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

[julian071]

Surely hodling through all this is the best thing.

I mean, you'll have both coins.

I personally can't see 2x taking over at all. BUT in the freak occurrence it does you'll have both anyway.

If anyone is that worried just don't dump anything at all.

See how all this plays out.



Can someone tell me why 2x will succeed??

It's in that piece that ivomm posted.

https://cointelegraph.com/news/segwit2x-hard-fork-could-have-devastating-consequences-for-bitcoin

[Torque]

They want to tame a honey badger.

https://www.coindesk.com/cme-groups-leo-melamed-well-tame-bitcoin/

All I ask is they pump it to 10X or 20X first, lol.  

First they (their customers) gonna get screwed badly by honey badger and then they gonna complain to have the FED-SEC and the rest of the so called regulators to impose
regulations = destroy price discovery on the exchanges. And we might very well end in the same deplorable position as GLD.

Could happen, but I'm not sure what can be done about it. I don't think they should be allowed to settle in cash, bitcoin should be required for settlement. Perhaps this will expose the need for full transparency in trades/settlement. This gives me some hope:

"Core members of the independent oversight committee responsible for overseeing the scope of the Bitcoin Reference Rate by developing a code of conduct for participants and reviewing the practice, standards and definition of the reference rate, includes the CME’s Gavin Lee and Payal Lakhani, independent expert Andreas M. Antonopoulos, Max Boonen, B2C2, Professor William J. Knottenbelt of Imperial College London, Michael Moro, Genesis Global Trading, and Dr. Timo Schlaefer."

Also, the physical PM market seems to be not giving a crap about where the paper price is going. I've seen physical dealers not budging on $1300+/oz for gold and $17+/oz for silver.

[vroom]

They want to tame a honey badger.

https://www.coindesk.com/cme-groups-leo-melamed-well-tame-bitcoin/

All I ask is they pump it to 10X or 20X first, lol.  

First they (their customers) gonna get screwed badly by honey badger and then they gonna complain to have the FED-SEC and the rest of the so called regulators to impose
regulations = destroy price discovery on the exchanges. And we might very well end in the same deplorable position as GLD.

Could happen, but I'm not sure what can be done. I don't think they should be allowed to settle in cash, bitcoin should be required for settlement. Perhaps this will expose the need for full transparency in trades/settlement. This gives me some hope:

"Core members of the independent oversight committee responsible for overseeing the scope of the Bitcoin Reference Rate by developing a code of conduct for participants and reviewing the practice, standards and definition of the reference rate, includes the CME’s Gavin Lee and Payal Lakhani, independent expert Andreas M. Antonopoulos, Max Boonen, B2C2, Professor William J. Knottenbelt of Imperial College London, Michael Moro, Genesis Global Trading, and Dr. Timo Schlaefer."

Also, the physical PM market seems to be not giving a crap about where the paper price is going. I've seen physical dealers not budging on $1300+/oz for gold and $17+/oz for silver.

I don't understand this cash settled bitcoin futures. Is not this just a bet on the price? For me it seems that CME is not even required to buy a single bitcoin. They just need to pay some cash if someone bets on the correct price. can someone please clarify that for me?

[gentlemand]

It's in that piece that ivomm posted.

https://cointelegraph.com/news/segwit2x-hard-fork-could-have-devastating-consequences-for-bitcoin

Shit article with moronic assumptions.

As with all of these things they assume miners are one mass who have nefarious plans. In reality they all have a mountain of bills to pay and zero interest in rocking the boat apart from a few maniacs who'll be drowned out anyway.

They can flirt and play with BCH safe in the knowledge they have BTC to run back to. That's not the case if they start fucking with the daddy chain.

[julian071]

It's in that piece that ivomm posted.

https://cointelegraph.com/news/segwit2x-hard-fork-could-have-devastating-consequences-for-bitcoin

Shit article with moronic assumptions.

That's great to hear. I don't have enough knowledge to find all the flaws. The one assumption I could point out that seems fishy is the enormous amount of hashing power that the author is supposing that would move. Of course if that does not happen, his whole point is moot. However I find it hard to assess how much truth there is in that assumption. Your wise words would be much appreciated. If you could point other moronic assumptions that would be great too.

Regardless, I still have some Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt about the consequences of all the FUD that will surely be coming. Especially as BTC seems to be specialising in being a store of value and an investment opportunity rather then all the other things it could be.

[afbitcoins]

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.

I surmise that your rambling diatribe could be condensed to the following argument. Bitcoin cash doesn't count because 'nutjobs' made it.  There was no contention with segwit because bitcoin cash doesn' count. Of course you are entitled to your opinion. I don't really agree with it.

If you want to know what a hard fork without contention is look at Dash which has had several hard forks during its development but not yet resulted in a rival blockchain being spawned during it. 

By the way categorizing me as a stupid ass big blocker isn't strictly accurate. I am concerned with high fees and such like resulting from small blocks however I  am still well invested in bitcoin (the 1M block variety) and haven't ruled out its success going down the settlement layer path.

