Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 7069. (Read 26709945 times)

Are you blind? You can see the credits in the image.


My excuses, i'll add the link next time it will save time for clicker lovers.

It is too late, toxicmoxic.   





Protip:  We (the royal we, of course) use universal time in these here parts.   


Sucks to be you  too late.... with what could have been a great idea....     


 

The “EV+” part is arguable. :-)


Sure, I’m interested—if it’s private, secure, and reliable and if 0.7%/year margin interest isn’t too good to be true.

I saw you drop that link a few days ago.  The thread seemed long on hype and short on details of how it actually works; I stopped reading after
ZmnSCPxj’s very thoughtful post, which appears to be unanswered.  (Both ZmnSCPxj and gmaxwell, who +5ed that, know what the fuck they are talking about.)  I was going to ask something along the lines of, why not use or build toward the upcoming Spectrum project (Layer 3 smart-contract platform built on Lightning Network and RGB, with Simplicity as the formally verifiable smart contract language—and the privacy advantages of an off-chain protocol!), but didn’t bother.

I just went through the thread again, and peeked at the Github link (but see as yet no reason to spend time and effort trying to understand their code).

You seem interested in promoting that for some reason.  I would suggest that if you want to gain people’s trust, do fewer manifestos (preaching to the choir here) and more informative explanations about just how this works, what useful properties the system has, and why it should be trusted to not fail catastrophically.  Answering ZmnSCPxj’s post would probably be a good start.  (No, I don’t know him—but I have learned something new from almost every one of his posts that I’ve ever read on bitcoin-dev.)

Edit:  I followed up there.

Yes.

+1 WOsMerit




---------

hey jjg

f-off   

its almost friday




------
the late night wall report


#dyor
4h


D

#stronghands




 

Surely, I don't play around with margin, but I still kind of have some ideas about what experienced traders are attempting to accomplish in terms of attempting to assign probabilities to a certain amount of BTC price movement in a certain amount of time.

If the trader realistically assess the odds of a price move - yeah, sure a BIG "if" because frequently the assignment of odds is not very accurate, then such trader can play both sides of the anticipated BTC price direction.

So, for example, if the payoff for betting correctly is 5%, but the loss of betting incorrectly is 1%, but the odds of getting the 5% is 2/5 because the trader has good predictive skills and is able to hit with that level of precision, then surely if the trader has assessed the odds correctly, then largely in the long term for every 5 times that the trader plays those odds, s/he will get 5% twice, and s/he will lose 1% three times, which seems to be decent profits of somewhere in the ballpark of 7% from those 5 trades.

Yeah, I understand that the odds are never going to be that clear to assess, so in that regard, the devil is in the details, because usually the odds are not going to be so easy to figure out.  Accordingly, the more success that a trader has in being able to establish the price direction with confidence, then the more that s/he can reach goals of getting the payouts that offset the losses.. we can tweak the numbers around of the hypothetical, but getting the profits to outweigh the losses seems to be the general idea, and of course, if there are are also some possibilities that from time to time the BTC price will run way greater than the 5% payout, causing the trader to get even greater payouts than 5% from time to time, but the same is true in the opposite direction of incurring more losses than expected, but the hypothetical is attempting to even out those scenarios in a kind of average expected payout that would be profitable in the long run so long as the profits are exceeding the losses.

Also, some traders roll their profits into their trading stash, and other traders will take some profits off the table on a regular basis in order to use for living expenses or just to stack away some of their profits.  


I do personally believe that there are several members who should work on making sure that they are giving proper attributions in terms of making sure that the words ideas of someone else are not appearing to be being claimed as their own.

It does seem that in Paashaas's case above, he was quoting someone else.. especially the chart, and he just failed to give proper attributions.  I would not consider that to quite rise to the level of plagiarism, but sure of course, admins/mods might consider those boundaries differently, so it is usually better for members to ongoingly attempt to be giving proper attributions in order NOT to be accused of plagiarism..... even if they just made an unintentional slip up, which seems to be the case of Paashaas...

Our sordid affair is ongoing, so please stay tuned, and you will be perswayded.



I'm a natural born human whore, I don't do distancing.

Talking about brute forcing some lost words from a seed. Often you see the maximum number of attempts required calculated. But you would have to check whether there is a balance as well after each attempt. That would make the brute forcing considerably slower right?

