Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 3456. (Read 26712874 times)

Explanation

Explanation

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0l0c57y24s

Explanation

What I don’t get is why the dollar is having a bull-run bubble during a period of stagflation.

It must be because people are pricing things backwards.  Solution:  Get our thinking straight.  I will now start to flame anyone who gets quote/price currencies backwards—starting with Buddy, that stupid robot.


Thanks for the info.  I missed that, because I wasn’t paying attention to the market while my coins were safely in my wallet where they belonged.  Although I later looked back at daily candlesticks for the past year, it’s different than watching shorter candlesticks (hourly, etc.) day by day.

---

Edit:  Kludge to fix the table.  This forum’s rudimentary table support is ridiculous.

Similar stuff was going on for about a month in the 49k range, after we came down from the ATH

Explanation

What concerns me:  Bitcoin hovered generally around $39k–41k for awhile, sometimes dipping to the $38k range and sometimes jumping as high as $42k, in the time period before it was very suddenly pushed down to $30k and below.  (Note use of passive voice.)

Now, $10k lower...

(No 3 Buddies.)

Explanation

Explanation

Thanks for your courteous response.  Due apologies for having misinterpreted you:  Your post came right after mine, and I filled in the blanks a bit in trying to figure out what you meant.

I will here reply only to a few points you raised—not to chop up what you said or to take it out of context, but because they are interesting points to discuss.


I am not blind to it.  I view Satoshi’s achievements with a mixture of awe, and kicking myself with “why didn’t I think of that?”—for as so many truly great achievements, the creative idea of repurposing Hashcash to resolve a distributed consensus separate from a currency token looks obvious in hindsight.  Only in hindsight—only when we know the answer.  Before that, the question looks impossible—if we even know the right question to ask, as so often we don’t.  Someone had to see what nobody did.  Every invention that we take for granted started out as one individual’s vision to make the impossible a reality.

It is nowadays fashionable in some quarters to deprecate those achievements.  People who couldn’t and didn’t think of it will demand humility, and impose a pretense that everyone is just like everyone else—a mass of precious snowflakes.  Petty hatred befalls those who stand apart from the crowd, and worse unto geniuses.  Such jealousy is horrifically ugly.  I do not want anyone to misinterpret me as belittling or minimizing Satoshi’s achievements.

On the other hand, I balance that against (a) also properly recognizing the achievements of those who have come after Satoshi, and (b) avoiding the type of Satoshi-worship that leads to bad ends—in the worst case, opening the opportunity for imposters to gain instant followers by claiming “Satoshi’s Vision”.

For comparison, in the sciences, I have seen some debate about the proper place of, say, Isaac Newton.  I have seen arguments to the effect that Newton wasn’t so great, after all—that physics is just something that emerges from many different minds, without needing an occasional push by a giant.  I find that objectionable.

I recognize Newton as having advanced the state of the art in ways that no one else did at the time.  I accord him his proper place in history.  But I don’t see Newton as some sort of a god.  I recognize that his achievements are, by today’s standards, quite rudimentary—they even seem primitive.  They seem that way, because he laid new foundations in classical mechanics on which others later built great edifices.  I greatly admire those who came after Newton, too.

So as with Satoshi.

My analogy of Satoshi to Newton probably indicates that I am not blind to the magnitude of his achievements.


I doubt the widespread theory of a Satoshi team.  His work bore too much the imprint of one individual’s hands; and moreover, he made mistakes that a well-resourced professional team would probably avoid.  For example, I think that any hypothetical “Team Satoshi” would probably have at least one professional cryptographer onboard.  A cryptographer would not have designed a protocol with malleable transactions—yes, I will keep harping on that!  It is a known class of vulnerability.  If you familiarize yourself with the development of open-source cryptographic protocols, you will find public discussions in which professional cryptographers actively search for malleability of authenticated messages in their own work; where it matters (and it does matter here), they treat it as a serious security flaw.  This indicates to me that Satoshi was probably a lone individual who was not himself a professional cryptographer, and who was working in isolation before he announced Bitcoin to the world.

