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

[JayJuanGee]

Crash bounce pause spike second bouce. If this follows the pattern, it will drift up to ~ $441 and then drift down and down into the next crash.

Just sayin'.   ;-)

Don't send me donations. Send them the Dorian Nakamoto fund on my behalf.

I mean c'mon! Can't y'all acknowledge that I got it EXACTLY right? Where's the love?

I mean c'mon  - it seems too early to determine whether you were correct, and plus your supposed prediction is too non-specific.

For example, when you say "crash," you did not really specify if you meant down to $433 or below $425 or what?  

Furthermore, you specifically admitted in an earlier post that sometimes you like to employ exaggerations in order to better make a point, so would we know if your prediction was intended as an exaggeration or as a genuine attempt to predict short-term price movements.

Hell if I knew that JJG, I'd trade it myself. Also, I hope I'm wrong. One reason I called it is so TERA and whoever else is doing it will stop. I still need to unload my cold storage coins.

ok fair enough regarding your stated purpose for being vague...


I, personally, take a lot of your posts with a very ginormous grain of salt.... and even attempt to find a little humour here and there, if  I can resist being annoyed... hahahahahahaha


hopefully, you be able to get your supposed 100s of coins "stash" out of cold storage, in order to "dump" them in the $400s (maybe even the upper $400s), and in a few years (if not less) we can reunite, when BTC prices dip down into the sub 5 digits and you feel like you wanna jump back on the BTC train, while you will likely continue to proclaim and complain with even more apparent bitterness, that you were right all along about scalability, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah

 

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[simon28]

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3xnchr/rand_corporation_is_researching_how_to_destroy/

The Department of Defense should be aware of the following:

[Virtual Currencies]'s represent the latest step toward decentralized cyber services.
In particular, the historical trend suggests the development
of a resilient public cyber key terrain, which this report
defines as the ability of unsophisticated cyber actors to have
persistent, assured access to cyber services regardless of whether
a highly sophisticated state actor opposes their use. This has
implications for national firewalls, access to extremist rhetoric,
the feasibility of nation-state cyber attacks, and the ability to
maintain uninterruptible and anonymous encrypted links.

This report will examine the potential for terrorist, insurgent,
or criminal groups to increase their political and/or economic power
by deploying a VC to use as a currency for regular economic transactions
rather than exploiting existing VCs as a means of illicit transfer,
fundraising, or money laundering.

First page of the summary:

This report examines the potential for non-state actors, including
terrorist and insurgent groups, to increase their political and/or economic
power by deploying a VC as a medium for regular economic transactions
as opposed to exploiting already-deployed virtual currencies,
such as Bitcoin, as a means of illicit transfer, fundraising, or money
laundering.

Ya. That's what I said...

They do go on to say it wouldn’t be that difficult for a state-actor to totally disrupt us.

Ultimately, it seems clear that a non-state actor (indeed, even a
state actor) would face significant challenges against a determined hightiered
opponent given the underlying assumptions and implementation
of VCs. As a general matter, a high-tiered opponent would be able
to successfully attack any target of interest in cyberspace if enough
resources were invested. In the case of a VC, which would require trust,
anonymity, and availability of widely deployed cyber services (such as
wallet and mining applications), it seems infeasible that a consistently
successful cyber defense can be mounted. The only hope might be
if the non-state actor were supported by a sophisticated nation-state
opponent who was capable of defending against such threats. Even in
this scenario, it is unclear whether such coordination would work, particularly
in the case of a Tier V and VI opponent.

If a state-actor wanted to totally disrupt us it would be simpler and cheaper for it to ban bitcoin in its state. America considered banning bitcoin and decided against it. If America wanted to totally disrupt us it wouldn't need to mount sophisticated cyber attacks, it could ban bitcoin instead.

[aztecminer]

Crash bounce pause spike second bouce. If this follows the pattern, it will drift up to ~ $441 and then drift down and down into the next crash.

Just sayin'.   ;-)

Don't send me donations. Send them the Dorian Nakamoto fund on my behalf.

I mean c'mon! Can't y'all acknowledge that I got it EXACTLY right? Where's the love?

we haven't crashed yet... thats probably a chinese miner doing his dump while he still can..... if we go below 300 again then that might be a bonafide crash down .... obviously..next 24 hours is critical!

