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

[arepo]

well too much Fiat ? waiting the price to head the direction you desire ?

I guess hubris describe both of us, or maybe I can say most of bitcoiners as well 

just trying to anticipate the movement, as usual. i don't care much about which way, especially on these scales. i'm just having fun swing trading, which is much harder to do, by design. it's like quantum mechanics -- the randomness becomes more and more apparent the further in you zoom.

[1715060987]

1715060987

[1715060987]

1715060987

[1715060987]

1715060987

[1715060987]

1715060987

[nanobrain]

Got pulled over for speeding in the Lambo (30 MPH over). Did not get a ticket:)

Sometimes life is win!

Hey Goat,
I got an email from Zazzle pulling the Lambo tshirt.
I replied and said "this person just bought this car and they can't wear a tshirt with its image?"
No, apparently they got a complaint from Lamborghini about it.

Seems 200K doesn't buy you much

[Davyd05]

Got pulled over for speeding in the Lambo (30 MPH over). Did not get a ticket:)

Sometimes life is win!

Hey Goat,
I got an email from Zazzle pulling the Lambo tshirt.
I replied and said "this person just bought this car and they can't wear a tshirt with its image?"
No, apparently they got a complaint from Lamborghini about it.

Seems 200K doesn't buy you much

tis quite a shame

[mmitech]

in other note, for a moment pause speculating about the price and think about the network security, we are reaching a critical risk where Ghash.IO controls 45% of the network hashrate, this pool did double spend before and they can do it again..

look to this thread https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=327767.0

and this how the network hashrate distribution looks today

[Davyd05]

Well, this is something we need to address. I wonder where the majority of ghash.io hashing power is located geographically

[Peter R]

Is GHash.IO primarily independent miners pointing their hashpower this way, or is mostly internal to GHash (e.g., hardware at cex.io, etc)?

[mmitech]

Is GHash.IO primarily independent miners pointing their hashpower this way, or is mostly internal to GHash (e.g., hardware at cex.io, etc)?

both

[Peter R]

Is GHash.IO primarily independent miners pointing their hashpower this way, or is mostly internal to GHash (e.g., hardware at cex.io, etc)?

both

Hmm, I understand GHash does merged mining with alt coins and is thus more appealing to some miners.  But I wonder why more aren't moving to Elegius or another smaller pool giving the current situation and potential (temporary) loss of confidence should something "funny" happen.  Is this a "tragedy of the commons" or is it a case of "meh, whatever"?

[aminorex]

both.

there is a data center which needs to be removed.

[mmitech]

Is GHash.IO primarily independent miners pointing their hashpower this way, or is mostly internal to GHash (e.g., hardware at cex.io, etc)?

both

Hmm, I understand GHash does merged mining with alt coins and is thus more appealing to some miners.  But I wonder why more aren't moving to Elegius or another smaller pool giving the current situation and potential (temporary) loss of confidence should something "funny" happen.  Is this a "tragedy of the commons" or is it a case of "meh, whatever"?

most new comers jumping into bitcoin first think about mining thinking of the "free money" they can get from mining, they doesn't fully understand how Bitcoins works so they doesn't care or/and doesn't spend much time understanding the protocol and this is the biggest problem...

[Davyd05]

Is GHash.IO primarily independent miners pointing their hashpower this way, or is mostly internal to GHash (e.g., hardware at cex.io, etc)?

both

Hmm, I understand GHash does merged mining with alt coins and is thus more appealing to some miners.  But I wonder why more aren't moving to Elegius or another smaller pool giving the current situation and potential (temporary) loss of confidence should something "funny" happen.  Is this a "tragedy of the commons" or is it a case of "meh, whatever"?

well I dunno how badly many will want to commit a double spend as it may ruin the value of their stashes

[Peter R]

well I dunno how badly many will want to commit a double spend as it may ruin the value of their stashes

I completely agree that if GHash.IO achieved >50% for a period of time that it would very likely be a non-issue.  Like many people have pointed out, they are incentivized to follow the rules; if they double-spend and orphan a bunch of long chains, we'll all find out and it would hurt their BTC holdings and mining reputation.  

But I must admit that I'd be happier if all pools had < 25%.  

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[Davyd05]

well I dunno how badly many will want to commit a double spend as it may ruin the value of their stashes

I completely agree that if GHash.IO achieved >50% for a period of time that it would very likely be a non-issue.  Like many people have pointed out, they are incentivized to follow the rules; if they double-spend and orphan a bunch of long chains, we'll all find out and it would hurt their BTC holdings and mining reputation.  

But I must admit that I'd be happier if all pools had < 25%.  

the paranoid thought process of a malicious attack gaining control of the dominant pool is what worries me most. opposed to double spend attempts by the pool itself. I also would hope to see miners shift to similar pools, sadly nothing forces people to hold up the integrity of the network.

[mmitech]

well I dunno how badly many will want to commit a double spend as it may ruin the value of their stashes

I completely agree that if GHash.IO achieved >50% for a period of time that it would very likely be a non-issue.  Like many people have pointed out, they are incentivized to follow the rules; if they double-spend and orphan a bunch of long chains, we'll all find out and it would hurt their BTC holdings and mining reputation.  

But I must admit that I'd be happier if all pools had < 25%.  

really! what makes you think so? if they did double spend when they had 25% they will most likely do it again, refer to this  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=327767.0

they did double spend against Betcoin few months ago and we pointed that out, but no one cared, now it is time to give attention....

[Peter R]

the paranoid thought process of a malicious attack gaining control of the dominant pool is what worries me most. opposed to double spend attempts by the pool itself. I also would hope to see miners shift to similar pools, sadly nothing forces people to hold up the integrity of the network.

Yes, I think this is the most rational fear of centralized hash power. 

[Elwar]

Not to worry, I ordered an ASIC USB drive on ebay and it should be here soon. So I will likely tip all of the mining power on its ear once I plug it in. I promise if I go over 50% with it I will not double spend.

Crisis averted.

 

[Peter R]

if they did double spend when they had 25% they will most likely do it again, refer to this  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=327767.0

I'd like to hear other Wall-Observer's feelings on the BetCoinDice double-spend.  I think what they did was "wrong," but I also think it did a bit of good too.  It simultaneously showed (a) how hard it actually is to double spend (and that you'll be caught), and (b) that double-spends *are* possible in certain cases and one should develop the appropriate business model to deal with them.  For example, could GHash with 25% hash power hurt just-dice.com with a double-spend?

[F-bernanke]

If I were a big BTC holder (like the winklevoss), I would set up a miningfarm just to balance this shit out a bit, It might even turn a profit, if not, it least it protects the network.

[aminorex]

when bitcoin depends on winklevoii to survive, then bitcoin is doomed.