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

[Holliday]

do you have 200 peers?

No. Less than half that.

do you feel its cool that some peers come online download 1440blocks do 1 TX and go offline for 10 days , is that what you mean by decentralization?

I don't mind in the slightest. This is why I run a node. I know some people want the advantages of a full node as their wallet but can't keep it up 24/7 because of the demanding requirements.

If a Bitcoiner wants to use a full node as his wallet, I think he should be able to do that with relative ease. But, no, that particular use case has little to do with decentralization. I've been over it before but I think the network should be robust enough to function assuming every government on the planet has banned Bitcoin outright and force the ISPs in their jurisdictions to block Bitcoin traffic entirely. Because, that's what will happen. Those in control don't want to lose control. Money is the most important thing they currently use to keep themselves in power. Inflation directly feeds the welfare/warfare state.

Once the decentralized global mesh network is up and running (which I think is going to be the most important technological advancement for the future of a free mankind), we can figure out how much data we can share over it and increase up near that barrier.

Bitcoin is, first and foremost, monetary freedom. All decisions should be made in that light and we should err on the side of caution every time.

All transactions do not need to be censorship proof in a world where censorship proof transactions exist.

[Genesis1337]

Tzupy was right. I couldn't imagine this low. So bottom reached or more down?

Can't be sure. But even if this was the bottom, for about a week we could go sideways, building a triangle that would break, probably up, so no need to rush buying.

It was a good run! Wasn't it??


Those suck whale traders that kept buying...      ... Increased my BTCiTcoins by 30% Trololol.. ... "hai multzani!"




But I'm just gonna hold from now on... no matter what happens. Draw u'r stuff from exchanges and we will see each other again in June - July on the next rally!



xD

[mb300sd]

Just another data point, since my node has been running bmon for almost exactly 1 week. With 512 connections, it's had a throughput of 2.49TB. The router is a VM on the same physical machine and has a total throughput of 72.26TB in the same time.

I think the competition for deploying gigabit fiber is going to outpace the demand for block space, especially if lightning and segwit get activated.

[Killerpotleaf]

do you have 200 peers?

No. Less than half that.

do you feel its cool that some peers come online download 1440blocks do 1 TX and go offline for 10 days , is that what you mean by decentralization?

I don't mind in the slightest. This is why I run a node. I know some people want the advantages of a full node as their wallet but can't keep it up 24/7 because of the demanding requirements.

If a Bitcoiner wants to use a full node as his wallet, I think he should be able to do that with relative ease. But, no, that particular use case has little to do with decentralization. I've been over it before but I think the network should be robust enough to function assuming every government on the planet has banned Bitcoin outright and force the ISPs in their jurisdictions to block Bitcoin traffic entirely. Because, that's what will happen. Those in control don't want to lose control. Money is the most important thing they currently use to keep themselves in power. Inflation directly feeds the welfare/warfare state.

Once the decentralized global mesh network is up and running (which I think is going to be the most important technological advancement for the future of a free mankind), we can figure out how much data we can share over it and increase up near that barrier.

Bitcoin is, first and foremost, monetary freedom. All decisions should be made in that light and we should err on the side of caution every time.

All transactions do not need to be censorship proof in a world where censorship proof transactions exist.

if we assume a government has "banned bitcoin traffic" ( not sure how feasible that is )
then we should limit blocksize such that we can smuggle blocks in and out of that country?
we need to keep blocksize such that it can be carried on some hypothetical "internet de la resistance"

idk... sounds nutty.

i think you have reason to want small blocks, but you have no good reason to not allow the network of nodes to determine what "small" is.
BU effectively limits block size to whatever the vast majority of nodes consider acceptable, and allows for nodes to continue to protest bigger block while staying synced and not forked.
let it go, you can't impose your view of bitcoin onto everyone else even if you believe "its for there own good"

you should however keep running core if you like the idea of segwit and static blocksize.

[Killerpotleaf]

Just another data point, since my node has been running bmon for almost exactly 1 week. With 512 connections, it's had a throughput of 2.49TB. The router is a VM on the same physical machine and has a total throughput of 72.26TB in the same time.

I think the competition for deploying gigabit fiber is going to outpace the demand for block space, especially if lightning and segwit get activated.

super node!

[savetherainforest]

Today has not been the best day for me. The guy I was gonna trade half a dozen bitcoins with suddenly dropped off the face of the earth, so now I'm stuck with useless fiat instead of cheap coins. Can't get it back on kraken until sometime next week because banks break on weekends (they really need to fix that bug).

Sounds as if you do not have a large enough float.. whether that is BTC or cash.

