Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion

[hdbuck]

How come that chart shows Bitcoin shooting up from $150 to $1000+ in November 13, but their funds only went up a tiny little bit in November 13? If their strategies are so great then their funds should have increased in value faster than Bitcoin back then. Why did Bitcoin shoot up in value in November 13, but their funds didn't? Anyone holding Bitcoin back then could make money just by sitting back and watching it shoot up in value

They probably only count the dollars when they've sold the bitcoins.
Once you have bought bitcoin, you can't say you hold dollars.
Once you sell the bitcoin, you get dollars again.
Therefor, when the price dropped, their chart goes up because they're selling bitcoin to covert them for dollars.

Obviously they count their gains in dollars.

exclusively counting my gains in bitcoin here

[1715134306]

1715134306

[1715134306]

1715134306

[1715134306]

1715134306

[1715134306]

1715134306

[Norway]

Recomended: "Validation Costs and Incentives" by Eric Lombrozo at the Scaling Bitcoin Conference. Real solutions to scaling issues.

Live here (rewind):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgjrS-BPWDQ&feature=youtu.be

EDIT: Yes, he confirms what I have been writing here before. In the future, with better code, everybody doesn't have to confirm every single transaction 

[RenegadeMan]

Why so much agro and upset about Jorge's posts? He's not threatening you (or perhaps he is somehow?). He has a view and he expresses and articulates that view pretty well. I don't agree with much of what he says either but I appreciate that his posts are coherent, quite well written and free from personal attacks or vitriol. In fact, he's very gracious in his responses to many of you that get all so incensed that he's expressing the views that he is; and this is indicative that some of what he's saying has seriously hooked your innards and is tearing at you in some manner. That you're responding in such an affronted way says to me you're not 100% sure and his line of thought on this stuff causes internal conflict.

If you don't agree with his take on Bitcoin (and crypto in general), just point out calmly and unemotionally where his logic, assumptions or beliefs are flawed. I think it's very good to have someone like him putting the ideas up he does as it makes for interesting consideration of his views versus alternatives.

Isn't this what a thread like this is about?

Your gracious friend has been trolling this forum for years now. I agree that there is no need to get all fired up about it, but to "point out calmly and unemotionally where his logic, assumptions or beliefs are flawed" is even more of a waste.

He has some ideas that (I think) are the very antithesis of what crypto is all about. Suggesting that there'll inevitably have to be a rethink on the 21 million cap and that an increase will eventually happen is the slippery slope to Bitcoin being just another manipulated disaster like we're seeing with almost all fiat currencies (and, obviously to get it to be manipulatable like that, will require some dramatic action and reallocation of mining resources away from the current Bitcoin community). In fact he basically seems to have a line of thought that takes the current monetary system's "features" and attributes and retrospectively applies them to Bitcoin like "it's just how money works and if Bitcoin doesn't hold these properties it will fail". That I find to be backward thinking as it's failing to see the paradigm of how central bankers and Wall Street "run" the monetary system is THE problem and to use it as a framework of sorts for how crypto needs to operate is everything crypto isn't and should never be (but any conversation about 'money' is by nature controversial and complex).

My point though is he appears to have many people quite riled up and that's unfortunate. His points simply need to be deconstructed and the flaws pointed out. But if it's a waste of time doing that (and I haven't been in this thread for more than a few months) then probably best to just let him post and not respond.

Either way I don't find his posts to be trollish in their nature (but maybe his "graciousness" is hiding a whole other agenda I'm not aware of) and I appreciate he's expressing his view and that's perfectly okay.

People are riled up, somewhat, with Stofl because his posts are generally deceptive and misleading and accordingly disingenuous...

Many times, he has actually admitted to being a troll of these forms...

In other words, trolls deal in disingenuous arguments and distractions and really attempt to incite others with their ridiculous points... surely from time to time Stofli makes decent points, but that generally is the exception rather than the rule...   most of the time he is misleading and spinning... ..

surely we can ignore him or communicate rationally with him, but sometimes he needs to be called out because otherwise some people, including what appears to be yourself, will begin to believe some of his several stupid ass misleading posts.

