Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 19226.

adamstgBit

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1037

Trusted Bitcoiner

Quote from: Adrian-x on February 22, 2016, 03:11:03 PM

Quote from: adamstgBit on February 22, 2016, 02:56:27 PM

Quote from: Adrian-x on February 22, 2016, 02:49:13 PM

Quote from: Gyrsur on February 22, 2016, 01:32:09 PM

Quote from: aztecminer on February 22, 2016, 01:30:14 PM

Quote from: JimboToronto on February 22, 2016, 12:22:34 PM

Good morning Bitcoinland.

Still stuck around $440, eh?

Let's get this thing moving up.

blocks are 92% full when u said that .. in case u didnt notice.

^^BS!

https://blockchain.info/de/charts/avg-block-size

Some Miners mine empty blocks, usually if it's found before they have time to fill it up with transactions. Empty blocks are usual mines within a minute or less of the previous block. Because these blocks can't have transactions in them they bring down the full block average, these blocks do not contribute to the capacity of the network but are reflected in the average. Some miners limit there block size to the 750KB dealt recommended by the Core Developers, these blocks are 100% full at 750KB, this also skews the average.

its worth noting when Gavin first proposed making bigger blocks the biggest objection from the Core developers was its not needed and if it is ever needed the limit could be changed quickly. well it's needed and they now saying next year.

they also said they wanted more time to come up with another solution other then simply rising blocksize

do you segwit?

Quote from: franky1 on February 22, 2016, 02:51:10 PM

Quote from: RoseMann on February 22, 2016, 02:22:53 PM

I think the 2MB should come before the SegWit. Not SegWit comes before 2MB. SegWit is more difficult to implement.

segwit is supposedly available as of april. so if we were to make 2mb in a core relase today.. and had 75% miner consensus in 7 days of blockdata(1000) blocks.. bringing us up to march.. and then a 1 month grace period (even i have to admit thats a little short) then that would be a mad rush and still not beat segwit.

segwit is a complicated solution to a simple problem, the simplest solution is the obvious one.

segwit is a Hack it allows extra data in Multi sig transactions to be trimmed "making more space for typical transactions". It provides a benefit to off blockchane solutions Like LN (like making fractional reserve bitcoin easier) the problem miners lose revenue to off blockchain solutions and give them a discount (because segwit makes there transactions smaller) leaving less block space for you and me, and we have to pick up the bill with higher fees to compensate for security.

I for one will use another alt before I pay a $10 in value as a bitcoin transaction fee.

i agree with most of this, but I still think we need to have some faith in the dev's ( blocksteamer excluded ) ability to weigh all the pros and cons.

fees will go back down, once segwit relieves some pressure ( if only for a little while ) and then 2MB HF will clear up even more blockspace ( <4MB effective blockspace )

but it won't stop there, at that point we are slipping down the slippery slop, more segwit like improvment + more HF is all but guaranteed.

fee will remain at like 0.05-0.10$ indefinitely.

BlindMayorBitcorn

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1116

Quote from: Adrian-x on February 22, 2016, 03:11:03 PM

Quote from: adamstgBit on February 22, 2016, 02:56:27 PM

Quote from: Adrian-x on February 22, 2016, 02:49:13 PM

Quote from: Gyrsur on February 22, 2016, 01:32:09 PM

Quote from: aztecminer on February 22, 2016, 01:30:14 PM

Quote from: JimboToronto on February 22, 2016, 12:22:34 PM

Good morning Bitcoinland.

Still stuck around $440, eh?

Let's get this thing moving up.

blocks are 92% full when u said that .. in case u didnt notice.

^^BS!

https://blockchain.info/de/charts/avg-block-size

Some Miners mine empty blocks, usually if it's found before they have time to fill it up with transactions. Empty blocks are usual mines within a minute or less of the previous block. Because these blocks can't have transactions in them they bring down the full block average, these blocks do not contribute to the capacity of the network but are reflected in the average. Some miners limit there block size to the 750KB dealt recommended by the Core Developers, these blocks are 100% full at 750KB, this also skews the average.

its worth noting when Gavin first proposed making bigger blocks the biggest objection from the Core developers was its not needed and if it is ever needed the limit could be changed quickly. well it's needed and they now saying next year.

they also said they wanted more time to come up with another solution other then simply rising blocksize

do you segwit?

