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

[katherin_panini]

Imagine how crazy that would have sounded not even that many years hence. In the near future, central banks and hedge funds will me reliant on a social media app where people share pictures of food and cats. Nobody would have believed it.

Yeah true. The best part is that the ignorant public believes that this is how these social media companies actually make money.... with memes, cat pics and grandmas baked goods.

Not even close. They make 99.9% of the money from selling user data to other companies, who then use that data to target ad campaigns, email and telemarketing.... and sell to govt agencies to spy on us.

So when a social media company like Facebook essentially tells their investors that they have stopped growing more user accounts, the investors dump the stock. Because they are not going to pay the same subscriber money to FB for access to the *exact same user account data* as they paid for last year, and the year before that, and so on. They already have that data.

Precisely! And then what can they do? Create bots and sell their data? Facebook is backing itself into a corner pretty quick here, and they're gonna get despirate soon.

Data privacy has always been a big lie. But what can we do as consumers, really? Either you don't use their services (and don't exist as far as most people are concerned) or you suck it up and let them sell your data. Google will even listen in on conversations and then throw up relevant ads based on what you're talking about. Really. I've got a friend who worked in an advertising agency with them.

[Hueristic]

Even if bcash is better, look at IPv4 and IPv6. IPv6 is objectively the better standard. It has enough IP addresses that you could have one for every electronic device in your home.

IPv6 has been around since the late 90s. And yet we still use IPv4. Why? Everything has been built on IPv4. It's established. Getting everyone on the Internet to migrate to IPv6 just never happened. Could it? Should it? Maybe. But it didn't.

With limited IP addresses the Internet stopped working right? No. They just adapted and used various layers to represent the various devices you use every day. You may have one router in your home which then assigns a local IP to your computers and phones. Most people have dynamic IP addresses so that when someone's no longer using an IP address it doesn't just sit there, it can be used by someone else. The Internet adapted. The end of the world did not happen as the IPv6 advocates proclaimed would happen once we ran out of IP addresses.

So work with the current Bitcoin protocol and do what you can to make that work because that's what we've got.

IPv6 is used for some LANs and other things within businesses. Maybe bcash can go that route. Who knows.

I can tell you why IPV6 was not adopted out of the box and that is because there there baked in vulnerabilities that M$ and 3 letter agencies tried to push to us and we spent a lot of time and effort vetting that and stripping it out. As far as it's current iteration, I have no clue.

That is the Milan Stock Exchange, at NASDAQ Facebook is at ATH. Nevertheless, all stocks are over-inflated, I wish I could see the same thing happening in NASDAQ (most likely sooner than later).

Sooner.
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-07-25/and-most-popular-hedge-fund-stock

How the hell is Zuckerberg able to dump his shares outside the trading window ?!

The inevitability of a free market, you have a problem with that?

These guys stole my retirement. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Salomon-Smith-Barney-Holdings-Inc

[xhomerx10]

So: topic swerve.

All y'all may recall I've been looking to Puerto Rico as a means of reducing capital gains taxes owed (I'm 'Merkin). But I've just learned of another (legitimate - according to IRS) potential route out of the system that may be as interesting:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesdigitalcovers/2018/07/17/an-unlikely-group-of-billionaires-and-politicians-has-created-the-most-unbelievable-tax-break-ever/

Anyone interested in forming a study group? Or is there some other subforum here in BCT that might be better for such a discussion?

Thank you for the link. Extremely interesting.

North Charleston, South Carolina, might be the most misnamed place in America, a path through a weedy, desolate neighborhood with 20% unemployment and a 40% poverty rate.

Can I invest in meth labs?

Grr. Be serious for a moment, dammit! This is potentially useful to a good number of us here. Boblawblaw? Where you at? I know you've got me on ignore, but this should be very interesting to you too.

 This could be an opportunity for a seasteading Bitcoinist.  Set up shop in an o-zone (numa numa) to build components for the steads.  Dodge some tax money, employ a few people who need it and help to build your new community in the equatorial zone.  Win win win.

