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

[Torque]

If you hold the same amount (in coins) of BTC and BCH basically nothing has changed for you.

A few days ago they held a combined USD of ~7800 and it's the same now (though it's currently down to ~7500 but was touching 8000 a few hours ago)

Totally irrelevant.

I know, right? That's like saying "If you own bitcoin and equal levels of all the shitcoins that currently exist then nothing has changed for you....you'll be just fine." 

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

If you hold the same amount (in coins) of BTC and BCH basically nothing has changed for you.

A few days ago they held a combined USD of ~7800 and it's the same now (though it's currently down to ~7500 but was touching 8000 a few hours ago)

Totally irrelevant.

I know, right? That's like saying "If you own bitcoin and equal levels of all the shitcoins that currently exist then nothing has changed for you....you'll be just fine."  

Hold both because hedging must the party line. There may be a script.
You don't hedge Bitcoin

[Ibian]

It isn't much cheaper to spam bigger blocks. Why is this attack so one-sided?

I asked myself this too... spamming bch mempool would be only 8 times more costly, even more cheap because 1 bch is 1/5 of a btc in usd terms.

Why are we not attacking bch? Seems that we are have not evil manipulators on our side

It's a little thing called morals.

I'm not fucking kidding. Puling others down is their thing. We build ourselves up. Basic difference in psychological profiles.

No I think Gentlemand is right. There's no incentive. No one uses the damn thing.

One does not exclude the other. But humans are not logical creatures. We feel first, and then rationalize our feelings.

They like to tear others down, so they do, with no logic or justification for it, even at personal expense. Like the scorpion and the frog.

We like open competition, which means being the best we can be. We focus on improving bitcoin, not on tearing altcoins down.

That there may be rational reasons for not attacking them in the way they attack us is just incidental.

[Gab0]

This is why I don't see any problem with the fees. If you can't afford those fees just use fiat banking. Bitcoin is for people that do value their money, financial freedom and privacy.

Your vision of what should be bitcoin, is far from being the one that initially captivated so many people, developers, investors, etc...
In a third world country, it is really important to have a payment system that is not banked. At the beginning bitcoin was very useful and very popular for those reasons. I do not plan to pay my coffee with bitcoin (and I hope I can do it with LN at some point), but every day bitcoin loses more and more utility in my country. And I'm frustrated to see that every day bitcoin becomes a tool for large investors, banks or investment funds, and ordinary people, on the street, are excluded.
And it seems to me, according to my humble opinion and what I have researched, that an increase to 2MB of block size is far from representing a danger or a problem to decentralization (especially when working on the optimization of block size) .
This increase would be a gesture of goodwill towards the community and would avoid all these discussions and hatred.

Fees are high - apart from the spam attack -, because demand for blockspace is higher than the supply (and always will be). 2MB/4MB/1024MB wouldn't change it, there are near infinite demand for using the blockchain's utilities; time will always be an unchangeable limit for competing transactions, no matter the blocksize.

Stop bitching about it, that is what called free market, those who value the utility/time/cost of their transactions will outcompete those who do not, same as with every goods/services with free market valuation.

Also, how are high fees a sign of failure?
Classic socialist person thinking:
"this restaurant is full, it is clearly failing because I can not eat here, RIGHT NOW, for the price i esteem "FAIR" for a table, bruh bruh "
Sorry, you just got outpriced by the market.

It really is a bad analogy and does not seem to understand free market capitalism. On the other hand, his vision condemns the countries of the third world to stay out of this system, which seems to me an erroneous idea if we want bitcoin to be successful.
[...]
The free market means, among other things, free competition. Bitcoin competes for the network effect, and so far only outperforms other currencies by the inertia of being the first.

What is the use of a decentralized bitcoin if nobody uses it because it is too expensive (transaction fees)?

You are saying, literally: "nobody uses it, because so many users use it and that makes it costly.

Can you not see the cognitive dissonance in that?
That was my restaurant analogy, and it is a perfect fit. Also, there is a logical fallacy arguing that "the free market rule" and "oh but what about the poor people" in the same sentence.

Pick one, because the laws of economics - just like the laws of physics - doesn't give a shit about human's subjective concepts like "fairness".

