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

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

https://media.makeameme.org/created/im-an-egodriven.jpg

Quality meme, tough but fair. I approve of this

You might wanna look into what Jeff has done for the wider computing community -- gratis, and predating the existence of satoshi's whitepaper -- before you start slinging shit at his reputation or motivations.

Rosewater may have been a bit out of line. But Jeff is attacking our values, man.

Hey BMB, I've never had a beef with you. But exactly which of 'our values' do you believe 'Jeff is attacking'? I'd like you to be specific, as I used to have a rough idea about where your values may lie, and I think I may no longer. And the loss of understanding would be a shame.

I like you, too. But still..
My opinion is that this is an attack. Block size is a security setting, not a political football.

[1713568400]

1713568400

[1713568400]

1713568400

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

I mean, I could be wrong. Idk.

Go Bitcoin go!

[jbreher]

https://media.makeameme.org/created/im-an-egodriven.jpg

Quality meme, tough but fair. I approve of this

You might wanna look into what Jeff has done for the wider computing community -- gratis, and predating the existence of satoshi's whitepaper -- before you start slinging shit at his reputation or motivations.

Rosewater may have been a bit out of line. But Jeff is attacking our values, man.

Hey BMB, I've never had a beef with you. But exactly which of 'our values' do you believe 'Jeff is attacking'? I'd like you to be specific, as I used to have a rough idea about where your values may lie, and I think I may no longer. And the loss of understanding would be a shame.

I like you, too. But still..
My opinion is that this is an attack. Block size is a security setting, not a political football.

non-specific. fair enough. I sha'ant push

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

https://media.makeameme.org/created/im-an-egodriven.jpg

Quality meme, tough but fair. I approve of this

You might wanna look into what Jeff has done for the wider computing community -- gratis, and predating the existence of satoshi's whitepaper -- before you start slinging shit at his reputation or motivations.

Rosewater may have been a bit out of line. But Jeff is attacking our values, man.

Hey BMB, I've never had a beef with you. But exactly which of 'our values' do you believe 'Jeff is attacking'? I'd like you to be specific, as I used to have a rough idea about where your values may lie, and I think I may no longer. And the loss of understanding would be a shame.

I like you, too. But still..
My opinion is that this is an attack. Block size is a security setting, not a political football.

non-specific. fair enough. I sha'ant push

War is hell.

[chopstick]

meh

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

[jojo69]

choo ?

[ErisDiscordia]

choo ?

choo !

[JayJuanGee]

You can fuck off with your "bitcoin segwit" bullshit, and your attempt to suggest that there is some other bitcoin, currently.

I'm a bit suprised by the venom in your response Jay. No offense was intended. Only to make a point that the segwit branch is just as much a fork as so called 'altcash' or 'bcash' (see what I did there). If there was such a consensus as you describe then bitcoin cash would not exist. Yet it does.  In your face.

As I already stated, I simply disagree with your attempt to describe some kind of rhetorical equality.  

There are attacks on the true and real bitcoin and anyhow, I already said what I had meant to say, so I doubt that there is anything further that is necessary from my end, because whatever you said does not help your case, including your supposed "in your face" retort that has NOT actually retorted anything of any substantial or material significance.  

You simply disagree but in a rude and aggressive manner. But thats OK I'm not particularly bothered about your vulgar language, I sometimes use expletives myself.

If you are not bothered by it, then why you wasting time bringing up such nonsense?   

 My in your face retort punctuated the fact that you have no rebuttal to my assertion that the mere existence of bitcoin cash proves you wrong when you state there was full consensus to implement segwit.

Your in my face retort is some kind of assertion that you believe that you have a show stopping argument or a slam dunk and you do not.

The mere existence of bitcoin cash does not prove any kind of meaningful or substantive point, except that a small group of renegade nutjobs decided that they were going to spend resources on a hardfork attack on bitcoin.

Second, I never stated that there was "full" consensus, and you are just making up new terms in order to create some kind of strawman argument.  There is no fucking thing as "full consensus" nor is such a thing required.

What happened is consensus happened around segwit, and that is all that matters.  Therefore, segwit reached consensus and was locked in in early August 2017, and was activated in late August.  If you want to remove segwit, then you need consensus in the other direction, which if you thought about it is not very fucking likely to happen.. because it already happened in the lock-in, activation and implementation direction, why the fuck would the community suddenly decide that they no longer want it?  Makes no sense, instead, stupid ass fuck job big blockers, like yourself, are trying to argue stupid points about segwit not having "full" consensus, and there is no such requirement.. and really do you ever think that there is going to be "full" consensus about anything?  There are always going to be a few stragglers who are objecting and complaining, but they are out of line with the vast majority (which in the segwit situation took 95% mining power to achieve such and at this point is water under the bridge).

I suppose I could have said fuck you or something like that though, might have been easier. But still you have no rebuttal.

Yeah, you could have said fuck you, but there would be no substance in such an emotional response.  So it does not help if you merely become emotional without adding any substantive meaning to your arguments (which would be adding factual claims or logical claims), and you need to have something to back up your fuck you, so stop taking matters so personally and learn how to recognize that these various ongoing BIG blocker forks and anti-segwit campaigning are attacks upon bitcoin and they are not equals to bitcoin (and they are generally inferior and supported by very small segments of the community attempting to rally broader space support or to get newbies into supporting them), and they are not in line with the overall bitcoin community (except to the extent that they may want to attack and infiltrate bitcoin and to the extent that they try to make astroturf attempt to look as if they are part of the bitcoin community), and that is why it seems to be a lot more fitting to be saying fuck you to those kinds  of ongoing attacks, rather than if someone were truly wanting to improve bitcoin without engaging in such ongoing sabotaging attempts.

[ErisDiscordia]

A long time ago I have resolved not to put anyone here on ignore. Who knows? Perhaps eventually they would say something interesting or entertaining.

No one has ever quite tested my resolve like JayJay Wallsoftext, the undisputed master of using a gazillion words to say nothing at all 

[jojo69]

oh man, this new ETH situation looks like a no-joke clusterfuck

[JayJuanGee]

[edited out]

........Really, fuckface* ......

* stated in the most loving manner. Well, the most deserving of someone who randomly asserts false crap about me. Fuckface.

Hahahahaha.. you said it twice, and I really have some difficulties understanding how "fuckface" deserves a descriptive footnote, and at the end of the descriptive footnote, it is either signed by you as "fuckface" or you just cannot help to repeat "lovingly" calling it to Paashaas one more time?

I thought that I was using "fuck" a lot, but fuckface does not even seem to fit very well into any kind of descriptive context, even if used in a "most loving manner"   

[JayJuanGee]

choo ?

choo !

M?

[starmman]

according to an article on motherboard, it's 300 million, not 180.

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/ywbqmg/parity-multi-signature-wallet-vulnerability-300-million-hard-fork

Wow, that's special - I wondered why my 0.04 buy order was hit overnight - starting to wonder if that was a good price or not - glad it wasn't a large order

[bitebits]

In support for BTC and very much how I think about it. And confirming what most users think about all the forks and other fuzz to solve "Des maladies imaginaires".
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-11-07/bitcoin-digital-gold

Saifedean Ammous, a professor at Lebanese American University, has been researching bitcoin and the underlying blockchain technology since 2010. His latest book about his findings, “The Bitcoin Standard,” will be published by Wiley in January 2018.

The number of transactions that can be done in bitcoin, even if we assume that the bitcoin network is not going to have any more efficiency improvements, is about 400,000 transactions a day.

So that’s an enormous amount of base money transactions. And that’s far more than the base money transactions and settlements that were done between banks under the gold standard. And it’s much more than the base money transactions that are done between central banks today.

His upcoming book: https://www.amazon.com/Bitcoin-Standard-Decentralized-Alternative-Central/dp/1119473861

Rather than serving as a currency and network for consumer purchases, the author argues Bitcoin is better suited as a store of value and network for settlement between large financial institutions. With an automated and perfectly predictable monetary policy, and the ability to perform final settlement of large sums across the world in a matter of minutes, Bitcoin’s true importance may just lie in providing a decentralized, neutral, free-market alternative to national central banks.

Interview with Saifedean Ammous, Author of The Bitcoin Standard
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukjDCeuNK3Y


Bitcoin = digital gold, who knew! But it as well shows it again might be driven in the hands of banks when we won't be able to increase the tx/s (blocksize / layer 2 / Graphene like efficiency increases, etc).

[TheFlynn49]

choo ?

choo !

M?

F!


of course.

[Last of the V8s]

meh

confirmed


23:36:02 luke-jr: thoughts on PoW change?

23:36:25 asciilifeform: go, change, whatchawaitingfor

http://log.bitcoin-assets.com/?date=07-11-2017#1477814

luke floats cobra bitcoin again, gets a warm welcome (on the wrong channel)

[Last of the V8s]

You might wanna look into what Jeff has done for the wider computing community -- gratis, and predating the existence of satoshi's whitepaper -- before you start slinging shit at his reputation or motivations.

F'ing lousy ingrates. Get some perspective.

No you get some perspective. What he may have done before is not relevant to what he and you both are attempting now - attacking bitcoin.

[bitcoinPsycho]

looking at the 2 hour optimism chart it very clear to me that we're going up again an should hit $7300 in the next few hours(also go litecoin go)

How the hell are you making these perfect predictions???

7300 Confirmed!

yay

[fragout]

Hodl.. This is coming to a Lambo dealer near you (maybe)