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

[jbreher]

Bitcoin increases blocksize and shows it was indeed needing to have larger blocks (which then are filled with nonsense and can push nodes off)

Larger blocks are inanimate. Regardless of size, blocks do not have the power to 'push (so-called) nodes off' of anything. Bitcoin does not owe you a position in its network. Either expend the resources required, or drop to the side in your inability to keep up. Decision is fully yours. Own it.

[1713564850]

1713564850

[1713564850]

1713564850

[1713564850]

1713564850

[1713564850]

1713564850

[alevlaslo]

BTC 8 tps
BCH 80 tps
BSV 800 tps

[siggy_77]

Funding rates to borrow $BTC on Bitfinex hitting 100%+ annualized. This funding has rippled to Bitmex as well.

At these rates, it takes a little over one month for a 10x short to get liquidated even if BTC doesn't move. A 50x short gets liquidated in under a week.

https://twitter.com/zhusu/status/1122527945094905856

So, if I had funds stuck in Bitfinex (I don't) that I couldn't get out, and was resigned to that fact... what would I do?

I'd say "fuck it" and make some very high risk margin trades, figuring that I've prolly lost my money anyways.   On the slim chance that Bitfinex gets through this and stays solvent, I could potentially come out with a huge windfall on funds that I had already written off.

With the above thinking, it does not surprise me that there is a huge demand for margin on that platform at this moment.

[alevlaslo]

Bitcoin increases blocksize and shows it was indeed needing to have larger blocks (which then are filled with nonsense and can push nodes off)

Larger blocks are inanimate. Regardless of size, blocks do not have the power to 'push (so-called) nodes off' of anything. Bitcoin does not owe you a position in its network. Either expend the resources required, or drop to the side in your inability to keep up. Decision is fully yours. Own it.

BTC will not be able to increase the block size because in this case it will have to cancel the Seqwit, which will not allow the signed transactions from Satoshi's wallets to work in January 2020

[vapourminer]

Larger blocks are inanimate. Regardless of size, blocks do not have the power to 'push (so-called) nodes off' of anything. Bitcoin does not owe you a position in its network. Either expend the resources required, or drop to the side in your inability to keep up. Decision is fully yours. Own it.

a race to the bottom?

just how big a datacenter and monthly cost will eventually be needed to run bsv with its "everything including the kitchen sink" philosophy? to the point only billionaires and humongous companies etc can afford it?

is there any upper limit? i am genuinely curious.

[bitserve]

Bitcoin increases blocksize and shows it was indeed needing to have larger blocks (which then are filled with nonsense and can push nodes off)

Larger blocks are inanimate. Regardless of size, blocks do not have the power to 'push (so-called) nodes off' of anything. Bitcoin does not owe you a position in its network. Either expend the resources required, or drop to the side in your inability to keep up. Decision is fully yours. Own it.

BTC will not be able to increase the block size because in this case it will have to cancel the Seqwit, which will not allow the signed transactions from Satoshi's wallets to work in January 2020

I don't even have words to describe the level of retardness shown in each part of the above statement. Please stop it already.

[jbreher]

Keeping blocks small shifts the balance in favor of Type 1, preventively.

By what mechanism?

By pissing off the spammers.

Not sure if serious. I don't quite see how raising the ire of The Bad Guys is any sort of basis for network security. If anything, it would seem counterproductive.

[jbreher]

I've seen some very nice hats that are not worn and are not in the signing campaign ..., jbreher!

Do you need new glasses?

[MrFreeRoMan]

Bitcoin Cash (BCH) Mining Dominated by ‘Satoshi Nakamoto’

Around a week ago an unknown miner calling themselves Satoshi Nakamoto began hogging more than 35% of the BCH hashrate. By Monday morning their mining dominance on the Bitcoin Cash blockchain peaked as high as 44%. When a miner acquires 51% of a blockchain’s hashrate, they can launch double-spend attacks – essentially stealing Bitcoin Cash coins.



This unknown miner originally appeared a week ago under the name ‘BoomBoomBoom’, as detailed in this reddit post. There’s no way to prove that ‘BoomBoomBoom’ and ‘Satoshi Nakamoto’ are one and the same, however one disappeared when the other appeared, and the likelihood of two unknown miners suddenly hogging the hashrate within days of each other seems unlikely.

Proof

[AlcoHoDL]

BSV only one altcoin which can go in the direction opposite to the falling crypto market

BSV is dead bruh!

LOL!

Your post reminded me of this:

Pulp Fiction | 'Zed's Dead' (HD) - Bruce Willis | MIRAMAX

[jbreher]

Bitcoin increases blocksize and shows it was indeed needing to have larger blocks (which then are filled with nonsense and can push nodes off)

Larger blocks are inanimate. Regardless of size, blocks do not have the power to 'push (so-called) nodes off' of anything. Bitcoin does not owe you a position in its network. Either expend the resources required, or drop to the side in your inability to keep up. Decision is fully yours. Own it.

