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

[empowering]

CNBC on Bitcoin and Gold vs Fiat

https://youtu.be/nY__czzeAEA

[empowering]

BCH Update

There have been 305 blocks mined since the hard fork.

(946 blocks behind the original chain)


The Bitcoin Cash blockchain is currently operating at 13% of the original chain's difficulty.


The original chain has grown 1,013.97MB more than the Bitcoin Cash blockchain.


It is currently 29% more profitable to mine on the original chain.

Current price= treefiddy $320 ish

[Torque]

CNBC on Bitcoin and Gold vs Fiat
https://youtu.be/nY__czzeAEA

Ugh. Why does every MSM corespondent that talks about Bitcoin sound like they have barely reached the pinnacle of Mt. Stupid on the subject? They should all just stop.

[bitserve]

BCH Update

There have been 305 blocks mined since the hard fork.

(946 blocks behind the original chain)


The Bitcoin Cash blockchain is currently operating at 13% of the original chain's difficulty.


The original chain has grown 1,013.97MB more than the Bitcoin Cash blockchain.


It is currently 29% more profitable to mine on the original chain.

Current price= treefiddy $320 ish

So, in just a few days, the original blockchain even with "limited" 1MB blocksize and in comparison to BCH which also has had some good amount of TX's have grown *1GB* more than BCH... More than 1GB in a few days on a decentralised redundant network that is replicated over thousands of nodes.

And they think it should grow much faster than that? Makes totally sense. NOT.

If that is not a good indication that ALL tx's can't go over blockchain I don't know what it is. Specially if we want to scale several orders of magnitude for Bitcoin.

[eXpl0sive]

So, in just a few days, the original blockchain even with "limited" 1MB blocksize and in comparison to BCH which also has had some good amount of TX's have grown *1GB* more than BCH... More than 1GB in a few days on a decentralised redundant network that is replicated over thousands of nodes.

And they think it should grow much faster than that? Makes totally sense. NOT.

If that is not a good indication that ALL tx's can't go over blockchain I don't know what it is. Specially if we want to scale several orders of magnitude for Bitcoin.

Imagine the same scenario with 8MB (or Unlimited MB) blocks...

[bitserve]

So, in just a few days, the original blockchain even with "limited" 1MB blocksize and in comparison to BCH which also has had some good amount of TX's have grown *1GB* more than BCH... More than 1GB in a few days on a decentralised redundant network that is replicated over thousands of nodes.

And they think it should grow much faster than that? Makes totally sense. NOT.

If that is not a good indication that ALL tx's can't go over blockchain I don't know what it is. Specially if we want to scale several orders of magnitude for Bitcoin.

Imagine the same scenario with 8MB (or Unlimited MB) blocks...

Problem is not if we use 1MB or 8MB or whatever blocksize.... as soon as we DON'T FILL THEM. Want to have a bigger blocksize to avoid bottlenecks on heavy tx spikes? Fine.

I am in with the 2x blocksize increase if it can be done safely and with consensus, BUT please have that Lighting networks in place before so that we don't really need fill the fucking blocks (if the blocks are not completely filled, there's no such database increase.... maybe there's some people who don't realise this).

[Ted E. Bare]

Did SegWit lock in?

[DARKHOLDER]

Did SegWit lock in?

Yes! Need to wait activation...in late august.

[Paashaas]

The 2x part will never happen in November but who cares?  Bigblockers have finally there BCash coin with no Segwit+8mb blocks...thats what they wanted, right?

Those noobs should stop crying for christ sake...if China didn't HF into BCash then the changes where much higher for the 2x agreement. Double shoot in there own feet lol.

Do people really think moving hunderds of thousands of tx's + multi billion dollar assets/services and other applications just in 1 block...That's way to much ''traffic'' which will lead to heavy
centralization and a good change all those assets goes banana's.

[Torque]

The 2x part will never happen in November but who cares?  Bigblockers have finally there BCash coin with no Segwit+8mb blocks...thats what they wanted, right?

Those noobs should stop crying for christ sake...if China didn't HF into BCash then the changes where much higher for the 2x agreement. Double shoot in there own feet lol.

BCash was created for the express purpose of making sure that the scaling debate will continue on into the future ad nauseam and ad infinitum.

The FUDsters can never ever let FUD die, or else Bitcoin wins.

That is all.

News flash:

BITCOIN WILL NEVER BE PERFECT.^{BITCOIN WILL NEVER BE PERFECT.BITCOIN WILL NEVER BE PERFECT.}
"Never let Perfect become the enemy of Good Enough."

[bitserve]

The 2x part will never happen in November but who cares?  Bigblockers have finally there BCash coin with no Segwit+8mb blocks...thats what they wanted, right?

Those noobs should stop crying for christ sake...if China didn't HF into BCash then the changes where much higher for the 2x agreement. Double shoot in there own feet lol.

BCash was created for the express purpose of making sure that the scaling debate will continue on into the future ad nauseam and ad infinitum.

The FUDsters can never ever let FUD die, or else Bitcoin wins.

That is all.

News flash:

BITCOIN WILL NEVER BE PERFECT.^{BITCOIN WILL NEVER BE PERFECT.BITCOIN WILL NEVER BE PERFECT.}

But everytime the FUD is defeated Bitcoin comes stronger and higher in price. So.... let the FUD attacks continue!

