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

[barbs]

But we do not need to discuss theory. The MtGOX heist alone stole 5% of all the money in the bitcoin economy.  There have been dozens, if not hundreds, of other heists; the total may be 10% of all the money.  AFAIK, none of those thieves has been identified, much less caught; and none of those stolen coins were retrieved.

That is 10% of all the money in 5 years, which is 2% per year.

Inflation alone steals 3-9% of our money every year.

Try harder  

Sorry mate had to call you out on this one.

Stolen btc is not the same as inflation and is a totally unfair comparison.

You steal 2000£from me, it's still 2000£ a year from now, but due to inflation May buy 3% less.

You steal 2000 btc from me it's probably worth more than that next year and you've still stolen it from me and have it in your pocket and there will only ever be x amount etc... Surprised you made this comparison ,. When I go to dump my stolen btc also two years later you don't think it would move the market far more than the stollen 2000£?

You're not comparing inflation and theft either. You're comparing the theft of GBP versus the theft of BTC. Descriptively you could say Gox applied inflation locally to their customers. Like the FED or other central banks, it doesn't affect everyone (equally).

Gox is far is a total loss for its customers. Inflation isn't that harsh :-P

[xulescu]

EDIT: I do see that Jorge made additional posts (above) to attempt some comparison between bitcoin and various other fiat payment systems.  I remain of the conclusion that his comparison are inadequate largely on the basis that the security of bitcoin is continuing to evolve.  Surely there are currently some security issues with bitcoin - yet Jorge seems to be overstating them in order to spread FUD about bitcoin.  I look forward to continued developments in the bitcoin space to make improvements on security b/c certainly, it remains a concern for everyone if a security issue develops or involves an individual user, then the irreversible nature of a transaction can be very problematic if one's coins get in the wrong hands.

See this: https://freedom-to-tinker.com/blog/randomwalker/bitcoin-hacks-and-thefts-the-underlying-reason/

EDIT: this article suggests that Bitcoin security is much harder to do than "real-world" security, because the expected disutility of punishment is way lower. I expect software/communication security to evolve more or less uniformly. [Don't forget the first goxxing of Gox, when they were sending passwords with GET, unhashed. Announcement thread from 2010, second page or so. Unbelievable people still kept money in Gox with that first impression]

[xulescu]

But we do not need to discuss theory. The MtGOX heist alone stole 5% of all the money in the bitcoin economy.  There have been dozens, if not hundreds, of other heists; the total may be 10% of all the money.  AFAIK, none of those thieves has been identified, much less caught; and none of those stolen coins were retrieved.

That is 10% of all the money in 5 years, which is 2% per year.

Inflation alone steals 3-9% of our money every year.

Try harder  

Sorry mate had to call you out on this one.

Stolen btc is not the same as inflation and is a totally unfair comparison.

You steal 2000£from me, it's still 2000£ a year from now, but due to inflation May buy 3% less.

You steal 2000 btc from me it's probably worth more than that next year and you've still stolen it from me and have it in your pocket and there will only ever be x amount etc... Surprised you made this comparison ,. When I go to dump my stolen btc also two years later you don't think it would move the market far more than the stollen 2000£?

You're not comparing inflation and theft either. You're comparing the theft of GBP versus the theft of BTC. Descriptively you could say Gox applied inflation locally to their customers. Like the FED or other central banks, it doesn't affect everyone (equally).

Gox is far is a total loss for its customers. Inflation isn't that harsh :-P

It was in the Weimar. I could draw the analogies much, much further if you wish. Don't forget you didn't hold BTC at the time, but Gox's own "national" IOU, the goxBTC, which was backed by the "full faith and credit" of Karppucinno. There was even an exchange for their fiat.

All bankruptcies look the same.

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[JayJuanGee]

EDIT: I do see that Jorge made additional posts (above) to attempt some comparison between bitcoin and various other fiat payment systems.  I remain of the conclusion that his comparison are inadequate largely on the basis that the security of bitcoin is continuing to evolve.  Surely there are currently some security issues with bitcoin - yet Jorge seems to be overstating them in order to spread FUD about bitcoin.  I look forward to continued developments in the bitcoin space to make improvements on security b/c certainly, it remains a concern for everyone if a security issue develops or involves an individual user, then the irreversible nature of a transaction can be very problematic if one's coins get in the wrong hands.

See this: https://freedom-to-tinker.com/blog/randomwalker/bitcoin-hacks-and-thefts-the-underlying-reason/

EDIT: this article suggests that Bitcoin security is much harder to do than "real-world" security, because the expected disutility of punishment is way lower. I expect software/communication security to evolve more or less uniformly. [Don't forget the first goxxing of Gox, when they were sending passwords with GET, unhashed. Announcement thread from 2010, second page or so. Unbelievable people still kept money in Gox with that first impression]

Thanks for the explanation of your understanding of the article that you cited.  

As you may recall, there was a lot of FUD involved with GOX and even with the other security issues that were mentioned in the article.

 In any event, my main point in the section that you quoted from me is that various security issues are continuing to being worked on in the bitcoin space, and surely breaches of security (and even perceptions of breaches in security) can undermine public confidence in bitcoin and undermine bitcoin adoption.  

As we speak, these matters are continuing to be addressed by a variety of people in the bitcoin space.  Personally, I remain of the belief that user-friendly and better security are in bitcoin's near future.. yet we cannot be sure exactly how it is going to evolve.. but it is NOT an insurmountable path and bitcoin has already been made to be more secure than fiat.. and that  is one of its main advantages.. and also solving the double spend problem... which had been vexing to any prior digital currency (and continues to be a problem for fiat-related systems).  

[xulescu]

solving the double spend problem... which had been vexing to any prior digital currency (and continues to be a problem for fiat-related systems).  

