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

[JorgeStolfi]

The volatility IMO is due entirely to the hard fork. A big player (likely miner) sold at 450 because they know what is coming.

The most obvious explanation is Mike's ragequit, which got wide exposure in the media (NYT, Motherboard, TechCrunch, Reuters, ...)  It was also commented in Chinese forums.  I can't think of any other suiltable explanation for the sudden drop.

[1714825902]

1714825902

[1714825902]

1714825902

[Tzupy]

The volatility IMO is due entirely to the hard fork. A big player (likely miner) sold at 450 because they know what is coming.

The most obvious explanation is Mike's ragequit, which got wide exposure in the media (NYT, Motherboard, TechCrunch, Reuters, ...)  It was also commented in Chinese forums.  I can't think of any other suiltable explanation for the sudden drop.

After all this time, prof Stolfi hasn't learned TA. Mike's drama made the drop deeper, but it was coming anyway.

[mOgliE]

Well, current crash is here for all the people who said that "btc can't break the 400 floor, it's impossible and if you believe it you're only an idiot"

I'm still happy I sold at 450 whatever they said!

[JorgeStolfi]

I have been following the recent block size debates through the mailing list. .....
Satoshi Nakamoto

I had not seen that letter until now, but it looks like a lot of vague bla-bla without even a hint of a technical argument.
I'll eat my hat if that was written by any of the very skilled mathematician/cryptographer(s) that designed bitcoin.

That letter is fake.  It was not know at the time, but Satoshi's mail account has been taken over -- no one knows how or when.  That was proved last September, when "Satoshi" sent a dox extorsion email from that address to some prominent bitcoiner.

Anyway, the phrase "in the face of widespread technical criticism and through the use of populist tactics" is a dead giveaway of its source.  I only cannot guess who wrote it because there are several people at Blockstream, and many more among its supporters, who would have used those words, would not have any scruples in sending a forged message to support their agenda, and are naive enough to think that the trick would work.

The second paragraph, moreover, is totally at odds with the very idea that makes the protocol work.

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

It's the fullblockalypse, the forkageddon and the second coming of satoshi combined.

Ha! Yeah, you're probably right!   

Would all Messiahs please form an orderly queue and pick up a Cross on the left.....   

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[Andre#]

Now that it slowly but surely becomes clear that Core is getting ditched for Classic by the community, the volatility is getting less. Once more details emerge about the implementation path of Classic, you can expect a rally.

There will be two coins of 21mn supply after the fork. The money supply will be doubled. Some that prefer the 25% variant will be dumping on the 75ers. The opposite may not even work due to lack of exchange support, lol.

[...]

Do you feel lucky?

I don't.

There has been a social engineering attack and it has been successful.

I thought it was Theymos who tried that. (And it failed, indeed.)

if core folds and goes to 2mb or segwit right now => it's theoretically better than turning btc into gavincoin but it's still a social engineering attack success, in terms of pushing things and breaking consensus under the threat of a hard fork.

As for as I know, it was Core who tried to push us into centrally planning the block size, instead of letting market forces find an optimum. They (and their allies) did their best to obstruct consensus, but it seems that consensus is about to be reached after all.

The parameter that "btc fails because there is no space" is for technically ignorant people. At most some dust will transact with a lower priority due to zero or low fees.

Perhaps I'm technically ignorant. But I can tell when something starts to work badly. Apparently you can't. So either you don't use Bitcoin, or you are the ignorant one here.

[iCEBREAKER]

The volatility IMO is due entirely to the hard fork. A big player (likely miner) sold at 450 because they know what is coming.

The most obvious explanation is Mike's ragequit, which got wide exposure in the media (NYT, Motherboard, TechCrunch, Reuters, ...)  It was also commented in Chinese forums. 

I can't think of any other suiltable explanation for the sudden drop.

That's because of your astounding ignorance of economics.

If you ever looked up from your Buttcoin forums, and glanced at say Bloomberg TV, you'd notice there has been an ongoing meltdown in world financial markets since New Years Day.

The Big Money that moves the BTC price is selling to cover losses, and/or take advantage of opportunities in other oversold sectors.

This isn't rocket science, it's common sense.

All your ZOMG HEARN IS RIGHT BITCOIN IS FAILING spin attempt does is further cement your reputation for dishonesty.

I can't wait until the BRL finishes moving into hyperinflation territory, and you are begging for BTC to buy food and toilet paper.   

[bitebits]

Bitcoin "Classic"! What a stupid name. Logically there's nothing really classic about it. They should have spent a little more time thinking up a proper name at least.

