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

[Last of the V8s]

If the Dow continues crashing like it did today after the holiday, we're going to need Hairy's patented Liquid Koala Asset Sidechain much sooner than anyone could have predicted.

[1715152858]

1715152858

[1715152858]

1715152858

[1715152858]

1715152858

[1715152858]

1715152858

[JayJuanGee]

Segwit signatures are still on chain they are just in a different spot.  Segwit moves the signature out of the input script and stores it in another part of the transaction on chain.

Speculating about future hard forks that might compromise Bitcoin security is pointless because any hard fork could compromise security in any number of ways.  And be rejected.  That’s what full nodes are for.  

Where is the concern trolling over a fork where only segregated signatures are valid and all signatures included with the transaction details invalid? That is technically theoretically possible too you know. It couldn't go all the way back to inception obviously but the fork author could contrive a random deadline date. JUSTSAYIN

If I am understanding correctly, doesn't that proposed forced change sound like a hard fork of sorts, or a change in practice that would cause legacy addresses to become invalid? 

I thought that there was some preference for backwards compatibility, and that is why segwit was adopted and implemented as a soft fork rather than a hard fork, and under such a proposed system that changes signatures force legacy addresses to convert to segwit addresses?

[JayJuanGee]

i spent coins early on whenever i had the chance just to support the ecosystem and support vendors who accepted btc. at todays prices i dont even want to think about the value of the coins i more or less blew just to support the ecosystem, but i dont regret it a bit. after all its we who are proving the value of btc. we need to prove it "just works." to me that btc was well spent.

Regarding your substantive point, cited above, I have pretty much maintained a system in which I replace any bitcoins that I spend, and even though I don't go out of my way to spend bitcoins, if I find an opportunity to spend them that does not seem to be too much of a burden, then will soon thereafter replace any spent bitcoins.  I was a lot more adamant and nervous to replace them right away in the early 2014 to the early-to-mid 2016 time period when I was engaging in a lot more BTC accumulation (largely establishing my BTC postion - at least up to late 2014 and a kind of maintenance of BTC holdings thereafter). 

These days a remain a lot less nervous about immediately replacing any BTC that I might spend, but I still attempt to reasonably plug the dollar amounts of any spent coins into my authorized buy back amounts.  So for example, let's say that I go out and I see a 5% discount on a $1,000 product, if I buy with bitcoins (only way to get the discount is with bitcoins).  I would be like "wow", that seems like a decent enough incentive for me to spend some bitcoins.  Therefore, I spend $1,000 in bitcoins to buy the product, with a $6,300 exchange rate. (actually, 5% means that the seller is giving me the equivalent of $315 extra for my BTC ($6,300 x .05), which is $6,615. 

In the 2014-2016 period, I would nearly immediately lock in the 5% profits by buying back BTC immediately around $6,300.  These days, I might let the profits ride a little bit.  Therefore with the $1,000, for example, I might set buy-back orders at $100 increments, or some other reasonable ladder down the chain.. So maybe I conclude that $6700 is about as low as is reasonable in our current BTC trading range so I would set about 6 buy orders of a bit larger than $1,000 ($1,000/6 = $167)... maybe around $200 for each buy back order at $6,200, $6,100, $6,000, $5,900, $5,800 and $5,700) .. so if all of the orders fill, I end up buying back around $1,200 worth of BTC for the $1,000 that I spent.  One other tip is that I would not set my buy back orders exactly at the round numbers of the $100 increments, but instead set the orders a bit above the $100 increments in order to increase the likelihood that they will fill and not reverse just prior to filling at the round numbers where everyone (including BIG whales) tend to quickly set their attempts at BTC price manipulation orders.

i had been a btc miner (around 2011-2013 or so when gpus could do it), not a buyer, of btc, although now i occasionally also buy some. so it was more or less like continuous dollar cost averaging buying. so the coins i mined back in the day (which is the bulk of my current stack) i never replenished as i spent them back then. i mined new ones anyway so i was spending profit, and just wanted to test and use the new ecosystem.

Actually, that is another way to accomplish a kind of spending without replenishing - especially if you feel that you are sufficiently in profits and also that you might be a bit over leveraged on the bitcoin side.  Accordingly, it might NOT matter in great detail about the exact BTC price or whether it is going up or down, that you are just spending some of your profits.

Even though I never mined, I have had similar conceptions about how to manage my bitcoin stash in comparison to the rest of my financial investments.

There have been times in which I have overleveraged (or overinvested) in bitcoin a bit, so at points when the price goes above my "overleveraged" buy in price, then I don't mind selling a bit extra, even if the price is only a few percentage above the price in which I had bought the BTC.   

So, in that sense, similar to you, some of the coins are considered long term HODL coins, and other coins are "playing around" coins.

replenishing coins sold with new ones is the best way for most people looking to build up their stash while taking advantage of btcs strengths for purchases. your strategy is a good one. currently i mine alts with gpus and exchange them for btc so i still replenish btc although its not much.

