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

[BitHodlers]

Price is not going up, can the devs do something?

#notahaiku

Please 🙏 can we stop encouraging the devs to "do something"?

😁

Alright. Better?

Price is not going up, can the CEO do something please?

#notahaiku

[vapourminer]

why do i feel like a food fight will happen any second now

[Satofan44]

why do i feel like a food fight will happen any second now

Do you want some brisket? All the extra OP_RETURN space is making me hungry.

[d5000]

From cAPSLOCKs list, I highlight those arguments out that matter (bold) and those who are most frequently misunderstood (in italics). I deleted those who are irrelevant, duplicates or are brung up by both sides.

(from the point of view not of an expert but advanced user who has read some stuff about the issue).

Abbevs:  
O_R- op return
DCS Datacarrier size

The anti-filters points:

-UTXO spam is the worst kind, and a major reason for the origin of O_R and the expanded cap in DCS
-Everyone should be able to choose how they use bitcoin.
-If we filter what can go in a mempool we are damaging Bitcoin's censorship resistance - imo not a good argument, as censorship isn't about a transaction format but about addresses/keys
-The fee market will drive spammers to other chains
-O_R is prunable
-The change aligns relay and miner policy and ("default relay" instead of relay)
-The market is demanding space for arbitrary data storage
-Filtering is an unwinnable cat and mouse game
-Even if core did not change librerelay is the tolerant minority and the cat is out of the bag basically
-There is already spam on the blockchain
-There is no way to stop spammers
-Most users are not knowledgeable enough to really understand the issue, game theory, or implications (true, but isn't an argument here)
-Filters cause node's mempools to be vastly different which has disadvantages (the "disadvantage" can significantly increase resource consumption, harming decentralization)
-Mempool normalization makes fee and block estimation more accurate
-The change is harm reduction if spammers use O_R rather than witness space or fake pubkeys.
-This is policy, not consensus. Therefore not as big a deal as the blocksize war for example
-Miners will take money to include transactions directly (Slipstream API)
-Miners will not store illegal files because they are filtering (ex. Slipstream TOS) (this is not a good argument. The illegal content spammer can just encode his file and then publish the key somewhere. I think it is also not really anti.filter)
-You can still set size limits for DCS yourself (for now)
-Out of band transactions will encourage miner centralization (very important argument)
-V30 shipped and bitcoin did not die
-the larger default DCS cannot bloat the chain because of the block limit (people tend to forget this. As there are many ways to "spam", the "space for spam" did not increase.)

(anti-knots arguments are not really relevant for me)

Pro-Filters side:

-UTXO spam is the worst kind, and a major reason for the origin of O_R and the expanded cap in DCS (why is this pro-filter?)
-Spam via Taproot changes (ordinals) could be fixed but isn't. Luke made a PR for it.  Why? (Can't be fixed, sorry. The cat can't win against the mouse, the mouse will always be able to chose another format.)
-Why not roll  this out via a series of gradual larger numbers? Much like Satoshi suggested for blocksize back in the day? (I would indeed have suggested a gradual increase, to disincentive a new spam protocol/wave based on the "free press" the NFT guys are getting. Luckily that wave as of now did'nt happen)
-A 100Kb DSC opens known and unknown exploits (like Taproot did) (nope, as it's only policy!)
-We should be REDUCING Bitcoin's attack surface, and this change enlarges it (also nope, the attack surface = "space for spam" does not increase!)
-This is a slippery slope (to where?)
-Why not do the arbitrary data storage on layer 2? (this argument sounds good, but the problem is the spammers don't care. They want to be "on the OG chain". And there is nothing you can do against it, without change to a protocol like Grin)
-The above creates more technical debt (it's the opposite actually)
-Opening up DCS signals intent.  Inviting non financial use cases (This is one of the few anti-change arguments that have some merit. I believe personally that the advantages of the change however outweigh this slight disadvantage. I simply don't believe it matters that much to the "spam camp" if "data storage is now officially allowed". In fact, protocols like Stampchain seem to be proud of their "hack".)
-Contiguous unencrypted data is now easier to store on Bitcoin (Is also true. However irrelevant regarding illegal content, see the example with the "red dots" that circulated in the mailing list discussion.)
-No hacks are needed anymore.  (this is partly true, although the "hacks" are not really limiting spammers. The Ordinals community for example has created a lot of easy to use tools to inscribe whatever stuff.).
-We need to take the time to consider as many second+ order effects before making a change like this (Can partly agree, and see my stance on a gradual increase. However, we are still talking about policy and default values, not about consensus).
-There has not been a good explanation for why 100k (100k is simply the standardness limit per transaction - has a specific name but I forgot it)
-Filters do not need to work perfectly to be worth it (see cat and mouse argument. Yes, if they don't work perfectly a simple protocol change on the spammers' side will be enough.)
-99%+ of O_R were <=80 bytes when that setting was being enforced (because the big NFT protocols used Ordinals and Stampchain)
-Miners can examine and censor illegal data in OOB submissions (slipstream) (no they can't if the spammers encode data!)
-Miners will lose time and therefore money (particularly the block subsidy) if they have to examine large O_Rs so they will not (this contradicts the earlier argument, none of both is true)
-Node runners have a right to decide what they will or will not relay - Soveriegnty (I agree with this so I celebrate that datacarriersize is still there. However, the more specific the filter, the more ineffective it is. See other arguments)
-Spam will put node runners in legal jeopardy (CSAM) (that is not dependant on the way you store it.)
-BSV made the same change and CSAM started filling up blocks (Fee market doesn't work on big block coins, and probably they don't have -- as they don't need -- the Ordinals/Inscriptions protocol.)
-Let miners signal what they would allow for O_R (unsure about that one. However, slipstream-like services are offered by lots of pools so the acceptance for large data transactions should be high.)
-This will not "kill bitcoin" immediately... but as time goes more issues will likely arise.  Some of them possibly dire (just FUD)
-A rich motivated attacker will pay a LOT to attack bitcoin. (ex governments) so fees may not be enough (Rich guys could have had done that since 2009)
-Deprecate O_R entirely? (Ugh, and let Stampchain take over?)
-Various softfork ideas to deal with any problems that the new O_R creates (what do you mean with that?)
-This opens up BTC to serious social attacks and harm the public opinion of it (yeah, somehow. But "this" is the style of the debate, not the change itself. So it's not an pro-filter argument.)
-This change turns Bitcoin into a free open relay for CSAM/malware/arbitrary data. And eternal storage for a small cost. (no! the cost to store data does NOT lower!)

(as with Knots, I ignore the anti-Core arguments.)

I hope that can explain why I'm more leaning pro core 30 and pro OP_RETURN increase.

[cAPSLOCK]

I am willing to wait and see if this 1 upgrade makes a solid mess. or not.

BTW a dump/bear may not be enough to claim it was wrong as bears have shown up without code wrecks.

Not cutting most of your stuff out of disrespect just out of clarity.

I personally don't think we're going to see any major issues because of the enlarged datacarrier.  A lot of what people are howling about out there are really worst case scenarios, in my opinion.  But on the other hand, why tempt fate, right? I mean, there are many people that would like to see Bitcoin fail.

Even to the use of space on the block chain. These changes can only make it more efficient.  If people move from abusing tap root hacks into op_return...  blocks will actually get smaller.  Of course, at the same time, they are financially incentivized to not do that by the Segwit discount.

And I would agree that price is probably not the metric to base the bet on.

In fact, it's hard for me to come up with something appropriate. I think the closest thing would be a certain amount of data that meets some criteria of offensiveness.

[cAPSLOCK]

From cAPSLOCKs list, I highlight those arguments out that matter (bold) and those who are most frequently misunderstood (in italics). I deleted those who are irrelevant, duplicates or are brung up by both sides.

(from the point of view not of an expert but advanced user who has read some stuff about the issue).

_____

I hope that can explain why I'm more leaning pro core 30 and pro OP_RETURN increase.

I truly appreciate the good faith interchange and frankly agree with many of your annotations.

When I made this list, I tried to be clear that I was not weighting any of the points, but just trying to exhaustively list them.  Some of the points on each side are ridiculous. Others are extremely compelling.

But the importance is in the eye of the beholder, of course.

I have mentioned that I was going to highlight the left/right argument that has emerged out there in the wild.  I am pulling back on this because I feel like as long as people are hot outlining those sorts of differences is just like throwing gas on a fire.

But I will say this, and this takes it a step away from the realm of politics.  The more conservative bitcoins users would like Bitcoin to be a single purpose protocol and they tend to lean towards ossification.  And the more liberal Bitcoiners tend to want to tear down barriers and make progress on the protocol.

In some ways, I think it actually is an extremely powerful way to frame this divide.

[El duderino_]

Always pray for AA.
Then praying for action.
And last, pray they hold.

[Satofan44]

Having been a betting man from time to time in my life, (in fact, placing bets is how I earned the majority of the Bitcoin I hold.) I can tell you that if you guys really mean for this to be a meaningful bet, you have to set very clear parameters for what is a win and what is a loss.

Proposition bets without parameters end up in the arguments about, well, that's not what I meant, or that's not what I think it was, or you didn't this or that, whatever.

Examples of clear parameters for such bets could be the price will be x.  Or you could set a number of kilobytes of pornography that are loaded into the new "opera-turns" and once it crosses a threshold the bet is satisfied. Similarly, if it does not cross that threshold by a particular date, the bet is satisfied.

Again, to you, just saying "nothing bad will happen before next January," for example, won't lead to any conclusion.

It can be anything you want, but the devil is in the details for proposition bets. If you don't know what you're betting on, then I don't know how you resolve the bet, really.

Anyone is free to make a list of potential scenarios under which either side wins if they want to expand on this. I offered the deal in good faith, if anything major does happen as a consequence of this I will accept that I was wrong. As I said before, it would be better for everyone if I do not end up being wrong.

But I will say this, and this takes it a step away from the realm of politics.  The more conservative bitcoins users would like Bitcoin to be a single purpose protocol and they tend to lean towards ossification.  And the more liberal Bitcoiners tend to want to tear down barriers and make progress on the protocol.

In some ways, I think it actually is an extremely powerful way to frame this divide.

Maybe. I consider myself extremely conservative on many issues and liberal on others though. I do not see a way to make Bitcoin a single purpose protocol without creating an Orwellian nightmare. You can create limitations of all sorts, but those motivated will find ways around them and will still use it how they want to use it. If there was a good way to do this, I would reconsider but I don't see a technological solution by anyone on any side.

Why fight a battle that can't be won? We don't have other pressing issues? This year was full of distractions from quantum computers to this, many different parties are attacking Bitcoin with FUD propaganda.

[d_eddie]

I disagree with your conclusions, but I do appreciate the calm, objective and concise layout of your points.

From cAPSLOCKs list, I highlight those arguments out that matter (bold) and those who are most frequently misunderstood (in italics). I deleted those who are irrelevant, duplicates or are brung up by both sides.

(from the point of view not of an expert but advanced user who has read some stuff about the issue).

Abbevs:  
O_R- op return
DCS Datacarrier size

The anti-filters points:

-UTXO spam is the worst kind, and a major reason for the origin of O_R and the expanded cap in DCS
-Everyone should be able to choose how they use bitcoin.
-If we filter what can go in a mempool we are damaging Bitcoin's censorship resistance - imo not a good argument, as censorship isn't about a transaction format but about addresses/keys
-The fee market will drive spammers to other chains
-O_R is prunable
-The change aligns relay and miner policy and ("default relay" instead of relay)
-The market is demanding space for arbitrary data storage
-Filtering is an unwinnable cat and mouse game
-Even if core did not change librerelay is the tolerant minority and the cat is out of the bag basically
-There is already spam on the blockchain
-There is no way to stop spammers
-Most users are not knowledgeable enough to really understand the issue, game theory, or implications (true, but isn't an argument here)
-Filters cause node's mempools to be vastly different which has disadvantages (the "disadvantage" can significantly increase resource consumption, harming decentralization)
-Mempool normalization makes fee and block estimation more accurate
-The change is harm reduction if spammers use O_R rather than witness space or fake pubkeys.
-This is policy, not consensus. Therefore not as big a deal as the blocksize war for example
-Miners will take money to include transactions directly (Slipstream API)
-Miners will not store illegal files because they are filtering (ex. Slipstream TOS) (this is not a good argument. The illegal content spammer can just encode his file and then publish the key somewhere. I think it is also not really anti.filter)
-You can still set size limits for DCS yourself (for now)
-Out of band transactions will encourage miner centralization (very important argument)
-V30 shipped and bitcoin did not die
-the larger default DCS cannot bloat the chain because of the block limit (people tend to forget this. As there are many ways to "spam", the "space for spam" did not increase.)

(anti-knots arguments are not really relevant for me)

Pro-Filters side:

-UTXO spam is the worst kind, and a major reason for the origin of O_R and the expanded cap in DCS (why is this pro-filter?)
-Spam via Taproot changes (ordinals) could be fixed but isn't. Luke made a PR for it.  Why? (Can't be fixed, sorry. The cat can't win against the mouse, the mouse will always be able to chose another format.)
-Why not roll  this out via a series of gradual larger numbers? Much like Satoshi suggested for blocksize back in the day? (I would indeed have suggested a gradual increase, to disincentive a new spam protocol/wave based on the "free press" the NFT guys are getting. Luckily that wave as of now did'nt happen)
-A 100Kb DSC opens known and unknown exploits (like Taproot did) (nope, as it's only policy!)
-We should be REDUCING Bitcoin's attack surface, and this change enlarges it (also nope, the attack surface = "space for spam" does not increase!)
-This is a slippery slope (to where?)
-Why not do the arbitrary data storage on layer 2? (this argument sounds good, but the problem is the spammers don't care. They want to be "on the OG chain". And there is nothing you can do against it, without change to a protocol like Grin)
-The above creates more technical debt (it's the opposite actually)
-Opening up DCS signals intent.  Inviting non financial use cases (This is one of the few anti-change arguments that have some merit. I believe personally that the advantages of the change however outweigh this slight disadvantage. I simply don't believe it matters that much to the "spam camp" if "data storage is now officially allowed". In fact, protocols like Stampchain seem to be proud of their "hack".)
-Contiguous unencrypted data is now easier to store on Bitcoin (Is also true. However irrelevant regarding illegal content, see the example with the "red dots" that circulated in the mailing list discussion.)
-No hacks are needed anymore.  (this is partly true, although the "hacks" are not really limiting spammers. The Ordinals community for example has created a lot of easy to use tools to inscribe whatever stuff.).
-We need to take the time to consider as many second+ order effects before making a change like this (Can partly agree, and see my stance on a gradual increase. However, we are still talking about policy and default values, not about consensus).
-There has not been a good explanation for why 100k (100k is simply the standardness limit per transaction - has a specific name but I forgot it)
-Filters do not need to work perfectly to be worth it (see cat and mouse argument. Yes, if they don't work perfectly a simple protocol change on the spammers' side will be enough.)
-99%+ of O_R were <=80 bytes when that setting was being enforced (because the big NFT protocols used Ordinals and Stampchain)
-Miners can examine and censor illegal data in OOB submissions (slipstream) (no they can't if the spammers encode data!)
-Miners will lose time and therefore money (particularly the block subsidy) if they have to examine large O_Rs so they will not (this contradicts the earlier argument, none of both is true)
-Node runners have a right to decide what they will or will not relay - Soveriegnty (I agree with this so I celebrate that datacarriersize is still there. However, the more specific the filter, the more ineffective it is. See other arguments)
-Spam will put node runners in legal jeopardy (CSAM) (that is not dependant on the way you store it.)
-BSV made the same change and CSAM started filling up blocks (Fee market doesn't work on big block coins, and probably they don't have -- as they don't need -- the Ordinals/Inscriptions protocol.)
-Let miners signal what they would allow for O_R (unsure about that one. However, slipstream-like services are offered by lots of pools so the acceptance for large data transactions should be high.)
-This will not "kill bitcoin" immediately... but as time goes more issues will likely arise.  Some of them possibly dire (just FUD)
-A rich motivated attacker will pay a LOT to attack bitcoin. (ex governments) so fees may not be enough (Rich guys could have had done that since 2009)
-Deprecate O_R entirely? (Ugh, and let Stampchain take over?)
-Various softfork ideas to deal with any problems that the new O_R creates (what do you mean with that?)
-This opens up BTC to serious social attacks and harm the public opinion of it (yeah, somehow. But "this" is the style of the debate, not the change itself. So it's not an pro-filter argument.)
-This change turns Bitcoin into a free open relay for CSAM/malware/arbitrary data. And eternal storage for a small cost. (no! the cost to store data does NOT lower!)

(as with Knots, I ignore the anti-Core arguments.)

I hope that can explain why I'm more leaning pro core 30 and pro OP_RETURN increase.

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation
Chartbuddy thanks talkimg.com

[OgNasty]

44% = >$130K  (up 2%)
*25% = $90K-$130K  (up 3%)
31% = <$90K   (down 5%)

*inferred

Another Polymarket update. You can see the market continues to get more bullish with nearly half of people now thinking we are headed to $130K and beyond this year. With Polymarket having a 95% accuracy reading a month out and percentages rising for $130K BTC, it is highly likely that we see another big rally before Christmas.

47% = >$130K  (up 3%)
*32% = $90K-$130K  (up 7%)
21% = <$90K   (down 10%)

*inferred

[Biodom]

I know that it is not a popular opinion, but adding some privacy to transactions might be needed (at some point).
Otherwise, some alternatives would become progressively popular, especially for financial types aka Wall Street.
...for p2p or exchange tx, it mostly does not matter, so bitcoin would remain dominant.

Another Polymarket update. You can see the market continues to get more bullish with nearly half of people now thinking we are headed to $130K and beyond this year. With Polymarket having a 95% accuracy reading a month out and percentages rising for $130K BTC, it is highly likely that we see another big rally before Christmas.

47% = >$130K  (up 3%)
*32% = $90K-$130K  (up 7%)
21% = <$90K   (down 10%)

*inferred

I wonder how this computes into our bettors chances here...
If nothing "bad" transpires on 10/30 (maybe a coin toss, lol), then it is still in the air as to who will win in a "battle" for 100K sats.

[Greyhats]

Not too far off a monthly green close, be interesting of it plays out and fomo gets going next month.

[philipma1957]

why do i feel like a food fight will happen any second now

Do you want some brisket? All the extra OP_RETURN space is making me hungry.

I have just a little left over brisket I will finish it with my wife tonight.

Tomorrow chicken drumsticks, tomato sauce, chickpeas, cannelli beans, onions, peppers, celery.  And Pete's pasta.. oh some parmesan grated cheese.

The key for me is the pasta as it is designed to be okay for diabetes like me.

BTW the brisket is really nice. Wife and I knocked off 4.5 pounds of it.

[Biodom]

why do i feel like a food fight will happen any second now

Do you want some brisket? All the extra OP_RETURN space is making me hungry.

I have just a little left over brisket I will finish it with my wife tonight.

Tomorrow chicken drumsticks, tomato sauce, chickpeas, cannelli beans, onions, peppers, celery.  And Pete's pasta.. oh some parmesan grated cheese.

The key for me is the pasta as it is designed to be okay for diabetes like me.

BTW the brisket is really nice. Wife and I knocked off 4.5 pounds of it.

According to browser AI (who knows what it is?)..4.5lb of cooked brisket is about 10,000 calories.
Should be enough calories for two days for an active man a women pair.
Bon appetite!

[Biodom]

can bitcoin market
survive the upcoming talks?
perhaps, hopefully

#Sunday cautious haiku

I would reduce leverage, though, if you have it...not an investment advice, just sharing my opinion.

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation
Chartbuddy thanks talkimg.com

[Franklyn-wood]

can bitcoin market
survive the upcoming talks?
perhaps, hopefully

#Sunday cautious haiku

I would reduce leverage, though, if you have it...not an investment advice, just sharing my opinion.

uncertainty = Panics
This is the time to stand strong no matter what happens to our royal Bitcoin.
There is always a new day after the stormy night.
The night might looks unending but joy cometh soon...

Happy Sunday to all Bitcoin hodlers!

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation
Chartbuddy thanks talkimg.com

[OgNasty]

why do i feel like a food fight will happen any second now

Do you want some brisket? All the extra OP_RETURN space is making me hungry.

With all that extra space you could throw ASCII images of brisket at each other on the blockchain. Just what I always wanted to use Bitcoin for!

On a side note… I’m becoming addicted to brisket. I’ve never really gravitated to it before but after a few years of eating pulled pork everything, I feel like brisket is the next step for me.