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

[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.

[1638972292]

1638972292

[1638972292]

1638972292

[1638972292]

1638972292

[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"....

[realr0ach]

a shitcoin with a value of $0.

That's what all digital craptocurrencies are.  Spending money to mine silver or gold gives you a useful product.  Spending money to mine shitcoins just gives you an empty husk of sunk cost fallacy.

[JayJuanGee]

What I don't get is 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!

Can you elaborate? 

You don't believe in market forces?

Whether sustainable or not, there are a lot of shit coins out there, including ethereum, that have hype, so hype is not manipulation because there are still people and institutions who are buying it (whether for legitimate and sustainable reasons or pure hype).

Another thing about manipulation, there do seem to be some fairly solid theories that there are some financial institutions and governments that are lending various kinds of support to ethereum, and allowing ethereum to serve as a distraction to bitcoin (and a potential stronger competitor)... the SEC's tentative assertions that  Ethereum is not a security would be one of those.   

I believe that a lot of folks who attempt to follow various aspects of the crypto space would agree with you that there are kinds of manipulation going on, but the concept of "manipulation" by itself is not enough to explain because it is coupled by a variety of free market force dynamics too.

If you believe manipulation is a dynamic that exists on its own with any kind of predetermination and ability to meaningfully control for long periods, then you are devolving into Torque-like thinking - if there is such a classification... 

[bones261]

a shitcoin with a value of $0.

That's what all digital craptocurrencies are.  Spending money to mine silver or gold gives you a useful product.  Spending money to mine shitcoins just gives you an empty husk of sunk cost fallacy.

You already know the usefulness of something is not what makes something more suitable to be used as money.  Otherwise, foodstuff, land, oil, water, and the air, would be more suitable than gold or silver for money, which they are not. Your other arguments focusing on fungibility, durabilty, portability etc are much more sound. Come on now. 

[mymenace]

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

buckle up

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

Yeah gets freaky and scary when you fail to recognize the impact of Central Banks on everyday lives, as for the other stuff

1) I am not an American
2) If the other stuff is real, its global

Things I thought I would never see

a) 11 saudi princes arrested
b) DOJ, FBI, CIA corruption exposed
c) North and south Korea working together

[B1tUnl0ck3r]

a shitcoin with a value of $0.

That's what all digital craptocurrencies are.  Spending money to mine silver or gold gives you a useful product.  Spending money to mine shitcoins just gives you an empty husk of sunk cost fallacy.

You already know the usefulness of something is not what makes something more suitable to be used as money.  Otherwise, foodstuff, land, oil, water, and the air, would be more suitable than gold or silver for money, which they are not. Your other arguments focusing on fungibility, durabilty, portability etc are much more sound. Come on now. 

post collapse, once the stocks of powder munition are depleted, this become king :



silent, long range, precise... easy to mfg...

[JayJuanGee]

i spent coins early on whenever i had the chance just to support the ecosystem and support vendors who accepted btc. at todays prices i dont even want to think about the value of the coins i more or less blew just to support the ecosystem, but i dont regret it a bit. after all its we who are proving the value of btc. we need to prove it "just works." to me that btc was well spent.

Thanks for the response, and it seem that we agree about a lot of things, except perhaps regarding the contributions of the ideas of what I believe to be a disingenuine troll, anunymint.  You seem to be giving way too much credit to his ideas and arguments, but whatever, we will see how long anunymint's troll life will last. 

From my perspective, hopefully, he does not establish a long one (several years) like Roach... or even a medium long one like NOTlambchop (a bit over a year for himself/herself and seemingly over two years with what seemed to be his/her various sockpuppets).

Regarding your substantive point, cited above, I have pretty much maintained a system in which I replace any bitcoins that I spend, and even though I don't go out of my way to spend bitcoins, if I find an opportunity to spend them that does not seem to be too much of a burden, then will soon thereafter replace any spent bitcoins.  I was a lot more adamant and nervous to replace them right away in the early 2014 to the early-to-mid 2016 time period when I was engaging in a lot more BTC accumulation (largely establishing my BTC postion - at least up to late 2014 and a kind of maintenance of BTC holdings thereafter). 

These days a remain a lot less nervous about immediately replacing any BTC that I might spend, but I still attempt to reasonably plug the dollar amounts of any spent coins into my authorized buy back amounts.  So for example, let's say that I go out and I see a 5% discount on a $1,000 product, if I buy with bitcoins (only way to get the discount is with bitcoins).  I would be like "wow", that seems like a decent enough incentive for me to spend some bitcoins.  Therefore, I spend $1,000 in bitcoins to buy the product, with a $6,300 exchange rate. (actually, 5% means that the seller is giving me the equivalent of $315 extra for my BTC ($6,300 x .05), which is $6,615. 

In the 2014-2016 period, I would nearly immediately lock in the 5% profits by buying back BTC immediately around $6,300.  These days, I might let the profits ride a little bit.  Therefore with the $1,000, for example, I might set buy-back orders at $100 increments, or some other reasonable ladder down the chain.. So maybe I conclude that $6700 is about as low as is reasonable in our current BTC trading range so I would set about 6 buy orders of a bit larger than $1,000 ($1,000/6 = $167)... maybe around $200 for each buy back order at $6,200, $6,100, $6,000, $5,900, $5,800 and $5,700) .. so if all of the orders fill, I end up buying back around $1,200 worth of BTC for the $1,000 that I spent.  One other tip is that I would not set my buy back orders exactly at the round numbers of the $100 increments, but instead set the orders a bit above the $100 increments in order to increase the likelihood that they will fill and not reverse just prior to filling at the round numbers where everyone (including BIG whales) tend to quickly set their attempts at BTC price manipulation orders.