Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 15958. (Read 26585963 times)

Sounds a bit like "they" want to make "order out of chaos" (for them of course)

In support for BTC and very much how I think about it. And confirming what most users think about all the forks and other fuzz to solve "Des maladies imaginaires".

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-11-07/bitcoin-digital-gold

So the real question is this. At what point in Bitcoin's history do people start to realize that all these contentious, unwanted, and unwarranted forks are simply FUD attacks? None of these forks are majority user-driven or majority user-supported. None of the users asked for them and none of them care.

Bitcoin is not a stock. In the stock market, the made up enemies of a company's stock are like quarterly earnings rumors, worries about competitors, corporate takeover threats, internal shakeups, etc. The FUDsters and shorters use this 'false' FUD to create volatility around certain stocks, but at the end of the day it's all pretty much short term made up bullshit.

Bitcoin is not a company, has no CEO or employees, and has no quarterly earnings. So for the whale FUDsters to create volatility, they need to "create" threats out of thin air, so thus we get unwanted contentious forks, govt banning threats, negative MSM articles, miner hostile activity, glitzy shitcoin ponzi scams (distraction), worry about alts taking away market share (distraction), etc. They used to hack exchanges to create this volatility, but that threat is pretty much over now.

Otherwise Bitcoin would have no enemies and no worries. Zero. Just bullish sentiment and everyone in the industry would be behind it 100%. But this does not work for the establishment. They can't have that, won't allow a feeling of positivity and contentment around Bitcoin. They must create new FUD and attacks every month it is alive.

 Love the picture!

They've released the specs for their futures
http://www.cmegroup.com/trading/bitcoin-futures.html
... Special price fluctuation limits equal to 7% above and below prior settlement price and 13% above and below prior settlement price and a price limit of 20% above or below the previous settlement price. Trading will not be permitted outside the 20% above and below prior settlement price. ...

yeah. Thats what i dont understand. Someone is pushing hard for b2x , but there are actually very few bitcoiners supporting it. And I have noticed lack of people promoting it, compared to BCH and BTG. I smell rats

As I already stated, I simply disagree with your attempt to describe some kind of rhetorical equality. 

There are attacks on the true and real bitcoin and anyhow, I already said what I had meant to say, so I doubt that there is anything further that is necessary from my end, because whatever you said does not help your case, including your supposed "in your face" retort that has NOT actually retorted anything of any substantial or material significance.   

let's make bitcoin great again!

Why should there be very many B2x supporters in this thread or any thread that has actual bitcoin holders?  

B2x is an attack on bitcoin, and it seems to be an attempt to dilute bitcoin, cause confusion and potentially undermine value of the golden goose....

A large number of us in this thread have bought into bitcoin, and even likely for many years, and even perhaps just in the past year the value of bitcoin has gone up a lot, so incumbent holders of bitcoin should not appreciate sabotage attempts, right?

no, if it's not mostly wash trading.

Yeah... they seem to be saying.. Let's make some shit up and act as if a decentralized system is really centralized, and then after that, we will get rid of that decentralized system by saying that we are creating a more decentralized system, even though we are not.  In other words, we want to put in charge a small group of incompetent goofballs to be the "new and improved bitcoin."     In other words, not meaning to bring politics into this, but it is difficult to resist.. Let's bring in a self-absorbed narcisist in to run the new bitcoin, such as Donald Trump, he will fix everything...

hahahahahaha       go figure.

But still, 3rd biggest market cap isn't too shabby.

"exist" as in mined stop & go by "unknown" and traded almost exclusively on a korean exchange, most likely by just some whale insiders taking advantage of the few fools trying to trade it short term and getting REKT.

Look at you jojo69... trying to cut me off at the pass.   

Actually, I cannot really fault you, if you feel a bit more comfortable to skim a little bit of extra fiat off in this $6900 to $7500 price range.

Within this price range my sell and buy increments are stuck in the middle of transitioning from $200 increments to $250 increments and I am kind of in a bit of limbo in this transitioning... since the price seems to be kind of stuck... If we go up, then my orders will graduate to $250 increments, but if we go down, then they will stay in their pre-graduate state of $200 increments.

Anyhow, since I am currently trading on 4 exchanges, in about the past 5 days, I have experienced the execution of several sell and buy orders from the bouncing around within this $6900 to $7500 price range, and so far I am keeping to my already pre-established strategy, and perhaps I am a bit afraid to shave too much extra off, here, even though I understand why it could be prudent to engage in a bit of extra shaving off here.

I think that part of my shaving off reluctancy is that a very large proportion of my order book transactional history shows predominantly sales all the fucking way up from $3k to $7500...   Remember the mid September dip from $4980 to $2970?    We largely have not had any meaningful and significant dip since then, and so therefore, my current inventory of fiat seems sufficiently large, and I don't really feel as if I need more of the stuff.... I guess in the end, I am engaging in discretion, and I certainly understand that the discretion of others could reasonably differ significantly from mine, especially on this point and especially if they may have not been continuously cashing out along the way up, as I had been. 

I'm a bit suprised by the venom in your response Jay. No offense was intended. Only to make a point that the segwit branch is just as much a fork as so called 'altcash' or 'bcash' (see what I did there). If there was such a consensus as you describe then bitcoin cash would not exist. Yet it does.  In your face.

You may want to check this : https://bitcointechtalk.com/how-to-protect-against-replay-attacks-7a00bd2fe52f

Thank you very much

    What is a transaction replay?

In the context of forks, transaction replay is when a transaction is valid on both sides of the fork. So a transaction can be played (i.e. broadcast) on both chains after the fork and be a valid transaction and confirm. This means that if you intend on sending coins on one fork, you could accidentally end up sending your coins on the other fork as well since someone else could take your transaction and replay it (i.e. broadcast it) on the other chain's network.

    What does replay protection do?

Replay protection is something that makes it so that transactions on one chain are invalid on the other chain thus preventing transaction replay. This can be anything from having a blacklisted address or output type (e.g. if an output to address X is in the transaction, consider it invalid) to changing the signature scheme to changing the transaction format entirely. All this does it makes replaying some or all transactions impossible.
https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/61212/what-is-transaction-replay-and-replay-protection

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/segwit2x-and-case-strong-replay-protection-and-why-its-controversial/

I have a feeling I don't quite understand what replay protection is, could someone explain it please.

Errr.. Speaking about rules, what about starting by implementing a good replay-protection procedure ?

edit: my bad, the guy was speaking about futures, not the coin itself. I guess he can put all the rules he wants on his crappy derivatives.