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

[mymenace]

Just turn off “Listen for Hey Siri”

More like turn off all modern day jew garbage.  Take the new Star Wars for instance.  Nobody likes this SJW crap. Audience gives it a 53%, Rotten Tomatoes jews rig the score and give it a 92%:

Interesting that medium is used

millennial have a huge issue with media, established, gateways, keepers, the old ways and absolutely think us older generations ruined everything, should not be listened to, are corrupt, rorted the system and left them with nothing

and they are right

millenials favorite medium is science fiction and the established keep shooting themselves in the foot with their nonsense and propaganda

e.g. Bright Will Smith

[1715096981]

1715096981

[1715096981]

1715096981

[1715096981]

1715096981

[1715096981]

1715096981

[realr0ach]

[jojo69]

why do you guys think the battery is non removable in all these new phones

come on people

[HairyMaclairy]

BCH buy Wall 800.  Troops will be starting to panic.

[criptix]

I don't own a cellphone.

As if we needed any more proof that Roach is the man we need for the 20th century.

Isn't it clear that R0ach's main goal is to disappear off the grid when all hell breaks loose? That is just not possible with a cell phone. After all, I find it really strange that all I need to do is have a conversation in the same room as my Iphone and all of a sudden, the google adds match what I was discussing. Apple denies this, but it seems to have happened to me way too often to be a coincidence. Plus, it is quite possible to track you, even if you have the location service shut off. All you need to do is make the mistake of actually using the thing, and they can triangulate your position.

no its real, part of the huge AI marketing programs that can gather data from all manner of third party options

it knows you better than you know yourself

Soon there will be 4k video cams everywhere.
You wont be able to stay anon except you move into the jungle.


Whats up will all the posts here.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn26348-nowhere-to-hide-the-danger-of-satellite-spies/

 Increasingly, private operators are using observation satellites and drones to obtain high-resolution images and sell them to anyone who is interested.

oct 2014 , imagine what they can do now

They did that already in 2000 (3 letter agencies).
I dont think it is cost efficient enough to follow everyone on earth with satellites.

[HairyMaclairy]

Buywall 450.  These bags are going to be heavy.  Creating a new army of desperate trolls.

[Torque]

Buywall 450.  These bags are going to be heavy.  Creating a new army of desperate trolls.

Where are you watching this data?

[bitserve]

Haha, so now the trolls are in an uproar because of the thought that Bitcoin maximalists won't even bother to hold altcoins because they know that such can be traded for as needed for day-to-day transactions?

Well they should be. Because Bitcoin is digital gold, that only has value that continues to increase because people to choose to hold it long term and not spend it.

Altcoins, not so much.

Trading BTC to altcoins "as needed for day-to-day transactions" is pointless. You will incur in more fees (exchanging, txs, etc) instead of avoiding them. At least until Bitcoin deploys LN and/or increase blocksize... but then it wouldn't be needed to use any altcoin.

So, in some way, this situation is forcing us to hold a higher percentage of altcoins than what we would be initially willing/comfortable to. Maybe that is even good for some people, or they think so because of the shorter term higher gains we have involuntarily experienced... but I don't think that is sustainable in the longer run.

When I first heard about Bitcoin, I fully bought in to the whole "digital currency is better in every way to fiat for online purchases" line. Only problem though, is that unless you are trying to buy something illegal, it really isn't better than fiat.

In the past 4 years, I've never come across a single scenario where going through the hassle of buying Bitcoin, getting charged the fee, waiting 3-4 days for it, then spending it online for something, transaction fee, waiting for confirmation, was in any way better or faster than just using a credit card or online bank account. The fee for purchasing the bitcoin + the waiting + the fee for the spending transaction + the time for confirmation just never outweighed just spending my fiat directly in the first place.

Truly, something like Lightning Network is the ONLY way Bitcoin is ever going to have a chance to compete with worldwide fiat transaction systems by giving people an INCENTIVE to buy bitcoin for that purpose. Meaning that it actually HAS TO BE better and faster than using fiat systems online for spending. Even then, I just don't see most people buying bitcoin for the purpose of turning around and immediately spending it online. I just don't.

I do agree with most you have said there, but I do have some minor discrepancies:

- LN is the real scaling solution. The only way to compete with other payment systems like paypal (great for online purchses), credit/debit cards (great for in person purchases and also online in some way), or cash. All three are inmediate and the cost is reasonable or even 0.

But.... LN is not ready YET. I think many of us overestimated its development status when -almost half a year ago- thought it be the final push into mainstream readiness for Bitcoin. At the same time, maybe also underestimated the rate of new users/investors that were to come in the following months.

I won't blame the multiple attacks Bitcoin has and keeps receiving because that was something more than expected. Bitcoin has to be resilient to those attacks, to the FUD, to the growth... We can't expect attackers wait till we are ready to fight nor users/adopters to just hold on... not if there are alternative choices that could be taken.

I have always said that whilst LN is the only SCALABLE solution it will also need a *minimal* increase in blocksize of the underlaying blockchain more sooner than later.

IF we can agree with that (maybe some people don't agree, it seems) AND unless LN is already around the corner (which it seems it is not).... why not do that small blocksize increase now as a temporary fix for the current network congestion (a fact... whatever the multiple causes including intentional spam) in the meantime?

No, the fees don't impact me that much.... at least not directly since I am mostly a hodler. But I have run out of arguments to advise people why they should buy Bitcoin instead of some other altcoin UNLESS they plan to buy in big chunks (like at least one full BTC). I can't give anyone some small BTC gift and show them how great and easy it is to USE it. No, if I want someone to show the tech I need to resort to something like LTC or whatever shit so I can show them the process of having a wallet, transfering and controlling their own coins etc...

That's sad. Maybe that is how it need to be. And I can't complain about the gains I have been having even recently... we are doing great yeah... But... is this really sustainable in the long run?

I am worried it isn't.

That said, I will hodl! Because I have hope the current situation will get addressed before its too late.

[bones261]

Buywall 450.  These bags are going to be heavy.  Creating a new army of desperate trolls.

Where are you watching this data?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfHJDLoGInM

[HairyMaclairy]

https://www.bitstamp.net/market/tradeview/

Choose BCH / BTC

Buywall at 0.21 is 348

[HairyMaclairy]

Buywall broken.   BCH falling.

[d_eddie]

I have always said that whilst LN is the only scalable solution it will also need a *minimal* increase in blocksize of the underlaying blockchain more sooner than later.

IF we can agree with that (maybe some people don't agree, it seems) AND unless LN is already around the corner (which it seems it is not).... why not do that small blocksize increase now as a temporary fix for the current network congestion (a fact... whatever the multiple causes including intentional spam) in the meantime?

Because any small increase can be spammed for a small increase of the cost.
We need more competition among miners. If possible, we need it before LN even launches, or at least takes off. Onchain transaction fees will likely increase when LN works at full regimen. In any case, we must make sure that when the would-be spammers want to disrupt LN, they tackle that wall of higher fees without the significant "miner monopoly discount" they have right now.

[Torque]

I do agree with most you have said there, but I do have some minor discrepancies:

I pretty much agree with everything you have stated, see below:

- LN is the real scaling solution. The only way to compete with other payment systems like paypal (great for online purchses), credit/debit cards (great for in person purchases and also online in some way), or cash. All three are inmediate and the cost is reasonable or even 0.

Agree completely. Until Bitcoin can match this ease of use and low friction, it can't compete.

But.... LN is not ready YET. I think many of us overestimated its development status when -almost half a year ago- thought it be the final push into mainstream readiness for Bitcoin. At the same time, maybe also underestimated the rate of new users/investors that were to come in the following months.

LN being behind schedule is disappointing seeing that we were being told by devs that it had been fully tested, was ready to go, just needed SegWit. That turned out to be misleading by a mile, and upset many of us.

I won't blame the multiple attacks Bitcoin has and keeps receiving because that was something more than expected. Bitcoin has to be resilient to those attacks, to the FUD, to the growth... We can't expect attackers wait till we are ready to fight nor users/adopters to just hold on... not if there are alternative choices that could be taken.

Agree

I have always said that whilst LN is the only scalable solution it will also need a *minimal* increase in blocksize of the underlaying blockchain.

Agree and Core has said as much. The trolls and BCash shills like to ignore that fact.

IF we can agree with that (maybe some people don't agree, it seems) AND unless LN is already around the corner (which it seems it is not).... why not do that small blocksize increase now as a temporary fix for the current network congestion (a fact... whatever the multiple causes including intentional spam) in the meantime?

Not disagreeing completely, but the spam attacks have completely muddied the waters on that one. Thanks to the spammers, no one can get a clear picture of what the network traffic truly looks like right now. And when spamming is not happening, backlog and fees are low, in many cases completely reasonable. So that does not bode well for the 'raise the block size' argument.

No, the fees don't impact me that much.... at least not directly since I am mostly a hodler. But I have run out of arguments to advise people why they should buy Bitcoin instead of some other altcoin UNLESS they plan to buy in big chunks (like at least one full BTC). I can't give anyone some small BTC gift and show them how great and easy it is to USE it. No, if I want someone to show the tech I need to resort to something like LTC or whatever shit so I can show them the process of having a wallet, transfering and controlling their own coins etc...

That's sad. Maybe that is how it need to be. And I can't complain about the gains I have been having lately... we are doing great yeah... But... is this really sustainable in the long run?

I don't disagree entirely about the tech use. But take an honest assessment for a sec. Do you friends or family really want to get into Bitcoin for spending, or are they really interested because they see the gains and want in as an investment? I don't know a single person that was interested in Bitcoin (for any reason) when the price was either going down, or just sat there doing nothing. Not one. They truly did not care just to USE it for spending.

[sirazimuth]

[ ... ]

I don't own a cellphone.

Thanks for that information. It is very helpful in putting things in perspective.

Of course that delusional twat doesnt own a cell phone.
Cell phones are all controlled by the jew deep state cuckolds or whatever the fuck his latest
nosensical diatribe is about. That character with his endless repeating pm blathering is a parody of himself.
Why the fuck he wastes his time in here being the laughing stock of the thread is beyond me.
Oh well I guess he's like just part of the furniture around here. You just kinda get used to it,
roll yer eyes and move on....

[gentlemand]

Oh well I guess he's like just part of the furniture around here.

I'd feel more well disposed towards him if I could use him as an armchair. Probably smells though.

[AlcoHoDL]

[Neo_Coin]

Buywall broken.   BCH falling.

[Neo_Coin]

[roach_lost]

Buywall broken.   BCH falling.

https://s19.postimg.org/bgmzkl2b7/10917034_1527905530807123_8784367735741705381_n.jpg

If BTC were to lose the number 1 position, it is highly unlikely that it would be replaced by another PoW coin. PoS is more likely and it actually would make for a more elegant ultimate track and control blockchain based fiat than bitcoin which is already a close approximation to this monster in itself.

Now if BTC were to be abandoned by the miners in favor of BCH then I could see BTC continuing in that form for some time longer. It is a legitimate fork, this is just a weird (considering the amounts involved) and temporary situation.

[realr0ach]

LN is the real scaling solution.

LN is an unworkable train wreck without putting all channel closings in the same common permissioned queue (meaning completely centralized).  The fact these systems are built around a finite block size means humans can easily attack that bottleneck by flooding it with channel closings.  Since it can be flooded, you're required to buffer them and either discard low payers or put them at the back of the line just like regular bitcoin mempool.

From that point, you either have to design as a hub and spoke model just like what Mike Hearn claimed, where the Lightning node is a bitcoin bank and everyone who uses it is their peon slaves to extract usury upon, or every lightning node broadcasts a shared queue with each other.  But due to the fact that people can try to flood the queue as mentioned earlier, each lightning node will have their own criteria for what is or isn't spam, or who is and isn't a terrorist that they will broadcast to other nodes (meaningly INSANELY PERMISSIONED, cartel coordinated, and usury based).  The nodes might also be incentivized NOT to broadcast and force a hub and spoke model for their own gain.

If a Lightning node constantly broadcasts flood bullshit to everyone, they will likely be blacklisted by other Lightning nodes (lightning banks, whatever you want to call them), so the entire system is based around things like trusted and untrusted members, subjective anti-spam filters, etc.  In other words, for Lightning to work at all, it would probably be the most permissioned centralized piece of garbage ever to exist.  No real difference from having an account at Bank of America, and ironcially, the govt will likely legislate who is and isn't allowed to run these Lightning nodes, meaning Bank of America or Goldman Sachs will run them.

At least this is my understanding of the problems one has to overcome to create such system.  The fact bitcoin is not decentralized and it's impossible to create a decentralized digital currency in the first place, also means anyone claiming Lightning is going to be "decentralized" is a complete idiot when it's built on top of bitcoin.