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

[JayJuanGee]

FUCKING SHIT IF YOU ARE GOING TO GO UP GO UP ALREADY AND MAKE ME RICH FFS

IF YOU ARE GOING TO GO DOWN GO FUCKIN DOWN SO I CAN BUY MORE

...and i thought $5k was bad.

Getting stuck at $9-10k feels so disgusting. Don't want to buy many because dunno if it is going to go up sharply or go down and create more buy opportunities.

Sorry for caps, i lost myself a bit.

Just wanted to shout.  

Dude.  I am DCAing a leveraged long position right now. Very low leverage - well under 1:1.   My current dollar cost average is $10,500 and I am totally relaxed because every slight chip down in the price just lowers my DCA.  

Adapt to the price.  Don’t fight it.  We are in a bull market.  The price will go up again.  You will have what you are looking for.

Suddenly I feel very comfortable about my dollar, Euro in my case, average cost. I always tought that since I only took the step in early 2017 after the Gox debacle that had driven me out, I must be on the higher level of average cost among WO habituees... . And actually, by taking JJG ladder strategies and tactics serious, my average cost is lowering month after month. (Except if we hang around with only some red-green dildo battles of course).  

First of all, Ludwig, before asking you about a few more specifics about the strategy that you are following, if there is a kind of attempt to continuously accumulate bitcoin by injecting more money with a kind of dollar cost averaging approach, there are surely going period of time in which you might question your strategy because your portfolio might either be extremely lowly valued or even in the negative for a decent period of time, and extended down periods are surely going to be the ones that cause you to question why you did not sell and buy back cheaper... which seems to be a bit of a fools errand to try to play that game of trying to figure out when you can sell and buy back cheaper.  In other words, I don't think that way. 

So, then if we ask you about some specifics about what you are doing, then pray tell.

So I gather that you feel that you got burned by gox, and then thereafter you feel like you got in late, because you started back investing in BTC in early 2017.  What part of the formula are you following?  Early stages would likely be most effective to focus on accumulating BTC and attaining enough of a holdings that you feel that you are in a decent spot in terms of the total percentage of your portfolio that is allocated to BTC.  Second portion would be maintaining, which could still involve some injecting of new money but also perhaps could involve selling small amounts on the way up.  I know that some people are leery about selling any BTC until BTC reaches a price that is something like a 50x increase, which makes sense, but I think that it can still be helpful to sell small amounts on price rises, as insurance for price falls and just to cash some out.  It becomes safe to do this as long as your portfolio is profitable.

One thing for me, personally, is that I felt somewhat comfortable once I had acquired a decent amount of bitcoins below $250 to then be able to sell a portion of that stash, even though my average cost per BTC was then in the $500 range, but part of my comfort came from dividing my investment in three portions and I only would sell a small percentage from the portion of my holdings that was profitable.  Once BTC's prices went above $500, then I authorized myself to use the totality of my bitcoins as the measurement for how much I was allowed to sell.  Another part of my becoming comfortable with selling relatively small proportions of my stash at regular increments had come from a sense that I had overinvested.  In one sense I had gone higher than the percentage amount that I had originally authorized, especially based on a long period of down prices (in the mid $200s) in 2015, so during that period, I felt that I had overinvested a bit.   

Another happening that caused me comfort in selling was that my equity had risen sufficiently for me to feel comfortable selling.  I think that in the last year or so, I adjusted some of my thinking on it, but  largely I stick to my system of selling about 1% for every 10% rise as a kind of downside insurance, yet if I want to go above those levels of sales I am more than comfortable if I am selling at least 6x above my costs.  And current prices puts me in the 12x above costs territory.  So I feel pretty comfortable if I were to need to sell more than the regularly scheduled amounts of 1% for every 10% price rise.

Another part of the reason NOT to rush to sell too much, yet, is that I am pretty optimistic about the possibilities of the next 18 months or less, and if some decently BIG price explosion does not happen in the next 18 months, then absent some calamitous event, such as the physical Armageddon that Roach is banking on,  it seems that the odds are pretty decent that we are going to get a BIG price rise in the next 4-5 years as an outside timeframe.

