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

[PoolMinor]

01000010 01110101 01111001 00100000 01101001 01101110 00100000 01110100 01101000 01100101 00100000 01101110 01100101 01111000 01110100 00100000 00110111 00100000 01101000 01101111 01110101 01110010 01110011 00101110 00100000 00110001 00110000 01110000 00100000 01000101 01010011 01010100 00100000 01010010 01101111 01100011 01101011 01100101 01110100 00100000 01001100 01100001 01110101 01101110 01100011 01101000

[savetherainforest]

01000010 01110101 01111001 00100000 01101001 01101110 00100000 01110100 01101000 01100101 00100000 01101110 01100101 01111000 01110100 00100000 00110111 00100000 01101000 01101111 01110101 01110010 01110011 00101110 00100000 00110001 00110000 01110000 00100000 01000101 01010011 01010100 00100000 01010010 01101111 01100011 01101011 01100101 01110100 00100000 01001100 01100001 01110101 01101110 01100011 01101000

Did you just curse in binary? ... I won't even try to see what you said, feels like to much math for this hour with the amount of alchool in my brain cells. It would just cause me more pain for trying too hard.


And this is how I feel about it more explicitly:

https://i.imgur.com/nkA8H91.gif

[PoolMinor]

This thread is going downhill with people posting random dollar values or "bitcoin moon" slogans with no fundamental or technical reasoning behind them.  If you're going to say the price is going to be X, at least post a chart or reason why you think it's going to do so.  

For instance, I think it's possible Bitcoin could hit $10-20k each in current state, but anything higher than that and you'd probably be running into things like $20 - $100 transaction fees and start to severely limit it's use cases.  At that point I think you'd either need things like financial institutions themselves to adopt it as part of infrastructure, or you'd need something like Lightning Network or a larger block size to go further.

For the Lightning Network, there's a lot of unanswered questions with things like routing and garbage collection (closing out channels).  If a bunch of people close out channels simultaneously through either normal usage or an attack and overflow the 1.6 MB block size, it kind of throws a wrench in things there.  The price to close channels would probably be set artificially high to try and avoid situations like this and create an ever increasing bid war where everyone is bid off of the main chain quickly and forced onto LN to do anything for all intents and purposes, so it's kind of important what pros and cons it has over current Bitcoin if you're going to be forced to use it.  

Nobody really knows how all these variables will play out yet.

TLDR:  Bitcoin is probably good for another 10x in current state but might need more throughput to go further, or for financial institutions to adopt it and use it in place of something like the SWIFT network.  Otherwise it would probably hit $10-20k then new capital might all bleed off into something like Litecoin.

How much does it cost to send $100 dollars worth of bitcoin today vs. $100 worth of Bitcoin in July of 2013? Isn't the tx fee 0.0001 BTC/kB?

Also 0.0001 * $20,000 = $2 not.... $20


Edit:

Also

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=551513.msg6012178#msg6012178

[savetherainforest]

This thread is going downhill with people posting random dollar values or "bitcoin moon" slogans with no fundamental or technical reasoning behind them.  If you're going to say the price is going to be X, at least post a chart or reason why you think it's going to do so.  

For instance, I think it's possible Bitcoin could hit $10-20k each in current state, but anything higher than that and you'd probably be running into things like $20 - $100 transaction fees and start to severely limit it's use cases.  At that point I think you'd either need things like financial institutions themselves to adopt it as part of infrastructure, or you'd need something like Lightning Network or a larger block size to go further.

For the Lightning Network, there's a lot of unanswered questions with things like routing and garbage collection (closing out channels).  If a bunch of people close out channels simultaneously through either normal usage or an attack and overflow the 1.6 MB block size, it kind of throws a wrench in things there.  The price to close channels would probably be set artificially high to try and avoid situations like this and create an ever increasing bid war where everyone is bid off of the main chain quickly and forced onto LN to do anything for all intents and purposes, so it's kind of important what pros and cons it has over current Bitcoin if you're going to be forced to use it.  

