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

[sirazimuth]

....


Edit.

One day I'll get the hang of trimming posts down. Fuck

I can assist.   

Ha ha thanks. I think.

Been here for a number of years now and still can't do it.

Noob

quote it...highlight desired text to discard ...delete (use the backspace key)
the trick is leaving in a strategic "[/quote]"  here and there.
 I use preview till i get it right...

[P4ndoraBox]

One day, my dream is to come back to thread, and see absolutely no discussions of contentious shitcoin forks.... sigh..  

It's true though isn't it.....


The more forks that happen will prove that everything that's forked is bullshit compared to the real Bitcoin. It will strengthen bitcoin in the long run.

^^

[El duderino_]

so end october +6K or under

[Heater]

One day, my dream is to come back to thread, and see absolutely no discussions of contentious shitcoin forks.... sigh..  

It's true though isn't it.....


The more forks that happen will prove that everything that's forked is bullshit compared to the real Bitcoin. It will strengthen bitcoin in the long run.

^^

Agree 100% but in my mind there are 2 types of forks -

1) people forking off the main chain and going their own way - to survive they will need a emergency difficulty adjustment. Hopeful most of these will die off asap which will reinforce Bitcoin over and over again and

2) forks of the main chain that everyone follows.

I honestly think we need more of the second type of fork - it will progress the Bitcoin state of the art (even if the improvements are tiny and incremental), bring the community together and build confidence that we have our shit together. Right now we are lacking the leadership that can make it happen, which is a shame because it makes the core team look weak - technically sound, but politically weak and naive. I cringe when I see all the emotional No2X / UASF stuff.

[xhomerx10]

so end october +6K or under

 Honeybadger just bounced off a support zone and RSI is back down to normal range.   We"re going to test 6200 again soon.
Happy 🎃!

[Torque]

the supposed fork is actually an attack.

It may be worth observing the fact that whether this is an attack or rather a simple upgrade is dependent upon your individual perspective.

The real goal is replacing Core with more - say - malleable developer(s).

Notion is absurd.

IF S2X becomes the hashrate victor
AND
IF the core developers switch to developing an S2X compatible client
THEN
It is highly likely that their implementation will acquire majority status
AND
They would not, in fact, be replaced.

No, but they would walk off the project. For having an untested, unproven, hastily written fork with an unneeded block size increase thrust into their lap to support.

Which is EXACTLY what the attackers are wanting. Hoping for actually.

But no worries, if that happens you will see the biggest "tea party protest mega dump" you've ever seen in your life, right after the core devs fork to a PoW algo change... the economic majority will move with them.

The future of crypto will not be corporatized and centralized...

[Heater]

so end october +6K or under

Who the hell knows? Still 5 days to go so I would say over 6K.

I honestly don't know how people trade Bitcoins. At most timescales it looks like a random walk to me.

[Vin]

so end october +6K or under

Who the hell knows? Still 5 days to go so I would say over 6K.

I honestly don't know how people trade Bitcoins. At most timescales it looks like a random walk to me.

Over 6k should be OK.

[JayJuanGee]

Under all these assumptions
(whose plausibility could be debated, but we know better than to engage in that right now, or at least I do)
that's right, they wouldn't be.

Yes, given the assumptions. Which, I agree, are debatable. The point remains that any 'changing of the guard' would be an abdication*. And hence, would not be merely an effort to overthrow the current devs with ones more malleable.

*Much as we all abdicated our consensus-determining (i.e., mining) power years ago.

https://coin.dance/blocks  

segwit2x signaling rate is down to 75% in the last 24 hours. miners changing their minds?

A word from Jeff Bezos could nail S2X inside its coffin.

If that be true, a differing word from Jeff Bezos could also nail S1X inside its coffin.

Trying to insult bitcoin by calling it S1X isn't gonna change anything.

These stupid assorted monikers are reserved for garbage alts and forkcoin attacks.

Bitcoin is called bitcoin whether you like it or not.

Actually, this is a good point orpington..   There is a frequent ongoing campaign from bitcoin deniers and bitcoin attackers to attempt to denigrate bitcoin and to attempt to cause their alt coin propaganda to be some kind of bitcoin equivalent by renaming bitcoin..   They do this over and over and over hoping that their nonsense nomenclature will sink in and either confuse people regarding the real bitcoin or to increase the stature of their attack (or alt coin)

[jbreher]

If that be true, a differing word from Jeff Bezos could also nail S1X inside its coffin.

Wrong.

Many wealthy and powerful people already have said many words against Bitcoin. But instead of going into the coffin it got to $6K.

Yes, but you are speaking of Schoredinger's Bitcoin. We won't know if it is S1X or if it is S2X until after the box is opened.

