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

[alexeft]

On another note, just to show how laughable all this fork thing is, BT2 (or segwit2x) still has a price and is being traded though it doesn't exist, nor will it ever!

https://www.bitfinex.com/stats

 

[jojo69]

Reuters reports, former Fortress macro hedge fund manager Mike Novogratz - who we most recently profiled here - told Reuters Global 2018 Investment Outlook Summit in New York that he bought $15 to $20 million worth of Bitcoin over the weekend in that recent pullback.

we have motive

[Rosewater Foundation]

Reuters reports, former Fortress macro hedge fund manager Mike Novogratz - who we most recently profiled here - told Reuters Global 2018 Investment Outlook Summit in New York that he bought $15 to $20 million worth of Bitcoin over the weekend in that recent pullback.

we have motive

my real estate guy bought 0.15!
true story

[alexeft]

Reuters reports, former Fortress macro hedge fund manager Mike Novogratz - who we most recently profiled here - told Reuters Global 2018 Investment Outlook Summit in New York that he bought $15 to $20 million worth of Bitcoin over the weekend in that recent pullback.

we have motive

Of course we do. All bitcoin did was retrace a little as it had reached the upper bound of its channel. Of course, this was presented as a failure by the forkers!

[smartcomet]

https://btgexp.com/
look like BTGold is on line, 1 BTG = 216.833 USD

[JayJuanGee]

If Monday comes and we're still bleeding down like Peter R. imagines we will be, I'm going to start daytarding. Simple as that.

That is why I follow this thread.

Continued hillarity!!!!   


You never learn, BMB, do you?


How much money you gotta lose before you reconsider your temptation to trade?  especially when you don't have any clue about how to structure your orders.   

Well, good for the rest of us that you will likely sell at the bottom and buy at the top, and it is good for the ecosystem to have some of you "brave" folks out there.

    

[Rosewater Foundation]

If Monday comes and we're still bleeding down like Peter R. imagines we will be, I'm going to start daytarding. Simple as that.

That is why I follow this thread.

Continued hillarity!!!!   


You never learn, BMB, do you?


How much money you gotta lose before you reconsider your temptation to trade?  especially when you don't have any clue about how to structure your orders.   

Well, good for the rest of us that you will likely sell at the bottom and buy at the top, and it is good for the ecosystem to have some of you "brave" folks out there.

    

yeah. he earned that.

[AZwarel]

Why are you reacting so emotionally?  You have held bitcoin for a long time, and so you would have equal coins on both the Bitcoin Core and Bitcoin Cash chains.  If Bitcoin evolves as peer-to-peer digital cash, with low fees and reliable confirmation, you win; if Bitcoin evolves as digital gold, with high fees and transaction friction, you win too.

I believe in the original vision for Bitcoin as described in the white paper: as a peer-to-peer electronic cash system.  I am working to help shape bitcoin to that vision and will continue to do so.

Could I be wrong?  Sure.  Maybe it actually is good to have $20 fees (soon to be $50) and a network that can only process 3 transactions per seconds (one thousand times less than Visa).  

And that is why I hold both BTC and BCH.  

i react emotionally because YOU play games with my live savings. why the fuck aren´t you creating just another altcoin to realize your great vision? why tamper with bitcoin? if you are not happy with it, leave it. well, you sort of did, but you try to steal as much juice of it as possible, trying to hurt bitcoin as much as possible.

now you expecting me to hug you for it? your game is called hijacking and it is evil.

From my perspective, it is Blockstream/Core that are tampering with Bitcoin, by refusing to allow a much-needed capacity increase to reduce fees and allow for continued growth, and then by fundamentally changing the structure of the BTC coin by adding segwit.  

Bitcoin Cash represents the original vision for Bitcoin as peer-to-peer electronic cash.  I will continue work to realize this vision, and help resist the hijack attempt by Blockstream and Core.

