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

[becoin]

Ver and Wu just went full retard selling all of their BTC for an alt coin.

That is excellent!
Sooner or later the fool and his money get parted.
The way Ver and Wu decided to part with their money is the best possible for the rest of us.

[leowonderful]

I sold my BCH on the first day I could trade it on Kraken and that was some BCH I don't regret selling. BCH could win out but I think I'll stick with BTC. I do see some good opportunities to buy some BCH with all these sudden fluctuations, though.

[infofront]

Anyone going to walk away from crypto if BCH wins? Or are you happy to use whatever coin comes out on top? I got into Bitcoin for the same reason it was created in the first place, being sick and tired of greedy billionaires manipulating the system for their own gains. And yet here we are, Roger Ver trying to devalue the wealth I already have in order to achieve adoption of his shitcoin. Sounds like a plan straight out of the centralised bankers playbook. It fucking stinks.

If any forked coin beats out Bitcoin Core, I think it would be Segwit2X.

If it comes out on top, I'd consider supporting it, so long as the dev team is competent, non-corrupt, and keeps the coin as close as possible to Satoshi's vision.

[bitserve]

Anyone going to walk away from crypto if BCH wins? Or are you happy to use whatever coin comes out on top? I got into Bitcoin for the same reason it was created in the first place, being sick and tired of greedy billionaires manipulating the system for their own gains. And yet here we are, Roger Ver trying to devalue the wealth I already have in order to achieve adoption of his shitcoin. Sounds like a plan straight out of the centralised bankers playbook. It fucking stinks.

If any forked coin beats out Bitcoin Core, I think it would be Segwit2X.

If it comes out on top, I'd consider supporting it, so long as the dev team is competent, non-corrupt, and keeps the coin as close as possible to Satoshi's vision.

Agreed.

I am ok with the 2x blocksize increase. Would like it would be CORE who delivers it though. BCH? It doesn't even support Segwit or Linghting Network and THAT is the best advancement Bitcoin have had in years. It's the future.... And the future is now

[Ludwig Von]

I sold my BCH on the first day I could trade it on Kraken and that was some BCH I don't regret selling. BCH could win out but I think I'll stick with BTC. I do see some good opportunities to buy some BCH with all these sudden fluctuations, though.

I sold immediately for 0.145.... . So we will see... .

[infofront]

Anyone going to walk away from crypto if BCH wins? Or are you happy to use whatever coin comes out on top? I got into Bitcoin for the same reason it was created in the first place, being sick and tired of greedy billionaires manipulating the system for their own gains. And yet here we are, Roger Ver trying to devalue the wealth I already have in order to achieve adoption of his shitcoin. Sounds like a plan straight out of the centralised bankers playbook. It fucking stinks.

If any forked coin beats out Bitcoin Core, I think it would be Segwit2X.

If it comes out on top, I'd consider supporting it, so long as the dev team is competent, non-corrupt, and keeps the coin as close as possible to Satoshi's vision.

Agreed.

I am ok with the 2x blocksize increase. Would like it would be CORE who delivers it though. BCH? It doesn't even support Segwit or Linghting Network and THAT is the best advancement Bitcoin have had in years. It's the future.... And the future is now

It seems really odd to me that Core hasn't just implemented a 2MB blocksize. Even if there's no technical need, there's a social need. Instead, they've let a deep division in the community grow much deeper.

Now everyone is so emotionally invested in one side or the other that I fear it may be impossible for the community to unite and heal.

[machasm]

Its heartbreaking to see something that could really change the way every individual could be empowered being fought over by a few greedy individuals.
If mining wasn't so centralised I doubt that there would be too many switching to mine the alt chain. I understand that miners mine for profit but what about idealism?

[gentlemand]

It seems really odd to me that Core hasn't just implemented a 2MB blocksize. Even if there's no technical need, there's a social need. Instead, they've let a deep division in the community grow much deeper.

Now everyone is so emotionally invested in one side or the other that I fear it may be impossible for the community to unite and heal.

They would regard that as coercion. It's an unfortunate clash between real worldliness and techno diligence.

As soon as the 1MB thing was put in place by Satoshi it was picked up as a future nightmare by others. Even when BTC was nowhere back then, anyone could tell you 200 and something thousand txs per day wasn't ever going to be enough even if it was a modest success.

Something should've been put in place long before it actually became an issue, either artificially created or not.

[becoin]

It seems really odd to me that Core hasn't just implemented a 2MB blocksize. Even if there's no technical need, there's a social need.

Big blocktards are spamming the network to increase tx costs and make you think there is such a need. The higher are tx costs the more expensive is to spam bitcoin blockchain. This is why there is neither technical nor social need for 2mb blocksize.

[Torque]

It seems really odd to me that Core hasn't just implemented a 2MB blocksize. Even if there's no technical need, there's a social need. Instead, they've let a deep division in the community grow much deeper.

Infofront, I like you and always value your input, but I'm not sure where to start with that comment.

Nothing should be altered to the Bitcoin protocol just to appease a vocal subset of end users that compromises/sacrifices the totality of the Bitcoin network's technical aspects, including it's future scalability, it's decentralization, or it's security. Absolutely nothing.

Also a division is not a deep division if it's like 90/10. Or even 80/20. The minority outlier is irrelevant, and if the don't like it they can always move over to another cryptocurrency that suits them.

[bitserve]

I could argue why there is a NEED for a 2x blocksize increase in the near future, but I won't. Because there is something more important than technicalities here. Think about it as an strategy game. The winning move for CORE to do is implement the 2x blocksize increase and let the miners "vote" on it same as it has been done with Segwit. That will CRUSH any desidents at no cost.

Bitcoin is now much more than just a technical project. Strategy, politics and marketing also do play a huge role. Get used to it.

[Dakustaking76]

I Will Tell you Why there pumping bch

Beceause of the segwit, Next week is segggggwit coming to bitcoin.
There trying to make panic sell So the price gets down...
Again they Will try it And poeple Will fall to it.

Hold your coins, maybe this weekend dump But Next week i think we Will see a new ath before
Segwit locks in then again a litle decrease in price then the train Will leave....

[bitserve]

It seems really odd to me that Core hasn't just implemented a 2MB blocksize. Even if there's no technical need, there's a social need.

Big blocktards are spamming the network to increase tx costs and make you think there is such a need. The higher are tx costs the more expensive is to spam bitcoin blockchain. This is why there is neither technical nor social need for 2mb blocksize.

Invalid argument. Spamming a 2MB block size would cost 2x fees.... or just the same as now if fees are reduced to half.

P.S.: On second though it would require a much higher cost. Currently they maybe only need to spam with 10 or 20% more tx's to fill the 1MB block. If that's the case, they would need to spam with 120% tx's to fill an "unneeded" 2MB block size". So it basically makes spamming way more costly even if fees were reduced to half.

P.S.: Also, I assume you guys know that no matter what the MAXIMUM block size is, the actual blocks only are as big as actual tx's for that particular block there is. Not bigger, not smaller than that.

[r0ach]

The real state bubble exploded years ago. Maybe in some places/locations/type of property there is still some overprice.... but there are LOTS of great buying opportunities.

I don't think you've studied real estate whatsoever.  The previous real estate bubble that crashed has mostly re-inflated right back into the same bubble as before.  I guess a few rural places might have been left out, but not any contested places or high traffic areas.  Also, back in the old days (when really old people like JimboToronto were alive) you could buy a house with like 2-3x the average yearly salary.  Now home prices are like 10x the average yearly salary.

This was solely a function of the bankers manipulating the market into a state permanent NINJA loans and getting the government to backstop their losses if it all blows up on them by everyone defaulting.  Meaning if banks did not exist and everyone had to pay cash for houses, the prices would be extremely low since nobody can extend the payment process over 30 years.  If everyone on the planet can take out a 30 year NINJA loan, this means people who wouldn't even need a loan to buy a house before now need to take out a loan to get one too.

People buying up all the houses using zero collateral (many times the bankers themselves) create artificial scarcity, thus skyrocketing prices so you're required to labor decades more than normal for the same house.  It's in the banker's interest to create housing bubbles because it forces the entire population into taking out loans which they otherwise would not need, or a giant transfer of wealth from the bottom 99% to the top 0.000000001% in other words.

The housing market is starting to look up, though.  Pretty soon we'll all be saying "remember back in the old days before the bankers were holocausted (this time for real)?":

[El duderino_]

I Will Tell you Why there pumping bch

Beceause of the segwit, Next week is segggggwit coming to bitcoin.
There trying to make panic sell So the price gets down...
Again they Will try it And poeple Will fall to it.

Hold your coins, maybe this weekend dump But Next week i think we Will see a new ath before
Segwit locks in then again a litle decrease in price then the train Will leave....

this is how it must be i allready grabt my bags and sitting on the train

[infofront]

It seems really odd to me that Core hasn't just implemented a 2MB blocksize. Even if there's no technical need, there's a social need. Instead, they've let a deep division in the community grow much deeper.

Infofront, I like you and always value your input, but I'm not sure where to start with that comment.

Nothing should be altered to the Bitcoin protocol just to appease a vocal subset of end users that compromises/sacrifices the totality of the Bitcoin network's technical aspects, including it's future scalability, it's decentralization, or it's security. Absolutely nothing.

Also a division is not a deep division if it's like 90/10. Or even 80/20. The minority outlier is irrelevant, and if the don't like it they can always move over to another cryptocurrency that suits them.

I'm always open to criticism  

As bitserve said above, it would've been politically prudent to increase the blocksize 2X. Politics are unavoidable, have been ever present in bitcoin, and cannot be ignored. Besides, I doubt such a small increase would have anything but a trivial effect on network security. Maybe a few Raspberry Pi nodes would go offline?

