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

[mymenace]

The miners get their block reward (12.5 BTC) whether they include transactions or not. Transactions are a pretty insignificant percentage on top of that (bouncing between .3 and .5 BTC, here: https://www.smartbit.com.au/charts/transaction-fees-per-block).

If the miners come to an agreement among themselves not to include any transactions, the impact on their bottom line would be pretty small (12.5 BTC per block solved, vs. 12.9 BTC).
But the bargaining power that gives them...

cool sounds like our current economy, plenty of opportunity for gains

why tell people this when you can profit

[DaRude]

The miners get their block reward (12.5 BTC) whether they include transactions or not. Transactions are a pretty insignificant percentage on top of that (bouncing between .3 and .5 BTC, here: https://www.smartbit.com.au/charts/transaction-fees-per-block).

If the miners come to an agreement among themselves not to include any transactions, the impact on their bottom line would be pretty small (12.5 BTC per block solved, vs. 12.9 BTC).
But the bargaining power that gives them...

Yeah they're so profitable especially now, what's another 4% cut from their profit margins   and another 25%+ cut due to price tanking because of this retardedness

[respawn2]

The miners get their block reward (12.5 BTC) whether they include transactions or not. Transactions are a pretty insignificant percentage on top of that (bouncing between .3 and .5 BTC, here: https://www.smartbit.com.au/charts/transaction-fees-per-block).

If the miners come to an agreement among themselves not to include any transactions, the impact on their bottom line would be pretty small (12.5 BTC per block solved, vs. 12.9 BTC).
But the bargaining power that gives them...

Yeah they're so profitable especially now, what's another 4% cut from their profit margins   and another 25%+ cut due to price tanking because of this retardedness

No different than labor strikes.
Workers don't strike because they make too much, they strike because they don't make enough

[adamstgBit]

^^ yeah all those mining agreements to destroy bitcoin are gonna work out awesome 

Dunno, better than the ones with Core individuals, that's for sure. The miners have a common goal, so don't see where you see a problem. No different than any labor union, am I right?

every hear of a labor union fighting for lower pay and longer hours?

[respawn2]

every hear of a labor union fighting for lower pay and longer hours?

Never. They fight for higher pay and shorter hours. Often get what they want, too.
If unions had the sort of bargaining power that miners have (bring Bitcoin to a grinding halt until they get their way), they'd get whatever they asked for. Always

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

Don't we have a not-so-top secret algo change from hell in case of emergencies?

[respawn2]

Don't we have a not-so-top secret algo change from hell in case of emergencies?

You can start mining a worthless alt with a new algo. Have fun.

This is no different than a typical business/labor dispute, the sort that happens when bosses make promises they don't keep.
Really.
And the slimmer the miner's (it's, like, 9 pool operators, who are we kidding?) current margin is, the more incentive they have to "Unionize" and "strike."

Only when IRL workers strike, they don't get to draw 96% of their paycheck, as the miners will (because block reward).

[dumbfbrankings]

Don't we have a not-so-top secret algo change from hell in case of emergencies?

That's just an empty threat to the miners. The stick in the stick/carrot basket. Come to think of it... did Blockstream's basket even come with a carrot?

If not, someone give them one... it's getting embarrassing. And that stick is looking fairly flimsy today.

[DaRude]

Don't we have a not-so-top secret algo change from hell in case of emergencies?

You can start mining a worthless alt with a new algo. Have fun.

This is no different than a typical business/labor dispute, the sort that happens when bosses make promises they don't keep.
Really.
And the slimmer the miner's (it's, like, 9 pool operators, who are we kidding?) current margin is, the more incentive they have to "Unionize" and "strike."

Only when IRL workers strike, they don't get to draw 96% of their paycheck, as the miners will (because block reward).

Step1: Grind BTC to a complete stop
Step2: ??
Step3: Profit 

Think there's a flaw in your logic somewhere

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

Don't we have a not-so-top secret algo change from hell in case of emergencies?

You can start mining a worthless alt with a new algo. Have fun.

Bitcorn Regenesis: with 50% more Luke Jr.... for the children.  

[respawn2]

And that stick is looking fairly flimsy today.

Isn't that alt algo just something Luke-dash-jr said once? What, exactly, would that be?
"Bitcoin: World's least secure, lowest hashrate blockchain!"?

[respawn2]

Don't we have a not-so-top secret algo change from hell in case of emergencies?

You can start mining a worthless alt with a new algo. Have fun.

This is no different than a typical business/labor dispute, the sort that happens when bosses make promises they don't keep.
Really.
And the slimmer the miner's (it's, like, 9 pool operators, who are we kidding?) current margin is, the more incentive they have to "Unionize" and "strike."

Only when IRL workers strike, they don't get to draw 96% of their paycheck, as the miners will (because block reward).

Step1: Grind BTC to a complete stop
Step2: ??
Step3: Profit  

Think there's a flaw in your logic somewhere

How do you think strikes work?
Step1: Grind BTC to a complete stop
Step2: "Your coin isn't worth dick until you let us have what we want. While we're on strike, we're making only 4% less than when we're working for you. Think about it. Take your time."
Step3: Profit  

[JayJuanGee]

By October 2015, when I set up a plan to begin to trade BTC, my average cost per BTC was about $502, and so I began to trade, and today my average cost per BTC is about $440.  Furthermore, I have dollars and BTC stacked on both ends, so I hardly feel trapped.  I keep saying this, but stubbornly, you continue with your own seemingly judgmental narrative.

Wow, how many satoshi do you own/trade with?

Since about mid-2014, my personal policy has been to not disclose the quantity of BTC that I have; however, I do not mind describing some specifics regarding my holdings and my BTC trading strategy in order to be able to discuss trading/HODLing strategies.

Because I am mostly bullish about BTC, and I have other dollar related investments, I only trade small portions of my BTC holdings. 

In October 2015, I divided my BTC holdings into three and then I just traded a portion of the holdings that I considered to be profitable (because I bought them in the $200s).  This was likely more of a psychological tool because my total holdings were in the red at that time, but it did allow me to conceptually get over my mental block about selling coins at a "loss,"  yet as BTC's price continued to rise in late 2015 (and then kind of get stuck largely in the $360 to $460 range during late 2015 and early 2016 (through May), I was able to reconceptualize my trading strategy in order to authorize myself to trade a percentage of my whole BTC holdings and reconceptualize my whole trading strategy in terms of working with percentages of my whole BTC trading portfolio.


Currently, I have about 95% of my BTC trading portfolio funds in BTC and the other 5% in fiat,  and at this time, I have a created tentative authorization levels that are in this kind of a range.



BTC Price           BTC Allocation
200-350                   97-99.5%
350-450                   96-99%
450-550                   92-98%
550-650                   90-96%
650-850                   85-94%
850-1250                   84-92%
1250-2000                   83-91%
2000-3000                   82-90%
3000-5000                   55-84%
5000-10000           50-80%
10000-20000           48-78%
20000=30000           45-75%
30000-50000           43-73%


Of course, I have the power to reconsider these allocations at any time and to even make bolder moves within the strategy if I have a decent belief that the BTC market is going to move in one direction or another.

I consider my whole trading strategy to be a lot less risky than other trading strategies that are employed;  however, the most important part of my strategy is that it is tailored to my own financial situation, risk profile and personal preferences.

I am more interested in being secure in my strategy rather than getting rich, yet my trading strategy still has built in presumptions that BTC prices are going to rise in the long term.

 Additionally, even though some guys might quibble about my BTC trading strategy and say that it is not as good as some other BTC trading strategies, I don't really care that much because it is my own personal trading strategy, and in fact my strategy has allowed me to stack fiat and bitcoin on both ends (which brings considerable security to my holdings), and really my BTC holdings have increased by about 8.5%, even at this current price point, while I am selling BTC as the price goes up and buying BTC as the price goes down.  There is a bit of a moving target because my BTC/dollar funds are spread across several accounts, yet my rough calculation is that I still have about 8.5% more bitcoins than I had when I started trading at $250 factoring the same investment amount and the fact that BTC prices have risen by about 165%, and my BTC holdings have gone from about 50% in the red to about 50% in the black (or green as some folks say).







 

[marcus_of_augustus]

Code:

Bitcoin Core version v0.13.0.0-66dde4e (64-bit)

Copyright (C) 2009-2016 The Bitcoin Core developers

Please contribute if you find Bitcoin Core useful. Visit https://bitcoincore.org for further information about the software.
The source code is available from https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin.

This is experimental software.
Distributed under the MIT software license, see the accompanying file COPYING or http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php.

so cool

so refreshing to see the losers twisting and twining in the face of overwhelming proof-of-wrongness ... honey badger don't give a toss losers  

[dumbfbrankings]

And that stick is looking fairly flimsy today.

Isn't that alt algo just something Luke-dash-jr said once? What, exactly, would that be?
"Bitcoin: World's least secure, lowest hashrate blockchain!"?

No. The code does exist. Gregory stated "the candidate code is ready".

I think it would have a nice hashrate for a GPU coin, at least shortly after the moment of forking, maybe a bleed off from there. It would probably have a market price. But as we saw today, the vast majority of exchanges and hashrate together, is pretty convincing when it comes to this type of thing.

More likely is that we will see the miners possibly delay segwit, a compromise from Core (lol), or, they could announce in august their own plan and suggestion for hard fork terms that will likely mirror the hk agreement, but with a contingency plan.

The miners could also activate the code, but make the decision to not (yet) fork above 1MB, to extend a grace period for nodes.

[Fatman3001]

Times are changing. It is a dynamic world out there.

The miners got into bed with core, believing they could deliver.

Miners will keep the blockchain, Core can keep their code.

such shit FUD ... Core delivers everytime, >100 high quality contributors serving up huge quantities of quality code

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4tqb59/bitcoin_core_v0130rc1_binaries_are_available_for/

miners have spent not a milliBitcoin producing quality code (or even funding some Core devs (i have no idea why it's a no brainer for wealthy idiot miner to hire a Core dev or two??wtf idiot miners)) so until they do they will the run the best code out there, Core.

Hi Marcus!

I see you're still fighting shadows with brainless lies and misinformation.

https://petertodd.org/2016/btcc-funding


Well, fight the power brother!

[respawn2]

And that stick is looking fairly flimsy today.

Isn't that alt algo just something Luke-dash-jr said once? What, exactly, would that be?
"Bitcoin: World's least secure, lowest hashrate blockchain!"?

No. The code does exist. Gregory stated "the candidate code is ready".

I think it would have a nice hashrate for a GPU coin, at least shortly after the moment of forking, maybe a bleed off from there. It would probably have a market price. But as we saw today, the vast majority of exchanges and hashrate together, is pretty convincing when it comes to this type of thing.

More likely is that we will see the miners possibly delay segwit, a compromise from Core (lol), or, they could announce in august their own plan and suggestion for hard fork terms that will likely mirror the hk agreement, but with a contingency plan.

The miners could also activate the code, but make the decision to not (yet) fork above 1MB, to extend a grace period for nodes.

So many problems with that.
1. The miners don't have to announce their move in advance. Core has to be ready to roll out on a minute's notice. A case where defense is much costlier than offense.
2. The miners can throttle transactions by rapidly escalating tx fees. This is not an attack, legitimate for miners to charge as much as they feel is right. What does Core do when the fees increase by 50-100% a day?
3. BTC will have value, but in the double digits at best.

P.S. Is the code on GitHub? Or is it a secrit?
P.P.S. The whole security through PoW mining thing only works when it is truly decentralized, as in every wallet a mining node, every stakeholder also a miner (like citizen-soldier thing). It starts breaking down as soon as clots develop, and once most users are no longer miners, and most miners are 3 pools, it's a different animal, with things like collective bargaining becoming a thing (no need to say it, once miners are signing agreements with core individuals, we're done).

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

I’m pleased to announce that BTCC has agreed to provide me funding for 14 billable hours a month of Bitcoin development work under my standard contract for the next six months. This funding has been provided on a “no strings attached” basis, with the one condition being that I provide a weekly report on my development efforts.

So here’s what I’ve been working on:

    Pull-req review — A wide variety of smaller and larger pull-reqs, but most importantly review of the recently merged BIP68/112/113 soft-forks.

   Hard-fork discussion with the signers of the Hong Kong agreement (and others).

    python-bitcoinlib — I added support for many of the new script verification flags that have been added to Bitcoin Core, along with the associated script (in)valid unit tests. In that past I’ve found reimplementing Bitcoin Core logic in python-bitcoinlib to be a good way to do in-depth consensus code review, so this work builds towards getting ready to do final segwit review.

Holy slippery Moses!

[marcus_of_augustus]

https://petertodd.org/2016/btcc-funding

14 billable hours a month ... such devving, much coding!

get a grip fatso

[dumbfbrankings]

And that stick is looking fairly flimsy today.

Isn't that alt algo just something Luke-dash-jr said once? What, exactly, would that be?
"Bitcoin: World's least secure, lowest hashrate blockchain!"?

No. The code does exist. Gregory stated "the candidate code is ready".

I think it would have a nice hashrate for a GPU coin, at least shortly after the moment of forking, maybe a bleed off from there. It would probably have a market price. But as we saw today, the vast majority of exchanges and hashrate together, is pretty convincing when it comes to this type of thing.

More likely is that we will see the miners possibly delay segwit, a compromise from Core (lol), or, they could announce in august their own plan and suggestion for hard fork terms that will likely mirror the hk agreement, but with a contingency plan.

The miners could also activate the code, but make the decision to not (yet) fork above 1MB, to extend a grace period for nodes.

So many problems with that.
1. The miners don't have to announce their move in advance. Core has to be ready to roll out on a minute's notice. A case where defense is much costlier than offense.
2. The miners can throttle transactions by rapidly escalating tx fees. This is not an attack, legitimate for miners to charge as much as they feel is right. What does Core do when the fees increase by 50-100% a day?
3. BTC will have value, but in the double digits at best.

P.S. Is the code on GitHub? Or is it a secrit?

1. Fair point, but rushing things and springing them on the confused node operator or investor isn't the best idea either.
2. Nah, that would just serve promote a sense of injustice and tyranny they have no interest in promoting. Clear communication, plenty of time for node operators to upgrade would accomplish much more. No need to fight dirty if you have the backing of the market.
3. keccakcoin? or Bitcoin that had performed the upgrade described by satoshi, with the method he baked in?

P.S yep, https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7410/files
P.P.S. I can see why you're out then, it hasn't been that way for a long time.