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

[peonminer]

https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/monetary/20160921a.htm

Against this backdrop, the Committee decided to maintain the target range for the federal funds rate at 1/4 to 1/2 percent.

[1715002459]

1715002459

[1715002459]

1715002459

[1715002459]

1715002459

[mymenace]

lets see those walls


Based on the feds decision to hold rates

1) Confirms asset bubble to continue

2) No confidence in the US dollar

3) Gold, Silver and Bitcoin expected to rise

4) US dollar in free fall, base currency for trading countries down from 75% of world trade now at 45%

5) Yuan backed gold tipped to overtake US dollar as reserve currency for most nations and hasten US economic collapse

6) US debt $21 trillion dollars, 3.5 x larger than the GFC debt of 6 trillion dollars


not a pretty picture

[Bitmore]

lets see those walls


Based on the feds decision to hold rates

1) Confirms asset bubble to continue

2) No confidence in the US dollar

3) Gold, Silver and Bitcoin expected to rise

4) US dollar in free fall, base currency for trading countries down from 75% of world trade now at 45%

5) Yuan backed gold tipped to overtake US dollar as reserve currency for most nations and hasten US economic collapse

6) US debt $21 trillion dollars, 3.5 x larger than the GFC debt of 6 trillion dollars


not a pretty picture

Wouldn't this cause Bitcoin to fall?  An INCREASE in interest rates would cause the stock market to fall, and Bitcoin would be a lifeboat, wouldn't it?

[mymenace]

lets see those walls


Based on the feds decision to hold rates

1) Confirms asset bubble to continue

2) No confidence in the US dollar

3) Gold, Silver and Bitcoin expected to rise

4) US dollar in free fall, base currency for trading countries down from 75% of world trade now at 45%

5) Yuan backed gold tipped to overtake US dollar as reserve currency for most nations and hasten US economic collapse

6) US debt $21 trillion dollars, 3.5 x larger than the GFC debt of 6 trillion dollars


not a pretty picture

Wouldn't this cause Bitcoin to fall?  An INCREASE in interest rates would cause the stock market to fall, and Bitcoin would be a lifeboat, wouldn't it?

interest rates are not being decreased and the feds say they heavily favour an interest rate rise in December

this is all real news but remember it is only speculation on where the price will go, check the walls

[Hyperjacked]

Yeah, it's overpriced - deal with it.

We deal wit it by not buyin...gotta lotta butts wit no seats imho

9.5 billion market cap...insanity IMO

Btc right now is just a way to move fiat that hardly anybody trusts. So yeah, it's market cap is too high.

I have a different view...crypto can be trusted IMO ! Math does not lie only propaganda does...market cap is way high on on Bitcoin IMO

Disclaimer:depends on hyperinflation

Crypto can be trusted - please elaborate on this mythical concept...
The dregs of society own this shit. The mainstream views it as a joke.

"crypto can be trusted" in the sense that "it's all mathmatics!" And you can't argue that 2+2=4!

Unlike the death spiral financing toilet bowl stock market...

Do you think I care about the mainstream talking heads that spoon feed us whatever the highest bidder tells them...?

"Dregs of society"...? This is the future of currency...mythical concept? Wake up dude

[Hyperjacked]

Yeah, it's overpriced - deal with it.

We deal wit it by not buyin...gotta lotta butts wit no seats imho

9.5 billion market cap...insanity IMO

Btc right now is just a way to move fiat that hardly anybody trusts. So yeah, it's market cap is too high.

Wasn't trying to be rude with my last comment...I'm just a little rough around the edges !

Enjoy your day

[mogrith]

Sure I can. 2+2=4!  
2+2 = 1*2*3*4  
4=24  Nope I'll argue that is not true.

There are some exchanges that allow fractional reserve margin trading. But your actual BTC in a wallet you control keys on cannot have a 'Run on the bank' where you are supposed to have BTC but can't get it out.

Yeah, it's overpriced - deal with it.

We deal wit it by not buyin...gotta lotta butts wit no seats imho

9.5 billion market cap...insanity IMO

Btc right now is just a way to move fiat that hardly anybody trusts. So yeah, it's market cap is too high.

I have a different view...crypto can be trusted IMO ! Math does not lie only propaganda does...market cap is way high on on Bitcoin IMO

Disclaimer:depends on hyperinflation

Crypto can be trusted - please elaborate on this mythical concept...
The dregs of society own this shit. The mainstream views it as a joke.

