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

[rjclarke2000]

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.

Remind me not to start an argument with JJG

[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.

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?

Why do we need to row in the same direction?

We have a difference of opinion about whether something is needed or not.  I don't claim to be any kind of expert, but I can still give my opinion and my opinion can differ, no?

By the way, I am not alone in my opinion, and there are a lot of smart technical people in the bitcoin space who have a similar opinion to me.

[JayJuanGee]

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.

Don't mischaracterize me.

Merely because I think that a 2mb blocksize limit increase is not necessary does not mean that I don't want bitcoin to grow.

If something is not needed, then it is not needed, so it makes little to no sense to implement something that is not needed, and that does not mean that bitcoin will not grow.

[mymenace]

https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/01/26/segwit-benefits/


Right lets hack a working code, if these issues were a problem it would mean bitcoin is unusable.

Bitcoin at a price of $2739 USD, this says it all, investing in a product that works.

Seems like propaganda, afflict the comfortable with made up issues or perceived threats and announce we are doing it for safety and security


The question here is who would want bitcoin not to work or work in a way that can be corrupted.

Look at the players and funding behind segwit and you will get your answer.

[fotosonics]

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.

Still holding onto some 15 or so that showed positive performance (none of the ones you  mentioned) in the midst of destruction, I guess everything else was weeds. Gonna get some sleep finally.

[Ibian]

Remind me not to start an argument with JJG

That's what they do. They talk and talk and talk endlessly until people get tired and go away. A lack of brevity is a strong tell for the type of people who prefer to tear others down instead of building everyone up.

[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.

Don't mischaracterize me.

Merely because I think that a 2mb blocksize limit increase is not necessary does not mean that I don't want bitcoin to grow.

If something is not needed, then it is not needed, so it makes little to no sense to implement something that is not needed, and that does not mean that bitcoin will not grow.

Look dude it's not worth it. You don't want more capacity, fine, get fucked. The rest of us do.

[Richy_T]

I don't like Segwit but this agreement is potentially bullish as it means a way forward. Hopefully the hard-fork will proceed as planned (unfortunately, it can't be guaranteed) or things will get messy.

[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.

Still holding onto some 15 or so that showed positive performance (none of the ones you  mentioned) in the midst of destruction, I guess everything else was weeds. Gonna get some sleep finally.

I'm into a couple of stable ones which I like as well.  I'm just not a fan of the big names.

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.

Don't mischaracterize me.

Merely because I think that a 2mb blocksize limit increase is not necessary does not mean that I don't want bitcoin to grow.

If something is not needed, then it is not needed, so it makes little to no sense to implement something that is not needed, and that does not mean that bitcoin will not grow.

I somewhat agree, but if it isn't needed then it won't be used.

When spammers aren't trying to push up the block size like they have been recently, the blocks don't have to be near full all the time, which means that the difficulty of running a node can still stay pretty reasonable.  The fact that it's a static blocksize increase rather than a dynamic system means that it's not particularly worrying for the future either.

The important thing is that if a 2MB hardfork happens, it's high consensus.  The implications of a 2MB max block size are not that important compared to the implications of a messy hard fork with loads of arguments.

[mymenace]

https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/01/26/segwit-benefits/


Right lets hack a working code, if these issues were a problem it would mean bitcoin is unusable.

Bitcoin at a price of $2739 USD, this says it all, investing in a product that works.

Seems like propaganda, afflict the comfortable with made up issues or perceived threats and announce we are doing it for safety and security


The question here is who would want bitcoin not to work or work in a way that can be corrupted.

Look at the players and funding behind segwit and you will get your answer.

And be careful cause when the propaganda do not get their own way they will attack ending in a violent tirade of abuse and if not violence

Another known tactic is to buy members accounts that have high posts, you can tell as the original posts do not reflect their current propaganda

[JayJuanGee]

Remind me not to start an argument with JJG

That's what they do. They talk and talk and talk endlessly until people get tired and go away. A lack of brevity is a strong tell for the type of people who prefer to tear others down instead of building everyone up.

Bullshit!!

You are engaging in the exact tactic that you are attempting to dispute.

If you are concerned about something that I said, then why don't you engage with the topic rather than saying that I have too many words in my post (which is a non-substantive and largely personal attack)

[JayJuanGee]

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.

Don't mischaracterize me.

Merely because I think that a 2mb blocksize limit increase is not necessary does not mean that I don't want bitcoin to grow.

