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

[Room101]

I sent a friend 2BTC last night from my core wallet, and used 0.001 fee ( so around 50 cents), stupid transaction took 8 hours ( not to be confirmed, just to appear at all). Funny thing is, he sent me money via internet banking at the same time, and it arrived inside 2 hours!

Something is not working the way it is supposed to!

An unlikely claim. Please post the transaction ID.

Honestly curious how that will give you any info? I was getting pretty worried, so i kept checking the transaction ID on blockchain.info, and it kept saying not a transaction. Once the coins appeared unconfirmed only then did blockchain.info recognise my the transaction ID?

The only other thing i could think it might be was my core wallet was not completely up to date ( ie I had not downloaded all the blocks because i was on a metered connection, and didnt want to waste bandwidth, so i just opened core, waited till i had a connection to network, then sent). The coins showed as sent, there was a transaction Id, but not record of it anywhere for hours)

[BayAreaCoins]

I sent a friend 2BTC last night from my core wallet, and used 0.001 fee ( so around 50 cents), stupid transaction took 8 hours ( not to be confirmed, just to appear at all). Funny thing is, he sent me money via internet banking at the same time, and it arrived inside 2 hours!

Something is not working the way it is supposed to!

An unlikely claim. Please post the transaction ID.

Ya totally full of shit.

Unless the next block took two hours.

[Fatman3001]

I sent a friend 2BTC last night from my core wallet, and used 0.001 fee ( so around 50 cents), stupid transaction took 8 hours ( not to be confirmed, just to appear at all). Funny thing is, he sent me money via internet banking at the same time, and it arrived inside 2 hours!

Something is not working the way it is supposed to!

Sounds more like a wallet problem

[DaRude]

I just can't see a moonshot until after SegWit because we're hard up against the blocksize limit.

it must happen before....
what will market do when segwit has been out for weeks and it its hit an impasse not able to gain more the 19% hashing power supporting it?
CRASH!
we must PUMP before we DUMP.

Are you against segwit now? Wouldn't bet on network NOT supporting it once its out.

[Hunyadi]

[adamstgBit]

I just can't see a moonshot until after SegWit because we're hard up against the blocksize limit.

it must happen before....
what will market do when segwit has been out for weeks and it its hit an impasse not able to gain more the 19% hashing power supporting it?
CRASH!
we must PUMP before we DUMP.

Are you against segwit now? Wouldn't bet on network NOT supporting it once its out.

i'm on the fence. at first i thought it was marvalous, then i found out more about it and realized it isn't magical, sure we'll get a effective block size incress, but only because we are changing how we calculate block size. it feels like i'm being fed BS twisted truths, to make me expect a massive change that will forever complicate bitcoin's code. the consequences to which are unknown. It incress node requirements by more or less the same as a 2MB HF.
from what i've seen 2MB HF is a much better proposal if all you want to do is incress capacity. But if you want to setup bitcoin to become a settlement layer for lighting network segwit is the way to go.
I disagree with the idea that bitcoin will become centralized as node cost become higher as usages grows. If we have 5000 nodes ran by poeple like MicroSoft, Bitpay, Bank of Canada, bittrex, coinbase, BTC4AmazonShit.com, etc etc... that is a plenty decentralized.
i simply do not care if bitcoin becomes SO BIG, that it will not be easy to run a full node at home.
I dont understand why segwit can't simply fix TX malleability and leave everything else alone. again i feel as tho i'm being fed half truth to accept and commit to a new trajectory for the project.

[adamstgBit]

I sent a friend 2BTC last night from my core wallet, and used 0.001 fee ( so around 50 cents), stupid transaction took 8 hours ( not to be confirmed, just to appear at all). Funny thing is, he sent me money via internet banking at the same time, and it arrived inside 2 hours!

Something is not working the way it is supposed to!

An unlikely claim. Please post the transaction ID.

Ya totally full of shit.

Unless the next block took two hours.

i've done the mistake of sending a TX and then closing my client, your client will need to rebroadcast the TX to many nodes for it to propagate fast.
if your poorly connected node, relaying to other poorly connected nodes, yes i can imagine how it would take a long time for the TX to fully propagate. altho 8 hours is kinda hard to believe...  you must have been very badly connected

if you can't keep your wallet up 90% of the time you shouldnt be running it, use a web based SVP wallet somthing like blockchain.info and you'll never run into these problems.

[JimboToronto]

Good AM Bitcoinland.

Still $425?

[noobtrader]

Good AM Bitcoinland.

Still $425?

yes im getting bored with the  price movement too... can we skip ahead and see 4300 usd soon

[pinger]

Good AM Bitcoinland.

Still $425?

yes im getting bored with the  price movement too... can we skip ahead and see 4300 usd soon

No way, I have to save some more money to get some coins

[Gyrsur]

BLOCKS ARE FULL!!

