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

[Rampion]

TL;DR: Risto sign a message such as "this coins belong to Risto Pietila" with an address holding 10k BTC or gtfo and stfu.

[1715135758]

1715135758

[1715135758]

1715135758

[Vycid]

china will go thru 5500 soon, they already punctured it and now they are oversold

Having seen my magic, perhaps you can now publicly acknowledge that I have 10,000 bitcoins, apologize, stfu and gtfo. OK?  

If you want to prove that just sign a message with an address holding 10k and put that signed message in your signature - no need for nobody to "acknowledge", that would be a hard cold proof.

That's pure non spoofable crypto, heart and soul of Bitcoin.

That's not hard cold proof. It's susceptible to Man in the Middle attack.

Care to elaborate that? How could rpietila perform "a man in the middle attack" and make bitcointalk.org users to believe he signed a message with an address holding 10k BTC if he is not in control of an address with such an amount?

Because there is nothing linking the Bitcoin address to his forum account. Hypothetically speaking, he could just ask a friend who has access to 10K BTC to sign a message and just post it. The difference is there is the possibility he can get 10K BTC account to sign a message, but he may not necessary control it.

But that's no man in the middle attack, in that case Risto would just be "borrowing" the coins for a specific purpose - signing the message, which is a proof he can have access (at least for that very purpose of signing the message) to 10k coins.

In any case, only a retard would accept to use 10k of his own coins to sign a message like "this coins belong to Risto Pietila", in practical terms Risto's "friend" would be handing to Risto the control of those bitcoins. That's like signing a contract, explain to a judge that "it was just a favor".

No.

The owner of those coins could sign the message for him. Risto would never need to control them. Virtualfaqs is right.

Meatspace equivalent: I can sign a contract in which I transfer to you the ownership of my house, but without ever handing to you the keys.

Finally:

If I have to prove on a forum that I own a $10M mansion, how about uploading a valid and verifiable contract of ownership of such mansion in my name? Wouldn't you consider that a proof of ownership?

Justin Bieber could be my friend and he could have signed the contract as a favour, without ever handing to me the keys. But that's beyond retarded and plainly ridiculous. As retarded, ridiculous and unlikely as expecting someone to cryptographically sign a message such as "This 10k BTC belong to Risto Pietila" with an address holding 10k BTC that do NOT belong to Risto.

Probably you do not fully understand the strong implications of such a message - any cryptographically signed message is potentially binding, and that's why the QT client warns you about signing only messages to which content you fully agree. If Risto has such "friends" that sign those messages for him I congratulate and envy him.

Uh, no, that's not the meatspace equivalent. There's no practical significance to signing someone else's message with your address. The person with the private key maintains full and absolute control. Said owner could simply transfer those coins after a suitable amount of time passed to satisfy everyone.

The meatspace equivalent is telling Risto's buddies that he owns your house.

[DaSheep]

well well rpietila obviously posted alot of bullshit lately but I wasn't sure if he's just a troll or if he actually believes that stuff.

so thanks rpietila for confirming you're full of shit and welcome to ignore.

[stompix]

...I also have friends with many BTC and they know that it is going down....

I'm just curious why those friends hold many BTC if they know that it's going down

its really not that hard to believe someone would hold on to his bitcoin even tho he knows it might go down.

I'm doing it!

and i really do have 10K looking to buy cheap coins, IF i'm lucky enough. ( please no one tell my wife )

Well yeah everyone here knows with a 100% certainty that it will go down at some point in time. But i read that as rpietila implying that they're bears, and expect it to crash below $500, but yet for unknown reason still horde many BTC

Bill gates didn't get rich by selling his own stock, he was the biggest holder of MS.

and now one knows a damn thing about were the price is going...

look at the poll poeple believe, and they should, bitcoin lives up to the hype.

This sums up the whole thread , right ?

[Walsoraj]

Relevant: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-12-13/penny-stock-traders-diary-our-brains-are-hard-wired-get-us-investing-trouble

[Harley997]

rpietila is good peoples!

[jojo69]

hey guys

what's up lately?

been a week no interwebs

[Harley997]

it's going to the moon, that's what

maybe

 

[Walsoraj]

it's going to the moon, that's what Hell, sell NOW!

maybe for Sure!

