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

[Fakhoury]

http://bitcoinclock.com/

10 week, guys ...
Kick fiat account before it's too late.



https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1406951.msg14273356#msg14273356








4000 USD in November 2016.

Why $4K in exact buddy ?

[1714684718]

1714684718

[Meuh6879]

400 before
4000 after (4 months after the halving)

[Fakhoury]

400 before
4000 after (4 months after the halving)

Why $4K in exact, I'm not against it and both of us permabulls, but why $4K in exact, why not $5K for example ?

[Fakhoury]

[nioc]

400 before
4000 after (4 months after the halving)

Why $4K in exact, I'm not against it and both of us permabulls, but why $4K in exact, why not $5K for example ?

Funny you mention $5K.  Early in 2014 that was what I was promised come August 2014, September at the latest.

Must be cheap.  Maybe that's why I bought a small amount everyday for the last 7 days.  Missed today because too busy at work.  16 hrs and I am still here.  You guys should try being a slave, you might like it.  

[ahpku]

... Missed today because too busy at work.  16 hrs and I am still here.  You guys should try being a slave, you might like it.  

Worked 3 days (and two nights) straight through once, no sleep/no dwugz; coffee, cigs and food only

[USB-S]

Don't forget guys 9.2% per year is our target. Anything above that is unrealistic.

Yea, no.  This is a high risk, high reward market.  Netflix is much lower risk and look at it's chart.  Bitcoin doesn't move by 10%'s.

So I should buy netflix premium accounts and their value is set to increase?

[JayJuanGee]

400 before
4000 after (4 months after the halving)

Why $4K in exact, I'm not against it and both of us permabulls, but why $4K in exact, why not $5K for example ?

Funny you mention $5K.  Early in 2014 that was what I was promised come August 2014, September at the latest.

Must be cheap.  Maybe that's why I bought a small amount everyday for the last 7 days.  Missed today because too busy at work.  16 hrs and I am still here.  You guys should try being a slave, you might like it.  

If you saw a promise, then that is on you and your interpretation.  I doubt that anyone is promising anything, and if they are you should exercise your own judgement and take that with a large grain of salt, because each of us should know that no one can promise anything, especially when it comes to some asset that is priced largely on a free market basis (that is also manipulated to an extent that can be possible).

[AlexGR]

Not to me it doesn't. Such visionary predictions have always proved to be too conservative, if anything

Pricing bitcoin has a lot to do with psychological reasons which are counterintuitive.

If BTC was, say, 21 billions (and we had issued ~16 billion), nobody would consider it "expensive" at 0.45$. You'd hear people saying that anything under 1$ or 10$ is undervalued.

Now 10$ doesn't sound a lot, yet 10k does - or sounds "too high".

However the 10$ on a 1000x supply and 10k with the current supply, would represent precisely the same marketcap.

[kehtolo]

Satoshi steps forward.. or someone claiming to be him anyway.

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-36168863

[Ted E. Bare]

Weak hands got shaken out?

[stereotype]

Satoshi steps forward.. or someone claiming to be him anyway.

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-36168863

Comes across as angry and defensive. Not liking the bolshie attitude, much.

[Elwar]

Weak hands got shaken out?

Drop coincided with Craig Wright outing himself as Satoshi.

I still don't believe it, he's been trying too hard to make himself Satoshi.

[BitUsher]

Drop coincided with Craig Wright outing himself as Satoshi.

I still don't believe it, he's been trying too hard to make himself Satoshi.

I agree, Likely fraud.

"he's got the private keys. "

he is refusing to sign a tx using block 9 keys and merely discovered a hash referencing Jean-Paul Sartre on block 9 which anyone could have made.

"He also says he can’t send any bitcoin because they are now owned by a trust. And he rejected the idea of having The Economist send him another text to sign as proof that he actually possesses these private keys, rather than simply being the first to publish a proof which was generated at some point in the past by somebody else. Either people believe him now—or they don’t, he says. “I’m not going to keep jumping through hoops.”"

It is trivial for him to publish a message and than sign a new tx without risk and without moving them out of a trust.

He is clearly a fraud.

http://gavinandresen.ninja/satoshi

Gavin, is either lacking skepticism due to a cognitive bias (Craig Steven Wright just happens to be a big blocker*) or is willing to use this fraud to further his agenda. Either way, I lost even more respect for Gavin with this blog post.

