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

[Dakustaking76]

More than 100 shops and restaurants where you can pay through Lightning in Arnhem Bitcoin City (Netherlands) .

https://www.arnhembitcoinstad.nl/

Now in the rest of the country 
Rotterdam, den haag and Amsterdam

[jbreher]

illogical and pie in the sky skewed nonsense when it comes to your supposed defense of the tech of SV and your nonsensical proclamations that SV supposedly adheres better to the original bitcoin vision than bitcoin itself -

You are again misrepresenting my position. Misunderstanding? Intentional misrepresentation? Only you know for sure.

My position has been consistently that SV adheres more to the original Bitcoin protocol than does BTC. This is really undebatable fact from a protocol perspective.

'Vision' is a nebulous, touchy feely thing, upon which I make no value judgement.

Satoshi's ... err ... vision may indeed have been more aligned with the current BTC. We have no way of knowing. However, if indeed that were the case, why did he not encode segwit into the original release?

[jbreher]

That's a good point. Technically you're correct about the blocksize limit not being part of the protocol, of course.
Though if everyone is running a client with a different blocksize, the network will become a clusterfuck.

No. The miners -- or rather 51% of them -- would then determine the max block size. No clusterfuck. Longest chain rules.

The immutability of the 1MB blocksize still stands if we throw out the word "protocol". Satoshi knew that once he slipped that blocksize limit into the core client, it would be there forever, 

I think the interim limits of 250KB and 500KB invalidate your assertion.

[Syke]

Satoshi knew that once he slipped that blocksize limit into the core client, it would be there forever, and become the de facto standard in all bitcoin software implementations. That's why Garzik and the others were opposed to it at the time. Satoshi said that it was temporary, but he knew enough about game theory to realize 1MB blocks would become a Schelling Point within the bitcoin network if it was left in the core client long enough.

That's simply not true. You're claiming to know the mind of Satoshi in direct opposition with his public statements.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1347.msg15139#msg15139

We can phase in a change later if we get closer to needing it.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1347.msg15366#msg15366

It can be phased in, like:

if (blocknumber > 115000)
    maxblocksize = largerlimit

It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete.

When we're near the cutoff block number, I can put an alert to old versions to make sure they know they have to upgrade.

[DaRude]

These papers are not for you to consume, all of his actions can be easily explained if you think of him as a man preparing a case for litigation. He's just preparing documents that he'll be submitting to court. Probably will try to trademark "Bitcoin" next.

Then why the sensational coingeek article? It was a well-timed pump job / maneuver backed by a well-written propaganda piece. It ultimately proves nothing, other than there is no apparent correlation between somebody's ability to invest and intelligence.

BSV is so thinly traded a 500% pump wouldn't effect Ayre and CSW much

[600watt]

Backtest your emotions. We've seen five of these blowoff tops. Factor the next one in before it gobsmacks you.

That's some OG sense.

my problem seems to be not to recognize the blowoff tops correctly. 2013 bull move exploded from $120 to $1200 in one month. doubled within a day at the end. 2017 top went there much slower. when it was around $20k I expected a blowoff to $30k or $50k. I was monitoring BETI and it did not work for me.

maybe the blowoff momentum went into shitcoins in dec 2017. i missed it completely, was shell shocked and only able to unload 1/3 of stash around $8.5k.

I know what will happen next time around: in an attempt to not be late again I will sell at $50k and then price will paint a blowoff to $100k or $150k 

[JayJuanGee]

illogical and pie in the sky skewed nonsense when it comes to your supposed defense of the tech of SV and your nonsensical proclamations that SV supposedly adheres better to the original bitcoin vision than bitcoin itself -

You are again misrepresenting my position. Misunderstanding? Intentional misrepresentation? Only you know for sure.

My position has been consistently that SV adheres more to the original Bitcoin protocol than does BTC. This is really undebatable fact from a protocol perspective.

'Vision' is a nebulous, touchy feely thing, upon which I make no value judgement.

Satoshi's ... err ... vision may indeed have been more aligned with the current BTC. We have no way of knowing. However, if indeed that were the case, why did he not encode segwit into the original release?

Oh gawd....

It's called scale as you go...

[600watt]

So presuming you are not a complete moron, what are you trying to accomplish by posting this here?

yeah, actually this question applies to you way better than to anyone else in here. in search of a reason for your endless spamming of this thread with you misleading/false "technical" blabla about an utterly failed attack on bitcoin I more than once came to the conclusion you must be a paid shill. or a masochist. or a class A troll. or all of it.

imho a genuine BSV supporter would not dedicate his time to preach his religious sermon to the most hardened fork-atheists in the interwebs. it makes no sense. you make no sense. even the most stupid noob will not buy bsv because you recommended it. it is annoying as fuck, please post BITCOIN related stuff in here and unload the bsv spam in a bsv forum. p l e a s e.


edit: not saying you ARE a paid shill, but you do surely act as if you are

[Majormax]

Regarding SV's latest price action, its safe to say that the majority of SV's market cap value rests on the idea that Wright is Satoshi, and not much else. There was already a bigger block experiment called BCH, and its been steadily falling in price against BTC since December 2017. The market has all but rejected it. There's no logical reason to think the market will suddenly become hungry for an even bigger block experiment given BCH's past performance.

So the value of BSV lies on Wright proving himself to be Satoshi, and not much else. It doesn't have to do with the "tech" as it is admittedly an older version of bitcoin. If you believe Wright is Satoshi, by all means, pile into SV. Let's just not pretend its about exciting new tech or that it isn't a personality-driven coin. BSV did not shoot up not based on its technical merits but because of Wright's actions. One misstep from Wright or ruling not in his favor will have the opposite effect of his recent copyright filing.

Why do you think the value of BSV is linked to Wright being Satoshi ?  Isn't it merely a piece of code, like BTC, that will garner its own support/ or not, if it is useful.

[Paashaas]

illogical and pie in the sky skewed nonsense when it comes to your supposed defense of the tech of SV and your nonsensical proclamations that SV supposedly adheres better to the original bitcoin vision than bitcoin itself -

You are again misrepresenting my position. Misunderstanding? Intentional misrepresentation? Only you know for sure.

My position has been consistently that SV adheres more to the original Bitcoin protocol than does BTC. This is really undebatable fact from a protocol perspective.

'Vision' is a nebulous, touchy feely thing, upon which I make no value judgement.

Satoshi's ... err ... vision may indeed have been more aligned with the current BTC. We have no way of knowing. However, if indeed that were the case, why did he not encode segwit into the original release?

Oh gawd....

It's called scale as you go...

We all can create our own shitcoin CLOSE to the original version.

[Totscha]

illogical and pie in the sky skewed nonsense when it comes to your supposed defense of the tech of SV and your nonsensical proclamations that SV supposedly adheres better to the original bitcoin vision than bitcoin itself -

You are again misrepresenting my position. Misunderstanding? Intentional misrepresentation? Only you know for sure.

My position has been consistently that SV adheres more to the original Bitcoin protocol than does BTC. This is really undebatable fact from a protocol perspective.

'Vision' is a nebulous, touchy feely thing, upon which I make no value judgement.

Satoshi's ... err ... vision may indeed have been more aligned with the current BTC. We have no way of knowing. However, if indeed that were the case, why did he not encode segwit into the original release?

Oh gawd....

It's called scale as you go...

Dude, don't just dismiss it right away. I think our boy is on to something here. Why don't we just make everything perfect from the start?

Take IPv4 for example. It came with CIDR/VLSM out of the box. Computers from private networks accessed the internets via NAT form day one. Because anything else would be just stupid...

[nutildah]

Why do you think the value of BSV is linked to Wright being Satoshi ?  Isn't it merely a piece of code, like BTC, that will garner its own support/ or not, if it is useful.

Because the recent price movements are 100% due to the actions of CSW, not anything else. BSV didn't suddenly cut a deal with Apple or Amazon or something. Wright filed a copyright claim, coingeek worded it in a way to make it seem like it proved he was Satoshi, and a bunch of illiterate investors got tricked into believing it.

Like I said before, the price is never wrong, but people who bought in at $100+ are likely to experience a rude awakening in the near future.

BSV is more or less a bitcoin clone (BCH fork to be precise) obviously trying to ride off the back of bitcoin's fame, just like every other coin with the word "Bitcoin" in its name. The difference in this one is that its dev is pretending to be Satoshi.

Dude, don't just dismiss it right away. I think our boy is on to something here. Why don't we just make everything perfect from the start?

I can't tell if you're being serious or sarcastic, but I hope its the latter.

[LFC_Bitcoin]

So Shitcoin SV is up 114% in the last 14 days?

WUT !!!!!

[fillippone]

So Shitcoin SV is up 114% in the last 14 days?

WUT !!!!!

SV is shitcoin indeed.
Whichever price movement you can observe in such a shitcoin is worthless, as nobody uses that shitcoin:

Nobody uses this shitcoin, as there are no fees being paid on this shitcoin transactions:


https://twitter.com/longhashdata/status/1130650980884930561

Nobody mines this shitcoin: to have the same security level of a Bitcoin confirmation you have to wait 74 confirmations in this schitcoin:


https://howmanyconfs.com/

After all, the price will be a massive pump by CSW trying to draw attention on his shitcoin after "patenting Bitcoin" whatever this nonsense means. (nothing, IMHO).

Did I already mention that I think SV is a shitcoin?

[Majormax]

Why do you think the value of BSV is linked to Wright being Satoshi ?  Isn't it merely a piece of code, like BTC, that will garner its own support/ or not, if it is useful.

Because the recent price movements are 100% due to the actions of CSW, not anything else. BSV didn't suddenly cut a deal with Apple or Amazon or something. Wright filed a copyright claim, coingeek worded it in a way to make it seem like it proved he was Satoshi, and a bunch of illiterate investors got tricked into believing it.

All crypto is subject to short term manipulation, but long term survival/success is not down to the creator of the code, nor is it linked to speculation/manipulation of price.

If the 'Provably Real' Satoshi were to turn up today, his current-day input would not necessarily be of any greater value than many core developers who are involved on a daily basis.

Probably the best thing BSV has going for it was its Airdrop to a large number of committed Crypto holders.

[realr0ach]

We all can create our own shitcoin CLOSE to the original version.

Not close, an exact replica.  Thank you for reminding us all why people calling imaginary digital shitcoins a "store of value" are mentally insane.  Technically, one would say the value of the imaginary coin is derived from the utility of the network since there is no real commodity basis, but the utility of the network can be replicated infinitely, so the scarcity argument doesn't even exist.  In that context, Bitcoin is simply backed by shills/scammers.

[El duderino_]

lol.jpg

SV user not affected. Troll harder. C'mon - I think you have it in you. That was weaksauce.

?? So you actually RL use it ? What for, where, to who ......?

[El duderino_]

https://twitter.com/BTCTN/status/1131107000157450241

[realr0ach]

Error #4000 in the Bitcoin whitepaper - the assumption minority chains actually die.  The existence of Jbreher proves that is not the case.  In the context of political science, it's good because it means inability for mob rule to triumph. In the context of economics and scarcity, that's terrible and just highlights the fact of lack of Schelling point.  It's also inevitable that the chain continues to fragment in the future due to a number of issues.  

Govts will outlaw non-pseudonymous address layouts, and miners will have to fork to the govtcoin version to legally mine at all without being raided by the FBI.  Then you'll have some underground illegal bitcoin chain with no hash power that's easily attacked, and a govtcoin version with larger hash power.  The 'illegal' bitcoin version would probably contemplate trying to convert to proof of stake to avoid being easily 51% attacked.  Then if it did convert, all the largest holders would just be easily tracked down and arrested.  

The only possible endgame evolution of digital shitcoins is a replica of the Chinese social credit score system run by the govt, which is why nobody should use them instead of physical metals.

[El duderino_]

Currently "7940$"   when 8000$ again?