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

[kurious]

Alt coins coming back down and bitcoin price increasing, what a surprise.

More like the other way around - BTC went up over 1250 first and the ones I was watching moved inversely.

But you're right - all Alts are BTC dependent in some respect. Most are priced (effectively) in BTC.

Whether BTC will go up further from here on in is what I am waiting to see. I really didn't expect to be over 1250 just two working days after the ETF rejection.   BTC never ceases to surprise me. 

[soullyG]

test

hello, world

[jbreher]

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?

It's really quite simple. And actually quite obvious. If you lift a stupid production quota that artificially hard-caps the number of transactions Bitcoin is capable of to about a quarter-million per day, then more people can each make more transactions. This is by definition greater utility. Greater utility leads to greater value, and greater value leads to greater price. All boats are floated.

[Johnny00]

Alt coins coming back down and bitcoin price increasing, what a surprise.

More like the other way around - BTC went up over 1250 first and the ones I was watching moved inversely.

But you're right - all Alts are BTC dependent in some respect. Most are priced (effectively) in BTC.

Whether BTC will go up further from here on in is what I am waiting to see. I really didn't expect to be over 1250 just two working days after the ETF rejection.   BTC never ceases to surprise me. 

yes just crazy, people sold hoping it crashed now they are out of luck trying to buy back in. I expect it to be stable. Just goes to show you not to day trade. Find value and buy it and hold it.

[JimboToronto]

A slightly late good morning Bitcoinland.

Still creeping upward I see... currently $1252USD (Bitcoinaverage).

Gotta love the slow steady growth. The last day on which we had a red candle was also a day on which we had an ATH.

Is it safe to say that 3 digits are a thing of the past, barring some unforeseen, serious calamity?

If last week's ETF rejection couldn't take it below $1000 for more than a few seconds, I don't see any minor market movements doing it.

Slow and steady, go Bitcoin go.

[bitserve]

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?

It's really quite simple. And actually quite obvious. If you lift a stupid production quota that artificially hard-caps the number of transactions Bitcoin is capable of to about a quarter-million per day, then more people can each make more transactions. This is by definition greater utility. Greater utility leads to greater value, and greater value leads to greater price. All boats are floated.

I think that everyone agrees that the transaction limit need to grow. And that, if alone, would be a good thing for the price.
I really don't care if that is achieved by segwit+LN, BU or whatever... But I do care that if it is done without an almost unanimous consensus trust and confidence could be irreparably damaged, and that leads to reduced value/reduced price.

[HI-TEC99]

Normally, raising interest rates makes a currency stronger.

Yes, hence pulling money out of other asset classes like stocks and arguably bitcoin, all things being equal. I doubt there's much of an effect for bitcoin, if any, but if there was it would be in that direction.

If people's savings can keep pace with inflation (which is also usually held back by high rates) by normal deposit account savings, then why risk it in shares?

Stocks are more popular when money is cheap, but saving doesn't pay much as investors are desperate to get returns that low bank rates will not supply.

Low rates encourage higher risk savings to look more appealing, so higher rates (ordinarily) should discourage riskier investments - such as (arguably) Bitcoin.

This is of course classical economic theory - and often money markets, savers, investors and borrowers don't know enough about the theory to do what it says they should

I thought this was exactly my point! Falling stock prices would generally correlate with a fall in bitcoin, under this theory. In practice I doubt bitcoin traders are a large enough and homogenous enough group for that to hold true.

I wasn't really disagreeing with you, just saying what interest rate rises would normally be expected to do to economic activity in different asset classes.  I was 'elaborating' as Lauda asked..

To be honest Honey Badger has been looking such a good buy of late - stock market falls may bring more money into BTC - I mean, we just went over 1250 - so economic theory ain't much help. 

Let's face it, we cannot recall too many economists predicting the banking crash, can we - on the other hand Satoshi's white paper was timed just right for it.

Bitcoin is perhaps more likely to behave as a commodity, more like gold.  Gold (in theory) should go down as federal bonds etc pay more - so there is an opportunity cost to holding an asset that pays no interest.

However the last four recorded Fed interest rate hikes have seen gold go up, not down.

So theories are meaningless!

I read that the Yuan and other currencies will crash against the dollar after the FED raises the rate. Wouldn't a crashing Yuan start the Chinese buying Bitcoin again? Although their exchanges froze withdrawals they are now trading in huge quantities on localbitcoins.

[BTCtrader71]

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?

It's really quite simple. And actually quite obvious. If you lift a stupid production quota that artificially hard-caps the number of transactions Bitcoin is capable of to about a quarter-million per day, then more people can each make more transactions. This is by definition greater utility. Greater utility leads to greater value, and greater value leads to greater price. All boats are floated.

