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

[Meuh6879]

or ... buy a bunker, too.

Is that from one of those starcraft cinematics??

Fallout 4 (same spirit like Stalker).

[coins101]

....
Yeah, let's keep spewing out nonsense about blocks being supposedly full.  That kind of framing will keep us in "reality."
...

http://www.simple.gy/bitcoin/

Take your Ray Charles glasses off when looking at the facts.

[JayJuanGee]

....
Yeah, let's keep spewing out nonsense about blocks being supposedly full.  That kind of framing will keep us in "reality."
...

http://www.simple.gy/bitcoin/

Take your Ray Charles glasses off when looking at the facts.

O.k.  I had a further explanation in there, and you chose to edit out my explanation.  I could provide some further facts as well, yet the burden is not upon me to prove anything.

In essence, you various big blockers have a burden to establish that there is some kind of problem with facts and/or logic.  So why do you want to spew out the nonsense and irrelevant information about the fullness of the block when it really does not matter?  We have ongoing decent transaction times that are largely unchanged in the past couple of years, we have fees that remain relatively low in the past couple of years, we have BTC prices that are largely in the upwards direction in the past couple of years and we have fairly meaningful solutions (referring to developments related to seg wit) that are largely vetted, largely non controversial and largely about to go live.

Nonetheless, you, and some of your big blocker ilk, want to spew out nonsensical information to imply that bitcoin is in some kind of crisis situation, and you do not have either material facts nor decent logic that reasonably supports such vague FUD laden assertions.

[Andre#]

....
Yeah, let's keep spewing out nonsense about blocks being supposedly full.  That kind of framing will keep us in "reality."
...

http://www.simple.gy/bitcoin/

Take your Ray Charles glasses off when looking at the facts.

O.k.  I had a further explanation in there, and you chose to edit out my explanation.  I could provide some further facts as well, yet the burden is not upon me to prove anything.

In essence, you various big blockers have a burden to establish that there is some kind of problem with facts and/or logic.  So why do you want to spew out the nonsense and irrelevant information about the fullness of the block when it really does not matter?  We have ongoing decent transaction times that are largely unchanged in the past couple of years, we have fees that remain relatively low in the past couple of years, we have BTC prices that are largely in the upwards direction in the past couple of years and we have fairly meaningful solutions (referring to developments related to seg wit) that are largely vetted, largely non controversial and largely about to go live.

Nonetheless, you, and some of your big blocker ilk, want to spew out nonsensical information to imply that bitcoin is in some kind of crisis situation, and you do not have either material facts nor decent logic that reasonably supports such vague FUD laden assertions.

Wait, you don't contest the data being correct? What's happening JJG, letting it slide? That wall of bricks didn't even come from blockchain.info, you know.

[coins101]

....
Yeah, let's keep spewing out nonsense about blocks being supposedly full.  That kind of framing will keep us in "reality."
...

http://www.simple.gy/bitcoin/

Take your Ray Charles glasses off when looking at the facts.

O.k.  I had a further explanation in there, and you chose to edit out my explanation.  I could provide some further facts as well, yet the burden is not upon me to prove anything.

In essence, you various big blockers have a burden to establish that there is some kind of problem with facts and/or logic.  So why do you want to spew out the nonsense and irrelevant information about the fullness of the block when it really does not matter?  We have ongoing decent transaction times that are largely unchanged in the past couple of years, we have fees that remain relatively low in the past couple of years, we have BTC prices that are largely in the upwards direction in the past couple of years and we have fairly meaningful solutions (referring to developments related to seg wit) that are largely vetted, largely non controversial and largely about to go live.

Nonetheless, you, and some of your big blocker ilk, want to spew out nonsensical information to imply that bitcoin is in some kind of crisis situation, and you do not have either material facts nor decent logic that reasonably supports such vague FUD laden assertions.

The network is at capacity. How is that FUD? The evidence is there. Look at it. Or, are you looking at testnet or something?

What you're basically saying is:

The train is full. You can get on this train if you pay more and we'll pull someone off the train. They'll have to wait for another train, or pay more than you offer.

