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

[KryptoFoo]

chunky bid at finex to start the show.


update: aaaand it's gone. Show is delayed 

[ChartBuddy]

Coin
Explanation

[Ezmoneyezlife]

wow look at the price ....

do we have a liftoff

Nope, we just have another fake pump based on rumors before a major post auction dump, nothing special.

[greenlion]

You're going on a bit of detour there, doc

I already mentioned several of your points (e.g. that mining is based on the "currently best know procedure", not the provably optimal procedure).

And I know of course you're not facetious about the (lack of) intrinsic value of bitcoins, but you probably were facetious when you were asking what their weight is...

Good point about quantum computing possibly getting around the  (Landauer) limit though. Well outside my field though, so I can only wonder if it'd simply lower the limit, or entirely remove it possibly.

It's just the kind of specious FUD that people have to resort to when the price is rising. I think that's a good indicator of reversal, where suddenly the narrative shifts to grasping at straws on bizarre misguided technical grounds that are akin to arguing "well what if somebody invents free energy?'.

[derpinheimer]

Likely unsustainable. I wouldn't bet on this going anywhere but down in short term (1week)

[JorgeStolfi]

Moreover, no one really knows how hard it is to compute a valid block.  The trial-and-error method used by miners is just the most efficient method that we know; but there is no proof or other evidence that there is no better way.

Would you consider the fact that nobody has ever found a collision of sha256 function an evidence? There's no mathematical proof, but there's more then enough evidence that any other method is not even on the horizon. It's not only a Bitcoin issue, if any of modern hash algorithms would be compromised the whole cryptography would be hammered.

I believe is is proved (perhaps, I haven't checked) that the output values of SHA256 span all possible 256-bit strings or at least a very large subset of them (say, 2^200 strings).  On the other hand, it is obvious that, if the inputs are 1000-bit strings, no mater how SHA256 is used there will be 2^(1000-256) = 2^744 input strings that have exactly the same hash.

Having a large output set is the very minimum requirement for a hash function.  However, even stupid functions like "take the first 256 bits of the input" will have that property.  If a function has that property, it will pass the simple collision test "generate N random input strings, compute their hashes, and look for duplicates".  That is because N must be MUCH smaller than 2^256, so the chance of catching a collision is small -- if N = 2^56 = 72 quadrillion, the chance of finding a collision (that certainly exists, if the input has more than 256 bits) is only 1 in 2^200.

SHA256 has passed much more interesting tests, like "take N random texts, make M slighlty modified copies of each, compute their hashes, and look for duplicates".  But, again, many simple functions pass this test too.  (These functions may still be good checksums, suitable to detect non-malicious changes in files; or in hash tables, where malicious inputs are not expected.)

The property that makes a function be a good cryptographic hash function is: "there is no algorithm that, given a text X, will find another text Y with the same hash as X in a viable amount of time". That property has not been proved, because there is no theory that would enable such proofs; and cannot be tested,  because it would require trying all possible algorithms, and then testing each one to see whether it works.  All that can be said is that many smart people have tried to find such an algorithm, and no one has succeeded (that we know of).

[Erdogan]

You're going on a bit of detour there, doc

I already mentioned several of your points (e.g. that mining is based on the "currently best know procedure", not the provably optimal procedure).

And I know of course you're not facetious about the (lack of) intrinsic value of bitcoins, but you probably were facetious when you were asking what their weight is...

Good point about quantum computing possibly getting around the  (Landauer) limit though. Well outside my field though, so I can only wonder if it'd simply lower the limit, or entirely remove it possibly.

It's just the kind of specious FUD that people have to resort to when the price is rising. I think that's a good indicator of reversal, where suddenly the narrative shifts to grasping at straws on bizarre misguided technical grounds that are akin to arguing "well what if somebody invents free energy?'.

It is JorgeStolfi being back to his normal trolling mode. How easy it would it be for him if he used his capacity to read just a bit, and to let the arguments presented here sink in, then either accept them or build on them.

[JorgeStolfi]

(Before you scream "21 million": that bitcoin limit is "guaranteed" only by  fuzzy arguments about a complicated economic game, not "by math", and could be changed if the right players agreed to it.  Moreover, any kid can duplicate the amount of bitcoins in existence by creating a hard fork of the blockchain and starting to mine it on his laptotp.  Anyone who has bitcoins will gain an equal amount of those "series B" bitcoins, accessible through the same private keys, and could trade them independently of his old bitcoins by duplicating his wallet and downloading the kids's client software. Whether those "series B" bitcoins will get a significant market value is a market(ing) question, not a technical one.  And, of course, there are the altcoins.)

You're describing a double spend attack, right?

No, I am describing a hard fork.

It does not interfere with the original chain directly, simply creates another clone, premined and "pre-transacted" to hae the same addresses, private keys, UTXOS, and everything as the original chain.  All it can do is steal value from the original bitcoins, if for some reason people prefer to spend their dollars on "series B" bitcoins rather than original ones.

[dreamspark]

(Before you scream "21 million": that bitcoin limit is "guaranteed" only by  fuzzy arguments about a complicated economic game, not "by math", and could be changed if the right players agreed to it.  Moreover, any kid can duplicate the amount of bitcoins in existence by creating a hard fork of the blockchain and starting to mine it on his laptotp.  Anyone who has bitcoins will gain an equal amount of those "series B" bitcoins, accessible through the same private keys, and could trade them independently of his old bitcoins by duplicating his wallet and downloading the kids's client software. Whether those "series B" bitcoins will get a significant market value is a market(ing) question, not a technical one.  And, of course, there are the altcoins.)

You're describing a double spend attack, right?

No, I am describing a hard fork.

It does not interfere with the original chain directly, simply creates another clone, premined and "pre-transacted" to hae the same addresses, private keys, UTXOS, and everything as the original chain.  All it can do is steal value from the original bitcoins, if for some reason people prefer to spend their dollars on "series B" bitcoins rather than original ones.

What tosh. Who would spend their dollars on series B bitcoin, what scenario do you envisage where someone would be tricked into buying from a second chain.

[inca]

Bears getting nervous.

Price not falling!!!?!

Tarmi are you currently in or out of bitcoin? Bleating suggests you were expecting falls from 237..
 

[inca]

(Before you scream "21 million": that bitcoin limit is "guaranteed" only by  fuzzy arguments about a complicated economic game, not "by math", and could be changed if the right players agreed to it.  Moreover, any kid can duplicate the amount of bitcoins in existence by creating a hard fork of the blockchain and starting to mine it on his laptotp.  Anyone who has bitcoins will gain an equal amount of those "series B" bitcoins, accessible through the same private keys, and could trade them independently of his old bitcoins by duplicating his wallet and downloading the kids's client software. Whether those "series B" bitcoins will get a significant market value is a market(ing) question, not a technical one.  And, of course, there are the altcoins.)

You're describing a double spend attack, right?

No, I am describing a hard fork.

It does not interfere with the original chain directly, simply creates another clone, premined and "pre-transacted" to hae the same addresses, private keys, UTXOS, and everything as the original chain.  All it can do is steal value from the original bitcoins, if for some reason people prefer to spend their dollars on "series B" bitcoins rather than original ones.

What tosh. Who would spend their dollars on series B bitcoin, what scenario do you envisage where someone would be tricked into buying from a second chain.

Exactly. Who the hell will value stolfi coin?

Edit: there are hundreds upon hundreds of ALTs..but only one bitcoin!

[ElectricMucus]

(Before you scream "21 million": that bitcoin limit is "guaranteed" only by  fuzzy arguments about a complicated economic game, not "by math", and could be changed if the right players agreed to it.  Moreover, any kid can duplicate the amount of bitcoins in existence by creating a hard fork of the blockchain and starting to mine it on his laptotp.  Anyone who has bitcoins will gain an equal amount of those "series B" bitcoins, accessible through the same private keys, and could trade them independently of his old bitcoins by duplicating his wallet and downloading the kids's client software. Whether those "series B" bitcoins will get a significant market value is a market(ing) question, not a technical one.  And, of course, there are the altcoins.)

You're describing a double spend attack, right?

No, I am describing a hard fork.

It does not interfere with the original chain directly, simply creates another clone, premined and "pre-transacted" to hae the same addresses, private keys, UTXOS, and everything as the original chain.  All it can do is steal value from the original bitcoins, if for some reason people prefer to spend their dollars on "series B" bitcoins rather than original ones.

Perhaps you should tell people that it's not likely to be some kid on his laptop to do this fork but more likely to be a more sensible version of the Bitcoin "Foundation" a few years down the road.

[noobtrader]

(Before you scream "21 million": that bitcoin limit is "guaranteed" only by  fuzzy arguments about a complicated economic game, not "by math", and could be changed if the right players agreed to it.  Moreover, any kid can duplicate the amount of bitcoins in existence by creating a hard fork of the blockchain and starting to mine it on his laptotp.  Anyone who has bitcoins will gain an equal amount of those "series B" bitcoins, accessible through the same private keys, and could trade them independently of his old bitcoins by duplicating his wallet and downloading the kids's client software. Whether those "series B" bitcoins will get a significant market value is a market(ing) question, not a technical one.  And, of course, there are the altcoins.)

You're describing a double spend attack, right?

No, I am describing a hard fork.

It does not interfere with the original chain directly, simply creates another clone, premined and "pre-transacted" to hae the same addresses, private keys, UTXOS, and everything as the original chain.  All it can do is steal value from the original bitcoins, if for some reason people prefer to spend their dollars on "series B" bitcoins rather than original ones.

What tosh. Who would spend their dollars on series B bitcoin, what scenario do you envisage where someone would be tricked into buying from a second chain.

Exactly. Who the hell will value stolfi coin?

