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

[KeyserSoze]

Jesus, such long ass posts.
Do some people on here actually work and sleep? Like Jorge, that man writes books.
Enough with the dramatic theory's, worse case scenarios and bible talks about this all.
Makes my head spin.

Me likey Bitcoin. Bitcoin show promise. Jorge think Bitcoin is ponzi. He newbie. He see tree and not the Satoshi Forest.

[wpalczynski]

+1 Wow... you are really an early adopter.  Congrats!

Especially those who reserved a couple million bitcoins for themselves at the beginning, and thus (like the "me" in my parable) have invested nothing and will walk out with a fortune.

Satoshi invested NOTHING? He only invested his/their lifetime to learning to code, learning about currency and cryptography. He invested his intelligence, reputation, time and money into creating software for the entire world to use freely. If he invested nothing into Bitcoin then you invested nothing in becoming a University Professor.

Once he created the software he mined <4000 coins (80 blocks @ 50BTC reward, basically testing the software) before releasing it to the world. Note this was several years before 10,000 coins would even buy a pizza. Satoshi risked the cost of his electricity to mine worthless "ledger coins."

"When Satoshi announced the first release of the software, I grabbed it right away. I think I was the first person besides Satoshi to run bitcoin. I mined block 70-something, and I was the recipient of the first bitcoin transaction, when Satoshi sent ten coins to me as a test. I carried on an email conversation with Satoshi over the next few days, mostly me reporting bugs and him fixing them." - Hal Finney, on block number
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=155054.0

I'm generously using 80 since Hal's "70-something" could be 79. Other sources claim blocks as early as 12 may have been mined by others: http://bitslog.wordpress.com/2013/04/24/satoshi-s-fortune-a-more-accurate-figure/

Original block reward was 50 coins:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Bitcoin

And of course Satoshi continued mining after that. It was his project afterall. In the beginning if he didn't use it, who would? The rewards came fast back then and he accumulated many before apparent stopping. It is believed his stash is unspent but who knows for sure, and why would it matter? He deserves every penny for his innovation.

[jojo69]

the butthurt of late adopters is sweet, sweet nectar

[Rampion]

+1 Wow... you are really an early adopter.  Congrats!

Especially those who reserved a couple million bitcoins for themselves at the beginning, and thus (like the "me" in my parable) have invested nothing and will walk out with a fortune.

Satoshi invested NOTHING? He only invested his/their lifetime to learning to code, learning about currency and cryptography. He invested his intelligence, reputation, time and money into creating software for the entire world to use freely. If he invested nothing into Bitcoin then you invested nothing in becoming a University Professor.

Once he created the software he mined <4000 coins (80 blocks @ 50BTC reward, basically testing the software) before releasing it to the world. Note this was several years before 10,000 coins would even buy a pizza. Satoshi risked the cost of his electricity to mine worthless "ledger coins."

"When Satoshi announced the first release of the software, I grabbed it right away. I think I was the first person besides Satoshi to run bitcoin. I mined block 70-something, and I was the recipient of the first bitcoin transaction, when Satoshi sent ten coins to me as a test. I carried on an email conversation with Satoshi over the next few days, mostly me reporting bugs and him fixing them." - Hal Finney, on block number
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=155054.0

I'm generously using 80 since Hal's "70-something" could be 79. Other sources claim blocks as early as 12 may have been mined by others: http://bitslog.wordpress.com/2013/04/24/satoshi-s-fortune-a-more-accurate-figure/

Original block reward was 50 coins:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Bitcoin

And of course Satoshi continued mining after that. It was his project afterall. In the beginning if he didn't use it, who would? The rewards came fast back then and he accumulated many before apparent stopping. It is believed his stash is unspent but who knows for sure, and why would it matter? He deserves every penny for his innovation.

No. Read again. Hal Finney is.

[Rampion]

the butthurt of late adopters is sweet, sweet nectar

True from one side, but pretty annoying to see how they keep repeating over and over the same "arguments" that have been used (and debunked) since the mid-2011 crash.

[OldGeek]

It is my understanding that a lot (most?) of the regulars here have fonzie on ignore (I don’t ignore anyone) so I won’t quote him, but he actually made a non-trolly post a few pages ago (his post was in the midst of the barbequing of Jorge).  He, fonzie, has a misunderstanding, but it is worth exploring for the benefit of those new to our tech coin.

The essential point of the post by fonzie was that it shouldn’t matter what the current exchange price for XBT is.  He used the $1 - $100 figures.  And, to be fair, he’s right that the protocol will work as well with a value of one cent or ten thousand dollars.  But, the protocol works best if there are many, distributed, nodes who individually test and verify the contents of the blocks.

The biggest problem, fonzie, is that at $100 per coin, many miners will unplug their equipment.  Granted the vast majority of them will be small hashraters like me, but I believe that a good percentage of the larger miners will examine their hole cards and shut down too.  If that is true then you would be left with the very largest miners in control of the blockchain and that may or may not be a good thing.  The arguments against consolidation of mining can be found in other sub-fora so I don’t need to get into that except to say that I personally think it would not end well.

As a day trader one need not be overly concerned by the current price, only the direction and velocity matters.  As a miner, the USD 700 level seems to be about the minimum level for (my) continuing operations.  A little below that can be subsidized out-of-pocket for a short period.  Much below that and the decision to unplug is easy.  In my case, if the exchange price goes below $500, and stays there for a month, then I will have made my choice.  Newer miners, with more expensive equipment, may reach their magic number sooner.

So, fonzie, I submit that the price does matter.

[seleme]

+1 Wow... you are really an early adopter.  Congrats!

Especially those who reserved a couple million bitcoins for themselves at the beginning, and thus (like the "me" in my parable) have invested nothing and will walk out with a fortune.

Satoshi invested NOTHING? He only invested his/their lifetime to learning to code, learning about currency and cryptography. He invested his intelligence, reputation, time and money into creating software for the entire world to use freely. If he invested nothing into Bitcoin then you invested nothing in becoming a University Professor.

Once he created the software he mined <4000 coins (80 blocks @ 50BTC reward, basically testing the software) before releasing it to the world. Note this was several years before 10,000 coins would even buy a pizza. Satoshi risked the cost of his electricity to mine worthless "ledger coins."

"When Satoshi announced the first release of the software, I grabbed it right away. I think I was the first person besides Satoshi to run bitcoin. I mined block 70-something, and I was the recipient of the first bitcoin transaction, when Satoshi sent ten coins to me as a test. I carried on an email conversation with Satoshi over the next few days, mostly me reporting bugs and him fixing them." - Hal Finney, on block number
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=155054.0

I'm generously using 80 since Hal's "70-something" could be 79. Other sources claim blocks as early as 12 may have been mined by others: http://bitslog.wordpress.com/2013/04/24/satoshi-s-fortune-a-more-accurate-figure/

Original block reward was 50 coins:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Bitcoin

And of course Satoshi continued mining after that. It was his project afterall. In the beginning if he didn't use it, who would? The rewards came fast back then and he accumulated many before apparent stopping. It is believed his stash is unspent but who knows for sure, and why would it matter? He deserves every penny for his innovation.

No. Read again. Hal Finney is.

The great thing is that he is still alive, he was online 10 days ago.

[JorgeStolfi]

* Money that is invested into bitcoins stocks is not being given solely to the "company" for it to build the infrastructure and paying the costs of doing its service.  Often the upper echelon "company" owners instead pillage the investments as exorbitant salaries even as they cut salaries for underlings, destroying the "new improvements" that the bitcoin project stocks are meant to create. Much of it goes into the pockets of other stock traders, some into the pockets of stock exchange operators.  The "company" does not pay dividends to bitcoin investors community, and these do not own a single chip from that "company".  So, investing into bitcoins (the world community's currency and technological marvel) is not at all like investing in Google or Apple (a single company's) stock.

