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

[Spaceman_Spiff_Original]

Me too - but there are plenty of people here from 'murica that seem not to have noticed.  Maybe they're all for freedom being sold off, I guess enough of 'em voted for....

Ok, never mind.  I will keep quiet and just be (very quietly) flabbergasted.

You are not the only one.

I was beginning to wonder....  Net neutrality is 'meh'?!!!

Very sad development.

[jojo69]

Me too - but there are plenty of people here from 'murica that seem not to have noticed.  Maybe they're all for freedom being sold off, I guess enough of 'em voted for....

Ok, never mind.  I will keep quiet and just be (very quietly) flabbergasted.

You are not the only one.

I was beginning to wonder....  Net neutrality is 'meh'?!!!

Very sad development.

Former Verizon lawyer and current FCC chairman Ajit Pai openly mocking Net Neutrality proponents concerns.

https://youtu.be/79nQqqbrXxg

Dude has the most punchable face I have seen in a long time.

[Arriemoller]

From Kraken's announcement:

Remember that if you are publicly advertising your involvement with cryptocurrencies, you are making yourself a target.

Be extra careful guys! We don't want a $5 wrench unlocking our wallets!

I'm just sitting here waiting to be kidnapped by thugs. It's bound to happen.

Here's a nice Swedish company that will make you feel safe in your home. They will definitely be building my next home.
http://www.sakrahus.com/Default.aspx?smlang=ENG

[realr0ach]

Soooooo

If bitcoin is a govt created scam:  net neutrality change has no effect

If bitcoin is not a govt created scam:  incoming block of non-obfuscated bitcoin traffic?

[Arriemoller]

"Be ready to lose all your money"
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-42360553

Oh no...  

They are still in the "then they fight you" phase.
So we haven't won allready.

Bullish!

Seems like nothing more than sensible advice to me. The guy's telling people they're on their own and he don't get it. And Bitcoin developers themselves warn people they could lose all their money too.

I know. This is all a gamble. Could go well if bitcoin scales to the demand, could go wrong.
I'm just chiming in on the hype.
Personally I think we're at the beginning of the mania phase. By now either my mom nor my grandma nor my brothers want to buy bitcoin. So there's room to grow. If my grandma asks me if she should invest, thats a clear no from me.
If we have a slower but constant rise over the next months, this assesment could change.

I don't think it is much a question of investing vs no investing. It could well be a yes to investing for everyone... depending on HOW MUCH.

I don't see any problem in everyone "investing" any quantity they would otherwise just SPEND/WASTE in a casino or other useless lucky game.

Same as I don't see any problem in any multimillionaire investing a few percentage of its net worth into it, even if he doesn't know what he's doing.

Normies investing their whole savings? That's a solid NO.

Luckily I'm not a normie and never invested. I just got my coins. Good old times when Bitcoin just lay about everywhere. Only problem: explain that to your tax office.

I think they get more in capital gains tax from us than they would have gotten in income tax.

[Torque]

Very sad development.

Former Verizon lawyer and current FCC chairman Ajit Pai openly mocking Net Neutrality proponents concerns.

https://youtu.be/79nQqqbrXxg

Dude has the most punchable face I have seen in a long time.

Yes he does. It's not over yet though, it will likely head to court.

Also for the record, there are plenty of Americans on all sides (conservatives, liberals, and libertarians) that are really pissed about repeal of net neutrality.  It's a slippery slope that will only lead to unfair practices.

[OWZ1337]

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/609408/quantum-computers-pose-imminent-threat-to-bitcoin-security/

 

BTCBTC#quantumattack

[HairyMaclairy]

I have to say, there is a disturbing lack of FUD as we head into the weekend.   Have all the trolls been put in troll boxes?

[realr0ach]

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/609408/quantum-computers-pose-imminent-threat-to-bitcoin-security/

 

BTCBTC#quantumattack

There probably won't even be a bitcoin or US dollar 10 years from now in the first place.  Both the energy industry and the financial scam complex are collapsing, and that's the reason they can't extend and pretend this time in the financial sector, solely due to the energy sector peaking and now declining which implodes all the ponzies that need infinite growth to survive.  It's not a very popular opinion for people to hear, but humans go through cyclical dark ages, which is not a surprising result when taking into account increases in complexity have diminishing returns, as well as diminishing returns and backfire of trying to perform top-down centralization management at scale, and the act of trying to apply infinite growth to a closed ecosystem.

The dark ages is just a correction to remove inefficient systems, systems that failed due to over-centralization, systems whose output is much less than the input due to being overly complex and thus a waste of energy, and so forth.  Contrary to the majority of bitcoin pump and dump shills, bitcoin does absolutely nothing to solve centralization problems; it's designed to centralize.

[luckygenough56]

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/609408/quantum-computers-pose-imminent-threat-to-bitcoin-security/

 

BTCBTC#quantumattack

let's buy iota then

[realr0ach]

let's buy iota then

IOTA is worthless.  A DAG is completely counterintuitive to trying to create consensus on some type of variable or balance sheet.  To use a DAG, you're required to create an artificial, forced consensus (and that's exactly what they're doing).  It's like IOTA and Byteball were created while ignoring any of the issues that had to be researched while trying to create bitcoin (bitcoin - another system that does not work since it's designed to centralize, but at least succeeds in creating centralized consensus).  In the case of Byteball, they just use an obfuscated form of bitshares DPOS, thus invalidating any reason to have a DAG at all since the DPOS system completely negates DAG due to the DPOS layer taking precedent in the hierarchy.  