[Torque]

Honestly, some of you guys talking about forks having immediate value or being immediate "competition" are just not getting it.

Let's say that the entirety of Facebook's code base was completely open source, and anyone could fork it at any time and create an FB 2.0 with a click of the mouse. So someone does it, claiming that they can make it faster, better, whatever. Let's even say that any holders of the original Facebook stock would get an equal stock 'dividend' of like 10:1 for the new site.

That does not auto-magically give this new FB 2.0 any value at all. Period. There is a whole entire financial ecosystem that goes along with the original Facebook, including the founders, devs, employees, investors, stock holders, stock exchanges, supporting sites, corporate sites, merchants, marketers, ad agencies, etc. etc. The list goes on and on. This ecosystem was built up over a decade or more. Not to mention all the 2 billion users of "the ONE TRUE Facebook" that are not at all inclined to switch to FB 2.0. The are happy and content with continuing to use the original.

[AlcoHoDL]

Honestly, some of you guys talking about forks having immediate value are just not getting it.

Let's say that the entirety of Facebook's code base was completely open source, and anyone could fork it at any time and create an FB 2.0 with a click of the mouse. So someone does it, claiming that can make it faster, better, whatever. Let's even say that any holders of the original Facebook stock would get an equal stock 'dividend' of like 10:1 for the new site.

That does not auto-magically give this new FB 2.0 any value at all. Period. There is a whole entire ecosystem that goes along with the original Facebook, including the founders, devs, employees, investors, stock holders, stock exchanges, supporting sites, corporate sites, merchants, marketers, ad agencies, etc. etc. The list goes on and on. This ecosystem was built up over a decade or more. Not too mention all the 2 billion users of "the ONE TRUE Facebook" that are not at all inclined to switch to FB 2.0. The are happy and content with continuing to use the original.

Yes, but what if all those billions of users could just login to FB 2.0 using their legacy FB credentials? Wouldn't that be tempting? Wouldn't you do it, just to try the new system?

My problem with all this is that we are not talking about a new, incompatible altcoin that is based on the original code, but about a fork which gives the legacy chain's coin holders the right (or even the unintentional possibility) to use the new chain branch.

[rjclarke2000]

Honestly, some of you guys talking about forks having immediate value are just not getting it.

Let's say that the entirety of Facebook's code base was completely open source, and anyone could fork it at any time and create an FB 2.0 with a click of the mouse. So someone does it, claiming that can make it faster, better, whatever. Let's even say that any holders of the original Facebook stock would get an equal stock 'dividend' of like 10:1 for the new site.

That does not auto-magically give this new FB 2.0 any value at all. Period. There is a whole entire financial ecosystem that goes along with the original Facebook, including the founders, devs, employees, investors, stock holders, stock exchanges, supporting sites, corporate sites, merchants, marketers, ad agencies, etc. etc. The list goes on and on. This ecosystem was built up over a decade or more. Not to mention all the 2 billion users of "the ONE TRUE Facebook" that are not at all inclined to switch to FB 2.0. The are happy and content with continuing to use the original.

Loving that analogy Torque. I'd like to see what people have to shoot this theory down.

[Torque]

Yes, but what if all those billions of users could just login to FB 2.0 using their legacy FB credentials? Wouldn't that be tempting? Wouldn't you do it, just to try the new system?

And how much value would this have to you/them if there were 40 separate forks? 400 forks?

[gentlemand]

And how much value would this have to you if there were 40 separate forks? 400 forks?

There unquestionably is a finite limit on how long forks can produce a return. I don't think we're anywhere near tapping it yet. They tap into stupidity, short sightedness and greed. Crypto will never run short of any of those resources.

[Phil_S]

[Ludwig Von]

Honestly, some of you guys talking about forks having immediate value are just not getting it.

Let's say that the entirety of Facebook's code base was completely open source, and anyone could fork it at any time and create an FB 2.0 with a click of the mouse. So someone does it, claiming that can make it faster, better, whatever. Let's even say that any holders of the original Facebook stock would get an equal stock 'dividend' of like 10:1 for the new site.

That does not auto-magically give this new FB 2.0 any value at all. Period. There is a whole entire ecosystem that goes along with the original Facebook, including the founders, devs, employees, investors, stock holders, stock exchanges, supporting sites, corporate sites, merchants, marketers, ad agencies, etc. etc. The list goes on and on. This ecosystem was built up over a decade or more. Not to mention all the 2 billion users of "the ONE TRUE Facebook" that are not at all inclined to switch to FB 2.0. The are happy and content with continuing to use the original.

Good analogy. Basically what we have here is the all too human flaw : if I can 't have the toy, I will destroy it. For children we accept such behaviour, it is their learning process. From adults, it is pscychotic- pathologic. Like Napoleon, Hitler and so many others... . And utterly destructive for the others, befor they finally destroy themselves.

There may or may not be problems in the BTC eco-system that need to be adressed, just like in any system. But trying to enforce a change that pretends to be solution to a problem as a smokescreen for a powergrab inevitably brings trouble to all participants in the system.

How to handle? Probably negating is the best option. If they see that there is no fear, they might back off. (wait for a better opportunity).

[Torque]

And how much value would this have to you if there were 40 separate forks? 400 forks?

There unquestionably is a finite limit on how long forks can produce a return. I don't think we're anywhere near tapping it yet.

A return for whom? Anyone can create unlimited amounts of shitcoins, whether they are forks of Bitcoin or completely unrelated altcoins, forks of altcoins, ico tokens, complete ponzi tokens, etc.

So these Bitcoin forks are not being created for profit. They are being created for FUD value.

[Wekkel]

Yes, but what if all those billions of users could just login to FB 2.0 using their legacy FB credentials? Wouldn't that be tempting? Wouldn't you do it, just to try the new system?

And how much value would this have to you if there were 40 separate forks? 400 forks?

We are about to find out 

[fanten]

we get free coins after forks. they are aidrop for holding bitcoin. we can get 10% of value from the bitcoin price.

When it forks the value of the other will go down while the new one takes a bit away from it and then when you put it back into BTC then BTC will be back where it was before and the other coin goes down.  That's just my impression

[afbitcoins]

Honestly, some of you guys talking about forks having immediate value or being immediate "competition" are just not getting it.

Let's say that the entirety of Facebook's code base was completely open source, and anyone could fork it at any time and create an FB 2.0 with a click of the mouse. So someone does it, claiming that can make it faster, better, whatever. Let's even say that any holders of the original Facebook stock would get an equal stock 'dividend' of like 10:1 for the new site.

That does not auto-magically give this new FB 2.0 any value at all. Period. There is a whole entire financial ecosystem that goes along with the original Facebook, including the founders, devs, employees, investors, stock holders, stock exchanges, supporting sites, corporate sites, merchants, marketers, ad agencies, etc. etc. The list goes on and on. This ecosystem was built up over a decade or more. Not to mention all the 2 billion users of "the ONE TRUE Facebook" that are not at all inclined to switch to FB 2.0. The are happy and content with continuing to use the original.

Its a good point the winning side of the fork is the one which gets the bitcoin brand and the whole rest of the shebang along with it. This seems to be decided in large part by large exchanges declaring which one they will support and which one will get the btc ticker symbol. But it also had to be convincing that the choice was the correct one. The rest of the sheep follow into the fold without any dissent just happy to still have 'bitcoin'.  
 
I would argue that it was clear cut that bitcoin cash is the closest living fork to Satoshi's original intent. However it failed (or didn't even try) to win the brand and therefore lost the ecosystem along with it.  The core developers and community has decided Satoshi's vision is no longer appropriate for bitcoin. This kind of makes me sad maybe out of a sense of nostalgia remembering the original promise of bitcoin before the scaling shit fight took over. But then again something had to yield bitcoin was hitting some hard limits.

My own way of navigating these forks is to retain any 'bitcoin' flavours that seem like have real promise and dump those that don't. For me bitcoin cash has real promise and offers the tantilising prospect of Satoshi's vision being given a chance in the free market. Bitcoin gold I will dump. B2X I don't know yet, I will wait with popcorn ready to see how it unfolds.

[jojo69]

You'll like this page and the previous page.  At least I think so.   

I am sure that Baron Sassoon, being the previous head of G7 task force on Money Laundering, would not have done anything untoward.

chortle

[AlcoHoDL]

Yes, but what if all those billions of users could just login to FB 2.0 using their legacy FB credentials? Wouldn't that be tempting? Wouldn't you do it, just to try the new system?

And how much value would this have to you if there were 40 separate forks? 400 forks?

It's not about value, but about disruption and loss of credibility. A common, non-technical user wanting to sign up would have to choose between 400 different FB pages to register, and he would then be able to login only to the one single version he registered, whereas his friends who were long-time FB users would have access to all of them! They would post messages that can potentially be seen by the new user, but his replies won't reach them...

It's just an ugly mess for the newbie and the interested but non-technical investor, who will be scared away. The name "Bitcoin" should map to one codebase, one blockchain, one coin. I believe that all those forks are not intended to help Bitcoin, but to cause havoc and disruption for motives characterized by ego and greed. It's a cancer and it's unfortunate that it exists.

[Torque]

I would argue that it was clear cut that bitcoin cash is the closest living fork to Satoshi's original intent. However it failed (or didn't even try) to win the brand and therefore lost the ecosystem along with it.  The core developers and community has decided Satoshi's vision is no longer appropriate for bitcoin. This kind of makes me sad maybe out of a sense of nostalgia remembering the original promise of bitcoin before the scaling shit fight took over. But then again something had to yield bitcoin was hitting some hard limits.

I'm sorry but.... if you can't see that having a 8MB block size immediately created 98% BCH mining centralization (thus killing Satoshi's original vision of a decentralized mining ecosystem), then you are beyond help. Lowering transaction fees will be solved in a different way.



"He who sacrifices freedom [decentralization] for securitytemporarily lower transaction fees deserves neither."