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

[Elwar]

And this is the crux of the problem. BTC needs to find a way to decouple itself from fiat. Unfortunately, there is not enough adoption at this time to accomplish this. One would be really hard pressed to be able to fully purchase all of the goods and services they need directly with BTC.

I got to about 90% of purchases when I lived in Germany (I think gasoline was the final thing).

In the US it would have been so much easier. Bitcoin people in the US have it so easy for spending bitcoins but they don't even know it.

[1685816036]

1685816036

[1685816036]

1685816036

[1685816036]

1685816036

[1685816036]

1685816036

[1685816036]

1685816036

[1685816036]

1685816036

[bones261]

Unfortunately, there is nothing to prevent someone from building a layer on top of a blockchain and issuing tokens that are supposed to be backed by deposits and then running a fractional reserve. (Many accuse Tether of doing just that.) Furthermore, blockchains have difficulty scaling. That is why BTC has resorted to the lightning network to attempt to address the scaling problem.

So BTC is a solution, but it's really not a solution because someone can come up with a different solution on top of BTC which wouldn't really be a solution at all, thus making underlying BTC not a solution. Think i got it. And then BTC is having problem scaling so that's why they introduced a scaling solution called LN. Did i get it right?

If the solution you want is to totally prevent people from running fractional reserves, then no, the blockchain is not the solution. Perhaps if you could cram all of the functionality onto the blockchain itself it may be a solution. However, when you try to cram all of the functionality onto the blockchain itself, you run into a scaling issue. You can get a blockchain to scale, but this always comes at the cost of the network being more centralized.

[DaRude]

Unfortunately, there is nothing to prevent someone from building a layer on top of a blockchain and issuing tokens that are supposed to be backed by deposits and then running a fractional reserve. (Many accuse Tether of doing just that.) Furthermore, blockchains have difficulty scaling. That is why BTC has resorted to the lightning network to attempt to address the scaling problem.

So BTC is a solution, but it's really not a solution because someone can come up with a different solution on top of BTC which wouldn't really be a solution at all, thus making underlying BTC not a solution. Think i got it. And then BTC is having problem scaling so that's why they introduced a scaling solution called LN. Did i get it right?

If the solution you want is to totally prevent people from running fractional reserves, then no, the blockchain is not the solution. Perhaps if you could cram all of the functionality onto the blockchain itself it may be a solution. However, when you try to cram all of the functionality onto the blockchain itself, you run into a scaling issue. You can get a blockchain to scale, but this always comes at the cost of the network being more centralized.

Oh ok i think you cleared it up now, but just to make sure, so it's impossible to cram every possible functionality in any system, and it's also impossible to prevent a derivatives market based on any underlying asset. And since BTC exists in our faulty universe BTC is burdened with the restrictions that apply to every other system. Thus we draw a conclusion that BTC is a failed experiment and will die? I believe the scientific name for this argument is 'R0ach logic'

[nanobtc]

Please don't quote the established trolls. You cannot win, and they gain traction.

[DaRude]

Oh please. the way banknotes started in the first place is merchants wanted to store their gold at a bank, rather than lugging it around themselves or setting up their own fort and small militia to protect it. Then they were issued a piece of paper, a banknote. When the bankers discovered people were using the banknotes like money, they discovered a way to loan people paper and run a fractional reserve. It doesn't matter what medium you use as money. Someone is going to find a way to put them self in the middle and exact their usurious fees. Or just plain use force or stealth and outright steal your bounty.

Interestingly, the first technology to be developed since the advent of fractional reserve banking that actually has a real chance of putting a stop to most of the double counting of reserve assets is... drum-roll... blockchain!

Except not even exchanges are currently using that "feature".

Thanks to blockchain exchanges could be already guaranteeing they don't run fractional reserve. It would be as simple as this:

- Every exchange user is given a "unique private identifier".
- Every day, the exchange publish a balance sheet that comprises a listing of all UPI's and its individual balances. The total is the minimum amount of reserves the exchange must control to prove absence of fractional reserve "banking".
- Simultaneously the exchange publish a listing of addresses which individual balances (can be checked on their respective blockchains for accuracy) sum, at least, the total needed. Obviously they sign a timestamped code with those addresses to prove ownership.

- Individual users could check their balances are included and accounted for in the balance sheet.