FryePondering.png "Not sure if serious...or trolling me".

No. The tax advantage bestowed by this program is only for investment in specially designated Opportunity Zones - all within the US, and in areas deemed economically disadvantaged in relation to surrounding locale. Unsuitable in the least for seasteading.

  Perhaps I oversimplified my idea? The seastead dwellings would not be assembled in an O-zone; the specialized parts required for their construction would be manufactured in an O-zone and shipped to the equatorial region for later assembly.  It seems to me the design of the dwellings would need to be modular so mass production is a natural fit.  The cost of this production could be offset by setting up shop in an O-zone.  A bitcoinist could offset their tax liability without having to renounce their US citizenship while working on their dream of living autonomously.
  
The O-zone (numa numa) reference pertains to a romanian band which had an extremely popular hit single called "Dragostea din tei" which was referred to as the "Numa Numa" song in the US. It was the only other time i had seen the term O-zone; perhaps i'm alone in that respect.

[Last of the V8s]

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/drug-giant-glaxo-teams-dna-testing-company-23andme-n894531
yay drugs for the gullible with a few hundy spare https://twitter.com/nycsouthpaw/status/1022414600099311616

[xhomerx10]

So: topic swerve.

All y'all may recall I've been looking to Puerto Rico as a means of reducing capital gains taxes owed (I'm 'Merkin). But I've just learned of another (legitimate - according to IRS) potential route out of the system that may be as interesting:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesdigitalcovers/2018/07/17/an-unlikely-group-of-billionaires-and-politicians-has-created-the-most-unbelievable-tax-break-ever/

Anyone interested in forming a study group? Or is there some other subforum here in BCT that might be better for such a discussion?

Thank you for the link. Extremely interesting.

North Charleston, South Carolina, might be the most misnamed place in America, a path through a weedy, desolate neighborhood with 20% unemployment and a 40% poverty rate.

Can I invest in meth labs?

Grr. Be serious for a moment, dammit! This is potentially useful to a good number of us here. Boblawblaw? Where you at? I know you've got me on ignore, but this should be very interesting to you too.

 This could be an opportunity for a seasteading Bitcoinist.  Set up shop in an o-zone (numa numa) to build components for the steads.  Dodge some tax money, employ a few people who need it and help to build your new community in the equatorial zone.  Win win win.

FryePondering.png "Not sure if serious...or trolling me".

No. The tax advantage bestowed by this program is only for investment in specially designated Opportunity Zones - all within the US, and in areas deemed economically disadvantaged in relation to surrounding locale. Unsuitable in the least for seasteading.

I think he meant that you could manufacture the platforms and other components for the seastead in an opportunity zone. Then transport them someplace.

 Thank you!  That's exactly what i meant.  I guess it would be better to read all the posts i missed before replying... I could have saved some time and typing replies on a smart phone is very annoying. 
My kingdom for a phone that can read my thoughts!

[Torque]

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/drug-giant-glaxo-teams-dna-testing-company-23andme-n894531
yay drugs for the gullible with a few hundy spare https://twitter.com/nycsouthpaw/status/1022414600099311616

23andMe : The next Theranos story. 

[Last of the V8s]

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/drug-giant-glaxo-teams-dna-testing-company-23andme-n894531
yay drugs for the gullible with a few hundy spare https://twitter.com/nycsouthpaw/status/1022414600099311616

23andMe : The next Theranos story. 

The absolute state of science and medicine nowadays smh.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/2018/07/25/kinkiest-scientific-study/

Moving swiftly on, the absolute state of finance and financial journalism nowadays smh.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-07-26/up-to-two-thirds-of-bitcoin-transactions-have-no-economic-value

[BitcoinNewsMagazine]

New from Masterluc:

I like this early February stuff, the graph is freaky:

https://vk.com/bitcoin_vanga?w=wall-130254204_9481

Also see latest post:

[Wekkel]

Bullish!