I think that everyone agrees that the transaction limit need to grow. And that, if alone, would be a good thing for the price.
I really don't care if that is achieved by segwit+LN, BU or whatever... But I do care that if it is done without an almost unanimous consensus trust and confidence could be irreparably damaged, and that leads to reduced value/reduced price.

If lack of near unanimous consensus on a major decision is enough to kill bitcoin, then bitcoin was never a good idea to begin with.

Bitcoin was designed with the assumption that there will be major decisions that must be made even in the absence of near-unanimous consensus. In a way it will be good to have a contentious hard fork so we can see if bitcoin survives. Which it will, but not everyone will believe it until they see it. So better now than later.

[GGALINff]

who knows something?

even with all the Hard Fork FUD,  price creeps up

[Spaceman_Spiff]

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...  

No. There is no "voting process" in a decentralized cryptocurrency. The whole ecosystem either comes to a decision by consensus or not. You technically give your "vote" by running or adopting a specific soft fork, hard fork, or implementation.

I'd say the only vote that matters, in Bitcoin or anywhere really, is the voting that you do with your wallet.

I think some sort of voting system based on BTC holdings is sorely needed for coordinating development.
Buying and selling can only be done after a decision has been made, only brings 1d information (up or down, a little or much) and more importantly is only the net result of many different forces (macroeconomics etc.) so it will generally be hard to say the price is going up because of reason X or Y.

[Paashaas]

Buggy BU with a remote crash vunerability. Even after a year those ''skilled'' BU dev didn't noticed it, while pushing it asap 

[JayJuanGee]

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?

It's really quite simple. And actually quite obvious. If you lift a stupid production quota that artificially hard-caps the number of transactions Bitcoin is capable of to about a quarter-million per day, then more people can each make more transactions. This is by definition greater utility. Greater utility leads to greater value, and greater value leads to greater price. All boats are floated.

More or less I agree with that perspective.  However, you cannot necessarily achieve what you are suggesting without some give and take in other areas, whether that is related to possible changes in governance or security or decentralization (there may be some other trade-offs too that I am not remembering at this particular moment).  

So, your simple goal of attempting to achieve greater throughput sounds good in the abstract in the event it were to be able to be achieved without any sacrifices in other areas.  There is a kind of total balance that should be considered beyond just looking at one aspect and considering it as if it were the exclusive goal.

[AlexGR]

If lack of near unanimous consensus on a major decision is enough to kill bitcoin, then bitcoin was never a good idea to begin with.

Bitcoin was designed with the assumption that there will be major decisions that must be made even in the absence of near-unanimous consensus.

Protocols, not just bitcoin, don't work in the absence of consensus. One peer expects certain behavior from another peer, and if that isn't the case, the protocol doesn't work as intended. You can't have one peer saying that the block size is X, the other saying no it is Y and the block is invalid, or that the number of coins is A and another saying no it is B trying to invalidate A.

In order for protocols to work properly, practically everyone using them has to agree on what is valid and what isn't valid behavior. If a modified http or smtp server uses messages that a client doesn't understand, a page won't work or an email won't get sent. That's what's at stake here, hence the incompatibility of the various "implementations", hence the possibility of forking in at least 3 incompatible coins (the stalled chain, a BU chain, a BTC-different algo chain). If this proceeds, then any disagreement can be used by bad actors in the future to create more and more forks, until BTC becomes a joke.

The primary issue that needs to get fixed in bitcoin is not scaling. It's removing the possibility of contentious forks through "disagreements", which represent an open attack vector against bitcoin itself.

As for the price action, it reminds me of the 400 range when the prior fork FUD was ongoing and people were like "who bought at 380, price should be at 200 or lower".

[Ibian]

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...  

No. There is no "voting process" in a decentralized cryptocurrency. The whole ecosystem either comes to a decision by consensus or not. You technically give your "vote" by running or adopting a specific soft fork, hard fork, or implementation.

I'd say the only vote that matters, in Bitcoin or anywhere really, is the voting that you do with your wallet.

I think some sort of voting system based on BTC holdings is sorely needed for coordinating development.
Buying and selling can only be done after a decision has been made, only brings 1d information (up or down, a little or much) and more importantly is only the net result of many different forces (macroeconomics etc.) so it will generally be hard to say the price is going up because of reason X or Y.

Nope. We don't want a new 1% to control things.

[kurious]

Normally, raising interest rates makes a currency stronger.

Yes, hence pulling money out of other asset classes like stocks and arguably bitcoin, all things being equal. I doubt there's much of an effect for bitcoin, if any, but if there was it would be in that direction.

If people's savings can keep pace with inflation (which is also usually held back by high rates) by normal deposit account savings, then why risk it in shares?

Stocks are more popular when money is cheap, but saving doesn't pay much as investors are desperate to get returns that low bank rates will not supply.

