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

[ragnar0k]

What do you think will happen if 2-3 exchanges close (suddenly) or you cannot withdraw anymore and people realize most of the price is thin air?
Expect price to surge to the 1000$ level when it pops...I don't know "when" but it will happen.

I think we would have two scenarios:
1- Big whales (ETFs and whatever) are in - nothing happens. Price goes down, but overall, they will care about bitcoin strategically so little will change. Shitcoins will slump as most of the exchanges with them have tether.
2- Big whales are not in yet: bitcoin crashes badly, I would say on the 2000-3000$ range. Finally people will start implementing peer to peer exchanges, altcoins die badly and are scattered all over the place, bitcoin will come back even stronger

Now, think about the two options and if you were a government, given the growth of bitcoin, would you let scenario 2 happen so that you lose the only real centralized point of control they have? I don't think so.
But maybe if you think about it, maybe #2 is not so bad for BTC

[1715300514]

1715300514

[1715300514]

1715300514

[1715300514]

1715300514

[gentlemand]

https://www.coindesk.com/first-long-term-ledgerx-bitcoin-option-pegs-price-10000-one-year/

So what does this entail?

I'm thick, me.

[sirazimuth]

Bitcoin Gold is now available on your Ledger

more free money.. thanx Ledger team !

[explorer]

https://www.coindesk.com/first-long-term-ledgerx-bitcoin-option-pegs-price-10000-one-year/

So what does this entail?

I'm thick, me.

Not sure if serious...

They give a 25% chance to 10K+  in 13.5 months, and a 75% chance of a long crypto winter (or BTC irrelevance?).

IMO there's a better chance for 20k+ in that timeframe than sub-10k.  But what do I know, I'm just a permabull.

  

[bitserve]

https://www.coindesk.com/first-long-term-ledgerx-bitcoin-option-pegs-price-10000-one-year/

So what does this entail?

I'm thick, me.

Not sure if serious...

They give a 25% chance to 10K+  in 13.5 months, and a 75% chance of a long crypto winter (or BTC irrelevance?).

IMO there's a better chance for 20k+ in that timeframe than sub-10k.  But what do I know, I'm just a permabull.

  

Yup, it's a bit bearish for my (current) taste. But I think they mean a 75% chance of a price equal or below to $10.000. That's not necesarily a crypto winter.

[ragnar0k]

https://www.coindesk.com/first-long-term-ledgerx-bitcoin-option-pegs-price-10000-one-year/

So what does this entail?

I'm thick, me.

Not sure if serious...

They give a 25% chance to 10K+  in 13.5 months, and a 75% chance of a long crypto winter (or BTC irrelevance?).

IMO there's a better chance for 20k+ in that timeframe than sub-10k.  But what do I know, I'm just a permabull.

  

Yup, it's a bit bearish for my (current) taste. But I think they mean a 75% chance of a price equal or below to $10.000. That's not necesarily a crypto winter.

From what I understand it means that they are 'reserving' their bitcoins for 10k in Dec 2018. This means they expect the price to be higher than that...A good thing!
[edit]I think the article is wrong, should be said 'there is at least a 25% chance'

[jbreher]

Mempool single thread bottleneck has little to do with number of transactions/sec, when one can put as much transactions within the block limit.

Agreed. At least "when one can put as much transactions within the block limit". However, the excuse given repeatedly for not simply increasing the maxblocksize is 'consumer hardware can't handle it, leading to nodes being incapable of being nodes any longer'. This experiment shows this assertion to be false, as fixing the broken concurrency model within the node SW allows a fivefold increase in transaction capacity. Which is well and above the ~1.7x that segwit brings -- in the boundary case that all transactions are segwit.

What mempool multi-threading can help is handling spam transactions much more effectively, leaving mempool in much better state.

This multithreading improvement does not discriminate between 'spam' and other transactions. It provides an improvement in throughput for all transactions.

your statements about core team where "nobody understands concurrency"

I did not state that core has nobody that understands concurrency. To quote: "Whether core has nobody that understands concurrency, or whether they just deem scalability to be a low priority, is a matter of conjecture." Are there other possibilities I am missing to explain this?

Do you deny the following? If so, which parts?:

But the truth is that the core developers have not:
- measured and published such transaction capacity tests
- determined where the lowest bottleneck in system transaction capacity lies
- coded up a fix to remove the lowest bottleneck to system transaction capacity
- measured and published results with the fix for this lowest bottleneck to system transaction capacity

- All this in a time when system transaction capacity is the hottest issue - and has been for about two years.

are nothing but the FUD you spread about them in order to picture your big block developers somehow "superior".

No. I am not spreading FUD about core devs. I am stating some truths about an area of optimization that core devs have not pursued. An optimization that initial experiments show outperforms segwit, as measured by the single metric of transaction throughput capability, by a wide margin. In order to counter the actual FUD that 'all capable devs are on in the core camp'.

