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

[raid_n]

Turing completeness is a horrible idea for scripting in a cryptocurrency. Just look at the past couple of decades of vulnerabilities in java, javascript, flash, etc, etc.  Turing complete money will drain your wallet on it's own.

The only thing I can see stopping it is another cryptocurrency which accomplishes everything that Bitcoin does and more, only with a codebase so different that Bitcoin can not adopt these added desirable features.

May I ask how important you feel Turing completeness is in the scripting language?

I'm sorry, I do not have the technical knowledge to answer this question. Give me a few days and I may be able to give you an answer.

+1

[Solarstorm75]

We have seen huge bid depth on Gox before.....

It´s probably just whales trying to calm everyone down, tryin to protect their investment. I wouldn´t bet on it that all buy walls are real.

Or someone is painting the orderbook , to animate the sheeples to buy.

Don't bet on walls!

[kkaspar]

There is no reason to get defensive here.
So you do not believe that the protocol can last much longer than maybe a few years?
That's great but I feel that half of your arguments have nothing to do with that sentiment.

And to clarify things on the protocol level.
Bitcoin does something elegant that Lamport already proposed in 84 when talking about the consensus problem.
Cryptographically signed messages make solving the Byzantine generals problem easier because attackers can't forge the general's message
This is the basic building block for bitcoin.
Other consensus variants are better for other tasks (Like using a Total order multicast for a replicated state machine).
Sticking everything into one protocol makes absolutely no sense.
You bloat the system, the code gets messy and ultimately this can lead to major problems in the long run.

A slim protocol is a good thing in this respect. It is easier to maintain and better to understand

In my vision what stops bitcoin from going much further: a) Speed of increasing wealth concentration b) Deflationary system that prohibits price stability c) Inefficiency of mining where new resources are spent while the network doesn't gain in speed or security.
I find these properties to be core properties that are also highly flawed and beyond fixing.

[TERA]

We have seen huge bid depth on Gox before.....

It´s probably just whales trying to calm everyone down, tryin to protect their investment. I wouldn´t bet on it that all buy walls are real.

Or someone is painting the orderbook , to animate the sheeples to buy.

Don't bet on walls!

I'm not saying those walls mean buy now or that they are impenetrable. But I am saying that walls are a general indicator of the amount of strength that is there. The more vertical and consistent the bid looks, the closer you are to having hit bottom. It should start looking like one giant wall rather than a collection of individual walls. I know this can theoretically be faked, but in the past it has served as a very reliable indicator (at least from my point of view). The time inbetween bubbles is basically time spent building walls. When a bubble first pops, the walls are very scattered and inconsistent looking with all kinds of cliffs for the price fall of. Once the proper arrangement of walls is reconstructed, then the rally is ready to resume.

[Peter R]

Turing completeness is a horrible idea for scripting in a cryptocurrency. Just look at the past couple of decades of vulnerabilities in java, javascript, flash, etc, etc.  Turing complete money will drain your wallet on it's own.

The only thing I can see stopping it is another cryptocurrency which accomplishes everything that Bitcoin does and more, only with a codebase so different that Bitcoin can not adopt these added desirable features.

May I ask how important you feel Turing completeness is in the scripting language?

I'm sorry, I do not have the technical knowledge to answer this question. Give me a few days and I may be able to give you an answer.

+1

These are good points too.  Turing completeness in a scripting language means that "anything computable, can be computed by running the appropriate script."  So there is an infinite surface of potential problems that would slowly show themselves, I think.  The Java exploits are a good analogy.  

[billyjoeallen]

All we need now is some hapless bears to dump and start the bull shark feeding frenzy. Keep spreading FUD. The trap is set. Now all we need is bait.

[raid_n]

There is no reason to get defensive here.
So you do not believe that the protocol can last much longer than maybe a few years?
That's great but I feel that half of your arguments have nothing to do with that sentiment.

And to clarify things on the protocol level.
Bitcoin does something elegant that Lamport already proposed in 84 when talking about the consensus problem.
Cryptographically signed messages make solving the Byzantine generals problem easier because attackers can't forge the general's message
This is the basic building block for bitcoin.
Other consensus variants are better for other tasks (Like using a Total order multicast for a replicated state machine).
Sticking everything into one protocol makes absolutely no sense.
You bloat the system, the code gets messy and ultimately this can lead to major problems in the long run.

A slim protocol is a good thing in this respect. It is easier to maintain and better to understand

In my vision what stops bitcoin from going much further: a) Speed of increasing wealth concentration b) Deflationary system that prohibits price stability c) Inefficiency of mining where new resources are spend while the network doesn't gain in speed or security.
I find these properties to be core properties that are also highly flawed and beyond fixing.

To a) : Would you agree with me that in our current system as you get wealthier it becomes easier to increase that wealth even more?
You are also comparing apples to oranges. The current value increase is price discovery and not deflation. Deflation will happen once this has stabilized

b) I'm not sure what you mean here. If bitcoin finds mass adoption prices won't fluctuate as much.
Because bitcoin is deflationary the incentive to spend it is lower. It will be interesting to see how that plays out on a larger scale if
bitcoin is ever to become mainstream

c) I've told you before that Proof of Work is a robust way of building consensus in such an anonymous probabilistic consensus
Bitcoin is a protocol. If a better method comes along that is guaranteed to work it can be implemented trivially.

People need to wrap their head around the fact that bitcoin is what the majority of miners use as a protocol.
Anything can be changed, yes this includes the 21 million cap. If everyone adopts a protocol that changes this then
thats that. If some don't agree with this you'd fork bitcoin, effectively creating a new altcoin.

[TERA]

All we need now is some hapless bears to dump and start the bull shark feeding frenzy. Keep spreading FUD. The trap is set. Now all we need is bait.

Now I'm not being bearish here but I think it's almost a certainty that the current chart is overbought and that we need to retest some level around 500 to 'complete' the chart. Unfortunately, this might not happen until some bears come along and help it happen with FUD. At that point, when the FUD is driving it down and it's reached 500, the FUD might be so strong you might no longer think 'oh 500 the excellent buying opportunity I've been waiting for". You might instead think that it's going to 400 or even that 400 was not the bottom after all and that it's going to even lower levels. Then suddenly the price will rebound back to 600 and you'll be left with no coins, feeling like an idiot.

[raid_n]

Turing completeness is a horrible idea for scripting in a cryptocurrency. Just look at the past couple of decades of vulnerabilities in java, javascript, flash, etc, etc.  Turing complete money will drain your wallet on it's own.

The only thing I can see stopping it is another cryptocurrency which accomplishes everything that Bitcoin does and more, only with a codebase so different that Bitcoin can not adopt these added desirable features.

May I ask how important you feel Turing completeness is in the scripting language?

I'm sorry, I do not have the technical knowledge to answer this question. Give me a few days and I may be able to give you an answer.

+1

These are good points too.  Turing completeness in a scripting language means that "anything computable, can be computed by running the appropriate script."  So there is an infinite surface of potential problems that would slowly show themselves, I think.  The Java exploits are a good analogy.  

just think about something like  
{ while true; }
in the scripting language. I send you such a transaction. Will your machine lock up in an endless loop?

[edit] just to point out the irony in this. If the scripting language is turing complete there will always be the possibility of
implementing non-terminating code. And because of the halting problem you can't deterministically decide if a piece of code
is going to terminate or not.

[Peter R]

All we need now is some hapless bears to dump and start the bull shark feeding frenzy. Keep spreading FUD. The trap is set. Now all we need is bait.

Now I'm not being bearish here but I think it's almost a certainty that the current chart is overbought and that we need to retest some level around 500 to 'complete' the chart. Unfortunately, this might not happen until some bears come along and help it happen with FUD. At that point, when the FUD is driving it down and it's reached 500, the FUD might be so strong you might no longer think 'oh 500 the excellent buying opportunity I've been waiting for". You might instead think that it's going to 400 or even that 400 was not the bottom after all and that it's going to even lower levels. Then suddenly the price will rebound back to 600 and you'll be left with no coins, feeling like an idiot.

I've learned a lot from people like you, TERA.  I used to think that TA was voodoo science no better than a coin toss. Now I see how the price wave cycles drive the news/FUD as much as the news/FUD drives the price.  It's quite fascinating, really. 

[mb300sd]

Turing completeness is a horrible idea for scripting in a cryptocurrency. Just look at the past couple of decades of vulnerabilities in java, javascript, flash, etc, etc.  Turing complete money will drain your wallet on it's own.

The only thing I can see stopping it is another cryptocurrency which accomplishes everything that Bitcoin does and more, only with a codebase so different that Bitcoin can not adopt these added desirable features.

May I ask how important you feel Turing completeness is in the scripting language?

I'm sorry, I do not have the technical knowledge to answer this question. Give me a few days and I may be able to give you an answer.

+1

These are good points too.  Turing completeness in a scripting language means that "anything computable, can be computed by running the appropriate script."  So there is an infinite surface of potential problems that would slowly show themselves, I think.  The Java exploits are a good analogy. 

just think about something like 
{ while true; }
in the scripting language. I send you such a transaction. Will your machine lock up in an endless loop?

No comment on weather this is a good idea or not, but theres a simple solution to this particular problem: fees.

Only execute the first x operations, where x=fee*const. Sure, you could make a machine freeze up for a half a second, but you'd be paying out the ass to do it.

[Peter R]

No comment on weather this is a good idea or not, but theres a simple solution to this particular problem: fees.

Only execute the first x operations, where x=fee*const. Sure, you could make a machine freeze up for a half a second, but you'd be paying out the ass to do it.

Thanks mb300sd.  I was about to write the same comment.  

[raid_n]

No comment on weather this is a good idea or not, but theres a simple solution to this particular problem: fees.

Only execute the first x operations, where x=fee*const. Sure, you could make a machine freeze up for a half a second, but you'd be paying out the ass to do it.

Thanks mb300sd.  I was about to write the same comment.  

Yes, thats probably the way you'd want to implement it.
But then calculating fees is going to be hard/impossible.
Any time you have conditionals you'll have to take into consideration the longest possible execution and use that as a fee

[soullyG]

No comment on weather this is a good idea or not, but theres a simple solution to this particular problem: fees.

Only execute the first x operations, where x=fee*const. Sure, you could make a machine freeze up for a half a second, but you'd be paying out the ass to do it.

Thanks mb300sd.  I was about to write the same comment.  

Yep, this is how Ethereum is handling it:

https://github.com/ethereum/wiki/wiki/[English]-White-Paper#wiki-fees

[ErisDiscordia]

The thing about Jorge is that he’s a provincial academic. In a country outside the G8, at that. Like most minor academics, especially in middle age, there is a tendency to bitterness which they are self-aware enough to hide. They are the losers and they know it.

At one point the potential must have seemed endless. Imagine being in California in the early 80s, studying Math or Computing at Stanford – what possibilities! The world ready throw billions at you and your contemporaries! Who wouldn’t start a company? Who wouldn’t invest in friends? Who wouldn’t risk just a little in their own future?

No, play it safe. Rise above the crass entrepreneurialism. Teach. Head back to a salary, with a pension. You could have done well, of course, if you’d wanted to, but the guiding, year after year, of smiling young faces was its own reward.

And now, another tech revolution unfolds in front of you. You have the understanding and the ability to invest time or money into the idea. But wait – actual involvement? Wet feet? Action? No, no, no. Not me. That would just emphasise all my other missed chances.

No, I’ll snipe from the safety of my tenure. I could have partaken, honestly, but I’m better than that. I’m aware of it, but above it, because, well, I’m an academic.

You have the talent, the time and resources. But you won’t even buy one coin to see what it’s about. You’re wasting your time and ours in a desperate bid to show some kind of superiority. You’ve taken enough advice and explanation with nothing of interest coming back. You’ve had your moment in this thread, presumably because it’s the busiest, but you should have the decency to set up your own and see if anyone will follow and care there.

Are we done bashing academia yet?  I am sure there are plenty of pro-bitcoin people there too (Jerry Brito off the top of my head).

No we're not  

Because like politicians and central banks it still gets way too much unquestioning respect and credit. It needs some more bashing.

Our whole school system is designed to turn people from random individuals into mutually interchangeable parts of a big machine. What is the first thing you learn in school? It's not reading, or writing or any of that stuff which your parents or their friends could have taught you by themselves if they weren't too busy being parts of the machine. It's that your time is not your own. It doesn't belong to you. It belongs to the authorities who will tell you when to be at a certain place, doing certain things. Better get used to it kiddo, because it's going to be like that for the rest of your life!

Next thing you learn is that mistakes are bad. So bad in fact that it is preferable to do nothing than to make mistakes. Oh and don't bother thinking for yourself. There is exactly ONE correct answer to everything and we already have it so don't bother with that, just memorize these text books.

Btw I went to university. I was interested in the subject they were "teaching". What a huge pile of horse crap that was. I quit. Everyone told me I am crazy, without education I won't get a good job! Right. As if having a Job (acronym for "Just over broke") is the only way to get by in life. Anyway I told them they are crazy for wasting their best years in such a rotten institution. And they knew it was shit. But the momentum of the whole system just carried them further and they stayed, finished their schools, got into jobs and started turning into miserable zombies just as predicted. And the ones who actually stayed in school even further, turning themselves into academics? They were the worst of the bunch. Lifeless, bland individuals, without any original thought in their heads. Conforming to the standards of authority has become the alpha and omega and everything else takes the back seat. Except their bitter conviction that somehow they are relevant. That somehow the guy who spent his whole life in academia can teach businessmen about management.

Jorge - you will get made fun of here. You got more than enough chances to join the discussion in a productive manner but you refuse to do it, instead seemingly relishing in all the (albeit negative) attention you're getting. I get it, it's become a part of your personality to define yourself as the bright, misunderstood victim of stupid bullies who just won't listen. So here you go, have some more! You are irrelevant and at best an amusement. Your murder case analogy made me laugh, for instance. Laugh at the possibility that you might be serious lol  

[billyjoeallen]

All we need now is some hapless bears to dump and start the bull shark feeding frenzy. Keep spreading FUD. The trap is set. Now all we need is bait.

Now I'm not being bearish here but I think it's almost a certainty that the current chart is overbought and that we need to retest some level around 500 to 'complete' the chart. Unfortunately, this might not happen until some bears come along and help it happen with FUD. At that point, when the FUD is driving it down and it's reached 500, the FUD might be so strong you might no longer think 'oh 500 the excellent buying opportunity I've been waiting for". You might instead think that it's going to 400 or even that 400 was not the bottom after all and that it's going to even lower levels. Then suddenly the price will rebound back to 600 and you'll be left with no coins, feeling like an idiot.

That's certainly possible, but there has been enough consolidation to potentially start the next rally from any point at any time. I wouldn't want to be full fiat when that happens.

[JayJuanGee]

http://www.scribd.com/doc/209535200/Business-Plan-MtGox-2014-2017

$2 million in profit in the current fiscal year? And all the hassle, risk and aggravation? Remind me never to go into the Bitcoin business.

That document is evidence of attempted fraud. Their profit was much higher than 2 million but Mark lost much much more. The majority of new capital was to cover for Karpeles' blunders.  Mark is not just out of business now. He's going to jail.

WE still do NOT know whether he did anything illegal.

Surely if we take the story at face value about the theft of the coins then it becomes fraud the moment the loss of the coins is discovered if trading is allowed to continue.  That would mean from that this point in time that people were knowingly being allowed to buy coins that don't exist.  This of course would raise the question of whether trading stopped on discovery of this or later on.  Up until that point it would be incompetence, if trading continues once it's realised that there's no coins then doesn't it become a crime?

Actually, it may be a crime if there were banking regulations, but if there was NO intent to defraud investors, then how could that be a crime?  