With that sort of attitude, users will just continue to use banks and credit cards. They don't bump users transactions.

There should be 100m people using bitcoin right now. Stop making it a niche application and giving banks time to adjust and offer something shitty, but will give customers a reason to not move over to Bitcoin.

[JayJuanGee]

[edited out]

Wait, you don't contest the data being correct? What's happening JJG, letting it slide? That wall of bricks didn't even come from blockchain.info, you know.

What are you talking about?

If a poster asserts that the blocks are full and also suggests or predicts that BTC prices are not going up until the blocks are not full anymore, then that person is arguing that there is some kind of problem?

That argument is not supported by actual facts nor logic, yet you are asserting that I should let such nonsense slide?

You, Andre, also have no facts nor logic to support any kind of big block allegation that you want to assert as some kind of solution to a non-existing problem

[JayJuanGee]

[edited out]

The network is at capacity. How is that FUD? The evidence is there. Look at it. Or, are you looking at testnet or something?

You are showing images of blocks being full, and so fucking what?  I already outlined four ways in which bitcoin is not affected.  Therefore, your picture of a full block remains irrelevant. By the four were: 1) transaction times, 2) transaction fees, 3) bitcoin price and 4) seg wit that provides a package of solutions and is imminent.   

I am not looking at testnet.  Largely, we are agreeing to the same facts about the blocks floating in the about 75% full territory

https://blockchain.info/charts/avg-block-size

What you're basically saying is:

The train is full. You can get on this train if you pay more and we'll pull someone off the train. They'll have to wait for another train, or pay more than you offer.

 I am not saying anything like that.  You are suggesting that there are some kinds of dire consequences to the current state of bitcoin, like a kind of impeding doom.. hahahahaha.. .makes little sense unless you make up facts and logical conclusions, that you seem to be doing.

With that sort of attitude, users will just continue to use banks and credit cards. They don't bump users transactions.

So what?  Let them use banks and credit cards if they believe those solutions to be better.  Overall, banks and credit cards cannot offer secure decentralized immutable storage/transfer of value.  Sooner or later various folks are going to find bitcoin to be useful for what it provides, and many of us who are already informed about bitcoin and already have various bitcoin systems (and investments) set up are going to continued to be advantaged as more and more folks continue to migrate over to bitcoin with the recognition of actual ways that bitcoin is differentiated from other assets  - no need to rush the matter  and no need to make shit up about bitcoin supposedly being broken or inferior when those inferences are not true - yet the extent to which folks get value out of bitcoin will still be in their recognition of areas in which bitcoin adds value and also as likely more user-friendly systems are continued to be built and introduced around bitcoin's infrastructure... including various ways that are seeming to be more possible to arise out of ways to build upon seg wit innovations.

There should be 100m people using bitcoin right now.

Sounds like you are in a bit of a rush to get more people on board, when it is quite possible that rushing such adoption could cause various sacrifices in what makes bitcoin into what it is.

Stop making it a niche application and giving banks time to adjust and offer something shitty, but will give customers a reason to not move over to Bitcoin.

O.k. Yeah, go ahead and argue that Bitcoin is niche, even when it is solving one of the most important issues to establish secure decentralized immutable transaction/storage of value.   Many other applications can be built on bitcoin, but if bitcoin gives up what it is actually providing (which is such paradigm shifting niche), then yeah there would not be any distinction and differentiation between bitcoin and banks/credit cards. 

In the end, there is no real reason to rush bitcoin into becoming something that it is not in such a way that would actually have the potential to break it and to put it at more risk than necessary.  A thing that is already as powerful as bitcoin need not be tweaked or adapted in controversial ways - especially when there is already largely consensus regarding the way forward that includes the implementation and building upon seg wit and various seg wit related solutions.  Great days ahead for our lillie fiend, AKA bitcoin.   

[coins101]

@Jay I just realized, you are just rehashing what you are being fed.

You've been brainwashed, my friend. You have lost the ability to think for yourself and look at the evidence objectively.

I guess it's like trying to convince a Scientologist they've been pulled into a long con.

