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

[jbreher]

Another good thread on the ETC eclipse attack:

https://twitter.com/hosseeb/status/1082815549132816384?s=21

Suggestion is that this was actually an attack on Gate.io

Conspiracy theory number B: This attack was actually perpetrated by someone aligned with that Proof of Proof initiative that LotV8s posted a few pages back.

[Deeyoh]

Well, it's not looking to good.  171 Million in longs liquidated in the past 24 hours on bitmex alone.   Over 15k shorts have covered without many liquidations this month.  I sold a bit early while it was rising but it's now below my sell price.  Go figure, it's almost too easy to accumulate.  

[jbreher]

Shapeshift layoffs - bullish

https://medium.com/@ShapeShift.io/overcoming-shapeshifts-crypto-winter-and-the-path-ahead-73f59bb8cf13?

I don't see how ShapeShift laying off could be interpreted as bullish. Kind of predictable, given the recent market action. And hardly unique, in the space.

OTOH, Erik's letter strikes me as a very well-written assessment of the situation, and seems to successfully strike an optimistic tone. It should serve to lessen the sting of those let go, and beneficial for ongoing staffing needs.

[gentlemand]

I don't see how ShapeShift laying off could be interpreted as bullish. Kind of predictable, given the recent market action. And hardly unique, in the space.

OTOH, Erik's letter strikes me as a very well-written assessment of the situation, and seems to successfully strike an optimistic tone. It should serve to lessen the sting of those let go, and beneficial for ongoing staffing needs.

I think it's KYC what did it for them. That's a double hammering. He says they were dropped by plenty of services because of that. It was probably the only move he could make though.

[HairyMaclairy]

Shapeshift layoffs - bullish

https://medium.com/@ShapeShift.io/overcoming-shapeshifts-crypto-winter-and-the-path-ahead-73f59bb8cf13?

I don't see how ShapeShift laying off could be interpreted as bullish. Kind of predictable, given the recent market action. And hardly unique, in the space.

OTOH, Erik's letter strikes me as a very well-written assessment of the situation, and seems to successfully strike an optimistic tone. It should serve to lessen the sting of those let go, and beneficial for ongoing staffing needs.

If it looks like capitulation, talks like capitulation and walks like capitulation...

[Toxic2040]

wth is that thing on ur face bro?

itsafeature.jpg

------

notsureifserious.jpg

notusuallyno.jpg

[HairyMaclairy]

Most Guys talk it had to go down and if to X point and Then a breakout= bullish....

But what if its the oppossite? A sudden PUMP to 5K-ish ...... what would mean something as that

HM?

We are still in the bear market until we break the long term bear line, shown in yellow.  The bear line currently sits at $4550 and is falling.  So yes, a pump to $5kish would be extremely bullish because it would mean that we had broken the bear market, at least temporarily.  Keep in mind we temporarily broke the bear market by going sideways at $6k, so breaking the bear line is not good enough, you also have to stay above it.

Right now we have a problem with a mini bear line forming at $4100 below the main bear line.  This creates a secondary, albeit weaker point of resistance.  

Don't forget to watch volume, it is almost as important as price.  Ideally we want to see huge volume to seal the bottom of this bear market.   

[jbreher]

(Cue smugness from jbreher in 3... 2... )

::**smugness intensifies**::

XD

[El duderino_]

Most Guys talk it had to go down and if to X point and Then a breakout= bullish....

But what if its the oppossite? A sudden PUMP to 5K-ish ...... what would mean something as that

HM?

We are still in the bear market until we break the long term bear line, shown in yellow.  The bear line currently sits at $4550 and is falling.  So yes, a pump to $5kish would be extremely bullish because it would mean that we had broken the bear market, at least temporarily.  Keep in mind we temporarily broke the bear market by going sideways at $6k, so breaking the bear line is not good enough, you also have to stay above it.

Right now we have a problem with a mini bear line forming at $4100 below the main bear line.  This creates a secondary, albeit weaker point of resistance.  

Don't forget to watch volume, it is almost as important as price.  Ideally we want to see huge volume to seal the bottom of this bear market.   

So short for ..... GIVE the goose a good old WEEKENDPUMP

[jbreher]

No.  Actually most of us (try to!) ignore him.  For us this thread is only 47 pages long too.

Kinda takes the air out of the sails for page count parity, though.

[jbreher]

I care as much about that trust thing as I do about the merit system. Which I use sorta like a "like" buttom and it made me hero and stuff, but other than that is just a feature of the forum which is even more meaningless to me than a %1 volatility of Bitcoin which is what I really care about.

[like]

[jbreher]

[edited out]

......I have repeatedly indicated that the chance seems unlikely, but there is no proof per se that CSW is not satoshi. Given the evidence we have at this time, that would be tantamount to disproving a negative. That ain't how logic works.

Your statement here, jbreher, borders on crazytalk.

There is absolutely no burden for anyone to prove that CSW is NOT Satoshi.

Never said there was. If you want to claim that it is FACT, however, you should be prepared to back that claim up with solid evidence. Some would say that CSW's falsified evidence is proof of non-satoshi. I say it is merely evidence supporting such a conclusion. I can think of at least one strong reason why satoshi would like to sow doubt about his existence.

So, no. Neither postulate has been proven.

The burden is 100% (or at least fucking close to 100%) upon CSW to prove that he is satoshi, if that is what he intends to claim (or continue to claim). 

I do not disagree with you here.

Furthermore, decent and reasonable means of attempting proof through signing of a known satoshi block have been outlined many times, and CSW fails and/or refuses to even attempt the most reasonable acceptable means to accomplish such identification verification.

Do you think he would not have known without such an outline? CSW seems to have a puzzling grasp of things about Bitcoin that he knows, and other things that he thinks he knows but seem to be false anyhow. However, I'm pretty certain he was always aware of the possibility of signing something with one of satoshi's strongly conjecturable keys to be pretty damned solid evidence for the claim.

[jbreher]

That reminds me of one of my roommates and best friends in college. He was an average looking guy who women flocked to. We could walk into a bar and beautiful girls would buy him drinks. He had that X factor - even more than charisma, like some kind of invisible aura.

Maybe it was a pheromones thing?

Haha.

Right now I am sipping martinis at the SNA lounge, waiting upon my return flight. I was out here for a biz conference. At an adjacent room was a meeting of a geographically distributed company built upon the premise that what would make a dating app successful is to match his'n'hers pheromone profiles based upon cheek swab DNA tests.

I don't know whether to marvel at their ingenuity, or be sad for their 'clients', whose data is surely destined to be sold to the highest bidder at some point.

I thought to myself, 'only in the valley'. And then I remember it's not San Jose this week. Oh well.

[jbreher]

Eh cut em some slack. If it’s a screenshot from Twitter, it’s a fair assumption that he’s not the one who made that week.

Every time he does it one of my pet earwigs dies. The latest one was little Hughie who passed away in my arms. I cringe every time he posts just in case the worst happens.

And I think, it's gonna be all right.
Yes, the worst is over now.
The morning sun is shining like a Red Rubber Ball.


You're welcome.

[jbreher]

The analysis of ETC 51% attack from SlowMist Team

https://medium.com/@slowmist/the-analysis-of-etc-51-attack-from-slowmist-team-728596d76ead

Headline from Forbes.

After Ethereum Classic Suffers 51% Hack, Experts Consider - Will Bitcoin Be Next? 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/ginaclarke/2019/01/09/after-ethereum-classic-suffers-51-hack-experts-consider-will-bitcoin-be-next/#54e54d4ea56b

Not immutable anymore

Conspiracy theory numero san: The hack was performed by butthurt diehard ethheads, who have gotten tired of being (rightfully) dragged behind the woodshed for the manner in which they enthusiastically abandoned the entire 'code is law' premise upon which their sand castle was built.

[jbreher]

I think a few of the oldtimers on this thread are shorting on the low, and this new bull market is freaking them out. (I am not referring to you Infofront).

Credibility points deducted for obvious pandering.

[jbreher]

So is this lambchop?

Hmm. I'm guessing not the same Izabella Kaminska. I see no mention of FT on the page.

Though I may have lingered longer than necessary in order to form such a hypothesis.

[jbreher]

And yet, somehow comforting.

[Biodom]

Crossing my fingers and toes for a breakout soon.

 Breakout. In the wrong direction.

 Sheeeit.

Those barts are mightily annoying; btc still does not behave as a $64 bil asset  .
I blame it on corrupt exchanges and Wall street coke-driven "traders".

[jbreher]

Well that's a nice surprise now isn't it, more transactions has never been a bad thing.

Well, I hate to be ... that guy, but a doubling of txs from here, and we've hit blockapocalypse again.