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

[Toxic2040]

prepare for the dump?

Looks like it. Short squeeze apparently forming at $5,300.

Can't believe my eyes... a couple of consecutive bearish posts in WO thread?!?

Come on guys, let's not change the trend of being only bullish here!

I thought we might dip further but support is strong in this one. If support does fail at $5.2k it seems it wont be for long and if we do so will most likely come back upwards with gusto.  #dyor
4h

#stronghands

[scambust]

prepare for the dump?

Looks like it. Short squeeze apparently forming at $5,300.

Can't believe my eyes... a couple of consecutive bearish posts in WO thread?!?

Come on guys, let's not change the trend of being only bullish here!

Well, one thing is for sure. The price won't go beyond $6,000 level with one go. A lot of shorters waiting up there. It is an obvious spot to short being a long time support level last year.

[El duderino_]

via Imgflip Meme Generator

https://twitter.com/redditbtc/status/1115704624751816705?s=21

[El duderino_]

Is it Wednesday yet?

For me it is

[hisslyness]

yes totally agree with you on your last point....

The highway analogy was not about space to build the highway, but rather it doesn't matter how many lanes are built, it will still eventually get to the same outcome as a 1 lane highway. You will still end up with traffic congestion, nothing has been solved. I was merely trying to associate with the fact bitcoin developers was not concerned with building more lanes, ie increase block size, but focusing on alternate transport methods or alternate transport habits. ie layer 2 scaling.

As I pointed out earlier, and I quote: Stupid analogy is stupid.

There also comes to a point where you may never be able to run full node from scratch. Based on a 30sec a 1MB validation time

According to statement by gmaxwell, Core 'nodes' do not verify back to the genesis block, relying instead upon checkpoints. I deigned to just accept his assertion on this point - it may be incorrect.

and i have read somewhere that it may be quadratically longer the bigger the block.

Yes. Operative word is _may_. One is able to construct an aberrant block that requires quadratic time to verify. Fortunately, this is a self-rectifying non-problem.

Just to confirm the 30sec theory, i'd shutdown my Bitcoin Node, was 8 blocks behind, fired it back up and it took about 5mins to catch up 10 blocks, two blocks was found while validating/catching up.

Folly of trying to limit the performance of our lifetime's second most significant technological achievement, only in order to satisfy having essentially zero skin in the game, is duly noted.

Yeah we are not going to agree on anything mate.

Let not even attempt to discus Moore's Law and the possibility of it not fully applying in 2020/30/50. That another 10 pages on the WO wasted!

The one thing, I have noticed from you, is the vague response you give, wether it is tactic you employ to evade and dismiss people or to counter arguments, in a way of "I didn't say that" or "I meant this"

Anyhow,

You cannot convince me a "different approach" is the wrong way to handling bitcoin scalability... and

I cannot convince you bigger blocks/dynamic blocks or anything to do with blocksize will NOT scale bitcoin.

[rebal15]

Tone Vays says sub $3k, even sub 2k is still possible. I might get 4-5 coins instantly if that happens.

Have you seen that dude's hair ? Can't trust anyone with hair that bad.

I would like to think that $3,000 has quickly disappeared from our rear view mirrors, and won't be seen again. New floor is being established at $5,000 USD.

EDIT: https://twitter.com/BtcBlockBot/status/1115722874013331459



EDIT2: Holy sheeit !



EDIT3: A wild bear appears.

https://twitter.com/AskMeHowToShort/status/1115724417982533632

https://www.tradingview.com/chart/XBTUSD/4EzekrZX-The-Big-Bad-Bear/

[gentlemand]

You cannot convince me a "different approach" is the wrong way to handling bitcoin scalability... and

I cannot convince you bigger blocks/dynamic blocks or anything to do with blocksize will NOT scale bitcoin.

That's the core of it. Why is anyone wasting their one precious life on this 'debate'? The result of it is already here.

Instead of attempting to convince people who can't be convinced why aren't they instead working on the actual development of their pet? That might actually achieve something for the same amount of calories.

[hisslyness]

You cannot convince me a "different approach" is the wrong way to handling bitcoin scalability... and

I cannot convince you bigger blocks/dynamic blocks or anything to do with blocksize will NOT scale bitcoin.

That's the core of it. Why is anyone wasting their one precious life on this 'debate'? The result of it is already here.

Instead of attempting to convince people who can't be convinced why aren't they instead working on the actual development of their pet? That might actually achieve something for the same amount of calories.

Fair enough... what do you do if you do not a pet?

[El duderino_]

House Lannister falls because they can only finance their military by borrowing from the Iron Bank of Braavos, who join forces with Daenerys to take them down over unpaid debts. The season ends with this epilogue:  "Fiat would ensure indefinite Lannister rule.  Who wants that?"

https://twitter.com/aridavidpaul/status/1115700303754551296?s=21

[El duderino_]

Introducing Cumulative Value Days Destroyed (CVDD) and Balanced Price. New experimental models using the early metric of Bitcoin Days Destroy. Check @kenoshaking's handle very shortly for Balanced Price, I'll dig into CVDD here.


via Imgflip Meme Generator


https://woobull.com/experiments-on-cumulative-destruction/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

Seems intresting.... But gotta hit the HODLtomb, leave it here so i can find it easily tomorrow “or Maybe Some of you gonna give it short”

[jojo69]

Is it Wednesday yet?

What happens on Wednesday ? Did I miss a memorandum somewhere ?

Still just a proposal, but seems to have pretty strong consensus.

As I understand it all blocksize and BCH discussion would be verboten on Wednesdays.

[JayJuanGee]

I can't agree enough. What kind of sickness is it for people like roach, stolfi, jbreher, etc to come here and spout their non-stop garbage

I wouldn't bundle jbreher with stolfi. And The Roach is just on another plane of existence.

I'm not saying they are the same. What I mean is the constant posting about the same topic over and over again that has already been answered by everyone here many times over. It seems like very obsessive behavior, especially since they know they can't convince anyone here of anything they say.

Well, I may not be the best arbiter of my own behavior. However, it seems to me that these argument-storms always start when someone takes one of my posts that has nothing to do with the topic, and feels compelled to reply with some nonsense that is clearly incorrect about the characteristics of either BCH or SV (or, as often, counterfactual nonsense about BTC itself). As if to publicly shame me for some aspect of 'The Other Bitcoins'. If you have not yet learned, I am not going to allow such bullshit to be the unchallenged record.

The obvious solution is obvious: don't spout lies that might require me to correct.

jbreher in particular is bad with this. Why does he keep posting his so called technical comments here, when he could be posting them in the development area of the forum or github. Perhaps because he is full of shit and knows it.

Quite the contrary. The technical issues are trivial and fully understood by the technocrats. It is the economic assumptions and game theory assumptions that are completely flawed. The technical sub-forum is dedicated to SW implementation, and occasionally to protocol implementation to hew to economic decisions that are outside the scope of that sub-forum. Accordingly, my comments are fully out of scope for the technical sub-forum.

I have always stated freely that I find the devs pretty much capable within their technical areas. But a bulletproof and faithful SW implementation of an inherently flawed design is still inherently flawed.

Really difficult to believe you, jbreher.

On an ongoing basis you are bringing technical arguments into this thread, and trying to get people to argue with you on your grounds which are at minimum feigned technical with your claims about the various ways that bitcoin is deficient in terms of segregated witness or layer 2 solutions.

Furthermore, now you are acting like there is no other place for you to make your various technical claims.  Seems like a lot of nonsense.   

To me, it seem that you are trying to lord over your technical mumbo jumbo to trick people into agreeing with you based on assumptions that you sufficiently know technicals so you are playing those technical authority cards in this thread on an ongoing basis, but your punchline is really not technical at all... it is pure politics and wanting to disrupt and to weaken bitcoin's governance.. perhaps under a belief that bitcoin would be btter off if it were able to adapt more easily.. and that is a bullshit argument as well, when push comes to shove.

So the fact that you are putting out various bullshit arguments about bitcoin being broken or that its governance needs to change, much of the time, you are framing those argument in technical mumbo jumbo and acting like you have the technical answers while trying to burden others to argue in that framework here in this thread....   NO wonder people frequently proclaim that you should be taking your arguments to other technical threads.

[JayJuanGee]

I was 1 BTC away from my cryptowinter accumulation goal. I'm still holding out hope for a $1,000 discount from here  

I’m 2.1BTC away from a round number that I set myself as my total HODL stash. I might be able to reach it if we stay in this range until maybe Xmas.

If not then whatever, I have enough. Just a bit of OCD wanting to reach a certain figure.

I am 16.15BTC away.

I'm a bit more than 16.15 BTC above my number.  You can have some of mine, since you are so nice and sweet.  

I am only 4.5BTC away from 10btc. It'll take a while if bitcoin keeps rising like this. 5 was my first target and I accomplished it a few weeks ago. 10 is next. 21 is after that. I'll probably cash out to lambo (by lambo i mean whatever i like) before I reach 21 but who knows.

Tone Vays says sub $3k, even sub 2k is still possible. I might get 4-5 coins instantly if that happens.

It's really good to hear that you are making your various goals, and I understand the feeling, sometimes we feel that there are short cuts... and temptations towards short cuts seem to be worse when you are in earlier times of accumulation.

Part of the reason that I am suggesting that I surpassed my goal has to do with more than 30 years of accumulating capital, so in some sense it was easier for me to reach my goals and then to get into a maintenance stage.

I have mentioned this concept before, and that is if you become happy with your level of BTC, then you still might spend a certain amount of time  over-investing in order that you do not feel bad shaving off some BTC on the way up... the profits begin to snowball upon themselves.. but getting there is part of the issue that can thereafter cause you to tweak your strategy to attempt to play both price directions without considerable fear. 

On the other hand, even if a guy/gal has reached a certain high enough level, there can still be some greed daemon that still may need to be fought off.  So let's say, for example, my goal were to reach 21 coins, but I felt that I should acquire 50% above my goal just to be comfortable, which would be 31.5 BTC.  Of course, once I reach the 31.5 BTC, I could reassess my goals, or I can figure out a way to play with that.. and maybe continue to keep 31.5BTC as my goal, but realize that 21BTC would be enough too.. .based on subsequent events and reassessments.

[JayJuanGee]

prepare for the dump?

Looks like it. Short squeeze apparently forming at $5,300.

Can't believe my eyes... a couple of consecutive bearish posts in WO thread?!?

Come on guys, let's not change the trend of being only bullish here!

As far as I recall we have never been ONLY bullish here. - merely "we" require a higher evidence standard from bears because the facts and logic are against their views.   

[Syke]

According to statement by gmaxwell, Core 'nodes' do not verify back to the genesis block, relying instead upon checkpoints. I deigned to just accept his assertion on this point - it may be incorrect.

They stopped adding new checkpoints 5 years ago, but yes, the old checkpoints are still there.

You can ignore the checkpoints by starting Core with "-nocheckpoints".

[HairyMaclairy]

Trouble in the henhouse. A new way to multiply very large numbers together has been discovered

https://www.sciencealert.com/mathematicians-just-discovered-an-astonishing-new-way-to-multiply-numbers-together

[d_eddie]

Trouble in the henhouse. A new way to multiply very large numbers together has been discovered

https://www.sciencealert.com/mathematicians-just-discovered-an-astonishing-new-way-to-multiply-numbers-together

As long as they can't unmultiply them (factor the product)...

[jojo69]

Quantum FUD

so bullish

[Lambie Slayer]

Is Fiat dead?

If fiat was dead, we wouldn't have twenty thousand pages discussing the fiat exchange rate

You sure about that? Horse as the main source of transportation is dead, yet we still discuss car engine power by rate of how many horses. Horsepower

[jojo69]

Saw a crazy client lady today I've not seen in some time.

She has been clipping articles for me...lol