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

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

You bunch of dicks

I asked for something a bit less than a 66 page analysis and you throw a 318 page book back at me

FFFFFFFFFF UUUUUUUUUUUUU

Stick to the CCMF gifs, dude.

[1714307463]

1714307463

[1714307463]

1714307463

[Fatman3001]

The way I see it: some banks are starting to invest in bitcoin companies (but not bitcoin the currency itself) simply because they suspect that something will come out of this whole crypto thing. It doesn't have to be bitcoin the currency itself, it doesn't have to be a "coin", maybe a payment network, maybe another technology, a distributed ledger system, who knows.

As Boston Fed Researchers and Bank of England explained a few months ago, a lot of these investments in bitcoin related companies are done because "even if bitcoin is unlikely to succeed, it will spur innovation".

You need to consider something here:
1. It's not true that bitcoin (a token) and the underlying technology (a distributed ledger) are inseparable. As the Tim Swanson report showed (http://www.ofnumbers.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Permissioned-distributed-ledgers.pdf).
2. The pioneers are almost never the settlers. Facebook was not the first social network. Google was not the first search engine., etc.
What I'm saying is not that bitcoin will be replaced by a random existing shitcoin (those are pretty much all pump&dumps). My point is that you shouldn't take for granted that bitcoin => moon because some aspects of the underlying technology can be useful, because some people tell you that blockchain and bitcoin are inseparable, or because some banks are currently starting to invest in bitcoin companies.

Everything is possible of course, just don't take it for granted.

Do you have a quote of what you are referring to? Or at least a chapter or a page to back up your statement?

The Tim Swanson report I linked talks about it extensively.

Be careful tho I said that distibuted ledger technology and a reward token are not inseparable. Because technically yes the bitcoin blockchain needs bitcoin as a reward token, the network is dependent on its price etc.

I haven't read too closely (not closely at all, which is why I asked for a quote) but the kinds of networks where the blockchain and the token is separable it seems that no value is transferred. It will function purely as a ledger and the value will have to be transferred otherwise. If true, that seems quite limiting.

Here's a link to a pdf of Anatomy of A Money-Like Informational Commodity: https://www.google.ca/search?q=tim+swanson+the+anatomy+of+a+money+like+inforational+commodity&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a&gfe_rd=cr&ei=AH5GVdX6KOeM8Qefr4DgAQ

It's a good read.

You bunch of dicks

I asked for something a bit less than a 66 page analysis and you throw a 318 page book back at me

FFFFFFFFFF UUUUUUUUUUUUU

You dick

[JorgeStolfi]

Goldman Whacks have made the distinction between the technology that is bitcoin, and the blowhards who say we are going to the moon.   

Actually I can't find a quotation by Goldman or IDG where they mention 'bitcoin' or 'cryptocurrencies'.  The ones I saw only say 'digital payments'.  The conclusion that they are interested in 'bitcoin technology' seems to be the inference of analysts and reporters.  Not even Jeremy Allaire seems to be saying that they are.

The most pro-bitcoin reading I can make of those quotes is "bitcoin will die, but maybe we can make a nice xylophone out of its bones".

[Fatman3001]

You bunch of dicks

I asked for something a bit less than a 66 page analysis and you throw a 318 page book back at me

FFFFFFFFFF UUUUUUUUUUUUU

Stick to the CCMF gifs, dude.

Don't suckerpunch me just because you can't build a valid argument. If you can't explain it then you haven't understood it.

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

You bunch of dicks

I asked for something a bit less than a 66 page analysis and you throw a 318 page book back at me

FFFFFFFFFF UUUUUUUUUUUUU

Stick to the CCMF gifs, dude.

Don't suckerpunch me just because you can't build a valid argument. If you can't explain it then you haven't understood it.

Will this do?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dS12p0Zqlt0

[Fatman3001]

You bunch of dicks

I asked for something a bit less than a 66 page analysis and you throw a 318 page book back at me

FFFFFFFFFF UUUUUUUUUUUUU

Stick to the CCMF gifs, dude.

Don't suckerpunch me just because you can't build a valid argument. If you can't explain it then you haven't understood it.

Will this do?

https://youtu.be/25N-4zrk390

Nope, I'm on my friggin android phone again. In a setting where I would be an idiot to open one of your links.

[billyjoeallen]

The way I see it: some banks are starting to invest in bitcoin companies (but not bitcoin the currency itself) simply because they suspect that something will come out of this whole crypto thing. It doesn't have to be bitcoin the currency itself, it doesn't have to be a "coin", maybe a payment network, maybe another technology, a distributed ledger system, who knows.

Yeah, like investing in pets.com was a good idea just in case this whole "internet thing" takes off.

Blockchain tech only works if you have enough mining power to secure the ledger. If Big Money is starting to pay attention, then it's only a matter of time for them to discover that recreating the entire infrastructure just to keep us early adopters from making money is more risky and more expensive than paying us off.  Perhaps you remember the "information superhighway" that was supposed to supersede the Internet. Nope. They just built on top of it.

They will build on top of Bitcoin because They love making profits more than they hate guys like me. It's the smart thing to do.

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

You bunch of dicks

I asked for something a bit less than a 66 page analysis and you throw a 318 page book back at me

FFFFFFFFFF UUUUUUUUUUUUU

Stick to the CCMF gifs, dude.

Don't suckerpunch me just because you can't build a valid argument. If you can't explain it then you haven't understood it.

Will this do?

https://youtu.be/25N-4zrk390

Nope, I'm on my friggin android phone again. In a setting where I would be an idiot to open one of your links.

My bad, it was a dead link alright, but i fixed it now. OK!

[Fatman3001]

You bunch of dicks

I asked for something a bit less than a 66 page analysis and you throw a 318 page book back at me

FFFFFFFFFF UUUUUUUUUUUUU

Stick to the CCMF gifs, dude.

Don't suckerpunch me just because you can't build a valid argument. If you can't explain it then you haven't understood it.

Will this do?

https://youtu.be/25N-4zrk390

Nope, I'm on my friggin android phone again. In a setting where I would be an idiot to open one of your links.

My bad, it was a dead link alright, but i fixed it now. OK!

I'll check it later but I can give you a courtesy lol.

LOL

Edit: ok, I'm back. I stand by my LOL. Good point, well made.

[Peter R]

Tim Swanson thinks transactions cost 25 BTC divided by the number of transactions in a block. That's a complete misunderstanding of not just what the block reward does but of what Bitcoin even is. He has gathered some interesting data, but his analysis is unlikely to be of much use as he has no fundamental understanding of Bitcoin in the first place.

Tim Swanson is one of the few widely published that really seems to understand Bitcoin if you ask me. I think his advocacy of so-called permissioned ledgers stems from the premise that decentralization hurts the ability of Bitcoin to integrate into the current legal/regulatory pigeon-holes. I personally don't find that compelling, but that seems to me to be the nut of his argument.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

To create a digital version of the US Dollar that retains its "cash-like" properties, David Andolfatto (VP, Federal Reserve Bank of St Louis) argues here that miners would be needed to process transactions in order to keep "Fedcoin" free from KYC requirements:

...the e-version of the USD will probably be subject to KYC restrictions, which is unlike paper cash. To the paper cash feeling, we'd need to let the book-keeping done by disinterested third parties, like Bitcoin miners.

So here we have a Fed Official arguing that decentralized transaction processing is actually needed to fit within the existing regulatory/legal framework.  The Fed can't use a "permissioned ledger" because then those granting permission would also be responsible for AML/KYC checks.  This is opposite to the idea that "decentralization hurts the ability ... to integrate into the current legal/regulatory pigeon-holes."

...to keep Fedcoin free of KYC restrictions, we probably don't want the Fed involved in processing these payments.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin
Explanation

[Fatman3001]

I'm reading a bit of this Tim Swanson report Strider linked to and his analytical skills leaves a bit to be desired. I am not in any way suggesting that Brian Armstrongs assertion is unassailable, but Mr. Swansons attack on it is not worth much.

"Two months ago Brian Armstrong, the CEO of Coinbase, said:

Ripple, Stellar, and Altcoins are all a distraction. Bitcoin is way too far ahead. We should be focused on bitcoin and sidechains.

This is empirically untrue. If Bitcoin was “too far ahead,” then axiomatically no one would be working on all these other projects as they would clearly see this trend and focus on one platform. "


Edit: OK, I guess the answer to this:

1. It's not true that bitcoin (a token) and the underlying technology (a distributed ledger) are inseparable. As the Tim Swanson report showed (http://www.ofnumbers.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Permissioned-distributed-ledgers.pdf).

Do you have a quote of what you are referring to? Or at least a chapter or a page to back up your statement?

I haven't read too closely (not closely at all, which is why I asked for a quote) but the kinds of networks where the blockchain and the token is separable it seems that no value is transferred. It will function purely as a ledger and the value will have to be transferred otherwise. If true, that seems quite limiting.

...was Hyperledger and it's ilk. The fact that none of you could simply say "Hyperledger" tells me that I am pretty much the only one who read this PoS, or I'm surrounded by douches.

[SheHadMANHands]

I'm reading a bit of this Tim Swanson report Strider linked to and his analytical skills leaves a bit to be desired. I am not in any way suggesting that Brian Armstrongs assertion is unassailable, but Mr. Swansons attack on it is not worth much.

"Two months ago Brian Armstrong, the CEO of Coinbase, said:

Ripple, Stellar, and Altcoins are all a distraction. Bitcoin is way too far ahead. We should be focused on bitcoin and sidechains.

This is empirically untrue. If Bitcoin was “too far ahead,” then axiomatically no one would be working on all these other projects as they would clearly see this trend and focus on one platform. "

That one is cringe worthy. 

[ChartBuddy]

Coin
Explanation

[inca]

Come on shorters. Try and push it down a bit further so i can buy in.

[Fatman3001]

Come on shorters. Try and push it down a bit further so i can buy in.

Yeah!

[ssmc2]

If you're short now you're either crazy or stupid. Or both.

[inca]

If you're short now you're either crazy or stupid. Or both.

There are a lot of crazy stupid people on this thread it seems. Though they seem to have gone totally silent after the price inexplicably failed to crash to $160 last week.

[Fatman3001]

If you're short now you're either crazy or stupid. Or both.

There are a lot of crazy stupid people on this thread it seems. Though they seem to have gone totally silent after the price inexplicably failed to crash to $160 last week.

Now all the TA people agree that we will head to 210-220 or 150-160. Will be interesting to see where we are when I wake up tomorrow. Wouldn't be surprised if we were in the 260s.

Good Night Y'all!

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

I am pretty much the only one who read this PoS, or I'm surrounded by douches.

Its always better to be arguing with one smart guy than to find yourself agreeing with 10 fools.