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

[2017Bubble]

Next hours are CRITICAL!!!!!
Will we form a head n sholder or will we break it up to 3000 or moar?
ETH going DOWN good sign.
So far so good place your bets.
Get rich or die trying.
Kpeaceoutbi

[1713483048]

1713483048

[bitserve]

Roach, you did not reply me to enlighten me in what way I was wrong in this. ANyway, It's unnecesary you do it now, as it looks I was not "totally wrong" but instead totally right on my prospect.

My point was that it's not a "non-contentious" fork.  It's still the same situation on the ground as the last 2 years with nothing really having changed.  It doesn't matter if all the Chinese miners signal they want to hard fork because they all agreed they wanted to do that years ago.  So once again...what exactly has changed?  Pretty much nothing.  It's still Bitcoin core vs Roger Ver and Jihan Wu as usual.  The only thing that's changed at all is Barry Silbert got drunk and took a boat over to the Guangdong province and was like "hey guys, I heard you like pump and dumps??? me too???"

If you mean its basically the same as the HK agreement. Yes, it is. But for the past couple of years both parties have been putting obstacles on the way to that agreement (which basically is a GOOD agreement now, as it was before). And finally it looks like both parties have delayed it enough for their hidden agenda (Wu for profitting in ASICBOOST and maybe Blockstream to develop whatever) and both are gonna honour that OLD deal.

Yes, its an OLD deal... bout time it fucking gets implemented in a NON-CONTENTIOUS way.

And I think that's exactaly what has changed... couple months ago that agreement was complemente contentious... now it looks like it won't.

[JayJuanGee]

Segwit2x is a trap : why would you want a 2Mb Block size and 6Mb witness signature ... ?

Because asicboost and others miners industries tricks need this size (of block) to avoid the result of the initial SegWit limitation (limitation for miners, not for the nodes ...).

I prefer SegWit right now with 1Mb Block size and 3Mb witness signatures ...

Yeah, but I think that the way that the various proposals are playing out, segwit would be implemented immediately and the 2mb upgrade and the supposed hardfork would be subject to testing and achieving 95% consensus..

So it seems that the value of the segwit2x is that it allows seg wit first and then the rest is contingent.

Am I reading this wrong?  Is there something mandatory or more scummy in there?

[JayJuanGee]

Segwit2x is a trap : why would you want a 2Mb Block size and 6Mb witness signature ... ?

Because asicboost and others miners industries tricks need this size (of block) to avoid the result of the initial SegWit limitation (limitation for miners, not for the nodes ...).

I prefer SegWit right now with 1Mb Block size and 3Mb witness signatures ...

We need more throughput. Period. You got a better solution, code it and release it into the wild.

Don't be ridiculous.

There is no emergency here, and even the clearing up of the bitcoin blockchain in the past few days should go to show that the month long spam attack was a scam.   There are folks who were directing their mining power at attacking the bitcoin network, and maybe that has become less effective and expensive?  Anyhow they have temporarily ceased the bullshit attack shenanigans and we are getting decent processing times and fees, again.  At least for the moment.

[bitserve]

Segwit2x is a trap : why would you want a 2Mb Block size and 6Mb witness signature ... ?

Because asicboost and others miners industries tricks need this size (of block) to avoid the result of the initial SegWit limitation (limitation for miners, not for the nodes ...).

I prefer SegWit right now with 1Mb Block size and 3Mb witness signatures ...

Yeah, but I think that the way that the various proposals are playing out, segwit would be implemented immediately and the 2mb upgrade and the supposed hardfork would be subject to testing and achieving 95% consensus..

So it seems that the value of the segwit2x is that it allows seg wit first and then the rest is contingent.

Am I reading this wrong?  Is there something mandatory or more scummy in there?

Unless someone says that I am totally wrong again: Yes, that's it. And it's a good thing. No hidden agenda unless... uhhh. it's very hidden.

