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

[Assmaster2000]

Spain arrests 30 suspected of laundering money in bitcoin centers

Many wow, they seize an amount of Bitcoin equal to robbing a gas station:

"They did not say how much money had been laundered through the bitcoin mining operation but added they had for now seized 31,320 euros ($34,903) worth of the currency as well as ca$h , motorbikes and luxury cars and a small aircraft ."

Fiat currencies such as the USD and Yuan will now crash from them auctioning off "a small aircraft".

Why would they store their precious bodily fluids value in rapidly depreciating, illiquid assets like btcoins? Not all criminals are crazy/stupid, you know .

[Tzupy]

https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/breaking-tokyo-trustee-completes-review-mt-gox-claims/

So even after taking out the one claim for $2.3 trillion, there are still $32 billion of claims...  And $91m of assets.

32 billion $ you say? What are you smoking, I want some too... It's about 415 million $ of accepted claims.
But there is no mention of the 202k BTC auction, I am very disappointed...

[finkelsteinMonster]

But there is no mention of the 202k BTC auction, I am very disappointed...

+1, won't lie.

[jbreher]

“Rootstock ... Bitcoin ... Ethereum

Anyone have a handy Venn diagram of features for Etherium, Rootstock, Counterparty, and any other smart contracts contender?

[adamstgBit]

https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/breaking-tokyo-trustee-completes-review-mt-gox-claims/

So even after taking out the one claim for $2.3 trillion, there are still $32 billion of claims...  And $91m of assets.

32 billion $ you say? What are you smoking, I want some too... It's about 415 million $ of accepted claims.
But there is no mention of the 202k BTC auction, I am very disappointed...

The total amount claimed to date stands at 263,519,268,303,371 JPY, approximately $2,411,412,137,427 USD.

there was 2,4Tillrion USD in Fiat on mtgox?!?!?!

[jbreher]

Segwit is agreed to

...by some unquantifiable subset of actual stakeholders...

while 2mb increase is

...by some similarly unquantifiable -- though mostly complementary -- subset of actual stakeholders.

... Therefore, segwit comes first.... why do some people keep whining about matters that are pretty much already settled. 

Obviously because they are not 'pretty much already settled'.

Neither XT nor classic were able to achieve support,

Hmmm. Neither has any implementation of The SegWit Omnibus Proposal as of yet. Funny, that.

so they are currently dead (or pretty close to being dead

I'm still pushing for BU. So sue me.

Both XT and Classic attempted to create artificial deadlines in order to cause an emergency..

Well, no. Don't lie to try to make a point. Both XT and Classic were proposed solutions to what their proposers saw as an actual emergency. I still agree with their viewpoint.

those two fake proposals.

Obviously an improper use of English. What is your definition of 'fake proposal'?

[adamstgBit]

with a 1/2 trillion dollar market cap, each bitcoin will be worth ~32,000$

just say'n

[jbreher]

Yes. Let's just argue that Black is white.

You already have by arguing that a fixed cap on block size is anything other than identical to a resource with an inelastic supply.

[adamstgBit]

Newbium WOB preview

Proudly presenting a new tool, which -e.g. for Bitcoin-
is aggregating all available orderbook data from
52 markets in 13 currencies on 27 exchanges.


(click for larger)

We call the approach WOB = "world order book".
Already working & useful, within our Newbium beta (preview).

WOB Explanations: pt1 and pt2



--> Medium Blog, and Whitepaper (8 levels are planned) --> chat (soon)
--> fully functional  Preview beta: WOB within MVP (minimum viable product) for "view live data + trade"
--> Crowdsale (ends May 31st), with Affiliate Program - please use this link, thx.


Really interested to hear your opinion!
Perhaps PM me geeky questions, and we later publish a summary.

 

Edit: retweet - thx.

nice work, we'll keep an eye on it for you

[adamstgBit]

Yes. Let's just argue that Black is white.

You already have by arguing that a fixed cap on block size is anything other than identical to a resource with an inelastic supply.

altho i dont believe a cap is nessary, i think it is not a good idea for miners to create blocks >4MB at this time. but minners know this, and since they are strongly incentivized to keep everyone happy they dont need a hard cap... But Core devs are playing it safe and enforcing a 1MB limit, they will NOT be able to enforce this limit for ever, miners are demanding HF code to be part of the next release and they will have it. we will have segwit + 2MB block this time next year. the order in which they get rolled out is not (very) relevant in the long term.

Thanks to miners having a strong incentive to "keep everyone happy" some of them are demanding the 2M HF code to be put in place.

the way i see it, this proves the bottom up governance of bitcoin is working pretty well.

>32,000$ in <2 years.

[jbreher]

https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/breaking-tokyo-trustee-completes-review-mt-gox-claims/

So even after taking out the one claim for $2.3 trillion, there are still $32 billion of claims...  And $91m of assets.