We'll see how deep the division in the community is when Segwit2x forks off. However it turns out, I think we'll all be worse off than if the forks had been avoided altogether.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

It seems really odd to me that Core hasn't just implemented a 2MB blocksize. Even if there's no technical need, there's a social need. Instead, they've let a deep division in the community grow much deeper.

Infofront, I like you and always value your input, but I'm not sure where to start with that comment.

Nothing should be altered to the Bitcoin protocol just to appease a vocal subset of end users that compromises/sacrifices the totality of the Bitcoin network's technical aspects, including it's future scalability, it's decentralization, or it's security. Absolutely nothing.

Also a division is not a deep division if it's like 90/10. Or even 80/20. The minority outlier is irrelevant, and if the don't like it they can always move over to another cryptocurrency that suits them.

I'm always open to criticism  

As bitserve said above, it would've been politically prudent to increase the blocksize 2X. Politics are unavoidable, have been ever present in bitcoin, and cannot be ignored. Besides, I doubt such a small increase would have anything but a trivial effect on network security. Maybe a few Raspberry Pi nodes would go offline?

We'll see how deep the division in the community is when Segwit2x forks off. However it turns out, I think we'll all be worse off than if the forks had been avoided altogether.

If Segwit2x doesn't implement replay protection I imagine it'll be us that forks off.

[bitserve]

The real state bubble exploded years ago. Maybe in some places/locations/type of property there is still some overprice.... but there are LOTS of great buying opportunities.

I don't think you've studied real estate whatsoever.  The previous real estate bubble that crashed has mostly re-inflated right back into the same bubble as before.  I guess a few rural places might have been left out, but not any contested places or high traffic areas.  Also, back in the old days (when really old people like JimboToronto were alive) you could buy a house with like 2-3x the average yearly salary.  Now home prices are like 10x the average yearly salary.

This was solely a function of the bankers manipulating the market into a state permanent NINJA loans and getting the government to backstop their losses if it all blows up on them by everyone defaulting.  Meaning if banks did not exist and everyone had to pay cash for houses, the prices would be extremely low since nobody can extend the payment process over 30 years.  If everyone on the planet can take out a 30 year NINJA loan, this means people who wouldn't even need a loan to buy a house before now need to take out a loan to get one too.

People buying up all the houses using zero collateral (many times the bankers themselves) create artificial scarcity, thus skyrocketing prices so you're required to labor decades more than normal for the same house.  It's in the banker's interest to create housing bubbles because it forces the entire population into taking out loans which they otherwise would not need, or a giant transfer of wealth from the bottom 99% to the top 0.000000001% in other words.

The housing market is starting to look up, though.  Pretty soon we'll all be saying "remember back in the old days before the bankers were holocausted (this time for real)?":

While I do agree with most of your arguments there, I think you haven't look at the link I posted. You usually talk about "cost of production".... well, there you have an example of a new apartment that is CLEARLY BELOW cost of construction.

My point is that there are many good investments you can find in real state nowadays. And that even if there is still also many overpriced places/locations it is not as much as when the bubble was in full effect.

Do you think the "way overpriced" apartments in the middle of manhattan, that cost several million dollars, are going to devaluate to half or even more ? I don't think so.

A bubble is when something is several times more expensive than it should be. I don't see real state going several times cheaper than what it is today. Plus you can find bargains with more upside than downside potential.

[becoin]

As bitserve said above, it would've been politically prudent to increase the blocksize 2X. Politics are unavoidable, have been ever present in bitcoin, and cannot be ignored.

Political ambitions should not be ignored but must not be stimulated. 2X blocksize increase doesn't solve any technical problem. ANY! It only satisfies political ambitions of big blocktards and will stimulate further extortions by Chinese mining cartel.

[Torque]

However it turns out, I think we'll all be worse off than if the forks had been avoided altogether.

Yes, but this is a fallacy.

Bitcoin forks can be created by anyone, at any time. Trying to change rules to appease some vocal subset wouldn't stop or block such ability. In fact it is a feature by design. There is no "avoiding it" and there's no one that Bitcoin should have to appease or answer to except for the majority of it users, and to implement/include things that insure it's own long term survival. The existing attributes and rules do just that. They can also be tweaked as time goes on.

Miners will continue to mine and secure the network as long as there is economic incentive to do so and as long as sufficient demand extends them a profit, i.e., end users are still buying it and using it daily. Otherwise, vocal miners don't need to be "appeased" and certainly not under any kind of threats or hostile strong arming.

Just look at the oil commodity sector. You don't see major oil drillers going "Look, you [OPEC] raise the price of oil back to > $100/barrel, or we will shut down all our drilling rigs and walk off the jobs tomorrow!!!" They will continue to drill oil as long as there is enough demand they make a profit, or until they go bankrupt.