I certainly made no claim that the Bitcoin Cash devs are superior. I just pointed out one instance where the Bitcoin Cash devs have discovered and prototyped an approach to scalability that seems to me to be far superior to what core devs have so far delivered.

We saw their coding skills few days ago when they failed to execute a proper fork.

No. That was not Bitcoin Cash developers.

What's funny that you said few posts above that you don't want to hurt BTC in any possible way, and few posts latter you talk this nonsense about core devs.

Please tell me specifically what you find in what I posted to be "nonsense about core devs".

You can't lie and at the same time cry you only want the truth, inconsistency is killing you.

Also, please tell me what you find to be a lie. If you find discussion of potential improvements to be detrimental to the progress of bitcoin, it would seem that you would properly be labeled either as reactionary or luddite.

[Vlad2Vlad]

Not as epic as when BCH has to hardfork (for the 13th time) to increase the 21 million limit because they ran out of coins to mine from the broken accelerated mining EDA/DDA clusterfeck and there are no fees ...

You smoking bad crack.  The DDA is averaging nearly 10 minute Blocks.  Where’s the accelerated blocks?  

[jbreher]

that bear at the picnic table would look kinda hip sitting behind the wheel of a Roadster.

Thanks, but that would be Mrs. Bear's vehicle. She drag races a Corvette, and daily drives a 45th Anniversary Edition Camaro. I drive a beat-up 98 Chevy Express, and my other vehicle is an ex-Penske 16' box truck. With a bumper sticker that says 'My other car is another minivan'.

[bitserve]

https://www.coindesk.com/first-long-term-ledgerx-bitcoin-option-pegs-price-10000-one-year/

So what does this entail?

I'm thick, me.

Not sure if serious...

They give a 25% chance to 10K+  in 13.5 months, and a 75% chance of a long crypto winter (or BTC irrelevance?).

IMO there's a better chance for 20k+ in that timeframe than sub-10k.  But what do I know, I'm just a permabull.

  

Yup, it's a bit bearish for my (current) taste. But I think they mean a 75% chance of a price equal or below to $10.000. That's not necesarily a crypto winter.

From what I understand it means that they are 'reserving' their bitcoins for 10k in Dec 2018. This means they expect the price to be higher than that...A good thing!

Yup... but as I said it is not the bulliest of predictions either

Oh. and on second thought... if they are paying (now) $2500 for the option to buy BTC for $10.000 in one year... then that means they are expecting the price to be above $12500 (not just $10.000) or they would be losing money.

At the same time, there some other party that expects the opposite... or want to somehow hedge their BTC.... or most probably it is all just a marketing stunt

[AlcoHoDL]

Just FYI, quoting from the website of SatoshiLabs (creators of TREZOR). Looks like TREZOR owners may be able to claim their Bitcoin Gold airdrop as soon as tomorrow (Monday, 20 November)!

Will TREZOR Wallet support Bitcoin Gold?

UPDATE: Bitcoin Gold seems to have implemented replay protection. We will now begin developing support in the Wallet and a method to split the coins. Bitcoin Gold network is not live yet, only the testnet is running. The automated coin-splitting tool will, most likely, be adapted to support BTG too.

UPDATE (13 Nov): Bitcoin Gold finally released their source code allowing us to develop our infrastructure. The network is, however, not stable yet. More information will come as we progress.

UPDATE (16 Nov): We have successfully synchronized our Bitcoin Gold backend server and are now steps away from releasing full support. BTG will be included in the next firmware update, after the implementation is thoroughly tested by our team.

UPDATE (17 Nov): Release is planned for Monday, 20 Nov.

[Torque]

https://www.coindesk.com/first-long-term-ledgerx-bitcoin-option-pegs-price-10000-one-year/

So what does this entail?

I'm thick, me.

Not sure if serious...

They give a 25% chance to 10K+  in 13.5 months, and a 75% chance of a long crypto winter (or BTC irrelevance?).

IMO there's a better chance for 20k+ in that timeframe than sub-10k.  But what do I know, I'm just a permabull.

  

Yup, it's a bit bearish for my (current) taste. But I think they mean a 75% chance of a price equal or below to $10.000. That's not necesarily a crypto winter.

From what I understand it means that they are 'reserving' their bitcoins for 10k in Dec 2018. This means they expect the price to be higher than that...A good thing!

Yup... but as I said it is not the bulliest of predictions either

Oh. and on second thought... if they are paying (now) $2500 for the option to buy BTC for $10.000 in one year... then that means they are expecting the price to be above $12500 (not just $10.000) or they would be losing money.

At the same time, there some other party that expects the opposite... or want to somehow hedge their BTC.... or most probably it is all just a marketing stunt

That whole thing has got to be a joke.

Even without the CME or ETFs, I'd wager that north of $10-12K/btc is easily doable by end of next year. And with a Bitcoin ETF or two/three online sometime next year, they'd be able to short squeeze the whole market to the moon within milliseconds.

[itod]

your statements about core team where "nobody understands concurrency"

I did not state that core has nobody that understands concurrency. To quote: "Whether core has nobody that understands concurrency, or whether they just deem scalability to be a low priority, is a matter of conjecture." Are there other possibilities I am missing to explain this?

Do you deny the following? If so, which parts?:

But the truth is that the core developers have not:
- measured and published such transaction capacity tests
- determined where the lowest bottleneck in system transaction capacity lies
- coded up a fix to remove the lowest bottleneck to system transaction capacity
- measured and published results with the fix for this lowest bottleneck to system transaction capacity

- All this in a time when system transaction capacity is the hottest issue - and has been for about two years.

Claiming you haven't said what you've said (bolded), "or whether they just deem scalability to be a low priority" (yeah, they are retarded, deem scalability a low priority) is a classic game you play here. You simply spread FUD.

To answer the second part in general: There is no need for the core devs to do academic measurements of transaction capacity if you increase block size 100x or 1000x to 1GB, that is not gonna happen because it would turn over the control of the Bitcoin network to the entities which hate Bitcoin. You guys can measure future hypothetical bottlenecks whole day long if you like it, the answer to these problems isn't progressive increase of the block size, the answer is in all other stuff that they are working on.

[gembitz]

((rant))>>> the system starts bogging down at about 100 tx/s. In terms of blocksize, that would be ~33MB blocks. So we obviously have considerable headroom in the system for improvement by means of simple increase of maxblocksize. >>>((rant))

has it occured to you thats by satoshis' design >.>  that was the original size ~ 32mb ?   ==> rant on rant off

So what happens if some crazy dev doubles that to 64MB?  Will Satoshi be upset?  ;P

yep that is the one thing that will bring satoshi out of the shadows lol ha

[ragnar0k]

Yup... but as I said it is not the bulliest of predictions either

Oh. and on second thought... if they are paying (now) $2500 for the option to buy BTC for $10.000 in one year... then that means they are expecting the price to be above $12500 (not just $10.000) or they would be losing money.

At the same time, there some other party that expects the opposite... or want to somehow hedge their BTC.... or most probably it is all just a marketing stunt

Yep, sorry edited too late - I meant to say that I think the article is wrong in that I think the probability has to be at least 25% for this to make sense

[jbreher]

BCH is much more centralized,

Exactly in what manner do you assert that BCH is more centralized? (Presumably with respect to BTC?)

BCH is controlled by Roger Ver, Jihan Wu, Calvin Ayre, and Craig Wright - its code, mining, nodes, marketing - everything.

Great. You've re-asserted that it is centralized, but you have said nothing about in what manner the alleged centralization is manifested.

As far as code, BCH has multiple non-mining, fully-validating wallet implementations. None of which have been shown to be controlled by Ver, Wu, Ayres, nor Wright. Well, nChain might have an implementation, and if they do, that would presumably be controlled by Wright, but I am unaware of such. If you disagree, please state which such implementation is controlled, which of these parties controls it, and what the nature of that control is.

Wu controls a lot of mining, this is true. Wu also controls a lot of BTC mining. Ver controls a mining pool, though my understanding is not much hash rate. Wright has stated that he was going to create a large mining entity. Anyone have any evidence to suggest he has yet to amass such?

More germane however, most pools have at some point mined BCH. Further, no miner is barred from participating in mining BCH. Indeed the set of miners able to mine BCH is identical to the set of miners that can mine BTC. In what manner is this centralized?

Marketing? Now you're just being silly. In a permissionless environment, nobody controls marketing. The funny thing is that, for all the marketing that Ver or Wu has contributed to BCH, anti-Cash shrills (note I did not say 'shills') have spread Ver and Wu's message far wider than Ver or Wu themselves. Kinda ironic, that. What marketing has Wright done? Ayres?

Regardless, the mining centralization is easy to prove.
https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/800/0*-7jVYKd5OKx91ad2.

https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/800/0*YRMZ23O4J9Y9jcBf.

So miners self-selecting to not mine BCH is proof of BCH mining centralization? I assert that is a useless definition of 'centralization'.

[sirazimuth]

Just FYI, quoting from the website of SatoshiLabs (creators of TREZOR). Looks like TREZOR owners may be able to claim their Bitcoin Gold airdrop as soon as tomorrow (Monday, 20 November)!

Will TREZOR Wallet support Bitcoin Gold?

UPDATE: Bitcoin Gold seems to have implemented replay protection. We will now begin developing support in the Wallet and a method to split the coins. Bitcoin Gold network is not live yet, only the testnet is running. The automated coin-splitting tool will, most likely, be adapted to support BTG too.

UPDATE (13 Nov): Bitcoin Gold finally released their source code allowing us to develop our infrastructure. The network is, however, not stable yet. More information will come as we progress.

UPDATE (16 Nov): We have successfully synchronized our Bitcoin Gold backend server and are now steps away from releasing full support. BTG will be included in the next firmware update, after the implementation is thoroughly tested by our team.

UPDATE (17 Nov): Release is planned for Monday, 20 Nov.

What with all these lucrative forks  of bitcoin, (lucrative at least for the average Joe Shmoe small time hodeler like me anyway...
Bitcoin Gold being the latest as I just now got credited on my Ledger with free coins valued at around $150+ a pop)
it just baffles me as too where  the phuk does this "free money" come from??
I'm not complaining mind you, xmas is coming... won't be tapping the credit card this year (or ever again ftm, thank phuk crypto for that!!)....

[JayJuanGee]

I've only deleted a handful of his posts.

This has taken a lot of self control over the months. I always cringe when he posts because virtually every post is a direct or indirect attack on bitcoin, or a promotion of BCH.
He does sometimes have legitimate points, but they don't need to be repeated ad nauseam. Also, the thread was never about altcoins. As I mentioned in an earlier post, he has a somewhat privileged position in this thread due to his length of time participating in it, and his relatively thoughtful posts.

During busy times, I often have a few messages asking me to review certain posts, so I take those suggestions into consideration as well.

I'll also be the first to admit that I may be a less than stellar moderator.    

I'll just consider it teething pains. I'm sure it is a difficult and thankless job.

However, I ask that you reconsider whether or not you are deleting only posts by me that are 'direct or indirect attack on bitcoin' or promotion of BCH. Let us look at this one and evaluate: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2402558.msg24766720#msg24766720

This post had responses to four different posts. Three of them were directly concerning BTC. The fourth was a reply to the Tesla Roadster thing.

Certainly, the first of the four replies had quoted and sourced info which could be construed as positive to BCH and negative to BTC. However, it was correcting false information promulgated by the person to whom I was replying regarding mining profitability. I posted current state (factual information) and the source URL so he could check it himself next time.

The next was providing helpful info answering a question regarding the BTC mempool, free of any value judgement.

Third was the Tesla thing.

Fourth was merely defending against an accusation of 'FUD', when the supposed fud was merely the discussion regarding the limit of number of users BCH + Lightning can support, assuming each user would open and close their channel daily (the 2 tx/user/day was the hypothetical introduced by the party to whom I was responding earlier). While this could be _viewed_ as negative, it is really just the way it is, and therefore value-neutral.

Jbreher:

You should take these matters up privately with Infofront or admins or whoever else to the extent that you think that you have a some kind of case rather than attempting to get them resolved publicly (and anyhow, the owner of the thread has the right and discretion to delete your posts for whatever reason or no reason at all - and you should recognize that... this is not a democracy.. it is an owner moderated thread) . 

Actually it seems to be against the forum rules to make these kinds of challenges publicly, so you seem to be treading on thin ice in term of you efforts to publicly raise your concerns (whether actual or not).

[Torque]

Do you deny the following? If so, which parts?:

But the truth is that the core developers have not:
- measured and published such transaction capacity tests
- determined where the lowest bottleneck in system transaction capacity lies
- coded up a fix to remove the lowest bottleneck to system transaction capacity
- measured and published results with the fix for this lowest bottleneck to system transaction capacity

So which of these things have the BCH/2x genius devs solved without sacrificing decentralization by just upping the block size? You know, the same incompetent group that fumbled the 2X launch by missing a trivial off-by-one error so no blocks could be mined to trigger the fork? The same ones that try to hot fix shit in production with no code peer review or testing? The same ones that created the BCH EDA abomination?

You try to paint the Bitcoin core developers as somehow incompetent and not meticulous and careful, when the truly incompetent and reckless dev hacks live in your own house.

Gaslight much?

- All this in a time when system transaction capacity is the hottest issue - and has been for about two years.

Another lie. It is not an issue at all. Ver/Wu/Wright are trying to make it an issue by spamming the network and creating artificial congestion.

[jbreher]

From what I understand it means that they are 'reserving' their bitcoins for 10k in Dec 2018. This means they expect the price to be higher than that...A good thing!

Well, the two institutional houses that bought the LEAPS are expecting bitcoin to be worth at least the $10K strike price, plus the $2K+ (forgot the exact figure) premium by the contract date of end of 2018. I think they'll make money. Probably lots. It is a leveraged bull bet.