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

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[1715231577]

1715231577

[1715231577]

1715231577

[OutOfMemory]

Heard about this at Twitter

BREAKING: Microsoft announces it’s accepting $BTC and operating #Bitcoin nodes directly.

https://twitter.com/UVtho/status/1415258238908608514

[JayJuanGee]

By the way, I am going to say that I have a problematic BTC address (or maybe a set of addresses) that concern me in terms of how it (they) was established and consolidated.. so still thinking about how to deal with some of my mistakes that were made.. and even hoping that there could be some ways to resolve some of my mistakes that were made.. but thinking and thinking.. without wanting to describe the particulars with too many details beyond just implying size and consolidation concerns.

You probably don't need help and will eventually figure this out, such as either ignoring the dust, or consolidating it all in one or a few transactions, loading up as many addresses or inputs as you can. But just in case, you can ask around here maybe someone knows what to do, or can do, or if its too much work or its possible.

If he isn't already using electrum he could export all the keys from his old wallets, then import them into electrum. After that he could freeze any problematic dust addresses, so they can't be spent from.

Either that, or wait until the fees are extremely low, then send dust spread across loads of addresses to a single consolidation address.

Fees are fairly low at the moment.

Today the bitcoinfees website says zero fee transactions can still confirm if you are prepared to wait 95 blocks.

It says a one sat per byte fee can confirm inbetween 3 to 64 blocks.

https://bitcoinfees.earn.com/

*edit*

Apparently it's very difficult to broadcast a zero fee transaction. There seems to be a way to trick electrum into letting you broadcast a zero fee segwit transaction, but I'm not sure if it works for normal transactions.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Electrum/comments/kt41dq/finally_changed_electrum_code_to_have_truly_zero/

You can actually achieve this by using paytomany where you simply leave zero SAT for fees. I've done it in the past.

 ...it is very rare (5%) to find a node that will allow you to broadcast a zero fee TXN

If electrum won't let you generate a zero fee transaction you could try using an offline copy of coinb.in

https://coinb.in/#newTransaction

You can download it from the link at the bottom of this page.

https://coinb.in/#about

This is its bitcointalk thread.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=390046

*edit2*

If he has an address with hundreds of dust inputs the thread below might offer a solution.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Electrum/comments/7qa45a/is_it_possible_to_specify_the_inputs_for_a_given/

Any transaction with over a hundred inputs seems to create problems. Using electrum to create transactions with 50 inputs seems to solve this.

I hate to even say my problem.. but it is different than the one you are describing or suggesting in terms of dealing with dust or even a bunch of transactions that are combined.. but maybe I could just say if there were some combining of addresses on one occasion, and then moving that whole lump together at one point, then there are already two steps there, so it seems that it may be too late to do anything except maybe acknowledge them all as one owner.  I am not really sure if I am currently wanting to attempt to resolve this, if there is even a resolution.

This website can guess the linked addresses in a wallet. You enter one address into it, then it guesses the rest. It's run by someone from chainalysis.com, which exchanges and governments use to check where bitcoins come from.

https://www.walletexplorer.com/

This website also guesses linked addresses in wallets, but I don't think big business uses its services.

https://btc.cryptoid.info/btc/

You could import the keys to any addresses they missed into electrum, then move those coins to another wallet. That way you could salvage any anonymous addresses you have left.

I am going to devolve even further... Might be a stretch, but if you are not using a VPN, and you are searching BTC addresses, and you search a bunch together, might there not be a presumption that the person who searched those BTC addresses is the owner of the addresses?  Yes, I am maybe overly paranoid.. but there can be some difficulties in knowing how much privacy we might have if we are not covering up some of our traffic.

[El duderino_]

No Paraguay reads posts yet…..?

[Hueristic]

Sad to say... call me a bear (or a beaten up bull), if you must.   

Currently 31 degrees outside, 26 degrees inside, just great, even the cats are too hot to do anything.

