Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 19589. (Read 26608252 times)
January 16, 2016, 01:52:31 PM
Canceled my $354 buy and put it at $345 instead, dammit...
January 16, 2016, 01:50:02 PM
The drop is caused because Cryptsy is collapsing, I think.
If a reasonable solution is reached, then we'll see a recover, otherwise two more years of bear
If a reasonable solution is reached, then we'll see a recover, otherwise two more years of bear
January 16, 2016, 01:46:56 PM
Not only that, but if you notice that particular post with Wright, he had just one space between the two sentences. Yet Satoshi was apparently double-spacing even one-liners:
That means a lot coming from you, Hal. Thanks.
Given this level of investigative nous, I expect you are in the police force?
January 16, 2016, 01:46:52 PM
The volatility IMO is due entirely to the hard fork. A big player (likely miner) sold at 450 because they know what is coming.
The most obvious explanation is Mike's ragequit, which got wide exposure in the media (NYT, Motherboard, TechCrunch, Reuters, ...) It was also commented in Chinese forums.
I can't think of any other suiltable explanation for the sudden drop.
That's because of your astounding ignorance of economics.
If you ever looked up from your Buttcoin forums, and glanced at say Bloomberg TV, you'd notice there has been an ongoing meltdown in world financial markets since New Years Day.
The Big Money that moves the BTC price is selling to cover losses, and/or take advantage of opportunities in other oversold sectors.
Last time i checked btc had a marketcap of 6.5 billion.
Stocks, commodities etc are in triple digit trillions. ( trillions!)
Covering losses what?
Imho Mike ragequit is much more likely
I agree, it's not a question of covering losses. Covering losses with btc is not even possible.
The global meltdown could explain the stop but not a lowering trend.
January 16, 2016, 01:41:47 PM
Satoshi's writing and that particular letter have something in common: Two spaces after a sentence ends. That's the "old" way of writing in the typewriter era where you hit space twice - and you carry over that habit to the PC keyb into the late 80s/90s. You do it too because you are of the "old guard". Younger people, hackers, script-kiddies, well... not only don't they know these things but they won't even spot the difference in order to emulate it. The two spaces, for me, increases the chance that it was original.
Oops, thanks for reminding me. I must watch out and avoid that old habit, before someone figures out my true identity.
Quote
The writing style is quite neutral and it feels ok'ish though and in line with what Satoshi has said in the past.
Well, it is a matter of feeling; but I find the tone of that letter very unlike that of previous writings. Too dramatic, almost hysterical. But very much like the tone of Adam and other ardent small-blockians. The personal and nominal attack against Gavin, in particular, was very strange for Satoshi, but very much like Adam's tone at the time.
Quote
As for blockstream people doing it, you are saying that they hacked Satoshi accounts back when it happened and then they used them when convenient to promote their agenda? And how would they know that Satoshi wouldn't pull the curtain on them? [ ] It's a very long leap.
The hacker who got hold of Satoshi's email account may have been a smallblockian or Blockstream sympathizer, or may have offered his services to them. (How else would he profit from that "asset"?)
Satoshi is either dead, or is much more worried about hiding his identity than about the fate of bitcoin (which he apparently abandoned in 2010).
That, by the way, is another reason why I assumed that the letter was fake when it came out: if he did not care to intervene in all the previous critical events, why would he come in just to take a side (the wrong one!) in a relatively minor technical dispute?
Quote
Especially after Satoshi came out and said he is not Dorian?
If his account was hacked back then, who knows why the hacker posted it. Maybe he was sorry for the old man. Presumably he is a bitconer, and thought that the claim was hurting bitcoin.
By the way, there was another message by "Satoshi" recently, denying that he was Craig Wright -- and then adding "We are all Satoshi". That last part is obviously something that Satoshi would not have written. I can only think that the hacker is aware that everybody is aware that the account has been compromised, and does not care to pretend anymore.
