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

[podyx]

Canceled my $354 buy and put it at $345 instead, dammit...

[nioc]

     I always double space. 

[deadpoolx]

The drop is caused because Cryptsy is collapsing, I think.

If a reasonable solution is reached, then we'll see a recover, otherwise two more years of bear

Causing a fall of $ 430 to $ 370, loss of 1 billion dollars in marketcap, in 1 single day? I don't think so.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[mOgliE]

Canceled my $354 buy and put it at $345 instead, dammit...

You know what? I bet you might even put it in the 300's cause I'm pretty sure it will hit it.

In the same way that the rise was slow but inevitable, it's the same for this low trend.

[podyx]

Canceled my $354 buy and put it at $345 instead, dammit...

You know what? I bet you might even put it in the 300's cause I'm pretty sure it will hit it.

In the same way that the rise was slow but inevitable, it's the same for this low trend.

Well, from a fully objective standpoint, I'd say this is just a FUD-storm but you never know of course

[mOgliE]

Canceled my $354 buy and put it at $345 instead, dammit...

You know what? I bet you might even put it in the 300's cause I'm pretty sure it will hit it.

In the same way that the rise was slow but inevitable, it's the same for this low trend.

Well, from a fully objective standpoint, I'd say this is just a FUD-storm but you never know of course

FUD storm, that's right, but backed with some serious facts. And the stronger the storm, the fuller the block, the slower the transactions, the more legitimate the problem given by the article become.

[CuntChocula]

The drop is caused because Cryptsy is collapsing, I think.

If a reasonable solution is reached, then we'll see a recover, otherwise two more years of bear

Causing a fall of $ 430 to $ 370, loss of 1 billion dollars in marketcap, in 1 single day? I don't think so.

I'm sure it helped. Not Cryptsy itself, but Cryptsy reaffirming the (seemingly obvious) fact that so-called 'trustless' currencies, like filthy fiat, rely on trust.
Only instead of needing to trust legacy institutions -- greedy banks and their henchmen, the lying governments -- trustless currencies require you to trust fellers like TradeFortress, Ukyo, and Big Vern.

[Patel]

Price drop is because hard fork is being priced in.

I have a feeling it will skyrocket once hard fork is successful.

[bitebits]

Jorge [...] have you written any interesting papers lately regarding bitcoin? It's a topic that I havent seen a lot of substantial academic research on.

Really? Database of almost 600 academic research papers on Bitcoin, now updated to cover 2015.

[BrewCrewFan]

The drop is caused because Cryptsy is collapsing, I think.

If a reasonable solution is reached, then we'll see a recover, otherwise two more years of bear

Speaking of which, I think Craptsy is dark now.

The drop is caused because Cryptsy is collapsing, I think.

If a reasonable solution is reached, then we'll see a recover, otherwise two more years of bear

Causing a fall of $ 430 to $ 370, loss of 1 billion dollars in marketcap, in 1 single day? I don't think so.

I'm sure it helped. Not Cryptsy itself, but Cryptsy reaffirming the (seemingly obvious) fact that so-called 'trustless' currencies, like filthy fiat, rely on trust.
Only instead of needing to trust legacy institutions -- greedy banks and their henchmen, the lying governments -- trustless currencies require you to trust fellers like TradeFortress, Ukyo, and Big Vern.

Yeah that was kinda my round a bout point yesterday that trust is a huge thing, and with the exchange ( another I might add ) going down and lord only knows how many thousands of dollars are now missing, to the normal joe this is not good. The media will have a field day with this for sure... again showing how much growing this thing needs to do.

[JorgeStolfi]

have you written any interesting papers lately regarding bitcoin? It's a topic that I havent seen a lot of substantial academic research on.

No, nothing formally published yet.  

I only started to write a tech report on how a mining cartel with majority hashpower can force a change in the protocol, such as postponing the next halving, in spite of opposition by the "economic majority" -- by sabotaging the old chain while mining the new one.  But, after countless forum discussions, that attack is now well known, and I haven't got enough motivation to finish it.⁽¹⁾

Other than that, the closest to a technical article I wrote is this post about bitcoin price bubbles.<sup>(2)

(1)</sup> Critics have two arguments to dismiss it.  First, they claim that any such attempt would cause a drop in the price that would negate the cartel's expected payoff. Second, they say that developers could change the PoW algorithm so as to render ASICs useless, and all users would shun the CartelCoin and use only the DevCoin.  I don't accept either argument, but since they depend on predicting the behavior of people, we have no way of proving our positions...

