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

[Coinnosaurus]

is crypto done??  

and then a red dildo after the green candle and so forth

[Ted E. Bare]

I was wrong! Bottom is lower.

[TrueCryptonaire]

...

we was much better when we was stable and at lower prices...this rally for up the last month is something that will have a correction and maybe bigger from what we saw today.. in my personal opinion this is not finished yet

Price is not stable at lower...
The price will be stable when there is enough liquidity. E.T.F. will bring significant amount of liquidity which in turn will drive the price to the moon and perhaps beyond.
Some hedgefunds are  not interested in Bitcoin (not to mention to Monero) because the markets are too thin and even 100 million usd (which is a play money for an institutional investor) will drive the price of bitcoin nuts. If E.T.F. will get approved (which is unlikely), the price might rise as high as 100 000+ usd especially if the E.T.F. will get funds.

[becoin]

text

The blocksize will obviously need to be larger or the fees will become too big. Why is that hard to understand tho?

The fees need to become too big to accelerate development of long term scaling solutions like LN. Why is that hard to understand tho?

The current code has a true "bug" (i.e., transaction malleability) that miners seem unwilling to fix (with SW). If miners won't fix semi-serious bugs now, then what trust do we have for them accepting fixes for more serious bugs going forward?

Why is that hard to understand tho?

Increasing blocksize will not fix transaction malleability. It will make the "bug" even bigger. Why is that hard to understand tho?

[Torque]

text

The blocksize will obviously need to be larger or the fees will become too big. Why is that hard to understand tho?

The fees need to become too big to accelerate development of long term scaling solutions like LN. Why is that hard to understand tho?

The current code has a true "bug" (i.e., transaction malleability) that miners seem unwilling to fix (with SW). If miners won't fix semi-serious bugs now, then what trust do we have for them accepting fixes for more serious bugs going forward?

Why is that hard to understand tho?

Increasing blocksize will not fix transaction malleability. It will made the "bug" even bigger. Why is that hard to understand tho?

Agreed. Why is that hard (for the BU lynch mob) to understand tho?

[bitcoinvest]

...

we was much better when we was stable and at lower prices...this rally for up the last month is something that will have a correction and maybe bigger from what we saw today.. in my personal opinion this is not finished yet

Price is not stable at lower...
The price will be stable when there is enough liquidity. E.T.F. will bring significant amount of liquidity which in turn will drive the price to the moon and perhaps beyond.
Some hedgefunds are  not interested in Bitcoin (not to mention to Monero) because the markets are too thin and even 100 million usd (which is a play money for an institutional investor) will drive the price of bitcoin nuts. If E.T.F. will get approved (which is unlikely), the price might rise as high as 100 000+ usd especially if the E.T.F. will get funds.

When in the history of this planet the simple people had the power to do things like this? can you imagine an early adopter that holds 500 BTC or lets say something like 20BTC?
You really believe the people who run the show on the system will allow this to happen ? can you imagine 100.000+ usd x 20 or 100? who think they will let create millionaires just like that?
not that i not believe it or i am pessimistic or anything like that. But really do you believe they will let this happen so easily ?

[Yves_Oluchione]

So, the BU Chinees mining Cartel Roger Ver are buying hashing power.     

https://i.imgur.com/2ccl2mr.png

I'm amazed how many peoples joined to this troll-corrupted organized system that is BU
Their solutions is nothing more than a non-intelligent short term upgrade of the number of transactions
But the size of the Blockchain will grow exponentially higher than with little block
Why do they want to hurt the bitcoin network and his community ?

[TrueCryptonaire]

...

we was much better when we was stable and at lower prices...this rally for up the last month is something that will have a correction and maybe bigger from what we saw today.. in my personal opinion this is not finished yet

Price is not stable at lower...
The price will be stable when there is enough liquidity. E.T.F. will bring significant amount of liquidity which in turn will drive the price to the moon and perhaps beyond.
Some hedgefunds are  not interested in Bitcoin (not to mention to Monero) because the markets are too thin and even 100 million usd (which is a play money for an institutional investor) will drive the price of bitcoin nuts. If E.T.F. will get approved (which is unlikely), the price might rise as high as 100 000+ usd especially if the E.T.F. will get funds.

When in the history of this planet the simple people had the power to do things like this? can you imagine an early adopter that holds 500 BTC or lets say something like 20BTC?
You really believe the people who run the show on the system will allow this to happen ? can you imagine 100.000+ usd x 20 or 100? who think they will let create millionaires just like that?
not that i not believe it or i am pessimistic or anything like that. But really do you believe they will let this happen so easily ?

If 1 btc is 100 000 usd and you have 500 btc, you probably cannot even buy a flat from Trump Tower... It is so small amount of money. My advice for you is to think bigger and have bigger eyes.

[becoin]

text

The blocksize will obviously need to be larger or the fees will become too big. Why is that hard to understand tho?

The fees need to become too big to accelerate development of long term scaling solutions like LN. Why is that hard to understand tho?

The current code has a true "bug" (i.e., transaction malleability) that miners seem unwilling to fix (with SW). If miners won't fix semi-serious bugs now, then what trust do we have for them accepting fixes for more serious bugs going forward?

Why is that hard to understand tho?

Increasing blocksize will not fix transaction malleability. It will made the "bug" even bigger. Why is that hard to understand tho?

Agreed. Why is that hard (for the BU lynch mob) to understand tho?

Can we assume that miners will oppose bitcoin price appreciation even by using silly arguments to counter improvements? Bitcoin price appreciation will allow new competitors to enter mining space and that is the most undesirable development for key mining players.

I've always wondered why companies like Intel and AMD are not yet in the bitcoin mining field with their own ASICs?

[notme]

text

The blocksize will obviously need to be larger or the fees will become too big. Why is that hard to understand tho?

The fees need to become too big to accelerate development of long term scaling solutions like LN. Why is that hard to understand tho?

Show me a solution to the decentralized routing problem that prevents LN from devolving into a hub and spoke model that just creates a new banker class (or is bought up by the existing one).

[Meuh6879]

Nice beartrap ...

[LFC_Bitcoin]

Nice beartrap ...

What kind of an idiot sells any kind of substantial amount of coins right now when the price could be literally anything ridiculously high in years to come.

[becoin]

text

The blocksize will obviously need to be larger or the fees will become too big. Why is that hard to understand tho?

The fees need to become too big to accelerate development of long term scaling solutions like LN. Why is that hard to understand tho?

Show me a solution to the decentralized routing problem that prevents LN from devolving into a hub and spoke model that just creates a new banker class (or is bought up by the existing one).

You're quite ignorant about the banker class and economics in general.

Bitcoin is a monetary system in the first place. In the digital world moving bitcoins from one address to another is equivalent to moving physical gold from one place to another in the physical world. It is the ultimate settlement method of outstanding trade balances but it is also most expensive. Different payment systems will be developed that will have no scaling issues whatsoever and moving bitcoins from one address to another will be the settlement layer of all those payment systems.

[Torque]

text

The blocksize will obviously need to be larger or the fees will become too big. Why is that hard to understand tho?

The fees need to become too big to accelerate development of long term scaling solutions like LN. Why is that hard to understand tho?

The current code has a true "bug" (i.e., transaction malleability) that miners seem unwilling to fix (with SW). If miners won't fix semi-serious bugs now, then what trust do we have for them accepting fixes for more serious bugs going forward?

Why is that hard to understand tho?

Increasing blocksize will not fix transaction malleability. It will made the "bug" even bigger. Why is that hard to understand tho?

Agreed. Why is that hard (for the BU lynch mob) to understand tho?

Can we assume that miners will oppose bitcoin price appreciation even by using silly arguments to counter improvements? Bitcoin price appreciation will allow new competitors to enter mining space and that is the most undesirable development for key mining players.

I've always wondered why companies like Intel and AMD are not yet in the bitcoin mining field with their own ASICs?

I've wondered the same.

Also, these Chinese miners should worry about following a version of Bitcoin that only benefits them (i.e., creating an environment where centralizing bitcoin more into their mining pools and thus more under their centralized control). They will literally be following it off a cliff.

There's nothing stopping thousands of bitcoin users from mining a 1MB Bitcoin version at a loss (for altruistic reasons) in order to secure the network. In fact, this could indeed be the future of the Bitcoin network.

I'm all for a MB limit increase if and when it makes sense.  But it should make sense to both the core developers and the miners simultaneously, and it should be for purely technical/scaling/bug fixing reasons as opposed to financial or political ones.

A hostile takeover will never work, in the end trust will be lost.  At the very least, many core devs will walk out.

[machasm]

Nice beartrap ...

What kind of an idiot sells any kind of substantial amount of coins right now when the price could be literally anything ridiculously high in years to come.

It might not even be years. Probably months!!

[pinger]

Nice beartrap ...

That probably confirms the ETF approval.

[Ted E. Bare]

Taking out $1300 over the weekend?

Probably this will happens over the weekend but here is the answer of Friday :

We were so close! $1298 on Bitstamp.

[spooderman]

text

The blocksize will obviously need to be larger or the fees will become too big. Why is that hard to understand tho?

it's not, but your understanding lacks any nuance. with larger blocks comes problems i'm assuming you aren't aware of.

[Searing]

Nice beartrap ...

What kind of an idiot sells any kind of substantial amount of coins right now when the price could be literally anything ridiculously high in years to come.

Someone I guess betting the etf won't go thru. On a side note if btc tanked some due to
That I'd bet pboc would jump on btc with fud too.

I also don't agree, but something like that must be the play.

[abercrombie]

Bitcoin could hit $3,000 by the end of the year after recent rally. (cnbc.com)

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/07/bitcoin-price-could-hit-3000-by-the-end-of-the-year-after-recent-rally-analyst.html