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

[Ibian]

Blah blah blah more garbage ramblings

A poor and witless man[lad] will protect his ego before he will protect his Bitcoins.

Yes... everyone do what troll anunymint suggests, and that way your coins will be safe.. panic, everyone.

Why do you care where other people keep their coins? In twenty words or less.

Segwit has been activated and implemented into bitcoin by normal consensus... therefore, if you support bitcoin, then you should be attempting to utilize and support its current and newest features... eg.. segwit... Keep a decent percentage of your coins on segwit addresses and using segwit features,...Ibian.    Get with the bitcoin program... modern bitcoin... not old bitcoin.

So "because you say so". That's not much of an argument. Besides being pretty pathetic.

[fabiorem]

Why would anybodies coins be lost by HODLING in Core addresses? Anybody else please deny or confirm this?

I run bitcoin-qt and my biggest security concern is me losing my password.

[Rosewater Foundation]

Now I'm convinced that anunymint and realr0ach are just sock puppet accounts of the same person.

Hey look, they're arguing!  

Even NLC showed up in Anon form to gloat over his previous victory. A lot of socks are burning bridges for this raid. It's a social engineering smorgasbord

[jbreher]

infofront's true vision wouldn't let trolls to hijack this thread so easily. If this shit keeps happening, I'll have no choice but to fork this thread and start it again as it meant to be.
Raise hands now.

Just Do It.

[bones261]

Segwit has been activated and implemented into bitcoin by normal consensus... therefore, if you support bitcoin, then you should be attempting to utilize and support its current and newest features... eg.. segwit... Keep a decent percentage of your coins on segwit addresses and using segwit features,...Ibian.    Get with the bitcoin program... modern bitcoin... not old bitcoin.

So "because you say so". That's not much of an argument. Besides being pretty pathetic.

Your segwit coins will be safe and sound on any fork that enforces the segwit rules. The only reason to be paranoid is if you believe a fork will be implemented that will not follow the segwit rules and instead treat the segwit transactions as anyonecanspend transaction, and you wish to have the option to participate in this hypothetical chain. You can also be extra paranoid, and make sure that you do not have any segwit tainted coins. But that new fork would have to basically force a reorg, to replay the old segwit transactions. The more & more blocks it would reorg would be more and more expensive to implement. This is the same principal that protects us from 51% attacks in the 1st place. If you want to HODL your coins in P2PKH (legacy) addresses and make sure you have no segwit tainted coins, you are free to do that. You just will not be able to participate in the lightning network and you will not enjoy the benefit of slightly cheaper fees that you enjoy with segwit.

[Anon136]

holy shit so many words.

What is wrong with you man. No one is going to read that shit. Go out side or something. You probably look like a vampire.

I miss the real anonymint. That guy was fun.

You have convinced me.  I need to run the version from November 2010 when Satoshi was still involved. What version was that?  Because that’s obviously the one true Bitcoin.

Sorry guys any transactions after 2010 are invalid. Anyone that says otherwise is just a Core shill.

The only version that is the one true Bitcoin is the pseudo code that Satoshi wrote in the white paper. Back when he was already mining.... in his mind.

Get a version of that running and you'll have the purest form of his vision. /s

P.S. - The only version of Linux that I run on my laptop is version 0.1 released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. It's the purest form of his original vision, the one true Linux. Everything else that came after is corrupt and a piece of shit.<sup>1

1 /s</sup>

It's all been down hill since tally sticks.

[B1tUnl0ck3r]

say what you want but the enemies of bitcoin are succeeding... in pivx world everyone knows which chain is the original and the clones are dying...

and when the sons and daughters of bitches who work for the so called free press will have their orders they will cheer the police when they come for our bitcoin...

it's a fucking and war, the one killing the others side the fastest win. that's it. 101.

[Ibian]

Segwit has been activated and implemented into bitcoin by normal consensus... therefore, if you support bitcoin, then you should be attempting to utilize and support its current and newest features... eg.. segwit... Keep a decent percentage of your coins on segwit addresses and using segwit features,...Ibian.    Get with the bitcoin program... modern bitcoin... not old bitcoin.

So "because you say so". That's not much of an argument. Besides being pretty pathetic.

Your segwit coins will be safe and sound on any fork that enforces the segwit rules. The only reason to be paranoid is if you believe a fork will be implemented that will not follow the segwit rules and instead treat the segwit transactions as anyonecanspend transaction, and you wish to have the option to participate in this hypothetical chain. You can also be extra paranoid, and make sure that you do not have any segwit tainted coins. But that new fork would have to basically force a reorg, to replay the old segwit transactions. The more & more blocks it would reorg would be more and more expensive to implement. This is the same principal that protects us from 51% attacks in the 1st place. If you want to HODL your coins in P2PKH (legacy) addresses and make sure you have no segwit tainted coins, you are free to do that. You just will not be able to participate in the lightning network and you will not enjoy the benefit of slightly cheaper fees that you enjoy with segwit.

The luddites destroyed looms because they thought they would get them killed.

Looms.

Bitcoin is a new step in money, orders of magnitude more disruptive than weaving machines. It's not paranoia, it's just basic historical knowledge. The amount of resources needed to carry out large scale attacks on the network of the type we have been talking about recently seems like a lot of money to us, but that doesn't mean that there isn't someone out there with enough money and inventive to do so. And a serious attempt will not be telegraphed in advance, it will just strike out of the blue. Given that the cost of insuring against such an event is... fifteen cents on the transfer... there simply is no good argument against doing so.

[B1tUnl0ck3r]

Segwit has been activated and implemented into bitcoin by normal consensus... therefore, if you support bitcoin, then you should be attempting to utilize and support its current and newest features... eg.. segwit... Keep a decent percentage of your coins on segwit addresses and using segwit features,...Ibian.    Get with the bitcoin program... modern bitcoin... not old bitcoin.

So "because you say so". That's not much of an argument. Besides being pretty pathetic.

Your segwit coins will be safe and sound on any fork that enforces the segwit rules. The only reason to be paranoid is if you believe a fork will be implemented that will not follow the segwit rules and instead treat the segwit transactions as anyonecanspend transaction, and you wish to have the option to participate in this hypothetical chain. You can also be extra paranoid, and make sure that you do not have any segwit tainted coins. But that new fork would have to basically force a reorg, to replay the old segwit transactions. The more & more blocks it would reorg would be more and more expensive to implement. This is the same principal that protects us from 51% attacks in the 1st place. If you want to HODL your coins in P2PKH (legacy) addresses and make sure you have no segwit tainted coins, you are free to do that. You just will not be able to participate in the lightning network and you will not enjoy the benefit of slightly cheaper fees that you enjoy with segwit.

The luddites destroyed looms because they thought they would get them killed.

Looms.

Bitcoin is a new step in money, orders of magnitude more disruptive than weaving machines. It's not paranoia, it's just basic historical knowledge. The amount of resources needed to carry out large scale attacks on the network of the type we have been talking about recently seems like a lot of money to us, but that doesn't mean that there isn't someone out there with enough money and inventive to do so. And a serious attempt will not be telegraphed in advance, it will just strike out of the blue. Given that the cost of insuring against such an event is... fifteen cents on the transfer... there simply is no good argument against doing so.

exactly... the pedophiles using division to make us fight against one another can't print them anymore to save their lives each time one of their members make a mistake revealing them.

they are in full on war against us. they will criminalize like they did for the gays, or the canabis growers or the cocaine user... then all the stupid carouzel cock riding bimbos will support those that will oppress us, as they will have the power.

we need an army paid in bitcoin capable of killing all the others armies in 1 shot.

[Maicol792]

Prediction Of The Week
Bitcoin Needs To Breakthrough $6,300 In Order To Rally, Says Fundstrat Analyst

Fundstrat’s Robert Slyumer believes that Bitcoin needs a short-term breakthrough at $6,300 in order to reverse its current downtrend. According to his analysis of Bitcoin’s 15-day moving average charts as of May 2018, Slyumer noted that the resistance level is $6,300 to $6,400, with a critical stop level at $5,800 to $5,800.

from: https://cointelegraph.com/news/hodler-s-digest-june-24-july-1-facebook-brings-back-crypto-ads-the-woz-calls-bitcoin-just-amazing

[bones261]

Segwit has been activated and implemented into bitcoin by normal consensus... therefore, if you support bitcoin, then you should be attempting to utilize and support its current and newest features... eg.. segwit... Keep a decent percentage of your coins on segwit addresses and using segwit features,...Ibian.    Get with the bitcoin program... modern bitcoin... not old bitcoin.

So "because you say so". That's not much of an argument. Besides being pretty pathetic.

Your segwit coins will be safe and sound on any fork that enforces the segwit rules. The only reason to be paranoid is if you believe a fork will be implemented that will not follow the segwit rules and instead treat the segwit transactions as anyonecanspend transaction, and you wish to have the option to participate in this hypothetical chain. You can also be extra paranoid, and make sure that you do not have any segwit tainted coins. But that new fork would have to basically force a reorg, to replay the old segwit transactions. The more & more blocks it would reorg would be more and more expensive to implement. This is the same principal that protects us from 51% attacks in the 1st place. If you want to HODL your coins in P2PKH (legacy) addresses and make sure you have no segwit tainted coins, you are free to do that. You just will not be able to participate in the lightning network and you will not enjoy the benefit of slightly cheaper fees that you enjoy with segwit.

The luddites destroyed looms because they thought they would get them killed.

Looms.

Bitcoin is a new step in money, orders of magnitude more disruptive than weaving machines. It's not paranoia, it's just basic historical knowledge. The amount of resources needed to carry out large scale attacks on the network of the type we have been talking about recently seems like a lot of money to us, but that doesn't mean that there isn't someone out there with enough money and inventive to do so. And a serious attempt will not be telegraphed in advance, it will just strike out of the blue. Given that the cost of insuring against such an event is... fifteen cents on the transfer... there simply is no good argument against doing so.

Are you really going to do a blockchain analysis to ensure that all of the UTXO in your wallet is not segwit tainted? Furthermore, in a reorganization attack, the old coinbase transactions as well as all of their child UTXO will be invalidated. If the fork doesn't do any reorganization, the only way it is going to be able to steal segwit coins is when they are actually spent. Otherwise, they will just sit in the segwit address, inert. If it appears this new chain is going to be the accepted chain with the longest work, only the uninformed are going to spend these coins and donate to the miners. To collect some kind of "bounty" from these stranded coins, they are going to have to offer some kind of deal to entice the holdouts to go along. Depending on how desperate people are, it may be satosis on the BTC. There could also be a savior miners that will do it for free or a nominal price. You just send the rawtx to the miner in an alternative way, not over the network, and they will include the tx in the next block and send the proceeds to you rather than themselves.

[TReano]

Prediction Of The Week
Bitcoin Needs To Breakthrough $6,300 In Order To Rally, Says Fundstrat Analyst

Fundstrat’s Robert Slyumer believes that Bitcoin needs a short-term breakthrough at $6,300 in order to reverse its current downtrend. According to his analysis of Bitcoin’s 15-day moving average charts as of May 2018, Slyumer noted that the resistance level is $6,300 to $6,400, with a critical stop level at $5,800 to $5,800.

from: https://cointelegraph.com/news/hodler-s-digest-june-24-july-1-facebook-brings-back-crypto-ads-the-woz-calls-bitcoin-just-amazing

I don't see any trend change still.

Come back when the trend is bullish, everything else is just gambling and not trading.

[Majormax]

On this comparison, either the low is coming sooner, which is good for the long term, or we are imminent for a strong multi-month rally (maybe to ~$9k)  followed by new lows below $4k.

Unless the decline is greater, which seems unlikely.

The comparison may not be valid, but it is one way of looking at the trend.

[Icygreen]

What I don't get it why ethereum had $130-ish billion market cap in January and now Bitcoin has $100 billion cap.  How can one explain the claims that the current price of Bitcoin is too high and not sustainable, given that only 1% of the average Joe that heard about Bitcoin knows about ethereum (at least from my personal observations)? And if Bitcoin didn't go south, ethereum would have easily sustained that market cap. I have only one word: manipulation!

The time has come,
The manipulation ends


The blockchain holds the truth to billions of dollars of illegal money transfers


This is why they say bitcoin must go


Bitcoin is now the new world reserve currency made to replace the CENTRAL BANKING CRIMINAL CABAL


they want it gone

the fake, media, forums, boards, social media is now exposed


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vw9N96E-aQ

buckle up

Nice video, this is why I'm involved in bitcoin.  Wasn't expecting for Trump to be painted as a good guy.   Hmmmm.... need to rethink what I've been told for a minute. Gotta love those moments.    
 
Still hodling strong with the fundamentals (on segwit despite the local fear mongering bla bla.
Happy Sunday  

[B1tUnl0ck3r]

Segwit has been activated and implemented into bitcoin by normal consensus... therefore, if you support bitcoin, then you should be attempting to utilize and support its current and newest features... eg.. segwit... Keep a decent percentage of your coins on segwit addresses and using segwit features,...Ibian.    Get with the bitcoin program... modern bitcoin... not old bitcoin.

So "because you say so". That's not much of an argument. Besides being pretty pathetic.

Your segwit coins will be safe and sound on any fork that enforces the segwit rules. The only reason to be paranoid is if you believe a fork will be implemented that will not follow the segwit rules and instead treat the segwit transactions as anyonecanspend transaction, and you wish to have the option to participate in this hypothetical chain. You can also be extra paranoid, and make sure that you do not have any segwit tainted coins. But that new fork would have to basically force a reorg, to replay the old segwit transactions. The more & more blocks it would reorg would be more and more expensive to implement. This is the same principal that protects us from 51% attacks in the 1st place. If you want to HODL your coins in P2PKH (legacy) addresses and make sure you have no segwit tainted coins, you are free to do that. You just will not be able to participate in the lightning network and you will not enjoy the benefit of slightly cheaper fees that you enjoy with segwit.

