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

[Elwar]

Tried to install LN node on my server but I have to run a full node. My server only has 200 Gb.

Is there a preferred way among people without home servers?

you cant run core in prune mode for LN?

I'll give that a shot.

[1642468270]

1642468270

[1642468270]

1642468270

[1642468270]

1642468270

[Anon136]

Apparently the upside-down Bart pattern has a real name:

The demand zone... I like the sound of that place.

[bones261]

So is this recent dump a response to the Bithumb hack or is it just coincidence? 30 million USD worth of coins certainly is small compared to the whoppers that we have had in the past.

[realr0ach]

[aaroque2003]

So is this recent dump a response to the Bithumb hack or is it just coincidence? 30 million USD worth of coins certainly is small compared to the whoppers that we have had in the past.

Indeed.. 30 millions is nothing... 

[xhomerx10]

Miners don't need anything like $6000/BTC to remain profitable.

I'd put it closer to $2000, even lower if you take the money laundering angle into account.

 Let's try to figure this out.

...

  US $2045.18

...

Thanks for the analysis. While it should be obvious to most, this model employs electricity as the only cost to mining. Of course, we know this is not the case. I wouldn't know what capital acquisition, cooling, rent, plant, maintenance, labor, etc might add to the cost.

 Well, it's easy to calculate the electricity costs since the miner efficiency is known.  

 Take the cost of Canaan's Avalon 841 Bitcoin miner @ $710 with a MOQ of 40 as an example.  At today's difficulty it would take over 300 days with the ultra low Hydro-Quebec rate I cited earlier to cover the cost of the miners after paying only electricity.  Today's difficulty is key here - it only rises which proportionally increases the time to recoup the cost of the miner. Without even considering the other costs you cited, I don't see a viable business model.  I believe that only the manufacturers of miners are able to do this and the ones who sell batches to the public to offset their costs probably have a leg up on those that do not.

 Suffice it to say that my electricity-cost-only to mine a Bitcoin with a 0.1 J/GH machine would be slightly over US$6600 today but I haven't mined Bitcoin since the days of the KNC Jupiter.

[realr0ach]

Today on twitter I saw some EOS shill respond to one of Szabo's posts and call him a "fucktard".

https://twitter.com/NickSzabo4/status/1008974899690463232

jesus fucking christ

the fail is strong with this one

The whole thread is fail because Szabo pretends bitcoin isn't designed to centralize, thus giving you the exact same problem he complains about EOS having.  There is NO real world outcome in which mining doesn't become insanely centralized in a few giant warehouses.  Those giant warehouses are just enormous physical attack vectors that the govt knocks on their door and forces AML/KYC on.  Then, all of the same countries like the G7/G20 that have extradition treaties with each other and such, all create a common shared blacklist of coins and you have a permissioned ledger slave system where the govt can just turn off your money at will if the govt doesn't like you and you cease to exist.

That is the exact model of the "new world order" slavery system as described by Aaron Russo:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKeaw7HPG04

So fuck Nick Szabo for shilling for non-fungible trash.  And that's what any non-fungible currency is - trash.  Fungibility is required for it to be money.  It's not money.  It's a system of control.  Your options then become doing something like moving to Monero, but Monero is not really fungible in the first place because any craptocurrency where the protocol can just mutate or fork at random is definitely not fungible even if it has a built in coin 'tumbler'.  'Money' is not allowed to mutate or change at random.  Money is supposed to be boring and unchanging.  That's how it remains fungible.

Then you have the problem that Monero is also just a giant honey trap because if the encryption ever falls apart, it's just a free list of illicit transactions for the govt to rake over.  TLDR:  All cryptocurrencies are garbage.  Buy physical silver.

[Anon136]

It's not money.

You are aware that almost nobody thinks it's money right? Everyone says crypto-currency for a reason.

[realr0ach]

It's not money.

You are aware that almost nobody even thinks it's money right? Everyone says crypto-currency for a reason.

