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

[JayJuanGee]

bitcoin will be strangled in the same way as the 500 Euro banknote for the same reason

That is some pretty BIG ASS speculation (in other words, likely an unsubstantiated FUD spreading attempt).

How is such supposed "strangling" of BTC going to take place?  Who is going to do it?  Presumably banks and governments.  Is it going to be a collaborative effort?  Are there going to be Streisand Effect risks? If so, how to avoid such Streisand Effect risks?

[AlcoHoDL]

no xhomerx10 for sure..and #nohomo...but haberdashery continues..couldnt help myself



#stronghands

That, sir, is a work of art, and a piece of WO history!

I'm sure BobLawblaw (and xhomerx10) will approve.

#nohomo

[JayJuanGee]

1 US dollar is currently worth 9114 sats

https://usdsat.com/

Here we go $1=1Satoshi

$1 = 1000Satoshi would be good enough  

Why prolong the agony?

$1 = 1Sat would make bitcoin the world reserve currency & some bitcoin’ers would be the richest people in the world?

I’d love it to happen as I’d be rich AF too but it’s unlikely in our lifetime imo.

$1 per satoshi would be $100million per bitcoin, and that does seem a bit out of reach, even on a 50 year timeline... but surely not impossible.

Even $.01 per satoshi seems a bit difficult to achieve within our lifetime(s), and that would be $1 million per bitcoin, but surely many of us recognize scenarios in which such $1million per BTC could be reached in one or two more BTC halvening cycles, which surely would be reachable.. and I suppose, if we were to reach $.01 per satoshi, then the $1 per satoshi would not seem to far out of reach.. and maybe another two or three halvening cycles after reaching $.01 per satoshi might start to seem as if it may be in reach.

I suppose that we have to cross one bridge at a time and even walk before we run, even while a lot of these crazy-ass scenarios seem a bit out of reach, just like $10k per BTC seemed like quite a bit of pie in the sky in June 2011, when Astro was writing about $10k per BTC in the "this is gentlemen" thread.

But did you see me tighten the loose O?

~ jb opens his war chest, looking for the nuke ~

Those of us who have been around here for long enuff appreciate the underlying reality that jbreher, dee picnic bear, no doesn't have it.   

He's a faker.   

[cAPSLOCK]

if the stock market falls before 2010, then bitcoin will also fall to 2010 prices 

Luckily we have a while before it's 2010 again.

But why did I unmute your idiotic ass???

[BobLawblaw]

That, sir, is a work of art, and a piece of WO history!
I'm sure BobLawblaw (and xhomerx10) will approve.

I'm not proud of getting as angry as I did. Justified, but still... was exhausting and an emotional drain.

I'm not about rusty pipes and sodomy lately. That's "Super Angry Bob". I don't like him very much. Good thing it takes a lot to set him off...

Peace, harmony, love, etc.

Except that Toxic2040 dude. Still mighty pissed off at his chest-puffery over "Fight Club" drama.

[nullius]

**LOTTA CAPSTYPINGS***
Happy Saturday!

Just to be clear, you seem to be stating that a future where transaction fees being $100, $1000 or even more per on-chain tx is a distinct possibility?

That as a possibility is implicit in my thoughts, I'd say, yes.

Well, which of those orders of magnitude do you think is a possibility?  $100?  $1000?  Unbounded “even more”?  And what are the implications?

What you are missing in this discussion is a sense of proportion of future feerates—and of the real-world practical implications of what various persons are saying.  Don’t get caught up in the minutae:  Look at the big picture.

rolling explicitly alleged that in the future, ordinary people will be completely priced out of on-chain transactions.  That is bog standard bigblocker nonsense, except with the twist that rolling relishes his fantasy of the blockchain being only the for the “big boys”.  Quote-unquote.  His words.

On-chain will be for the big boys.

jbreher probably agrees with rolling, except for the relished fantasy part.  Of course, his solution will be to increase the blocksize to the point that ordinary people cannot run nodes.  He is on record as alleging that non-mining validators are useless, anyway.

For example; boldface is his:

You are delusional. I have demonstrated over and over again that the count of non-mining validators is a powerless metric in regards to Bitcoin consensus.

[...]

A count of non-mining validators has fuck-all to do with a measure of the economic majority.