⁽²⁾ That sum-of-bubbles model is less satisfactory after the Dec/2014 crash, unfortunately.  The most prominent "bubbles" became almost rectangular pulses: a sudden rise, a plateau, then a sudden drop.  In 2015 the price became even more irregular: there were three apparent bubbles (in February, June, and September) but their shapes were more complicated than the model that worked before 2014...

[unent]

The drop is caused because Cryptsy is collapsing, I think.

If a reasonable solution is reached, then we'll see a recover, otherwise two more years of bear

Speaking of which, I think Craptsy is dark now.

The drop is caused because Cryptsy is collapsing, I think.

If a reasonable solution is reached, then we'll see a recover, otherwise two more years of bear

Causing a fall of $ 430 to $ 370, loss of 1 billion dollars in marketcap, in 1 single day? I don't think so.

I'm sure it helped. Not Cryptsy itself, but Cryptsy reaffirming the (seemingly obvious) fact that so-called 'trustless' currencies, like filthy fiat, rely on trust.
Only instead of needing to trust legacy institutions -- greedy banks and their henchmen, the lying governments -- trustless currencies require you to trust fellers like TradeFortress, Ukyo, and Big Vern.

Yeah that was kinda my round a bout point yesterday that trust is a huge thing, and with the exchange ( another I might add ) going down and lord only knows how many thousands of dollars are now missing, to the normal joe this is not good. The media will have a field day with this for sure... again showing how much growing this thing needs to do.

Every time another exchange gets reported hacked its a reminder of Gox. Cryptsy made the final news worse by behaving exactly the same as Gox for a year+. They covered up the hack, delayed withdrawals, and eventually stopped allowing Bitcoin withdrawals citing fake excuses.

When the news got out they had done a Gox the media had a field day destroying trust in exchanges.  

[xyzzy099]

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.

Theymos is the one who pointed out that that email was spoofed, and even posted the IP from which it was spoofed:

From https://np.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3w6vy4/i_am_not_craig_wright_we_are_all_satoshi_satoshi/ :

Code:

Received: from mail.vistomail.com (cpe-104-231-205-87.wi.res.rr.com
    [104.231.205.87])         
    by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 01BCADF
    for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
    Thu, 10 Dec 2015 06:53:42 +0000 (UTC)

This IP is obviously a TW customer in Wisconsin, where Theymos lives.  How much more obvious does he have to make the joke?

[deadpoolx]

The drop is caused because Cryptsy is collapsing, I think.

If a reasonable solution is reached, then we'll see a recover, otherwise two more years of bear

Speaking of which, I think Craptsy is dark now.

The drop is caused because Cryptsy is collapsing, I think.

If a reasonable solution is reached, then we'll see a recover, otherwise two more years of bear

Causing a fall of $ 430 to $ 370, loss of 1 billion dollars in marketcap, in 1 single day? I don't think so.

I'm sure it helped. Not Cryptsy itself, but Cryptsy reaffirming the (seemingly obvious) fact that so-called 'trustless' currencies, like filthy fiat, rely on trust.
Only instead of needing to trust legacy institutions -- greedy banks and their henchmen, the lying governments -- trustless currencies require you to trust fellers like TradeFortress, Ukyo, and Big Vern.

Yeah that was kinda my round a bout point yesterday that trust is a huge thing, and with the exchange ( another I might add ) going down and lord only knows how many thousands of dollars are now missing, to the normal joe this is not good. The media will have a field day with this for sure... again showing how much growing this thing needs to do.

Every time another exchange gets reported hacked its a reminder of Gox. Cryptsy made the final news worse by behaving exactly the same as Gox for a year+. They covered up the hack, delayed withdrawals, and eventually stopped allowing Bitcoin withdrawals citing fake excuses.

When the news got out they had done a Gox the media had a field day destroying trust in exchanges.  

Cryptsy, like others incompetent exchanges did before, has one hand in it, but the problem must be more related to something with this proportion:
https://medium.com/@octskyward/the-resolution-of-the-bitcoin-experiment-dabb30201f7#.9prvrl143

Maybe this guy is exaggerating, but there are relevant points in the article.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[AlexGR]

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.