There's tons of idiots on this forum and twitter pumpers that claim shitcoins are "money" instead of a currency or as I define it, just a flat out system of control and nothing else.  I also added to the previous post as to why Monero is also not fungible (or any cryptocurrency ever made):

Your options then become doing something like moving to Monero, but Monero is not really fungible in the first place because any craptocurrency where the protocol can just mutate or fork at random is definitely not fungible even if it has a built in coin 'tumbler'.  'Money' is not allowed to mutate or change at random.  Money is supposed to be boring and unchanging.  That's how it remains fungible.

Then you have the problem that Monero is also just a giant honey trap because if the encryption ever falls apart, it's just a free list of illicit transactions for the govt to rake over.  TLDR:  All cryptocurrencies are garbage.  Buy physical silver.

[JayJuanGee]

There seems to be quite a few of us who have been buying on the way down incrementally, and it seems that after a while, may run out of sellers.

I will concede that my buying has been somewhat more tempered after February 5, because February 5 was the low; therefore, since February 5, I have been selling on the way up and buying on the way back down.  The overall balance would add up to a bit more buying as compared with selling...

I understand that the combined buying adds up, and perhaps after so much back and forth, the bears begin to run out of coins, and become less able to convince folks to part with their coins.

Regarding, you personally, Roach, perhaps this would be a decent time to get back in and redeem yourself, or at least take a partially "in" position.  You may be able to get some BTC cheaper than todays price, but surely no guarantees of such.

[Elwar]

It's not money.

You are aware that almost nobody thinks it's money right? Everyone says crypto-currency for a reason.

I have come to understand that gold bugs made up this whole list of criteria to define what something needs to be considered money (fungibility, divisibility, can wear it as a necklace, etc.) to conveniently fit all of the characteristics of precious metals.

Money is simply what people agree to use as a medium of exchange to replace bartering. That is all.

There are certainly characteristics that make one form of money preferable, but it does not change the fact that it is money. You had huge rocks that could not be moved that were considered money. Shells were considered money. Metals were considered money. Paper was considered money.

It helps if each of these has the same value which makes it easier to trade. It helps if you can have larger and smaller denominations. It helps if you can pay someone over long distances. It helps if you do not need to pay a lot to secure it. It helps if it's easy to trade from one person to another.

But what it ultimately comes down to is, will someone accept it or not.

[jbreher]

but at the same time, he doesn't need our BTC since he seems to have more than we do, and he's got nothing for sale that we could pay in BTC.

Well, if that BTC-denominated digital music distributor is still in business, you can still by a copy of my CD for 1.2 BTC. I'd even accept 1.2 Segwit coins for a copy.

Aren't you undermining your own argument when you are seeming to give the EXACT same value to legacy BTC and segwit tainted coins?  Would you like to specify (or correct yourself) further here, jbear?

Nope. If you want to negotiate with me, I'd be willing to send you a CD of my (charting) album for less than 1 BTC - as long as that BTC isn't tainted by Segwit in its past.

That's better than 17% discount! Such a deal for you!

[infofront]

but at the same time, he doesn't need our BTC since he seems to have more than we do, and he's got nothing for sale that we could pay in BTC.

Well, if that BTC-denominated digital music distributor is still in business, you can still by a copy of my CD for 1.2 BTC. I'd even accept 1.2 Segwit coins for a copy.

Aren't you undermining your own argument when you are seeming to give the EXACT same value to legacy BTC and segwit tainted coins?  Would you like to specify (or correct yourself) further here, jbear?

Nope. If you want to negotiate with me, I'd be willing to send you a CD of my (charting) album for less than 1 BTC - as long as that BTC isn't tainted by Segwit in its past.

That's better than 17% discount! Such a deal for you!

Could I pirate it for free?

[jbreher]

Tldr; security reasons...

So implement Segwit through a mechanism that introduces new attack vectors.

Nope. Still doesn't make sense.

