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

[Killerpotleaf]

maybe you should try to take a more objective view, and realize that asking everyone to bank on an unproven concept is not a viable way forward at this point.

Wait... I thought you were a BU supporter? What happened?

LOL i knew someone would point this out  
idk i feel EC is not a far cry from what we have now.
in a way EC is a built-in feature of bitcoin always has been, the signaling and UI, BU provides is just a convenience...
i support both EC and segwit, but dislike sig discount and block weight.
i want to see LN before i commit to it.
and seeing how inevitably LN will require big blocks,
i see very little reason to not go ahead and have a good mechanism for controlling blocksize right now.

[1713445780]

1713445780

[1713445780]

1713445780

[1713445780]

1713445780

[STT]

Without translating the entire article, it frames the hard fork conflict purely as a battle for transaction fees, and claims miners will never allow 2nd layer protocols to undermine their revenue stream. It barely mentions block siz

I cant read the original but if this is correct, I dont think its an unreasonable point of view.   A business will protect its revenue, why would we ever believe otherwise.   If he thinks your fork will take away business and income then its not likely you will find support there.

Is bitcoin about capitalism, because thats how it works and maybe that is what determines the fork.   I may have read it wrong, Im still not clear how this will proceed really

he will realize that he cannot force the rest of the community to hold back on achievements to benefit the miners

Where does the force lie, that is the big question.   The silent majority is full of surprises

[JimboToronto]

Another good morning Bircoinland.

Still in 3 digits... currently $1046USD (Bitcoinaverage).

Are we ready to quit worrying about Jihan's hard fork threats and move on?

A little bluffing might work sometimes but if it leads to a Mexican standoff with a Reservoir Dogs ending, it won't do anyone any good, Jihan included. Surely he's smart enough to see that.

[Killerpotleaf]

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/60gem4/jihan_wus_latest_weibo_post_looks_like_an_offer/

Jihan willing to talk is a GREAT sign! I really believe once he folds the scaling debate will start coming to a conclusion. The fact that he admits that he finds 2nd layer solutions a threat is telling, but he will realize that he cannot force the rest of the community to hold back on achievements to benefit the miners. A prosperous $2K+ bitcoin is much better for him than half a bitcoin with less users

a workable compromise being reached would be a monumental achievement.
and price would need to reflect that.

givin up control of blocksize, and in turn getting SF-Segwit, would be the best thing that ever happened to bitcoin.

[Torque]

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/60gem4/jihan_wus_latest_weibo_post_looks_like_an_offer/

Jihan willing to talk is a GREAT sign! I really believe once he folds the scaling debate will start coming to a conclusion. The fact that he admits that he finds 2nd layer solutions a threat is telling, but he will realize that he cannot force the rest of the community to hold back on achievements to benefit the miners. A prosperous $2K+ bitcoin is much better for him than half a bitcoin with less users

a workable compromise being reached would be a monumental achievement.
and price would need to reflect that.

givin up control of blocksize, and in turn getting SF-Segwit, would be the best thing that ever happened to bitcoin.

TBH, when I read that I was kinda like:

[Elwar]

Wow, about 15 pages added to the thread since I left last night.

Without looking I would guess that they were all filled with blocksize spammers.

[alexeft]

You guys read your posts before you post them. You are still talking about giving up control of the blocksize.
No need to analyze that once more. Ain't happening.

[Cassius]

Well, not sure about USD prices but it looks like BTC will soon get a bump against Sterling.

Brexit anticipated weakness is already in the price for sterling, certainly cable I think has a fair chance to be neutral to positive this year.  Dollar has its own news and dynamics vs world trade, obviously brexit is stated a reference to the current changes passing in USA for its trade agreements.    
Overall the trend for sterling is negative for some years now, long before Brexit.  Fiscal and trade deficit but vs dollar it may stay quite level.

BTC in CNY I think has held a lower point and is not negative.  I think its showing neutral action and may hold till news effects it further.

