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

[VB1001]

Boletín de Bitcoin Optech # 117

This week’s newsletter describes a compiler bug that casts doubt on the safety of secure systems and explains a technique that can be used to more efficiently verify ECDSA signatures in Bitcoin. Also included are our regular sections with popular questions and answers from the Bitcoin StackExchange, announcements of releases and release candidates, and summaries of notable changes to popular Bitcoin infrastructure software.

US Patent 7,110,538 has expired: Bitcoin transactions are secured using ECDSA (the Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm). Verifying signatures involves multiplying points on the elliptic curve by scalars. Typically, each transaction input requires one or more signature verifications, meaning that syncing the Bitcoin block chain can require many millions of these elliptic curve point multiplications. Any technique to make point multiplications more efficient therefore has the potential to significantly speed up Bitcoin Core’s initial sync.

In a 2011 bitcointalk post, Hal Finney described a method by Gallant, Lambert and Vanstone (GLV) to efficiently compute elliptic curve point multiplications using an endomorphism on the curve (a mapping from the curve to itself which preserves all relationships between points). By using this GLV endomorphism, the multiplication can be broken into two parts, which are calculated simultaneously to arrive at the solution. Doing this can reduce the number of expensive computations by up to 33%. Finney wrote a proof-of-concept implementation of the GLV endomorphism, which he claimed sped up signature verification by around 25%.

Pieter Wuille separately implemented the GLV endomorphism algorithm in the libsecp256k1 library, which is used to verify signatures in Bitcoin Core. However, the algorithm was encumbered by U.S. Patent 7,110,538 and so to avoid any legal uncertainty, the implementation has not previously been distributed to users. On September 25, the patent expired, removing that legal uncertainty. A PR has been opened in the libsecp256k1 repo to always use the GLV endomorphism algorithm, which is expected to decrease Bitcoin Core’s initial sync time significantly.

https://bitcoinops.org/en/newsletters/2020/09/30/

[1713485787]

1713485787

[1713485787]

1713485787

[BobLawblaw]

#DeFi required meme viewing

https://twitter.com/ICOffender/status/1310987875547336707

[bitebits]

https://blog.kraken.com/post/6444/what-is-bitcoins-intrinsic-value-our-new-kraken-intelligence-report-explores/

Direct link to the full report:
https://kraken.docsend.com/view/ehvdmebb8gkveecj

[fillippone]

Boletín de Bitcoin Optech # 117

This week’s newsletter describes a compiler bug that casts doubt on the safety of secure systems and explains a technique that can be used to more efficiently verify ECDSA signatures in Bitcoin. Also included are our regular sections with popular questions and answers from the Bitcoin StackExchange, announcements of releases and release candidates, and summaries of notable changes to popular Bitcoin infrastructure software.

US Patent 7,110,538 has expired: Bitcoin transactions are secured using ECDSA (the Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm). Verifying signatures involves multiplying points on the elliptic curve by scalars. Typically, each transaction input requires one or more signature verifications, meaning that syncing the Bitcoin block chain can require many millions of these elliptic curve point multiplications. Any technique to make point multiplications more efficient therefore has the potential to significantly speed up Bitcoin Core’s initial sync.

In a 2011 bitcointalk post, Hal Finney described a method by Gallant, Lambert and Vanstone (GLV) to efficiently compute elliptic curve point multiplications using an endomorphism on the curve (a mapping from the curve to itself which preserves all relationships between points). By using this GLV endomorphism, the multiplication can be broken into two parts, which are calculated simultaneously to arrive at the solution. Doing this can reduce the number of expensive computations by up to 33%. Finney wrote a proof-of-concept implementation of the GLV endomorphism, which he claimed sped up signature verification by around 25%.