... But not a single one exchange is still doing this. Wonder why.....

Because since fiat reserves cannot be verified in this manner, you're going through all this trouble to only verify 50% of your reserves. Meaning they can still theoretically run 50% fractional reserve but now you'd have that warm comforting feeling that those number mean something that they really don't.

[DaRude]

Did you guys know that now you can ask rabbi a question at https://www.chabad.org/asktherabbi/default_cdo/jewish/Ask-the-Rabbi.htm
and they also accept BTC donations at https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/2444289/jewish/Donate-Bitcoins.htm

Good roach it's like you're almost relevant in this form!

[bitserve]

Oh please. the way banknotes started in the first place is merchants wanted to store their gold at a bank, rather than lugging it around themselves or setting up their own fort and small militia to protect it. Then they were issued a piece of paper, a banknote. When the bankers discovered people were using the banknotes like money, they discovered a way to loan people paper and run a fractional reserve. It doesn't matter what medium you use as money. Someone is going to find a way to put them self in the middle and exact their usurious fees. Or just plain use force or stealth and outright steal your bounty.

Interestingly, the first technology to be developed since the advent of fractional reserve banking that actually has a real chance of putting a stop to most of the double counting of reserve assets is... drum-roll... blockchain!

Except not even exchanges are currently using that "feature".

Thanks to blockchain exchanges could be already guaranteeing they don't run fractional reserve. It would be as simple as this:

- Every exchange user is given a "unique private identifier".
- Every day, the exchange publish a balance sheet that comprises a listing of all UPI's and its individual balances. The total is the minimum amount of reserves the exchange must control to prove absence of fractional reserve "banking".
- Simultaneously the exchange publish a listing of addresses which individual balances (can be checked on their respective blockchains for accuracy) sum, at least, the total needed. Obviously they sign a timestamped code with those addresses to prove ownership.

- Individual users could check their balances are included and accounted for in the balance sheet.

... But not a single one exchange is still doing this. Wonder why.....

Because since fiat reserves cannot be verified in this manner, you're going through all this trouble to only verify 50% of your reserves. Meaning they can still theoretically run 50% fractional reserve but now you'd have that warm comforting feeling that those number mean something that they really don't.

Being able to verify they are not running fractional reserve on crypto alone would be a great advantage. Also, FIAT funds can be proved by a signed and stamped bank statement. It could be forged yeah.... but, anyways, the FIAT reserves of the exchanges, being stored in bank accounts, are ALREADY being subject to fractional reserve by the banks itself

Do you really not think an exchange that proofs daily that they have all the crypto they are suppossed to have would not be a big improvement to current system?

[bitserve]

I officially bull trolled myself out of a once in a lifetime opportunity to make something of myself. That is so me.

AMA.

Did you sell?

[DaRude]

Oh please. the way banknotes started in the first place is merchants wanted to store their gold at a bank, rather than lugging it around themselves or setting up their own fort and small militia to protect it. Then they were issued a piece of paper, a banknote. When the bankers discovered people were using the banknotes like money, they discovered a way to loan people paper and run a fractional reserve. It doesn't matter what medium you use as money. Someone is going to find a way to put them self in the middle and exact their usurious fees. Or just plain use force or stealth and outright steal your bounty.

Interestingly, the first technology to be developed since the advent of fractional reserve banking that actually has a real chance of putting a stop to most of the double counting of reserve assets is... drum-roll... blockchain!

Except not even exchanges are currently using that "feature".

Thanks to blockchain exchanges could be already guaranteeing they don't run fractional reserve. It would be as simple as this:

- Every exchange user is given a "unique private identifier".
- Every day, the exchange publish a balance sheet that comprises a listing of all UPI's and its individual balances. The total is the minimum amount of reserves the exchange must control to prove absence of fractional reserve "banking".
- Simultaneously the exchange publish a listing of addresses which individual balances (can be checked on their respective blockchains for accuracy) sum, at least, the total needed. Obviously they sign a timestamped code with those addresses to prove ownership.

- Individual users could check their balances are included and accounted for in the balance sheet.

... But not a single one exchange is still doing this. Wonder why.....

Because since fiat reserves cannot be verified in this manner, you're going through all this trouble to only verify 50% of your reserves. Meaning they can still theoretically run 50% fractional reserve but now you'd have that warm comforting feeling that those number mean something that they really don't.