From where is that chart?

Personal text checks out:


Good one.  Is the second rule, “Don’t brag about how Bitcoin bought you a Lambo”?

An insightful comment from the Reddit thread:

https://old.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/ipy7le/rule_number_one_in_bitcoin/g4qv6wv/

That’s close to 500M permutations, not 500K.  And any desktop PC made in about the past ten years should be able to crunch through them all very quickly.

The words in a 24-word seed would have 620,448,401,733,239,439,360,000 permutations.  You won’t be bruteforcing that with a desktop PC—not even if you leave it running for a few years!

(N.b. that there is a slight flaw in what I said above:  Words in a seed phrase can repeat.  That will be relatively rare.  When your seed phrase has exactly n unique words, then the number of permutations will be n!.)


Say what!?  (Why do people suppose that the word “blockchain” magically solves all problems?)

Ah, the joys of leverage.  So it seems that my inference was wrong.

Now, what really makes me curious is this:  Suppose that the price of X is a random walk.  I am not saying so about BTC, or any other existing asset:  I am contemplating a hypothetical asset X.

A random walk without drift is pretty much the canonical example of a (non-)trend that can’t be exploited:  It presents a straight gamble.  But it seems to me that if you can wager both ways at once as you describe—betting one way with your money, and betting the other way on leverage with other people’s money—then that would be ideal for exploiting a random walk.

Waving my hands a bit here (what type of random walk, etc.), say you somehow arrange it so that you have exactly 50% odds of hitting your stoploss before your profit take, 50% vice versa:  You thus have a 50% chance of losing 1%, and a 50% chance of gaining 5%.  It is EV+ gambling on 50/50 odds.

It seems that I must have made a mistake here (and if I didn’t, I had better get a margin account—which would mean “defi”, because I don’t do KYC, and I don’t know of any centralized exchanges that offer no-KYC margin accounts—sorry, Jay).  What gives?

I would 'number' like a1,a2,a3 per washer along with the BTC private key digit or some such or some other method also on each washer as well..in case they got 'scattered'

just saying.

Brad

My comment is not based on wishing; it is instead based on a description from where BTC came and where BTC currently is.  

Sure, my description has an assertion that we are NOT currently in a correlation status, and perhaps the future will lend some more light upon whether we had been in a correlation status, yet I had already been repeatedly proclaiming that mere short-term correlation, to the extent that you had identified it to be happening since February until present, does not actually rise to the level of a reasonable assessment regarding where we are at or from where we came.  

Furthermore, my description does not presume future BTC price direction as you seem to be ascribing to my comment...  You are full of nonsense if you believe that BTC prices would have to reach $50k to $100k in 2021 or alternatively $250k in 2022 in order for me to be correct.  Fact of the matter is that I am already correct based on data that is already in.  Future prediction about BTC price movement remains another category and there are a lot of potential variable outcomes, some outcomes are more bullish, some are less bullish and there are even bearish or flat scenarios that could play out too.  

One thing about the future is that you cannot really know for sure what might happen, until it has already happened.. otherwise the future is based on a series of probabilities, as you already realize that understanding.

Of course, any kind of description of where we are in terms of BTC price or where we had been can be used with a certain amount of prescriptive elements contained therein in order to attempt to ascribe probabilities to potential future paths forward.  

As I mentioned several times already, the three strongest characterizations of BTC price prediction models include: 1) planB's stock to flow, 2) 4-year fractal and 3) s-curve exponential adoption based on metcalfe and networking principles.  

Even though these BTC price prediction models might feel like they are locked into some kind of absolutes about the future, they are still based on probabilities rather than certainties - and people can even disagree regarding how much certainty to assign to various price points contained therein or whether the model might end up needing to be adjusted or end up breaking in the future based on how future data plays out... but they are currently NOT broken nor in need of adjustment based on surprise data points, such as purported short-term correlation.. blah blah blah.

None of those above mentioned BTC price prediction models are currently out of line with the seemingly short-term evidence of BTC correlation with stocks, gold and/or other assets...

Furthermore, there have been a decent number of in-depth analysis of BTC suggesting that BTC has shown historical performance that is amongst the most uncorrelated of asset classes, and even those discussions are not negated by short-term periods of seeming correlation.   Do you need links for any of those studies that have been floating around the space for 5 years or more?