So, for me, I am thinking who gives too many shits about the likely painful subsequent correction that likely comes after the next BTC price rise, because even the correction is likely going to still put us decently above current prices and even quite decently above $20k as the bottom - so even if we don't really know for sure about any of this, the great ongoing asymmetric bet continues, and there are not really any fundamentals that takes away the existence of the continued ongoing asymmetric bet in bitcoin - even if several more short term unexpected negative scenarios end up happening.

So this is my long winded way, Ludwig Von, to ask you for some specifics about what you had been doing and what is your current strategy.  Are you only buying and accumulating or are you engaged in a more complicated approach that involves some selling too?

[1715570237]

1715570237

[1715570237]

1715570237

[1715570237]

1715570237

[1715570237]

1715570237

[Raja_MBZ]

[Syke]

Would transaction throughput increase with block size?

Yes.

Would confirmation times remain the same?

Mostly yes. Network efficiency will degrade, but difficulty will adjust to mostly compensate.

[jbreher]

Other than the fact that Satoshi's original release had no set limit on block size. Well, there is that.

No explicit limit, but other parts of the protocol limited the blocks to 32MB.

I would argue that the 32MB limit was not a protocol limit, but rather an implementation limit on any network message that would be generated by the client.

Maybe when BTC gets near 32MB blocks it might become relevant.

[JayJuanGee]

FUCKING SHIT IF YOU ARE GOING TO GO UP GO UP ALREADY AND MAKE ME RICH FFS

IF YOU ARE GOING TO GO DOWN GO FUCKIN DOWN SO I CAN BUY MORE

...and i thought $5k was bad.

Getting stuck at $9-10k feels so disgusting. Don't want to buy many because dunno if it is going to go up sharply or go down and create more buy opportunities.

Sorry for caps, i lost myself a bit.

Just wanted to shout.  

Dude.  I am DCAing a leveraged long position right now. Very low leverage - well under 1:1.   My current dollar cost average is $10,500 and I am totally relaxed because every slight chip down in the price just lowers my DCA.  

Adapt to the price.  Don’t fight it.  We are in a bull market.  The price will go up again.  You will have what you are looking for.

Remember that Hairy is pretty experience in this arena.. so careful with anyone using any kind of leverage at all.. Usually the use of any kind of leverage magnifies the potential for both losses and gains, and is not easy to use for the vast majority of folks can just get into bitcoin and accumulate BTC with simple dollar cost averaging and buying on dips.. and that should be risky enough because it surely is not guaranteed to go up (even if decent odds, such as being in a bull market, which I agree with hairy about that)... but still bitcoin is an asymmetric bet, so guys and gal can still make a lot of money without employing leveraging strategies.

That is only partly correct.

So you can go 1x or lower leverage and actually use your BTC as collateral to buy more BTC or hedge against a BTC/USD drop.

It is actually VERY safe to do, if you understand what you are doing.

And to be honest i would advise every single one of you to actually inform yourself about it and try it out.

You will be able to quite safely preserve your USD value while being able to increase your BTC stack without being forced to add additional fiat.

Of course this is not for free, hedging or betting wrong has always a cost, but you have to accept this possible loss and can minimize it with proper risk managment.

Hm?  Maybe you are correct, perhaps? and maybe the employment of such systems might work for some users?  You are suggesting that it is simple, and I know that d_eddie seems to talk about his strategies in the use of those kinds of tools, too.  I suppose I am not opposed about members learning various techniques that might work, and I believe that I tout out basic techniques that don't really use those kinds of tools, so even if those tools might be helpful, they might not be necessary and could cause some members to attempt to put their BTC at risk when they would have been safer by just employing more simple tried and true accumulation strategies such as dollar cost averaging, buying on dips and HODL.

