Bitcoin Forum
February 26, 2020, 11:52:14 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.19.0.1 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Poll
Question: How low will we go before we see $10K again?
<$8,000 - 14 (38.9%)
$8,000-8,200 - 4 (11.1%)
$8,200-$8,400 - 2 (5.6%)
$8,400-$8,600 - 8 (22.2%)
$8,600-$8,800 - 5 (13.9%)
$8,800-$9,000 - 3 (8.3%)
Total Voters: 36

Pages: « 1 ... 17076 17077 17078 17079 17080 17081 17082 17083 17084 17085 17086 17087 17088 17089 17090 17091 17092 17093 17094 17095 17096 17097 17098 17099 17100 17101 17102 17103 17104 17105 17106 17107 17108 17109 17110 17111 17112 17113 17114 17115 17116 17117 17118 17119 17120 17121 17122 17123 17124 17125 [17126] 17127 17128 17129 17130 17131 17132 17133 17134 17135 17136 17137 17138 17139 17140 17141 17142 17143 17144 17145 17146 17147 17148 17149 17150 17151 17152 17153 17154 17155 17156 17157 17158 17159 17160 17161 17162 17163 17164 17165 17166 17167 17168 17169 17170 17171 17172 17173 17174 17175 17176 ... 26135 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion  (Read 21537190 times)
This is a self-moderated topic. If you do not want to be moderated by the person who started this topic, create a new topic. (142 posts by 32 users deleted.)
PoolMinor
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1675
Merit: 1076


XXXVII Fnord is toast without bread


View Profile
June 20, 2017, 10:39:13 PM

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.






1582761134
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1582761134

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1582761134
Reply with quote  #2

1582761134
Report to moderator
1582761134
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1582761134

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1582761134
Reply with quote  #2

1582761134
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1582761134
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1582761134

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1582761134
Reply with quote  #2

1582761134
Report to moderator
1582761134
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1582761134

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1582761134
Reply with quote  #2

1582761134
Report to moderator
HI-TEC99
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1792
Merit: 1119



View Profile
June 20, 2017, 11:04:35 PM

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3010
Merit: 1576


Viva Ut Vivas


View Profile WWW
June 20, 2017, 11:05:58 PM

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1675
Merit: 1076


XXXVII Fnord is toast without bread


View Profile
June 20, 2017, 11:40:13 PM

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
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 28
Merit: 0


View Profile
June 20, 2017, 11:57:56 PM

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 Cool
yefi
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2271
Merit: 1172



View Profile
June 21, 2017, 12:06:30 AM

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1512
Merit: 1009



View Profile
June 21, 2017, 12:09:19 AM

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1792
Merit: 1119



View Profile
June 21, 2017, 12:25:40 AM

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.
Meuh6879
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1512
Merit: 1009



View Profile
June 21, 2017, 12:33:50 AM

Knots.

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8550
deepcolderwallet
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 294
Merit: 103



View Profile
June 21, 2017, 01:20:13 AM

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've already asked him a tl;dr everytime he posts, until then I just skip what he writes...
bitserve
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1120
Merit: 1080


Self made HODLER ✓


View Profile
June 21, 2017, 01:24:31 AM


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.


Wait, What? You really asking why do we need to row in the same direction? Because we are gonna fucking sink if we don't!

Really, I prefer Segwit over Blocksize increase as Segwit is a real scaling solution and not a linear increase, BUT... If we were all agree to one solution or the other I would accept to row in that direction. It's avoiding sinking what counts here... and now we have a solution that should reasonably please most parties (Segwit +`reasonable 2MB blocksize increase that, even if you think we don't need it yet we will in near future).

If this compromise doesn't work (and I am now reasonably confident it will) then nothing will and we would be basically fucked up.

I will always prefer a not so bad agreement with an almost unanimous consensus than a "better" but contentious one.



bitserve
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1120
Merit: 1080


Self made HODLER ✓


View Profile
June 21, 2017, 01:33:25 AM

On other news: Segwit2x signaling has just reached 80% for the last 144blocks (24 hours).... and growing.
mymenace
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1596
Merit: 1061


Smile


View Profile
June 21, 2017, 01:56:39 AM

and the propaganda continues

it was good to see it disappear in the run up to 2900

now big push to drop price

but bitcoin like



JayJuanGee
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2170
Merit: 2435


How much alt coin diversification is needed? 0%?


View Profile
June 21, 2017, 02:01:19 AM


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.


Wait, What? You really asking why do we need to row in the same direction? Because we are gonna fucking sink if we don't!
Yeah right.  Another Chicken little?




Really, I prefer Segwit over Blocksize increase as Segwit is a real scaling solution and not a linear increase, BUT... If we were all agree to one solution or the other I would accept to row in that direction.

Don't be pie in the sky.  You are not going to get everyone to agree.  That is not how a decentralized system (or humans) work.

It's avoiding sinking what counts here...

Bitcoin is not sinking, and bitcoin is not broken.

Sure there are various tweaks that can make bitcoin better, but there is no emergency death situation as you seem to want to argue.





 and now we have a solution that should reasonably please most parties (Segwit +`reasonable 2MB blocksize increase that, even if you think we don't need it yet we will in near future).

I thought that I already got a consession from you that the first step is Segwit?  So, yeah the second and third steps might happen, but you gotta do the first step before you get to the second step... so even though the odds of the second step might be pretty decent, the second step is not inevitable, as you seem to continue to suggest .. and maybe you have some kind of misreading about what has to happen in order for the second step to take place... and in any event it does not seem to be inevitable.. so why do you keep getting ahead of yourself?  one step at a time, no?   

By the way, it looks like there are people who will be working on testing the second step and going through various kinds of work to carry out the second step, but that still does not make the second step inevitable, even if it has decent chances to occur. 

And, stop suggesting what I want, because I am only calling the situation as I see it, and this is not a matter about what I want or do not want, but instead a description of community dynamics and sentiment about the 2mb (second step) aspect of the segwit2x.




If this compromise doesn't work (and I am now reasonably confident it will) then nothing will and we would be basically fucked up.

I don't know why you are getting so worked up about this?  It seems pretty likely that the first step is going to occur, and even if the second step were to fall through, we still have the first step... so cross that bridge when you get there rather than getting worked up and suggesting that the whole thing might be a failure if the second step were not to occur.



I will always prefer a not so bad agreement with an almost unanimous consensus than a "better" but contentious one.


Well, it looks like you are in luck and there appears to be a largely non-contentious solution on the horizon... right?  It looks like the current variation of segwit2x that allows a softforking of segwit first is gaining pretty likely success and support.


80.6% support on coindance 24 hour marker right now.

https://coin.dance/blocks
blade87
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644
Merit: 500


View Profile
June 21, 2017, 02:15:35 AM

I'm fine with SegWit + 2mb, so long as the following 2mb hard fork code is tested extensively beforehand.
leowonderful
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1596
Merit: 1122


Bitcoin FTW!


View Profile
June 21, 2017, 02:23:59 AM

Support seems high for 2x ATM, a little pool luck and we could be at 85 and a few more small pools would possibly get us to 90. At this point I'm glad for any sort of consensus, though I prefer just Segwit and no 2MB.
bitserve
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1120
Merit: 1080


Self made HODLER ✓


View Profile
June 21, 2017, 02:27:36 AM

Quote from: JayJuanGee

Bitcoin is not sinking, and bitcoin is not broken.

Sure there are various tweaks that can make bitcoin better, but there is no emergency death situation as you seem to want to argue.

If you think going from 90% to less than 40% market dominance is not an emergency...  And scaling, or better yet, this absurd drama has played some part for that decrease of market quota.

Also, Bitcoin is not broken, that's right... And I don't know enough about blockchains as I do about networks and most networks that exceed 80-90% capacity are bound to severe issues. We would need to reduce that congestion to 50% to be safe. Segwit will largely help in the long term, a blocksize increase can aleviate some of the issues right now.

