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

[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?

[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.

You mean decisions just get made randomly?

No. Humans don't act randomly.

[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?

No. Humans don't act randomly.

Then there is a way things work, thus certain groups exert control. 

[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.

You mean decisions just get made randomly?

No. Humans don't act randomly.

Then there is a way things work, thus certain groups exert control. 

No. Just individuals working together for their own personal purposes. That's why we are still above 1200 even after the etf mess. If bitcoin had some kind of central authority it would not be worth nearly as much. Individual self-interest is and has always been the key.

[Spaceman_Spiff]

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?

No. Humans don't act randomly.

Then there is a way things work, thus certain groups exert control.  

No. Just individuals working together for their own personal purposes. That's why we are still above 1200 even after the etf mess. If bitcoin had some kind of central authority it would not be worth nearly as much. Individual self-interest is and has always been the key.

Yes, it is voluntary and selfserving.  Indeed there is no central authority.  That does not mean that there aren't any groups that exert some control over the workings of bitcoin though.  The good thing is that the power is divided over many actors, but that doesn't mean that there is no power.  Or would you say that what mining pool operators do doesn't affect you.

I am getting away from my initial point though.  The question at hand was not to let a group control bitcoin, it was to find a way to measure the opinion of users/holders  (as a source of information for developers, miners, exchanges,merchants and other users/hodlers).

[Ibian]

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?

No. Humans don't act randomly.

Then there is a way things work, thus certain groups exert control.  

No. Just individuals working together for their own personal purposes. That's why we are still above 1200 even after the etf mess. If bitcoin had some kind of central authority it would not be worth nearly as much. Individual self-interest is and has always been the key.

Yes, it is voluntary and selfserving.  Indeed there is no central authority.  That does not mean that there aren't any groups that exert some control over the workings of bitcoin though.  The good thing is that the power is divided over many actors, but that doesn't mean that there is no power.  Or would you say that what mining pool operators do doesn't affect you

I am getting away from my initial point though.  The question at hand was not to let a group control bitcoin, it was to find a way to measure the opinion of users/holders  (as a source of information for developers, miners, exchanges,merchants and other users/hodlers).

Thousands of individuals working independently is not "a group".

[Spaceman_Spiff]

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?

No. Humans don't act randomly.

Then there is a way things work, thus certain groups exert control.  

No. Just individuals working together for their own personal purposes. That's why we are still above 1200 even after the etf mess. If bitcoin had some kind of central authority it would not be worth nearly as much. Individual self-interest is and has always been the key.

Yes, it is voluntary and selfserving.  Indeed there is no central authority.  That does not mean that there aren't any groups that exert some control over the workings of bitcoin though.  The good thing is that the power is divided over many actors, but that doesn't mean that there is no power.  Or would you say that what mining pool operators do doesn't affect you

I am getting away from my initial point though.  The question at hand was not to let a group control bitcoin, it was to find a way to measure the opinion of users/holders  (as a source of information for developers, miners, exchanges,merchants and other users/hodlers).

Thousands of individuals working independently is not "a group".

Ok, semantics then.  You were talking about a small number of people?

[bitserve]

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

I haven't had time to review this vulnerability but that might be way worse than it sounds. Most "crash from remote" vulnerablities are due to buffer overflows which can lead to exploit from remote when more finely crafted.

Maybe this is enough to create some awareness of the importance of following the right process instead this children fights.

[harrymmmm]

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

Advocacy for BU is political, not technical. Centralization, invalid blocks and crashes are not so important.

[Paashaas]

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

Advocacy for BU is political, not technical. Centralization, invalid blocks and crashes are not so important.

Sure..



Ends up with

[European Central Bank]

I haven't had time to review this vulnerability but that might be way worse than it sounds. Most "crash from remote" vulnerablities are due to buffer overflows which can lead to exploit from remote when more finely crafted.

Maybe this is enough to create some awareness of the importance of following the right process instead this children fights.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/5zdkv3/bitcoin_unlimited_remote_exploit_crash/

some extra info here. anti BU people should be keeping future bugs to themselves. then they can roll them all out at once for a real party.

incredible that they'd be this slack. if they want everyone to take on their ideas then at least make sure the foundations are bulletproof. then you can carry on with your mud slinging.

[Paashaas]

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

I haven't had time to review this vulnerability but that might be way worse than it sounds. Most "crash from remote" vulnerablities are due to buffer overflows which can lead to exploit from remote when more finely crafted.

Maybe this is enough to create some awareness of the importance of following the right process instead this children fights.

This is not a children fight, BU is a very bad update for Bitcoin.

[swogerino]

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

I haven't had time to review this vulnerability but that might be way worse than it sounds. Most "crash from remote" vulnerablities are due to buffer overflows which can lead to exploit from remote when more finely crafted.

Maybe this is enough to create some awareness of the importance of following the right process instead this children fights.

This is not a children fight, BU is a very bad update for Bitcoin.

Kind of glad that I didn't go with it before this happened.
It has to be pretty patched to get any one to put any faith into what we have now with the current blockchain.
Unless people are viewing this as a layer or alternative to it and of it instead.