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

[rdbase]

www.calibra.com


Enforced KYC and insured against hacks.

Thats the Libra website if someone is wondering.

What do I need to get started?

When Calibra is available, you will need a government-issued ID to sign up for an account. Identity verification is important to comply with laws and prevent fraud, so you know people are who they say they are.

Is Calibra available in my country? What countries is Calibra available in?

Our goal is to make Calibra available to everyone, anywhere in the world. We are working to bring Calibra to as many countries as possible, as soon as we can.

LOL. This shitcoin is DOA.

The news has started reporting it this way "Facebook plans it own currency to its 2 billion users."
So they dont even mention it as a cryptocurrency and will just call it a digital currency to market it as its own thing apart from a blockchain and run on its own ecosystem within their facebook page and app.
Sort of like what honeynut cheerios did with their buzzcoins a little while ago.
But now not just targeted towards the saturday morning cereal eating kids.

[babo]

Bankers know their time is up soon.

This is one their last tries to grab as much money as possible.

i'm sad to agree with you - is a method for raise money
i flag with red trust facebook inc / mark zuckenberg and libra coin

 

[aniis]

How about this ?
https://www.tradingview.com/x/KePICQ4f/?fbclid=IwAR0gEoGbUNFYDGP4dzzGooZHNEnDUlw8atBMmMv8SSnGq52iJqYtphqCDE8

[theymos]

There are a lot of use case where I can give up a little of privacy for convenience

If you're OK with that, then you can use the credit card that you already have and:
 - Get x% back
 - Use your ordinary fiat currency instead of a weird amalgamation
 - Have your payment accepted at pretty much every retailer on earth

There's a huge market for KYC payments, but it's already filled by credit cards etc. I see zero market for Facebook's KYC cryptocurrency: it's the worst of all worlds.

[Saint-loup]

According to the technical White Paper there should be ways to remain "pseudonymous"

Account addresses.
An account address is a 256-bit value. To create a new account, a user
first generates a fresh verification/signature key-pair (vk, sk) for a signature scheme and uses the
cryptographic hash of the public verification key vk as an account address a = H(vk).¹
The new account is created in the ledger state when a transaction sent from an existing account invokes the
create_account(a) Move instruction. This typically happens when a transaction attempts to send
Libra to an account at address a that has not yet been created.
Once the new account is created at a, the user can sign transactions to be sent from that account
using the private signing key sk. The user can also rotate the key used to sign transactions from the
account without changing its address, e.g., to proactively change the key or to respond to a possible
compromise of the key.

The Libra protocol does not link accounts to a real-world identity. A user is free to create multiple
accounts by generating multiple key-pairs. Accounts controlled by the same user have no inherent
link to each other. This scheme follows the example of Bitcoin and Ethereum in that it provides
pseudonymity [19] for users.
¹ Concretely we instantiate hash functions with SHA3-256 [17] and digital signatures with EdDSA using the ed-
wards25519 curve [18].

https://developers.libra.org/docs/assets/papers/the-libra-blockchain.pdf

[fillippone]

According to the technical White Paper there should be ways to remain pseudonymous

Account addresses.
An account address is a 256-bit value. To create a new account, a user
first generates a fresh verification/signature key-pair (vk, sk) for a signature scheme and uses the
cryptographic hash of the public verification key vk as an account address a = H(vk).¹
The new account is created in the ledger state when a transaction sent from an existing account invokes the
create_account(a) Move instruction. This typically happens when a transaction attempts to send
Libra to an account at address a that has not yet been created.
Once the new account is created at a, the user can sign transactions to be sent from that account
using the private signing key sk. The user can also rotate the key used to sign transactions from the
account without changing its address, e.g., to proactively change the key or to respond to a possible
compromise of the key.

The Libra protocol does not link accounts to a real-world identity. A user is free to create multiple
accounts by generating multiple key-pairs. Accounts controlled by the same user have no inherent
link to each other. This scheme follows the example of Bitcoin and Ethereum in that it provides
pseudonymity [19] for users.
¹ Concretely we instantiate hash functions with SHA3-256 [17] and digital signatures with EdDSA using the ed-
wards25519 curve [18].

https://developers.libra.org/docs/assets/papers/the-libra-blockchain.pdf

KYC is not at protocol level, but at Wallet Level:

Is AML/KYC required?

