Author

Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 32703. (Read 26710372 times)

sr. member
Activity: 280
Merit: 250
out of topic.

How is possible that we still have BFL ads on bitcointalk??

why not?

some companies follow the ethic some others not and some are at the borderline. There are many customers that feel scammed and somewhere in the forums there is a thread with 35 pages talking about suing them in kansas. Just hope they don't demotivate any newcomer or that they cause government to interfere more than needed

We need a scammer tag for ads. That would be an innovation!
sr. member
Activity: 371
Merit: 250
out of topic.

How is possible that we still have BFL ads on bitcointalk??

why not?

some companies follow the ethic some others not and some are at the borderline. There are many customers that feel scammed and somewhere in the forums there is a thread with 35 pages talking about suing them in kansas. Just hope they don't demotivate any newcomer or that they cause government to interfere more than needed
legendary
Activity: 1904
Merit: 1037
Trusted Bitcoiner
out of topic.

How is possible that we still have BFL ads on bitcointalk??

why not?
legendary
Activity: 1904
Merit: 1037
Trusted Bitcoiner
one, at the moment the price is low (300 to 400M USD), but *interest* to attack btc directly is also comparably low. That might chance as btc becomes more established, but then the *price* will also be higher.

That price of attack is overestimated by factor 10 or even more.

Even by buying ASICMINER Blades (and he sells them still with large profit), you can get 1GH for 0.3 BTC. So 1 TH is for 300 BTC, 600 TH to ride 51% attack is for 20 million USD. THAT CHEAP.

The above price is assuming the attacker is acting with own economics in mind. NSA or others do not have to act this way.



If someone aquires 51 % hashpower and continues with the same protocol, it is not really an attack, is it? If that someone changes the protocol to something obviously worse, a real bitcoin fork can continue as before, can it not?

anyone can alter the protocol without any hashing power whatsoever.

and yes, the real fork will continue...

sr. member
Activity: 371
Merit: 250
out of topic.

How is possible that we still have BFL ads on bitcointalk??
sr. member
Activity: 280
Merit: 250
one, at the moment the price is low (300 to 400M USD), but *interest* to attack btc directly is also comparably low. That might chance as btc becomes more established, but then the *price* will also be higher.

That price of attack is overestimated by factor 10 or even more.

Even by buying ASICMINER Blades (and he sells them still with large profit), you can get 1GH for 0.3 BTC. So 1 TH is for 300 BTC, 600 TH to ride 51% attack is for 20 million USD. THAT CHEAP.

The above price is assuming the attacker is acting with own economics in mind. NSA or others do not have to act this way.



If someone aquires 51 % hashpower and continues with the same protocol, it is not really an attack, is it? If that someone changes the protocol to something obviously worse, a real bitcoin fork can continue as before, can it not?
sr. member
Activity: 280
Merit: 250
Bitcoin will continue to rise steadily, and reach a new all time high right before the new year.
I hope so too, but why do you have the need to say it out loud as a prediction?

Otherwise I commend you for stating it as a factual prediction, compared to others who might say it's going down in the short to medium term, which is nothing.
hero member
Activity: 531
Merit: 505
one, at the moment the price is low (300 to 400M USD), but *interest* to attack btc directly is also comparably low. That might chance as btc becomes more established, but then the *price* will also be higher.

That price of attack is overestimated by factor 10 or even more.

Even by buying ASICMINER Blades (and he sells them still with large profit), you can get 1GH for 0.3 BTC. So 1 TH is for 300 BTC, 600 TH to ride 51% attack is for 20 million USD. THAT CHEAP.

The above price is assuming the attacker is acting with own economics in mind. NSA or others do not have to act this way.

sr. member
Activity: 280
Merit: 250
Bitcoin will continue to rise steadily, and reach a new all time high right before the new year.
I hope so too, but why do you have the need to say it out loud as a prediction?
legendary
Activity: 1246
Merit: 1000
BTW, 66% of my trading stash joined the "investment stash" on a paper wallet. I sold the remaining 33% at $120 and requested a withdrawal to try some arbitrage with Bitstamp... The money didn't arrived to my account yet, so after the last rally my arbitraging move isn't looking too good ATM.

I don't understand this move. The best way to arbitrage is to buy bitcoins on Bitstamp and sell them on Gox, doing it the other way around like you did carries a huge amount of risk since you have to wait for the funds to arrive from Gox first. Why did you try it this way? Huh
legendary
Activity: 2380
Merit: 1823
1CBuddyxy4FerT3hzMmi1Jz48ESzRw1ZzZ
legendary
Activity: 1148
Merit: 1018
AND ShroomsKit, RELAX!

Shroomsy got anxious? That's a bearish signal for sure Cheesy

Too bad I have him on ignore, I will un-ignore him right now.... No harsh feelings shroomsy.
legendary
Activity: 1904
Merit: 1037
Trusted Bitcoiner
this post is to later be quoted on the "Track Record Forum Members" thread


Bitcoin will continue to rise steadily, and reach a new all time high right before the new year.
hero member
Activity: 509
Merit: 500
Can't upload avatar
On the fiat cost of a 51% attack, those are Really Big numbers to most normal humans. There could be more than just thinking about Google/China/Megacorp trying to 'own BTC'.

Credit cards weren't originally intended for internet use, BTC is. What if Visa just wanted to bury BTC? The cost of a 51% attack to preserve their business model could be considered a good investment to them.


its hard to estimate how much it would cost, with ASIC you'd have to PRODUCE your own units, faster, better and more than all other ASIC companies.

and if word gets out that VISA is building a SUPPER NODE , in an attempt to "own bitcoin", this will have the opposite effect.

also we are capable of protecting the bitcoin, if the most of the network agrees we can BLOCK VISA....

Wouldn't be easier to just lobby against bitcoin. Or to make googlecoin or visacoin with fast adoption and make bitcoin just another altcoin. Or maybe just buy as much as they can, than sell everything, and buy,....Or maybe just buy as much as they can, then sell everything, and buy,....or spam with microtransactions or something.

making googlecoin just makes bitcoin look good.

VISA lobbying against bitcoin, is a ridiculous thought, would bring on soo much attention, and they are clearly on the wrong side....

buying and selling like crazy, let them clear the asks and then sell into bids at a loss, thats fine by me!

Google search engine didn't make Archie look good. New cryptocurrency can fix many of the bitcoin problems and with Google resources the mass adoption can realy happen.

Lobbying is done in  pharmacy, weapons, pesticides, oil, ....everywere,  and the firms look reputable and have good profits.

And I already wrote that selling or buying with conjunction with leverege trading makes you money not that you lose it.



AND ShroomsKit, RELAX!
legendary
Activity: 2380
Merit: 1823
1CBuddyxy4FerT3hzMmi1Jz48ESzRw1ZzZ
hero member
Activity: 672
Merit: 500
[...]

Well, I obviously missed the $50s, but considering that I called that bottom from $129 (when I sold) my call was not so bad as we indeed went to $64. I bought back a little at $67-69, then I bought back in full recently at $105. Didn't manage to double my BTC because of being too bearish, but nevertheless I increased my trading stash by aprox. 50% which in my book was a better call than just holding. I would say "barely better" because I spent way too much time on daytrading....

BTW, 66% of my trading stash joined the "investment stash" on a paper wallet. I sold the remaining 33% at $120 and requested a withdrawal to try some arbitrage with Bitstamp... The money didn't arrived to my account yet, so after the last rally my arbitraging move isn't looking too good ATM.

Finally, in all honesty I also wrote many times that so many people waiting for the $50s could have meant that we weren't going there. I still believe that we will see double digits again in 2013, probably not $50 but I expect testing $79 again and if it is broken the $60s again. Nevertheless daytrading is always gambling, and in the BTC even more so. Just one whale buyer/seller can trigger huge movements, therefore TA is pretty useless in this market Smiley

That's why I appreciate your posts here. You are one of the bigger traders/investors that I largely "trust" when they talk about their decisions. Not that I tend to follow your buy/sell advice, but I believe you when you say you did X or Y Tongue

EDIT: jsut to clarify, you usually don't give advice in the strict sense anyway. just that when you were pretty bearish in the last month or so, I took that into account, but decided otherwise myself.

You have to be kidding me. Together with Blitz he is the biggest clown in this thread. Just like Blitz i'm amazed he has the guts to still post here.
legendary
Activity: 1204
Merit: 1002
RUM AND CARROTS: A PIRATE LIFE FOR ME
I wrote a longer answer to the 51% network attack over on r/bitcoin. The way I see it, the attack is almost trivially easy to pull of for a large motivated entity, such as, say,  the US government.

There are two layers of protection against this happening, imo:

one, at the moment the price is low (300 to 400M USD), but *interest* to attack btc directly is also comparably low. That might chance as btc becomes more established, but then the *price* will also be higher.

two, network composition. if any large group suddenly enters the scene, outcomputing everyone else, that will most likely be noticed, and investigated by the community. I don't believe it would be easy, even for a government with loads of money, to pretend to be several thousand individuals forming a mining pool.

300 to 400 MILLION dollars is extremely expensive for anyone, that amount of money needs to be accounted for, and, preferably, not wasted. It's possible that someone could do it, sure, but there's no crime without a motive, right? Also, considering how much hash power that would bring you, only a crazy person wouldn't just decide to be 'la central bank' of bitcoin. Just too much money required. Besides, if they got started with their project right now, considering how fast the hash rate is going up, I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out to be far more expensive to do by they time they finished then they expected.
legendary
Activity: 1904
Merit: 1037
Trusted Bitcoiner
On the fiat cost of a 51% attack, those are Really Big numbers to most normal humans. There could be more than just thinking about Google/China/Megacorp trying to 'own BTC'.

Credit cards weren't originally intended for internet use, BTC is. What if Visa just wanted to bury BTC? The cost of a 51% attack to preserve their business model could be considered a good investment to them.


its hard to estimate how much it would cost, with ASIC you'd have to PRODUCE your own units, faster, better and more than all other ASIC companies.

and if word gets out that VISA is building a SUPPER NODE , in an attempt to "own bitcoin", this will have the opposite effect.

also we are capable of protecting the bitcoin, if the most of the network agrees we can BLOCK VISA....

Wouldn't be easier to just lobby against bitcoin. Or to make googlecoin or visacoin with fast adoption and make bitcoin just another altcoin. Or maybe just buy as much as they can, than sell everything, and buy,....Or maybe just buy as much as they can, then sell everything, and buy,....or spam with microtransactions or something.

making googlecoin just makes bitcoin look good.

VISA lobbying against bitcoin, is a ridiculous thought, would bring on soo much attention, and they are clearly on the wrong side....

buying and selling like crazy, let them clear the asks and then sell into bids at a loss, thats fine by me!
legendary
Activity: 1470
Merit: 1007
I wrote a longer answer to the 51% network attack over on r/bitcoin. The way I see it, the attack is almost trivially easy to pull of for a large motivated entity, such as, say,  the US government.

There are two layers of protection against this happening, imo:

one, at the moment the price is low (300 to 400M USD), but *interest* to attack btc directly is also comparably low. That might chance as btc becomes more established, but then the *price* will also be higher.

two, network composition. if any large group suddenly enters the scene, outcomputing everyone else, that will most likely be noticed, and investigated by the community. I don't believe it would be easy, even for a government with loads of money, to pretend to be several thousand individuals forming a mining pool.
legendary
Activity: 1153
Merit: 1000
I saw a website the other day (forgot the address, sorry) that just keeps a running statistic for how much it would cost to launch a 51% attack on bitcoin via hardware manufacturing. Right now it was something like $350m. That seems like a lot (depending on how you look at it) but if bitcoin was to gain the global acceptance that we all hope it will someday, it's not a lot at all. There is a big incentive to be the "federal reserve" of bitcoin, and a government entity might be willing to shell out that kind of money to do it.

$350M to attack is a large, but as you point out a very easy amount for motivated entities. Heck the FED prints $85B per month and no one bats an eye.

Another issue is the amount of electricity needed to sustain the network. If you assume that mining tends to increase until the value of the coins generated equals the electricity cost, then at today's market cap of $1.35B you need $422K in electricity per day.

The issue is this electricity burn scales linearly with bitcoin's total market cap. If the market cap goes up 100x to $135B (still not a lot for a currency), then you need $42.2M to sustain the network. At some point this will either constrain the price or make people legitimately question some core concepts around bitcoin. Burning $50M or $500M in electricity per day is massive waste of resources, another mechanism will be needed.
Jump to: