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

[jbreher]

doesn't bitfinex only hold some kind of custodial key so that owners can remain in control of their BTC while holding a balance on bitfinex?

Don't know. If so, then how could those BTC be lent to others?

I have stayed away from BFX all these years, as its entire biz model seems predicated upon systemic risk of fractional reserve moral hazard. What am I missing?

[jbreher]

What kind of notice could/would/will we expect?

I've got coins spread across various devices, forms of storage etc. I don't fancy being left with a load of shitcoins (whichever becomes the defeated chain).

Acid rain, dogs eating cats...chaos everywhere.

 

Points off for missing the chance of a Ghostbusters reference.

Hate to bust your chops on this, but that would be 'dogs and cats... _living_ together...'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3ZOKDmorj0

[JayJuanGee]

According to BitcoinHistory, a hardfork occurred March 12, 2013.

And some of us watched -- fascinated -- as it unfolded in real time.

hahahaha...

I just have to read about some of these various phenomena in the history books and hear from some of you peeps in the forums (and maybe some day I will meet more people in real life - not so many people in my real life have bitcoin backgrounds).

In essence in early 2013, I was too busy gazing at my own navel and other aspects of my own real life, and even though I had heard the word bitcoin several times before, the reality of the matter is that to the best of my recollection, I did not really notice any meaningful live details about bitcoin until sometime in November 2013.....

Seems that cannot go back in time and change personal experiences, because I have already kept attempting to drudge up in my own memory what I knew or recall hearing about bitcoin before November 2013, and really, there is no real substance of any memory there... so, it is what it is... no?

[jbreher]

I've gone from being confused about opt-in RBF to sort of indifferent. Theymos may have seduced me with his charms tho.

You may wish to ponder his assertion that it is unlikely that anyone will customize a client to provide pushbutton 'rescind payment' abilities. If we have learned anything about script kiddies, it is that there are plenty who destroy only for the lulz of watching the world burn.

[jbreher]

<<Sorry for the horkedattribution>>

Not at all. JorgeStolfi was saying that if you settle to the Bitcoin blockchain only 1/10000 of your tx then you might as well not do it at all and use a fiat LN system. I'm saying that at 1/10000 of your tx, the cost of using real Bitcoin (even with, hypothetically, expensive BTC transactions) would be so low there is no reason not to just stay with Bitcoin. I don't think people will want fiat LN.

Doesn't make much sense. While 1/10000 of the transaction represents only 0.01% of the customer's transaction cost, it represents 100% of the tranasaction aggregator's cost - and that is the party tasked with selecting the ultimate settlement network.

And what makes the customer choose that aggregator? LN nodes are permissionless and will compete on the basis of the attributes of their service offering (reliability,etc.). Being collateralized or not is a differentiator that will form the basis of customers' decisions over which network/nodes to use.

Saying that customers will choose uncollateralized providers given the choice is equivalent to saying they don''t want Bitcoin, which may be the case.

With the indirection of the aggregator in between, I don't think most customers will give it a second thought. Quick - what actual bank underwrites your 'Best Buy' or 'Frontier Airlines' credit card?

[smooth]

<<Sorry for the horkedattribution>>

Not at all. JorgeStolfi was saying that if you settle to the Bitcoin blockchain only 1/10000 of your tx then you might as well not do it at all and use a fiat LN system. I'm saying that at 1/10000 of your tx, the cost of using real Bitcoin (even with, hypothetically, expensive BTC transactions) would be so low there is no reason not to just stay with Bitcoin. I don't think people will want fiat LN.

Doesn't make much sense. While 1/10000 of the transaction represents only 0.01% of the customer's transaction cost, it represents 100% of the tranasaction aggregator's cost - and that is the party tasked with selecting the ultimate settlement network.

And what makes the customer choose that aggregator? LN nodes are permissionless and will compete on the basis of the attributes of their service offering (reliability,etc.). Being collateralized or not is a differentiator that will form the basis of customers' decisions over which network/nodes to use.

Saying that customers will choose uncollateralized providers given the choice is equivalent to saying they don''t want Bitcoin, which may be the case.