* "Mr Wright says that if he could reinvent bitcoin, he would program in a steady increase of the block size. He also intends to publish mathematical proof that there is no trade-off between the mass adoption of the cryptocurrency and its remaining decentralised. Simulations on his supercomputer show, he says, that blocks could theoretically be as large as 340 gigabytes in a specialised bitcoin network shared by banks and large companies." http://www.economist.com/news/briefings/21698061-craig-steven-wright-claims-be-satoshi-nakamoto-bitcoin

Anyone curious about the timing of this as well ? Just so happens that this is released right after the "deadline" of segwit be released where people are complaining that the HK agreement was not met regardless of the scalability timeline always indicating a simple pull request expected in April (which was met weeks ago)

[JayJuanGee]

Drop coincided with Craig Wright outing himself as Satoshi.

I still don't believe it, he's been trying too hard to make himself Satoshi.

I agree, Likely fraud.

"he's got the private keys. "

he is refusing to sign a tx using block 9 keys and merely discovered a hash referencing Jean-Paul Sartre on block 9 which anyone could have made.

"He also says he can’t send any bitcoin because they are now owned by a trust. And he rejected the idea of having The Economist send him another text to sign as proof that he actually possesses these private keys, rather than simply being the first to publish a proof which was generated at some point in the past by somebody else. Either people believe him now—or they don’t, he says. “I’m not going to keep jumping through hoops.”"

It is trivial for him to publish a message and than sign a new tx without risk and without moving them out of a trust.

He is clearly a fraud.

http://gavinandresen.ninja/satoshi

Gavin, is either lacking skepticism due to a cognitive bias (Craig Steven Wright just happens to be a big blocker*) or is willing to use this fraud to further his agenda. Either way, I lost even more respect for Gavin with this blog post.

* "Mr Wright says that if he could reinvent bitcoin, he would program in a steady increase of the block size. He also intends to publish mathematical proof that there is no trade-off between the mass adoption of the cryptocurrency and its remaining decentralised. Simulations on his supercomputer show, he says, that blocks could theoretically be as large as 340 gigabytes in a specialised bitcoin network shared by banks and large companies." http://www.economist.com/news/briefings/21698061-craig-steven-wright-claims-be-satoshi-nakamoto-bitcoin

Anyone curious about the timing of this as well ? Just so happens that this is released right after the "deadline" of segwit be released where people are complaining that the HK agreement was not met regardless of the scalability timeline always indicating a simple pull request expected in April (which was met weeks ago)

Yeah.  All of the original bitcoin's happening to be in a trust, seems to be a very big convenience, and quite implausible that he would not have access to at least a small amount of those original coins.

The big blocker siding makes the whole claim of Wright being Satoshi seem even more suspicious.

[Elwar]

Drop coincided with Craig Wright outing himself as Satoshi.

I still don't believe it, he's been trying too hard to make himself Satoshi.

I agree, Likely fraud.

"he's got the private keys. "

he is refusing to sign a tx using block 9 keys and merely discovered a hash referencing Jean-Paul Sartre on block 9 which anyone could have made.

"He also says he can’t send any bitcoin because they are now owned by a trust. And he rejected the idea of having The Economist send him another text to sign as proof that he actually possesses these private keys, rather than simply being the first to publish a proof which was generated at some point in the past by somebody else. Either people believe him now—or they don’t, he says. “I’m not going to keep jumping through hoops.”"

It is trivial for him to publish a message and than sign a new tx without risk and without moving them out of a trust.

He is clearly a fraud.

http://gavinandresen.ninja/satoshi

Gavin, is either lacking skepticism due to a cognitive bias (Craig Steven Wright just happens to be a big blocker*) or is willing to use this fraud to further his agenda. Either way, I lost even more respect for Gavin with this blog post.

* "Mr Wright says that if he could reinvent bitcoin, he would program in a steady increase of the block size. He also intends to publish mathematical proof that there is no trade-off between the mass adoption of the cryptocurrency and its remaining decentralised. Simulations on his supercomputer show, he says, that blocks could theoretically be as large as 340 gigabytes in a specialised bitcoin network shared by banks and large companies." http://www.economist.com/news/briefings/21698061-craig-steven-wright-claims-be-satoshi-nakamoto-bitcoin

Anyone curious about the timing of this as well ? Just so happens that this is released right after the "deadline" of segwit be released where people are complaining that the HK agreement was not met regardless of the scalability timeline always indicating a simple pull request expected in April (which was met weeks ago)

Yeah.  All of the original bitcoin's happening to be in a trust, seems to be a very big convenience, and quite implausible that he would not have access to at least a small amount of those original coins.