 We have a word for that in my country

 

Hot Pussy?

[marcus_of_augustus]

Just don't forget these words by Hal and you all will be good.

"With 20 million coins, that gives each coin a value of about $10 million."

Hal was a smart guy, but he arrived at that number through faulty economic reasoning.

Well no economics was involved.. he just did the math and it's correct.

He literally said he thought the total value of the currency should be equal to the total value of all the wealth in the world.  
Which is nonsense.  It is not because something is being expressed in a unit, that that unit needs to expand to whatever is being measured.  For example, let's say I measure the length of my furniture by comparing to the length of my thumb.  Why would there then need to be as many of my thumbs as there is furniture in the world?  If that sounds strange or weird, that is because it is weird and nonsensical.
Money is just an asset class on its own, which takes up a certain portion of total wealth in the world.

sauce : https://twitter.com/DrBitcoinMD?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1165004233663496197%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cryptopolitan.com%2Fhal-finney-bitcoin-price-prediction-10-m%2F

I like bullish BTC price predictions as much as the next guy, but if we just switch off our critical thinking whenever somebody says something nice about bitcoin, we are more of a religion or cult than anything else.  Which is not needed imo, as the realistic scenario for bitcoin holds plenty of upside and promise.

Well he didn’t say it will happen but he stated it as “an amusing thought experiment”. On other hand if that happens and Bitcoin becomes the standard global currency in the world then measuring bitcoin against dollar will be as useless as it’s today… 1 BTC = 1 BTC

Anyway yes it might be insane but not when you take it as an amusing thought experiment.

As an amusing thought experiment, imagine that Bitcoin is successful and becomes the dominant payment system in use throughout the world.  Then the total value of the currency should be equal to the total value of all the wealth in the world. Current estimates of total worldwide household wealth that I have found range from $100 trillion to $300 trillion. With 20 million coins, that gives each coin a value of about $10 million.

... you've pulled the piece of Hal's comment out of context. The full comment was about the asymmetric upside bet. To estimate the asymmetry he needed a ballpark figure for an upside value of btc, at the time it was worthless, so to get an order of magnitude estimate Hal used total global wealth which for a ballpark order of magnitude estimate is fine.

... then he compared the upside value potential of bitcoin with the odds of bitcoin achieving monetary dominance, which he then estimated only needed to be less than 100 million to 1 for to make sense to acquire/hodl some bitcoin, which at the time were worthless remember. He was resoundingly right and the statement still stands, the asymmetric bet was worth it.

Edit; relevant portion of Hal's comment

One immediate problem with any new currency is how to value it. Even
ignoring the practical problem that virtually no one will accept it
at first, there is still a difficulty in coming up with a reasonable
argument in favor of a particular non-zero value for the coins.

As an amusing thought experiment, imagine that Bitcoin is successful and
becomes the dominant payment system in use throughout the world.  Then the
total value of the currency should be equal to the total value of all
the wealth in the world. Current estimates of total worldwide household
wealth that I have found range from $100 trillion to $300 trillion. With
20 million coins, that gives each coin a value of about $10 million.

So the possibility of generating coins today with a few cents of compute
time may be quite a good bet, with a payoff of something like 100 million
to 1! Even if the odds of Bitcoin succeeding to this degree are slim,
are they really 100 million to one against? Something to think about...

Hal

[irfan_pak10]

Not gonna break any rules, but I'm gonna buy BTC worth $10 on every merit I receive on this post  
(Max: $1000)

We should ask him again to do this again, wanna see the price @55k level again   If it worth it, the market price dropped $1T since may i think his 10$ would do just fine  

[eXPHorizon]

If anyone wants to Laugh abit  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxUpGIzLw-I

Scary Movie | George Best Moments


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mo7uuaTgGK4

Hiding a Crazy Guy in My Attic & Hiring an Exterminator for Rats

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[Farmer Bill]

I see the price met mid $31,000’s. Bit of a dead cat bounce to now meet $32,742. It’s only a matter of time now until new lows are met. Sell everything now before it goes to $20,000. You won’t always have a friendly guy advising you to save your net worth. It’s not too late so get out when you can before the long, cold bear market.

