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

[jojo69]

[1653247936]

1653247936

[1653247936]

1653247936

[1653247936]

1653247936

[noormcs5]

[kurious]

The end game is bitcoin becomes the settlement layer for the world. Transaction costs are going way up in the future, you're not going to want to do on-chain transactions when it costs $1000+ to do so, but if you're settling a billions dollars, that's a tiny price to pay.

The fact is, whether we like it or not, very few individuals (other than those of us here) will hold private keys in 10 years. The transaction costs alone will ensure it.

**A little Saturday read inspired by your post... I will merit you, but I just dumped all my merit on Hal Finney.  You can't be mad about that right?***

This is a very hard thing for the old school bitcoiner to accept.  And some will reject it outright. In fact that is why Roger Ver went the way he did.  I think CSW is an actual pathological conman, but I think Ver fell in love with a version of Bitcoin that he began to see as doomed, ironically as it began to become successful. But I want to put forth a couple reasons I think what you said above is important and inevitable.  

1.  The banking infrastructure  and concept is STILL useful.
2.  We actually NEED it.

The first bitcoin transaction I did in 2011 was to a poker site (bitco.in, as Seals with Clubs did not even exist yet!)  The whole reason I went to the trouble to get my hands on some bitcoin was to play online poker with it.  But like so many of us, along this path I suddenly saw what being able to transact value without a middleman FELT LIKE.  The lightbulb turned on... one pill will make you smaller, etc.  And it stuck.  My poor wife.  She has had to listen to a decade of it.

For some reason it is not as hard for me to accept as it seems to be VER.  It is inevitable.  Bitcoin, if it does indeed begin to serve the world as even a semi-niche store of value will grow to magnitudes of it's current resource usage.  And I am not going to crank the blocksize debate up again, but to put it simply we can either keep bitcoin validation decentralized and thereby enforce the consensus, or we can let it be taken over by a small minority, and end up with a digital panopticon that would make most fundamentalist evangelical's vision of the "mark of the beast" look like Monopoly.  The fight is over which resource use grows... and the market has, in some way against all odds, chosen correctly: Fees.

I agree with the market here and I realize the future is not what, even Satoshi, seemed to have seen.  Although Hal got it.  And WAAAAAY back then too...

I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash. Most Bitcoin transactions will occur between banks, to settle net transfers. Bitcoin transactions by private individuals will be as rare as... well, as Bitcoin based purchases are today.

2010, y'all!

And we are watching this unfold right under our noses.  But most people don't really see it yet.  There are a lot of contenders, and people tend to look at the exchanges and talk about them being the bitcoin banks... and behold JUST THIS WEEK the news hit that Kraken was granted the whatever-it-is regulatory powers to become a BANK.  But even more than that, I think the underestimated and EXTREMELY Savvy @jack is already a little ahead of them in some ways with Square/Cash App. Not only is it one of the best places to buy bitcoin, but he is laying the groundwork for all commerce to be done using his application.  They just introduced some sort of payroll feature.  This makes Wells Fargo look like a fucking brontosaurus looking at the curious bright streak coming through the sky called Cash App. "Oooh pretty!"

And then we have Jack Mallers, the grandson of one of the founding fathers of the Chicago Board Options Exchange who is doing one of the most interesting projects laying down a REAL, WORKING payment layer for Bitcoin using the lightning network.  This ultra laid back hoodie wearing millennial (Gen Z-er?) stands to create an even bigger legacy than either of his ancestors.  He is quietly laying the groundwork for a bulletproof bitcoin payment network, that SETTLES on the main chain.

Boom.

Credit card terminals are not going away.  Banks are not going away. Loans and mortgages and myriad other financial instruments are not going away.  The vision of each bitcoiner living in a citadel guarding his 8 of 15 multisig seed word stashes served by his farm of nodes all running mixing protocols and so on is a "Mountain Man Fantasy".  And some of those mountain men will doubtless exist.  But in reality the VAST majority of humans could never handle that amount of responsibility.  They want to pay someone else to guard their value for them.  Someone who is an expert in the kind of security needed to safeguard value, and now with the added wrinkles and challenges presented by cryptography.  Perhaps someone who offers insurance against a failure or theft. Someone who does all the dirtywork behind the scenes so you can buy your iconic cup of coffee without having to remember a 19 character password.  

Those someones are called "banks".  Or, at least that's what they used to be called.  This level of disruption is big enough that they COULD end up with a different name.

Actually there is a very good reason for Bitcoin-backed banks to exist, issuing their own digital cash currency, redeemable for bitcoins. Bitcoin itself cannot scale to have every single financial transaction in the world be broadcast to everyone and included in the block chain. There needs to be a secondary level of payment systems which is lighter weight and more efficient. Likewise, the time needed for Bitcoin transactions to finalize will be impractical for medium to large value purchases.

Bitcoin backed banks will solve these problems. They can work like banks did before nationalization of currency. Different banks can have different policies, some more aggressive, some more conservative. Some would be fractional reserve while others may be 100% Bitcoin backed. Interest rates may vary. Cash from some banks may trade at a discount to that from others.

That was a very wise man seeing the rise of Cash App, Strike, and Kraken back when everyone else was just wanting to figure out how to get around all the regulations that made it hard to play online poker.  Insert Ver's scrunched up face here as he foams at the mouth taking about PEER TO PEER CASH!!! AND I AM SORRY I JUST GET SO EMOTIONAL!

No one can stop you from using the chain.  Ever.  That is CERTAINLY one of the things that makes bitcoin a "zero to one" invention.  But if you really want to compete for the kind of VALUE that Bitcoin will command and REQUIRE for on chain transactions??? ...better get that business plan ready.  And there are some fairly smart folks out there with a good head start on you already.  Bitcoin is not replacing credit cards... Bitcoin is replacing FedWire.

If we want Bitcoin to be successful then this is where we are going.  And we should really be glad.  It might not look like what we all thought it would 10 years ago (or 7 or 3 or last week), and part of the reason for that is our vision is limited.  We get hung up, like Ver, on shiny things that look more important than they are.

That feeling you got when you did your first few Bitcoin transactions?  It's not going away.  It's just changing form.  And you are one of the lucky ones that got to experience that first.  Most people will have the much more ho-hum feeling of just watching the mover and shakers roll out the new world for them...

Personally, I'm pulling out the champaign that market behaviour is indeed producing activity levels that can pay for security without inflation, and also producing fee paying backlogs needed to stabilize consensus progress as the subsidy declines.

-Greg Maxwell around the BTC all time high Dec 2017. https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-December/015455.html

Happy Saturday!

Happy indeed.

Am far away from home taking a break just now, but even in the wildest remote places (thankfully) these days a cellular signal allows me to catch up with the WO.

Have to say today's pages have been a joy, with some intelligent, thoughtful posts.  I have to single this post out though. 

It is superb; insightful, open minded and persuasive in its radical and positive vision - it has even persuaded me to see things a little differently, which I am grateful for. It more than deserves the merit it has been showered with. 

Jeez cAPSLOCK, you are on fire. Keep it up. I am now just feeling a huge urge to sell everything I can possibly sell to buy more bitcoin.

And props for crediting Hal.  If i ever have the pleasure of meeting you the beers are on me.

[Toxic2040]

the evening wall report

Bitcoin finished strong today at $11,077.22 with light volume. Closing above the eleven thousand mark has been something it has been unable to do since the beginning of the September. Continued upwards bias with increasing volatility expected next week.  #dyor

4h


D

#stronkhands

[Syke]

Maybe his 1500 number is incorrect, though, it is difficult to pin down.

Whatever the number is, as time goes on and as value goes up, that number will shrink.

[nullius]

lose: unfind ... loose: untight

*Given the pervasivity of that particular misuse, I sometimes worry that the entire innerwebs is trolling me.

Your desire to lose the mob is trolled by Twitter’s desire to loose the mob.

But what will neomaniacal descriptivist zealots soon say about you?  jbreher, that old pedant!  They don’t understand that lose usage causes words too loose their meanings.  Its so simple for them to understand:  Language evolves.

* nullius drags their fingernails across the chalkboard, for to effect extra effect on your affect.

...

You skipped over the most salient point. You have no fckin clue.

Out of curioſity, I ſearched for a fucking clue.  Well, to my ſatisfaction, at leaſt my habit of reading old books has gifted me with ſpecial inſight:  I know the difference between fucking and ſucking.

