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

[Torque]

I really don't understand anything. Many alts have gone 10, 20, 50, or even 75x in the past months while Bitcoin has done "only" a 2x and when we have a correction it gets linear to all cryptocurrencies. I expected the altcoin bubble to pop and start blowing into bitcoin but I am not seeing that yet.

I don't know if I was wrong or if that has yet to come.

What do you guys think?

I have been holding (my non-trading little stash) since 2013 so I will keep doing it no matter what but I am a bit confussed at this time.

It'll happen, give it time. A new form of money is a "shared hallucination" among its participants, and the more one is distributed and grows in value, the stronger it gets. The more the one is valued over the others, they will fall away and people will consolidate into the one with the most "shared" value (Bitcoin).

Folks in Altlandia don't understand this. I guess they think that one guy can own 80% of a overnight pre-mined coin, and if say 20 other dudes scoop up another 18% for pennies (since no one wanted it or cared) and then suddenly pump the remaining 2% to the moon, the "shared hallucination of belief" in its universal value is complete and cloned. It doesn't work that way. That is an illusion. No matter what the price is, 98% of a pre-mined, no-work coin is still owned by 21 people who have only held it for a brief period and who will likely dump it if it doesn't catch on with enough other people.

[Torque]

I completely missed the boat on ETH and I'm still pissed about it. But I still don't get it. If decentralized applications ever take off, won't using ETH be prohibitively expensive at this price? Such that a cheaper alternative will instantly take it's place?

So you're scratching your head as to why people would go through the trouble to buy and secure a token at such exorbitant prices just to use some type of contract application? And not really use it as money?

Yeah, about that.... me too...

ETH didn't make any more sense to me (as a cryptocurrency that holds value) after it got pumped as when it did when it was basically being given away. I still don't get it. Neither do its investors. Neither does the media.

[CoinCube]

Bitcointalk approves of my post immediately above   (See post count)

[JayJuanGee]

I hope that Segwit+2MB gets enough support to finally end this absurd war. At this time it looks as the only non contentious alternative. I don't like the idea of non unanimous hard forks, nor UASF. Whatever is supported by an almost unanimous majority is ok to me at this time (Well, except BU/EC as I am totally against it).

Seemed like a decent compromise to me. Core programmers snubbing it was disappointing.

It's an attempt to change governance and to accomplish such in the form of a hard fork.... A hardfork is not necessary. so why agree to something that is not necessary and that is problematic and that is going to set bad precedent for future take overs.. especially if they agree to either a hardfork or a change in governance.. ?
 

Because it appears to be the only option on the table that a consensus can be built around. Also it can be rolled out by the Bitcoin Core team hence no change in governance.

I don't know what you are talking about.  The plan seems to be somewhat vague.

First, if there were consensus to agree to seg wit then some of the witholders from signaling segwit could start signaling seg wit.. but they wont agree to signal seg wit without a 2mb increase first and in the form of a hardfork... so?  What does that mean? 

It means that the supposed supporters of a compromise do not agree to signal seg wit unless they get a 2 mb increase in the form of a hard fork.  A hardfork is not going to fly because it is not necessary.

seg wit has already been vetted and approved but a 2mb increase has not.. so that would need to be coded and tested... Anyone did that yet? 

So, how can core just agree?  You want them to agree to a hardfork?  You said that no change in governance.. ?  Looks like the threshold is 80% rather than 95%, and that appears to be a change in governance, no?  change from 95% to 80%, right?  that is a change?

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

Bitcointalk approves of my post immediately above   (See post count)

<snip>

Of course you just ruined it. Also, your pseudonymity is showing.

[CoinCube]

I don't know what you are talking about.  The plan seems to be somewhat vague.

First, if there were consensus to agree to seg wit then some of the witholders from signaling segwit could start signaling seg wit.. but they wont agree to signal seg wit without a 2mb increase first and in the form of a hardfork... so?  What does that mean?  

It means that the supposed supporters of a compromise do not agree to signal seg wit unless they get a 2 mb increase in the form of a hard fork.  A hardfork is not going to fly because it is not necessary.

seg wit has already been vetted and approved but a 2mb increase has not.. so that would need to be coded and tested... Anyone did that yet?  

So, how can core just agree?  You want them to agree to a hardfork?  You said that no change in governance.. ?  Looks like the threshold is 80% rather than 95%, and that appears to be a change in governance, no?  change from 95% to 80%, right?  that is a change?

Vague is good at this juncture because if it is going be something that consensus is built around core will need to put their stamp on it and ultimately write the code.

