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

[infofront]

Shelby/Anonymint suggested I share this here:

https://steemit.com/trading/@anonymint/re-anonymint-re-anonymint-most-important-bitcoin-chart-ever-20190521t130454806z

It's his analysis on the Stocks-to-Flow model in relation to the future price of bitcoin. It's interesting stuff IMO.

[jbreher]

Stossel harping on a new documentary concerning money:

https://reason.com/video/stossel-money-money-money

Watched Stossel's piece, have not yet watched the documentary. The docu evidently concludes we need to return to gold. Though Bitcoin is at least mentioned.

[JayJuanGee]

::le sigh:: ...aaaand we're back to 'Aussie man bad!'

Truth is a defence to defamation

Yet, only in honest discourse is understanding to be reached.

You seem to be a lovely chap.  I don’t know why you persist in defending such comic book villains.

Lodging a copywright claim over the Bitcoin whitepaper which has an MIT open source license printed on the front page?  It’s both hilarious and pathetic.

Lodging such a copyright claim is also NOT an "honest discourse."

It seems misleading and disingenuous and an attempt at bullying (or a threat thereof).

[jbreher]

::le sigh:: ...aaaand we're back to 'Aussie man bad!'

Truth is a defence to defamation

Yet, only in honest discourse is understanding to be reached.

You seem to be a lovely chap.  I don’t know why you persist in defending such comic book villains.

Lodging a copywright claim over the Bitcoin whitepaper which has an MIT open source license printed on the front page?  It’s both hilarious and pathetic.

You are again devolving to 'Aussie man bad!'. I am not defending such comic book villains. I am trying to discuss the technical attributes of the various Bitcoins.

How about we set aside the irrelevancy of who supports what, and talk about the attributes of the underlying chains? Would that not be so much nicer? Like cAPSLOCK did above. Or do you lose too much of your easy ammo that way?

Incidentally, you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding in regards to intellectual property. Only a copyright owner can open source a work. Copyright and license are two totally different domains of IP law.

[Toxic2040]

lol.jpg

SV user not affected. Troll harder. C'mon - I think you have it in you. That was weaksauce.

I will give you a response jbreher partially out of respect for prior service and mostly out of gentlemanly manners. No one cares.

I will even be more brutally honest, more care than I can believe and far less care and will care then you hope for.

That being said, you constantly try and engage your narrative to get press time on bitcoins most watched thread. Its the same sort of slimy tactic that your cult of personality leader faketoshi has been employing since day one.

Frankly I am tired of it.

For me..it comes down to character and moral fortitude when all things are equal.

Newsflash..all things are not equal..never have been..never will be.

That you continue to support and advocate for such a person makes me question your moral compass at the very least.

You feel me?

Thats all the time I will devote on this subject..other than saying respect is a two way street. You want my respect?  Earn it...I think you have it in you.

tc

[Paashaas]

Updated.



https://twitter.com/100trillionUSD/status/1130862825340100609

[JayJuanGee]

Shelby/Anonymint suggested I share this here:

https://steemit.com/trading/@anonymint/re-anonymint-re-anonymint-most-important-bitcoin-chart-ever-20190521t130454806z

It's his analysis on the Stocks-to-Flow model in relation to the future price of bitcoin. It's interesting stuff IMO.

Yes.. quoting a banned troll should be taken with a decently-sized grain of salt...

Sure it is possible that he has become more reasonable, but who knows with shill/trolls who have demonstrated their previous bullshit that ultimately got them banned  from the forum?

[infofront]

Shelby/Anonymint suggested I share this here:

https://steemit.com/trading/@anonymint/re-anonymint-re-anonymint-most-important-bitcoin-chart-ever-20190521t130454806z

It's his analysis on the Stocks-to-Flow model in relation to the future price of bitcoin. It's interesting stuff IMO.

Yes.. quoting a banned troll should be taken with a decently-sized grain of salt...

Sure it is possible that he has become more reasonable, but who knows with shill/trolls who have demonstrated their previous bullshit that ultimately got them banned  from the forum?

Lets focus more on the ideas, and less on the personalities. 

Now I'm really gonna be in hot water around here - I'm agreeing with jbreher.

[jbreher]

But if we want Bitcoin to succeed as the financial backbone of the planet, what are our choices?
1) SV's openness to storing arbitrarily huge amounts of data may lead to a small number of players at each task within the system, governed only by open competition. As a bonus, in the huge data scenario it becomes the backbone of the Internet.
2) BTC has already abandoned being the default money for the world, being utterly unable to even onboard the world to LN in less than a quarter century.
3) BCH is headed towards unlimited numbers of txs, albeit each one limited in size. At the cost of the perhaps unforgivable sin of centralized checkpointing.

So far, SV still looks like the preferable route forward to me. Current market share notwithstanding.

1) Significantly altered bitcoin's game theoretics
2) Significantly altered bitcoin's game theoretics, but those changes can (will?) be rolled back by miners
3) Significantly altered bitcoin's game theoretics

You missed one:
4) The Real Bitcoin™

As in TMSR, or pre-(what was it)-0.85 Bitcoin? OK. Add it to the list. Again, I believe its tx per unit time will be its downfall, just like BTC.

YMMV. Objects in mirror may be closer than they appear. Not to be used for the other purpose. This furniture product is not a gateway to Narnia. Keep chain from testicles.

eta: If rollback occurs upon 2), then it collapses into 4), no?

Pretty much - it's based on 0.5.3.

Thanks. I had lost track of the specifics.

And as to that question - yes. I was hesitant to give TRB a new number. We could call it 2.5.

As for more TX/s, I'm leaning toward the TMSR/Shelby school of thought that the 1MB blocksize is an immutable part of the protocol. Do you think Bitcoin was intended to scale to the masses?

Yes. Public utterances by Satoshi tend to corroborate that postulate. Though I admit that it is impossible to know what is really in the mind of another.

Further edit: in regards to 'Significantly altered bitcoin's game theoretics', specifics would be helpful. Up until the blockalypse, Bitcoin was utterly unaffected by any block size limitation (+/- a day or two). Something else you're thinking of?

"Originally, Bitcoin's block size was limited by the number of database locks required to process it (at most 10000). This limit was effectively around 500-750k in serialized bytes, and was forgotten until 2013 March. In 2010, an explicit block size limit of 1 MB was introduced into Bitcoin by Satoshi Nakamoto. He added it hidden in two commits[1][2][3] in secret. This limit was effectively a no-op due to the aforementioned forgotten limit."

The lock limit is not a limitation that was manifested within the protocol (i.e., on the wire). It was strictly a limitation of Bitcoin's client SW implementation. As a professional protocol developer, I look at things that are not enforceable 'on the wire' as not being part of the specification. As a system that works only to the extent that it ingeniously and carefully balances incentives, it is absurd to consider aspects that could be overridden by another client SW implementation as being intentional design decisions. We know (or surmise) from other suboptimal threading aspects of the SW that the original implementation suffers from the programmers' poor understanding of multithreading dynamics.

[Toxic2040]

-malicious snip-
 I'm agreeing with jbreher.

[jbreher]

::le sigh:: ...aaaand we're back to 'Aussie man bad!'

Truth is a defence to defamation

Yet, only in honest discourse is understanding to be reached.

You seem to be a lovely chap.  I don’t know why you persist in defending such comic book villains.

Lodging a copywright claim over the Bitcoin whitepaper which has an MIT open source license printed on the front page?  It’s both hilarious and pathetic.

Thats all he did and anyone can do it just like this so called TheRealSatoshiN!
https://twitter.com/realSatoshiN/status/1130996634853302272
"So I kick his balls. I registered my white paper long before 2009 in Belgium before publication. I am not stupid. satoshin"

I can't pretend to know how this whole silly episode will conclude. But I do know enough to be able to point out that notice from the US Office of Copyright that your claim has been submitted is categorically different from notice from the US Office of Copyright that your claim has been registered.

IOW, this stunt by TheRealSatoshiN adds no value to the discussion, and is at best a lesser claim than CSW's. And if you had two brain cells to rub together, then you would realize such.

So presuming you are not a complete moron, what are you trying to accomplish by posting this here?

[JayJuanGee]

Shelby/Anonymint suggested I share this here:

https://steemit.com/trading/@anonymint/re-anonymint-re-anonymint-most-important-bitcoin-chart-ever-20190521t130454806z

It's his analysis on the Stocks-to-Flow model in relation to the future price of bitcoin. It's interesting stuff IMO.