With the indirection of the aggregator in between, I don't think most customers will give it a second thought. Quick - what actual bank underwrites your 'Best Buy' or 'Frontier Airlines' credit card?

There is no indirection here, unless customers decide they don't care about BTC and will happily accept jbrehercoin channel payments instead. A LN channel is a claim on BTC, which can be reassigned to another chain endpoint. You literally can not construct that transaction on a different chain.

You can construct cross chain channels but the customer would have to want that service. I can't ask for BTC as a payment and you send me LTC and expect my endpoint to accept it. It won't.

[jbreher]

Conversely 1:10000 is so close to 0:10000 that you might as well just leave it on the Bitcoin blockchain. The benefit of not doing so would be negligible.

No. Makes no sense whatsoever.

True, the choice of settlement platform is leveraged 10,000:1 in this scenario for the transacting party. As such, it probably does not much matter to the transaction party whether the underlying settlement platform is Bitcoin or a vastly cheaper alt.

It certainly does matter to the customer. Customers will chose a BTC LN over an alt LN for the same reasons they (usually) choose BTC over alts. Those are well known so I will not repeat them.

Regarding the idea of a completely uncollateralized fiat payment network, I already answered that, twice. If people want that they will just use existing fiat networks. LN offers nothing special to them at all (nor does Bitcoin in any form, or alts).

Yeah... about that post... sorry... I didn't realize I was doubling (long boring story).

But I still think you put too much faith in the purchaser.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[tifozi]

 I then proposed that the Core devs do that on Core.  It was meant to be a just counter-trolling.  But it seems that Greg and Luke-Jr are seriously dreaming the option of doing just that in case the miners switch to Classic.  It is Idiocracy II -- but with bitcoin!

Just read that thread for amusement. Saw this post

One of them is that he may have realized that bitcoin was quickly becoming a speculation instrument rather than the payment system he had set out to design; and that people were using MtGOX as a bank and intermediary, which defeated the goal of bitcoin. A rational person like him should have seen that things would only get worse -- and would have lost intrest.

This isn't really accurate. Satoshi knew exactly where it would go and he never dismissed Hal's outlandish predictions about the value of Bitcoin's either during the conversation in the cryptography mailing list.

The fact that new coins are produced means the money supply increases by a
planned amount, but this does not necessarily result in inflation. If the
supply of money increases at the same rate that the number of people using it
increases, prices remain stable. If it does not increase as fast as demand,
there will be deflation and early holders of money will see its value increase.

[smooth]

A couple days ago, Luke-Jr trolled BitcoinClassic by posting a pull request that would change the PoW algorithm to make it impossible to mine with ASICs.  I then proposed that the Core devs do that on Core.  It was meant to be a just counter-trolling.  But it seems that Greg and Luke-Jr are seriously dreaming the option of doing just that in case the miners switch to Classic.  It is Idiocracy II -- but with bitcoin!

Apparently the only one who got trolled by Luke-Jr was you because he wasn't trolling. He has been proposing this for some time and it has always been on the table.

I know it doesn't fit your narrative about how miners control everything, but it has always been, and always will be, the option of users to opt for a PoW-reset if miners are viewed by the consensus of economic majority as misbehaving. (I don't know that there is any such consensus and probably Luke-Jr does not either, but who knows, maybe there is or will be.)

[solitude]

Hey faggots you done selling? You waiting for the next faggot-in-bed-with-the-kike-banksters to declare bitcoin dead before you sell the rest of your coins?

Grow a spine you fucking faggots.

[jbreher]

In essence in early 2013, I was too busy gazing at my own navel and other aspects of my own real life, and even though I had heard the word bitcoin several times before, the reality of the matter is that to the best of my recollection, I did not really notice any meaningful live details about bitcoin until sometime in November 2013.....

Yeah, and I was aware of (and even following) Bitcoin for something like a year before I bought in too. And today, some other person is just becoming aware of Bitcoin - and they'll buy some months down the road at a large increment in price. And _they'll_ score a hundred-bagger. If this thing goes where I'm 80% convinced it is headed, we have several orders of magnitude to go. Still opportunity for riches for everyone.

If _we_ don't F it up.

And if we are capable of F-ing it up, it wasn't the right solution anyhow.

