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

[heslo]

It's done; another $500 million ready to use to top up his BTC balance

https://twitter.com/michael_saylor/status/1404434078795972613

MicroStrategy Completes $500 Million Offering of 6.125% Senior Secured Notes Due 2028 with #Bitcoin Use of Proceeds. @MicroStrategy’s existing approximately 92,079 bitcoins are being held by a newly formed subsidiary, MacroStrategy LLC.  $MSTR

[1714963977]

1714963977

[1714963977]

1714963977

[1714963977]

1714963977

[1714963977]

1714963977

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[cAPSLOCK]

Good discussion above on key management and the perils of inheritance.  This is where my brain has been this weekend too.

I have not decided what I will do insofar as inheritance.  It's tough.  Because I do like the idea of leaving wealth for my children as an ultimate act of provision as their dad, yet I have seen what unearned wealth does to people.  When you can buy all the heroin you want for your whole, shortened life, and are miserable... then why not?  On the other hand who they are is primarily dependent on their actions, not mine.  I hope I have raised them moderately well...  I certainly have not been perfect.

As to the technical ways of doing this.  There are so many catch-22s.  ESPECIALLY in the realm of self custody.  Ultimately this is part of my reasoning behind why I think "banks" of one kind or another are still useful and needed.  But those come with another set of horrible tradeoffs.

OK.  Say you leave a seed phrase in a safe deposit box.  Well, what if there is a court order for the bank to drill the box?  From ANYONE.  The government, family that has gone rogue, Craig Wright?  Lol.

OK BIP-39 password then.  That mitigates that at least somewhat.  Then how do you store the password?  In your, and your families memories?  Scary weak, the human mind.  Also what if you want to not reveal that password until it is necessary to avoid some of the "rogue family member scenario".  You could back up the password on stainless steel too.  Ugh.  Now we are trapped in loops of storage.  Also now our enemy becomes complexity.The more you do to complicate this whole process the more risk you incur.  But if you make it too "simple" then again, risks. Use the same password as the WiFi router that all the family members know?  Or some 32 character password like this one:

7=a1m'9?T7G0w5q{^QetXyV08^y7Tk4-

That password has 167 bits of entropy.  It would be practically impossible to guess.  Also practically impossible to remember.  So we have to balance strength with memorability. Or at least ease of storage and retrieval.  But if you store your password in the same vault as your seed, what good is it?  And yet if you store them in two places now you are 2x as vulnerable to loss. Lose one half of the recipe, and it's as good as having lost all of it.  By increasing "geolocation entropy" we are also increasing certain risks, while mitigating others.

Hold on... we are just getting started.  Aha!  You might say.  Use multisig!

I like it.  This method can use "geolocation entropy" to our advantage!  Now we can reduce much of our risk by storing our seeds in multiple places.  And even if you stored the password WITH the seed (which I do not like, still) an attacker would not be able to get to anything that requires more than 1 key to access.

And yet, this too has some hidden risks.  Did you know that you need all of your XPUBs (or zpubs or ypubs) if you are going to use the "x" number of keys in an x of y setup?  In other words... There are scenarios where you can have 2 of 3 seeds in a 2 of 3 multisig setup and and be shit out of luck. So, you have to safeguard all of your xpubs as well.  So you could store all three x pubs with each seed, but then you have also reduced your security somewhat.  Because all an attacker needs in that scenario is two seeds, where if the XPUBs are elsewhere then the attacker cannot access anything with just 2.  Now a view only electrum wallet or the like can take care of this.  Gives you a way to send coins to storage and also a way to backup your 3 XPUBS.  That view only wallet could be encrypted and stored electronically in an email, or USB key etc (This is it's own rabbit hole of risks that I will not go down lol).

Whew, I know. But that's not even all of it.  (This is where you will see why I still like Monero)

Because we have another issue we have to consider.  Your history on the blockchain.

