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

[El duderino_]

[heslo]

Just goes to show there's still a lot of dumb money flying around in crypto

[LoyceV]

Don't give it attention: don't read it, don't comment on it, and don't share it. Any attention leads to more people jumping the wagon hoping for a quick profit.

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[LFC_Bitcoin]

These shitcoins need to be purged man, total scam.

Don't give it attention: don't read it, don't comment on it, and don't share it. Any attention leads to more people jumping the wagon hoping for a quick profit.

My bad.

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[cAPSLOCK]

In Lightning Network matters, I kinda figured out how to get my channels back into a balanced state, organically, after getting drained to one side.

tl;dr: I set a "normal" free policy for routing peers of something like 1000/100. Bigger nodes get charged higher rates, eg: 1000/350.

Eventually, I'll drain the liquidity, no matter how high I set my fee rate, and the channel ends up going stale if I don't take action on it.

Instead now, when the channel gets drained one way, practically entirely, I basically set my fee rates extremely low, like 0/10, and I start getting a lot of traffic coming back the other way, filling up my drained liquidity again.

Probably blatantly obvious to some, but I'm a tard, and just figured this out on my own over the last 48 hours, and it's working ridiculously well so far to re-fill drained liquidity.

As the channel gets more balanced, I start cranking up the fees, and stuff starts flowing back out the other way, for another round of profit taking on routing.

Neato.

It took me a solid 2 years to figure this out.  And it is STILL significant work.  Even though I do not know you really, you are one of the smartest people I know.

HOWEVER... eventually the nodes will be able to run themselves using these exact same strategies.

I have been wondering what that means to the costs of the network.  Lightning is a network that seems to be quite distributed.  It might just be that the presence of people like you and I will create an environment where the fees will always be kept fairly low.  Because there will always be nodes trying to draw traffic, so there is always a fee sale somewhere. See what I mean? Since pathfinding is markets on FAST FORWARD there will not be choke points like there are in the current system.  Or at least they will have a much harder time establishing them.  In fact I believe retailers will be incentivized to run nodes and now instead of a Krogers shoppers card you would have a Krogers node connection (or even wallet).

The big "routing nodes" will be the retailers, not the banks.  And those big retailers would be incentivized to keep their fees as low as possible to their customers, I think.  At least that's what I have been seeing recently... who knows if it really means something lol.

Then your lightning nodes liquidity becomes a total input vs output thing...  They can just sit there and hum along for virtually ever.

There are serious development opportunities in this particular space.  I wish I was not so lazy.  I would seize them! Lol.

[goldkingcoiner]

Putting the bully in his place.

You know, its hard to take you seriously when your arguments become jpegs.

But, for the sake of entertaining you...

Lets not be hypocritical. If you see fit to surround a country with enemy bases and nuclear missles, then that country will obviously respond accordingly.

The main issue is the meaning of "accordingly". The only example I can think of is the Cuban missile crisis. US had put missiles near the USSR, USSR put missiles on Cuba. Pretty fair. The conclusion also was, with both sides removing their missiles.

The problem with the current situation is that Russia is moving borders. I don't see the US doing that. Afghanistan was invaded 20 years ago, no part of that country is US territory now, obviously.

Well they were kind of forced to do that. Ukraine was not willing to let Crimea be independent, and there would have been a lot of bloodshed. And by law, the Crimean give-away was legally void. So either Russia took Crimea or would have watched Crimea turn into a bloodbath. As I said, I have yet to hear a single Crimean complain about the annexation.

[cAPSLOCK]

In Lightning Network matters, I kinda figured out how to get my channels back into a balanced state, organically, after getting drained to one side.

tl;dr: I set a "normal" free policy for routing peers of something like 1000/100. Bigger nodes get charged higher rates, eg: 1000/350.

Eventually, I'll drain the liquidity, no matter how high I set my fee rate, and the channel ends up going stale if I don't take action on it.

Instead now, when the channel gets drained one way, practically entirely, I basically set my fee rates extremely low, like 0/10, and I start getting a lot of traffic coming back the other way, filling up my drained liquidity again.

Probably blatantly obvious to some, but I'm a tard, and just figured this out on my own over the last 48 hours, and it's working ridiculously well so far to re-fill drained liquidity.

As the channel gets more balanced, I start cranking up the fees, and stuff starts flowing back out the other way, for another round of profit taking on routing.

Neato.

I'm no expert in LN, but shouldn't this be happening automatically? I think what the developers should be focusing on, is code that can be run in a set-and-forget mode, without us having to pamper it constantly to keep it in a healthy state. Maybe I'm asking too much, but the way things stand (based on what I'm reading/learning from you guys), operating a LN node is still a messy piece of work. Good thing is that it seems to be gaining more and more ground, despite the lack of user-friendliness.

