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

[AlcoHoDL]

@Elwar, yep, it is only this thread.

Theymos removed the signatures from displaying here as part of the "deal" to allow the thread to be excempt of on-topicness and other rules of bitcointalk. Wise move that seems to have mostly got rid of the plague of signature spammers and affiliate campaigners that are pretty much elsewhere all over this board.

Oh yeah, I just noticed it! GOOD!

I absolutely hate ads (and signature campaigns)!

[1713503706]

1713503706

[1713503706]

1713503706

[1713503706]

1713503706

[AlexGR]

But really, if S2X emerges the victor, is that really a 'worst case' for you Core acolytes? Seems to me that there ain't more than a RCH difference between S1X and S2X. Sure, a handful of overly-entitled neckbeards either whiny-ragequit or have their bluffs exposed. Other than that, what?

You are missing the point. If a bunch of people can meet and redefine what Bitcoin is, then that's the major problem right there - because at that point it has been proven that Bitcoin can be controlled or co-opted.

Disagree. In my understanding of Bitcoin, the economic majority decides which is the One True Bitcoin.

You don't even need 'a bunch of people'. Anyone -- collectively or individually -- can code up alternate protocol rules and offer it to the community. But the One True Bitcoin is only the one that that the economic majority adopts. We all redefine it together. By definition.

Network protocols are not a democracy. They need near universal agreement in order to work.

The reason is simple:

If for every contentious choice, there was a 52% group that said "yes I like that" and a 48% group that said "I don't like that", then you have two protocols. In the second contentious choice for each fork, of similar dynamics (52-48), you have four protocols. In the third, you have eight protocols - which all do not recognize each other. If there were, say, 8 DNS protocols, your router wouldn't even know where to begin with in order to convert a name to an IP address...

Bitcoin is trying to compete with assets like Gold. You can't "fork" Gold or redefine what Gold is and that has value. Bitcoin's resistance to re-definition, likewise has value. Some people are trying hard to damage this resistance in order to say "see? Bitcoin is crap, it can be forked, it can be inflated through forks, uncertainty can be introduced on what fork will be the "right" one, etc etc... gold doesn't have all this bullshit, I'll stick with gold / stocks / fiat".

This is why all the forkers are cancer. They are undermining bitcoin, or are actively trying to control it, under any narrative like "bigger blocks". Even when they had their "big blocks" with BCH and the 8mb fork, now they are trying to take BTC to 8mb as well with S2X. Why don't they simply stick to BCH? It's simple: Because it was never about big blocks, it was about CONTROL.

[AlcoHoDL]

Network protocols are not a democracy. They need near universal agreement in order to work.

The reason is simple:

If for every contentious choice, there was a 52% group that said "yes I like that" and a 48% group that said "I don't like that", then you have two protocols. In the second contentious choice for each fork, of similar dynamics (52-48), you have four protocols. In the third, you have eight protocols - which all do not recognize each other. If there were, say, 8 DNS protocols, your router wouldn't even know where to begin with in order to convert a name to an IP address...

Bitcoin is trying to compete with assets like Gold. You can't "fork" Gold or redefine what Gold is and that has value. Bitcoin's resistance to re-definition, likewise has value. Some people are trying hard to damage this resistance in order to say "see? Bitcoin is crap, it can be forked, it can be inflated through forks, uncertainty can be introduced on what fork will be the "right" one, etc etc... gold doesn't have all this bullshit, I'll stick with gold / stocks / fiat".

This is why all the forkers are cancer. They are undermining bitcoin, or are actively trying to control it, under any narrative like "bigger blocks". Even when they had their "big blocks" with BCH and the 8mb fork, now they are trying to take BTC to 8mb as well with S2X. Why don't they simply stick to BCH? It's simple: Because it was never about big blocks, it was about CONTROL.

Very well said!

[jbreher]

I truly hope that you believe your line...

Indeed I do. I'm a freeking ancient curmudgeon. The only line I toe is my own.

But really, if S2X emerges the victor, is that really a 'worst case' for you Core acolytes? Seems to me that there ain't more than a RCH difference between S1X and S2X. Sure, a handful of overly-entitled neckbeards either whiny-ragequit or have their bluffs exposed. Other than that, what?

You are missing the point. If a bunch of people can meet and redefine what Bitcoin is, then that's the major problem right there - because at that point it has been proven that Bitcoin can be controlled or co-opted.

Disagree. In my understanding of Bitcoin, the economic majority decides which is the One True Bitcoin.

