence passed $470, in the next three months to be in the below 20% arena... absent some surprise ubber bullish news developments (which don't seem too likely at the moment - that's probably why such would be a surprise.. hahahahahaha)..

I tend to agree with this assessment.

[Mrpumperitis]