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

[BTCMILLIONAIRE]

I'm trying to compare the hashrates, to get a better sense of bitcoin dominance. Instead of looking to the bitcoin dominance in the market cap which has it flaws.
snip

I'm wondering do i need some kind of correction factor for the Ether Hashrate?

*
Data from:
https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/hashrate-btc-eth-bch.html#log

Electricity used (for PoW coins) would be a better metric, since hashrate depends on the algorithm used. Bitcoin also has ASICs, while Ethereum only uses GPUs, hence creating a massive discrepancy in hashrate numbers.

By taking electricity as a measure you circumvent that and can more accurately assess how many resources go into each crypto.

The downside is that it doesn't take into account the hardware costs, which you would have to estimate and include in your calculations for a more accurate picture.

[1680259024]

1680259024

[1680259024]

1680259024

[Torque]

I consider the altcoin market as an easily accessible venture capital market, and I have significant positions in some of them.

The overwhelming majority is certainly trash and I wouldn't touch it with a pole, but I don't think that anybody can rationally explain away all of the altcoins.

I prefer staying out of "Bitcoin clones" and "next-gen Bitcoins" though (smallest positions for good measure) - mostly because there are no fundamentals to analyze; while investing in seeds that can realistically be achieved and sustained with predictable lower-end returns and potentials when thrown into a portfolio.
Granted that's a lot more work than just holding Bitcoins would be, but I also find it more interesting by virtue of keeping an eye on the entire beast that is blockchain and cryptocurrencies, which I do believe will become equities 2.0.
I would be quite surprised if traditional stock markets were still relevant a few decades from now, and the fact that common people at least have the access to VC is also quite big (which is something that crowdfunding platforms completely failed to accomplish due to their outrageous fees and crappy policies).

The problem I have with altcoins, is this:

Once Bitcoin established itself as a near-perfect digital gold 2.0 like store of value, as well as something that can be used online as a currency, then investing in anything else trying to do the same thing (i.e., an also ran) made zero logical sense.

If people want to gamble with also-rans that's fine. But there is a deep seated fallacy in comparing a fly-by-night project that all it has to show for itself is a single anonymous dev, an online token (which as been pre-mined and pre-allocated to hell), and a back-of-the-napkin scribbled future roadmap as even being in the same league as Bitcoin.

I also have a real issue with also-ran cryptos that claim to have solutions to problems that don't exist, or will never really exist. App-based tokens. History is literally littered with such IT projects that went nowhere and did nothing. Especially pay-to-play apps, that will compete with other apps that are free and do the same thing. That is beyond absurd.

You think that if an ICO company that had a Twitter-like app came out, but had a token that they made you buy in order to use it first (for "fuel" or some shit), that they could in any way compete with Twitter (a free app)? No. Fucking. Way.

[BTCMILLIONAIRE]

The problem I have with altcoins, is this:

Once Bitcoin established itself as a near-perfect digital gold 2.0 like store of value, as well as something that can be used online as a currency, then investing in anything else trying to do the same thing (i.e., an also ran) made zero logical sense.

If people want to gamble with also-rans that's fine. But there is a deep seated fallacy in comparing a fly-by-night project that all it has to show for itself is a single anonymous dev, an online token, and a back-of-the-napkin scribbled future roadmap as even being in the same league as Bitcoin.

I also have a real issue with also-ran cryptos that claim to have solutions to problems that don't exist, or will never really exist. App-based tokens. History is literally littered with such IT projects that go nowhere and do nothing. Especially pay-to-play apps, that will compete with other apps that are free and do the same thing. That is beyond absurd.

You think that if a company that had a Twitter-like app came out, but had a token that they made you buy in order to use it (for "fuel"), that they could in any way compete with Twitter (a free app)? No. Fucking. Way.

That's exactly how I see it, which is why I don't buy and hold any significant quantities of currency type coins. I'm more interested in startups that are using the blockchain as a means of gaining the necessary liquidity for them to actually start off.

The social media type tokens that you mentioned are also a prime example of what doesn't realistically have a future. It could just work out (because people are pretty weird creatures), but there's no compelling reason to start using a platform that requires you to throw money at it in any form when there are free and ad-run solutions, however shady they may be (which most people don't care about due to ease of access).

Don't get me wrong, it takes a damn lot of digging and perhaps even a bit of luck to identify something that isn't just a bunch of out-of-college kids or other dweebs trying to capitalize on the most recent hype without having the required ideas, skills or perserverence to create something successful. But as with every market, there are always a few gems to be found. Granted of the ones with real potential many will never reach their potential or just outright fail, but that's where diversification comes into play.

With all this said, I am 100% convinced that there will be a flood of tears at some point in crypto history, where a lot of people will lose pretty much everything. But that's not something that is unique to altcoins and has happened with every hype before.

[itod]

The problem I have with altcoins, is this:

Once Bitcoin established itself as a near-perfect digital gold 2.0 like store of value, as well as something that can be used online as a currency, then investing in anything else trying to do the same thing (i.e., an also ran) made zero logical sense.

If people want to gamble with also-rans that's fine. But there is a deep seated fallacy in comparing a fly-by-night project that all it has to show for itself is a single anonymous dev, an online token, and a back-of-the-napkin scribbled future roadmap as even being in the same league as Bitcoin.

I also have a real issue with also-ran cryptos that claim to have solutions to problems that don't exist, or will never really exist. App-based tokens. History is literally littered with such IT projects that go nowhere and do nothing. Especially pay-to-play apps, that will compete with other apps that are free and do the same thing. That is beyond absurd.

You are 100% right with everything, except the conclusion. The LN establishment as altcoin killer will not happen overnight, it's a process that will have markings on the wall as the journey unfolds. There will be plenty of time for anyone reasonable to exit the altcoins in time. Meanwhile, they are the vehicle to increase your BTC stash, which is in essence what Dabs said. I absolutely don't see anything wrong with it.

[BTCMILLIONAIRE]

The problem I have with altcoins, is this:

Once Bitcoin established itself as a near-perfect digital gold 2.0 like store of value, as well as something that can be used online as a currency, then investing in anything else trying to do the same thing (i.e., an also ran) made zero logical sense.

If people want to gamble with also-rans that's fine. But there is a deep seated fallacy in comparing a fly-by-night project that all it has to show for itself is a single anonymous dev, an online token, and a back-of-the-napkin scribbled future roadmap as even being in the same league as Bitcoin.

I also have a real issue with also-ran cryptos that claim to have solutions to problems that don't exist, or will never really exist. App-based tokens. History is literally littered with such IT projects that go nowhere and do nothing. Especially pay-to-play apps, that will compete with other apps that are free and do the same thing. That is beyond absurd.

You are 100% right with everything, except the conclusion. The LN establishment as altcoin killer will not happen overnight, it's a process that will have markings on the wall as the journey unfolds. There will be plenty of time for anyone reasonable to exit the altcoins in time. Meanwhile, they are the vehicle to increase your BTC stash, which is in essence what Dabs said. I absolutely don't see anything wrong with it.

I see it more as Bitcoin = USD, alts = equity (of a new "world"). Don't really care about currency type alts, although I'm sure there will be a number of them even with LN. Just look at the formation of countries and traditional currencies, there's no compelling reason to believe that this won't be mirrored in crypto as well. But the very fact that currency type alts have zero fundamentals to base investment decisions on is reason enough for me to pretty much stay out of those and stick with equity type coins.

[Torque]

You are 100% right with everything, except the conclusion. The LN establishment as altcoin killer will not happen overnight, it's a process that will have markings on the wall as the journey unfolds. There will be plenty of time for anyone reasonable to exit the altcoins in time. Meanwhile, they are the vehicle to increase your BTC stash, which is in essence what Dabs said. I absolutely don't see anything wrong with it.

