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

[ChartBuddy]

Coin
Explanation

[1714666780]

1714666780

[Patel]

The best thing that can happen is all the "permissioned ledgers" are developed on a sidechain. Win Win.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin
Explanation

[slap]

My wife is all about large green dildos... exciting stuff.
When I called 200MA, she went beserk. Any suggestions?

[Totscha]

My wife is all about large green dildos... exciting stuff.
When I called 200MA, she went beserk. Any suggestions?

Move to a safe distance and start throwing chocolate at her

[slap]

do you escrow?
(dont feed her after midnight, k!?)

[oda.krell]

Is it using the blockchain though. No matter how hard that article tries to make it sound like they're using the bitcoin blockchain no where does it say that. They are using BLOCKCHAIN technology. Nothing to do with Bitcoin or the price of it. Even if its on the Bitcoin blockchain they could do whatever they are doing with fractions of a coin. No effect on price as they're not about to go out and by 100k coins to carry out whatever it is they are doing.

I didn't say it would do anything to price but it is running on top of the BTC blockchain.

http://www.coindesk.com/chain-nasdaq-partnership-pr-stunt/

'The shares, he said, will move on the Open Assets protocol, a colored coins implementation that allows users to augment small amounts of bitcoin to represent shares. These shares can then be transfered and tracked across the bitcoin blockchain.'

https://github.com/OpenAssets/open-assets-protocol

From a fundamentally motivated, speculative perspective, this is maybe the crucial question that'll be answered over the coming years, maybe decades. Quote from the article:

Still, while Nasdaq has decided to build on top of the bitcoin blockchain, Ludwin suggested that Chain, and by extension, Nasdaq, are taking an agnostic approach to the technology.

"We believe that there will be an Internet of chains, there will be many, many interoperable blockchains," he continued. "As that innovation moves forward, one of the things that Nasdaq and First Data have selected us to do is make that transition very simple, starting with Open Assets but over time [maybe] moving that to a sidechain without interrupting the service."

I agree with that, as I don't follow the binary way of looking at Bitcoin's success that is held widely.

My premise #1: The Bitcoin blockchain is relevant (in a niche field, so far), and it will almost certainly stay relevant (to some degree). No comparably minor complications (mining centralization! max blocksize! waste of energy!) is likely to change that.

However:

My premise #2: Other blockchains (and by that I don't mean sidechains) will become relevant as well. Most likely, they will mainly differ from the BTC blockchain in the degree to which they are built on making "trust tradeoffs" (to reduce costs, to allow final "oversight" by some authority, etc.).

The price per bitcoin will then largely depend on which side the scale of the options above will be leaning - major assets and financial products being tied to the original blockchain (or its sidechains): moon time; most financial products being connected to proprietary chains: the Bitcoin chain will most likely remain marginal, and price will reflect that - although a market cap in the range of some billion USD is still compatible with that scenario, just not the OOM increase everyone is quietly (or not so quietly) hoping for.

[JorgeStolfi]

Is it certain that they will be using the bitcoin blockchain, rather than a blockchain with bitcoin technology?

Yes, because otherwise they had called it MySQL

One job that you should never waste your time applying for is Public Relations of a Big Respectable Corporation. 

Just before @oda.krell's quote, the article also says

Ludwin said that Nasdaq would likely augment the Open Assets implementation to suit the company's needs.

"There are ways of implementing asset issuance and transfer that are more private than Open Assets," he said. "It will be more private than what people think of as a colored coin today."

It is very unlikely that NASDAQ will build a critical software on top of a platform maintained by two random volunteers.  I would expect that they copy that code, and whatever Chain delivers, and hand it over to their own software development team.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin
Explanation

[findftp]

It is very unlikely that NASDAQ will build a critical software on top of a platform maintained by two random volunteers.  I would expect that they copy that code, and whatever Chain delivers, and hand it over to their own software development team.

And make it closed source infested with exploits.

Thinking of this, NASDAQ itself will be obsolete if they follow that path.

[rebuilder]

It is very unlikely that NASDAQ will build a critical software on top of a platform maintained by two random volunteers.  I would expect that they copy that code, and whatever Chain delivers, and hand it over to their own software development team.

OpenAssets they might easily clone. Cloning a chain is different, though, since the whole point of a blockchain is to enable potentially adversarial parties to rely on a shared ledger without trusting each other not to falsify the ledger. A fully proprietary chain, secured by a single party, would not be any better than a regular database. Either they'd have to get significant adoption for their own blockchain, or use one that is already secured by parties without a stake in whatever NASDAQ wants to do.

[oda.krell]

It is very unlikely that NASDAQ will build a critical software on top of a platform maintained by two random volunteers.  I would expect that they copy that code, and whatever Chain delivers, and hand it over to their own software development team.

Sure, they might do just that. Which is where my remark on "other blockchains based on making 'trust-tradeoffs'" comes into play. If they copy the code, but run it on a network of servers controlled by a couple of banks, you win some (efficiency, control), and you lose some (trustlessness).

Might be hard to imagine, but some people might have an interest in running things via a (largely) trust-free ledger. Just like it seems to be hard to swallow for some that there could be interest in ledgers that rely on trust. Like I said, time will tell which direction will be more influential.

