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

[TERA2]

If anyone ever wants to know why I sound cynical then this is why. God it's going to be so fun to quote all those arrogant posts if new lows come.

fun to revel in the misery of others???

sounds kinda sociopathic, 'bro'

L'Chaim, eh...?

No I just want specific people who were assholes to me to shut up or admit how stupid they were.

[1715150745]

1715150745

[1715150745]

1715150745

[cAPSLOCK]

It's necessary. Just a matter of when.

I'm not saying BTC doesn't need to eventually move over to larger blocks, but I support their slower, safer, forward-thinking, incremental approach to things.

I'll grant that Core's approach to scaling is slower than Cash's, but it certainly ain't safer.

Core is the name of the WALLET you trolling fuck.

Wait... did't I put you on ignore a million years ago??? I must have been curious and undid it.  Everyone does something stupid now and then.

[jbreher]

It's necessary. Just a matter of when.

I'm not saying BTC doesn't need to eventually move over to larger blocks, but I support their slower, safer, forward-thinking, incremental approach to things.

I'll grant that Core's approach to scaling is slower than Cash's, but it certainly ain't safer.

Core is the name of the WALLET you trolling fuck.

True to form. Do you feel your statement has shown my assertion to be false? Because your reply is a mere irrelevancy.

You obnoxious fuck. 

[bones261]

It's necessary. Just a matter of when.

I'm not saying BTC doesn't need to eventually move over to larger blocks, but I support their slower, safer, forward-thinking, incremental approach to things.

I'll grant that Core's approach to scaling is slower than Cash's, but it certainly ain't safer.

Core is the name of the WALLET you trolling fuck.

True to form. Do you feel your statement has shown my assertion to be false? Because your reply is a mere irrelevancy.

You obnoxious fuck.  

What do you expect? I'm sure if I decided to post in the BCH thread and called it BCASH, all of your friends would jump down my throat. If you can't bare to refer to BTC as Bitcoin, then just refer to it as BTC here. Fair enough?

[Elwar]

It's necessary. Just a matter of when.

I'm not saying BTC doesn't need to eventually move over to larger blocks, but I support their slower, safer, forward-thinking, incremental approach to things.

I'll grant that Core's approach to scaling is slower than Cash's, but it certainly ain't safer.

Core is the name of the WALLET you trolling fuck.

True to form. Do you feel your statement has shown my assertion to be false? Because your reply is a mere irrelevancy.

You obnoxious fuck.  

What do you expect? I'm sure if I decided to post in the BCH thread and called it BCASH, all of your friends would jump down my throat. If you can't bare to refer to BTC as Bitcoin, then just refer to it as BTC here. Fair enough?

Actually, calling it bcash on the BCH/USD Wall Observer thread is not only accepted, but encouraged.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3386487.msg35480059#msg35480059

[infofront]

Why is btrash doing so well ?

Probably because of the upcoming fork.
...

Proponents are looking forward to a 32 MB block size increase and op-code additions that could bring ethereum-like characteristics to the BCH network.

Jesus Titty-Fucking Christ.

The cancer that is BCash cannot die soon enough, along with Roger Ver.

Bigger blocks is a good thing. The problem is that they are being deceptive cunts. If we had chosen big blocks and they had chosen segwit, we would still think the same thing about them, and for the same reason. And be applauding ourselves for making the correct choice.

It's the people, not the tech.

Perhaps, but we do have better tech.

[becoin]

What's the drama? Bitmain's corporate bond (aka bcash) appreciated against bitcoin?

[jbreher]

It's necessary. Just a matter of when.

I'm not saying BTC doesn't need to eventually move over to larger blocks, but I support their slower, safer, forward-thinking, incremental approach to things.

I'll grant that Core's approach to scaling is slower than Cash's, but it certainly ain't safer.

Core is the name of the WALLET you trolling fuck.

True to form. Do you feel your statement has shown my assertion to be false? Because your reply is a mere irrelevancy.

You obnoxious fuck.  

What do you expect? I'm sure if I decided to post in the BCH thread and called it BCASH, all of your friends would jump down my throat.

Maybe. Personally, I just shrug it off. It is yet another irrelevancy meant to divert from the substance of dialogue. By calling it Core, I wasn't meaning to denigrate BTC. I erred. Sorry.

Though cAPSLOCK is still an obnoxious fuck.

If you can't bare to refer to BTC as Bitcoin, then just refer to it as BTC here. Fair enough?

If I do, can I expect that others will refrain from calling BCH BCash?

Yeah - that's what I thought.

[Toxic2040]

Quit trying to scam and deceive people and change the name to bchcoin and I am sure your little alt will be just fine.

Hmmm....or maybe not.
https://cointelegraph.com/news/coinmarketcap-quietly-removes-bch-promoting-bitcoincom-from-its-btc-page

Late night and a big week coming with uncertainty in the air is casting a shadow on the bull market we have been enjoying. I am seeing a bearish pennant starting to form. Waiting to see if support holds at $9.3k or if we are heading back down towards vegeta levels. #dyor

[becoin]

If you can't bare to refer to BTC as Bitcoin, then just refer to it as BTC here. Fair enough?

Sure. I can refer to BCH as BeeCash.

[jbreher]

If you can't bare to refer to BTC as Bitcoin, then just refer to it as BTC here. Fair enough?

Sure. I can refer to BCH as BeeCash.

Fix your quote, becoin (BeeCoin?). I didn't say that.

[infofront]

Another day, another representative of the Jew World Order trying to disarm the population while flooding them with rapefugees that want to murder them (The Kalergi Plan):

That might be the stupidest tweet I've ever seen from a world leader. That even includes Trump's tweets.

[Elwar]

Governments are the ones that go to war. Ban their weapons.

[Karartma1]

When Bitcoin will trade beyond these price levels we will easily forget all this non-sensical petty talk fight between Bitcoin and bcash. There's no spoon as there's no fight. I'm totally not afraid of the other project: I do believe Bitcoin was born in the right way while Bitcoin Cash was born as a con plan against all this. If roger, jihan and co. would have said: hey guys, we want a new bitcoin-like coin but we will be calling it differently nobody would have said anything.
But the way bcash was engineered smelt like false flag all the way.
I hate rules, but, this is the Bitcoin Wall Observer Thread. So please stick to it.

[infofront]

It's necessary. Just a matter of when.

I'm not saying BTC doesn't need to eventually move over to larger blocks, but I support their slower, safer, forward-thinking, incremental approach to things.

I'll grant that Core's approach to scaling is slower than Cash's, but it certainly ain't safer.

Core is the name of the WALLET you trolling fuck.

True to form. Do you feel your statement has shown my assertion to be false? Because your reply is a mere irrelevancy.

You obnoxious fuck.  

What do you expect? I'm sure if I decided to post in the BCH thread and called it BCASH, all of your friends would jump down my throat.

Maybe. Personally, I just shrug it off. It is yet another irrelevancy meant to divert from the substance of dialogue. By calling it Core, I wasn't meaning to denigrate BTC. I erred. Sorry.

Though cAPSLOCK is still an obnoxious fuck.

If you can't bare to refer to BTC as Bitcoin, then just refer to it as BTC here. Fair enough?

If I do, can I expect that others will refrain from calling BCH BCash?

Yeah - that's what I thought.

You're in a Bitcoin thread though. You probably wouldn't catch so much flak for denigrating Bitcoin in the Bcash Wall Observer

[STT]

Yet we have known since Adam Smith that the hidden hand of the marketplace will ensure that the optimal solution is arrived at by letting prices find their own equilibrium. This has been more formalized in more recent times in that the price and quantity of a good will be set at the point where the demand/price curve and the supply/price curve intersect. Further still, dead losses are incurred any time production quotas are enforced. Given this, why do you assert the utility of a production quota on transaction throughput? Why not trust miners to set the tx throughput supply to maximize profit under the demand and supply curves?

The reason BTC price rises so much is unlike most commodity markets the supply is fixed and not subject to oversupply as much as a normal market that will increase production to match the increased profit available.   
I like the general point about freedom of production but I think its more reliable to keep a quota of blocks in this case, security is the main purpose that must be served

Scaling will have to come from second layer solutions.

I prefer this as it should increase stability and support and also I think it promotes innovation and creativity, any failures of those ideas occur off the main chain.  Leaving BTC to be the most regular reliable central blockchain


 9231 support & 9909 ceiling, both fib lines seem a good match to action recently.

[JayJuanGee]

even if I have a vision in my head, I become reluctant to say my vision out loud because there are too many contingencies that end up lowering the probability of that outcome by a considerable amount

Let me see if I understand you. You seem to be saying that, should you inform others as to your envisioned strategy, others will use this knowledge to trade against you, thereby affecting the actual market price, and dooming your strategy to failure. Is that what I am reading?

I believe that you are reading the subject matter of my post incorrectly.  I have attached the full context of the text (my earlier post) below for ease of referrenc.