[El duderino_]

https://www.telegraaf.nl/video/2348937/bitcoin-met-waarde-van-100-000-euro-onvermijdelijk

100000$ btc or much more  unavoidable

[jbreher]

What code did you write?

Respect

Haha. You found a few play projects. Most of my code is not open source. And most of my FOSS stuff was written before git was conceived , let alone github.

The point of the initial comment is that JJG, in his/her technical ignorance, is in no position to judge the capability of various engineers. Let alone his/her making of blanket statements about a group of folk, without even being able to identify one or two of said group.

[jbreher]

So why don't you take your "response to the ratio of the time derivative of adoption to the time derivative of technology's capacity for transactions blah blah blah" and shove it up your arse.

Because it sounds like an unpleasant experience.

[jbreher]

  Perhaps I oversimplified my idea? The seastead dwellings would not be assembled in an O-zone;

No, I was being simple minded. infofront, at least, caught it.

The O-zone (numa numa) reference pertains to a romanian band which had an extremely popular hit single called "Dragostea din tei" which was referred to as the "Numa Numa" song in the US. It was the only other time i had seen the term O-zone; perhaps i'm alone in that respect.

Well, I'm still lost here, though it seems tangential to your point.

[Anon136]

You explain to me how 9 billion people are able to merely open a single Lightning Network channel in under three decades

Sure. Again that's just simple math (the thing that bcashers don't seem to be able to do). So opening a lightning channel is bigger than a regular transaction. Let's call it 0.0005mb. Now let's see how much space is required for 9 billion people to do that same thing 9billion*0.0005mb=4,500,000mb. Next lets figure out how many bitcoin blocks will be produced in three decades 10*24*30*12*10*3=2592000. Finally let's divide the total amount of space needed by the number of blocks to figure out how large each block would need to be 4,500,000mb/2,592,000=1.736mb.

(speaking of segwit) That would be 1.6MB and 2MB of total actual data if you hit the limits with real transactions, so it's more like a 1.8x increase for real transactions. -https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-December/011869.html

So, hilariously enough, you just happened to pick the perfect example where what we would need is roughly what we have right now!

[jbreher]

You explain to me how 9 billion people are able to merely open a single Lightning Network channel in under three decades

Sure. Again that's just simple math (the thing that bcashers don't seem to be able to do). Though for an apples to apples comparison to what I said before we would need 3.5 billion people to open a single lightning channel. So opening a lightning channel is bigger than a regular transaction. Let's call it 0.0005mb. Now let's see how much space is required for 9 billion people to do that same thing 9billion*0.0005mb=4,500,000mb. Next lets figure out how many bitcoin blocks will be produced in three decades 10*24*30*12*10*3=2592000. Finally let's divide the total amount of space needed by the number of blocks to figure out how large each block would need to be 4,500,000mb/2,592,000=1.736mb.

(speaking of segwit) That would be 1.6MB and 2MB of total actual data if you hit the limits with real transactions, so it's more like a 1.8x increase for real transactions. -https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-December/011869.html

So, hilariously enough, you just happened to pick the perfect example where what we would need is roughly exactly what we have right now!

Of course I did. That is exactly the point. Onboarding the world to LN will take on the order of three decades. And that is merely for each person to fund a single channel - once and only once.

Sure, by combining channel openings for multiple people into single transactions you can cut down this multi-generational time figure. You'll need to work out the UX issues first.

Obviously, lacking innovations not yet envisioned, larger blocks will be needed.

In the meantime, bigger blocks is the easy solution. In industrial-class engineering, the simple thing is done before the complicated thing. Period.  And as long as block size stays ahead of adoption, there are no untoward effects.

This is what the big blockers understand.

[AlcoHoDL]

You explain to me how 9 billion people are able to merely open a single Lightning Network channel in under three decades [...]

Currently there is no need for 9 billion people to open a single Lightning Network channel. When the need arises, the protocol will evolve and scale as necessary, and in ways smarter than a mere change of a constant in a piece of code.

