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

[savetherainforest]

[...]

Sure those kinds of described actions can be helpful in expanding the bitcoin space and useage, yet each person has to decide for himself the extent to which he wants to buy, sell or otherwise be involved in bitcoin.  

If you learn about bitcoin, and you believe that it is a good thing, then at minimum you should attempt to allocate a reasonable amount of bitcoin for yourself 1% to 10% of your asset investment allocated towards bitcoin could be reasonable depending upon the level of your bullishness, and your other personal financial circumstances.

In essence, I would suggest that you establish a comfortable position towards yourself, lead by example, and then allow others to chose the level to which they want to get involved.  For the most part, I would not recommend attempting to proselytize others, but that is just me.  If they are receptive to learn about bitcoin and to hear about your investments, then fine, no problem sharing information with them.  On the other hand, I have no problem with people who are out there and proselytizing because some of those kinds of folks are going to exist in any kind of wide spread adoption.

You still don't get it... But let me ask you a question... : Have you ever thought about how you could destroy bitcoin?

And I meditated a lot about it... and the only solution would be a full blown planetary nuclear war. And... well sh!t... who cares about bitcoin in that situation??    

[JayJuanGee]

[...]

Sure those kinds of described actions can be helpful in expanding the bitcoin space and useage, yet each person has to decide for himself the extent to which he wants to buy, sell or otherwise be involved in bitcoin.  

If you learn about bitcoin, and you believe that it is a good thing, then at minimum you should attempt to allocate a reasonable amount of bitcoin for yourself 1% to 10% of your asset investment allocated towards bitcoin could be reasonable depending upon the level of your bullishness, and your other personal financial circumstances.

In essence, I would suggest that you establish a comfortable position towards yourself, lead by example, and then allow others to chose the level to which they want to get involved.  For the most part, I would not recommend attempting to proselytize others, but that is just me.  If they are receptive to learn about bitcoin and to hear about your investments, then fine, no problem sharing information with them.  On the other hand, I have no problem with people who are out there and proselytizing because some of those kinds of folks are going to exist in any kind of wide spread adoption.

You still don't get it...

If you are suggesting that I may not understand your logic or communication, then you could be correct.

Nonetheless, I frequently attempt to adequately substantiate my posts in order that they do not rely on some kind of goofy and unknown logic in order to be comprehensible. 

But let me ask you a question... : Have you ever thought about how you could destroy bitcoin?

I doubt that is a great subject for this thread; although it could be relevant to bitcoin's security and long term future.  I think that there could be some folks who plot regarding the destruction of bitcoin, and accordingly, bitcoin seems to be sufficiently robust in order to not be vulnerable to a large number of attacks.

And I meditated a lot about it... and the only solution would be a full blown planetary nuclear war. And... well sh!t... who cares about bitcoin in that situation??    

I'm fairly certain that there are other scenarios, as well, that could result in the destruction of bitcoin, yet we do not need to get caught up in unlikely scenarios in order to understand more likely scenarios and the utility of bitcoin under a large number of more likely scenarios.

[savetherainforest]

And I meditated a lot about it... and the only solution would be a full blown planetary nuclear war. And... well sh!t... who cares about bitcoin in that situation??    

I'm fairly certain that there are other scenarios, as well, that could result in the destruction of bitcoin, yet we do not need to get caught up in unlikely scenarios in order to understand more likely scenarios and the utility of bitcoin under a large number of more likely scenarios.

Yes... Another scenario would be to track everyone and assassinate them all.... but that will create a sh!tload of problems. So it is not feasible. But you could try to steal them from everybody... I mean take each person at a time on a global scale... but that would be impossible as well. I mean... it will just turn the world in to a police state... and there will be isolated cities or countries where there will be 1 bitcoin for everybody with an endless numbers of zeroes behind it due to the global shortage.(No necessarily translated directly in to adding more zeroes to bitcoin but pegging an alternative currency to create the subdivision) ... Like for example making 0.00000001 satoshi at the current rate for 13.25 cents. (13 cents and 25 mini-sub-cents)

[TERA]

This is no fun without a Bitcoinity full of walls somewhere to look at.

[rolling]

There is really nothing useful in this thread anymore.

[mymenace]

bitstamp





what happens when the green shaded peaks meet back down to the yellow line, seems to be occurring again

[jbreher]

In this case, if you allow miners the liberty to include as large blocks as they like, an external actor that hates bitcoin can just say to a miner "you know what? I'll pay you more fees than what the others are making, and if your block is orphaned, I'll pay that too - just make sure to put in there as many txs as you like".

