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

[r0ach]

After months of reading Billyjoe posts about block size, readers finally discovered his true identity:

[bargainbin]

Dat volume tho...

[r0ach]

Are you referring to the hong kong roundtable resolution or something else?

It is most likely that around this time next year we should be working out the details of a 2MB hard fork on top of the already deployed segwit code.

http://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-miners-back-proposed-timeline-for-2017-network-hard-fork/

"“SegWit is expected to be released in April 2016."

The code for the hard-fork will, therefore, be available by July 2016."

"If there is strong community support, the hard-fork activation will likely happen around July 2017.” " (activates between 70-80% hash power I think)

[JayJuanGee]

Dat volume tho...

 


We can look at weekly or 3 day trade volume charts..... (and Bitstamp is a good trade volume reference point because it does not engage in margin / leverage trading).

in the summer of 2015, we had a bit of a false start regarding BTC price movement because BTC trade volume picked up and then dried up, again.  If you recall that was the price move from $230s to $317 and then back down to the $230s.   

Then in late 2015 starting from mid-August, we had a decent pick up in BTC trade volume that lasted more than 4 months until late December 2015... (the move from $230s to $502 and back down to lower $300s and back up to $360 to $460 range).

Since about the beginning of 2016 there has been some drying up of BTC’s trade volume... and quite a bit of ongoing contentiousness in the bitcoin community regarding blocksize limit, governance and hardforking.

Further, the last three weeks seem to have demonstrated additional drying up of BTC trade volume and some temporary acceptance of this lower $400s price range... maybe there's some widespread and contagious "let's wait and see thinking" going on at the moment? I have my doubts regarding whether price stagnation is completely attributable to contentiousness in the bitcoin space, though there's no doubt that public sentiment remains a component in price dynamics of any asset, commodity or whatever the fuck is bitcoin.

I would not be surprised for a price break out in either direction or just a continuation of the relatively low trade volume for a couple more months....

I don't think that the current drying up of BTC trade volume means too much, except that there is some continued price consolidation going on in this lower $400s price range... and no one really wants to (or is able to) fight the direction of BTC prices too much. The big players are likely to continue attempt at testing price here or there in order to attempt to verify if they can get prices to move in one direction or another or to get others to jump on-board... but in the end, when we are stuck in a kind of consolidation, even big players can't really be successful in getting BTC prices to move too much or to get others to jump onboard when attempting to signal in one direction or another.

I think that at this time, we cannot really read too much into the low BTC trade volume.. except maybe relax and accumulate BTC if you happen to be bullish and relax and dump BTC if you happen to be bearish (that is if you have any BTC to dump)...

Sometimes I will attempt to trade BTC on less than $5 price increments but only if the price happens to be hitting my price points... and in this most recent $410 to $419 range of the past five days, I did not really catch BTC price points very well.

In other words, there has been pretty low trade volume from me, too. About 5 days ago, when BTC prices moved above $410, I sold some in the $412s, $415s and in the $417s, and then bought back some in the $414s... and now I feel kind of stuck with my next sell point above $418 and my next buy point below $412...   Even though I may feel stuck at the moment, I have found that as time passes, I tend to narrow my consolidation of buy and sell points to bring them closer together when there seems to be long periods of prices being stuck in a range and I have not been buying or selling for such a long time...

[JayJuanGee]

Are you referring to the hong kong roundtable resolution or something else?

It is most likely that around this time next year we should be working out the details of a 2MB hard fork on top of the already deployed segwit code.

http://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-miners-back-proposed-timeline-for-2017-network-hard-fork/

"“SegWit is expected to be released in April 2016."

The code for the hard-fork will, therefore, be available by July 2016."

"If there is strong community support, the hard-fork activation will likely happen around July 2017.” " (activates between 70-80% hash power I think)

I see what you are saying, and it seems to be largely building off of hong kong commitments, and I personally believe that those were fairly solid and sufficiently adequate commitments, even though they may have been tentative and conditional.