[Holliday]

The train is full. You can get on this train if you pay more and we'll pull someone off the train. They'll have to wait for another train, or pay more than you offer.

With that sort of attitude, users will just continue to use banks and credit cards. They don't bump users transactions.

There should be 100m people using bitcoin right now.

The technology to scale Bitcoin to those user levels and keep it censorship-proof doesn't exist. That's the reality of the situation.

Bitcoin doesn't need to be used for every transaction under the sun. It does, however, need to remain censorship-proof, otherwise it's no different than any other payment system.

Bitcoin can not compete with centralized solutions, nor should it. Banks and credit cards are perfectly fine for everyday transactions. Bitcoin should remain as the censorship-proof solution, which will, simply by existing, keep other solutions honest, or at least more honest than they otherwise would have been.

If we ignore the properties which makes Bitcoin useful and unique, in the hopes of getting the "mainstream" on board, those properties might cease to exist. Bitcoin users need to stop being spoiled by the early days of cheap, quick transactions and understand the need for fees and a network which can be maintained in a world where the ability to freely exchange information may be severely hindered. You can be certain that if Bitcoin ever does become a threat to the status quo, there will be significant efforts to prevent the information required to keep the Bitcoin network running from being easily shared.

My Bitcoin node (with the 1MB spam filter in place, mind you) happily uses bandwidth well above what you can expect from all but the highest tier services from the most modern ISPs. Increasing the amount of data that nodes must share will certainly have an effect on the amount of nodes available for sharing that data, which is detrimental to the decentralization required to keep transactions censorship-proof.

[coins101]

Holliday, seriously?

I'm pretty sure Satoshi said something about scaling to Visa levels of transactions.

here - have a vote on the issue:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1634765.msg16440373#msg16440373

[mymenace]

buy side a little thinner, sell side alot thinner, green shaded band has met yellow line

check em https://bitcoinity.org/markets


eve of destruction
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfZVu0alU0I

assange leak wednesday


previously

bitstamp





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

[JayJuanGee]

@Jay I just realized, you are just rehashing what you are being fed.

You've been brainwashed, my friend. You have lost the ability to think for yourself and look at the evidence objectively.

I guess it's like trying to convince a Scientologist they've been pulled into a long con.

Yeah, right.  You are getting into patronizing and denigrating adhominem attacks and failing / refusing to respond to the substance of my comments.  In other words, you are the one who is acting brainless, and especially with your largely unsubstantiated assertions - about which I responded with much more detail than necessary, and you merely came back with ad hominem.

As a matter of fact, I said this several times before.  I had no idea what the stupid ass block debate was all about until after a few months into, and after that time, I figured out that it was just a distracting ploy to attempt to divide perspectives in regards to bitcoin with baseless claims and ulterior agendas to attempt to cause bitcoin to be more malleable than it's then current design.. .and accordingly an attack at governance to attempt to make consensus easier in order to attempt to undermine the very valuable thing that bitcoin was providing - namely secure decentralized immutable value transfer/storage.

So you can call me all the names you want, when it seems that you are the one who has the nonsense assertions that are out of touch with actual reality.

[swogerino]

Oh my God. If this could really happen buddy all body holding bitcoin at the moment will be in a lot of dough and the price of bitcoin will string up in a slap of fingers. My question is that is this news direct from true source?

If the big banks release a successful coin, bitcoin's market value would probably crash pretty hard.

hypothetical outcome?

the coin itself would be used to make all transactions regarding fiat on the blockchain

the coin would be the base value whereas the fiat on top say USD (now masked as 0.01 UTS) may be a fraction of the coins value

example hypothetically - $1 USD is 0.01 of a utility settlement coin, this is used to process your USD payment transaction

success or not it will just be the way


BTC impact -  if there is a more informed public about "bank cryptocurrency" then its a matter of your choice between bank crypto or btc


whereas now it is FIAT or crypto

UTS - Utility Settlement Coin

    One Coin to rule them all. One Coin to find them,
    One Coin to bring them all and in the darkness bind them.