I don't usually conduct the trade on the exchange until after I have already locked in the profitable trade on Local Bitcoins or directly... and that is that I have actually either received the bitcoins from the guy or I have received the fiat from the guy.

To do that, you have to have enough of a float that covers the full amount of bitcoins or fiat that you are trading and usually a bit more because of transfer times and other cushion issues that sometimes can get the money or the BTC in their proper locations and set up for the next trade.... that transferring money around can be a bit of a hassle and sometimes cause additional costs - that tend to be lessened, somewhat with having a decent float (and even then, it may be a bit cumbersome to manage with some unexpected costs, here and there)

I guess he should hurry then! ... But probably he has a week or so before the price goes mental upwards.

[spiderbrain]

do you have 200 peers?

No. Less than half that.

do you feel its cool that some peers come online download 1440blocks do 1 TX and go offline for 10 days , is that what you mean by decentralization?

I don't mind in the slightest. This is why I run a node. I know some people want the advantages of a full node as their wallet but can't keep it up 24/7 because of the demanding requirements.

If a Bitcoiner wants to use a full node as his wallet, I think he should be able to do that with relative ease. But, no, that particular use case has little to do with decentralization. I've been over it before but I think the network should be robust enough to function assuming every government on the planet has banned Bitcoin outright and force the ISPs in their jurisdictions to block Bitcoin traffic entirely. Because, that's what will happen. Those in control don't want to lose control. Money is the most important thing they currently use to keep themselves in power. Inflation directly feeds the welfare/warfare state.

Once the decentralized global mesh network is up and running (which I think is going to be the most important technological advancement for the future of a free mankind), we can figure out how much data we can share over it and increase up near that barrier.

Bitcoin is, first and foremost, monetary freedom. All decisions should be made in that light and we should err on the side of caution every time.

All transactions do not need to be censorship proof in a world where censorship proof transactions exist.

Oh, this is fire like the old days, keep it up!

[JayJuanGee]

Today has not been the best day for me. The guy I was gonna trade half a dozen bitcoins with suddenly dropped off the face of the earth, so now I'm stuck with useless fiat instead of cheap coins. Can't get it back on kraken until sometime next week because banks break on weekends (they really need to fix that bug).

Sounds as if you do not have a large enough float.. whether that is BTC or cash.

I don't usually conduct the trade on the exchange until after I have already locked in the profitable trade on Local Bitcoins or directly... and that is that I have actually either received the bitcoins from the guy or I have received the fiat from the guy.

To do that, you have to have enough of a float that covers the full amount of bitcoins or fiat that you are trading and usually a bit more because of transfer times and other cushion issues that sometimes can get the money or the BTC in their proper locations and set up for the next trade.... that transferring money around can be a bit of a hassle and sometimes cause additional costs - that tend to be lessened, somewhat with having a decent float (and even then, it may be a bit cumbersome to manage with some unexpected costs, here and there)

I guess he should hurry then! ... But probably he has a week or so before the price goes mental upwards.

Even though I sometimes get inklings about the short-term direction of price, I never feel very confident about my inklings until after I see it happen.

Therefore, I would not sell my bitcoins in the expectation to use that money to buy from someone who is 10% or so likely to flake (sure flakiness varies, but it is NOT a non-existent or even a low probable risk).

[Holliday]

if we assume a government has "banned bitcoin traffic" ( not sure how feasible that is )
then we should limit blocksize such that we can smuggle blocks in and out of that country?
we need to keep blocksize such that it can be carried on some hypothetical "internet de la resistance"

idk... sounds nutty.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_packet_inspection

i think you have reason to want small blocks, but you have no good reason to not allow the network of nodes to determine what "small" is.
BU effectively limits block size to whatever the vast majority of nodes consider acceptable, and allows for nodes to continue to protest bigger block while staying synced and not forked.
let it go, you can't impose your view of bitcoin onto everyone else even if you believe "its for there own good"

you should however keep running core if you like the idea of segwit and static blocksize.

I don't know where you get the idea that I want to "impose" anything on anyone since I've been asking big blockers to make a block bigger than 1MB for ages. The two sides of this debate will never see eye to eye. A hard fork is the only solution where both sides end up happy. As soon as BU makes a block bigger than 1MB this debate will end.

[notme]

if we assume a government has "banned bitcoin traffic" ( not sure how feasible that is )
then we should limit blocksize such that we can smuggle blocks in and out of that country?
we need to keep blocksize such that it can be carried on some hypothetical "internet de la resistance"

idk... sounds nutty.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_packet_inspection

If you wrap the protocol in SSL and run it on port 443 then it is indifferentiable from HTTPS.

i think you have reason to want small blocks, but you have no good reason to not allow the network of nodes to determine what "small" is.
BU effectively limits block size to whatever the vast majority of nodes consider acceptable, and allows for nodes to continue to protest bigger block while staying synced and not forked.
let it go, you can't impose your view of bitcoin onto everyone else even if you believe "its for there own good"

you should however keep running core if you like the idea of segwit and static blocksize.

I don't know where you get the idea that I want to "impose" anything on anyone since I've been asking big blockers to make a block bigger than 1MB for ages. The two sides of this debate will never see eye to eye. A hard fork is the only solution where both sides end up happy. As soon as BU makes a block bigger than 1MB this debate will end.

A hard fork will end the debate over the technical details, but it will start the debate about who gets to be called Bitcoin.  That's where it will get really ugly.

[Killerpotleaf]

if we assume a government has "banned bitcoin traffic" ( not sure how feasible that is )
then we should limit blocksize such that we can smuggle blocks in and out of that country?
we need to keep blocksize such that it can be carried on some hypothetical "internet de la resistance"

idk... sounds nutty.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_packet_inspection

i think you have reason to want small blocks, but you have no good reason to not allow the network of nodes to determine what "small" is.
BU effectively limits block size to whatever the vast majority of nodes consider acceptable, and allows for nodes to continue to protest bigger block while staying synced and not forked.
let it go, you can't impose your view of bitcoin onto everyone else even if you believe "its for there own good"

you should however keep running core if you like the idea of segwit and static blocksize.

I don't know where you get the idea that I want to "impose" anything on anyone since I've been asking big blockers to make a block bigger than 1MB for ages. The two sides of this debate will never see eye to eye. A hard fork is the only solution where both sides end up happy. As soon as BU makes a block bigger than 1MB this debate will end.

the point of the debate is to make that >1MB block with a majority backing, preferably a vast majority.
many poeple are on the fence or just dont care either way.
but i think we're getting close to the day where mostly everyone will have made up there mind either way and bitcoin is forever altered.

[Killerpotleaf]

if we assume a government has "banned bitcoin traffic" ( not sure how feasible that is )
then we should limit blocksize such that we can smuggle blocks in and out of that country?
we need to keep blocksize such that it can be carried on some hypothetical "internet de la resistance"

idk... sounds nutty.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_packet_inspection

If you wrap the protocol in SSL and run it on port 443 then it is indifferentiable from HTTPS.

i think you have reason to want small blocks, but you have no good reason to not allow the network of nodes to determine what "small" is.
BU effectively limits block size to whatever the vast majority of nodes consider acceptable, and allows for nodes to continue to protest bigger block while staying synced and not forked.
let it go, you can't impose your view of bitcoin onto everyone else even if you believe "its for there own good"

you should however keep running core if you like the idea of segwit and static blocksize.

I don't know where you get the idea that I want to "impose" anything on anyone since I've been asking big blockers to make a block bigger than 1MB for ages. The two sides of this debate will never see eye to eye. A hard fork is the only solution where both sides end up happy. As soon as BU makes a block bigger than 1MB this debate will end.

A hard fork will end the debate over the technical details, but it will start the debate about who gets to be called Bitcoin.  That's where it will get really ugly.

who gets to be called bitcoin is not going to be a hard question to answer...

unless hash rate is spilt like 40/60 ... which is SUPER unlikely since most miners "go with the flow"

IMO most likely it would be like 5-10% hashing power forking off ( at most ), and they will have to hardfork difficulty and a few other minor adjustments to make that minority fork viable, at which point they clearly aren't "bitcoin"...

but in this scenario it becomes unclear if "bitcoin" remains dominant after years of the "digital currency wars"  


love your idea of making bitcoin traffic look like any other HTTPS traffic, there you go can't "ban bitcoin traffic" unless you ban https Lol

[DaRude]

if we assume a government has "banned bitcoin traffic" ( not sure how feasible that is )
then we should limit blocksize such that we can smuggle blocks in and out of that country?
we need to keep blocksize such that it can be carried on some hypothetical "internet de la resistance"

idk... sounds nutty.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_packet_inspection

i think you have reason to want small blocks, but you have no good reason to not allow the network of nodes to determine what "small" is.
BU effectively limits block size to whatever the vast majority of nodes consider acceptable, and allows for nodes to continue to protest bigger block while staying synced and not forked.
let it go, you can't impose your view of bitcoin onto everyone else even if you believe "its for there own good"

you should however keep running core if you like the idea of segwit and static blocksize.

I don't know where you get the idea that I want to "impose" anything on anyone since I've been asking big blockers to make a block bigger than 1MB for ages. The two sides of this debate will never see eye to eye. A hard fork is the only solution where both sides end up happy. As soon as BU makes a block bigger than 1MB this debate will end.

the point of the debate is to make that >1MB block with a majority backing, preferably a vast majority.
many poeple are on the fence or just dont care either way.
but i think we're getting close to the day where mostly everyone will have made up there mind either way and bitcoin is forever altered.

Why not just call it as it is??

Think majority can probably agree to a >1MB block...as in a 2MB block. The problem is that's not enough for a BU crowd and really never was. They want their Unlimited block size. Think at the minimum it's misleading to say you just want a >1MB block when in reality you want a whole new system for a "dynamically adjustable blocksize". And that will never happen

[Killerpotleaf]

if we assume a government has "banned bitcoin traffic" ( not sure how feasible that is )
then we should limit blocksize such that we can smuggle blocks in and out of that country?
we need to keep blocksize such that it can be carried on some hypothetical "internet de la resistance"

idk... sounds nutty.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_packet_inspection

i think you have reason to want small blocks, but you have no good reason to not allow the network of nodes to determine what "small" is.
BU effectively limits block size to whatever the vast majority of nodes consider acceptable, and allows for nodes to continue to protest bigger block while staying synced and not forked.
let it go, you can't impose your view of bitcoin onto everyone else even if you believe "its for there own good"

you should however keep running core if you like the idea of segwit and static blocksize.

I don't know where you get the idea that I want to "impose" anything on anyone since I've been asking big blockers to make a block bigger than 1MB for ages. The two sides of this debate will never see eye to eye. A hard fork is the only solution where both sides end up happy. As soon as BU makes a block bigger than 1MB this debate will end.

the point of the debate is to make that >1MB block with a majority backing, preferably a vast majority.
many poeple are on the fence or just dont care either way.
but i think we're getting close to the day where mostly everyone will have made up there mind either way and bitcoin is forever altered.

Why not just call it as it is??

Think majority can probably agree to a >1MB block...as in a 2MB block. The problem is that's not enough for a BU crowd and really never was. They want their Unlimited block size. Think at the minimum it's misleading to say you just want a >1MB block when in reality you want a whole new system for a "dynamically adjustable blocksize". And that will never happen

what the BU crowd wants is kind of irrelevant to what BU can do for blocksize.
My BU node is set to 1.5MB excessive blocksize
your BU node could be set to 1MB if you like, there a miner that does that.
BU crowd doesn't want Unlimited blocksize, they want Unlimited freedom and choice.

BU provides a way for minner to know what the each node is willing to accept, so that miner can make blocks that the vast majority will accept.

how can you be against this idea?

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

I can't believe we're back on about block size again. My new compass is $700. I can't die holding bitcoins.

[Killerpotleaf]

I can't believe we're back on about block size again. My new compass is $700. I can't die holding bitcoins.

you'll die not holding bitcoin.

feel better?

[r0ach]

chinese went full retarded

This is the explanation for anything that happens in Bitcoin whether it's up, down, or sideways.

[Killerpotleaf]

I suspect the PBOC will find evidence of fake humans, trading on huobi.

[r0ach]

I suspect the PBOC will find evidence of fake humans, trading on huobi.

Or a Huobi exchange doesn't even exist and it was just a price feed originating from Karpeles' laptop.

[tequilamockingbird]

The Indian government is also confiscating gold taxing holdings of black money, which is making bitcoin more and more popular in India. Any gold that hasn't been taxed gets confiscated taxed if their government can find it.

FTFY

By "black money" do you mean money tainted by contact with our evil banking overlords?

Probably gold that's had no tax paid on it. If they have an inheritance tax in India I doubt anyone admits they inherited a shit load of gold to the government. They probably also use it to buy and sell things and don't bother declaring the transactions for tax.

Can India's currency ban really curb the black economy?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-37933231

"Black money is essentially money that has been earned - either through legal activities or through corruption - without any tax being paid on it. There are several estimates of the total amount of black money going around in the Indian economy. A World Bank estimate puts the size of the black economy at 23.2% of India's total economy in 2007.

By making high denomination bank notes worthless overnight, the government hoped that those who had black money in this form would not be able to convert it into physical assets like gold.

Those who have black money will try exchanging it for new notes. But they cannot simply go to a bank and deposit all their old cash, given that it is likely to lead to questions from the income tax department. Any other way of exchanging notes will take some doing, given that the old denomination notes form more than 86% of notes in circulation by value.

As the former central bank governor Raghuram Rajan said: "I think there are ways around demonetisation. It is not that easy to flush out the black money. Of course, a fair amount may be in the form of gold, therefore even harder to catch. Further, the government needs to quickly introduce electoral financing reform in the country. Most elections in India are fought using black money."