Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 31175. (Read 26724083 times)
December 13, 2013, 10:43:27 PM
Well, I for one believe rpietila, because, I too have 10k (minimum) bitcoins.
December 13, 2013, 10:40:18 PM
Indeed, this whole discussion and peer bullying is stupid. Enough with the Rpietila bashing.
Let the guy speak his mind, the same as we all do. I know lots of people don't like the way he expresses himself or agree with his analysis, but be honest now..
I'd much rather read any of rpietila's post (I always find them interesting and thought-provoking, even when I disagree with what he's saying or how) than most of the sub-par content I'm used to finding both here and in other places like Reddit.
Let's bask in how different we all are and how rich that makes us. No need to alienate people, specially active people who contribute original content on a regular basis.
Let the guy speak his mind, the same as we all do. I know lots of people don't like the way he expresses himself or agree with his analysis, but be honest now..
I'd much rather read any of rpietila's post (I always find them interesting and thought-provoking, even when I disagree with what he's saying or how) than most of the sub-par content I'm used to finding both here and in other places like Reddit.
Let's bask in how different we all are and how rich that makes us. No need to alienate people, specially active people who contribute original content on a regular basis.
December 13, 2013, 10:40:02 PM
indeed no such thing as a derail in wall observer thread
December 13, 2013, 10:37:42 PM
Lol. This is the stupidest fucking thread derail in the history of bitcointalk.
Welcome to the Wall Observer.
This thread has always been a mix of:
i) infinite trolling
ii) a lot of off-topic ramblings
iii) some deep philosophical discussion
iv) very little TA
Plus, is kinda on-topic: Rpietila says in this thread (and all over the forum) he has 10k BTC and, specifically, that he uses them to manipulate the market.
We could just use less ego-filled chatter and more crypto proof.
December 13, 2013, 10:36:41 PM
yo rpietila
hook me up with 13 bitcoins please
1J6zCeK6XjYCUcE349QQXGNSmWoEc3S946
hook me up with 13 bitcoins please
1J6zCeK6XjYCUcE349QQXGNSmWoEc3S946
December 13, 2013, 10:29:05 PM
china will go thru 5500 soon, they already punctured it and now they are oversold
Having seen my magic, perhaps you can now publicly acknowledge that I have 10,000 bitcoins, apologize, stfu and gtfo. OK?
If you want to prove that just sign a message with an address holding 10k and put that signed message in your signature - no need for nobody to "acknowledge", that would be a hard cold proof.
That's pure non spoofable crypto, heart and soul of Bitcoin.
That's not hard cold proof. It's susceptible to Man in the Middle attack.
Care to elaborate that? How could rpietila perform "a man in the middle attack" and make bitcointalk.org users to believe he signed a message with an address holding 10k BTC if he is not in control of an address with such an amount?
Because there is nothing linking the Bitcoin address to his forum account. Hypothetically speaking, he could just ask a friend who has access to 10K BTC to sign a message and just post it. The difference is there is the possibility he can get 10K BTC account to sign a message, but he may not necessary control it.
But that's no man in the middle attack, in that case Risto would just be "borrowing" the coins for a specific purpose - signing the message, which is a proof he can have access (at least for that very purpose of signing the message) to 10k coins.
In any case, only a retard would accept to use 10k of his own coins to sign a message like "this coins belong to Risto Pietila", in practical terms Risto's "friend" would be handing to Risto the control of those bitcoins. That's like signing a contract, explain to a judge that "it was just a favor".
No.
The owner of those coins could sign the message for him. Risto would never need to control them. Virtualfaqs is right.
Meatspace equivalent: I can sign a contract in which I transfer to you the ownership of my house, but without ever handing to you the keys.
Finally:
If I have to prove on a forum that I own a $10M mansion, how about uploading a valid and verifiable contract of ownership of such mansion in my name? Wouldn't you consider that a proof of ownership?
Justin Bieber could be my friend and he could have signed the contract as a favour, without ever handing to me the keys. But that's beyond retarded and plainly ridiculous. As retarded, ridiculous and unlikely as expecting someone to cryptographically sign a message such as "This 10k BTC belong to Risto Pietila" with an address holding 10k BTC that do NOT belong to Risto.
Probably you do not fully understand the strong implications of such a message - any cryptographically signed message is potentially binding, and that's why the QT client warns you about signing only messages to which content you fully agree. If Risto has such "friends" that sign those messages for him I congratulate and envy him.