Say you have a decoy wallet or two.  You keep 10% of your holding in one key's address with no BIP39 password.  That way when the $9 wrench (seriously.. they are printing shit tons, I do not think a good wrench is $5 even at Harbor Freight anymore) is hanging over your head and you give up your decoy wallet you have to have made sure your story is plausible.  That wallet better not have originally held the 90% that was later sent to you "real" address.  Because the attacker is not done with the wrench in that case.  Going down this path is VERY nasty.  You cannot hide a coin's history on the Bitcoin network, so one must go to great lengths to cover their tracks.  Coinjoins, or transfers to and from an exchange, or other communal wallet, or certain uses of layer 2 transfers can help here.  But this gets REALLY complicated really fast and has it's own costs and tradeoffs.

My advice?  If you store an amount of wealth in Bitcoin that you are not comfortable just being lost in case you are injured or killed, then you'd better get to cracking on your strategies sooner, rather than later.

[goldkingcoiner]

Anyone else seeing this?

FTFY

Well no, in my TA I was looking at resistance levels not support (which are exactly equal at the 0,382-0,618 Fibonacci levels. In my case, the mathematical golden ratio (the black line in my TA) of the Fibonacci sequence remains the same price difference, either way.

[cAPSLOCK]

https://twitter.com/AaronvanW/status/1403701284495110145

Thanks for this, I went through the links. Nice historical references to the progression to where we are now. All the concepts involved are very interesting and significant. Math & science at its best.

My only concern is that the more of such elements one adds to the protocol, the more complex it becomes, and this has the potential to make it less robust (more vulnerable to attacks and other complications). I'm very supportive of any improvement that can add important features to the protocol, but I'm just a tiny little bit concerned of the end result, once the beast is released out in the wild. I trust the developers and I'm sure they've tested everything thoroughly, so hopefully nothing wrong will come out if this, but just a stronger, more capable, more flexible protocol.

I get your concern, any code added increases the attack surface. BUT the beauty is you don't have to use the newly added functionality (as with most other software upgrades). It is a softfork, legacy addresses or multisig not using Schnorr signatures and Tapscript will keep on working just fine (and the Schnorr signature scheme is from 1990 so already rather proven). It is now up to the wallet software providers and blockchain explorers to update their software, for exchanges and third party custodians it will (and probably should) take even longer.

Guess I am trying to say the adoption of Taproot will be slowly over time. It is not that with the Taproot activation in November anything immediately changes to Bitcoin.

The beauty of BTC is that the idea is from the 70s and the code is moslty from 90s 00s.
And people still don't get how valuable that is.
Thanks bitcoin devs

That simple idea also fuels the argument for why changes to the Bitcoin codebase have to be done SLOWLY and VERY CAREFULLY.

Even with examples of ridiculous 'theft' and loss we have on Ethereum have not convinced MANY folks that the whole Bitcoin does not have all the latest "improvements" argument is horribly misguided.

[Elwar]

Good discussion above on key management and the perils of inheritance.  This is where my brain has been this weekend too.

I have not decided what I will do insofar as inheritance.  It's tough.  Because I do like the idea of leaving wealth for my children as an ultimate act of provision as their dad, yet I have seen what unearned wealth does to people.  When you can buy all the heroin you want for your whole, shortened life, and are miserable... then why not?  On the other hand who they are is primarily dependent on their actions, not mine.  I hope I have raised them moderately well...  I certainly have not been perfect.

Inheritance goes along with our primal instinct/desire to secure the future existence of your offspring. This is common throughout most living creatures unless the species can survive without the protection of those that bring them into the world (ie Bacteria).

To that end, it may be best to offer the tools of success rather than just straight wealth. Our basic instincts also desiring that our children also breed and have the ability to support their offspring.

There is also the desire that our children keep certain values that we hold dear as a way of a sort of "immortality" through our offspring. Toward this, it may be better to link inheritance to some sort of achievements which you desire for your child to reach (graduations, career, marriage, children, home ownership, etc.).

I agree that just giving money to kids is dangerous. If you look at most of the super wealthy, the children end up being worthless while the grandchildren usually pick up the traits of the wealthy person. Maybe that's due to the wealthy person never being there for their children because they're too busy becoming wealthy such that the children resent them but then after the wealthy person is finished making money they have more time for their grandchildren which they can teach their life lessons.

[El duderino_]

So ….. when….. 45?

Then when…. 50?

Then when …. ATH?