You don't even need 'a bunch of people'. Anyone -- collectively or individually -- can code up alternate protocol rules and offer it to the community. But the One True Bitcoin is only the one that that the economic majority adopts. We all redefine it together. By definition.

Network protocols are not a democracy. They need near universal agreement in order to work.

While that is a salient point, it has fuck-all to do with your position. You seem to preach utopia. We ain't there. We already have multiple competing implementations duking it out in the marketplace. You can either recognize this fact, or get run over by the tide that Don't Give A Shit About Your Feelings.

[Granxis]

There is a resistance at the level of 7300 dollars, Bitcoin 2 can not reach this level by day, after segwit the level of 7500 dollars will see the level of 6500 dollars per side. It depends on the situation.

[Last of the V8s]

look i'm a hypocrite like everyone else, but this ...

playground insults?

a handful of overly-entitled neckbeards either whiny-ragequit

... alone proves you are no Goebbels.

And you get heated and sweary when others swear at you. Poor quality shilling 2/10.

No, you're just as you say a curmudgeon, like Ibian, like roach, like me when I don't control myself.

You don't have any arguments other than 'don't like all this modern stuff'.


Or can you account for this assertion

While I believe in BCH's long term prospects, it may be a bumpy ride. Then again, its the only one of the three that can make it through a sudden hashrate drop.

And Bitcoin Gold/GPU can fuck right off.

btc hashrate dropped 40% at first when bch came on. it made it through with slower blocks and higher fees and price went up.

core devs are running round reassuring users that we can survive a 90% drop in hashrate. @slush is on their side, and something's happening with Francis Pouliot in Canada.
150 min blocks for a few weeks are meh.
hashrate will not decide this


and why the hate for gold/gpu?
surely you're not threatened?
it's harmless ... surely?

[preshpresh]

Network protocols are not a democracy. They need near universal agreement in order to work.

The reason is simple:

If for every contentious choice, there was a 52% group that said "yes I like that" and a 48% group that said "I don't like that", then you have two protocols. In the second contentious choice for each fork, of similar dynamics (52-48), you have four protocols. In the third, you have eight protocols - which all do not recognize each other. If there were, say, 8 DNS protocols, your router wouldn't even know where to begin with in order to convert a name to an IP address...

Bitcoin is trying to compete with assets like Gold. You can't "fork" Gold or redefine what Gold is and that has value. Bitcoin's resistance to re-definition, likewise has value. Some people are trying hard to damage this resistance in order to say "see? Bitcoin is crap, it can be forked, it can be inflated through forks, uncertainty can be introduced on what fork will be the "right" one, etc etc... gold doesn't have all this bullshit, I'll stick with gold / stocks / fiat".

This is why all the forkers are cancer. They are undermining bitcoin, or are actively trying to control it, under any narrative like "bigger blocks". Even when they had their "big blocks" with BCH and the 8mb fork, now they are trying to take BTC to 8mb as well with S2X. Why don't they simply stick to BCH? It's simple: Because it was never about big blocks, it was about CONTROL.

Very well said!

... it's totally pathetic and beyond any reasonable or technical discussion. The infants didn't get their way, got their bottoms smacked and now want to pretend to play nice again.

(((who))) could be so pathetic & anti-humanity???

[conspirosphere.tk]

You mean that after all of this discussion of "wave 5", we have not even arrived at it yet?

 

I am really ANGRY, if you cannot tell...

Idk. They say that you can see waves with some certainty only retrospectively, and I'm not an expert for sure.

IMO I don't expect much resistance until the 9K, even because S2X seems to be a dud even worse than the other fork attacks.
And once S2X will be revealed as the fail that it is I see just a free highway going forward.

But a wildcard that I'm expecting is the implosion of Finex.

[Arriemoller]

"A suggested definition for “Bitcoin to the Moon”"


"I suggest that we make “Bitcoin to the Moon” mean just that in the most literal sense possible. “Bitcoin to the Moon” is the point in time, when one bitcoin will buy you a return ticket to and from the moon as a tourist. Give this another ten years of SpaceX and bitcoin development in parallel, and this is not inconceivable at all."


https://falkvinge.net/2017/11/03/suggested-definition-bitcoin-moon/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Falkvinge-on-Infopolicy+%28Falkvinge+on+Liberty%29

[pfrtlpfmpf]

You mean that after all of this discussion of "wave 5", we have not even arrived at it yet?

 

I am really ANGRY, if you cannot tell...

Idk. They say that you can see waves with some certainty only retrospectively, and I'm not an expert for sure.