Bitcoin gains it's value by proven exclusion of any third party intervention in a value exchange network between peers.
This is achieved in "The original vision" by that both the sender and receiver peer can independently get a proof by running a full node that there is no double spending on a transaction between them. No need for a trusted third party can be only achieved by this independent verification process, which needs the physically possible minimum technical requirements for running a full node for the most participants. A large block size excludes most peers doing this, essentially destroying the very core of bitcoin's value.

There was nothing about how the cost of transactions (fees) would be "fair" in the white paper; the costs of doing transactions in a voluntary, opt-in value exchange network is entirely upon the peers do decide between themselves.

You are basically saying that the free market is not working to establish the subjective valuation of the actors to reach a price of transacting. You think you can "spend their money better than they do".
That is the problem, not the vaporware you shill.

[yermom]

New slogan in here next year:

This is Bitcointalk, not a fucking Bitcoin forum!  :roto2:

Shame on you

[jojo69]

Bitcoin gains it's value by proven exclusion of any third party intervention in a value exchange network between peers.
This is achieved in "The original vision" by that both the sender and receiver peer can independently get a proof by running a full node that there is no double spending on a transaction between them. No need for a trusted third party can be only achieved by this independent verification process, which needs the physically possible minimum technical requirements for running a full node for the most participants. A large block size excludes most peers doing this, essentially destroying the very core of bitcoin's value.

There was nothing about how the cost of transactions (fees) would be "fair" in the white paper; the costs of doing transactions in a voluntary, opt-in value exchange network is entirely upon the peers do decide between themselves.

You are basically saying that the free market is not working to establish the subjective valuation of the actors to reach a price of transacting. You think you can "spend their money better than they do".
That is the problem, not the vaporware you shill.

This is the fundamental truth that I think holes the bigblock argument below the waterline.  Thank you for formulating it so succinctly.  Of course they retort that low transaction throughput will force most transactions on to L2 or L3 solutions, thus reintroducing a "trusted" third party into the equation.

I say, fine, for low value transactions I have no issue with taking my chances with some gatekeeper, or using a lesser coin.  But when I want to move a significant lump of value, bet your ass I will gladly pay whatever the fee at that time is to take the responsibility for the security of that transaction myself.

[Peter R]

Bitcoin gains it's value by proven exclusion of any third party intervention in a value exchange network between peers.
This is achieved in "The original vision" by that both the sender and receiver peer can independently get a proof by running a full node that there is no double spending on a transaction between them. No need for a trusted third party can be only achieved by this independent verification process, which needs the physically possible minimum technical requirements for running a full node for the most participants. A large block size excludes most peers doing this, essentially destroying the very core of bitcoin's value.

There was nothing about how the cost of transactions (fees) would be "fair" in the white paper; the costs of doing transactions in a voluntary, opt-in value exchange network is entirely upon the peers do decide between themselves.

You are basically saying that the free market is not working to establish the subjective valuation of the actors to reach a price of transacting. You think you can "spend their money better than they do".
That is the problem, not the vaporware you shill.

With simplified payment verification technology (Section 8 of white paper), users can be their own banks, verify their own transactions, and send payments to anyone, trustlessly and without a middleman.  Users do not need to run network nodes.

Here are slides from a talk I gave this summer explaining how this brilliant technique created by Satoshi works:

https://www.slideshare.net/peter_r/scaling-bitcoin-to-a-billion-users?qid=3e0b7061-f29b-4a6c-bc5b-ee6b59fffe49&v=&b=&from_search=1

Satoshi's design is massively scalable.

[JayJuanGee]

The news links below, but in Korean.
Basically 3000 people show up at Bithumb's Gangnam HQ to protest that lovely Gox style candlestick from 2.85 mio KRW ($2600) to 0.25 mio KRW ($220).  The presidential palace is demanding an investigation into the incident.  Hope that Vers et al. won't get a visit from those Jopok anytime soon.  

http://biz.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2017/11/13/2017111302006.html
http://www.hani.co.kr/arti/economy/finance/818839.html

Any news about what is happening at Bithumb? That's the korean exchange where most of the BCH trading/pumping happened I think.

