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

[kurious]

Guys, everyone knows the difference of $1K and $999 is a staggering amount.  

Mate, it is a massive difference from $1350 (not so long ago)

And it's not a FUD conspiracy - it's 'Greater Bitcoinland' finding out what the civil war and bickering in BTC actually means.

BTC has brought this on itself. And "it's all fine, just a little blip" doesn't cut it.

It's the potential fork - and you know it.

Nothing personal, but the group think here is risible, and if there is a fork it will set Bitcoin back a long way from seeing an ATH again.

If only Satoshi was alive and here to speak his mind there might be less of a problem, but 'he' is not - so entrenched camps, neither of whom are totally right are battling it out incompetently.

And that's why the price has tanked, not FUD. Bitcoin did this itself.

[1715056799]

1715056799

[1715056799]

1715056799

[JimboToronto]

Use a hardware wallet like ledger or trezor. Then you are safe. Well, the number of coins at least. The value of the coins is a different story

I thought a paper wallet was safe!!

Don't listen to that nincompoop.

Paper wallets created in the right manner are safe. You have your private keys and you can choose what to do with them.

Hardware wallet transactions require provider servers so you'd be waiting for them to make up their mind. You can of course take the hardware wallet private keys or seed and use them elsewhere too so it's much of a muchness.

Absolutely. Paper wallets are safest.

They just lack convenience. If you want to spend some of the contents, the entire amount must be transferred to an active wallet and reassigned.

This is why all my coins (except for a pittance on an Android device) are in a multitude of paper wallets. If I'm buying multiple coins, I'll use

multiple wallets with never more than a single coin per wallet. Only my oldest wallets have more than a single coin in them.

[gentlemand]

If I'm buying multiple coins, I'll use multiple wallets with never more than a single coin per wallet.

That sounds like a grind to me.

[Torque]

blah blah blah more fork FUD bullshit blah blah

Thanks for id'ing yourself, my ignore list just keeps getting longer

[bartolo]

So Circle company is encouraging its users to change their bitcoins for dollars because bitcoin price is going to fall down. So Circle company is wishing to buy all those bitcoins whose price is going to fall down. So Circle company is wishing to lose money just because they are Philanthropists or something.

[Ibian]

We are above 1k and people are worried that something is wrong!

[andyatcrux]

So Circle company is encouraging its users to change their bitcoins for dollars because bitcoin price is going to fall down. So Circle company is wishing to buy all those bitcoins whose price is going to fall down. So Circle company is wishing to lose money just because they are Philanthropists or something.

Also, Coinbase will freeze funds for a few days. Thing is this isn't really FUD given the situation. If anything it shows the ecosystem is maturing. Since BU has yet to implement the code needed to prevent replay attacks (many pose that this is intentional to allow the killing of the lesser chain in event of fork) these companies are taking the initiative to reduce their customers exposure and/or their own liability.

 Safest scenario is having your coin in cold storage and NOT moving them at the time of fork. Circle encouraging customers to dump is dubious though, for sure. Still, the overall message is to be prepared, not that the fork is imminent as many are lead to believe falsely.  

[notme]

blah blah blah more fork FUD bullshit blah blah

Thanks for id'ing yourself, my ignore list just keeps getting longer

Just keep pushing the ignore button.  Soon everyone will agree with you.

[JayJuanGee]

So Circle company is encouraging its users to change their bitcoins for dollars because bitcoin price is going to fall down. So Circle company is wishing to buy all those bitcoins whose price is going to fall down. So Circle company is wishing to lose money just because they are Philanthropists or something.

Also, Coinbase will freeze funds for a few days. Thing is this isn't really FUD given the situation. If anything it shows the ecosystem is maturing. Since BU has yet to implement the code needed to prevent replay attacks (many pose that this is intentional to allow the killing of the lesser chain in event of fork) these companies are taking the initiative to reduce their customers exposure and/or their own liability.