Medial S:  It ſucks with ill-trained OCR!

[Toxic2040]

$11,077.22

[JayJuanGee]

More ranting...

If you can't sum up your argument in a few sentences, you're pulling a JJG and trying to prove your point with walls of text rather than logical argument.

Yeah right....

You are likely lacking reading comprehension if you are going down the road to proclaim that logic is missing within certain walls of text or as a general statement that all walls of text, including those of yours truly, are lacking in logic.

You sir, are either lacking in reading comprehension abilities (or other abilities, such as logic comprehension), or you are lacking in will power to attempt to understand words that are so courteously placed before you in the form of text (perhaps a wall, but still  - if you want to be treated like an adult, try to comprehend, you must.).     Nobody is trying to play tricks with you, merely because they are using words to 'splain their lil selfies.

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?

 

Bitcoin scales just fine, you're just looking at it wrong. The highest value use cases will survive and the everything else will be done off chain or die, including your ideology. This is the free market I'm talking about.

Of course, there is going to be a combination of off chain and on chain.  Did someone send you over from the bcash nutjober camp to make these speculative baloney points?

 

I have no problem with Lighting and I think it and other side-chains will have their use cases.

Lightning network and other side chains provides options.. and we will see how they evolve and how empowering they are for people.

Seems that there are a lot developers on the lightning network who are trying to make it similarly empowering in terms of giving individuals abilities to spend their bitcoin, to the extent they are going to want to do that in the future.. and lots of work seems to still need to be done regarding user interface of some of these second layer systems...
 

I'm not a worshipper of plutocracy and the world isn't going to change just because you will it to. Things are just what they are.

You seem to be the one making doom and gloom predictions regarding supposed future exclusion of normies from bitcoin when there hardly seems to be evidence of that beyond your pie in the sky fear-based speculations.

Something to ponder tho...

What is the difference between ?

1. A banking system that issues IOUs backed by Gold/Silver.

2. A future with "bitcoin banks" that issue private digital currencies backed by Bitcoin.

^{A: Nothing, nada, zilch. First it's backed 1:1 to build and insure public confidence and trust. Then it gets fractionally reserved. And finally they go off the "Bitcoin standard" (i.e., The "Gold standard" of the future) and back their private digital shitcoins with literally nothing, while they inflate them to infinity. Repeating history all over again.}

Another doomer/gloomer.

As you likely realize Torque, one of the great powers of bitcoin is to be able to accomplish quick and easy possession of such bitcoin, which is a whole fuck of a lot more difficult to accomplish with gold.. and fuck that paper backed crap... if you really want to demand possession of paper backed gold, you are not getting anywhere as compared to demanding possession of the actual gold (which as you know is way more difficult to get possession, especially if talking about very large quantities).  

Accordingly, there is a distinction in bitcoin that makes a difference, and you should well know about the material difference of that distinction, too, Torque.

I would suggest that it is quite likely that human (individual) behavior is going to change based on such options that are available to them (that were not previously available to them), and some people are going to choose to keep some, if not all of their bitcoin in their own possession, so they do not have to depend upon the integrity of institutions that have actually fucked over a lot of people in the past in terms of their control over assets.

Surely, institutions are going to be forced to be more honest, too, if they realize that people are not going to tolerate entrusting them with their bitcoin, unless they know that they can get possession of the bitcoin upon demand... and least the smarter hodlers will engage in such behavior, which will force (incentivize) institutions to be more honest - if they want to survive as bitcoin becomes more and more dominating.. and it could take many years for these incentives and understandings to play out.... and I am glad that some of us already recognize the power of holding our own corn.

[edited out

There IS a difference.  It is easy to withdraw bitcoin.  It is hard to withdraw gold.

cAPSLOCK said it first.

[nullius]

(FWIW, in some clusterfork of a Reputation thread, I mentioned that I would offer jbreher a (virtual) beer if he ever consistently repudiated his beloved forked shitcoins and Faketoshi-apologia, and admitted that he was wrong about Segwit, Core, etc.  The offer stands.)

I might be convinced to share a draft with you some day. Yet you persist in slander.

I have not “slandered” you.  (Allegedly libelled–let us not lose that distinction!)  If you point out even one factually incorrect statement I have made about you anywhere, then I will properly retract it.