I thought you said it was going to 8k
Now revised to 20k
Tomorrow possibly revised to 30k

Close that leveraged short now before you get rekt. Its not too late.
You know you will sleep easier.
Then DCA buy it back in and Hodl.
You will be rewarded all in good time.

[Hueristic]

If he isn't already using electrum he could export all the keys from his old wallets, then import them into electrum. After that he could freeze any problematic dust addresses, so they can't be spent from.

Either that, or wait until the fees are extremely low, then send dust spread across loads of addresses to a single consolidation address.

Fees are fairly low at the moment.

Today the bitcoinfees website says zero fee transactions can still confirm if you are prepared to wait 95 blocks.

It says a one sat per byte fee can confirm inbetween 3 to 64 blocks.

https://bitcoinfees.earn.com/

*edit*

Apparently it's very difficult to broadcast a zero fee transaction. There seems to be a way to trick electrum into letting you broadcast a zero fee segwit transaction, but I'm not sure if it works for normal transactions.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Electrum/comments/kt41dq/finally_changed_electrum_code_to_have_truly_zero/

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/OP_RETURN

OP_RETURN is a script opcode used to mark a transaction output as invalid. Since any outputs with OP_RETURN are provably unspendable, OP_RETURN outputs can be used to burn bitcoins.

[Farmer Bill]

After a brief showing yesterday 350BTC buy wall observed on Stamp again!

[Spaceman_Spiff_Original]

Just don't forget these words by Hal and you all will be good.

"With 20 million coins, that gives each coin a value of about $10 million."

Hal was a smart guy, but he arrived at that number through faulty economic reasoning.

Well no economics was involved.. he just did the math and it's correct.

He literally said he thought the total value of the currency should be equal to the total value of all the wealth in the world.  
Which is nonsense.  It is not because something is being expressed in a unit, that that unit needs to expand to whatever is being measured.  For example, let's say I measure the length of my furniture by comparing to the length of my thumb.  Why would there then need to be as many of my thumbs as there is furniture in the world?  If that sounds strange or weird, that is because it is weird and nonsensical.
Money is just an asset class on its own, which takes up a certain portion of total wealth in the world.

sauce : https://twitter.com/DrBitcoinMD?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1165004233663496197%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cryptopolitan.com%2Fhal-finney-bitcoin-price-prediction-10-m%2F

I like bullish BTC price predictions as much as the next guy, but if we just switch off our critical thinking whenever somebody says something nice about bitcoin, we are more of a religion or cult than anything else.  Which is not needed imo, as the realistic scenario for bitcoin holds plenty of upside and promise.

Well he didn’t say it will happen but he stated it as “an amusing thought experiment”. On other hand if that happens and Bitcoin becomes the standard global currency in the world then measuring bitcoin against dollar will be as useless as it’s today… 1 BTC = 1 BTC

Anyway yes it might be insane but not when you take it as an amusing thought experiment.

As an amusing thought experiment, imagine that Bitcoin is successful and becomes the dominant payment system in use throughout the world.  Then the total value of the currency should be equal to the total value of all the wealth in the world. Current estimates of total worldwide household wealth that I have found range from $100 trillion to $300 trillion. With 20 million coins, that gives each coin a value of about $10 million.

... you've pulled the piece of Hal's comment out of context. The full comment was about the asymmetric upside bet. To estimate the asymmetry he needed a ballpark figure for an upside value of btc, at the time it was worthless, so to get an order of magnitude estimate Hal used total global wealth which for a ballpark order of magnitude estimate is fine.

... then he compared the upside value potential of bitcoin with the odds of bitcoin achieving monetary dominance, which he then estimated only needed to be less than 100 million to 1 for to make sense to acquire/hodl some bitcoin, which at the time were worthless remember. He was resoundingly right and the statement still stands, the asymmetric bet was worth it.