Okay. Perhaps I haven't experienced enough of him yet to see the dis-ingenuity in full flight. As always with people on these forums, there's their face-value appearance and then their deeper hidden agenda which may take longer to pick up on. But one always has to ask what the driver for someone's modus operandi is. If he's so down on Bitcoin and thinks it's so likely to fail, why is he here? I think this is the same question we all need to ask ourselves. I'd expect that he has doubts about his views too, hence can't stay away because he's inevitably drawn to a debate like this to challenge the parts of his thinking that don't quite believe the outward position he's stated.

I'm here because I'm fascinated by Bitcoin (and crypto in general) and I believe my investment in it may bring a good return. The "fascinated" part extends out from my awareness that this technology just might be the one thing that saves humanity from the greed and stupefying madness of a world population that, not only has no real understanding of money, doesn't even know that it's completely lacking that understanding and consequently is being seriously worked over by some very dark forces. The average person from a westernised nation today walks this planet completely and utterly clueless as to what the fundamental attributes of money are and why the manipulation via the Fed's QE and ZIRP is just putting off for another day the inevitable financial reckoning that's going to catch the masses out. I think Greenspan, Bernanke and Yellen and their Wall Street banking cronies will one day be recast as criminals that led us all on this merry dance into disaster. And just maybe, the existence of Bitcoin (and it's potential to travel through this coming mess relatively unscathed....and I said "potential"; many trials and tribulations for it yet) will alter the course of history and create a surging discourse amongst the public as to what the true nature of 'money' is.

But there are soooo many differing views on this subject. I for one pretty much listen to them all as the potential to be caught by confirmation bias within groups like this and not even realise you're on a pathway with other lemmings on the way to the cliff's edge is ever present. For that reason I welcome the Stolfis and others with extreme views adverse to what the bulk of us in cryptoland hold (even if they are "trolling"....take what's useful; leave the rest) because they help me check my reasoning and assumptions, and I believe that's a good thing.

[greenlion]

Economists have know for 500 years that a currency must have some inflation, otherwise people will hoard it and it will not be available for use as a currency.

What economists advocated this position in 1515?

I've never come across these scholars in my actual academic work, or even the notion of economics as a discipline per se existing at that time,  so whatever you've discovered must be truly groundbreaking.

[meyer lansky]

Why so much agro and upset about Jorge's posts? He's not threatening you (or perhaps he is somehow?). He has a view and he expresses and articulates that view pretty well. I don't agree with much of what he says either but I appreciate that his posts are coherent, quite well written and free from personal attacks or vitriol. In fact, he's very gracious in his responses to many of you that get all so incensed that he's expressing the views that he is; and this is indicative that some of what he's saying has seriously hooked your innards and is tearing at you in some manner. That you're responding in such an affronted way says to me you're not 100% sure and his line of thought on this stuff causes internal conflict.

If you don't agree with his take on Bitcoin (and crypto in general), just point out calmly and unemotionally where his logic, assumptions or beliefs are flawed. I think it's very good to have someone like him putting the ideas up he does as it makes for interesting consideration of his views versus alternatives.

Isn't this what a thread like this is about?

Your gracious friend has been trolling this forum for years now. I agree that there is no need to get all fired up about it, but to "point out calmly and unemotionally where his logic, assumptions or beliefs are flawed" is even more of a waste.

He has some ideas that (I think) are the very antithesis of what crypto is all about. Suggesting that there'll inevitably have to be a rethink on the 21 million cap and that an increase will eventually happen is the slippery slope to Bitcoin being just another manipulated disaster like we're seeing with almost all fiat currencies (and, obviously to get it to be manipulatable like that, will require some dramatic action and reallocation of mining resources away from the current Bitcoin community). In fact he basically seems to have a line of thought that takes the current monetary system's "features" and attributes and retrospectively applies them to Bitcoin like "it's just how money works and if Bitcoin doesn't hold these properties it will fail". That I find to be backward thinking as it's failing to see the paradigm of how central bankers and Wall Street "run" the monetary system is THE problem and to use it as a framework of sorts for how crypto needs to operate is everything crypto isn't and should never be (but any conversation about 'money' is by nature controversial and complex).