Uh, no, that's not the meatspace equivalent. There's no practical significance to signing someone else's message with your address. The person with the private key maintains full and absolute control. Said owner could simply transfer those coins after a suitable amount of time passed to satisfy everyone.
The meatspace equivalent is telling Risto's buddies that he owns your house.
We will have to agree to disagree: i) For you cryptographically signed messages have no significance, ii) for me they have a very strong significance.
You do not "own" the coins; the private keys "own" the coins. Using the private key of an addy holding 10k BTC of your coins to sign a message stating than the owner is an individual other than you has a very strong significance for me and I wouldn't do it. As a start, I would be worried about that individual claiming in the future that that priv keys were stolen from him. Sure no judge would understand nothing about this (yet), so you might be right about the lack of "practical" significances as there are no legal precedents on that sense - but I bet there will be a lot of practical significances in the futures. I believe we will see a lot of smart properties/contracts implemented on the blockchain and a lot of legally binding agreements based on message-signing with addresses privkeys.
In any case: I don't think rpietila has 10k BTC nor the access to someone with 10k BTC willing to sign on his behalf the following message: "these 10k BTC belong to Risto Pietila"
Lol. This is the stupidest fucking thread derail in the history of bitcointalk.
December 13, 2013, 10:15:35 PM
ooooooh Goat bought a lambo 
December 13, 2013, 10:14:12 PM
china will go thru 5500 soon, they already punctured it and now they are oversold
Having seen my magic, perhaps you can now publicly acknowledge that I have 10,000 bitcoins, apologize, stfu and gtfo. OK?
If you want to prove that just sign a message with an address holding 10k and put that signed message in your signature - no need for nobody to "acknowledge", that would be a hard cold proof.
That's pure non spoofable crypto, heart and soul of Bitcoin.
That's not hard cold proof. It's susceptible to Man in the Middle attack.
Care to elaborate that? How could rpietila perform "a man in the middle attack" and make bitcointalk.org users to believe he signed a message with an address holding 10k BTC if he is not in control of an address with such an amount?
Because there is nothing linking the Bitcoin address to his forum account. Hypothetically speaking, he could just ask a friend who has access to 10K BTC to sign a message and just post it. The difference is there is the possibility he can get 10K BTC account to sign a message, but he may not necessary control it.
But that's no man in the middle attack, in that case Risto would just be "borrowing" the coins for a specific purpose - signing the message, which is a proof he can have access (at least for that very purpose of signing the message) to 10k coins.
In any case, only a retard would accept to use 10k of his own coins to sign a message like "this coins belong to Risto Pietila", in practical terms Risto's "friend" would be handing to Risto the control of those bitcoins. That's like signing a contract, explain to a judge that "it was just a favor".
No.
The owner of those coins could sign the message for him. Risto would never need to control them. Virtualfaqs is right.
Meatspace equivalent: I can sign a contract in which I transfer to you the ownership of my house, but without ever handing to you the keys.
Finally:
If I have to prove on a forum that I own a $10M mansion, how about uploading a valid and verifiable contract of ownership of such mansion in my name? Wouldn't you consider that a proof of ownership?
Justin Bieber could be my friend and he could have signed the contract as a favour, without ever handing to me the keys. But that's beyond retarded and plainly ridiculous. As retarded, ridiculous and unlikely as expecting someone to cryptographically sign a message such as "This 10k BTC belong to Risto Pietila" with an address holding 10k BTC that do NOT belong to Risto.
Probably you do not fully understand the strong implications of such a message - any cryptographically signed message is potentially binding, and that's why the QT client warns you about signing only messages to which content you fully agree. If Risto has such "friends" that sign those messages for him I congratulate and envy him.
Uh, no, that's not the meatspace equivalent. There's no practical significance to signing someone else's message with your address. The person with the private key maintains full and absolute control. Said owner could simply transfer those coins after a suitable amount of time passed to satisfy everyone.
The meatspace equivalent is telling Risto's buddies that he owns your house.
We will have to agree to disagree: i) For you cryptographically signed messages have no significance, ii) for me they have a very strong significance.
You do not "own" the coins; the private keys "own" the coins. Using the private key of an addy holding 10k BTC of your coins to sign a message stating than the owner is an individual other than you has a very strong significance for me and I wouldn't do it. As a start, I would be worried about that individual claiming in the future that that priv keys were stolen from him. Sure no judge would understand nothing about this (yet), so you might be right about the lack of "practical" significances as there are no legal precedents on that sense - but I bet there will be a lot of practical significances in the futures. I believe we will see a lot of smart properties/contracts implemented on the blockchain and a lot of legally binding agreements based on message-signing with addresses privkeys.
