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

[mymenace]

fake walls?

fake buying?

fake markets?


we see volume, we see price changes, but do we read or hear of anyone buying or selling large enough to warrant it?

[1714797264]

1714797264

[1714797264]

1714797264

[1714797264]

1714797264

[BathSaltsDealer]

#1    itBit   BTC/USD    $ 7,234,290    $ 577.99    14.21 %    

Whoda thunk.

[JimboToronto]

Good morning Bitcoinland.

Pretty flat for weeks now. $584 0n BitcoinAverage.

No weekend rollercoaster this week?

[PoolMinor]

Good morning Bitcoinland.

Pretty flat for weeks now. $584 0n BitcoinAverage.

No weekend rollercoaster this week?

Hang on...

[Denker]

Good morning Bitcoinland.

Pretty flat for weeks now. $584 0n BitcoinAverage.

No weekend rollercoaster this week?

Flat for weeks means we will see a breakout soon.Question is in which direction?
I hope it will be up this time.Weekly and daily chart still shows upwards trend.
Fingers crossed!

[abyrnes81]

Good morning Bitcoinland.

Pretty flat for weeks now. $584 0n BitcoinAverage.

No weekend rollercoaster this week?

Good morning, 584 us dollars is still high.  I think a retrenchment to the 450-500 us dollars zone is really possible.  What do you think bearish or bullish?

[Meuh6879]

Good morning Bitcoinland.

Pretty flat for weeks now. $584 0n BitcoinAverage.

No weekend rollercoaster this week?

Hang on...

https://blockchain.info/charts/n-transactions?timespan=2year&daysAverageString=7







You can't stop this.

[UngratefulTony]

You can't stop this.

Oh yeah?

Watch...

Code:

static const unsigned int MAX_BLOCK_SIZE = 1000000;

Boom, stopped cold.

Next!

(and don't even try to bring up segwit in april scam, it is a minimum of 6 months away from release.)

[JayJuanGee]

You can't stop this.

Oh yeah?

Watch...

Code:

static const unsigned int MAX_BLOCK_SIZE = 1000000;

Boom, stopped cold.

Next!

(and don't even try to bring up segwit in april scam, it is a minimum of 6 months away from release.)

Look at you... making up shit.

Coming out with a tried and wanna be true outdated remanent of a made-up claim from the past, which in essence is asserting that blocks are full... yeah, right.

Hellow::: Block size limit is a current feature in bitcoin, and not a bug..   and regarding seg wit.. you are correct in the implication that it is going to likely provide scaling improvement to the current situation.. and surely, seg wit is a work in progress that is on the cusp of going live... and even if it takes a bit of time, six months or so, no BIG deal.. Bitcoin is currently doing fine, in spite of a few folks raging on, unconvincingly,  regarding some old and debunked arguments....  Have a little patience!!

[adamstgBit]

You can't stop this.

Oh yeah?

Watch...

Code:

static const unsigned int MAX_BLOCK_SIZE = 1000000;

Boom, stopped cold.

Next!

(and don't even try to bring up segwit in april scam, it is a minimum of 6 months away from release.)

Look at this tried and wanna be true outdated remanent of a made-up claim from the past, blocks are full... yeah, right.

Hellow::: Block size limit is a current feature, and not a bug..   and regarding seg wit.. you are correct that it is going to likely an improvement on the current situation.. and is a work in progress that is on the cusp of going live... Have a little patience!!

its an undesirable feature....

[JayJuanGee]

You can't stop this.

Oh yeah?

Watch...

Code:

static const unsigned int MAX_BLOCK_SIZE = 1000000;

Boom, stopped cold.

Next!

(and don't even try to bring up segwit in april scam, it is a minimum of 6 months away from release.)

Look at this tried and wanna be true outdated remanent of a made-up claim from the past, blocks are full... yeah, right.

Hellow::: Block size limit is a current feature, and not a bug..   and regarding seg wit.. you are correct that it is going to likely an improvement on the current situation.. and is a work in progress that is on the cusp of going live... Have a little patience!!

its an undesirable feature....

Undesireable, by who?  you  cannot really be still buying into the idea that bitcoin is somehow broken because of some kind of supposed blocksize limit issue?

[adamstgBit]

You can't stop this.

Oh yeah?

Watch...

Code:

static const unsigned int MAX_BLOCK_SIZE = 1000000;

Boom, stopped cold.

Next!

(and don't even try to bring up segwit in april scam, it is a minimum of 6 months away from release.)

Look at this tried and wanna be true outdated remanent of a made-up claim from the past, blocks are full... yeah, right.

Hellow::: Block size limit is a current feature, and not a bug..   and regarding seg wit.. you are correct that it is going to likely an improvement on the current situation.. and is a work in progress that is on the cusp of going live... Have a little patience!!

its an undesirable feature....

Undesireable, by who?  you  cannot really be still buying into the idea that bitcoin is somehow broken because of some kind of supposed blocksize limit issue?

my view has never changed...
i dont think bitcoin is broken
but it is limited.
unnecessarily limited.
but i do think there are SOME who choose to enforce this unnecessary limitation on the network for silly ideologically reasons.


I am not alone....

[JayJuanGee]

You can't stop this.

Oh yeah?

Watch...

Code:

static const unsigned int MAX_BLOCK_SIZE = 1000000;

Boom, stopped cold.

Next!

(and don't even try to bring up segwit in april scam, it is a minimum of 6 months away from release.)

Look at this tried and wanna be true outdated remanent of a made-up claim from the past, blocks are full... yeah, right.

Hellow::: Block size limit is a current feature, and not a bug..   and regarding seg wit.. you are correct that it is going to likely an improvement on the current situation.. and is a work in progress that is on the cusp of going live... Have a little patience!!

its an undesirable feature....

Undesireable, by who?  you  cannot really be still buying into the idea that bitcoin is somehow broken because of some kind of supposed blocksize limit issue?

my view has never changed...

i dont think bitcoin is broken

but it is limited.

unnecessarily limited.

but i do think there are SOME who choose to enforce this unnecessary limitation on the network for silly ideologically reasons.

Yes, we are likely repeating ourselves with some of these old arguments..... but yeah, maybe sometimes it can be worth repeating, or at least to reassess the matter under current circumstances.

You agree that bitcoin is not broken, but you assert that it is unnecessarily limited.

In essence, you are still wanting to suggest that the best solution is that the blocksize limit is increased; however, if bitcoin is not broken, and there are remedies in the wings, then I don't understand the problem... Where's the rush to increase the blocksize limit? 

I think that there remains a bit of faulty logic, when you are suggesting that something, such as a blocksize limit increase, should be done right away, but at the same time conceding that bitcoin is not broken.

Scaling is likely to be an ongoing issue that is not going to go away, and raising the limit or creating some kind of schedule as was proposed in XT and classic are not going to resolve the issues, and anyhow, those XT and Classic solutions had failed to convince enough folks about their essentiality (also they had the problems of attempting to attack governance too, which made them sloppy).  Anyhow, there are some partial remedies in the works that are close to being released into the live, and seems good enough to let those play out for a little while, first, before jumping too far ahead of ourselves concerning a problem (which you characterize as bitcoin being unnecessarily limited) that is not agreed upon as actually being a problem.

[adamstgBit]

You can't stop this.

Oh yeah?

Watch...

Code:

static const unsigned int MAX_BLOCK_SIZE = 1000000;

Boom, stopped cold.

Next!

(and don't even try to bring up segwit in april scam, it is a minimum of 6 months away from release.)

Look at this tried and wanna be true outdated remanent of a made-up claim from the past, blocks are full... yeah, right.

Hellow::: Block size limit is a current feature, and not a bug..   and regarding seg wit.. you are correct that it is going to likely an improvement on the current situation.. and is a work in progress that is on the cusp of going live... Have a little patience!!

its an undesirable feature....

Undesireable, by who?  you  cannot really be still buying into the idea that bitcoin is somehow broken because of some kind of supposed blocksize limit issue?

my view has never changed...

i dont think bitcoin is broken

but it is limited.

unnecessarily limited.

but i do think there are SOME who choose to enforce this unnecessary limitation on the network for silly ideologically reasons.

Yes, we are likely repeating ourselves with some of these old arguments..... but yeah, maybe sometimes it can be worth repeating, or at least to reassess the matter under current circumstances.

You agree that bitcoin is not broken, but you assert that it is unnecessarily limited.

In essence, you are still wanting to suggest that the best solution is that the blocksize limit is increased; however, if bitcoin is not broken, and there are remedies in the wings, then I don't understand the problem... Where's the rush to increase the blocksize limit?  

I think that there remains a bit of faulty logic, when you are suggesting that something, such as a blocksize limit increase, should be done right away, but at the same time conceding that bitcoin is not broken.

Scaling is likely to be an ongoing issue that is not going to go away, and raising the limit or creating some kind of schedule as was proposed in XT and classic are not going to resolve the issues, and anyhow, those XT and Classic solutions had failed to convince enough folks about their essentiality (also they had the problems of attempting to attack governance too, which made them sloppy).  Anyhow, there are some partial remedies in the works that are close to being released into the live, and seems good enough to let those play out for a little while, first, before jumping too far ahead of ourselves concerning a problem (which you characterize as bitcoin being unnecessarily limited) that is not agreed upon as actually being a problem.

Block size limit increase is NOT optional ( LN will require bigger blocks)
what's the point of delaying it ?
there is no (legit) reason why we can't bump the limit  AND have LN in progress

i've had it. ( https://bitco.in/forum/threads/newbie-with-problems.1389/ )
i'm done thinking
its time to act.
We're forking Bitcoin.

We are a group of Bitcoin users forking Bitcoin back to its original vision of scaling on-chain to the world; with or without miner majority.

"It can be phased in, like: if (blocknumber > 115000) maxblocksize = largerlimit" – S. Nakamoto

[adamstgBit]

[yefi]

Problem is, the currencies of 1916 were gold.  A 45 year chart looks even more impressive.  The post-Breton Woods system will not live to its 50th anniversary.

Germany had abandoned their Goldmark for the Papiermark in 1914. The latter being unbacked by gold as the name suggest. Britain also suspended convertibility in 1914.

The nixing of the gold exchange standard certainly set the new course for inflation, however.

It's not about gold. It's about fiat currency losing its value over time. And you know why.

It is about selective bias and insufficient data actually.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

Is this thing back on?
Good, because I was running out of content. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1592007.msg15989014#msg15989014

[Karartma1]

I think that without that movie (and Fight Club, ending scene remember?) I would have never come across bitcoin. That's really what I believe in above all. Thanks a lot for posting it.

 

[savetherainforest]

Problem is, the currencies of 1916 were gold.  A 45 year chart looks even more impressive.  The post-Breton Woods system will not live to its 50th anniversary.

Germany had abandoned their Goldmark for the Papiermark in 1914. The latter being unbacked by gold as the name suggest. Britain also suspended convertibility in 1914.

The nixing of the gold exchange standard certainly set the new course for inflation, however.

It's not about gold. It's about fiat currency losing its value over time. And you know why.

It is about selective bias and insufficient data actually.

During those times, the concept of a police state was almost impossible. Today it is somehow a reality.

You need to be able to survey everything for those concepts to be applied.

But now... we have a better system. It is called BTCitcoin.

[lord raiden]

https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0489/4081/products/btc-neo-decal.jpg?v=1408474485

I think that without that movie (and Fight Club, ending scene remember?) I would have never come across bitcoin. That's really what I believe in above all. Thanks a lot for posting it.

 

you meen in Fight Club the sentence: "you met me at a very strange time in my life"
ohh... this will sure be said sometimes by every crypto owner
https://66.media.tumblr.com/6b5f279d6387d61f56d9a68310e8c499/tumblr_o5l18q5G871r8jzago1_500.gif