That quote is not mine, someone was replying to me.

[raid_n]

It is my understanding that a lot (most?) of the regulars here have fonzie on ignore (I don’t ignore anyone) so I won’t quote him, but he actually made a non-trolly post a few pages ago (his post was in the midst of the barbequing of Jorge).  He, fonzie, has a misunderstanding, but it is worth exploring for the benefit of those new to our tech coin.

The essential point of the post by fonzie was that it shouldn’t matter what the current exchange price for XBT is.  He used the $1 - $100 figures.  And, to be fair, he’s right that the protocol will work as well with a value of one cent or ten thousand dollars.  But, the protocol works best if there are many, distributed, nodes who individually test and verify the contents of the blocks.

The biggest problem, fonzie, is that at $100 per coin, many miners will unplug their equipment.  Granted the vast majority of them will be small hashraters like me, but I believe that a good percentage of the larger miners will examine their hole cards and shut down too.  If that is true then you would be left with the very largest miners in control of the blockchain and that may or may not be a good thing.  The arguments against consolidation of mining can be found in other sub-fora so I don’t need to get into that except to say that I personally think it would not end well.

As a day trader one need not be overly concerned by the current price, only the direction and velocity matters.  As a miner, the USD 700 level seems to be about the minimum level for (my) continuing operations.  A little below that can be subsidized out-of-pocket for a short period.  Much below that and the decision to unplug is easy.  In my case, if the exchange price goes below $500, and stays there for a month, then I will have made my choice.  Newer miners, with more expensive equipment, may reach their magic number sooner.

So, fonzie, I submit that the price does matter.

You do know that the difficulty re-targets itself if the target blockrate is not met right?
Bitcoin would theoretically work with very very few miners but would then be hugely susceptible to 51% attacks.
The reality is as more miners stop mining it becomes easier hence more profitable and your problem dissolves into thin air

[KeyserSoze]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PszMaZ5Ipk

Love magic, thx for sharing!

[billyjoeallen]

Apparently Jorge doesn't believe anyone should be compensated for taking risks that pan out.  To him, it's all just "gambling", a vice that should not be rewarded.   As an entrepreneur, if I gamble that my customers will want my products or services as a price that I can profitably afford to provide them, then I am gambling. A day trader gambles that the market will want liquidity at a time that he can profitably provide it. A programmer gambles that the time he invests in writing code will be well utilized by people who may chose to run that code.

Nobody is forced to do business with anyone in the free market. We invest our time, effort and wealth in the hopes that what we have to offer will be valued at a price we can profitably afford to provide it. If we serve the market well, we are rewarded, and if we serve the market poorly, we lose money. This is important. We don't just work for free, we lose money providing goods and services people want.  We accept this risk because we know that the market (which includes us) is better off when trade is voluntary.

Employees get paid for their time and effort even if the employer loses money. Who's the more noble? Honest labor is a good pursuit, but without risk-taking entrepreneurs, laborers would all be slaves.

[Rampion]

It is my understanding that a lot (most?) of the regulars here have fonzie on ignore (I don’t ignore anyone) so I won’t quote him, but he actually made a non-trolly post a few pages ago (his post was in the midst of the barbequing of Jorge).  He, fonzie, has a misunderstanding, but it is worth exploring for the benefit of those new to our tech coin.

The essential point of the post by fonzie was that it shouldn’t matter what the current exchange price for XBT is.  He used the $1 - $100 figures.  And, to be fair, he’s right that the protocol will work as well with a value of one cent or ten thousand dollars.  But, the protocol works best if there are many, distributed, nodes who individually test and verify the contents of the blocks.

The biggest problem, fonzie, is that at $100 per coin, many miners will unplug their equipment.  Granted the vast majority of them will be small hashraters like me, but I believe that a good percentage of the larger miners will examine their hole cards and shut down too.  If that is true then you would be left with the very largest miners in control of the blockchain and that may or may not be a good thing.  The arguments against consolidation of mining can be found in other sub-fora so I don’t need to get into that except to say that I personally think it would not end well.

As a day trader one need not be overly concerned by the current price, only the direction and velocity matters.  As a miner, the USD 700 level seems to be about the minimum level for (my) continuing operations.  A little below that can be subsidized out-of-pocket for a short period.  Much below that and the decision to unplug is easy.  In my case, if the exchange price goes below $500, and stays there for a month, then I will have made my choice.  Newer miners, with more expensive equipment, may reach their magic number sooner.

So, fonzie, I submit that the price does matter.

What gear r u using? My 28nm ASICs would be profitable even below $100. And for those manufacturing their own gear, probably even below $20.

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[lebing]

Testing the end of the triangle...

[solex]

All markets except gox seem to be edging up...

[kkaspar]

When we buy bitcoin, the money goes either directly or indirectly to the miners (the employees) who secure the network.  

"The securing of network" part went away after coming of pools. With pools, the general network hash rate doesn't mean anything in terms of security of bitcoin. Only thing that matters now is the number of pools and the security of pools.
Bitcoin security was created in a way that network isn't concentrated anywhere, and everyone can do their fair part in handling the network. You can tell that bitcoin was never designed to be this big, because it's distribution system only could handle solo mining to a certain level. That was the level to what bitcoin was designed to evolve.
Pools were abominations of the entire system, because the system intended for no centralization whatsoever. The proper crypto for this level of active users should not need any pools and everyone will get paid directly from the network. Only then, the increasing user base will also increase the security of the network. Otherwise it's just a bad joke..
The other problem came with the coming of ASICs, when another wave of useless wasting began. Bitcoin network used to be supported by hardware, that had other use for it. Now people are building hardware that's only purpose is to mine bitcoins. But the increasing hash rate doesn't improve security, or anything for that matter, so the building of ASICs is also actually doing empty work that doesn't actually improve anything. It's all just for trying to crab a bite of this cake of hype.

The future is in new cryptos, because bitcoin code is becoming more and more obsolete...

[OldGeek]

Well, I seem to have been outvoted.  Take her down, sub-captain.  $20 seems right.

[billyjoeallen]

the butthurt of late adopters is sweet, sweet nectar

except they aren't even late adopters yet! they could STILL be early adopters, but they are too greedy. They want in at earlier prices without taking the risk that earlier adopters took. If I had thought that way, I wouldn't have bought in during the 2011 rally.

I have nothing but respect for the people who bought in before me. Envy is ugly and serves no productive purpose.

[raid_n]

When we buy bitcoin, the money goes either directly or indirectly to the miners (the employees) who secure the network.  

"The securing of network" part went away after coming of pools. With pools, the general network hash rate doesn't mean anything in terms of security of bitcoin. Only thing that matters now is the number of pools and the security of pools.
Bitcoin security was created in a way that network isn't concentrated anywhere, and everyone can do their fair part in handling the network. You can tell that bitcoin was never designed to be this big, because it's distribution system only could handle solo mining to a certain level. That was the level to what bitcoin was designed to evolve.
Pools were abominations of the entire system, because the system intended for no centralization whatsoever. The proper crypto for this level of active users should not need any pools and everyone will get paid directly from the network. Only then, the increasing user base will also increase the security of the network. Otherwise it's just a bad joke..
The other problem came with the coming of ASICs, when another wave of useless wasting began. Bitcoin network used to be supported by hardware, that had other use for it. Now people are building hardware that's only purpose is to mine bitcoins. But the increasing hash rate doesn't improve security, or anything for that matter, so the building of ASICs is also actually doing empty work that doesn't actually improve anything. It's all just for trying to crab a bite of this cake of hype.

The future is in new cryptos, because bitcoin code is becoming more and more obsolete...

Bitcoin code is not set in stone. Basically whatever the majority of miners uses as a protocol is bitcoin.

[KeyserSoze]

Apparently they have had this office for a while and used use it for whatever reason.

Perhaps a prostitution ring? Sorry, it's the speculation forum...