Bitcoin’s design also has some idiosyncrasies—for example, the obsessive use of double-hashing everywhere.  It is mostly harmless, and much less annoying than the urban legends about why Bitcoin does that.  (I have been intending to rebut that nonsense in the tech forum:  It cannot be to protect against length extension attacks in places where length extension attacks would be impossible.)  The simple answer—in my opinion, the most likely answer:  Double-hashing is just the type of thing that an amateur cryptographer, even an intelligent one, may do to try to strengthen the system.  (I make that judgment while acknowledging my own status as “not a Real Cryptographer(TM)”:  Fools know it all, but wisdom is to know one’s own limitations.)

It is remarkable that one individual took on a project of this scope, and completed it all the way to a functional alpha release by himself.  Remarkable—but not impossible, and not even improbable if we recognize that Satoshi was smart, motivated, self-disciplined, and hardworking.  There exist other projects of large scope that were created by one non-anonymous individual alone.  Most people can’t pull that off—some people can.

At that, indeed, I think that assuming it was group work unfairly minimizes Satoshi’s achievement.  Of course, I can’t prove it wasn’t a group effort—but I think it was done by one alone, by one with much higher abilities than most people have.  If you assume he was at least in the top 0.1% of talent, a very low standard for someone who makes an historic achievement, then it is not even surprising that he did it alone.


It came right after my post on that subject, exuded hostility towards an unspecified party, and said in what seemed to me to be quasi-religious terms that Satoshi’s creation of Bitcoin was “miraculous” (quote-unquote).  I looked around at other posts, puzzled over it for awhile, then decided that you must be arguing with me.  If I misinterpreted that, my misunderstanding was understandable.


Agreed.  Especially when someone does New Age style pitching the woo about “the Bible, The Vedic Samhitas, The Tao Te Ching”, then turns to preaching that Bitcoin is a blind, irrational leap of faith.  (Well, he didn’t put it that way.  I am translating the essay to more honest terms.)

But you must make one exception for me.  My esoteric knowledge of divine Bitcoin is the One True Way!  Margin-buying sinners, be forewarned of Bitcoin’s wrath!

Bitcoin, please forgive me.

https://youtu.be/1lwdsjyKbKg

Hello guys, I have been reviewing articles and reading opinions, so far everything has been Bearish style news and Bearish predictions, I stay with this Conitlegraph article:





Source: https://cointelegraph.com/news/bitcoin-altcoins-sell-off-on-record-high-inflation-but-traders-still-expect-btc-to-consolidate

Any indicates that $ 28K is the limit for it to rise or fall in price, but I do not know how reliable this is, it is obvious that they are analyzing in the short term, but if the whales decide to rise in price to $ 35K, I do not think that Lower the $ 30K, and $ 30K is a psychological level.

Explanation

There is already a lot of scuttlebut about the role of identity in Web5/BTC.  People basically griping that perhaps this will be the mega-super-mondo-utra KYC tool.

What a rug pull on the part of jack, if that is the case...

But if he is above board, and the projects go the right direction... man this is going to show Brian Armstrong what it felt like to be Yahoo.

That's why I saw this is info asymmetry...  I wonder what SQ is gonna do, stonk wise.  This might be where SQ and COIN became the flippening that has been prophesied from old...  Because you know, the PROTOCOL is not being replaced.  But the best company building on it?  I think we might be seeing that torch handed off.

What Fed does is not important anymore. The world is different now. The world is fed up with the US dollar and countries holding US treasuries are looking to dump them. Much more important is the Russian ruble as the world is hungry for rubles.

I'm very curious to hear the story/reason that they skipped 'Web4' and went to 'Web5' ??


If Jack were to say something about that, I think his answer would be that "Bitcoin will be the currency of choice for Web5 transactions."

There is a good chance this represents information asymmetry for us, and a few others...

Or as others have said it could be nonsense...  but I have a funny feeling about this.



Oh yeah... could also be a huge corporate bitcoin takeover.

I don;t know.

Explanation

Stupidity vs. malice.  Mass-stupidity, versus malice of market manipulators who may not want Bitcoin to compete with the dollar.

Both seem not unlikely.  Why not both?

Perspective:  Frustrating experience trying to explain to “wow, look at the headlines! so I wanna buy Bitcoin now” nocoiners what Bitcoin is—and what it isn’t.

> No, it’s not a stock.  It’s not anything like a stock.  Do you know anything about forex trading?

< But I see in the news that every time the stock market goes up, Bitcoin goes up—every time the stock market goes down, Bitcoin goes down.  It’s an investment just like a stock.

> [head explodes]