Nobody really knows how all these variables will play out yet.

TLDR:  Bitcoin is probably good for another 10x in current state but might need more throughput to go further, or for financial institutions to adopt it and use it in place of something like the SWIFT network.  Otherwise it would probably hit $10-20k then new capital might all bleed off into something like Litecoin.

How much does it cost to send $100 dollars worth of bitcoin today vs. $100 worth of Bitcoin in July of 2013? Isn't the tx fee 0.0001 BTC/kB?

Also 0.0001 * $20,000 = $2 not.... $20


Edit:

Also

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=551513.msg6012178#msg6012178

R0ach can you go drink something for Christ sake?? .. its the New Years! ...

We all know what the price will be in the next month or so... So why bother? ... and the alt currencies will just become more volatile. So... just have a glass of 'shampagnie' and try to treat everything lesser! It will be good for you.. keeps your morale going well and healthy by thinking or pretending u'r more superior than others, isn't your fanclub just all about that?? 

[keithers]

There is still some time left in 2016, will we see $1000 USD?

[r0ach]

This thread is going downhill with people posting random dollar values or "bitcoin moon" slogans with no fundamental or technical reasoning behind them.  If you're going to say the price is going to be X, at least post a chart or reason why you think it's going to do so.  

For instance, I think it's possible Bitcoin could hit $10-20k each in current state, but anything higher than that and you'd probably be running into things like $20 - $100 transaction fees and start to severely limit it's use cases.  At that point I think you'd either need things like financial institutions themselves to adopt it as part of infrastructure, or you'd need something like Lightning Network or a larger block size to go further.

For the Lightning Network, there's a lot of unanswered questions with things like routing and garbage collection (closing out channels).  If a bunch of people close out channels simultaneously through either normal usage or an attack and overflow the 1.6 MB block size, it kind of throws a wrench in things there.  The price to close channels would probably be set artificially high to try and avoid situations like this and create an ever increasing bid war where everyone is bid off of the main chain quickly and forced onto LN to do anything for all intents and purposes, so it's kind of important what pros and cons it has over current Bitcoin if you're going to be forced to use it.  

Nobody really knows how all these variables will play out yet.

TLDR:  Bitcoin is probably good for another 10x in current state but might need more throughput to go further, or for financial institutions to adopt it and use it in place of something like the SWIFT network.  Otherwise it would probably hit $10-20k then new capital might all bleed off into something like Litecoin.

How much does it cost to send $100 dollars worth of bitcoin today vs. $100 worth of Bitcoin in July of 2013? Isn't the tx fee 0.0001 BTC/kB?

Also 0.0001 * $20,000 = $2 not.... $20

I'm kind of making the assumption here that the price will eventually have to be backed by actual, somewhat inelastic commerce instead of speculation to sit at and maintain a high price.  At a price of say $10-20k, a lot of speculators are going to say, "Ok, this looks like a good place to bail out for me", then they start to sell half or more.  You then require a number of buyers greater than one on average to come in and replace the position of that one whale who held a windfall profit position.  

In other words, price growth backed by actual commerce usage instead of branching from one speculator to two speculators, to four speculators, etc.  Somewhere along the line the utility of the system overrides speculation for price and one of the main variables that determines utility is the transaction fee.  When you extrapolate further with this reasoning and notice there is no way Bitcoin resides lower on Exter's pyramid than gold and silver, you will see the ability to do frictionless commerce at scale becomes a lot more important than trying to pretend to be a store of value when it can't actually compete with metals in that regard.  

Only a complete fool is going to try and claim Bitcoin is more "anti-fragile" than metals that took two neutron stars to create.  This is why the transaction fee or throughput starts to become a big indicator of possible market cap.  If the price exploded to say $100k, yet transaction fees did not also skyrocket with it and maintain that level, it just means it would be in a bubble that's going to collapse because you're still in a speculation scenario and nobody is actually using it for anything.