It is not currently possible to build consensus for SegWit by itself without an increase in block size. That leaves us with three choices.

1) Stagnation forever in the current state with no change ever.
2) Contentious hardfork with a split into two separate coins.
3) Some compromise position that is safe and that all parties can live with.

Of these three I believe option number 3 to be superior. Therefore what I hope to see happen is bitcoin core testing and vetting a combination package of 2mb hardfork + SegWit with whatever safeguards and testing they feel is necessary to avoid problems.

I believe it may be possible to build a broad consensus around this option that all parties can live with.

[jonoiv]

So... last time we were here, everyone was talking about the S curve!  

Yes, of course, there is an s curve (or at least a real decent possibility of the existence of such).

 You trying to suggest that an s curve might not exist merely because we are having a correction?

We could correct to $1000 and there is still an s curve.  

We could correct for a year, and there is still an s curve.

a correction - especially over a few days, does not negate the very likely existence of an s curve.

Now on the other hand, we cannot be 100% sure about the existence of the s curve, and we may need history to help us with that - for example looking back several years or even a decade or more is necessary, sometimes.

just saying!

[r0ach]

Ok, people.  I'm tired of fucking around with ambiguous definitions:  Is bitcoin decentralized?  Does bitcoin have value? etc.  I have decided to address these issues from proof of work to proof of stake where a normal human can easily quantify if Bitcoin or any other cryptocurrency has value and whether it will live or die:

http://steemit.com/steemit/@r0achtheunsavory/the-r0ach-report-14-defining-if-cryptocurrency-has-a-value-or-zero-value-from-a-fundamental-scientific-perspective

It's relatively short to read, but if you want the TLDR version, my stance is that proof of stake has no value whatsoever and I explain why, and proof of work with ASIC is almost functionally the same thing (externalized proof of stake) in practice and would also have no value.  I don't think anyone will find a valid argument against this post.

[yefi]

I completely missed the boat on ETH and I'm still pissed about it. But I still don't get it. If decentralized applications ever take off, won't using ETH be prohibitively expensive at this price? Such that a cheaper alternative will instantly take it's place?

Cost of gas for computations is price-adjusted, so shouldn't increase in real terms until there is competition for block space.

It's an attempt to change governance and to accomplish such in the form of a hard fork.... A hardfork is not necessary. so why agree to something that is not necessary and that is problematic and that is going to set bad precedent for future take overs.. especially if they agree to either a hardfork or a change in governance.. ?

Primarily because the alternatives appear to be either ossification or radicalism, neither of which are appealing.

[CoinCube]

Ok, people.  I'm tired of fucking around with ambiguous definitions:  Is bitcoin decentralized?  Does bitcoin have value? etc.  I have decided to address these issues from proof of work to proof of stake where a normal human can easily quantify if Bitcoin or any other cryptocurrency has value and whether it will live or die:

http://steemit.com/steemit/@r0achtheunsavory/the-r0ach-report-14-defining-if-cryptocurrency-has-a-value-or-zero-value-from-a-fundamental-scientific-perspective

It's relatively short to read, but if you want the TLDR version, my stance is that proof of stake has no value whatsoever and I explain why, and proof of work with ASIC is almost functionally the same thing (externalized proof of stake) in practice and would also have no value.  I don't think anyone will find a valid argument against this post.

I don't care for Proof of Stake so no argument from me on that. However, I disagree with your assumptions regarding Proof of Work.

As for proof of work - the basis of bitcoin - this will be an unpopular view but I really see it as just a form of externalized proof of stake in practice and not an actual open entropy system. Energy costs are not uniform across the globe so this causes the transaction validators (miners) to centralize into something resembling a matrix covering the earth:

This is a big centralization pressure, but arguably not a terminal one if you believe the energy costs on the planet are not outrageously lopsided in uniformity. The next evolution of the system was the introduction of ASIC mining. This is yet another layer of centralization on top of energy costs which I believe is not just additive, but more like multiplicative or quadratic in nature with the previous layer. Now your matrix of miners tends to look something like this instead:

It's a completely arbitrary number, but once you've reached a point where you can fit all the actors together into a large car where they can collude and form an OPEC-style cartel, doing things like blocking transactions from people they don't like, setting transaction fees abnormally high, or forking the network, you obviously no longer have any form of Nash equilibrium and the system I would say has become inherently valueless. No, this does not magically mean proof of stake now has value; it never had value in the first place.

What you fail to consider is that theoretical cartel actors cannot actually do any of these things in a profitable manner. Bitcoin is a consensus system. Unlike fiat its use is not enforced by state authority and violence. It requires the voluntary participation of each individual transacting in it.

