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

[AlexGR]

Interestingly the script was quite different in its original form:

http://www.dailyscript.com/scripts/the_matrix.pdf

(second to last page)

[aminorex]

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.

My bad.  Off-by 2 error.

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

And war. And genocide.

[harrymmmm]

We're probably inside a simulation being trolled by an artificial super-intelligence. Just go with it. 

Heheh. I like that idea.

If it was true, we'd be sure the intelligence would want to monitor his simulation, so there's an access mechanism for him.
we'd find it somewhere in the quantum information aspects of the universe.

Given they suck a lot of info in, maybe black holes do 'lose' a bit of it after all.

[LFC_Bitcoin]

Sitting on 580 then, be nice if we could get over 600 early next week. Seems like forever ago we were last above 600.

[chesthing]

Sitting on 580 then, be nice if we could get over 600 early next week. Seems like forever ago we were last above 600.

Do you plan to dump coins at $600? if not, why does it matter?

[LFC_Bitcoin]

Sitting on 580 then, be nice if we could get over 600 early next week. Seems like forever ago we were last above 600.

Do you plan to dump coins at $600? if not, why does it matter?

I don't plan to dump at 600 no. There is a funny concept of people liking their stash to be worth more though believe it or not.

[Meuh6879]

(and Fight Club, ending scene remember?)

ooooh yeah ... i like buildings payment card at the ground.

http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view3/2146805/fight-club-ending-o.gif

[nioc]

It is about selective bias and insufficient data actually.

Ahh the meaning of life.

Or maybe it's the women walking around New York with their shorts so short that the bottom of their asses intermittently show.

[TReano]

Sitting on 580 then, be nice if we could get over 600 early next week. Seems like forever ago we were last above 600.

Do you plan to dump coins at $600? if not, why does it matter?

I don't plan to dump at 600 no. There is a funny concept of people liking their stash to be worth more though believe it or not.

From an investor perspective definitive the right thing.

As a trader you have many options entering a trade. There is no right or wrong in the end.

[jbreher]

Also, I had thought that Bitfinex should implement some kind of fee free incentives, such as zero fee trading for a period of time

What possible reason would BFX* have to offer incentives to customers? They already have a vast coterie of screwed customers eagerly jumping in line for another ass-raping*.

*the common link is left as an exercise for the reader

It seems that you just have a tendency for narrow pessimistic thinking, and I wonder if you are that way about all things in life, to want to argue over fringe matters?

Nope, not at all. Bitcoin in general, for instance, I am very optimistic on. Even Core's missteps will be unlikely to knock it too far offtrack, for the leading crypto is something that the world needs, even if most do not yet realize it.

O.k.  Surely, you have strong opinions that Bitfinex is corrupt,

Not so much that I am convinced they are corrupt. I am just astonished that people keep entrusting their money to such an entity. It starts with 'have no ability to slap the principals in the face with a wet fish', and extends to 'either thieves or absolutely incompetent'. If my analysis was merely 5% possibility that they were dishonest, I'd not come even close to them. With the scale of possibility somewhere about midpoint, it seems literally insane.

But to return to the original point, why would they offer an incentive? With people already lining up for another ass-raping, what would an incentive accomplish? They'd just be giving back some miniscule percentage of their ill-gotten gains.

[Karartma1]

(and Fight Club, ending scene remember?)

ooooh yeah ... i like buildings payment card at the ground.

http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view3/2146805/fight-club-ending-o.gif

Oooooh yeah, that's exactly what I'm talking about. Guys like me from the 80s were so lucky to be born before this paradigm shift. We have the means to change this economic world. If we will succed well, is up to us all.
Maybe those buildings will not crumble down but they are shaking..

[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.

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

That makes little sense. 

Didn't we learn anything from that lilie coin, not to be named?

The only ways that someone believes forking bitcoin to be a positive is either if they want to play on the volatility of such a move or to undermine bitcoin.