[savetherainforest]

[...]

How much does it cost to send $100 dollars worth of bitcoin today vs. $100 worth of Bitcoin in July of 2013? Isn't the tx fee 0.0001 BTC/kB?

Also 0.0001 * $20,000 = $2 not.... $20

I'm kind of making the assumption here that the price will eventually have to be backed by actual, somewhat inelastic commerce instead of speculation to sit at and maintain a high price.  At a price of say $10-20k, a lot of speculators are going to say, "Ok, this looks like a good place to bail out for me", then they start to sell half or more.  You then require a number of buyers greater than one on average to come in and replace the position of that one whale who held a windfall profit position.  

In other words, price growth backed by actual commerce usage instead of branching from one speculator to two speculators, to four speculators, etc.  Somewhere along the line the utility of the system overrides speculation for price and one of the main variables that determines utility is the transaction fee.  When you extrapolate further with this reasoning and notice there is no way Bitcoin resides lower on Exter's pyramid than gold and silver, you will see the ability to do frictionless commerce at scale becomes a lot more important than trying to pretend to be a store of value when it can't actually compete with metals in that regard.  

Only a complete fool is going to try and claim Bitcoin is more "anti-fragile" than metals that took two neutron stars to create.  This is why the transaction fee or throughput starts to become a big indicator of possible market cap.

Now u'r just being delusional...

The ones that sell at 10k - 20k will want to buy back their coins after they sell on highs. Because that is usually how it works, and they value BTCiTcoin more precious on the long term!

[JayJuanGee]

phew. good thing I didn't bet for Bitcoin to not reach the 1000$ in the bitcoin gambling sites. I would be sweating right now

Back in 2013 I spent $50 on a 1 bitcoin bet saying the price would be $10,000 by the end of this month.

Unfortunately for those that bet against me the site went down a few years ago.

No fear Elwar, you may have been wrong with your prediction, date wise but I have no doubt we'll break $10,000 within 3-4 years.

I don't agree with you mate and I don't think tell price will reach $10,000 in 3-4 years. Though, I quite sure will have an increase in price of bitcoin but not up to $10,000.

Reaching $10K vs. staying there are two entirely different things...

Yes, you're right but I'm not saying the price will remian the same. What I'm saying is that there will be an increase in price of bitcoin in 3-4years but the price can not reach $10,000.

You are crazy if you believe that there is some kind of sub $10k ceiling on bitcoin in the next 3-4 years.

You could be correct that there are certain odds against $10k happening, and you could be correct that it is not healthy for BTC investors to bank on such $10k as if it were a given, but at the same time, your language of never is way too strong.. maybe you mean less than 5% chance - even though given recent events in BTC, I would put pretty decent odds on $10k taking place in that time, probably greater than 35%  - but yeah, you can have your rights to your own views, and you will invest and plan accordingly... but zero is crazy... 






 

[JayJuanGee]

The first signs of a new China ban came up :

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-12-31/china-said-to-increase-scrutiny-of-foreign-currency-purchases-ixd3oijp

buckle up

China putting up more currency controls....awesome for Bitcoin!

I am not sure it worked like that historically, i still remember months and months of bear market after any slight news from the Chinese Gov

we had months and months of bear market not cause of china-ban-news that turned out to be fake/unimportant. we had months and months of bear market cause gox pulled the price up to 1000$ artificially using customers funds and imploded then. THAT caused us trouble. but to be fair without gox buying BTCs with customers funds we would have never seen 1150$ in 2013.