The problem is that the anti-fork message was not spoofed and the writing style matches.
http://pastebin.com/Ct5M8fa2

Here's a quick technical analysis of the email sent to the bitcoin-dev mailing list today at http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010238.html
 
The email was sent from an anonymous email provider called vistomail.com which gives the appearance of being out of service. However you can see the logins at https://webmail.vistomail.com/
 
The vistomail servers are authorised to originate email by their IP address via the SPF DNS records . Satoshi used satoshi@vistomail.com when first announcing Bitcoin http://www.metzdowd.com/pipermail/cryptography/2009-January/014994.html
 
From this you can safely conclude the email did originate from vistomail.com servers and was not spoofed. It does not prove the account was not hacked of course.
 
Partial headers from the email:
  
Received: from mail.vistomail.com (vistomail.com [190.97.163.93])
        by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2175813F
        for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
        Sat, 15 Aug 2015 19:00:05 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from DS04 ([190.97.163.93]) by vistomail.com with MailEnable ESMTP;
        Sat, 15 Aug 2015 13:51:14 -0500
 

DNS RECORDS FOLLOW:
  
vistomail.com descriptive text "v=spf1 include:_spf.google.com ip4:190.97.163.93 ~all"
vistomail.com has address 190.97.163.93
vistomail.com mail is handled by 10 vistomail.com.

The "we are all satoshi" was spoofed and the writing style or expressions didn't match. So the second doesn't invalidate the first.

Additionally, that particular email address is not known to have been stolen.

Therefore the August message could be legit - it's a very serious risk for BTC. Risk, in the sense that if the proposed fork goes ahead, we'll have Satoshi's second coming after the forkageddon to proclaim Bitcoin is a failure since it failed to protect itself from this kind of attack.

[JorgeStolfi]

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.

Theymos is the one who pointed out that that email was spoofed, and even posted the IP from which it was spoofed:

From https://np.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3w6vy4/i_am_not_craig_wright_we_are_all_satoshi_satoshi/ :

Code:

Received: from mail.vistomail.com (cpe-104-231-205-87.wi.res.rr.com
    [104.231.205.87])         
    by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 01BCADF
    for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
    Thu, 10 Dec 2015 06:53:42 +0000 (UTC)

This IP is obviously a TW customer in Wisconsin, where Theymos lives.  How much more obvious does he have to make the joke?

Thanks!  So that last email is not relevant to the discussion of the other two.

[Alley]

I guess i better pick up some coins before we go back over 400.

[samson]

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.

The problem is that the anti-fork message was not spoofed and the writing style matches.
http://pastebin.com/Ct5M8fa2

Here's a quick technical analysis of the email sent to the bitcoin-dev mailing list today at http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010238.html
 
The email was sent from an anonymous email provider called vistomail.com which gives the appearance of being out of service. However you can see the logins at https://webmail.vistomail.com/
 
The vistomail servers are authorised to originate email by their IP address via the SPF DNS records . Satoshi used satoshi@vistomail.com when first announcing Bitcoin http://www.metzdowd.com/pipermail/cryptography/2009-January/014994.html
 
From this you can safely conclude the email did originate from vistomail.com servers and was not spoofed. It does not prove the account was not hacked of course.
 
Partial headers from the email:
  
Received: from mail.vistomail.com (vistomail.com [190.97.163.93])
        by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2175813F
        for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
        Sat, 15 Aug 2015 19:00:05 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from DS04 ([190.97.163.93]) by vistomail.com with MailEnable ESMTP;
        Sat, 15 Aug 2015 13:51:14 -0500
 

DNS RECORDS FOLLOW:
  
vistomail.com descriptive text "v=spf1 include:_spf.google.com ip4:190.97.163.93 ~all"
vistomail.com has address 190.97.163.93
vistomail.com mail is handled by 10 vistomail.com.

The "we are all satoshi" was spoofed and the writing style or expressions didn't match. So the second doesn't invalidate the first.

Additionally, that particular email address is not known to have been stolen.

Therefore the August message could be legit - it's a very serious risk for BTC. Risk, in the sense that if the proposed fork goes ahead, we'll have Satoshi's second coming after the forkageddon to proclaim Bitcoin is a failure since it failed to protect itself from this kind of attack.

Anyone can get a vistomail email address, I had one myself once. It's an anonymous speech service which has been around for a long time and they are reliable.