[Last of the V8s]

10 years ago

https://group.bnpparibas/en/press-release/bnp-paribas-investment-partners-temporaly-suspends-calculation-net-asset-funds-parvest-dynamic-abs-bnp-paribas-abs-euribor-bnp-paribas-abs-eonia

BNP Paribas Investment Partners temporaly [sic] suspends the calculation of the Net Asset Value of the following funds : Parvest Dynamic ABS, BNP Paribas ABS EURIBOR and BNP Paribas ABS EONIA

The complete evaporation of liquidity in certain market segments of the US securitization market has made it impossible to value certain assets fairly, regardless of their quality or credit rating.

In English what that means is "we couldn't sell this stuff if we tried because no-one knows what it's worth, if anything".


bitcoiners avidly await the next time the truth catches up with these banksters

[AlexGR]

The 2x part will never happen in November but who cares?  Bigblockers have finally there BCash coin with no Segwit+8mb blocks...thats what they wanted, right?

What they want is control. Block sizes are irrelevant
 

[yefi]

Is this "sell the news" or speculation that once SegWit gets activated there will be problems?

Or just the fact that the price stopped climbing so people will take this opportunity to sell some coins until the next leg up.

Probably the latter. We'll be back up soon enough though.

[bitserve]

The 2x part will never happen in November but who cares?  Bigblockers have finally there BCash coin with no Segwit+8mb blocks...thats what they wanted, right?

What they want is control. Block sizes are irrelevant
 

Miners already have enough control with their hashrate. I prefer a plurality of influencing actors (miners, exchanges, developers, main whales, relevant individuals, users, etc) as a form of power decentralisation.

I do agree block size is not that much relevant (within some common sense boundaries). So that's why I am fine with a moderate (2x) blocksize increase.... delivered by CORE developers and in the safest possible way.

I am totally in disagreement with more power/control "flippening". Let's just have some respect to the "status quo" that have lead us to where we are right now and keep evolving slowly and without ridiculous experiments and power unbalances.

[fragout]

What percentage does 2x need in order to lock in? and when will we know if its likely or not. Also if it has 90% support or so, will core still forge on with their non 2x chain?.
I thought everything was great after the BCH split went smoothly and we were finished with this uncertainty but no such luck.

[bitserve]

What percentage does 2x need in order to lock in? and when will we know if its likely or not. Also if it has 90% support or so, will core still forge on with their non 2x chain?.
I thought everything was great after the BCH split went smoothly and we were finished with this uncertainty but no such luck.

Consensus rules should be the same: 95%+. It is possible to make the same trick that was done for Segwit of having an intermediate BIP that once locked with a lower percentage (80%?) starts rejecting non-signaling blocks so that it forces a 95%+ on second stage.

That also sends a signal to the market that the "upgrade" is unanimously consensutated, even if it is done in a forcible way. I am ok with that.

Anything below 80% consensus for the first stage (intermediary BIP) should be considered an attack.

[fragout]

What percentage does 2x need in order to lock in? and when will we know if its likely or not. Also if it has 90% support or so, will core still forge on with their non 2x chain?.
I thought everything was great after the BCH split went smoothly and we were finished with this uncertainty but no such luck.

Consensus rules should be the same: 95%+. It is possible to make the same trick that was done for Segwit of having an intermediate BIP that once locked with a lower percentage (80%?) starts rejecting non-signaling blocks so that it forces a 95%+ on second stage.

That also sends a signal to the market that the "upgrade" is unanimously consensutated, even if it is done in a forcible way. I am ok with that.

Anything below 80% consensus for the first stage (intermediary BIP) should be considered an attack.

So at the moment, its 95% needed or perhaps 80% if another bip is introduced. If it dosnt make this, it is just not implemented and there is no new fork Y/N ?

[bitserve]

What percentage does 2x need in order to lock in? and when will we know if its likely or not. Also if it has 90% support or so, will core still forge on with their non 2x chain?.
I thought everything was great after the BCH split went smoothly and we were finished with this uncertainty but no such luck.

Consensus rules should be the same: 95%+. It is possible to make the same trick that was done for Segwit of having an intermediate BIP that once locked with a lower percentage (80%?) starts rejecting non-signaling blocks so that it forces a 95%+ on second stage.

That also sends a signal to the market that the "upgrade" is unanimously consensutated, even if it is done in a forcible way. I am ok with that.

Anything below 80% consensus for the first stage (intermediary BIP) should be considered an attack.

So at the moment, its 95% needed or perhaps 80% if another bip is introduced. If it dosnt make this, it is just not implemented and there is no new fork Y/N ?

Donno. It depends on how the CORE developers deliver and how miners will behave depending on circumstances. I am just describing what would be ideal circumstances and what would provide the best outcome for all of them/us.

Also, it is probable that CORE developers accept a 2MB fix patch with a 95% consensus rule, not below. It would up to the miners to do the intermediary BIP (as they did with Segwit) to make sure it "forces" the higher consensus after an intermediary BIP is activated with a lesser consensus requirement.

Otherwise the reality is that many actors could veto EVERYTHING with just a 5% hashrate.

[DonQuijote]

BCH Update

There have been 305 blocks mined since the hard fork.

(946 blocks behind the original chain)


The Bitcoin Cash blockchain is currently operating at 13% of the original chain's difficulty.


The original chain has grown 1,013.97MB more than the Bitcoin Cash blockchain.


It is currently 29% more profitable to mine on the original chain.

Current price= treefiddy $320 ish

Is block time stable?