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

[Fatman3001]

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.

Mmmmkey, what's your point?

[1714747902]

1714747902

[1714747902]

1714747902

[1714747902]

1714747902

[1714747902]

1714747902

[1714747902]

1714747902

[xyzzy099]

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.

Mmmmkey, what's your point?

That QC algorithms can make problems solvable that were previously unsolvable with classical computing.  A problem that would require potentially 2^256 attempts to reach a solution would be impossible to ever solve, for the reasons illustrated in the image above.  If you can reduce the number of computational steps to 2^128, or 2^64, it starts to become very possible.

Actually, it would be a lot more accurate to say that Grover's algorithm is one of the threats, not the threat.

[Blacula X]

...
Actually, it would be a lot more accurate to say that Grover's algorithm is one of the threats, not the threat.

No it would not. It would not be more accurate to say that about Grover. Grover like Bitcoin. Grover's algorithm is nice, not a threat.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/be/Grover.JPG

[Fatman3001]

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.

Mmmmkey, what's your point?

That QC algorithms can make problems solvable that were previously unsolvable with classical computing.  A problem that would require potentially 2^256 attempts to reach a solution would be impossible to ever solve, for the reasons illustrated in the image above.  If you can reduce the number of computational steps to 2^128, or 2^64, it starts to become very possible.

Actually, it would be a lot more accurate to say that Grover's algorithm is one of the threats, not the threat.

Ok, I thought you disagreed with me. It's fascinating stuff that opens up a whole new world of possibilities. A bit annoying that one of those is to break Bitcoins security. I hope they can wait with switching the algo until crypto has found a reliable PoS system.

[Gyrsur]

1999




2009

[Cassius]

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.

It's called grid trading. I do it with a bot on eth_btc. And I can tell you that in two sentences, or three if you count this one.

[sniveling]

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.

"... until computers are built from something other than matter and occupy something other than space".

Qbits exploit weird quantum effects like one atom being able to be in two places at the same time. The qbits in a quantum computer occupy something strange that might be considered "other than space". Existing in two places at the same time is a departure from the standard three dimensions of space we all know.

[JimboToronto]

Wow. Zany wall fight at Finex. 3k bidwall staring down a 1.5k askwall.

And like that they're gone. Entertaining or what?

Edit: now it's 3 separate 1k bidwalls. 

[Alley]

1k market buy on finex.  Price didn't budge.

[AZwarel]

There was a kind of meh interlude in Eurovision 2nd semi-final live just an hour ago. They used a "funny sketch" saying something like this in the sketch: "..it costed around 3 billion dollars back than, which is about 500k bitcoins today.." (actually not accurate, but that is not the point :-P).

LOL. Mainstreaming slowly :-)))

Check it out^^

[hd060053]

sell walls are gone again. 5500 to 470.

[JimboToronto]

sell walls are gone again. 5500 to 470.

Those three 1k bidwalls just vanished too.

The whales are frolicking.

Edit: now it's a 4k bidwall. LOL

[JimboToronto]

Damn. I have to get out to the butcher shop before it's too late for them to cut me something.

I hope I don't miss the show.

[BitBerau]

2009

Now that I would believe if the press said that was him. Not that craig stick in the mud.

[Gyrsur]

2009

Now that I would believe if the press said that was him. Not that craig stick in the mud.

http://neural.it/2015/04/nakamoto-the-proof-recurring-elusiveness/

[Fatman3001]

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

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.

"... until computers are built from something other than matter and occupy something other than space".

Qbits exploit weird quantum effects like one atom being able to be in two places at the same time. The qbits in a quantum computer occupy something strange that might be considered "other than space". Existing in two places at the same time is a departure from the standard three dimensions of space we all know.

It's not magic, it's well known physics. And the computers themselves are built from common materials. It's simply taking more advantage of the quirks of quantum mechanics. Regular computers are based on quantum mechanics as well. Regular computers rely on quantum states as well. It hasn't ejected them from space and time.

Anyhew, your interpretation is contradicted by the bit at the end:

"Bitcoin - Your money is secured by the laws of the universe"

I'm not saying we can't read qc into it after the fact, just that I think Chainsaw was being a bit generous with regards to the original intentions of the author.

[Blacula X]

sell walls are gone again. 5500 to 470.

This is the big one! You hear that, Elizabeth? I'm coming to join you!

http://www.sondrakistan.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Fred-Sanford.gif

[Arrakeen]

1999




2009

http://www.eb-mm.net/fr/projects/nakamoto-the-proof

There's no way this is real; did people actually pay money for this on the darknet?  Do people actually believe this / take it as 'proof' that satoshi is one person, let alone a japanese guy (the dude in the picture is not japanese...)?

[JayJuanGee]

It's called grid trading. I do it with a bot on eth_btc. And I can tell you that in two sentences, or three if you count this one.

You can call it whatever you want, including uncle bob, if you chose not to explain specifics, which had included applying practice to theory and also responding to issues/questions raised by someone else on a forum.

And, by the way, you are welcome.         

[Fatman3001]

^^^ yeez, the stupid is strong in this one