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

[fluidjax]

By Szabo's definitions if you are unsure about bitcoin/bcc's future then you should diversify... (self.Bitcoin)

This means if you are unwilling to selling half your bitcoin equity for bcc then the strategy you have chosen is that bitcoin will win out. This goes for r/btc'ers and anyone claiming to favor bcc.

Sitting on only a proportion of bitcoin and airdropped bcc is not a proper vote for being unsure of the outcome. If you don't at least split your equity, whether you admit it or not, your strategy is heavily weighted towards bitcoin

If I give BCH a 0.1% chance of victory, I should hold 0.1% of my portfolio ($ value)  in BCH not 50%.

[TeeBone]

The fork in November is the one to worry about, CrackCash is nothing.

[r0ach]

You are not making a coherent argument.  

Funny how you keep spamming this nonsense of calling metals a "barbarous relic" while all other 999 million people in your country of India are buying metals like I am.  You can be the one single guy in India with no gold or silver! Someone might even put you in an insane asylum for having such views there.

[drbrockcoin]

The paper holds their folded faces to the floor. And every day, the paperboy brings more.

+1 for Bowie erm... Floyd 

[traincarswreck]

If I give BCH a 0.1% chance of victory, I should hold 0.1% of my portfolio ($ value)  in BCH not 50%.

if you give bch a .01% of victory I don't really consider that uncertain.  Uncertain in this sense implies 50/50. Regardless the optimal strategy is to converge the future winning coin as fast as possible as its determined. 

Those that converge on the winning coin first have the most to gain or not to lose

[traincarswreck]

Funny how you keep spamming this nonsense of calling metals a "barbarous relic" while all other 999 million people in your country of India are buying metals like I am.  You can be the one single guy in India with no gold or silver! Someone might even put you in an insane asylum for having such views there.

When I say you are ignoring observable reality this is what the beauty of an internationally constructed price is.  Gold is not a reliable store of value anymore.  You are pointing at history and ignoring its decline over the last 5 years.

It's been getting smashed: http://goldprice.org/

[traincarswreck]

As bitcoin's are being frozen around the world some people still NEED to use the network and this puts upward pressure on the price.

This pressure makes it increasingly difficult for would-be defectors to move their equity off the network.

 Even if they are pro fork their greed stops them from unilaterally deviating.

[hv_]

Funny how you keep spamming this nonsense of calling metals a "barbarous relic" while all other 999 million people in your country of India are buying metals like I am.  You can be the one single guy in India with no gold or silver! Someone might even put you in an insane asylum for having such views there.

When I say you are ignoring observable reality this is what the beauty of an internationally constructed price is.  Gold is not a reliable store of value anymore.  You are pointing at history and ignoring its decline over the last 5 years.

It's been getting smashed: http://goldprice.org/

What are 5 years compared to golds history?

[traincarswreck]

What are 5 years compared to golds history?

They are the most relevant years in our lifetime.  And I reject your assertion that because gold was valued for hedging inflation in the past that it necessarily will continue to be so in the future.  Furthermore Nash Szabo  AND Satoshi predict that gold will lose its monetary nature:

The price of any commodity tends to gravitate toward the production cost.

[jbreher]

Issue in a nutshell:
- On a network where miners do not honor SegWit, all segwit transactions are 'anyone can spend' transactions
- On such a network, each successful miner can spend any 'anyone can spend' transaction to himself
- As segwit is used (e.g., on a segwit-honoring network), more value gets locked up in segwit/'anyone can spend' transactions
- As more value is built up in segwit/'anyone can spend' transactions, this increases the incentive for miners to flip the network from segwit-honoring to non-segwit
- This pressure increases with increasing use of segwit. Even if initially stable, the system tends further toward instability.
The net is that smallblockers need to trust the miners -- whom they seem to already believe to be evil -- to not steal their segwit transactions.

Of course, one can convert a segwit coin back to a bitcoin by spending it to yourself in a non-segwit transaction. But that also mandates a second transaction, thereby nullifying and even reversing segwit's so-called capacity increase.

Sounds very speculative and hypothetical to me.

No. Just No.

Please employ proper logic. Every bulleted item above is a factual statement. Would you like to challenge any of these factual statements on their own merit?

Whether or not those steps get chained together in reality is currently a matter of speculation, yes. But I made no such claim. A set of factual statements is not "speculative and hypothetical".  Any speculation as to the consequences of the above has been left to the reader.

That is nonsense.  I can make all kinds of factual statements, and then there is no consequence unless you can describe some kind of logical connection.