Edit; relevant portion of Hal's comment

One immediate problem with any new currency is how to value it. Even
ignoring the practical problem that virtually no one will accept it
at first, there is still a difficulty in coming up with a reasonable
argument in favor of a particular non-zero value for the coins.

As an amusing thought experiment, imagine that Bitcoin is successful and
becomes the dominant payment system in use throughout the world.  Then the
total value of the currency should be equal to the total value of all
the wealth in the world. Current estimates of total worldwide household
wealth that I have found range from $100 trillion to $300 trillion. With
20 million coins, that gives each coin a value of about $10 million.

So the possibility of generating coins today with a few cents of compute
time may be quite a good bet, with a payoff of something like 100 million
to 1! Even if the odds of Bitcoin succeeding to this degree are slim,
are they really 100 million to one against? Something to think about...

Hal

His broader point about game theory was spot on, but I don't think I pulled his reasoning for arriving at the 10 million usd number out of context at all.  He clearly says  "if BTC becomes dominant, then it should equal the value of all the wealth in the world".
Which is faulty logic.  I don't like pointing this out as Hal seemed to be a very likeable and smart person, and given his early involvement deserves to be seen as a hero of sorts.  But people throw this number around as if it was some magic truth predicted by the prophet, and it's just wrong.

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[marcus_of_augustus]

... you've pulled the piece of Hal's comment out of context. The full comment was about the asymmetric upside bet. To estimate the asymmetry he needed a ballpark figure for an upside value of btc, at the time it was worthless, so to get an order of magnitude estimate Hal used total global wealth which for a ballpark order of magnitude estimate is fine.

... then he compared the upside value potential of bitcoin with the odds of bitcoin achieving monetary dominance, which he then estimated only needed to be less than 100 million to 1 for to make sense to acquire/hodl some bitcoin, which at the time were worthless remember. He was resoundingly right and the statement still stands, the asymmetric bet was worth it.

Edit; relevant portion of Hal's comment

One immediate problem with any new currency is how to value it. Even
ignoring the practical problem that virtually no one will accept it
at first, there is still a difficulty in coming up with a reasonable
argument in favor of a particular non-zero value for the coins.

As an amusing thought experiment, imagine that Bitcoin is successful and
becomes the dominant payment system in use throughout the world.  Then the
total value of the currency should be equal to the total value of all
the wealth in the world. Current estimates of total worldwide household
wealth that I have found range from $100 trillion to $300 trillion. With
20 million coins, that gives each coin a value of about $10 million.

So the possibility of generating coins today with a few cents of compute
time may be quite a good bet, with a payoff of something like 100 million
to 1! Even if the odds of Bitcoin succeeding to this degree are slim,
are they really 100 million to one against? Something to think about...

Hal

His broader point about game theory was spot on, but I don't think I pulled his reasoning for arriving at the 10 million usd number out of context at all.  He clearly says  "if BTC becomes dominant, then it should equal the value of all the wealth in the world".
Which is faulty logic.  I don't like pointing this out as Hal seemed to be a very likeable and smart person, and given his early involvement deserves to be seen as a hero of sorts.  But people throw this number around as if it was some magic truth predicted by the prophet, and it's just wrong.

... you're not actually refuting anything Hal talked about, all you are doing is stating he is wrong, on a specific point that's been pulled out of context from a different argument, without backing up that claim.

... and he's actually not that far off for a rough order-of-magnitude estimate, the total float of all the monetary goods in the world, includes fiat M0-M3, gold/silver acting as money-equivalent, real-estate, bonds and other financial assets that are presently being 'monetised', used as stores-of-value, (since fiat money is being inflated) would be quite close to the total worldwide household wealth ... this is the addressable market for a liquid global reserve money

.. argue otherwise or stop repeating your baseless claim?

[JayJuanGee]

Just don't forget these words by Hal and you all will be good.

"With 20 million coins, that gives each coin a value of about $10 million."

Hal was a smart guy, but he arrived at that number through faulty economic reasoning.

Well no economics was involved.. he just did the math and it's correct.

He literally said he thought the total value of the currency should be equal to the total value of all the wealth in the world.  
Which is nonsense.  It is not because something is being expressed in a unit, that that unit needs to expand to whatever is being measured.  For example, let's say I measure the length of my furniture by comparing to the length of my thumb.  Why would there then need to be as many of my thumbs as there is furniture in the world?  If that sounds strange or weird, that is because it is weird and nonsensical.
Money is just an asset class on its own, which takes up a certain portion of total wealth in the world.

sauce : https://twitter.com/DrBitcoinMD?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1165004233663496197%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cryptopolitan.com%2Fhal-finney-bitcoin-price-prediction-10-m%2F

I like bullish BTC price predictions as much as the next guy, but if we just switch off our critical thinking whenever somebody says something nice about bitcoin, we are more of a religion or cult than anything else.  Which is not needed imo, as the realistic scenario for bitcoin holds plenty of upside and promise.

Well he didn’t say it will happen but he stated it as “an amusing thought experiment”. On other hand if that happens and Bitcoin becomes the standard global currency in the world then measuring bitcoin against dollar will be as useless as it’s today… 1 BTC = 1 BTC

Anyway yes it might be insane but not when you take it as an amusing thought experiment.

As an amusing thought experiment, imagine that Bitcoin is successful and becomes the dominant payment system in use throughout the world.  Then the total value of the currency should be equal to the total value of all the wealth in the world. Current estimates of total worldwide household wealth that I have found range from $100 trillion to $300 trillion. With 20 million coins, that gives each coin a value of about $10 million.

... you've pulled the piece of Hal's comment out of context. The full comment was about the asymmetric upside bet. To estimate the asymmetry he needed a ballpark figure for an upside value of btc, at the time it was worthless, so to get an order of magnitude estimate Hal used total global wealth which for a ballpark order of magnitude estimate is fine.

... then he compared the upside value potential of bitcoin with the odds of bitcoin achieving monetary dominance, which he then estimated only needed to be less than 100 million to 1 for to make sense to acquire/hodl some bitcoin, which at the time were worthless remember. He was resoundingly right and the statement still stands, the asymmetric bet was worth it.

Edit; relevant portion of Hal's comment

One immediate problem with any new currency is how to value it. Even
ignoring the practical problem that virtually no one will accept it
at first, there is still a difficulty in coming up with a reasonable
argument in favor of a particular non-zero value for the coins.

As an amusing thought experiment, imagine that Bitcoin is successful and
becomes the dominant payment system in use throughout the world.  Then the
total value of the currency should be equal to the total value of all
the wealth in the world. Current estimates of total worldwide household
wealth that I have found range from $100 trillion to $300 trillion. With
20 million coins, that gives each coin a value of about $10 million.

So the possibility of generating coins today with a few cents of compute
time may be quite a good bet, with a payoff of something like 100 million
to 1! Even if the odds of Bitcoin succeeding to this degree are slim,
are they really 100 million to one against? Something to think about...

Hal

His broader point about game theory was spot on, but I don't think I pulled his reasoning for arriving at the 10 million usd number out of context at all.  He clearly says  "if BTC becomes dominant, then it should equal the value of all the wealth in the world".
Which is faulty logic.  I don't like pointing this out as Hal seemed to be a very likeable and smart person, and given his early involvement deserves to be seen as a hero of sorts.  But people throw this number around as if it was some magic truth predicted by the prophet, and it's just wrong.

Oh gawd.  