 

 

[Rampion]

china will go thru 5500 soon, they already punctured it and now they are oversold

Having seen my magic, perhaps you can now publicly acknowledge that I have 10,000 bitcoins, apologize, stfu and gtfo. OK?  

If you want to prove that just sign a message with an address holding 10k and put that signed message in your signature - no need for nobody to "acknowledge", that would be a hard cold proof.

That's pure non spoofable crypto, heart and soul of Bitcoin.

That's not hard cold proof. It's susceptible to Man in the Middle attack.

Care to elaborate that? How could rpietila perform "a man in the middle attack" and make bitcointalk.org users to believe he signed a message with an address holding 10k BTC if he is not in control of an address with such an amount?

Because there is nothing linking the Bitcoin address to his forum account. Hypothetically speaking, he could just ask a friend who has access to 10K BTC to sign a message and just post it. The difference is there is the possibility he can get 10K BTC account to sign a message, but he may not necessary control it.

But that's no man in the middle attack, in that case Risto would just be "borrowing" the coins for a specific purpose - signing the message, which is a proof he can have access (at least for that very purpose of signing the message) to 10k coins.

In any case, only a retard would accept to use 10k of his own coins to sign a message like "this coins belong to Risto Pietila", in practical terms Risto's "friend" would be handing to Risto the control of those bitcoins. That's like signing a contract, explain to a judge that "it was just a favor".

No.

The owner of those coins could sign the message for him. Risto would never need to control them. Virtualfaqs is right.

Meatspace equivalent: I can sign a contract in which I transfer to you the ownership of my house, but without ever handing to you the keys.

Finally:

If I have to prove on a forum that I own a $10M mansion, how about uploading a valid and verifiable contract of ownership of such mansion in my name? Wouldn't you consider that a proof of ownership?

Justin Bieber could be my friend and he could have signed the contract as a favour, without ever handing to me the keys. But that's beyond retarded and plainly ridiculous. As retarded, ridiculous and unlikely as expecting someone to cryptographically sign a message such as "This 10k BTC belong to Risto Pietila" with an address holding 10k BTC that do NOT belong to Risto.

Probably you do not fully understand the strong implications of such a message - any cryptographically signed message is potentially binding, and that's why the QT client warns you about signing only messages to which content you fully agree. If Risto has such "friends" that sign those messages for him I congratulate and envy him.

Uh, no, that's not the meatspace equivalent. There's no practical significance to signing someone else's message with your address. The person with the private key maintains full and absolute control. Said owner could simply transfer those coins after a suitable amount of time passed to satisfy everyone.

The meatspace equivalent is telling Risto's buddies that he owns your house.

We will have to agree to disagree: i) For you cryptographically signed messages have no significance, ii) for me they have a very strong significance.

You do not "own" the coins; the private keys "own" the coins. Using the private key of an addy holding 10k BTC of your coins to sign a message stating than the owner is an individual other than you has a very strong significance for me and I wouldn't do it. As a start, I would be worried about that individual claiming in the future that that priv keys were stolen from him. Sure no judge would understand nothing about this (yet), so you might be right about the lack of "practical" significances as there are no legal precedents on that sense - but I bet there will be a lot of practical significances in the futures. I believe we will see a lot of smart properties/contracts implemented on the blockchain and a lot of legally binding agreements based on message-signing with addresses privkeys.

In any case: I don't think rpietila has 10k BTC nor the access to someone with 10k BTC willing to sign on his behalf the following message: "these 10k BTC belong to Risto Pietila"

[jojo69]

ooooooh Goat bought a lambo   

[windjc]

china will go thru 5500 soon, they already punctured it and now they are oversold

Having seen my magic, perhaps you can now publicly acknowledge that I have 10,000 bitcoins, apologize, stfu and gtfo. OK?  

If you want to prove that just sign a message with an address holding 10k and put that signed message in your signature - no need for nobody to "acknowledge", that would be a hard cold proof.

That's pure non spoofable crypto, heart and soul of Bitcoin.

That's not hard cold proof. It's susceptible to Man in the Middle attack.

Care to elaborate that? How could rpietila perform "a man in the middle attack" and make bitcointalk.org users to believe he signed a message with an address holding 10k BTC if he is not in control of an address with such an amount?

Because there is nothing linking the Bitcoin address to his forum account. Hypothetically speaking, he could just ask a friend who has access to 10K BTC to sign a message and just post it. The difference is there is the possibility he can get 10K BTC account to sign a message, but he may not necessary control it.

But that's no man in the middle attack, in that case Risto would just be "borrowing" the coins for a specific purpose - signing the message, which is a proof he can have access (at least for that very purpose of signing the message) to 10k coins.

In any case, only a retard would accept to use 10k of his own coins to sign a message like "this coins belong to Risto Pietila", in practical terms Risto's "friend" would be handing to Risto the control of those bitcoins. That's like signing a contract, explain to a judge that "it was just a favor".

No.

The owner of those coins could sign the message for him. Risto would never need to control them. Virtualfaqs is right.

Meatspace equivalent: I can sign a contract in which I transfer to you the ownership of my house, but without ever handing to you the keys.

Finally:

If I have to prove on a forum that I own a $10M mansion, how about uploading a valid and verifiable contract of ownership of such mansion in my name? Wouldn't you consider that a proof of ownership?

Justin Bieber could be my friend and he could have signed the contract as a favour, without ever handing to me the keys. But that's beyond retarded and plainly ridiculous. As retarded, ridiculous and unlikely as expecting someone to cryptographically sign a message such as "This 10k BTC belong to Risto Pietila" with an address holding 10k BTC that do NOT belong to Risto.

Probably you do not fully understand the strong implications of such a message - any cryptographically signed message is potentially binding, and that's why the QT client warns you about signing only messages to which content you fully agree. If Risto has such "friends" that sign those messages for him I congratulate and envy him.

Uh, no, that's not the meatspace equivalent. There's no practical significance to signing someone else's message with your address. The person with the private key maintains full and absolute control. Said owner could simply transfer those coins after a suitable amount of time passed to satisfy everyone.

The meatspace equivalent is telling Risto's buddies that he owns your house.

We will have to agree to disagree: i) For you cryptographically signed messages have no significance, ii) for me they have a very strong significance.

You do not "own" the coins; the private keys "own" the coins. Using the private key of an addy holding 10k BTC of your coins to sign a message stating than the owner is an individual other than you has a very strong significance for me and I wouldn't do it. As a start, I would be worried about that individual claiming in the future that that priv keys were stolen from him. Sure no judge would understand nothing about this (yet), so you might be right about the lack of "practical" significances as there are no legal precedents on that sense - but I bet there will be a lot of practical significances in the futures. I believe we will see a lot of smart properties/contracts implemented on the blockchain and a lot of legally binding agreements based on message-signing with addresses privkeys.

In any case: I don't think rpietila has 10k BTC nor the access to someone with 10k BTC willing to sign on his behalf the following message: "these 10k BTC belong to Risto Pietila"

Lol. This is the stupidest fucking thread derail in the history of bitcointalk.

[Harley997]

yo rpietila

hook me up with 13 bitcoins please

1J6zCeK6XjYCUcE349QQXGNSmWoEc3S946

 

[Rampion]

Lol. This is the stupidest fucking thread derail in the history of bitcointalk.

Welcome to the Wall Observer.

This thread has always been a mix of:

i) infinite trolling
ii) a lot of off-topic ramblings
iii) some deep philosophical discussion
iv) very little TA

Plus, is kinda on-topic: Rpietila says in this thread (and all over the forum) he has 10k BTC and, specifically, that he uses them to manipulate the market.

We could just use less ego-filled chatter and more crypto proof.

[Harley997]

indeed no such thing as a derail in wall observer thread

[Voodah]

Indeed, this whole discussion and peer bullying is stupid. Enough with the Rpietila bashing.

Let the guy speak his mind, the same as we all do. I know lots of people don't like the way he expresses himself or agree with his analysis, but be honest now..

I'd much rather read any of rpietila's post (I always find them interesting and thought-provoking, even when I disagree with what he's saying or how) than most of the sub-par content I'm used to finding both here and  in other places like Reddit.

Let's bask in how different we all are and how rich that makes us. No need to alienate people, specially active people who contribute original content on a regular basis.

[Walsoraj]

Well, I for one believe rpietila, because, I too have 10k (minimum) bitcoins.

 

[Vycid]

china will go thru 5500 soon, they already punctured it and now they are oversold

Having seen my magic, perhaps you can now publicly acknowledge that I have 10,000 bitcoins, apologize, stfu and gtfo. OK?  

If you want to prove that just sign a message with an address holding 10k and put that signed message in your signature - no need for nobody to "acknowledge", that would be a hard cold proof.

That's pure non spoofable crypto, heart and soul of Bitcoin.

That's not hard cold proof. It's susceptible to Man in the Middle attack.

Care to elaborate that? How could rpietila perform "a man in the middle attack" and make bitcointalk.org users to believe he signed a message with an address holding 10k BTC if he is not in control of an address with such an amount?

Because there is nothing linking the Bitcoin address to his forum account. Hypothetically speaking, he could just ask a friend who has access to 10K BTC to sign a message and just post it. The difference is there is the possibility he can get 10K BTC account to sign a message, but he may not necessary control it.

But that's no man in the middle attack, in that case Risto would just be "borrowing" the coins for a specific purpose - signing the message, which is a proof he can have access (at least for that very purpose of signing the message) to 10k coins.

In any case, only a retard would accept to use 10k of his own coins to sign a message like "this coins belong to Risto Pietila", in practical terms Risto's "friend" would be handing to Risto the control of those bitcoins. That's like signing a contract, explain to a judge that "it was just a favor".

No.

The owner of those coins could sign the message for him. Risto would never need to control them. Virtualfaqs is right.

Meatspace equivalent: I can sign a contract in which I transfer to you the ownership of my house, but without ever handing to you the keys.

Finally:

If I have to prove on a forum that I own a $10M mansion, how about uploading a valid and verifiable contract of ownership of such mansion in my name? Wouldn't you consider that a proof of ownership?

Justin Bieber could be my friend and he could have signed the contract as a favour, without ever handing to me the keys. But that's beyond retarded and plainly ridiculous. As retarded, ridiculous and unlikely as expecting someone to cryptographically sign a message such as "This 10k BTC belong to Risto Pietila" with an address holding 10k BTC that do NOT belong to Risto.

Probably you do not fully understand the strong implications of such a message - any cryptographically signed message is potentially binding, and that's why the QT client warns you about signing only messages to which content you fully agree. If Risto has such "friends" that sign those messages for him I congratulate and envy him.

Uh, no, that's not the meatspace equivalent. There's no practical significance to signing someone else's message with your address. The person with the private key maintains full and absolute control. Said owner could simply transfer those coins after a suitable amount of time passed to satisfy everyone.

The meatspace equivalent is telling Risto's buddies that he owns your house.

We will have to agree to disagree: i) For you cryptographically signed messages have no significance, ii) for me they have a very strong significance.

You do not "own" the coins; the private keys "own" the coins. Using the private key of an addy holding 10k BTC of your coins to sign a message stating than the owner is an individual other than you has a very strong significance for me and I wouldn't do it. As a start, I would be worried about that individual claiming in the future that that priv keys were stolen from him. Sure no judge would understand nothing about this (yet), so you might be right about the lack of "practical" significances as there are no legal precedents on that sense - but I bet there will be a lot of practical significances in the futures. I believe we will see a lot of smart properties/contracts implemented on the blockchain and a lot of legally binding agreements based on message-signing with addresses privkeys.

In any case: I don't think rpietila has 10k BTC nor the access to someone with 10k BTC willing to sign on his behalf the following message: "these 10k BTC belong to Risto Pietila"

I can understand how you would come to that conclusion if you are of the opinion that the signed message is of great significance, and from a theoretical standpoint it's not unreasonable to think so.

My thinking is that you can currently make no practical legal claim based on a signed message for the reasons described, and therefore it does not represent any kind of transfer of ownership.

In any event, I would be willing to sign such a message for a relatively nominal fee, since I'd just transfer the coins afterward. I'm sure I'm not the only one that would, either, even if you wouldn't.

So I wouldn't accept it as evidence if Risto DID sign such a message, although it would go a long way toward making me believe he does control so many coins.

[Rampion]

Indeed, this whole discussion and peer bullying is stupid. Enough with the Rpietila bashing.

Let the guy speak his mind, the same as we all do. I know lots of people don't like the way he expresses himself or agree with his analysis, but be honest now..

I'd much rather read any of rpietila's post (I always find them interesting and thought-provoking, even when I disagree with what he's saying or how) than most of the sub-par content I'm used to finding both here and  in other places like Reddit.

Let's bask in how different we all are and how rich that makes us. No need to alienate people, specially active people who contribute original content on a regular basis.

Some of his threads are interesting and his "general" advices are sound (like the SSS thread).

All his price calls are wrong and he is a contrarian indicator.

All his tales about successful trading, manipulation, etc. are proven bullshit. He makes most of that up.

Finally, his business model is to create the character of a super-wealthy super-successful trader so he can attract the attention of newcomers and then sell them BTC with a markup. It's pretty obvious and he has even admitted it in some sanity moments he has had.

[virtualfaqs]

china will go thru 5500 soon, they already punctured it and now they are oversold

Having seen my magic, perhaps you can now publicly acknowledge that I have 10,000 bitcoins, apologize, stfu and gtfo. OK?  

If you want to prove that just sign a message with an address holding 10k and put that signed message in your signature - no need for nobody to "acknowledge", that would be a hard cold proof.

That's pure non spoofable crypto, heart and soul of Bitcoin.

That's not hard cold proof. It's susceptible to Man in the Middle attack.

Care to elaborate that? How could rpietila perform "a man in the middle attack" and make bitcointalk.org users to believe he signed a message with an address holding 10k BTC if he is not in control of an address with such an amount?

Because there is nothing linking the Bitcoin address to his forum account. Hypothetically speaking, he could just ask a friend who has access to 10K BTC to sign a message and just post it. The difference is there is the possibility he can get 10K BTC account to sign a message, but he may not necessary control it.

But that's no man in the middle attack, in that case Risto would just be "borrowing" the coins for a specific purpose - signing the message, which is a proof he can have access (at least for that very purpose of signing the message) to 10k coins.

In any case, only a retard would accept to use 10k of his own coins to sign a message like "this coins belong to Risto Pietila", in practical terms Risto's "friend" would be handing to Risto the control of those bitcoins. That's like signing a contract, explain to a judge that "it was just a favor".

No.

The owner of those coins could sign the message for him. Risto would never need to control them. Virtualfaqs is right.

Meatspace equivalent: I can sign a contract in which I transfer to you the ownership of my house, but without ever handing to you the keys.

Finally:

If I have to prove on a forum that I own a $10M mansion, how about uploading a valid and verifiable contract of ownership of such mansion in my name? Wouldn't you consider that a proof of ownership?

Justin Bieber could be my friend and he could have signed the contract as a favour, without ever handing to me the keys. But that's beyond retarded and plainly ridiculous. As retarded, ridiculous and unlikely as expecting someone to cryptographically sign a message such as "This 10k BTC belong to Risto Pietila" with an address holding 10k BTC that do NOT belong to Risto.

Probably you do not fully understand the strong implications of such a message - any cryptographically signed message is potentially binding, and that's why the QT client warns you about signing only messages to which content you fully agree. If Risto has such "friends" that sign those messages for him I congratulate and envy him.

Uh, no, that's not the meatspace equivalent. There's no practical significance to signing someone else's message with your address. The person with the private key maintains full and absolute control. Said owner could simply transfer those coins after a suitable amount of time passed to satisfy everyone.

The meatspace equivalent is telling Risto's buddies that he owns your house.

We will have to agree to disagree: i) For you cryptographically signed messages have no significance, ii) for me they have a very strong significance.

You do not "own" the coins; the private keys "own" the coins. Using the private key of an addy holding 10k BTC of your coins to sign a message stating than the owner is an individual other than you has a very strong significance for me and I wouldn't do it. As a start, I would be worried about that individual claiming in the future that that priv keys were stolen from him. Sure no judge would understand nothing about this (yet), so you might be right about the lack of "practical" significances as there are no legal precedents on that sense - but I bet there will be a lot of practical significances in the futures. I believe we will see a lot of smart properties/contracts implemented on the blockchain and a lot of legally binding agreements based on message-signing with addresses privkeys.

In any case: I don't think rpietila has 10k BTC nor the access to someone with 10k BTC willing to sign on his behalf the following message: "these 10k BTC belong to Risto Pietila"

Yes, it will be interesting to see how a court case deals with verified sigs. But they'd also have to link verified sigs to a person's identity. That may not be so easy either as multiple people could have access, hacks, and other reasons.

I'd change it this:  "these 10k BTC belong to Risto Pietila aka bitcointalk.org username: rpietila" This is so people like me know there's a probable link to his forum account.