 I was thinking that maybe JJG has gone to Korea to kick some ass.  Haven't seen him here since the shit show began.

hahahaha


It' is nice to be missed...   

[JayJuanGee]

Paid 6$ transaction fee and after 3 days .. 0 confirmations . Bullish.

This is not a good time for making such measurements, since there is an  ongoing spam attack going on - and sure some folks believe that bitcoin should be resilient enough to withstand spam attacks and still transmit.  I suppose some of these kinds of matters might be addressed by off chain transactions, too.

Overall bitcoin is bullish, but not for the contraindicator reasons that you trollishly point out.   

[pfrtlpfmpf]

I believe in short posts:
Short.

Bitcoincash ?   Nahh  

[Gab0]

Bitcoin gains it's value by proven exclusion of any third party intervention in a value exchange network between peers.
This is achieved in "The original vision" by that both the sender and receiver peer can independently get a proof by running a full node that there is no double spending on a transaction between them. No need for a trusted third party can be only achieved by this independent verification process, which needs the physically possible minimum technical requirements for running a full node for the most participants. A large block size excludes most peers doing this, essentially destroying the very core of bitcoin's value.

There was nothing about how the cost of transactions (fees) would be "fair" in the white paper; the costs of doing transactions in a voluntary, opt-in value exchange network is entirely upon the peers do decide between themselves.

You are basically saying that the free market is not working to establish the subjective valuation of the actors to reach a price of transacting. You think you can "spend their money better than they do".
That is the problem, not the vaporware you shill.

With simplified payment verification technology (Section 8 of white paper), users can be their own banks, verify their own transactions, and send payments to anyone, trustlessly and without a middleman.  Users do not need to run network nodes.

Here are slides from a talk I gave this summer explaining how this brilliant technique created by Satoshi works:

https://www.slideshare.net/peter_r/scaling-bitcoin-to-a-billion-users?qid=3e0b7061-f29b-4a6c-bc5b-ee6b59fffe49&v=&b=&from_search=1

Satoshi's design is massively scalable.

Could you explain why you think that users don't need to run network nodes?
I don't agree, but I would like to understand your point of view.

[JayJuanGee]

good opportunity to buy more. i dont know where the bottom will be so i'm buying 0.05 at every $300 drop

JJ will be proud of you...

That is exactly what you supposed to be doing....    

And were the hell have you been during this shit storm? You alone could have worn all the BCH shillers down with you never ending walls of text.

hahahahahaha

Thanks for the praise (I think?).

I was not completely detached, but I was out having fun (that did not involve typing).


All of my outstanding BCH sell orders filled between .08 and .31 BTC.  I only have access to a tiny bit more BCH on WEX (and then the token BCH that WEX has not issued and the coinbase BCH that has not issued).. so yeah, nearly out of BCH.

Regarding BTC, I was able to set some of my BTC sell orders after my many buy orders triggered all the way down from $6700 to $5400-ish.  I did fall behind a little bit on setting my orders (because of my fun having), and I was not able to catch up on my thread reading until today.

Go figure.  I do admit that I did have to wade through quite a lot of troll posts, and surely PeterR has been allowed quite a bit of nonsensical latitude, as you likely already recognized.  

[AZwarel]

Bitcoin gains it's value by proven exclusion of any third party intervention in a value exchange network between peers.
This is achieved in "The original vision" by that both the sender and receiver peer can independently get a proof by running a full node that there is no double spending on a transaction between them. No need for a trusted third party can be only achieved by this independent verification process, which needs the physically possible minimum technical requirements for running a full node for the most participants. A large block size excludes most peers doing this, essentially destroying the very core of bitcoin's value.

There was nothing about how the cost of transactions (fees) would be "fair" in the white paper; the costs of doing transactions in a voluntary, opt-in value exchange network is entirely upon the peers do decide between themselves.

You are basically saying that the free market is not working to establish the subjective valuation of the actors to reach a price of transacting. You think you can "spend their money better than they do".
That is the problem, not the vaporware you shill.