Sure it is possible that the future might not look like the past and any model that is worth its salt should attempt to account for the data as it comes in or if there might be meaningful deviations that might suggest the model(s) to not have as much predictive power, or maybe all of a sudden bitcoin will go from being an immature as fuck asset class to becoming mature, which would likely change the way that it performs in the future.. but currently, there is no real actual strong evidence to suggest that any meaningful or material changes have been happening in bitcoin in order to cause bitcoin to all of a sudden be treated as a mature asset class or to become correlated on a longer time horizon, in spite wishful projections based on such short-term observations of purported correlations.

Yes, the passage of time would provide more data to verify if currently seemingly valid BTC prediction models are still playing out within a range that allows the price prediction models to be true, but why the hell do we need more passage of time in order to figure out what the fuck is going on in BTC?

We have a decent amount of data already. We have more than 10 years worth of BTC price data, as BTC has been increasing in adoption, and its networking effects have been building, but bitcoin still remains pretty damned, immature, no? 

Seems that we do not need to go through such passage of time of future time with our hands in the air and saying that we have no idea what might happen in order to already appreciate that so far in BTC's wee lil short life it is not correlated to stocks, gold or other assets, even though we could look at short snippets of charts and visualize certain shorter term periods and proclaim that such correlation could be argued to be present, blah blah blah, based on incomplete information, as I already mentioned several times.

Sure Phillip, conclude what you like regarding where bitcoin is or where it came from including your need for more passage of time in order to feel comfortable in figuring out where bitcoin might be going, including if you want to believe that there is correlation presently that actually matters in really understanding what is happening with BTC, and if want to believe that you need more evidence, such as the passage of 1, 2 or 3 more years of data and for BTC to reach certain predetermined and seemingly random price points before you would become convinced or comfortable regarding where we are at currently, then that is your choice to have those kinds of beliefs that seem to NOT be based on the evidence that is already here, staring you in the face.  


That's right homer.  Don't plan on taking any shit - a sign of truly reaching fuck you status.  

30 day return hits this lower range ore very close to it. It usually follows with by atleast a 20% pump.

Ahahaha.... imagine spending 2-3 years in a row just if u lose one to introduce like 500K combinations. (Probably it will be worth it and the motivation would grow even higher when seeing the price rise!   )


Edit: Probably developing your own software to interact with the wallet and introduce each combination would be more efficient. Also you can make a blockchain just for that! And basically you can use the network as an addon app to compute the missing numbers or letters with brute force!

Well, this is interesting:  What, exactly, is the difference between selling BTC that you own, and selling BTC that you borrowed on margin—other than the latter costing interest money (and having unbounded potential loss—but I note you said you set a stop-limit on the upside)?

I don’t see how that would protect you from an unexpected pump in the market, any differently than a stop-limit buy order on the upside.

(Of course, counting in Bitcoin and not dollars is good.  Who the hell wants Fed toilet paper?)

Rule #1 in bitcoin:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/ipy7le/rule_number_one_in_bitcoin/

well...many people here don't really care about that, ostensibly.

or...'don't wrench me, bro!'

FYI, I ve found people don't like to hear uncomfortable truths but will eat up lies that make them feel safe.

It’s funny:  Before I saw the below, I was just thinking to write a Development & Technology post about BIP 39 flaws, especially the stupid cargo-cult crypto use of PBKDF2 and the ill-designed “passphrase” feature.  I should probably do it sometime.

(To be clear:  The use of seed phrases is good, very good.  The standard just has some points that are ill-advised, which you can safely ignore.)


I recommend against this.  It is security theatre that simply increases your chance of losing your coins (if you forget your passphrase), without adding any significant security.


That is an unrealistic expectation.

If your seed phrase is compromised, how likely do you really think it is that you will discover that before your coins are gone?

How much time do you expect a passphrase to buy you?  I mean, in quantitative terms based on real data about how fast password crackers can crack a weak passphrase stretched with a piddling 2048 iterations of PBKDF2 security theatre.

---

The security of your seed phrase rests on keeping the seed phrase secret.  Generate the seed phrase using a cryptographically secure source of randomness (CSPRNG), and set it in your mind that your coins are gone if that gets compromised.

Unless you have considerable security expertise for evaluating the benefit of what you are doing according to a sound security model, pinning your hopes on the passphrase only gives you a false sense of security—especially when you start with the low standard, “even a relatively weak passphrase”!  Whereas you already have a strong “passphrase”:  It is the seed phrase itself.

If you were capable of reliably memorizing a cryptographically secure passphrase for the long term (which you are not—and I’m not, either!), then you could simply memorize the seed phrase (don’t try this unless you want to lose your coins).  The whole purpose of engraving your seed phrase in metal is to make sure that you don’t lose pseudorandom information which is strong in the first instance.


“Plausible deniability” is a concept that needs to die.

https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2018-January/015547.html

Quote from: nullius

[...]

I rather suspect the concept of “plausible deniability” of having been invented by a detective or agent provocateur.  There are few concepts more useful for helping suspects shoot themselves in the foot, or frankly, for entrapping people.

[...]

If you are publicly known to be deepy involved in Bitcoin, then nobody will believe that your one-and-only wallet contains only 0.01 BTC.  That’s not even “plausible”.  But if you have overall privacy practices which leave nobody knowing or suspecting that you have any Bitcoin at all, then there is nothing to “deny”; and should a Trezor with (supposedly) 0.01 BTC be found in your possession, that’s much better than “plausible”.  It’s completely unremarkable.

Whereas if you are known or believed to own large amounts of BTC, a realistic bad guy’s response to your “decoy” wallet could be, “I don’t believe you; and it costs me nothing to keep beating you with rubber hose until you tell me the *real* password.”

It could be worse, too.  In a kidnapping scenario, the bad guys could say, “I don’t believe you.  Hey, I also read Trezor’s website about ‘plausible deniability’.  Now, I will maim your kid for life just to test whether you told me the *real* password.  And if you still don’t tell me the real password after you see that little Johnny can no longer walk, then I will kill him.”

The worst part is that you have no means of proving that you really *did* give the real password.  Indeed, it can be proved if you’re lying by finding a password which reveals a hidden wallet—but *you* have no means of affirmatively proving that you are telling the truth!  If the bad guys overestimated your riches (or if they’re in a bad mood), then little Johnny is dead either way.

In a legalistic scenario, if “authorities” believe you have 1000 BTC and you only reveal a password for 0.01 BTC, the likely response will not be to let you go.  Rather, “You will now sit in jail until you tell the *real* password.”  And again:  You have no means of proving that you did give the real password!

“Plausible deniability” schemes can backfire quite badly.

[...]

That was in reply to this:

https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2018-January/015529.html

Quote from: Peter Todd

Quote from: RHavar

I think you're under-appreciating how useful the "plausible deniability". Someone I know was (solo) traveling to the United States when a border agent asked her to unlocked her phone; thumbed through her apps, ended up finding tinder and went through all her recent conversations to make sure she wasn't involved in any "pay for sex things".

In the same light, I travel frequently and constantly have my trezor on me. If I am asked to unlock it, I will have no problems doing so (as refusal will no doubt lead to deportation) and showing my personal wallet (which sadly hasn't had much use since fees became ridiculous).

Trezor's "plausible deniability" scheme could very well result in you going to jail for lying to border security, because it's so easy for them to simply brute force alternate passwords based on your seeds. With that, they have proof that you lied to customs, a serious offense.

I would strongly advise you not to use it in that situation.

Real life is not like the movies.

You never want “plausible deniability”.  What you want is to be above suspicion.  For example, nobody who knows me “IRL” would ever suspect that I have secret bitcoins.  Neither cops nor robbers will even think of it.  I don’t need to construct the types of cocked-up stories that investigators enjoy tearing apart, or make decoy wallets.  I don’t need to deny anything, “plausibly” (“Focus on the IF!”) or otherwise:  Nobody will even ask.

Guys ('n' gals), don't forget to add a passphrase ("25th word"), in addition to your seed. Doing so, will protect you from someone finding the seed. Even a relatively weak passphrase will give you enough time to move your coins to another wallet when you discover that the seed has been found (and while the thief is brute-forcing the passphrase). A strong passphrase will make it virtually impossible for a thief to have access to your coins.

A passphrase (more than one, to be precise) will also add plausible deniability of ownership of your coins, should you ever be required (or be forced) to reveal your stash, as I've explained in this post.