"crypto can be trusted" in the sense that "it's all mathmatics!" And you can't argue that 2+2=4!

Unlike the death spiral financing toilet bowl stock market...

Do you think I care about the mainstream talking heads that spoon feed us whatever the highest bidder tells them...?

"Dregs of society"...? This is the future of currency...mythical concept? Wake up dude

[BathSaltsDealer]

On its last legs, this fandom...

[TReano]

https://www.federalreserve.gov/mediacenter/live-broadcast.htm

I wonder when the markets stop buying the bullshit from the FED and the rate hikes...

[chesthing]

Yeah, it's overpriced - deal with it.

We deal wit it by not buyin...gotta lotta butts wit no seats imho

9.5 billion market cap...insanity IMO

Btc right now is just a way to move fiat that hardly anybody trusts. So yeah, it's market cap is too high.

I have a different view...crypto can be trusted IMO ! Math does not lie only propaganda does...market cap is way high on on Bitcoin IMO

Disclaimer:depends on hyperinflation

Crypto can be trusted - please elaborate on this mythical concept...
The dregs of society own this shit. The mainstream views it as a joke.

"crypto can be trusted" in the sense that "it's all mathmatics!" And you can't argue that 2+2=4!

Unlike the death spiral financing toilet bowl stock market...

Do you think I care about the mainstream talking heads that spoon feed us whatever the highest bidder tells them...?

"Dregs of society"...? This is the future of currency...mythical concept? Wake up dude

Bitcoin in certain circumstances moves fiat better than other options. That's it dude, there is no inherent value other than that. The dregs of society run the exchanges and gateways for the mainstream to buy bitcoin, so here we are.

[becoin]

https://www.federalreserve.gov/mediacenter/live-broadcast.htm

I wonder when the markets stop buying the bullshit from the FED and the rate hikes...

Use your military and intelligence to spread chaos all over the world and pretend you're the safest harbor. That is the US recipe to attract the wealth of the world. Bad news is that too many powerful countries are plotting red lines against that chaos and will not tolerate it anymore.

[mymenace]

(´• ‿ •`)



                     Stay Puft Marshmallow Man likes those walls!

[zimmah]

Core continues to strangle BTC's transaction capacity for some (idiotic) reason. Money still flowing into alts.

A large price drop is practically guaranteed.

You have been on this blocksize limit kick for quite a while, and seeming to continue to ignore actual facts regarding ongoing and continuing developments, including the pending implementation of seg wit (including the timeline involved for its vetting and testing prior to implementation).

SegWit was promised to arrive in april 2016, it's now September.

By the time it actually arrives (if ever) it will be too little too late.

Meanwhile we're losing market share as bitcoin, while 1 change to a simple line of code could have fixed this easily.

And yet, you put your trust in this incompetent core dev team.

Core continues to strangle BTC's transaction capacity for some (idiotic) reason. Money still flowing into alts.

A large price drop is practically guaranteed.

You have been on this blocksize limit kick for quite a while, and seeming to continue to ignore actual facts regarding ongoing and continuing developments, including the pending implementation of seg wit (including the timeline involved for its vetting and testing prior to implementation).

Is it April yet?

April 2016 2017 2116 20116

[zimmah]

Core continues to strangle BTC's transaction capacity for some (idiotic) reason. Money still flowing into alts.

A large price drop is practically guaranteed.

You have been on this blocksize limit kick for quite a while, and seeming to continue to ignore actual facts regarding ongoing and continuing developments, including the pending implementation of seg wit (including the timeline involved for its vetting and testing prior to implementation).

Is it April yet?

As you likely realize - a meaningless talking point to suggest that there was some kind of guaranteed solution.. ridiculous.

There is no urgency, so there is no need to suggest that April was some kind of necessary.  There are a lot of ongoing developments with seg wit and related, and you are missing these matters when you continue to suggest that there is some kind of defect or suggesting that bitcoin is "behind schedule" in some kind of way.

There is urgency.

Bitcoin is losing market share to altcoins (both in market cap as well as transaction volume and trading volume).    

Blocks are more often full than not, indicating there is demand for bigger blocks.

To say the matter is not urgent is a lie.  

There's a reason the debate started in 2013 and the debate became more fierce in 2015.

