I am wondering about all the liquidity that there is now in most exchanges after the selloff... Would the majority just transfer the profits to their bank accounts or instead leave it there waiting to rebuy?
I have never transferred any amount back... it is just "bitcoin money" for me, but I am wondering if there is many people that do otherwise.... any hints?

The price is obviously determined by exchange prices... but OTC transactions indirectly influence the price by affecting the availability of coins in the exchanges. Also if there is scarcity of coins to be sold OTC, the price rises and buyers resort to exchanges, thus rising "the price", and the oppossite is also true.

I will probably use leverage if the ETF is rejected and the price drops. Doing it before knowing would be a too risky bet.

So... Where are all the huge dumps and bounces? Only one?

I guess this a much smaller impact than everyone was predicting. Maybe the big correction and pump before the decision contributed to clear a lot of leverage and cushioned the dump?

Maybe. But the fact is that we are right now at the same level of the bottom of the correction we were... just two days ago!

Add that many people already dumped or were already out before the decision and waiting for reentry.

Who knows... but it doesn't look terribly ugly to me.

The price we were in Feb? It was lower than this TWO days ago.

But... But... where is the dip we are waiting for more accumulation?

This is getting scary.

No kidding. After long time considering buying one I finally did past week and I couldn't be happier now. Way better and more secure than my previous mess of having some in exchanges, some in software wallets and some in paperwallets.

Now I can only recommend to anyone that doesn't have one to buy one asap. It's a whole new dimension. There's really no reason not to have one except maybe for someone with less than 1btc.

I did buy a Ledger Nano S though, which is mostly the same than Trezor.

paperwallets have several attack vectors that hardware wallets don't have. Main ones during generation and during redeeming while hardware wallets never expose the private keys to another computer/device as the signing is done in-device.

So maybe not a thing of the past, and also have its usage case for sure, but I bet they will be being replaced by hardware wallets for the most part.

Yes, I have started using the chrome apps and found them to be extremely straightforward to use while having the basic features. I tried using electrum with it but the version I am running seems to be missing some libs/modules for the nano (Linux). I will try updating soon, but no hurry.

I am much more happy with the hardware wallet concept than I could possibly expect. In fact I will also buy Trezor V2 when it is out to have a second device. Then I will decide if I congure both the same seed or as independent wallets.

I have only been using it for a week so maybe there is more that I don't know but:

1) Yes, and ethereum (eth/etc), litecoin, dash, and some others
2) I think it doesnt but I read it is in the works or something. Not sure.
3) Yes, FIDO U2F

I did a pretty extensive comparison on both before ordering the Nano S and found them to be very similar but in the end I ordered the Nano S because:

1) It was a bit less expensive (69 vs 99).
2) Trezor was out of stock
3) Trezor V2 is said to be in the works

I was more inclined to the Trezor at first, but after the features comparison and those three points above the choice was clear for me, and my second device will be a Trezor V2 in the future.

One thing I liked about the Nano S is the seed is stored in a secure chip while a microprocessor in the Trezor.... Worth to mention, but minor point as I don't expect anyone to get posession of my device and do pro reverse engineering with it anyways.

Maybe the only advantage Nano S has over Trezor is that the seed doesn't ever need to be input using a computer as it can be introduced directly in the device. (one less possible attack vector).

And the Trezor, well, it was the first and most well known and also has the password manager. It also had some other advantages like an additional passphrase but that changed in the latest firmware:

https://medium.com/@Ledger/a-short-guide-to-nano-s-firmware-1-3-features-b92c939e7c9f#.ef0xxe87x

As i don't have a Trezor myself I can only talk about what I researched about it.

What a bunch of random lines you draw there!

I think you are confusing the concepts of MAYBE another dump/correction incoming with a "bear market" which is much different and there is no sign/reason for that yet.

I paid almost 90EUR buying it directly from Ledger + UPS shipping

Don't regret it though, but....

That's one of my next buys... I find it quite expensive for what it "does" though. I mean I can engrave the seed on some metal plate myself. But the coolness factor of cryptosteel is impressive

I supposse you use it for storing the seed/s of a hardware wallet and not for using ever in a software wallet, right?

You say you put 1 bitcoin and never saw the bitcoin and your not sure so about it?

I would be soooooo fucking sure if that happened to me.

I also was skeptical until a few weeks ago that I started doing my research and was sold on the concept. And now that I have personally tested it, I am more than sold.

I didn't know about that hardware wallet you have, but I don't see any signs of a scam, so sure it must be something that can be solved.

First, that hardware is different than Trezor/Ledger in that it seems to use some sort of multisignature:


So, I am not sure if I would recommend a device like that (sound too cumbersome... I want to control the seed MYSELF) but it looks like there are ways for you to recover your bitcoin. In the worst case they say they have "a third key in their offline vault".

Maybe you should recover that bitcoin and invest 10% of it in a proper hardware wallet

Elwar, I have been reading a bit more about that "Case" hardware wallet. Definitely it's something I wouldn't recommend:

It uses a multisignature requiring two of three keys, one is the case itself, another one is stored in their servers, and the third one is in a vault they have.

So... They are in possesion of two of the two needed keys to access the funds. That's a no-no. I supposse I don't need to explain why.

That is unless you opted to be the own in custody of the third key (as you should):


Really, recover that 1btc and buy a proper hardware wallet. Play with it and then I bet you will like it as much as I do now

WTF happens with kraken? One thing is stop losses that takes ages to execute.... but now I have a market order "hanging" for minutes without execution... this is a joke!

I learned to not ever use stop loss orders again in Kraken as they would either not execute or execute at the worst possible price long time after it should have executed (I even saw the price rebounding above and below my stop loss several times before execution) but... a MARKET order? This is the last straw for me...

Can anyone (maybe BU supporters) explain me why would miners support an action (non unanimous hard fork) that will surely result in an inmediate drop of the price and also a long term lose of trust/value of Bitcoin?

Shouldn't miners act always in what is better for higher Bitcoin price (higher rewards for them)? Or is it that for some unexplained reason they think the price would react otherwise? Is there a hidden agenda that I am not aware of?

I really can't get it.

If that was the hidden agenda I could understand their motives. But I am not so sure that miners want the price low to avoid competition out from the little guys. I mean... What little guys are there still in mining? It's almost negligible. Even if it were a 20% of the mining market it would never compensate a much higher percentage in loss of price and maybe long term death of Bitcoin.

I would understand that reasoning for exchanges: They profit from volatility and big market shakes, exactly what a hard fork would precipitate. Maybe again long tearm death, but big profits in the short term.

But miners? It's always better a X% or XX% of market share of a huge market than a 100% share of a death market.

The arbitrary prices of bitcoin are based on trust and confidence, when if that trust and confidence is lost there would be no remaining value at all.

I think that everyone agrees that the transaction limit need to grow. And that, if alone, would be a good thing for the price.
I really don't care if that is achieved by segwit+LN, BU or whatever... But I do care that if it is done without an almost unanimous consensus trust and confidence could be irreparably damaged, and that leads to reduced value/reduced price.

I haven't had time to review this vulnerability but that might be way worse than it sounds. Most "crash from remote" vulnerablities are due to buffer overflows which can lead to exploit from remote when more finely crafted.

Maybe this is enough to create some awareness of the importance of following the right process instead this children fights.

From what I have seen it probably isn't an RCE (Remote Code Execution) but it shows how sloppy they are in secure coding and versioning control. That BU code should be removed asap from the Bitcoin network. Who knows how many more critical vulnerabilities are hidden in that poorly reviewed code.

Altcoins market cap now more than 6billion$. It has almost doubled in... a week? In the meantime, bitcoin price being rock solid.

Let's see what happens when the altcoin bubble explodes...

I don't understand what you mean by this statement:

Bitcoin is clearly positioning itself very narrowly. ETH incredibly broadly.

(Not sure if it is because english is my second language or because the meaning is not clear)

I agree with all the rest... except that dash will probably tank much more as soon as masternodes try to sell their stash and force a cascading dump.

I don't see the problem there: When Dash bursts, even if all of it went to fiat it should not affect bitcoin price... and if some percentage of it goes to Bitcoin that means up, not down for bitcoin.

But there's not that much amount of money inside Dash: Take into account that 80% of the coins are currently locked in masternodes, if you add some individuals with big stashs, it leaves a very small amount of free-float. That's why the price has been so fast to increase... and it will be even faster to drop once the panic starts and masternodes start withdrawing in hordes.

But I think you are not taking into account that if they go from dash to btc and then into fiat that's a zero sum. I mean, if during a week ALL of dash went to btc and then into fiat, the end result would be no change in BTC price (not for the usage of BTC as a way out to fiat).

Also, I am sure that a good chunk of it would end into BTC so that would mean positive impact on the price.

As you are so vocal about BU, let me ask you one question:

Would you accept if segwit would be in effect in the following six months and forget about all that BU nonsense at least for some time being? If not, what about segwit + 2M blocks? Or is this all about that you guys insist in that all present and future transactions have to be ALL done in main Bitcoin blockchain?

Healthy and much needed correction after this period of stagnation. Also some moderate volatility is always welcome.

Now lets just go segwit and head to moon soon.

I am a bit surprised that noone has mentioned one of the consecuences a split between CORE and BU would have, apart from the AMAZINGLY HUGE volatility lower combined price etc...

1) If Bitcoin is split in two, core side will be at 1MB max block size at that time, and BU with an undetermined but bigger max block size.

2) Both "parties" will start dumping each other strongly. Chaos will reign and volatility could be so huge as to wipe ENTIRE order books up and down. (mainly down, even to 0).

3) All leveraged positions will be wiped on the peaks and valleys.

4) The difficulty will be much higher than the hashrate which, by itself, will create big delays between blocks. It is uncertain how big though.

And this is what I haven't seen anyone mention:

5) There will be a huge spike in transactions with people sending his coins to the exchanges. And I mean an unprecedently HUGE number of transactions. Orders of magnitude higher than anything we have ever seen.

6) Core with its 1MB max block and difficulty over hashrate combined will take ages to move the coins (which is not that bad because there will be less BTC coins arriving at the exchanges to be dumped), BU blocksize...well, I am not sure what it will do in that scenario, but it is possible that it will lead to additional hard forks/blocksize adjustment. Also Orphan blocks will be everywhere.