Seems that Satoshi disagrees with you: https://github.com/bitcoin-classic

[AlexGR]

I have been following the recent block size debates through the mailing list. .....
Satoshi Nakamoto

I had not seen that letter until now, but it looks like a lot of vague bla-bla without even a hint of a technical argument.
I'll eat my hat if that was written by any of the very skilled mathematician/cryptographer(s) that designed bitcoin.

That letter is fake.  It was not know at the time, but Satoshi's mail account has been taken over -- no one knows how or when.  That was proved last September, when "Satoshi" sent a dox extorsion email from that address to some prominent bitcoiner.

Anyway, the phrase "in the face of widespread technical criticism and through the use of populist tactics" is a dead giveaway of its source.  I only cannot guess who wrote it because there are several people at Blockstream, and many more among its supporters, who would have used those words, would not have any scruples in sending a forged message to support their agenda, and are naive enough to think that the trick would work.

The second paragraph, moreover, is totally at odds with the very idea that makes the protocol work.

Satoshi's writing and that particular letter have something in common: Two spaces after a sentence ends. That's the "old" way of writing in the typewriter era where you hit space twice - and you carry over that habit to the PC keyb into the late 80s/90s. You do it too because you are of the "old guard". Younger people, hackers, script-kiddies, well... not only don't they know these things but they won't even spot the difference in order to emulate it. The two spaces, for me, increases the chance that it was original. As for IPs, mail spoofs, hacked accounts, I can't tell you who controls what. The writing style is quite neutral and it feels ok'ish though and in line with what Satoshi has said in the past.

As for blockstream people doing it, you are saying that they hacked Satoshi accounts back when it happened and then they used them when convenient to promote their agenda? And how would they know that Satoshi wouldn't pull the curtain on them? Especially after Satoshi came out and said he is not Dorian? It's a very long leap.

[lemonte]

http://coinjournal.net/scaling-bitcoin-austin-hill-blip/

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

Bitcoin "Classic"! What a stupid name. Logically there's nothing really classic about it. They should have spent a little more time thinking up a proper name at least.

Seems that Satoshi disagrees with you: https://github.com/bitcoin-classic

Access to that email is probably a thriving dark market enterprise.

[billyjoeallen]

It's very rare to see a low below the previous low on less volume. There will likely be a retest of $152.

[AlexGR]

As for as I know, it was Core who tried to push us into centrally planning the block size, instead of letting market forces find an optimum.

There was no push for anything, more like "inertia" during the prolonged discussions to find consensus.

Perhaps I'm technically ignorant. But I can tell when something starts to work badly. Apparently you can't. So either you don't use Bitcoin, or you are the ignorant one here.

Am I? What do you read below? That Satoshi considered it a problem if every micropayment didn't fit in for free/near zero costs? That every micropayment would definitely have to be included in - and do so in 1 block?

That's not what I'm reading:

Bitcoin isn't currently practical for very small micropayments.  Not for things like pay per search or per page view without an aggregating mechanism, not things needing to pay less than 0.01.  The dust spam limit is a first try at intentionally trying to prevent overly small micropayments like that.

Bitcoin is practical for smaller transactions than are practical with existing payment methods.  Small enough to include what you might call the top of the micropayment range.  But it doesn't claim to be practical for arbitrarily small micropayments.

Forgot to add the good part about micropayments.  While I don't think Bitcoin is practical for smaller micropayments right now, it will eventually be as storage and bandwidth costs continue to fall.  If Bitcoin catches on on a big scale, it may already be the case by that time.  Another way they can become more practical is if I implement client-only mode and the number of network nodes consolidates into a smaller number of professional server farms.  Whatever size micropayments you need will eventually be practical.  I think in 5 or 10 years, the bandwidth and storage will seem trivial.

I am not claiming that the network is impervious to DoS attack.  I think most P2P networks can be DoS attacked in numerous ways.  (On a side note, I read that the record companies would like to DoS all the file sharing networks, but they don't want to break the anti-hacking/anti-abuse laws.)

If we started getting DoS attacked with loads of wasted transactions back and forth, you would need to start paying a 0.01 minimum transaction fee.  0.1.5 actually had an option to set that, but I took it out to reduce confusion.  Free transactions are nice and we can keep it that way if people don't abuse them.

It would be nice to keep the blk*.dat files small as long as we can.

The eventual solution will be to not care how big it gets.

But for now, while it's still small, it's nice to keep it small so new users can get going faster.  When I eventually implement client-only mode, that won't matter much anymore.

There's more work to do on transaction fees. In the event of a flood, you would still be able to jump the queue and get your transactions into the next block by paying a 0.01 transaction fee.

[podyx]

It's very rare to see a low below the previous low on less volume. There will likely be a retest of $152.

