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

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[1715296843]

1715296843

[1715296843]

1715296843

[1715296843]

1715296843

[1715296843]

1715296843

[1715296843]

1715296843

[1715296843]

1715296843

[JayJuanGee]

I am beginning to like you, ErisDiscoria, even in the midst of all of this supposed "major disagreement."   

I feel like difference in opinion, even in fundamental assumptions about life, shouldn't ruin peoples ability to enjoy a beer together and/or have a friendly discussion

As long as the attacks don't become personal, we should be fine. 

In this regard, I have certain relatives who really love to talk politics with me, and we really have a lot of disagreements about the roll of government and various applications of libertarianism...   I have a couple of relatives who do NOT talk with each other b/c they do NOT like the way conversations devolve, and frequently, I strive NOT to take the conversation too much into the personal.. but it is all a matter of perspective, and sometimes, each of us may go a little too far.. and have to pull back.

Further, sometimes I get the feeling as if couple of my relatives are trapping me into some kind of lunch or breakfast situation, and then ganging up on me, yet ultimately, we generally are friendly enough about our whole exploration of these issues.  A frequent comment that I make is:  "so you guys have been working (studying) all week in order to figure out some ways to attack my world views with your comments."  One time, my grandma, who is in her late 80s was sitting at the table for breakfast with my sister and my uncle going at me, and pretty soon I said, so you want to throw grandma under the bus in order to achieve dismantling of social security.. etc... etc. .. etc...   Of course, they denied such motives, and we all got a kind of laugh about some of these attempts to apply real world situations to our theories.   

Sometimes, if we are going too far in our conversations, we would just revert to talking about some less controversial topic, and in our case, we may be able to revert to talking about how we expect bitcoin prices to go through the roof and when we expect that to happen.   

[shmadz]

Look out for free beers on the Wall Observer Thread

Cheers! I used this as my opportunity to learn how to sweep a private key. Not as difficult as I thought it might be.

I will be sending out free beers like this at random times (11am - 11pm EST)

read this thread with a device ready to scan and spend a private key fast and you'll undoubtedly get really dunk of all those bits!

PM me if you would like to contribute the free beer fund, all funds collected will be past out as free beers.


1. log in to your blockchain.info account  (there is a  page to import private keys )
2. in a new tab goto: http://zxing.org/w/decode.jspx
3. when a beer shows up, copy the image url and decode
4. copy the decoded private key and paste it in blockchain.info. Click "sweep key"
5. order a cold beer Wink

so it's pretty much just quickest on the draw?

it's brilliant actually, it will draw many eyes to this thread, and many refreshes to bitcointalk.org *edit - also great incentive for noobs to learn how to bitcoin*

if you could fork the wall observer to some site that could monetize this and slide the proceeds into the beer fund that would be epic.

either way, you're a legend.

cheers bud.

[adamstgBit]

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[shmadz]

sweet! it worked!! thanks!!!

(not really, I didn't claim it   )

but it just got me thinking that anyone who says "thanks" would be linking their avatar account with their public address. so just make a new address before you spend I guess is all I'm saying...

I also advocate that random people just say thanks to obscure the bit-trail.

[rudrigorc2]

damn, 1 second late

pre-paid drinks are super cool idea now powered by bitcoin

[shmadz]

wow, adam's offering free beers and you could drop a pin in here

(guessing everyone is now trying to figure out how to import private keys )

so I'll take this time to post a chart



those are *almost* completely arbitrary lines I drew a week ago, I think we could go sideways longer than most,

I'm also not certain that this will break to the upside, but that's probably just me hoping for another chance at sub-500 coins...


*(edit cuz I missed rudy's post)*

damn, 1 second late

pre-paid drinks are super cool idea now powered by bitcoin

did you try and it failed?

[hyphymikey]

sweet! it worked!! thanks!!!

(not really, I didn't claim it   )

but it just got me thinking that anyone who says "thanks" would be linking their avatar account with their public address. so just make a new address before you spend I guess is all I'm saying...

I also advocate that random people just say thanks to obscure the bit-trail.

Umm I got it... Thanks Adam!

[Arghhh]

My most conservative projection:


We're due for a margin cleaner IMO 

[rudrigorc2]

did you try and it failed?

no Fundz - 0.00150771 already gone

[shmadz]

did you try and it failed?

no Fundz - 0.00150771 already gone

is'nt that like 15 thousand bits on facebook?