[smooth]

 I then proposed that the Core devs do that on Core.  It was meant to be a just counter-trolling.  But it seems that Greg and Luke-Jr are seriously dreaming the option of doing just that in case the miners switch to Classic.  It is Idiocracy II -- but with bitcoin!

Just read that thread for amusement. Saw this post

One of them is that he may have realized that bitcoin was quickly becoming a speculation instrument rather than the payment system he had set out to design; and that people were using MtGOX as a bank and intermediary, which defeated the goal of bitcoin. A rational person like him should have seen that things would only get worse -- and would have lost intrest.

This isn't really accurate. Satoshi knew exactly where it would go and he never dismissed Hal's outlandish predictions about the value of Bitcoin's either during the conversation in the cryptography mailing list.

The fact that new coins are produced means the money supply increases by a
planned amount, but this does not necessarily result in inflation. If the
supply of money increases at the same rate that the number of people using it
increases, prices remain stable. If it does not increase as fast as demand,
there will be deflation and early holders of money will see its value increase.

It isn't accurate because JorgeStolfi was either trolling or stubbornly ignoring facts. I already explained to him a few days ago, complete with numerous quotes (though I missed that one -- thanks for finding it), that satoshi was well aware that Bitcoin not only would be a speculative asset but that it was absolutely expected and even required that it would function that way.

[JayJuanGee]

In essence in early 2013, I was too busy gazing at my own navel and other aspects of my own real life, and even though I had heard the word bitcoin several times before, the reality of the matter is that to the best of my recollection, I did not really notice any meaningful live details about bitcoin until sometime in November 2013.....

Yeah, and I was aware of (and even following) Bitcoin for something like a year before I bought in too. And today, some other person is just becoming aware of Bitcoin - and they'll buy some months down the road at a large increment in price. And _they'll_ score a hundred-bagger. If this thing goes where I'm 80% convinced it is headed, we have several orders of magnitude to go. Still opportunity for riches for everyone.

If _we_ don't F it up.

And if we are capable of F-ing it up, it wasn't the right solution anyhow.

Actually, I think I agree with your every sentiment in this post.... and the longterm odds seem to be pretty good for bitcoin, whether it is 80% or some other number in that ball park.

Surely, bitcoin could regress in various ways, but I did get involved on the cusp of considerable worry about government regulation being a potential death knell or at least something that could really and meaningfully stifle expansion.

These days, the regulatory threat, to the extent it exists, seems to be a lot more indirect than what had been previously considered.


Furthermore, initially, I had been thinking that if I get into this thing (bitcoin), what are my liquidation possibilities and potential exit strategies.

Even though liquidation avenues may not have been good for bitcoin in the short term, over 2014 and 2015, these building of liquidation avenues are likely very valuable for bitcoin's long term prospects and just its becoming known and useful in a variety of ways for a large number of people in all corners of the world.  Yep, probably, we are going to see a lot more liquidation options and even abilities to use cell phone interface in poor countries, which will bring additional liquidation and utility to bitcoin.

[JayJuanGee]

 I then proposed that the Core devs do that on Core.  It was meant to be a just counter-trolling.  But it seems that Greg and Luke-Jr are seriously dreaming the option of doing just that in case the miners switch to Classic.  It is Idiocracy II -- but with bitcoin!

Just read that thread for amusement. Saw this post

One of them is that he may have realized that bitcoin was quickly becoming a speculation instrument rather than the payment system he had set out to design; and that people were using MtGOX as a bank and intermediary, which defeated the goal of bitcoin. A rational person like him should have seen that things would only get worse -- and would have lost intrest.

This isn't really accurate. Satoshi knew exactly where it would go and he never dismissed Hal's outlandish predictions about the value of Bitcoin's either during the conversation in the cryptography mailing list.

The fact that new coins are produced means the money supply increases by a
planned amount, but this does not necessarily result in inflation. If the
supply of money increases at the same rate that the number of people using it
increases, prices remain stable. If it does not increase as fast as demand,
there will be deflation and early holders of money will see its value increase.

