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

[Icygreen]

1500 BTC wall on stamp about to get met.

[1715226455]

1715226455

[1715226455]

1715226455

[1715226455]

1715226455

[savetherainforest]

time to exit crypto for a while, i see sell off soon

eth selloff already started, next is bitcoin when they sell for fiat

many noobs will be dumped on news as always

just my opinion tho  

You will be crushed worse than r0achés avatar bug!

Some of you people here are really clueless..   .. I mean, go watch what is happening on the other side of the pond as well. For example food prices are rising, political uncertainty in so many countries, also with all that numerology and nonsense, this is the year when the big crashes are supposed to happen. And don't forget to take into consideration the black swan factor: "the millennials". They will be the biggest betrayers the history of humanity will ever see. They will not fight the wars of anyone, they will not submit to any financial system that is not controlled by them, they will not submit to debt, and they will certainly refuse the land taxation system that is in place for hundreds of years. Everything will crumble into ashes and dust. This is the year of the "fire chicken" in the china calendar thingy, that could be called also the "phoenix". Everything will be burnt down to the ground and something new will rise!

So stop being delusional. Watch the markets and how the money flows. I haven't seen so many mergers of huge corporations, ever!!! They are preparing for a hard landing, or a crumbling crash!  

[r0ach]

Either way is very profitable. If price of fork is higher than we expect we shall get more of Jihan's and Ver's money when we sell it. if price of bitcoin is lower than we expect we can buy more bitcoins.

Or China can go full retard, perform the "anyone can spend" attack by going from legacy bitcoin to segwit, fork back to legacy bitcoin, spend all segwit transactions, and since their BCC chain wouldn't be affected, legacy BTC is now crippled while they pump their BCC coin.

[savetherainforest]

Posted March 13th

Scariest shit I read all day.... to think we just ended up here is naive.

https://twitter.com/bergealex4/status/841240903503114241

Cool story bro! .. I had a laugh! .. thx!

[r0ach]

and a coin with 1mb blocks forever has economic viability?

Yes it does.  It would help us secure bitcoin's greatest use case

This is false.  Bitcoin has zero value as a settlement layer because far better alternatives for settlement existed before it's creation (noble metals).  For bitcoin to have value as a settlement layer it would need to be able to compete as the base of Exter's pyramid, but it can't for numerous reasons I've stated before:

1)  Bitcoin has built in middlemen (transaction validators) and counter party risk, negative traits that are typically found among "currencies" and never found among "money".  The entire purpose of the base of Exter's pyramid is to remove counter party risk so that even if everyone else on the planet dies, you are not left holding a worthless coupon.  This is why something is required to be an actual commodity, not a fake psuedo commodity (bitcoin) to be real money.  Bitcoin will always be just a currency alone and not money, and currencies derive value from transaction flow (scalability) not stock.

2)  Money is an abstract concept that represents goods or the ability to do work (services).  This means the ideal form of money would be energy based since it represents both a commodity and service at the same time.  The problem there is that humans don't have the technology to do so and remove counter party risk, and the free market time after time has signaled removing counter party risk is even more important, so it utilized metals.  The fact that anything you do in bitcoin is going to make you a 1 of N participant means there is no removing counter party risk in bitcoin and it's dead on arrival for competing as a settlement system, aka money, aka the base of Exter's pyramid.

3)  All forms of money and currency have elements of a pyramid or ponzi scheme to them, meaning it's all about me finding some resource and hoarding a bunch of it to try and create a master/slave relationship where I now rule over you because I got what you need.  Such a paradigm doesn't actually work with a "virtual" commodity.  If Elwar or Jimbo corners the entire 21 millioin coin market, it really doesn't mean shit to me.  Under no circumstance do I need their coins when they have no intrinsic real world use, so I can completely ignore them and thus no master/slave relationship is formed.  This is also a good reason why gold may lose a lot of it's market cap to silver in the long run due to gold having far less use.