Look @ that
As soon as I come to this thread in alonnngg time I run into his face.
How comical with whats trending today in the fake world of celeb mediocrity.
On another note:
Bitcoin price is going up already to $612 on my charts.

[JayJuanGee]

The train is full. You can get on this train if you pay more and we'll pull someone off the train. They'll have to wait for another train, or pay more than you offer.

With that sort of attitude, users will just continue to use banks and credit cards. They don't bump users transactions.

There should be 100m people using bitcoin right now.

The technology to scale Bitcoin to those user levels and keep it censorship-proof doesn't exist. That's the reality of the situation.

Bitcoin doesn't need to be used for every transaction under the sun. It does, however, need to remain censorship-proof, otherwise it's no different than any other payment system.

Bitcoin can not compete with centralized solutions, nor should it. Banks and credit cards are perfectly fine for everyday transactions. Bitcoin should remain as the censorship-proof solution, which will, simply by existing, keep other solutions honest, or at least more honest than they otherwise would have been.

If we ignore the properties which makes Bitcoin useful and unique, in the hopes of getting the "mainstream" on board, those properties might cease to exist. Bitcoin users need to stop being spoiled by the early days of cheap, quick transactions and understand the need for fees and a network which can be maintained in a world where the ability to freely exchange information may be severely hindered. You can be certain that if Bitcoin ever does become a threat to the status quo, there will be significant efforts to prevent the information required to keep the Bitcoin network running from being easily shared.

My Bitcoin node (with the 1MB spam filter in place, mind you) happily uses bandwidth well above what you can expect from all but the highest tier services from the most modern ISPs. Increasing the amount of data that nodes must share will certainly have an effect on the amount of nodes available for sharing that data, which is detrimental to the decentralization required to keep transactions censorship-proof.

Hahahahaha

Great points!!!!


And, much better said than me.   

[JayJuanGee]

Holliday, seriously?

I'm pretty sure Satoshi said something about scaling to Visa levels of transactions.

here - have a vote on the issue:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1634765.msg16440373#msg16440373

I am pretty sure that you are guessing about what you wished Satoshi said or would have said, and really in the end, who gives a shit? 

There should not be any need to appeal to authority.

Bitcoin is already established and evolved and  more than 6 years have passed since Satoshi said anything... Accordingly, bitcoin has been modified and adjusted to adapt to real world problems while attempting to preserve the overall original vision regarding secure decentralized immutable value transfer/storage.  That is more than visa and that is more than putting some kind of expedited timeline to expect bitcoin to be a bank or some other bullshit.. bitcoin remains a paradigm shift and a phenomenon never before seen - and must be taken with pace.. and hope and pray that it does not evolve into something that it is not (such as a stupid ass centralized bank / credit card system)

[AlexGR]

The network is at capacity. How is that FUD? The evidence is there. Look at it. Or, are you looking at testnet or something?

What you're basically saying is:

The train is full. You can get on this train if you pay more and we'll pull someone off the train. They'll have to wait for another train, or pay more than you offer.

With that sort of attitude, users will just continue to use banks and credit cards. They don't bump users transactions.

There should be 100m people using bitcoin right now. Stop making it a niche application and giving banks time to adjust and offer something shitty, but will give customers a reason to not move over to Bitcoin.

Fees are not the problem, nor a barrier to entry.

https://bitcoinfees.21.co/

Which fee should I use?

The fastest and cheapest transaction fee is currently 70 satoshis/byte, shown in green at the top.
For the median transaction size of 226 bytes, this results in a fee of 15,820 satoshis (0.08$).

And that's the 1-conf transaction.

For conf after several blocks transaction (which is still way faster than a SWIFT), it drops down to 0.01$ or less.

34.000 txs in the last day were in the 0 - 9 satoshi/byte range, which for a 230 byte transaction means 0$ - 0.01$.

As a reminder, paypal charges flat 0.35$ + percentage over the payment. And SWIFT wires, western union etc, take A LOT of money.

[Holliday]

Holliday, seriously?

I'm pretty sure Satoshi said something about scaling to Visa levels of transactions.

here - have a vote on the issue:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1634765.msg16440373#msg16440373

Seriously.

