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

[WeltMaster]

When capitulation does happen we will bounce back, people lose faith in other bubbles like tulips because they are not backed by fundamentals when things look most bearish.

Something with great fundamentals like Bitcoin or BitTorrent (if it had a value) do bubble from runaway optimism/profits but they will be backed in the end by the usability. Until that stops Bitcoin will be bullish.

[1715240340]

1715240340

[1715240340]

1715240340

[1715240340]

1715240340

[1715240340]

1715240340

[1715240340]

1715240340

[xyzzy099]

This article by Mark Andreessen

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/01/21/why-bitcoin-matters/

claims that Bitcoins cannot be stolen.  But of course they can, if people keep the keys in an easily hackeable computer or smartphone (which increasingly means "any computer"), or hand over their bitcoins to exchanges.  (How can he say that that after the SheepMarketplace incident?)

In a sense, it is your computer, not you, who owns "your" bitcoins; and if Apple or the NSA or the Russian mafia control your computer, they will control your bitcoins too.

Indeed stealing Bitcoins is easier and "safer" than stealing credit cards, because a virus can spend your bitcoins as soon as it infects your computer, whereas cashing out from a stolen card usually implies human intervention, delays, checks, etc.

Please quote the part of the article where the author claims bitcoins cannot be stolen?

I would like to see that quote too.

@JorgeStolfi, I am just trying to expand your view of Bitcoin, but you seem to be more interested in finding a point of argument over some detail in each article.  I guess maybe you already knew all this about what Bitcoin is, and what it can be, and I am just wasting your time.  Sorry about that.

[T.Stuart]

This article by Mark Andreessen

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/01/21/why-bitcoin-matters/

claims that Bitcoins cannot be stolen.  But of course they can, if people keep the keys in an easily hackeable computer or smartphone (which increasingly means "any computer"), or hand over their bitcoins to exchanges.  (How can he say that that after the SheepMarketplace incident?)

In a sense, it is your computer, not you, who owns "your" bitcoins; and if Apple or the NSA or the Russian mafia control your computer, they will control your bitcoins too.

Indeed stealing Bitcoins is easier and "safer" than stealing credit cards, because a virus can spend your bitcoins as soon as it infects your computer, whereas cashing out from a stolen card usually implies human intervention, delays, checks, etc.

Please quote the part of the article where the author claims bitcoins cannot be stolen?

For example, with Bitcoin, the huge hack that recently stole 70 million consumers’ credit card information from the Target department store chain would not have been possible. [...] you are happy because there is no way for hackers to steal any of your personal information; and organized crime is unhappy. (Well, maybe criminals are still happy: They can try to steal money directly from poorly-secured merchant computer systems. But even if they succeed, consumers bear no risk of loss, fraud or identity theft.)

Indeed he was referring only to stealing your bitcoins by hacking into the merchant.  But what will the common reader understand when he reads "organized crime is unhappy", "consumers bear no risk of loss, fraud or identity theft"? 

Why did he not point out that bitcoins have other serious risks that credit card users will not expect? Fine to bring up the Target case, but should he not mention SheepMarketplace too?

The article is extremely well-written and not deceptive. It is in fact the clearest, most accurate article I think I have ever read about Bitcoin in the mainstream media. If the common reader simply reads the article without distraction (it is perhaps a little longer than your average Bitcoin article) I fail to see how they could interpret what he is saying in any other way.

I must say, JorgeStolfi, you do seem to be clutching at straws with your attack on this. In some of your posts you seem to be very scientific in your approach to whatever you are discussing. I would have thought an article like this would appeal to you over sensationalist articles about drug marketplaces. What's with the change in attitude?

[notme]

I would also like to point out that I have a private key memorized.  Nobody's worked out a way to hack human memory as far as I'm aware.

In order to use your bitcoins, at some point the key have to be entered into a computer... 

Only the signature needs to be input.  This could be worked out on paper from the transaction and the private key.

[mellowyellow]

I would also like to point out that I have a private key memorized.  Nobody's worked out a way to hack human memory as far as I'm aware.

What about your family if the worst happens? Your wife / children / mother / husband / favourite charity or whatever can't retrieve btc by showing a death certificate and a will, they can with all other assets.

I have made arrangements so that my family can retrieve mine if needed (nice bonus that it's tax free too).

[KFR]

I would also like to point out that I have a private key memorized.  Nobody's worked out a way to hack human memory as far as I'm aware.

In order to use your bitcoins, at some point the key have to be entered into a computer... 

Yes that's true.  So I'll be very careful should I ever need to use them.  But it's much easier to be careful with this string of characters than it would be with the equivalent quantity of cash.

As you pointed out earlier, bitcoins, like pretty much anything else known to man, can indeed be stolen.  I dare say if someone put a gun to my head I'd start babbling private keys.

But the point being made in the article - the one you claimed was about bitcoins being stolen - was that using bitcoins to purchase something from a merchant is massively more secure than using a credit card, which involves handing over the information required to authorise a transaction.  

As long as I keep my private key and the device upon which it is entered safe, then the transaction will be secure.  No sensitive data passes across the network to the merchant.  With credit cards everything needed to make a payment is entered into a stranger's hardware - and frequently they even duplicate this information in their own questionably secure databases.  You must understand this surely?

[lemonte]

More speculation, but this time it holds more weight than the others as of late: http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1vvfxz/google_confirms_their_payments_team_is_working_to/

Worth submitting your ideas anyway, takes 2 minutes: https://www.google.com/moderator/#16/e=20e106

[KFR]

I would also like to point out that I have a private key memorized.  Nobody's worked out a way to hack human memory as far as I'm aware.

What about your family if the worst happens? Your wife / children / mother / husband / favourite charity or whatever can't retrieve btc by showing a death certificate and a will, they can with all other assets.

I have made arrangements so that my family can retrieve mine if needed (nice bonus that it's tax free too).

I didn't say I had all my coins held at the address corresponding to that key.  

Paper wallets split into unrecognisable fragments stored in triplicate at multiple locations with clear instructions left with a few trusted family members takes care of that other stuff.

[Davyd05]

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1vvfxz/google_confirms_their_payments_team_is_working_to/

update looks promising... and google turns everything in to goldddd

[T.Stuart]

More speculation, but this time it holds more weight than the others as of late: http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1vvfxz/google_confirms_their_payments_team_is_working_to/

Worth submitting your ideas anyway, takes 2 minutes: https://www.google.com/moderator/#16/e=20e106

It is speculation...

But it does make sense considering the Google / Apple battle going on and Google's position.

... And it's already spreading into the news: http://www.benzinga.com/general/movers-shakers/14/01/4243930/google-to-add-bitcoin-support-for-google-wallet

[KFR]

I would also like to point out that I have a private key memorized.  Nobody's worked out a way to hack human memory as far as I'm aware.

In order to use your bitcoins, at some point the key have to be entered into a computer... 

Only the signature needs to be input.  This could be worked out on paper from the transaction and the private key.

Good point - hadn't considered that. 

[prof7bit]

Why did he not point out that bitcoins have other serious risks that credit card users will not expect? Fine to bring up the Target case, but should he not mention SheepMarketplace too?

In what way is SheepMarketplace a risk to the bitcoin user (or a risk to anybody at all except the users of SheepMarketplace itself)?

[JorgeStolfi]

I guess maybe you already knew all this about what Bitcoin is, and what it can be,

I believe I know enough about the positive arguments, and in general I do not dispute them.

Unfortunately there are negative or highly uncertain arguments and I have still to see good answers to them. "Selling" articles like Mark's generally avoid them.

The risk of bitcoins being stolen (possibly en masse) by hackers is an example. 

Bitcoin is only one cryptocoin.  Why should it be the one to survive?

Non-cancellation may be good for merchants (especially dishonest ones) but is bad for customers. 

Governments can ban, restrict, or heavily tax cryptocoins if it suits them.

What will prevent banks and Wall Street from taking control of Bitcoin?

How could the value of a bitcoin be stabilized enough for merchants who thrive on 2% profit?

And so on...

[prof7bit]

But it does make sense considering the Google / Apple battle going on and Google's position.

And Google already has well tested and thoroughly peer reviewed Bitcoin wallet code for the Android Platform which they could integrate in any of their Apps while Apple still has absolutely nothing of that sort.

[JorgeStolfi]

In what way is SheepMarketplace a risk to the bitcoin user (or a risk to anybody at all except the users of SheepMarketplace itself)?

For many years to come, people will have to depend on exchanges and bicoin-based processors to use bitcoin. 

SheepMarketplace is not a risk anymore, it is a fact. A risk is something that could happen; Sheepmarketplace showed the risk of dealing with any exchange.

[macsga]

I predict a jump after the dump.

[KFR]

I believe I know enough about the positive arguments, and in general I do not dispute them.

Sure ya do. 

The risk of bitcoins being stolen (possibly en masse) by hackers is an example. 

In this context, a bad one.  See above.

Governments can ban, restrict, or heavily tax cryptocoins if it suits them.

Governments ban all sorts of things that persist in common public use. 

What will prevent banks and Wall Street from taking control of Bitcoin?

Bitcoin.  I thought you said you understood this stuff.

How could the value of a bitcoin be stabilized enough for merchants who thrive on 2% profit?

Take a look at a baby.  How could that ever be stable enough to walk upright? 

And so on...

No doubt.

[macsga]

I predict a jump after the dump.

Oh well... might be something like this instead:

[NewLiberty]

I guess maybe you already knew all this about what Bitcoin is, and what it can be,

I believe I know enough about the positive arguments, and in general I do not dispute them.

Unfortunately there are negative or highly uncertain arguments and I have still to see good answers to them. "Selling" articles like Mark's generally avoid them.

The risk of bitcoins being stolen (possibly en masse) by hackers is an example.  

Negligible compared to the risks of credit card fraud.

Bitcoin is only one cryptocoin.  Why should it be the one to survive?

Survival until when?  Why only one?  Its 75th in the M1 rank now.  It may not survive, but is better suited to do so than half the world's currencies today.

Non-cancellation may be good for merchants (especially dishonest ones) but is bad for customers.  

Customers and Merchants share this interest.  It is pricing determinant in aggregate.
What is important here is the choice.  Pay more with consumer protection or less without.

Governments can ban, restrict, or heavily tax cryptocoins if it suits them.

They can also blow up the world many times over.  What me worry? YOLO!

What will prevent banks and Wall Street from taking control of Bitcoin?

You and me and that guy over there.

How could the value of a bitcoin be stabilized enough for merchants who thrive on 2% profit?

It doubles their profit to 4% by instant conversion to cash, and more than that if they use Bitpay, and opt for the payroll elements which let them pay their workers with it.  The business only accepts as much of the risk as they want to accept.  There are more than a few of us eager to take that risk for them that are more comfortable with that position.

And so on...

These are all very good and valid points, and you may not like my answers, but they work for a growing percentage of folks.   As they improve, so will that percentage.

[NewLiberty]

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1vvfxz/google_confirms_their_payments_team_is_working_to/

update looks promising... and google turns everything in to goldddd

I hope they hurry, my turn to buy Google Glass has come up.  I'm not sure I want it, but if I do get it, I'd like to pay with bitcoin.