Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 17805. (Read 26608069 times)

It happens always when idiots short bitcoin and price goes the other way. They become bigblocktards just to cause noise in the community and eventually a price drop.

As far as I can understand position of Arthur Hayes it is because of the current pure speculative nature of Bitcoin.  Here is an excerpt:
"All of a sudden, the PBOC turned on the lights at the club. In response to pressure from regulators, Chinese exchanges ceased offering margin trading on January 11th. The very next day, XBTH17 entered backwardation. Existing loans were allowed to expire, but no new loans could be taken out.

Margin loans had 2 to 30 day terms. As loans expired, credit whales need to unwind their trades. That meant selling futures and buying spot with released CNY. This helped move the futures’ basis into backwardation.

The Fear Uncertainty and Doubt (FUD) surrounding what the PBOC would or wouldn’t do prompted speculators to short Bitcoin via futures. There was no more margin trading therefore futures were the only bearish instrument available. Even today, the PBOC has released no statement as to what policy actions will be undertaken as a result of their “investigations”.

In short:

Margin Book Unwind + FUD = Futures Backwardation"

Fuck Bitcoin Unlimited

seems like chinese new year had no effect on bitcoin prices so just like I said nothing is certain with bitcoin, good thing I didn't short waiting for a dip to buy back cheaper.

why?

with less chinese volatility people that complain about Bitcoin being manipulated by the chinese may be less afraid and enter the market

or just create another excuse about why bitcoin is a bad investment

"A one-off [CNY] devaluation during New Year gives China breathing room" -- Arthur Hayes, BitMEX Crypto Trader Digest @BitMEXdotcom - THIS may send Bitcoin price to the MOON!

"the absence of CNY currency volatility may dampen the price of Bitcoin" -- Arthur Hayes, BitMEX Crypto Trader Digest @BitMEXdotcom

AFAIK it was a bug. No need to sugar coat it.

Isn't it the case that this was a *bug* in BU code, rather than the pool operator going gung-ho with larger block sizes?

It has to do with the issue of trust. It should come as no surprise, that people in the ecosystem of Bitcoin - an invention with the stated purpose of not having to trust a single central authority - will not trust central authorities. You might be convinced of technological superiority of core's approach (for the record: I am on the fence about this) but failing to realize this simple issue about trust isn't helping anyone and keeps fostering an unnecessary divide in the community. Is it really that hard to understand, that people are going to be skeptical of centrally mandated policies? Especially when they are coming from people who have been shown to engage in censorship and breaking promises, while being funded by the very financial institutions their product is officially meant to replace?

Honestly, the dogmatism and arrogance of (many vocal) core-supporters has been the biggest reason why I can't get behind the core/blockstream agenda. To be fair, you have always been polite about this.

What does blockstream have to do with supposed censorship on some forum or subreddit? And what does that have to do with the development of the Bitcoin protocol? And this is the internet, some people are always going to spew hateful insults on both sides of any argument. You have to be able to filter that out or there will never be a resolution.

Which time scale are you looking at?

Very small handle.

i think we are reaching the end of the handle tbh

What you talkin bout, willis?  Prices? what does that have to do with anything?   


O.k... o.k.   I  will settle down and go along with your point...

What are you gonna call it?   Consolidation no?  This is not unusual.. .we got a narrowing in on a price range of about $908 to $922..... but even deviating 1% from that range in one direction or another may still be kind of captured within the consolidation range...... fairly low volume too, and maybe even a well needed rest for some battlers.....

 so wouldn't our price break out need to be a bit more than 2% from one end or another before it becomes significant...?    I am still kind of thinking that up is a bit more likely than down, but I am not giving a lot of difference in my bet in regards to the point spread.... and even if it breaks down for a short period, I cannot really see more than a 10% down... but a 10% up seems more plausible than a 10% down.. in my current thinking... even though it could take a bit of time before we witness the break out.

Bitcoin as a settlement layer would mean you'd always be dealing with derivatives of bitcoin in order to do day to day transactions that increase it's counter party risk even higher than it is now, and everyone knows bitcoin's counter party risk is already higher than metals in the first place.  There is no situation ever in which bitcoin has less counter party risk than metals, especially when you're using bitcoin derivatives.  

A normal human actually can be their own banker with metals, but with bitcoin there are a million external counter party risk factors that can implode it - like whatever a random bitcoin dev decides to do after waking up in the morning.  Then the fact that if people are going to claim bitcoin is never actually "finished", it's a centralized technocracy by default on the software side and centralized by economy of scale on the mining side.

Can you make money with bitcoin?  Sure.  But don't pretend it's actually solved any problems to make metals obsolete.  Contrary to popular opinion that bitcoin "works" because it's existed for 8 years, this is misleading.  You can start timing the date of whether bitcoin works or not from the point where all micro-transactions are forced off-chain and all on-chain transactions are settlement payments with derivatives of those settlements (such as LN) being used for commerce - with block reward also gone, surviving off transaction fees.

Bitcoin can currently derive price entirely from just being a wild speculative gamble, but the closer you get to the endgame, the more the price will be derived from if the economics and use case makes any sense - and whether economy of scale makes it completely centralized or not.  As I said above, I don't think it has a valid use case as a store of value or settlement layer, so this means it's only hope is LN + vast amounts of transactions and then it's value I guess would be held up by acting as some type of paypal-like processor.

As everybody knows, gold and silver don't really require high transaction flow and turnover, but bitcoin's price is entirely high transaction flow based.  This is why bitcoin as a settlement layer without derivatives of those settlements that are also deemed to be "trustless" has never made any sense.

Perhaps that time will come, when blockstream stops behaving like censoring dictators, suspiciously backed by captains of financial industry. Maybe when people who support them (like you) stop spewing hateful insults and using arguments from authority.

Before you insult me as well, please note that I am endorsing neither BU nor Core here, just answering your question.

On a side note...WHAT is going on with the price? Shouldn't it be breaking up or down by now?

when the gr8 chain-segregation comes, and it will come!
make sure you're hodling.
its gana get nutty in here soon, if your plan isn't to bunker down with ALL the bitcoins, you're gonna have a bad time.

O.k.  I did not know that there was any kind of problem with the current fees or with transactions being stalled...... and seg wit has been tested and there is a version of it that is ready for adopting.  I don't really know too much about BU being activated and tested.  I suppose if it becomes more popular, then maybe it will get adopted... before seg wit... I doubt that I have too much to do with any of that, right?  Why should I care if BU is adopted? 

I have heard a lot of good things about seg wit, so I am looking forward to that being adopted, but I have no real reason to think that BU is necessary at this time.. because it seems that there should be a certain level of priority going to get the thing activated (seg wit) that has already been tested and seems to be fairly non controversial by technical folks.

I also responded to this one in the seg wit / bitcoin unlimited thread... https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.17669731

Block #450691 Relayed By   Bitcoin.com