At that point, the enemy of bitcoin who has employed "bad miners" for very little money (compared to the multi-billion dollar interests of banks/payment companies/governments), can bloat bitcoin to death for extremely small costs.

Just because the miners (in this hypothetical) are allowed to create blocks as large as they desire, does not mean that other miners are forced to accept those blocks as valid. If such a large block (presumably the result of your bribe above) is deemed detrimental to the system by the other miners (i.e., detrimental to these other miners' interests), these other miners are incentivized to orphan that block. Resulting in no problem to the network. The 'problem' solves itself.

Not really.

1) The network is being spammed every day - even with stated spam attacks and stress tests. These blocks are now sitting in the blockchain as bloat. If the rejection scenario actually happened, they wouldn't be sitting in there.

Well, no. Any transaction that has made it into the blockchain is -- by definition -- a valid transaction. You don't get to call valid transactions 'bloat'.

Not to mention the fact that this has nothing to do with the scenario you posited to which I was replying.

2) Let's asssume I'm the exo-attacker and plan to do what I laid above. I also hire a programmer, modify bitcoin core to use GPU for validating big blocks, the ability to process blocks is raised significantly, and then release that software as open source so that miners will use it to "speed up new block verification and help scale bitcoin".

By employing GPU power *and* the fact that network propagation between the large miners is good, there is no valid reason for others to reject very big blocks because I've also given them the tools to process them. I mean the (other) miner is not going to need minutes to process them, so why not?

There is nothing wrong with your scenario 2. Other than the fact that you are completely changing the terms of the scenario re: the single attacker incentivized by an external payment that you opened with. If miners make bigger blocks, and other miners accept them as valid, then great. The system is able to accommodate more transaction volume. Wishful transactors don't need to shuffle off to alt coins in order to transactionate. The only possible problem here is if a critical number of validators can't keep up. Note that validators are free to employ the same techniques to improve their performance. Regardless, I say good riddance to a network hobbled by RasPis.

(this could happen too:)
3) The larger the miner, the biggest the incentive to accept even bigger blocks so that they can crush the opposition who can't handle them. It's like corporate cartel forming. You lower the price (to your detriment) until others fall out of the market. And then you raise the price. You can do the same with blocks. You accept the largest blocks possible, so that those who can't catch up fall behind. It's their problem, not yours. The less they mine, the more you earn.

Technological advancement rather akin to the CPU > GPU transition, the GPU > FPGA transition, the FPGA > ASIC transition, etc. That's worked out reasonably well in practice. Except this advantage is really not about size, but rather efficiency.

But really - you want to put some efficiency improvement numbers out for discussion? If it is more than a scant percent or two, would such not already be coded up and in the wild? Lacking evidence, reasoning suggests your 'crushing' speedup is not a potential significant possibility.

[jbreher]

the whole situation loops back to what is the supposed problem that the big block is supposed to fix

Nonsense. We keep telling you that the problem that needs fixing is the limited transaction volume.

[JayJuanGee]

the whole situation loops back to what is the supposed problem that the big block is supposed to fix

Nonsense. We keep telling you that the problem that needs fixing is the limited transaction volume.

Who's this "we"?    This could be a further sign of weakness in your argument, when you feel some kind of patronizing need to assert the royal we from time to time.

And, you are making up problems when there are no problems?  How long is it taking for transactions to go through?  Less than 2 hours, right?

yeah, you will not admit it, yet your non admission does not mean that there is supposedly a problem of transactions clogging up.

[hv_]

the whole situation loops back to what is the supposed problem that the big block is supposed to fix

Nonsense. We keep telling you that the problem that needs fixing is the limited transaction volume.

Who's this "we"?    This could be a further sign of weakness in your argument, when you feel some kind of patronizing need to assert the royal we from time to time.

And, you are making up problems when there are no problems?  How long is it taking for transactions to go through?  Less than 2 hours, right?

yeah, you will not admit it, yet your non admission does not mean that there is supposedly a problem of transactions clogging up.

I'd say it's all about scaling and the Maximum freedom of ways to achieve it. Block size is just a piece and should be free (un-limited)  as the internet is.

[JayJuanGee]

the whole situation loops back to what is the supposed problem that the big block is supposed to fix

Nonsense. We keep telling you that the problem that needs fixing is the limited transaction volume.

Who's this "we"?    This could be a further sign of weakness in your argument, when you feel some kind of patronizing need to assert the royal we from time to time.