For example:

1) The sky is clear (meaning no clouds) today

2) Billy bob drives a Toyota Prius

3) That window is dangerous because it slams down without any restraints

4) The goat eats a lot of grass, especially for its size.

5) The Iphone will be damaged if you drop it in the toilet, because it is an Iphone 4

6) If any one of those lightbulbs burn out, then the whole chain does not work,

7) e = mc squared


No matter the string of facts, the jbreher Conclusion is:  Segwit is going to be a disaster for bitcoin because it is too complicated, and even though segwit is a done deal, I am going to continue to whine about it and assert that we should employ a more simple and straight forward solution of increasing to 2mb block limits.   

You are being disingenuous and deceitful. Your statement was "very speculative and hypothetical". There was neither speculation, nor hypotheticals in the post you were replying to. Merely a listing of some of the attributes of the SegWit system. You are the one listing nonsense, as the topic here is Bitcoin.

[traincarswreck]

The amount of claimed fork coins will always be more uncertain that the amount of active bitcoins

 It is natural to suggest that the perceived amount of active bitcoin will be more certain than its cloned counterpart.

[JayJuanGee]

By Szabo's definitions if you are unsure about bitcoin/bcc's future then you should diversify... (self.Bitcoin)

This means if you are unwilling to selling half your bitcoin equity for bcc then the strategy you have chosen is that bitcoin will win out. This goes for r/btc'ers and anyone claiming to favor bcc.

Sitting on only a proportion of bitcoin and airdropped bcc is not a proper vote for being unsure of the outcome. If you don't at least split your equity, whether you admit it or not, your strategy is heavily weighted towards bitcoin

If I give BCH a 0.1% chance of victory, I should hold 0.1% of my portfolio ($ value)  in BCH not 50%.

your formula is too simple, but the essence of it is correct.

For example, they may have a 2% chance of surpassing the value of bitcoin.

They might have a 5% chance of equalling the value of bitcoin.

They might have a 10% chance of retaining 15% value of bitcoin. 

They might have a 30% chance of retaining 1% value of bitcoin.

I don't really know what these exact numbers are, but it is true that you should attempt to cause your holdings to be in line with your view of the various probabilities, even if you cause such view to be a simpler formula... that might evolve a bit with the passage of time.. .. like what the fuck, they were able to survive 3 months past the hardfork, and then maybe looking at them 6 months down the road or 1 year or 3 years or 5 years etc.

[fluidjax]

If I give BCH a 0.1% chance of victory, I should hold 0.1% of my portfolio ($ value)  in BCH not 50%.

if you give bch a .01% of victory I don't really consider that uncertain.  Uncertain in this sense implies 50/50. Regardless the optimal strategy is to converge the future winning coin as fast as possible as its determined.  

Those that converge on the winning coin first have the most to gain or not to lose

The point is 50/50 yes/no or up/down is a gross simplification.
Its all about probability, and scaling your exposure to risk in line with your perception of that probability.
 

[JayJuanGee]

[[edited out]

You are being disingenuous and deceitful. Your statement was "very speculative and hypothetical". There was neither speculation, nor hypotheticals in the post you were replying to. Merely a listing of some of the attributes of the SegWit system. You are the one listing nonsense, as the topic here is Bitcoin.

I thought that I was just taking your argument to a further logical extreme in order to emphasize its absurdity, and you are probably correct with your suggestion that i could have probably done that better.  I'll give you that one.  plus one jbreher.   

[traincarswreck]

your formula is too simple, but the essence of it is correct.

For example, they may have a 2% chance of surpassing the value of bitcoin.

They might have a 5% chance of equalling the value of bitcoin.

They might have a 10% chance of retaining 15% value of bitcoin. 

They might have a 30% chance of retaining 1% value of bitcoin.

I don't really know what these exact numbers are, but it is true that you should attempt to cause your holdings to be in line with your view of the various probabilities, even if you cause such view to be a simpler formula... that might evolve a bit with the passage of time.. .. like what the fuck, they were able to survive 3 months past the hardfork, and then maybe looking at them 6 months down the road or 1 year or 3 years or 5 years etc.

Szabo showed we will converge on a single standard.  If we are making a choice 1 will win and the other will revert to its commodity value which is basically null.

[hv_]

Issue in a nutshell:
- On a network where miners do not honor SegWit, all segwit transactions are 'anyone can spend' transactions
- On such a network, each successful miner can spend any 'anyone can spend' transaction to himself
- As segwit is used (e.g., on a segwit-honoring network), more value gets locked up in segwit/'anyone can spend' transactions
- As more value is built up in segwit/'anyone can spend' transactions, this increases the incentive for miners to flip the network from segwit-honoring to non-segwit
- This pressure increases with increasing use of segwit. Even if initially stable, the system tends further toward instability.
The net is that smallblockers need to trust the miners -- whom they seem to already believe to be evil -- to not steal their segwit transactions.

Of course, one can convert a segwit coin back to a bitcoin by spending it to yourself in a non-segwit transaction. But that also mandates a second transaction, thereby nullifying and even reversing segwit's so-called capacity increase.

Sounds very speculative and hypothetical to me.

No. Just No.

Please employ proper logic. Every bulleted item above is a factual statement. Would you like to challenge any of these factual statements on their own merit?

Whether or not those steps get chained together in reality is currently a matter of speculation, yes. But I made no such claim. A set of factual statements is not "speculative and hypothetical".  Any speculation as to the consequences of the above has been left to the reader.

That is nonsense.  I can make all kinds of factual statements, and then there is no consequence unless you can describe some kind of logical connection.

For example:

1) The sky is clear (meaning no clouds) today

2) Billy bob drives a Toyota Prius

3) That window is dangerous because it slams down without any restraints

4) The goat eats a lot of grass, especially for its size.

5) The Iphone will be damaged if you drop it in the toilet, because it is an Iphone 4

6) If any one of those lightbulbs burn out, then the whole chain does not work,

7) e = mc squared


No matter the string of facts, the jbreher Conclusion is:  Segwit is going to be a disaster for bitcoin because it is too complicated, and even though segwit is a done deal, I am going to continue to whine about it and assert that we should employ a more simple and straight forward solution of increasing to 2mb block limits.  

The problem here is that you can and you will find flaws for all solutions, and you can just repeat same phrases from you against SW like this

A: SW is tested and safe lets do it
B :Sounds very speculative and hypothetical to me.
A: No things are different in production compared to testnets, because miners dont cheat there....
.....

This type of discussion will never end since there are just no proper assesments behind and mathematical logic applied, missing probabilities for the desasters to happen.

What process do we need to agree upon a final logical assesment that anyone accepts as a proof?

[traincarswreck]

The point is 50/50 yes/no or up/down is a gross simplification.
Its all about probability, and scaling your exposure to risk in line with your perception of that probability.
 

Are you keeping Szabo's explanation of the logical emergence of money from barter in mind when you say this?  He made a distinct point the network will converge and the loser's value will revert to its commodity value which is effectively zero.

[JayJuanGee]

[edited out]

The problem here is that you can and you will find flaws for all solutions, and you can just repeat same phrases from you against SW like this

A: SW is tested and safe lets do it
B :Sounds very speculative and hypothetical to me.
A: No things are different in production compared to testnets, because miners dont cheat there....
.....

This type of discussion will never end since there are just no proper assesments behind and mathematical logic applied, missing probabilities for the desasters to happen.

What process do we need to agree upon a final logical assesment that anyone accepts as a proof?

O.k.  I will admit that I was being a bit flippant in my last post, but that is not merely because I am lacking in substance, but possibly the frustration (and maybe even humor) in the fact that a lot of you big blocker nutjobs want to continue to argue about a done deal.  seg wit is going to lock in and to activate, so what fucking good does it do to keep complaining with a bunch of bullshit arguments that segwit does not work when it has not even gone live yet?

There is a process for getting these kinds of things passed.  Segwit passed through the process and neither 2mb upgrade, nor hardfork nor changing governance passed.  Yeah those others were proposed, but they did not get accepted through the process.  So, now we are on the eve of activating segwit and a bunch of nonsensical specualtion about all the things that it supposedly cannot do.. blah blah blah.. and we have not even seen the first generation of applications built upon the thing and then going live on the thing.

I'm looking forward to finding out what kinds of things are going to be built upon segwit and therefore it looks like we are truly entering into exciting times in the coming year or two.

[savetherainforest]

That moment of the day when I'm like:







    Up! Up!! Up!!!

    pUmP! pUmP!! pUmP!!!

[noobtrader]

dont worry guys....  fork is good trend,  the last time eth got forked, it fly 20x of its price.  moreover, Mcafee says btc will reach 500k usd in 3 years https://www.rt.com/viral/396791-mcafee-penis-bitcoin-price/

so in three years, either we all will own some lambo or we will see some action on national tv....