It was because people actually recognized the problem before it became a problem, but for some reason (he who shall not be named) now that it has actually become a problem because no action was taken it's barely even discussed anymore.

Larger block size means lower security and therefore lower price. So no, if you want the price to go down you should increase block size.

Larger blocksize don't mean lower security, those two have nothing to do with each other.

so crossing under 600 / could this next fall trigger the next rise,. ? / the pump must come,.

the pump wont come as long as the blocksize debate isn't resolved.

Events make more of an impact on the price than all the block size stuff. Last November when China "unbanned" Bitcoin again the price shot up, and nobody gave a crap about the block size.

Of course no one gave a crap about the blocksize back than, because the average block size was not anywhere near the blocksize limit back then.

Now it is though, and it's not supposed to be.

[BathSaltsDealer]

SegWit was promised to arrive in april 2016, it's now September.

And I have lost one tooth
And I walk a little lame
And I ain't got time
For the waiting game

And the days dwindle down to a precious few
September ... November!
And these few precious days I'll spend with you. These precious days I'll spend with you

[Elwar]

I am going to set up a trading bot to buy when this thread gets full of "block size" talk and sell when there are debates about how many thousands of dollars bitcoin will soon be worth.

[daneranon89]

SegWit was promised to arrive in april 2016, it's now September.

And I have lost one tooth
And I walk a little lame
And I ain't got time
For the waiting game

And the days dwindle down to a precious few
September ... November!
And these few precious days I'll spend with you. These precious days I'll spend with you

Good piece of poetry you got there. Do you have any other poems? and hey! don't worry everything will be fine as time goes, there is nothing that time can't heal.

[JimboToronto]

Good morning Bitcoinland.

Still going sideways... $599 on Bitcoinaverage.

Ho effing hum.

Good piece of poetry you got there. Do you have any other poems?

That's "September Song", written by Maxwell Anderson specifically for actor Walter Huston in the 1938 Broadway musical "Knickerbocker Holiday". It has since become a pop standard, covered by everybody from Bing Crosby to Frank Sinatra. The music, written by Kurt Weill has become an instrumental jazz standard.

Lambie has a way with words but she's not that good.

[JayJuanGee]

Core continues to strangle BTC's transaction capacity for some (idiotic) reason. Money still flowing into alts.

A large price drop is practically guaranteed.

You have been on this blocksize limit kick for quite a while, and seeming to continue to ignore actual facts regarding ongoing and continuing developments, including the pending implementation of seg wit (including the timeline involved for its vetting and testing prior to implementation).

SegWit was promised to arrive in april 2016, it's now September.

This is more or less a repeated and stupid set of points that you are bringing up, yet I sense that if these points are not addressed, some folks are going to come to the wrong and misleading conclusions that you are arriving at.

What is this supposed April 2016 promise that is often repeatedly brought up, who made it, and what was said exactly?

Anyone with any kind of knowledge of process of a decentralized system and a technical system such as bitcoin that is securing billions of dollars of value at the present and potentially inspiring even more value in the future have to realize that the process should not cave in to quick implementations without proper vetting and testing and whatever is needed to ensure that it is done properly and without unnecessary controversy when it finally is released.  The release of this kind of thing should be rushed.

The tone of your comment also seems to devolve into a meaningless suggestion that there is some kind of urgency in releasing seg wit, which there is not.  Bitcoin is not broken, there is no fire, fees are not too high transactions are not taking too long... sure releases of innovation will likely cause improvements, but there is no rush, and it seems much more important to accomplish improvements with prudence than to make stupid ass rushed mistakes (such as the ETH hard fork should illustrate kind of things that can go wrong with rushing and without proper vetting)

By the time it actually arrives (if ever) it will be too little too late.

Too late for what?  Again you are implying some kind of urgent need.

Meanwhile we're losing market share as bitcoin, while 1 change to a simple line of code could have fixed this easily.

To whom is bitcoin losing market share?  and even if it were true that some marketshare were lost, who cares?  In the end, we go to the better coin, and if bitcoin does its implementation correctly, it will remain the better coin, if bitcoin implements some bullshit rushed job with flaws, then investors in bitcoin will likely be much worse off.

And yet, you put your trust in this incompetent core dev team.

I don't see what is incompetent about vetting and testing...   

Core continues to strangle BTC's transaction capacity for some (idiotic) reason. Money still flowing into alts.