 Safest scenario is having your coin in cold storage and NOT moving them at the time of fork. Circle encouraging customers to dump is dubious though, for sure. Still, the overall message is to be prepared, not that the fork is imminent as many are lead to believe falsely.  

There is a considerable tone difference between the Coinbase announcement and the Circle announcement, and the Circle announcement surely seems to traverse into the unethical territory (even though it seems unlikely to be illegal in our current regulatory quasi wild wild west status of bitcoin).

[Wexlike]

I was surprised reading the Circle Email, I thought they disabled Bitcoin long time ago ?

[JimboToronto]

If I'm buying multiple coins, I'll use multiple wallets with never more than a single coin per wallet.

That sounds like a grind to me.

LOL In reality, "paper" consists mainly of multiple copies of encrypted scans of actual paper wallets on flash chips (mostly microSD) in multiple offsite stashes.

Being paranoid prudent, I scan and create paper wallets on a computer that's incapable of internet connection and printer that's never been connected to an internet-capable computer. Print spool buffers can be hacked.

Better safe than sorry.

[kurious]

blah blah blah more fork FUD bullshit blah blah

Thanks for id'ing yourself, my ignore list just keeps getting longer

Ok, bury your head in the sand and live in cloud cookoo land - listening to only those who you agree with.  Cool. I am not in any of the fork 'sides' in this.

I have been a permabull on BTC since 2012 - I was buying the shit out of sub $200 post Gox.  I just think we need to get real and stop blaming what is happening on dark forces / Illuminati / whatever and 'their' FUD.

And if you're in denial over a 30% crash 'it's just a $1 dollar difference' well, good luck.  I sold out over $1200 and I ain't buying back in just now, dude and I am glad.. Yep, for your slow myopic eyes:  G.L.A.D.

I might buy back in if this shit sorts itself out - but this is one hell of a self-inflicted clusterfuck right now, it is not a conspiracy.

Bitcoin. Did. This. To. Itself.

Live with it. Not in denial. Open your eyes.

[Holliday]

So even after the eventual HF, don't panic and just see how it goes for a period of time?

Still very confused how this will all work. Surely no one will use the coin from the chain which is worth less than the other right? As you can see I don't understand all this. I bought up btc and then paper wallets and thought I was fine to leave it all alone.

Wrong.

You are fine with your paper wallet as long as you have no interest in trading either of the two sides during a contentious hard fork.

We have a block chain. All the transactions from the beginning of Bitcoin are in that block chain. Control of private keys (stored on a paper wallet for example) gives you the ability to append the block chain and move bitcoins to another address.

If we have a contentious hard fork, there will be two simultaneously surviving copies of the block chain on "different" networks. Yet, the entire history from the beginning, right up until the fork, is exactly the same. So your private keys will be able to transfer bitcoins on both copies of the surviving block chains.

If nothing else is changed, when you sign a transaction with your private keys, that transaction is valid on both networks. So if you move your coins to a different address, your coins on chain A will go, and your coins on chain B will go. This is called a replay "attack". It's not really an attack, it's just how it works.

In order to disassociate your coins (send coins on one chain to address X and coins on the other chain to address Z) you have to find a way to "taint" coins on one chain so that the transaction is not valid on the other chain.

This can be done by combining coins from block rewards that occurred after the fork, because those block rewards only exist in one chain, with coins under your control. Once a coin is "tainted" it can "taint" other coins by combining them.

One can also leverage BU's larger block size to disassociate their coins.

First you broadcast a very low fee transaction sending your coins to another address you control. This low fee transaction will be included in BU's chain no problem (after all they are all about low fees and bigger blocks to fit every transaction).

It's unlikely this transaction will confirm on Core's chain, due to the smaller blocks and competition (aka spam). Once the transaction confirms on BU's chain, you then use a RBF transaction to send these coins to a different address (not the one used in the previous, low fee BU transaction) under your control, with a large fee.

Once this high fee transaction is confirmed on Core's chain (I would wait an extended amount of confirmations due to possible attacks during the day of the fork), your coins are effectively disassociated (they are on different addresses on different chains) and you can safely send BU coins or Core coins without worrying about a replay attack. You can also use these coins to "taint" other coins if you so desire.