Being able to verify they are not running fractional reserve on crypto alone would be a great advantage. Also, FIAT funds can be proved by a signed and stamped bank statement. It could be forged yeah.... but, anyways, the FIAT reserves of the exchanges, being stored in bank accounts, are ALREADY being subject to fractional reserve by the banks itself

Do you really not think an exchange that proofs daily that they have all the crypto they are suppossed to have would not be a big improvement to current system?

I'm an exchange, you deposit BTC100 with me and r0ach deposits his 2643940 shekels. I buy a lambo i mean get "hacked" for BTC50. I go to another exchange and purchase BTC50 with roaches 1321970 shekels. And at the end of the day i can still provide verifiable proof that i hold BTC100 which corresponds to my balance sheet. Yay for false sense of security!! Partial audits are pretty useless. Now this possibly could work on those crypto only exchanges, that's the future we hope to have one day

Edit: Oh and i also go to another bank and take a loan out for 1321970 shekels, and deposit it in the first bank and provide a legit statement of the full 2643940 shekels in the first bank. Never mind my 1321970 shekel liability to the 2nd bank. Unfortunately fiat is untraceable thats why all the drug cartels, pimps, and war lords use it, would be awesome to replace it with something better 

[bitserve]

Oh please. the way banknotes started in the first place is merchants wanted to store their gold at a bank, rather than lugging it around themselves or setting up their own fort and small militia to protect it. Then they were issued a piece of paper, a banknote. When the bankers discovered people were using the banknotes like money, they discovered a way to loan people paper and run a fractional reserve. It doesn't matter what medium you use as money. Someone is going to find a way to put them self in the middle and exact their usurious fees. Or just plain use force or stealth and outright steal your bounty.

Interestingly, the first technology to be developed since the advent of fractional reserve banking that actually has a real chance of putting a stop to most of the double counting of reserve assets is... drum-roll... blockchain!

Except not even exchanges are currently using that "feature".

Thanks to blockchain exchanges could be already guaranteeing they don't run fractional reserve. It would be as simple as this:

- Every exchange user is given a "unique private identifier".
- Every day, the exchange publish a balance sheet that comprises a listing of all UPI's and its individual balances. The total is the minimum amount of reserves the exchange must control to prove absence of fractional reserve "banking".
- Simultaneously the exchange publish a listing of addresses which individual balances (can be checked on their respective blockchains for accuracy) sum, at least, the total needed. Obviously they sign a timestamped code with those addresses to prove ownership.

- Individual users could check their balances are included and accounted for in the balance sheet.

... But not a single one exchange is still doing this. Wonder why.....

Because since fiat reserves cannot be verified in this manner, you're going through all this trouble to only verify 50% of your reserves. Meaning they can still theoretically run 50% fractional reserve but now you'd have that warm comforting feeling that those number mean something that they really don't.

Being able to verify they are not running fractional reserve on crypto alone would be a great advantage. Also, FIAT funds can be proved by a signed and stamped bank statement. It could be forged yeah.... but, anyways, the FIAT reserves of the exchanges, being stored in bank accounts, are ALREADY being subject to fractional reserve by the banks itself

Do you really not think an exchange that proofs daily that they have all the crypto they are suppossed to have would not be a big improvement to current system?

I'm an exchange, you deposit BTC100 with me and r0ach deposits 2643940 shekels. I buy a lambo i mean get "hacked" for BTC50. I go to another exchange and purchase BTC50 with roaches 1321970 shekels. And at the end of the day i can still provide verifiable proof that i hold BTC10 which corresponds to my balance sheet. Yay for false sense of security!!

It's not only for "security". As soon as you are not running fractional reserve on crypto you are not lowering the price of it. It's ok to me if every (or any, for starters) exchange is forced to proof they hodl the real btc balance. And as I said, it could also be complemented with a bank balance certificate of FIAT funds in the "traditional" way.

[bones261]

Unfortunately, there is nothing to prevent someone from building a layer on top of a blockchain and issuing tokens that are supposed to be backed by deposits and then running a fractional reserve. (Many accuse Tether of doing just that.) Furthermore, blockchains have difficulty scaling. That is why BTC has resorted to the lightning network to attempt to address the scaling problem.

