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

[realr0ach]

the wannabe control freakery trolling is intensifying to extreme levels ... shorts about to explode?

I noticed you are unable to come up with any excuse as to why the Jewish occupied US govt has not tried to stop bitcoin (and instead promote it) while both China and Russia try to get rid of it.

[marcus_of_augustus]

[Heater]

FFS the block size again? Has anyone noticed what's happening with the price and alts and stuff?

I posted recently we has some dojis and would have an interesting day - and indeed we did - a predictable breakout. Now have a look - we have a situation that could be misinterpreted as a BTC bull trap by the shitcoin-tards and that is exactly what has happened - alts recovering a bit after their recent falls.

In other words, BTC has already passed the capitulation phase and it ready to boom again, but the alts are still in denial that this run is over for them. /r/ripple etc are still bullish - they are ones who will end up selling ripple at the bottom and FOMOing into BTC when the price explodes.

Still bullish AF

Parabolic Trav‏  @parabolictrav
NEW VIDEO - Correction Post Mortem and What's Next for Bitcoin $BTC

https://youtu.be/ve5Z8GXzdpQ

[windjc]

That is not relevant in the least. It will make it better than it is now.

We need improvements. Before we hit $100+ fees would be nice.

Why does BTC need improvements?  If it is digital gold -- designed to be held and not spent -- then high fees that make it more difficult to use could be seen as a feature.  Plus small blocks make it easier to run full nodes, which is important to many people.  

How come you can't articulate the simple following explanation:

In what if any way is Bcash superior to LTC, DASH and DOGE as transactional currency?

I view money as a ledger.  Or "money as memory," as per the work of Kocherlakota. From this viewpoint, it is the information encoded in the ledger about who owns which coins that is of value.  The actual mechanism used to update that ledger is just a technical decision -- which is the best paper to write on?  Which is the best pen?

Bitcoin Cash (BCH) and Bitcoin Core (BTC) share the same ledger up until August 1.  At this point, the "ledger updating mechanisms" diverged (BCH allowed more information about the state of the ledger to be updated every ten minutes to facilitate growth).

Switching to DOGE would be like ripping up the "ledger of money" because the pen we were using to update it ran out of ink.  Instead, just get a better pen and keep updating the same ledger.  



 

So your answer is not a practical one or utilitarian one, it is simply that bitcoin has had more transactional history and BCash stole that history and so that makes Bcash better than other altcoins? Seriously?

[marcus_of_augustus]

FFS the block size again? Has anyone noticed what's happening with the price and alts and stuff?

I know right?! ... this is some fecked up shit. We got 30% gains in 7 days for the best money on the planet, I was expecting, trains, rockets and banjos, dancing girls ... no, what do we get?

rizun, roger and roAch trolling ignoramus, bear-tard, sold-out bulls and malcontents shitfest show ... guess we got lots of legs left on this rally until these fucktards finally fuck-off.

[Peter R]

I view money as a ledger.  Or "money as memory," as per the work of Kocherlakota. From this viewpoint, it is the information encoded in the ledger about who owns which coins that is of value.  The actual mechanism used to update that ledger is just a technical decision -- which is the best paper to write on?  Which is the best pen?

Bitcoin Cash (BCH) and Bitcoin Core (BTC) share the same ledger up until August 1.  At this point, the "ledger updating mechanisms" diverged (BCH allowed more information about the state of the ledger to be updated every ten minutes to facilitate growth).

Switching to DOGE would be like ripping up the "ledger of money" because the pen we were using to update it ran out of ink.  Instead, just get a better pen and keep updating the same ledger.  

So your answer is not a practical one or utilitarian one, it is simply that bitcoin has had more transactional history and BCash stole that history and so that makes Bcash better than other altcoins? Seriously?

That is the reason why preserving the ledger is important -- because money is a ledger.  Money is memory.

There are practical reasons that BCH is superior to DOGE or other coins as well.  The two big ones being:

(1) There is tens of billions of dollars of installed SHA256 mining infrastructure that mines or is able to mine BCH.

(2) Accepting BCH for payments is trivial for all the companies and payment processors that previously accepted Bitcoin but stopped due to high fees and unreliable confirmations.  BCH is a drop-in replacement where as supporting BTC is more complex due to segwit (+ further complexity should LN be viable).  