Edit: there are hundreds upon hundreds of ALTs..but only one bitcoin!

does stolfi actually try and successfully do that ?

btw i just sold  and price keep rising awww...

[Erdogan]

(Before you scream "21 million": that bitcoin limit is "guaranteed" only by  fuzzy arguments about a complicated economic game, not "by math", and could be changed if the right players agreed to it.  Moreover, any kid can duplicate the amount of bitcoins in existence by creating a hard fork of the blockchain and starting to mine it on his laptotp.  Anyone who has bitcoins will gain an equal amount of those "series B" bitcoins, accessible through the same private keys, and could trade them independently of his old bitcoins by duplicating his wallet and downloading the kids's client software. Whether those "series B" bitcoins will get a significant market value is a market(ing) question, not a technical one.  And, of course, there are the altcoins.)

You're describing a double spend attack, right?

No, I am describing a hard fork.

It does not interfere with the original chain directly, simply creates another clone, premined and "pre-transacted" to hae the same addresses, private keys, UTXOS, and everything as the original chain.  All it can do is steal value from the original bitcoins, if for some reason people prefer to spend their dollars on "series B" bitcoins rather than original ones.

What tosh. Who would spend their dollars on series B bitcoin, what scenario do you envisage where someone would be tricked into buying from a second chain.

Exactly. Who the hell will value stolfi coin?

Edit: there are hundreds upon hundreds of ALTs..but only one bitcoin!

And as everyone here knows, the topic has been discussed here ad "killing me softly with his song"-um. He puts out an argument, then draws the curtain, until a few days later, where he repeats the same thing.

[JorgeStolfi]

Who would spend their dollars on series B bitcoin, what scenario do you envisage where someone would be tricked into buying from a second chain.

The "series B" chain could fork from the main chain a block that was posted on Jan 2013, before (hopefully) the MtGOX heist.  Transacting on that chain would be like traveling back in time and doing whatever one wants with one's coins from that point on.  I am not saying that such an "advantage" would be enough to steal a significant portion of the "series A" market cap, but it is one thing that could attract users to the "series B" chain.

[inca]

Tempted to ignore you stolfi. For a professor that is pretty stupid.

If memory serves there is at least one exact copycat of bitcoin. A different chain. Guess what - worth nothing.

[tarmi]

Tarmi are you currently in or out of bitcoin? Bleating suggests you were expecting falls from 237..
 

selling like a mofo.

I know it could go higher but I dont give a fuck.

[JorgeStolfi]

If memory serves there is at least one exact copycat of bitcoin. A different chain.

Are you thinking of same protocol but totally different chain? I.e. a "radical" hard fork that starts before the Genesis block? That is possible too.

Guess what - worth nothing.

But that is not "guaranteed by math".  Litecoin, Dogecoin, and several other altcoins still have value, 18 months(?) after theyr were supposed to be dead...

[dsly]

Enough of Stolfi
WHat do you guys think is the reason behind the rise that has been happening in the past 2 days ?

[oda.krell]

(Before you scream "21 million": that bitcoin limit is "guaranteed" only by  fuzzy arguments about a complicated economic game, not "by math", and could be changed if the right players agreed to it.  Moreover, any kid can duplicate the amount of bitcoins in existence by creating a hard fork of the blockchain and starting to mine it on his laptotp.  Anyone who has bitcoins will gain an equal amount of those "series B" bitcoins, accessible through the same private keys, and could trade them independently of his old bitcoins by duplicating his wallet and downloading the kids's client software. Whether those "series B" bitcoins will get a significant market value is a market(ing) question, not a technical one.  And, of course, there are the altcoins.)

You're describing a double spend attack, right?

No, I am describing a hard fork.

It does not interfere with the original chain directly, simply creates another clone, premined and "pre-transacted" to hae the same addresses, private keys, UTXOS, and everything as the original chain.  All it can do is steal value from the original bitcoins, if for some reason people prefer to spend their dollars on "series B" bitcoins rather than original ones.

a) Many, if not most, of the proposed financial functions to be performed on/through/linked to the Blockchain require a high amount of security from sybil or time warp attacks. This security is provided in the form of total hashpower that can be assumed to be honest (an assumption that is based on economical incentive, so it's a rather safe one).

Your 'Series B' blockchain is either indistinguishable from the original one, in which case it doesn't divert any value, or, if it is in any way distinguishable, it will be ignored by the majority of miners, so it cannot fulfill the above security critical functions.

b) The other argument, "potentially unbounded no. of total coins through alts" is a better one, I personally think... I don't think this vector can be completely ruled out in the long run.

However, it ignores one aspect: the people who want to use a decentralized network as a store of value will have little interest to store value in an alternative network that offers no improvement over the original in the following two crucial points: security, and stability of value/price.

For the 'security through hashpower' part, the original Blockchain is leading, by orders of magnitude. Stability of value obviously isn't there yet. Then again, show me an altcoin that is less volatile than Bitcoin (while at least having some of the liquidity of the total Bitcoin market) and I'll start worrying