7) Even if in that scenario it seems that BU would be at an advange with its increased TPS over BTC, that will lead to more BUcoins arriving at the exchanges and being dumped by BTC supporters. The price of BUcoin will be much lower than BTC, at least for some time (days, weeks, months, maybe forever).

I could go on... but the only reasonable conclusion is that all this chaos and confussion will benefit noone (maybe to exchanges in the short period, due to the extreme volatility and huge number of trades) and that all this nonsense must come to and end now.

BU doesn't want to fork without consensus? Great, everything is ok then.... except that's not what many BU supporters are saying.

Also... when we talk about consensus? Are we talking about 95% consensus or which percentage? <- This is the most fundamental point.

No, not links that I can remember now... in fact i am talking mostly from comments read here and in twitter/reddit that were suppossedly from BU supporters (in the line of "if it has to be a contentious hard fork, so be it").

Also, please correct me if I am wrong, but... If BU were "happily" running in 51% of the Bitcoin network AND the majority of those miners decided to rise the blocksize... Wouldn't that mean an incoming contentious hard fork would happen?

This is scalating too quickly. That guy is insane.

Maybe we should quit the debate between Bitcoin vs Butcoin and move forwards and start talking about PoS vs PoW.

You don't seem to understand that if Bitcoin were "finished" all the altcoins value would vanish like they never existed.

Either people can trust cryptocurrencies as a store of value or either they can't. Never.

So better lets just hope this is just another bump in the road.

This is getting hilarious:

Bitfinex has Introduced Chain Split Tokens (CSTs) trading Pairs BCC/USD, BCC/BTC, BCU/USD, and BCU/BTC:

https://www.bitfinex.com/posts/195

It's a funny thing Bitfinex has created to cash on the Bitcoin vs Buttcoin debate. Now people can place their bets even BEFORE a hardfork happens. If it does, those tokens will be exchanged for the corresponding coins on each fork (BCC for Bitcoin and BCU for Buttcoin).

Funny and interesting to watch.

Easy, an example:

You take one real BTC and you place your bet: You can either buy (at present rate) 1.2 BCC or 5 BCU (aprox), or a combination of both.

Then, if the hardfork happens, before 31 dec 2017, your BCC or BCU's will be trade for real Bitcoins or Buttcoins.

In the meantime, you can always exchange your BCC or BCU's for real Bitcoins at whatever the rate is at that moment.

It's similar to what Josh Jones did with bitcoinbuilder with GOX coins.

The problem is that blockchain is suppossed to be a decentralised network. And for each doubling in block size you are wasting double reasource multiplied for each bitcoin node. Also, at present time, the resources needed in bandwidth and storage are so heavy that the number of nodes has remain almost constant for past years while the price and hashrate has been rising and rising.

At this time, you either have to choose between a (sorta) decentralised blockchain with small blocks or a more centralised blockchain with bigger blocks.

A compromise is segwit+LN which is the only really scalable solution.

Some miners don't like segwit+LN because that means many transactions would be done at LN layer and they wouldn't get a fee of that transactions. Maybe they could grow their current business by setting LN hubs themselves to get a piece of that cake... But I guess they are too obtuse to realise that posibility.

Suppossedly they are backing up those token with the bitcoins used to buy them.... that if you trust that they are storing them in deposit to back it

The difference would be negligible. At present time Bitcoin needs almost double capacity. You don't solve anything with a 10% increase... and it would need a hard fork anways. Segwit would provide the equivalent of aprox 1.8MB. Also, adding LN on top of it would provide for almost unlimited transactions VISA/Paypal style.
You could always choose to use LN for your small unimportant transactions (ie: buying cofee) and directly blockchain for moving your "big" fund.

Also, increasing the block size in the future would not be out of question... but first must come first, and that is segwit.

Maybe all of this is just a pretty nice trick of JIhan BU. He must know the consequences of his actions in the price, so it is possible that he just shorted big time before and is now waiting to rebuy and then lay down his arms watching how price shoots to $1500 making him way richer than before.

Maybe Jihan BU is not that insane after all.

20 years is too much of a long term... It's pointless we even speculate on that. But 3-5 years from now, L2 will be everywhere because it's the only way to make Bitcoin a real payment system. Not only because of number of transactions, but because we can have inmediate transactions via L2 instead of 10 min delay of L1.

Either we will have L2 in place soon (max 1 or 2 years from now) or Bitcoin adoption as payment system is not going to happen.

What Jihan BU should do is stop whining and work towards the future of Bitcoin. He (and other BIG miners) are in a privileged position to also get a good piece of the L2 cake. That way he can profit of both L1 and L2.

I don't have any problem in him also profiting from that. But he should move his lazy ass and start a new venture towards setting up an L2 hub (which might even be a big joint venture of chinese miners).

Good recovery. Only $250 more to go

We don't even have any confirmation that Roger BUr still have any sustantial ammount of BTC. Maybe he does, maybe he doesn't. It could already be most of it in ALTCOINS/FIAT.

Btw... Another BU crash from remote bug:

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/60qmqe/bitcoin_unlimited_nodes_are_being_knocked_offline/

All the shit that is raining over BU looks very bullish for BTC.

Now lets just have some consensus on Segwit (with or without an additional blocksize increase) and head to the moon.

Maybe Loaded would be so kind to also vote on that poll

Anyway, fuck that.. if 20K BTC is all Roger BUr has got, there's not much more to see here. Let's Move on as usual.

You are right. Didn't even notice it was his own domain.

Yes. I am sure he may have a pretty large stash in ALTCOINS, worth maybe those hundred of thousands of BTC mentioned in the past, maybe he even doubled its value during the last pump of dash, but... He would need to dump those altcoins (crashing them) and rebuy BTC (pumping it) before being able to dump. Zero sum game.

He could short BTC with FIAT/ALTCOINS but.... leveraged positions are the worst place to be before a hardfork.

You only have to see the trivial bugs that have been exploited already. Just obvious asserts with no RCE possible. And even though not many people has already interest in analizing the BU code, I am sure that there is already ppl with real RCE's just waiting for the time in which MONEY could already be made.

BU is doomed already. Let's just allow Roger BUr share its fate as that's what he has publicly chosen.

https://coin.dance/nodes/unlimited

Not sure if it is because of the exploit or if they have finally came back to their senses and stopped running that shit. I would be very scared to be running such exploitable software inside my network with port open to the internet. They have ballz though.

This is even funnier. What sort of devs do they have? Haven't they ever heard about bindiffing?

They are just making it easier to exploit acting that way.

Most probably. At least I would have a better opinion on him, instead of just thinking he's simply insane.

The President of Buttcoin has declared DEFCON 1. No more source code until new notice. To all the node operators: Please resist at all costs, and run this trusted binary with faith. Roger Bur bless us.

Again.

Why don't you just run a CORE node modified to signal for BU? It would be much more safe for you and still make your point.

I bet that's what are doing the 200 or so nodes that didn't crash

Or he could just apply this diff that the uber coders of BU leaked inadvertently whilst releasing a binary only patch:

https://launchpadlibrarian.net/311815049/bitcoinunlimited_1.0.1.1-yakkety_1.0.1.2-yakkety.diff.gz


+Main Changes
+------------
+
+Changes are as follows:
+
+- Fix unwanted assertion Sending an invalid GET_XTHIN is a serious misbehavior and any node doing so will be DOS100 banned immediately.  Also sending a GET_XTHIN with an invalid message type will also cause the sendder to be banned. This bug cause the node to crash.
+- Fix pruning when syncing a chain for the first time. iWhen  syncing a chain with pruning enabled there are at times new blocks arriving which make the nLastHeight equal to the tip of the blockchain, however this prevents block files from being removed during pruning.  By not downloading new blocks until the chain no longer in IsInitialDownload() the issue is prevented.

What I mean is that I have worse opinion about INSANE people than about malicious actors. I prefer to cope with malice than with insanity. It's all a bit more reasonable and logical.

Not that I mean that makes him a good person.

Insane people are also much more dangerous. You never know what to expect from them.

I have had to google the exact meaning of "malice" (I am Spanish)... It's not exactly what I thought. If he just want to make harm, then yes, some sort of insanity. I thought "malice" meant acting in he's own benefit without caring if it harms or using anyone else... which would be greed but not insanity.

If malice means harming others as an objective instead of a means, then I was wrong.

The contentious hard fork is much more unlikely with each of latest events:

- BU code is now publicly considered as buggy and untrustable.
- Some of previously BU supporters such as Charlie Shrem now recognise BU is not at all ready for prime time and advocate for Segwit asap.
- Jihan BU seems to be softening its position.
- Roger BUr is full of shit, as it has always been, so no news here.
- All the cards have been laid on the table, and it is now very obvious a contentious hard fork would benefit noone.
- If the (contentious) hard fork would happen everybody would blame miners of the consequences. Not only Jihan BU/Antminer would be finished, but it would also be the end of PoW in the way we know it. It's not wise to associate own fate with such a risky bet, but thats exactly what they have done.

Now if Jihan BU would find a plausible reason to change its mind and begin signaling for Segwit, the price would skyrocket. That's the wise bet and a win-win for everyone.

Many people have sold all or part of his stash in fears of the fork and surprisingly the price has remained over $1000. The FOMO that would be unleashed if a consensus towards Segwit (with no HF) happens would be unprecedented. Maybe $2000 overnight?

Yes, and if core broke (which I don't really know for sure) the agreement about the 2MB hard fork I can understand Jihan BU rage. But he is wrong in how he has dealt with the situation:

Bitcoin PoW was originally intended as a mean of decentralization, but things (and developments) have gone the exact oppossite. Now PoW is a source of centralization in the hands of a few. That's how things have evolved... and it wouldn't be a problem if we could trust miners would wisely use that power.

Yes, we need/want to trust miners, but latest events have shown a scary scenario in which we fear miners. That needs to come to an end, because, again, we really need/want to trust them for Bitcoin to keep growing.

Let's hope Jihan BU realizes the importance of TRUST and the consecuences of his actions.

Blocksize increase will probably happen in the future. But first comes first, and that is Segwit.

Why? Because it doesn't need a FUCKING HF, because a HF should only be done with the utmost consense and not on threats or dividing the community, and because if we think long term either Bitcoin will have a HUGE LOT of transactions in the future or none at all.... and you can only have so many transactions with L2 not with any linear blocksize increase.

