Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 7519. (Read 26723945 times)

Hang on, his S2F model never showed 100k in 2021. It showed 100k by 2024. That is vastly different. Sure if it followed 2017 pattern, peak might be 2021, but PlanB never claimed that. At least not to my knowledge.

AlcoHoDL, your very last post is probably worth a thousand of JJG's. JayJuanGee no offence here 
Good, then! you got my last 7 merits and my complete admiration for your very informative post.
I guess I can do that with any software wallet and not only with Trezors and such. I will try it on Electrum as soon as I can install it again.

So plausible deniability is only one of the main rings which make our Bitcoin galaxy secure.

Thank you very much

Hi, I would point you to Wikipedia, but I just checked it and it's too general, too long (as if this isn't...), not an easy read.

Plausible deniability, as it applies here, is the ability to plausibly deny ownership of your Bitcoin when required to reveal your stash (legally, or by force).

Case 1 (legally): You cross the border to another country, and, upon inspection, customs find your Trezor in your briefcase, or find a wallet s/w on your phone. They may force you to reveal information about your stash. In fact, there are laws that make it a punishable crime not to reveal your passwords in such cases, and if you don't, you may be arrested and detained. What do you do? Can you just say "guys, it's empty!"? They will say "OK, show us!" How can you circumvent this?

Case 2 (by force): You are a coiner. You tell about your coins to friends and relatives. All in good faith. They are impressed by your newfound wealth. They are so excited that they tell their friends about you and how smart you are. Word spreads. You end up being kidnapped and forced (by torture) to reveal your stash. Can you just say "guys, it's empty!"? I don't think so. How can you circumvent this?

Deniability won't help you in such cases, unless it's paired with plausibility. With Trezor (and Ledger, etc.), in addition to the 24 words that make up your seed, you are allowed to enter another (25th) passphrase (word, sentence, any alphanumeric string). This will result in a wallet (key) that is totally different to the one without the 25th passphrase. In fact, when you connect your Trezor and are asked for the 25th passphrase, you can type anything you want, and it will lead to different valid wallets, depending on what you typed. In this way, you can have (in fact, you already have) an infinite number of wallets, all of which have your seed in common, but are cryptographically unrelated, in the sense that access to one such wallet is completely isolated from any other wallet.

The central idea that you must understand, is that you already have all these wallets, whether you want them or not. There is no switch that you can use to enable or disable a wallet. It's already there. Think of this as driving on the highway, and there are infinite number of exits. Your 24-word seed is the highway, and the 25th passphrase determines the exit you want to take. The exits are all there, an infinite number of them, and they all lead to valid wallets. Of course, all these wallets will be empty when you visit them (well, not necessarily, but that's another discussion). The highway itself is also a wallet (no passphrase entered). This is why it's not advisable to use a seed without a 25th passphrase. Because, in this case, if someone finds your seed, he can enter your highway, and if your coins are on that highway, he can steal them from you. But if you use a 25th passphrase, the highway will be empty, and containing an infinite number of exits. Which exit to take? He needs to know the 25th passphrase, which he won't. Your coins are safe.

How is all this related to plausible deniability? You can use the 25th passphrase to plausibly deny ownership of your coins. You set up your Trezor as normal, writing down and backing up your 24 seed words. What you then do, is transfer a very small amount of Bitcoin (say, 0.1 BTC) to the wallet without a 25th passphrase (the highway). You put that 0.1 BTC there. Then, you reconnect your Trezor, but this time you enter a 25th passphrase, let's call it {normal_pass}. You end up on a different, empty wallet. In there, you transfer a bigger amount of Bitcoin, large enough to persuade someone that it's everything you've got, let's say, 10 BTC. You don't transfer all your stash there, just that 10 BTC. You then reconnect your Trezor, but this time you enter a very strong 25th passphrase, let's call it {really_strong_pass}. You end up on yet another empty wallet. In that wallet you transfer the remaining of your stash, say, 100 BTC.

What have you achieved by doing the above? With just one seed (written on paper and backed up) and 2 passphrases in your head, you have spread your stash in the following three different, cryptographically unrelated wallets (i.e., having access to one of the wallets does not grant access to any of the other wallets, and does not prove that you are using any other wallet):

No passphrase: 0.1 BTC
{normal_pass}: 10 BTC
{really_strong_pass}: 100 BTC

Case 1: "Sir, can you please unlock your wallet for us?" -- "Why?" -- "We want to see how many coins you have." -- "But, isn't this private information?" -- "Yes, but Law XYZ, that was passed after 9/11, to combat terrorist activities, gives us authority to do whatever we want!" -- "Oh, hmmm, I'm not comfortable with this..." You play difficult, you ask to see the law, trying to stall them. After a while, and when the pressure on you becomes too much, you say "OK, I don't like this at all, but here you are." You connect your Trezor to your laptop, and just enter the PIN (no 25th passphrase). You have just entered the "highway" wallet, which contains 0.1 BTC. "There you go, motherfuckers! Fuck you!", you scream! They say, "Sir, I'm afraid we'll have to confiscate your wallet and the coins." -- "Sure," you reply, "take it and stick it up your bum, you fucks!" You hand them your Trezor and they let you pass. When you arrive safely at your destination, you simply enter your seed to any wallet you want (Trezor, Ledger, Mycelium), and you log-in with the two "25th" passphrases, confirming what mathematics have guaranteed for you, which is that your 110 BTC are there, untouched, waiting for you.

