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

[JayJuanGee]

Lets stop posting more than 1 message a week after page     20.000 !!!

Let's NOT and say that we did.         

[realr0ach]

Shit's gonna drop below $10k in the next 24 hours.

Ayo hole up, you be sayin we wuz vikings n sheeit?

[suchmoon]

Fine. Fuck you man. Shit's gonna drop below $10k in the next 24 hours.

Are you happy now ?!

It's just gonna tank faster now.

I think it's bad karma to talk about Bitcoin in this thread.

[realr0ach]

JayJuanGee post

[Toxic2040]

Also, if Roger were to go on a little rant that he does not want bcash to be called bcash, then perhaps the discussion should end at that point because roger can call his bcash anything that he wants, but if he will not engage with you because you continue to call bcash, bcash, then may as well not discuss the matter with the loonie...

I really like this. So much drama and energy...and most important...TIME..could have been saved with just this. Just to have called it VerCoin...WuCoin...whatevercoin. Just own your own branding instead of trying to befuddle bitcoin with half truths. They were so afraid back then that without the name brand it would not succeed. Now that crypto is going mainstream they have realized they could have called it anything and still have enough success to be economically viable. Hindsight smh.


*edit*

Bob wins the internet.

+10 WOsMerits

LOL for real.

[Karartma1]

I stopped believing that it is possible to apply regular TA to Bitcoin: I strongly believe that Bitcoin its a very rare beast during these times. No support or resistance lasts too long here and the same applies to ATHs.
Bitcoin's crazy stuff.
Good day guys. Go out and have fun

[Last of the V8s]

Been summoned to a family lunch today. Least Favourite Daughter-in-Law wants 'to have a serious talk'. Can't seem to find my chequebook, but am sure that won't matter. Mustn't be late.

I’m in Cape Verde (just waiting for coach back to airport) with inlaws which has been paid for by us (they’re cheap bastards). Can’t wait to get home now tbh

Families are a pain in the ass especially one’s who aren’t blood.

Well I did her a great disfavour prejudging her so. Last Christmas I'd apparently been teasing them all that bitcoin is tied to identity and when a holder dies their coin has to go back in to the 'mining pool', so they shouldn't expect anything from me. But lo she had since done some research 'for me' and this is not the case at all. In fact, it is quite like real money and you can just send it to anyone. Perhaps if I didn't understand it all that well, it might be better to distribute my coin 'around the family' before the 'time' comes, just to 'be safe'. I started in on my long discourse on primogeniture (this creature is married to Indolent Son Number 2), how it is a great mistake to break up estates and spare sons really always made for excellent bishops or conquerors in mediaeval times... I used to tease Son 2 about that stuff, but he knows I'm just being a dick. Next update: at Easter if we get that far, I suppose she'll be tackling me on fairness and partible inheritance.

[Biodom]

Plus more than 95% of c02 comes from natural sources not human influence. "Climate change" is bullshit. It's just cyclical and perfectly normal variance.

I also see the argument regarding CO2 level as too simplistic.
Maybe there is no climate change.
However, one thing is difficult to argue with: human population affects on environment.
This is discussed less, because the remedies are unknowable.

Specifically, humans may be causing the sixths extinction event in planet's history.
For those who would argue that it is "natural"-no it isn't because it is happening too fast-within 100-150 years, not millions of years.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jun/19/humans-creating-sixth-great-extinction-of-animal-species-say-scientists

Under a “natural” rate of extinction, the study said that two species go extinct per 10,000 species per 100 years, rather than the one species that previous work has assumed.

Modern rates of extinction were eight to 100 times higher , the authors found. For example, 477 vertebrates have gone extinct since 1900, rather than the nine that would be expected at natural rates.

Unfortunately, the way it may develop would be either for us to go non-biological and, hence, have little imprint on life OR natural habitats would become so stressed that extremely effective life forms would arise and finish us off one way or another.

Examples: HIV, of course; brain eating amoeba (guess, who has the most brain/mass ratio?); green algae virus that makes you 'stupid'; mosquito spread virus (Zika) that makes babies being born with a smaller size brain

'stupid' virus:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/virus-that-makes-humans-more-stupid-discovered-9849920.html

Zika:
https://www.cdc.gov/zika/healtheffects/birth_defects.html

[Ibian]

too simplistic.

The truth is always simple.