With simplified payment verification technology (Section 8 of white paper), users can be their own banks, verify their own transactions, and send payments to anyone, trustlessly and without a middleman.  Users do not need to run network nodes.

Here are slides from a talk I gave this summer explaining how this brilliant technique created by Satoshi works:

https://www.slideshare.net/peter_r/scaling-bitcoin-to-a-billion-users?qid=3e0b7061-f29b-4a6c-bc5b-ee6b59fffe49&v=&b=&from_search=1

Satoshi's design is massively scalable.

If users do not run nodes, who does? I mean.. non users run the nodes?? Is this an Orwelian newspeak?
I think we have a different definition of what a node is and does in a network, but that happens.

And no, i will never trust anything that begins with "simplified" in that sense. That is a code word for "do not worry, we have your back, somewhere, you do not need to know, relax".
I must be able to see EVERYTHING since the Genesis block. That is the ONLY 100% guarantee not to be screwed over by "simplified technology". You can not simplify an information state below itself (you can not express '1' with anything shorter than itself).

edit: btw, you have not addressed my argument about free market of fees, or that what if users want to run nodes - not because they have to/need to, but because that is bitcoin's value proposition but prohibited by gigabyte blocks. You have just recited slogans "be your own bank! - even though you can not run a server farm yourself, but, meh it sounded good!"

[JayJuanGee]

You mean the CEO of Bitcoin Cash -- Rick Falkvinge -- isn't allowed to trade bitcoin?

If he trades based on insider information, as you implied, and this can be proven in court, he will go to jail in most countries in the world.
Well, most likely not jail, but a hefty fine

Maybe start a twitter campaign to jail the CEO of Bitcoin Cash?  


For the record, there is no Bitcoin Cash CEO.  That doesn't even make sense.  How can a blockchain have a CEO? That letter was satire. The people with "inside information" are the miners and the whales battling it out right now.  I have no idea how this mess will play out, which is why I hold both BTC and BCH.

I am leaning towards BCH though.

I guess that you are conceding that some folks are fucking nutjobs, including that Rick whatever his name is who proclaimed to be the CEO of Bcash as a kind of pump "satire", as you call it.

Sure, it is understandable that cryptos are generally unregulated, and largely decentralized, but if the SEC considers some behaviors to be bordering on the promotion of securities, then some players could get themselves into trouble by pumping such, no?  Even if they later proclaim, "satire?" 

[Dabs]

If you paid $6 to move $40 worth of bitcoin, and it confirmed, you would pay $6 to move $400 or $4000 or $40000 or even $4 million worth of bitcoin, and it will also confirm. (Well, maybe if you used more unspent inputs then you'd pay more than $6 but I think that's acceptable for a $4m transaction.)

[Peter R]

Could you explain why you think that users don't need to run network nodes?
I don't agree, but I would like to understand your point of view.

The design of Bitcoin is such that users can just be users.  

For example, if I transfer a coin to you, you can immediately verify my signature.  You do not need to trust me or trust anyone else -- the transaction itself contains cryptographic proof that I transferred ownership of my coin to you.  You can even follow the chain of signatures backwards and confirm that the person who I received the coin from also signed the transfer, and so on and so forth, as far back as you want to go.  You do not need a network node to do this!

The only risk to you is that I may have also signed that same bitcoin over to someone else.  This is the double-spend problem that had not been solved until Satoshi.  Satoshi's revolutionary solution was to use proof-of-work to time stamp transactions into a chain such that -- if his proof-of-work conjecture held --  that the same coin could not be spent twice.

As a user then, the only additional piece of information you need, is whether the transaction I gave to you was accepted into the blockchain.  A network node can provide you this proof (that you can trustlessly verify for yourself!) with a few kilobytes of information.

Here is a talk I gave (only about 10 min long) that explains how SPV works in more detail (sorry about the crappy audio!)  

https://youtu.be/m7cvPvtGIUI?t=459