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

[Ipwich]

One Question

when 5-digits

Would be very happy if we will see that 5 digit before the 1st half of the year ends.
Imagine if bitcoin will hit $10,000 by June, there will be bigger FOMO In the 2nd half of the year and we will see a new ATH this year.

[toknormal]

If you throw in a century of economic growth then 9 digits could be plausible as well as follows:

Suppose Bitcoin absorbs 10% of M2 and the M2 growth rate of roughly 4% persists for a century.

That would imply 1.04^100 = 50.5x growth over 100 years.

That would bring the 10% estimate from 3m per Bitcoin to 151.5m per Bitcoin 100 years from now.

These kind of valuations are highly flawed. If bitcoin ever absorbed even a fraction of "M2" growth it would be largely as a pure unit of account, not a store of value. In other words you'd (by definition of M2) be talking about BTC denominated bank deposit accounts and money market funds and all kinds of other fractional reserve derivatives.

Use of bitcoin as a unit of account is something hodlers tend to ignore. If bitcoin ever became a currency we would not be exchanging actual bitcoins, but bitcoin denominated credit just as we use arbitrary units of credit today. So you can't just divide random incumbent money supply figures by 21 million to get a price for a future BTC. Since it's limited in supply it's an asset and will always be an asset.

If you denominate, say, UK GDP in bitcoin then it's around 0.3 Trillion BTC. The GDP can be 0.3 Trillion BTC even though there are not that many bitcoins in existence.

[Last of the V8s]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZKrQwNAhEU I will not part with a single coin

[Biodom]

If you throw in a century of economic growth then 9 digits could be plausible as well as follows:

Suppose Bitcoin absorbs 10% of M2 and the M2 growth rate of roughly 4% persists for a century.

That would imply 1.04^100 = 50.5x growth over 100 years.

That would bring the 10% estimate from 3m per Bitcoin to 151.5m per Bitcoin 100 years from now.

These kind of valuations are highly flawed. If bitcoin ever absorbed even a fraction of "M2" growth it would be largely as a pure unit of account, not a store of value. In other words you'd (by definition of M2) be talking about BTC denominated bank deposit accounts and money market funds and all kinds of other fractional reserve derivatives.

Use of bitcoin as a unit of account is something hodlers tend to ignore. If bitcoin ever became a currency we would not be exchanging actual bitcoins, but bitcoin denominated credit just as we use arbitrary units of credit today. So you can't just divide random incumbent money supply figures by 21 million to get a price for a future BTC. Since it's limited in supply it's an asset and will always be an asset.

If you denominate, say, UK GDP in bitcoin then it's around 0.3 Trillion BTC. The GDP can be 0.3 Trillion BTC even though there are not that many bitcoins in existence.

Maybe flawed, but only partially. If bonds are issued, then this is not a unit of account, but an actual asset that contributes to the overall size of assets, is it not?
Bond market in US is 82tril, global-above 100 tril.
I can redeem a bond and get currency/cash.

Analogy: water in the lake is still a part of water present on planet earth.

[BTCMILLIONAIRE]

If you throw in a century of economic growth then 9 digits could be plausible as well as follows:

Suppose Bitcoin absorbs 10% of M2 and the M2 growth rate of roughly 4% persists for a century.

That would imply 1.04^100 = 50.5x growth over 100 years.

That would bring the 10% estimate from 3m per Bitcoin to 151.5m per Bitcoin 100 years from now.

These kind of valuations are highly flawed. If bitcoin ever absorbed even a fraction of "M2" growth it would be largely as a pure unit of account, not a store of value. In other words you'd (by definition of M2) be talking about BTC denominated bank deposit accounts and money market funds and all kinds of other fractional reserve derivatives.

Use of bitcoin as a unit of account is something hodlers tend to ignore. If bitcoin ever became a currency we would not be exchanging actual bitcoins, but bitcoin denominated credit just as we use arbitrary units of credit today. So you can't just divide random incumbent money supply figures by 21 million to get a price for a future BTC. Since it's limited in supply it's an asset and will always be an asset.