In any case: I don't think rpietila has 10k BTC nor the access to someone with 10k BTC willing to sign on his behalf the following message: "these 10k BTC belong to Risto Pietila"
December 13, 2013, 10:13:10 PM
it's going to the moon, that's what Hell, sell NOW!
maybe for Sure!
December 13, 2013, 10:10:32 PM
it's going to the moon, that's what
maybe
maybe
December 13, 2013, 10:07:38 PM
hey guys
what's up lately?
been a week no interwebs
what's up lately?
been a week no interwebs
December 13, 2013, 10:00:58 PM
rpietila is good peoples!
December 13, 2013, 09:58:28 PM
...I also have friends with many BTC and they know that it is going down....
I'm just curious why those friends hold many BTC if they know that it's going down 
its really not that hard to believe someone would hold on to his bitcoin even tho he knows it might go down.
I'm doing it!
and i really do have 10K looking to buy cheap coins, IF i'm lucky enough. ( please no one tell my wife )
Well yeah everyone here knows with a 100% certainty that it will go down at some point in time. But i read that as rpietila implying that they're bears, and expect it to crash below $500, but yet for unknown reason still horde many BTC
and now one knows a damn thing about were the price is going...
look at the poll poeple believe, and they should, bitcoin lives up to the hype.
This sums up the whole thread , right
? 
December 13, 2013, 09:46:41 PM
well well rpietila obviously posted alot of bullshit lately but I wasn't sure if he's just a troll or if he actually believes that stuff.
so thanks rpietila for confirming you're full of shit and welcome to ignore.
so thanks rpietila for confirming you're full of shit and welcome to ignore.
December 13, 2013, 09:46:28 PM
china will go thru 5500 soon, they already punctured it and now they are oversold
Having seen my magic, perhaps you can now publicly acknowledge that I have 10,000 bitcoins, apologize, stfu and gtfo. OK?
If you want to prove that just sign a message with an address holding 10k and put that signed message in your signature - no need for nobody to "acknowledge", that would be a hard cold proof.
That's pure non spoofable crypto, heart and soul of Bitcoin.
That's not hard cold proof. It's susceptible to Man in the Middle attack.
Care to elaborate that? How could rpietila perform "a man in the middle attack" and make bitcointalk.org users to believe he signed a message with an address holding 10k BTC if he is not in control of an address with such an amount?
Because there is nothing linking the Bitcoin address to his forum account. Hypothetically speaking, he could just ask a friend who has access to 10K BTC to sign a message and just post it. The difference is there is the possibility he can get 10K BTC account to sign a message, but he may not necessary control it.
But that's no man in the middle attack, in that case Risto would just be "borrowing" the coins for a specific purpose - signing the message, which is a proof he can have access (at least for that very purpose of signing the message) to 10k coins.
In any case, only a retard would accept to use 10k of his own coins to sign a message like "this coins belong to Risto Pietila", in practical terms Risto's "friend" would be handing to Risto the control of those bitcoins. That's like signing a contract, explain to a judge that "it was just a favor".
No.
The owner of those coins could sign the message for him. Risto would never need to control them. Virtualfaqs is right.
Meatspace equivalent: I can sign a contract in which I transfer to you the ownership of my house, but without ever handing to you the keys.
Finally:
If I have to prove on a forum that I own a $10M mansion, how about uploading a valid and verifiable contract of ownership of such mansion in my name? Wouldn't you consider that a proof of ownership?
Justin Bieber could be my friend and he could have signed the contract as a favour, without ever handing to me the keys. But that's beyond retarded and plainly ridiculous. As retarded, ridiculous and unlikely as expecting someone to cryptographically sign a message such as "This 10k BTC belong to Risto Pietila" with an address holding 10k BTC that do NOT belong to Risto.
Probably you do not fully understand the strong implications of such a message - any cryptographically signed message is potentially binding, and that's why the QT client warns you about signing only messages to which content you fully agree. If Risto has such "friends" that sign those messages for him I congratulate and envy him.
Uh, no, that's not the meatspace equivalent. There's no practical significance to signing someone else's message with your address. The person with the private key maintains full and absolute control. Said owner could simply transfer those coins after a suitable amount of time passed to satisfy everyone.
The meatspace equivalent is telling Risto's buddies that he owns your house.