Low rates encourage higher risk savings to look more appealing, so higher rates (ordinarily) should discourage riskier investments - such as (arguably) Bitcoin.

This is of course classical economic theory - and often money markets, savers, investors and borrowers don't know enough about the theory to do what it says they should

I thought this was exactly my point! Falling stock prices would generally correlate with a fall in bitcoin, under this theory. In practice I doubt bitcoin traders are a large enough and homogenous enough group for that to hold true.

I wasn't really disagreeing with you, just saying what interest rate rises would normally be expected to do to economic activity in different asset classes.  I was 'elaborating' as Lauda asked..

To be honest Honey Badger has been looking such a good buy of late - stock market falls may bring more money into BTC - I mean, we just went over 1250 - so economic theory ain't much help.  

Let's face it, we cannot recall too many economists predicting the banking crash, can we - on the other hand Satoshi's white paper was timed just right for it.

Bitcoin is perhaps more likely to behave as a commodity, more like gold.  Gold (in theory) should go down as federal bonds etc pay more - so there is an opportunity cost to holding an asset that pays no interest.

However the last four recorded Fed interest rate hikes have seen gold go up, not down.

So theories are meaningless!

I read that the Yuan and other currencies will crash against the dollar after the FED raises the rate. Wouldn't a crashing Yuan start the Chinese buying Bitcoin again? Although their exchanges froze withdrawals they are now trading in huge quantities on localbitcoins.

The Chinese think of their Yuan in terms of USD (at least those with money do).   So dollar up, means Yuan (relatively) is down.  Having BTC in advance of this happening (or getting it fast enough after the news gets out) is good, buying BTC afterwards is not so good as it's more expensive.

If they think the dollar will continue to rise - then it's positive for BTC, yes.  If they think their savings are not portable in Yuan, but are in BTC, the same applies.  

Speaking as a Brit who just saw his currency wipe out 20% after the Brexit vote, I can tell you that my BTC being valued in USD was a rather comforting side affect - it was a 20% bonus in a lot of my savings!

We are all connected, little moves here and there in markets sometimes have unforeseeable positive or negative consequences in other places.

[Johnny00]

FOMO buying happening. wow. thought bitcoin would just settle but testing $1300 again. wow. this thing just needs some good news and will go ATH again

[Spaceman_Spiff]

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...  

No. There is no "voting process" in a decentralized cryptocurrency. The whole ecosystem either comes to a decision by consensus or not. You technically give your "vote" by running or adopting a specific soft fork, hard fork, or implementation.

I'd say the only vote that matters, in Bitcoin or anywhere really, is the voting that you do with your wallet.

I think some sort of voting system based on BTC holdings is sorely needed for coordinating development.
Buying and selling can only be done after a decision has been made, only brings 1d information (up or down, a little or much) and more importantly is only the net result of many different forces (macroeconomics etc.) so it will generally be hard to say the price is going up because of reason X or Y.

Nope. We don't want a new 1% to control things.

Then tell me how things are controlled, because it is always controlled somehow.
Also, this voting should be non-binding, just to get an accurate idea of what bitcoin holders think.

[Elwar]

I think some sort of voting system based on BTC holdings is sorely needed for coordinating development.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETCP8NeXasY

[Ibian]

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...  

No. There is no "voting process" in a decentralized cryptocurrency. The whole ecosystem either comes to a decision by consensus or not. You technically give your "vote" by running or adopting a specific soft fork, hard fork, or implementation.

I'd say the only vote that matters, in Bitcoin or anywhere really, is the voting that you do with your wallet.

I think some sort of voting system based on BTC holdings is sorely needed for coordinating development.
Buying and selling can only be done after a decision has been made, only brings 1d information (up or down, a little or much) and more importantly is only the net result of many different forces (macroeconomics etc.) so it will generally be hard to say the price is going up because of reason X or Y.

Nope. We don't want a new 1% to control things.

Then tell me how things are controlled, because it is always controlled somehow.

It's not. That's the whole point.

[Spaceman_Spiff]

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...  

No. There is no "voting process" in a decentralized cryptocurrency. The whole ecosystem either comes to a decision by consensus or not. You technically give your "vote" by running or adopting a specific soft fork, hard fork, or implementation.

I'd say the only vote that matters, in Bitcoin or anywhere really, is the voting that you do with your wallet.

I think some sort of voting system based on BTC holdings is sorely needed for coordinating development.
Buying and selling can only be done after a decision has been made, only brings 1d information (up or down, a little or much) and more importantly is only the net result of many different forces (macroeconomics etc.) so it will generally be hard to say the price is going up because of reason X or Y.

Nope. We don't want a new 1% to control things.

Then tell me how things are controlled, because it is always controlled somehow.

It's not. That's the whole point.

You mean decisions just get made randomly?