Trying to insult bitcoin by calling it S1X isn't gonna change anything.

These stupid assorted monikers are reserved for garbage alts and forkcoin attacks.

Bitcoin is called bitcoin whether you like it or not.

I am not trying to insult Bitcoin. You cannot deny that SegWit did not appear as it would become reality until miners signaled for NYA. Further, a significant portion of the community is fully behind S2X.  See above. The box is yet to be opened.

attempt to cause their alt coin propaganda to be some kind of bitcoin equivalent by renaming bitcoin.

It cannot be denied that the change from pre-segwit to The SegWit Omnibus Changeset (i.e., S1X) is a much larger change to Bitcoin than that from S1X to S2X. In a decentralized, permissionless, trustless system, changes from any party are equally valid until cast in the crucible of the marketplace. Just because a change is advocated by core, does not convey upon it any de facto legitimacy. Again, see above.

[becoin]

If that be true, a differing word from Jeff Bezos could also nail S1X inside its coffin.

Wrong.

Many wealthy and powerful people already have said many words against Bitcoin. But instead of going into the coffin it got to $6K.

Yes, but you are speaking of Schoredinger's Bitcoin. We won't know if it is S1X or of it is S2X until after the box is opened.

No, I'm speaking about Bitcoin.
Bitcoin doesn't care what imaginary box you have in your head or how do you try to open it.

[ragnar0k]

Trying to insult bitcoin by calling it S1X isn't gonna change anything.

These stupid assorted monikers are reserved for garbage alts and forkcoin attacks.

Bitcoin is called bitcoin whether you like it or not.

Actually, this is a good point orpington..   There is a frequent ongoing campaign from bitcoin deniers and bitcoin attackers to attempt to denigrate bitcoin and to attempt to cause their alt coin propaganda to be some kind of bitcoin equivalent by renaming bitcoin..   They do this over and over and over hoping that their nonsense nomenclature will sink in and either confuse people regarding the real bitcoin or to increase the stature of their attack (or alt coin)

This has proven that every random person with enough miner support can turn up and call their fork an update...
If we think these guys are a problem, it will be much worse once the big corps join the BTC train, it will take someone with bad intentions and lots of $$$ no time to corrupt the right people

[JayJuanGee]

One day, my dream is to come back to thread, and see absolutely no discussions of contentious shitcoin forks.... sigh..  

It's true though isn't it.....


The more forks that happen will prove that everything that's forked is bullshit compared to the real Bitcoin. It will strengthen bitcoin in the long run.

^^

Agree 100% but in my mind there are 2 types of forks -

1) people forking off the main chain and going their own way - to survive they will need a emergency difficulty adjustment. Hopeful most of these will die off asap which will reinforce Bitcoin over and over again and

2) forks of the main chain that everyone follows.

I honestly think we need more of the second type of fork - it will progress the Bitcoin state of the art (even if the improvements are tiny and incremental), bring the community together and build confidence that we have our shit together. Right now we are lacking the leadership that can make it happen, which is a shame because it makes the core team look weak - technically sound, but politically weak and naive. I cringe when I see all the emotional No2X / UASF stuff.

You can cringe all you want with your core denigration and pro-forking nonsense talk.       

[JayJuanGee]

I am not trying to insult Bitcoin. You cannot deny that SegWit did not appear as it would become reality until miners signaled for NYA. Further, a significant portion of the community is fully behind S2X.  See above. The box is yet to be opened.

Yeah?  Spin all that you like jbreher.. that is not what happened.

Let me attempt to edumacate you (to any extent that it might actually be possible to edumacate a troll like you    ) about what actually happened.  


The various bullshit segwit2x and NY agreement ended up facilitating an avenue in order to accomplish what the vast majority recognized to be to the benefit of bitcoin, and that was an avenue to lock-in, activate and subsequently implement segwit.

Yeah, there were several of the fucking nutjob BIGBLOCKERS, other anti-bitcoin folks, corporate shills who did not like what had happened, and they both 1) embarked upon a spontaneous renegade hardfork (aka BCH) and 2) kept up with their stupid ass largely non-supported whining that 2x is needed.. blah, blah, blah in order to continue to attack bitcoin and to attempt by whatever means possible to get some kind of inroads in either undermining bitcoin's governance or otherwise weakening of bitcoin in order to pump their various alternative projects.

Sure there might be some other stuff going on too, but the nutshell of what happened is how I outline above, and many folks who know about bitcoin know that my outline above is correct and even the vast majority of smart money likely understands these basic points, too.. and that is that hardforks have become attack vectors of the BIG blocker nutjobs rather than either legitimate criticisms or evidence of actual technical bitcoin flaws.

[Torque]

Notice how jbreher just comes here to troll, and then leave.