Dollar strength has come off some as less rate rises are seen likely.  $1060 and above is more positive action if it can hold that but overall it looks less positive then the CNY charts I see.  It'd be good to see if Dollar index shows weakness does this help the price for bitcoin

True, but there is ALWAYS the knee-jerk reaction. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/business-39306336
Twitchy traders in forex as well as BTC.

[BrewMaster]

this morning i was wondering how many more times this process of "FUD, dump, more FUD, buy back cheap coins, rise" can be repeated and how smaller the swings are going to get!

just some food for thought.

[JayJuanGee]

i hope you guys make up your minds this time bitcoin .

It figures that a goofball like you would come back in times like these with some over generalizations attempting to suggest that bitcoin is something other than it is. 

Contrary to your assertion, there is no "you guys" making decisions about bitcoin and its direction... that is part of the significance of some kind of phenomenon that is considerably decentralized.

[chopstick]

Blocksize was never meant to be some resource that could be controlled by anybody.

Let Bitcoin scale already.

Make Bitcoin Great Again!

[fichtn12345]

Wow, about 15 pages added to the thread since I left last night.

Without looking I would guess that they were all filled with blocksize spammers.

Do you prefer reading 15 pages of nlc beanie bs spammers?

[gentlemand]

https://blog.gdax.com/gdax-adds-margin-trading-27fea7ad53ea#.ppq28g1m6

Margin trading added on GDAX. The only small issue is this -

"You are an individual who has amounts invested on a discretionary basis, the aggregate of which is in excess of $5,000,000 and you enter into margin trading in order to manage the risk associated with an asset owned or liability incurred, or reasonably likely to be owned or incurred, by the individual."

Shall we all chip in together?

[xyzzy099]

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/60gem4/jihan_wus_latest_weibo_post_looks_like_an_offer/

Jihan willing to talk is a GREAT sign! I really believe once he folds the scaling debate will start coming to a conclusion. The fact that he admits that he finds 2nd layer solutions a threat is telling, but he will realize that he cannot force the rest of the community to hold back on achievements to benefit the miners. A prosperous $2K+ bitcoin is much better for him than half a bitcoin with less users

a workable compromise being reached would be a monumental achievement.
and price would need to reflect that.

givin up control of blocksize, and in turn getting SF-Segwit, would be the best thing that ever happened to bitcoin.

As I read his comments, he doesn't care at all about blocksize - he just wants to block segwit specifically, because he wants to block 2nd-layer solutions that might  theoretically reduce his ability to maximize transaction fees.

Even if he manages to block segwit, those 2nd layer solutions are still going to happen.  LN and other 2nd layer solutions do not actually require segwit.

[JayJuanGee]

Blocksize was never meant to be some resource that could be controlled by anybody.

Let Bitcoin scale already.

Make Bitcoin Great Again!

Finally, you make one out of three points that makes some sense. 

1mb blocksize limits is the current state of bitcoin.. that is correct, and bitcoin was not meant to be easily changed.  Therefore, 1mb blocksize limits seem to be the status quo going forward until there is some kind of convincing evidence and/or argument(s) that allows for it to be adapted in some kind of way, whether that is through seg wit or blocksize increases or any other "scaling" way forward.

[Ibian]

Blocksize was never meant to be some resource that could be controlled by anybody.

Let Bitcoin scale already.

Make Bitcoin Great Again!

Finally, you make one out of three points that makes some sense. 

1mb blocksize limits is the current state of bitcoin.. that is correct, and bitcoin was not meant to be easily changed.  Therefore, 1mb blocksize limits seem to be the status quo going forward until there is some kind of convincing evidence and/or argument(s) that allows for it to be adapted in some kind of way, whether that is through seg wit or blocksize increases or any other "scaling" way forward.

What's your angle?

[JayJuanGee]

Blocksize was never meant to be some resource that could be controlled by anybody.

Let Bitcoin scale already.

Make Bitcoin Great Again!

Finally, you make one out of three points that makes some sense. 

