|
Mylambchop, you have to keep them coming!
Many USD are lining up to take your BTC, as you can clearly see from those huge bid walls. I might actually be inside one of those! come get me!
|
|
|
|
|
The pressure during this pullback in 2011 was orders of magnitude greater than what we are seeing now. When it was much less clear that Bitcoin was going to make it.
The huge bid walls we're seeing right now indicate the bear is almost over along with the record shorts on BFX. We had some deep despair as well yesterday with David Seaman apparently freaking out on Twitter along with Flibbr. Unfortunately, those are good signs.
Also the number of persistent trolls cheering here in out presence tells you something. Just like the trolls in this thread 3y ago. There's an agenda in place.
|
|
|
|
Mornin', cypherdoc! How's it goin'?
lol  I was also visiting this thread to see how the permabull will twist and twirl  You guys have to try harder. This temporary pullback is nothing compared to this one: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=48850.0Can you imagine the pressure back then after 32 to 1.98? And I was the only one fighting off bears like you. Lol! This is one big yawn. |
|
|
|
^
Sorta. Had a few luls. Your thread topic always gives me a giggle, but today... Today was special.
the whole equation has been special. especially to the USD. Mornin', cypherdoc! How's it goin'? LOL! you trolls think you're so smart. It's going great. All you're providing for me is cheap coins. Keep 'em coming! |
|
|
|
|
I thought all the trolls were saying the early adopters were dumping?
|
|
|
|
^
Sorta. Had a few luls. Your thread topic always gives me a giggle, but today... Today was special.
the whole equation has been special. especially to the USD. |
|
|
|
---
ok, got it. but i have to say, this whole section on your website needs to be re-written and clarified if you want to stop getting these questions: ... Yes, that should still work for the regular non-offline-bundle installers. And it was supposed to work with the debs inside the bundle, but it seems that I make the bundles before I sign the .debs (so the bundle ends up with the non-signed version). But the whole tar.gz list gets signed anyway, so the dpkg-sig signature is redundant, and the fact that I screwed up the redundant sig is what threw you off. It's better to use the hash list anyway, since it covers all the files in the .tar.gz, not just the Armory installer itself. I'd like to make this simpler, but there's just so many OSes, so many signature layers, and a complex web of operations performed to make sure everything is consistent (such as making sure that the installers are signed before making the hashes file, which needs to be signed, before creating the announce digest, that needs to be signed, so the secure downloader gets the right file with a valid signature. I wish we could just use the secure downloader for everything, but the fact is that people have to somehow verify the first version of Armory that they get, which requires the GPG stuff. no worries. it's just that devs use a different language sometimes for instance, i think adding these words to what you said would make it clearer: "But the signed hashes list is better, since the hash list covers every file in the .tar.gz, not just the .deb." |
|
|
|
---
ok, got it. but i have to say, this whole section on your website needs to be re-written and clarified if you want to stop getting these questions: GPG-Verifying Armory Installers
Update: If you already have a verified copy of Armory version 0.91 or higher, you can use the new secure downloader feature to get upgrades and/or installers for other systems. See the next section for more info. If you don't have a verified copy of Armory yet, you should follow these instructions to verify the first Armory installer you download via GPG.
Armory is used by some of the most heavily-invested, and most paranoid Bitcoin enthusiasts for maximum privacy and security. If you are in this category, it is recommended you verify that your Armory installers have not been altered in any way. Armory Ubuntu/Debian packages (*.deb files) are signed directly using our Offline Signing Key (GPG) (0x98832223). And each release comes with a signed file containing the SHA256 hashes of each installer. Unfortunately, it is not easy to verify these signatures unless you have access to a Linux machine. At the moment, the verification procedure on Windows is very difficult. To verify in Linux, “cd” to the directory containing the installer (usually Downloads), download and import the Armory signing key from the ubuntu key-server, install the signature verification program, and then use it verify the signatures on the *.deb files:
$ cd Downloads # the directory containing the *.deb
$ gpg --recv-keys --keyserver keyserver.ubuntu.com 98832223
$ sudo apt-get install dpkg-sig
$ dpkg-sig --verify *.deb
If everything goes smoothly, you will see the following output:
$ gpg --recv-keys --keyserver keyserver.ubuntu.com 98832223
gpg: requesting key 98832223 from hkp server keyserver.ubuntu.com
gpg: key 98832223: public key "Alan C. Reiner (Offline Signing Key) <alan@bitcoinarmory.com>"
$ dpkg-sig --verify *.deb
Processing armory_0.85-beta_amd64.deb...
GOODSIG _gpgbuilder 821F122936BDD565366AC36A4AB16AEA98832223 1353699840
Notice the "98832223" at the end of the "GOODSIG" line. That is the key "Fingerprint" and if it does not match, do not use that installer! To be extra sure, you can check the last 16 characters, which should be "4AB16AEA 98832223". The last set of digits (1353699840) is simply a timestamp indicating when the signature was made. This will be different for every new and can safely be ignored. |
|
|
|
If that's the case, then just grab the correct .deb not from the offline bundle. It's the same thing, but should be signed.