I personally have been suggesting that the next more sophisticated step is to start to sell small amounts on the way up in order to use that money to buy back in the event of a dip.  Using leverage is even a more advanced strategy, which part of my point was to say that it is a bit more advanced, and I think that I continue to remain correct about it being a more advanced strategy than what I am suggesting to be good enough to make some peeps richie... under consistent and persistent strategies to dollar  cost average buy, buy on dips and hodl.. and more sophisticated would be selling small amounts on the way up, after they have largely already reached their baseline accumulation goals.

[JayJuanGee]

TrueCrypt is a very powerful encryption s/w. I use it every day at work (I'm handling highly classified data and I rely on it for their protection). However, if the passphrase is poorly chosen (say, something like "iLOVEbitcointalkBECAUSEitMAKESmeHAPPY"), then it can be very easily cracked using a $200 PC. Just because you're using TrueCrypt doesn't necessarily mean your data is secure. It's how you use it that matters. It's like choosing "1234" as your credit card PIN. It's not the algorithm that's weak, it's the user that's dumb.

So, the fact that the wallet is protected by TrueCrypt doesn't guarantee anything...

But... We're talking about Satoshi here, so I'm sure he has used a cryptographically strong passphrase.

IMO iLOVEbitcointalkBECAUSEitMAKESmeHAPPY is a strong password and can not be cracked easily with a $200 PC. But I would add at least one number and a special character.

A +30 character PW Will always be strong.....

Of-course to add a special character and number probably make it more strong

When i see this kind of discussion there only one things that comes into mind.
the always relevant XKCD:



https://xkcd.com/936/

If you check your password into this site, well, they are pretty secure apparently

https://howsecureismypassword.net/

(no, CorrectHorseBatteryStaple is not secure, actually)

Well if a four word password is "not secure, actually" then what is up with the 12, 18 or 24 seed words used under BIP39?  Those are only a magnitude more difficult than the 4 word seed, right?  Those 12, 18 or 24 seed words do not have any special characters either, and they seem to be from a list of eligible words... like for example words starting with "q" might only have 40 possible words, words starting with "e" might have 120 possible words, and words starting with "s" might have 300 possible words.

[Dabs]

Good questions. The shills from the BSV camp want bitcoin to be a centralized, corporate tool. This is one of the reasons people dont believe CSW is Satoshi.

I don't think that's even a reason to doubt CSW. It's everything he's said since he became public and his lack of proof, proof being as simple as signing a message in the simplest way possible; not some round-a-bout convoluted rube goldberg centralized physical metals complicated kind of way proof.


As for words, 12 words (typical of electrum wallets) is about ... 2048 ^ 12 = 5.4445178707350154154139937189083e+39 combinations.

2 ^ 128 = 3.4028236692093846346337460743177e+38 ... so 12 words has more than 128 bits of security.


24 words would be more than 256 bits.

There are 2048 words for these deterministic wallets and you can use the first four letters of the words to uniquely identify that word.

[JayJuanGee]

Massive Crypto Whales Move 318,649 BTC Worth $3 Billion in Just Six Hours

In a matter of just six hours, whales have moved 318,649 BTC worth more than $3 billion. All of the transfers happened between wallets of unknown origin.

Seems they took advantage of very low transaction fees.

BTW Croach, do you know how much will cost sending 66 tons of gold from your seller to attic ?  

That's a hilarious visual, and you almost going to have to keep all that tonnage on low ground, too.  Just think about the structural costs to change to a higher location.

Might be part of the reason that roach fails / refuses to move out of grandma's basement.  NOT only is he surrounded by difficult to move his gold, he is inundated with tonnage of silver too, which takes up even more space and weight than the gold, in terms of weight per value.

[JayJuanGee]

Definitely difficult to understand how a kind of "infinite" block size brings bitcoin "back" to its roots.

Other than the fact that Satoshi's original release had no set limit on block size. Well, there is that.

Good thing that the real Satoshi, while he was still participating in the bitcoin community was able to recognize the need for a limit, and even if such limit was originally considered as a potential temporary situation, the consensus of the bitcoin (that is real bitcoin, helrow?) community has realized that small blocks make a whole hell of a lot of sense in terms of security, decentralization, block propagation and latency and likely a variety of other reasons, including being able to win the forking battle when a bunch of diptwats tried to take over the network by proposing stupid ass BIG blocks that sounded so nice and lovely, but in the end, caused the diptwats to show their true colors as an attempted attack vector to attempt to cause bitcoin to be changeable for the sake of change, which would have likely been the end of bitcoin as the paradigm shifting phenomenon that it has shown itself to be, especially with the winning of the battle of segwit...