Except that the majority, like 90+%, won't increase their BTC stash with altcoin trading. They'll actually lose money, and would have just been better off buying bitcoin and holding it instead. The [altcoin]/btc ratio trailing downward on the majority of altcoins proves my point.

[BTCMILLIONAIRE]

You are 100% right with everything, except the conclusion. The LN establishment as altcoin killer will not happen overnight, it's a process that will have markings on the wall as the journey unfolds. There will be plenty of time for anyone reasonable to exit the altcoins in time. Meanwhile, they are the vehicle to increase your BTC stash, which is in essence what Dabs said. I absolutely don't see anything wrong with it.

Except that the majority, like 90+%, won't increase their BTC stash with altcoin trading. They'll actually lose money, and would have just been better off buying bitcoin and holding it instead. The [altcoin]/btc ratio trailing downward on the majority of altcoins proves my point.

That's also a symptom of every financial market (or even game) though. Most people impulsively flail their arms around and end up losing. So rather than an indicator to stay out it's an indicator to pay more attention than the crypto masses, which you are already doing by being in Bitcoin in the first place (which the mainstream is not). This only works with sufficient time to spare though. With a full-time job I'd just hold onto my Bitcoins, but since I don't have one I can play the alt market (with great success, out performing both the overall market as well as BTC as a benchmark).

[Torque]

Another problem is that the newb crypto kiddies think that what we saw back in March/April 2017, that we'll see happen again. Where a relatively unknown crypto like ETH could be bought for $2, and it'll eventually get pumped to $1000 making them rich. And actually, EVERY altcoin and token got pumped to the moon. All of them.

That to me was a black swan event, that will likely NEVER happen again. The odds are stacked against it. But now they are going to buy these now-grossly overvalued altcoins and ICO tokens, thinking it will happen again. They could really give a shit what these coins and tokens supposedly are for, or what they are reported to do.

[BTCMILLIONAIRE]

Which is why it's all the more important to identify tokens that function as equity in a company with realistic and reaonable future prospects. The (overall) altcoin market is pretty insane for sure though. There are still people who believe in BCC apparently.

[Torque]

Which is why it's all the more important to identify tokens that function as equity in a company with realistic and reaonable future prospects. The (overall) altcoin market is pretty insane for sure though. There are still people who believe in BCC apparently.

Have you ever seen an ICO company that says "There will only ever be [X] number of these ICO tokens issued. Each one represents a VALID and LEGALLY DEFENSIBLE equity ownership share of the company."

I haven't.

[BTCMILLIONAIRE]

Which is why it's all the more important to identify tokens that function as equity in a company with realistic and reaonable future prospects. The (overall) altcoin market is pretty insane for sure though. There are still people who believe in BCC apparently.

Have you ever seen an ICO company that says "There will only ever be [X] number of these ICO tokens issued. Each one represents a VALID and LEGALLY DEFENSIBLE equity ownership share of the company."

I haven't.

No, I haven't either. But equity hasn't always been regulated either. Regulation adapts to reality, not the other way around. Again, altcoins are extremely risky and require a lot of time and know-how to even have a chance of making profits without losing it down the road. But that doesn't mean that they're all bad.

Stocks carry very similar risks as well, despite being regulated. The lack of regulation is simultaneously a threat as well as an opportunity. It depends on the individual which aspect will outweigh the other.

[Torque]

Which is why it's all the more important to identify tokens that function as equity in a company with realistic and reaonable future prospects. The (overall) altcoin market is pretty insane for sure though. There are still people who believe in BCC apparently.

Have you ever seen an ICO company that says "There will only ever be [X] number of these ICO tokens issued. Each one represents a VALID and LEGALLY DEFENSIBLE equity ownership share of the company."

I haven't.

No, I haven't either. But equity hasn't always been regulated either. Regulation adapts to reality, not the other way around. Again, altcoins are extremely risky and require a lot of time and know-how to even have a chance of making profits without losing it down the road. But that doesn't mean that they're all bad.

Stocks carry very similar risks as well, despite being regulated. The lack of regulation is simultaneously a threat as well as an opportunity. It depends on the individual which aspect will outweigh the other.

Even if one of these ICO companies actually makes it and starts making money (which I highly doubt), the tokens as equity would be meaningless. There is likely no chance they would honor that. And even if they did honor it (which they are not legally obligated to), expect MASSIVE dillution.

Remember that one scene near the end of the movie 'The Social Network', where Eduardo gets massively diluted out of his majority stake in Facebook? Yeah, it would be something like that but worse. "Each ICO token is now worth 1/1 millionth of an equity share of this company." And no amount of lawyering-up would save you.

[BTCMILLIONAIRE]

I haven't watched that movie, no. Is it worth the time?


And when I say "equity" it's not exactly in the way that normal equity functions (due to regulations). There are a number of different models which distribute the generated revenue to token holders in one way or another. In some cases you have to become active, in others the tokens are required to satisfy certain functions of the product or platform.

As far as token caps are concerned, I know for fact that the Waves platform gives the choice of whether or not tokens are re-issuable or not, which is a piece of information that is available to the public. Given a decentralized platform that functions with those tokens, just printing extra tokens would thus not be possible. The total supply and how the token functions in the proposed company/product/platform is a critical factor though.

And while I expect well above 90% of crypto companies dying, I do expect at least a dozen or so (~1%) to remain with one or two even becoming major global players in the 2020s. Who knows which those will be though.

[Globb0]

that's exactly how i present crypto to people, as a lottery with benefits. Nothing more, nothing retardly idealistic, just plain stupid speculation.

I like it.

And the downside is 1x but the upside is Xx

[Torque]

I haven't watched that movie, no. Is it worth the time?

Yes, very good movie. Performances all around are fantastic.

[BTCMILLIONAIRE]

I haven't watched that movie, no. Is it worth the time?

Yes, very good movie. Performances all around fantastic.

Thanks, I'll check it out.

[thrax]

Off to bundle-up, hop on a horse, and start makin' muh way around the snowy countryside, lookin' out for them coyotes.

So are we going to break through $12k today or what ?

It was above $12k three hours ago, it will probably keep fluctuating above and below it for the rest of today. Bitcoin's probably going to be boring this weekend.

[Torque]

Look at the price on 12/4. Then look at the massive volume pump starting on 12/5.

Then look again at the price where we are today. Pretty much the same as what it was on 12/4.

It makes complete sense the price is sitting where we are right now. The whale(s) responsible for the entire Dec/Jan PnD is out.

[jojo69]

My views on alts have been evolving.

Just last night my SO ran across some rumor about Amazon adopting BTC and asked me about it.  I had to reply that Bitcoin was not a good fit for retail at this time.

Absent LN, and we have to admit, it has been rather a long time coming, AND raises legitimate concerns about trust and decentralization, one coin can not be all things to all people.

Bitcoin is very secure and decentralized, while being slow, expensive and annoying.  I am good with that.  I like it that way, but I have had to admit that this does open market space for a solution that makes different compromises that favor speed and low fees.

Of course, if they were to bust out LN tomorrow and it was everything people hope that would change things, but there is a finite window of opportunity for that to happen.

[Torque]

Bitcoin is very secure and decentralized, while being slow, expensive and annoying.  I am good with that.  I like it that way, but I have had to admit that this does open market space for a solution that makes different compromises that favor speed and low fees.

You're missing one thing though. If Amazon isn't integrating Bitcoin payments now, then they sure as hell aren't going to do it for an altcoin. Speed and low fees alone isn't the deciding factor. Because if it was, Amazon would have jumped on Bitcoin integration all the way back in 2012 or 2013 when fees were lower.

The reason is political. Major banks through Visa, MC, and PayPal have exclusive contractual obligations with major merchants, and they can change the terms of deals or even make it politically 'difficult' for Amazon to integrate what they perceive as a 'competitor' payment system.

It's also substantial marketcap size and stability, and extremely low volatility. No crypto has achieved these things yet.