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

[AlexGR]

Have we destroyed the Satoshi coins yet? Just checking...

I've seen some recent discussion of such.. ..

Whoever came up with that....

   Dumb idea...

If he really wanted there to have been confidence in the economics of a deflationary currency he ought to have done it himself. The fact he didn’t leads one to believe he wants the dough. And I suppose he’s entitled to it. Either way it’s an ungodly hoard of coins that’s impossible to ignore.

I don't think that's what the discussion is about.

At some point old pubkey coins might be easily hackable. At that point, millions of BTC can be looted for the lolz by those having the tech to do it. The question is what can you do about it so that they can be moved to safety, locked, etc. Otherwise you'll have millions of BTC looted AND a PR fiasco like "ohhh Bitcoin got HACKED AND PEOPLE LOST THEIR MONEY!!! ITS UNSAFE, RUN FOR YOUR LIVES". So you have hackers dumping, people panicking, etc etc. It's a complex issue.

Wouldn't vastly more coins be in danger than just those ones in this scenario?

No, the early coins (not just Satoshis - all of the coins) use an obsolete scheme that hasn't been used in years. Essentially they don't have addresses, like now, but naked/exposed public keys.

Quantum computers can reverse a public key as long as they know it. Our modern addresses use hashes so you first have to reverse the hash, find the pubkey and then break the pubkey/privkey to access the funds. This is way more quantum-proof, as long as you don't reuse addresses (and thus expose your pubkey for long periods of time).

[1714712904]

1714712904

[1714712904]

1714712904

[1714712904]

1714712904

[Ultrafinery]

No, the early coins (not just Satoshis - all of the coins) use an obsolete scheme that hasn't been used in years. Essentially they don't have addresses, like now, but naked/exposed public keys.

Quantum computers can reverse a public key as long as they know it. Our modern addresses use hashes so you first have to reverse the hash, find the pubkey and then break the pubkey/privkey to access the funds. This is way more quantum-proof, as long as you don't reuse addresses (and thus expose your pubkey for long periods of time).

In the old days, we used to expose our private keys to everyone, often to underage minors (miners?).
Now we keep our public keys private. I like that.

[Elwar]

No, the early coins (not just Satoshis - all of the coins) use an obsolete scheme that hasn't been used in years. Essentially they don't have addresses, like now, but naked/exposed public keys.

Quantum computers can reverse a public key as long as they know it. Our modern addresses use hashes so you first have to reverse the hash, find the pubkey and then break the pubkey/privkey to access the funds. This is way more quantum-proof, as long as you don't reuse addresses (and thus expose your pubkey for long periods of time).

Quantum computers = magic.

You need more energy than what is in the sun to break the pubkey/privkey.

[AlexGR]

No, the early coins (not just Satoshis - all of the coins) use an obsolete scheme that hasn't been used in years. Essentially they don't have addresses, like now, but naked/exposed public keys.

Quantum computers can reverse a public key as long as they know it. Our modern addresses use hashes so you first have to reverse the hash, find the pubkey and then break the pubkey/privkey to access the funds. This is way more quantum-proof, as long as you don't reuse addresses (and thus expose your pubkey for long periods of time).

Quantum computers = magic.

You need more energy than what is in the sun to break the pubkey/privkey.

Their energy requirements are normal. You do need to have many qubits though - and, supposedly, that's what is currently lacking. Although we would have no clue if there are QCs with a big number of qubits, as most QCs are funded by governments and intelligence agencies and we shouldn't assume they'll tell us how successful they are in their pursuits. That would be like giving away their cryptographic advantage.

[Mrpumperitis]

Why is ETH moving up so damn much?

495.66 M
DAO Tokens Created 
4.96 M
Total ETH
51.80 M
USD Equivalent
1.00
Current Rate ETH / 100 DAO Tokens
42 hours
until next price change
15 days
Left Ends 28 May 09:00 GMT

[Denker]

Dumpsters without luck it seems.
Back to 452.
445 was very quick rejected as the 465 on the way up a few days ago.
Expect some more sideways movement.