P.S.: The compromise is not "contingent", it INCLUDES a blocksize increase to 2MB in the near future. I am ok with it, and anyone that wants Segwit to pass should also be ok with it. If Segwit pass, the 2MB HF will also happen. No way around that, no tricks or everyone will lose.

[2017Bubble]

hello it me again,

China moving UP UP UP UP
Alts DOWN DOWN DOWN DOWN

IS this IT?

[2017Bubble]

[2017Bubble]

lolololol some dick head put 400 sell wall at bitstamp fucking cunt

[JayJuanGee]

Segwit2x is a trap : why would you want a 2Mb Block size and 6Mb witness signature ... ?

Because asicboost and others miners industries tricks need this size (of block) to avoid the result of the initial SegWit limitation (limitation for miners, not for the nodes ...).

I prefer SegWit right now with 1Mb Block size and 3Mb witness signatures ...

Yeah, but I think that the way that the various proposals are playing out, segwit would be implemented immediately and the 2mb upgrade and the supposed hardfork would be subject to testing and achieving 95% consensus..

So it seems that the value of the segwit2x is that it allows seg wit first and then the rest is contingent.

Am I reading this wrong?  Is there something mandatory or more scummy in there?

Unless someone says that I am totally wrong again: Yes, that's it. And it's a good thing. No hidden agenda unless... uhhh. it's very hidden.

So in essence, segwit is a soft fork that would go into effect at an earlier stage and then it seems that if segwit goes into effect, it will likely receive more and more hashing power.

I anticipate that there is going to be considerable lack of an ability to achieve consensus regarding a hardfork, unless it is truly of a real high consensus level - and there is a pretty large contingency of folks that really see no value to increase the blocksize limit, which will likely become even more apparent once seg wit actually goes live... why fuck up a good thing with bloated and totally unnecessary 2mg blocks?

[fotosonics]

Longtime lurker here, but back since the new revival.

Been reading about Chinese manipulation and then about Jihan Wu. And then I found this.



I'm not sure what is really going on but it feels like I walked into a party, then some drunk guy started a fight which we hope to ignore until it goes away.

Can anyone shed light on what is going on or should we just move along?

[HI-TEC99]

lolololol some dick head put 400 sell wall at bitstamp fucking cunt

He keeps pulling it, then putting it back up. It looks fake to me, and I suspect someone will buy it if he leaves it up long enough. If he really wanted to ell he wouldn't keep pulling it. He wants to create panic, but it's not working.

edit

It's been pulled again.

[Ibian]

Segwit2x is a trap : why would you want a 2Mb Block size and 6Mb witness signature ... ?

Because asicboost and others miners industries tricks need this size (of block) to avoid the result of the initial SegWit limitation (limitation for miners, not for the nodes ...).

I prefer SegWit right now with 1Mb Block size and 3Mb witness signatures ...

We need more throughput. Period. You got a better solution, code it and release it into the wild.

Don't be ridiculous.

There is no emergency here, and even the clearing up of the bitcoin blockchain in the past few days should go to show that the month long spam attack was a scam.   There are folks who were directing their mining power at attacking the bitcoin network, and maybe that has become less effective and expensive?  Anyhow they have temporarily ceased the bullshit attack shenanigans and we are getting decent processing times and fees, again.  At least for the moment.

Are you disagreeing that we need more throughput? Yes or no, wordy one.

[2017Bubble]

Keep pushing!

[bitserve]

Segwit2x is a trap : why would you want a 2Mb Block size and 6Mb witness signature ... ?

Because asicboost and others miners industries tricks need this size (of block) to avoid the result of the initial SegWit limitation (limitation for miners, not for the nodes ...).

I prefer SegWit right now with 1Mb Block size and 3Mb witness signatures ...

Yeah, but I think that the way that the various proposals are playing out, segwit would be implemented immediately and the 2mb upgrade and the supposed hardfork would be subject to testing and achieving 95% consensus..