Sure the Gox bots have been given a lot of credit for the 2013 price run up (probably too much), and some of that is mainstream hype and attempts to denigrate bitcoin.  The 2013 price run up was caused by a variety of factors, and suggesting that one was the sole cause or that removal of one would have changed events, may technically be true, but there is way too much hypothesizing to attempt to simplify and to suggest that another set of events would have occurred under another scenario... who cares???  In the end, we do need to deal with the various historical factors, and then do our best to outline the probabilities of various scenarios from this point forward.  I do agree that in retrospect, it appears that Gox had an undue influence over bitcoin at that time, yet even by late 2013, it was starting to lose some market share and credibility in the space, even before it's bot usage and even before it's February 2014 implosion.

[roslinpl]

Happy new year guys!

I wish you tons of Bitcoins everyone

I ♥ our community


On topic: price is looking good ^___^ xD HODL!




Best regards.

[notme]

01000010 01110101 01111001 00100000 01101001 01101110 00100000 01110100 01101000 01100101 00100000 01101110 01100101 01111000 01110100 00100000 00110111 00100000 01101000 01101111 01110101 01110010 01110011 00101110 00100000 00110001 00110000 01110000 00100000 01000101 01010011 01010100 00100000 01010010 01101111 01100011 01101011 01100101 01110100 00100000 01001100 01100001 01110101 01101110 01100011 01101000

Fueling in progress .

[Morecoin Freeman]

Happy new year my friends from bitcointalk, 2017 will be wonderful.

[Torque]

Only a complete fool is going to try and claim Bitcoin is more "anti-fragile" than metals that took two neutron stars to create.

Ok, WRT precious metals (like Gold), please think of this:

1)  PM derivatives market has driven up speculative price of Gold many orders of magnitude above any sensible speculative value based on Average Joe supply/demand, and far beyond any intrinsic value

2)  Any new large Gold deposits discoveries over the last 50+ years (which could be massive!) would *never* be disclosed to the public

3) No transparency in Gold holdings (i.e., vaults, federal reserves, bank reserves, personal holdings, etc.) so no feasible way to definitively audit.  Much of the Gold supposedly backing federal and bank reserves could be completely a myth, or at least a tiny fraction of what is reported to be held.

4) Gold easily faked with Tungsten

And you want to say PMs like Gold are anti-fragile???

[JimboToronto]

It's now 2017 UTC. Happy New Year everyone.

We closed off 2016 at $968USD at Bitcoinaverage, up from $434. Not a bad year.

That's $1301CAD, up exactly $700 from a year ago.

We've had better gains most other years percentage-wise, but considering we're heading into 2017 in a steady rise with lots of corrections and a feeling that the rally is just beginning, I'm more than happy.

Cheers all.



Here in the Big Smoke we've still got almost 5 hours until we sing Auld Lang Syne but it's never to early to start partying.

Cheers again.

[Ted E. Bare]

Happy New Year bitcoin holders

[wlefever]

Happy New Year! Looking forward to the next leg up in 2017! BTC

[nanobtc]

<snippage>

Microsoft has been accepting Bitcoin for literally years.
https://commerce.microsoft.com/PaymentHub/Help/Right?helppagename=CSV_BitcoinHowTo.htm

I stand corrected. Bullish!

[rjclarke2000]

It's now 2017 UTC. Happy New Year everyone.

We closed off 2016 at $968USD at Bitcoinaverage, up from $434. Not a bad year.

That's $1301CAD, up exactly $700 from a year ago.

We've had better gains most other years percentage-wise, but considering we're heading into 2017 in a steady rise with lots of corrections and a feeling that the rally is just beginning, I'm more than happy.

Cheers all.



Here in the Big Smoke we've still got almost 5 hours until we sing Auld Lang Syne but it's never to early to start partying.

Cheers again.


Interesting threesome right there!!! Jeremy, Queenie and Putin!

[Meuh6879]

In 1 month, guys ... in 1 month ONLY.

[shmadz]

Happy New year everyone!

Even Mike Maloney is on board!  https://youtu.be/RLnZnmLJWjA?t=22m59s
<you really need to watch this!  He actually seems to understand that bitcoin= good  blockchain= bad

Ah forget it, Fuck you guys, happy New year to you big brother