BTC will not be able to increase the block size because in this case it will have to cancel the Seqwit, which will not allow the signed transactions from Satoshi's wallets to work in January 2020

I think you are mistaken. I know of no technical limitation that makes SegWit incompatible with a future block size increase.

[BTCMILLIONAIRE]

https://i.imgur.com/mirVwVN.jpg

Sorry for quoting the Roach, guys, but this may be worth a laugh. I was (passive-aggressively) amused.

I feel left out.

[Toxic2040]

Decision is fully yours. Own it.

Hows that working out for you bear?  Owning it?

k thanks and now gtfo with your big blocker bullshit...bubye

[BTCMILLIONAIRE]

I admit there is no easy criterion to tell one from the other onchain, after the fact.

QFT.

If someone was moving funds back and forth repeatedly then that would be an obvious criterion for a spam transaction. Surely other metrics could identify other "easy criteria" for spam transactions.

Given a random isolated transaction things look different though.

[Last of the V8s]

https://bitinfocharts.com/bitcoin/address/3D2oetdNuZUqQHPJmcMDDHYoqkyNVsFk9r another chunk out of the finex cold wallet
102k-> 89k

[jbreher]

Bitcoin increases blocksize and shows it was indeed needing to have larger blocks (which then are filled with nonsense and can push nodes off)

Larger blocks are inanimate. Regardless of size, blocks do not have the power to 'push (so-called) nodes off' of anything. Bitcoin does not owe you a position in its network. Either expend the resources required, or drop to the side in your inability to keep up. Decision is fully yours. Own it.

Cool so how about if someone spammed Bchsv (I think that's the shitcoin flavor you're favoring now)

Hmm. Don't know. I'm not aware of any coin that is routinely referred to as the moniker 'Bchsv'. I suppose you mean Bitcoin-SV? I must admit that my most-used abbreviation of 'SV" is non-standard as well, with the most common ticker being 'BSV'. Oh well, I'll just assume that's what you refer to.

and pumped out multiple spam attacks to the 128mb blocks for only 1 week. Now that would be an increase of 129gb. Let's say some bad actor like Roger came and kept at it (like he did to btc) and kept I up for let's say 2 months.

If, indeed, the mimers included all those txs. As those with the most non-liquid investment on the line, we trust the miners with enough rope to shoot themselves in the foot. They're not going to make blocks big enough to alienate the economic majority.

OTOH, it does kind of lay bare the lie promulgated by The Wizards Of Core^[tm], who pronounced that block size increases were impossible.

That's an extra 1.032 Terabyte, that's not too much to handle

'zackly

but i bet you'd have those on the bsv subreddits and forums complaining that they can't keep up, and being mad about spam.

Of course. Bitcoin Core does not have a monopoly on overly-entitled whiners.

Especially since that community is moreso mad broke kids who missed out on real btc and want a redo.

I think you are grievously mistaken. While anecdotal, the evidence I have seen suggest that there is a higher percentage of well-capitalized Bitcoin OGs in the big block corner than there is in the BTC camp.

TBH a bad actor could easily inflate bsv to 6.7 terabyte a year

Oh. Emm. Gee. exclamation_point. I'd have to pay ... umm ... $160 in order to store all that. The horror.

Of course, it would again require the cooperation of at least half the mining hash power. Otherwise, less storage needed.

[Raja_MBZ]

Crossing $5500 once again, this could be a bad fakeout. IMO, if the daily candle closes in red, there's a big chance that we follow this path:



However, if BTC manages to close today's daily candle in green, it'll be interesting and (arguably) wild from bulls.

"Told you so"...

So now it rises? I'm down with that.

We're probably going to see another two days of red-hot pain before the green-grassy bounce back.

Nah it's the weekend, let's reschedule that pain for Monday.

[Toxic2040]

https://bitinfocharts.com/bitcoin/address/3D2oetdNuZUqQHPJmcMDDHYoqkyNVsFk9r another chunk out of the finex cold wallet
102k-> 89k

gotta be at least 150+ mio that has fled so far...thats gotta smart some

[jbreher]

Larger blocks are inanimate. Regardless of size, blocks do not have the power to 'push (so-called) nodes off' of anything. Bitcoin does not owe you a position in its network. Either expend the resources required, or drop to the side in your inability to keep up. Decision is fully yours. Own it.

a race to the bottom?

No. A race to the top.

just how big a datacenter and monthly cost will eventually be needed to run bsv with its "everything including the kitchen sink" philosophy? to the point only billionaires and humongous companies etc can afford it?

is there any upper limit? i am genuinely curious.

Well, there's currently an upper limit that is not too atrocious. The story for the future is no upper limit.

Implicit in your question would seem to be the philosophy that the system should be limited in order to allow those with no skin in the game to be first-class citizens. Why do you believe this to be appropriate?

You would think that those that abdicated the mining to those willing to take the risk would have learned this lesson already.

[BTCMILLIONAIRE]

BTC 8 tps
BCH 80 tps
BSV 800 tps

There are shitcoins with over 10k tps. Should we dump BSV for them?