The big blocker siding makes the whole claim of Wright being Satoshi seem even more suspicious.

Someone who built a currency out of a mistrust of the government puts all of his bitcoins (which are not secure unless you own the keys) in the hands of a trust which is enforceable by government.

[BitUsher]

Yeah.  All of the original bitcoin's happening to be in a trust, seems to be a very big convenience, and quite implausible that he would not have access to at least a small amount of those original coins.

The big blocker siding makes the whole claim of Wright being Satoshi seem even more suspicious.

But he claims to still have access to the coins but doesn't want to move them out of a trust. Wright appears to trying to pull a con where he makes the world believe he is in possession of 1 million btc locked in a "trust" so he can get respect and investments from people who assume he is insanely wealthy.

The ridiculous thing is that exchanges move their reserves all the time without any problems for auditing and security purposes , because there are practically an infinite amount of public addresses to use, this can be done securely without risk, and doesn't effect the legal ownership he claims to be so concerned about.

Someone who built a currency out of a mistrust of the government puts all of his bitcoins (which are not secure unless you own the keys) in the hands of a trust which is enforceable by government.

Worse than this ... how Satoshi must have loved large companies and banks controlling all the nodes with 340GB megablocks....

Simulations on his supercomputer show, he says, that blocks could theoretically be as large as 340 gigabytes in a specialised bitcoin network shared by banks and large companies." http://www.economist.com/news/briefings/21698061-craig-steven-wright-claims-be-satoshi-nakamoto-bitcoin

Ridiculous.

[CrimBit]

so after bitcoin creator unmasked, and people trust craig wight is satoshi nakamoto the price will be back to $500 ?

[JayJuanGee]

Yeah.  All of the original bitcoin's happening to be in a trust, seems to be a very big convenience, and quite implausible that he would not have access to at least a small amount of those original coins.

The big blocker siding makes the whole claim of Wright being Satoshi seem even more suspicious.

But he claims to still have access to the coins but doesn't want to move them out of a trust. Wright appears to trying to pull a con where he makes the world believe he is in possession of 1 million btc locked in a "trust" so he can get respect and investments from people who assume he is insanely wealthy.

The ridiculous thing is that exchanges move their reserves all the time without any problems for auditing and security purposes , because there are practically an infinite amount of public addresses to use, this can be done securely without risk, and doesn't effect the legal ownership he claims to be so concerned about.

Someone who built a currency out of a mistrust of the government puts all of his bitcoins (which are not secure unless you own the keys) in the hands of a trust which is enforceable by government.

Worse than this ... how Satoshi must have loved large companies and banks controlling all the nodes with 340GB megablocks....

Simulations on his supercomputer show, he says, that blocks could theoretically be as large as 340 gigabytes in a specialised bitcoin network shared by banks and large companies." http://www.economist.com/news/briefings/21698061-craig-steven-wright-claims-be-satoshi-nakamoto-bitcoin

Ridiculous.

O.k.

Now that we have preliminarily concluded that Wright's claim to being Satoshi is less than about .1% likely, one of the questions seems to be how far this fake news dump, including the spreading of FUCD, is going to take down BTC prices... gosh?  This could cause us to revisit $420  and likely even $400 if the likely fraud is not clarified, soon.

Mainstream media, just loves to present this kind of nonsense as if it were 99% likely rather than .1% likely.

[defined]

Yeah.  All of the original bitcoin's happening to be in a trust, seems to be a very big convenience, and quite implausible that he would not have access to at least a small amount of those original coins.

The big blocker siding makes the whole claim of Wright being Satoshi seem even more suspicious.

But he claims to still have access to the coins but doesn't want to move them out of a trust. Wright appears to trying to pull a con where he makes the world believe he is in possession of 1 million btc locked in a "trust" so he can get respect and investments from people who assume he is insanely wealthy.

The ridiculous thing is that exchanges move their reserves all the time without any problems for auditing and security purposes , because there are practically an infinite amount of public addresses to use, this can be done securely without risk, and doesn't effect the legal ownership he claims to be so concerned about.

Maybe he does not know how Bitcoin works at all