Yes.. quoting a banned troll should be taken with a decently-sized grain of salt...

Sure it is possible that he has become more reasonable, but who knows with shill/trolls who have demonstrated their previous bullshit that ultimately got them banned  from the forum?

Lets focus more on the ideas, and less on the personalities.  

Now I'm really gonna be in hot water around here - I'm agreeing with jbreher.

I think that you gotta do both.. especially if someone has shown their disingenuine posting in the past.... At least, he is not (yet) presenting his doom and gloom bullshit, and seems to be presenting bullish ideas about the price.. ..  

I suppose we will see how the price plays out in the coming years, but even bullish projections should be considered with a grain of salt - because some more modest variation might end up playing out and we don't want to get tied too much into what sorcerers are saying (especially when they have waffled between going from doom and gloom to overly anxious bull within less than a year)

[Biodom]

Shelby/Anonymint suggested I share this here:

https://steemit.com/trading/@anonymint/re-anonymint-re-anonymint-most-important-bitcoin-chart-ever-20190521t130454806z

It's his analysis on the Stocks-to-Flow model in relation to the future price of bitcoin. It's interesting stuff IMO.

Based on now almost forgotten BETI model, I always thought that prior bubble should have peaked at 28K or above.
It was really hoodwinked out of existence by the CME futures.
He is also surprised by that (the "bubble" peak was too low in 2017 by comparison) and suggests higher S/F next time (to "compensate").
That's an interesting idea, albeit I am not sure why S/F became such a rage all of a sudden?

[jbreher]

::le sigh:: ...aaaand we're back to 'Aussie man bad!'

Truth is a defence to defamation

Yet, only in honest discourse is understanding to be reached.

You seem to be a lovely chap.  I don’t know why you persist in defending such comic book villains.

Lodging a copywright claim over the Bitcoin whitepaper which has an MIT open source license printed on the front page?  It’s both hilarious and pathetic.

Lodging such a copyright claim is also NOT an "honest discourse."

Well, it may or may not be. But while I am attempting to have such an honest discourse with cAPSLOCK, need I really be subjected to post after post of tards yelling 'Aussie man bad!'? Note here that said discussion is focused solely upon technical aspects, and not some cult of personality. Regardless, it is certainly not me that registered the copyright, so WTF is the relevance? Actually, don't answer that. We know the answer. ZERO. Zero relevance.

It seems misleading and disingenuous and an attempt at bullying (or a threat thereof).

Well, I don't see how. In copyright, litigation must be preceded by registration. Without such, case will be dismissed due to lack of standing. Assuming CSW intends to litigate copyright ownership, registration is a necessary first step.

Further, the copyright owner Satoshi Nakamoto -- whether or not CSW -- has already granted license under MIT terms to open source the code. Such assignment of rights is irrevocable under the terms of licensure. As such, no bullying can be accomplished.

It may ultimately result in the enforcement of restoration of the name in each file's author list. But is that bullying? I certainly don't think so.

[jbreher]

That you continue to support and advocate for such a person

Again. I do not support and advocate for any person besides myself. I do support and advocate for certain technologies, as manifested by certain blockchains.

Technologies are not persons. Blockchains are not persons. I am quite certain you understand this at least on an objective level.

For you to continually conflate the two is either: disingenuous and dishonest, or; fucking stupidity.

Have a nice day! Sir!

[rdbase]

^
It shows if this satoshin can put in a claim of copyrighting the white paper then anybody could even though he is not even the satoshi nakamoto he claims to be.
You do know craig wright can be sued for claiming this copyWright dont you?

[jbreher]

^
It shows that this satoshin can put in a claim of copyrighting the white paper and anybody could even though he is not even the satoshi nakamoto he claims to be.
You do know craig wright can be sued for claiming this copywright dont you?

Yes. Pretty much anyone can be sued for anything. Relevance?

Remedial lesson:
Submission of claim may or may not result in registration of copyright.
Registration of copyright cannot be accomplished without first submitting a claim.
/lesson

One of these persons has cleared two of these obstacles.
The other has cleared only one.
To pretend there is some sort of equivalence between the two is either: ignorant, or; downright stupid.
edit: or dishonest - a state that is possibly exclusive to both the above possibilities.

[rdbase]

Ill just leave this here for those to decide who is dishonest in their claims of who he thinks he is.

With statements like this one no wonder he keeps trucking on and gets under millionaires skin.
https://www.ccn.com/craig-wright-binance-bucketshop-john-mcafee-a-conman

With the interview he did for nChain a new startup he is making himself to look less then who he claims to be.

Who created Bitcoin? Craig Wright reveals alleged contributors for the first time
https://youtu.be/8_SoIXUBIhw

[nutildah]

Regarding SV's latest price action, its safe to say that the majority of SV's market cap value rests on the idea that Wright is Satoshi, and not much else. There was already a bigger block experiment called BCH, and its been steadily falling in price against BTC since December 2017. The market has all but rejected it. There's no logical reason to think the market will suddenly become hungry for an even bigger block experiment given BCH's past performance.

So the value of BSV lies on Wright proving himself to be Satoshi, and not much else. It doesn't have to do with the "tech" as it is admittedly an older version of bitcoin. If you believe Wright is Satoshi, by all means, pile into SV. Let's just not pretend its about exciting new tech or that it isn't a personality-driven coin. BSV did not shoot up not based on its technical merits but because of Wright's actions. One misstep from Wright or ruling not in his favor will have the opposite effect of his recent copyright filing.

[JayJuanGee]

::le sigh:: ...aaaand we're back to 'Aussie man bad!'

Truth is a defence to defamation

Yet, only in honest discourse is understanding to be reached.

You seem to be a lovely chap.  I don’t know why you persist in defending such comic book villains.

Lodging a copywright claim over the Bitcoin whitepaper which has an MIT open source license printed on the front page?  It’s both hilarious and pathetic.

Lodging such a copyright claim is also NOT an "honest discourse."

Well, it may or may not be. But while I am attempting to have such an honest discourse with cAPSLOCK, need I really be subjected to post after post of tards yelling 'Aussie man bad!'? Note here that said discussion is focused solely upon technical aspects, and not some cult of personality. Regardless, it is certainly not me that registered the copyright, so WTF is the relevance? Actually, don't answer that. We know the answer. ZERO. Zero relevance.

It seems misleading and disingenuous and an attempt at bullying (or a threat thereof).

Well, I don't see how. In copyright, litigation must be preceded by registration. Without such, case will be dismissed due to lack of standing. Assuming CSW intends to litigate copyright ownership, registration is a necessary first step.

Further, the copyright owner Satoshi Nakamoto -- whether or not CSW -- has already granted license under MIT terms to open source the code. Such assignment of rights is irrevocable under the terms of licensure. As such, no bullying can be accomplished.

It may ultimately result in the enforcement of restoration of the name in each file's author list. But is that bullying? I certainly don't think so.

That's fine... We can disagree about whether the personality of fucktwat craig wright is relevant or not to bcash SV, and we can also disagree about whether his registration of a copyright is bullying or disingenuous. 

I stand by my earlier statements, so I don't see any reasons to repeat myself further.. nor do I find your additional arguments about your pure focus on the tech to be convincing, either, because historical posts have already shown that you have a tendency to spew out illogical and pie in the sky skewed nonsense when it comes to your supposed defense of the tech of SV and your nonsensical proclamations that SV supposedly adheres better to the original bitcoin vision than bitcoin itself - which ultimately downplays the fact that bitcoin is a community and a system of network effects that have evolved above and beyond some kind of idea of pure on chain scaling.

In other words the bitcoin community has spoken on the topic including the incorporation and activation of segwit that allows for a decent number of second layer solutions, some of which may still NOT have been introduced into bitcoin in spite that bitcoin is going to be receptive to a variety of additional second and possibly third layer supplementations that have become the total package of what bitcoin is in a descriptive sense .. rather than some minority vision (such as your own and some of the various Bcash BIGBLOCKER nutjob detractors who stray from the truth with their self-centered prescriptions of what bitcoin "should be" rather than accepting and acknowledging, as a starting point descriptive assessments about what bitcoin actually is in its current state and as it is progressing through consensus.