32 billion $ you say? What are you smoking, I want some too... It's about 415 million $ of accepted claims.
But there is no mention of the 202k BTC auction, I am very disappointed...

"The total amount claimed to date stands at 263,519,268,303,371 JPY, approximately $2,411,412,137,427 USD. The total amount of bitcoin held by the MtGox estate is approximately 202, 185 XBT, or approximately $91.2 million, which bitcoin exchange Kraken will help distribute among the claimants."

Wonder how much of the $91 M$ will be left after the lawyers get their cut?

[jbreher]

there was 2,4Tillrion USD in Fiat on mtgox?!?!?!

I'm assuming the $2.3T outlier claim was/will be rejected.

[JayJuanGee]

Is it just a coincidence that the big-block shills and trolls get into a shrill, shilling, ranting, rampage whenever bitcoin starts going up ... especially around chart resistance levels?

They might blow a gasket when it really starts to rally and Core improvements get rolled out uneventfully, smoothly upgrading capacity.

Not only will they be irrelevant they will be shown to be uselessly, worthlessly wrong ...

They keep saying the same thing over and over and over.... but then coming up with some new twist on the analogy, but their assertions rise to the same baloney point.. "gotta increase blocksize now, emergency".. yeah, right, its an emergency.. and we want to rush to make bitcoin into a fucking manipulatable play toy (of governments and financial institutions) because we buy into their ongoing false assertions about an emergency....

RIGHT NOW we need to compete with visa, mastercard, paypal, and microtransactia, blah blah blah.. otherwise bitcoin is going to bigblocksia...   ok. fine fine fine ... all in due time, whiners, all in due time.. ... we not going to rush into competing directly with these payment processors right away.... in other words, HAVE SOME PACIENCIA... because the way developments are currently going in bitcoinlandia, even though it seems slow and nailbiting at the moment, in a few years, bitcoin is going to be able to compete on its own decentralized and immutable terms with a lot of payment processing and value storage entities, and likely those super big business and governments are gonna have to recognize the power of the immutable system and give in to the ways of bitcoin and similar decentralized/immutable products.

[jbreher]

RIGHT NOW we need to compete with visa, mastercard, paypal, and

"There you go again" - Ronald Reagan

Lying to try to make a point, that is. Show me more than one quote which supports your claim that bigblockers assert we need to scale to visa levels today.

[JayJuanGee]

No offense but you are an economic illiterate (we have all weak spot, myself I am bad at computer science and coding).

What you are saying about supply moving along with demand makes no sense whatsoever in the context of the blocksize limit. You don't understand what perfectly inelastic means, it means fixed with no way to moving it. In order to learn you first need to understand what you know and what you don't know.

I might not be expressing myself very well, but I know economics sufficiently well, and actually I had done quite a bit of work around various economic ideas in the past... so you seem to be making wrong assumptions about me.

  Currently, I am attempting to use layman's expressions to describe that there is no problem rather than getting caught up in technicalities in which you are suggesting various technicalities without explaining what you mean, so instead of suggesting that I don't know what I am talking about possibly you need to explain what you perceive is the problem.. and explain the problem because you are the one suggesting that there is a problem and that we should be concerned about it.  So the burden is on you to show the problem and to convince others about the problem that you perceive.  Such burden is not on me to identify the problem that you perceive.

 I am suggesting that behavior is going to change with a shrinking supply that will allow for sufficient and acceptable adapting that will be sufficient to manage while seg wit and any other changes are being implemented that may not include a blocksize limit increase, and you are suggesting that some unacceptable results will occur if the block limit is not increased.   Ultimately we disagree about impact and we also disagree about whether there is currently a problem... so it may not really matter whether I am using one term differently from you... because we are going to likely come to different conclusions.  I think that many people in this space understand the issues sufficiently and disagree on the means forward, and XT/classic supporters are still arguing about a case they lost... but don't want to give up.

   On the Circle

    1. Do not take offense at the following argument, for there is nothing offensive in it, unless one does not consider that the circle may be spoken of in a geometrical sense. If I say that the circle describes four identical radii, and you say: not four, but one, then we have a right to ask one another: why? But I don't want to talk about that kind of description of the circle, but of the perfect description of a circle.
    2. The circle is the most perfect flat figure. I am not going to say why in particular that is so. But this fact arises of itself in our consciousness in any consideration of flat figures.
    3. Nature is so created that the less noticeable the laws of formation, the more perfect the thing.
    4. Nature is also so created that the more impenetrable a thing, the more perfect it is.
    5. On perfection, I would say the following: perfection in things is a perfect thing. It is always possible to study a perfect thing or, in other words, in a perfect thing these is always something not studied. If a thing should prove to have been completely studied, then it would cease to be perfect, for only that which is incomplete is perfect -- that is to say the infinite.
    6. A point is infinitely small and thereby attains perfection, but at the same time it remains inconceivable. Even the smallest conceivable point would not be perfect.
    7. A straight line is perfect, for there is no reason for it not to be infinitely long on both sides, to have neither end nor beginning, and thereby be inconceivable. But by putting pressure on it and limiting it on both sides, we render it conceivable, but at the same time imperfect.
    If you believe this, then think on.
    8. A straight line, broken at one point, forms an angle. But a straight line which is broken simultaneously at all its points is called a curve. A curve does not have to be of necessity infinitely long. It may be such that we can grasp it freely at a glance and yet at the same time remain inconceivable and infinite. I am talking about a closed curve, in which the beginning and the end are concealed. And the most regular, inconceivable, infinite and ideal curve will be a circle.

Thoughts?

Your analogy seems aimed at merely filling space.. and an ineffective attempt at causing more abstraction than necessary.

If you are with us jump on board, otherwise get the fuck out of the way, newbie.     

[r0ach]

Monero dev makes shockingly obvious discovery Ethereum is a centralized scamcoin

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1485051.0

[JayJuanGee]

So looks like we're holding steady with $1.6 million worth of fiat coming in on a daily basis.

After the halving we will not see that amount daily until the price is $900.

Things gonna get real.....








and





SCARY   

[adamstgBit]

a lot of investors are not putting money into bitcoin, because they think that it might not be THE crypto 10 years from now,
they think it could be displaced by ETH or somthing like it.
once ETH falls apart while bitcoin increases capacity that FUD will be removed.
poeple will being to understand that bitcoin IS whatever we want it to be, and thats why nothing can displace it.
the big wow factor will be when >75% hashing power + economic majority HardFork bitcoin to 2MB blocks.

[JayJuanGee]

Small blockists are killing Bitcoin.

https://bitcoinfees.21.co/

Which fee should I use?

The fastest and cheapest transaction fee is currently 40 satoshis/byte, shown in green at the top.
For the median transaction size of 226 bytes, this results in a fee of 9,040 satoshis (0.03$).

It's short-sighted.

What is important is not today but the future.

In the future there'll be more capacity to satisfy actual txs (not spammy near-zero cost txs). That much is a given.

So why the price is stagnating and VC investment is decreasing? Sure you computer geeks folks are cleverer than all the economic minded people on the planet.

"Economic minded people" = the only model they understand is one of centralization, trust and counterparties. Trustless peer to peer economy is a foreign concept.

Well no, economic models tend to account for centralization, trust, and counterparties. Amongst other things. The most discriptive/predictive ones tend to get complex, with maths and stuff.
You, of course, reject them because
1. Decentralization itself is your objective (as opposed to maximizing wealth, knowledge, hippy stuff, etc.). If a model leads to solutions which do not require decentralization, into the trash it goes. Like rating cake recipes by the amount of Drano used. Angel food cake doesn't use Drano decentralization? Bad cake!
2. You simply don't understand conventional economics.

Some people who think they understand "economics" by insisting on turning a decentralized system into a centralized one, simply don't get what Bitcoin is about.

If Bitcoin is about maximizing the use of Drano decentralization, you're right. Some people see blockchains as interesting data structures, and play with them/try to adopt them to their needs. Naturally, they're starting to distance themselves from Bitcoin due to militant, dogmatic zealots like you.

Client-server databases are better for centralized systems. You don't need inefficient blockchains to do this work in a centralized manner.

Perhaps. But that's no reason for you to be upset

nice how you seem to miss the whole point, and then to twist the matter around.

Yes, there can be a lot of complexity in economic models, but if they either do not capture the ideas properly or are aimed at obfuscation, derailing and distracting, then those kinds  of non-sense complex models need to be discounted into oblivion.

Anyhow, the point remains that placing bitcoin into the wrong economic model is going to cause skewed, misleading and screwy results.  And, that seems to be one of the issues with several mainstream economist who either do not understand bitcoin, or they are merely attempting to misalign it in order to side with mainstream status quo financial models (and minimizing the recognition that some of their centralized financial bubble creation days are numbered - though benefit of the doubt, it still could take 10, 20 or more years to get there).

[r0ach]

the big wow factor will be when >75% hashing power + economic majority HardFork bitcoin to 2MB blocks.

It's already going to 2MB blocks + segwit with 2017 hard fork anyway, which should be an effective 3.x MB block size.  That's why there's not much of a reason to make a big deal out of it unless someone tries to renig.  Also, weak blocks make raising block size not an actual problem and weak blocks is already planned here:

http://coinjournal.net/blockstream-president-adam-back-shares-roadmap-scaling-bitcoin/

There's not even any argument that Bitcoin will or won't be scaled, it's just that people believe core is doing it too slowly, but that's just how it is when you actually have to develop and test things first for something where if you make a mistake would implode billions of dollars.