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

[Torque]

Meanwhile

Stop what? Geez, the guy is completely paranoid. Noone cares about what he does or says anymore.

P.S.: Well maybe for fun and giggles every once in a while but not that anyone intends to stop him at anything... on the contrary.

Roger is exactly right. No one is going to stop him from being the biggest Narcissistic douchebag of the crypto world. No one.

Nor is anyone stopping him from being the biggest buy-backer of his own shitcoin. Buy that shit Roger, you go!

[dmwardjr]

BTCUSD - Bitstamp - UPDATE:  Linked below:

[bitmover]

+  a few more months would fit a little better. If the chart is to be validated, taking this as a short wave,  expect a resuming uptrend before the end of 2018. If the present trend is turning into a long bowl formation, then a low of =/- $3k, and a return to ath by 2021 still keeps the log trend intact.

You are catastrophe announcer. FFS!

3k! Omg I would have to buy more!

[infofront]

He's known for being an uber-bull, but he hasn't been discredited yet.



TLDR: logarithmic trend isn't broken unless we fall below ~$3,200.

Edit: ECB, you're thinking of an old timer. There was a Parabolic Chad or something like that. Parabolic Trav was inspired by him, and took up the mantle when "Chad" disappeared.

That is not an unreasonable hypothesis. However, the current downtrend ending right now looks a little over-optimistic: It is very short compared with the overall time spacing.

+  a few more months would fit a little better. If the chart is to be validated, taking this as a short wave,  expect a resuming uptrend before the end of 2018. If the present trend is turning into a long bowl formation, then a low of =/- $3k, and a return to ath by 2021 still keeps the log trend intact.

I agree. I think he posted that 2 months ago, so things looked differently. The long crypto winter is still a possibility within the log trend.

[jbreher]

Were it not for DOGE's legacy as a joke coin, and its infinite emission schedule.

They state transactions not revenue so BCH is 859 dollars each and a doge is one fifth of a cent each.     So triple the transactions would not seem much when its likely far less revenue in value terms, less significance.   If thats what they meant by the graph

Code:

Volume (24h)
$334,153,000 USD 
50,989 BTC

vs

Code:

Volume (24h)
$8,586,680 USD 
1,310 BTC

39x the revenue in BCH favour.   This is why people dont trust graphs and statistics I guess.    Maybe their point was people, not value

My guess is that their point was 'let's ridicule BCH'.

[jbreher]

A 51% attack allows the miners to change ANY consensus rule.  

But this would be 'soft-forking' (ha!) to the old compatible rules.

[sirazimuth]

So the  local tree surgeon gave me an estimate of $650 for pruning a tree that is encroaching on my house.
So my new neighbor comes over today and does the neighborly thing and takes care of it with a
telescoping saw contraption thingy for free.
Turns out he's got the Coinbase app on his phone.
So of course I sent a healthy bitcoin tip to him and broke his Bitcoin tx virginity.
He was psyched to say the least.
I now have a tree surgeon neighbor who accepts Bitcoin...sweet!

[jbreher]

Geeze, JJG - you need to look up the definition of 'fungible'. Within the three posts preceding yours, 2/3 of them stated that they were cautious of accepting Segwit transactions until they gained some confidence in it. That is definitively a lack of fungibility. A lack of fungibility is in no way limited to some sort of centralized blacklisting.

If the miners are as trustworthy as you big blockers think, then it shouldn't even be an issue.

Mining is orthogonal. We have evidence in this thread of users not wanting to accept Segwit transactions. That's users not miners, that's a lack of fungibility, and that's an issue.

Might have some relevance.

Were it not for DOGE's legacy as a joke coin, and its infinite emission schedule.

I'm not a mathematician, but doesn't that make bcash  at least 3X more of a joke coin?

No. That's just a silly sensationalist tweet. While DOGE may have more transactions, BCH transfers far more value.

[sirazimuth]

No. That's just a silly sensationalist tweet. While DOGE may have more transactions, BCH transfers far more value.

that maybe so, but BCH transfers don't have MUCH WOW...

[suchmoon]

No. That's just a silly sensationalist tweet. While DOGE may have more transactions, BCH transfers far more value.

that maybe so, but BCH transfers don't have MUCH WOW...

Or SUCH or MOON...

[sirazimuth]

No. That's just a silly sensationalist tweet. While DOGE may have more transactions, BCH transfers far more value.

that maybe so, but BCH transfers don't have MUCH WOW...

Or SUCH or MOON...

How did I know that was coming? 

[suchmoon]

How did I know that was coming? 

I'm trained to respond to a doge whistle 

[Wekkel]

No. That's just a silly sensationalist tweet. While DOGE may have more transactions, BCH transfers far more value.

that maybe so, but BCH transfers don't have MUCH WOW...

Or SUCH or MOON...

Or VERY.

[Dabs]

We have evidence in this thread of users not wanting to accept Segwit transactions. That's users not miners, that's a lack of fungibility, and that's an issue.

I didn't know that. If you gave me a legacy BTC address (if we had some sort of deal or transaction), I'd send you some BTC that came from a native segwit address. You'd still get your BTC, and you'll likely get it confirmed in a block faster too. Why would you not accept that? Would you return it?

[sirazimuth]

How did I know that was coming? 

I'm trained to respond to a doge whistle 

doge whistle?? hey, you are off topic! shame!!   

[BitcoinNewbie15]

We have evidence in this thread of users not wanting to accept Segwit transactions. That's users not miners, that's a lack of fungibility, and that's an issue.

I didn't know that. If you gave me a legacy BTC address (if we had some sort of deal or transaction), I'd send you some BTC that came from a native segwit address. You'd still get your BTC, and you'll likely get it confirmed in a block faster too. Why would you not accept that? Would you return it?

Its a crazy idea, but it is true. There are some Bitcoiners out there that will not accept a Bitcoin TX if there is any segwit TXs in its lineage. Take this with a grain of salt, as my understanding of this attack is very basic and I have no clue how viable it is. The idea behind not accepting Segwit TXs is because there could be a potential 51% collusion attack in the future, where the miners would roll back the Segwit fork and accept all the past Segwit txs as anyone can spend. They would then continue mining the original protocol satoshi designed. So theoretically, there would be two chains. The legacy BTC chain, and the rolled back Segwit chain with all the stolen coins. Any "Legacy" BTC that has no Segwit TXs in its lineage have no risk of being stolen in this attack.

Again, like I said, I have a very rudimentary understanding of this attack. I don't really know the specifics or its viability. This is something that Anonymint has been talking about on this forum recently under his alt account "anunymint".

[jbreher]

We have evidence in this thread of users not wanting to accept Segwit transactions. That's users not miners, that's a lack of fungibility, and that's an issue.

I didn't know that. If you gave me a legacy BTC address (if we had some sort of deal or transaction), I'd send you some BTC that came from a native segwit address. You'd still get your BTC, and you'll likely get it confirmed in a block faster too. Why would you not accept that? Would you return it?

I'm just saying that a couple of people upthread made that statement. That is -- by definition -- a lack of fungibility.

As to why, there may be several reasons. For me, it is the additional attack vectors.

[Elwar]

I never accept any dollars with the numbers 666 on it. Because satan.

Thus. The dollar is not fungible.

[Globb0]

fungible?

Free flowing, identical, mutually interchangeable


People from the Bath office cant work in the London office because they have different network adapters. Is bad for resource fungibility in the company. The cant easily move between offices and work.

[Majormax]

+  a few more months would fit a little better. If the chart is to be validated, taking this as a short wave,  expect a resuming uptrend before the end of 2018. If the present trend is turning into a long bowl formation, then a low of =/- $3k, and a return to ath by 2021 still keeps the log trend intact.

You are catastrophe announcer. FFS!

3k! Omg I would have to buy more!

No. Just a balanced view. In fact my post was bullish, as I was not mentioning the third case scenario.