Explanation
Chartbuddy thanks talkimg.com
Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 1425. (Read 26720873 times)
December 18, 2023, 04:03:24 AM
December 18, 2023, 03:01:14 AM
December 18, 2023, 02:20:58 AM
ChartBuddy's 24 hour Wall Observation recap
.
.
.
. December 18, 2023, 02:03:21 AM
December 18, 2023, 01:49:05 AM
Happy Birthday Hodl!
December 18, 2023, 01:01:18 AM
December 18, 2023, 12:01:15 AM
December 17, 2023, 11:56:04 PM
.....That is an unstoppable method. ( I can not conceive of a fix for this) .....
[edited out]
Remember somewhere around late 2022, you said that a guy with 100 BTC should sell his BTC or some kind of bullshit like that because it was not a good thing to be holding so many BTC... and it seems to me that right around 68 BTC puts a guy at default entry-level fuck you status, and surely even in the coming year or two, it may well end up playing out that less than 50 BTC puts a guy at default entry-level fuck you status (and that is referring to the 200-week moving average price and the seemingly likely future 200-week moving average price that continues to move up)..
To me, it seems good to be holding value in BTC, and yeah, it is likely better to have some other options so that you are not necessarily forced to spend BTC at a time that is anything but your own choosing, but even a guy with 100 BTC right now might choose to shave off 1% of his BTC holdings for the quarter (that is 4% for the year) (right around 1 BTC, and perhaps good for a quarter or two of living expenses, depending on his budget.. and yeah it may be a supplement income and may or may not be his primary income, and surely if he is nervous about if there might be times that he is able to spend his bitcoin directly, then he might just shave off larger amounts at a time.. those are personal choices and may or may not play out very well for a guy trying to figure out sustainability, but even if the guy with 100 BTC ONLY cashes out one month at a time, then maybe he would cash out 0.33 BTC (which is 0.33% - and also a 4% per year rate), and that still is $13.5K for the month, and I am even in recent times thinking that 6-10% might be acceptable and sustainable rates in bitcoin.. but surely we still have to be careful, and it is probably safer to stick with the more conservative withdrawal rates of 4%, but there might be some months that a guy might want to splurge and to live it up a bit more than his usual budget 4% per year or 0.33% per month.. not that longer term bitcoiners necessarily are not used to already living within their means.
Of course, the guy with 50 BTC would have half of a budget as compared with the guy with 100 BTC, and the guy with 50 is not quite at entry-level fuck you status, as the guy with 68 BTC would be just reaching entry level fuck you status. So whether at any of those rates, if a guy is cashing out 0.33% of his BTC every month, and then if he might have to pay a $50 fee because he did not plan in advance, then I still doubt that it is that BIG of a deal, and there could be circumstances to cash out several months in advance or even a year in advance, and I see no reason to be worked up about whether you are able to use your BTC, merely because you might not feel it is affordable to be using your BTC for smaller transactions of perhaps less than $500 at a time.. unless maybe you were using lighting network or some other second layer solution.
If the largest pool can do what I am telling it looks like they are doing you are likely a bit defensive.
I take what you are saying with a grain of salt because even if I don't know a lot of technicals, I know that you are full of shit a lot of the time and you miss quite a few variables, including I saw some other posts in which you suggested that some miners would withdraw their hashrate, and then why aren't they doing it? the hashrate continues to go up, and sure every once in a while there are empty blocks, but most of the blocks are full of transactions and it seems that the transactions paying the highest fees are getting processed first, and so how urgent is it for any of us to do our bitcoin transaction? is it a big transaction that I would do on chain or might I have lighting or some other second layer as an option.
Yeah, poor people might have to adjust their behaviors, and they might be in a bad situation if they have a bunch of UTXOs with values that are less than $500....and will these high fees clear or not.. In spite of your speculations of supposed manipulation, I have no reason to believe that fees are going to stay in the supra 100 sats per vbyte and higher range on an ongoing basis.. but let's see how long it lasts.
