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

[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?

[1713574019]

1713574019

[1713574019]

1713574019

[1713574019]

1713574019

[1713574019]

1713574019

[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.

[infofront]

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.

We may never know for sure. Dan Held made a pretty good thread laying out the argument that Satoshi intended bitcoin to be a store of value, first and foremost: https://twitter.com/danheld/status/1084848063947071488?lang=en

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.

That's a good point. Technically you're correct about the blocksize limit not being part of the protocol, of course.
Though if everyone is running a client with a different blocksize, the network will become a clusterfuck. That's why BCH and BSV forked away, and created their own networks, after all (argument about who forked away from who notwithstanding).

The immutability of the 1MB blocksize still stands if we throw out the word "protocol". Satoshi knew that once he slipped that blocksize limit into the core client, it would be there forever, and become the de facto standard in all bitcoin software implementations. That's why Garzik and the others were opposed to it at the time. Satoshi said that it was temporary, but he knew enough about game theory to realize 1MB blocks would become a Schelling Point within the bitcoin network if it was left in the core client long enough.

[VB1001]

Jimmy Song: Genuinely New Money Entering The Crypto Markets

Bitcoin’s price has been a hot topic over the past several days with the return of price exuberance.
Bitcoin expert, developer, and influencer Jimmy Song noted a price pullback for the asset might be logical.

https://cryptopotato.com/jimmy-song-genuinely-new-money-entering-the-crypto-markets/

Good Morning WO,s

[VB1001]

https://twitter.com/ChartsBtc/status/1130939134942429184

It's BTCitcoin

[DaRude]

::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.

Could be, or you just too naive to realize that you aren't the intended audience. These papers are not for you to consume, all of his actions can be easily explained if you think of him as a man preparing a case for litigation. He's just preparing documents that he'll be submitting to court. Probably will try to trademark "Bitcoin" next.

[Phil_S]

Nah. 3x year/year is too optimistic. It's very unlikely we'll ever reach that dashed line.

[nutildah]

These papers are not for you to consume, all of his actions can be easily explained if you think of him as a man preparing a case for litigation. He's just preparing documents that he'll be submitting to court. Probably will try to trademark "Bitcoin" next.

Then why the sensational coingeek article? It was a well-timed pump job / maneuver backed by a well-written propaganda piece. It ultimately proves nothing, other than there is no apparent correlation between somebody's ability to invest and intelligence.

[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.

So I watched the full documentary. Final verdict: meh. It's an NPR affiliate thingy. Maybe shadow-funded by Steve Forbes, who has a new book to shill.

Given the number of architects of the current system interviewed, it came off as a fair indictment of easy money policies.

Those who don't know monetary history, or who have gobbled down the Keynesian farce might learn something from it. I think most here already know all this crap.

You're welcome.

[Dakustaking76]

More than 100 shops and restaurants where you can pay through Lightning in Arnhem Bitcoin City (Netherlands) .

https://www.arnhembitcoinstad.nl/

Now in the rest of the country 
Rotterdam, den haag and Amsterdam

[jbreher]

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 -

You are again misrepresenting my position. Misunderstanding? Intentional misrepresentation? Only you know for sure.

My position has been consistently that SV adheres more to the original Bitcoin protocol than does BTC. This is really undebatable fact from a protocol perspective.

'Vision' is a nebulous, touchy feely thing, upon which I make no value judgement.

Satoshi's ... err ... vision may indeed have been more aligned with the current BTC. We have no way of knowing. However, if indeed that were the case, why did he not encode segwit into the original release?

[jbreher]

That's a good point. Technically you're correct about the blocksize limit not being part of the protocol, of course.
Though if everyone is running a client with a different blocksize, the network will become a clusterfuck.

No. The miners -- or rather 51% of them -- would then determine the max block size. No clusterfuck. Longest chain rules.

The immutability of the 1MB blocksize still stands if we throw out the word "protocol". Satoshi knew that once he slipped that blocksize limit into the core client, it would be there forever, 

I think the interim limits of 250KB and 500KB invalidate your assertion.

[Syke]

Satoshi knew that once he slipped that blocksize limit into the core client, it would be there forever, and become the de facto standard in all bitcoin software implementations. That's why Garzik and the others were opposed to it at the time. Satoshi said that it was temporary, but he knew enough about game theory to realize 1MB blocks would become a Schelling Point within the bitcoin network if it was left in the core client long enough.

That's simply not true. You're claiming to know the mind of Satoshi in direct opposition with his public statements.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1347.msg15139#msg15139

We can phase in a change later if we get closer to needing it.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1347.msg15366#msg15366

It can be phased in, like:

if (blocknumber > 115000)
    maxblocksize = largerlimit

It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete.

When we're near the cutoff block number, I can put an alert to old versions to make sure they know they have to upgrade.

[DaRude]

These papers are not for you to consume, all of his actions can be easily explained if you think of him as a man preparing a case for litigation. He's just preparing documents that he'll be submitting to court. Probably will try to trademark "Bitcoin" next.

Then why the sensational coingeek article? It was a well-timed pump job / maneuver backed by a well-written propaganda piece. It ultimately proves nothing, other than there is no apparent correlation between somebody's ability to invest and intelligence.

BSV is so thinly traded a 500% pump wouldn't effect Ayre and CSW much