Leaders in the bitcoin community have an economic incentive to behave above board. If they do not users will simply leave converting their bitcoins to something else that is managed better. This may happen through a fork of an outraged minority or people simply leaving for another coin.

Bitcoin's dominance is not guaranteed going forward. It will retain its position and value only if its community members behave in the manner necessary to maintain a broad consensus. Shatter the consensus be it via a community fracture, or mining cartel and all bets are off.

Nash equilibrium is enforced despite the existence of powerful actors by the free mobility of capital into and out of the currency in response to divergences away from the stable state.

[Richy_T]

seg wit has already been vetted and approved

Well, I'm glad that changes to our "permissionless", "decentralized" currency have been "approved". Should I prostrate myself or will a simple grovel do?

Though I agree with the spirit of much of the rest of your post. Small blockers have refused to accept any form of compromise and this will be no different.

[sidhujag]

Ok, people.  I'm tired of fucking around with ambiguous definitions:  Is bitcoin decentralized?  Does bitcoin have value? etc.  I have decided to address these issues from proof of work to proof of stake where a normal human can easily quantify if Bitcoin or any other cryptocurrency has value and whether it will live or die:

http://steemit.com/steemit/@r0achtheunsavory/the-r0ach-report-14-defining-if-cryptocurrency-has-a-value-or-zero-value-from-a-fundamental-scientific-perspective

It's relatively short to read, but if you want the TLDR version, my stance is that proof of stake has no value whatsoever and I explain why, and proof of work with ASIC is almost functionally the same thing (externalized proof of stake) in practice and would also have no value.  I don't think anyone will find a valid argument against this post.

I do not think you understand the meaning of decentralized. Bitcoin is only centralized logically which is desired. Politically and architecturally it is decentralized. You should be clear that you are arguing for the fact that you "think" it is not politically decentralized. You cannot argue it is not architecturally decentralized because that would simply not be true.

With that you should revisit your article and perhaps I will read it when it is well understood that the author understands the meaning of decentralization on which his whole argument is formed. Heh, you mention ambiguous definitions are tiresome yet you then go off and give assumptions and hypothesis' based on ambiguous definitions yourself.

[Mrpumperitis]

me thinks this is a last attempt on a push down on the whole market..but this is a imo..a beartrap...

be smart, ignore this on all coins, hodl everything and you will be happier in a week +

dont risk losing a huge % gain by gambling for a small temp gain

The market is exploding with new users everyday, new exchanges...big ones opening very soon too

[JayJuanGee]

So... last time we were here, everyone was talking about the S curve!  

Yes, of course, there is an s curve (or at least a real decent possibility of the existence of such).

 You trying to suggest that an s curve might not exist merely because we are having a correction?

We could correct to $1000 and there is still an s curve.  

We could correct for a year, and there is still an s curve.

a correction - especially over a few days, does not negate the very likely existence of an s curve.

Now on the other hand, we cannot be 100% sure about the existence of the s curve, and we may need history to help us with that - for example looking back several years or even a decade or more is necessary, sometimes.

just saying!

I'm also just saying that you are not really going to see it on such a small timeline..

If there ends up being an S-curve that is reflected in price and adoption including like the networking effects of metcalfe, then we are currently, less than 1% of world wide adoption - even though there may be some areas of the world or some segments of the population that are more adopted than others.. techie nerdy types... and white males.. hahahahaha

Anyhow, adoption remains pretty low, still... so s curve is still premature too to see it, even though we may experience periods of exponential growth and exponential price appreciation.

[JayJuanGee]

I completely missed the boat on ETH and I'm still pissed about it. But I still don't get it. If decentralized applications ever take off, won't using ETH be prohibitively expensive at this price? Such that a cheaper alternative will instantly take it's place?

Cost of gas for computations is price-adjusted, so shouldn't increase in real terms until there is competition for block space.

It's an attempt to change governance and to accomplish such in the form of a hard fork.... A hardfork is not necessary. so why agree to something that is not necessary and that is problematic and that is going to set bad precedent for future take overs.. especially if they agree to either a hardfork or a change in governance.. ?

Primarily because the alternatives appear to be either ossification or radicalism, neither of which are appealing.

No need to make any desperate moves... if the system is not broken, then why employ fixes that are not necessary, merely for the sake of giving into terrorists (or hostage takers)?  


So, yeah maybe some form  of ossification will be o.k... and then the disatisfied folks can fork off and then seg wit will happen.. or maybe we will all move to litecoin that has nearly everything that bitcoin has plus seg wit.  