IMO I don't expect much resistance until the 9K, even because S2X seems to be a dud even worse than the other fork attacks.
And once S2X will be revealed as the fail that it is I see just a free highway going forward.

But a wildcard that I'm expecting is the implosion of Finex.

Really ? I´m making a killing with funding at finex. I moved hundreds of bitcoin through them. Never a problem. Give me a reason, other than the hacking from before. They all got hacked before. Nothing to see here. Walk on !

[kurious]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QrLr7MdyyLg

Confirmed @11:50 what I've always suspected to be true: fractional reserve shares (aka "phantom shares") in the U.S. stock market are real. I fkn knew it! That along with collateralized and even naked re-hypo liens on personal/corp shares exactly confirms why when the U.S. stock market crashes, it crashes so hard.... because of all the unwinding.

That is a fantastic interview, thanks for the link.

I am sending it to a hedge fund manager friend who I have succeeded in coaxing into BTC.

They don't think like us, don't read stuff here (funnily enough) but they are not stupid and they do get it.  They have just been waiting for the ETFs and the futures markets as they don't seem to want to hold the actual BTC.

[conspirosphere.tk]

But a wildcard that I'm expecting is the implosion of Finex.

Really ? I´m making a killing with funding at finex. I moved hundreds of bitcoin through them. Never a problem. Give me a reason, other than the hacking from before. They all got hacked before. Nothing to see here. Walk on !

I too made a killing with funding there, until they made a killing on me when they got "hacked".
Maybe have a look at this:
https://twitter.com/Bitfinexed

[Karartma1]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QrLr7MdyyLg

Confirmed @11:50 what I've always suspected to be true: fractional reserve shares (aka "phantom shares") in the U.S. stock market are real. I fkn knew it! That along with collateralized and even naked re-hypo liens on personal/corp shares exactly confirms why when the U.S. stock market crashes, it crashes so hard.... because of all the unwinding.

Yet another reason to stick with Bitcoin as one of the most important asset to have in our portofolio. We know Bitcoin dynamics while we don't know anything about the stock market world. I became almost fully invested in Bitcoin in the last years because Bitcoin value is way higher than anything else that I have.
Hence, for me an economic collapse would make me in good position knowing that Bitcoin will not suffer from "their financial economic crisis".

It's no coincidence Bitcoin was proposed in 2008 and launched in 2009

Coinbase
The coinbase parameter contains, along with the normal data, the following text

The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks
This was probably intended as proof that the block was created on or after January 3, 2009, as well as a comment on the instability caused by fractional-reserve banking.

[pfrtlpfmpf]

But a wildcard that I'm expecting is the implosion of Finex.

Really ? I´m making a killing with funding at finex. I moved hundreds of bitcoin through them. Never a problem. Give me a reason, other than the hacking from before. They all got hacked before. Nothing to see here. Walk on !

I too made a killing with funding there, until they made a killing on me when they got "hacked".
Maybe have a look at this:
https://twitter.com/Bitfinexed

Looks like i have been on the right side in a ponzi. Once in my life, i had luck !

But can´t they make money, and we would make money, and that´s that, then ?

[Neo_Coin]

Network protocols are not a democracy. They need near universal agreement in order to work.

The reason is simple:

If for every contentious choice, there was a 52% group that said "yes I like that" and a 48% group that said "I don't like that", then you have two protocols. In the second contentious choice for each fork, of similar dynamics (52-48), you have four protocols. In the third, you have eight protocols - which all do not recognize each other. If there were, say, 8 DNS protocols, your router wouldn't even know where to begin with in order to convert a name to an IP address...

Bitcoin is trying to compete with assets like Gold. You can't "fork" Gold or redefine what Gold is and that has value. Bitcoin's resistance to re-definition, likewise has value. Some people are trying hard to damage this resistance in order to say "see? Bitcoin is crap, it can be forked, it can be inflated through forks, uncertainty can be introduced on what fork will be the "right" one, etc etc... gold doesn't have all this bullshit, I'll stick with gold / stocks / fiat".

This is why all the forkers are cancer. They are undermining bitcoin, or are actively trying to control it, under any narrative like "bigger blocks". Even when they had their "big blocks" with BCH and the 8mb fork, now they are trying to take BTC to 8mb as well with S2X. Why don't they simply stick to BCH? It's simple: Because it was never about big blocks, it was about CONTROL.

[fabiorem]

Network protocols are not a democracy. They need near universal agreement in order to work.