Apparently not at the protocol level, but the Calibra wallet states that all users will be verified via government issued ID. It also sounds like the Calibra wallet will be the only available wallet at least for a while, so it’s unclear if developers and users can run apps on the Libra network that don’t abide by the same standards as Calibra.

Thoughts on Libra “Blockchain” by @lopp

[Lauda]

According to the technical White Paper there should be ways to remain pseudonymous

Account addresses.
An account address is a 256-bit value. To create a new account, a user
first generates a fresh verification/signature key-pair (vk, sk) for a signature scheme and uses the
cryptographic hash of the public verification key vk as an account address a = H(vk).¹
The new account is created in the ledger state when a transaction sent from an existing account invokes the
create_account(a) Move instruction. This typically happens when a transaction attempts to send
Libra to an account at address a that has not yet been created.
Once the new account is created at a, the user can sign transactions to be sent from that account
using the private signing key sk. The user can also rotate the key used to sign transactions from the
account without changing its address, e.g., to proactively change the key or to respond to a possible
compromise of the key.

The Libra protocol does not link accounts to a real-world identity. A user is free to create multiple
accounts by generating multiple key-pairs. Accounts controlled by the same user have no inherent
link to each other. This scheme follows the example of Bitcoin and Ethereum in that it provides
pseudonymity [19] for users.
¹ Concretely we instantiate hash functions with SHA3-256 [17] and digital signatures with EdDSA using the ed-
wards25519 curve [18].

https://developers.libra.org/docs/assets/papers/the-libra-blockchain.pdf

KYC is not at protocol leve, but at Wallet Level:

Is AML/KYC required?

Apparently not at the protocol level, but the Calibra wallet states that all users will be verified via government issued ID. It also sounds like the Calibra wallet will be the only available wallet at least for a while, so it’s unclear if developers and users can run apps on the Libra network that don’t abide by the same standards as Calibra.

https://medium.com/@lopp/thoughts-on-libra-blockchain-49b8f6c26372

Right and what if all the permissioned wallets i.e. wallets that are allowed to operate have KYC? What exactly does no-KYC at protocol level bring you? Don't get conned by the whitepaper. Most average Joes will be conned into the KYC wallet by FB anyways.

[NeuroticFish]

The Libra protocol does not link accounts to a real-world identity.

Right. It links Libra accounts to FB accounts* which, if they don't have your real world identity have a great chance to get closed.
So for you and me it will be "pseudo-anonymous". For the others who pay (or get around) for the data... oh well...

* From what I know, they said that with Libra you'll be able to pay from FB account to FB account.

[VB1001]

Thoughts on Libra “Blockchain”

I’m pretty sure that would be a world first of a distributed network transitioning from permissioned to permissionless. Perhaps the network as a whole can switch to PoS, but in order for the stablecoin peg / basket to be maintained, some set of entities must keep a bridge open to the traditional financial system. This will be a persistent point of centralized control via the Libra Association.

https://medium.com/@lopp/thoughts-on-libra-blockchain-49b8f6c26372

Sadly, not worth the time to read that. Terrible shitcoin.

I agree with you, obviously it is shit, I said it in a previous post, but there are many people who read us and we must give arguments so that they understand.

[fillippone]

There are a lot of use case where I can give up a little of privacy for convenience

If you're OK with that, then you can use the credit card that you already have and:
 - Get x% back
 - Use your ordinary fiat currency instead of a weird amalgamation
 - Have your payment accepted at pretty much every retailer on earth

There's a huge market for KYC payments, but it's already filled by credit cards etc. I see zero market for Facebook's KYC cryptocurrency: it's the worst of all worlds.

I cannot send Money from my credit Card to my young son, or I cannot send to an unbanked person.

What i am saying is that this coin is totally different from BTC, but there are some markets (read this as : use case, not geographical markets)  that aren't covered by BTC (yet).