Jorge, You always have interesting comments. I liked the points you made on /btc regarding Jtoomin's discussion on addressing fees in the future. That was pretty sweet seeing the back and forth discussion regarding bitcoin economics. Sorry, economics are still sexy to me lol. I know I could just do a google search but have you written any interesting papers lately regarding bitcoin? It's a topic that I havent seen a lot of substantial academic research on. Just wondering
Keep up the great discussion January 16, 2016, 01:37:52 PM
The volatility IMO is due entirely to the hard fork. A big player (likely miner) sold at 450 because they know what is coming.
The most obvious explanation is Mike's ragequit, which got wide exposure in the media (NYT, Motherboard, TechCrunch, Reuters, ...) It was also commented in Chinese forums.
I can't think of any other suiltable explanation for the sudden drop.
That's because of your astounding ignorance of economics.
If you ever looked up from your Buttcoin forums, and glanced at say Bloomberg TV, you'd notice there has been an ongoing meltdown in world financial markets since New Years Day.
The Big Money that moves the BTC price is selling to cover losses, and/or take advantage of opportunities in other oversold sectors.
Last time i checked btc had a marketcap of 6.5 billion.
Stocks, commodities etc are in triple digit trillions. ( trillions!)
Covering losses what?
Imho Mike ragequit is much more likely
January 16, 2016, 01:12:01 PM
Well, it is a matter of feeling; but I find the tone of that letter very unlike that of previous writings. Too dramatic, almost hysterical. But very much like the tone of Adam and other ardent small-blockians. The personal and nominal attack against Gavin, in particular, was very strange for Satoshi, but very much like Adam's tone at the time.
I don't see it as emotional. (I mean overemotional / hysterical). Strong worded, yes.
That means a lot coming from you, Hal. Thanks.
January 16, 2016, 01:01:58 PM
January 16, 2016, 01:00:23 PM
By the way, there was another message by "Satoshi" recently, denying that he was Craig Wright -- and then adding "We are all Satoshi". That last part is obviously something that Satoshi would not have written. I can only think that the hacker is aware that everybody is aware that the account has been compromised, and does not care to pretend anymore.
Sound, sensible analysis as always. Good to have you home, professor.
January 16, 2016, 12:48:23 PM
Satoshi contradicted himself on micropayments and scaling as well. Initially he was more bullish in terms of what Bitcoin could do but then became more realistic given the hardware/network constraints and network abuse that required more fees and block size limits. So depending the time-space coordinates you could take contradictory quotes even on the same issue.
If you can't see the difference between a change in position and the kind of contradiction presented, you're wanting to believe too hard.
January 16, 2016, 12:47:41 PM
Satoshi's writing and that particular letter have something in common: Two spaces after a sentence ends. That's the "old" way of writing in the typewriter era where you hit space twice - and you carry over that habit to the PC keyb into the late 80s/90s. You do it too because you are of the "old guard". Younger people, hackers, script-kiddies, well... not only don't they know these things but they won't even spot the difference in order to emulate it. The two spaces, for me, increases the chance that it was original.
Oops, thanks for reminding me. I must watch out and avoid that old habit, before someone figures out my true identity.
Quote
The writing style is quite neutral and it feels ok'ish though and in line with what Satoshi has said in the past.
Well, it is a matter of feeling; but I find the tone of that letter very unlike that of previous writings. Too dramatic, almost hysterical. But very much like the tone of Adam and other ardent small-blockians. The personal and nominal attack against Gavin, in particular, was very strange for Satoshi, but very much like Adam's tone at the time.
Quote
As for blockstream people doing it, you are saying that they hacked Satoshi accounts back when it happened and then they used them when convenient to promote their agenda? And how would they know that Satoshi wouldn't pull the curtain on them? [ ] It's a very long leap.
The hacker who got hold of Satoshi's email account may have been a smallblockian or Blockstream sympathizer, or may have offered his services to them. (How else would he profit from that "asset"?)
Satoshi is either dead, or is much more worried about hiding his identity than about the fate of bitcoin (which he apparently abandoned in 2010).
That, by the way, is another reason why I assumed that the letter was fake when it came out: if he did not care to intervene in all the previous critical events, why would he come in just to take a side (the wrong one!) in a relatively minor technical dispute?
Quote
Especially after Satoshi came out and said he is not Dorian?