On that point you're right. I had not understood correctly. My apologies.
But, equity does not matter, but competitiveness does. That is my point.

[Torque]

I know, right? That's like saying "If you own bitcoin and equal levels of all the shitcoins that currently exist then nothing has changed for you....you'll be just fine."  

Hold both because hedging must the party line. There may be a script.

On a related note:
Growing up and for decades afterward, you'll hear the establishment, educators, financial advisors, banksters, family, friends, and colleagues all tell you that you should completely diversify all of your investments in your portfolio. Because they're all worried that you'll lose it all on a big risk. They want to protect you. Companies will even create these nice, safe 401ks full of safe return investments that won't lose much in a correction or crash.

And you could lose it all on a big risk investment. Or you may just get rich. Like the rich elites do every year, making big risky investments and winning, getting richer every year.

But you know why they push so hard the "diversify your portfolio to be safe" narrative to Average Joe? It has nothing to do with your protection. It has to do with this one thing: they know that if tens of millions of Average Joe working folk were allowed to suddenly get rich by making big risky bets and be able to retire early, the whole ponzi scheme of keeping every one of those Average Joes on the hamster wheel until they are 65 comes crashing down. They desperately need the income taxation each Average Joe produces for decades, and the only way to guarantee that is to keep every single able bodied person working until they retire or die. Hence their constant dissuading of high risk for the "average person".

[Last of the V8s]

https://youtu.be/UuQfuCqupkI
Rick Reacts 2017-W45 With last Bitcoin scaling hope CRUSHED, people come together to magic.

[micalith]

So what do we reckon for what happens at the end of this triangle flag thing forming? Up or down?

I'm hoping for down because I've heard people who get it right most of the time saying that we need a good correction down to $5k in order to go up to $10k or $20k next year

[arklan]

well, that was a hell of a night's ride...

[vroom]

one last bch pump before difficulty increase. then all miners will switch back to btc and bch transactions will freeze making selling bch harder.

[AZwarel]

Pick one, because the laws of economics - just like the laws of physics - doesn't give a shit about human's subjective concepts like "fairness".

On that point you're right. I had not understood correctly. My apologies.
But, equity does not matter, but competitiveness does. That is my point.

No need for an apology. This is a logical argument, no emotions involved, no "winners".

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

https://youtu.be/UuQfuCqupkI
Rick Reacts 2017-W45 With last Bitcoin scaling hope CRUSHED, people come together to magic.

"And their reasons aren’t going to be “decentralization”, “censorship resistance”, “non-aggression money”, or any other nice theoretical construct. Their three reasons for joining Bitcoin Cash, in 99.999% of cases, are going to be profit, profit, and more profit, in that order."
CEO Rick

Why does he think Bitcoin would be worth anything without these things? I'm trying to understand.

[micalith]

https://youtu.be/UuQfuCqupkI
Rick Reacts 2017-W45 With last Bitcoin scaling hope CRUSHED, people come together to magic.

So this guy is utterly convinced that scaling is impossible without centralisation. And obviously hasn't noticed any of the meteoric rises of countless other pump and dump alts, many of which make the recent BCH price action look trivial. Basically the kind of eegit who votes Conservative for all the wrong reasons

there hasn't been a massive shift of users from BTC to BCH. Rather a pump by very very rich manipulators and a large number of BCH fans

[bones261]

Yes, it appears that Ver, Wu and friends doubled down on an 11 a hard 16 and ended up getting an ace a face. (Dealer isn't going to bust either...)

 Related: Recently got back from a Vegas trip. Fuck perpetually shuffling shoes. That is all.

 I enjoyed counting on my prior trips.

Bummer, don't they know that the risk of ruin defeats most card counters, anyway? I went to Reno in May, and was able to find tables without perpetually shuffling shoes.

[yermom]

You have the balls to say that paying high fees is financial freedom. FREEDOM  
Otherwise I can go back to banksters, why? Different faces, same slavery problem

No, you pay high fees, BECAUSE it is giving you freedom. If you value the cost less than you value the freedom granted, do not use it. It is OPT-IN.
In other words:
The demand for financial sovereignty through the use of the - voluntary(!)- network of Bitcoin is higher than the supply right now, that is why it is expensive, not because of technical limitations. And spam attack, ofc  

Freedom has a cost. No one forces you to pay it.