A large price drop is practically guaranteed.

You have been on this blocksize limit kick for quite a while, and seeming to continue to ignore actual facts regarding ongoing and continuing developments, including the pending implementation of seg wit (including the timeline involved for its vetting and testing prior to implementation).

Is it April yet?

April 2016 2017 2116 20116

look at you, exaggerating.. 2017 or 2018 might be o.k., but I suspect seg wit will be live before april 2017, but of course if there are reasons not to release it, bitcoin will be fine, even without such a release.

You suggest that increasing the blockchain size to 2mb would be an obvious solution, which is not true, also brings problems, and is likely not even necessary because bitcoin is not broken.  transactions are continuing to go through securely and in a fairly timely manner with relatively low fees - decentralized and immutable.

[JayJuanGee]

Core continues to strangle BTC's transaction capacity for some (idiotic) reason. Money still flowing into alts.

A large price drop is practically guaranteed.

You have been on this blocksize limit kick for quite a while, and seeming to continue to ignore actual facts regarding ongoing and continuing developments, including the pending implementation of seg wit (including the timeline involved for its vetting and testing prior to implementation).

Is it April yet?

As you likely realize - a meaningless talking point to suggest that there was some kind of guaranteed solution.. ridiculous.

There is no urgency, so there is no need to suggest that April was some kind of necessary.  There are a lot of ongoing developments with seg wit and related, and you are missing these matters when you continue to suggest that there is some kind of defect or suggesting that bitcoin is "behind schedule" in some kind of way.

There is urgency.

Bitcoin is losing market share to altcoins (both in market cap as well as transaction volume and trading volume).    

Blocks are more often full than not, indicating there is demand for bigger blocks.

To say the matter is not urgent is a lie.  

There's a reason the debate started in 2013 and the debate became more fierce in 2015.

I don't understand how your saying that the problem is urgent over and over and over, makes the problem more urgent.


I think that seg wit was revealed as a potential and agreed upon solution in early December 2015, and code was released several months later and thereafter, there has been testing and even various forms of implementation that is not completely live yet, but getting really close.

You also frame this blocksize limit discussion as something going back to 2013, and sure you can exaggerate whatever history that you want.

I would think that if there had been serious proposals of code, besides XT and classic, that just focused on technical issues, then that code would have been considered more seriously.  XT and classic both made attempts at changing governance, which certainly is not focusing on technicals or  technical necessities.

The fact of the matter, there is no urgency if you focus only on technical necessities rather than getting caught up with governance concerns.

It was because people actually recognized the problem before it became a problem, but for some reason (he who shall not be named) now that it has actually become a problem because no action was taken it's barely even discussed anymore.

What do you mean by "he who shall not be named"?  Are you getting into personalities rather than focusing on actual facts?

Larger block size means lower security and therefore lower price. So no, if you want the price to go down you should increase block size.

Larger blocksize don't mean lower security, those two have nothing to do with each other.

This quote was coming from someone else, so I am not suggesting to make the blocksize smaller... I think that part of the point of the matter, is that you don't want to go around making willy-nilly and unnecessary changes, and moreso if the changes seem to be rushed and/or controversial.  You err on the side of non controversial and necessary changes.
 

so crossing under 600 / could this next fall trigger the next rise,. ? / the pump must come,.

the pump wont come as long as the blocksize debate isn't resolved.

I doubt that there is any kind of major influence of price based on the actual technicals of the blocksize limit debate.  As you may recall, and you even seem to concede, the blocksize limit debate was ramped up in mid-to-late 2015, and soon thereafter BTC prices shot to $500 and then again in May/June 2016, prices shot to nearly $800.   Sure there is some concern over having a dividing and controversial community, but that is different from the actual technicals and the actual technical improvements that are in the very soon^tm bitcoin pipeline.

Events make more of an impact on the price than all the block size stuff. Last November when China "unbanned" Bitcoin again the price shot up, and nobody gave a crap about the block size.

Of course no one gave a crap about the blocksize back than, because the average block size was not anywhere near the blocksize limit back then.

Now it is though, and it's not supposed to be.

Whatever, the problem has not gotten much worse between November 2015 and now.  Bitcoin transactions are still being processed securely and in a fairly timely manner with fairly low fees.  And by the way in an immutable decentralized manner, which is bitcoin differentiating factor and claim to fame.