If you aren't worried about disassociating your coins early on (for speculation reasons), you can ignore all of this and sit on your paper wallets and let the smoke clear. Both chains may survive and you may still have to disassociate down the road.

None of this applies if you aren't the sole controller of your private keys. You only have Bitcoin IOUs and are left to the whims of whoever owes you bitcoins. They may, or may not, give you your coins on both chains.

[conspirosphere.tk]

I might buy back in if this shit sorts itself out - but this is one hell of a self-inflicted clusterfuck right now, it is not a conspiracy.

Bitcoin. Did. This. To. Itself.

+1. Totally agree. And congratulations for picking the top.

BTC can crash as hard as it rise, and both fundamental (the horrible BU mess) and technical alignments (the 100-200 day SMA crossing for one) are now suggesting to exit.

Personally I liquidated just about 13% of my coins because I am a pathological hodler, but I'm quite sure of what is incoming.

[rjclarke2000]

So even after the eventual HF, don't panic and just see how it goes for a period of time?

Still very confused how this will all work. Surely no one will use the coin from the chain which is worth less than the other right? As you can see I don't understand all this. I bought up btc and then paper wallets and thought I was fine to leave it all alone.

Wrong.

You are fine with your paper wallet as long as you have no interest in trading either of the two sides during a contentious hard fork.

We have a block chain. All the transactions from the beginning of Bitcoin are in that block chain. Control of private keys (stored on a paper wallet for example) gives you the ability to append the block chain and move bitcoins to another address.

If we have a contentious hard fork, there will be two simultaneously surviving copies of the block chain on "different" networks. Yet, the entire history from the beginning, right up until the fork, is exactly the same. So your private keys will be able to transfer bitcoins on both copies of the surviving block chains.

If nothing else is changed, when you sign a transaction with your private keys, that transaction is valid on both networks. So if you move your coins to a different address, your coins on chain A will go, and your coins on chain B will go. This is called a replay "attack". It's not really an attack, it's just how it works.

In order to disassociate your coins (send coins on one chain to address X and coins on the other chain to address Z) you have to find a way to "taint" coins on one chain so that the transaction is not valid on the other chain.

This can be done by combining coins from block rewards that occurred after the fork, because those block rewards only exist in one chain, with coins under your control. Once a coin is "tainted" it can "taint" other coins by combining them.

One can also leverage BU's larger block size to disassociate their coins.

First you broadcast a very low fee transaction sending your coins to another address you control. This low fee transaction will be included in BU's chain no problem (after all they are all about low fees and bigger blocks to fit every transaction).

It's unlikely this transaction will confirm on Core's chain, due to the smaller blocks and competition (aka spam). Once the transaction confirms on BU's chain, you then use a RBF transaction to send these coins to a different address (not the one used in the previous, low fee BU transaction) under your control, with a large fee.

Once this high fee transaction is confirmed on Core's chain (I would wait an extended amount of confirmations due to possible attacks during the day of the fork), your coins are effectively disassociated (they are on different addresses on different chains) and you can safely send BU coins or Core coins without worrying about a replay attack. You can also use these coins to "taint" other coins if you so desire.

If you aren't worried about disassociating your coins early on (for speculation reasons), you can ignore all of this and sit on your paper wallets and let the smoke clear. Both chains may survive and you may still have to disassociate down the road.

None of this applies if you aren't the sole controller of your private keys. You only have Bitcoin IOUs and are left to the whims of whoever owes you bitcoins. They may, or may not, give you your coins on both chains.

Thank you for taking the time to write this.

[kurious]

I might buy back in if this shit sorts itself out - but this is one hell of a self-inflicted clusterfuck right now, it is not a conspiracy.

Bitcoin. Did. This. To. Itself.

+1. Totally agree. And congratulations for picking the top.

BTC can crash as hard as it rise, and both fundamental (the horrible BU mess) and technical alignments (the 100-200 day SMA crossing for one) are now suggesting to exit.