Gotta thank the BIG BLOCKERs for giving away that easy win that caused consensus to formulate around segwit and propelled bitcoin into a possible ossification status.  

If you were here right now, BIG BLOCKER picnic bear, I would probably give you, as representative of the BIG BLOCKER nutjobs, a BIG hug.



Gotta love that picnic bear.    

Other than the fact that Satoshi's original release had no set limit on block size. Well, there is that.

No explicit limit, but other parts of the protocol limited the blocks to 32MB.

I would argue that the 32MB limit was not a protocol limit, but rather an implementation limit on any network message that would be generated by the client.

Maybe when BTC gets near 32MB blocks it might become relevant.

Last time I checked bitcoin was already relevant.  It's been relevant for at least 10 years, and more and more relevant the longer that it exists as a schelling point and the king daddy of cryptos, and largely other crypto engage in a variety of measures to leech off of bitcoin's success, security and solidness as the driving force base layer that also seems to allow the good, bad and ugly of various snake oil imitations to try whatever level of creativity they can muster by physical attacks and propaganda attacks to leech off as much of bitcoin's value as they are able to do.  In the longer run, the value will gravitate more and more into bitcoin, but there is a whole hell of a lot of dumb money out there (especially since we only seem to have less than 1% of the world's adoption) and it could take a long time before some of the dumb money realizes that bitcoin is the long terms value play.

[jojo69]

kinda droopy looking...

[cAPSLOCK]

FUCKING SHIT IF YOU ARE GOING TO GO UP GO UP ALREADY AND MAKE ME RICH FFS

IF YOU ARE GOING TO GO DOWN GO FUCKIN DOWN SO I CAN BUY MORE

...and i thought $5k was bad.

Getting stuck at $9-10k feels so disgusting. Don't want to buy many because dunno if it is going to go up sharply or go down and create more buy opportunities.

Sorry for caps, i lost myself a bit.

Just wanted to shout. 

I'll excuse it this time...

[infofront]

kinda droopy looking...

That's what she said

[nutildah]

There is an objective: unfucken the protocol, returning it to the original version.

So the original version called for bitcoin acting as a file and data storage service?

Call for? No. Allow for? Yes.

Remember - permissionless.

kinda droopy looking...

That's what she said

[JayJuanGee]

kinda droopy looking...

That's what she said

Well at least you guys were able to decode some kind of meaning out of that seemingly encrypted jo-squared message.

[AlcoHoDL]

Good morning all! Getting ready to go to work and browsing WO... An essential start of the day!

Too many posts regarding the passphrase security issue, so I'll respond without quoting. About "iLOVEbitcointalkBECAUSEitMAKESmeHAPPY", OK, maybe I overdid it and used too many words, it's not too bad of a passphrase after all... But what about "iLOVEbitcoin"? Would you use it? You get what I mean. If one uses TrueCrypt to secure a wallet and chooses such a small passphrase, then his keys are clearly NOT secure, and it's not TrueCrypt's fault.

@jbreher: I read about CSW's wallet-cracking attempts here at the WO thread. You are assuming that Satoshi has used a cryptographically strong passphrase to secure his keys. It's a valid assumption which I also share and have mentioned in the discussion, but it appears you are reading only parts of my posts... Note, however, that, at the time those wallets were created, Bitcoin was nearly worthless. I'm pretty sure many users at the time had completely unsecured wallets in their PCs, they just didn't care much about security. That's what CSW is allegedly attempting to exploit.

I suspect that such a wallet (belonging to Satoshi or a close friend of his, and in the possession of CSW) may not even exist, and it may all be CSW spreading fear and misinformation, which is what he usually does, has done many times in the past, and is something that fits his character and methods very well (I know, your grandma taught you to ignore human behaviour, but...), so all is good in the BTC camp.