On the other hand, if you check the hashes file, that will be accurate. That lists the hash of the tar.gz with whatever .debs are in there, signed or not. Even though the .deb itself was not signed, the bundle was created on the same secure machine, hashed, and put in the sha256 file which is signed.
in regards to a fresh install of offline bundle: hash is good for *.tar.gz: cypher@ubuntu:~/Downloads$ sha256sum armory_0.92.3_offline_ubuntu_12.04-32.tar.gz
1702a46db8263411ca0e639943f7e7cf33ad8dea365c9252457b8288b149c057 armory_0.92.3_offline_ubuntu_12.04-32.tar.gz but, if not in the extracted Offline Bundle folder, where do i grab the armory_0.92.3_offline_ubuntu_12.04-32. deb against which i can run the dpkg-sig --verify *.deb? |
|
|
|
Nope. Yawn. Hodling cause I have been through this before 4x.
Haha, got me! |
|
|
|
yeah, while totaling those volume bars during few days is difficult, i don't see evidence of 1M BTC traded during that time.
If it was stolen, there is no reason to think it would have traded quickly. It probably would have moved on the blockchain, although if the thief had some reason to believe he got the only copy of the private keys (some sort of inside-ish job most likely), he might not even do that right away. part of Peter's theory, though, is that 1M coins were sold driving the price down to $10. Do you mean down to $2? In that case, even if true, the thief wouldn't necessarily have had to sell them all, only "enough" to drive the price down to $2 and extract whatever USD profit he wanted at the time. He could easily have held the rest of the coins, and perhaps could even be selling them now (100% speculation on that last of course). i'm just going by his Reddit write up which posits a 1M BTC selloff taking the price from 32 to 10. as i said, i don't see those volume bars adding up to that #BTC trades during those few days. |
|
|
|
|
part of my problem with your theory, Peter, is that i was a buyer during the time from June to Nov. i was in contact with Mark over IRC several times and i never got the feeling he was under pressure. once, i had a problem withdrawing a chunk of coin and he had to write a script to get my coin out. he shredded another chunk doing so but didn't pass that on to me. and he shrugged it off as in no big deal. that single act made me a fan thereafter. naively it turns out. fortunately, i didn't get hurt as a result. but then there was also the Bitomat.pl bailout of 17000 BTC he donated to losers on that exchange. along with numerous other philanthropic acts over the ensuing years.
|
|
|
|
yeah, while totaling those volume bars during few days is difficult, i don't see evidence of 1M BTC traded during that time.
If it was stolen, there is no reason to think it would have traded quickly. It probably would have moved on the blockchain, although if the thief had some reason to believe he got the only copy of the private keys (some sort of inside-ish job most likely), he might not even do that right away. part of Peter's theory, though, is that 1M coins were sold driving the price down to $10. |
|
|
|
Can anyone speculate as to what has been up with all the dumping? Where are all these coins coming from?
My first guess would be that is the BTC that Karpeles stole. I think the missing Gox BTC took us to $2 in 2011-12, this is the start of capitulation and whale re-balancing. not sure what you're referring to. you mean the guy Kevin who stole around 2000BTC? Although the evidence is circumstantial, a plausible case can be made that the great bitcoin theft actually took place in 2011, and all the following events were the result of Mark trying to fix it: http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1zdnop/peter_rs_theory_on_the_collapse_of_mt_gox/I've always liked that theory, *except* where is the ~1,000,000 BTC transaction (or handful of transactions adding up to that) in mid June 2011? (note: I've never bothered to look, but never heard anyone mention their existence, either). Sidenote: It was the rebound from $0.01 to ~$17 after that hack that gave me enough confidence in the bitcoin economy/userbase to make my first purchases and sign up here. And I remember watching those penny trades in real-time. Crazy. yeah, while totaling those volume bars during few days is difficult, i don't see evidence of 1M BTC traded during that time. btw, the current pullback was a result of Gox also. it's a good thing they're out of biz:  |
|
|
|
|
regardless of who it is, this severe volatility is to be expected with a nascent, fixed supply currency that has no real competition (despite what the altscams say) and is permeating every corner of the earth. it's a reflection of the severe disagreement btwn proponents and opponents who take turns gaining the upper hand in a never ending series of up down cycles.
it's a promising sign, as Bitcoin truly has the potential to change the world.
back in Jan 2011, the volatility of Oct 2010, from $0.06 to $0.50 and then back down to $0.14 is what caught my eye and told me, "there's something here".
|
|
|
|
Can anyone speculate as to what has been up with all the dumping? Where are all these coins coming from?
My first guess would be that is the BTC that Karpeles stole. I think the missing Gox BTC took us to $2 in 2011-12, this is the start of capitulation and whale re-balancing. not sure what you're referring to. you mean the guy Kevin who stole around 2000BTC? |
|
|
|
Can anyone speculate as to what has been up with all the dumping? Where are all these coins coming from?
My first guess would be that is the BTC that Karpeles stole. I think the missing Gox BTC took us to $2 in 2011-12, this is the start of capitulation and whale re-balancing. i sincerely hope that most whales are rebalancing as it would be the most bullish thing yet --> distribution into stronger, more numerous hands. |
|
|
|
Can anyone speculate as to what has been up with all the dumping? Where are all these coins coming from?
My first guess would be that is the BTC that Karpeles stole. given that's the biggest source, it would make sense. altho i'm not sure he holds them. |
|
|
|
Gold collapsing as well as Bitcoin collapsing. Gold will go down more, though and Bitcoin should break the trend soon. So buying Bitcoin now.
agreed, me too. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