Quote from: franky1 on February 22, 2016, 02:51:10 PM

Quote from: RoseMann on February 22, 2016, 02:22:53 PM

I think the 2MB should come before the SegWit. Not SegWit comes before 2MB. SegWit is more difficult to implement.

segwit is supposedly available as of april. so if we were to make 2mb in a core relase today.. and had 75% miner consensus in 7 days of blockdata(1000) blocks.. bringing us up to march.. and then a 1 month grace period (even i have to admit thats a little short) then that would be a mad rush and still not beat segwit.

segwit is a complicated solution to a simple problem, the simplest solution is the obvious one.

segwit is a Hack it allows extra data in Multi sig transactions to be trimmed "making more space for typical transactions". It provides a benefit to off blockchane solutions Like LN (like making fractional reserve bitcoin easier) the problem miners lose revenue to off blockchain solutions and give them a discount (because segwit makes there transactions smaller) leaving less block space for you and me, and we have to pick up the bill with higher fees to compensate for security.

I for one will use another alt before I pay a $10 in value as a bitcoin transaction fee.

SegWit fixes transaction malleability. And what 10$ transaction fee? What possible world are we talking about?

toknormal

legendary

Activity: 3066

Merit: 1188

Quote from: mOgliE on February 22, 2016, 03:10:46 PM

Well, thanks for the observations.

I'll keep my short. It won't cost me a lot if it goes up anyway cause I limited at 446, if 445 is broken then we go straight up and I'll open a long automatically. But I'm betting for a small dip until 425/430 anyway ^^

No probs. Hope it works out for you.

marcus_of_augustus

legendary

Activity: 3920

Merit: 2349

Eadem mutata resurgo

Quote

EDIT: actually, maybe LN might have some effect on money velocity in the future, by allowing (especially by machines) much more and faster transactions.

ding, ding, its taken a while but finally some are starting to "get it" ... LN will supercharge bitcoin monetary velocity, instant TX ... MV = PQ

Adrian-x

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1000

Quote from: adamstgBit on February 22, 2016, 03:10:33 PM

]
do i need to post this yet again?

ahahahaha i love it!

LOL, bitcoins a strange animal. I'm so lucky to still be here with such wild trading swings. Wink

Adrian-x

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1000

Quote from: adamstgBit on February 22, 2016, 02:56:27 PM

Quote from: Adrian-x on February 22, 2016, 02:49:13 PM

Quote from: Gyrsur on February 22, 2016, 01:32:09 PM

Quote from: aztecminer on February 22, 2016, 01:30:14 PM

Quote from: JimboToronto on February 22, 2016, 12:22:34 PM

Good morning Bitcoinland.

Still stuck around $440, eh?

Let's get this thing moving up.

blocks are 92% full when u said that .. in case u didnt notice.

^^BS!

https://blockchain.info/de/charts/avg-block-size

Some Miners mine empty blocks, usually if it's found before they have time to fill it up with transactions. Empty blocks are usual mines within a minute or less of the previous block. Because these blocks can't have transactions in them they bring down the full block average, these blocks do not contribute to the capacity of the network but are reflected in the average. Some miners limit there block size to the 750KB dealt recommended by the Core Developers, these blocks are 100% full at 750KB, this also skews the average.

its worth noting when Gavin first proposed making bigger blocks the biggest objection from the Core developers was its not needed and if it is ever needed the limit could be changed quickly. well it's needed and they now saying next year.

they also said they wanted more time to come up with another solution other then simply rising blocksize

do you segwit?

Quote from: franky1 on February 22, 2016, 02:51:10 PM

Quote from: RoseMann on February 22, 2016, 02:22:53 PM

I think the 2MB should come before the SegWit. Not SegWit comes before 2MB. SegWit is more difficult to implement.

segwit is supposedly available as of april. so if we were to make 2mb in a core relase today.. and had 75% miner consensus in 7 days of blockdata(1000) blocks.. bringing us up to march.. and then a 1 month grace period (even i have to admit thats a little short) then that would be a mad rush and still not beat segwit.

segwit is a complicated solution to a simple problem, the simplest solution is the obvious one.

segwit is a Hack it allows extra data in Multi sig transactions to be trimmed "making more space for typical transactions". It provides a benefit to off blockchane solutions Like LN (like making fractional reserve bitcoin easier) the problem miners lose revenue to off blockchain solutions and give them a discount (because segwit makes there transactions smaller) leaving less block space for you and me, and we have to pick up the bill with higher fees to compensate for security.