If his account was hacked back then, who knows why the hacker posted it. Maybe he was sorry for the old man. Presumably he is a bitconer, and thought that the claim was hurting bitcoin.
By the way, there was another message by "Satoshi" recently, denying that he was Craig Wright -- and then adding "We are all Satoshi". That last part is obviously something that Satoshi would not have written. I can only think that the hacker is aware that everybody is aware that the account has been compromised, and does not care to pretend anymore.
January 16, 2016, 12:28:46 PM
It's very rare to see a low below the previous low on less volume. There will likely be a retest of $152.
It's a bit different now because of the likelyhood that the blockchain and Hearn controversy helped brought down the price, probably a lot.
January 16, 2016, 12:26:49 PM
As for as I know, it was Core who tried to push us into centrally planning the block size, instead of letting market forces find an optimum.
There was no push for anything, more like "inertia" during the prolonged discussions to find consensus.
Bitcoin isn't currently practical for very small micropayments. Not for things like pay per search or per page view without an aggregating mechanism, not things needing to pay less than 0.01. The dust spam limit is a first try at intentionally trying to prevent overly small micropayments like that.
Bitcoin is practical for smaller transactions than are practical with existing payment methods. Small enough to include what you might call the top of the micropayment range. But it doesn't claim to be practical for arbitrarily small micropayments.
Bitcoin is practical for smaller transactions than are practical with existing payment methods. Small enough to include what you might call the top of the micropayment range. But it doesn't claim to be practical for arbitrarily small micropayments.
Forgot to add the good part about micropayments. While I don't think Bitcoin is practical for smaller micropayments right now, it will eventually be as storage and bandwidth costs continue to fall. If Bitcoin catches on on a big scale, it may already be the case by that time. Another way they can become more practical is if I implement client-only mode and the number of network nodes consolidates into a smaller number of professional server farms. Whatever size micropayments you need will eventually be practical. I think in 5 or 10 years, the bandwidth and storage will seem trivial.
I am not claiming that the network is impervious to DoS attack. I think most P2P networks can be DoS attacked in numerous ways. (On a side note, I read that the record companies would like to DoS all the file sharing networks, but they don't want to break the anti-hacking/anti-abuse laws.)
If we started getting DoS attacked with loads of wasted transactions back and forth, you would need to start paying a 0.01 minimum transaction fee. 0.1.5 actually had an option to set that, but I took it out to reduce confusion. Free transactions are nice and we can keep it that way if people don't abuse them.
I am not claiming that the network is impervious to DoS attack. I think most P2P networks can be DoS attacked in numerous ways. (On a side note, I read that the record companies would like to DoS all the file sharing networks, but they don't want to break the anti-hacking/anti-abuse laws.)
If we started getting DoS attacked with loads of wasted transactions back and forth, you would need to start paying a 0.01 minimum transaction fee. 0.1.5 actually had an option to set that, but I took it out to reduce confusion. Free transactions are nice and we can keep it that way if people don't abuse them.
It would be nice to keep the blk*.dat files small as long as we can.
The eventual solution will be to not care how big it gets.
But for now, while it's still small, it's nice to keep it small so new users can get going faster. When I eventually implement client-only mode, that won't matter much anymore.
There's more work to do on transaction fees. In the event of a flood, you would still be able to jump the queue and get your transactions into the next block by paying a 0.01 transaction fee.
The eventual solution will be to not care how big it gets.
But for now, while it's still small, it's nice to keep it small so new users can get going faster. When I eventually implement client-only mode, that won't matter much anymore.
There's more work to do on transaction fees. In the event of a flood, you would still be able to jump the queue and get your transactions into the next block by paying a 0.01 transaction fee.
January 16, 2016, 12:24:46 PM
It's very rare to see a low below the previous low on less volume. There will likely be a retest of $152.
January 16, 2016, 12:23:48 PM
Bitcoin "Classic"! What a stupid name. Logically there's nothing really classic about it. They should have spent a little more time thinking up a proper name at least.
Seems that Satoshi disagrees with you: https://github.com/bitcoin-classic
Access to that email is probably a thriving dark market enterprise.
January 16, 2016, 12:17:34 PM
Quote
I have been following the recent block size debates through the mailing list. .....