 

[kkaspar]

To a) : Would you agree with me that in our current system as you get wealthier it becomes easier to increase that wealth even more?
You are also comparing apples to oranges. The current value increase is price discovery and not deflation. Deflation will happen once this has stabilized

I agree that this is an general concept that you can more easily increase wealth when you have wealth. But with the nature of bitcoin it's a lot worse.
Whether you call it price discovery or deflation, the general idea is the same. Bitcoin is called a currency, with it's main value should be in transferring value. But the speed of deflation is just too high to build any stability. It was built so it would be attractive as an investment. It was built so people would buy in hopes of selling higher. This system was never meant to find stability, but to find increasing amount of users. That is the reason why bitcoin is compared to an pyramid scheme, because it's in a constant hunger of needing new adopters.

b) I'm not sure what you mean here. If bitcoin finds mass adoption prices won't fluctuate as much.
Because bitcoin is deflationary the incentive to spend it is lower. It will be interesting to see how that plays out on a larger scale if
bitcoin is ever to become mainstream

The increasing market cap won't help with stability much. It will only attract players with deeper pockets and more knowledge on how to play the unregulated market for personal gain.
Only thing that would create stability would be if bitcoin would be unattractive as an investment, but then all the get-rich-quick part of the community would walk. Most of the people aren't here because they find bitcoin to be useful in transfer of value. They are here because they want to invest into bitcoin so that their wealth will increase.
And that is the fundamental flaw in bitcoin. Money should never be attractive as an investment. It could work with 1% a year deflation, but with bitcoin the deflation rate is and will be ridiculous with its future plan with inflow of new coins.

c) I've told you before that Proof of Work is a robust way of building consensus in such an anonymous probabilistic consensus
Bitcoin is a protocol. If a better method comes along that is guaranteed to work it can be implemented trivially.

Proof-of-Stake is already better and could be implemented but there is no interest in doing that because even the very small decrease in deflation that is created, will put most people off. Most here want as much deflation as possible.
When looking at the past developments and the current discussions on possible developments, then I don't see any hope for important changes.

People need to wrap their head around the fact that bitcoin is what the majority of miners use as a protocol.
Anything can be changed, yes this includes the 21 million cap. If everyone adopts a protocol that changes this then
thats that. If some don't agree with this you'd fork bitcoin, effectively creating a new altcoin.

I myself find it funny that bitcoin is called as a protocol to some. Protocol needs to be something neutral without increasing unit price. You don't see e-mail being created in a way where the new adopters have to fill the pockets of the old adopters to join the game. If e-mail would have been created in this way, then people would have found a workaround to create an alternative where everyone can get a fair chance in using this protocol.
These are the wet dreams of bitcoin adopters, that everyone will start using bitcoin and will start filling their pockets in the process. But the world doesn't work like that. There are smart enough people to create alternatives, so people don't have to feed the leeches to use a piece of technology.

Anyway, I like your post because you explained yourself in a calm and constructive manner. I still can't see how bitcoin could survive very long though.

[billyjoeallen]

All we need now is some hapless bears to dump and start the bull shark feeding frenzy. Keep spreading FUD. The trap is set. Now all we need is bait.

Now I'm not being bearish here but I think it's almost a certainty that the current chart is overbought and that we need to retest some level around 500 to 'complete' the chart. Unfortunately, this might not happen until some bears come along and help it happen with FUD. At that point, when the FUD is driving it down and it's reached 500, the FUD might be so strong you might no longer think 'oh 500 the excellent buying opportunity I've been waiting for". You might instead think that it's going to 400 or even that 400 was not the bottom after all and that it's going to even lower levels. Then suddenly the price will rebound back to 600 and you'll be left with no coins, feeling like an idiot.

I've learned a lot from people like you, TERA.  I used to think that TA was voodoo science no better than a coin toss. Now I see how the price wave cycles drive the news/FUD as much as the news/FUD drives the price.  It's quite fascinating, really. 

+1.  Fundamental analysis works better for investing but TA works better for trading.

[fluidjax]

Just a quick reminder for what´s about to come in the media in the next days.

Bitcoin is a trademark held by MtGox!

If MtGox get´s broke - Bitcoin get´s
If MtGox did get hacked - Bitcoin did
......

What? 

Same logic....
If fonzie talks junk, Henry Winkler talks junk.