And L2, when in full working state, will NEED a blocksize increase (for opening/closing channels), and when that happens there will be no division in asking for it. Everybody will support/demand the blocksize increase. And if CORE doesn't provide, then they will be the ones that will be left alone the same as its happenning now with BU nonsense.

Maybe I am very wrong, but I think that any minute ANTMINER could stop signaling for BU. Or maybe in some days. But I think it have to happen.

BU=Inmediate price down (less than half)
Segwit=Inmediate price UP (maybe double)
Nothing=Stagnation with long term downtrend

Just my opinion....

And that's because I think it is unlikely the scaling problem won't be addressed. The situation is already heated enough as to assume it will be addressed before end of year. If it wasn't then we would have a real problem.

I am speculating on miners finally coming back to their senses and start signaling for segwit activation. The ball is now on Jihan BU's court.

Several factors:

- He has made an strategically wrong move when he decided to start signaling BU making him personally (and ANTMINER) in the focus of this mess. Now all the darts are going to him instead of CORE. He is considered responsible of this situation and everyone is expecting him to solve the mess he has created. And BU is no solution but a bigger mess (as recent bugs and horrible public opinion is demonstrating).

If a HF occurs because of BU, he will be the scapegoat. SO he better avoid it now.

- Unless he is much more insane and obtuse than I would think he is, he should realise he has much more to gain making himself the SOLUTION of this deadlock instead of the problem. He could even be the "hero" if he know how to "sell" it.

- He can hold for some time his mined coins, then start signaling for segwit, then sell after the big spike upwards (=profit).

- The status quo was, until recently, the logical position as miners. For them it is better 1MB blocksize than higher blocksize. When they say otherwise they are just lying. But 1MB is not sustainable anymore, not for much longer.

- BU is not gonna happen. Not after the recent events.

- CORE is not going to increase the blocksize just now. Not BEFORE Segwit.

- There is a high probability that Litecoin will activate Segwit soon. Increasing the chances that Bitcoin follows next.

So... Only logical outcome is Segwit, and if that's gonna happen, it's better to be a promoter than keep fighting against it.

For the average user:

- Alternative to use either on-chain transactions (just as now) or side-chain ones.
- When using side-chain/LN/L2 whatever: Lower fees and, most importantly, INSTANT transactions/payments.

FOr the miners:

- On launch.. mostly the same revenue from fees as now.
- Once the market develops, maybe a bit higher fees and, more important, as Bitcoin grows the price should do so = higher revenue from mined coins.

Also, nothing stops mining pools/miners to run L2 hubs as a side business.

But you must take into account that it was only a month ago that it was possible to signal for Segwit (http://www.coindesk.com/litecoin-moves-to-adopt-bitcoins-segwit-scaling-upgrade/)

And Litecoin mining pools are organised differently as in Bitcoin. Charlie Lee explains it:

 
Charlie Lee‏Verified account @SatoshiLite Mar 21

@jmoarg Most of the Chinese pools act as one unit. So they either all for it or all against it. So it can happen quickly. I'm working on it.

It is not that Litecoin *needs* Segwit for its increased TPS, but it fixes transaction malleability among other fixes plus it could mean some pump to its price... so why not? Litecoin has nothing to lose and something to gain.

Also, the threshold for Segwit activation in Litecoin is 75% instead of 95% as in Bitcoin.

In the past 24 hours it seems that some percentage of signaling mined blocks have changed from BU to Segwit. (4% over the total, 12% change from BU to Segwit).

https://coin.dance/blocks

BU: 36.1%
Segwit: 31.9%
8MB: 5.6%

Maybe its just an oscillation... but worth pointing it. (ANTPOOL, representing almost half of BU signaling, is still doing it, though).

Where do you see that?

I am seeing 22.29%:

 Litecoin Softforks‏ @LTC_Softforks 23m23 minutes ago

Litecoin
segwit: 865 of 3880 blocks signalling
percentage: 22.29%
last 576 blocks: 21.70% (-)
BIP9 last 576 blocks: 36.81%

I see. 22.27% is for all current activation period. 44.10% for past 24 hours. Looks good

How low does Bitcoin need to go before Jihan BU stops signaling that shit?

That's nonsense. Noone seemed to really care about transaction fees when we were at 1300.

Well, now fees are lower, yet the price keeps dropping.

XRP WTF? It's going to be the mother of all dumps

Finally the truth about what otherwise seemed like a totally irrational position against Segwit.

Why would he not take advantage of it?

ANTMINER is a business. He is the CEO. He is right in taking advantage of his "optimised asic"... He is wrong in trying to hide it with all that nonsense BUllshit. Now we will know how much he was wrong and if the public image damage is bigger than that 20-30% advantage.

Anyway, now that all cards are turned on the table we have a problem here. How to convince Jihan BU to lose that advantage in favor of Segwit.

Not gonna happen.

But if I understand it correctly, those "boosted" ASICS can also mine in a "non boosted" way which is compatible with Segwit. Then the solution is clear.... When all miners are "boosted" it will be no advantage, and switching to "non-boosted" mode for Segwit will keep the status quo.

Of course it is LN vs Big Blockers. Who said otherwise?

We want Segwit and LN so that most of transactions don't end in the distributed blockchain.

Segwit+LN is a real scalable solution. Increasing the block size is the bandaid.

P.S.: I don't opposse to eventually increasing the block size. But not now, and not before implementing segwit+LN.

Bullish?

Are you aware that you are trying to rationalise against something that you are ALMOST doing? (there's not much difference between 90% and 100%).

I don't know if the price will go up or down.... just making a point about something I find a bit incoherent.

I understand what you are saying, and in fact it is very similar to what I do. But again, it's not that different to what that guy says he did. Only a 10% different in the betting to the upside or downside.

So basically you are hedging around 10% and he is hedging 0% of the funds allocated to Bitcoin investment. In the end what really matters the most is if you are right or wrong on your bet. Other than that, it's just a 10% difference. Also, most people can decide to allocate additional funds to Bitcoin if deemed appropiate.

Only a 10% difference, even if it psycologicaly makes you have a much different perception.


Yes, I agree in the mindset difference. But it is just that, a mindset difference, not a REAL difference.


That's it. You are "betting" on long term up direction, and you are doing it with 90% of your bitcoin allocated funds. It's no wonder you have had a great result overall for the past two years.

And with the 10% you have been basically scalping, which might have given you even better results. That's ok. But most of your great results are because of an "almost all in" bet in the right direction.

If this past two years the direction of price would have been downtrend.... you would have had a pretty poor result no matter the small 10% hedge you were using.


He is employing a "system". He thought the price direction could be downwards and got all out. If he is right, good for him, he will get all in when he deems appropiate price. If he is wrong... maybe he will also go all in (at a "loss") if he thinks the price will keep going upwards.

The only difference I appreciate is that you devote a 10% to sorta scalp and he doesnt. I like scalping. I was a big time scalper in 2013 (with very good results btw), until I ended "all in" because the price came lower than I would sell any more nor invest one more buck. I just let it sit, until I started again buying (not selling) in 2015 after the dump to $300 right after the $500 spike.

But scalping/hedging with 10% is still 10%. Your result is mostly defined by the 90% you have in a bet of long term upside (which I also share, btw).


Of course you are "guessing/betting" on one direction. You are doing it with 90% of your allocated funds on upside move!
In fact you are also doing it with the 10%.... Yes, you are reserving it in a bet on a possible downwards movement. Call it hedging, or whatever you want, but its also a guess/bet.... Otherwise you would be 100% on your feeling.


An example? Well, maybe you think that guy is all out and if the price keeps rising he will keep forever out.... But he can change its mind if price keeps rising an additional 10% and now he thinks it will keep rising for sure. Yes, he will have lose a 10% profit, but again, you also did for not being all in. So both of you are on par on that.

In the end, I am just trying to say that we are all betting on up and down, no matter if you do with 100%, 90% or any other arbitrary percentage of funds. What is really important is that we don't do it with more than we can afford to lose/keep frozen for a long time.... if that happens, you are fucked big time.


Your system have been working for you because:

1) Mainly you have been almost all in, in a bull market.
2) YOu have been scalping, buying the dips and selling the spikes in a bull market.

If you would have been doing the same in a downtrend market you would feel very different about your system.


Oh, you don't need to always be right with a 100% betting system. You just need to be right more than 50% of the bets. Again not much more different than any other system bassed on percentage of allocated funds to be in/out and hedge.

I don't want to break a record on the longest reply or something but also I don't like to leave a message without reply, so I won't go into a detailed quote.

What I was trying to say is that if you have never lowered from a 85% IN bitcoin, that is some bet you have on longterm upwards movement.

Whatever you do with your 5-10-15% of trading stash is something else. You say that makes a big difference, I say it isn't that much of a difference. We can agree on that disagreement.

If you were doing what you do, with a BIGGER percentage of trading/hedging funds I would say the difference is bigger. In fact, if you are getting a considerable better benchmark on the trading of that 10%... maybe you should increase that percentage to make the difference (and the profits) bigger.

You are right in that I don't know what that guy system is or if he has system at all. I was just trying to give some example in how being 100% in/out can be done following some kind of system, not trying to guess if that was exactly what he was/will be doing.

In the end, we are all sorta gambling. Remember martingale betting is also a "system" no matter what the long term consecuences it probabilistically have.



 

New record of all cryptocurrencies market cap: 28 billion.

Litecoin Segwit closer to activation threshold. If Litecoin manages to activate Segwit it will also be a big thing for BTC.

BTC price nearing highs in which a cascade of shorts liquidation could start to happen.

Not looking bad at all at this time, but lets see how it all folds.

Are you aware that you are trying to rationalise against something that you are ALMOST doing? (there's not much difference between 90% and 100%).

I don't know if the price will go up or down.... just making a point about something I find a bit incoherent.

I thought that when I copy pasted the exact reply that started our previous discussion you would get the joke

Anyway, why don't you just recognize that you are gambling as we all are? System, no system.... it's all bets on one or other direction... and anything in the middle is just hedging on our main bet.

That said, its not like casino gambling... We are all here because we know the worst case is that our "investment" can go to cero but, in the best case, it has a big probability to be multiplied several times.

I see dead walls.