Thus arises a false dichotomy and thereupon, false synthesis:

• Thesis, rolling, explicit and admitted:  Only “big boys” will be able to pay fees to transact on-chain.
• Antithesis, jbreher, implicit and evaded:  Only “big boys” will be able to run nodes.
• Synthesis:  Bitcoin under total control.  Big banker sigh of relief.

For my part, I think that most transactions will and should be off-chain.  It is ridiculously inefficient and horrible for privacy to keep a permanent record of every financial transaction in the world replicated on every node.  From a technical standpoint, the POW Nakamoto Consensus blockchain is actually the worst database ever invented—except if you need Byzantine fault-tolerant distributed consensus in a hostile network environment, with no central authority.  It should be used thus as a global synchronizer and enforcer for trustless, permissionless off-chain protocols.

An absolute prerequisite for that last:  On-chain transactions must remain accessible to ordinary people.  They may become moderately expensive, but not prohibitively expensive as rolling has proclaimed.  rolling sees the blockchain as a bank and billionaire settlement layer, not a “Be Your Own Bank” settlement layer.

A frequently made analogy, which I think is apt, is that the blockchain of the future will be the “wire transfer” mechanism for Your Own Bank.


This needs to be highlighted:

My argument is people are idiots and the few who aren't will be priced out of the market by high fees.

Your argument is pie in the sky nonsense in regards to a fear of a future of bitcoin evolving in a way that squeezes out the little guy...

You have hardly any evidence of that beyond pure speculation, and why the fuck do you believe that bitcoin had adopted segregated witness rather than increasing the block limit size?  That is in order that little normie people can run nodes.. .Have you heard about that kind of inclusiveness phenomena that puts power of the chain in the hands of the people through consensus mechanisms?

Speaking as someone who has painful real-world experience running Bitcoin on ancient, underpowered hardware, thank you.

I was thinking it, but you said it.

Anybody who does not understand this should try, just try running Bitcoin and syncing mainnet on old and/or very cheap hardware.  You will soon wish for smaller blocks.  If you have a bit of vision, thereupon contemplate network effects and the resistance to centralization brought by keeping full nodes within the reach of people who are not rich.

[JayJuanGee]

1 US dollar is currently worth 9114 sats

https://usdsat.com/

Here we go $1=1Satoshi

$1 = 1000Satoshi would be good enough  

Why prolong the agony?

$1 = 1Sat would make bitcoin the world reserve currency & some bitcoin’ers would be the richest people in the world?

I’d love it to happen as I’d be rich AF too but it’s unlikely in our lifetime imo.

I'm with you in this, but...

"Hal Finney" Sun, 11 Jan 2009

As an amusing thought experiment, imagine that Bitcoin is successful and
becomes the dominant payment system in use throughout the world.  Then the
total value of the currency should be equal to the total value of all
the wealth in the world. Current estimates of total worldwide household
wealth that I have found range from $100 trillion to $300 trillion. With
20 million coins, that gives each coin a value of about $10 million.

https://www.mail-archive.com/cryptography@metzdowd.com/msg10152.html

Don't rule out any pricing option, look what they were talking about in 2009.

(I must be sick, the less BTC I have, the more bull I feel)

I must recognize that you largely are saying the same thing as me, in my above post from 20 minutes ago, but of course, you said it first, 9.5 hours ago.

By the way, VB1001.... what is going on with your finances?  You have not figured out some way to buy back some sats?  aka stack some sats.

I do appreciate that sometimes, some of us, have circumstances (negative cashflow situations) in which we are not able to save/invest... surely, that would be frustrating.

You have seen the $1 per day thread?   Of course, I speculate that you adequately understand the concepts of DCA.. and doing what you can in terms of investing into BTC and attempting to live within your means to be able to accomplish sat stacking investing... so maybe my post here is just meant to help highlight these kinds of points for any like-situated peeps who might be reading this thread.

[Cryptotourist]

Except that Toxic2040 dude. Still mighty pissed off at his chest-puffery over "Fight Club" drama.

Come on Bob, do yourself a favor and let it go.
I'm sure he meant well. It doesn't seem fair to have excused the others, and still hold a grudge with him.
I have no clue about the incident of course, nor want to, but fuck this.

If you really want to blame someone, blame that dickhead alevlaslo - and the fact that all the rusty pipes of the world cannot help him.


PS: I find Toxic's version of your hat amazing. Some might think it's his way of apologizing.

[DaRude]

Apple's market cap is down around 20% from ATH a month ago to $1,8 trillion. If bitcoin had the same market cap as that one company, each BTC would need be worth $100k, doesn't sound that crazy now.

[jbreher]

EDIT: an interesting "thought" experiment would be to launch a few thou (or more) btc with the private code protected by a strong encryption (or strong multisig) into Sun-Earth L2 spot. Just in case if btc losses would be catastrophic at some point in the decades ahead. If needed, future humanity can retrieve such btc.

I cannot imagine any sort of catastrophe where a sudden injection of currency units would not exacerbate the problems faced, rather than solve them.

[Biodom]

EDIT: an interesting "thought" experiment would be to launch a few thou (or more) btc with the private code protected by a strong encryption (or strong multisig) into Sun-Earth L2 spot. Just in case if btc losses would be catastrophic at some point in the decades ahead. If needed, future humanity can retrieve such btc.

I cannot imagine any sort of catastrophe where a sudden injection of currency units would not exacerbate the problems faced, rather than solve them.

We were talking about a theoretical scenario where btc available to use would decline to some ridiculous number, say, less than 1000btc.
I can see a few catastrophes that might make most btc on Earth lost, but let's not get into gruesome details.
Having a btc "reserve' in the stable orbit (L2) might be a prudent thing to do, maybe some private company would finance it eventually.
A 100-300 year fund. Have a South Dakota perpetual "dynasty" fund investing in such "stash".
After several centuries such fund beneficiaries would probably be the richest on the planet.

Honestly, having a theoretical scenario where we have just few btc left for commerce and we now have to divide them into 10^16 sub-satoshis does not sound like a good idea to me due to the risk of a sudden discovery of a stash of a number of btc that exceeed all liquid btc at the time (on the planet).
The problem is that nobody knows what % is truly lost and what is recoverable at any given time.
In any case, it is not something to be concerned about right now, perhaps.

IMHO, an opinion that says that it does not matter how much is lost cannot possibly be serious if/when numbers of such losses would be extreme.
That said, maybe it is all a false alarm and as someone posited, losses will decrease as price increase.
Intuitively, this conjecture might be true.

[JayJuanGee]

and yeah I heard you updated from your shitty van to a nicer one

Don't you be callin' Bessie 'shitty' - them's fightin' words. I drove her for twenty years, because it was the vehicle that suited me at the time.

Fair enough....

though I cannot guarantee that in the future I might not devolve into loose references that seem to be denigrating on their face, but surely I am not really meaning to denigrate your personal subjective values in that regard.

(not that you are living in it.. hahahahaha... nothing wrong with that)..

...down by the river

Another factoid I let slip a while back: At the top of the market in late 2017, I sold enough to buy My Personal Lambo^tm.  

I know about your mercedes or whatever it is.  

Perhaps we have a misunderstanding of the meaning of My Personal Lambo^tm. It is That One Purchase made whose attributes are rather ostentatious as compared to needs or requirements for an object of that class. It need not be an actual Lamborghini. Indeed, in my case, it is not any sort of vehicle.

I doubt that we need to get into specifics because I largely already understood your intended meaning in regards to "lambo".

Some of us are well into the divestment phase.  

Probably one of the first times that you mentioned that mostly "divestment phase" perspective of yourself.  

Again, not at all. From the same time frame as above: I have already stated that I have retired. Which means I need to fund my Lavish Lambo Lifestyle^tm* off my accumulated holdings. Hence, Divestment phase.

You are being a bit back and forth here... so you gotta admit that.  

OK, I will admit my role in this particular misunderstanding. Silly me for expecting that the trademark term on Lavish Lambo Lifestyle^tm would denote that the use of the term is tongue-in-cheek. Nay, other than My Personal Lambo^tm, I live pretty frugally. Always have. Which, of course, is what has allowed me to make the investments that have landed me in my current position.

I doubt that our misunderstanding is very BIG at all.

The only thing that I am suggesting (or perhaps leaning towards quibbling with) is that you are seemingly wanting to weave ideas of both frugality and opulence through your more recent posts in ambiguous ways that seem to be getting off topic in the sense of implying that your involvement in shitcoins has personally paid off.... rather than giving some proper (and likely deserved) credit to king daddy.

I had heard that you quit your regular job a couple of years ago.. so anyhow, that still would not necessarily mean that you are "well into the divestment phase" of your BTC unless you choose to start to make such divestments.  

Gotta eat. That's gotta be funded somehow.

Do we really need to get into particulars?  Any of us who have reached some more advanced age (and you are likely in such similar club as me, if not a bit more advanced) have likely built up a variety of cashflow sources, whether we draw upon them or not might be somewhat discretionary, at least in terms of which ones we might choose to draw upon.  So in that regard, there may be some earlier years in our "retirement" in which we do not feel comfortable drawing upon certain resources that we have, but then we also might not have advanced so far that we perceive our life to be approaching dusk years, in terms of any kind of need to really dip into principle (rather than largely attempting to live in a more sustainable way that is not really dipping into principle) - so  maybe in some sense, I am thinking that divestment has more of an "on balance" dipping into principle rather than sustainable aspects of our various overall investments that might still be riding without any dipping into them.

 BTC Dominance

 

Yep.

I was a bit struck too (or maybe the better word choice would be "awed"?), by the jbreher strategic placement of that unimportant metric.

'unimportant metric'
 
It's almost as if you are making my point for me.

It is possible that I misunderstood what you were saying, perhaps?   But, I doubt it because I have heard you spout out nonsense as if the BTC dominance was some kind of an important metric, including the post in which you used that BTC dominance term in your description of a supposed bitcoin blockalypse (referring to late 2017/early 2018) and a speculated upcoming blockalypse II (based on what you speculate is going to happen in bitcoin's next bullrun), that is referred to in my response that you cited here. 

[nullius]

So sue me. (I've got a pretty big war chest - you better be sure of your case).

You been taking litigation lessons from diptwats? Craig and Calvin.

Get the fuck out of here with your confrontation, nonsense.

LOL.  Bragging about a legal warchest on a cypherpunk forum founded by a Tor user who invented a new form of permissionless money.

Few affronts are as frustrating to a man as demonstrating to him the limits of his own power.

I suspect that in large part, this is why Faketoshi and his clique tend to froth at the mouth against anonymity:  Their litigious lawyers are powerless to terrorize people who cannot be located.

Mr Bear, I can’t speak for anybody else, but I have some news for my own part:  Your legal “war chest” is a contemptible joke, insofar as I am concerned.  I am above your corrupt laws, and untouchable to your corrupt courts.

[Mine] is the anarchy of the good who, being good, hold fast to honour out of pride:  For the most sincere morality is the self-glorification of the proud, whose judgments of others honour the best of what they see in themselves.  It is they who would embrace death before the self-negation of dishonour—not as a sacrifice, but as a supreme act of pure selfishness...

Free yourself first from the moral authority of the mob.  You owe nothing to mass opinion; therefore, the laws which rise on mass opinion have no proper authority over you.  You do not consent to be governed by the votes of millions of anthropoid livestock who want to be bound in chains—who eagerly embrace those chains just as long as they remain warm, fed, and adequately entertained.  You are a law unto yourself.

Wherefore “anarchy” as to the masses and their so-called “governments”, which are in truth no more than the largest, most well-armed organized criminal gangs.  Don’t reject authority:  Be your own authority.

Rankles a bit, does it not.  The rattling of blunt sabres doth not impress.

[aesma]

I didn't really get the answer about love to my bottom (which seems to be holding, BTW). If a woman is with you because of love or something else, you might never know. If you're with her because you like her or love her, that's all you can know : you're own sentiments. None of that is about qualities of someone, though, the usual dilemma is smart or beautiful, both or neither. The woman in my pic is an accomplished French actress which seems pretty smart to me, not a bimbo, so my kind of (unobtainable) woman. Dumb and beautiful can be endearing but I can't imagine that lasting long. Of course people can have qualities you can't discern like that, when you see sex symbol actors cheating on their beautiful wives with the bland nanny, there has to be a reason.

AlcoHoDL : congrats on Legendary, the path is still long for me !

[jbreher]

Preference for the BSV protocol != 'Faketoshi-apologia' (WhateverTF that might be).

My first encounter with you was in a thread focused on Craig Wright’s grand-scale identity theft, not technical issues.

“Faketoshi-apologia” == this, inter alia:

Wright’s theft of Satoshi’s identity is factually false,

For this to be true, it would require facts not yet entered into evidence. Sure, you have a mountain of circumstantial evidence, but from a logical standpoint, not conclusive.

If, tomorrow, I were to claim that Faketoshi “verified” a signature for me (!) on the same basis as his “verification” for Gavin, then that would leave only two realistic possibilities:  Either (1) I am maliciously lying with the intent to support Faketoshi in a scam, or (2) Bitcoin Core developer and technical forum moderator Andrew Chow is himself so incompetent that he said the foregoing about someone who doesn’t even know how properly to verify a digital signature.

Your set of possibilities omits a third possibility. And that would be that "faketoshi" actually did verify a signature for you. You evidently believe this to be "unrealistic". However, the very framing of the question in this manner precludes the scant -- though actually real -- possibility.

Yup. And you've also quoted me in all that need be said about that:
"For this to be true, it would require facts not yet entered into evidence. Sure, you have a mountain of circumstantial evidence, but from a logical standpoint, not conclusive."

Faketoshi-apologia? Hardly.

With just a bit of digging, I also found you on record defaming Segwit’s security with the usual nonsense.  I have sufficient technical competence to know that it is indeed nonsense.  (That is why I am happy to keep my life savings in Segwit-native coins which I cannot afford to lose, which I would not entrust to unreliable technology.)  It is not only a matter of disagreement about whether or not Segwit is a practical improvement:  You’ve said things that are factually false, which I myself know to be factually false (not just because someone else said so), and which have been debunked so many times in such excruciating detail that I cannot imagine how any intelligent person can believe them sincerely.

I must misunderstand you somehow. You seem to be saying that: should a majority of SAH256 mining power choose to revert to pre-segwit protocol, and to defend that decision by attacking any competing chain, they would be literally unable to do so. Is that your claim?

And that entire matter of starting a brigaded neg campaign against me. Not like it hurt me in any way, but that's just fucking rude.

I’ll give you this:  You are not a garden-variety BSVer, the type who either lacks intelligence or has a few loose screws (or both).  By process of elimination, that is why I called you a liar.  

Right. Then proceeded with a litany of 'examples' to 'support' your claim, in which I lie in exactly 0% thereof. You asswipe.

If Blockalypse II comes and goes without the same sort of reduction in BTC Dominance that accompanied Blockalypse I, I'll likely acquiesce. In the same sense that I have waved goodbye to the sonics of 2" 30 ips tape. But repudiate the better design? Ain't gonna happen.

jbreher, what did you mean by “sonics”?  

The subjective pleasure or displeasure -- as sensed psychoacoustically -- imparted by a particular music recording technology.

The question is actually significant here.

For those who are unfamiliar with high-fidelity audio reproduction, I should briefly explain:  There is a certain type of man who is unalterably certain of the superiority of analogue audio recording technology—stereotypically, vinyl records.  It does not matter how often you explain the Nyquist Theorem.  It does not matter if you use absurdly high-precision scientific instruments to measure audio differences far too small for humans to be capable of hearing, which invariably show that good digital equipment is hands-down superior to the quality of the best analogue device ever made.  It does not matter if you perform empirical double-blind listening tests in anechoic chambers.  And the problem is not stupidity, per se.  It is tantamount to a religion.

That's a lot of blah blah blah dancing right past what really matters. You don't need to lecture me in Nyquist's theorem. I am a degreed electrical engineer and applied mathematician. But your blanket statement of superiority conveniently shoots right past the question of 'superior at _what_, exactly? The field of music production is a corner of the field of commercial art. And art is not measured by scientific instruments. It is measured by the effect it has upon each listener's emotions.

If the above quote was intended to imply that 2" 30 ips tape has superior audio fidelity to digital, in the sense of transparent reproduction, then I have just accidentally solved the mystery of jbreher!

So sad for you that the point flew right over your head.

On the other other hand, I don’t think that anybody ever said that about 2" (!) 30 ips (!!) tape.  That seems pretty clearly aimed at maximal quality, not audible distortions.

You've obviously no experience in the production processes of popular music - where 2" 30 ips tape used to be the norm. True, it has largely been supplanted by digital production processes. But this is widely considered a production workflow efficiency driven decision. Employing 2" 30 ips analog tape for pop productions is still largely considered in professional circles as 'going the extra mile' in pursuit of improved sonics.

[philipma1957]

Apple's market cap is down around 20% from ATH a month ago to $1,8 trillion. If bitcoin had the same market cap as that one company, each BTC would need be worth $100k, doesn't sound that crazy now.

yep I see multiple hedging efforts by major money people over the next year 50k 100k 250k even 500k can happen.

[jbreher]

**LOTTA CAPSTYPINGS***
Happy Saturday!

Just to be clear, you seem to be stating that a future where transaction fees being $100, $1000 or even more per on-chain tx is a distinct possibility?

That as a possibility is implicit in my thoughts, I'd say, yes.  

OK, so here's the relevant followup question. When average tx fees are $1000, what is the typical profile of a person willing to run a non-mining validator? Let's start simple on this - how many tx per year might the average such person make?

[jbreher]

jbreher probably agrees with rolling, except for the relished fantasy part.  Of course, his solution will be to increase the blocksize to the point that ordinary people cannot run nodes.  He is on record as alleging that non-mining validators are useless [emphasis added by jbreher, as that is quite clearly NOT what I wrote], anyway.

For example; boldface is his:

You are delusional. I have demonstrated over and over again that the count of non-mining validators is a powerless metric in regards to Bitcoin consensus.

[...]

A count of non-mining validators has fuck-all to do with a measure of the economic majority.

https://youtu.be/0Rl9Cxc7uZA?t=24

No. No you do not. Obviously. Can't even understand simple English. Or maybe you are lying by misattributing words to me that I clearly have not uttered. Fucking liars running around starting brigaded neg campaigns based upon unfounded allegations that they are incapable of even understanding. In case it is not clear, I am referring to you, nullius (you fucking liar).

For my part, I think that most transactions will and should be off-chain.  

Mmm Hmm. And when most people seldom or never make an on-chain transaction, where is the incentive for them to run a non-mining validator?

Anybody who does not understand this should try, just try running Bitcoin and syncing mainnet on old and/or very cheap hardware.  You will soon wish for smaller blocks.  If you have a bit of vision, thereupon contemplate network effects and the resistance to centralization brought by keeping full nodes within the reach of people who are not rich.

False inflammatory statement. I run several non-mining validators on the same machine. That I bought years ago. Used. And added an SSD thereto. Total cost: about $400.

One might say 'even that is too much money'. As compared to a $1000 tx fee? Riiiight.

[DaRude]

**LOTTA CAPSTYPINGS***
Happy Saturday!

Just to be clear, you seem to be stating that a future where transaction fees being $100, $1000 or even more per on-chain tx is a distinct possibility?

That as a possibility is implicit in my thoughts, I'd say, yes.  

OK, so here's the relevant followup question. When average tx fees are $1000, what is the typical profile of a person willing to run a non-mining validator? Let's start simple on this - how many tx per year might the average such person make?

1? or even 0? average person will fully transact on L2+

[bitserve]

**LOTTA CAPSTYPINGS***
Happy Saturday!

Just to be clear, you seem to be stating that a future where transaction fees being $100, $1000 or even more per on-chain tx is a distinct possibility?

That as a possibility is implicit in my thoughts, I'd say, yes.  

OK, so here's the relevant followup question. When average tx fees are $1000, what is the typical profile of a person willing to run a non-mining validator? Let's start simple on this - how many tx per year might the average such person make?

1? or even 0? average person will fully transact on L2+

Hmmm, while I am a full fan of L2+ for day to day transactions the idea of $1000 fees for transacting on-chain is somewhat hard to digest though. What kind of marketcap are we considering for this scenario? What level of adoption? I do agree that, with a high enough level of worldwide adoption, the average person will probably NEVER transact onchain even if he do use Bitcoin directly (but L2+) or indirectly (100% custodial/off-chain).

On an unrelated note: Congrats @AlcoHoDL!