[realr0ach]

Missing r0ach... I absolutely need to have a dose of Schelling Point, Exter's Pyramid, Nash Equilibrium, Kalergi Plan, Daily Stormer... And, oh man, how I really, REALLY need to hear the "designed to centralize" line

Access granted.

https://dailystormer.name/based-steve-o-calls-out-jewish-control-of-media/

[VB1001]

A Comparative Analysis of Bitcoin Forks

Summary
Although BSV and BCH have some of the desirable features of a medium of exchange asset, like low transaction fees, this has not yet led to a large increase in activity as compared to BTC. Both BCH and BSV still only have a small fraction of the usage of BTC when measured by metrics like adjusted transfer value and active addresses.

Furthermore, BSV and BCH are increasingly being used as ways to store data on chain (often without an associated economic transaction), and not as a medium of exchange. BSV, in particular, is predominantly being used as a way to record data on-chain, with over 94% of transactions containing OP_RETURN, a majority of which come from a single weather application. BSV may ultimately be used as a data storage blockchain, likely due to their removal of the size restriction on OP_RETURN transactions.

Additionally, although both BCH and BSV have larger maximum block sizes than BTC, they have not yet utilized that extra space. For the most part, BCH and BSV’s daily average block size has remained well below BTC’s 1MB average.

Both BSV and BCH have had blocks that have exceeded BTC’s maximum blocks. BSV blocks, in particular, are increasingly being filled by OP_RETURN transactions. BSV and BCH’s increased block size may become a factor if either gain adoption as a data storage blockchain. But it does not appear to currently be a factor in terms of being used as a medium of exchange.

Additionally, BTC currently has a big lead over BCH and BSV in the four metrics we used to measure security. BTC has over 95% of the hash rate market share (amongst BTC, BCH, and BSV) as of July, 2019.

BTC also dominates in terms of daily mining revenue. BTC has over 30 and 60 times more daily mining revenue than BCH and BSV, respectively. This will become even more of an issue as block rewards continue to halve, as BCH and BSV’s total transaction fees are negligible compared to BTC’s.

We also found that if BTC miners were to theoretically attack BCH they could rewrite ten days of the blockchain in 7 hours. If they were instead to attack BSV, they could rewrite it in 3 hours.

As of now, BCH and BSV are not gaining real usage over BTC as a medium of exchange, and are not utilizing their larger block sizes. BTC also remains a much more secure blockchain than both BCH and BSV. It remains to be seen whether BCH and BSV can take more of BTC’s market share moving forward.

https://coinmetrics.substack.com/p/a-comparative-analysis-of-bitcoin

Extensive article, but interesting.

Good morning WO,s

[Cryptotourist]

Incidentally, it is working splendidly so far.

Yeah jbreher, splendidly is far from a couple of recent reorg occasions.
That said, working implies that someone actually uses (not spamming) the chain. Not.

#

Morningzzz my WO fuckers.

[hd49728]

I have this one for you (if you don't know it).
Bitcoin transaction fees - Everything in one

In short:
Earlier today, fee is 1 Satoshi/ byte, but now it temporarily rose to 3 satoshis/ bytes.
 Fees for transaction with 1 input (148 bytes), 3 outputs (102 bytes) costs only 780 satoshis, which is double than yesterday fee.
It is not a best time to consolidate your bitcoin leftovers, everything you need is time, to see fees fall to 1 Satoshi/ byte, again.

Please check more there:
https://tradeblock.com/bitcoin/historical/6h-f-tfee_blk_avg-01051
https://coinb.in/#fees

[El duderino_]

China Could Be About To Throw Its Weight Behind #Bitcoin

https://www-forbes-com.cdn.ampproject.org/c/s/www.forbes.com/sites/billybambrough/2019/07/29/china-could-be-about-to-throw-its-weight-behind-bitcoin/amp/

https://twitter.com/xentagz/status/1155956658557739009?s=21

Bullish? China pump BTC instead of ban BTC?