All I have heard is btc btc btc btc from you.
I am glad that you accept that we are in a BTC thread.. so you want to talk about shitcoins? or what?
and thats fine. I am simply saying.
oh? I am glad you are so accepting of talking about BTC in these here parts.
the method I speak of is pretty much something btc is not able to correct at this moment it time.
We need to take out some popcorn and watch the action.
Consider that the large mines have billions invested they found an angle and are playing with it.
We have not seen these dynamics.
We need to take out some popcorn and watch the action.
Consider that the large mines have billions invested they found an angle and are playing with it.
We have not seen these dynamics.
Yes.. maybe they will continue to manipulate the BTC fees up, and only the rich will be able to transact on the BTC layer 1, and you are not the first person who has made these kinds of claims, so it is not like I am shocked by what you are saying and/or what we are seeing. I get the sense that you are gloating rather than really wanting to talk about anything meaningful...and you are reading me as someone who is upset about high fees, as if it breaks my investment thesis or some other dumb and not-very-well specified conjectures about how I am supposedly wrong about something and you are right... and I don't even get why your wanting to be right is such a BIG deal for you.. It's not really that charming of a characteristic... but whatever, you do you.
driving fees up
I think this is what's currently holding back the Bitcoin rally. The amount of transactions piling up in the mempool is indeed becoming a problem. The average transaction today seems to be costing more than $50. That's a lot of money to spend just to be able to spend money. As a vendor who sells items that cost less than that for BTC I can tell you that there are indeed consequences in the Bitcoin economy when this happens. It's typically something you see happen at the peak of cycles, so it's troublesome that outrageous fees are already hurting the blockchain. Maybe someday people will break Bitcoin free from it's Blockstream chains and let it do what it was meant to.Should be very very very happy by June or not .
Meanwhile the mine is whaling this month will be our best since early 2022.
Yes, we know that miners are doing very well this month, and they also did quite well in 2021, so there is nothing wrong with that. But I bet you are not doing as well as you would have done if you would have hung onto an extra 100 BTC at anytime between 2011 and 2015? and you could have had done it quite easily, except you did not believe in holding BTC during that time, and you claim that you did not really start to believe in holding BTC since 2017.. but I even have my doubts about those kinds of claims since you probably could have been accumulating more BTC, but you have been bragging about buying so much extra mining equipment in the last few years, you don't stop with your bragging about buying mining equipment rather than just holding BTC if you really believed in holding BTC like you claim to have said was your conversion since 2017, supposedly. I am not going to speculate how many BTC that you have but I doubt that it is even close to where it should be if you were really transformed into believing in BTC since 2017 as you supposedly claim to have had converted into a HODLer since then... I doubt it., which is likely part of the reason why you are still having to work into your late 60s rather than chilling out and just living off of passive income from your BTC (yes BTC can also supplement other income that you have). .. but whatever again, I am really not trying to be judgmental except when you get into this gloating kind of mood it is a bit irritating.. because sure, I am glad that miners are out there and doing those kinds of services.. and whether you really want to be doing it or not might be another story..
I don't think it is necessarily a good thing, even though you claim to like doing it... so to each their own.
place your bets. will 40 k hold..
I am getting the sense that it is greater than 50% that it will not hold, but I am not sure how far below $40k.. maybe I will just stick with my earlier assertion of don't wake me up between $35k and $55k, so getting into the upper $30ks will not surprise me.. but I might start to get excited if we start to get close to $35k, even though that is also not out of the question, since we started out this particular price rise from $27k in mid October, but really I cannot go there.. and let's just stick with thinking absent some unusual strange happenings that there is likely pretty decent support in the mid $30ks...and now that we are here - down to $40,783 in the last couple of hyours, the odds of going below $40k and even below $39k is greater than 50%.
December 17, 2023, 11:02:07 PM
Not the answer your asked for. But I think at that time we might have something like entangled quantum (instant) communication without any delay.
