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

[StraightAArdvark]

still no buying panic. very good sign.

Bitcoin and BTCeanies, my friend. Lack of buying panic is one of the things the two have in common.
I, too, remain cautiously optimistic. Let's see how this plays out.

Things are much different than 2013.

I'm sure you're right. This time it's totally different

[BitUsher]

That actually sounds exactly like something he would do. Shake your hand with a sly self-righteous smile and then spit in your face when it came time to deliver on the agreed terms.

Delivering 2 proposals would be going above and beyond and giving the community 2 extra HF choices instead of one. This would be fulfilling his end of the agreement and going above and beyond. Having many implementations is a good thing right? More choices and all.

Sure it is all fine and dandy to make various idle threats to withdraw poole mining power - but it is a very risky move to actually attempt some kind of politically divisive action, and then potentially lose mining power when miners move to other pools because they don't want to support such unnecessary and wreckless attempts at blackmailing (that even under decent scenarios seems likely to fail)

Antpool does indeed seem to be reinterpreting the agreement (to assume that those devs magically spoke for core as a whole and could make decisions for the community) with the assumption that was very carefully and clearly refuted before they signed the agreement.

I don't think their threats to withhold segwit will last long and hold as much weight as the threat to switch PoW algo's or dump BTC for alts*

* All these threats are credible but unlikely. In business, smart negotiators give credible threats, and are willing to walk away from the table, but it is unlikely to happen and compromises will be made and the long negotiation will continue.

[marcus_of_augustus]

[JayJuanGee]

market wants peace and stability. nevertheless if core would come out tomorrow with a 2MB HF that activates in lets say early 2017 markets would do another leg up.

You are just making shit up. 

Why implement or attempt to implement some kind of change to bitcoin that is not needed and may even cause damage (because it is not needed) merely because some know nothings are hypothesizing that such a change is needed?

I think that there is plenty of understanding that we gotta see how seg wit plays out first before adding some new and unjustified layer.

Insulting your betters, it's just your M.O. eh JJG?

What part of THERE IS NO SEGWIT WITHOUT HF MAX BLOCK SIZE INCREASE do you not understand?

Maybe it's better that someone else holds your bitcoin as an entry in a database. If you had to secure your own... you would have lost them already.

You should go to the doctor, dumbfbrankings.

It's like you have ADD......   

You cannot stay on the topic for longer than one or two sentences, per 100 postings..... Oh, I see that you only have 93 postings?   Why is it that I feel that I know you?  Oh it's because you are lambie... Hi lambie...


Anyhow, your ADD seems to cause you to resort to talking about me, which is mostly not relevant to the particular topic, even if you were to happen to get any of your stream of consciousness facts correct, and I am not admitting anything here... except I admit that you are a goofball.   

[dumbfbrankings]

Sure it is all fine and dandy to make various idle threats to withdraw poole mining power - but it is a very risky move to actually attempt some kind of politically divisive action, and then potentially lose mining power when miners move to other pools because they don't want to support such unnecessary and wreckless attempts at blackmailing (that even under decent scenarios seems likely to fail)

Free help:

The word is spelled pool. Four letters. P-O-O-L. This about the 5th time I've seen this asshattery from you. Stop it.

That actually sounds exactly like something he would do. Shake your hand with a sly self-righteous smile and then spit in your face when it came time to deliver on the agreed terms.

Delivering 2 proposals would be going above and beyond and giving the community 2 extra HF choices instead of one. This would be fulfilling his end of the agreement and going above and beyond. Having many implementations is a good thing right? More choices and all.

I'm all for it, and the people (who have invested millions of $ into securing the network) he shook hands with will love it too. However, I would prefer the keccak fork to be 1MB4EVA, or maybe 0.5 MB to cut down on spam miners are currently using to bloat my hdd and stutter my netflix.

[marcus_of_augustus]

... the spurious, infantile, excessive trollery is definitely different this time around. It has some real, ugly menace and venom behind it, like a kind of sickness or cancerous evil protesting it's right to continued existence in the glare of the truth, you might say.

[Assmaster2000]

^^^

Rupert Bear makes Angsty Dragon his bitch

[Paashaas]

My crystalball tells me we gonna break the $600 range today, so when i come home from work everybody is happy again.

[Mrpumperitis]

for many being at this price is a first...welcome to crypto...the party just begining, no one has missed anything...buy btc, buy eth, both will do u proud as fiat collapses around them.   hell even ltc, dao and a bit of dash will go well with them.
 heres how see it..bit of my own plans and my advice for all my friends for yrs btw....
 you must own 1%minmum each gdcoin,( devteam etc) forvevr if u wanna be the one in a million when these coins take over oneday.
so 21mill BTC, u must own 21 BTC
100m ETH,u ust own 100 ETH
80mill LTC , 80 LTC
ETC ETC LOL

[JayJuanGee]

Sure it is all fine and dandy to make various idle threats to withdraw poole mining power - but it is a very risky move to actually attempt some kind of politically divisive action, and then potentially lose mining power when miners move to other pools because they don't want to support such unnecessary and wreckless attempts at blackmailing (that even under decent scenarios seems likely to fail)

Antpool does indeed seem to be reinterpreting the agreement (to assume that those devs magically spoke for core as a whole and could make decisions for the community) with the assumption that was very carefully and clearly refuted before they signed the agreement.

I don't think their threats to withhold segwit will last long and hold as much weight as the threat to switch PoW algo's or dump BTC for alts.

I frequently hear a lot of bullshit being circulated around these interwebs regarding some kind of "clear, unambiguous and binding commitment" to implement a hardfork increase in the blocksize limit. 

I have not been studying the HK agreement in detail, but I do recall reading it around the time that it was agreed to and circulated, and I remember a lot of the then complaints from XT/Classic supporting folks that the agreement doesn't really bind anything... which is actually the case, even though they are now trying to change the agreement to cause it to be more binding than it is.

In essence, even taken the language of the agreement, it was sufficiently broad concerning what they were agreeing to being fairly open concerning time lines and that there would be attempts to suss out or at least to measure the extent of consensus regarding what to do.

So anyhow, even if the persons involved in the agreement were sufficient agents to bind action, the action does not bind any kind of specific outcome beyond intending to take reasonable measures to figure out consensus in respect to whether a hardfork may be practical after some testing and release of seg wit.

[Mrpumperitis]

Sure it is all fine and dandy to make various idle threats to withdraw poole mining power - but it is a very risky move to actually attempt some kind of politically divisive action, and then potentially lose mining power when miners move to other pools because they don't want to support such unnecessary and wreckless attempts at blackmailing (that even under decent scenarios seems likely to fail)

Antpool does indeed seem to be reinterpreting the agreement (to assume that those devs magically spoke for core as a whole and could make decisions for the community) with the assumption that was very carefully and clearly refuted before they signed the agreement.

I don't think their threats to withhold segwit will last long and hold as much weight as the threat to switch PoW algo's or dump BTC for alts.

I frequently hear a lot of bullshit being circulated around these interwebs regarding some kind of "clear, unambiguous and binding commitment" to implement a hardfork increase in the blocksize limit.  

I have not been studying the HK agreement in detail, but I do recall reading it around the time that it was agreed to and circulated, and I remember a lot of the then complaints from XT/Classic supporting folks that the agreement doesn't really bind anything... which is actually the case, even though they are now trying to change the agreement to cause it to be more binding than it is.

In essence, even taken the language of the agreement, it was sufficiently broad concerning what they were agreeing to being fairly open concerning time lines and that there would be attempts to suss out or at least to measure the extent of consensus regarding what to do.

So anyhow, even if the persons involved in the agreement were sufficient agents to bind action, the action does not bind any kind of specific outcome beyond intending to take reasonable measures to figure out consensus in respect to whether a hardfork may be practical after some testing and release of seg wit.

shhhhh jjg m8,lol let em fight, its all a facade  

[AZwarel]

Why people talk about "cost of production"? Blocks are 10 min average in the long run, no matter if 2 laptop CPUs, or 100k exahash does the computation, there is no real "cost element" for the protocol to work.

Mining isn't "production". Just because the network needed a way to gradually release new available units to incentivize SECURITY of itself through the Proof of Work consensus, the new units are not the goal of mining. Also, bitcoin units are not "used up" when transacted, every bitcoin introduced in a coinbase transaction is "immortal". Even "lost privatkey" coins, they will just sit in their address for eternity.

This whole concept of "production cost must equal/below product value" is fishy, failed labor theoryof value thinking, marxist bs, totally debunked and failing basic logic since 100+ years.

It does not matter from a utility point of view if there are max 21mil, or a single bitcoin, since it can be divided up to infinitely to smaller sub units, there is no real "production" - it is more like discovery, since all future bitcoins are already algorithmically guaranteed to exist, they just need to be "unlocked", if you must use a describing word.

It is a necessary human psychological trick in play to give out "new coins", to make mining happening, which gives security for the network, which gives decentralized trust to build up, which gives value to the units for users, which prompts more security through more miners going for the coins...you get the point. BUT the new coins will have the same value as old, cpu mined ones, no matter how much cost got sinked in asic farms!!!

In another, new viewpoint, and clarification:
The supply will not be smaller on the halvening at all (existing coins will still exist after it), the additional new unit generation TIME will increase by 2 (the same 25 new coins will be generated in ~20 min average instead of 10mins)! So given a same demand has to wait 2x the time to get access in the network (as UTXOs), or decide to pay the extra value for "frontrunning the queue". Depending on the time preference of the market actor, it is a self fulfilling prophecy which might trigger a run up in price.

Also, since the difficulty is dynamic and adapts to make coin release constant through time, it means that production can never be unprofitable in the long run, as the unprofitable miners leave the race, more new coins will be distributed for the remaining miners, hence mining profit% tends to be constant in the long run for every miner still in race, hence "production cost" can not have influence on coin value (and never had, as long as minimum security levels are reached).

Movement in hash rate is either a technical (hardware, electricity prices, other costs like cooling in northern ares, etc) sign, or fueled by bitcoin value increase, NOT the other way around!

[TERA]

finally some wall action

[BitUsher]

So anyhow, even if the persons involved in the agreement were sufficient agents to bind action, the action does not bind any kind of specific outcome beyond intending to take reasonable measures to figure out consensus in respect to whether a hardfork may be practical after some testing and release of seg wit.

Nope , it binds the developers that signed to deliver a tested HF proposal to the miners by July, but makes no promises that it will be accepted by core, other developers, or the community.

Luke can literally change a few lines of code , hand that to them , and that would satisfy the deal.

Do I think this will happen? No. I believe that luke may be trying to include some HF wishlist items as well, and thus why he feels pressure, but who knows?  

[StraightAArdvark]

This whole concept of "production cost must equal/below product value" is fishy, failed labor theory thinking, marxist bs, totally debunked and failing basic logic since 100+ years.

And you were doing so well up to here The cost of production does need to below retail price, otherwise you're losing money. "Value" is a different variable altogether, so having price (cost) on one side and "value" on the other is comparing apples to oranges.
Nothing Marxist about any of this.

@TERA, which exchange are you watching?

[Mrpumperitis]

as halving approaches...true intentions of the biggesst btc players will start becoming clearer...better get alooooooooooooooooooooooot of popcorn,lol
we gonaa have fireworks display from all depts lol

[TERA]

there was a 900 wall on finex just a minute ago

[marcus_of_augustus]

... all the best pumps have started on huobi in the current run.

[TERA]

watching both

[dumbfbrankings]

So anyhow, even if the persons involved in the agreement were sufficient agents to bind action, the action does not bind any kind of specific outcome beyond intending to take reasonable measures to figure out consensus in respect to whether a hardfork may be practical after some testing and release of seg wit.

Nope , it binds the developers that signed to deliver a tested HF proposal to the miners by July, but makes no promises that it will be accepted by core, other developers, or the community.

Luke can literally change a few lines of code , hand that to them , and that would satisfy the deal.

Do I think this will happen? No. I believe that luke may be trying to include some HF wishlist items as well, and thus why he feels pressure, but who knows?  

Blockstream's entire future is dependent on Segwit. Jihan holds the power to deny them what they need, until they give him what he wants (and can get elsewhere). Playing cute tricks and alienating/insulting the miners (who, so far, would prefer to continue using Core software) seems like a fairly stupid move in this game.

https://www.reddit.com/user/Jihan_Bitmain