In a nutshell, no…

At the core of it, LN still has to be profitable to survive. People will always do it for free, but ultimately if they are forced to do it at a loss, they will eventually pull out of go bust…

When you move SATs from one channel to another to rebalance, there has to be a corresponding, channel to balance the transaction…

Node A to Node B to Node C to Node A

In a perfect scenario, that would balance out, but what if Node B has a higher routing fee?.. who will cover that cost?

Sure we can route for free, something we do during a triangle swap. But never happens unless all participants co-operate.

Can explain n more detail if you want…

I really think what we are not seeing are the second order incentives.  Certain nodes will be incentivized to exist because of trade.  Your grocery store, your hardware store, the convenience store, the gas station.  They want your continual and repeating business.  They will want to make the money flow as cheap for you as possible.  Eventually all the balancing will be driven by algorithms.  And the retailers will need excess traffic to let those little equations do their work.  Which means they will route payments as well as take them.

Banks too will probably have giant, well managed nodes.  Whatever banks are about to morph into.  But I think the retailers... the people we do trade with... those folks will become much more important in commerce.  No longer just terminals for money flow.

The doors are going to get blown off the entire system... and most people won;t even see it coming.

But lets finish with hanging the people that have taken us through the last two years.  We need to bring that swift and terrible justice first.  Then we can get on with building the world they do not want us to have.

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[xhomerx10]

That my friend, is the way to keep it. Never let your normie friends know how rich you are

This is exactly the reason why I lost my friends.

Now my friends are my family.

and

 This tweet makes no sense; the Russo-Ukranian war began nearly 8 years ago and is still ongoing.  Also, exactly what problem would we be part of?
Considering that we hodlers are gleefully protecting our assets from that very thing - control of our money by a central authority while speculating on the demise of the current system for any and every reason - I guess we're all guilty as charged by C∅bra.  I'm not about to swap my bitcoin for dollars just in case some other banking cartels pile a few more sanctions on Russia and my wealth is preserved so colour me horrible I suppose.  I actively implore others to buy bitcoin today as well.  Be horrible! Buy Bitcoin!  Somberly if possible, gleefully if you must - just don't tweet about it; it's best kept a secret.

I disagree.
Cobra is very specific here and does not generally address hodlers.
If you don't get excited about Russia (i mean 99% people like me and you) getting excluded from a pseudo-standard financial transactions network, just because it could result in a price rise of Bitcoin, you're absolutely not included in this rant.
It's almost the same like having supported the war in irak because of expectations that the dollar would rise in the face of a booming arms industry, imho.
Please tell me you're not that type. If you aren't, you are not getting adressed by this tweet in any way.

EDIT: Re-reading that tweet after posting i see Cobra's last sentence being clear AF regarding the addressed audience.

EDIT2: Remember, most of the germans were shouting for WW2 because they expected more wealth from it. That's a very low motive in terms of humanity, isn't it?

   According to the tweet, the horrible human beings are the ones "gleefully" speculating that a Russia-Ukraine war (which as I pointed out has been going on for 8 years) will result in Russia being removed from SWIFT and subsequently adopting bitcoin as a settlement layer.  The one's who's first thought about war in Ukraine is, "Yay! Bitcoin goes up." are "part of the problem".   I'm asking, what "problem"?  There is no way in hell that a few bitcoiners "thinking" bad thoughts have any impact on a potential escalation of the current conflict between Russia and the Ukraine.   So it's not clear AF to me.

I see your point now.
"The problem" - imho - is that those people are making themselves part of the group wanting russia to start an (active) war.
Secondarily, Bitcoin would be once again the "asset of evil", according to politics and MSM if the dreams of the addressed people actually become reality.
Bitcoiners always fought against this powerful meme (no, i don't mean gifs on the internet). Which true Bitcoiner would want to empower the "enemy" by his own shortsightedness?

To the war: I don't comment and i don't take sides in this conflict. It is completely obsolete in my opinion, we have much bigger problems to solve.

nobody put much stock in what presidential order/directive means? it's supposedly coming next week.

 ..regulate..regulate..regulate.
imho, if they do, it would be more of a "command and control" economy that we would like to admit.

I fear we have to wait and see what they actually will bring to the table, but i'm a little suspicious too.
Background: In my home country, i am sitting out the progress of a vaccine mandate being put into effect. I spent way too much time and energy in arguing and playing mindgames about possible next steps and outcomes vs. possibilities. I got over to waiting until something really happens, which i can actually react to in a more efficient way. I guess it also keeps me thinking more factual than emotional about global propblems in general.