I halfway wrote a long, detailed logical reply to you—not to be argumentative, but because you sometimes come off as quite reasonable.  (Not to mention that I’d toast the defence of the loose/lose distinction as a noble cause!)  I thought it would be worthwhile.  Then, I realized that this could be disposed more succinctly.

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.

You wield your supposed razor as would a religious zealot.

[...]

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.

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.  Rude?  I do think that the world would be a better place if people spineless jellyfish were less concerned about a false politeness than about honesty, freedom, the distinct definitions of English words, and all those other obsolete concepts that altogether too often are “cancelled” because nobody will speak up for them.

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.

Hie ye to Hydrogen Audio for a fresh takedown!

—Oh fork, doesn’t Greg Maxwell have a xiph.org address?  It’s as if them Core people are ruining the whole world for you, ain’t it.

Bears mention on the Internet, where people get misunderstood:  You have seen that I have no problem with being aggressive; passive-aggression is just not my style.  I have stated the foregoing in good faith.



Edit:

jbreher, what did you mean by “sonics”?  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.

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!

On the other hand, some folks frankly state that they prefer the distortions of various analogue media or equipment.  To them, audible imperfections add what feels like warmth or nostalgia that is missing from a more precise reproduction of the source audio.  “Sonics” could mean that, too.  —  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.

[noormcs5]

  BTC Dominance

 

Needs illustration.

Here you go then 

[alevlaslo]

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

[BayAreaCoins]

I think people have much more confidence in USD after this scammy virus because the United States Government has shown they are willing to print trillions out of thin air to save all our fucking losers that have spent a lifetime fucking up!   

[AlcoHoDL]

Bitcoin gave mankind,
What banking never allowed:
Financial freedom!

Most people fear it,
And think it's a Ponzi scheme,
As banks told them so.

But those with insight,
Like Neo in The Matrix,
Swallowed the RED pill.

50 coins per block,
Starting a revolution,
With code, not with guns!

Whatcha gonna do?
Support it or reject it?
I know where I stand.

500 Euros,
Take a few seconds to print,
In fiat printers!

Try printing Bitcoin,
And you'll quickly realize,
What a fool you've been!

#7sundayhaikus

[Cryptotourist]

Go on proudhon, take us to $12k and beyond, short with the highest leverage all your coins gawd damn it.


We are from Sirius,
Pleiades and Orion's belt,
the great Atlandees.

#haiku

[nullius]

Go on proudhon, take us to $12k and beyond, short with the highest leverage all your coins gawd damn it.

what coins



poor mindrust

[Cryptotourist]

what coins

poor mindrust

I can't imagine that he's a nocoiner, and that goes for mindrust as well.
From a psychological perspective, if for any reason you loose/sell/whatever all your coins, it makes sense to disappear.

Gotta have skin to stick around for long.

[nullius]

what coins

poor mindrust

I can't imagine that he's a nocoiner, and that goes for mindrust as well.
From a psychological perspective, if for any reason you lose/sell/whatever all your coins, it makes sense to disappear.

what sense


poor swaystar #deletewo

Gotta have skin to stick around for long.

good point...


does she?

[VB1001]

Bitcoin gave mankind,
What banking never allowed:
Financial freedom!

Most people fear it,
And think it's a Ponzi scheme,
As banks told them so.

But those with insight,
Like Neo in The Matrix,
Swallowed the RED pill.

50 coins per block,
Starting a revolution,
With code, not with guns!

Whatcha gonna do?
Support it or reject it?
I know where I stand.

500 Euros,
Take a few seconds to print,
In fiat printers!

Try printing Bitcoin,
And you'll quickly realize,
What a fool you've been!

#7sundayhaikus

1 US dollar is currently worth 9114 sats

https://usdsat.com/

Here we go $1=1Satoshi

[LFC_Bitcoin]

1 US dollar is currently worth 9114 sats

https://usdsat.com/

Here we go $1=1Satoshi

$1 = 1000Satoshi would be good enough 

[Eureka_07]

I'm still mesmerized to see how bitcoin grow over years, specially 10 years ago which 1USD is 1.6 billion sats, after a year became 17.9 million sats, what a massive spike!
And now currently at 9,125 sats, can we expect a 1$ to less than 1 sats of equivalence?