Anyone knows if Hong Kong's companies registry is public as it is in many countries? In Spain and some other European countries anyone can access the annual balance sheet of a company for a measly 10€.

So Tether is something like this... There is a business that has a bank account in which there are some million dollars deposited.

For each dollar they issue 1 Tether. So we must trust that they are only issuing 1 tether for each USD deposited. We also need to trust the company won't go bankrupt for whatever reason. We must also trust that no agency/goverment will seize the funds of the bank accounts, again for whatever reason. We also need to trust that even if none of the previous happens, that no intermediary bank will reject the transfer when we request the USD value. Also, there's no interest paid on the deposit and, in the best possible scenario, we will be able to recover the exact devalued USD value.

I don't get it.

It will probably be much more than 1500 in next rally... but I am not so sure the time for such rally has come. Maybe BU is already dead, but Segwit/scaling doesn't seem to be happenning in months if not more.

When it happens I think a contributing factor will be all the money that has gone to altcoins which is much faster to convert into Bitcoins than fiat.

But until the scaling issue is solved with utmost consense, 1500 is probably the most we can expect in short term and even that is doubtful.

Stamp is holding... but if bitcoins continue to flow from bitfinex to bitstamp to be withdraw in FIAT, bitstamp could have some liquidity problems. Whoever is thinking about buying would do better sending FIAT to bitstamp and buying there. Good arbitrage opportunity here.

I did just that in the last few days of MtGOX, when it had a BTC price of less than 100$ I transferred some FIAT which never even arrived in time to show on balance. Knew the risks, did the bet nevertheless, and lost it (as probabilistically expected).

I did it for a 7:1 in case of winning. Would never do it for a 1.2:1.... but hey, it's your gamble!.

I think big mining pools sell OTC. Maybe some even sell on futures contract.

Bitfinex can't withdraw FIAT whilst Chinesse exchanges can't withdraw BTC... Maybe they should merge before its too late. Love is in the air.

It works like this: One OTC buyer gives them some money now for a predeterMINED (lol) ammount of BTC to be given back before a date. It looks like some sort of futures  contract to me.

I don't think they hit the exchanges for their selling unless as some sort of strategy to influence the price. Most probably they don't ever do it.

Of course, they do indirectly influence the price, as those buyers that get the BTC from them would otherwise have to get them on exchanges.... but the effect is somewhat diluted.

Free Willy... again.

The good thing, is that with all this FIAT blockage in FINEX and people running with their Bitcoins to other exchanges we will soon know if they have full reserves after the hack or if they don't.

Source?

It's no wonder they need to get reach of their cold storage... No exchange should have that much bitcoins on hot wallet to serve a "bitcoin bank run".

As long as their cold wallet doesn't run empty, everything is fine.

How do we know that's the only cold wallet Bitfinex have?

Also, how do we know it isn't that most of the Bitcoins on deposit have already been withdrawn to other exchanges and thus the lowered price?

When/If Bitfinex stops Bitcoin withdrawals we will know for sure.

Yep. Things are getting funnier by the moment. What a bad day I chose to quit smoking.

I have bought Bitcoin at ATH several times with very good profit most of the times. Not saying that right now it is a good idea.... It even isn't ATH yet.

Why you always make it so complicated? lol

I did not say we are not close to ATH, I just said we are not at ATH. The difference is very important because we are still in a zone that could rebound downards instead of break upwards freely. Also, I am using Kraken price which right now is 1150€ and ATH during ETF day was at 1200-1227.

That's 75€ difference, not negligible at all. If the price would be able to cross that 75€ the cascading effect of short margin calls would probably shoot it higher.

I do agree that we are in a somewhat mean ATH average price, but its spikes which force margins to be liquidated and we are not there yet.

Yes, but whats the question? If there is any here...

All you are saying is a possible scenario, yes. In the past years I have done consulting for several companies in bankruptcy and let me tell you most of the times they are in a denial that makes them invent all sort of excuses for its solvency problems that would be similar to what's happening here. But also, it may be a legit explanation for a solvable incident. We just don't KNOW.

They DO know for sure, so yes, if they know they are solvent they have an awesome opportunity to take advantage of arbitrage. If they are not, then it doesn't matter, they are fucked big time as if they do that and later not be able to fill all claims, there would probably be criminal charges (depend on local laws).

If you are worried that this could be a GOX 2.0 that would crash BTC into a bear market for years.... I don't think so. GOX was the reference at that time, and it is almost a miracle the market recovered from that fiasco. Bitifinex, being somewhat important, is nowhere near in the position that GOX was.

If you have some funds in Bitfinex I would withdraw them asap, but other than that.....

I think I have found out why sometimes your posts are so large. You do insist in quoting/replying to any and all paragraphs. That's good for a detailed followup, but its better to just get the idea of main points and do a single reply that covers them all. Its just a suggestion that will make everything easier. It's not perfect, it loses detail, but it is much more convenient.

About the insider trading... It matters a lot if they are solvent or not: If they are, they can take advantage of arbitrage... if they aren't they would KNOW not to do it. In fact, this big spread would suggest they are not doing the arbitrage, at least not in large ammounts.... THAT is suspicious... but who knows.

Now I know your worry, you have some funds on Bitfinex but you have it in FIAT (otherwise you would have already withdraw) and you would need to buy BTC at that premium price to get out.... Ok, lemme check something.... Ok, I am sorry, I tried to find another coin that wouldnt be at a premium price to get out, but all of them are. I donno, it's your call.

This is very weird.

It's the first time that, being so close to ATH, the thread is not full of rocket pictures and moon posts... In fact, I haven't seen any.

Bullish?

Not exactly. Segwit is not only about a TPS increase. It is also a malleability fix, and, more importantly, opens the LN accesibility. Any coin that plans to be used as a fast payment system will need LN.

Also, once/if Litecoin has Segwit active and well tested the path for Bitcoin Segwit will be easier.

This is VERY bullish in the medium/long term.

I have started (since yesterday) to leverage short USDT on Kraken as a means of hedging. *IF* USDT/Bitfinex is in deep shit, I will recoup my losses on BTC/Other coins on the sucess of my short. If everything is OK, I will win on my main investment and only lose a few percent on my short against USDT (as in the worst case USDT won't ever be worth more than 1:1). Win-Win.

Bitfinex cold wallet cannot get empty. I mean, unless they are way beyond bankruptcy, they will never run out of Bitcoins when they can buy them OTC and sell to their users for a 10% premium. The same happens to USDT, they have sold them for $1 each, and now they can rebuy for almost $0.91. Genious.

Yes, it is not IMPOSSIBLE for USDT to be priced more than $1, but the probability is so minuscule I almost ignore it. The real risk right now, is if that it recovers from 0.9 to 1 that is a 10% loss. But I can accept it as a mean to hedge my main investment. Of course I am counting that in case it fails it could go several tens percent lower.

It's just a bet/hedge strategy, not a failproof investment, as such thing doesn't really exist

Also, I am only currently betting 3-5% of my trading funds on that bet, with a maximum target of around 10% depending how all this evolves.

I can answer you both questions... even if the second is not really a question

1) We don't know. They might have more cold wallets. Also, they wouldnt even need to use their cold wallets as they can just buy Bitcoins OTC and sell them to users for a 10% premium. If they are not doing that already, the situation is even more scary that it appears to be.

2) If they were in deep shit, they would for sure do play all sort of games to hide that fact. Running bots to increase trading volume, or even just fake it is so easy you should never take that as proof of ANYTHING. There are two types of bankrupted companies/managers... the ones that do recognize it preventively even before it happens to avoid any sort of responsability (we know Bitfinex is not that type, as they SHOULD have done it right after the hack when the liabilities exceeded the assets)... and the ones that are already so deep in their shit that keep playing until they totally drown in their own shit.

I am doing it with my main Kraken account, but again I don't think a more than 10% loss is feasible in the worst case and also I am betting a relatively low amount that can be easily covered by my funds.

If I had to worry about extremely low probabilities that could happen I wouldnt even have any funds on any exchange because theres a really measurable probability of all the funds to be lost.

Are you guys aware that today we reached an ATH global market cap for all crypto of 30 Billion?

It's the first time that there is enough liquidity in the altcoin market (10 billion) to extra pump the next Bitcoin rally whenever it happens.

On another note, Litecoin is almost on the verge of locking in Segwit, which would not only be great for Litecoin, but also for Bitcoin in the medium/long term.

The scaling issue is the only relevant matter that is holding BTC price at this moment, I can only dream what will happen when the issue becomes a non issue anymore.

Yep. And you only need to read this thread to notice that there's still no FOMO and many people claim to have sold at least a significant part of their Bitcoin stash. If it weren't for Bitfinex/USDT I would say there are good factors for a new rally after/IF the ATH is broken.

But you never know with Bitcoin....

I have to declare myself a fan of this Jiang Zhuo’er miner/pool operator. This is a must read:

https://medium.com/@zhangsanbtc/if-bitmain-opposes-segwit-because-of-asicboost-why-did-they-agree-to-activate-segwit-before-a-257d832d8ef7

I am pro Segwit and against HF's, but after seeing what has been achieved by Litecoin with almost 100% support of the miners I have to say that a HF would not be so terrible if done with some similar consensus.

This guy is the first miner that makes some sense and gives some technical arguments that Jihan BU always avoid. If all miners were like this guy there would be a sentiment that CORE are the bad guys instead of the miners as is still happening.

I am still somewhat pro CORE. But I will keep paying attention to all this guy has to say in the near future and I hope he will keep that moderate position so that a consensus can finally solve current Bitcoin scaling issue.

I also hope JIhan BU does some step back and leaves PR on guys like Jiang Zhuo'er. Maybe there is also some guys that should step back (in PR) in CORE accordingly.

The HK agreement (Segwit now + 2MB some time after) is the way to go IF it is possible to reach a similar consensus as what has been achieved in Litecoin.

I have some hope. THis is bullish.

I am starting to think that all the scaling FUD has been for a good so we can have a slow & steady rise instead of an uncontrolled pump/bubble.

On a side note, Bitfinex is still going full retard. Even if it is irrelevant anymore, I will have a big smile when it reaches $1500.... which at this rate could happen very soon.

There is a LOT of money now in altcoins market that can move back to Bitcoin almost instantly at any dip/correction. So I wouldn't expect anything big downwards. On the other hand, a rally is within the reasonable if/after ATH is broken clearly.