I agree that it is interesting how each of us has differing factors, and even differing entrance points that change how we weigh the factors.  I recognize that even with miners there is a certain speculative aspect, and sometimes the variations in speculation can provide some explanation to the seemingly exponentially increasing hash rate that does not necessarily correlate with BTC price.  So, some miners, even smaller players, have greater abilities to cushion themselves from volatility or to speculate that even if there are periods of mining at low profits or even a loss, that future prices could more than make up for the low profits/loss periods.  Also, some experiential aspect of mining can cause someone to want to continue to mine and to contribute, learn and interact with the crypto space, even though strictly speaking there could be more profits (and mobility/liquidity) from merely buying the various coins instead of mining them.  Further, hahahaha.. the lottery aspect of mining a variety of coins in which some of them could upwardly explode and to off-set the costs/losses of mining some of the other coins. 

[vroom]

SEC Proposes New Approval Process for Certain Exchange-Traded Funds

https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2018-118

boom soon?

[STT]

Bitcoin is still measured in dollars and not dollars in Bitcoin :/

Good point but I really dont think it will reverse order to that extent.  The follow up to USD reverse system based off political debt will be another form of FIAT currency operated by the IMF which is called SDR and the IMF does have some gold but this wont be formally linked either or even close to informally backed by reserves.   Politics will keep on operating or attempting to exert control of populations income and capital.

IMF also said they might operate an online version, the dollar is currently digital imo anyway so I dont see thats anything special really.

Anyway my point is I think it'll always be a mix of national currencies and possibly we see a rise in precious metals and also crypto is used more as well especially for fast transactions.  It wont be a great big switch on of crypto imo, they'll be competition between them all and upsets as one sector tries to undermine the others perhaps.


I think Australian dollar could rise alot, giant natural reserves not formally but just because their country is massive and they have few people and afaik not that much debt.   Any rise in commodities and trade relating world currency would favour such an economy.   I guess also Canada similarly but they have more debt, ties to this old system.    Ive never thought crypto will rise singularly.

Let's level with each other for a moment. Nick Szabo is Satoshi. It's an open secret.

My own personal take was the protocol for bitcoin even though its open source was designed and initially constructed by a group of people or at least keys were split up and shared to various wallets such that no one person had sole control.   Thats how I explain why the coins were never moved.   They had more invested in the success of their work then simply taking out the value which would have undermined it, splitting responsibility would be standard practise in software engineering procedure I think.      

Its natural for the public to attribute success or the image of a new dynamic product to just one person like how Steve Jobs was Apple or whatever.   Sure important key people but I wouldnt presume it was just 1 person who decided its fate alone, Apple fired Steve Jobs if I remember right and I just think this Satoshi name thing is just like a reference or code name for the operation more then literally his inventors name or nickname even.  Could have been a women of course, the best cover.  I dont know if anyone has gone through each post and communique under his name and checked its duplicate in style.

[JayJuanGee]

Exactly!!!!!  That's how she rolls.   

[infofront]

Bitcoin is still measured in dollars and not dollars in Bitcoin :/

Good point but I really dont think it will reverse order to that extent.  The follow up to USD reverse system based off political debt will be another form of FIAT currency operated by the IMF which is called SDR and the IMF does have some gold but this wont be formally linked either or even close to informally backed by reserves.   Politics will keep on operating or attempting to extent control of populations income and capital.

IMF also said they might operate an online version, the dollar is currently digital imo anyway so I dont see thats anything special really.

Anyway my point is I think it'll always be a mix of national currencies and possibly we see a rise in precious metals and also crypto is used more as well especially for fast transactions.  It wont be a great big switch on of crypto imo, they'll be competition between them all and upsets as one sector tries to undermine the others perhaps.


I think Australian dollar could rise alot, giant natural reserves not formally but just because their country is massive and they have few people and afaik not that much debt.   Any rise in commodities and trade relating world currency would favour such an economy.   I guess also Canada similarly but they have more debt, ties to this old system.    Ive never thought crypto will rise singularly.

Let's level with each other for a moment. Nick Szabo is Satoshi. It's an open secret.

My own personal take was the protocol for bitcoin even though its open source was designed and initially constructed by a group of people or at least keys were split up and shared to various wallets such that no one person had sole control.   Thats how I explain why the coins were never moved.   They had more invested in the success of their work then simply taking out the value which would have undermined it, splitting responsibility would be standard practise in software engineering procedure I think.      

Its natural for the public to attribute success or the image of a new dynamic product to just one person like how Steve Jobs was Apple or whatever.   Sure important key people but I wouldnt presume it was just 1 person who decided its fate alone, Apple fired Steve Jobs if I remember right and I just think this Satoshi name thing is just like a reference or code name for the operation more then literally his inventors name or nickname even.  Could have been a women of course, the best cover.  I dont know if anyone has gone through each post and communique under his name and checked its duplicate in style.