The reason is simple:

If for every contentious choice, there was a 52% group that said "yes I like that" and a 48% group that said "I don't like that", then you have two protocols. In the second contentious choice for each fork, of similar dynamics (52-48), you have four protocols. In the third, you have eight protocols - which all do not recognize each other. If there were, say, 8 DNS protocols, your router wouldn't even know where to begin with in order to convert a name to an IP address...

Bitcoin is trying to compete with assets like Gold. You can't "fork" Gold or redefine what Gold is and that has value. Bitcoin's resistance to re-definition, likewise has value. Some people are trying hard to damage this resistance in order to say "see? Bitcoin is crap, it can be forked, it can be inflated through forks, uncertainty can be introduced on what fork will be the "right" one, etc etc... gold doesn't have all this bullshit, I'll stick with gold / stocks / fiat".

This is why all the forkers are cancer. They are undermining bitcoin, or are actively trying to control it, under any narrative like "bigger blocks". Even when they had their "big blocks" with BCH and the 8mb fork, now they are trying to take BTC to 8mb as well with S2X. Why don't they simply stick to BCH? It's simple: Because it was never about big blocks, it was about CONTROL.

Well said. Lets copy and paste this text everytime a forker comes here preaching the word of his religious sect.

Can you imagine the internet with 8 DNS protocols? It would be unusable. Consensus underlines the anarchy of the web.

[pfrtlpfmpf]

I dunno about you guys, but I'm totally cool with Bitcorn sorta hanging out and consolidating where it's currently at. For a day at least... then resume moonshot...

Ok, just for you. But don´t blink ! 

[STT]

Its always more positive to confirm a price, volatility is also represented by a rise as well as a fall.   Especially if the rise is above the overall trend which is immediately true.

I was going to say a normal fib pullback would be more like it
Downside target 6407 very bullish ranging through 6101 to 5857 for a reasonable pullback just nearterm. 5687 is top of the longer term bullish channel for this year, similar to lows for last month

[Meuh6879]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QrLr7MdyyLg

really a good interview !

[kurious]

Network protocols are not a democracy. They need near universal agreement in order to work.

The reason is simple:

If for every contentious choice, there was a 52% group that said "yes I like that" and a 48% group that said "I don't like that", then you have two protocols. In the second contentious choice for each fork, of similar dynamics (52-48), you have four protocols. In the third, you have eight protocols - which all do not recognize each other. If there were, say, 8 DNS protocols, your router wouldn't even know where to begin with in order to convert a name to an IP address...

Bitcoin is trying to compete with assets like Gold. You can't "fork" Gold or redefine what Gold is and that has value. Bitcoin's resistance to re-definition, likewise has value. Some people are trying hard to damage this resistance in order to say "see? Bitcoin is crap, it can be forked, it can be inflated through forks, uncertainty can be introduced on what fork will be the "right" one, etc etc... gold doesn't have all this bullshit, I'll stick with gold / stocks / fiat".

This is why all the forkers are cancer. They are undermining bitcoin, or are actively trying to control it, under any narrative like "bigger blocks". Even when they had their "big blocks" with BCH and the 8mb fork, now they are trying to take BTC to 8mb as well with S2X. Why don't they simply stick to BCH? It's simple: Because it was never about big blocks, it was about CONTROL.

Well said. Lets copy and paste this text everytime a forker comes here preaching the word of his religious sect.

Can you imagine the internet with 8 DNS protocols? It would be unusable. Consensus underlines the anarchy of the web.

I have to totally agree with this, but why is the Segwit2X fork happening if it is definitely doomed to fail?  

The consortium behind it is not entirely filled with idiots, they must be hoping to gain enough hashrate to damage BTC and take over as the longer chain somehow, right?   So do they have a way of ensuring miners / exchanges work in their favour?

If you want bigger blocks, there is already BCH.  So are the people who are thinking it's simply 'free money' again right, or is there another narrative I am not seeing?

Most people in Bitcoin, given the price right now, are probably fine with the status quo.  Yes, Core has been slow to address the scaling issue, but why kill the golden goose?   This is my gut feeling - but am I missing something?

If it looks like a power grab and smells like a power grab, then it probably is one, yep.  But what drives this - is it simply because Core is THAT hated?  And if it is, will the 2X cohort have any chance of pulling this off...

I ask as I can't see why people would throw money at something that is likely to fail.  It seems the majority here assume this will not work, but it is true there are serious risks of disruption and uncertainty if miners move.  It won't be easy to split and sell 2X because of replay protection issues, so users can 't easily dump the hell out of it.  Miners are still signalling.  So, is this attack more credible than I can see, or just plain stupidity?