   So then is the unstated "problem", as I feared, that we have this decentralized, no-trust-required, wealth transfer method that doesn't require an intermediary which anyone can use... including Russia if they are kicked out of the SWIFT club?  Honestly, I can't see any other way to decipher it.  I guess bitcoin is a failed experiment. Sell it all now!!!!  ​Then again maybe we get lucky and Russia, if kicked out of SWIFT, will choose BSV as a payment settlement medium instead in which case I hope.... no! no! no!  I never hope for war.

[El duderino_]

Don't give it attention: don't read it, don't comment on it, and don't share it. Any attention leads to more people jumping the wagon hoping for a quick profit.

Meh it’s not sharing it….

Just as it’s best they burn there selves asap… the sooner they burn, the sooner they understand and become bitcoiner


Or stay slaves of the system

Either way please read it and please act on it, hopefully they just decide wise enough….

This things build mindrusters or satoshis

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[DaRude]

Regarding the Russo Ukranian conflict, there is no doubt that Russia is the aggressor and 100% to blame.

Excusing Russia's war and annexation of parts of Ukraine with historical reasons is just wrong.
With that kind of reasoning Sweden can claim the Baltic states (including Finland, yes it's really ours) and St Petersburg "for historical reasons".

Are you referring to how Khrushchev gave Crimea to Ukraine without a referendum, which was illegal? And he was drunk while doing so.

"Neither the Constitution of the RSFSR or the USSR Constitution provide powers of the Presidium Supreme Soviet of the USSR for the consideration of the changes in the constitutional legal status of the Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic, members of the union republics. In view of the above, the decision adopted in 1954 by the Presidium of the Supreme Soviets of the RSFSR and the Soviet on the transfer of the Crimean region of the RSFSR to the USSR, did not correspond to the Constitution (Fundamental Law) of the RSFSR and the Constitution (Fundamental Law) of the USSR."

Was taking back Crimea after all this time a dick move? yes.

But morally, I am with Russia on this one, especially because the Crimeans don't seem to be complaining about not being slaughtered by extremists after Maidan or their quality of life skyrocketing.

The US doesn't give two shits about Ukraine except for building a NATO base so they can exert more influence and pressure on Russia.
Europe pretends to care, as not to anger the US. Except for Germany who openly cares more about their gas bill not going up.

Yes, I do mean when Krustjev gave Crimea to Ukraine.

Well If my neighboring country just invaded and annexed part of my land I too would be happy to have NATO bases on my land to help defend against the invader. If the Russians do get a NATO base on their border it's their own doing.
The Russians have Iskander missiles in Königsberg that can reach Sweden and several NATO countries, NATO has, to the best of my knowledge, nothing like that pointed at Russia.
Russia is a big bully that constantly pokes its neighbors and sometimes invade them a little. They need to be put in their place.

Its like someone spooking the bear and bear attacking those that are near by, sure technically the bear is the aggressor.



Some stats for context, 67% population of Crimea were ethnic Russians, 80% of population spoke Russian as their primary language, and naturally this is how they voted, Yanukovych (blue) was the pro Russian president that ended up winning

Current military conflict is in the two regions that voted 91% and 93% for pro Russian president.

Then the infamous images of Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland giving out cookies to the opposition during the coup/revolution.


Ethics aside, a thinktank made up of kindergartners would be able to conclude that Russia has to do something to stay relevant and not to loose face.

Its like if in the dick measuring contest Russian department of State started giving out cookies to anti-American protests and setting up bases in a country near American boarders...oh wait.

[ImThour]

I am making no Predictions, just showing what actually is going on BTC/USD Chart at Weekly Timeframe.

[shahzadafzal]

https://www.ft.com/content/df0dde72-5d2e-42cd-9792-de4d02b25b73

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[lightfoot]

Some stats for context, 67% population of Crimea were ethnic Russians, 80% of population spoke Russian as their primary language, and naturally this is how they voted, Yanukovych (blue) was the pro Russian president that ended up winning

Current military conflict is in the two regions that voted 91% and 93% for pro Russian president.

So Hm: based on the voting patterns one could make a pretty reasonable assumption that the area of "land" just above Ukraine, to the right of Poland, and below Lit/Latvia/Estonia would probably be pretty highly "Pro someone other than Russia". Would Russia be ok in ceding that territory in exchange for the areas that voted Russian in the Ukraine?

After all it is geography....

[cygan]

El duderino_ on another chart analysis

[d_eddie]

Don't give it attention: don't read it, don't comment on it, and don't share it. Any attention leads to more people jumping the wagon hoping for a quick profit.

Cancel INU!