It isn't accurate because JorgeStolfi was either trolling or stubbornly ignoring facts. I already explained to him a few days ago, complete with numerous quotes (though I missed that one -- thanks for finding it), that satoshi was well aware that Bitcoin not only would be a speculative asset but that it was absolutely expected and even required that it would function that way.

Stolfi doesn't really like to account for actual material and relevant facts, he would just prefer to select his own spin on minute and unimportant facts and then give grand eloquence to some trivial matters attempting to make those trivialities appear to be more centrally important than they are.  It's his MO.

[jbreher]

Furthermore, initially, I had been thinking that if I get into this thing (bitcoin), what are my liquidation possibilities and potential exit strategies.

I don't think in terms of liquidation or exit. In my planning, I have built a number of laddered 'diversification points', none of which, itself, divests a large percentage of my stash. Risto codified this as his 'SSS' strategy, though the concept is obvious in and of itself. The basics being 'every time BTC value increases by N*, sell M%', where N and M are constants of your choosing. In my case, each diversification point is enough to make a significant upgrade in lifestyle, without depleting principal.

Either this thing goes where there is no reason to exit, or it crashes to nothing. For me, there is no in between.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[solitude]

It's the same faggots dribbling the same nonsense in this thread.

some Juan Juan faggot, some billyjean faggot, i can't even remember your stupid names.

I can't even be bothered ignoring you retards, I just scroll down past whatever you idiots say.

Why don't you faggots get a hobby or something, you're the kings of the special olympics, absolute fucking retards.

Sell your coins or don't i dont give a fuck, i'll be the one having the last laugh when Bitcoin goes through the roof.

[JorgeStolfi]

Apparently the only one who got trolled by Luke-Jr was you because he wasn't trolling.

He was proposing Classic to go with CPU mining and leave the 1000 PH/s mining industry to Core.  At this point, I don't know whether he was trolling, making some statement, hoping to trick the Classic devs, calling bluff on their commitment to open governance -- or genuinely believing that they would like and accept the idea.

He has been proposing this for some time and it has always been on the table. I know it doesn't fit your narrative about how miners control everything, but it has always been, and always will be, the option of users to opt for a PoW-reset if miners are viewed by the consensus of economic majority as misbehaving.

Was it you that I debated with, 1-2 years ago, about the power of miners to change the rules?

Anyway, I know that this move ("red button"? "poison pill"? "hash seppuku"?) was the official defense against an "abusive" mining majority.  Of course it can be done: anyone can create a modified version of Core and make suitable incompatible changes to it, thus causing a hard fork and a coin split.  And -- funny thing -- it would create a "bitcoin" that I could like, with tens of thousands of independent miners, with not too different hash power.

What is delusional is the belief that the community would follow them, consider their altcoin to be "the" bitcoin, and discard the coins that they have in the miners' branch -- so that their altcoin will retain the pre-fork price of bitcoin, while the miners' coins will become worthless.

It is like the Captain planning to "defeat" a sailors mutiny by rowing out with the First Mate in a small lifeboat, and declaring it to be the real ship.

For one thing, some of the largest mining pools are closely connected to the largest bitcoin exchanges in the world; so, if a majority mining cartel decides to force a fork, these exchanges (and their customers) will use and service the miners' branch.

If that is a serious option, why don't they do it now, and remove the risk of miner concentration?

The delusion is in thinking "bitcoin is where we, the Core devs" are. 

I could do that myself now: make a copy of core, change the PoW formula, and presto: a hard fork happened, and the coin has split.  If the 1000 PH/s is not important, what is the difference between my bitcoin and their bitcoin?

[lottery248]

Coin



Explanation

it is after school here, after taking a look on this chart, I got that US matter: the bucks are going up and starting to break the record; leading the bitcoin price being pulled down.

It's the same faggots dribbling the same nonsense in this thread.

some Juan Juan faggot, some billyjean faggot, i can't even remember your stupid names.

I can't even be bothered ignoring you retards, I just scroll down past whatever you idiots say.

Why don't you faggots get a hobby or something, you're the kings of the special olympics, absolute fucking retards.

Sell your coins or don't i dont give a fuck, i'll be the one having the last laugh when Bitcoin goes through the roof.

FYI this kind of attitude seems not to be acceptable, this isn't a constructive method to say.