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

[darkmind]

If we all only traded perfectly we all would have 100k BTC by now. This artificial unpredictable microvolatility of bitcoin is obviously an attempt to prepare long trolls, I hope I'm wrong though

[Wandererfromthenorth]

the real breakout will happen end of January or beginning of February:

Yes that is gonna be an important test, but first we gotta exit the formation I posted.

[Gyrsur]

the real breakout will happen end of January or beginning of February:

Yes that is gonna be an important test, but first we gotta exit the formation I posted.

agree with you! 

[sherbyspark]

Its pretty obvious why prices are down and not much action .
Due to this: https://www.bitstamp.net/article/Bank-holidays-December-25th-26th-2014/
People have not been able to get funds on the exchange sites to buy enough. We should hopefully see some action today

[8up]

One more line added. - I call it the Chessnut line.

[Gyrsur]

One more line added. - I call it the Chessnut line.

chessnut line? wtf is this TA?  

[LFC_Bitcoin]

All these EW lines are a load of bull shit.
Anybody can draw a couple of lines & guess at the price.

99.9% of people haven't got a clue which way the market will move, reactive rather than pro-active.

(And I'm a HODLER not a trader).

[8up]

One more line added. - I call it the Chessnut line.

chessnut line? wtf is this TA?  

https://asktom.cf/index.php?topic=812637.980

[bitcoinmining]

100 BTC sell wall in BTC-e, 30 BTC sell wall in Bitstamp  

Nothing much, c'mon pass that to see higher than 320 again guys!

Edit: 86 BTC buy wall comes at $313 in Bitstamp, thanks to who heard me

[Wandererfromthenorth]

All these EW lines are a load of bull shit.
Anybody can draw a couple of lines & guess at the price.

99.9% of people haven't got a clue which way the market will move, reactive rather than pro-active.

(And I'm a HODLER not a trader).

We didn't post any EW chart.

[Wandererfromthenorth]

100 BTC sell wall in BTC-e, 30 BTC sell wall in Bitstamp  

Nothing much, c'mon pass that to see higher than 320 again guys!

Edit: 86 BTC buy wall comes at $313 in Bitstamp, thanks to who heard me

Those are not large orders, they are small-normal orders.

[esse83]

All these EW lines are a load of bull shit.
Anybody can draw a couple of lines & guess at the price.

99.9% of people haven't got a clue which way the market will move, reactive rather than pro-active.

(And I'm a HODLER not a trader).

True, the 0.1% that knows is the exchange operators They are literally acting on 100% inside information and its legal. Who wouldn't want to have a piece of that. It is also why the price is what it is, lower price equals lower income for them. They can't allow the price to drop to low. They get bitcoin and dollar for every trade, naturally they don't want it to sink too low as they are a cooporation meaning they only exist for profit, the more the merrier. Good for you to notice that finally

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[Feri22]

One more line added. - I call it the Chessnut line.

LOL 

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[Son0fLamb]

Shoulda listened to my dad, coulda made bank

https://static.fjcdn.com/comments/4634249+_a52a5e26eb22d6c293a4bc10aa6a1eb8.jpg

[JorgeStolfi]

Many thanks for your comprehensive answer!
It seems, as I've found in the last couple of hours, the use faulty PSRNG's might pose a threat, maybe significant enough to drive the price further down.
The unfolding story is here: https://asktom.cf/index.php?topic=107172.msg8939173#msg8939173 I hope you'll find it interesting enough to consider including it in your great work (I'm closely following your posts) that you're doing on studying/documenting the whole ecosystem.

Thanks for the link and the compliment!

As I understood it, those Hyena guys claim that many wallet tools use PSRNGs that generate less than the required 2^160 bits of entropy.  They claim that the entropy is low enough that the chance of a collision is not negligible; and they have set up a lot of disk and computing power to catch for such collisions.

I doubt whether good PSRNGs, correctly implemented and used, have such a low entropy.  However, the probability of coding errors makes the project more plausible.  In conditional probability notation:

P(security broken) =
  P(software is correct) * P(security broken IF software is correct) +
  P(software is buggy) * P(security broken IF software is buggy)

A strong cryptographic method only ensures that the factor P(security broken IF software is correct) in the first term is astronomically small.  However, the factors P(software is buggy) and P(security broken IF software is buggy) are large enough to matter.  For bitcoin, empirically, the second term may be on the order of 1 in 10'000 or more, and is unlikely to decrease. (As time passes, the best implementations may get somewhat more secure; but the number of implementations will grow, so there will be fewer competent eyes checking each of them, and reports of coin theft will get less attention.)  Thus, P(security broken) should be large enough to notice, and will not be improved by switching to 512 bit keys or whatever.

[Wandererfromthenorth]

I fucking LOL'd


https://twitter.com/el33th4xor/status/549402148816293888

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[Richy_T]

Many thanks for your comprehensive answer!
It seems, as I've found in the last couple of hours, the use faulty PSRNG's might pose a threat, maybe significant enough to drive the price further down.
The unfolding story is here: https://asktom.cf/index.php?topic=107172.msg8939173#msg8939173 I hope you'll find it interesting enough to consider including it in your great work (I'm closely following your posts) that you're doing on studying/documenting the whole ecosystem.

Thanks for the link and the compliment!

As I understood it, those Hyena guys claim that many wallet tools use PSRNGs that generate less than the required 2^160 bits of entropy.  They claim that the entropy is low enough that the chance of a collision is not negligible; and they have set up a lot of disk and computing power to catch for such collisions.

I doubt whether good PSRNGs, correctly implemented and used, have such a low entropy.  However, the probability of coding errors makes the project more plausible.  In conditional probability notation:

P(security broken) =
  P(software is correct) * P(security broken IF software is correct) +
  P(software is buggy) * P(security broken IF software is buggy)

A strong cryptographic method only ensures that the factor P(security broken IF software is correct) in the first term is astronomically small.  However, the factors P(software is buggy) and P(security broken IF software is buggy) are large enough to matter.  For bitcoin, empirically, the second term may be on the order of 1 in 10'000 or more, and is unlikely to decrease. (As time passes, the best implementations may get somewhat more secure; but the number of implementations will grow, so there will be fewer competent eyes checking each of them, and reports of coin theft will get less attention.)  Thus, P(security broken) should be large enough to notice, and will not be improved by switching to 512 bit keys or whatever.

For anyone really concerned, they may want to generate a private key with some dice.