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

[spiderbrain]

if we break above 1250, I'm fairly certain we're going to go to 1300 pretty fast,
after that we'll probably be seeing a new ATH set weekly.

You changed your tune pretty fast.

[r0ach]

contentious Miner Activated Hard Fork - MAHF

less than palatable User Activated Soft Fork- UASF is less dangerous

I'm honestly tired of reading this Orwellian nonsense.  Bitcoin was clearly designed with miners controlling the protocol and forks in mind.  Instead of speaking the truth, that there's supposed to be such a large amount of individually acting miners that it's not possible for them all to collude forming a nash equilibrium, and that only win-win policies would be adopted in a non-zero game game, you instead have a failure of bitcoin decentralization where everyone who controls the entire coin can fit into one car.

ASICs and pools destroyed how bitcoin is supposed to function.  It essentially died at that point and people just pretended it didn't ever since and now it's the Chinese Paypal.  This doesn't mean "full nodes" now control bitcoin just because you don't want one car full of Chinamen to control it.  That's not how it works.  Miners will always control it or it's not actually bitcoin.  The fact is, there was a breakdown in the decentralization and Nash equilibrium of bitcoin that has to be addressed.

Decentralization may even be an insoluble problem itself, making this thing a giant fugazi no matter what you do.  I tend to believe that is the case until someone can prove me wrong.  I imagine it would take something extreme like some cutting edge cryptography to let you create decentralized captchas for mining so that it takes active user input to solve blocks - human based mining.  Using energy expenditure to find convergence was never that great of an idea in the first place when energy costs are not even close to uniform across the globe.  It was designed to centralize even without ASICs.

Why do you think I like metals?  Bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme created by *some guy.  Gold and silver are a Ponzi scheme created by *God.

[Killerpotleaf]

contentious Miner Activated Hard Fork - MAHF

less than palatable User Activated Soft Fork- UASF is less dangerous

I'm honestly tired of reading this Orwellian nonsense.  Bitcoin was clearly designed with miners controlling the protocol and forks in mind.  Instead of speaking the truth, that there's supposed to be such a large amount of individually acting miners that it's not possible for them all to collude forming a nash equilibrium, and that only win-win policies would be adopted in a non-zero game game, you instead have a failure of bitcoin decentralization where everyone who controls the entire coin can fit into one car.

ASICs and pools destroyed how bitcoin is supposed to function.  It essentially died at that point and people just pretended it didn't ever since and now it's the Chinese Paypal.  This doesn't mean "full nodes" now control bitcoin just because you don't want one car full of Chinamen to control it.  That's not how it works.  Miners will always control it or it's not actually bitcoin.  The fact is, there was a breakdown in the decentralization and Nash equilibrium of bitcoin that has to be addressed.

Decentralization may even be an insoluble problem itself, making this thing a giant fugazi no matter what you do.  I tend to believe that is the case until someone can prove me wrong.  I imagine it would take something extreme like some cutting edge cryptography to let you create decentralized captchas for mining so that it takes active user input to solve blocks - human based mining.  Using energy expenditure to find convergence was never that great of an idea in the first place when energy costs are not even close to uniform across the globe.  It was designed to centralize even without ASICs.

Why do you think I like metals?  Bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme created by *some guy.  Gold and silver are a Ponzi scheme created by *God.

hashing power and node count is only a signal of the truth underlining Very much Decentralized consensus.

a super-majority hashrate Fork ( hard or soft ) can fail
a User Activated Fork can fail

the reality of the situation is if there is sizable demand for not consenting to a fork of any kind
a split will occur, and all exchanges will be economically incentivized ( through trading fees ) to say impartial (somthing they seem to want to do naturally anyway ) and allow for the 2 competing forks to trade ( ex. BTCCore Vs BTCBU )

when we fork with a majority hashrate and node count, we can safely assume, economic majority is on our side and such a "split + market battle" is unlikely, but we are simply assuming node count + hashrate is indicative of the economic majority's will.

its a fairly safe assumption since miners are economically incentives to align with economic majority.

bottom line is, bitcoin necessarily is what WE think it is, its not about the miners its not even about the users, when push comes to shove money talks.

it goes without saying a split is not what anyone wants.
But it isn't well understood how a small minority disapproving the change is irrelevant.

we are currently at an impasse with the blocksize debate because as of yet there isnt even a rought conusues, and no one wants to risk spliting the chain.

this will end 1 of 3 ways

1) we finally do get a super majority rallying behind a solution, in which case the minority opposed to the change can easily be crushed.
2) we split the chain, in which case its unclear if one side can ever really call themselves "bitcoin" ever again.
3) we do nothing forever, in which case altcoins become more relevant

[Biodom]

contentious Miner Activated Hard Fork - MAHF

less than palatable User Activated Soft Fork- UASF is less dangerous

I'm honestly tired of reading this Orwellian nonsense...

Why do you think I like metals?  Bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme created by *some guy.  Gold and silver are a Ponzi scheme created by *God.

^^^a bout of tautology, perhaps...
by your logic, *some guy surely was created (indirectly) by the same entity that created gold and silver, was he not?
who made stars, included supernova?
It goes like this:
? entity>early stars without much metals>supernova>metals>stars with planets that have metals

[Arcteryx]

Bought the dip. Lets go for 200% increase now already. Hurry up.

The bull took this bear on the horns   Destination moon?

 

Not exactly a bear but a girl.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-womens-day-usa-idUSKBN16E2M8

Heard today that some wall street guy did something to this statue of this girl standing infront of the bull in NY.
Anybody know what he did? And was it water cooler worthy?

[sirazimuth]

long time hodeler here....
so i figured id drive up the price by selling a coin at $1245.  (i can push it down when i buy ) never fails.
$1300 incoming  ... your welcome folks!

[sirazimuth]

Bought the dip. Lets go for 200% increase now already. Hurry up.

The bull took this bear on the horns   Destination moon?

 

Not exactly a bear but a girl.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-womens-day-usa-idUSKBN16E2M8

Heard today that some wall street guy did something to this statue of this girl standing infront of the bull in NY.
Anybody know what he did? And was it water cooler worthy?

if you are asking, obviously you already know, so why are you asking?

[r0ach]

^^^a bout of tautology, perhaps...
by your logic, *some guy surely was created (indirectly) by the same entity that created gold and silver, was he not?
who made stars, included supernova?

The prime mover of the universe is non-uniform distribution of matter and gravity.  For the non-uniform distribution of matter to exist, some type of entropy source had to exist on the other side of the big bang.  *God refers to this unknown entropy source.  It's above my pay grade figuring out how you could derive free will out of the whole thing even with a random seed.  It seems like determinism and causality would persist:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4ThPAW5sd0

[Killerpotleaf]

long time hodeler here....
so i figured id drive up the price by selling a coin at $1245.  (i can push it down when i buy ) never fails.
$1300 incoming  ... your welcome folks!

good man, taking one for the team!

[sirazimuth]

long time hodeler here....
so i figured id drive up the price by selling a coin at $1245.  (i can push it down when i buy ) never fails.
$1300 incoming  ... your welcome folks!

good man, taking one for the team!

hi 5 

[Paashaas]

The price can't be to flat for so long, i expect it will move up today ore tomorrow.

[Killerpotleaf]

oh shit we have movement!

[JayJuanGee]

Thats true. I hodl. I think that the Segwit vs BU is the last horde that bitcoin has to take before it moons.

^we just got to find a way to find a middle ground ~ piss EVERYONE off ! :-D lol

yeah, if it was a political debate that would be the way forward ... except it isn't, it is about the best technology to function as money on the Internet.

This latest ploy by the political animals is a contentious Miner Activated Hard Fork - MAHF which is probably the most dangerous way forward imaginable as it is essentially indistinguishable from a hostile miner 51% attack, even if the idiotic participants are completely genuine in their desire for a 'better' bitcoin, the way they are going about it is crazy ... and it has probably already been co-opted by those wishing to stir up more trouble and mischief, if not yet then it will be. The poor well-intentioned BU crowd have become the poster children for 'useful idiots', seriously.

A less than palatable User Activated Soft Fork- UASF is less dangerous but even so not the ideal way forward to increasing bitcoin's native capacity, on or off chain.

There is a slim hope for a white knight, 'third way' marvel of technology, solution to emerge from the mist but that window is closing.

What are the odds of a hardfork anyhow, let's say in the next 3-6 months?

One thing is to talk of a hardfork, but another is to actually have the mechanisms to carry it out.

Probably the odds currently are less than 20%, no?  Maybe I am being too generous with giving it too high of odds?

[Killerpotleaf]

Thats true. I hodl. I think that the Segwit vs BU is the last horde that bitcoin has to take before it moons.

^we just got to find a way to find a middle ground ~ piss EVERYONE off ! :-D lol

yeah, if it was a political debate that would be the way forward ... except it isn't, it is about the best technology to function as money on the Internet.

This latest ploy by the political animals is a contentious Miner Activated Hard Fork - MAHF which is probably the most dangerous way forward imaginable as it is essentially indistinguishable from a hostile miner 51% attack, even if the idiotic participants are completely genuine in their desire for a 'better' bitcoin, the way they are going about it is crazy ... and it has probably already been co-opted by those wishing to stir up more trouble and mischief, if not yet then it will be. The poor well-intentioned BU crowd have become the poster children for 'useful idiots', seriously.

A less than palatable User Activated Soft Fork- UASF is less dangerous but even so not the ideal way forward to increasing bitcoin's native capacity, on or off chain.

There is a slim hope for a white knight, 'third way' marvel of technology, solution to emerge from the mist but that window is closing.

What are the odds of a hardfork anyhow, let's say in the next 3-6 months?

One thing is to talk of a hardfork, but another is to actually have the mechanisms to carry it out.

Probably the odds currently are less than 20%, no?  Maybe I am being too generous with giving it too high of odds?

i'd place the odds of a full on chain split within a year at 70%

but, i think the odds are very high it will be a very uneven split like 25/75 worst case, bitcoin(BU  ) might drop 20% and not recover the next day, but hey we'll have CoreCoins as a consolation prize.

[marcus_of_augustus]

oh shit we have movement!

yes, this is the dip that all the sodl out bulls have been waiting for ... $1235 is your chance to finally go for glory!

[JayJuanGee]

Thats true. I hodl. I think that the Segwit vs BU is the last horde that bitcoin has to take before it moons.

^we just got to find a way to find a middle ground ~ piss EVERYONE off ! :-D lol

yeah, if it was a political debate that would be the way forward ... except it isn't, it is about the best technology to function as money on the Internet.

This latest ploy by the political animals is a contentious Miner Activated Hard Fork - MAHF which is probably the most dangerous way forward imaginable as it is essentially indistinguishable from a hostile miner 51% attack, even if the idiotic participants are completely genuine in their desire for a 'better' bitcoin, the way they are going about it is crazy ... and it has probably already been co-opted by those wishing to stir up more trouble and mischief, if not yet then it will be. The poor well-intentioned BU crowd have become the poster children for 'useful idiots', seriously.

A less than palatable User Activated Soft Fork- UASF is less dangerous but even so not the ideal way forward to increasing bitcoin's native capacity, on or off chain.

There is a slim hope for a white knight, 'third way' marvel of technology, solution to emerge from the mist but that window is closing.

What are the odds of a hardfork anyhow, let's say in the next 3-6 months?

One thing is to talk of a hardfork, but another is to actually have the mechanisms to carry it out.

Probably the odds currently are less than 20%, no?  Maybe I am being too generous with giving it too high of odds?

i'd place the odds of a full on chain split within a year at 70%

but, i think the odds are very high it will be a very uneven split like 25/75 worst case, bitcoin(BU  ) might drop 20% and not recover the next day, but hey we'll have CoreCoins as a consolation prize.

Yes.  You seem to be giving considerably greater odds to the possibility of a fork than me.

But, sure, I could see some of the passionate nutjobs attempting to pull such a trigger and even pulling such a trigger way too prematurely.

[bitserve]

Can anyone (maybe BU supporters) explain me why would miners support an action (non unanimous hard fork) that will surely result in an inmediate drop of the price and also a long term lose of trust/value of Bitcoin?

Shouldn't miners act always in what is better for higher Bitcoin price (higher rewards for them)? Or is it that for some unexplained reason they think the price would react otherwise? Is there a hidden agenda that I am not aware of?

I really can't get it.

[Totscha]

Can anyone (maybe BU supporters) explain me why would miners support an action (non unanimous hard fork) that will surely result in an inmediate drop of the price and also a long term lose of trust/value of Bitcoin?

Shouldn't miners act always in what is better for higher Bitcoin price (higher rewards for them)? Or is it that for some unexplained reason they think the price would react otherwise? Is there a hidden agenda that I am not aware of?

I really can't get it.

Miners want the price to be low most of the time. They love the huge drops, because it keeps the little guys who might be competition out. They also love the pumps so they can sell, but they really don't want it to last too long.

If you are counting on the price to go up it's much easier and less risky to buy coins. If you are a miner you want the price low, so you don't have too much competition.

[bitcoinvest]

It has been a lot time that i not monitor this thing. we don't have a voting process on that? who makes the final decision ? hard fork could f@ck bitcoin price and trust of course... 

[bitserve]

Can anyone (maybe BU supporters) explain me why would miners support an action (non unanimous hard fork) that will surely result in an inmediate drop of the price and also a long term lose of trust/value of Bitcoin?

Shouldn't miners act always in what is better for higher Bitcoin price (higher rewards for them)? Or is it that for some unexplained reason they think the price would react otherwise? Is there a hidden agenda that I am not aware of?

I really can't get it.

Miners want the price to be low most of the time. They love the huge drops, because it keeps the little guys who might be competition out. They also love the pumps so they can sell, but they really don't want it to last too long.

If you are counting on the price to go up it's much easier and less risky to buy coins. If you are a miner you want the price low, so you don't have too much competition.

If that was the hidden agenda I could understand their motives. But I am not so sure that miners want the price low to avoid competition out from the little guys. I mean... What little guys are there still in mining? It's almost negligible. Even if it were a 20% of the mining market it would never compensate a much higher percentage in loss of price and maybe long term death of Bitcoin.

I would understand that reasoning for exchanges: They profit from volatility and big market shakes, exactly what a hard fork would precipitate. Maybe again long tearm death, but big profits in the short term.

But miners? It's always better a X% or XX% of market share of a huge market than a 100% share of a death market.

The arbitrary prices of bitcoin are based on trust and confidence, when if that trust and confidence is lost there would be no remaining value at all.