December 13, 2013, 09:45:43 PM
TL;DR: Risto sign a message such as "this coins belong to Risto Pietila" with an address holding 10k BTC or gtfo and stfu.
December 13, 2013, 09:43:52 PM
china will go thru 5500 soon, they already punctured it and now they are oversold
Having seen my magic, perhaps you can now publicly acknowledge that I have 10,000 bitcoins, apologize, stfu and gtfo. OK?
If you want to prove that just sign a message with an address holding 10k and put that signed message in your signature - no need for nobody to "acknowledge", that would be a hard cold proof.
That's pure non spoofable crypto, heart and soul of Bitcoin.
That's not hard cold proof. It's susceptible to Man in the Middle attack.
Care to elaborate that? How could rpietila perform "a man in the middle attack" and make bitcointalk.org users to believe he signed a message with an address holding 10k BTC if he is not in control of an address with such an amount?
Because there is nothing linking the Bitcoin address to his forum account. Hypothetically speaking, he could just ask a friend who has access to 10K BTC to sign a message and just post it. The difference is there is the possibility he can get 10K BTC account to sign a message, but he may not necessary control it.
But that's no man in the middle attack, in that case Risto would just be "borrowing" the coins for a specific purpose - signing the message, which is a proof he can have access (at least for that very purpose of signing the message) to 10k coins.
In any case, only a retard would accept to use 10k of his own coins to sign a message like "this coins belong to Risto Pietila", in practical terms Risto's "friend" would be handing to Risto the control of those bitcoins. That's like signing a contract, explain to a judge that "it was just a favor".
No.
The owner of those coins could sign the message for him. Risto would never need to control them. Virtualfaqs is right.
Meatspace equivalent: I can sign a contract in which I transfer to you the ownership of my house, but without ever handing to you the keys.
Finally:
If I have to prove on a forum that I own a $10M mansion, how about uploading a valid and verifiable contract of ownership of such mansion in my name? Wouldn't you consider that a proof of ownership?
Justin Bieber could be my friend and he could have signed a contract transferring to me the ownership of his mansion as a favour, but without ever handing to me the keys. I might never have intention to ask him for the keys nor to live in his mansion, I could just want to show off in here... But JB agreeing to underwrite such a contract is beyond retarded and plainly ridiculous. As retarded, ridiculous and unlikely as expecting someone to cryptographically sign a message such as "This 10k BTC belong to Risto Pietila" with an address holding 10k BTC that do NOT belong to Risto.
Probably you do not fully understand the strong implications of such a message - any cryptographically signed message is potentially binding, and that's why the QT client warns you about signing only messages to which content you fully agree. If Risto has such "friends" that sign those messages for him I congratulate and envy him.
December 13, 2013, 09:19:39 PM
china will go thru 5500 soon, they already punctured it and now they are oversold
Having seen my magic, perhaps you can now publicly acknowledge that I have 10,000 bitcoins, apologize, stfu and gtfo. OK?
If you want to prove that just sign a message with an address holding 10k and put that signed message in your signature - no need for nobody to "acknowledge", that would be a hard cold proof.
That's pure non spoofable crypto, heart and soul of Bitcoin.
That's not hard cold proof. It's susceptible to Man in the Middle attack.
Care to elaborate that? How could rpietila perform "a man in the middle attack" and make bitcointalk.org users to believe he signed a message with an address holding 10k BTC if he is not in control of an address with such an amount?
Because there is nothing linking the Bitcoin address to his forum account. Hypothetically speaking, he could just ask a friend who has access to 10K BTC to sign a message and just post it. The difference is there is the possibility he can get 10K BTC account to sign a message, but he may not necessary control it.
But that's no man in the middle attack, in that case Risto would just be "borrowing" the coins for a specific purpose - signing the message, which is a proof he can have access (at least for that very purpose of signing the message) to 10k coins.
In any case, only a retard would accept to use 10k of his own coins to sign a message like "this coins belong to Risto Pietila", in practical terms Risto's "friend" would be handing to Risto the control of those bitcoins. That's like signing a contract, explain to a judge that "it was just a favor".
No.
The owner of those coins could sign the message for him, perhaps for a fee. Risto would never need to control them. Virtualfaqs is right.
December 13, 2013, 09:19:09 PM
Where is the Reptile man? I need his BS to be entertained.
Oh as well as his supernode meeting, is he having one soon?
Oh as well as his supernode meeting, is he having one soon?
Jump to: