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

[r0ach]

Well, we already knew the R3 heebs were behind the Eth pump and dump scam.  Now we know who's been trying to pump and dump bitcoin lately:  Goldman Sachs trying to dump their bag of trash on you.  Maybe we should rename them to "Marcus of Sachs" and "JayJuanGoldman"?

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-07-24/goldman-nervous-bitcoin-traders-be-patient-next-surge-will-take-it-above-3600

[Mr Frog]

No, no. No hard forks.

Yes, yes. Yes hard fork.   

[FractalUniverse]

No, no. No hard forks.

Yes, yes. Yes hard fork.   

fork To Da Moon!!! 

[hodl_2015]

fork To Da Moon!!! 
[tasteless img]

First time I kicked a "Sr. Member" into the ignore bin. Goodbuy FU.

[FractalUniverse]

fork To Da Moon!!! 
[tasteless img]

First time I kicked a "Sr. Member" into the ignore bin. Goodbuy FU.

congrats, you got early symptoms of alzheimer's 
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/04/110415104536.htm

[European Central Bank]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-24/bitcoin-options-to-become-available-in-fall-after-cftc-approval

so what does this mean for bitcoin? is it good? bad? a disaster? are we gonna be drowned in volatility and paper bitcoin?

[r0ach]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-24/bitcoin-options-to-become-available-in-fall-after-cftc-approval

so what does this mean for bitcoin? is it good? bad? a disaster? are we gonna be drowned in volatility and paper bitcoin?

It means a few different options:

1)  The bankers talk about how they introduce volatility into the metals market to try and scare the general public out of them, so it might just be wild pump and dump city for craptocurrency

2)  The R3 bankers own most of the Ethereum scamtokens and likely a lesser amount of bitcoin, so they might try to weaken bitcoin while pumping the Eth scam

3)  They might just naked short everything into the ground like they do in metals to try and keep people in the dollar

4)  If there's a danger of a run on the Comex from too much fractional reserve, they might try to pump craptocurrency in order to try and trick people from buying gold and silver and redirect them back into digital scam markets instead

In other words, it's generally bad from every angle for everyone on the planet to give govt the power to control markets.

[conspirosphere.tk]

$BTCUSD 50/200 MA Cross - First since April 7th. Fasten your seatbelts.

[r0ach]

$BTCUSD 50/200 MA Cross - First since April 7th. Fasten your seatbelts.

lol? moving averages are reverse looking, not forward looking.  At least RSI gives you an idea of if the market is overbought or oversold, but a MA like that tells you absolutely nothing besides what has already happened. Yea, it's possible it can go up.  It's also possible it can go down.  The only reason RSI works is because markets don't actually exist, just manipulation.  RSI tells you if people have any ammo left to manipulate more or not, while generic moving averages tell you nothing unless the market is entirely controlled by a bot built on using them.

[r0ach]

the RSI looks good.

i expect 500$ pop really soon...

Look at the chart...it's two vertical lines going straight up resembling any typical pump and dump.  Either they will be satisfied with their profits here and dump them on you, or they will do a calculated risk of being greedy and try to extract more pump and dump profits going higher.  This is no aggregate market.  Which way the mostly single entity controlling the market goes will also be determined by if there's shorts to squeeze or not.  Usually the bitcoin market only goes up if there's lots of shorts to squeeze.

[conspirosphere.tk]

$BTCUSD 50/200 MA Cross - First since April 7th. Fasten your seatbelts.

lol? moving averages are reverse looking, not forward looking.  
(snip)

Roach, every post of you reminds me of when I sold a whole bunch of bitcoins at 400$ each to buy gold & silver. It hurts.

[d_eddie]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-24/bitcoin-options-to-become-available-in-fall-after-cftc-approval

so what does this mean for bitcoin? is it good? bad? a disaster? are we gonna be drowned in volatility and paper bitcoin?

It means a few different options:

1)  The bankers talk about how they introduce volatility into the metals market to try and scare the general public out of them, so it might just be wild pump and dump city for craptocurrency

2)  The R3 bankers own most of the Ethereum scamtokens and likely a lesser amount of bitcoin, so they might try to weaken bitcoin while pumping the Eth scam

3)  They might just naked short everything into the ground like they do in metals to try and keep people in the dollar

4)  If there's a danger of a run on the Comex from too much fractional reserve, they might try to pump craptocurrency in order to try and trick people from buying gold and silver and redirect them back into digital scam markets instead

In other words, it's generally bad from every angle for everyone on the planet to give govt the power to control markets.

Delete #3 to begin with. No naked shorts.

The CFTC said in a statement Monday LedgerX will be authorized to provide clearing services for fully-collateralized digital currency swaps.

(My emphasis.)

[r0ach]

Delete #3 to begin with. No naked shorts.

The CFTC said in a statement Monday LedgerX will be authorized to provide clearing services for fully-collateralized digital currency swaps.

(My emphasis.)

Yea right, the monetary system has been run as a scam for hundreds of years and they are just now going to stop scamming people for no reason?  Doesn't matter anyway, you can destroy bitcoin without naked shorts just by continuously shorting it below cost of production, which forces miners to turn off and lowers the synthetic price floor further.

[JayJuanGee]

Because Bitcoin Cash has the transaction capacity required to support all the use cases that core threw overboard to sustain their Raspberry Pi fetish. More transaction capacity > more use cases > more utility > more use >  more value > more demand > higher price > more mining support > more security. Virtuous circle.

edit: or to look at it another way:

BTC has up to this point worked pretty well as a store of value*. But let's face it, for the last year, BTC has sucked as a medium of exchange. Some other crypto is going to fill that role. So you've got a choice:
1) Allow Bitcoin Cash to flourish, and take the role of default medium of exchange crypto. For this, you will be admirably rewarded. For you are starting off with one free BCC for every BTC you own.
2) Kill BCC, and some other crypto (LTC perhaps? Dash, god** forbid?) takes the medium of exchange role. Leaving you -- the BTC holder -- with nothing to show for it.

*oh yeah - that asterisk. Frankly, I believe that BTC earned its status as store of value only because its previous exceptional performance (now abandoned) as a medium of exchange. There's a good chance that BTC's store of value properties will be eroded by another coin that works great as medium of exchange, while still working well as a store of value. If so, wouldn't it be a good idea to own that other crypto?

** it's just an expression.

Have you recently watched the mempool? Is almost empty. Yeah, block usage is still over a safe threshold but Segwit is going to be implemented very soon (now it is a certainty unlike years ago) and will help alleviate some. Also a blocksize increase to 2MB is on the works.

Bitcoin scaling has never had a better prospect than it has right now.

So what is the fucking need for "Bitcoin Cash" precisely right now? It's nonsense.

Maybe you don't believe the blocksize increase will happen? I hope it does, because:

- Even if not right now, we will need that blocksize increase sometime in the future.

- If that is what has been agreed to reach consensus, then it is time to deliver, or next time we need consensus noone will trust any "agreement".

- Miners have not only accepted to pass Segwit which was a majority community request but they have with 100% hashrate consensus. If they can do the 2MB increase HF with the same consensus there is not risk, so it is ok.

- Many of the people that were completely against BU (me included) was for the reason that BU is an aberration that, besides the buggy code, gives miners the right to increase/decrease blocksize at will. That's too much power for the already powerful miners. A fixed blocksize increase when (or better yet BEFORE) it is needed? FINE!.

Above all, and most importantly... If someday Bitcoin can be replaced for any other altcoin at will, our digital money fantasy castle will crumble.

Can't we all just work on making Bitcoin (the one and only) better instead of trying to fight against it?

P.S.: The way all this "scaling process" has developed makes me think we can, and in fact it is happening.

I agree with you that bitcoin is in a place that is much better than it has ever been (or at least close to that), and I agree with you that there is likely little to no reason for Bitcoin Cash, except as a possible experiential attempt find out whether forking off could cause important mass of others to follow (NOT too likely, like a snowball's chance in hell, but maybe enough to play around with, make some money for some disrupter folks and cause some confusion and FUD).

Your other discussion about some kind of supposed momentum for a 2mb hardfork or any kind of need for such seems to be based on pure wishes rather than any kind of technical justification - so in that regard, a 2mb hardfork seems pretty unlikely to take place in the coming couple of years, even though it will continue to be a reason to spread FUD and disgruntlement and whine and to even be a discussion point.   But in the end there is far from any kind of close consensus on that particular topic, and likely even difficult to achieve greater than 50% consensus when push comes to shove... which is way to fucking low of a consensus point (even 80% is too low) to realistically play the non-consensus based hardfork card.

[lightfoot]

Roach, every post of you reminds me of when I sold a whole bunch of bitcoins at 400$ each to buy gold & silver. It hurts.

Trust me I know your pain: Last summer I was buying gold at 1oz=2btc. This year I'm buying sports cars at 1 car=2btc.

I'll probably feel as stupid next year about this year's buy as I do about last year's buys. :-)

C

[notme]

No, no. No hard forks.

Yes, yes. Yes hard fork.   

fork To Da Moon!!! 

Fork would never moon.

Look at history, look at ETC, it tells enough of this stupid tale.

ETC is the original ruleset.  ETH is the fork.

[savetherainforest]

No, no. No hard forks.

Yes, yes. Yes hard fork.  

fork To Da Moon!!!  

Fork would never moon.

Look at history, look at ETC, it tells enough of this stupid tale.