So it seems that the value of the segwit2x is that it allows seg wit first and then the rest is contingent.

Am I reading this wrong?  Is there something mandatory or more scummy in there?

Unless someone says that I am totally wrong again: Yes, that's it. And it's a good thing. No hidden agenda unless... uhhh. it's very hidden.

So in essence, segwit is a soft fork that would go into effect at an earlier stage and then it seems that if segwit goes into effect, it will likely receive more and more hashing power.

I anticipate that there is going to be considerable lack of an ability to achieve consensus regarding a hardfork, unless it is truly of a real high consensus level - and there is a pretty large contingency of folks that really see no value to increase the blocksize limit, which will likely become even more apparent once seg wit actually goes live... why fuck up a good thing with bloated and totally unnecessary 2mg blocks?

If all goes well, Segwit2x will pass with a near 100% hash rate. That same hashrate will enforce, some time later (3? 6 months?)) a 2MB blocksize increase.

I am basically against HF's but... if they are able to unite a near 100% hashrate I am ok to a HF for blocksize increase. A FIXED 2MB blocksize increase, not an abomination like BU/EC.

As much as I am PRO Segwit and LN, let me tell you it's effect won't be inmediately noticed. There's no LN in place yet. Many wallets don't support Segwit. So the effects won't be as much as theoretical, PLUS if we are really going to grow (don't we all want that?) Segwit+LN won't be enough to support that growth. A reasonable 2MB increase would be also welcome IF IT IS IMPLEMENTED with an almost 100% hashrate.

Let's recap here.... HF are undesirable for the risk of a split... with an almost unanimous hashrate there's no such risk, so it's ok to me.

[lost_in_base]

lolololol some dick head put 400 sell wall at bitstamp fucking cunt

I just dont care

[JayJuanGee]

Segwit2x is a trap : why would you want a 2Mb Block size and 6Mb witness signature ... ?

Because asicboost and others miners industries tricks need this size (of block) to avoid the result of the initial SegWit limitation (limitation for miners, not for the nodes ...).

I prefer SegWit right now with 1Mb Block size and 3Mb witness signatures ...

We need more throughput. Period. You got a better solution, code it and release it into the wild.

Don't be ridiculous.

There is no emergency here, and even the clearing up of the bitcoin blockchain in the past few days should go to show that the month long spam attack was a scam.   There are folks who were directing their mining power at attacking the bitcoin network, and maybe that has become less effective and expensive?  Anyhow they have temporarily ceased the bullshit attack shenanigans and we are getting decent processing times and fees, again.  At least for the moment.

Are you disagreeing that we need more throughput? Yes or no, wordy one.

I suppose you could sum it up to that.  We don't need more throughput, and maybe implementing seg wit will help with the spam attacks, too.

[bitserve]

Segwit2x is a trap : why would you want a 2Mb Block size and 6Mb witness signature ... ?

Because asicboost and others miners industries tricks need this size (of block) to avoid the result of the initial SegWit limitation (limitation for miners, not for the nodes ...).

I prefer SegWit right now with 1Mb Block size and 3Mb witness signatures ...

We need more throughput. Period. You got a better solution, code it and release it into the wild.

Don't be ridiculous.

There is no emergency here, and even the clearing up of the bitcoin blockchain in the past few days should go to show that the month long spam attack was a scam.   There are folks who were directing their mining power at attacking the bitcoin network, and maybe that has become less effective and expensive?  Anyhow they have temporarily ceased the bullshit attack shenanigans and we are getting decent processing times and fees, again.  At least for the moment.

Are you disagreeing that we need more throughput? Yes or no, wordy one.

I suppose you could sum it up to that.  We don't need more throughput, and maybe implementing seg wit will help with the spam attacks, too.

Don't be ridiculous: We need more throughput. And If I were to spam the network I would use non Segwit tx's even if Segwit is implemented. Or maybe I would use Segwit TX's as the signatures doesn't count for the TX fee.

Why is it so hard for people on the same boat (long on BTC) to row in the same fucking direction?

[Qartada]

Most cryptocurrencies other than Bitcoin are down.  ETH is down, Ripple doesn't count, Litecoin is down, ETC is down, DASH is down...

Looks like some money is slowly starting to flow back out of altcoins and into BTC.  The SegWit hype will amplify this over the next month or so.

Time to short some altcoins if you ask me.

[JayJuanGee]

Segwit2x is a trap : why would you want a 2Mb Block size and 6Mb witness signature ... ?

Because asicboost and others miners industries tricks need this size (of block) to avoid the result of the initial SegWit limitation (limitation for miners, not for the nodes ...).

I prefer SegWit right now with 1Mb Block size and 3Mb witness signatures ...

Yeah, but I think that the way that the various proposals are playing out, segwit would be implemented immediately and the 2mb upgrade and the supposed hardfork would be subject to testing and achieving 95% consensus..

So it seems that the value of the segwit2x is that it allows seg wit first and then the rest is contingent.

Am I reading this wrong?  Is there something mandatory or more scummy in there?

Unless someone says that I am totally wrong again: Yes, that's it. And it's a good thing. No hidden agenda unless... uhhh. it's very hidden.

So in essence, segwit is a soft fork that would go into effect at an earlier stage and then it seems that if segwit goes into effect, it will likely receive more and more hashing power.

I anticipate that there is going to be considerable lack of an ability to achieve consensus regarding a hardfork, unless it is truly of a real high consensus level - and there is a pretty large contingency of folks that really see no value to increase the blocksize limit, which will likely become even more apparent once seg wit actually goes live... why fuck up a good thing with bloated and totally unnecessary 2mg blocks?

If all goes well, Segwit2x will pass with a near 100% hash rate. That same hashrate will enforce, some time later (3? 6 months?)) a 2MB blocksize increase.

Yeah, but you already conceded that the two are not automatic, and implementing seg wit does not mandate implementing either 2mb upgrade or a hardfork without further contingencies.

In that regard, we could achieve nearly 100% hashrate and/or consensus for segwit (in the first stage), and then only achieve a much smaller hashrate/consensus for 2mb and/or hardfork.

I am basically against HF's but... if they are able to unite a near 100% hashrate I am ok to a HF for blocksize increase. A FIXED 2MB blocksize increase, not an abomination like BU/EC.

Well, yeah.  If the hardfork and/or 2mb is nearly 100% or even more than 95%, then it is not contentious; but you are assuming too much if you believe that there is going to be an automatic agreement about either 2mb or hardfork merely because segwit goes through under this arrangement, no?

As much as I am PRO Segwit and LN, let me tell you it's effect won't be inmediately noticed. There's no LN in place yet. Many wallets don't support Segwit. So the effects won't be as much as theoretical, PLUS if we are really going to grow (don't we all want that?) Segwit+LN won't be enough to support that growth.

I pretty much agree with you that it is going to take a while to build upon segwit and to advantage from such - even though there may be some developers who are more ready than others.

On the other hand, you seem to be assuming that there is some kind of clogging of the network that goes beyond spamming. Is it possible that seg wit might address some of the spamming?  However, I understand that down the road, spamming might resume because there may be some folks who remain intent on creating the impression that 2mb is actually needed - even with the implementation of segwit.

A reasonable 2MB increase would be also welcome IF IT IS IMPLEMENTED with an almost 100% hashrate.

Again, you are assuming 100%.. that would be non-contentious, and even 95%+ would likely be close to non contentious, if able to achieve such support levels.

Let's recap here.... HF are undesirable for the risk of a split... with an almost unanimous hashrate there's no such risk, so it's ok to me.

Agreed about that part.

[Ibian]

if we are really going to grow (don't we all want that?)

No. A lot of people really, really don't want that. Like the wordy guy a few posts up who, quite uncharacteristically for those people, openly admitted it. That's why nothing has been done yet.