Ehm... no. You basically are saying
-If I want to voluntarily use the bitcoin network, I must pay those high fees. That doesn't sound like freedom for me. I cannot manage my resources freely if I'm losing a percentage every time besides the spent.

Please rephrase that, because only two alternatives available: fiat banking or the dark side

[El duderino_]

Time for the BIG big BIG bounceback ..., the onces selling right now can only be fools and idiots JOKERS ;-) :-)

[Torque]

https://youtu.be/UuQfuCqupkI
Rick Reacts 2017-W45 With last Bitcoin scaling hope CRUSHED, people come together to magic.

"And their reasons aren’t going to be “decentralization”, “censorship resistance”, “non-aggression money”, or any other nice theoretical construct. Their three reasons for joining Bitcoin Cash, in 99.999% of cases, are going to be profit, profit, and more profit, in that order."
CEO Rick

Why does he think Bitcoin would be worth anything without these things? I'm trying to understand.

It wouldn't. He's a liar. Just like the whole BCH camp. They are all out to rape a small subset of believers who they can successfully gaslight into thinking that those principles/attributes don't matter any more. It's become like Jim Jones level cult brainwashing shit.

And he talks about the transaction backlog @ 140K right now, but disingenuously omits mentioning who was the fkn cause of all that spamming these past 24hrs. More bullshit.

[lightfoot]

So what's happening today. Anything interesting?

[Ibian]

You have the balls to say that paying high fees is financial freedom. FREEDOM  
Otherwise I can go back to banksters, why? Different faces, same slavery problem

No, you pay high fees, BECAUSE it is giving you freedom. If you value the cost less than you value the freedom granted, do not use it. It is OPT-IN.
In other words:
The demand for financial sovereignty through the use of the - voluntary(!)- network of Bitcoin is higher than the supply right now, that is why it is expensive, not because of technical limitations. And spam attack, ofc  

Freedom has a cost. No one forces you to pay it.

Ehm... no. You basically are saying
-If I want to voluntarily use the bitcoin network, I must pay those high fees. That doesn't sound like freedom for me. I cannot manage my resources freely if I'm losing a percentage every time besides the spent.

Please rephrase that, because only two alternatives available: fiat banking or the dark side

It's the wrong angle.

What counts for networks is network effect. The bigger the network, the more valuable the network. High fees discourage new users from joining, hence, high fees are detrimental to network effect, and to network value.

We need more throughput. We needed it a year ago.

[Last of the V8s]

So what's happening today. Anything interesting?

had some nice bangers for tea

[AZwarel]

You have the balls to say that paying high fees is financial freedom. FREEDOM  
Otherwise I can go back to banksters, why? Different faces, same slavery problem

No, you pay high fees, BECAUSE it is giving you freedom. If you value the cost less than you value the freedom granted, do not use it. It is OPT-IN.
In other words:
The demand for financial sovereignty through the use of the - voluntary(!)- network of Bitcoin is higher than the supply right now, that is why it is expensive, not because of technical limitations. And spam attack, ofc  

Freedom has a cost. No one forces you to pay it.

Ehm... no. You basically are saying
-If I want to voluntarily use the bitcoin network, I must pay those high fees. That doesn't sound like freedom for me. I cannot manage my resources freely if I'm losing a percentage every time besides the spent.

Please rephrase that, because only two alternatives available: fiat banking or the dark side

I will try, not sure i will be able

You have to pay high fees, because there are other people who also want to use the bitcoin network just as you, for whatever reason. Basically, you are competing for the next x block tx inclusion - it doesn't matter which timeline, those with "not urgent" needs also compete with the other "not urgent" ones.
This is the cost side.

The benefit side, aka the "financial freedom" comes from the properties of the bitcoin network, like censorship resistance aka:
you are mathematically/cryptographically protected against third party intrusion, such as freezing or confiscating your wealth on any reason or with method.

That is what i define as financial freedom, which comes with the aformentioned cost.

EDIT: oh i see the confusion: free (=zero cost on energy/resource expenditure) does not equals freedom (the ability to ignore the command of other actors without repercussion).