If one of Hal's main points was to attempt to characterize aspects of bitcoin's asymmetric bet like Marcus mentioned (edit, and mentioned in a subsequent post that was posted 5 10 minutes before this post of mine), then why get so fucking caught up on the details of how Hal might have been wrong about some details or how people might worship him, when none of that hardly matters... and the points that Hal had been making were more than valid as overall points and even proven largely correct through history.. so who gives any shits or wants to be persistent about quasi-irrelevant details.. in regards to our buddy pal, aka Hal - the - man.  Go HAL!!!!!!

In udder words, bitcoin still remains an asymmetric bet at this very point as I type this post and perhaps even a better bet today than it was in 2009 - even though in 2009 the potential for gain in terms of starting with almost no price was greater, so devolving into seemingly nonsense jealousy regarding how Hal might be worshipped too much by the masses (which is also hardly relevant to anything - except to perhaps want to drag down bitcoin's history) does not take away from the point that Hal asserted that BTC was an asymmetric bet, and so far bitcoin has shown itself to continue to be an asymmetric bet, and whether we are further down the path than Hal expected in terms of BTC price appreciation or if it is going to take longer to get to $10 million or whatever other high-side value (or inflation-adjusted or all the world's value - who cares) might not matter so much because the point stands that bitcoin was a very promising asymmetric bet in 2009 when Hal was contemplating ideas around it and bitcoin remains a great asymmetric bet in the present while at the same time, even asymmetric bets are not guaranteed to come true even if someone might point out some specific guidelines in terms of where the thing (referring to BTC price here) may well go.  

If you have not done so already Spaceman_Spiff, you might want to pick up a wee bit of bitcoin,  in case BTC might catch on... and by the way, you might not need to buy very much to get rich as fuck.. that's the nature of an asymmetric bet.. that has been playing out for more than 12.5 years and likely to continue to play out for quite some time into the future... so what is the point of denigrating where bitcoin might be going or what Hal said about it 5 years before he died..and then even with Bitcoin being a asymmetric bet, there have been a whole hell of a lot of people wanting to hoard BTC, so if you can get it with lower prices, you should probably consider ur lil selfie as lucky rather than wanting to denigrate bitcoin's upside potential as if it were not important in terms of capturing the wealth of the whole world or whatever other hyperboles might be made from time to time in order to communicate the idea that bitcoin is likely one of the best investments that anyone can make in these here times and seems to be damned well a part of a BIG ASS wealth transfer that is going on even if diptwats like ur lil selfie seem to want to poo-poo such idea and quibble regarding largely meaningless details.

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[HI-TEC99]

By the way, I am going to say that I have a problematic BTC address (or maybe a set of addresses) that concern me in terms of how it (they) was established and consolidated.. so still thinking about how to deal with some of my mistakes that were made.. and even hoping that there could be some ways to resolve some of my mistakes that were made.. but thinking and thinking.. without wanting to describe the particulars with too many details beyond just implying size and consolidation concerns.

You probably don't need help and will eventually figure this out, such as either ignoring the dust, or consolidating it all in one or a few transactions, loading up as many addresses or inputs as you can. But just in case, you can ask around here maybe someone knows what to do, or can do, or if its too much work or its possible.

If he isn't already using electrum he could export all the keys from his old wallets, then import them into electrum. After that he could freeze any problematic dust addresses, so they can't be spent from.

Either that, or wait until the fees are extremely low, then send dust spread across loads of addresses to a single consolidation address.

Fees are fairly low at the moment.

Today the bitcoinfees website says zero fee transactions can still confirm if you are prepared to wait 95 blocks.

It says a one sat per byte fee can confirm inbetween 3 to 64 blocks.

https://bitcoinfees.earn.com/

*edit*

Apparently it's very difficult to broadcast a zero fee transaction. There seems to be a way to trick electrum into letting you broadcast a zero fee segwit transaction, but I'm not sure if it works for normal transactions.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Electrum/comments/kt41dq/finally_changed_electrum_code_to_have_truly_zero/

You can actually achieve this by using paytomany where you simply leave zero SAT for fees. I've done it in the past.

 ...it is very rare (5%) to find a node that will allow you to broadcast a zero fee TXN

If electrum won't let you generate a zero fee transaction you could try using an offline copy of coinb.in

https://coinb.in/#newTransaction

You can download it from the link at the bottom of this page.

https://coinb.in/#about

This is its bitcointalk thread.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=390046

*edit2*

If he has an address with hundreds of dust inputs the thread below might offer a solution.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Electrum/comments/7qa45a/is_it_possible_to_specify_the_inputs_for_a_given/

Any transaction with over a hundred inputs seems to create problems. Using electrum to create transactions with 50 inputs seems to solve this.

I hate to even say my problem.. but it is different than the one you are describing or suggesting in terms of dealing with dust or even a bunch of transactions that are combined.. but maybe I could just say if there were some combining of addresses on one occasion, and then moving that whole lump together at one point, then there are already two steps there, so it seems that it may be too late to do anything except maybe acknowledge them all as one owner.  I am not really sure if I am currently wanting to attempt to resolve this, if there is even a resolution.

This website can guess the linked addresses in a wallet. You enter one address into it, then it guesses the rest. It's run by someone from chainalysis.com, which exchanges and governments use to check where bitcoins come from.

https://www.walletexplorer.com/

This website also guesses linked addresses in wallets, but I don't think big business uses its services.

https://btc.cryptoid.info/btc/

You could import the keys to any addresses they missed into electrum, then move those coins to another wallet. That way you could salvage any anonymous addresses you have left.

I am going to devolve even further... Might be a stretch, but if you are not using a VPN, and you are searching BTC addresses, and you search a bunch together, might there not be a presumption that the person who searched those BTC addresses is the owner of the addresses?  Yes, I am maybe overly paranoid.. but there can be some difficulties in knowing how much privacy we might have if we are not covering up some of our traffic.

That sounds sensible, not paranoid. There's a saying that "when you're using free services, if you don't know what the product is, you are the product".

Also, if you are using electrum you might connect to a node someone set up to find linked addresses in wallets. There's probably profit in running such nodes for chainalysis.com and other companies like it. You can run your own electrum server/node and only connect to that, or a server/node you trust to counter that.

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[Spaceman_Spiff_Original]

... you're not actually refuting anything Hal talked about, all you are doing is stating he is wrong, on a specific point that's been pulled out of context from a different argument, without backing up that claim.

... and he's actually not that far off for a rough order-of-magnitude estimate, the total float of all the monetary goods in the world, includes fiat M0-M3, gold/silver acting as money-equivalent, real-estate, bonds and other financial assets that are presently being 'monetised', used as stores-of-value, (since fiat money is being inflated) would be quite close to the total worldwide household wealth ... this is the addressable market for a liquid global reserve money

I already gave my argument.  I think it is a non sequitur that the value of money should equal the total amount of wealth in the world.  I tried making an analogy with the measuring in thumbs thing (it might not be the most elegant of analogies), see below:

It is not because something is being expressed in a unit, that that unit needs to expand to whatever is being measured.  For example, let's say I measure the length of my furniture by comparing to the length of my thumb.  Why would there then need to be as many of my thumbs as there is furniture in the world?  If that sounds strange or weird, that is because it is weird and nonsensical.
Money is just an asset class on its own, which takes up a certain portion of total wealth in the world.

I don't how else I can or should make my argument.
What is your point?  Do you think the value of money should equal the total amount of wealth in the world?  Why?

No, it wasn't a horrible estimate.  I would guess it is probably off by 1 order of magnitude.  Yes I suspect bitcoin will absorb a lot of the value in gold, fiat, bonds, and to a much lesser degree housing and stocks.  But I don't see why it would need to be as large as all real-estate, companies, commodities, bonds etc. put together.  

I will try to leave it at that.  I know I have a tendency to become a bit pedantic and argumentative, and I don't want to hijack the thread.