Pieter Wuille separately implemented the GLV endomorphism algorithm in the libsecp256k1 library, which is used to verify signatures in Bitcoin Core. However, the algorithm was encumbered by U.S. Patent 7,110,538 and so to avoid any legal uncertainty, the implementation has not previously been distributed to users. On September 25, the patent expired, removing that legal uncertainty. A PR has been opened in the libsecp256k1 repo to always use the GLV endomorphism algorithm, which is expected to decrease Bitcoin Core’s initial sync time significantly.

https://bitcoinops.org/en/newsletters/2020/09/30/

Just remember that this idea was born from a post here on Bitcointalk!.
This is a great legacy from Hal, that others have picked up, building on top of it.

wut no Caucasus map ^^ 


https://twitter.com/cryptounfolded/status/1310225180405436420?s=20

Grayscale buys additional 17100 $BTC

this week. only this bybt.com source so far

I am proud to say that my spreadsheet on Everything you wanted to know about Grayscale BTC Trust but were afraid to ask! is apparently capable of tracking those coins.



Catching up with the WO, I am on page 27306 on par now!

[VB1001]

Boletín de Bitcoin Optech # 117

This week’s newsletter describes a compiler bug that casts doubt on the safety of secure systems and explains a technique that can be used to more efficiently verify ECDSA signatures in Bitcoin. Also included are our regular sections with popular questions and answers from the Bitcoin StackExchange, announcements of releases and release candidates, and summaries of notable changes to popular Bitcoin infrastructure software.

US Patent 7,110,538 has expired: Bitcoin transactions are secured using ECDSA (the Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm). Verifying signatures involves multiplying points on the elliptic curve by scalars. Typically, each transaction input requires one or more signature verifications, meaning that syncing the Bitcoin block chain can require many millions of these elliptic curve point multiplications. Any technique to make point multiplications more efficient therefore has the potential to significantly speed up Bitcoin Core’s initial sync.

In a 2011 bitcointalk post, Hal Finney described a method by Gallant, Lambert and Vanstone (GLV) to efficiently compute elliptic curve point multiplications using an endomorphism on the curve (a mapping from the curve to itself which preserves all relationships between points). By using this GLV endomorphism, the multiplication can be broken into two parts, which are calculated simultaneously to arrive at the solution. Doing this can reduce the number of expensive computations by up to 33%. Finney wrote a proof-of-concept implementation of the GLV endomorphism, which he claimed sped up signature verification by around 25%.

Pieter Wuille separately implemented the GLV endomorphism algorithm in the libsecp256k1 library, which is used to verify signatures in Bitcoin Core. However, the algorithm was encumbered by U.S. Patent 7,110,538 and so to avoid any legal uncertainty, the implementation has not previously been distributed to users. On September 25, the patent expired, removing that legal uncertainty. A PR has been opened in the libsecp256k1 repo to always use the GLV endomorphism algorithm, which is expected to decrease Bitcoin Core’s initial sync time significantly.

https://bitcoinops.org/en/newsletters/2020/09/30/

Just remember that this idea was born from a post here on Bitcointalk!.
This is a great legacy from Hal, that others have picked up, building on top of it.

I know, I visited Hal thread yesterday, it never ceases to amaze me.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=178336.msg55283820#msg55283820

[WastedLTC]

https://blog.kraken.com/post/6444/what-is-bitcoins-intrinsic-value-our-new-kraken-intelligence-report-explores/

Direct link to the full report:
https://kraken.docsend.com/view/ehvdmebb8gkveecj

The report concludes by saying:

“Although the road ahead for bitcoin is uncertain, one thing is for certain is that bitcoin is valuable”.

lol

[julian071]

Guys I need some help. I think Bittrex has misplaced 0.17 BTC of my balance, and after a month of back-and-forth, they concluded that everything is A-OK and nothing missing. Please help me confirm who is mistaken here. Made a topic here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5279203.new#new

[Karartma1]

https://blog.kraken.com/post/6444/what-is-bitcoins-intrinsic-value-our-new-kraken-intelligence-report-explores/

Direct link to the full report:
https://kraken.docsend.com/view/ehvdmebb8gkveecj

The report concludes by saying:

“Although the road ahead for bitcoin is uncertain, one thing is for certain is that bitcoin is valuable”.

lol

Somebody here would comment that this specific conclusion came after numerous hours of science, math etc.  

[Cryptotourist]

it is not really a point of view. it is a part of art nomenclature.

The works of Hodler's early maturity consisted of landscapes, figure compositions, and portraits, treated with a vigorous realism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferdinand_Hodler

Sure it is. The artist is inspired, and channels his inspiration through his artwork.
What's left after that, is the critics of his work, and whether they get close to the artist's vision or not.
Regardless, art is open to many interpretations, without one opinion being wrong and the other one being right necessarily.

My point is, that he should have named that piece, "The homosexual bull" or something. It's a fucking cow with a dick.
It does not inspire the viewer of what bulls should be all about. Period. That's why I'm having trouble with his "realism".
Other than that, sure, his art is "realistic" enough - if you boil it down to his technique and his real life surroundings.

Anyway. I'm no expert of course, just a bull with a stubborn opinion.

It spins around the philosophic question of origin: which was first? existence or the creator? can a creator exist without existence?

Thanks - again. I O U.

[Last of the V8s]

[Amel]

Boletín de Bitcoin Optech # 117

This week’s newsletter describes a compiler bug that casts doubt on the safety of secure systems and explains a technique that can be used to more efficiently verify ECDSA signatures in Bitcoin. Also included are our regular sections with popular questions and answers from the Bitcoin StackExchange, announcements of releases and release candidates, and summaries of notable changes to popular Bitcoin infrastructure software.

US Patent 7,110,538 has expired: Bitcoin transactions are secured using ECDSA (the Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm). Verifying signatures involves multiplying points on the elliptic curve by scalars. Typically, each transaction input requires one or more signature verifications, meaning that syncing the Bitcoin block chain can require many millions of these elliptic curve point multiplications. Any technique to make point multiplications more efficient therefore has the potential to significantly speed up Bitcoin Core’s initial sync.

In a 2011 bitcointalk post, Hal Finney described a method by Gallant, Lambert and Vanstone (GLV) to efficiently compute elliptic curve point multiplications using an endomorphism on the curve (a mapping from the curve to itself which preserves all relationships between points). By using this GLV endomorphism, the multiplication can be broken into two parts, which are calculated simultaneously to arrive at the solution. Doing this can reduce the number of expensive computations by up to 33%. Finney wrote a proof-of-concept implementation of the GLV endomorphism, which he claimed sped up signature verification by around 25%.

Pieter Wuille separately implemented the GLV endomorphism algorithm in the libsecp256k1 library, which is used to verify signatures in Bitcoin Core. However, the algorithm was encumbered by U.S. Patent 7,110,538 and so to avoid any legal uncertainty, the implementation has not previously been distributed to users. On September 25, the patent expired, removing that legal uncertainty. A PR has been opened in the libsecp256k1 repo to always use the GLV endomorphism algorithm, which is expected to decrease Bitcoin Core’s initial sync time significantly.

https://bitcoinops.org/en/newsletters/2020/09/30/

Just remember that this idea was born from a post here on Bitcointalk!.
This is a great legacy from Hal, that others have picked up, building on top of it.

wut no Caucasus map ^^  


https://twitter.com/cryptounfolded/status/1310225180405436420?s=20

Grayscale buys additional 17100 $BTC

this week. only this bybt.com source so far

I am proud to say that my spreadsheet on Everything you wanted to know about Grayscale BTC Trust but were afraid to ask! is apparently capable of tracking those coins.



Catching up with the WO, I am on page 27306

Will the CME Bitcoin fates hole purchasers at $9,600 be left in tears?

Bitcoin cost has stayed above $10,000 for quite a while, yet will the energy tip back in the bulls favor for a retest of the key multi-year opposition at $12K?

The ongoing week has been generally dull on the value developments of Bitcoin (BTC), as a moderate upward pattern was built up after Bitcoin's value found a balance at above $10,000. This assembly at that point proceeded toward $11,000 on Sep. 18 however was pushed back by some transient opposition levels.

[Tash]

Guys I need some help. I think Bittrex has misplaced 0.17 BTC of my balance, and after a month of back-and-forth, they concluded that everything is A-OK and nothing missing. Please help me confirm who is mistaken here. Made a topic here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5279203.new#new

What about fees?

Anyway, exchanges have always been the week link in crypto. started bad and went downhill from there. Exchanges are junk coin paradise.
Lost track with all the troubles and close encounters (withdraw just in the nick of time) at all the now defunct exchanges. Once had to move to another country and months long battle to get my coins back just to please the exchange. Small trades not worth the hassle and risk.

[VB1001]

Guys I need some help. I think Bittrex has misplaced 0.17 BTC of my balance, and after a month of back-and-forth, they concluded that everything is A-OK and nothing missing. Please help me confirm who is mistaken here. Made a topic here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5279203.new#new

buys:
0,86392976
0,48215511
0,50035636
1,10131185
0,29780068
0,32123041

Total buys: 3,56678417

Sells:
0,96638886
1,10131840
0,29797914
0,32124446
0,34929674
0,89960826

Total sells: 3,93583586

Sells:
0,96638886
1,10131840
0,29797914
0,32124446
0,34929674
0,89960826
0,62251622

Total sells: 4,55835208

The sale that is in red has not been counted, I do not know if this helps to square their numbers

[Torque]

This debate is total cringe.

God help us all.

This is why people shouldn't care tho.

[julian071]

Sells:
0,96638886
1,10131840
0,29797914
0,32124446
0,34929674
0,89960826
0,62251622

Total sells: 4,55835208

The sale that is in red has not been counted, I do not know if this helps to square their numbers

Thanks!!

Yes that one happened on the 21st of July and is already included in the total of 1.05574581 BTC of sales that day.

[Toxic2040]

Boletín de Bitcoin Optech # 117

This week’s newsletter describes a compiler bug that casts doubt on the safety of secure systems and explains a technique that can be used to more efficiently verify ECDSA signatures in Bitcoin. Also included are our regular sections with popular questions and answers from the Bitcoin StackExchange, announcements of releases and release candidates, and summaries of notable changes to popular Bitcoin infrastructure software.

US Patent 7,110,538 has expired: Bitcoin transactions are secured using ECDSA (the Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm). Verifying signatures involves multiplying points on the elliptic curve by scalars. Typically, each transaction input requires one or more signature verifications, meaning that syncing the Bitcoin block chain can require many millions of these elliptic curve point multiplications. Any technique to make point multiplications more efficient therefore has the potential to significantly speed up Bitcoin Core’s initial sync.

In a 2011 bitcointalk post, Hal Finney described a method by Gallant, Lambert and Vanstone (GLV) to efficiently compute elliptic curve point multiplications using an endomorphism on the curve (a mapping from the curve to itself which preserves all relationships between points). By using this GLV endomorphism, the multiplication can be broken into two parts, which are calculated simultaneously to arrive at the solution. Doing this can reduce the number of expensive computations by up to 33%. Finney wrote a proof-of-concept implementation of the GLV endomorphism, which he claimed sped up signature verification by around 25%.

Pieter Wuille separately implemented the GLV endomorphism algorithm in the libsecp256k1 library, which is used to verify signatures in Bitcoin Core. However, the algorithm was encumbered by U.S. Patent 7,110,538 and so to avoid any legal uncertainty, the implementation has not previously been distributed to users. On September 25, the patent expired, removing that legal uncertainty. A PR has been opened in the libsecp256k1 repo to always use the GLV endomorphism algorithm, which is expected to decrease Bitcoin Core’s initial sync time significantly.

https://bitcoinops.org/en/newsletters/2020/09/30/

+1 WOsMerit



-----

https://blog.kraken.com/post/6444/what-is-bitcoins-intrinsic-value-our-new-kraken-intelligence-report-explores/

Direct link to the full report:
https://kraken.docsend.com/view/ehvdmebb8gkveecj

+1 WOsMerit


-----

-snip-




Will the CME Bitcoin fates hole purchasers at $9,600 be left in tears?

Bitcoin cost has stayed above $10,000 for quite a while, yet will the energy tip back in the bulls favor for a retest of the key multi-year opposition at $12K?

The ongoing week has been generally dull on the value developments of Bitcoin (BTC), as a moderate upward pattern was built up after Bitcoin's value found a balance at above $10,000. This assembly at that point proceeded toward $11,000 on Sep. 18 however was pushed back by some transient opposition levels.

+1 WOsMerit



-----

Sells:
0,96638886
1,10131840
0,29797914
0,32124446
0,34929674
0,89960826
0,62251622

Total sells: 4,55835208

The sale that is in red has not been counted, I do not know if this helps to square their numbers

+1 WOsMerit


-----

As usual...many more I have most likely missed. Keep up the good work gentlemen.


--------

the noon wall report at 10:23am

Bitcoin continues trading in a narrow range around the $10.8kish area. Another strong finish yesterday near the end of the session propelled bitcoin upwards from a low of $10,636.66 close at $10,836.442 on moderate volume.
Sideways trading in this range over the short term expected to continue as we prepare to move into October.

#dyor
1h


4h

#stronghands

[VB1001]

Sells:
0,96638886
1,10131840
0,29797914
0,32124446
0,34929674
0,89960826
0,62251622

Total sells: 4,55835208

The sale that is in red has not been counted, I do not know if this helps to square their numbers

Thanks!!

Yes that one happened on the 21st of July and is already included in the total of 1.05574581 BTC of sales that day.

Insist again and tell them that you don't agree.
You can try writing a complaint on his twitter.

[julian071]

Sells:
0,96638886
1,10131840
0,29797914
0,32124446
0,34929674
0,89960826
0,62251622

Total sells: 4,55835208

The sale that is in red has not been counted, I do not know if this helps to square their numbers

Thanks!!

Yes that one happened on the 21st of July and is already included in the total of 1.05574581 BTC of sales that day.

Insist again and tell them that you don't agree.
You can try writing a complaint on his twitter.

I did that for a month.... Hoping to get a solid second opinion here. Or uncovering my own mistake.

If it is indeed their fault, I'll name and shame them wherever possible. Most notably here.

[nullius]

"God" is just a very old name for "existence".

Didn't know that, thanks. Any source/hint to dig in?

Yes, but only in german.
https://homepage.univie.ac.at/Erwin.Bader/Schoepfung_zeitlich.html

Based on an alternative translation of JHWH (Jahweh) as "I am" or "i am here (to be)".
Imho, this is also the most logical translation.
It spins around the philosophic question of origin: which was first? existence or the creator? can a creator exist without existence?

No time now to review and untangle yet another one of these, but that’s flatly implausible.

By a verbal trick, Christians converted the generic term for a class of deities to a proper noun naming a singular deity, in multiple languages:  First the Latin deus (cognate of Sanskrit devá), then eventually the English god—in Old English, so generic a word that it was originally a neuter noun distinguishable from masculine goda and feminine gyden!  Whereas if you want to know the origins of the word, it is not sensible to analyze it as a name for a singular entity.

As a precaution, I must mention that attempts to relate Hebrew to Indo-European languages are mere hokum, usually peddled by Christian evangelists—often, but not always by those of the type who claim to be descended from the mythical Lost Tribes of Israel.  Hebrew is from a completely different language family; and there is no evidence that the different language families share any common ancestor.

The word god, like German Gott, descends from Proto-Germanic, ultimately Proto-Indo-European roots antedating the Bible, and certainly from a time long before the polytheistic speakers of such languages ever read the Book of Exodus.  It seems the current theory amongst actual etymologists is that it descends from a PIE root meaning ‘to invoke’ (as by ritual), although the history of the word is obscure and somewhat vexed; a competing theory is that it descends from the root ‘to pour’ (in reference to a sacrificial libation).

N.b. that the Ten Commandments include a decree that “thou shalt have no other gods before me”, apparently a vestige from the Jewish change from polytheism to henotheism (i.e., a belief in one superior deity, above and against other existing deities; observe the god-invoking magic competition of Moses with the Egyptian priests, or the similar challenge of Elijah to the priests of Ba’al, or the Bible’s multiple prohibitions against “Asherah poles” in reference to the worship of a Semitic goddess).  That antedates the further change to monotheism (i.e., a belief that only one deity exists).

Contemporary Judaism has a cultural sensitivity (not quite a law, at least not according to most Jewish authorities) about writing the word “God”, often rendered as “G-d” or in various other forms, as a secondary effect of the Jewish law against writing the Tetragrammaton anywhere that it may potentially be defaced.  Compare and contrast the kosher law against eating meat with milk, a protection against potentially coming too close to violating the negative mitzvah against boiling a kid in its mother’s milk.

The Christian deity is not actually monotheistic in the Jewish sense.  In concept, it copies the Zoroastrian Ahura Mazda (a good god embattled by an evil god/devil) mashed together with the Hindu concept of a trinity, the concept of a divine son (here probably from Mithraism), the mortal incarnation of a god (various sources), plus a few other things.  The Jewish monotheism is closer to the Stoics’ animus mundi, and probably therefrom derived.  The notion that an angel could rebel against an absolute supreme being is, of course, illogical; accordingly, the Jewish Satan is also quite different than the Christian Satan.  The only real linkages between Judaism and Christianity are that (a) Christianity started as a religion of heretical Jews in the Second Century’s equivalent of New Age cults, and (b) Christianity takes the Jewish Bible as its Old Testament.  In particular, the Christian concept of a messiah (one-third of a three-in-one deity) is totally foreign to the Jewish concept of a messiah (a Jewish king, perforce only human, bearing an ancient title that was held by historical Jewish kings—and even granted by the Jews to one Gentile, Cyrus the Great), and is not therefrom derived.

(Side note:  The word “christ” (χριστός) is a calque of Hebrew “messiah” (משיח).  It is a title, not a name, wherefore educated Christians typically refer to “Jesus, the Christ”, not “Jesus Christ”.)


The foregoing fact-check is dashed out almost wholly off the top of my head, and with the objective detachment of a quite irreligious observer of human affairs.  I have no faith to sell you, except for the One True Revelation of the god of Bitcoin.

[OutOfMemory]

"God" is just a very old name for "existence".

Didn't know that, thanks. Any source/hint to dig in?

Yes, but only in german.
https://homepage.univie.ac.at/Erwin.Bader/Schoepfung_zeitlich.html

Based on an alternative translation of JHWH (Jahweh) as "I am" or "i am here (to be)".
Imho, this is also the most logical translation.
It spins around the philosophic question of origin: which was first? existence or the creator? can a creator exist without existence?

....

Illogical?
Well, under the fact that i, being atheist, see only one "god" which all religions are referring to. Even multiple deity "models", it's all the same. It's a mythical attempt to explain existence. Existence is everything. Every religion is full of metaphors of it.

(Side note:  The word “christ” (χριστός) is a calque of Hebrew “messiah” (משיח).  It is a title, not a name, wherefore educated Christians typically refer to “Jesus, the Christ”, not “Jesus Christ”.)

Thanks for the clarification with christ.
"Jesus, Christ" should also be valid then.