Personally I liquidated just about 13% of my coins because I am a pathological hodler, but I'm quite sure of what is incoming.

Thank you for reading and at least realising I am just a frustrated Bitcoin fan.  I still hodl a few - can't let go entirely.  But I did announce I thought the ETF was not likely and after it that I was selling my trading stash.

My heart is breaking at this stuff, it's not 'third parties' doing it, either - that is my beef- blaming the fucking 'Illuminati' is purile.  I want Bitcoin to be what Satoshi envisioned and the fake messiahs in this game are not getting it there.

This thread seems to be full of people who think it's all good. I can't help retching at the denial level.  I am not talking my book, I am just aghast at the level of debate here - it's not taking account of the reality of what is happening. IMHO.

I am not Core or BU, I am someone who wants Bitcoin to be be what I hoped it was going to be.  If I say so, I get replies scripted by Donald Trump's press officer.

I don't know what is going to happen.

And you know what? That is the problem.

[Holliday]

Thank you for reading and at least realising I am just a frustrated Bitcoin fan.  I still hodl a few - can't let go entirely.  But I did announce I thought the ETF was not likely and after it that I was selling my trading stash.

My heart is breaking at this stuff, it's not 'third parties' doing it, either - that is my beef- blaming the fucking 'Illuminati' is purile.  I want Bitcoin to be what Satoshi envisioned and the fake messiahs in this game are not getting it there.

This thread seems to be full of people who think it's all good. I can't help retching at the denial level.  I am not talking my book, I am just aghast at the level of debate here - it's not taking account of the reality of what is happening. IMHO.

I am not Core or BU, I am someone who wants Bitcoin to be be what I hoped it was going to be.  If I say so, I get replies scripted by Donald Trump's press officer.

I don't know what is going to happen.

And you know what? That is the problem.

Bitcoin, as awesome as most of us here think it is, is a disruptive technology. It flips old systems on their heads. Did you think the people who are attached to the old systems were just going to sit idly by and watch Bitcoin displace everything they've become accustomed to (and control)?

Bitcoin has never been drama free and as it moves forward I don't expect things to calm down in the slightest.

The reason that the debate is often heated, is because many of us see Bitcoin as a tool to obtain and maintain freedom (at least as far as our money is concerned), and we are willing to fight for that when we feel it's under attack. It's difficult for someone standing on the sidelines with merely a casual interest to see through all the bullshit to what really matters.

It's certainly not "all good" but as long as there are people willing to solve the problems, there is a path forward. I think a lot of the drama has the very specific goal of simply separating people from the bitcoins. Clearly, it works.

[Ted E. Bare]

Isn't a fork very unlikely? The ones in control of such fork should've figured out the uncertainty and bad press involved with such an event. In the end we all want bitcoin to succeed. I call price manipulation at its finest. When the whales have bought back in, the scaling debate will pass.

[JayJuanGee]

Isn't a fork very unlikely? The ones in control of such fork should've figured out the uncertainty and bad press involved with such an event. In the end we all want bitcoin to succeed. I call price manipulation at its finest. When the whales have bought back in, the scaling debate will pass.

I think that is part of the point.  Some of "we" want bitcoin to succeed, but there is another "we" out there.

Now, if you are trying to suggest that everyone in the BU camp have benevolent reasons for why they are pushing the hardfork agenda, then you seem to be giving them too much of a benefit of the doubt.  I would agree with an assertion that some or maybe even most BU bitcoiners are not striving to get bitcoin to fail, but that number is far from all.

[European Central Bank]

Isn't a fork very unlikely? The ones in control of such fork should've figured out the uncertainty and bad press involved with such an event. In the end we all want bitcoin to succeed. I call price manipulation at its finest. When the whales have bought back in, the scaling debate will pass.

a fork's getting unlikelier by the day as more people come out against it. i think the dude's beef is the ongoing stalemate, arguing and how it was all allowed to get this way when it could've been averted a long time before.