Double spending is not at all a problem with fiat. Neither cash nor credit. Counterfeinting and (succesful) attacks on cards, POS'es, ATMs yes, but not double spending. You cannot clone Benjamin. At least not a fictive but definitely produceable quantum Benjamin that cannot be cloned.

[aminorex]

The benefit  to consumers is that your funds are safe from confiscation by inflation or outright takings.

BTW, DPR got his coins confiscated and people get coins outright taken all the time so maybe re-evaluate your rhetoric.

if you leave your keys in the car it is vulnerable to theft.  Bitcoin is easier to secure than any other exchange medium in the world.

Having read many of your other posts I understand you do not admit when you're wrong so I will leave you whatever last words on this you'd like, however you've now changed the topic, stated your opinion as fact, and not bothered to address any of your earlier mistakes. So it wouldn't really be worth the effort to continue correcting you.

Troll.

[aminorex]

You do realize that goes both ways, right?

In order to commit an honest error one must first be honest.

[BitAddict]

solving the double spend problem... which had been vexing to any prior digital currency (and continues to be a problem for fiat-related systems).  

Double spending is not at all a problem with fiat. Neither cash nor credit. Counterfeinting and (succesful) attacks on cards, POS'es, ATMs yes, but not double spending. You cannot clone Benjamin. At least not a fictive but definitely produceable quantum Benjamin that cannot be cloned.

Creating fake bills and using them is doble spending. So yes, cash has that problem.

[aminorex]

Of course, though it takes lots of self-cultivation to achieve non-biasness.

Take care to avoid the misapplication of statistical concept to a nonstatistical domain.  Hint:  If there is no bias-variance trade-off, then it is probably not a statistical domain.

[chessnut]

no bans on chinese saturday or sunday likely - maybe another reason why we are rallying.

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[Guinpen]

no bans on chinese saturday or sunday likely - maybe another reason why we are rallying.

I think this rally has flattened out, the question now is whether there will be another one or if we'll slowly go down again for a while.

I am all BTC at this point but I'm tempted to short and see if I can increase my coins.

[chessnut]

no bans on chinese saturday or sunday likely - maybe another reason why we are rallying.

I think this rally has flattened out, the question now is whether there will be another one or if we'll slowly go down again for a while.

I am all BTC at this point but I'm tempted to short and see if I can increase my coins.

well the bear run was so weak, and this is a strong and impulsive move that seems unexplained. I think the most likely explanation, we are continuing the bull run.

[BitAddict]

I guess we rallied because of this news:

China's First ATM revealed in Shanghai by BTC China -- Website of China's Central Government
http://www.microsofttranslator.com/bv.aspx?from=&to=en&a=http://www.gov.cn/xinwen/2014-04/16/content_2660150.htm

This news was launched 6 hours ago, exactly at the same time pump started.


But nothing new, just a summary of last week's news.

Edit: My bad, this is from 4/16 not 4/19.
Is 3 days old.

[aminorex]

Double spending is not at all a problem with fiat. Neither cash nor credit. Counterfeinting and (succesful) attacks on cards, POS'es, ATMs yes, but not double spending. You cannot clone Benjamin. At least not a fictive but definitely produceable quantum Benjamin that cannot be cloned.

Creating fake bills and using them is doble spending. So yes, cash has that problem.

It is not clear to me that any fiat is NOT double spending.  Certainly counterfeiting can be construed thus, but what else is fractional reserve lending?

[Painful Truth]

I guess we rallied because of this news:

China's First ATM revealed in Shanghai by BTC China -- Website of China's Central Government
http://www.microsofttranslator.com/bv.aspx?from=&to=en&a=http://www.gov.cn/xinwen/2014-04/16/content_2660150.htm

This news was launched 6 hours ago, exactly at the same time pump started.


But nothing new, just a summary of last week's news.

Nothing new? The chinese government reporting about bitcoin ATMs is the news itself. 

[BitAddict]

I guess we rallied because of this news:

China's First ATM revealed in Shanghai by BTC China -- Website of China's Central Government
http://www.microsofttranslator.com/bv.aspx?from=&to=en&a=http://www.gov.cn/xinwen/2014-04/16/content_2660150.htm

This news was launched 6 hours ago, exactly at the same time pump started.


But nothing new, just a summary of last week's news.

Nothing new? The chinese government reporting about bitcoin ATMs is the news itself.  

I meant, inside the article nothing new.

[xulescu]

Double spending is not at all a problem with fiat. Neither cash nor credit. Counterfeinting and (succesful) attacks on cards, POS'es, ATMs yes, but not double spending. You cannot clone Benjamin. At least not a fictive but definitely produceable quantum Benjamin that cannot be cloned.

Creating fake bills and using them is doble spending. So yes, cash has that problem.

It is not clear to me that any fiat is NOT double spending.  Certainly counterfeiting can be construed thus, but what else is fractional reserve lending?

We're debating semantics here, starting with my post admittedly. We all know what we mean to say.

[aminorex]

Double spending is not at all a problem with fiat. Neither cash nor credit. Counterfeinting and (succesful) attacks on cards, POS'es, ATMs yes, but not double spending. You cannot clone Benjamin. At least not a fictive but definitely produceable quantum Benjamin that cannot be cloned.

Creating fake bills and using them is doble spending. So yes, cash has that problem.

It is not clear to me that any fiat is NOT double spending.  Certainly counterfeiting can be construed thus, but what else is fractional reserve lending?

We're debating semantics here, starting with my post admittedly. We all know what we mean to say.

Agreed.  But one should not discount the importance of semantic clarity.

Double spending is encouraged in the fiat world.  It is the source of the largest portion of the money supply.  in crypto, even a single incident is sufficient to destroy an entire currency.