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

[JayJuanGee]

Don't see why people care this much  short of some religious fanaticism. I mean it'd shake his hand and thank him for creating BTC and all but am i really the only asshole who only really cares if someone has private keys to Satoshi's stash?

I think that there is a few reasons why people, including me, care, and like you said, one thing is to know whether someone has the private keys to possibly more than a million coins.

Yet, I believe that the way the last set of shenanigans unravelled involving Gavin, and potentially one last gasp at causing a reopening of the XT/Classic debate brings a whole hell-of-a lot of uncertainties to matters that we were expecting had been largely resolved a few weeks ago with the progress of seg wit and the lack of meaningful opposition to seg wit.

Yeah, I suppose we don't need to give a shit if we can resolve the matter in our own heads, but we cannot fight the fact that if some of these matters remain unresolved, then they continue to have an undue impact on the thinking of others and market behaviors (price, etc.)... Resolution means resumption of our bull trend and the revisit of $467 et al.

[DaRude]

Don't see why people care this much   short of some religious fanaticism. I mean it'd shake his hand and thank him for creating BTC and all but am i really the only asshole who only really cares if someone has private keys to Satoshi's stash?

Care?

I would say it doesn't matter, but people are interested because, well...  it's difficult to make this stuff up.  Especially after so many failed "discoveries" of Satoshi.  The more you dig into this one, the more insane the it becomes.  It's also possible, if there's any validity to what several parties are saying, that it could offer some finality to the uncertainty around those 1.1M or so coins.

Frankly, strictly from the volatility perspective this is the best way for Satoshi to be revealed. Instead of sending a massive shock by suddenly moving BTC1.1M coins. First spread rumors of it, let market price it in, then give some questionable proof, let market price in the chance that those coins are not lost, assure that coins are in trust and won't be dumped on market, finally give concrete proof.

[Blacula X]

Thanks for those clips, yefi.

In my humble bumble opinion, those kinds of appearances would not rule out Kleiman from being Satoshi.  Kleinman was characterized as both a recluse and also someone who kept people out of some of his personal matters.  Appearing on TV is not inconsistent with being a recluse, especially when the commentary was subject matter specific (and not about Kleinman himself).  

 I don't find either of those appearances nor his previous employment as a law enforcement person to be inconsistent with a person like satoshi who likely spent a considerable amount of time considering cryptography and ways to make a digital currency from such.

He strikes me as being exactly what's on the tin, a computer forensic expert. No more, no less. As I know well, looks can be deceiving however.

Anyway, I see he gave a webinar. Looking at the slides, he used American spelling, e.g., organizing, which you can compare with Satoshi's.

I am right knackered of ponces wanging on like some sodding MI6 bonnets.  Barmy spanners!  

   I'll just indent this paragraph and totally throw you off

Great bitcoin video; if lazy, start here: https://youtu.be/DJklHwoYgBQ?t=297

[SheHadMANHands]

Don't see why people care this much   short of some religious fanaticism. I mean it'd shake his hand and thank him for creating BTC and all but am i really the only asshole who only really cares if someone has private keys to Satoshi's stash?

Care?

I would say it doesn't matter, but people are interested because, well...  it's difficult to make this stuff up.  Especially after so many failed "discoveries" of Satoshi.  The more you dig into this one, the more insane the it becomes.  It's also possible, if there's any validity to what several parties are saying, that it could offer some finality to the uncertainty around those 1.1M or so coins.

Frankly, strictly from the volatility perspective this is the best way for Satoshi to be revealed. Instead of sending a massive shock by suddenly moving BTC1.1M coins. First spread rumors of it, let market price it in, then give some questionable proof, let market price in the chance that those coins are not lost, assure that coins are in trust and won't be dumped on market, finally give concrete proof.

wouldn't that be something, a performance never seen.

[AlexGR]

Id say the only reason we care is because of the 1 million coins.

I've been hearing this for so long that it doesn't even make sense because such an uncertainty should always be priced-in. I mean if Satoshi tomorrow sends the coins to the bitcoin-eater address then that would be perceived as a "positive" move, raising the market, which would indicate that the market had already priced-in the uncertainty (otherwise it would not move at all). So it is priced in already - at least to some extent.

Besides, we know for a fact that PoW mining is going to "dump" on us another 6 million coins in the future. What difference would 1 million coins do - that already exist and are already priced-in in terms of market supply and scarcity? Not much.

[bobabouey2]

Here is another weird Craig Wright issue that I've been mulling over. 

Back in November, so-called @BitcoinBelle moderated a so called "All-Star Panel" at a bitcoin conference, that included Ed Moy, Joseph VaughnPerling, Trace Mayer, Nick Szabo, and good old Craig Wright.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdvQTwjVmrE

This was shortly before the so-called leak of Craig being SN.  At the time, Craig was not well known in the bitcoin panelist world, and did seem to stand out as being less of an "All-Star" than others.  (Szabo in particular seemed to think he was a a fool).

When the Craig / SN "leak" surfaced shortly thereafter, many wondered why Craig was at the meeting, and whether @bitcoinbelle was involved in some way.  (And note that my comment describing the ATO tax credit fraud angle on Craig was in that chain, which to toot my own horn, was one of the earlier detailed articulations of this theory, as far as I know.)  https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3w9xec/just_think_we_deserve_an_explanation_of_how_craig/

Now, from looking at more recent tweets by @bitcoinbelle, we see an interesting exchange between her and Joseph VaughPerling.  https://twitter.com/BitcoinBelle/status/727470504932720640

Of note:

Steve ‏@MrHodl  May 3
@BitcoinBelle @01101O10 @iang_fc @haq4good JVP, supposedly met Satoshi in 2005 and has his picture. I'm sorry but I call bullshit

JVP = Joseph VaughnPerling = @haq4good

DI$RUPTIV3
‏@BitcoinBelle
@MrHodl @01101O10 @iang_fc @haq4good told me that almost a year ago so I invited him to be on the panel. Figured he'd recognize his voice.

And then:  https://twitter.com/BitcoinBelle/status/727207098442993665

Of note:

DI$RUPTIV3
‏@BitcoinBelle
@haq4good @dakami You told me that you spoke to Satoshi many years ago and that he was definitely not Craig. What changed your mind?

And:

JVP ‏@haq4good  May 2
@BitcoinBelle @dakami A closer look at his face.

And:

DI$RUPTIV3 ‏@BitcoinBelle  May 2
@haq4good @dakami Huh Well you had that chance at the panel and insisted his voice was not the same either. Regardless, you lied then or now

So, the sequence seems to be that @bitcoinbelle was instrumental in getting Craig into that panel.  Part of the motivation was to put JVP and Craig in the same room, probably because Craig had intimated to her that he was SN and a "leak" was imminent.  JVP initially denied that Craig was SN, and later changed his tune.

JVP could have denied the connection because he was keeping SN / Craig's identity secret.  Or, maybe JVP really didn't connect Craig with SN, but later had some reason to support the Craig = SN story for unknown, and possibly suspect reasons.

And, FWIW, @bitcoinbelle currently seems to think that Craig is a fraud.  She claims he hacked her twitter, and that he turned kind of pervy on her.  https://twitter.com/BitcoinBelle/status/727336811899543553  https://twitter.com/BitcoinBelle/status/727346525106491392

I don't really know what to make of this, but on the off chance that people on this board know more about the character and motivations of some of the people involved, I throw it out there.

(Also, I'm not sure exactly how twitter links function, you may have to click "viewconversation" on the links I provided to see the back and forth).

[AliceGored]

Id say the only reason we care is because of the 1 million coins.

I've been hearing this for so long that it doesn't even make sense because such an uncertainty should always be priced-in. I mean if Satoshi tomorrow sends the coins to the bitcoin-eater address then that would be perceived as a "positive" move, raising the market, which would indicate that the market had already priced-in the uncertainty (otherwise it would not move at all). So it is priced in already - at least to some extent.

Besides, we know for a fact that PoW mining is going to "dump" on us another 6 million coins in the future. What difference would 1 million coins do - that already exist and are already priced-in in terms of market supply and scarcity? Not much.

With the qualifier of "at least to some extent"... Everything and anything is already priced in, at least to some extent.

If coins move, some uncertainty is removed. Currently, we are unsure if the satoshi hoard is lost or inaccessible. Knowing that it is accessible would be a big piece of new information, and would result in market reaction.

The future 100 years of newly created coins is known, and almost completely unrelated to the issue at hand.

[DaRude]

Id say the only reason we care is because of the 1 million coins.

I've been hearing this for so long that it doesn't even make sense because such an uncertainty should always be priced-in. I mean if Satoshi tomorrow sends the coins to the bitcoin-eater address then that would be perceived as a "positive" move, raising the market, which would indicate that the market had already priced-in the uncertainty (otherwise it would not move at all). So it is priced in already - at least to some extent.

Besides, we know for a fact that PoW mining is going to "dump" on us another 6 million coins in the future. What difference would 1 million coins do - that already exist and are already priced-in in terms of market supply and scarcity? Not much.

Market "prices in" an event by the probability of that event happening and estimated effect. Sometimes market overestimates it and sometimes it underestimates.

I.E. I'd estimate that chances that PoW will dump another 6MM coins are 99.9% everyone expects it so it's pretty much fully priced in
Chances that someone has private keys to Satoshi's stash before this news was lets say 25% (making up numbers) so only 25% of it was priced in. Now that we have some questionable proof i'd say chances go up to say 60% so market has to adjust, then finally once he moves the coins market will adjust again and it'll be 100% priced in.  

[adamstgBit]

>460 by tomorrow afternoon

[MingLee]

>460 by tomorrow afternoon

I would be really skeptical of that price estimate, but if there is more data to back that up then be my guest.

The price doesn't look like it is moving at all, and there seems to be absolutely zero momentum with the value to crank it above $455 by tomorrow.

If the price can move above $460 in the next week or so, I'd be surprised. There is nothing at all to move the price.

[yefi]

I am right knackered of ponces wanging on like some sodding MI6 bonnets.  Barmy spanners!  

   I'll just indent this paragraph and totally throw you off

Great bitcoin video; if lazy, start here: https://youtu.be/DJklHwoYgBQ?t=297

The master of disguise speaks.

[AlexGR]

If coins move, some uncertainty is removed. Currently, we are unsure if the satoshi hoard is lost or inaccessible. Knowing that it is accessible would be a big piece of new information, and would result in market reaction.

The future 100 years of newly created coins is known, and almost completely unrelated to the issue at hand.

Personally I believe Satoshi is alive and well and has nothing to do with Wright or Kleiman. As for the stash I believe he doesn't even need to touch the initial stash:

a) for ethical reasons / so that noone can say that he used his project to become rich and/or that this is a ponzi scheme to enrich its creator
b) because his skill set can certainly provide for him while living under the radar - he could probably make hundreds of thousands in wages by working somewhere in the field of his expertise, allowing him a comfortable lifestyle (if he didn't have one already). As "twisted" as it may sound, he may be living an intentionally "poor" life.

I believe his stash is definitely accessible. As he said himself, you should never throw a wallet

If he is to use coins, it might be coins he bought from miners, or mined himself, perhaps later (h2 2010, 11/12/13, etc). I suspect he could make an exception if Bitcoin needed critical funding in some area. It has been discussed that at some point there may be an upgrade (with multi-year advance warning) in order to make pubkey coins unspendable if they haven't been moved in a certain timeframe, so as to not have quantum-computing related instabilities where early pubkey coins are accessed and sold. I suspect that in such a scenario he might leave the biggest part (or all) of the stash unmoved so as to be rendered unusable.

As for the "next 100 years", most of the coins won't be mined in 100 years - but in the short/mid-term. We are at a rate of 110k coins per month. By the time we reach the next halving we'll have an extra 3mn coins. And then you go to something like +1.4 for the next four years. If the market is pricing-in a dump of millions of coins that will be PoW'ed in the next years, it can definitely price-in risks like Satoshi's stash. I mean MtGox went out and said "ooops we lost 850k coins" (650k after the 200k discovery) - back when they had double the price and represented a far bigger piece of the "slice".

So I'm not that worried about satoshi's stash.

[Mrpumperitis]

   ok , i cant handle all the things people are saying about bitcoin...i am only going to say this once, i am satoshi nakamoto
i owe lots of $$ and i cant access my premine!
i will not log into any old forums, espescially bitcointalk.
oh i will not comment or contribute to bitcoin scaling issues.
Now please leave me alone!!!!!  

[Mrpumperitis]

mr wright, making claims like this could lead to an arrest ,lol btw i am not satoshi nakamoto

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/11/24/the-surprising-bitcoin-connection-between-silk-road-and-satoshi-nakamoto/#580a3955172a

http://www.businessinsider.com/satoshi-nakamoto-and-silk-road-link-2013-11?IR=T

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/11/23/study-suggests-link-between-dread-pirate-roberts-and-satoshi-nakamoto/?_r=0

[Mrpumperitis]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdvQTwjVmrE

Dr. Craig Wright vs Nick Szabo lol 

wright says btc is turing complete like eth....szabo says...er no lol
 from about 16mins

[Blacula X]

I am right knackered of ponces wanging on like some sodding MI6 bonnets.  Barmy spanners!  

   I'll just indent this paragraph and totally throw you off

Great bitcoin video; if lazy, start here: https://youtu.be/DJklHwoYgBQ?t=297

The master of disguise speaks.

   Ya, see, there you go again, thinkin you know things!  Like I'm some British old dude because double-space and stuff, and you got me all figured out, right? ...or did you?

   And just about now it's starting to sink in, huh? "maybe I'm not so clever," you thinking to yourself.  How it feel?!
"Maybe he not who I think he am," and I'm not!

   I confused you sucker!  BLAM!!

[AliceGored]

If coins move, some uncertainty is removed. Currently, we are unsure if the satoshi hoard is lost or inaccessible. Knowing that it is accessible would be a big piece of new information, and would result in market reaction.

The future 100 years of newly created coins is known, and almost completely unrelated to the issue at hand.

Personally I believe Satoshi is alive and well and has nothing to do with Wright or Kleiman. As for the stash I believe he doesn't even need to touch the initial stash:

a) for ethical reasons / so that noone can say that he used his project to become rich and/or that this is a ponzi scheme to enrich its creator
b) because his skill set can certainly provide for him while living under the radar - he could probably make hundreds of thousands in wages by working somewhere in the field of his expertise, allowing him a comfortable lifestyle (if he didn't have one already). As "twisted" as it may sound, he may be living an intentionally "poor" life.

I believe his stash is definitely accessible. As he said himself, you should never throw a wallet

If he is to use coins, it might be coins he bought from miners, or mined himself, perhaps later (h2 2010, 11/12/13, etc). I suspect he could make an exception if Bitcoin needed critical funding in some area. It has been discussed that at some point there may be an upgrade (with multi-year advance warning) in order to make pubkey coins unspendable if they haven't been moved in a certain timeframe, so as to not have quantum-computing related instabilities where early pubkey coins are accessed and sold. I suspect that in such a scenario he might leave the biggest part (or all) of the stash unmoved so as to be rendered unusable.

As for the "next 100 years", most of the coins won't be mined in 100 years - but in the short/mid-term. We are at a rate of 110k coins per month. By the time we reach the next halving we'll have an extra 3mn coins. And then you go to something like +1.4 for the next four years. If the market is pricing-in a dump of millions of coins that will be PoW'ed in the next years, it can definitely price-in risks like Satoshi's stash. I mean MtGox went out and said "ooops we lost 850k coins" (650k after the 200k discovery) - back when they had double the price and represented a far bigger piece of the "slice".

So I'm not that worried about satoshi's stash.

That’s a lot of speculation there, perhaps the makings of a nice self-published e-book. At least you’re in the correct section.

Markets try to price in uncertainty, and adjust expectations based on new information. This would be new information. The point still stands, the coin creation schedule is known, with surety and in detail. The accessibility of the satoshi hoard is not. Period.

That said, given all of Wright’s behavior so far, he certainly seems to be a pretender. In all likelihood, the coins won’t move, and the uncertainty about them will remain largely unchanged. In the extremely unlikely case that they do move, the market will react, which would demonstrate to you clearly that it wasn’t “priced in”.

The only possible explanation (if Craig’s legit) for dragging this out so long would be to give the market plenty of warning, and allow his detractors plenty of rope before the big reveal.

[Chef Ramsay]

No more trolls allowed and that's your queue Adam. The trend is up but exciting so shove the dumbasses aside.

[JayJuanGee]

Don't see why people care this much   short of some religious fanaticism. I mean it'd shake his hand and thank him for creating BTC and all but am i really the only asshole who only really cares if someone has private keys to Satoshi's stash?

Care?

I would say it doesn't matter, but people are interested because, well...  it's difficult to make this stuff up.  Especially after so many failed "discoveries" of Satoshi.  The more you dig into this one, the more insane the it becomes.  It's also possible, if there's any validity to what several parties are saying, that it could offer some finality to the uncertainty around those 1.1M or so coins.

Frankly, strictly from the volatility perspective this is the best way for Satoshi to be revealed. Instead of sending a massive shock by suddenly moving BTC1.1M coins. First spread rumors of it, let market price it in, then give some questionable proof, let market price in the chance that those coins are not lost, assure that coins are in trust and won't be dumped on market, finally give concrete proof.

Wow.... !!!!!!

You seem to be granting way too many good motives to Craig Wright, as if he were planning this manner in some kind of benevolent manner and had sufficient foresight in order to accomplish such an objective.

Based on Wright's behavior, I think that your proposed scenario has less than about a .001% chance of being correct.  If you saw his interview with BBC, there is just pent up and uncontrollable anger there... making bullshit angry statements that he would "never, never" accept a Nobel prize in Economics, if one were to be offered.... He shows himself a fairly narrowly focused self-interested person who is attempting to feign being something else.



The truth of the matter is more likely that he has

[kehtolo]

You could imagine him changing his tune quickly, if he was really considered/nominated for the Nobel prize.....