And the truth is that lefties are liars.

If you don't have anything factual, that can be communicated in three sentences or less, that can be checked by anyone with access to google within 30 seconds, it doesn't matter.

[explorer]

Keeping in mind of course that things like math is still a theory. Hypothesis may be a better term.

Blame my poor English skills

Also also keeping in mind that it's the left that are going on about the weather.

Yes, the matter is highly political. leftists and globalists uses this as FUD to promote their agenda.
What bugs me the most is that they falsify science to do that.

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/climate/climate-change-conspiracy-against-us-all/

[BTCMILLIONAIRE]

I'd be quite happy with lower temperatures. Winter is more enjoyable with proper powder snow, and summer wouldn't make me stay inside 24/7 if it didn't cause me to sweat all fucking day.

On that note, I've read about an upcoming mini ice age a few times. Is there any recent update on that that confirms or rejects it?

Vast question.

- climate is whether over 30 years. So it's too soon to tell.
- There was a global warming during the last 100 years of about 0.1°C/10years
- No more warming since 1998, once you remove El Nino/LaNina effects (which cancel each other in time)
- Sun is probably having a period of low activity, that doesn't change much the energy it sends to us, but less activity (= less spots) means less magnetic field, means more cosmic rays reaching our atmosphere, meaning more seeded clouds, thus more albedo and then cold coming in... but this is still a theory
- look here for the latest temps : https://moyhu.blogspot.fr/p/latest-ice-and-temperature-data.html#NCAR
- best site ever for these questions : https://wattsupwiththat.com/

- last but not least : cold kills; warm weather makes our life easier.

Keeping in mind of course that things like math is still a theory. Hypothesis may be a better term.

Also also keeping in mind that it's the left that are going on about the weather.

All of science and anything empirical is ultimately a hypothesis. No amount confirmations (that turns things into theories and laws in academia) can guarantee with certainty that we've figured something out, rather than just witnessing an infinitely unlikely event.

Nonetheless, I wouldn't be surprised in the least if industrialization had an impact on global weather patterns. In chaotic system even the tiniest perturbation can trigger massive macroscopical changes.

However, I'm not quite convinced yet about us having any significant impact either for two reasons. Namely, I haven't studied the papers so I can't possibly know if there are any systematic errors, and I see too much bullshit going on in the media to not be heavily sceptical. I do lean towards human emissions of CO2 causing changes in climate, mostly because I've worked with people who study precisely that, but even if that turned out true I wouldn't be all that worried about it. Capitalism will come to the rescue and figure out a way to keep us nice and cozy regardless of weather conditions. With nuclear fusion pretty much around the corner energy won't be a concern and with that sorted out the overall state of the planet should be irrelevant. Things might change drastically (e.g. underground, on- and/or underwater or shielded off cities with indoor farming), but I don't see humans disappearing unless we nuke ourselves to hell or get wiped out by some rogue asteroid.

We were burning forests way before we burned coal and oil. In fact, any living creature affects the weather. I understand that at least one american state has legislation regarding cow farts.

But more importantly, co2 is not a pollutant. On the contrary, it's plant food. Which is food for everything else. The more co2, the more oxygen, the more life. It might just be a good thing.

I don't deny the possibility of that, since it would make sense. But our ecosystem is way more complex and has more knobs and dials that interact with each other than just CO2 and oxygen.

I'm not sure how familiar you are with population models, but there could very well be a point beyond which everything tips and triggers a reaction in the opposite direction.
E.g. more CO2 = more life, then at some point there's too much CO2 = less life, be it due to primary (an upper limit on how much can be held or used) or due to side effects (effects of increased CO2 on other parts of the ecosystem) of the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere.
Humans can easily die from drinking too much water at once, so "more oxygen" might not be an unequivocally good thing either (too much of it would eventually increase the pressure which can be fatal even without any other effects on the ecosystem).

You would have to explain how the proposed hypothesis works.

For starters, there isn't enough physical space available to sustain an infinite expansion of trees and whatnot, so eventually there would be surplus of CO2 that could not be turned into further oxygen. And too much CO2 is harmful to humans and animals.
If that was not the case however, and oxygen increased indefinitely, pressure would increase, again due to spatial limitations. That would increase the partial pressure of oxygen, which can lead to oxygen poisoning and by extension to death.

Of course there's still fucktons of space to go around on earth, but there's definitely a limit beyond which things could turn bad very quickly. And that's just the most apparent potential consequences that too much CO2 or O2 could have. Regardless of whether or not these are accurate and what the quantitative thresholds would look like, there are a lot more intricate effects to take into account in a dynamic system that is as closely interlinked as life on earth.

[Biodom]

too simplistic.

The truth is always simple.

And the truth is that lefties are liars.

If you don't have anything factual, that can be communicated in three sentences or less, that can be checked by anyone with access to google within 30 seconds, it doesn't matter.

you get no argument from me re CO2 level. It might be irrelevant, and most likely is.
However, the rest of my post shows that we DID change this planet already.
This is not a political statement-it is a fact.

[explorer]

I'd be quite happy with lower temperatures. Winter is more enjoyable with proper powder snow, and summer wouldn't make me stay inside 24/7 if it didn't cause me to sweat all fucking day.

On that note, I've read about an upcoming mini ice age a few times. Is there any recent update on that that confirms or rejects it?

Vast question.

- climate is whether over 30 years. So it's too soon to tell.
- There was a global warming during the last 100 years of about 0.1°C/10years
- No more warming since 1998, once you remove El Nino/LaNina effects (which cancel each other in time)
- Sun is probably having a period of low activity, that doesn't change much the energy it sends to us, but less activity (= less spots) means less magnetic field, means more cosmic rays reaching our atmosphere, meaning more seeded clouds, thus more albedo and then cold coming in... but this is still a theory
- look here for the latest temps : https://moyhu.blogspot.fr/p/latest-ice-and-temperature-data.html#NCAR
- best site ever for these questions : https://wattsupwiththat.com/

- last but not least : cold kills; warm weather makes our life easier.

Keeping in mind of course that things like math is still a theory. Hypothesis may be a better term.

Also also keeping in mind that it's the left that are going on about the weather.

All of science and anything empirical is ultimately a hypothesis. No amount confirmations (that turns things into theories and laws in academia) can guarantee with certainty that we've figured something out, rather than just witnessing an infinitely unlikely event.

Nonetheless, I wouldn't be surprised in the least if industrialization had an impact on global weather patterns. In chaotic system even the tiniest perturbation can trigger massive macroscopical changes.

However, I'm not quite convinced yet about us having any significant impact either for two reasons. Namely, I haven't studied the papers so I can't possibly know if there are any systematic errors, and I see too much bullshit going on in the media to not be heavily sceptical. I do lean towards human emissions of CO2 causing changes in climate, mostly because I've worked with people who study precisely that, but even if that turned out true I wouldn't be all that worried about it. Capitalism will come to the rescue and figure out a way to keep us nice and cozy regardless of weather conditions. With nuclear fusion pretty much around the corner energy won't be a concern and with that sorted out the overall state of the planet should be irrelevant. Things might change drastically (e.g. underground, on- and/or underwater or shielded off cities with indoor farming), but I don't see humans disappearing unless we nuke ourselves to hell or get wiped out by some rogue asteroid.

We were burning forests way before we burned coal and oil. In fact, any living creature affects the weather. I understand that at least one american state has legislation regarding cow farts.

But more importantly, co2 is not a pollutant. On the contrary, it's plant food. Which is food for everything else. The more co2, the more oxygen, the more life. It might just be a good thing.

I don't deny the possibility of that, since it would make sense. But our ecosystem is way more complex and has more knobs and dials that interact with each other than just CO2 and oxygen.

I'm not sure how familiar you are with population models, but there could very well be a point beyond which everything tips and triggers a reaction in the opposite direction.
E.g. more CO2 = more life, then at some point there's too much CO2 = less life, be it due to primary (an upper limit on how much can be held or used) or due to side effects (effects of increased CO2 on other parts of the ecosystem) of the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere.
Humans can easily die from drinking too much water at once, so "more oxygen" might not be an unequivocally good thing either (too much of it would eventually increase the pressure which can be fatal even without any other effects on the ecosystem).

Since we're just coming off a low that was in the danger zone for most plant life,  and we're order of magnitude +  from anywhere even approaching cyclical highs, let alone human danger...  Just more tax grab government propaganda. 

[BTCMILLIONAIRE]

too simplistic.

The truth is always simple.

And the truth is that lefties are liars.

If you don't have anything factual, that can be communicated in three sentences or less, that can be checked by anyone with access to google within 30 seconds, it doesn't matter.