Satoshi, as smart a dude as he is, isn't prescient. At least not on everything. In 2009 we weren't fully aware of the levels that certain groups would go to in order to violate our freedom. We didn't know how far governments would go to spy on their own citizens. Satoshi hasn't been heard from for almost six years now. A lot has happened during that time. Capital controls continue to grow more onerous across the globe. You'll have to excuse me for having strong opinions about the one financial tool we have left which allows us to retain a small foothold of freedom in a world where we are assaulted daily with new forms of control.

If Bitcoin scales to VISA levels of transaction today, it will most likely come with VISA levels of censorship. We should strive to keep the underlying network as robust as possible, because the high speed internet we take advantage of today may not exist in the future without significant controls on what kind of information can and can not be sent. It isn't unreasonable to think that major ISPs could be forced to block all Bitcoin related traffic. At that point it becomes a game of cat and mouse, and the more information we need to share to keep the thing up and running, the more difficult the task becomes.

Efforts for scaling should come as layers on top of the robust network infrastructure. That way we can fall back to the lower layers should the need arise.

I, personally, will not be satisfied with the robustness of the network until it's running smoothly on a global wireless mesh network which is practically impossible to "switch off" or censor. When considering a change which could impact decentralization, we should err on the side of decentralization every single time. Financial freedom is the priority here. Every transaction does not need to be censorship-proof in a world where censorship-proof transactions exist!

My vote concerning full nodes: The more, the merrier.

But yeah, well... ya know, that's just like... uhh... my opinion man.

[savetherainforest]

@Jay I just realized, you are just rehashing what you are being fed.

You've been brainwashed, my friend. You have lost the ability to think for yourself and look at the evidence objectively.

I guess it's like trying to convince a Scientologist they've been pulled into a long con.

He is in denial... ... He keeps singing the same tune.. over and over... 

[Karartma1]

Holliday, seriously?

I'm pretty sure Satoshi said something about scaling to Visa levels of transactions.

here - have a vote on the issue:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1634765.msg16440373#msg16440373

Seriously.

Satoshi, as smart a dude as he is, isn't prescient. At least not on everything. In 2009 we weren't fully aware of the levels that certain groups would go to in order to violate our freedom. We didn't know how far governments would go to spy on their own citizens. Satoshi hasn't been heard from for almost six years now. A lot has happened during that time. Capital controls continue to grow more onerous across the globe. You'll have to excuse me for having strong opinions about the one financial tool we have left which allows us to retain a small foothold of freedom in a world where we are assaulted daily with new forms of control.

If Bitcoin scales to VISA levels of transaction today, it will most likely come with VISA levels of censorship. We should strive to keep the underlying network as robust as possible, because the high speed internet we take advantage of today may not exist in the future without significant controls on what kind of information can and can not be sent. It isn't unreasonable to think that major ISPs could be forced to block all Bitcoin related traffic. At that point it becomes a game of cat and mouse, and the more information we need to share to keep the thing up and running, the more difficult the task becomes.

Efforts for scaling should come as layers on top of the robust network infrastructure. That way we can fall back to the lower layers should the need arise.

I, personally, will not be satisfied with the robustness of the network until it's running smoothly on a global wireless mesh network which is practically impossible to "switch off" or censor. When considering a change which could impact decentralization, we should err on the side of decentralization every single time. Financial freedom is the priority here. Every transaction does not need to be censorship-proof in a world where censorship-proof transactions exist!

My vote concerning full nodes: The more, the merrier.

But yeah, well... ya know, that's just like... uhh... my opinion man.

Pretty reasonable. I agree with most of it.

Financial freedom is the priority here

: this is the real reason why I am grateful to Satoshi, he gave me (us) the "keys" to our financial freedom. He shared it on a silver plate.

[savetherainforest]

Financial freedom is the priority here

: this is the real reason why I am grateful to Satoshi, he gave me (us) the "keys" to our financial freedom. He shared it on a silver plate.

Well is not enough... we need to do our part and enforce that freedom. We need to not allow anyone to try and make a database of all accounts. And actually even trying to multiply the anonymous factor.