In the past, sometimes I said that I don't want to say too much about some specific little trading strategy secrets based on a rationale similar to what you are outlining, but largely I am considerably transparent with the amount of specifics that I give, especially about the broad parameters of my trading strategy and many of the details of what I do and how I play my trades.  Ultimately, there is going to be some flexibility in any trading methodology that is going to be left to individuals to tweak based on their own circumstances, including their timeline, amount of time they can dedicate to the project, risk tolerance, financial circumstances, previous positions taken, etc. etc..

In this particular instance (your selection of quoted text from me), I was not referring to trading strategy, but instead, I was referring to predicting the price.  If I attempt to predict BTC prices one or two legs out, then there might be circumstances that I will assign decent probabilities to one or two legs, and I will be willing to express my level of confidence, but if I am attempting to predict further out (or more legs) then probabilities that I might assign will likely become so tentative and speculative that it is not really worth expressing what I think might happen.  So I am not really trying to be secretive, even though I have a tentative view in my head that I believe is the most probable of outcomes - yet even with that longer vision that is several legs out, as soon as one of the earlier legs play out a bit differently than expected, then it could screw up my earlier view on the later legs. 

So I am really not withholding information out of any kind of deviant or conspiracy thoughts, but instead that I don't believe that it is very important to share my thoughts on BTC price movements several legs out because those kind of views are frequently changing, but the one or two legs out might not be changing as much and the overall bullish long term view is not really changing too much, either.   

Hopefully that clarifies, somewhat, what I meant by the text that you quoted.

I don't have any issue with what you are saying, and it comes off as reasonable; however, I also have difficulties attempting to assign any kind of level of certainty to anything beyond one leg.  Or maybe I could reasonably assert something like, there is a decently sized possibility that prices will break above $10k in the coming day (perhaps 63%), and once prices break above $10k, if they do, then the odds are greater than 75% that they are going to appreciate at least 10% above $10k.. the odds of those two together seem to be .63 x .75, which is only 47.25%, so once you start to add up events, the probabilities begin to trickle way below 50%, and maybe I am even assigning too high of percentages to the preceding events, so I start to worry that I am speculating way too much if I try to string along too many events at once - even if I have a vision in my head, I become reluctant to say my vision out loud because there are too many contingencies that end up lowering the probability of that outcome by a considerable amount, even though I view my scenario as the most likely of scenarios, it begins to trickle down to the 1/3 or below territory, so it becomes more likely that I am wrong, even if I am picking the most likely of the then available options.  I hope that makes sense.

[jbreher]

Yet we have known since Adam Smith that the hidden hand of the marketplace will ensure that the optimal solution is arrived at by letting prices find their own equilibrium. This has been more formalized in more recent times in that the price and quantity of a good will be set at the point where the demand/price curve and the supply/price curve intersect. Further still, dead losses are incurred any time production quotas are enforced. Given this, why do you assert the utility of a production quota on transaction throughput? Why not trust miners to set the tx throughput supply to maximize profit under the demand and supply curves?

The reason BTC price rises so much is unlike most commodity markets the supply is fixed and not subject to oversupply as much as a normal market that will increase production to match the increased profit available.   

You seem to be conflating the supply of BTC with the supply of space in BTC blocks for transaction inclusion. Two very different goods.

[JayJuanGee]

Btw why the hell are some of you guys meriting realr0ach?

Stop encouraging him. Not only is he a Nazi troll, he gives zero merits in return fyi.  

I already told you people I do not support the merit system and it obviously does not work evidenced by the fact JayJuanGee is one of the largest merit holders.  It's just some bullshit where whoever posts the highest amount of mindless pumper posts that make zero sense get merited by other people hoping to profit on a pump and dump.

Ultimately, you are agreeing that you are a stingy ass.

In essence, you don't give out merits because you believe some peeps don't deserve to receive them, such as me? 

You make no sense on this point, as well as a lot of other stupid-ass hate-filled points that you try to lamely make.

It seems that you have little to no attempt at social norms - and thus hide on the internet.  Accordingly, I hope that you are not so self-obsessed in your hate in the real world, because you are likely to miss out on a lot of self-satisfaction that come from interacting with others, giving to others and sometimes compromising in the process of interacting with others, even when you don't want to (go figure?).

[JayJuanGee]

I never understood why there is resistance? I dont get it, can somebody explain? 10k will break. Why are people building walls to hold it sub 10k as long as possible?

Usually the intent of a seller is to actually sell their coins, not to manipulate the market and "hold it down".

Here's another example of the fantasy world that you seem to live.