He doesn't really give a shit what the latest Bitcoin fork du jour is, as long as it's not the current core developed, fully tested, and supported version (which is working stellar, btw). Thus the reason why he shilled for XT/BU, then got his BCH with 8X but still isn't happy, and now discarding it just like Ver/Wu/Wright and has moved on to promoting 2X. And when that fails, I guess he'll just move on to shilling for the next contentious fork?

The trolls like him will never stop, because they hate a decentralized, non-corp controlled Bitcoin with the core team currently at the helm. It throws a monkey wrench into their whole "Bitcoin-as-PayPal-2.0" plans.

[LewisPirenne]

Though fratricide are plainly tragic, I do think that a civil war is needed before Bitcoin grows to the next stage (i.e. a new order, a new empire).  Otherwise, it would just be all words and "perceived" power, which may not be an indication of real power they wield.  

I doubt Satoshi sees a world with thousands of cryptocurrencies competing with each other, where miners can jump in to strip-mine a crypto to the ground, then leave as soon as it is unprofitable to do so and leave the chain to die or languish.  That would be "against their self-interest" as according to the white paper right?  Not if there are tons of crypto to choose from and mine.  

So once there are thousands of crypto around and more fork/alt are coming everyday, then hashrate WILL follow profitability.  What determines profitability?  Market price.  And who determines market price?  The USERS of course.  Hence miners just become incentivized service provider who follows money, not the other way around.  Sure, there is short term supply inelasticity as people need time to setup mining operation.  But if there is money to be made, then someone who like the ROI WILL make the jump.  

As far as I can tell, many Chinese miners don't give a crap about Bitcoin ideology.  They admit as much in that Quartz article interview.  But they love the ROI they can make as often they can recover their fixed investment in less than a year when price spike and total hashrate didn't jump nearly as fast!  So I am often puzzled by people who quote the original white paper and saying hashrate is king and thus other people don't understand economics and what not.  I mean, are people deliberately NOT telling these people how the system works so that they can make money off them?  

The truth is that financial market don't give a crap about politics or religion.  You can not convince a person to change their political or religious view.  But financial market CAN redistribute wealth from those who are wrong and continue to punish them until they are broke or admit their mistake.  If anything, the rise of bitcoin itself would be the best lesson.  

[conspirosphere.tk]

It throws a monkey wrench into their whole "Bitcoin-as-PayPal-2.0" plans.

Their plan is to kill decentralized crypto money production and trasmission.
Paypal 2 is just a ruse to mobilize the useful idiots who don't get it.

That's why they concentrate their attacks on the nodes (because bigger blocks are attacks on the nodes): because they already feel that they can control miners/pools via corruption or force, but nodes are still out of their control.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

The fact people aren't migrating away from Coinbase en masse tells me something about people--they're mostly a bunch of apathetic wankers.

[d_eddie]

The point remains that any 'changing of the guard' would be an abdication*. And hence, would not be merely an effort to overthrow the current devs with ones more malleable.

You mean: Core would abdicate by refusing to code for a project (S2X) that they don't subscribe to.

*Much as we all abdicated our consensus-determining (i.e., mining) power years ago.

You mean: we abdicated by exiting the arms race for mining.

Actually, these are different actions - the first already historical (by user "inaction"), and the second hypothetical, only possible if S2X "wins" and "takes over". The difference is that the first abdication - we, the users giving up mining - was more or less unavoidable, given the financial and existential investment in becoming a pro miner. On the other hand, Core's abdication would be a political-economic switch to one of two sides - voluntary and totally avoidable, therefore closer to the meaning of the verb "abdicate." Not exactly spot on, though: while "abdicating" S2X, the developers would probably continue to code BTC, likely adding some kind of software retaliation to burn bridges.

Your rhetoric use of the same verb for the two actions is sophisticated all right, but it feels like by way of this sophisticated rhetoric you're trying to deflect my attention. Come on, please!

The reason I like arguing with your "trolling" (not my definition ehehe, I'm only quoting someone else O:-) is that I want to understand the ultimate reason why you support your claim. What do you expect the normal user could gain from something like S2X? Or maybe you're not a normal user? If so, who are you in terms of financial-social goals?

[d_eddie]

The fact people aren't migrating away from Coinbase en masse tells me something about people--they're mostly a bunch of apathetic wankers.

That's why I say a word from Amazon (or a "pay with BTC" button, even better) can close the matter. The inertia of single users is nothing compared to that of organizations. Just imagine what happens with all the merchants when they must switch to a different token, with a different value, that they can convert into fiat or into the other token only at certain exchanges.

Of course, Amazon's strength is its mass adoption, which would quickly transfer to the chosen method of payment. Other economic actors, while not that powerful, could sum up to a similar effect over a longer time.