ETC is the original ruleset.  ETH is the fork.

ETC / ETH would seem to prove that being "correct" isn't worth much if the majority agrees to not give a shit about being "correct".

now... lets find out if people care more about the speed,  ease of use, and cost of TX  Vs technical mobojmobo  

Well to be honest, in these kind of circumstances people go along with the flow for a short period of time after. They take the profits and then the cracks appear long after they drawn their profits and invested them in something else.

Nothing lasts forever. Not even Bitcoin. Because and especially the main reason: 'protocol' / 'procedures' / 'emergency situation protocols'.  That is mostly what gives any system in the Universe, real value!

[JayJuanGee]

Is there going to be a BCC fork no matter what conditions?  I heard some people say that it would only be if UASF split off or something?  I am a bit out of the loop.

From what I understand, it is a done deal.

While the BIP91 activation took the wind out of UASF's sails, there is a growing perception that many simply lied about the 2X portion. This creates incentive to carry through with the BCC fork. Having a viable BCC when the Nov 2X date rolls around changes the game theory significantly.

However this plays out, it'll be a good show. And while Bitcoin may take a temporary hit in the process, it will likely come out the other end stronger. For the market will have informed the proper course of action.

Your premise about bigblockers being tricked through the segwit2x in terms of the 2x not being intended is ridiculous.  With the whole segwit2x matter, there was an attempt of the bigblockers to trick others to adopt a 2x, a hardfork and a change in consensus - however, even their plan seemed to go in a direction that they did not expect because the fact of the matter is that there is little to no support for the 2x, the hardfork and the change in governance - but the fact that there is little to no support is not going to stop the various bigblock nutjobs to continue to whine about being tricked.. when they are merely distorting reality to attempt to make it looks like their following is much greater than it actually is.

Just clarifying for the sake of truth. Depending upon the sequencing of things, Bitcoin Cash may be no more altcoin than is SegWit coin (which is somewhat playfully starting to be referred to as Bitcoin-Jr)

You and your big blocker buddies seem really angry, to be devolving into new name calling and spin terms to attempt to perpetuate various made up bullshit.

Well, JJG, you remain as clueless as ever. How do you get 'angry' out of the above? And what exactly is the bullshit? Either choice going forward is a change to Bitcoin. If one path forward is an alt, then so is the other.

Well maybe I am exaggerating a little bit to make a point about your seemingly ongoing bitterness towards Core personalities, or maybe your mistaken belief that there is a large level consensus out there for bigblocks than the reality of the matter?

You certainly don't come off as a dumb person - but you just seem to be engaged in ongoing nonsense of pushing your various conclusions about the supposed preferability of big blocks - and likely you remain deluded based on getting caught up in politics and a lack of willingness to accept the core process as legit and fair.

When is segwit likely to be activated?

it is approximately   2480  blocks   (464 blocks left in this period plus 2016 blocks in the next period)
and if there are 144 blocks per day, then that is approximately 17.2 days from today.  That means about August 10 - ish ( or 9-ish or 11-ish).  No?

Well, your reasoning is good, but your 144 blocks/day figure is low. Hashpower growth has been outrunning difficulty again. Recent intervals are averaging closer to 8-1/2 minutes. If this continues, you'll get your segwit locked in that much sooner.

I likely agree with you here. 

For the reasons stated by you above and for other reasons, I thought that the 144 blocks per day was too low, but I was using that approximate figure based on a suggestion of Marcus de augustus.... ... so yeah considering about 8.5 minutes per block would change the calculation by a day or two.. and I was merely speaking about some kind of general estimate anyhow, I suppose.

[r0ach]

Nothing lasts forever. Not even Bitcoin.

We can only hope it doesn't last much longer since it's main purpose is simply going to be escalation in the "de-cashing" of society and integration of you into this:

https://steemit.com/news/@r0achtheunsavory/the-r0ach-report-19-the-mainstream-media-broke-all-records-in-malthusian-propaganda-today-rfid-chipping

[JayJuanGee]

Someone (jgarzik?) should submit a BIP for miners to vote same as it has been done with BIP91 but for the 2MB blocksize increase. I am sure miners will keep the agreement and make it pass too.

You really believe that nonsense, bitserve?

Neither JGarzik nor any of the other bigblocker nutjobs want to clarify matters because they likely have less than 30% votes. The only way that they can create the appearance of having consensus is by engaging in tricks and deception.  If they make matters more clear, then they will actually demonstrate their lacking in support.  They don't want to do that.  They thrive off of ambiguity and FUD and threats and also part of their agenda is hidden (not about technical but about governance and personalities).  They really give a ratt's ass about supposed actual technical deficiencies in bitcoin because those technical deficiencies are pretextual or otherwise exaggerations of their fantasy thinking.