It's a bit different now because of the likelyhood that the blockchain and Hearn controversy helped brought down the price, probably a lot.

[JorgeStolfi]

Satoshi's writing and that particular letter have something in common: Two spaces after a sentence ends. That's the "old" way of writing in the typewriter era where you hit space twice - and you carry over that habit to the PC keyb into the late 80s/90s. You do it too because you are of the "old guard". Younger people, hackers, script-kiddies, well... not only don't they know these things but they won't even spot the difference in order to emulate it. The two spaces, for me, increases the chance that it was original.

Oops, thanks for reminding me.  I must watch out and avoid that old habit, before someone figures out my true identity.

The writing style is quite neutral and it feels ok'ish though and in line with what Satoshi has said in the past.

Well, it is a matter of feeling; but I find the tone of that letter very unlike that of previous writings.  Too dramatic, almost hysterical.  But very much like the tone of Adam and other ardent small-blockians.  The personal and nominal attack against Gavin, in particular, was very strange for Satoshi, but very much like Adam's tone at the time.

As for blockstream people doing it, you are saying that they hacked Satoshi accounts back when it happened and then they used them when convenient to promote their agenda? And how would they know that Satoshi wouldn't pull the curtain on them? [  ] It's a very long leap.

The hacker who got hold of Satoshi's email account may have been a smallblockian or Blockstream sympathizer, or may have offered his services to them. (How else would he profit from that "asset"?) 

Satoshi is either dead, or is much more worried about hiding his identity than about the fate of bitcoin (which he apparently abandoned in 2010). 

That, by the way, is another reason why I assumed that the letter was fake when it came out:  if he did not care to intervene in all the previous critical events, why would he come in just to take a side (the wrong one!) in a relatively minor technical dispute?

Especially after Satoshi came out and said he is not Dorian?

If his account was hacked back then, who knows why the hacker posted it.  Maybe he was sorry for the old man.  Presumably he is a bitconer, and thought that the claim was hurting bitcoin.

By the way, there was another message by "Satoshi" recently, denying that he was Craig Wright -- and then adding "We are all Satoshi".  That last part is obviously something that Satoshi would not have written. I can only think that the hacker is aware that everybody is aware that the account has been compromised, and does not care to pretend anymore.

[Richy_T]

Satoshi contradicted himself on micropayments and scaling as well. Initially he was more bullish in terms of what Bitcoin could do but then became more realistic given the hardware/network constraints and network abuse that required more fees and block size limits. So depending the time-space coordinates you could take contradictory quotes even on the same issue.

If you can't see the difference between a change in position and the kind of contradiction presented, you're wanting to believe too hard.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

By the way, there was another message by "Satoshi" recently, denying that he was Craig Wright -- and then adding "We are all Satoshi".  That last part is obviously something that Satoshi would not have written. I can only think that the hacker is aware that everybody is aware that the account has been compromised, and does not care to pretend anymore.

Sound, sensible analysis as always. Good to have you home, professor.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[AlexGR]

Well, it is a matter of feeling; but I find the tone of that letter very unlike that of previous writings.  Too dramatic, almost hysterical.  But very much like the tone of Adam and other ardent small-blockians.  The personal and nominal attack against Gavin, in particular, was very strange for Satoshi, but very much like Adam's tone at the time.

I don't see it as emotional. (I mean overemotional / hysterical). Strong worded, yes.

The hacker who got hold of Satoshi's email account may have been a smallblockian or Blockstream sympathizer, or may have offered his services to them. (How else would he profit from that "asset"?)  

Hm...

Satoshi is either dead, or is much more worried about hiding his identity than about the fate of bitcoin (which he apparently abandoned in 2010).  

I find that hard to believe. I mean if he is serious about the "power to the people" concept why would he abandon it? It may seem that way but I'm sure he's following it.

That, by the way, is another reason why I assumed that the letter was fake when it came out:  if he did not care to intervene in all the previous critical events, why would he come in just to take a side (the wrong one!) in a relatively minor technical dispute?

If he felt that this (social engineering + coup) genuinely endangers the project, more than any technical issue, to the point where he'd have to declare the project dead if it succeeded, it's not very unbelievable.

It's ironic that you could write good code and still have humans be the weakest component of the system.

By the way, there was another message by "Satoshi" recently, denying that he was Craig Wright -- and then adding "We are all Satoshi". That last part is obviously something that Satoshi would not have written.

Not only that, but if you notice that particular post with Wright, he had just one space between the two sentences. Yet Satoshi was apparently double-spacing even one-liners:

That means a lot coming from you, Hal.  Thanks.