If something is not needed, then it is not needed, so it makes little to no sense to implement something that is not needed, and that does not mean that bitcoin will not grow.

Look dude it's not worth it. You don't want more capacity, fine, get fucked. The rest of us do.

Who is "the rest of us"?  You trying to act like you have some kind of backing, then back it up with hashing power, that is what consensus is about.  If you cannot achieve consensus, then your idea must not be good enough.

I am not saying what I want.  I am saying that what you are asserting to be necessary (a 2mb blocksize limit increase) is not necessary.  There is little to no facts nor logic that is based on facts that support such an assertion.

So, it does not really matter what I want.  I just go along with whatever is the system, and the current system is a 1mb blocksize limit.  Seems to be working pretty good, and working even better when there are not ongoing persistent and malicious spam attacks.

[PoolMinor]

You are misreading the wall and what it represents. Simply it is a way for the entity that put up the wall to buy at below the wall price. If they wanted to sell they would sell at market price and be done with it(while creating this panic you are worried about). This really isn't rocket science. The only walls we should be worried about are buy walls because they denote a major sell off is imminent.

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.

[HI-TEC99]

What you said is what I mean't, but maybe I articulated it badly. I mean't someone put up that wall to start people panic selling into the sneaky unnoticeable laddered small buy orders he secretly put up.

Unfortunately for him the market is so bullish that it soon became obvious someone would buy his wall if he left it up for long. His cunning plan failed.

You are misreading the wall and what it represents. Simply it is a way for the entity that put up the wall to buy at below the wall price. If they wanted to sell they would sell at market price and be done with it(while creating this panic you are worried about). This really isn't rocket science. The only walls we should be worried about are buy walls because they denote a major sell off is imminent.

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.

[Elwar]

You are misreading the wall and what it represents. Simply it is a way for the entity that put up the wall to buy at below the wall price. If they wanted to sell they would sell at market price and be done with it(while creating this panic you are worried about). This really isn't rocket science. The only walls we should be worried about are buy walls because they denote a major sell off is imminent.

Happens every...single...time.

Huge sell walls are great. The whale is manipulating up.

[PoolMinor]

He bought his own wall, don't you see? The wall is only "fake" because it is owned by the one that buys it.
I realize this tactic might be strange but several of these exchanges have fees that are based on volume, and when one's fee is at a minimum one can afford to buy/sell into their own walls.

When these walls are created they are to induce a certain mindset. First people will place their sell orders below the wall price(explained in previous post). Second they inflict a panic FOMO when suddenly a huge purchase of that wall and the coins before it are bought. Third as they have created a momentum in buying they can start offloading their below wall priced coins.

What you said is what I mean't, but maybe I articulated it badly. I mean't someone put up that wall to start people panic selling into the sneaky unnoticeable laddered small buy orders he secretly put up.

Unfortunately for him the market is so bullish that it soon became obvious someone would buy his wall if he left it up for long. His cunning plan failed.

[DanielRamos1]

He bought his own wall, don't you see? The wall is only "fake" because it is owned by the one that buys it.
I realize this tactic might be strange but several of these exchanges have fees that are based on volume, and when one's fee is at a minimum one can afford to buy/sell into their own walls.

When these walls are created they are to induce a certain mindset. First people will place their sell orders below the wall price(explained in previous post). Second they inflict a panic FOMO when suddenly a huge purchase of that wall and the coins before it are bought. Third as they have created a momentum in buying they can start offloading their below wall priced coins.

What you said is what I mean't, but maybe I articulated it badly. I mean't someone put up that wall to start people panic selling into the sneaky unnoticeable laddered small buy orders he secretly put up.

Unfortunately for him the market is so bullish that it soon became obvious someone would buy his wall if he left it up for long. His cunning plan failed.

im am the kool aid man BTCBTCBTCBTC~ there is no wallzzz

[yefi]

Wow, just wow. What slime.

Pity the fools who got sucked in. Stay away from altcoins without a doing a lot of research first.

Rather short on pity. It does highlight the levels of irrational exuberance currently in the market however.

[Meuh6879]

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.

"touché"

first section : normal P2P transactions.
last section : PUMP.

[HI-TEC99]

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.

"touché"

first section : normal P2P transactions.
last section : PUMP.

Where did that chart come from? I have been searching for a service providing mempool chart like that for a long time.