I bet in the long run BTC will wipe out all those shitty solutions: my central case is when Lightning Network will develop a smooth mobile payment solution, coupled with widespread BTC adoption (hyperbitcoinisation).
Until then I am afraid we should rely on those subpar Libra- style solutions.

[Lauda]

What i am saying is that this coin is totally different from BTC, but there are some markets that aren't covered by BTC (yet).

This is incorrect. BTC covers every part of the world, legal or not. For those where it is illegal, it is unlikely that this thing would be legal. Even if it becomes legal, those people will get conned by associating Libra with something that it isn't AND will get harmed once they find this our:
* Sent money with dangerous description? Flagged.
* Sent money to dangerous address? Flagged.
* Sent money to someone we don't like? Flagged.

Until then I am afraid we should rely on those subpar Libra- style solutions.

No, don't spread that or you will harm a lot of people.

I agree with you, obviously it is shit, I said it in a previous post, but there are many people who read us and we must give arguments so that they understand.

I needed to read one sentence to understand all the arguments against it. Heck, you need only to read 2 words to be against it: Facebook, Mastercard/Visa.  

[fillippone]

According to the technical White Paper there should be ways to remain pseudonymous

Account addresses.
An account address is a 256-bit value. To create a new account, a user
first generates a fresh verification/signature key-pair (vk, sk) for a signature scheme and uses the
cryptographic hash of the public verification key vk as an account address a = H(vk).¹
The new account is created in the ledger state when a transaction sent from an existing account invokes the
create_account(a) Move instruction. This typically happens when a transaction attempts to send
Libra to an account at address a that has not yet been created.
Once the new account is created at a, the user can sign transactions to be sent from that account
using the private signing key sk. The user can also rotate the key used to sign transactions from the
account without changing its address, e.g., to proactively change the key or to respond to a possible
compromise of the key.

The Libra protocol does not link accounts to a real-world identity. A user is free to create multiple
accounts by generating multiple key-pairs. Accounts controlled by the same user have no inherent
link to each other. This scheme follows the example of Bitcoin and Ethereum in that it provides
pseudonymity [19] for users.
¹ Concretely we instantiate hash functions with SHA3-256 [17] and digital signatures with EdDSA using the ed-
wards25519 curve [18].

https://developers.libra.org/docs/assets/papers/the-libra-blockchain.pdf

KYC is not at protocol leve, but at Wallet Level:

Is AML/KYC required?

Apparently not at the protocol level, but the Calibra wallet states that all users will be verified via government issued ID. It also sounds like the Calibra wallet will be the only available wallet at least for a while, so it’s unclear if developers and users can run apps on the Libra network that don’t abide by the same standards as Calibra.

https://medium.com/@lopp/thoughts-on-libra-blockchain-49b8f6c26372

Right and what if all the permissioned wallets i.e. wallets that are allowed to operate have KYC? What exactly does no-KYC at protocol level bring you? Don't get conned by the whitepaper. Most average Joes will be conned into the KYC wallet by FB anyways.

Maybe my broken English made me not clear: Libra is a KYC'd solution.
The KYC doesn't come from the protocol itself, but from the gateways used to access this protocol (wallets).

[fillippone]

What i am saying is that this coin is totally different from BTC, but there are some markets that aren't covered by BTC (yet).

This is incorrect. BTC covers every part of the world, legal or not. For those where it is illegal, it is unlikely that this thing would be legal. Even if it becomes legal, those people will get conned by associating Libra with something that it isn't AND will get harmed once they find this our:
* Sent money with dangerous description? Flagged.
* Sent money to dangerous address? Flagged.
* Sent money to someone we don't like? Flagged.

When I said market I didn't mean geographical markets (they are all covered by bitcoin), but use-case.

[Lauda]

Maybe my broken English made me not clear: Libra is a KYC'd solution.
The KYC doesn't come from the protocol itself, but from the gateways used to access this protocol (wallets).

Well it comes off as: Not at protocol level and thus can be bypassed. This statement would be incorrect. It's good that you clarified though.

What i am saying is that this coin is totally different from BTC, but there are some markets that aren't covered by BTC (yet).

This is incorrect. BTC covers every part of the world, legal or not. For those where it is illegal, it is unlikely that this thing would be legal. Even if it becomes legal, those people will get conned by associating Libra with something that it isn't AND will get harmed once they find this our:
* Sent money with dangerous description? Flagged.
* Sent money to dangerous address? Flagged.
* Sent money to someone we don't like? Flagged.

When I said market I didn't mean geographical markets (they are all covered by bitcoin), but use-case.

Such as?

[NeuroticFish]

Sadly, not worth the time to read that. Terrible shitcoin.

Great summary!
And for the first time in history, (almost) everybody at bitcointalk will agree with Lauda  

[VB1001]

What i am saying is that this coin is totally different from BTC, but there are some markets that aren't covered by BTC (yet).

This is incorrect. BTC covers every part of the world, legal or not. For those where it is illegal, it is unlikely that this thing would be legal. Even if it becomes legal, those people will get conned by associating Libra with something that it isn't AND will get harmed once they find this our:
* Sent money with dangerous description? Flagged.
* Sent money to dangerous address? Flagged.
* Sent money to someone we don't like? Flagged.

When I said market I didn't mean geographical markets (they are all covered by bitcoin), but use-case.

Forget, nobody will pay for coffees with Bitcoin, BTC is an asset, LN is a platform that will use other currencies.

[fillippone]

Maybe my broken English made me not clear: Libra is a KYC'd solution.
The KYC doesn't come from the protocol itself, but from the gateways used to access this protocol (wallets).

Well it comes off as: Not at protocol level and thus can be bypassed. This statement would be incorrect. It's good that you clarified though.

What i am saying is that this coin is totally different from BTC, but there are some markets that aren't covered by BTC (yet).

This is incorrect. BTC covers every part of the world, legal or not. For those where it is illegal, it is unlikely that this thing would be legal. Even if it becomes legal, those people will get conned by associating Libra with something that it isn't AND will get harmed once they find this our:
* Sent money with dangerous description? Flagged.
* Sent money to dangerous address? Flagged.
* Sent money to someone we don't like? Flagged.

When I said market I didn't mean geographical markets (they are all covered by bitcoin), but use-case.

Such as?

As an italian, I love pizza: when I go out to eat a pizza happens I have to pay for such a pizza: I never was able to pay with Bitcoin. Or split the total bill of the pizza with my friends using Bitcoin. Only few of them owns bitcoins, but all of them own Whatsapp.

This is the only one example I am going to give you: I am sure you are smart enough to extrapolate.

[fillippone]

Sadly, not worth the time to read that. Terrible shitcoin.

Great summary!
And for the first time in history, (almost) everybody at bitcointalk will agree with Lauda  

Theymos included, apparently!

[Lauda]

As an italian, i love pizza: when I go out to eat a pizza happens I have to pay for such a pizza: I never was able to pay with bitcoin. Or split the total bill of such pizza with my friends in Bitcoin. Only few of them owns bitcoins, but all of them owns Whatsapp.

This is the only one example I am going to give you: I am sure you are smart enough to extrapolate.

If you are willing to sell your data/privacy in order to be able to pay for pizza with a permissioned shitcoin, excuse me but why are you here? This thing will onboard crypto-less users, who can already pay for whatever they need using traditional methods. I can't think of any mainstream use-cases where this would be the superior tool to what we have now; maybe some extreme edge-cases, but who cares about that?

Sadly, not worth the time to read that. Terrible shitcoin.

Great summary!
And for the first time in history, (almost) everybody at bitcointalk will agree with Lauda 

Theymos included, apparently!

It's a rare day when I am not controversial.

[bitcoinPsycho]

As an italian, i love pizza: when I go out to eat a pizza happens I have to pay for such a pizza: I never was able to pay with bitcoin. Or split the total bill of such pizza with my friends in Bitcoin. Only few of them owns bitcoins, but all of them owns Whatsapp.

This is the only one example I am going to give you: I am sure you are smart enough to extrapolate.

If you are willing to sell your data/privacy in order to be able to pay for pizza with a permissioned shitcoin, excuse me but why are you here? This thing will onboard crypto-less users, who can already pay for whatever they need using traditional methods.

I believe roach and gembitz are on board