Then ………. When…… 6 digits ?

Etc etc

[philipma1957]

$40k, imminent!

$40k is impenetrable. Not gonna happen.

Now that 40k has allowed herself to be penetrated

Does all that math mean that once you been penetrated the path to repeated penetration is clear and easy to follow.

I wonder does miss 41k miss her penetration by the bull and is calling the bull to be penetrated.

Is this the new trend all the lovely numbers that know what penetration feels like will be calling on the bull this week.

or is proudhon the ultimate bull blocker?

and will bar the door on all those poor levels wanting to get penetrated again.

My guess is 70k is coming. soon.

[Richy_T]

And yet, this too has some hidden risks.  Did you know that you need all of your XPUBs (or zpubs or ypubs) if you are going to use the "x" number of keys in an x of y setup?  In other words... There are scenarios where you can have 2 of 3 seeds in a 2 of 3 multisig setup and and be shit out of luck. So, you have to safeguard all of your xpubs as well.  So you could store all three x pubs with each seed, but then you have also reduced your security somewhat.  Because all an attacker needs in that scenario is two seeds, where if the XPUBs are elsewhere then the attacker cannot access anything with just 2.  Now a view only electrum wallet or the like can take care of this.  Gives you a way to send coins to storage and also a way to backup your 3 XPUBS.  That view only wallet could be encrypted and stored electronically in an email, or USB key etc (This is it's own rabbit hole of risks that I will not go down lol).

One thing I played with as an idea once was rather than worrying too much about keys was to generate and sign transactions but not put them on the blockchain. If discovered, these transactions could not be used to steal funds (other than if stolen by the intended target) and are easily invalidated if you suspect foul play by simply spending the coins.

You might also be able to do some stuff with nlocktime.

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[Gyrsur]

Anyone else seeing this?

FTFY

Well no, in my TA I was looking at resistance levels not support (which are exactly equal at the 0,382-0,618 Fibonacci levels. In my case, the mathematical golden ratio (the black line in my TA) of the Fibonacci sequence remains the same price difference, either way.

I agree. In a down swing as soon as the amount of the sellers is declining sellers will take profits and buyers start to buying in. that is the point where the price will starts to go up a bit.

in case of a Fibonacci Retracement the first mark of a pull back (price goes up a bit) is the 23.6% mark. that is the first resistance level if you just look at the Fibo levels. it is NOT the 78.6% mark. if you have the 78.6% mark first in your drawing then you drew the Fibonacci Retracement levels the wrong way round.

that is seen so many times everywhere that some TA guys have drawn the Fibonacci Retracement levels always the wrong way round.  

[cygan]

So ….. when….. 45?

Then when…. 50?

Then when …. ATH?

Then ………. When…… 6 digits ?

Etc etc

we need some more vulcanos🌋🌋
and then its only a question of when

[Gyrsur]

a new bubble starts. too fast. too much short squeeze. f*ck the sellers.  

BTW, I didn't get the term "SOMA" if someone is speaking "according to my SOMA".

what does the term "SOMA" stands for? has it something to do with the drug "SOMA" from the book "Brave New World"?

[Hueristic]

a new bubble starts. too fast. too much short squeeze. f*ck the sellers.  

BTW, I didn't get the term "SOMA" if someone is speaking "according to my SOMA".

what does the term "SOMA" stands for? has it something to do with the drug "SOMA" from the book "Brave New World"?

Straight
Outta
My
Ass

I used to say pulled outta my ass but I think it was Eddie that coined Soma.

[Gyrsur]

a new bubble starts. too fast. too much short squeeze. f*ck the sellers.  

BTW, I didn't get the term "SOMA" if someone is speaking "according to my SOMA".

what does the term "SOMA" stands for? has it something to do with the drug "SOMA" from the book "Brave New World"?

Straight
Outta
My
Ass

I used to say pulled outta my ass but I think it was Eddie that coined Soma.

thanks Bro!  

then I will say next SOMA/POMA.

[El duderino_]

[Gyrsur]

SOMA/POMA Wyckoff:

Phase D (Accumulation)

The Phase D represents the transition between the Cause and Effect. It stands between the Accumulation zone (Phase C) and the breakout of the trading range (Phase E).

Typically, the Phase D shows a significant increase in trading volume and volatility. It usually has a Last Point Support (LPS), making a higher low before the market moves higher. The LPS often precedes a breakout of the resistance levels, which in turn creates higher highs. This indicates Signs of Strength (SOS), as previous resistances become brand new supports.
Despite the somewhat confusing terminology, there may be more than one LPS during Phase D. They often have increased trading volume while testing the new support lines. In some cases, the price may create a small consolidation zone before effectively breaking the bigger trading range and moving to Phase E.

IMO, we are at the beginning to leave the Accumulation zone.

EDIT:

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[Toxic2040]

the morning wall report

fairly epic engagement over the weekend with increasing volumes...FUD diminishing...signals flowing..a good look for bitcoin imho

carry on

#dyor

1h



4h

#stronghands

[JayJuanGee]

I actually have been thinking about creating a trust to fund a developer or something like that.. but such a thing might be a bit complicated, including having instructions to manage the trust.. it is a budding idea, and I am not sure how far my idea would be able to get beyond just thinking about the matter...

I like that idea and I've been considering it too, but not sure how easy it will be to manage, as you say. I'm not Warren Buffett, so I don't have the resources to set up trust funds, and my coins are not that many anyway. What I often do is donate to developers and other capable individuals, to support interesting projects. This is exactly what the criteria should be: capabilities, innovation, significance to the world. No DNA sequence should entitle anyone to have access to any amount of wealth.

Speaking of Warren Buffett, as much as I dislike the man for his anti-Bitcoin stance, I very much like his attitude towards his children's inheritance:

(FORTUNE Magazine, September 29, 1986) – WARREN BUFFETT, 56, the chairman and guiding genius of Berkshire Hathaway, the phenomenally successful holding company, is worth at least $1.5 billion. But don't bother being jealous of his three children. Buffett does not believe that it is wise to bequeath great wealth, and plans to give most of his money to his charitable foundation. Having put his two sons and a daughter through college, the Omaha investor contents himself with giving them several thousand dollars each at Christmas. Beyond that, says daughter Susan, 33, ''If I write my dad a check for $20, he cashes it.''

Buffett is not cutting his children out of his fortune because they are wastrels or wantons or refuse to go into the family business -- the traditional reasons rich parents withhold money. Says he: ''My kids are going to carve out their own place in this world, and they know I'm for them whatever they want to do.'' But he believes that setting up his heirs with ''a lifetime supply of food stamps just because they came out of the right womb'' can be ''harmful'' for them and is ''an antisocial act.'' To him, the perfect amount to leave children is ''enough money so that they would feel they could do anything, but not so much that they could do nothing.'' For a college graduate, Buffett reckons ''a few hundred thousand dollars'' sounds about right.

Source: https://archive.fortune.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/1986/09/29/68098/index.htm

The trust fund aspect is something that I have been thinking about creating a thread on such topic because it can be quite involved. 

Surely there are a couple of ways of thinking about it, and one aspect would be if you already feel that you have an excessive quantity of coins, then you might put those coins into such fund and then practice managing them while you are still alive in order to get a kind of practice and routine going so that when you finally do kick the bucket (hopefully there is enough time in there), then a procedure is kind of in place and also you could then have some of your remaining and separate funds get funneled into the trust that is already in place and takes care of any of your value that you had failed or refused to spend prior to ded.

A second aspect would be if you conclude that you do not have enough coins or value (which actually could change depending on where king daddy prices go), then you merely attempt to describe whatever the process and procedure for the handling of such coins upon your becoming ded.  Surely, there would be some preference to putting some kind of practice in place prior to becoming ded, but still not everyone is going to feel that they have reached a sufficient quantity of value to set aside funds for that or to make some kind of processing of the coins through such trust to be "meaningful."

I don't really have any disagreement with your acceptance of Buffet kind of ideas in regards to considering putting limits on passing on wealth if there would be enough wealth to divide amongst some potential deserving folks that might be the right thing to do.. perhaps in addition to the trust.. or before even contemplating a trust if the value might not be enough in order to divide into those different categories that surely have differing considerations.