I for one will use another alt before I pay a $10 in value as a bitcoin transaction fee.

mOgliE

legendary

Activity: 1344

Merit: 1251

Quote from: toknormal on February 22, 2016, 03:05:22 PM

Quote from: mOgliE on February 22, 2016, 02:33:54 PM

I'm a bit afraid by your chart... I shouldn't have oppened a short no?

Well, anything can happen. I'm just the messenger of some arbitrary chart observations.

If it was me, I would not be opening any shorts right now. We are in the middle of a 4-hour chart correction. Those usually take from a few days to a week to complete, but we're nearly a day into it and the price only dipped by $10 and has started turning around.

Lets take a look at the On Balance Volume which is more of a leading indicator than the MACD:

Notice the OBV is in DISAGREEMENT with the correction profile. That is not exactly ideal for shorters. It often means that there is compressed bullishness in the market waiting for release like a coiled spring. To me that OBV simply looks very bullish and further endorses my observation above about the 4-hour correction indicated by the MACD histogram being only minimal.

The 4-Hour RSI did indicate an overbought condition when we were up at $445 but it's since dropped back in range and is pushing upwards again.

As I say - despite chart technicals, it's Bitcoin. Anything can happen and we would normally expect a pullback at this point as I pointed out in this commentary, say to 420 at least. Just going on these indications though I'd say we'd be lucky to see a dip to 430.

Well, thanks for the observations.

I'll keep my short. It won't cost me a lot if it goes up anyway cause I limited at 446, if 445 is broken then we go straight up and I'll open a long automatically. But I'm betting for a small dip until 425/430 anyway ^^

becoin

legendary

Activity: 3431

Merit: 1233

Quote from: Adrian-x on February 22, 2016, 02:49:13 PM

its worth noting when Gavin first proposed making bigger blocks the biggest objection from the Core developers was its not needed and if it is ever needed the limit could be changed quickly. well it's needed and they now saying next year.

There is no urgent need for bigger block size limit. Spam need to be filtered out off the blockchain.

I'm paying normal tx fees and so far I haven't had any tx delays or other issues sending bitcoins. Do you have any problems sending your bitcoins?

adamstgBit

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1037

Trusted Bitcoiner

Quote from: Adrian-x on February 22, 2016, 03:02:18 PM

Quote from: adamstgBit on February 22, 2016, 02:15:54 PM

Quote from: 8up on February 22, 2016, 02:09:18 PM

Quote from: billyjoeallen on February 22, 2016, 01:37:26 PM

There is still a huge amount of upward momentum in this market, judging by the moving averages. The problem is, if we continue on this trajectory, blocks will fill first, then fees will double. Then fees will quadruple, octuple, etc. until even the mathematincally challenged pumpmonkeys start to extrapolate what this means. Even though fees are still cheap, they will be only so for a very short period of time.

we have the capacity for a half million active users at most. Even if we ALL go away and get replaced by high rollers doing drug deals or speculating on the halving or whatever, and even if SegWit almost doubles the capacity, then what? Things just stagnate until we go through another two year clusterfuck to kick the can again? Rinse and repeat?

and what if through some miracle we get through all of that with flying colors and market cap goes to 100 Billion. Do you think the PBoC and the Communist Party of China will be happy with that and just let it continue to grow?

I'm starting to think the best way for me to liquidate my stash is just to sell a coin a week for however many years it takes, regardless of whether the price goes up or down. The objective of traders is to make money, of course, but the purpose of traders is SUPPOSED to be to function as liquidity providers who reduce volatility.

The problem as I see it is that the traders who make the biggest profit in this market actually create volatility, withholding liquidity when it is needed and dumping when the market is already crashing. I may have made a fundamental miscalculation. This could just be growing pains or this could be something endemic to disinflationary currency.