[Globb0]

Have we destroyed the Satoshi coins yet? Just checking...

I've seen some recent discussion of such.. ..

Whoever came up with that....

   Dumb idea...

If he really wanted there to have been confidence in the economics of a deflationary currency he ought to have done it himself. The fact he didn’t leads one to believe he wants the dough. And I suppose he’s entitled to it. Either way it’s an ungodly hoard of coins that’s impossible to ignore.

I don't think that's what the discussion is about.

At some point old pubkey coins might be easily hackable. At that point, millions of BTC can be looted for the lolz by those having the tech to do it. The question is what can you do about it so that they can be moved to safety, locked, etc. Otherwise you'll have millions of BTC looted AND a PR fiasco like "ohhh Bitcoin got HACKED AND PEOPLE LOST THEIR MONEY!!! ITS UNSAFE, RUN FOR YOUR LIVES". So you have hackers dumping, people panicking, etc etc. It's a complex issue.

Wouldn't vastly more coins be in danger than just those ones in this scenario?

No, the early coins (not just Satoshis - all of the coins) use an obsolete scheme that hasn't been used in years. Essentially they don't have addresses, like now, but naked/exposed public keys.

Quantum computers can reverse a public key as long as they know it. Our modern addresses use hashes so you first have to reverse the hash, find the pubkey and then break the pubkey/privkey to access the funds. This is way more quantum-proof, as long as you don't reuse addresses (and thus expose your pubkey for long periods of time).

Thanks for explaining that.

[600watt]

No, the early coins (not just Satoshis - all of the coins) use an obsolete scheme that hasn't been used in years. Essentially they don't have addresses, like now, but naked/exposed public keys.

Quantum computers can reverse a public key as long as they know it. Our modern addresses use hashes so you first have to reverse the hash, find the pubkey and then break the pubkey/privkey to access the funds. This is way more quantum-proof, as long as you don't reuse addresses (and thus expose your pubkey for long periods of time).

Quantum computers = magic.

You need more energy than what is in the sun to break the pubkey/privkey.

Clarke's third law:
    Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

couldn´t resist 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarke's_three_laws

[Elwar]

[JimboToronto]

A late good morning Bitcoinland.

Still futzing around $450?



Moar coffee, please.

[nioc]

This talks about bits.  It is my understanding that qbits are significantly different from bits.  Sorry that I can't illuminate further.

[jbreher]

Speaking of original investors, you suppose we'll have to hardfork bitcoin to take away satoshi's booty,

Not just no, but hell no.

or maybe we can just sneak it into a softfork/core 0.12.2?

I expect the chance of such an effort would be positively correlated with the appearance of any new evidence supporting the CSW==SN hypothesis. Cause rabies.

[Chainsaw]

This talks about bits.  It is my understanding that qbits are significantly different from bits.  Sorry that I can't illuminate further.

"...until computers are built from something other than matter..."

We can get semantically cute and argue both sides, but in my book a quantum computer passes this definition.

Armchair scientist here, but - the differentiating criterion of a quantum computer is the existence of these chained qbits.
A problem with 2^8 possibilities has 256 solutions. Our normal computers take that O(n^2) problem and solves it by traversing all n^2 solutions.
Computer science demonstrates we can solve big-O problems in less than the brute force number of times. However, we cannot reduce Big-O-COMPLEX problems into a problem set that is small enough for a regular computer to solve.

A quantum computer would look at this problem and say, okay, I need 8 qbits. One to store each of the two possible outcomes for each of the 8 possibilities.
Having those, the solution is O(1) - it is already solved. Each qbit holds BOTH states, so a 2^8 problem requires 8 qbits. A 2^512 problem requires 512 qbits and it is solved. A standard computer could never solve it.

The writer of that quote understood that notion. He understood that a fundamentally different process must occur than the one we use today to make the next evolutionary leap in processing.

I would argue that since the 'core' of the machine relies not on a measurement that is physical, but on the underpinnings of quantum theory which rather fly in the face of matter...that the quote is quite correct.

[JayJuanGee]

Down for 5% looks approximately like this:

BuyPrice   BTC_tobuy           $Amt_ToBuy

$423.00   0.20263425   $85.71
$426.00   0.20120724   $85.71
$429.00   0.19980020   $85.71
$432.00   0.19841270   $85.71
$435.00   0.19704433   $85.71
$438.00   0.19569472   $85.71
$441.00   0.19436346   $85.71
$443.00   0.19348597   $85.71
$444.50   0.19283304   $85.71
$446.00   0.19218450   $85.71
$447.50   0.19154030   $85.71
$449.00   0.19090041   $85.71


Up for 5% looks approximately like this:

SellPrice   BTC_toSell           $amt_toSell
      
$453.50   0.15750512   $71.43
$455.50   0.18817626   $85.71
$457.50   0.18735363   $85.71
$459.50   0.24871755   $114.29
$462.00   0.24737168   $114.29
$464.50   0.24604029   $114.29
$467.00   0.24472316   $114.29
$469.50   0.24342005   $114.29
$472.00   0.24213075   $114.29
$474.50   0.24085504   $114.29
$477.00   0.23959269   $114.29
$479.50   0.23834351   $114.29

$2.50 increments at $450 = 0.56%. I can only hope you have set your spread accordingly, or use a zero-fee exchange. And a bot. Otherwise that's a lot of monkey-clicking to give an exchange money.

I keep these kinds of charts to remind myself of my own buy/sell authorization limits, yet I will tweak from time to time.. and then change the next buy or sell amount based on the previous buy or sell that took place.. and some of the  projected numbers in my spreadsheet will self-adjust based on my own setting of framework parameters.  

Accordingly, my increments of buy and sell and the spread evolve over time.. as the market changes... So for example, last night before I went to sleep, I could not resist or wait until below $449 to buy, so instead I bought at $449.61, and reset my buy number from $449 to $448.50 and reset my sell number from $453.5 to $453.  I did not sell at $453 last night because I was sleeping when the price went to $454, and no big deal if I miss a few of the price swings... and many times when I am buying/selling manually, I set my bitcoin price alarm for larger price swings rather than the smaller ones (depending on how much I want to sleep, but last night I set the low at $446 and the high at $456, which maybe shows that I did not value my sleep too much, but it didn't go off).  

Currently, on the way down, my buy price increments are every $1.50 and then it goes to every $3 and further down it goes to every $6, and if the market moves fast I will skip a few of the price buy points and then buy several of the increments at once (and likely adjust the quantity that I buy based on if I believe the market might reverse or continue going down).  

On the way, up my sell price increments start at every $2 then goes to every $2.50 then to every $10.  Ultimately these buy/sell points are ballpark self-authorizations that give me pretty good guidelines for what to do and if the market moves a lot I am prepared.. or if I am out and about (with only my mobile phone on me), then I have a pretty good idea in my head about the ball park of what to do - i.e. when to buy/sell and approximately how much.

I have some BTC trading that involves zero fees (on Uphold) and I also have trading that has variable fees between .1% and .25% (mostly on BTCe, Gemini and Coinbase Exchange).  I also use Circle for some matters, Local Bitcoins, and the Blockchain wallet app for direct sales and other trading - and some of the various exchanges and accounts tend to be working on arbitrage opportunities, too.  Also, for example if someone pays me in BTC for a product or service or if I pay someone in BTC, then I will decide how to treat that and whether to convert to fiat or to replace with BTC right away.     When I use the services that have fees, then I have to adjust my buy/sell strategies a bit to adequately account for the fees - which usually I tend to require the price to move an additional .25% or so before I make my move, which currently is about $1.15

Even though you may be expressing some skepticism, Cassius, about my methodology and whether the profit is so insignificant that it is not worth the risk, yet in the end, my trading method has been profitable with a considerable level of consistency and maybe even foolproofness and has helped a lot to put my whole BTC holdings in a good position with more BTC accumulated overall in my various accounts, and more fiat stacked up in various accounts in the event that BTC prices go down (which seems nearly inevitable in bitcoinlandia that we are going to experience both ups and downs), and one of the riskiest aspects of my application of the theoretical trading practice has been when I tend to deviate from my pre-planned strategy and to attempt to anticipate the price too much and to attempt to sell on the way down or to buy on the way up...  these tend to be foolish and stressful events when I deviate from the pre-plan..  so in the end, I have found that it has been a lot safer to buy on the way down and to sell on the way up, within a sort of framework with limits.

Further, at any point, I can choose to NOT be so stressed out about trading small price swings, and I can can purposefully adjust my strategy to trade bigger price swings... It is totally up to me and my perception regarding how much time i want to spend trading smaller price swings or not.  Currently, I am finding trading smaller price swings to be very good practice, and I am pretty easily able to fit it into my other daily activities.

[Ultrafinery]

...
The writer of that quote understood that notion. He understood that a fundamentally different process must occur than the one we use today to make the next evolutionary leap in processing.

I would argue that since the 'core' of the machine ...

https://youtu.be/X0WnddW5gZI

[JayJuanGee]

Have we destroyed the Satoshi coins yet? Just checking...

I've seen some recent discussion of such.. ..

Whoever came up with that....

   Dumb idea...

If he really wanted there to have been confidence in the economics of a deflationary currency he ought to have done it himself. The fact he didn’t leads one to believe he wants the dough. And I suppose he’s entitled to it. Either way it’s an ungodly hoard of coins that’s impossible to ignore.

I don't think that's what the discussion is about.

At some point old pubkey coins might be easily hackable. At that point, millions of BTC can be looted for the lolz by those having the tech to do it. The question is what can you do about it so that they can be moved to safety, locked, etc. Otherwise you'll have millions of BTC looted AND a PR fiasco like "ohhh Bitcoin got HACKED AND PEOPLE LOST THEIR MONEY!!! ITS UNSAFE, RUN FOR YOUR LIVES". So you have hackers dumping, people panicking, etc etc. It's a complex issue.

Wouldn't vastly more coins be in danger than just those ones in this scenario?

I believe that some folks are focusing on Satoshi's stash exclusively because it seems to be a very high known quantity of dormant coins (close to 1 million) that are sitting with Bitcoin's original security, and their vulnerability would have a much greater affect on bitcoin because of their proportionality to the total quantity of bitcoins in supply, rather than anyone else's much smaller stashes of 1,000 or even up to 50,000 that would not have such a large impact on the total bitcoin security and confidence if those other much smaller stashes of coins were hacked.

[JayJuanGee]

Have we destroyed the Satoshi coins yet? Just checking...

I've seen some recent discussion of such.. ..

Whoever came up with that....

   Dumb idea...

If he really wanted there to have been confidence in the economics of a deflationary currency he ought to have done it himself. The fact he didn’t leads one to believe he wants the dough. And I suppose he’s entitled to it. Either way it’s an ungodly hoard of coins that’s impossible to ignore.

I don't think that's what the discussion is about.

At some point old pubkey coins might be easily hackable. At that point, millions of BTC can be looted for the lolz by those having the tech to do it. The question is what can you do about it so that they can be moved to safety, locked, etc. Otherwise you'll have millions of BTC looted AND a PR fiasco like "ohhh Bitcoin got HACKED AND PEOPLE LOST THEIR MONEY!!! ITS UNSAFE, RUN FOR YOUR LIVES". So you have hackers dumping, people panicking, etc etc. It's a complex issue.

Wouldn't vastly more coins be in danger than just those ones in this scenario?

No, the early coins (not just Satoshis - all of the coins) use an obsolete scheme that hasn't been used in years. Essentially they don't have addresses, like now, but naked/exposed public keys.

Quantum computers can reverse a public key as long as they know it. Our modern addresses use hashes so you first have to reverse the hash, find the pubkey and then break the pubkey/privkey to access the funds. This is way more quantum-proof, as long as you don't reuse addresses (and thus expose your pubkey for long periods of time).

Much better than my response... 

[Fatman3001]

This talks about bits.  It is my understanding that qbits are significantly different from bits.  Sorry that I can't illuminate further.

"...until computers are built from something other than matter..."

We can get semantically cute and argue both sides, but in my book a quantum computer passes this definition.

Armchair scientist here, but - the differentiating criterion of a quantum computer is the existence of these chained qbits.
A problem with 2^8 possibilities has 256 solutions. Our normal computers take that O(n^2) problem and solves it by traversing all n^2 solutions.
Computer science demonstrates we can solve big-O problems in less than the brute force number of times. However, we cannot reduce Big-O-COMPLEX problems into a problem set that is small enough for a regular computer to solve.

A quantum computer would look at this problem and say, okay, I need 8 qbits. One to store each of the two possible outcomes for each of the 8 possibilities.
Having those, the solution is O(1) - it is already solved. Each qbit holds BOTH states, so a 2^8 problem requires 8 qbits. A 2^512 problem requires 512 qbits and it is solved. A standard computer could never solve it.

The writer of that quote understood that notion. He understood that a fundamentally different process must occur than the one we use today to make the next evolutionary leap in processing.

I would argue that since the 'core' of the machine relies not on a measurement that is physical, but on the underpinnings of quantum theory which rather fly in the face of matter...that the quote is quite correct.

I disagree. I think you give the writer too much credit. A natural reading of what's written is that it is impossible to break Bitcoins algo in this universe.

Quantum mechanics is very much part of this universe.

Disclaimer: Not even an armchair scientist.

[Blacula X]

What is that picture, anyway? Looks like one of those foam hand exerciser balls with lint on it.

http://www.ballsnbands.com/images/Foam%20Exerciser.jpg

Bitcoin. Your money is secured by the laws of the universe.*
*Unless you're Satoshi, in which case a kid named Thermos can take it from you,

[xyzzy099]

http://miguelmoreno.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/fYFBsqp.jpg

This talks about bits.  It is my understanding that qbits are significantly different from bits.  Sorry that I can't illuminate further.

"...until computers are built from something other than matter..."

We can get semantically cute and argue both sides, but in my book a quantum computer passes this definition.

Armchair scientist here, but - the differentiating criterion of a quantum computer is the existence of these chained qbits.
A problem with 2^8 possibilities has 256 solutions. Our normal computers take that O(n^2) problem and solves it by traversing all n^2 solutions.
Computer science demonstrates we can solve big-O problems in less than the brute force number of times. However, we cannot reduce Big-O-COMPLEX problems into a problem set that is small enough for a regular computer to solve.

A quantum computer would look at this problem and say, okay, I need 8 qbits. One to store each of the two possible outcomes for each of the 8 possibilities.
Having those, the solution is O(1) - it is already solved. Each qbit holds BOTH states, so a 2^8 problem requires 8 qbits. A 2^512 problem requires 512 qbits and it is solved. A standard computer could never solve it.

The writer of that quote understood that notion. He understood that a fundamentally different process must occur than the one we use today to make the next evolutionary leap in processing.

I would argue that since the 'core' of the machine relies not on a measurement that is physical, but on the underpinnings of quantum theory which rather fly in the face of matter...that the quote is quite correct.

I disagree. I think you give the writer too much credit. A natural reading of what's written is that it is impossible to break Bitcoins algo in this universe.

Quantum mechanics is very much part of this universe.

Disclaimer: Not even an armchair scientist.

The threat from QC is that Grover's Algorithm greatly reduces the space you need to search for solutions.  It is impossible to brute-force a problem with 2^256 solutions, but it is a lot easier if you can effectively make the problem smaller, and that is what Grover's algorithm does.