Case 2: You are tied to a chair, and a big guy asks you for your Trezor PIN, "or else I'm going to cut your fingers one by one!" You try to resist at first, but quickly reveal the PIN. They see the 0.1 BTC. But they're smart. They know you have more! They begin to torture you, at which point you have to be prepared to take some beating and even lose a finger! You have to resist as much as you can. When you can't take it anymore, and you're screaming and crying like a little girl, all humiliated and seemingly completely wrecked, you reveal {normal_pass} to them. They enter the 25th passphrase and see your shiny 10 BTC in there. "Gotcha!" they shout! They transfer the funds, destroy (or take with them) your Trezor, and leave. The next day, you enter your seed in another wallet, enter {really_strong_pass} and confirm that your 100 BTC are there, untouched, waiting for you.

The above are idealized scenarios. You can be sure that, if you go out and about boasting to colleagues, friends and family that you own 100+ BTC, the thieves will cut your fingers, arms, legs, and even your dick (if you have one), before they get your entire stash! Plausible deniability is a great tool to protect us and our Bitcoin, but we also need to exercise common sense and maximise our opsec. No need to go out boasting about how much Bitcoin we have. A fool and his BTC are soon parted. Don't be a fool.

That's the best way I can describe plausible deniability, while keeping my typing and word count to reasonable levels. I think I can compete with JJG on this one! Anyway, I hope it helps you, Karartma1, or anyone else out there.

Stay safe!

Edit: Corrected some typos.

Haha funny

Yes, why not? Maybe cause Segwit coin is not BitCoin?

United States humans,
as with the rest of the world,
art-officially.

#haiku

Hey man, spot on on your last security comments 
Can you please point me out something good to read on the plausible deniability topic? Thanks!

Yeah, never say never, indeed.
I wasn't really harrassing, however, LFC seemed to be bored out on the recent price development to me, so i wanted to make sure he doesn't accidentally develop  onset of morbus mindrust, so i tried to motivate him to swear to himself again, well... not to sell the next bottom, haha 
This was completely separate from telling him to do something good for himself, and yes, yesterday i built up emotions about the (my) important things in life, which are a lot in the family range of things. Add that to realizing (again) that we all deserve better than we do (most of the time) but almost constantly fail to deliver even small amounts of better to ourselves. At least the most of us. With my kind memory problems you'll start realizing many of the same things repeatedly, which is not something i could not also love, despite additionally reminding me of my lil inability 
Have a nice day, WOs 

https://twitter.com/gavinandresen/status/1271561026199261185



Being locked up at home is definitely affecting a lot of people.

Maybe I don't really understand the difference or if there was any significant difference in the change between S2F and S2FX... so pardon me for my ignorance on such change.

I personally just see a bunch of lines and shit, and I don't get caught upon any specific numbers whether we are going to get to $50k, or $100k or $288k or some other number on or before the end of 2021 or maybe a bit extended into 2022... I mean, why get caught up in specifics? 

Who the fuck knows specifics?  The specifics of BTC overblowing the price expectations by 3x to 5x never really changed my own personal strategy very much in 2017, so I doubt that my strategy is going to change very much in any of the scenarios because let's say that we only make it to $30k, but I had been selling small amounts of BTC all the way up, and then maybe I would be a little pissed because I could have sold more BTC, but I was holding onto most of my BTC because I was expecting somewhere between $50k and $500k...

That's on me, if I create my own disappointment, because I better damned well be prepared that BTC prices might not go to somewhere between $50k and $500k and I better have a plan that I can follow that allows me to financially and psychologically be prepared for such ultimate under performance of king daddy.

I personally think that I am prepared for underperformance or over performance... so I don't plan to scream at PlanB in either event whether he fulfills his sorcery status or not.. and really I don't take him as trying to be a sorcerer. He is merely a quant that tries to put some numbers on a graph and speculates regarding the extent to which he can speculate on the future direction based on where the numbers have already been, while of course also trying to understand the asset in which he is studying in terms of its unique nature of its supply issuance regime.

So, if BTC underperforms, maybe I end up not selling very many BTC, but if BTC overperforms and goes shooting up way before I expected (within the model or not), then maybe I am still nervous about how much BTC to sell because I have already become rich by just selling mediocre amounts, so does it change my plan very much?  Sure, maybe I will want to lock in some profits by selling a bit more, but I am still nervous about my reaction in that kind of direction too... because then what am I going to do with all of the additional fiat?  There might be a question about that, too.  So does not hurt to plan for these various scenarios in order to perhaps be a little less like deers in the headlights when it comes (in the event that it does come and whether you give it a 20% chance or some other odds that might be considered to have a questionable basis).

Yes... We will see Biodom, and I doubt that we are going to stop arguing about it or even stop saying "I told you so" from time to time, even when neither of us might have said anything.   

Craig (and perhaps Calvin too) is a retarded narcissist who has an over-inflated view of his skills to juggle chainsaws that are increasingly likely to come back and bite him in the ass.

The "experiment" (future price trajectory) will show. I did not like the fact that planB concocted a second model BEFORE seeing if the prior would work out or not.
Since he replaced the first one (S2F) with a second one (S2FX) I posit that the first one is inferior and from what I saw so far, indeed, it is.
Yes, I give 80% to no 100K in 2021 and, hence, invalidation of S2F model, but not S2FX model.
Lame or not lame-we shall see, won't we?
In fact, hodling should become even stronger as there would be no high price enticement to sell, at least in 2020-2021...well, with 80% guesstimated probability.

I just watched this 43 minute video by Bob Loukas, and perhaps it could be described as a kind of cyclical BTC prediction model that attempts to project BTC prices in four 4-year cycles (16 years)... . that strangely start in about 2011-ish... so he seems to have skipped an analysis of the first 2 years of bitcoin's price action which is fair enough, since bitcoin really did not have much of a price or even a meaningful ability to reasonably find price in the first couple of years...

So for Loukas, he sees the existence of cyclical and secular bear cycles, so cyclical cycles are not as large of drops and don't really drop below previous highs, but a secular bear cycle would perhaps go longer and lower than the earlier lows, but would be a likely factor for any asset class, including bitcoin.

Loukas has some decently good ideas, even though towards the end, he does provide some reasonable criticisms of our "cherished" stock to flow model, too.. and in that regard, Loukas might be showing a bit of his attempt to treat bitcoin as any other asset class and to down play bitcoin's paradigm shifting special nature (as a money... which has never really been done previously). 

I don't have any real problems with anything that he is saying, except that maybe his suggestion that there might only be one or two more cyclical cycles upwards before there comes a longer down secular bear cycle down.. so maybe a wee bit more bearish than some of the bitcoin is designed to pump forever theories.. which are also kind of reasonable in a bit of an exaggerated way.. .

https://youtu.be/dWosOcbo9JM

Why not first "recover" funds on BSv chain that he controls? He must be in pure desperation, last gasps for air, before he looses Kleiman case.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ez1iu-zx7eE

I understand that I have harassed you several times previously, but this time, it was OOM cautioning (harassing) you NOT to go full mindrust, not me.

Look:  Here's the evidence:

Seems to me that Oom is going all soppy and sentimental, mererly because wifey left him with the four kids to bond for a few days.  

I was going to make a similar response to Oom, but I noticed that he seemed a bit too far gone in emotion for any kind of attempt at reason, so I was thinking that sometimes just gotta let these emotional thingie=ma-jiggies ride... #nohomo.  

So, sure, my inclination of thought is that you are not likely to go full mindrust, but I am never going to take those kinds of proclamations for granted, even if you scream until you are blue in the face.. sometimes things can just happen, and if you snort a bit too much coke one night, you never know... you could start getting soppy feelings at the wrong time... which sometimes happens and could happen to any of us, humans..... so, never say never.  You might regret saying it... .  hahahahahaha  

Well, if planB's price projection is partially based upon projecting future price from past performance, and some aberration, such as a black swan event, causes the present performance to skew the future performance direction, then that would not mean that planB is wrong, it just means that some new data changes the trajectory of the curve.... and maybe it changes it a lot or maybe it just changes the trajectory a little.

Currently, we have no evidence of a changed trajectory, merely some speculation from you about the possibility of the trajectory being changed, and you seem to be placing the odds of the trajectory being changed at something like 80%, which just seems ridiculous the more that I think about it.

Think about it yourself.

You seem to be trying to discredit a BTC price prediction model that is highly correlated and cointegrated with existing data with an assumption that the BTC price is correlated to equities markets.  Think about it.  You seem to presume that BTC prices are correlated with equities, and then you set up various what if scenarios that build upon your assumption, when your assumption is far from even close to being true in the first place even though we have witnessed some short term correlation of BTC and equities, there is nothing really showing longer term correlation of BTC and equities - which makes it a pretty lame hypothesis to inject into attempting to show some flaws in the stock to flow model.. and sure I am not presuming that the stock to flow model is perfect or it is going to end up playing out correctly, but the stock to flow model is, at least, based on building a future trajectory that is attempting to come to reasonable and logical projections based on past performance.

I think that is one of the reasons that it would be so difficult to insure bitcoin holdings on the retail level because there almost has to be some kind of trusted third-party verification that the person might not have been paying himself.  Not saying that we do not have those kinds of frauds in the traditional markets because it is quite likely that a decent amount of credit card charge backs might not end up in double reward or even though some insurance carriers are able to show that a house was burned it can be unclear if the contents might not have been removed prior and the fire merely looked like an accident.  Bitcoin might be even more difficult to determine, but sometimes we do witness some wrong-doers, hackers or scammers getting caught.