Life isn't as simple as checking Google, which you surely understand to be heavily biased for political reasons to begin with. I literally left academia because it wasn't rigorous enough due to the ways that it's funded, and I'm not even talking about the joke that is the social sciences.

[cAPSLOCK]

What kind of asshole doesn’t want to see us above $11,000 per bitcoin?

Someone wanting to retire..

https://media3.giphy.com/media/ANbD1CCdA3iI8/200.gif

Dudes. DUDES. 'Hol up there. I promise you I'm HODLing for at least $12k...

Stop saying that!  Every time you say that it tanks!

Fine. Fuck you man. Shit's gonna drop below $10k in the next 24 hours.

Are you happy now ?!

Umm... Well...

[flynn]

Plus more than 95% of c02 comes from natural sources not human influence. "Climate change" is bullshit. It's just cyclical and perfectly normal variance.

I also see the argument regarding CO2 level as too simplistic.
Maybe there is no climate change.
However, one thing is difficult to argue with: human population affects on environment.
This is discussed less, because the remedies are unknowable.

Specifically, humans may be causing the sixths extinction event in planet's history.
For those who would argue that it is "natural"-no it isn't because it is happening too fast-within 100-150 years, not millions of years.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jun/19/humans-creating-sixth-great-extinction-of-animal-species-say-scientists

Under a “natural” rate of extinction, the study said that two species go extinct per 10,000 species per 100 years, rather than the one species that previous work has assumed.

Modern rates of extinction were eight to 100 times higher , the authors found. For example, 477 vertebrates have gone extinct since 1900, rather than the nine that would be expected at natural rates.

Unfortunately, the way it may develop would be either for us to go non-biological and, hence, have little imprint on life OR natural habitats would become so stressed that extremely effective life forms would arise and finish us off one way or another.

(snip)

I'll just drop this here (it's one among 1000's) =>

https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2016/02/is_there_really_a_sixth_great_extinction_maybe_not.html

[BTCMILLIONAIRE]

too simplistic.

The truth is always simple.

And the truth is that lefties are liars.

If you don't have anything factual, that can be communicated in three sentences or less, that can be checked by anyone with access to google within 30 seconds, it doesn't matter.

you get no argument from me re CO2 level. It might be irrelevant, and most likely is.
However, the rest of my post shows that we DID change this planet already.
This is not a political statement-it is a fact.

This is pretty much my position on the matter. It sucks that politics literally ruins any objective discourse on such issues. Science shouldn't be a matter of politics or government, but unfortunately increasingly is, and getting anything funded that doesn't further some moneygrabbing agenda is virtually impossible these days. Nonetheless, there is no denying that we're fucking over wildlife.

[flynn]

too simplistic.

The truth is always simple.

And the truth is that lefties are liars.

If you don't have anything factual, that can be communicated in three sentences or less, that can be checked by anyone with access to google within 30 seconds, it doesn't matter.

you get no argument from me re CO2 level. It might be irrelevant, and most likely is.
However, the rest of my post shows that we DID change this planet already.
This is not a political statement-it is a fact.

And this is another way of seeing it :

It's the purpose of mankind to dig the earth to recover all the carbon that the plants hid down there. Without us, CO2 would go below 150ppm and all life would disappear from the surface of the EArth.
 

[bitcoinPsycho]

Fine. Fuck you man. Shit's gonna drop below $10k in the next 24 hours.
Are you happy now ?!

It's just gonna tank faster now.
I think it's bad karma to talk about Bitcoin in this thread.

You're not the boss of me, honey.

Just for that, I placed a limit sell order for $12,500.

WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT IT, HUH ?! HUH ?! COME AT ME... BRING IT !

go bob   looks like the green eye monster is rattling some people. I'm happy for you mate . respect to you and your foresight. Happy retirement  

[Biodom]

I'll just drop this here (it's one among 1000's) =>

https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2016/02/is_there_really_a_sixth_great_extinction_maybe_not.html

1. don't believe anything that call itself "real science", because it ain't.
2. The refutation is the quote from Sarah Kaplan that says that there were more species going extinct in prior events.

Duh! Prior events lasted for hundreds of thousands, even millions of years and
here we have 1% vertebrate extinction in 100 years.

1% in 100 years is a pretty big number IF it continues, but why won't it?