I'll admit that saying Nick Szabo is defnitely Satoshi is a bit of a stretch. He could've been a part of the team known as Satoshi.

You may find this interesting:

https://towardsdatascience.com/stylometric-analysis-satoshi-nakamoto-294926cdf995

Based on the results, Satoshi who had written the Bitcoin paper may not be the same Satoshi who had exchanged emails. Satoshi Nakamoto may possibly be more than one person; Satoshi Nakamoto is a pseudonym for a team of computer scientists and cryptographers who were involved in creating Bitcoin and blockchain. Nick Szabo and Ian Grigg are the two authors who are linguistically similar to Satoshi Nakamoto in the Bitcoin paper and his email texts, respectively. In addition, Wei Dai and Timothy C. May are two potential candidates for the Bitcoin paper in terms of semantic similarity. Hal Finney and Ian Grigg are two possible candidates for Satoshi’s email exchanges. Since it is a known fact that Hal Finney had interacted with Satoshi Nakamoto via email, Hal Finney should not be included in the list of possible candidates for Satoshi who exchanged emails; Ian Grigg is linguistically and semantically similar to Satoshi Nakamoto. Therefore, the possible candidates for Satoshi Nakamoto are Nick Szabo, Ian Grigg, Wei Dai, and Timothy C. May.

[Elwar]

Finally Bitcoin is recovering from the bloodbath that happend this past months. we're at the 7k$ mark right now! more and more are entering the market

Bitcoin price still under $10k.

 


Has the chain of blocks failed us all?

[Last of the V8s]

It puts its Ledger Nano S in the basket.

[bitebits]

SEC Proposes New Approval Process for Certain Exchange-Traded Funds

https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2018-118

boom soon?

The proposal would therefore facilitate greater competition and innovation in the ETF marketplace, leading to more choice for investors.

If, they don't know what is heading towards them.

[HairyMaclairy]

If the Dow continues crashing like it did today after the holiday, we're going to need Hairy's patented Liquid Koala Asset Sidechain much sooner than anyone could have predicted.

Initial distribution is by air drop.  Think golden shower but greenish brown. 

[El duderino_]

Finally Bitcoin is recovering from the bloodbath that happend this past months. we're at the 7k$ mark right now! more and more are entering the market

Bitcoin price still under $10k.

 


Has the chain of blocks failed us all?

still little under 40K in my head....

[El duderino_]

3-2 last goal was a perfect beauty i runned down my house like a crazy fucker that i am!!!!! so happy

Awesome match, well done for your lot.

Immediately Fellaini came on it changed everything.   I reckon you can take Brazil.  See you in the final, eh?

hope so , i'm a little bit suprised to see brazil is a BIG time favorite 2.0-3.8...... i would think more equal as belgium got the better players brazil more experienced

That reflects what people betting think - and most people just think Brazil must be better, mostly due to past form.

However, past form proves nothing and I think Belgium can beat Brazil.  If the odds stay like this, I will probably bet against Brazil (better value for money).

Either way - it should be a hell of a game - and (emotionally) I would like Belgium to win.  Teams that think they deserve to win have fallen fast in this amazing World Cup.  If Brazil go into this game assuming they will succeed, they will lose.  Belgium on the other hand will know they are up against it and will not give up, as proved by the Japan game.

WHOOOwhoo the penalty's pfffffffff     

[Last of the V8s]

https://www.binance.com/en/trade/SYS_BTC
syscoin went mental
millions of % move

[bitebits]

^ Where there any walls to observe?

[d_eddie]

SEC Proposes New Approval Process for Certain Exchange-Traded Funds

https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2018-118

What do these new rules imply? I couldn't make much sense of that terse communication.

[Last of the V8s]

^ Where there any walls to observe?

no it was a tiny book. guess it was a fat finger/typo
someone had a mad limit up there and if it was enough, became rich
volume can't have been much up till then, so 10k btc??

[HairyMaclairy]

^ Where there any walls to observe?

no it was a tiny book. guess it was a fat finger/typo
someone had a mad limit up there and if it was enough, became rich
volume can't have been much up till then, so 10k btc??

Probably just a bot trading with itself, plus some FOMO from day tards seeing the volume spike.  

[HairyMaclairy]

SEC Proposes New Approval Process for Certain Exchange-Traded Funds

https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2018-118

What do these new rules imply? I couldn't make much sense of that terse communication.

It means you don’t need SEC approval to launch an ETF so long as your ETF meets certain conditions.

It’s not clear to me from the statement whether an Bitcoin ETF could meet the conditions.  I don’t need to explain the consequences.

[El duderino_]

https://www.binance.com/en/trade/SYS_BTC
syscoin went mental
millions of % move

had a small amount from long long time back sold @ 0.00005290