Ossification is not the end of the world.  I'm gonna still buy me some bitcoin, even if I can only use it for storage and once in a while withdrawals.

seg wit has already been vetted and approved

Well, I'm glad that changes to our "permissionless", "decentralized" currency have been "approved". Should I prostrate myself or will a simple grovel do?

Though I agree with the spirit of much of the rest of your post. Small blockers have refused to accept any form of compromise and this will be no different.

What the fuck do I know..  I am just saying that there does not seem to be any reason to compromise in regards to a hard fork that is not necessary, a change in consensus levels which is not necessary and a 2 mg increase in the blocksize limit is not necessary - especially if there is seg wit.

Maybe if there were a soft fork that might work.. and maybe if there were not a change in consensus, that may work, and maybe if some of these supposed compromisers were really serious they would start to signal seg wit, but they are not going to because they only agree to seg wit with the imposition of unnecessary and problematic buggy-ass non-technical ideas.  

Why compromise with that?

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

I completely missed the boat on ETH and I'm still pissed about it. But I still don't get it. If decentralized applications ever take off, won't using ETH be prohibitively expensive at this price? Such that a cheaper alternative will instantly take it's place?

Cost of gas for computations is price-adjusted, so shouldn't increase in real terms until there is competition for block space.

I remember when block space was cheap as chips. What's in store for those dApps when it's a buck a transaction? Am I missing something?

[simmo77]

If the institutions are sniffing  ...  their best getting in on a 'personal' level to front run their employers and clients. And some of these folk could scythe through the current whales without breaking a sweat, on both resource and skill levels.

Perhaps yet another reason that hodl may continue to be the best strategy. On two counts.

I agree that hodling is the best strat for long term. Trading stash remains 100% in fiat for the time being though.

[r0ach]

QUICKLY NOW! get some real money before its to late!!!!!!!!!!

QUICKLY
QUICKLY
QUICKLY

Now that's a fine perspective:

[r0ach]

Ok, people.  I'm tired of fucking around with ambiguous definitions:  Is bitcoin decentralized?  Does bitcoin have value? etc.  I have decided to address these issues from proof of work to proof of stake where a normal human can easily quantify if Bitcoin or any other cryptocurrency has value and whether it will live or die:

http://steemit.com/steemit/@r0achtheunsavory/the-r0ach-report-14-defining-if-cryptocurrency-has-a-value-or-zero-value-from-a-fundamental-scientific-perspective

It's relatively short to read, but if you want the TLDR version, my stance is that proof of stake has no value whatsoever and I explain why, and proof of work with ASIC is almost functionally the same thing (externalized proof of stake) in practice and would also have no value.  I don't think anyone will find a valid argument against this post.

I do not think you understand the meaning of decentralized. Bitcoin is only centralized logically which is desired. Politically and architecturally it is decentralized. You should be clear that you are arguing for the fact that you "think" it is not politically decentralized. You cannot argue it is not architecturally decentralized because that would simply not be true.

With that you should revisit your article and perhaps I will read it when it is well understood that the author understands the meaning of decentralization on which his whole argument is formed. Heh, you mention ambiguous definitions are tiresome yet you then go off and give assumptions and hypothesis' based on ambiguous definitions yourself.

You can't be serious.  You're basically making the argument that anything where someone has not double spent *YET* or *CONSTANTLY* is automatically decentralized.  That's not how this works.  You are not automatically proven to be decentralized with a functional Nash equilibrium until mass armageddon begins.  It is ironic that the ASIC factory sunk cost is the only reason there is not constant double spend, but those same ASICs also make the system inherently worthless and the equivalent of a closed entropy system at the same time.

[Elwar]

Ok, people.  I'm tired of fucking around with ambiguous definitions:  Is bitcoin decentralized?  Does bitcoin have value? etc.  I have decided to address these issues from proof of work to proof of stake where a normal human can easily quantify if Bitcoin or any other cryptocurrency has value and whether it will live or die:

http://steemit.com/steemit/@r0achtheunsavory/the-r0ach-report-14-defining-if-cryptocurrency-has-a-value-or-zero-value-from-a-fundamental-scientific-perspective

It's relatively short to read, but if you want the TLDR version, my stance is that proof of stake has no value whatsoever and I explain why, and proof of work with ASIC is almost functionally the same thing (externalized proof of stake) in practice and would also have no value.  I don't think anyone will find a valid argument against this post.

I've come to accept that you put far too much faith in centralized organizations to act intelligently and accomplish what they want to accomplish.

If the central powers were as good as you give them credit for, we would have never needed Bitcoin in the first place.