If you denominate, say, UK GDP in bitcoin then it's around 0.3 Trillion BTC. The GDP can be 0.3 Trillion BTC even though there are not that many bitcoins in existence.

While true that we could denominate any number of metrics in tons of copper without those tons of copper physically existing, that point does not exactly apply to the definition of M2 (cash and liquid assets).

And yes, you certainly can use M2 in such a manner to estimate future Bitcoin prices based on different events (such as Bitcoin becoming the main used global currency, which is quite likely at this point because nobody wants to convert from one fiat to another, even implicitly without knowing, while shopping online with Paypal and losing money to exchange rates).

While precise estimates would require a more in depth analysis, the principle holds due the definition of M2 (for the M1 part) and the velocity of money models (for the M2\M1 = liquid assets) part of the definition.

[makrospex]

finally calmingly correcting... 7800... how low will we go?

[El duderino_]

Wasn’t Asia gonna buy and fomo

Meh

Into HODLsleep and see you brothers of the Wall tomorrow

Have a good holiday/trip @LFC

Cheers on these Nice moments

[toknormal]

If you throw in a century of economic growth then 9 digits could be plausible as well as follows:

Suppose Bitcoin absorbs 10% of M2 and the M2 growth rate of roughly 4% persists for a century.

That would imply 1.04^100 = 50.5x growth over 100 years.

That would bring the 10% estimate from 3m per Bitcoin to 151.5m per Bitcoin 100 years from now.

These kind of valuations are highly flawed. If bitcoin ever absorbed even a fraction of "M2" growth it would be largely as a pure unit of account, not a store of value. In other words you'd (by definition of M2) be talking about BTC denominated bank deposit accounts and money market funds and all kinds of other fractional reserve derivatives.

Use of bitcoin as a unit of account is something hodlers tend to ignore. If bitcoin ever became a currency we would not be exchanging actual bitcoins, but bitcoin denominated credit just as we use arbitrary units of credit today. So you can't just divide random incumbent money supply figures by 21 million to get a price for a future BTC. Since it's limited in supply it's an asset and will always be an asset.

If you denominate, say, UK GDP in bitcoin then it's around 0.3 Trillion BTC. The GDP can be 0.3 Trillion BTC even though there are not that many bitcoins in existence.

Maybe flawed, but only partially. If bonds are issued, then this is not a unit of account, but an actual asset that contributes to the overall size of assets, is it not?
Bond market in US is 82tril, global-above 100 tril.
I can redeem a bond and get currency/cash.

Analogy: water in the lake is still a part of water present on planet earth.

In theory it works like that but in practice it doesn't. Even in the Bretton Woods system there was a "notional" convertibility to gold. But there was still far more currency in circulation than there was gold in existence. The value of gold was simply pegged to a multiple of the dollar ($30 I think).

Lets say you had 1 bitcoin and you issued a bitcoin backed bond. You now have 2 effective bitcoins in circulation - the real one and the bond. The original doesn't cease to exist just because it's backing a bond. Similarly, crypto exchanges inflate the bitcoin money supply. We deposit our bitcoin on exchanges and they create these "synthetic" bitcoins for us to trade. Meanwhile the deposited BTC are still in circulation on the blockchain.

People tend to think that they're "locked away" and out of circulation, but they're not. The new synthetic ones are added to the supply. The exchange can do what they want with the deposits - it just depends on the contractural terms.

So the "21 million" limit is not really a limit. The bitcoin supply can be expanded in an unlimited way and will be simply through its use as a pure unit of account, same as any other asset.

[El duderino_]

Binance hacker is up $16m this week... 🙊

https://twitter.com/cryptobull/status/1128057363305574401?s=21

BTC can go fast

[Last of the V8s]

https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docIndex=OZtY7cWdyYOIMCgP0rt0rQ==

https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docIndex=0vDWeudHv5dtaRitYbx2gA==
https://twitter.com/IamNomad/status/1128073552547258368

literally timed to the minute

edit: https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/DocumentList?docketId=npvulMdOYzFDYIAomW_PLUS_elw==&display=all&courtType=New%20York%20County%20Supreme%20Court&resultsPageNum=1

4 new docs in total, but nothingburger

[El duderino_]

WoW what a DIP

Into sleep immidiatly !!!

[toknormal]

That was some dump.

[rafanadal]

nooooo

[rafanadal]

i was having a good day

fuuuck

[Ipwich]

That was some dump.

Yeah, I saw that, but we will be back soon, that was a healthy dump.

Another big dump will result to even high big pump.

[Biodom]

If you throw in a century of economic growth then 9 digits could be plausible as well as follows:

Suppose Bitcoin absorbs 10% of M2 and the M2 growth rate of roughly 4% persists for a century.

That would imply 1.04^100 = 50.5x growth over 100 years.

That would bring the 10% estimate from 3m per Bitcoin to 151.5m per Bitcoin 100 years from now.

These kind of valuations are highly flawed. If bitcoin ever absorbed even a fraction of "M2" growth it would be largely as a pure unit of account, not a store of value. In other words you'd (by definition of M2) be talking about BTC denominated bank deposit accounts and money market funds and all kinds of other fractional reserve derivatives.

Use of bitcoin as a unit of account is something hodlers tend to ignore. If bitcoin ever became a currency we would not be exchanging actual bitcoins, but bitcoin denominated credit just as we use arbitrary units of credit today. So you can't just divide random incumbent money supply figures by 21 million to get a price for a future BTC. Since it's limited in supply it's an asset and will always be an asset.

If you denominate, say, UK GDP in bitcoin then it's around 0.3 Trillion BTC. The GDP can be 0.3 Trillion BTC even though there are not that many bitcoins in existence.

Maybe flawed, but only partially. If bonds are issued, then this is not a unit of account, but an actual asset that contributes to the overall size of assets, is it not?
Bond market in US is 82tril, global-above 100 tril.
I can redeem a bond and get currency/cash.

Analogy: water in the lake is still a part of water present on planet earth.

In theory it works like that but in practice it doesn't. Even in the Bretton Woods system there was a "notional" convertibility to gold. But there was still far more currency in circulation than there was gold in existence. The value of gold was simply pegged to a multiple of the dollar ($30 I think).

Lets say you had 1 bitcoin and you issued a bitcoin backed bond. You now have 2 effective bitcoins in circulation - the real one and the bond. The original doesn't cease to exist just because it's backing a bond. Similarly, crypto exchanges inflate the bitcoin money supply. We deposit our bitcoin on exchanges and they create these "synthetic" bitcoins for us to trade. Meanwhile the deposited BTC are still in circulation on the blockchain.

People tend to think that they're "locked away" and out of circulation, but they're not. The new synthetic ones are added to the supply. The exchange can do what they want with the deposits - it just depends on the contractural terms.

So the "21 million" limit is not really a limit. The bitcoin supply can be expanded in an unlimited way and will be simply through its use as a pure unit of account, same as any other asset.

I actually agree with this reasoning...and this happening eventually.
I would think, however, that such derivative bitcoins would be limited in number (maybe 3-10 times more, but not 100-1000 times more).
Maybe they would not even be called bitcoins, but something else.
Beforehand, btc rose rapidly upon learning about upcoming futures on CBOE/CME, then declined.
A similar scenario might be unfolding here: a rapid rise into BAKKT (in July), then some retreat, a temporal one, perhaps.

[Gyrsur]

[toknormal]

I would think, however, that such derivative bitcoins would be limited in number (maybe 3-10 times more, but not 100-1000 times more).

Have a look at the BTC trading volume on coinmarketcap and compare it with the blockchain movements for the day. You might get a fright. BTC denominated off-chain trades in derivative bitcoin will probably outnumber actual BTC by hundreds of thousands if not millions.

[Lambie Slayer]

I thought we outlawed dips. What is this sorcery? 

[Last of the V8s]

https://steemit.com/trading/@anonymint/re-anonymint-most-important-bitcoin-chart-ever-20190511t061008384z