What analysis technique are you using there? What's that circles thing? I would like to read some about it.

Noone knows what will have the better outcome between keep waiting for a big correction or go all in just now or on next small dip. The only thing I can tell you is, if you already have the funds on an exchange which in fact means you are already accepting some minor risk (unless it is Bitfinex, in which case the risk is way above MY threshold level of acceptable risk), you can do some "hedging" on your going in.

For example, you can go buying in small quantities and depending on evolution of the price decide what to do next. If it goes down, you can either increase your funds "in" or wait for a deeper bottom, if it goes up you can also keep increasing the ammount and setting some stop losses, etc etc....

Just an idea.... But in the end what matters the most is if you are investing on a bull market or a bear market (long term).  

WTF? Are you high or something? Did you just wake up having a dream of Bitcoin rallying nonstop to $9000?

What happens? We are still going sideways, on the upper side, but sideways....

Digital crash?!?! What digital crash are you talking about troll?!?!?! Everything is going ok. Slow and steady.

Has anything special happenned at all?

Old news. Now go to bed, adam. Tomorrow will be a shiny new day in Bitcoinland.

And that's where you are completely wrong, because almost anything is a "store of value". Gold is, silver is, currencies are, marble is, copper is, steel is, FIAT is, collectibles are, wood is.... everything.

Once we have agreed upon that, we could discuss how some things are worse or better as store of value.

And at the moment, cryptocurrencies have some very interesting qualities as store of value.

If everything goes according to the plan, once ETH dumps the current pump it will flow into next ETC and LTC pumps and, after that is done, everything will flow back to BTC for the next rally.

Next week is critical

It looks like some people are starting to get positions before the rally.

This may turn interesting faster than I thought.

We don't need no more stinking ATH, we need a RALLY.

Bitcoin is way undervalued in comparison to altcoins. That's what changed.

2013 volatility equivalent would be a rally from $1300 straight to $6000 in a couple months and another from $6000 to $20.000 before end of year. That was 2013.

Of course we cannot expect that... but a first little step to 1500-2000 would be reasonable before starting with the moon/rockets pics.

I do totally agree that Bitcoin needs scaling to really grow. In current situation I think the probability of Bitcoin solving the scaling thing by activating Segwit in the near future (maybe even before end of year) is going higher (not talking about CURRENT signaling, thats BUllshit).

In the meantime, it can perfectly reach 1500-2000.

And it needs way more than 50TPS to really grow as intended. Fortunately that is solved with Segwit+LN.

Another? Nahhh... It's almost the SAME ATH of the last time. We need to start considering something like $100 from previous ATH to really call it an ATH. Maybe very soon though.

I do agree. But again, all this does is give "legitimacy" to the PREVIOUS ATH. Also it is starting to consolidate as new bottom/support.

But I won't be calling NEW ATH until it is clearly above ($100+ more would make it) the previous one. That is what would signal to me that a new rally has started. It is also what I am expecting for this week.

In fact, if you think about it, every sale at any price was lousy one.

Now it is very a good moment to use a ridiculous part of the profits to buy a hardware wallet anyone that doesn't already have one.

I will never cease to insist on the importance of this issue. Even if you are already using paperwallets you need to try hardware wallets if you haven't already done so. Really. You will thank me later.

I have the idea that the more people "invest" in hardware wallets the better for the price as it has some additional impact on how many Bitcoins are withdraw from the exchanges. Less supply on the exchanges is good and also makes additional pressure on exchanges not incurring in shady fractional banking with user's Bitcoin deposits.

* I am in no way affiliated with any of the manufacturers. Trezor or Ledger Nano S will both serve you well.

Ok, $1400 on Bitstamp broken, I am gonna call that a valid ATH.

Let the rally begin!

Yep: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lingam

Kamasutra is full of references to that denomination.

So... Bullish?

Yep.

Some people think that spreading their bitcoins on several exchanges minimizes the risk of loss and while that is true in part, it does nothing against helping prevent fractional banking.

Also some people think that paperwallets are good enough and don't want to take a look onto hardware wallets for some reason or another. But they don't realize that hardware wallets are not only more convenient (less cumbersome) than paperwallets but also more secure as they avoid the necesary step of introducing the private key onto a computer when then time to retrieve the funds come.

A hardware wallet is a MUST for anyone with more than one single BTC. Maybe even for someone with less than that as I am almost sure that once he experiences the great usability it offers he will be encouraged to buy more BTC

Once hardware wallets become more mainstream the price will skyrocket.

Well, one more pump and they won't have to worry anymore.

The few short positions that remain are probably quite close to be margin called. And that will be our next well deserved spike.

Every time I hear that of the "Bitcoin Elite" I remember 'Loaded' and his 40.000+ BTC. I know he was already rich enough before investing in Bitcoin, but I tend to assume that, at this moment, it is his Bitcoin investment what has grown enough to now be the majority of his net worth... And at this rate he may be soon to reach the status of Bitcoin Billionaire.

I am finding some similarities in Bitcoin vs the early 20th century oil boom.

^^^ This.

I guess that almost everybody that have been into Bitcoin for some years now could have "invested" way much more on it, but we didn't because the risks were so high: Exchanges hacked, bitcoins lost, politics, chinesse........ Now we have developed a great resistance to all the FUD, there are several exchanges so that one going belly up is not that critical, have hardware wallets, etc etc....

Also, after all this years, including a big bear market that we have left behind, the risks are several orders of magnitude smaller. So the investment can grow accordingly.

You did?!?!

Or maybe you didn't have anymore to sell on the dip?

Who bought at the bottom?

Kraken wasn't that much affected because it is lagging/has lower price than Bitstamp. Same happens with BTC-e. So the dips are somewhat cushioned. Tomorrow will be the day euro deposits start to hit the exchanges.

The Bitfinex issue should be meaningless in comparison to MtGOX for several reasons. Not only there are way more exchanges out there, but also there has been enough enough time and advices to get out of there already. I supposse that after MtGOX lesson, most have already learn the risks.

If anyone loses any money when/if Bitfinex goes belly up it is because they don't really care about it or because they are shorters that are willing to sink with the ship.

Also if it really goes under, it will probably die with one final big spike upwards.

Yes, that is also true. Although I neither expect that to be a violent move at all.

Another shiny day in Bitcoinland (and LTC too )

But I want to share something I have just noticed when I arrived home. Kraken has have some misbehaviour today (again):

If you look at the graphs there have been a very weird spike downwards from 1339€ to €1221.93 with no significant volume.

It's not just a bitcoinwisdom error, as you can also see it as the 24h low mark on Kraken itself.

What's so strange about this? Well, I have a limit order (since a few days ago) to buy BTC at around 1240€ which has NOT been fullfilled... but the price went lower than my buy order?!?! That's obviously a misbehaviour of their trading engine -not the first at all- and I think that may be some tight longs could have been incorrectly liquidated.

Anyone else that have been affected by the misbehaviour, by not having orders executed when they should, or anyone that has been incorrectly liquidated (they shouldn't if limit buy orders would have executed), please contact me.

It all depends on your particular situation. For someone buying 10-15BTC could mean more than doubling their current stash, and for them that could be a risky investment to do while at ATH. I would at least wait for some dip/correction or do it gradually. Also, for someone that already have 1000+ BTC buying 10-15 would not change much....

If you were SURE that BTC will be $5000 in a couple of years, obviously you should buy as much as you could afford... But you are not really SURE, noone is. And even if you could somehow be absolutely SURE, you could still think that a correction could lower the price from what it is now... and buy there.

That said, yes, I consider buying some more, the same as I do consider selling some depending on the situation. I have my long term stash that I don't plan to touch in years, and a 20-40% that I trade regularly to keep increasing my main stash. I also sometimes add some fiats funds to my trading stash when I feel like and regularly keep moving profits to my long term stash.

I have never transferred any FIAT back so I would say I am still buying and have no plans to stop yet. But my new deposits are gradually being less and less in comparison to my ever increasing stash value.

In the end of the day, you are on your own.

I see bubbles all over the first picture and a perfectly clear Head and shoulders figure on the second one.

What are you trying to say?

^^^ This

All my investment in Bitcoins is based on a target price of around $10.000 for 2020. Maybe I am right or maybe I am not, but all that I am doing now I am doing it taking into account a decent probability of that target price in that time lapse.

Also, It is not that I plan to cash out when that happens, but it is also my bet that by that time, if the prediction has been fullfilled, I would be able to directly spend from my BTC stash for my everyday purchases.

And I also bet that this is exactly the "plan" of most people around here. Am I wrong?

Please try to keep on topic.

Ok, Ok. Maybe next time

About the wall... It's pulled atm, it looks like someone is playing... I don't see why. The price is perfectly ok where it is right now until next week. There's no need for another pump yet. Maybe even a little correction ($50) would be healthy.

Maybe it is some whale signaling to others that if they dare to dump he will buy right into it. Donno.

I would prefer the price remain at this level and resume the rise next week. No hurry guys.

Can you guys please stop pumping as if these were the last bitcoins and buy on the the dips? I don't want to see a violent correction that ruins my day. Thanks.

So there you have: If most people use LN for their small transactions/payments more block space there is for the "important" transactions if you are willing to pay the fee. You can choose which method you use. What's bad about that?

It's not that you need to chose one way or another, you will be able to decide for each transaction you decide to make.

It's not that users wont be incentivised to go to... Which trouble? Standard BTC transactions will be exactly the same trouble as they are now, nothing changes. But yes, users will be incentivised to use LN for several reasons:

- Lower fees
- Almost INSTANT transactions <- This is a really important point. No blocksize increase could ever reduce a minimum of 10 mins for the first confirmation.
- Real scalability: No more TPS limit. LN networks could process thousands, maybe even millions of transactions per second.

The future usage I envision for myself is something like this:

- For moving my BTC in non trivial ammounts -> BTC Blockchain
- For buying "coffee" or who knows what other smallish stuff -> LN
- For things between those two use cases -> LN or BTC Blockchain depending on the circumstances.

I am not saying that a Block size increase won't be needed in the future. In fact I am sure it will. But what we need first is Segwit. After that, and if it is possible to achieve an enormous consense (95%) for a hardfork to increase the blocksize, then I am ok with that too... a fixed blocksize increase, not a joke like BU.

Until now it is doing exactly what it should be doing to continue rising next week: Small but significant correction, half recovery and consolidation. Not sure if there will be another test of $1500 before monday... In fact it would be slightly better if it does.

The biggest pump will come when people realise that altcoins can not go on pumping indefinitely and a good chunk of market share returns to BTC. That has not hapenned yet.

Second option. I plan to have some modest amount of BTC on a bank-hub as if it were a physical cash wallet to carry-on. It is this "bank-hub" who will have the LN channels open with the most common stores/other hubs.

And, exactly the same as I would do with my carryon wallet I will keep periodically refilling it as needed.

But the whole of my funds would reside on the blockchain, the same as most of my FIAT resides on a bank.

I don't see whats the problem with this?

So true:


YEAR 2007




YEAR 2008




* In case anyone doesn't know: Yes, the bills are for real. That's some serious devaluation in a short time, isn't it?

Maybe not, I bet some are awakening already. In two hours the ViaBTC poll (https://twitter.com/ViaBTC/status/860933165002522625) ends and the results in favor of Segwit will be outstanding. I hope with that starts a change similar to what has hapenned to Litecoin in the past month.

Also the fact that Litecoin is about to activate Segwit will be an excellent test bed for the exceptics, plus we have already seen the effect it has already have on the price (almost 10x and rising).

Litecoin has shown that miner consensus is not only possible but also VERY desirable.

The scaling drama is way near to a resolution than has ever been before. And when that happens the rally will be epic.

I don't blame them... They buy any shit and see it rise, and buy and see it rise higher, and....

This goes to our lesson today, for those who don't already know: Free-Float and liquidity.

Free-Float: "Free float is a term in stocks trading. It describes the proportion of shares of a publicly traded company that is traded in the stock market. Note that not all free float shares may be actively circulating on the market at any given time as many traders purchase shares as a long-term investment."

Liquidity: "In the market, liquidity has a slightly different meaning, although still tied to how easily assets, in this case shares of stock, can be converted to cash. The market for a stock is said to be liquid if the shares can be rapidly sold and the act of selling has little impact on the stock's price."

So what do these two terms have to do with recent boom of the altcoins?

Let's just take Ripple as an excellent example of this... Ripple has one of lowest free float of all cryptocurrencies. That means that even if there is a gigantic numbers of coins (38 billions!) almost all of them are in the hands of the issuers/partners.

Only a minuscule amount of that 38 billion coins are in the exchanges for trade. How many XRP's do you or people you know have? Exactly... not much, if any. Yet the market cap has risen from around 200 million to around 5 billion now. That is an impressive 25x price increase in a couple of months!

How is that possible then? Well, as I said, only a very small of those 38 billion coins are being traded. So the price keeps rising while there is more people demanding that "scarce" coins that the issuer is offering to the market.

But, I can hear you: a 25x price increase? Fuck that, I am doing BIG money on it! Who cares about that free-float thingy?

Well, you should care, because that's where Liquidity comes to give you a reality lesson. As soon as the demand is higher than the offer, price can keep rising, but when that happens and more people want to sell, the ridiculous small free-float turns into a gigantic volatility that can easily undo most of the artificial and unrealistic high price. Not to mention what would happen if the issuer decides to sell some additional chunk on the market causing an epic dump.... but they won't probably do, cause that would be pointless considering the low liquidity.

This is where Bitcoin differs from most altcoins because:

1) The free-float, after all this years maturing in the market, is orders of magnitude bigger. And the only "scarcity" that there might be is NOT artificial, as it comes from LONG TERM investors. That is healthy.

2) The liquidity is also orders of magnitude higher. As this long journey has taken good care of most weak hands and short time holders.

Market cap means nothing unless we are comparing assets with similar free-float and liquidity.

In the short term you can profit greatly in altcoins, but in the long term everything comes back to an equilibrium point.

So yes, you could perfectly create a PokemonCoin tomorrow and fool everyone into believing its the next big thing.... until people want its money back and the castle crumbles.


* Not all altcoins are the same. There are also some fundamentals behind, and also some coins whose free-float is not that bad, but none compares to Bitcoin. Also, it is very possible to make some big bucks trading altcoins, even the shittiest PokemonCoin... but you can lose it equally fast. It's your game.

And this is exactly what I was talking about a few hours ago when I posted my wall of text about free-float and liquidity of altcoins vs Bitcoin.

Kraken. But it only hapenned on the USD/ETH trading pair, not on ETH/EUR.

Kraken USD order books are very thin as its mainly EUR.

Even though I mostly agree... I find it quite funny and ironic that we are here talking about Tulips when that is the same they all were saying about Bitcoin some years ago

Yes, but now swap that altcoins market cap graph for the one of Bitcoin until november 2013.

In fact that's exactly the comparison they used to do.

Yes. They used to lag behind because it was extremely dificult to make deposits there.

What has changed?

Well, now there is a LOT of money coming from other coins (eth, dash, ltc, ...) so trader there are faster reducing the spread.

It's more complex than that. If we would experience a BIG pump on BTC you would see it more clearly. ALTS are continually pumping and dumping and there is always traders with liquidity on their BTC-e accounts. There's no need to be an inmediate connection between a rise in Bitcoin and a dump in altcoins.

That was correct when BTC was responsible of the majority of the volume and liquidity, but now "deposits" can come from other alts, withdraws can go to them too. And funds on trader's accounts can go to Bitcoin or other altcoins. ie: a trader may chose to buy bitcoin instead of ethereum if he sees the spread makes it "cheap".

As I said, its more complex than that, but the dynamics of the liquidity flow has changed greatly in the past months.

Oh, it was. And it took almost two years to start recovering.

Ok, I can agree on that. Bitcoin obviously wasn't, as it has been shown. But it certainly was a case of unsustainable mania, like it is happening right now with many alts. Time will tell.

Which fiasco? I am trading all day long and have several feeds open... Haven't read anything about a "fiasco". Source?

Ok, I thought you were refering to something new.

Also I wouldn't consider it a "fiasco". I mean, are you sure the problem isn't in the exchange end?

Have you checked the transaction in blockchain explorer to see if it is already confirmed but the exchange is not acknowledging it?

Did the transaction include a proper fee? Unless you set it up manually, it should be ok though.

Anyways, yes, Bitcoin needs to solve the scaling problem asap. But that is already "discounted" in current price. Once that get solved expect the price to skyrocket.

I think you are sending unconfirmed transactions as inputs for your transaction. Can someone please confirm this?

At this rate... are you so sure in a few years 21 BTC won't be "enough"?

At this point you need to stop sending more transactions until the previous ones settle. The problem here is that you have sent a transaction that used coins that you just received but were not confirmed before sending again.

Maybe someone has a better solution for this, but I would just wait and next time don't use unconfirmed coins as inputs for sending.

What software wallet are you using?

Also, if you have 12BTC on a software wallet my advice inmediately changes to: Buy a hardware wallet NOW!

Either Ledger Nano S or Trezor.

And for your current problem, make sure you have copy of the seed words and/or backup the wallet. Wait for transactions to settle as any time you keep sending new transactions using your unconfirmed change you are making the problem worse (no coin loss though, except for the fees).

Well, you are describing it perfectly. I can have better security with my hardware wallet without needing any special security measures. I could even use it on "public" computer.

I say "better security" because no matter how many layers of encryption you may be using... at some time you would need your computer to access the wallet in "plaintext" to sign the transactions and that opens an attack vector.

It's much better to have the signing be done inside a specialized hardware....

Plus it is amazingly more convenient to use.

You are missing my point. Paperwallets also have its use case but... HOW DO YOU PLAN TO CONVERT THEM BACK TO BTC (MOVE THEM) WITHOUT USING A SOFTWARE WALLET?!??!!?

For god's sake, why can't people just follow my advice and buy a damn hardware wallet!

Ok, not bad, you basically have a DIY hardware wallet. Still not as much secure (physical access to phone and chip-off technique among others) and certainly not as convenient to use as a commercial hardware wallet.... But yes, its ok.

Hardware wallets are now less than $100 anyways.... That's also cheap, and easier.

Oh yes, I also have the seed of my hardware wallet conveniently stored... But I prefer not to talk much about how. I guess that's something everyone can figure the better way for them.

Not yet. Is it a prediction for THIS week?

WTF?!?!?!?! Has Bitcoin become so "mainstream" now??

So, the guy is sure he wrote the recovery seed, but when he checked he notices that he didn't, but he is so sure that he did, even if he now realises that he didnt... that Ledger need to reimburse him or something?

Ok, this leads me to my second advice tonight: Drugs are fun, but try not to abuse them much.... Oh, no, scratch that, it is this one:

When you first configure your hardware wallet, WRITE DOWN THE SEED, send some trivial amount to it, then reset/erase it, input the seed you wrote down again, and if everything is ok you are good to go.

 

Oh well... In the meantime Bitcoin is still in the "no trading" zone, so I guess I didn't lose anything watching it... but, WHAT THE FUCKING FUCK?!?!

Not that I am recomending any site for lending... but you should already know the risks of lending.

That website is good because if you are gonna lend... at least get the most out of it. It is a real time comparison.

Jimbo, all the advices you give about paperwallets are really good, but I think probably have a misunderstanding about current hardware wallets: What is the point of vulnerability you are refering to?

I mean, you say as if they had a con in comparison to paperwallets... which is it?

This is exactly what I thought. You have same misunderstanding I had before being sold on the concept. Why do you think I am almost beating everyone to buy one?

When you first configure your device a seed will be generated (you can modify it if your are fucking paranoid) the same as with software wallets.

YOu can write down that seed (24 word list) the same as you would do with a paperwallet, you could configure a second device with the same seed.... you could do whatever you want the same as you would do with a paperwallet. But the plus is, when you USE it, all the signing of transactions is done inside the device so you will never expose your private keys to a computer as you would have to do with a paperwallet when you decide to "claim it".
 
Look, you have a bunch of bitcoins (WAY more than me), don't be cheap and buy one now, it's less than 100 bucks, try it, play with it for a while.... even if only for some little part of your stash (sorta warm wallet, because its a secure as a cold wallet, but as convenient as a hot wallet), and I am sure you will love it. Trust me.

YESSSSS, it will even work in a BIP39 compatible software wallet (but the point is to avoid software wallets).

