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

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[1715072951]

1715072951

[1715072951]

1715072951

[1715072951]

1715072951

[1715072951]

1715072951

[wachtwoord]

and central bank official warns virtual currencies ‘can challenge sovereignty of states’
http://www.pfhub.com/ireland-central-bank-official-warns-virtual-currencies-can-challenge-sovereignty-of-states-909/

"If somehow the future Internet only accepted RMB, this would not be feasible nor wanted.... In the future, in the Internet generation, every country will slowly relax sovereign control and even dilute the concept of sovereignty."

-- Xu Nuojin, PBoC, at China Internet Finance Forum (June 19, 2014)

Indeed. Apparently they do have visionaries there 

[Adrian-x]

What do you think crypto is intended to do? and by whom?

Cryptocurrencies are meant to allow payments that governments (and banks, which can be conflated with them)  cannot see, block, divert, or undo.

That is not explicit in Satoshi's paper, but seems to have been a basic assumption by most of the crypto fans, especially the most ardent ones. (Reducing credit card fees is not something that would get people that excited about, is it?).

Most cryptocoins seem to be designed and supported with that goal in mind.  Some bitcoiners are even adopting other coins because they do not see bitcoin as sufficiently robust in that regard.  Few coins, if any (Ripple perhaps? I don't  know about it)  are designed to allow the same level of control that governments now have on bank transfers.

it looks like some connections to the central banks get it:
http://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/news/pboc-official-sovereignty-bitcoin-internet-age-will-change-china-around-world/2014/07/07

Bitcoin is not about facilitating illicit activities, it’s about subverting them. 

Ireland central bank official warns virtual currencies ‘can challenge sovereignty of states’
http://www.pfhub.com/ireland-central-bank-official-warns-virtual-currencies-can-challenge-sovereignty-of-states-909/

Ireland central bank- official confirms Bitcoin works as advertised. Officials in china see the same thing but not as a treat but more an opportunity.

[Dragonkiller]

The reality is the US Government already knows what I've stated to be the truth.  They will not attempt to ban exchange between USD and BTC.  They will instead attempt to control it, regulate it, and tax it.  They will insert themselves into key points of infrastructure to gather intelligence.  As mining hardware is expensive, they will not attempt to destroy Bitcoin through a proof of work attack (51%).  That would only result in movement to another proof of work algorithm, making their hardware investment worthless.  Instead, they will focus on gathering intelligence.  The blockchain was/is the first step.  Data collection at exchanges is the next.  It's actually much easier to trace the flow of Bitcoin than the flow of cash.  So I would expect the US Government to happily support Bitcoin as it provides superior data on their enemies.

That is one of the main reasons the US loves BTC and would never destroy it.

But if they wanted to destroy* it (which they don't), you are seriously underestimating what they are capable of.

*by destroy I mean "make essentially useless".

Regarding your other point; that BTC would still serve as a store of value, you're assuming the exchange of BTC to USD is the only thing that would be made illegal. That is naive. "Holding" BTC could be made illegal just as easily.

[justusranvier]

http://nakamotoinstitute.org/b-money/

I am fascinated by Tim May's crypto-anarchy. Unlike the communities traditionally associated with the word "anarchy", in a crypto-anarchy the government is not temporarily destroyed but permanently forbidden and permanently unnecessary. It's a community where the threat of violence is impotent because violence is impossible, and violence is impossible because its participants cannot be linked to their true names or physical locations.

Until now it's not clear, even theoretically, how such a community could operate. A community is defined by the cooperation of its participants, and efficient cooperation requires a medium of exchange (money) and a way to enforce contracts. Traditionally these services have been provided by the government or government sponsored institutions and only to legal entities. In this article I describe a protocol by which these services can be provided to and by untraceable entities.

http://nakamotoinstitute.org/bitcoin/

References

1.    W. Dai, "b-money," http://www.weidai.com/bmoney.txt, 1998. ↩

[cbeast]

http://nakamotoinstitute.org/b-money/

I am fascinated by Tim May's crypto-anarchy. Unlike the communities traditionally associated with the word "anarchy", in a crypto-anarchy the government is not temporarily destroyed but permanently forbidden and permanently unnecessary. It's a community where the threat of violence is impotent because violence is impossible, and violence is impossible because its participants cannot be linked to their true names or physical locations.

Until now it's not clear, even theoretically, how such a community could operate. A community is defined by the cooperation of its participants, and efficient cooperation requires a medium of exchange (money) and a way to enforce contracts. Traditionally these services have been provided by the government or government sponsored institutions and only to legal entities. In this article I describe a protocol by which these services can be provided to and by untraceable entities.

http://nakamotoinstitute.org/bitcoin/

References

1.    W. Dai, "b-money," http://www.weidai.com/bmoney.txt, 1998. ↩

(emphasis mine)
DNA, facial recognition, body mechanics, thermal patters, and any number of systems can identify people. We will never go back to the days where you could ride into town on a horse and leave that night without anyone knowing your identity. Information is a valuable commodity. If it could be coined, it would be more valuable than Bitcoin. As much as I empathize with the CA folks, it's too small a goal. We need to take away the incentive to monetize anything in order to be free.

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[Raystonn]

Regarding your other point; that BTC would still serve as a store of value, you're assuming the exchange of BTC to USD is the only thing that would be made illegal. That is naive. "Holding" BTC could be made illegal just as easily.

1) The blockchain is made of transactions.  There are no actual accounts holding anything.  Addresses simply have the power to spend outputs from prior transactions in the blockchain, or they do not.

2) Anyone can make a transaction with any address as an output.  This would be the equivalent of US bank accounts accepting deposits from any third party.  To make holding a balance illegal when funds can be deposited by any third party is not feasible.

3) All this would do is transfer control of most Bitcoins from law-abiding US citizens to others.  It wouldn't reduce the number of Bitcoins in circulation.

4) Even when it was made illegal for US citizens to hold gold, gold itself held onto its value.  Most citizens transferred their gold out of the country rather than comply with that unconstitutional law.  If this happened to Bitcoin, you could just transfer all your Bitcoins to an offline wallet.  There'd be no way to prove you still owned any of it.  You could then use it to buy gold outside the country.

[JorgeStolfi]

The goal of bitcoin as a technology is to be a global network allowing p2p payments between anonymous pseudonymous arbitrary parties without a trusted intermediary and without a central  controlling authority.  Take away any of those goals, and the solution described by "Satoshi" does not make any technical sense. But I don't see how it possible to achieve those goals, without also

allowing payments that governments cannot see, can see but not block, divert, or undo.

FTFY

The distinction between anonymous and pseudonymous, for this purpose, escapes me.  Either way, one goal of the technology was to allow a secure payment without the parties having to reveal their identities to anyone, not even to each other, at any time. 

That goal implies that governments will not being able to "see" the payments.  Sure, they can tell that someone paid 23.12 BTC to someone else, perhaps to him/herself; but that information is useless if they cannot tell who the parites are -- not even their nationalities or locations.

Without the anonymity goal, the other technical goals that cyptocoins are suppsoed to achieve would be rather pointless or meaningless.  If the Funnycoin protocol required each party in a transaction to reveal and prove his flesh-and-bone identity, how could people do that without having to trust centralized intermediaries, such as passport-issuing offices? (Perhaps there is a way, but I am not aware of any proposal for such a crypto.) If the government and everybody else can see exactly how much XFC you earn and where you spend it -- what would be the advantage of using FunnyCoin, instead of banks?

[Raystonn]

The distinction between anonymous and pseudonymous, for this purpose, escapes me.  Either way, one goal of the technology was to allow a secure payment without the parties having to reveal their identities to anyone, not even to each other, at any time.

That goal implies that governments will not being able to "see" the payments.  Sure, they can tell that someone paid 23.12 BTC to someone else, perhaps to him/herself; but that information is useless if they cannot tell who the parites are -- not even their nationalities or locations.

