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

[Riginac111]

Sometimes i toke myself to calm environment to reason how some people got information that makes them to speculate of Bitcoin price wrongly, And if someone rely on some information about Bitcoin price through social media, the person might slump and die, I think most of the social media influencers is given so many wrong analysis of Bitcoin why?

I want us to take a look of this speculation I came across in X today, to check if this man is making a point or is telling fallacy.



https://x.com/CaliCrypto/status/1981869168665530688?t=qXNZNkwoKYvxKCVz0aC0gA&s=19

[Biodom]

Sometimes i toke myself to calm environment to reason how some people got information that makes them to speculate of Bitcoin price wrongly, And if someone rely on some information about Bitcoin price through social media, the person might slump and die, I think most of the social media influencers is given so many wrong analysis of Bitcoin why?

I want us to take a look of this speculation I came across in X today, to check if this man is making a point or is telling fallacy.



https://x.com/CaliCrypto/status/1981869168665530688?t=qXNZNkwoKYvxKCVz0aC0gA&s=19

Bitcoin price drives IBIT price, not the other way around, lol.
$100bil passive asset cannot drive the 2.2 tril underlying.
LOL.

EDIT: that said, who knows what random event may or may not happen in the future.

[Riginac111]

Sometimes i toke myself to calm environment to reason how some people got information that makes them to speculate of Bitcoin price wrongly, And if someone rely on some information about Bitcoin price through social media, the person might slump and die, I think most of the social media influencers is given so many wrong analysis of Bitcoin why?

I want us to take a look of this speculation I came across in X today, to check if this man is making a point or is telling fallacy.



https://x.com/CaliCrypto/status/1981869168665530688?t=qXNZNkwoKYvxKCVz0aC0gA&s=19

Bitcoin price drives IBIT price, not the other way around, lol.
$100bil passive asset cannot drive the 2.2 tril underlying.
LOL.

EDIT: that said, who knows what random event may or may not happen in the future.

That means it's not sure  of what he just said, in other way rounds that means what he just said is under probabilities. That's the meaning of may or may not.

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation
Chartbuddy thanks talkimg.com

[somac.]

Funny you mention audacity.  I have been a music/audio professional for all my life.  Here I sit...



I am not aware of the drama there... probably better I avoid it, honestly, lol.  I use Reaper (multitrack) and Acoustica (mastering).

Nice setup.

I can't remember the version number now or exact details, it was a few years ago, but they rolled back so yeah don't bother.

[somac.]

If you really want this, at the very least start becoming an active reader or better yet a contributor here. We could always use more real people and fewer signature campaign spammers.

At the moment I just don't have the time, but I'll add my 2 cents where I can.

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation
Chartbuddy thanks talkimg.com

[gmaxwell]

Personally, I would be quite satisfied if there was a fork that was exactly the same software, but just retained a 160-bit opreturn limit, and retained the customization abilityfor the node runners.

uh that 'fork' is called Bitcoin Core! --  you can set the limit to whatever you want.  You always could at every point in time.

What was changed was the default value -- to reflect the reality of what major miners *already* changed it to, in order to avoid collateral harms.

There was a proposal that didn't make it configurable since that was the simplest thing to do, but once it was clear that some people wanted to change it it, that proposal was rejected in favor of an alternative that was configurable.

Perhaps you need to sit back and reflect and ask yourself why you feel like you are entitled to make demands about what other people choose to do with their own computers and time?

If you think dictating other peoples choices is important to you then maybe Bitcoin is just not for you.  It's not for everyone, apparently.

[Hueristic]

Personally, I would be quite satisfied if there was a fork that was exactly the same software, but just retained a 160-bit opreturn limit, and retained the customization abilityfor the node runners.

uh that 'fork' is called Bitcoin Core! --  you can set the limit to whatever you want.  You always could at every point in time.

What was changed was the default value -- to reflect the reality of what major miners *already* changed it to, in order to avoid collateral harms.

There was a proposal that didn't make it configurable since that was the simplest thing to do, but once it was clear that some people wanted to change it it, that proposal was rejected in favor of an alternative that was configurable.

Perhaps you need to sit back and reflect and ask yourself why you feel like you are entitled to make demands about what other people choose to do with their own computers and time?

If you think dictating other peoples choices is important to you then maybe Bitcoin is just not for you.  It's not for everyone, apparently.

Oh, lets not be a hypocrite here, there was always the option to change it so why did you feel the need to FORCE the change on unsuspecting people that don't change defaults and were perfectly happy with the way it was?

And did you tell them this setting would allow increased spam to be stored on their systems?

I'm no lawyer but this could even be liable.

I have no horse in this race but I see the shady tactics you guys are using because I am not a shill nor a child.

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation
Chartbuddy thanks talkimg.com

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation
Chartbuddy thanks talkimg.com

[ESG]

(X)
Oh, lets not be a hypocrite here, there was always the option to change it so why did you feel the need to FORCE the change on unsuspecting people that don't change defaults and were perfectly happy with the way it was?
(~)

I don't want to throw gasoline on the fire, is just a personal observation:

 When i access bitcoin org, i see: 'peer-to-peer money cash system', and didnt see peer-to-peer image system...than, bitcoin is not more for everyone? Satoshi didnt mean this, or, mean something instead this..

#+>
               

[philipma1957]

If core 30 allows images without a "hack"

and all earlier cores allow images with only a "hack".

It seems to me BTC will face legal challenges which will get solved one way or another.


So to all risk takers "do you feel lucky"?

I for one will wait and see how it unfolds.


and as I type we are back over 111K which is still decent enough for now.

[hypebrother]

(X)
Oh, lets not be a hypocrite here, there was always the option to change it so why did you feel the need to FORCE the change on unsuspecting people that don't change defaults and were perfectly happy with the way it was?
(~)

I don't want to throw gasoline on the fire, is just a personal observation:

 When i access bitcoin org, i see: 'peer-to-peer money cash system', and didnt see peer-to-peer image system...than, bitcoin is not more for everyone? Satoshi didnt mean this, or, mean something instead this..

the architecture has to change. qubit can fuck every miner out there. i heard canaan is releasing a new chip. lets not loose hope.

[hypebrother]

[somac.]

Personally, I would be quite satisfied if there was a fork that was exactly the same software, but just retained a 160-bit opreturn limit, and retained the customization abilityfor the node runners.

uh that 'fork' is called Bitcoin Core! --  you can set the limit to whatever you want.  You always could at every point in time.

What was changed was the default value -- to reflect the reality of what major miners *already* changed it to, in order to avoid collateral harms.

There was a proposal that didn't make it configurable since that was the simplest thing to do, but once it was clear that some people wanted to change it it, that proposal was rejected in favor of an alternative that was configurable.

Perhaps you need to sit back and reflect and ask yourself why you feel like you are entitled to make demands about what other people choose to do with their own computers and time?

If you think dictating other peoples choices is important to you then maybe Bitcoin is just not for you.  It's not for everyone, apparently.

Oh, lets not be a hypocrite here, there was always the option to change it so why did you feel the need to FORCE the change on unsuspecting people that don't change defaults and were perfectly happy with the way it was?

And did you tell them this setting would allow increased spam to be stored on their systems?

I'm no lawyer but this could even be liable.

I have no horse in this race but I see the shady tactics you guys are using because I am not a shill nor a child.

Hang on. Was that change not recorded in the version change log? Core does have a change log right? Because if so that is dodgy, but if it was recorded it's up to the user to check these things, as one should for all programs.

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation
Chartbuddy thanks talkimg.com

[d5000]

The ETF era Bitcoin Drama - 2025

*yawn*

If you want to really understand what this all is about, I made an ELI5 (sort ot, perhaps ELI12). I will not repeat everything. Short summary:

- you can already include about 400 kB of everything you want, including illegal stuff, in standard transactions (and you could include only a bit less than 100 kB at any time since 2009, before OP_RETURN and Taproot),
- Slipstream and similar services allow up to 4 MB in non-standard transactions if you pay for it. You can blame the miners but that's the incentive structure.
- all alternatives to OP_RETURN are worse for node operators (cost and resource usage goes up).
- do you know what Bitcoin Stamps (a protocol with about 1,25 million NFTs on the Bitcoin chain) and the "fake public key method" (in P2MS or P2WSH outputs) are? If not, then you really have to read a bit first.

I don't like the spam but the only real solution would be to change to a protocol like Grin's where the types of transactions are extremely restricted. No Lightning, no sidechains, no contracts, no decentralized swaps ...

[somac.]

The ETF era Bitcoin Drama - 2025

*yawn*

If you want to really understand what this all is about, I made an ELI5 (sort ot, perhaps ELI12). I will not repeat everything. Short summary:

- you can already include about 400 kB of everything you want, including illegal stuff, in standard transactions (and you could include only a bit less than 100 kB at any time since 2009, before OP_RETURN and Taproot),
- Slipstream and similar services allow up to 4 MB in non-standard transactions if you pay for it. You can blame the miners but that's the incentive structure.
- all alternatives to OP_RETURN are worse.
- do you know what Bitcoin Stamps (a protocol with about 1,25 million NFTs on the Bitcoin chain) and the "fake public key method" (in P2MS or P2WSH outputs) are? If not, then you really have to read a bit first.

I don't like the spam but the only real solution would be to change to a protocol like Grin's where the types of transactions are extremely restricted. No Lightning, no sidechains, no contracts, no decentralized swaps ...

I'll have to check it all out one day if I get time.

One question though why do so many consider SPAM a problem? We have fees to prevent SPAM, it has done so in the past, and surely will in the future. Hell, we want higher fees in the future anyway to make up for decreased block reward.

[d5000]

One question though why do so many consider SPAM a problem? We have fees to prevent SPAM, it has done so in the past, and surely will in the future. Hell, we want higher fees in the future anyway to make up for decreased block reward.

In general I agree. For me the big problem is the unpredictability of NFT ("spam") waves. When the NFT market heats up, people will pay extremely high fees to store their Pepe or ape or whatever. Or at least did so in the past (2023/24). Sometimes the fees were so high that people were disincentived even to open a Lightning channel.

I can live with the current "spam" level - NFT, tokens and stuff almost only stored on-chain in low-fee blocks, and that indeed is helping the miners to get a slightly higher income. But these waves really are/were disruptive. But I hope the market has cooled down so much already, and there are so many Inscription/Stampchain/etc. NFTs on chain already, that the market should be saturated for years to come. And of course altcoin NFT waves also exist.