Systems that have removed the so called "triple entry accounting" aka blockchain, are also way more prone to being instantly destroyed by black swans.  But in the case of bitcoin, it's not even real triple entry accounting if it's designed to centralize, now is it?  It's like claiming the act of Bank of America giving customers a weekly balance sheet print out is a triple entry accounting breakthrough.  It doesn't matter if people have access to store read only digits for no reason, it only matters who controls the fucking digits!  If the block validators (aka miners) are designed to centralize, they can insert chain anchor, censor or block transactions, increase or lower coin count, or mutate the protocol any way they want.  

A 51% attack is NOT a so called miner raising the coin cap above 21 million or double spending only, a 51% attack is any type of collusion to change the protocol in any way because one man's wanted change is always going to be another man's nightmare.  If mining is just a power vacuum that is always exploited by centralized cartels, then you have no redundancy, you just have authoritarianism and no reason for bitcoin to exist.

[HairyMaclairy]

Instructions for inheritance planning for crypto: 

https://medium.com/@pamelawjd/inheritance-planning-for-cryptocurrencies-3-steps-in-3-minutes-83ebb3e916a2

[conspirosphere.tk]

I have to say, there is a disturbing lack of FUD as we head into the weekend.   Have all the trolls been put in troll boxes?

Here's your daily dose of FUD:

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-eu-moneylaundering/eu-agrees-clampdown-on-bitcoin-platforms-to-tackle-money-laundering-idUSKBN1E928M

https://www.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/7k09re/massive_bitcoin_raids_and_arrests_in_india/

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/bitcoin-buyer-investment-risks-lose-money-value-drop-bubble-crytocurrency-a8112396.html

[jojo69]

I have to say, there is a disturbing lack of FUD as we head into the weekend.   Have all the trolls been put in troll boxes?

Here's your daily dose of FUD:

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-eu-moneylaundering/eu-agrees-clampdown-on-bitcoin-platforms-to-tackle-money-laundering-idUSKBN1E928M

https://www.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/7k09re/massive_bitcoin_raids_and_arrests_in_india/

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/bitcoin-buyer-investment-risks-lose-money-value-drop-bubble-crytocurrency-a8112396.html

Perfect.

$18K incoming

[fabiorem]

I love this tether printing. 

Please, $20k.

[HairyMaclairy]

That’s one sexy wall at $19k at Bitstamp. 

[jbreher]

Net neutrality sold off to the corporations..?

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/dec/14/net-neutrality-fcc-rules-open-internet?

the business model of the new millennia

payment models that rely on the stupidity of the masses

I am just surprised that here of all places, no one seems to be concerned about the possibility of corporations effectively restricting what is and isn't 'allowed' on the net if they control it.

Some of us are filthy foreigners and don’t live in the United Swamps of America.

Me too - but there are plenty of people here from 'murica that seem not to have noticed.  Maybe they're all for freedom being sold off, I guess enough of 'em voted for....

Ok, never mind.  I will keep quiet and just be (very quietly) flabbergasted.

Might as well keep quiet, as you have no stake in this.

Actually, for all the sturm und drang, the 'Net Neutrality' issue is a poorly misunderstood misnomer. There are good arguments for and against. Upon hearing the name of 'Net Neutrality', the kneejerk reaction is 'why would anyone be against that?' However, there are several good arguments against:
- NN consolidates government control over something that has been working fine with free capitalist competition
- NN is barely two years old - the bulk of the innovation of the Internet was achieved without its oversight
- Recently, video streaming has been the bulk of internet bandwidth consumption - perhaps that should pay per its usage
- It may indeed make sense to pay per consumption, rather than max bandwidth capability
- etc.

All I'm trying to convey is that the issue is more nuanced than is being popularly represented.

[gentlemand]

Of course it'll effect foreigners too. Services they use or might use in future could be strangled by this or never get off the ground at all. American companies dominate the internet.

[Ibian]

Net neutrality sold off to the corporations..?

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/dec/14/net-neutrality-fcc-rules-open-internet?

the business model of the new millennia

payment models that rely on the stupidity of the masses

I am just surprised that here of all places, no one seems to be concerned about the possibility of corporations effectively restricting what is and isn't 'allowed' on the net if they control it.

Some of us are filthy foreigners and don’t live in the United Swamps of America.

Me too - but there are plenty of people here from 'murica that seem not to have noticed.  Maybe they're all for freedom being sold off, I guess enough of 'em voted for....

Ok, never mind.  I will keep quiet and just be (very quietly) flabbergasted.

Might as well keep quiet, as you have no stake in this.

Actually, for all the sturm und drang, the 'Net Neutrality' issue is a poorly misunderstood misnomer. There are good arguments for and against. Upon hearing the name of 'Net Neutrality', the kneejerk reaction is 'why would anyone be against that?' However, there are several good arguments against:
- NN consolidates government control over something that has been working fine with free capitalist competition
- NN is barely two years old - the bulk of the innovation of the Internet was achieved without its oversight
- Recently, video streaming has been the bulk of internet bandwidth consumption - perhaps that should pay per its usage
- It may indeed make sense to pay per consumption, rather than max bandwidth capability
- etc.

All I'm trying to convey is that the issue is more nuanced than is being popularly represented.

1. Find the option that leads to the least government control.
2. Done.

That's it, that's all there is to say on the matter.

[rjclarke2000]

That’s one sexy wall at $19k at Bitstamp. 

Please do not stay “on topic”