And, you are making up problems when there are no problems?  How long is it taking for transactions to go through?  Less than 2 hours, right?

yeah, you will not admit it, yet your non admission does not mean that there is supposedly a problem of transactions clogging up.

I'd say it's all about scaling and the Maximum freedom of ways to achieve it. Block size is just a piece and should be free (un-limited)  as the internet is.

Apparently, you do not understand the issue if you are spewing out blanket buzz statements without really describing the implications of such.

Ultimately, there is more "freedom" in bitcoin, especially for the unbanked or those who do not have easy access to other low cost ways to store and transmit value, if it is not put at jeopardy towards attacks and/or being taken over or controlled by either banks, governments or other possibly hostile players.

So you can spew out ideas of "unlimited" equalling "freedom", but in reality you are spewing out nonsense.

Currently, there seems to be a very sensible plans and testing in place regarding accommodating growth in transaction volume, including with seg wit.  And, of course, at some time in the future, if there seems to be some kind of actual need to make an actual hard limit increase, then it seems quite likely that there remain abilities to consider those kinds of hard limit increase options if that seems to be a feasible and reasonable way forward in such future circumstances.

[ashman102]

Interested in your thoughts

http://bravenewcoin.com/news/bitcoin-price-analysis-here-comes-the-breakout/

[JayJuanGee]

Interested in your thoughts

http://bravenewcoin.com/news/bitcoin-price-analysis-here-comes-the-breakout/

What about your thoughts, newbie?

I take all short term BTC price predictions with a grain of salt.

[ashman102]

Interested in your thoughts

http://bravenewcoin.com/news/bitcoin-price-analysis-here-comes-the-breakout/

What about your thoughts, newbie?

I take all short term BTC price predictions with a grain of salt.

Well I feel rather skeptical regarding Deutche Bank. Not so sure about the ETF deadline on the 12th Oct, I haven't been following it closely, but its bound to be pushed back again.

[petahashminer]

in the recent month there is no volatility in all the exchange sites,

i wonder , is this a good thing or a bad thing.

[ashman102]

in the recent month there is no volatility in all the exchange sites,

i wonder , is this a good thing or a bad thing.

There were times when it was volatile in Sept.

[JayJuanGee]

Interested in your thoughts

http://bravenewcoin.com/news/bitcoin-price-analysis-here-comes-the-breakout/

What about your thoughts, newbie?

I take all short term BTC price predictions with a grain of salt.

Well I feel rather skeptical regarding Deutche Bank. Not so sure about the ETF deadline on the 12th Oct, I haven't been following it closely, but its bound to be pushed back again.

I would not put too much weight in a few macro-events, even though it is quite possible that bitcoin prices could move in one direction or another, and possibly the odds for up are greater than the odds for down, but really, none of this is a given.  In the short term, BTC Prices can be manipulated in either direction, especially when we have relatively low trade volume across all exchanges.

One thing that can give us some assurance that there is a possibility for prices to move in one direction or another is the fact that they have been relatively flat for a couple of months - yet even the fact that they have been flat for a couple of months does not necessarily mean with any high probability that they are going to break out in one direction or another.

In that regard, it is also possible that we could have an additional couple of months of relatively flat prices... everyone waiting for someone else to attempt to make the move.

[JayJuanGee]

in the recent month there is no volatility in all the exchange sites,

i wonder , is this a good thing or a bad thing.

There were times when it was volatile in Sept.

Periods of non-volatility is part of the process when prices are going through a kind of consolidation period.  In that regard, trade volume goes down and everyone is waiting for others in order to figure out whether to attempt to move prices in one direction or another.  Sometimes, in that regard, a group of players may attempt to push the price in one direction or another based on news or an attempt at low trade volume momentum, but if they experience too much resistance in one direction or another, they may give up because they do not want to spend their own coins to cause the price to move in their preferred direction and instead they would prefer to create enough momentum that will cause others to use their coins to cause such price movement in the direction that they want.

[Meuh6879]

Their sizes are ridiculously high - if they want to attack BTC. There is no cost that is too high. The only thing that there is is whether this attack is visible or not (they don't want "banks are scared" type of publicity), and the cost of preparedness for the next "iteration" of BTC.

well, in reality, they move number in your privat database ... and that cost nothing.
if they want attack bitcoin network, they must SPEND.

they can't.
this is Bitcoin.

[Meuh6879]

but the problem of banks are ... they have the power to block the business :
https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/dnb-norways-largest-bank-shuns-bitcoin-boots-bitcoin-association/