[JayJuanGee]

Also, I had thought that Bitfinex should implement some kind of fee free incentives, such as zero fee trading for a period of time

What possible reason would BFX* have to offer incentives to customers? They already have a vast coterie of screwed customers eagerly jumping in line for another ass-raping*.

*the common link is left as an exercise for the reader

It seems that you just have a tendency for narrow pessimistic thinking, and I wonder if you are that way about all things in life, to want to argue over fringe matters?

Nope, not at all. Bitcoin in general, for instance, I am very optimistic on. Even Core's missteps will be unlikely to knock it too far offtrack, for the leading crypto is something that the world needs, even if most do not yet realize it.

O.k..  Fine.  If you want to characterize yourself as an optimist, then so be it.  At this point, I don't feel very much in the mood to go into further detail regarding my assessments of your seemingly ongoing negativism  with what seems to me to be fringe matters.

O.k.  Surely, you have strong opinions that Bitfinex is corrupt,

Not so much that I am convinced they are corrupt. I am just astonished that people keep entrusting their money to such an entity. It starts with 'have no ability to slap the principals in the face with a wet fish', and extends to 'either thieves or absolutely incompetent'. If my analysis was merely 5% possibility that they were dishonest, I'd not come even close to them. With the scale of possibility somewhere about midpoint, it seems literally insane.

So what?  It is what it is.  I mean, we have had several mini-failures of Bitfinex prior to the more recent larger failure, and folks went back to them.  O.k. I may be able to conceded that there is some craziness, but in the end, it is what it is, and why we want to get all worked up attempting to change the "is" to an "ought?"  That part makes little sense to me.

But to return to the original point, why would they offer an incentive? With people already lining up for another ass-raping, what would an incentive accomplish? They'd just be giving back some miniscule percentage of their ill-gotten gains.

O.k.  Maybe I misunderstood your original point, a little bit?  I believe that I was considering your point to be that Bitfinex is on some kind of irreversible downwards trajectory, which there could be some truth to the matter, but instead you are griping because you believe a larger number of folks are returning that seems plausible or reasonable.

Surely, maybe there are some explanations for this including the fact that the situation could have turned out a lot worse, and whether you believe Bitfinex's seemingly half baked story, they do seem to be engaged in taking several reasonably creative measures in order to paint a path forward, and even a path that could plausibly work. 

I personally had been considering that possibly they could be losing some customers on the margins, who would otherwise be persuaded by lowering fees for a period of time.... and personally, I do think that lowering fees for a period of time is a better demonstration of good will and giving the sense of an apology for some of the losses of some of the affected account holders.. .. but, yeah, you could be correct that such a fee reduction may not be needed.  I doubt that either one of us knows sufficiently regarding their inner operations in order to really make some  kind of strong arguments, either way... and also, the practice of whether or not to actually introduce a lowered-fee arrangement is not exactly clear cut regarding whether they should implement such, or not.

[hdbuck]

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

finally!

please dont mind the door while forking off.

[Hunyadi]

Hello SegWit!

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/releases/tag/v0.13.0

[BathSaltsDealer]

Hello SegWit!

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/releases/tag/v0.13.0

Hello, dead code. /* You might as well celebrate comments. */

BTW, are we still watching finex? Have we switched to polo yet?

[r0ach]

i dont think bitcoin is broken
but it is limited.
unnecessarily limited.

Invest in the #1 altcoin...silver...if you're worried about scalability.  The upside within the next 2 years is probably as high or higher than Bitcoin.  I own some of both.

[JimboToronto]

Good morning Bitcoinland.

Escaped from the grid over the weekend with no internet access (even got to sleep in a tent in the rain!) and come back to see nothing's changed.

Still $587 on BitcoinAverage, no weekend rollercoaster, flat as a flapjack.

Smelling more and more like coiling before a breakthrough, hopefully upward.

[aminorex]

Looks like president Trump is back on the menu.  y'all should get him to plump for bitcoin while he needs your votes. 

[podyx]

This may be the big one fellas...