They are basically the same thing, but wormholes are much cooler.
December 17, 2023, 11:01:14 PM
December 17, 2023, 11:00:04 PM
Jeff Bezos and others are talking about 1 tril humans living in the Solar system (mostly on O'Neill cylindrical colonies, depicted in the "Intrastellar" movie):
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/jeff-bezos-plays-down-ai-dangers-and-says-a-trillion-humans-could-live-in-huge-cylindrical-space-stations-78058437
My question is: what would be the longest distance of such colony to Earth (or maybe between different colonies) to still maintain a common bitcoin ledger?
I am not exactly sure how nodes "decide" which miner was the first to the block.
For example if one miner is on The Moon, which is 1.28 sec away by the light pulse: would that miner always lag and, therefore, not able to claim a block?
Or, is there a 'compensation' mechanism that would take the 1.28 sec delay into the account (in case of a Moon miner)?
Of course 1.28 sec is much less than 10min between blocks, so theoretically, this still can be sorted IF there is a mechanism to compensate for that 1.28 sec delay due to the speed of light transmission limit.
I also found this description (https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/84412/how-does-a-node-decide-whether-a-block-is-valid):
The problem is with the term "at the same" time, imho. Relative to what?
In any case, if this cannot be counteracted, then only the O'Neill structures that are closer than Moon to earth could participate, but I doubt that they could be allowed in such a close proximity because of a possibility of those structures colliding with Earth (if they would be built so close).
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/jeff-bezos-plays-down-ai-dangers-and-says-a-trillion-humans-could-live-in-huge-cylindrical-space-stations-78058437
My question is: what would be the longest distance of such colony to Earth (or maybe between different colonies) to still maintain a common bitcoin ledger?
I am not exactly sure how nodes "decide" which miner was the first to the block.
For example if one miner is on The Moon, which is 1.28 sec away by the light pulse: would that miner always lag and, therefore, not able to claim a block?
Or, is there a 'compensation' mechanism that would take the 1.28 sec delay into the account (in case of a Moon miner)?
Of course 1.28 sec is much less than 10min between blocks, so theoretically, this still can be sorted IF there is a mechanism to compensate for that 1.28 sec delay due to the speed of light transmission limit.
I also found this description (https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/84412/how-does-a-node-decide-whether-a-block-is-valid):
Quote
This is also true in a tie. If two blocks are mined by different miners at the same time, each participant assumes that the first block they received is the valid one, and they continue the Proof-of-Work process from this valid block. The next miner to create a valid block ends the tie by creating the longer chain, and any miner who was working on a block other than the one referred to in the new block's header will discard the work they have done so far on the shorter chain, and continue working on the longer chain.
The problem is with the term "at the same" time, imho. Relative to what?
In any case, if this cannot be counteracted, then only the O'Neill structures that are closer than Moon to earth could participate, but I doubt that they could be allowed in such a close proximity because of a possibility of those structures colliding with Earth (if they would be built so close).
https://unchained.com/blog/law-of-hash-horizons/
Quote
The Muskcoin Revolution of 2140
In our view, Clark is partially right. Earth will remain the dominant bitcoin mining planet. But one day Martians will stage a revolution in support of their own token: Muskcoin. If they succeed, then Mars will become the dominant Muskcoin mining planet. The Muskcoin Revolution of 2140 will become a template for other colonies of Earth to follow, just like the American Revolution of 1776 was in its age.
Why Martians will want Muskcoin
Transaction without settlement is tyranny.
– Martian revolutionary slogan, 2138
In our view, Clark is partially right. Earth will remain the dominant bitcoin mining planet. But one day Martians will stage a revolution in support of their own token: Muskcoin. If they succeed, then Mars will become the dominant Muskcoin mining planet. The Muskcoin Revolution of 2140 will become a template for other colonies of Earth to follow, just like the American Revolution of 1776 was in its age.
Why Martians will want Muskcoin
Transaction without settlement is tyranny.
– Martian revolutionary slogan, 2138
Quote
After the revolution, everyone will understand that successful human colonies near locations with abundant natural resources that are able to attract settlers and build industry will launch their own blockchains once they have sufficient political will and hashrate. Indeed, becoming a peer in the Solchain network will become the definition of what it means to be a successful colony.
December 17, 2023, 10:32:08 PM
Jeff Bezos and others are talking about 1 tril humans living in the Solar system (mostly on O'Neill cylindrical colonies, depicted in the "Intrastellar" movie):
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/jeff-bezos-plays-down-ai-dangers-and-says-a-trillion-humans-could-live-in-huge-cylindrical-space-stations-78058437
My question is: what would be the longest distance of such colony to Earth (or maybe between different colonies) to still maintain a common bitcoin ledger?
I am not exactly sure how nodes "decide" which miner was the first to the block.
For example if one miner is on The Moon, which is 1.28 sec away by the light pulse: would that miner always lag and, therefore, not able to claim a block?
Or, is there a 'compensation' mechanism that would take the 1.28 sec delay into the account (in case of a Moon miner)?
Of course 1.28 sec is much less than 10min between blocks, so theoretically, this still can be sorted IF there is a mechanism to compensate for that 1.28 sec delay due to the speed of light transmission limit.
I also found this description (https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/84412/how-does-a-node-decide-whether-a-block-is-valid):
The problem is with the term "at the same" time, imho. Relative to what?
In any case, if this cannot be counteracted, then only the O'Neill structures that are closer than Moon to earth could participate, but I doubt that they could be allowed in such a close proximity because of a possibility of those structures colliding with Earth (if they would be built so close).
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/jeff-bezos-plays-down-ai-dangers-and-says-a-trillion-humans-could-live-in-huge-cylindrical-space-stations-78058437
My question is: what would be the longest distance of such colony to Earth (or maybe between different colonies) to still maintain a common bitcoin ledger?
I am not exactly sure how nodes "decide" which miner was the first to the block.
For example if one miner is on The Moon, which is 1.28 sec away by the light pulse: would that miner always lag and, therefore, not able to claim a block?
Or, is there a 'compensation' mechanism that would take the 1.28 sec delay into the account (in case of a Moon miner)?
Of course 1.28 sec is much less than 10min between blocks, so theoretically, this still can be sorted IF there is a mechanism to compensate for that 1.28 sec delay due to the speed of light transmission limit.
I also found this description (https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/84412/how-does-a-node-decide-whether-a-block-is-valid):
Quote
This is also true in a tie. If two blocks are mined by different miners at the same time, each participant assumes that the first block they received is the valid one, and they continue the Proof-of-Work process from this valid block. The next miner to create a valid block ends the tie by creating the longer chain, and any miner who was working on a block other than the one referred to in the new block's header will discard the work they have done so far on the shorter chain, and continue working on the longer chain.
The problem is with the term "at the same" time, imho. Relative to what?
In any case, if this cannot be counteracted, then only the O'Neill structures that are closer than Moon to earth could participate, but I doubt that they could be allowed in such a close proximity because of a possibility of those structures colliding with Earth (if they would be built so close).
Not the answer your asked for. But I think at that time we might have something like entangled quantum (instant) communication without any delay.
December 17, 2023, 10:23:24 PM
Jeff Bezos and others are talking about 1 tril humans living in the Solar system (mostly on O'Neill cylindrical colonies, depicted in the "Intrastellar" movie):
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/jeff-bezos-plays-down-ai-dangers-and-says-a-trillion-humans-could-live-in-huge-cylindrical-space-stations-78058437
My question is: what would be the longest distance of such colony to Earth (or maybe between different colonies) to still maintain a common bitcoin ledger?
I am not exactly sure how nodes "decide" which miner was the first to the block.
For example if one miner is on The Moon, which is 1.28 sec away by the light pulse: would that miner always lag and, therefore, not able to claim a block?
Or, is there a 'compensation' mechanism that would take the 1.28 sec delay into the account (in case of a Moon miner)?
Of course 1.28 sec is much less than 10min between blocks, so theoretically, this still can be sorted IF there is a mechanism to compensate for that 1.28 sec delay due to the speed of light transmission limit.
I also found this description (https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/84412/how-does-a-node-decide-whether-a-block-is-valid):
The problem is with the term "at the same" time, imho. Relative to what?
In any case, if this cannot be counteracted, then only the O'Neill structures that are closer than Moon to earth could participate, but I doubt that they could be allowed in such a close proximity because of a possibility of those structures colliding with Earth (if they would be built so close).
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/jeff-bezos-plays-down-ai-dangers-and-says-a-trillion-humans-could-live-in-huge-cylindrical-space-stations-78058437
My question is: what would be the longest distance of such colony to Earth (or maybe between different colonies) to still maintain a common bitcoin ledger?
I am not exactly sure how nodes "decide" which miner was the first to the block.
For example if one miner is on The Moon, which is 1.28 sec away by the light pulse: would that miner always lag and, therefore, not able to claim a block?
Or, is there a 'compensation' mechanism that would take the 1.28 sec delay into the account (in case of a Moon miner)?
Of course 1.28 sec is much less than 10min between blocks, so theoretically, this still can be sorted IF there is a mechanism to compensate for that 1.28 sec delay due to the speed of light transmission limit.
I also found this description (https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/84412/how-does-a-node-decide-whether-a-block-is-valid):
Quote
This is also true in a tie. If two blocks are mined by different miners at the same time, each participant assumes that the first block they received is the valid one, and they continue the Proof-of-Work process from this valid block. The next miner to create a valid block ends the tie by creating the longer chain, and any miner who was working on a block other than the one referred to in the new block's header will discard the work they have done so far on the shorter chain, and continue working on the longer chain.
The problem is with the term "at the same" time, imho. Relative to what?
In any case, if this cannot be counteracted, then only the O'Neill structures that are closer than Moon to earth could participate, but I doubt that they could be allowed in such a close proximity because of a possibility of those structures colliding with Earth (if they would be built so close).
December 17, 2023, 10:17:30 PM
https://mempool.space/block/000000000000000000008ed27e5d18709c450b78367df4bfbf37dd7b9a1fb6ec
Fees are more than block rewards! mempool cost is crazy at the moment!
Is this a way to artificially suppress the price…
Fees are more than block rewards! mempool cost is crazy at the moment!
Is this a way to artificially suppress the price…
Apologies if my previous post unintentionally steered into 'shitcoinery' and miner conspiracy theories. I was simply contemplating the ripple effects of a bloated mempool and skyrocketing fees.
While the overall creation of new Bitcoin remains unchanged, what does shift is the movement of existing bitcoins. Particularly, when these transactions involve groups necessitating liquidation for operational costs, one can't help but ponder the potential impact on the price.
On the surface, the addition of 6.5 extra Bitcoins per block, or 936 Bitcoins daily, may not seem monumental. However, when you convert that to a daily liquidation or profit-taking scenario, we're talking about roughly $38,000,000 USD per day.
P.S.: Work has been exceptionally demanding lately, and I'm aware some have responded to my earlier post. Regrettably, I haven't had the time to follow up. Appreciate your understanding!
December 17, 2023, 10:16:56 PM
chart looks quite dumpy
December 17, 2023, 10:11:27 PM
December 17, 2023, 10:10:40 PM
Floating in limbo
Moving coin is expensive
End of 23
#haiku
Moving coin is expensive
End of 23
#haiku
December 17, 2023, 10:04:41 PM
place your bets. will 40 k hold..
December 17, 2023, 10:03:29 PM
Mow says: a million
weeks after ETF release
a party so soon?
#haiku
weeks after ETF release
a party so soon?
#haiku
that would be so nice
but I just can't believe it
but then.. it's bitcoin
December 17, 2023, 10:01:18 PM
Jump to: