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

[bones261]

What is this strange color that looks like blue and yellow had a baby?

[Rosewater Foundation]

well now

So much for another leg down. Maybe I should add shutting the fuck up to my diet. It's gluten free.

[PoolMinor]

because in the end, an investment strategy of buying on the way down and selling on the way up remains a sound strategy that does not need to be changed, just continued considerations about how much to shave off of the top on the way up in order to continue to increase BTC holdings (measuring wealth in BTC holdings rather than measuring in that asset that we refer to as "value losing fiat").

Truth.

-poolminor

[Anon136]

well now

So much for another leg down. Maybe I should add shutting the fuck up to my diet. It's gluten free.

Gluten free maybe but so high in sodium. Not sure I can recommend.

[JayJuanGee]

Good memories!  

Thanks for reposting that gif.  I think that it was generated around February-ish, and sometimes the page gets stuck..... so it is good to go to the source in order that the page does not get stuck...

https://steemitimages.com/DQmPNGT2W6hkD5eEh4c7CMGEEHq2siCLSke75g11YTfEGL5/Bitcoin-Market-Cycle.gif

[jojo69]

well now

So much for another leg down. Maybe I should add shutting the fuck up to my diet. It's gluten free.

Gluten free maybe but so high in sodium. Not sure I can recommend.

guffaw

[jbreher]

Haha. D^4, you have all the arguing skills of a precocious seven year old.

kampai!

Straight from the Bcash handbook: accuse your opponent of what you are doing.

Nice try Jonald Fyookball.

You're laughable, D^4.

I ain't Jonald.

You have posted exactly zero evidence. Your 'rebuttals' amount to nothing more than 'I said no!'.

[bones261]

well now

So much for another leg down. Maybe I should add shutting the fuck up to my diet. It's gluten free.

Gluten free maybe but so high in sodium. Not sure I can recommend.

Unfortunately, many people investing in BTC and other crytocurrencies have had to rely on a diet of this, lately


I am afraid Ramen isn't gluten free or low in sodium.

[JayJuanGee]

I will not feel right until the price is over $10k. For some reason when it is over I am calm. This low price makes me sad.  

Same here. Even if I don't have any intention to sell for years, over $10K makes me feel fine... this prices makes me depressed.

On the contrary, I feel perfectly fine right now. I actually wish it to go even lower. I am not loaded enough.

Hey mindrust, dude, likely you have been in bitcoin as long as me, since your bitcoin talk account was created around the time that I made my first bitcoin purchase in late 2013.

In other words, you have had around 4.5 years to establish a decently "loaded" bitcoin position, no?  That should be a sufficient amount of time to feel that you have established a "loaded enough" position, no?  

What be taking you so long?   Can't we go up, yet?  

The whole bitcoin community should not be waiting for you to get sufficiently on board, correct?  

If so, why?

[gembitz]

well now

So much for another leg down. Maybe I should add shutting the fuck up to my diet. It's gluten free.

Gluten free maybe but so high in sodium. Not sure I can recommend.

Unfortunately, many people investing in BTC and other crytocurrencies have had to rely on a diet of this, lately


I am afraid Ramen isn't gluten free or low in sodium.

 

nomnomnommm

[JayJuanGee]

Well this guy's post was definitely correct.  He somehow prophesied the coming of JayJuanGee:

We are currently in the tard stage of Bitcoin and will likely remain there for many more years.

Looks like xDan doesn't really know too much about the bitcoin subject matter, and like you he may be one of those supposedly PM fixated nuttards, who seems to have sold his/her/its BTC too soon - in the sub $500 price arena... at some point, it would seem that nuttards like you would realize the errors of your ways and begin to re-enter a position, but perhaps you are waiting for the supra $500k per BTC arena before you accept the situation?

Sorry for your loss...

Well, not really, perhaps BTC needs some not too smart peeps like you who are evangelizing other stupid peeps (by thinking that you know more than other smarter peeps) that keeps the BTC price down and allows smarter folks to accumulate BTC at lower prices?      

[JayJuanGee]

Once every post in here is bearish and the bulls are laughed at, then and only then can the next rally begin.

there've always been bulls and there'll always be bullish posts no matter what the price is doing. bears are more consistently laughed at no matter what even when they're totally right.

it's not despair that levels the playing field for the next rally, it's crushing boredom.

Get the fuck out of here with that "totally right" language, when it come to bitcoin nobody knows the future not even bears who happen to get it right, because as even you should recognize, no one can be totally right about the future unless that person frames such future in terms of probabilities, which by definition should cause modesty in language, rather than assertions of "totality."   

[RoomBot]

Well, thank you for the cheap coins. 2018 bottom confirmed. Up we go!

I hope you're right, although they're still super cheap.....

Buy, buy, buy!
&
#HODL

[JayJuanGee]

...The concept of fungibility goes to a kind of blacklisting of coins that cause some coins to be less spendible than others, and there is no fucking blacklisting going on through segwit or through lightning network...

To be a little more concise and make this statement clearer:

Fungibility equates to indistinguishably and nothing more, blacklisting is a method.

Blacklisting cannot be applied to anything that is fungible.

Fair enough. 

I have been largely painting this fungibility topic with broad strokes regarding what seems to be a topic that attempts to spread FUD rather than treating an actual serious bitcoin issue which fungibility currently is not such a topic, even though surely there are likely going to be attempted bitcoin fungibility attacks in the future - whether informationally or the employment of various methods, like you suggested blacklisting as one possible method that may not be easy to carry out in bitcoin if "people-empowering" tools continue to be developed and evolve.

[RoomBot]

-snipped-
Another possibility, for several of us, could be to engage in a  kind of trickery in accounting and to cash out of BTC the amount that we invested, and in that regard, we are playing with house money, which is that we do not have any costs associated with the BTC that we hold.  Personally, I don't feel any kind of compelling reason to employ such a harsh strategy or cashing out in order to "play with house money" because 1) that would be valuing my wealth in fiat rather than bitcoin, 2) there are no real fundamental threats to bitcoin, even if the price may perhaps go down to below $3k.. perhaps?  Perhaps? and 3) Even if I am playing with both principle and interest, such practice gives me way more money to "play" with and it is like borrowing from myself to continue to use such value to invest in bitcoin (remembering one important principle that it takes money to make money and the rich get richer, which happens to be applicable to myself and to other BTC hodlers, especially referring to those who have been largely invested into BTC before 2017)

The longer we hold, the greater opportunities will develop to retire with our coin, spending it directly for goods & services & not getting taxed in fiat.

[JayJuanGee]

Of course this fungibility is not an issue, until either a government or individuals begin to engage in a practice of changing value of coins based on demarcation, which is currently not an issue, but instead a speculation of an issue that could come up perhaps maybe blah blah blah.  And, also assuming that there is no way to remove history, then there is a way that coins could begin to look distinguishable from their history... but so far remains a BIG SO FUCKING WHAT?

For me, the dream of fungibility died when Ross Ulbricht went to prison.

But wait... Isn't fungibility a matter of degree rather than an absolute?  It seems to be like a moving target phenomenon in which government and anti-bitcoiners are going to want to place these kinds of restrictions on bitcoin in order to lessen its value and utility; however, developers are going to continue to create vehicles, and users are going to find ways to take advantage of tools that are provided... so in the end, who the fuck cares, if some coins that you have started with silk road, once you get a few levels removed from such.  And, maybe white washing coins will become a more prevalent practice, even through lightning network, perhaps?  Perhaps?

Scaling is a similar subject matter.  There is likely going to be a continued issue about scaling that has to continue to be adjusted for the level of use and the degree to which there are "scaling issues."

In the end, bitcoin is not likely to be broken by either fungibility issues or scaling issues because development and tricks continue to evolve while maintaining some foundational bitcoin principles (in terms of design and operation).

[El duderino_]

Phillip Nunn ----- btc hit 60k this year allways nice to read 

[JayJuanGee]

As I posted between there and here, Segwit creates three classes of Bitcoins. Each with distinctly different exposure to security vulnerabilities.  
1) Those that are completely free of any Segwit taint all the way back to their constituent coinbase transactions;
2) Those that are not currently output from a Segwit transaction, but have Segwit taint between here and their constituent coinbase transactions; and
3) Those that are the output of a Segwit transaction.

now trying to pervert the concept of fungibility.

Just because a coin is being used in a specific way that does not make such coin more or less fungible than if such coin is used in another way.

Geeze, JJG - you need to look up the definition of 'fungible'.

Geez jbreher... I see no reason for me to look up anything related to fungibility.  You are trying to make some kind of assertion that lack of fungibility is an issue, and seems that you are just making shit up.

Absolutely false. I am merely saying that Segwit creates a triple-classed asset. And that this is by definition a lack of fungibility. You said that I am "now trying to pervert the concept of fungibility". You were 100% wrong. Own it.

I don't give a ratt's ass about what I said or did not say regarding your attempt to bring up some topic to get into the weeds of nonsense.

Look at the BIG PICTURE jbreher, and the BIG PICTURE remains that you are trolling with your attempt to distract WO peeps with your tangential speculations about some issues that are .1% important, while you are exaggerating the importance.

Even if I may have used strong language in your direction, stop getting caught up in these kinds of technicalities in order to attempt to keep your stupid-ass FUD spreading topic relevant, when it barely is relevant to anything in Bitcoin.  You are doing the same thing as a lot of historical trolls have done by attempting to exaggerate the importance of a topic to make it seem way more likely to happen than it is, with little to no evidence and attempting to shift the burden onto other people to rebutt your ongoing spewing of nonsensical points.

That is definitively a lack of fungibility. A lack of fungibility is in no way limited to some sort of centralized blacklisting.

O.k.  Fungibility issues would exist if some coins were easier to spend then others or if I could not get my coins sent because of some issue with them being tainted in some kind of way.  Again, where is the evidence of this seemingly fabricated issue  (and if it is not completely fabricated it is surely greatly exaggerated)?

The evidence is already given. Segwit creates a triple-classed asset. And that this is by definition a lack of fungibility.

O.k.. so fucking what if you are correct on the theoretical issue, when such framing has little to no real world practice.

Sure some BIG BLOCKER nutjobs are going to continue to exaggerate negative speculation, like you seem to be doing, and to spread disinformation about supposed catastrophes of lightning network in order to pump their stupid-ass and largely non-substantiated negative talking points.

If you want to argue the facts of the matter, step up. I made some assertions of fact.

Assertions of facts do not make facts,

true

if you don't show evidence.

but I did.

Are you asserting that such topical pursuit is not getting caught up in the weeds of bullshit, and there is some kind of importance in meandering down such rabbit hole in which you would like to direct me and the rest of this thread's participants?  Where we going with the nonsense talk?  Is there some kind of widespread practice or a building non-fungibility related practice in bitcoin in which we need to pay attention?  besides you quoting from a few WO posters who said that it seems that they had mispoken or that they were worried about segwit "in the beginning"?

Pony up some counter-arguments. If what I said is 'disinformation', then it should be a simple matter for you to put forth proof that they are false.

I have no burden to put forth facts to rebut your bare assertions, because I have not seen anything rising to the level of meaningful facts (beyond assertions about what could happen ... not something that is actually happening)

Facts about what could happen. Exactly.

Seems like speculation about a phenomena that is .1% likely to happen and you are attempting to treat such speculation as if it has greater than 50% odds, no?  

Why isn't your conduct here considered just FUD spreading and trolling?  

How is it that you want WO peeps to treat you seriously and with credibility, jbreher, when you seem to take nearly every opportunity to exaggerate negative aspects of bitcoin with highly unlikely theories?  You seem to be taking a similar tactic to stolfi, except stolfi left this WO thread a few years ago because apparently he found more hospitable grounds to spew his ongoing nonsensical "making a mound out of a mole hill" bitcoin bear theories.

Not only are you missing something, you are conflating two distinctly different discussions within a single thread.

Flail away, JJG - flail away.

Label my actions "flailing," if you will, but it seems to me that I might be too charitable in giving too much attention to your nonsense, which (like a typical troll) you merely look for little hooks here and there, rather than really attempting to treat significant and meaningful bitcoin WO topics.

[mindrust]

I will not feel right until the price is over $10k. For some reason when it is over I am calm. This low price makes me sad.  

Same here. Even if I don't have any intention to sell for years, over $10K makes me feel fine... this prices makes me depressed.

On the contrary, I feel perfectly fine right now. I actually wish it to go even lower. I am not loaded enough.

Hey mindrust, dude, likely you have been in bitcoin as long as me, since your bitcoin talk account was created around the time that I made my first bitcoin purchase in late 2013.

In other words, you have had around 4.5 years to establish a decently "loaded" bitcoin position, no?  That should be a sufficient amount of time to feel that you have established a "loaded enough" position, no?  

What be taking you so long?   Can't we go up, yet?  

The whole bitcoin community should not be waiting for you to get sufficiently on board, correct?  

If so, why?

Fuck no. I started holding in late 2016 with a too little amount. Then in late 2017 that little amount became a mid sized treasure.

I used to invest %5-10 of my montly income till february or smth. Apparently, I needed much more than that. So please wait some more

Why haven't I bought at least 20 when it was sub 1000? I guess I bought the FUD from the guys like fucking roach.

Or maybe It was the post-Gox trauma... in 2015 many people thought that btc was going to "0". The amount of FUD was overwhelming back then. I was weak and in this world weak people dieeeeeee becuz evolution/adaptation.

[Hueristic]

Curious, are dollars (USD) fungible? Are physical dollar bills and dollars which only exist in a bank ledger separate asset classes? What about dollar bills that have been marked in some way?

By definition no, but in practice sort of.

Fair enough.  

I have been largely painting this fungibility topic with broad strokes regarding what seems to be a topic that attempts to spread FUD rather than treating an actual serious bitcoin issue which fungibility currently is not such a topic, even though surely there are likely going to be attempted bitcoin fungibility attacks in the future - whether informationally or the employment of various methods, like you suggested blacklisting as one possible method that may not be easy to carry out in bitcoin if "people-empowering" tools continue to be developed and evolve.

Unfortunately my faith in that area is that it will be tested and I hope those tools you speak of materialize. Right now it's kind of ironic that non fungible coins are similar to fiat by being sort of. But I don't see how not being fungible can destroy any coin it just has a different utility.