Bitcoin Forum
June 17, 2019, 02:09:49 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.18.0 [Torrent] (New!)
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Poll
Question: Closing BTC Price June 17:
$0 - 2 (1.7%)
<$6,500 - 7 (6%)
$6,500-$6,750 - 1 (0.9%)
$6,751-$7,000 - 2 (1.7%)
$7,001-$7,250 - 3 (2.6%)
$7,251-$7,500 - 6 (5.2%)
$7,501-$7,750 - 4 (3.4%)
$7,751-$8,000 - 12 (10.3%)
$8,001-$8,250 - 13 (11.2%)
$8,251-$8,500 - 6 (5.2%)
$8,501-$8,750 - 6 (5.2%)
$8,751-$9,000 - 11 (9.5%)
$9,001,$9,250 - 10 (8.6%)
$9,251-$9,500 - 9 (7.8%)
>$9,500 - 16 (13.8%)
$20,000 - 8 (6.9%)
Total Voters: 116

Pages: « 1 ... 20435 20436 20437 20438 20439 20440 20441 20442 20443 20444 20445 20446 20447 20448 20449 20450 20451 20452 20453 20454 20455 20456 20457 20458 20459 20460 20461 20462 20463 20464 20465 20466 20467 20468 20469 20470 20471 20472 20473 20474 20475 20476 20477 20478 20479 20480 20481 20482 20483 20484 [20485] 20486 20487 20488 20489 20490 20491 20492 20493 20494 20495 20496 20497 20498 20499 20500 20501 20502 20503 20504 20505 20506 20507 20508 20509 20510 20511 20512 20513 20514 20515 20516 20517 20518 20519 20520 20521 20522 20523 20524 20525 20526 20527 20528 20529 20530 20531 20532 20533 20534 20535 ... 24213 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion  (Read 21223961 times)
This is a self-moderated topic. If you do not want to be moderated by the person who started this topic, create a new topic. (64 posts by 15 users deleted.)
Elwar
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2800
Merit: 1384


Viva Ut Vivas


View Profile WWW
May 26, 2018, 05:51:08 AM

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.
Try The Brand New Ethereum Game
50 Last Players Also Win The Bank
Works On Any iOS/Android Device With Standard Browser
Join Us On Telegram To Get Notified When You Can Win
COLOR PIXELS
AND WIN
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1560737389
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1560737389

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1560737389
Reply with quote  #2

1560737389
Report to moderator
bones261
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1582
Merit: 1591


My hat is in storage. https://ibb.co/YLkPgXb


View Profile
May 26, 2018, 06:09:43 AM


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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1732
Merit: 1038


In order to dump coins one must have coins


View Profile
May 26, 2018, 06:25:08 AM


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
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 385
Merit: 165



View Profile WWW
May 26, 2018, 06:28:22 AM

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

Activity: 1732
Merit: 1038


In order to dump coins one must have coins


View Profile
May 26, 2018, 06:41:23 AM


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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1732
Merit: 1038


In order to dump coins one must have coins


View Profile
May 26, 2018, 06:50:25 AM


Good roach it's like you're almost relevant in this form!
bitserve
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 868
Merit: 748


HODL.


View Profile
May 26, 2018, 06:54:49 AM


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 Wink

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
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 868
Merit: 748


HODL.


View Profile
May 26, 2018, 07:01:44 AM

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1732
Merit: 1038


In order to dump coins one must have coins


View Profile
May 26, 2018, 07:02:44 AM


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 Wink

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
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 868
Merit: 748


HODL.


View Profile
May 26, 2018, 07:07:07 AM


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 Wink

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
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1582
Merit: 1591


My hat is in storage. https://ibb.co/YLkPgXb


View Profile
May 26, 2018, 07:10:21 AM


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.  Cheesy
DaRude
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1732
Merit: 1038


In order to dump coins one must have coins


View Profile
May 26, 2018, 07:12:08 AM

...
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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1732
Merit: 1038


In order to dump coins one must have coins


View Profile
May 26, 2018, 07:26:24 AM


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.  Cheesy

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2800
Merit: 1384


Viva Ut Vivas


View Profile WWW
May 26, 2018, 07:30:01 AM

Screw it. I'm buying moar.
Dakustaking76
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 490
Merit: 261


View Profile
May 26, 2018, 07:31:39 AM

Finaly we see Some green dildo’s  Roll Eyes
toknormal
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1974
Merit: 1157


View Profile
May 26, 2018, 07:57:55 AM

Finaly we see Some green dildo’s  Roll Eyes

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1904
Merit: 1073



View Profile
May 26, 2018, 08:02:42 AM

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

Interesting article.
toknormal
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1974
Merit: 1157


View Profile
May 26, 2018, 08:03:49 AM


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

Activity: 1904
Merit: 1073



View Profile
May 26, 2018, 08:08:25 AM


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

Yep, works both ways.
toknormal
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1974
Merit: 1157


View Profile
May 26, 2018, 08:11:19 AM


Yep, works both ways.

Ah ! It's you.
Pages: « 1 ... 20435 20436 20437 20438 20439 20440 20441 20442 20443 20444 20445 20446 20447 20448 20449 20450 20451 20452 20453 20454 20455 20456 20457 20458 20459 20460 20461 20462 20463 20464 20465 20466 20467 20468 20469 20470 20471 20472 20473 20474 20475 20476 20477 20478 20479 20480 20481 20482 20483 20484 [20485] 20486 20487 20488 20489 20490 20491 20492 20493 20494 20495 20496 20497 20498 20499 20500 20501 20502 20503 20504 20505 20506 20507 20508 20509 20510 20511 20512 20513 20514 20515 20516 20517 20518 20519 20520 20521 20522 20523 20524 20525 20526 20527 20528 20529 20530 20531 20532 20533 20534 20535 ... 24213 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!