SELL YOUR COINS!!

not really

2MB blocks on the segwit testnet:

https://segnet.smartbit.com.au/blocks?sort=size

[lyth0s]

I sent a friend 2BTC last night from my core wallet, and used 0.001 fee ( so around 50 cents), stupid transaction took 8 hours ( not to be confirmed, just to appear at all). Funny thing is, he sent me money via internet banking at the same time, and it arrived inside 2 hours!

Something is not working the way it is supposed to!

An unlikely claim. Please post the transaction ID.

Honestly curious how that will give you any info? I was getting pretty worried, so i kept checking the transaction ID on blockchain.info, and it kept saying not a transaction. Once the coins appeared unconfirmed only then did blockchain.info recognise my the transaction ID?

The only other thing i could think it might be was my core wallet was not completely up to date ( ie I had not downloaded all the blocks because i was on a metered connection, and didnt want to waste bandwidth, so i just opened core, waited till i had a connection to network, then sent). The coins showed as sent, there was a transaction Id, but not record of it anywhere for hours)

So do you have a transaction ID or just an excuse? No transaction ID = no further discussion of your unlikely claim (aka lie) on my part.

[alesx.onfire]

the price is so stable... finally BTC is working like a currency

[Gyrsur]

the price is so stable... finally BTC is working like a currency

this is the end! damn! we reached the goal.

[alhallaj.onion]

I sent a friend 2BTC last night from my core wallet, and used 0.001 fee ( so around 50 cents), stupid transaction took 8 hours ( not to be confirmed, just to appear at all). Funny thing is, he sent me money via internet banking at the same time, and it arrived inside 2 hours!

Something is not working the way it is supposed to!

An unlikely claim. Please post the transaction ID.

Honestly curious how that will give you any info? I was getting pretty worried, so i kept checking the transaction ID on blockchain.info, and it kept saying not a transaction. Once the coins appeared unconfirmed only then did blockchain.info recognise my the transaction ID?

The only other thing i could think it might be was my core wallet was not completely up to date ( ie I had not downloaded all the blocks because i was on a metered connection, and didnt want to waste bandwidth, so i just opened core, waited till i had a connection to network, then sent). The coins showed as sent, there was a transaction Id, but not record of it anywhere for hours)

So do you have a transaction ID or just an excuse? No transaction ID = no further discussion of your unlikely claim (aka lie) on my part.

Just ignore the lying government shill, lyth0s. Bitcoin's working just fine.

[BayAreaCoins]

Figured we might get a little price pump from people buying shit for their 4/20 parties.

[Meuh6879]

the price is so stable... finally BTC is working like a currency

Are we rich now ?

[r0ach]

i'm on the fence. at first i thought it was marvalous, then i found out more about it and realized it isn't magical, sure we'll get a effective block size incress, but only because we are changing how we calculate block size. it feels like i'm being fed BS twisted truths, to make me expect a massive change that will forever complicate bitcoin's code.

Segwit is needed to make SPV clients more secure.  The Satoshi promise of viable SPV is vaporware without it.  Whether you want small or big blocks, you need it either way:

Fraud proofs: the Completion of Satoshi's Vision for SPV

We're not done yet. Segregated Witness could also introduce something called fraud proofs. Originally envisioned by Satoshi Nakamoto, fraud proofs could significantly improve the security of SPV-nodes (or: “light wallets”); Bitcoin nodes that do not verify all transactions on the network or store the complete blockchain.

To check whether a transaction has taken place, SPV-nodes merely scan the blockchain for the relevant transaction ID. If they find it, that means a miner included the transaction in a block. But SPV-nodes do not validate whether the transaction adhered to Bitcoin’s consensus rules. As such, SPV-nodes trust miners to play fair, rather than verify they do. In a worst case scenario, this could even mean that miners pay SPV-nodes with bitcoin created out of nothing, for instance by creating transactions with no inputs, or by awarding themselves excess fees in the coinbase transaction.

These types of problems could be solved by requiring miners to include extra data in the Segregated Witness Merkle Tree, specifying where the bitcoin locked up in all transactions came from, exactly. That way, if a block contains invalid transactions, a short and easy-to-check fraud proof can be constructed by any full node. This full node can send the fraud proof to SPV-nodes, so they know to reject the block.

That said, even with fraud proofs, SPV-nodes would not quite offer the same level of security as full nodes. Most importantly, the fraud proof solution requires that SPV-nodes can communicate with the network free from censorship. (For instance: censorship from government-sanctioned ISPs.) Additionally, SPV-nodes need at least one full node on the network to actually produce the fraud proofs.

[eiskalt]

If bitcoin price is stable for longer, people need to pump altcoins to make profits. - right?

[r0ach]

And anytime BillyJoeAllen posts about a supposed "block size armageddon", all you need to do is post this as reply:

It doesn't matter what % of blocks are full you stupid fucks.  All that matters is what the average transaction fee is.  Since there is no minimum transaction fee, the blocks are basically designed to be full at all times eventually even if you set it to 100MB blocks.  Segwit + hard fork in 2017 = 3.2MB blocks.  Then schnorr multisig on top of that should lower transaction sizes and increase TPS further.