Nonetheless, sometimes, I believe a lot of people tend to equate too much the concept of increasing the blocksize limit (from 1mg to 2mb) as if that has to be a hardfork, or maybe they are just throwing around too much the idea of hardfork, which distracts the conversation.

In essence, the tentative plan remains that Segwit will go live, and based on various scattered writings that I have seen, I would anticipate that release to be in May/June rather than April, which will also put off the release of 1mb to 2mb increase code language by a couple of months.  Nonetheless, we could still end up having the implementation of some blocksize limit increase code (from 1 to 2mb) in mid to late 2017.   

Whether that blocksize limit increase would be a hardfork or a softfork is still to be determined, and I get the sense that if it can be accomplished via a softfork, it will be accomplished in that way... and if for some reason, there does need to be a hardfork, then such a hardfork would be attempted in a non-contentious manner... unless the hands of core is forced to have to implement with a hardfork.... which seems to be a less likely scenario in my humble bumble opinion.

[StoraGottes]

Winkdex at 443. Is some exchange going crazy or is there a bug?

[gentlemand]

I think it incorporates localbitcoins and that gets triggered at a certain volume level.

[jbreher]

they say:  "Let's cause bitcoin prices to fall in order that core compromises with us." 

Link please?

Yeah... that's what I thought.

[JayJuanGee]

they say:  "Let's cause bitcoin prices to fall in order that core compromises with us." 

Link please?

Yeah... that's what I thought.

I'm not going to provide you a link of my paraphrasing of a theme because you are just striving to cause me to do work over what should be a non-disputed point.  That's what trolls do, and it would be better if we talk about substance rather than getting caught up on meaningless technicalities of providing proof over what should be non disputed points.

This paraphrased theme of "Let's cause bitcoin prices to fall in order that core compromises with us"   is so pervasive and common amongst a large number of XT/Classic supporters (anti-core folks) that a link is not necessary.   

Are you really saying that you do not believe my representation or what is your point, exactly? 

[jbreher]

they say:  "Let's cause bitcoin prices to fall in order that core compromises with us."  

Link please?

Yeah... that's what I thought.

This paraphrased theme of "Let's cause bitcoin prices to fall in order that core compromises with us"   is so pervasive and common amongst a large number of XT/Classic supporters (anti-core folks) that a link is not necessary.  

Are you really saying that you do not believe my representation?  

That is exactly what I am saying. I do not believe your representation. I have seen exactly zero instances of people trying to tank the price of Bitcoin as a strategy to get Core to capitulate.

So yes, a link is indeed necessary.

Otherwise, you are just pulling shit out of your ass.

[JayJuanGee]

they say:  "Let's cause bitcoin prices to fall in order that core compromises with us."  

Link please?

Yeah... that's what I thought.

This paraphrased theme of "Let's cause bitcoin prices to fall in order that core compromises with us"   is so pervasive and common amongst a large number of XT/Classic supporters (anti-core folks) that a link is not necessary.  

Are you really saying that you do not believe my representation?  

That is exactly what I am saying. I do not believe your representation. I have seen exactly zero instances of people trying to tank the price of Bitcoin as a strategy to get Core to capitulate.

So yes, a link is indeed necessary.

Otherwise, you are just pulling shit out of your ass.

You seem to be in a particularly rambunctious mood today.... and stepping up your baloney troll attempts to strive to talk about trivial and what should be non controverted topics.  Yeah, let's get caught up in the weeds.. and talk about the extent to which my comment is actually representative or a reflection of my opinion regarding what is representative and whether my attempting to prove the point moves the conversation along.     You are acting ridiculous.   

Further if you look a bit more carefully at my comment... maybe work on some of your reading skills, then you will be able to verify that I said that they "say" these kinds of things, yet I did not make any representation regarding the extent to which they may follow up with attempting to cause the price to fall... though I could probably give you the benefit of the doubt that saying and whining about such topics could also be inferred to be attempts to cause BTC prices to fall in order to "send a message to core."

[billyjoeallen]

they say:  "Let's cause bitcoin prices to fall in order that core compromises with us."  

Link please?

Yeah... that's what I thought.