What is SUPPOSED to happen according to economic theory is that as quantity of money creation decreases (halvings), velocity of money (transactions) is supposed to go up to compensate, maintaining the balance of MV=PQ. This clearly cannot happen if scaling is slower than halvings. Even if Core changes their own governance rules to ratify this roundtable agreement, scaling may be slower than halvings. Sidechains, lighting network, etc are no substitute because they effectively trade Bitcon IOUs and not actual bitcoin. You get the same problem that the fiat world has: a fractional reserve money multiplier than can either run positive or negative and screw up the balance. At some point, Bitcoin may hit stall speed and enter into an unrecoverable dive. What scares the shit out of me is this may have already happened. 27 months since the ATH, we're trading at <50%.

Somebody please tell me the error of my thinking, or a slow liquidation becomes a serious consideration.

+1

I agree, besides I see one last bubble coming, that will bring (due to its "success") the end of Bitcoin with it. Luckily a much more "decentralized" digital-currency ecosystem will follow. The fall will be hard for many early adopters.

tl; dr; pure FUD every word is pure FUD.

LOL, where does the value for bitcoin come from, go down that rabbit hole it's the number of users holders and buyers (nicely correlated with metcalfe's law and transaction voluem) and a limited money supply nicely preserved by code and miners. This simple equation MV=PT illustrates why limiting the transaction volume and the quantity of money is a bad idea, (bitcoin has never grown under the notion of limited transaction volume) Bitcoin coders need to understand a little more about economics to be a true asset to bitcoin's development.

do i need to post this yet again?

ahahahaha i love it!

toknormal

legendary

Activity: 3066

Merit: 1188

Quote from: mOgliE on February 22, 2016, 02:33:54 PM

I'm a bit afraid by your chart... I shouldn't have oppened a short no?

Well, anything can happen. I'm just the messenger of some arbitrary chart observations.

If it was me, I would not be opening any shorts right now. We are in the middle of a 4-hour chart correction. Those usually take from a few days to a week to complete, but we're nearly a day into it and the price only dipped by $10 and has started turning around.

Lets take a look at the On Balance Volume which is more of a leading indicator than the MACD:

Notice the OBV is in DISAGREEMENT with the correction profile. That is not exactly ideal for shorters. It often means that there is compressed bullishness in the market waiting for release like a coiled spring. To me that OBV simply looks very bullish and further endorses my observation above about the 4-hour correction indicated by the MACD histogram being only minimal.

The 4-Hour RSI did indicate an overbought condition when we were up at $445 but it's since dropped back in range and is pushing upwards again.

As I say - despite chart technicals, it's Bitcoin. Anything can happen and we would normally expect a pullback at this point as I pointed out in this commentary, say to 420 at least. Just going on these indications though I'd say we'd be lucky to see a dip to 430.

Adrian-x

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1000

Quote from: adamstgBit on February 22, 2016, 02:15:54 PM

Quote from: 8up on February 22, 2016, 02:09:18 PM

Quote from: billyjoeallen on February 22, 2016, 01:37:26 PM

There is still a huge amount of upward momentum in this market, judging by the moving averages. The problem is, if we continue on this trajectory, blocks will fill first, then fees will double. Then fees will quadruple, octuple, etc. until even the mathematincally challenged pumpmonkeys start to extrapolate what this means. Even though fees are still cheap, they will be only so for a very short period of time.

we have the capacity for a half million active users at most. Even if we ALL go away and get replaced by high rollers doing drug deals or speculating on the halving or whatever, and even if SegWit almost doubles the capacity, then what? Things just stagnate until we go through another two year clusterfuck to kick the can again? Rinse and repeat?

and what if through some miracle we get through all of that with flying colors and market cap goes to 100 Billion. Do you think the PBoC and the Communist Party of China will be happy with that and just let it continue to grow?

I'm starting to think the best way for me to liquidate my stash is just to sell a coin a week for however many years it takes, regardless of whether the price goes up or down. The objective of traders is to make money, of course, but the purpose of traders is SUPPOSED to be to function as liquidity providers who reduce volatility.

The problem as I see it is that the traders who make the biggest profit in this market actually create volatility, withholding liquidity when it is needed and dumping when the market is already crashing. I may have made a fundamental miscalculation. This could just be growing pains or this could be something endemic to disinflationary currency.

What is SUPPOSED to happen according to economic theory is that as quantity of money creation decreases (halvings), velocity of money (transactions) is supposed to go up to compensate, maintaining the balance of MV=PQ. This clearly cannot happen if scaling is slower than halvings. Even if Core changes their own governance rules to ratify this roundtable agreement, scaling may be slower than halvings. Sidechains, lighting network, etc are no substitute because they effectively trade Bitcon IOUs and not actual bitcoin. You get the same problem that the fiat world has: a fractional reserve money multiplier than can either run positive or negative and screw up the balance. At some point, Bitcoin may hit stall speed and enter into an unrecoverable dive. What scares the shit out of me is this may have already happened. 27 months since the ATH, we're trading at <50%.

Somebody please tell me the error of my thinking, or a slow liquidation becomes a serious consideration.

+1

I agree, besides I see one last bubble coming, that will bring (due to its "success") the end of Bitcoin with it. Luckily a much more "decentralized" digital-currency ecosystem will follow. The fall will be hard for many early adopters.

tl; dr; pure FUD every word is pure FUD.

LOL, where does the value for bitcoin come from, go down that rabbit hole it's the number of users holders and buyers (nicely correlated with metcalfe's law and transaction voluem) and a limited money supply nicely preserved by code and miners. This simple equation MV=PT illustrates why limiting the transaction volume and the quantity of money is a bad idea, (bitcoin has never grown under the notion of limited transaction volume) Bitcoin coders need to understand a little more about economics to be a true asset to bitcoin's development.

ChartBuddy

legendary

Activity: 2380

Merit: 1823

1CBuddyxy4FerT3hzMmi1Jz48ESzRw1ZzZ

Coin

Explanation

adamstgBit

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1037

Trusted Bitcoiner

Quote from: Adrian-x on February 22, 2016, 02:49:13 PM

Quote from: Gyrsur on February 22, 2016, 01:32:09 PM

Quote from: aztecminer on February 22, 2016, 01:30:14 PM

Quote from: JimboToronto on February 22, 2016, 12:22:34 PM

Good morning Bitcoinland.

Still stuck around $440, eh?

Let's get this thing moving up.

blocks are 92% full when u said that .. in case u didnt notice.

^^BS!

https://blockchain.info/de/charts/avg-block-size

Some Miners mine empty blocks, usually if it's found before they have time to fill it up with transactions. Empty blocks are usual mines within a minute or less of the previous block. Because these blocks can't have transactions in them they bring down the full block average, these blocks do not contribute to the capacity of the network but are reflected in the average. Some miners limit there block size to the 750KB dealt recommended by the Core Developers, these blocks are 100% full at 750KB, this also skews the average.

its worth noting when Gavin first proposed making bigger blocks the biggest objection from the Core developers was its not needed and if it is ever needed the limit could be changed quickly. well it's needed and they now saying next year.

they also said they wanted more time to come up with another solution other then simply rising blocksize

do you segwit?

Quote from: franky1 on February 22, 2016, 02:51:10 PM

Quote from: RoseMann on February 22, 2016, 02:22:53 PM

I think the 2MB should come before the SegWit. Not SegWit comes before 2MB. SegWit is more difficult to implement.

segwit is supposedly available as of april. so if we were to make 2mb in a core relase today.. and had 75% miner consensus in 7 days of blockdata(1000) blocks.. bringing us up to march.. and then a 1 month grace period (even i have to admit thats a little short) then that would be a mad rush and still not beat segwit.

Matias

full member

Activity: 182

Merit: 101

Quote from: Gyrsur on February 22, 2016, 01:32:09 PM

Quote from: aztecminer on February 22, 2016, 01:30:14 PM

Quote from: JimboToronto on February 22, 2016, 12:22:34 PM

Good morning Bitcoinland.

Still stuck around $440, eh?

Let's get this thing moving up.

blocks are 92% full when u said that .. in case u didnt notice.