So BTC is a solution, but it's really not a solution because someone can come up with a different solution on top of BTC which wouldn't really be a solution at all, thus making underlying BTC not a solution. Think i got it. And then BTC is having problem scaling so that's why they introduced a scaling solution called LN. Did i get it right?

If the solution you want is to totally prevent people from running fractional reserves, then no, the blockchain is not the solution. Perhaps if you could cram all of the functionality onto the blockchain itself it may be a solution. However, when you try to cram all of the functionality onto the blockchain itself, you run into a scaling issue. You can get a blockchain to scale, but this always comes at the cost of the network being more centralized.

Oh ok i think you cleared it up now, but just to make sure, so it's impossible to cram every possible functionality in any system, and it's also impossible to prevent a derivatives market based on any underlying asset. And since BTC exists in our faulty universe BTC is burdened with the restrictions that apply to every other system. Thus we draw a conclusion that BTC is a failed experiment and will die? I believe the scientific name for this argument is 'R0ach logic'

Did I ever state that BTC is a failed experiment? Or is that what is implied whenever someone dare states that the blockchain and BTC are not the end all be all solution to everything. 

[DaRude]

...
It's not only for "security". As soon as you are not running fractional reserve on crypto you are not lowering the price of it. It's ok to me if every (or any, for starters) exchange is forced to proof they hodl the real btc balance. And as I said, it could also be complemented with a bank balance certificate of FIAT funds in the "traditional" way.

See my edit above

[DaRude]

Unfortunately, there is nothing to prevent someone from building a layer on top of a blockchain and issuing tokens that are supposed to be backed by deposits and then running a fractional reserve. (Many accuse Tether of doing just that.) Furthermore, blockchains have difficulty scaling. That is why BTC has resorted to the lightning network to attempt to address the scaling problem.

So BTC is a solution, but it's really not a solution because someone can come up with a different solution on top of BTC which wouldn't really be a solution at all, thus making underlying BTC not a solution. Think i got it. And then BTC is having problem scaling so that's why they introduced a scaling solution called LN. Did i get it right?

If the solution you want is to totally prevent people from running fractional reserves, then no, the blockchain is not the solution. Perhaps if you could cram all of the functionality onto the blockchain itself it may be a solution. However, when you try to cram all of the functionality onto the blockchain itself, you run into a scaling issue. You can get a blockchain to scale, but this always comes at the cost of the network being more centralized.

Oh ok i think you cleared it up now, but just to make sure, so it's impossible to cram every possible functionality in any system, and it's also impossible to prevent a derivatives market based on any underlying asset. And since BTC exists in our faulty universe BTC is burdened with the restrictions that apply to every other system. Thus we draw a conclusion that BTC is a failed experiment and will die? I believe the scientific name for this argument is 'R0ach logic'

Did I ever state that BTC is a failed experiment? Or is that what is implied whenever someone dare states that the blockchain and BTC are not the end all be all solution to everything.  

Well, since you kept using straw men logic i figured i'd throw an obvious one as well in case you cannot counter any other points i make. BTC has many valid attack vectors. Like centralization, why not use that and propose solutions to improve miner decentralization instead of your silly attempts at claiming that it can be used at running fractional reserve. Where bitserve literally just outlined how BTC part can be easily audited in few simple steps.

Edited

[Elwar]

Screw it. I'm buying moar.

[Dakustaking76]

Finaly we see Some green dildo’s  

[toknormal]

Finaly we see Some green dildo’s  

Small mercy. A set of perfect descending triangles indicates we are headed for the $2000-$6000 region IMO. Major profit taking from last year's rise about to take place.

[qwizzie]

https://www.ccn.com/bitcoin-price-drop-from-20000-likely-due-to-market-manipulation-traders/

Interesting article.

[toknormal]

https://www.ccn.com/bitcoin-price-drop-from-20000-likely-due-to-market-manipulation-traders/

Interesting article.

It wasn't only the drop. The original rise was also due to "price manipulation" in the first place.

[qwizzie]

https://www.ccn.com/bitcoin-price-drop-from-20000-likely-due-to-market-manipulation-traders/

Interesting article.

It wasn't only the drop. The original rise was also due to "price manipulation" in the first place.

Yep, works both ways.

[toknormal]

Yep, works both ways.

Ah ! It's you.