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3xnchr/rand_corporation_is_researching_how_to_destroy/

The Department of Defense should be aware of the following:

[Virtual Currencies]'s represent the latest step toward decentralized cyber services.
In particular, the historical trend suggests the development
of a resilient public cyber key terrain, which this report
defines as the ability of unsophisticated cyber actors to have
persistent, assured access to cyber services regardless of whether
a highly sophisticated state actor opposes their use. This has
implications for national firewalls, access to extremist rhetoric,
the feasibility of nation-state cyber attacks, and the ability to
maintain uninterruptible and anonymous encrypted links.

This report will examine the potential for terrorist, insurgent,
or criminal groups to increase their political and/or economic power
by deploying a VC to use as a currency for regular economic transactions
rather than exploiting existing VCs as a means of illicit transfer,
fundraising, or money laundering.

First page of the summary:

This report examines the potential for non-state actors, including
terrorist and insurgent groups, to increase their political and/or economic
power by deploying a VC as a medium for regular economic transactions
as opposed to exploiting already-deployed virtual currencies,
such as Bitcoin, as a means of illicit transfer, fundraising, or money
laundering.

Ya. That's what I said...

They do go on to say it wouldn’t be that difficult for a state-actor to totally disrupt us.

Ultimately, it seems clear that a non-state actor (indeed, even a
state actor) would face significant challenges against a determined hightiered
opponent given the underlying assumptions and implementation
of VCs. As a general matter, a high-tiered opponent would be able
to successfully attack any target of interest in cyberspace if enough
resources were invested. In the case of a VC, which would require trust,
anonymity, and availability of widely deployed cyber services (such as
wallet and mining applications), it seems infeasible that a consistently
successful cyber defense can be mounted. The only hope might be
if the non-state actor were supported by a sophisticated nation-state
opponent who was capable of defending against such threats. Even in
this scenario, it is unclear whether such coordination would work, particularly
in the case of a Tier V and VI opponent.

If a state-actor wanted to totally disrupt us it would be simpler and cheaper for it to ban bitcoin in its state. America considered banning bitcoin and decided against it. If America wanted to totally disrupt us it wouldn't need to mount sophisticated cyber attacks, it could ban bitcoin instead.

The USA isn't the only state-actor on the world stage.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

Anyway I don't think it's a controversial point; Satoshi had no illusions about being beyond the reach of state power.

[simon28]

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3xnchr/rand_corporation_is_researching_how_to_destroy/

The Department of Defense should be aware of the following:

[Virtual Currencies]'s represent the latest step toward decentralized cyber services.
In particular, the historical trend suggests the development
of a resilient public cyber key terrain, which this report
defines as the ability of unsophisticated cyber actors to have
persistent, assured access to cyber services regardless of whether
a highly sophisticated state actor opposes their use. This has
implications for national firewalls, access to extremist rhetoric,
the feasibility of nation-state cyber attacks, and the ability to
maintain uninterruptible and anonymous encrypted links.

This report will examine the potential for terrorist, insurgent,
or criminal groups to increase their political and/or economic power
by deploying a VC to use as a currency for regular economic transactions
rather than exploiting existing VCs as a means of illicit transfer,
fundraising, or money laundering.

First page of the summary:

This report examines the potential for non-state actors, including
terrorist and insurgent groups, to increase their political and/or economic
power by deploying a VC as a medium for regular economic transactions
as opposed to exploiting already-deployed virtual currencies,
such as Bitcoin, as a means of illicit transfer, fundraising, or money
laundering.

Ya. That's what I said...

They do go on to say it wouldn’t be that difficult for a state-actor to totally disrupt us.

Ultimately, it seems clear that a non-state actor (indeed, even a
state actor) would face significant challenges against a determined hightiered
opponent given the underlying assumptions and implementation
of VCs. As a general matter, a high-tiered opponent would be able
to successfully attack any target of interest in cyberspace if enough
resources were invested. In the case of a VC, which would require trust,
anonymity, and availability of widely deployed cyber services (such as
wallet and mining applications), it seems infeasible that a consistently
successful cyber defense can be mounted. The only hope might be
if the non-state actor were supported by a sophisticated nation-state
opponent who was capable of defending against such threats. Even in
this scenario, it is unclear whether such coordination would work, particularly
in the case of a Tier V and VI opponent.

