Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 3494. (Read 26713440 times)

Explanation

Today I found out that John Cena bought over 2000+ BTCiTcoins with money he made from commercials inside China. But I think he kind f^ked that up. He talked about Taiwan being a country. ROFL!      

Muahaha... found this in comments: An amazing movie, I felt my heterosexuality disappear after watching, 10/10, life changing movie

Funny shit! 

This is a popular fallacy.  Please help to correct others’ misconceptions about it, instead of spreading it.

Bitcoin’s value does not derive from the inflow of energy.  This gets causality backwards—and it doesn’t even make any sense.

Bitcoin’s value causes its energy usage, rather than vice versa.  The higher that Bitcoin’s market value is driven by factors that have nothing to do with its energy use, the more that miners are incentivized to spend on energy.  This drives up the difficulty—thus closing a feedback loop that tunes Bitcoin’s BFT transaction ordering security, the effect, to follow Bitcoin’s market value, the cause.  To the extent that miners thus do contribute back to Bitcoin’s value, it is strictly a second-order effect—not the primary cause.

Higher market value needs higher security.  Higher market value indirectly pays for the higher security that it needs.  The system is subtle, and it’s brilliant!

A clear understanding of this is important for rebutting anti-Bitcoin misinformation and POS propaganda.  The supposed analogy between POW miners and POS stakers is a deceptive illusion, which I can rebut on many key points.  This is one:  Miners do not have economic primacy in Bitcoin’s POW system.

Miners are essentially paid employees of the Bitcoin network.  Their job is security-critical, so they are paid well; but they are neither the bosses nor the owners of the network, and they do not create the network’s value as a first-order cause.

By contrast, POS essentially means a network by the whales, of the whales—for little retail moon-chasers to pour in their dollars, for the benefit of the whales.

---

This was the signal issue of the Fork Wars.  Bcashers contradicted what I said; their attempted “flippening” was based on the fallacy that miners have some sort of dominant role on the network, economically and otherwise.  Their theory failed.  And my theory, set forth above, was proved in practice.

If I were wrong about this, then we would all be using Bcash or S2X as the “real Bitcoin” now.

A related key point:  The security of consensus validation in Bitcoin is independent of miners, for all purposes except for transaction ordering.  Miners have a sharply limited function in Bitcoin:  BFT agreement on transaction ordering, to prevent double-spend attacks.  All other security is provided by the Bitcoin Core node you have running at home on a Raspberry Pi, consuming 10W of electricity at negligible cost.

This is not the case on POS networks.  On POS networks, so-called “validators” with high capital stake have total control of the blockchain.

This was just proved in practice a few days ago:  The Terra blockchain executed a contentious hardfork in 10 days (!), over massive community opposition.  To exercise central authority over an allegedly “decentralized” blockchain, Do Kwon and Terraform Labs needed only the collusion of a relatively small group of large, wealthy DPOS companies.  Imagine if Bitmain had that type of power over Bitcoin, and you get the idea of how POS really works!


Nope.  When the price reaches 6 digits—the cause—then miners will spend enough on electricity to secure the transaction ordering on a network holding trillions of dollars worth of value—the effect.

It is indeed a “closed-loop” system, as you say; but the loop runs in the direction opposite to what you suggest.

Still remember your endorsement of Gayniggers from Outer Space.  Great piece !


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-PPhHWzsrw

I'm honestly in awe that YT's woke crowd hasn't censored its title yet...

Explanation

the ninth gate was pretty good.

Using multiple accounts AND pretending that you're not the same person - that's exactly what sockpuppeting means.

Some users have alts and don't hide them. That's fine.

Some users have alts, don't publicly disclose them, but also don't stoop as low as posting in the same thread with their multiple accounts or peddling same idiotic rants or bypassing ignore lists or otherwise abusing the privilege. That can be somewhat shitty but generally still fine.

Some users have alts, don't admit it even when caught, lie about it, use the alts to spam the same bullshit walls of text, "muh free speech", etc - that's you. That's the shittiest kind of a sockpuppeting asshole.

Anal probes for everyone! What a fantastic idea!

They probably had too many useless spergs anyways.      .. They need to find their spiritual awakenings and search deep down into their soul for their true calling, just like Covid did for many people locking into their "house arrest cell".   

Explanation

Would you please fuck off to the thread where you regularly jerk off to your sovjet union dreams?
Thanks a ton, asshole.

That is not a difficult statement to make... as ALL of the news channels are lying everywhere and consistently.


Truth is, WE DO NOT ACTUALLY HAVE DECENT, CREDIBLE , INFORMATION FROM EITHER SIDE........


......but I tell ya one thing, I do not trust the western media to call it right, not for a single, micro second......bullshitting about wars is one of the main raison d'etre of the media... and they have consistently, bullshitted, specifically about conflicts, so many times that you would have to be a mad man to take any of their shyte at face value. The one thing I distrust as much as the Russian media is the "western" media.


   

I don't know what news channel you are watching, but they are lying to you.   

Ahhh yeah... mind fart, my bad

Really good read and great info.  Thanks.

This theory is endlessly more likely than big holders being so easily manipulated to believe CW's story telling and dump their coins at the cycle low.


If this theory is true, and it's probably the most likely one out there, stable coins created a super crash every cycle since they popped into existence.
Quite some cancerous stuff to BTC and the whole market...

Slowly but surely Russia is winning the fight against America on the territory of the former Soviet republic of Ukraine. The question now is if the regime in Washington is so desperate to spill out this war outside this territory?

Side note: It wasn't Johnny D. in The Lost Boys, it was Jason Patric.

My favorite Depp movies are The Legend of Sleepy Hollow, Secret Window, Public Enemies, and Ed Wood.

[ANN] POS is Fork Wars 2.0


This is a part of an organized, large-scale social, economic, and political attack being built against Bitcoin.  The overarching goal:  Make Bitcoin go POS.

Since Bitcoin survived the Fork Wars, this is the next iteration of an attempt to usurp Bitcoin.  To corrupt it.  To turn it into a tame market-circus animal in the service of big banks and VCs.

Some Bitcoiners (ahem, Jay) are too complacent about this.  They underestimate the threat, and overestimate Bitcoin’s robustness against such threats.  They forget that Bitcoin only won the Fork Wars because the Bitcoin community fought tooth and nail against a hostile takeover by liars and thieves.  Not because of “King Daddy” bravado.

Others are pessimistic.  I have spoken privately to people who have already given up:  “POS will take over everything.”  I have made to them the same argument:  “What if we had said the same about Bcash?”

This is an “all hands on-deck” moment.

---

On a personal note, this is why I restarted posting a few days ago with what was supposed to be a throwaway account.

Between May 12 and May 29, I had some nightmare experiences with altcoins that showed me just how bad POS is—no really, it’s worse than you think.  However bad you think it is, it is worse!  POS means centralization and total corruption, period.  My case against POS is far beyond the scope of this post.  Rest assured that I am not exaggerating, and I can make the case point by point.

I don’t idealize POW.  I do recognize that it is the best solution yet invented to the problem to which Satoshi applied it.  Criticizing POW to pump POS is a logical fallacy:  POS doesn’t actually solve the same problem, and it creates new problems.  To the most corrupt proponents of POS, that’s a feature, not a bug.  But most POS believers are innocently naïve about this:  Most people lack the requisite technical knowledge for a rigorous understanding of what POW achieves, and why POS fails to achieve it.  Until recently, I myself had only a moderate distaste for POS; I have invested in POS coins, considering it a minor flaw to be weighed against other factors.  The corruption of POS is subtle and pernicious.

In the same time period, I came across something that I had missed while I was busy struggling not to get wrecked on margin:  The jackals are circling.^*

And one of my longtime favorite altcoins, a POW coin, announced that its dev team is actively working on a switch to POS!  

POS has been growing like a cancer in the crypto ecosystem.  I see it, because I am not living in a Bitcoin echo-chamber.  And I see the next step, because I think strategically.  When I put on my Evil Hat(TM), I ask myself, How would I tame Bitcoin?  The answer:  Isolate Bitcoin as the only major POW coin, then make mass-propaganda that eventually places Bitcoin in the position of either switching to POS, or losing users to POS coins—just as Solana’s founder has explicitly proclaimed on CNBC.  Add in legal and regulatory attacks on POW—the threat is of a magnitude that Bitcoin has never yet encountered.

It is irrelevant to me whether Bitcoin switches to POS, or Bitcoin is economically replaced by POS coins.  A POS “Bitcoin” would not be Bitcoin:  It would be a tamed, denatured, corrupted fake-Bitcoin that serves Goldman Sachs, FTX, and VCs running P&D on crypto-Twitter, all at my expense.  Its economics would become dishonest, because POS is an economic shell game—and it would be effectually centralized, under a thin veneer of fake “decentralization”.

Seeing the writing on the wall, I came home to the Bitcoin Forum^** and tried to settle in, let people get to know me a bit—then prepare here for my next step, a carefully planned multi-prong strategy I have in mind for all-out, all-fronts defense against the POSification of all “crypto”.  It’s a shame that some low-grade trolls wish to deter positive community contributions.  As I remarked before, they do not care about Bitcoin.

Maybe this forum has degenerated into utter uselessness.  We’ll see.

---

Disclosures:

If Bitcoin ever goes POS, I will dump BTC.  I don’t know to what.  There is no alternative, no backup plan.  I don’t know what the hell I will do.  This is a fight to the finish—all-in, no compromises.

I have no past or present economic interest or investment in POW.  I never did mining; my involvement in Bitcoin and in some POW altcoins has only been in other ways.  Maybe I will get into mining in the future.  If so, that will be motivated primarily by the principle of supporting POW decentralization—not primarily motivated by money, other than “I must do break-even or better here.”  A high-risk, effort-intensive, hypercompetitive business with high upfront capital investment and razor-thin operating margins is not exactly what I personally enjoy doing.  Some people love it—I’m glad they do!

---

---

Footnotes:

^* That’s a double blow to me, because I have been excited about Solana’s technology.  The implementation is a dumpster fire compared to Bitcoin Core; but it has some interesting ideas, and much potential.

I’m not criticizing it to please the WO crowd.  To the contrary.  In April, I spent weeks avidly studying Solana’s rusty source code—foremost trying to learn enough so that I could do something to make money in their ecosystem, pay off my margin debt, and save my BTC.

I like their ideas on a crypto-nerd “wow, cool” level, and I enjoy coding for their runtime.  But I am disappointed by the code quality and, in practice, the absurd unreliability.  When my standards for the quality of financial software engineering are set by Bitcoin Core, it spoils everything else.

I was planning that once I stabilize myself financially, I wanted to pitch in, contribute to Solana, help to improve it.  I have fresh ideas for mitigating the account lock contention issues in the TPU; lock contention is the primary cause of Solana’s “degraded performance” under high load.  Solana devs have been struggling with this for months, to no avail; check their GH issues.  It’s a hard problem, but not intractable.  Fix lock contention, close a few more DOS vectors, do some network optimization, improve code quality, tighten up the security of the development process, and Solana will be awesome!

Any Solana dev who reads this will understand what I just said.  Any Solana dev who reads this will know that I am an earnest, competent potential contributor.  Not a WO Solana-hater.

But now, I am furious at Solana.  Solana’s founder should have considered that if he attacks Bitcoin, then instead of Bitcoin losing users, Solana loses people like me.  And I’d wager I am not alone in that.  There must be not a few developers who may be attracted to Solana’s technology, but who will be outraged and disgusted by what its founder said about Bitcoin.

^** I obviously have long experience with many accounts on this forum.  Not only one or two.  I will neither acknowledge the accounts that are mine, nor deny wrong guesses; why should I?

This is a privacy forum, founded by a pseudonymous Tor user.  The administration explicitly allows, and sometimes encourages the use of alt accounts.  I have never done anything wrong.  I have never had any accounts banned; I can freely wake any of them, anytime I want.  I have never abused multiple identities for fraudulent purposes.  I have never bought or sold accounts; I am strongly opposed to account sales, even though it is technically allowed by the forum rules.  And I have never sock-puppetted; those who accuse me of “sock-puppetting” do not know what the term means.

My identities and pseudonyms are nobody’s business but my own.

It seems that the source is also a kind of false dichotomy.

I have no problem with the idea of supplementing various energy sources, but there seem to be a lot of problems just getting into a framework that tries to classify various energies as if they can do the same things that fossil energies have been able to do... all kinds of false narratives seem to exist when there is too much attempt to control the narrative in terms of this energy good and this energy bad, but then realizing that the answers are not as cut and dry as they are made out to be in terms of the various trade-offs that go into the matters of even when put into practice and also stress tested and also to figure out in truthful empirical ways rather than just plotting matters out on paper.



Oh gawd....  case in point....  


LFC is referring to the November 2018 crashening from $6k to $nearly $3k.. which took until after the April 2019 UPpity exponential for BTC prices to get back above $6k (whichwas in the ballpark of 5-ish months - which I surely would not describe "getting right back."  

Now the March 2020 crashening did ONLY take a few weeks to get back above $6k.. but not before it had given mindrust a second chance to buy back his 10BTC below his mid $4k prices.. .which he refused to do and caused that subsequent recovery to feel even more dramatic for guys who had naysayed bitcoin in those kinds of ways.


Gachapin said it first...