[jojo69]

[
This is false.  Bitcoin has zero value as a settlement layer because far better alternatives for settlement existed before it's creation (noble metals).  For bitcoin to have value as a settlement layer it would need to be able to compete as the base of Exter's pyramid, but it can't for numerous reasons I've stated before:

1)  Bitcoin has built in middlemen (transaction validators) and counter party risk, negative traits that are typically found among "currencies" and never found among "money".  The entire purpose of the base of Exter's pyramid is to remove counter party risk so that even if everyone else on the planet dies, you are not left holding a worthless coupon.  This is why something is required to be an actual commodity, not a fake psuedo commodity (bitcoin) to be real money.  Bitcoin will always be just a currency alone and not money, and currencies derive value from transaction flow (scalability) not stock.

2)  Money is an abstract concept that represents goods or the ability to do work (services).  This means the ideal form of money would be energy based since it represents both a commodity and service at the same time.  The problem there is that humans don't have the technology to do so and remove counter party risk, and the free market time after time has signaled removing counter party risk is even more important, so it utilized metals.  The fact that anything you do in bitcoin is going to make you a 1 of N participant means there is no removing counter party risk in bitcoin and it's dead on arrival for competing as a settlement system, aka money, aka the base of Exter's pyramid.

3)  All forms of money and currency have elements of a pyramid or ponzi scheme to them, meaning it's all about me finding some resource and hoarding a bunch of it to try and create a master/slave relationship where I now rule over you because I got what you need.  Such a paradigm doesn't actually work with a "virtual" commodity.  If Elwar or Jimbo corners the entire 21 millioin coin market, it really doesn't mean shit to me.  Under no circumstance do I need their coins when they have no intrinsic real world use, so I can completely ignore them and thus no master/slave relationship is formed.  This is also a good reason why gold may lose a lot of it's market cap to silver in the long run due to gold having far less use.

You are, of course, welcome to your opinion, but I fail to see, unless you are going to sleep on top of your pallet of silver with an AK47 while it crosses the Pacific ocean, how physical delivery does not have counter party risk.

Don't get me wrong, huge physs fan here, if it weren't for that dammed boating accident we could get together and try and out macho each other curling our stacks, but yeah, I guess I am a lunatic...I think teleporting the equivalent value of that pallet in an hour or so, securely, does in fact have value.

[PoolMinor]

You are, of course, welcome to your opinion, but I fail to see, unless you are going to sleep on top of your pallet of silver with an AK47 while it crosses the Pacific ocean, how physical delivery does not have counter party risk.

Don't get me wrong, huge physs fan here, if it weren't for that dammed boating accident we could get together and try and out macho each other curling our stacks, but yeah, I guess I am a lunatic...I think teleporting the equivalent value of that pallet in an hour or so, securely, does in fact have value.

You do realize that you are talking to a wall? And subsequently we all are observing you talking to that wall......

Now I understand why the gold man wants to spread his disease doubt here.

[coltsrule7]

and a coin with 1mb blocks forever has economic viability?

Yes it does.  It would help us secure bitcoin's greatest use case

This is false.  Bitcoin has zero value as a settlement layer because far better alternatives for settlement existed before it's creation (noble metals).  For bitcoin to have value as a settlement layer it would need to be able to compete as the base of Exter's pyramid, but it can't for numerous reasons I've stated before:

1)  Bitcoin has built in middlemen (transaction validators) and counter party risk, negative traits that are typically found among "currencies" and never found among "money".  The entire purpose of the base of Exter's pyramid is to remove counter party risk so that even if everyone else on the planet dies, you are not left holding a worthless coupon.  This is why something is required to be an actual commodity, not a fake psuedo commodity (bitcoin) to be real money.  Bitcoin will always be just a currency alone and not money, and currencies derive value from transaction flow (scalability) not stock.

2)  Money is an abstract concept that represents goods or the ability to do work (services).  This means the ideal form of money would be energy based since it represents both a commodity and service at the same time.  The problem there is that humans don't have the technology to do so and remove counter party risk, and the free market time after time has signaled removing counter party risk is even more important, so it utilized metals.  The fact that anything you do in bitcoin is going to make you a 1 of N participant means there is no removing counter party risk in bitcoin and it's dead on arrival for competing as a settlement system, aka money, aka the base of Exter's pyramid.

3)  All forms of money and currency have elements of a pyramid or ponzi scheme to them, meaning it's all about me finding some resource and hoarding a bunch of it to try and create a master/slave relationship where I now rule over you because I got what you need.  Such a paradigm doesn't actually work with a "virtual" commodity.  If Elwar or Jimbo corners the entire 21 millioin coin market, it really doesn't mean shit to me.  Under no circumstance do I need their coins when they have no intrinsic real world use, so I can completely ignore them and thus no master/slave relationship is formed.  This is also a good reason why gold may lose a lot of it's market cap to silver in the long run due to gold having far less use.

Well one could argue that bitcoins value is derived from the work (labor) needed to bring each new bitcoin to market.  This would be the work performed by the miners and as anybody who has any history with bitcoin and specifically the act of mining would tell you is that at this stage mining is not about the hardware but about the energy required. And the price of that energy. So bitcoin is energy based representing both a commodity and a service, therefore fitting your description of the ideal form of money.

[traincarswreck]

 Bitcoin will always be just a currency alone and not money, and currencies derive value from transaction flow (scalability) not stock.

I think you said the higher the velocity the higher the value.

Regarding the velocity of money, if the increase in the use of Bitcoin leads to a decrease in need for holding dollars, it would increase the dollar’s velocity of circulation and tend to increase the money supply associated with any given amount of base money (currency in circulation plus bank reserves held with the Fed).

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43339.pdf

You have made your own distinction of money and currency that is not a commonly held distinction.  Your entire argument falls apart under scrutiny which suggests you need to make more and more points so I cannot break it down.


Statements like this are empty:

This is why something is required to be an actual commodity, not a fake psuedo commodity (bitcoin) to be real money.

And bitcoin is a real money by and reasonable and widely held definition of the term money. 

Like this empty statement:

so that even if everyone else on the planet dies, you are not left holding a worthless coupon.

Gold has great settlement value because its not very useful otherwise and it certainly wouldn't be useful if everyone else died.   You haven't made any sense and nothing you are saying is accepted economic theory.

[traincarswreck]

Well one could argue that bitcoins value is derived from the work (labor) needed to bring each new bitcoin to market.  This would be the work performed by the miners and as anybody who has any history with bitcoin and specifically the act of mining would tell you is that at this stage mining is not about the hardware but about the energy required. And the price of that energy. So bitcoin is energy based representing both a commodity and a service, therefore fitting your description of the ideal form of money.

Of course!  Quite obvious. 

However this is not ideal money.  Ideal Money is money that is stable in value over a very long period of time.  Bitcoin is good but not ideal. Nothing from the poster you are addressing speaks to this. 

[traincarswreck]

You do realize that you are talking to a wall? And subsequently we all are observing you talking to that wall......

Now I understand why the gold man wants to spread his disease doubt here.

Don't worry I'm extremely good at this argument.

[r0ach]

and a coin with 1mb blocks forever has economic viability?

Yes it does.  It would help us secure bitcoin's greatest use case

This is false.  Bitcoin has zero value as a settlement layer because far better alternatives for settlement existed before it's creation (noble metals).  For bitcoin to have value as a settlement layer it would need to be able to compete as the base of Exter's pyramid, but it can't for numerous reasons I've stated before:

1)  Bitcoin has built in middlemen (transaction validators) and counter party risk, negative traits that are typically found among "currencies" and never found among "money".  The entire purpose of the base of Exter's pyramid is to remove counter party risk so that even if everyone else on the planet dies, you are not left holding a worthless coupon.  This is why something is required to be an actual commodity, not a fake psuedo commodity (bitcoin) to be real money.  Bitcoin will always be just a currency alone and not money, and currencies derive value from transaction flow (scalability) not stock.

2)  Money is an abstract concept that represents goods or the ability to do work (services).  This means the ideal form of money would be energy based since it represents both a commodity and service at the same time.  The problem there is that humans don't have the technology to do so and remove counter party risk, and the free market time after time has signaled removing counter party risk is even more important, so it utilized metals.  The fact that anything you do in bitcoin is going to make you a 1 of N participant means there is no removing counter party risk in bitcoin and it's dead on arrival for competing as a settlement system, aka money, aka the base of Exter's pyramid.

3)  All forms of money and currency have elements of a pyramid or ponzi scheme to them, meaning it's all about me finding some resource and hoarding a bunch of it to try and create a master/slave relationship where I now rule over you because I got what you need.  Such a paradigm doesn't actually work with a "virtual" commodity.  If Elwar or Jimbo corners the entire 21 millioin coin market, it really doesn't mean shit to me.  Under no circumstance do I need their coins when they have no intrinsic real world use, so I can completely ignore them and thus no master/slave relationship is formed.  This is also a good reason why gold may lose a lot of it's market cap to silver in the long run due to gold having far less use.

Well one could argue that bitcoins value is derived from the work (labor) needed to bring each new bitcoin to market.  

That's just the textbook definition of sunk cost fallacy.  If anything you are just proving my point.  We spend a bunch of time, resources, and energy to create a virtual commodity (bitcoin) that has no real value, especially if bitcoin died.  If you spent all that same time, effort, and resources to dig up silver instead, worst case scenario you could convert them to 29% efficiency solar panels in the end.  It's crazy to waste time and resources on a black hole called mining for an imaginary resource when you can mine for a real resource instead.

Claiming that you NEED bitcoin to send money to China is also another fallacy because as I've stated a million times, bitcoin is only a currency and not money or the base of Exter's pyramid.  Just like the Chinese wouldn't want an infinite stream of digital US T-bills, they would also not want a continuous stream of bitcoins.  They are going to want some type of REAL WORLD good or service for their trade so you will be shipping them something in a large ship anyway.  You do not eliminate the movement of real world goods by using bitcoin.

[traincarswreck]

That's just the textbook definition of sunk cost fallacy.  If anything you are just proving my point.  We spend a bunch of time, resources, and energy to create a virtual commodity (bitcoin) that has no real value, especially if bitcoin died.  If you spent all that same time, effort, and resources to dig up silver instead, worst case scenario you could convert them to 29% efficiency solar panels in the end.  It's crazy to waste time and resources on a black hole called mining for an imaginary resource when you can mine for a real resource instead.

Claiming that you NEED bitcoin to send money to China is also another fallacy because as I've stated a million times, bitcoin is only a currency and not money or the base of Exter's pyramid.  Just like the Chinese wouldn't want an infinite stream of digital US T-bills, they would also not want a continuous stream of bitcoins.  They are going to want some type of REAL WORLD good or service for their trade so you will be shipping them something in a large ship anyway.  You do not eliminate the movement of real world goods by using bitcoin.

You have only shown you don't know the purpose or value of money:

Here we can return to the understanding that money has the practical value of creating games for traders.  These are games with transferable utility, but if the money were not available, the game of the traders would be a game without transferable utility and thus naturally a game with less efficiency with regards ot the possibilities for the participants to maximize their combined gains.~Ideal Money

There is nothing in that that necessitates it to be a commodity to for us to gain value from it.

And if silver cannot fulfil the role of bitcoin then you have given no argument that we've wasted any energy.

You don't know that bitcoin's settlement capabilities will shore up the quality of our fiats and so you have no observation point for why bitcoin is net valuable to us. And bitcoin's blockchain DOES have other uses than settlement such as tamper proofing files so you don't have an argument from your view anyways.

[r0ach]

You don't know that bitcoin's settlement capabilities will shore up the quality of our fiats

Is this a joke?  None of the crap you say makes any sense then you post this horrific shilling for the central banks statement LOL.  The further you abstract money from barter the bigger a scam it is.  Using a physical, commodity based currency (noble metals in native coin format - you know, like gold coins, silver coins, copper coins, etc) is about as close as it gets to barter, which is why it's generally the only non-scam monetary system.

I don't want to hear any of your Keynesian garbage where you attempt to obfuscate the monetary system through a Rube Goldberg machine in order to scam people whether it's bitcoin or some other poorly constructed Rube Goldberg likes the ones CBs already use.  Occam's Razor wins in the end and shekling scammers can BTFO.

[jojo69]

You do realize that you are talking to a wall? And subsequently we all are observing you talking to that wall......

Now I understand why the gold man wants to spread his disease doubt here.

yeah, but I do like imagining him doing yet another line of speed on his pallet of silver bars, eyeing those suspicious, dark skinned, deckhands nervously and checking his mags for the 40th time in the last few minutes.  Oh God, does this thing have to rock so? 

[traincarswreck]

Is this a joke?  None of the crap you say makes any sense then you post this horrific shilling for the central banks statement LOL.  The further you abstract money from barter the bigger a scam it is.  Using a physical, commodity based currency (noble metals in native coin format - you know, like gold coins, silver coins, copper coins, etc) is about as close as it gets to barter, which is why it's generally the only non-scam monetary system.

Pure barter was PROVED by John Nash to be not optimal for all parties involved. The addition of money to trade creates a higher order for efficiency this was mathematically proved in the 50's. http://www.eecs.harvard.edu/cs286r/courses/spring02/papers/nash50a.pdf

Commodity money is not superior to bitcoin for the reasons you are implying.  In fact it would be optimal that we release gold and oil from their monetary components as inflation hedges so that they can be used as resources otherwise.

You are implying gold is scarce, but gold is not scarce and so going forward it would not be a good money.  And historically we have seen issues in this regard.  Bitcoin doesn't suffer from this problem.

There is no evidence and no founded argument that money must consist of an otherwise useful commodity.

I don't want to hear any of your Keynesian garbage where you attempt to obfuscate the monetary system through a Rube Goldberg machine in order to scam people whether it's bitcoin or some other poorly constructed Rube Goldberg likes the ones CBs already use.  Occam's Razor wins in the end and shekling scammers can BTFO.

My argument is not pro-keynesian by any standpoint it is based on the Nashian viewpoint:

The label “Keynesian” is convenient, but to be safe we should have a defined meaning for this as a party that can be criticized and contrasted with other parties.
So let us define “Keynesian” to be descriptive of a “school of thought” that originated at the time of the devaluations of the pound and the dollar in the early 30’s of the 20th century. Then, more specifically, a “Keynesian” would favor the existence of a “manipulative” state establishment of central bank and treasury which would continuously seek to achieve “economics welfare” objectives with comparatively little regard for the long term reputation of the national currency…~Ideal Money

To be clearer:

There can be Keynesians Neo-Keynesians New-Keynesians Post-Keynesians. Even the Post-Keynesians are still Keynesians~Lecture, Ideal Money

You have to be more careful with your arguments and presumptions cause I'll make a mockery of your missteps.  Call me Keynesian again...

[r0ach]

Is this a joke?  None of the crap you say makes any sense then you post this horrific shilling for the central banks statement LOL.  The further you abstract money from barter the bigger a scam it is.  Using a physical, commodity based currency (noble metals in native coin format - you know, like gold coins, silver coins, copper coins, etc) is about as close as it gets to barter, which is why it's generally the only non-scam monetary system.

Pure barter was PROVED by John Nash to be not optimal for all parties involved.

And using a physical, commodity based currency like noble metals is NOT pure barter, thus everything you typed is completely irrelevant!  It's the smallest abstraction away from barter needed in order to maintain things like removal of counter party risk, durability, divisibility, fungibility, portability, etc.  I don't want to hear you lies about how bitcoin is the 2nd coming of god as money when it's not even fungible.  Most of you guys are either delusional or serial liars.

No, bitcoin is not fungible even if you tumble it:

CT and schnorr sigs will make btc fungible.

Cryptocurrency is NOT fungible.  You're trying to make believe that if coins can be tumbled it's somehow fungible but there is more to it than that.  If anything about the protocol at all can be altered via a strongman or banana republic voting to take over it's exposed power vacuum it's not fungible.  

Money = has objective, static traits

Currency = random arbitrary bullshit some guy makes up and constantly fiddles with like fiat or bitcoin. If it's possible for your money to "hard fork", or randomly morph from one thing to another, it's not fungible, and hence not money. In that circumstance you are involved in some type of scheme with a schemer ruling over you.

It doesn't matter if said forks are orchestrated by a banana republic of miners in a voting process. There is no Nash equilibrium in cryptocurrency, only a power vacuum to be filled by a top down hierarchy or strongman. To escape this master and servant hierarchy you have to use real money that cannot be altered or tampered with by third parties.

[traincarswreck]

And using a physical, commodity based currency like noble metals is NOT pure barter, thus everything you typed is completely irrelevant!  It's the smallest abstraction away from barter needed in order to maintain things like removal of counter party risk, durability, divisibility, fungibility, portability, etc.  I don't want to hear you lies about how bitcoin is the 2nd coming of god as money when it's not even fungible.  Most of you guys are either delusional or disgusting liars.

Metals money is not stable in value because the supply is not stable.  bitcoin cannot be ideal because ideal money is stable in value and bitcoin has no mechanism for targeting in this way.  But its a good money.  Far superior in this sense than any commodity could hope to serve.  And so it will put pressure on our central banks to print money of a superior quality.  I'm not keynesian but is how bitcoin works in relation to our existing financial system.

Every time a government over prints money or devalues, more citizens hear about and procure bitcoin, so there is something to compete with not and central banks are forced to tend to the quality of money on a vector they previously did not need to consider.

You can call me names all you want.  Your argument isn't reasonable or founded.

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43339.pdf

In this case, for the Fed to maintain the same degree of monetary accommodation, it would need to undertake a compensating tightening of monetary policy. At a minimum, a substantial use of Bitcoins could make the measurement of velocity more uncertain, and judging the appropriate stance of monetary policy uncertain.

Also, a substantial decrease in the use of dollars would also tend to reduce the size of the Fed’s balance sheet and introduce another factor into its consideration of how to affect short-term interest rates (the instrument for implementing monetary policy).

[r0ach]

You're just typing opinion based rambling and not dealing with any of the actual required traits of money.  I typed why bitcoin is not fungible and you avoided that issue like the plague.  You already admitted bitcoin is not a reliable store of value (I would say because it's synthetic price floor is recursive based on it's own demand while metals economics are non-recursive) so we can skip that issue, but all it takes is even failing one aspect like fungibility and bitcoin is not money anyways.  Getting tired repeating myself, but it's called cryptocurrency for a reason.

[traincarswreck]

You're just typing opinion based rambling and not dealing with any of the actual required traits of money.  I typed why bitcoin is not fungible and you avoided that issue like the plague.

I've cited my points so far and so again you have said something untrue.  In regard to fungibility you have no point to make.  I have said nothing other than bitcoin will serve as a settlement layer like a gold 2.0.  And it is far superior to gold in this fashion.  You can cry about fungibility all you want but the markets are rallying behind bitcoin and have no problem with the level of fungibility it has.

You have a belief in what ideal money consists of and I do not share belief because its not founded. Money's greatest role is an objective measurement of value, that it transfer utility is a byproduct of such a measurement device. When the value of it fluctuates arbitrarily it loses its greatest function.

Stability of value is the only important quality, the rest hold up this quality.  If our money systems stabilize in regard to comparative value because of bitcoin as the bedrock standard for decently stable value, then your argument about its lack of fungibility becomes irrelevant.