This paraphrased theme of "Let's cause bitcoin prices to fall in order that core compromises with us"   is so pervasive and common amongst a large number of XT/Classic supporters (anti-core folks) that a link is not necessary.  

Are you really saying that you do not believe my representation?  

That is exactly what I am saying. I do not believe your representation. I have seen exactly zero instances of people trying to tank the price of Bitcoin as a strategy to get Core to capitulate.

So yes, a link is indeed necessary.

Otherwise, you are just pulling shit out of your ass.

I have said many times that we need to tank the price to motivate the miners to abandon core and adopt a sane alternative, but I am a voice crying in the wilderness and not a single person has supported me on this, so we gimp along.

[JorgeStolfi]

Now that Adam is back, it would be nice to have all the classics again (thinking in Tera and Windj) even if only for a week... before the tsunami of cryptos entering the hyperspace

Me too?

[jbreher]

they say:  "Let's cause bitcoin prices to fall in order that core compromises with us."  

Link please?

Yeah... that's what I thought.

This paraphrased theme of "Let's cause bitcoin prices to fall in order that core compromises with us"   is so pervasive and common amongst a large number of XT/Classic supporters (anti-core folks) that a link is not necessary.  

Are you really saying that you do not believe my representation?  

That is exactly what I am saying. I do not believe your representation. I have seen exactly zero instances of people trying to tank the price of Bitcoin as a strategy to get Core to capitulate.

So yes, a link is indeed necessary.

Otherwise, you are just pulling shit out of your ass.

... what should be non controverted topics. 

Sure. I'd love to be able to stick to discussing only things that are meaningful.

However, you are spreading bullshit, claiming it to be noncontroversial fact. Accordingly, I am calling you on it.

Either provide links showing that this claim that "This paraphrased theme of "Let's cause bitcoin prices to fall in order that core compromises with us"   is so pervasive and common amongst a large number of XT/Classic supporters" is "non-contoversial", or publicly rescind your fucking lie.

[bargainbin]

... I am a voice crying in the wilderness ...

And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees...

[Mrpumperitis]

Now that Adam is back, it would be nice to have all the classics again (thinking in Tera and Windj) even if only for a week... before the tsunami of cryptos entering the hyperspace

Me too?

stolferitis in da house

[SheHadMANHands]

my body is ready bitcoin

wall on huobi at 2500btc

[adamstgBit]

my body is ready bitcoin

wall on huobi at 2500btc

O_O
bid or ask?

[SheHadMANHands]

my body is ready bitcoin

wall on huobi at 2500btc

O_O
bid or ask?

Was 3k btc, Ask!

1.5k now..

[JayJuanGee]

they say:  "Let's cause bitcoin prices to fall in order that core compromises with us."  

Link please?

Yeah... that's what I thought.

This paraphrased theme of "Let's cause bitcoin prices to fall in order that core compromises with us"   is so pervasive and common amongst a large number of XT/Classic supporters (anti-core folks) that a link is not necessary.  

Are you really saying that you do not believe my representation?  

That is exactly what I am saying. I do not believe your representation. I have seen exactly zero instances of people trying to tank the price of Bitcoin as a strategy to get Core to capitulate.

So yes, a link is indeed necessary.

Otherwise, you are just pulling shit out of your ass.

I have said many times that we need to tank the price to motivate the miners to abandon core and adopt a sane alternative, but I am a voice crying in the wilderness and not a single person has supported me on this, so we gimp along.

Yes, thanks for admitting it.  We already know that you have repeated such comments in this thread over and over and over, and ad nauseum, and despite your implied assertion of being "unique" and a "lone wolf" in this regard, you are not alone concerning this theme..

There a bunch of you apparent copy cat shills who are asserting pretty much the same thing.  Whether the attack is coordinated or not, the various clones seem to be using variations of different words to say pretty much the same exact thing that is reflected in my earlier representation of such, and that is:  "Let's cause bitcoin prices to fall in order that core compromises with us"  blah blah blah blah.. and some other variation and extreme or less extreme degrees of such.