[windjc]

I view money as a ledger.  Or "money as memory," as per the work of Kocherlakota. From this viewpoint, it is the information encoded in the ledger about who owns which coins that is of value.  The actual mechanism used to update that ledger is just a technical decision -- which is the best paper to write on?  Which is the best pen?

Bitcoin Cash (BCH) and Bitcoin Core (BTC) share the same ledger up until August 1.  At this point, the "ledger updating mechanisms" diverged (BCH allowed more information about the state of the ledger to be updated every ten minutes to facilitate growth).

Switching to DOGE would be like ripping up the "ledger of money" because the pen we were using to update it ran out of ink.  Instead, just get a better pen and keep updating the same ledger.  

So your answer is not a practical one or utilitarian one, it is simply that bitcoin has had more transactional history and BCash stole that history and so that makes Bcash better than other altcoins? Seriously?

That is the reason why preserving the ledger is important -- because money is a ledger.  Money is memory.

There are practical reasons that BCH is superior to DOGE or other coins as well.  The two big ones being:

(1) There is tens of billions of dollars of installed SHA256 mining infrastructure that mines or is able to mine BCH.

(2) Accepting BCH for payments is trivial for all the companies and payment processors that previously accepted Bitcoin but stopped due to high fees and unreliable confirmations.  BCH is a drop-in replacement where as supporting BTC is more complex due to segwit (+ further complexity should LN be viable).  

Ok, well I own exactly has many BCash and Bitcoin, so good luck with taking over the crypto universe. Its certainly a slow start for you guys. I do hope in a couple years if Bitcoin has completely overwhelmed Bcash as a transactional currency, that you'll at least have the balls to publicly apologize for being wrong.

[cAPSLOCK]

That is not relevant in the least. It will make it better than it is now.

We need improvements. Before we hit $100+ fees would be nice.

Why does BTC need improvements?  If it is digital gold -- designed to be held and not spent -- then high fees that make it more difficult to use could be seen as a feature.  Plus small blocks make it easier to run full nodes, which is important to many people. 

It does bother me that someone as (I think?) intelligent as you can only see this problem in 1 dimension and black and white...

That is assuming the above quote is sarcasm, and not a sudden change of heart or a hacked account.

By the way, I do not think bitcoin is/will be only a store of value... likely many of us do not.  Also it is a straw man to assume small blockers want "no improvements".  We want different ones from BCash.

It will be interesting to watch BTC development move forward.  There was a huge portion of the community pushing for bigger blocks who have now shifted there holdings towards BCH.  These people will now support keeping BTC crippled at 1 MB, as they believe that shifting value from BTC -> BCH is now the best solution.  So we have a situation where both small-blockers will be pushing for no block size limit increase AND big-bockers (like me) will also be pushing for no block size limit increase.  So I think it will be difficult for BTC to scale if Lightning Network (LN) doesn't work out as planned.

Of course, if your of the view that use cases besides "holding" aren't important, then BTC is fine as is.  

I think there are many more examples of use cases, not only possible and desirable, but COMING to the BTC blockchain, or it's layers, or sidechains.  Identity verification.  Fast cheap (free) payments.  Historical records.  Wealth storage.  Legal record storage. Atomic swaps.  Exchange.  And so on...

We are not taking about taking the max throughput of the blockchain from 7tps to 56tps.  We are talking about taking it to MILLIONS of transactions per second.  And we are talking about this happening soon^tm.

Digital gold?  Digital cash?  Be all things to all people?  Our very conversation is proving the latter to be likely impossible.  At least on a single settlement layer.

Today's fee market is showing us a serious problem with the BTC network.  The solution is not bigger blocks.  It is found in a bigger vision.

Nothing is more decentralized than all the possible technologies coming to a blockchain near you.  You can use all of them, some of them, or none but the big daddy BTC. You can rest assured that the base layer is only as complex as it needs to be.  Not some ever expanding Rube Goldberg machine with all the attack surfaces that come with it. (No offense Vitalik) Even though its children, most likely in the form of sidechains will do ALL that whizbang stuff and more.  But not at the base layer...  down there we are safe, and pure.

Just Bitcoin.  THE Bitcoin.