[Fakhoury]

Is it using the blockchain though. No matter how hard that article tries to make it sound like they're using the bitcoin blockchain no where does it say that. They are using BLOCKCHAIN technology. Nothing to do with Bitcoin or the price of it. Even if its on the Bitcoin blockchain they could do whatever they are doing with fractions of a coin. No effect on price as they're not about to go out and by 100k coins to carry out whatever it is they are doing.

I didn't say it would do anything to price but it is running on top of the BTC blockchain.

http://www.coindesk.com/chain-nasdaq-partnership-pr-stunt/

'The shares, he said, will move on the Open Assets protocol, a colored coins implementation that allows users to augment small amounts of bitcoin to represent shares. These shares can then be transfered and tracked across the bitcoin blockchain.'

https://github.com/OpenAssets/open-assets-protocol

From a fundamentally motivated, speculative perspective, this is maybe the crucial question that'll be answered over the coming years, maybe decades. Quote from the article:

Still, while Nasdaq has decided to build on top of the bitcoin blockchain, Ludwin suggested that Chain, and by extension, Nasdaq, are taking an agnostic approach to the technology.

"We believe that there will be an Internet of chains, there will be many, many interoperable blockchains," he continued. "As that innovation moves forward, one of the things that Nasdaq and First Data have selected us to do is make that transition very simple, starting with Open Assets but over time [maybe] moving that to a sidechain without interrupting the service."

I agree with that, as I don't follow the binary way of looking at Bitcoin's success that is held widely.

My premise #1: The Bitcoin blockchain is relevant (in a niche field, so far), and it will almost certainly stay relevant (to some degree). No comparably minor complications (mining centralization! max blocksize! waste of energy!) is likely to change that.

However:

My premise #2: Other blockchains (and by that I don't mean sidechains) will become relevant as well. Most likely, they will mainly differ from the BTC blockchain in the degree to which they are built on making "trust tradeoffs" (to reduce costs, to allow final "oversight" by some authority, etc.).

The price per bitcoin will then largely depend on which side the scale of the options above will be leaning - major assets and financial products being tied to the original blockchain (or its sidechains): moon time; most financial products being connected to proprietary chains: the Bitcoin chain will most likely remain marginal, and price will reflect that - although a market cap in the range of some billion USD is still compatible with that scenario, just not the OOM increase everyone is quietly (or not so quietly) hoping for.

Could you tell me please how is Bitcoin price affected in your two premises ?

And in general, using blockchain in general, it has no effect on Bitcoin right ? For example Bank X will use bitcoin blockchain for their usual works.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin
Explanation

[JimboToronto]

Good morning Bitcoinland.

Back over $290 after a small dip. $280 still seems safe for now.

Dare I use the word "sideways"?
_________

I see Jeanniechop has created a new sockpuppet just for me. Gee, I'm not even a professor. I'm truly humbled.  

[oda.krell]

[...]

Could you tell me please how is Bitcoin price affected in your two premises ?

And in general, using blockchain in general, it has no effect on Bitcoin right ? For example Bank X will use bitcoin blockchain for their usual works.

Three mechanisms I can readily see:

Global usage of the original Blockchain for 'registration' type actions, though these might only require fractions of a coin to perform, would be important and global usage after all, and is likely to increase the perceived importance, and value of the entire Blockchain, i.e. influence price by "sentiment", if you want.

Even in the 'registration' case, the parties using the Blockchain will haven an interest in securing the network, so they also have an interest in keeping the hashrate at a level that corresponds to the values of items being registered on it. The relation between hashrate and price is maybe not quite as simple as 'one goes up, the other goes up', but they are very likely to be (positively) related, both by economical arguments, and by historical analysis.

The above is only accounting for the 'registration' function. Actions on the other hand that involve an exchange of something between two or more parties will require that an equal or greater value of the something being exchanged is held in tokens of the Blockchain. This means the BTC equivalent of the USD value of the item exchanged will be held by one or the other party for some time, thereby increasing demand for BTC, directly and proportional to the value being transferred.

[dmeter]

people buy BTC probably 2016-2017  years  btc go  2000 $ 1 BTC.
Greeks bilioner mass buying BTC and taking Bitcoin visa debit card via London, with him raise the money at ATMs with a daily limit of € 10,000
absolutely all outlets and ATMs in the world acept visa debit card.
may friend work on greek charter company,and he receive BTC visa card for expenses,fuel,port exspense.

[Elwar]

I checked on that also since I have been looking hard at the colored coin protocols. Chain is using Open Assets and have said that they are open to using other colored coin protocols in the future.  But once a company chooses one protocol it is very difficult to change. You can't just move the shares over, you'd have to create an exchange from the old protocol to the new one since people can only move their shares with their private key.

I like the Colu colored coin protocol but it appears that Open Assets has a big first out of the gate advantage and network effect. If NASDAQ and Overstock and several other companies are using Open Assets then if you want to integrate easily in the future then you will need to be using Open Assets.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin
Explanation

[ChartBuddy]

Coin
Explanation