Satoshi Nakamoto
Satoshi Nakamoto
I'll eat my hat if that was written by any of the very skilled mathematician/cryptographer(s) that designed bitcoin.
That letter is fake. It was not know at the time, but Satoshi's mail account has been taken over -- no one knows how or when. That was proved last September, when "Satoshi" sent a dox extorsion email from that address to some prominent bitcoiner.
Anyway, the phrase "in the face of widespread technical criticism and through the use of populist tactics" is a dead giveaway of its source. I only cannot guess who wrote it because there are several people at Blockstream, and many more among its supporters, who would have used those words, would not have any scruples in sending a forged message to support their agenda, and are naive enough to think that the trick would work.
The second paragraph, moreover, is totally at odds with the very idea that makes the protocol work.
Satoshi's writing and that particular letter have something in common: Two spaces after a sentence ends. That's the "old" way of writing in the typewriter era where you hit space twice - and you carry over that habit to the PC keyb into the late 80s/90s. You do it too because you are of the "old guard". Younger people, hackers, script-kiddies, well... not only don't they know these things but they won't even spot the difference in order to emulate it. The two spaces, for me, increases the chance that it was original. As for IPs, mail spoofs, hacked accounts, I can't tell you who controls what. The writing style is quite neutral and it feels ok'ish though and in line with what Satoshi has said in the past.
As for blockstream people doing it, you are saying that they hacked Satoshi accounts back when it happened and then they used them when convenient to promote their agenda? And how would they know that Satoshi wouldn't pull the curtain on them? Especially after Satoshi came out and said he is not Dorian? It's a very long leap.
January 16, 2016, 12:17:03 PM
Bitcoin "Classic"! What a stupid name. Logically there's nothing really classic about it. They should have spent a little more time thinking up a proper name at least.
Seems that Satoshi disagrees with you: https://github.com/bitcoin-classic
January 16, 2016, 12:16:46 PM
The volatility IMO is due entirely to the hard fork. A big player (likely miner) sold at 450 because they know what is coming.
The most obvious explanation is Mike's ragequit, which got wide exposure in the media (NYT, Motherboard, TechCrunch, Reuters, ...) It was also commented in Chinese forums.
I can't think of any other suiltable explanation for the sudden drop.
That's because of your astounding ignorance of economics.
If you ever looked up from your Buttcoin forums, and glanced at say Bloomberg TV, you'd notice there has been an ongoing meltdown in world financial markets since New Years Day.
The Big Money that moves the BTC price is selling to cover losses, and/or take advantage of opportunities in other oversold sectors.
This isn't rocket science, it's common sense.
All your ZOMG HEARN IS RIGHT BITCOIN IS FAILING spin attempt does is further cement your reputation for dishonesty.
I can't wait until the BRL finishes moving into hyperinflation territory, and you are begging for BTC to buy food and toilet paper.
January 16, 2016, 12:10:55 PM
Now that it slowly but surely becomes clear that Core is getting ditched for Classic by the community, the volatility is getting less. Once more details emerge about the implementation path of Classic, you can expect a rally.
There will be two coins of 21mn supply after the fork. The money supply will be doubled. Some that prefer the 25% variant will be dumping on the 75ers. The opposite may not even work due to lack of exchange support, lol.
[...]
Do you feel lucky?
I don't.
There has been a social engineering attack and it has been successful.
I thought it was Theymos who tried that. (And it failed, indeed.)
Quote
if core folds and goes to 2mb or segwit right now => it's theoretically better than turning btc into gavincoin but it's still a social engineering attack success, in terms of pushing things and breaking consensus under the threat of a hard fork.
As for as I know, it was Core who tried to push us into centrally planning the block size, instead of letting market forces find an optimum. They (and their allies) did their best to obstruct consensus, but it seems that consensus is about to be reached after all.
Quote
The parameter that "btc fails because there is no space" is for technically ignorant people. At most some dust will transact with a lower priority due to zero or low fees.
Perhaps I'm technically ignorant. But I can tell when something starts to work badly. Apparently you can't. So either you don't use Bitcoin, or you are the ignorant one here.
Jump to: