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

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[1653526877]

1653526877

[1653526877]

1653526877

[Lucius]

$80,000 in 2025? You're joking, right? Bitcoin will never make it close to $80,000.

If you got $1 every time you wrote the word "never" on this forum, you would already be a millionaire.

If you really want to buy bitcoin for less than $17.8k, then just wait a few days, a week at best. And if you really want to buy bitcoin for much less, then just wait a few months. By the end of 2021 you can probably grab a bitcoin for $x,xxx and by the end of 2022 you can probably get a bitcoin for a few hundred bucks if you just have to have one.

Do you ever feel embarrassed by the lies you have been posting on the forum for years?

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[julian071]

My apologies, bought the dip today, so if the price takes a nosedive that would be my fault.

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[xhomerx10]

2 words,
 Go Steelers!!

xhomerx10

They did go.

home 🏠

btw I was rooting for them not against them.

 Lol.  I was going to edit my post to say the same thing but you made it look cooler with that house icon
 When Mahomes had Kelce throw a TD pass, I decided it was time for bed.  It would have been nice if Burger could have had a victory for his last game ever but Mahomes wasn't going to let that happen.

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[xhomerx10]

$80,000 in 2025? You're joking, right? Bitcoin will never make it close to $80,000.

If you got $1 every time you wrote the word "never" on this forum, you would already be a millionaire.

~snip

 I suspect he might actually have a bitcoin for every time he's said "never" on this forum.

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[Torque]

I personally think Brian Armstrong and Coinbase have been a net negative for Bitcoin.  And most likely will continue to be.  Armstrong has worked as hard as he can to build a cantillon type structure in the crypto markets, basically actively working AGAINST one of the key innovations Bitcoin brings to the world.

It's the classic question.  Is he evil?  Or just dumb?

A lot of newcomers to Bitcoin don't know this, and a lot of the past gets memory holed and forgotten.

In the first year or two when Brian A. was getting Coinbase up and running, he was interviewed on a few occasions. I remember one interview very clearly where the interviewer asked him point blank if he had any interest in altcoins (this was even before the term "shitcoin" became a thing), and Brian flat out, without hesitation said "No, because I don't think that they have any value beyond what Bitcoin offers." He then went on to say that Coinbase would be exclusively focused on Bitcoin and nothing else.

So he was either lying then, or he his lying now. Perhaps the plan all along was an eventual bait-and-switch of the public. Or perhaps he has never been in control of his platform, and it was always the VCs calling the shots behind the scenes (my bet is on this). No matter what he might now say publicly, I don't believe that deep down inside he thinks that shitcoins have any real value at all.

Either way, I agree with you that offering and promoting shitcoins has definitely hurt the Bitcoin movement, and is completely antithetical to Bitcoin's long-term mission. His platform of promoting and selling shitcoins will continue to distract and lead the dumb, get-rich-quick mass public away from Bitcoin, and they will continue to get scammed and lose their wealth.

An analogy is that it's like a website that supposedly promotes health and fitness, but also selling heroin and donuts on their platform.

It's also why you can't place trust in any celebrity or personality who's a backer of Bitcoin; you can only place trust in the asset itself.

[cAPSLOCK]

I personally think Brian Armstrong and Coinbase have been a net negative for Bitcoin.  And most likely will continue to be.  Armstrong has worked as hard as he can to build a cantillon type structure in the crypto markets, basically actively working AGAINST one of the key innovations Bitcoin brings to the world.

It's the classic question.  Is he evil?  Or just dumb?

A lot of newcomers to Bitcoin don't know this, and a lot of the past gets memory holed and forgotten.

In the first year or two when Brian A. was getting Coinbase up and running, he was interviewed on a few occasions. I remember one interview very clearly where the interviewer asked him point blank if he had any interest in altcoins (this was even before the term "shitcoin" became a thing), and Brian flat out, without hesitation said "No, because I don't think that they have any value beyond what Bitcoin offers." He then went on to say that Coinbase would be exclusively focused on Bitcoin and nothing else.

So he was either lying then, or he his lying now. Perhaps the plan all along was an eventual bait-and-switch of the public. Or perhaps he has never been in control of his platform, and it was always the VCs calling the shots behind the scenes (my bet is on this). No matter what he might now say publicly, I don't believe that deep down inside he thinks that shitcoins have any real value at all.

Either way, I agree with you that offering and promoting shitcoins has definitely hurt the Bitcoin movement, and is completely antithetical to Bitcoin's long-term mission. It will continue to distract and lead the dumb, get-rich-quick mass public away from Bitcoin, and they will continue to get scammed and lose their wealth.

An analogy is that it's like a website that supposedly promotes health and fitness, but also selling heroin and donuts on their platform.

It's also why you can't place trust in any celebrity or personality that's a backer of Bitcoin; you can only place trust in the asset itself.

Yes.  And there is an oft quoted 2015(?) tweet from him that says something along the lines of he does not think alts bring anything that can overcome Bitcoin's momentum.

One theory that gets batted around is during the blocksize wars his company was a signatory of the NY Agreement.  And since the failure of the 2x blocks he has basically said he felt like Bitcoin had lost the script.  And this was also about when the alts started showing up.

That and the fact that shilling all kinds of alts has made him a very rich man... well that's what drove it I think.

The question still remains though.

Does he just NOT SEE the difference between the centralized alts and the innovation that is Bitcoin.  Was he just enamored all along with basically a grown up version of World of Warcraft gold?  There are an alarming number of industry "insiders" who actually argue FOR centralization.  I just saw some video with a coindesk writer making the argument that the VC/shitcoin connection was an anti-bitcoin sort of thing and Naomi Brockwell arguing that she would HOPE that the VCs get paid for their investments in centralized "web3" projects.

The list of people who either completely miss Bitcoin's killer app, or are pretend to so that can enrich themselves if fairly large... and I had thought by now it might have receded. 

That was a foolish wide eyed fantasy.

[Torque]

There are an alarming number of industry "insiders" who actually argue FOR centralization.  I just saw some video with a coindesk writer making the argument that the VC/shitcoin connection was an anti-bitcoin sort of thing and Naomi Brockwell arguing that she would HOPE that the VCs get paid for their investments in centralized "web3" projects.

The list of people who either completely miss Bitcoin's killer app, or are pretend to so that can enrich themselves if fairly large... and I had thought by now it might have receded.  

That was a foolish wide eyed fantasy.

All the VCs see a future world where short-term FOMO, delusion, and hopium of the masses can be capitalized on to make them very rich (with shitcoins, NFTs, and other metaverse garbage). And yes, they also wish to centralize it all.

Bitcoin to them is a lost cause. It's a boring commodity now that with growing liquidity is becoming more and more pump-and-dump resistant, even with excessive leverage. And it certainly can't be centralized in the way that the VCs want. They also don't own and control the majority of it, and probably never will.

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[cygan]

[Paashaas]

I personally think Brian Armstrong and Coinbase have been a net negative for Bitcoin.  And most likely will continue to be.  Armstrong has worked as hard as he can to build a cantillon type structure in the crypto markets, basically actively working AGAINST one of the key innovations Bitcoin brings to the world.

It's the classic question.  Is he evil?  Or just dumb?

A lot of newcomers to Bitcoin don't know this, and a lot of the past gets memory holed and forgotten.

In the first year or two when Brian A. was getting Coinbase up and running, he was interviewed on a few occasions. I remember one interview very clearly where the interviewer asked him point blank if he had any interest in altcoins (this was even before the term "shitcoin" became a thing), and Brian flat out, without hesitation said "No, because I don't think that they have any value beyond what Bitcoin offers." He then went on to say that Coinbase would be exclusively focused on Bitcoin and nothing else.

So he was either lying then, or he his lying now. Perhaps the plan all along was an eventual bait-and-switch of the public. Or perhaps he has never been in control of his platform, and it was always the VCs calling the shots behind the scenes (my bet is on this). No matter what he might now say publicly, I don't believe that deep down inside he thinks that shitcoins have any real value at all.

Either way, I agree with you that offering and promoting shitcoins has definitely hurt the Bitcoin movement, and is completely antithetical to Bitcoin's long-term mission. His platform of promoting and selling shitcoins will continue to distract and lead the dumb, get-rich-quick mass public away from Bitcoin, and they will continue to get scammed and lose their wealth.

An analogy is that it's like a website that supposedly promotes health and fitness, but also selling heroin and donuts on their platform.

It's also why you can't place trust in any celebrity or personality that's a backer of Bitcoin; you can only place trust in the asset itself.

Brian Armstrong was a prominent Bitcoin supporter until he went full shitcoin. His shitcoin casino generated a lot of money, he bought a $113 million Bel Air mansion in L.A.

The quest for new n00b bagholders will go on for some time, with clever marketing many idiots will end up losing their money.

[Copetech]

Apparently Crypto.com is dealing with a pretty significant hack through their backend into accounts on the exchange and in the app. 2FA & Fingerprint security completely bypassed. Significant number of unauthorized withdrawals went through one after another. Everything is locked down now as they are trying to figure out what happened and restore accounts.

[icopress]

[...]

Then he publicly lied (well, or you interpret the facts by publishing unverified information). I mean, coinbase has been focused on working with alternative coins since its inception, not to mention the fact that at the initial stage of development Coinbase was called Bitbank.

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[philipma1957]

Apparently Crypto.com is dealing with a pretty significant hack through their backend into accounts on the exchange and in the app. 2FA & Fingerprint security completely bypassed. Significant number of unauthorized withdrawals went through one after another. Everything is locked down now as they are trying to figure out what happened and restore accounts.

As always inside job.
Almost every big hack is an inside job.

Speaking of big hacks.

My tracfone number is partially returned not full but somewhat.

straight talk and tracfone had thousands of numbers ported away.

the partial restore allows me to make and receive texts and calls.

email access to tracfone still dead ☠️

and my minutes are zero my data is zero but date is zero

but the phone works so it is kind of a ghost 👻 phone at the moment.

good luck to any with crypto.com coin