^^BS!

https://blockchain.info/de/charts/avg-block-size

How is that 92% calculated?

https://blockchain.info/en/charts/avg-block-size?timespan=60days&showDataPoints=false&daysAverageString=7&show_header=true&scale=0&address=

Adrian-x

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Gyrsur on February 22, 2016, 01:32:09 PM

Quote from: aztecminer on February 22, 2016, 01:30:14 PM

Quote from: JimboToronto on February 22, 2016, 12:22:34 PM

Good morning Bitcoinland.

Still stuck around $440, eh?

Let's get this thing moving up.

blocks are 92% full when u said that .. in case u didnt notice.

^^BS!

https://blockchain.info/de/charts/avg-block-size

Some Miners mine empty blocks, usually if it's found before they have time to fill it up with transactions. Empty blocks are usual mines within a minute or less of the previous block. Because these blocks can't have transactions in them they bring down the full block average, these blocks do not contribute to the capacity of the network but are reflected in the average. Some miners limit there block size to the 750KB dealt recommended by the Core Developers, these blocks are 100% full at 750KB, this also skews the average.

its worth noting when Gavin first proposed making bigger blocks the biggest objection from the Core developers was its not needed and if it is ever needed the limit could be changed quickly. well it's needed and they now saying next year.

mOgliE

legendary

Activity: 1344

Merit: 1251

Quote from: toknormal on February 22, 2016, 02:06:56 PM

Bitcoin/USD 3-Day chart.

Warming up main engines.

I'm a bit afraid by your chart... I shouldn't have oppened a short no?

bargainbin

full member

Activity: 126

Merit: 100

Quote from: adamstgBit on February 22, 2016, 02:31:22 PM

Quote from: bargainbin on February 22, 2016, 02:26:45 PM

Quote from: adamstgBit on February 22, 2016, 02:15:54 PM

...
tl; dr; pure FUD every word is pure FUD.

Chillax; sexy human females are waiting for you and your bitcoins @ Xotika.TV

i can't i'm saving myself a big load to blow on my GF's face.

Saving. Delayed gratification. That's what good Libertarian secs is all about

adamstgBit

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1037

Trusted Bitcoiner

Quote from: bargainbin on February 22, 2016, 02:26:45 PM

Quote from: adamstgBit on February 22, 2016, 02:15:54 PM

...
tl; dr; pure FUD every word is pure FUD.

Chillax; sexy human females are waiting for you and your bitcoins @ Xotika.TV

i can't i'm saving myself a big load to blow on my GF's face.

Spaceman_Spiff

legendary

Activity: 1638

Merit: 1001

₪``Campaign Manager´´₪

Quote from: billyjoeallen on February 22, 2016, 01:37:26 PM

What is SUPPOSED to happen according to economic theory is that as quantity of money creation decreases (halvings), velocity of money (transactions) is supposed to go up to compensate, maintaining the balance of MV=PQ. This clearly cannot happen if scaling is slower than halvings.

Sidechains, lighting network, etc are no substitute because they effectively trade Bitcon IOUs and not actual bitcoin. You get the same problem that the fiat world has: a fractional reserve money multiplier than can either run positive or negative and screw up the balance.

Somebody please tell me the error of my thinking, or a slow liquidation becomes a serious consideration.

Apart from some other concerns you raise, which I think have merit, I would like to respond to 2 things where I believe you to be wrong:

1) I don't know where you get the assumption that the halvings are supposed to have an effect on velocity of money.

2) I think bitcoins paid through LN are economically the same as on-chain transactions. Yes you could describe it as some kind of IOU, but it is mathematically/informatically based on the same bitcoins, these bitcoins are "anchored", so you should treat these like regular bitcoins. It's not the same thing as a paper IOU (or a digital one) where the only "link" is the trust you have in the issuer of the IOU.

EDIT: actually, maybe LN might have some effect on money velocity in the future, by allowing (especially by machines) much more and faster transactions.

bargainbin

full member

Activity: 126

Merit: 100

Quote from: adamstgBit on February 22, 2016, 02:15:54 PM

...
tl; dr; pure FUD every word is pure FUD.

Chillax; sexy human females are waiting for you and your bitcoins @ Xotika.TV

Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 19226. (Read 26608341 times)