You confuse powers of a government with powers of random individuals.  Large governments have the power to snoop at the exchange level, identify the purchaser of Bitcoins, and then follow the blockchain to see where those funds are actually used.  Individuals don't usually have the power to snoop on exchanges.

 

If the government and everybody else can see exactly how much XFC you earn and where you spend it -- what would be the advantage of using FunnyCoin, instead of banks?

One main advantage is inability to forever print more currency.  Monetization of debt is one way governments choose to pay for their onerous social programs.  With this change, governments will be forced to make their taxes completely visible rather than monetize it and collect through inflation.

[empowering]

[Bitcoin_is_here_to_stay]

Very interesting - whose chart it is on TV?

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[wachtwoord]

if you mark the last local top with a 3 you're implying the price is going down right?

[theonewhowaskazu]

You confuse powers of a government with powers of random individuals.  Large governments have the power to snoop at the exchange level, identify the purchaser of Bitcoins, and then follow the blockchain to see where those funds are actually used.  Individuals don't usually have the power to snoop on exchanges.

Bitcoins aren't "created" on an exchange. They are just, well, exchanged on an exchange. Its just one more transaction. If one wants to permanently clean his or her coins then one simply send coins from A to B and receive coins from C to D.

[empowering]

chart

Very interesting - whose chart it is on TV?

One of mine but - I do not publish my charts on tradingview though normally.. or here

[Erdogan]

Of the laundry list of things that Jorge listed, only "tax evasion" is a thing that government is really concerned about. And then only if you're the wrong kind of tax evader.

Granted, all those items (even financing domestic terrorism) can be fought selectively, by any government.

You have that backwards. Bitcoin is a super vehicle for governments to finance terrorims, domestic and foreign. They are only concerned with tax.

And of course the end of government funding should the fiat system go down. But that doesn't seem to have to do much with bitcoin,

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[Erdogan]

The goal of bitcoin as a technology is to be a global network allowing p2p payments between anonymous pseudonymous arbitrary parties without a trusted intermediary and without a central  controlling authority.  Take away any of those goals, and the solution described by "Satoshi" does not make any technical sense. But I don't see how it possible to achieve those goals, without also

allowing payments that governments cannot see, can see but not block, divert, or undo.

FTFY

The distinction between anonymous and pseudonymous, for this purpose, escapes me.  Either way, one goal of the technology was to allow a secure payment without the parties having to reveal their identities to anyone, not even to each other, at any time. 

That goal implies that governments will not being able to "see" the payments.  Sure, they can tell that someone paid 23.12 BTC to someone else, perhaps to him/herself; but that information is useless if they cannot tell who the parites are -- not even their nationalities or locations.

Without the anonymity goal, the other technical goals that cyptocoins are suppsoed to achieve would be rather pointless or meaningless.  If the Funnycoin protocol required each party in a transaction to reveal and prove his flesh-and-bone identity, how could people do that without having to trust centralized intermediaries, such as passport-issuing offices? (Perhaps there is a way, but I am not aware of any proposal for such a crypto.) If the government and everybody else can see exactly how much XFC you earn and where you spend it -- what would be the advantage of using FunnyCoin, instead of banks?

You begin to understand the technology of bitcoin. Now you have to understand that for money to work in the free market, anonymity has to be an option available to the traders. It is only the most recent decennium that governments have had the possibility to harvest information from the money system, and they use it to renounce the freedom of the of the people, making them serfs. And they run the productive capacity of world down the toilet as a consequence.

You can probably never understand this. Why am I telling you?

[empowering]

if you mark the last local top with a 3 you're implying the price is going down right?

We have already come down a little so I guess it depends where the minor wave ends  

RS
646/52
637   
632   

623

614
609
600
SP

We have touched the top of a slightly narrowing bollinger band and come down

Would not surprise me if we go down to 614 - I will be paying attention if we go towards/past the 609 fib/SMA20

I am bullish from a daily, and even ore so on a weekly/monthly point of view though, not so sure on lower timeframes

Low volume.