[d_eddie]

(2) Accepting BCH for payments is trivial for all the companies and payment processors that previously accepted Bitcoin but stopped due to high fees and unreliable confirmations.  BCH is a drop-in replacement where as supporting BTC is more complex due to segwit (+ further complexity should LN be viable).  

Of course accepting BCH is trivial for those who already accept bitcoin.
All BCH did is increase the block size while keeping all witness data in mined blocks.
It could be seen as sweeping a problem under the rug, or as kicking the can a few feet further down the road.

BTC is more complex due to segwit - and hopefully soon LN too - because it's evolving in order to survive the technological challenges. It's not sweat-free. No free lunch and stuff. The benefits of upgrading will be more than worth the sweat for merchants (little sweat) and users (no sweat as soon as the first user-grade wallets become available).

But why am I explaining this to you? You are a technical person, aren't you?

[windjc]

It will be interesting to watch BTC development move forward.  There was a huge portion of the community pushing for bigger blocks who have now shifted there holdings towards BCH.  These people will now support keeping BTC crippled at 1 MB, as they believe that shifting value from BTC -> BCH is now the best solution.  So we have a situation where both small-blockers will be pushing for no block size limit increase AND big-bockers (like me) will also be pushing for no block size limit increase.  So I think it will be difficult for BTC to scale if Lightning Network (LN) doesn't work out as planned.

So you're saying that people like yourself want to now SUBVERT the original bitcoin chain against becoming a transactional currency? WOW.

Do you own any substantial portion of BTC?

[Peter R]

Ok, well I own exactly has many BCash and Bitcoin, so good luck with taking over the crypto universe.

I think that is smart.  I don't understand why people sell their BCH.  It is a nice hedge and then you can cheer on BTC and BCH.

I own about 3 BCH per BTC at the moment, as I think BCH is the better investment.  But I recognize that BTC could kill BCH if it can get its act together and solve the fee problem (I just think that BTC solving that problem is unlikely).

Its certainly a slow start for you guys.

Really?  The speed of adoption has blown me away.  I didn't think Coinbase would sell BCH so soon and Bitpay will shortly allow BCH to used for all Bitpay invoices.  This is very exciting for me.  

I do hope in a couple years if Bitcoin has completely overwhelmed Bcash as a transactional currency, that you'll at least have the balls to publicly apologize for being wrong.

I have been wrong many times in my life, and maybe this will be one of them too.  I don't think that being wrong is bad or evil though, so I don't know why I'd publicly apologize.  What would I say?  "Guys, I was wrong about high fees and I should have blindly trusted BS/Core that LN would solve all the problems, rather than thinking for myself and doing research to make bitcoin scale in the way I thought was best.  I am sorry that I worked hard on something I loved and believed in."  

[windjc]

Ok, well I own exactly has many BCash and Bitcoin, so good luck with taking over the crypto universe.

I think that is smart.  I don't understand why people sell their BCH.  It is a nice hedge and then you can cheer on BTC and BCH.

I own about 3 BCH per BTC at the moment, as I think BCH is the better investment.  But I recognize that BTC could kill BCH if it can get its act together and solve the fee problem (I just think that BTC solving that problem is unlikely).

Its certainly a slow start for you guys.

Really?  The speed of adoption has blown me away.  I didn't think Coinbase would sell BCH so soon and Bitpay will shortly allow BCH to used for all Bitpay invoices.  This is very exciting for me.  

I do hope in a couple years if Bitcoin has completely overwhelmed Bcash as a transactional currency, that you'll at least have the balls to publicly apologize for being wrong.

I have been wrong many times in my life, and maybe this will be one of them too.  I don't think that being wrong is bad or evil though, so I don't know why I'd publicly apologize.  What would I say?  "Guys, I was wrong about high fees and I should have blindly trusted BS/Core that LN would solve all the problems, rather than thinking for myself and doing research to make bitcoin scale in the way I thought was best.  I am sorry that I worked hard on something I loved and believed in."  

That would be a decent apology.

[windjc]

Do you own any substantial portion of BTC?

I have a strong suspicion I own more BTC than everyone in this thread with the possible exception of jbreher.

 I doubt it very much. But good to know you own at least more than a couple thousand.

[Heater]

Do you own any substantial portion of BTC?

I have a strong suspicion I own more BTC than everyone in this thread with the possible exception of jbreher.

You still haven't given a serious answer if you think Craig is Satoshi. It was a serious question. No shame if you think he might be - at least it would explain your behavior.

[Ibian]

Lightning requires segwit. Which is to say, it will be as worthless as segwit is.

This is one of the most ignorant and myopic statements I have ever seen someone make on these forums.
Sheeeeit !

Care to elaborate?

You've written off SegWit before it's been given a fair shake. That's just silly seeing as how it's not even fully implemented yet across a variety of services.

Core doesn't even support it in the GUI yet for the love of all that is good-and-holy.

I bet a year from now, we will both look back at this post and have a good chuckle, owing to the improved state of Bitcoin at that time.

It's been months and fees just keep going up. It should have been working from second one without any idiotic opt-in nonsense. We fucked up.

[somac.]

FFS the block size again? Has anyone noticed what's happening with the price and alts and stuff?

I posted recently we has some dojis and would have an interesting day - and indeed we did - a predictable breakout. Now have a look - we have a situation that could be misinterpreted as a BTC bull trap by the shitcoin-tards and that is exactly what has happened - alts recovering a bit after their recent falls.

In other words, BTC has already passed the capitulation phase and it ready to boom again, but the alts are still in denial that this run is over for them. /r/ripple etc are still bullish - they are ones who will end up selling ripple at the bottom and FOMOing into BTC when the price explodes.

Still bullish AF

Parabolic Trav‏  @parabolictrav
NEW VIDEO - Correction Post Mortem and What's Next for Bitcoin $BTC

https://youtu.be/ve5Z8GXzdpQ

I have thought it a bit odd that the alts are still increasing substantially alongside Bitcoin's rise. We'll see if you are right this time, I hope you are.

[jojo69]

[Peter R]

You still haven't given a serious answer if you think Craig is Satoshi. It was a serious question. No shame if you think he might be - at least it would explain your behavior.

Sorry, I couldn't resist making the JJG theory.  


But seriously, if you've read any of the papers written by CSW it is very clear that he is not the same person who wrote the Bitcoin white paper or communicated here on the forum in the early days.  

Here's a critique I did on CSWs recent paper (that he later retracted) where he tried (and failed) to prove the Eyal and Sirer's selfish mining attack was a fallacy:

https://bitco.in/forum/threads/wright-or-wrong-lets-read-craig-wrights-selfish-miner-fallacy-paper-together-and-find-out.2426/

CSW later bet me 1 BTC on this question, and lost (and never paid up), which is not a question that Satoshi would get wrong:



That said, CSW does seem to have information about early bitcoin that makes me think that he might have somehow been involved. But, no, he is not Satoshi.

[windjc]

You still haven't given a serious answer if you think Craig is Satoshi. It was a serious question. No shame if you think he might be - at least it would explain your behavior.

Sorry, I couldn't resist making the JJG theory.  


But seriously, if you've read any of the papers written by CSW it is very clear that he is not the same person who wrote the Bitcoin white paper or communicated here on the forum in the early days.  

Here's a critique I did on CSWs recent paper (that he later retracted) where he tried (and failed) to prove the Eyal and Sirer's selfish mining attack was a fallacy:

https://bitco.in/forum/threads/wright-or-wrong-lets-read-craig-wrights-selfish-miner-fallacy-paper-together-and-find-out.2426/

CSW later bet me 1 BTC on this question, and lost (and never paid up), which is not a question that Satoshi would get wrong:



That said, CSW does seem to have information about early bitcoin that makes me think that he might have somehow been involved. But, no, he is not Satoshi.

It doesn't bother you then that as the face of Bcash you have aligned yourself with a man who you know knowingly lied to the world on mulitple occasions for his own personal fame or delusion?

And does it not bother you that other faces of Bcash have publicly stated that they believe CSW is Satoshi?

I mean, can you not see how to many of us, Bcash might seem like a complete centralized shitshow?

Oh and of course Coinbase and Bitpay added BCH, they are both owned by self proclaimed big blockers, one of which has shilled ETH for years.

[gentlemand]

CSW later bet me 1 BTC on this question, and lost (and never paid up),

That is the least surprising thing I've read this year.