If a state-actor wanted to totally disrupt us it would be simpler and cheaper for it to ban bitcoin in its state. America considered banning bitcoin and decided against it. If America wanted to totally disrupt us it wouldn't need to mount sophisticated cyber attacks, it could ban bitcoin instead.

The USA isn't the only state-actor on the world stage.

The USA was an example. Look at the disruption China caused with its half arsed semi-bitcoin ban. Little countries banning bitcoin don't disrupt it, but they don't have the resources to mount sophisticated cyber attacks. The bigger the country, the more disruption a ban would create.

Not that I think any of the biggest countries that matter will ban bitcoin. I don't think they want to totally disrupt it, but they can if they ever want to.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[klee]

https://bitcoin.org/en/bitcoin-core/capacity-increases

[AlexGR]

A half million transaction/day isn't enough for bitcoin to be anything more than a hobby network.

How many txs do you want it to handle per day?

I want the capacity to go up at a predictable predetermined rate. Entrepreneurs can plan with that.

All the bitcoin developers want Bitcoin to scale and there is 100% consensus on that. This practically guarantees it will happen, despite their differences on whether the blocksize should be raised now, raised temporarily (kicking the can), raised later, have something else done, etc etc.

The precise numbers on how scaling will go down on 5 years, 10 years, 20 years are pretty much unknown but that will not stop investments or businesses.

I don't believe it. Even a 2MB kick-the-can increase would show that they are actually willing to make a permanent fix it at some point. This is far from certain now. If there is 100% consensus that the developers want it to scale, then why haven't they publicly made a joint statement to that effect? 

=> As close as it gets: https://github.com/bitcoin-dot-org/bitcoin.org/pull/1165

[billyjoeallen]

https://bitcoin.org/en/bitcoin-core/capacity-increases

Didn't see Gavin's name on that list.

"Since Bitcoin is an electronic cash, it _isn't_ a generic database;
the demand for cheap highly-replicated perpetual storage is unbounded,
and Bitcoin cannot and will not satisfy that demand for non-ecash
(non-Bitcoin) usage, and there is no shame in that. Fortunately, Bitcoin
can interoperate with other systems that address other applications,
and--with luck and hard work--the Bitcoin system can and will satisfy
the world's demand for electronic cash."

So Internet money, not the Internet of money.  This is a mutiny. Imagine what would happen if the Federal Reserve Board of Directors staged a mutiny like that against Janet Yellen. How would the markets react?

[AlexGR]

https://bitcoin.org/en/bitcoin-core/capacity-increases

Didn't see Gavin's name on that list.

He's probably on the phone asking his NSA handler

[klee]

https://bitcoin.org/en/bitcoin-core/capacity-increases

Didn't see Gavin's name on that list.

Pariah

[Cconvert2G36]

Blockstream has reached consensus on Blockstream's future plans for Bitcoin. (2 weeks ago)

Don't like it? Fork off.

[billyjoeallen]

If colored coins, title transfers, and timestamps are out, it's just a less useful technology.

Screw this.  Taking the megawatt rating of the network into account, there is an effective >$3 cost per transaction now. If we moved to 8 MB blocks, that cost per transaction would go down to ~40 cents.  You expect holders to subsidize transactions at that cost? Not me. Not for bogus reasons.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

@BJA Tim Swanson wrote a paper about how adding exogenous value onto a network that cannot detect and dynamically protect the exogenous value is a bad idea. It was hard to disagree.

The metacoins and colored coin projects listed above unquestionably increase the social value
of the chain, yet they do not proportionally incentivize security beyond the existing block
reward (seigniorage) subsidy.  This could lead to an economic incentive to attack the chain, a
type of fat tail risk that could dramatically impact any layer residing on top of the Bitcoin
network.

[Fatman3001]

https://bitcoin.org/en/bitcoin-core/capacity-increases

Didn't see Gavin's name on that list.

I'm just glad to see BtcDrak on the list. The Viacoin guy is essential.  

I didn't see lambie though.

[billyjoeallen]

You smallblock cripplecoiners don't get it. I can't lose. If the price goes down, it's a market rejection of your vision. If it goes up, I can sell. I don't have to buy another single bitcoin now. 

Whenever something sells on Bitquick, I can rebuy with my trading account cash on BFX. When that runs out, I'll start selling from cold storage. I can sell for a looooong time before I run out. I got your asses.