1mb blocksize limits is the current state of bitcoin.. that is correct, and bitcoin was not meant to be easily changed.  Therefore, 1mb blocksize limits seem to be the status quo going forward until there is some kind of convincing evidence and/or argument(s) that allows for it to be adapted in some kind of way, whether that is through seg wit or blocksize increases or any other "scaling" way forward.

What's your angle?

My angle meaning what?

I already stated what I thought, no?

In essence, I agree with any point that the current bitcoin system is established as a secure decentralized immutable way to store and transfer value.  If what bitcoin "is" is undermined by some kind of centralized system or manipulation or FUD that allows for such undermining of bitcoin "as it is", then that would be problematic.   

My angle remains that XT, Classic and now BU are either aimed or have effects that are attempting to undermine bitcoin "as is"... ... so we will see how all of that plays out, and whether bitcoin is going to be able to preserve its value in one form or another regarding a secure decentralized and immutable system that allows for the storage and transferring of value

[savetherainforest]

Blocksize was never meant to be some resource that could be controlled by anybody.

Let Bitcoin scale already.

Make Bitcoin Great Again!

Finally, you make one out of three points that makes some sense. 

1mb blocksize limits is the current state of bitcoin.. that is correct, and bitcoin was not meant to be easily changed.  Therefore, 1mb blocksize limits seem to be the status quo going forward until there is some kind of convincing evidence and/or argument(s) that allows for it to be adapted in some kind of way, whether that is through seg wit or blocksize increases or any other "scaling" way forward.

Well until it gets to 10.000$ or more US dollars at the current value (20 March 2017: almost 9 ounces of gold)... until then there is no reason even to go to 1,280MB or maybe it will go to 1,536MB. Those would be acceptable sustainable values for the little guys to not lose market value and in the same time to encourage more nodes. 

[Biodom]

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/60gem4/jihan_wus_latest_weibo_post_looks_like_an_offer/

Jihan willing to talk is a GREAT sign! I really believe once he folds the scaling debate will start coming to a conclusion. The fact that he admits that he finds 2nd layer solutions a threat is telling, but he will realize that he cannot force the rest of the community to hold back on achievements to benefit the miners. A prosperous $2K+ bitcoin is much better for him than half a bitcoin with less users

a workable compromise being reached would be a monumental achievement.
and price would need to reflect that.

givin up control of blocksize, and in turn getting SF-Segwit, would be the best thing that ever happened to bitcoin.

As I read his comments, he doesn't care at all about blocksize - he just wants to block segwit specifically, because he wants to block 2nd-layer solutions that might  theoretically reduce his ability to maximize transaction fees.

Even if he manages to block segwit, those 2nd layer solutions are still going to happen.  LN and other 2nd layer solutions do not actually require segwit.

exactly.
a "buggy whip" producer who is trying to stave off an automobile.
well, the likes of him succeeded in England (at first), but not anywhere else.
the "water" will flow around him.

[JayJuanGee]

Blocksize was never meant to be some resource that could be controlled by anybody.

Let Bitcoin scale already.

Make Bitcoin Great Again!

Finally, you make one out of three points that makes some sense.  

1mb blocksize limits is the current state of bitcoin.. that is correct, and bitcoin was not meant to be easily changed.  Therefore, 1mb blocksize limits seem to be the status quo going forward until there is some kind of convincing evidence and/or argument(s) that allows for it to be adapted in some kind of way, whether that is through seg wit or blocksize increases or any other "scaling" way forward.

Well until it gets to 10.000$ or more US dollars at the current value (20 March 2017: almost 9 ounces of gold)... until then there is no reason even to go to 1,280MB or maybe it will go to 1,536MB. Those would be acceptable sustainable values for the little guys to not lose market value and in the same time to encourage more nodes.  

I am sorry to say that what you are suggesting as some kind of means forward STRF, makes little sense.

If there is no real justification nor reason (based on fact and/or logic) to increase the blockchain size at all, then it does not make any sense that the blockchain limit should be increased either 28% or 50% as you are suggesting to be some kind of compromise to something that remains NOT at all justified in the first place.