First question: Yes, of course. It's basically the same as if you have your software wallet in multiple computers.

Second question I don't understand it well. If you want to have access to the same addresses you had you need to rebuild another device or a software wallet with the same BIP39 seed. Also, you can configure the device with a different seed if you want. And there's much more to it.... you can establish a passphrase (besides the regular pin) that depending on which one you enter it will access a different set of addresses (as if it had a different seed... plausible deniability, etc...)

Really, just buy one, it's a good thing.

I am thinking about the big amount of people that were left behind waiting for a correction to buy. Huge amount. That is what makes me confident that when a correction comes (and of course it will) it would be well cushioned by some of that people rebuying on the dip. Plus us hodlers that are also waiting for that dip to buy more.

Buy the fucking dip!

Told ya.

I think it was mostly early adopters with more bitcoins than common sense trading experience.

Well, it looks like we are back on track. Litecoin is also doing great and Monero and ETC recovering.

I am happy

Yes, it is really funny. I started playing with alts only a couple of months ago because I like to trade and Bitcoin was stagnating at that moment. Had some fiat on my trading account and started "gambling". It was a small amount, like 5% of my trading funds (which is less than 40% of my long term holding on cold wallet) and it has grown now to more than 30% of my trading funds even if Bitcoin has also risen in the meantime.

I wouldn't recommend anyone to put too much into alts instead of Bitcoin (much more safe long term in my view), but I have to recognise that the gambling has paid well.

I also believe that soon many alts that are way overpriced will start bleeding big time serving as fuel for a crazy Bitcoin rally.

Good luck with that. I can't tell you anything besides just wait for the transactions to settle and, again, buy a damn hardware wallet!

Oh, and I wouldn't touch STR or XRP right now except maybe for shorting them... but that's just me

How can you suggest someone to use a software wallet with 12BTC ($20.000)?

That's irresponsible advice  

$50 is only a 3% now. Wake me up when we are at $2000 or something...

No, it's not fine. When I am not trading I do computer security for a living and I know all the ways why it isn't.

That doesn't mean it is a sure thing that you will be hacked, but there's no need to gamble with that when current hardware wallets are so cheap and convenient to use.

About the guy with 50+BTC on an android.... well, everything is relative, it depends on his net worth... if that's what he spends in a couple of days or even a week, then its ok. Other than that it's irresponsible. But hey, it's his money.

You should stop watching the 1m chart if you are so sensible to minuscule movements

You did calculate your paperwallets by hand with pencil and paper?  

Anyways, you will probably need a computer and a software wallet to redeem them....

No need. He does have multiple off-site backups of his paperwallets... as everyone should for any kind of seed.

It's not a bad price to sell... the only risk is if you will be able to get onto the train again. Who knows...

Anyway it's good that some people get out of the train now better than later when the correction could be worse. We need people to sell to have a healthy rise.

Wall observed in Bistamp at 1790. It's the same of yesterday... If price cross 1800 this time, there's not much resistance above.

Probably Windows, but every OS has its good share of vulnerabilities.

Wow! Bitstamp wall completely eaten (not pulled) now!

Wow! Whats this? A vertical pump?!?!

There's less than 1000 coins to $2000 on Bitstamp... which is more or less the same as what I have seen being eaten from walls in the last couple of hours.

That's healthy organic "selling"... Enjoy your well deserved trip!

You are probably overthinking here... My guesstimate is that Elwar only spent/sold around 1-3% of his holdings, maybe even less than that.

For some reason I thought you were replying to the Elwar message, now I see I got confussed. Probably due to the emotion of watching the little pump

Anyway... What I meant is that if someone has already finished their accumulation process there is probably no reason to keep putting more eggs into the Bitcoin basket and, some spending is reasonable even if not "refilled".

I mean, lets say someone who has 500BTC, at current rate almost 1 million dollar, but doesn't have any other significant liquid holdings (fiat, stocks, etc). Well, diversification tells he shouldn't put more eggs into the Bitcoin basket. If it rises up, great, it's not that important that he spend some on the road, if it crashes... better he did spent some.
Also, as a person without much other significant holdings or excess income he wouldn't be able to increase significantly his current holding anyways (at current rates).

If someone is yet in the accumulation phase, then yes, he should probably replace if it is feasible for him, but that doesn't need to be done inmediately. Maybe in the next correction (even if it is higher than actual price).

Yes we can remember how things evolved in the past, what we did and what we could have done.... My first two BTC I bought them for 100Euro in total using paypal. I wish I had bought much more at that price but... that's nonsense, it's the same is if we wish to have bought a lottery ticket after knowing which number was the winner.

For me, I will probably stop completely my accumulation phase when Bitcoin grows to the point that it has the same total value as my liquid FIAT. Then I will probably also stop spending from my FIAT and start spending from my BTC. If that ever happens (maybe before 2020 if everything goes according to the plan). Also, if that happens, I expect my BTC to keep growing above my FIAT holding from that point on, even if spending from it (and not replacing anymore).

For that reasons, I can perfectly understand if someone in particular has already reached a point in which he is now better spending from BTC and not replacing it.

Notice how I say (moderately) spending from instead of selling/going all out.

Glad to hear you finally recovered full control of your coins.

The irony is that during those days stuck in limbo, BTC price didn't stop rising while those alts you wanted to buy instead didn't do so well

I have some better names:

1) Altcoin (ALT): to confuse newbies when they hear about altcoins all the time. Great branding.

2) Shitcoin (SHT): For mostly the same reason... although the branding isn't that good on second thought. BUt hey, if DOGE is still out there maybe there is hope!

At this point it is very hard to tell. $1800 should have been harder to cross, yet it did. From this point on it is all uncertainty. It could perfectly go on rising. COnsidering the tremendous pump altcoins have just had (up to x25 in case of Ripple) Bitcoin 2x pales in comparison.

Also, looking at the charts in log view, it is evident that current rise is orders of manitude lower than that of 2013.... but we all know what hapenned afterwards.

To buy or not to buy... That's the question.

Yep, that's what I have been doing with little amounts. Almost all my last hour buys now in the green. Nice recovery

Let's see if it holds...

It has no value now?

Do you even understand what store of value means?

That's where leveraging comes really useful (instead for going full retard on gambling): You can buy the dip at that instant. Then transfer the funds and settle the position when they arrive some days later.

Just never open a position that is more than a small porcentage (ie: less than 30%) of your trading funds/collateral unless you really know what your doing and want to engage in leverage trading.

I am starting to think that this week we will have at least an attempt at $2000, or maybe even a breakout if we have a small flash dip between $1800-$2000 before the attempt.

I think that change is because now there is more "fast funds" available. There are many more exchanges available and also LOTS of funds on the alts markets. Before, it was needed some delay for funds to be transferred from banks to exchanges, now it's just a matter of switching coins when Bitcoin "gets cheaper".

Also there is a giant pressure upwards fueled by the crazy rise alts have had in the last couple of months that almost make Bitcoin be incredibly stable (and undervalued) in comparison. Ie: Ripple 1/4 of Bitcoin's market cap? What sort of joke is that?

But it was a daily volatility of around 5-15% . At this heights, we need to get used to relate it to its percentage change and not the single dollars change. Imagine when Bitcoin prices in the several thousands.

Also, if they buy and they lose money they will always have some internal resentment about you, while if they profit... maybe they will have some resentment for not telling them sooner. It's an always losing game.

On other note, I like this sideways action before the $2000 attempt (which should be done in weekdays).

I tell them about the technology behind. I don't encourage or discourage them to buy in significative quantities ("invest").... And I explicitly discourage them to "trade", even if I do.

People that are not highly into "tech", I don't say anything... unless someone, for some reason, asks me about it. But again, I never tell them to buy or not to buy even if they ask for advice on what to do.

The short in Poloniex is so big that BTC lending rates are now at: Poloniex BTC   0.6699%/d - 1043.8%/y

Yet the price is still somewhat stable... REKT them shorters!

That's an EPIC first post for a newbie. Congrats!

Of all the altcoins Ripple is the last one I expected to be pumped like this. But if you forget about fundamentals it makes some sense that the most centralised and the one with smaller free-float coin could do this if the owners engage in some "shady" trading tactics.

As soon as the pump ends, the crash will be epic (much bigger than BTC crash in 2013-2014)... but while it lasts, it is making negative pressure on BTC price as that is what most traders are shorting to go long on XRP.

The good thing is that, once that happens, it could propel BTC to record heights.

Only while supply lasts!

Now that XRP is popping it looks like LTC and BTC can continue its road.

Maybe you are right. How's doing your MLN? Isn't it's value also based on artificial scarcity? What would you suggest as something with a very sucessful future?

Coins can be easily moved if you pay the right fee and don't do anything stupid like sending unconfirmed funds as input.

The people, even if them all combined, moving 0.1BTC to an exchange with an underpaid fee have no significant impact on prices.

The people moving bigger amounts, tens or hundreds of coins, sometimes even thousands, are the ones that can have an impact on the price.

If someone moving that amounts cannot pay 30cents-1dollar (those with bigger stashes don't need long tx's with multiple imputs) then the world is way fucked than I thought.

No, I don't think that's the cause of the price going up. In fact, it is the reason why price is not going higher.

Yes, and they will.

If you check the backlog, there are lots of transactions that are trying to spend unconfirmed funds, with fees so low that will never confirm, even with 0 fees... There are lots of clearly spammy ones, so they are and will keep unconfirmed because that's how they need to be.

Right now you can still get your transaction into the next block simpky by paying the right fee. So only problem that there is right now is if fees are or aren't too expensive. I, for one, think it is a too expensive fee for small transactions.

When LN is into place I wouln't mind to pay this fee for medium to big transfers of funds, and using LN for small/micro ones. But, anyway, it will also have the effect of reducing the fee also for blockchain txs. Maybe that's why some/most miners are against it.

WTF!

Talking about fees I have just made my first Monero transaction, from Kraken to Poloniex. As I always do to check everything is ok, I have sent one single XMR, before sending the rest.

Ok, here comes the shocking part:

XXXXX   05-17-17 XXXXXX +XXXX   Monero   ɱ0.95000   ɱ0.05000 Success
   
WTF again!? A 5% fee?

I have never had any problem with fees paid by Kraken (it doesn't let you specify it) with BTC or any other coins so I have to assume that there are other coins with MUCH WORSE transactions fees?

This is crazy.

P.S.: Considering XMR is now around 25€, that's 1.25€....

Yes, increasing the fee does surely almost guarantee it.

It doesn't solve the spam problem though... as spam will keep increasing the number of unconfirmed transactions in the mempool... but that's something that won't affect your properly  generously paid transaction.

For illustration, this is like a BUS system transportation, in which, when the BUS is empty, people can board for free or for a small fee, but paid travellers can always buy their seat.

When there is enough paying people to fill the BUS, all the rest can keep in the queue but there's no place for them, so they have to wait. If there is more people willing to pay that capacity in the BUS, you can always pay more than the rest to make sure you get your seat. As long as you are willing to pay enough, your seat is garanted, no matter how many are crowding outside waiting for their free/cheap ride.

Now take into account that many of people waiting outside in the queue doesn't really want to get onto the bus, they are just in the crowd complaining about how expensive the BUS now is, that they can't get on it for free anymore, and that they have been waiting for days to get a cheap seat.... while the paying passengers are just flowing as always (paying a higher fee as before though).



Even if they were delayed... they were delayed since when?

Even if you consider a 2 days delay (what?!) that does mean that after two days all the coins arrive at the exchanges and its only the next ones that are yet to be received. So theres not much impact from that, just some lag (again the two days figure is an extreme exageration).

Unless you are considering that this fee/delay problem is something new that just hapenned since the last hours/days.

Healthy organic growth, don't you think?

I didn't make any money on its way up, but I will do on its way down

Poloniex, but let me tell you that if I had shorted it the first time I thought about it, I would be broke by now

It's very risky to short an altcoin with a crazy unexplained rise.... and markets can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent.

Yep, really weird. It scared me at first, but after seeing it didn't have any impact on kraken price I decided to ignore it.
Whatever is hapenning on Bitstamp, it's happening just there.

Also, notice how even BTC-E is higher price than Bitstamp now.

I don't use software wallets anymore and my hardware wallet doesn't have support for XMR, so that's why I decided to send  them to Polo to increase my collateral. Thanks for the explanation, it seemed very crazy that XMR had even higher fees than BTC.

I don't... but I guess I got lucky this time

That won't happen. Most people now buy their coins in exchanges, and those DO to pay the right fee.

That said, the scaling issue needs to be resolved asap if we want to do a anything near a 75x price increase like some shitcoins did recently.

I am also starting to get very frustated at this issue. Mainly because its holding the price down.

Yep. Hapenned to me when Telefonica/Movistar adquired its filial Terra. Didn't want to sell, yet my shares got converted to a ridiculous small number of Telefonica shares.

Wait until XRP guys eventually start taking profit and then we talk about market caps again

The next THREE hours are critical. Going up.

When XRP started dumping Ripplers ran out to the next shitcoin, mostly NEM and DOGE.

Everything is ok, don't worry. They are already drying out of coins to pump and eventually a good chunk of those funds will come back to daddy.

He is probably doing what has to be done.

In Litecoin, having a well known creator as Coblee is, it was easier to reach some consensus. In Bitcoin, that's way harder, but if the right people joins affort and are able to come to a compromise everything is doable.

My best luck to Silbert. We really need it.

I am perfectly fine with the agreement of activating Segwit now and increasing the blocksize to 2MB before than a year.

Guys, this is the best offer for both sides that we are gonna get, better for everyone to start supporting it now.

P.S.: I don't like the idea of a hard fork (which would be needed to increase the blocksize) but, let's be real here, even with Segwit+LN we will need that increase soon if Bitcoin keeps growing. Better now than later, plus.... if that's the compromise needed to finally reach an agreement that solves the scaling issue... what the hell, I am all in!

I am not sure what you are proposing. I have reread it and I don't even know if you are in favor or against Segwit+2MB.

YOu are wrong in your assesment. In worst case, current fee market might DELAY some of txs intended to be sold on the market, BUT:

1) ANyone with a significant amount of Bitcoins should know better to use the right fee so that their BTC arrives in time.
2) Even if the sellers are somewhat stupid, their BTC will eventually arrive at the exchanges to be sold.
3) I have been hearing this argument since some time now. All that delayed tx's should have arrived by now. Where is the big selling?
...

Bitcoin needs to scale, and yes, it might be holding the price down instead of rising incontrollably.... But I don't think that is so bad in the medium/long term.

Trying to justify that current price would be LOWER if it were not because of the high fees is absurd. The oppossite is probably correct.

Are you seriosly saying that if you, for example, try now to move 5BTC to an exchange and, being in a great hurry, add a fee of, lets say 5$, your tx won't be processed timely?

I don't even think you need $5, probably much more less (edited typo), but what the heck, try that to prove your point. (Also don't use a long list of inputs and neither unconfirmed ones, that'd be cheating).

I have sometimes used USD on kraken for leaving crazy bid and asks just in case that sort of slippage happens due to the thin order book. Not doing it anymore, but I guess I should get back to it.

How many inputs did your tx have? How long did it take to be confirmed?

Ok, I have now put some BTC for sale at $2390. If whoever did it want to repeat that stunt and sell up to $2539 again, I am ready now

I will inmediately rebuy at the EUR order book if that happens.

Soon.

And here we go!

Not too hard... 948 BTC to $2040 at Bitstamp

Edit: 855 now... and Ripple on the verge of breaking support for a big dump

Not yet... It will be when we rise a couple hundreds in minutes... until then it's just healthy organic grow

I am not sure if I am making more money on my BTC or on my XRP short I opened yesterday.... Nah, more on BTC as I have much more than the play money I gambled against XRP... but this is gentleman anyways

Are you aware that a $100 rise at this heights it's only a 5% increase in price? Were you around in 2013 when price had swings of around 30% in minutes?

Just saying....

Just out of curiosity... what do you use Bitcoin for when you do send $1?

Oh yeah, almost forgot.... when is the $1000 party?

Totally right. $1000 was a harder barrier to cross. 2, 3, 4.... are just more thousands. You have just to see the orders book to notice there is not much resistance at $2000.

In fact we had much more resistance at $1800.

Yep, when Bitcoin surpass $2000 you will probably see an uncontrolable rise. How high? I donno. How low for the posterior correction? Probably above $2000. Not sure if that $2000 effect is a "problem" though... it depends if you are either short or long I guess.

We are having plenty of "corrections". Until the trend changes just try to follow this simple and common wisdom:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0akBdQa55b4

If someone expects some 30% correction after some altcoins have pumped to 75x its value in a couple of months, he is a fool.

Even BTC-e and OKCOIN are.... This is the price explosion I said would happen if $2000 got broken. Everything going according to the plan. Nothing to see here.

I don't know what's happenning with KRAKEN... It's the third time (that I have NOTICED) that I had limit orders placed from days before that ARE NOT EXECUTED when the price cross and pass my limit price.

In this case, the price reached 2082€, yet I had some sell limit orders in the 19XX€ and 2XXX€ range that were NOT EXECUTED.

I always leave low and high orders to take advantage of this spikes... but it looks like someone else (maybe KRAKEN itself) is taking advantage of it and not me?

WTF is this shit? It is costing me MONEY.

And I am still waiting on the last ticket I opened about this issue past month.

Anyone else on the same boat?

What this leads me to believe that maybe some people are being liquidated, at least at a worst price than would happen if orders on the way were executed.

I am still waiting for a reply about a limit buy at $124X that I still have on my order book and should have executed in one dump that hapenned and cross it. I am requesting they honor my order at their cosst (which is increasing every day that the prices raises higher) yet I haven't received ANY reply.

I don't even know how much money I have lost with this behaviour because it could have hapenned more than this THREE times I have noticed.

Yeah, I know, I should not be using Kraken anymore... but there are not so many "reliable" (?) exchanges and I prefer to have my trading funds distributed. The ONLY exchange I have never had a single problem is Bitstamp.

I think there is a Kraken thread somewhere in bitcointalk, I am going to search for it.l

Thanks!

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=290799.msg19153025#msg19153025

No, that's not how the order book (should) works. If someone goes to sell (or be liquidated) all the way to 2082€ it means all sell orders before that price have been honored.

The only case that could be a bit confussing is if the rise stops at exactly the price you had your limit orders set. Then, if there are more coins from other traders that were placed before yours AND are enough to cover the demand, no single coin from you will be reached. But the price can't rise any single penny above while there are sell limit orders pending at that price.

I haven't had any single problem with Bitstamp but I have never used leverage there, not sure if they already offer it.

For leveraging your alternatives are not much and not good either.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I think you are talking about stop limits/take profit orders here. I already learned to NEVER, EVER use them anymore as, IF it executed, they will do at the very worst possible price. Also, trading engine lag in periords of heavy usage are a known issue.

But... a standing LIMIT order already in the order book since days ago that doesn't get honored? That's pure rabbish and means the order book is simply broken or it can get bypassed in unexplained ways.

It's not that I am vouching for Bitstamp either, considering the risks any and all trading platforms present. I am just talking about my personal experience/incidents or lack thereof.

I am absolutely sure that this time, AGAIN, something happenned that bypassed all or part of the order book. I would like to know WHO was the fortunate guy (or entity) that took the big profit of selling those coins at that high price. And I feel sorry for whomever was liquidated and forced to sell at that artificial high price. It would have been much lower (or maybe he wouldn't even be liquidated in first instance) if our intermediate sell orders had been honored.

I would like to think this is a (recurring) bug, but I am not sure anymore.

I have also seen some complains about this same issue in twitter today:

https://twitter.com/bmx830/status/866916576985047041

And no, it's not the API: THis is from kraken site irself:


    Last
    €1,899.920
    High
    €2,082.958
    Low
    €1,757.400
    24 Hour Volume
    26,023.66
    Weighted Avg
    €1,879.180

Of course it was a "small" order that produced that spike BECAUSE IT BYPASSED THE ORDER BOOK.

But the problem is not in the API:


XBT/EUR

    Last
    €1,894.680
    High
    €2,082.958
    Low
    €1,757.400
    24 Hour Volume
    25,936.77
    Weighted Avg
    €1,879.344

There was real coins being bought at that price... but not from me or others even if we had lower sell limit orders in place way before that spike happenned. (days).

So the question is... who was the fortunate guy that sold them at that high price BYPASSING THE ORDER BOOK?