Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 7038. (Read 26720830 times)

wallet.dat backed up on a USB stick, inserted in one’s anus?

https://twitter.com/RoninNode/status/1312339488774017024
hmm maybe

Thanks for highlighting that point as well, nullius.

There has been increasing kinds of funding in the bitcoin space towards developers, research and other matters, and of course, bitcoin will NOT be dead (and probably not even meaningfully disabled) if Bitmex funding towards bitcoin development and research ends up drying up. 

I do agree that through the last several years, Bitmex seems to have served as a decent steward of the bitcoin space, and surely it remains a bit irritating that they are being attacked in such a seemingly strenuous way...., whether that is too much, or merely the US government employing seemingly overbearing tools in order to attempt to negotiate from a better seeming position of strength.   

I surely do not claim to know many of the details of the purported egregiousness that the USA govt is proclaiming against bitmex and four of its officials to justify criminal rather than civil charges, and overall through the years, I have considered Bitmex to be greatly on the net positive side of Bitcoin's development.. even though surely some people (even pretty BIG ass players have gotten quite reckt) have been quite fucked in using their exchange when the market has moved against their bets.

https://twitter.com/dysmemic/status/1312309954989023232

That is good news.  Whereas I am more worried about such things as this—just for instance:

https://blog.bitmex.com/who-funds-bitcoin-development/

https://blog.bitmex.com/hdr-global-trading-increases-bitcoin-developer-grant-to-us100000/

BitMEX is far from the biggest funder of Bitcoin development; but their support of the effort that makes Bitcoin work on a technical level is nothing to sneeze at, either.  The number of mutually independent parties funding Bitcoin development is also a centralization issue.  One of the good things about Core is that no single party can call the shots just by tugging purse strings; Bitcoin needs to keep it that way.

Most people do not even think about this.  High-quality free and open-source software engineering just appears spontaneously out of thin air, without funding and organization.  (Rather like revolutions, “amorphous movements”, mass-migrations, etc.; the world is such a random place, in which human events just happen without any organization, leadership, or money.)

From what I have seen from the sidelines, BitMEX has also otherwise been on the good side of many Bitcoin issues.  E.g., “Therefore BitMEX will not be able to support SegWit2x.  [...]  BitMEX considers any and all contentious hardfork tokens as altcoins.”  It would be a shame if they were to diminish or disappear, leaving a void to be filled by some of the exchanges who are practically enemies of Bitcoin.

Note:  I have no connection to BitMEX, and no financial interest in the foregoing statement.  My experience with centralized exchanges is pretty much nil; and I don’t know anybody at BitMEX.

---

Thanks.  I’ll save that for everybody who ever mentions, among other things, the American reality-TV “election” show—about which I was working on a P&S meta-complaint, when I delved into a minor tangent on Antifa.

Use your pictures!

I’m so bullish on Bitcoin right now I’m speechless 😶

Of course, there are several of us who remain concerned about regulatory overreach and also seeming desperate measures taken by various arms of the USA government.

Clearly there is a bully factor in these matters, and even though there may have been some pretty extreme wild, wild west type activities going on with BitMex's allowance of 100x leverage and problems with incentives created around such extreme abilities to leverage so much.

There have been a variety of actors in the bitcoin space who had been targeted in the past by the USA government in a variety of ways, and does not seem right to be cheering for regulatory overreach and/or bullying.

Furthermore, criminal charges are way the fuck more extreme than civil charges, so we will surely need to see how some of this plays out - especially if we really do not know a lot of the details, and surely it is in the interest of a variety of bitcoiners that Bitmex is able to put up some decent fights.. just like Bitfinex and Tether have been able to do... at least, so far.

I am glad that Bitmex coins had not been seized, and I am glad that mostly account holders are able to get their coins off the exchange, so far.  They have likely processed around 30% withdrawals of the coins that were in their custody.. and I believe that they had an additional mass exodus of coins from their custody during the mid-March liquidation event, and surely some account holders had gambled or lost BIG during some of the March situation, and maybe even Bitmex had lost some credibility from how their exchange appeared to be being used during that situation, too.

By the way Karartma1, I doubt that this particular Bitmex attack situation goes so far as warranting the exiting of a reasonable bitcoin position, but of course, you need to decide for yourself what level of allocation you believe is warranted in bitcoin and whether some of the various bullshit and/or heavy-handed attack tactics sufficiently and materially interfere with bitcoin's investment thesis, including your own ideas of what bitcoin's investment theses might be.  

It's not as if many of us longer term HODLers and/or watchers of the bitcoin space did not expect various governments to attack on bitcoin, and of course, they frequently are going to attempt to engage in divide and conquer or even going after smaller potatoes before attacking the BIGGER dogs, and surely, there are attempts to reward the suck ups, too, so we should NOT be expecting that the level of attacks from various governments and/or incumbent financial institutions would not attempt to play favorites or for bitcoin to bring honesty to the various desperate status quo institutional fucks (whether governmental or financial institutions).

------

pierced resistance into the cloud

#dyor
1h


hard over and shake out some sail mister..time to give her her legs and run downwind of the storm
4h

#stronghands

https://bitcointencommandments.com/

250 btc buy wall on stamp @10550

sorry for off-topic

I don't necessarily agree even though it looks like my post allowed you to get a merit boost (and I am overall surprised by those who merited you the most). I will keep my position and see how all this will unfold. I am more conscious than ever that only dexes, layer2, coinjoins, LN and such could allow us a bitcoin true experience.
If what you wrote will prevail, I will probably start to abandon the ship. I don't applaud the CFTC
But we are friends anyway

https://twitter.com/BXRekt/status/1312435824726745088

Well, what am I supposed to call it when somebody claims that an organization which today overtly uses a Communist name, a Communist symbol, substantively Communist ideology, and Communist tactics, with the same old Communist purpose, has nothing to do with Communism?

The point of my Hitler/SA thought experiment was to demonstrate that nutildah’s argument would meet unanimous scorn (plus, I might add, accusations of covert sympathies), if it were applied to people who were overtly labelling themselves with NSDAP symbolism.

---

In the overall context of discussing a self-styled “Antifascist” organization founded in Germany in 1932, any mention whatsoever of Hitler must be nothing more than the convergence of random probabilities involving unintelligent hotheads arguing on the Internet.

Sure, that makes sense.

---

I must surely not be the first to propose Meta-Godwin’s Law:  On the Internet, any mention whatsoever of Hitler will trigger a blind invocation of Godwin’s Law—whether or not the mention of Hitler is reasonable—and whether or not the person mentioning Hitler is comparing his opponent to Hitler, which is actually what Godwin was talking about.

https://www.wired.com/1994/10/godwin-if-2/

Good morning Bitcoinland.

Leveled out after the dip a couple of days ago... currently $10563USD/$14060CAD (Bitcoinaverage).

Time to move up. Go Bitcoin go.


I think Godwin's Law should be updated to include "communist" along with the Nazis.

Its use is a sure sign a conversation is deteriorating.

"Terrorist" also comes close.

Neither.  Godwin was probably only semi-serious, but he stated that if any thread argument went on long enough the probability that Hitler would get mentioned was close to 1.  I know he's since clarified it shouldn't necessarily end an argument.

I was actually suggesting to nutildah that arguing with nullius was relatively pointless. 

The only one whom I seemed to be comparing to Hitler was myself.  You know—the Jewish Chinese Nazi, who is just running a Sun Tzu psy-op to keep marcus confused.  Zing.

What with this being the Internet, I had thought to explain pre-emptively that Godwin’s Law does not mechanistically apply to all historical comparisons or analogies involving Hitler.  Then, I decided that it would be a waste of words:  Surely, people would be more intelligent than that...  Welcome to the Internet.

No, I was not comparing Hitler and the SA to nutildah, Antifa, or anybody whom I dislike.  If that is what you read into it, then that’s on you.

To waste time and text explaining the obvious:  My point was that if, hypothetically, somebody were to use the Sturmabteilung name and symbol, then yes, that obviously would have some relevance to Adolf Hitler.  Neither nutildah nor anybody else would claim that it has nothing to do with Hitler, on the absurd grounds that:


Got it now?  Or do I need to write ten more pages explaining an argument that was intended to be concise?

---

As a relatively minor point that I should mention because it’s quoted above, nutildah’s statement that the original Antifa has been “defunct since 1933” is factually incorrect.  (And that was not the only thing wrong with his post...)  The Antifas functioned as underground/illegal from 1933–45, including amongst Communists imprisoned in labour camps, then lost momentum and faded away in the postwar era of the DDR.  Overt Communists gravitated toward the East, of course; and there is not much room for a street-level gang of Communist thugs in a country openly ruled by a government gang of Communist thugs!

---

By the way, does anyone here have New York Times paywall access?  If so, here are some links that I bookmarked once upon a time, when this stuff was not paywalled.  It was careless of me not to save local copies.
https://www.nytimes.com/1959/03/08/archives/now-castro-faces-the-harder-fight-his-revolution-against-batista.html
https://www.nytimes.com/1959/04/19/archives/castro-hails-newsmen-gives-medals-to-americans-who-interviewed-him.html

It is not about Antifa, but rather, an exemplar of the whitewash of Communists.  (I thought to mention that before, but decided instead to reach back to Walter Duranty.)  But a more accurate metaphor would be the Fair Play for Cuba Committees.

In 1959, nutildah would have jeered at me and traduced my intelligence for my claim that Fidel Castro is a Communist.  That was a wild accusation only believed by “right-wing extremists” with a “conspiratorial theory of history”, who “see a Red under every bed”!  (Until Castro himself came out and proudly announced that he had always been a Communist.)

Now, it is just too bizarre for nutildah to claim that an organization which today overtly uses a Communist name, a Communist symbol, substantively Communist ideology, and Communist tactics, with the same old Communist purpose of inciting riots and cancelling free speech with their fists (as Antifa’s predecessor KDP/SDP gangs did throughout the 1920s—to anybody who didn’t have an SA), has nothing to do with Communism.

---

No, that is a terse way of brushing you off as you deserve.  Though I should thank you for demonstrating the level of your dishonesty:

• If I spend my time and effort writing a cogent exposition of my thesis, you insult it as too long; and you proudly profess not to read it.  E.g.:
  
  
  Quote from: nutildah on September 23, 2020, 08:13:45 PM
  I'm ignoring you in general because you take too many words to say too little.
• If I mostly ignore your nonsense, and concisely dismiss it with four sentences plus one graphic (“long-winded”?) to make a baseline demonstration that it is nonsense, then you accuse me of “[not having] the slightest fucking clue what [I’m] talking about”.  And with a hypocrisy that would be astounding if it were not typical of a certain type, you thereby dodge my point—with a substance-free statement that is somehow simultaneously advanced from a position of conceited ignorance, and loaded with sneering derision.  Per your usual standard.

I am not inclined to engage you in an extended discourse on history and political theory, for the same reason that I have never delivered a lecture on geophysics to Flat Earthers.  But since you are so transparently using propaganda shill tactics that should make hv_ envious of your twistiness, I must ask:  Why are you deadset determined to whitewash Antifa?

It’s odd that an historical observation I tossed off-the-cuff, just because I was examining it again whilst working on something else (as I noted) and I thought it would be of interest to others here, has attracted such opprobrium from someone who claims to be “ignoring [me] in general”.  #triggered

Guess this didn't work.


https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/18/trump-says-he-takes-hydroxychloroquine-to-prevent-coronavirus-infection.html


He should lead by example and inject bleach.
What a pussy.

There's another consideration. If Wall Street whale traders do want a part of the trading action, then they want to control it. That means controlling a few on-off ramps (exchanges) where they can control the spread, and most importantly, control shorting and short coverage.

I.E., you need a large, concentrated number of available coins to short effectively, and they don't want all the available coins floating over to an exchange or exchanges that they don't have a close relationship with. Especially if that exchange were to allow naked-shorting and 100X leverage. At least in theory, they want all the available trading coins to migrate to exchanges that they can control. There's also the question of risk: they don't even want to have trading accounts on flaky exchanges that in an instant can just up and shut down, and disappear with all their money and coins and leave them with no legal recourse.


You're not wrong here.