My point though is he appears to have many people quite riled up and that's unfortunate. His points simply need to be deconstructed and the flaws pointed out. But if it's a waste of time doing that (and I haven't been in this thread for more than a few months) then probably best to just let him post and not respond.

Either way I don't find his posts to be trollish in their nature (but maybe his "graciousness" is hiding a whole other agenda I'm not aware of) and I appreciate he's expressing his view and that's perfectly okay.

....hmmmm...you have a point

[Norway]

Update from the Scaling Bitcoin Conference:

Vlad Zamfir continue along the same lines as Eric with his shard protocol: Share the f***ing work!

I'm so confident that bitcoin will scale, as long as these ideas are out there. The best code will win!

BULLISH!

[ChartBuddy]

Coin
Explanation

[LMGTFY]

Economists have know for 500 years that a currency must have some inflation, otherwise people will hoard it and it will not be available for use as a currency.

What economists advocated this position in 1515?

I've never come across these scholars in my actual academic work, or even the notion of economics as a discipline per se existing at that time...

Guess they don't teach everything @ DeVry School of Janitorial Science
You may continue your smartification learnings here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_economic_thought

Presumably you're referring to Jean Bodin (he's the only person in the relevant period where Wikipedia mention inflation)? I don't recall Bodin arguing that currency must have some inflation, only that inflation - where it existed - had a cause (he pointed to bullion importation from the New World as the cause in his time). My memory is hazy, though, and I do remember not really covering the pre-Classical economists much, because economics as a discipline didn't really get going until Adam Smith et al.

[megadeth]

Garziks' speaking: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgjrS-BPWDQ

[ChartBuddy]

Coin
Explanation

[hdbuck]

[becoin]

I'm so confident that bitcoin will scale, as long as these ideas are out there. The best code will win!

XT alt coin can't win. It is practically dead.

[Norway]

I'm so confident that bitcoin will scale, as long as these ideas are out there. The best code will win!

XT alt coin can't win. It is practically dead.

Doesn't matter. The best code will win. And Wladimir has to get his shit together quickly. If not, he will not have his current position in february...

[TaurusBit]

It doesn't look good, gentlemen. 

[hdbuck]

I'm so confident that bitcoin will scale, as long as these ideas are out there. The best code will win!

XT alt coin can't win. It is practically dead.

Doesn't matter. The best code will win. And Wladimir has to get his shit together quickly. If not, he will not have his current position in february...

[nioc]

Garziks' speaking: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgjrS-BPWDQ

I guess I tuned in near the end of his talk not knowing who was speaking till the end.  I was very impressed by his clear and well organized way of talking.

Then there was one of the young guys from "lightning" with... like, uh, you know

I can barely read from cue cards

[hdbuck]

Doesn't matter. The best code will win. And Wladimir has to get his shit together quickly. If not, he will not have his current position in february...

Absolutely. The price of Bitcoin has dropped by more than 40% since Wladimir started - increased by more than 2000% when Gavin was the lead dev before him.

[Norway]

Next up: Nicholas Negroponte
Could be a visionary speak.

New link for this session:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0SnjrdQtf8Y

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

Economists have know for 500 years that a currency must have some inflation, otherwise people will hoard it and it will not be available for use as a currency.

What economists advocated this position in 1515?

I've never come across these scholars in my actual academic work, or even the notion of economics as a discipline per se existing at that time,  so whatever you've discovered must be truly groundbreaking.

500 years? Try 2000 years - have a look at Diocletian controls over inflationary debasement of specie in the roman empire.  Not quite the same thing, but this has been an issue for a bit.

In a more contemporary context

2000 years and the fuckers still can't get it right.

[Fatman3001]

Okey people!

I'm losing money here so you'd better start pushing that price up!

Pleeeeeeease!