The luddites destroyed looms because they thought they would get them killed.

Looms.

Bitcoin is a new step in money, orders of magnitude more disruptive than weaving machines. It's not paranoia, it's just basic historical knowledge. The amount of resources needed to carry out large scale attacks on the network of the type we have been talking about recently seems like a lot of money to us, but that doesn't mean that there isn't someone out there with enough money and inventive to do so. And a serious attempt will not be telegraphed in advance, it will just strike out of the blue. Given that the cost of insuring against such an event is... fifteen cents on the transfer... there simply is no good argument against doing so.

Are you really going to do a blockchain analysis to ensure that all of the UTXO in your wallet is not segwit tainted? Furthermore, in a reorganization attack, the old coinbase transactions as well as all of their child UTXO will be invalidated. If the fork doesn't do any reorganization, the only way it is going to be able to steal segwit coins is when they are actually spent. Otherwise, they will just sit in the segwit address, inert. If it appears this new chain is going to be the accepted chain with the longest work, only the uninformed are going to spend these coins and donate to the miners. To collect some kind of "bounty" from these stranded coins, they are going to have to offer some kind of deal to entice the holdouts to go along. Depending on how desperate people are, it may be satosis on the BTC. There could also be a savior miners that will do it for free or a nominal price. You just send the rawtx to the miner in an alternative way, not over the network, and they will include the tx in the next block and send the proceeds to you rather than themselves.

look they used the same tactics as in america against bitcoin... split in factions, create fundamentalism on both side that make the original vision a long gone history, play dirty trick on each side, inflitrate and of course suppress all intelligent and rational arguments.

[rolling]

Every single word to this supposed Segwit issue is FUD. There is no attack, even at 51%, if you don't have valid signature data for every transaction, mining nodes will invalidate your block/chain and all you have succeeded in doing is creating a fork of bitcoin with you as the only miner and a shitcoin with a value of $0.

[bones261]

look they used the same tactics as in america against bitcoin... split in factions, create fundamentalism on both side that make the original vision a long gone history, play dirty trick on each side, inflitrate and of course suppress all intelligent and rational arguments.

The cypherpunks are a crafty bunch. There is simply no way that any entity can erect a firewall that filters all electromagnetic signals. The reason why is because there are an infinite number of possible frequencies and amplitudes you can try to circumvent the wall. Furthermore, if any malevolent entity just tries to co-opt the current chain, the cypherpunks can just go fork off. You can't stop an infinite amount of possibilities. It would just be an endless game of whack-a-mole. It's the same reason that the war on drugs just doesn't work. Governments and other powers that be are not omniscient, omnipotent beings. There will always be activities that will just slip under their radar.

[realr0ach]

Now I'm convinced that anunymint and realr0ach are just sock puppet accounts of the same person.

Hey look, they're arguing!  

Pretty easy to tell me and Anonymint aren't the same person:

r0ach

- anti-digital shitcoins

- pro-silver and gold

- knows shitcoin transaction validators are always designed to centralize with coins being non-fungible, making them all nothing more than permissioned ledger, 1984 tracking systems with blacklists to turn off the funds of whoever the govt doesn't like just like Aaron Russo and Ted Kaczynski predicted, ushering in a cashless society slave system and more govt control


Anonymint

- pro-digital shitcoins

- anti-silver and gold because he used to own lots of silver then moved to a 3rd world country (Philippines) and somehow had them stolen or something along the way and doesn't have any anymore

- believes digital shitcoins are govt created, and being govt created are probably going to have nefarious motives against the normal human like enslavement, yet still promotes them anyway because he owns some shitcoins but doesn't own any metals

[bones261]

Every single word to this supposed Segwit issue is FUD. There is no attack, even at 51%, if you don't have valid signature data for every transaction, mining nodes will invalidate your block/chain and all you have succeeded in doing is creating a fork of bitcoin with you as the only miner and a shitcoin with a value of $0.

We have how many forks, aka shitcoins, do we have now? Many of them have a value above zero ATM. What makes you think this hypothetical fork will have zero value? For the most part, someone can always find zealots and fools to follow any nonsense that someone can come up with. Also, if you are particularly crafty and or charismatic, you can sell your junk to even more fools; turn them into your minions; and they will happily proselytize for you. This is especially true if you can grease a few palms and make fools think a lambo is just around the corner. An appeal to greed is a wonderful persuader.

[sirazimuth]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vw9N96E-aQ

buckle up

Reminds me of a track my old band recorded entitled "Paranoid Delusions"....