Do you recall how irritated your fuck-buddy, Jihan, was that segwit would no longer allow him to engage in covert ASIC boost? 

Nope.

Jihan isn't my fuck-buddy. Indeed, I've never met the dude.

I don't recall that Segwit no longer allows for ASICboost.

I don't recall any credible evidence that Jihan ever profited from covert ASICboost.

I don't remember any demonstrable irritation on Jihan's part regarding segwit's impact upon ASICboost.

But feel free to bring forth any evidence that might cover my knowledge gaps. (as if)

::ahem!::

More importantly, your deflection has exactly zero to do with the fact that the implementation of Segwit introduced novel attack vectors to Bitcoin. Perhaps we should discuss this first, before deviating to your smokescreen. Hmm?

[jojo69]

Tron bought BitTorrent

[Paashaas]

People read about fungibility in Wikipedia and about segwit on bcash blogs and take these crazy conclusions.

People to lazy to read books or good sources of information such as GitHub ... As a result, bad investments, such as bcash.

Yeah, some people here needs to do that ore they need to follow them on Twitter. Valuable information.

More fungibility will be added to Bitcoin with projects like; LN, MAST, Schnorr signature aggregation, MimbleWimble, TumbleBit.

And Segwit opens the door to those projects, it will not only add more fungibility but also lower fee's, privacy, scalability and security.

[jbreher]

Tried to install LN node on my server but I have to run a full node. My server only has 200 Gb.

Is there a preferred way among people without home servers?

While I understand your frustration, 10TiB costs about 0.02 BTC in today's marketplace.

[Paashaas]

More Bcash double spendings  

https://doublespend.cash/

[realr0ach]

It's not money.

You are aware that almost nobody thinks it's money right? Everyone says crypto-currency for a reason.

I have come to understand that gold bugs made up this whole list of criteria to define what something needs to be considered money (fungibility, divisibility, can wear it as a necklace, etc.) to conveniently fit all of the characteristics of precious metals.

Elwar, stop trolling.  First it's trolling about seasteads, claiming building a floating raft is going to make you exempt from govt control, even though they're not economically viable to build in the first place even IF that was true, now it's trolling about the word "money", bringing the Orwellian tactic that words have no meaning and everything is just subjective.  There's a reason things like fungibility are required, because it's nothing but a system of control and lack of general acceptability without it.

[JayJuanGee]

but at the same time, he doesn't need our BTC since he seems to have more than we do, and he's got nothing for sale that we could pay in BTC.

Well, if that BTC-denominated digital music distributor is still in business, you can still by a copy of my CD for 1.2 BTC. I'd even accept 1.2 Segwit coins for a copy.

Aren't you undermining your own argument when you are seeming to give the EXACT same value to legacy BTC and segwit tainted coins?  Would you like to specify (or correct yourself) further here, jbear?

Nope. If you want to negotiate with me, I'd be willing to send you a CD of my (charting) album for less than 1 BTC - as long as that BTC isn't tainted by Segwit in its past.

That's better than 17% discount! Such a deal for you!

O.k.  I understand that the some prices are more subject to negotiation than others, and if you are in a retail store, sometimes they will be wiling to take less for products if you make a reasonable offer.  Of course, a private sale between principles who have the authority to bind the terms will have more flexibility, if they are willing, and when push comes to shove, some terms might be more flexible than others, and perhaps, you might be willing to give a greater value to legacy (non-segwit tainted) coins? But, likely in the end, if we negotiated all of the terms except for whether payment would be by legacy or segwit tainted coins, you may well recognize that the coins have the same value and are likely to have the same value for quite a period into the future - and there may even be times in which segwit coins are going to have more value because they have more flexibility in terms of lower fees, faster transaction times, lightning network compatible and perhaps some multi-sig and other programabilities.  For the sake of this argument, you might posture that the value to you is different, but you have already admitted that you would do the same price in the earlier referenced post.