[JorgeStolfi]

(You are not referring to the P != NP conjecture I suppose?  It is just as uncertain, but it has absolutely no relevance to those two assumptions in the bitcoin protocol.)

I am. And it has. At least to 'what the protocol can handle in principle being thrown at it', not 'what the protocol is and does right now'. As long as there are problems that are hard to solve but easy to check, the protocol can be adapted to the threat that a particular problem turned out to be easy to solve after all.

First, let me say that I was just reacting to that "pure incorruptible mathematics" bullshit by the reporter.  I am not arguing that the lack of mathematical proof iis a flaw of bitcoin.  My skepticism does not come from that "flaw" (or from any other strictly technical issue), but from political/social/practical problems, for which my probabilities are obviously different from those of most people in this thread.

As for the P != NP conjecture, I do not need to tell you that it makes sense only if the problem instance size n is allowed to go to infinity, since the difference between polynomial and superpolynomial appears only in the limit, when n is "just about to get there".  The two classes are indistinguishable if one assums that n is bounded, say n < 10^500.  But the bitcoin mining problem and the signature forging problem have a fixed n, threfore only a finite number of instances; in that case, complexity theory says that both problems are trivial and can be solved in constant time (e.g. by a simple table lookup).  Obviously this theoretical conclusion is irrelevant to the practical question. 

The sad fact is that theoretical computer science does not have any tools yet that can provide useful lower bounds for problems of fixed size.   Even assuming P != NP, there is no way to prove that the current protocol, with specific key and hash sizes, is safe.  It may even be the case that forging a bitcoin transaction signature is easier than checking it, or that finding the right nonce for a block is easier than computing SHA256 twice -- independently of whether P = NP or not.  We simply do not know.

If someday one were to find fast solutions for  those puzzles, then complexity theory indeed says that there must exist safe replacements for them -- assuming P != NP, of course.  But the theory cannot identify those replacements, not even tell how many bits one needs to use in keys and hashes to ensure that inverting those functions is hard enough.  Conversely, even if P = NP, the current protocol may be safe, or there may exist safe alternatives for those two puzzles.  (As you surely know, "polynomial" does not mean "computable in practice", and "superpolynomial" does not mean "impossible to compute in practice".)

The difficulty of those two puzzles, for the currently chosen key and hash sizes, has been verified only experimentally, by tests that have ruled out some weaknesses that people have thought of checking.   (For a trivial example, someone surely must have checked that the leading bits of the block hash are not linear functions of the nonce bits, not even approximately.)   However, a thorough check would require testing all possible algorithms (or boolean circuits) up to some large size, for all possible inputs -- which is totally outside the realm of practicality.

With no known shortcuts, exhaustive enumeration is pretty much the best way we now have to solve those puzzles.  That is all one can say about the issue.

[shmadz]

(You are not referring to the P != NP conjecture I suppose?  It is just as uncertain, but it has absolutely no relevance to those two assumptions in the bitcoin protocol.)

I am. And it has. At least to 'what the protocol can handle in principle being thrown at it', not 'what the protocol is and does right now'. As long as there are problems that are hard to solve but easy to check, the protocol can be adapted to the threat that a particular problem turned out to be easy to solve after all.

First, let me say that I was just reacting to that "pure incorruptible mathematics" bullshit by the reporter.  I am not arguing that the lack of mathematical proof iis a flaw of bitcoin.  My skepticism does not come from that "flaw" (or from any other strictly technical issue), but from political/social/practical problems, for which my probabilities are obviously different from those of most people in this thread.

As for the P != NP conjecture, I do not need to tell you that it makes sense only if the problem instance size n is allowed to go to infinity, since the difference between polynomial and superpolynomial appears only in the limit, when n is "just about to get there".  The two classes are indistinguishable if one assums that n is bounded, say n < 10^500.  But the bitcoin mining problem and the signature forging problem have a fixed n, threfore only a finite number of instances; in that case, complexity theory says that both problems are trivial and can be solved in constant time (e.g. by a simple table lookup).  Obviously this theoretical conclusion is irrelevant to the practical question. 

The sad fact is that theoretical computer science does not have any tools yet that can provide useful lower bounds for problems of fixed size.   Even assuming P != NP, there is no way to prove that the current protocol, with specific key and hash sizes, is safe.  It may even be the case that forging a bitcoin transaction signature is easier than checking it, or that finding the right nonce for a block is easier than computing SHA256 twice -- independently of whether P = NP or not.  We simply do not know.

If someday one were to find fast solutions for  those puzzles, then complexity theory indeed says that there must exist safe replacements for them -- assuming P != NP, of course.  But the theory cannot identify those replacements, not even tell how many bits one needs to use in keys and hashes to ensure that inverting those functions is hard enough.  Conversely, even if P = NP, the current protocol may be safe, or there may exist safe alternatives for those two puzzles.  (As you surely know, "polynomial" does not mean "computable in practice", and "superpolynomial" does not mean "impossible to compute in practice".)

The difficulty of those two puzzles, for the currently chosen key and hash sizes, has been verified only experimentally, by tests that have ruled out some weaknesses that people have thought of checking.   (For a trivial example, someone surely must have checked that the leading bits of the block hash are not linear functions of the nonce bits, not even approximately.)   However, a thorough check would require testing all possible algorithms (or boolean circuits) up to some large size, for all possible inputs -- which is totally outside the realm of practicality.

With no known shortcuts, exhaustive enumeration is pretty much the best way we now have to solve those puzzles.  That is all one can say about the issue.

much better

some guy once said "if you wanna be a good writer, write what you know."

*I'm paraphrasing of course*

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[Richy_T]

(You are not referring to the P != NP conjecture I suppose?  It is just as uncertain, but it has absolutely no relevance to those two assumptions in the bitcoin protocol.)

I am. And it has. At least to 'what the protocol can handle in principle being thrown at it', not 'what the protocol is and does right now'. As long as there are problems that are hard to solve but easy to check, the protocol can be adapted to the threat that a particular problem turned out to be easy to solve after all.

First, let me say that I was just reacting to that "pure incorruptible mathematics" bullshit by the reporter.  I am not arguing that the lack of mathematical proof iis a flaw of bitcoin.  My skepticism does not come from that "flaw" (or from any other strictly technical issue), but from political/social/practical problems, for which my probabilities are obviously different from those of most people in this thread.

As for the P != NP conjecture, I do not need to tell you that it makes sense only if the problem instance size n is allowed to go to infinity, since the difference between polynomial and superpolynomial appears only in the limit, when n is "just about to get there".  The two classes are indistinguishable if one assums that n is bounded, say n < 10^500.  But the bitcoin mining problem and the signature forging problem have a fixed n, threfore only a finite number of instances; in that case, complexity theory says that both problems are trivial and can be solved in constant time (e.g. by a simple table lookup).  Obviously this theoretical conclusion is irrelevant to the practical question. 

The sad fact is that theoretical computer science does not have any tools yet that can provide useful lower bounds for problems of fixed size.   Even assuming P != NP, there is no way to prove that the current protocol, with specific key and hash sizes, is safe.  It may even be the case that forging a bitcoin transaction signature is easier than checking it, or that finding the right nonce for a block is easier than computing SHA256 twice -- independently of whether P = NP or not.  We simply do not know.

If someday one were to find fast solutions for  those puzzles, then complexity theory indeed says that there must exist safe replacements for them -- assuming P != NP, of course.  But the theory cannot identify those replacements, not even tell how many bits one needs to use in keys and hashes to ensure that inverting those functions is hard enough.  Conversely, even if P = NP, the current protocol may be safe, or there may exist safe alternatives for those two puzzles.  (As you surely know, "polynomial" does not mean "computable in practice", and "superpolynomial" does not mean "impossible to compute in practice".)

The difficulty of those two puzzles, for the currently chosen key and hash sizes, has been verified only experimentally, by tests that have ruled out some weaknesses that people have thought of checking.   (For a trivial example, someone surely must have checked that the leading bits of the block hash are not linear functions of the nonce bits, not even approximately.)   However, a thorough check would require testing all possible algorithms (or boolean circuits) up to some large size, for all possible inputs -- which is totally outside the realm of practicality.

With no known shortcuts, exhaustive enumeration is pretty much the best way we now have to solve those puzzles.  That is all one can say about the issue.

Not to forget, there's some speculation in the more tinfoil-hatty segments that the NSA may have supplied algorithms that are "pre-weakened". Seems unlikely but with everything that has been coming out lately, perhaps not to be dismissed out-of-hand so quickly.

[hyphymikey]

Whoever keeps scooping up the coins from this Beartard on Stamp is going to reap the rewards.

[derpinheimer]

Da fuq is up with stamp lately? Its crazy bearish while the other exchanges are fairly neutral.. I cant believe Huobi hasnt tanked yet.

[Davyd05]

the depth was so low.. think they had to make a nice red candle to scare some weaker hands

[Gingermod]

1W MACD bout to cross