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

[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?

[kurious]

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

really a good interview !

(image)

Agree wholeheartedly, although subtitles are annoying and occasionally wrong and often annoying.

[Torque]

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.

I would even go so far to say that for some of the bad actors involved, it's not even about control. If they are secretly being state-sponsored, then it's about bringing down Bitcoin entirely. Or at least dividing it, diluting it, and undermining it so much that it gets completely marginalized in the public eye, forever seen as a chaotic niche geek thing and not seen as the serious financial game changer that it is.

It's almost like their game plan is "Well if we can't centralize control of Bitcoin, then we'll continue to try and undermine it."

[Ludwig Von]

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.

I would even go so far to say that for some of the bad actors involved, it's not even about control. If they are secretly being state-sponsored, then it's about bringing down Bitcoin entirely. Or at least dividing it, diluting it, and undermining it so much that it gets completely marginalized in the public eye, forever seen as a chaotic niche geek thing and not seen as the serious financial game changer that it is.

It's almost like their game plan is "Well if we can't centralize control of Bitcoin, then we'll continue to try and undermine it."

Everything Chinese is owned and controlled by the Pboc for it 's own purpose and goals.

[AlcoHoDL]

I would even go so far to say that for some of the bad actors involved, it's not even about control. If they are secretly being state-sponsored, then it's about bringing down Bitcoin entirely. Or at least dividing it, diluting it, and undermining it so much that it gets completely marginalized in the public eye, forever seen as a chaotic niche geek thing and not seen as the serious financial game changer that it is.

It's almost like their game plan is "Well if we can't centralize control of Bitcoin, then we'll continue to try and undermine it."

I see your points. And we should say to them, "Bring it on. Come and get it." And they will fail. And this will be good for Bitcoin (the original and only one), for the reasons AlexGR outlined in his post. Bitcoin will come out stronger, having proven that it can resist re-definition. Actually, this whole BCH/BTG/SegWit2x mess may turn out to be a blessing for Bitcoin. A test if you will. And it shall pass it with flying colours.

[LewisPirenne]

Though the article is in Chinese, it is interesting in that it includes the latest interviews from Jihan Wu of Bitmain and Samson Mow of Blockstream.

http://www.bitcoin86.com/news/17847.html

Something that I find interesting in that interview, various rumors that are denied by Jihan Wu,

1) Jihan Wu is an investor in Bithumb of South Korea (you know, where they are trading 1.5 ~ 2 million BCH at USD$1 billion volume PER DAY).

2) Bitmain's revenue is over USD$1 billion per year.  They made over $150 million profit (1 billiion CNY) in 1st half of 2017, with profit likely much higher in the 2nd half.

3) There are uncertainty concerning future China govt policy towards crypto.  They had tense relationship with some of local govt, like in Xinjiang and their Yunnan facility actually had to stop operation after electricity was cut off.

4) Jihan is going to enforce NYA in the upcoming S2X fork.  But also recognizes that he got significant hashrate from other miners and thus had to take profitability into account.  But unlike BTC.TOP and VIABTC pool, he did not come out and say that he is going to offer miners the option of mining both Segwit chain.

[conspirosphere.tk]

am I missing something?
...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...

You're missing that bigblockers are just a false front/astroturfing ruse to kill the last decentralized piece of the bitcoin network (nodes) so to pwn it.
And that's the least that you can expect from TPTB, who are doing that just because they identified nodes as the the weak point -and rightly so since they are just a bunch of nerds doing unpaid volunteer work with their own scarce means.

What drives it is the threat to fiat money constituted by bitcoin. If their next forking attack will fail (((they))) will try other vectors. Of this I am quite certain.

[fragout]

I dont think enough people get that 2X isnt or might not be just another free airdrop. The only scenario that both chains survive is if replay protection is included in either one. Both sides have no plans for this, so its going to be a battle which only one side will prevail. To make matters worse, the winning conditions are not even agreed upon. One side says hash rate majority wins and the other says market cap.
To me the very fact that a battle even exists when btc is hitting records in both marketcap and mainstream attention is just baffling

[oblox]

I dont think enough people get that 2X isnt or might not be just another free airdrop. The only scenario that both chains survive is if replay protection is included in either one. Both sides have no plans for this, so its going to be a battle which only one side will prevail. To make matters worse, the winning conditions are not even agreed upon. One side says hash rate majority wins and the other says market cap.
To me the very fact that a battle even exists when btc is hitting records in both marketcap and mainstream attention is just baffling

This is where I'm at as well. I'm impressed that BTC is just honey badgering to new highs but I'm left wondering why as this is arguably the largest contested fork less than two weeks out. I would have figured we would have seen more clarity with signally changing but it hasn't changed that much. Then you have Jeff starting his own coin so its like, who the fuck is going to develop this thing.

[kurious]

I dont think enough people get that 2X isnt or might not be just another free airdrop. The only scenario that both chains survive is if replay protection is included in either one. Both sides have no plans for this, so its going to be a battle which only one side will prevail. To make matters worse, the winning conditions are not even agreed upon. One side says hash rate majority wins and the other says market cap.
To me the very fact that a battle even exists when btc is hitting records in both marketcap and mainstream attention is just baffling

This is where I'm at as well. I'm impressed that BTC is just honey badgering to new highs but I'm left wondering why as this is arguably the largest contested fork less than two weeks out. I would have figured we would have seen more clarity with signally changing but it hasn't changed that much. Then you have Jeff starting his own coin so its like, who the fuck is going to develop this thing.

It's even not sure how to split coins AFAICS...

[bitserve]

I dont think enough people get that 2X isnt or might not be just another free airdrop. The only scenario that both chains survive is if replay protection is included in either one. Both sides have no plans for this, so its going to be a battle which only one side will prevail. To make matters worse, the winning conditions are not even agreed upon. One side says hash rate majority wins and the other says market cap.
To me the very fact that a battle even exists when btc is hitting records in both marketcap and mainstream attention is just baffling

This is where I'm at as well. I'm impressed that BTC is just honey badgering to new highs but I'm left wondering why as this is arguably the largest contested fork less than two weeks out. I would have figured we would have seen more clarity with signally changing but it hasn't changed that much. Then you have Jeff starting his own coin so its like, who the fuck is going to develop this thing.

It's even not sure how to split coins AFAICS...

I wonder if miners will be trying to sell the first newly minted coins after the fork for a big premium.....

[gembitz]

Though the article is in Chinese, it is interesting in that it includes the latest interviews from Jihan Wu of Bitmain and Samson Mow of Blockstream.

http://www.bitcoin86.com/news/17847.html

Something that I find interesting in that interview, various rumors that are denied by Jihan Wu,

1) Jihan Wu is an investor in Bithumb of South Korea (you know, where they are trading 1.5 ~ 2 million BCH at USD$1 billion volume PER DAY).

2) Bitmain's revenue is over USD$1 billion per year.  They made over $150 million profit (1 billiion CNY) in 1st half of 2017, with profit likely much higher in the 2nd half.

3) There are uncertainty concerning future China govt policy towards crypto.  They had tense relationship with some of local govt, like in Xinjiang and their Yunnan facility actually had to stop operation after electricity was cut off.

4) Jihan is going to enforce NYA in the upcoming S2X fork.  But also recognizes that he got significant hashrate from other miners and thus had to take profitability into account.  But unlike BTC.TOP and VIABTC pool, he did not come out and say that he is going to offer miners the option of mining both Segwit chain.

~don't you read chinese newspapers? :-D lol