Quote

I thought that I already got a consession from you that the first step is Segwit?  So, yeah the second and third steps might happen, but you gotta do the first step before you get to the second step... so even though the odds of the second step might be pretty decent, the second step is not inevitable, as you seem to continue to suggest .. and maybe you have some kind of misreading about what has to happen in order for the second step to take place... and in any event it does not seem to be inevitable.. so why do you keep getting ahead of yourself?  one step at a time, no?  

By the way, it looks like there are people who will be working on testing the second step and going through various kinds of work to carry out the second step, but that still does not make the second step inevitable, even if it has decent chances to occur.  

And, stop suggesting what I want, because I am only calling the situation as I see it, and this is not a matter about what I want or do not want, but instead a description of community dynamics and sentiment about the 2mb (second step) aspect of the segwit2x.

What miners are signaling is Segwit2x and that includes a compromise to a blocksize increase to 2MB. Are you suggesting that after getting the Segwit part, there will be enough support for a UASF to block the 2MB HF? Good luck with that.

Quote

I don't know why you are getting so worked up about this?  It seems pretty likely that the first step is going to occur, and even if the second step were to fall through, we still have the first step... so cross that bridge when you get there rather than getting worked up and suggesting that the whole thing might be a failure if the second step were not to occur.

It would be a disaster if after getting Segwit some people insist on an UASF to avoid the 2MB hard fork. Anyway, I am pretty confident that won't happen.

I don't want a UASF, I don't want a contentios SF or HF, I don't want EC/BU no matter that... I basically don't want anything that could result on a split.

Quote
Well, it looks like you are in luck and there appears to be a largely non-contentious solution on the horizon... right?  It looks like the current variation of segwit2x that allows a softforking of segwit first is gaining pretty likely success and support.


80.6% support on coindance 24 hour marker right now.

https://coin.dance/blocks


Yep, and that makes me REALLY happy. Maybe you don't want to celebrate it... But you will when you see the outcome. Wink



Heater
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 328
Merit: 266


View Profile
June 21, 2017, 02:29:00 AM

I'm fine with SegWit + 2mb, so long as the following 2mb hard fork code is tested extensively beforehand.
If there is going to be a software bug, it will be in SegWit not in the 2mb hard fork. The hard fork is just a few lines, SegWit is a massive and complex change and probably will have bugs.
Paashaas
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2239
Merit: 1660



View Profile
June 21, 2017, 02:32:07 AM

I'm fine with SegWit + 2mb, so long as the following 2mb hard fork code is tested extensively beforehand.

Miners wont HF with buggy code even the market will refuse it with overwhelming support. Jihan wants to rush it to try to be ahead of the waves of new people after sewitt. Those side-chains will scale Bitcoin beyond expectations wich making a HF unnecessary. Miners will still be making more than enough profits on-chain tx. If the code is ok and with full support than we they can land a save HF, i'm ok with that.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


$3000 inc  Smiley
Elwar
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3010
Merit: 1576


Viva Ut Vivas


View Profile WWW
June 21, 2017, 02:33:42 AM

So I was thinking about the price and how it relates to velocity of money. As we get more transactions and LN which will allow for very fast velocity of bitcoin, would that send the price up or down?
Pages: « 1 ... 17076 17077 17078 17079 17080 17081 17082 17083 17084 17085 17086 17087 17088 17089 17090 17091 17092 17093 17094 17095 17096 17097 17098 17099 17100 17101 17102 17103 17104 17105 17106 17107 17108 17109 17110 17111 17112 17113 17114 17115 17116 17117 17118 17119 17120 17121 17122 17123 17124 17125 [17126] 17127 17128 17129 17130 17131 17132 17133 17134 17135 17136 17137 17138 17139 17140 17141 17142 17143 17144 17145 17146 17147 17148 17149 17150 17151 17152 17153 17154 17155 17156 17157 17158 17159 17160 17161 17162 17163 17164 17165 17166 17167 17168 17169 17170 17171 17172 17173 17174 17175 17176 ... 26135 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!