There's no need for this:

[Torque]

OT : Greek fires "lit from 15 different places at once" ??
https://abcnews.go.com/International/arson-suspected-devastating-greece-fires-killed-79-people/story?id=56807876

... and then there's this... hmmm...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Slg8p0zWJa8

[Anon136]

Of course I did. That is exactly the point. Onboarding the world to LN will take on the order of three decades. And that is merely for each person to fund a single channel - once and only once.

Sure, by combining channel openings for multiple people into single transactions you can cut down this multi-generational time figure. You'll need to work out the UX issues first.

Obviously, lacking innovations not yet envisioned, larger blocks will be needed.

In the meantime, bigger blocks is the easy solution. In industrial-class engineering, the simple thing is done before the complicated thing. Period.  And as long as block size stays ahead of adoption, there are no untoward effects.

This is what the big blockers understand.

I see your logic. It would be good logic in a world full of robots. Unfortunately our world is populated with human beings. It's like a political candidate that promises to solve everyone's problems, when he doesn't deliver no one is worse for it, they are just in the same place they were before, EXCEPT that some people stopped trying so hard to solve their own problems in expectation that the candidate would do it for them. Maybe your study of engineering has caused you to forget about flesh and blood people and what they are like.

If we had told the community that "everything is fine, there is no need to worry, we will just increase the block size every time" people would have stopped worrying about a problem that was still there, a problem that hadn't fundamentally been solved. The community having that sort of mindset could have been a recipe for disaster. We would have risked losing all of what precious decentralization we still have in the bitcoin network.

Instead a general consensus was reached that: no, we were going to innovate or die, not just brute force it like a bunch of neanderthals. This was a gamble, it could have been a mistake if no solution was developed. You can debate about whether it was a good idea to make this gamble or not, but that is in the past, the gamble was made and it is beginning to bear fruit. We are beginning to see good evidence that in hindsight it was actually a good gamble. We are seeing amazing second layer innovations right before our eyes. Innovations that almost certainly would not have come about if the community had taken the attitude of "just hit the problem over the head with that hammer again".

Now that we have pushed ourselves to develop real solutions I think it is a good time to go back and discuss a responsible conservative block size increase schedule.

Also, I think perhaps you might be stuck in an unhelpful mindset. You think that the gamble I spoke of earlier was a bad one to make. Let's concede for the sake of argument that it was. Perhaps if that was true than bcash would have been meritorious at the time. However, now that we have evidence showing that the gamble is paying off, is it wise to financially back bcash on the grounds that it made sense at the time? Perhaps it is time to reconsider your allegiance to a project that may have made sense at the time but in light of new evidence no longer does.

Sorry I know I didn't respond to everything you said here but I really don't believe in anonymint style posts. I think this one is already getting a bit long in the tooth.

[bitserve]

https://www.telegraaf.nl/video/2348937/bitcoin-met-waarde-van-100-000-euro-onvermijdelijk

100000$ btc or much more  unavoidable

Wow! In case you didn't notice, Wekkel have just sent you *50* Merits. That's bullish as fuck!

What do that news say?

P.S.: It looks like it is something like this:

'Bitcoin with value of 100,000 euros inevitable'
Yesterday, 4:30 PM in NEWS

The bitcoin will get a value of one tonne. That says Mike Hutting, owner of BTC Direct, in the weekly crypto update. Although there is also another, slightly less positive scenario possible for the Bitcoin.

[Torque]

Also, I think perhaps you might be stuck in an unhelpful mindset. You think that the gamble I spoke of earlier was a bad one to make. Let's concede for the sake of argument that it was. Perhaps if that was true than bcash would have been meritorious at the time. However, now that we have evidence showing that the gamble is paying off, is it wise to financially back bcash on the grounds that it made sense at the time? Perhaps it is time to reconsider your allegiance to a project that may have made sense at the time but in light of new evidence no longer does.

Bbut... but Anon, it's like when you want a car engine to 'scale' to higher horsepower and speed, the most straightforward way is to simply add more cylinders!  V32 engines for everyone so we can get places faster, amiright?  /s