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

[meyer lansky]

@ Jorge and others that still don't get it.

bitcoin: The price we pay to store information on the blockchain.

Bitcoin: The protocol that employs the open source ledger of information that is secured via payment of bitcoin.

hmmmm....@poolminor,that was a splendid redraft to stolfi.welldone!

[findftp]

Economists have know for 500 years that a currency must have some inflation, otherwise people will hoard it and it will not be available for use as a currency.  

These wonderful economists who created hyperinflating fiat currencies over and over again?
And what about mining? You still don't get that part?
Mining = inflation, but with a known and decreasing supply.

[meyer lansky]

In fact, many of the problems that he describes are in fact features and NOT bugs

Since you are a holder and speculator, of course we disagree on that.  In my view, you are one of bitcoin's problems.  

Little bit disingenuous of you to participate in a thread to judge others who are investing into something and to call them "problems" because they are investing.  What are you investing in?  naysaying the activities of others?

a claim that there needs to be a built in approximate 2% inflation (or devaluation) is preposterous because it supposedly addresses a non-existing problem, at least at this time.

so make it a bad investment?

Bitcoin was created to be a currency, not another speculative asset- and dividend-free investment fund (or pyramid scheme, its more honest name).  There is no shortage of the latter, and (as I wrote earlier) that use of bitcoin will not make the world better, create new wealth, or render some useful service; it will just move wealth from some people to other people.

You are full of shit!!!!  Bitcoin was created for a variety of purposes, including the currency aspect.  You seem to be oversimplifying matters in order to create strawmen arguments.  and mislead others by oversimplification.

Economists have know for 500 years that a currency must have some inflation, otherwise people will hoard it and it will not be available for use as a currency.  

Yeah.. appeal to authority... 500 years  OMG... you really are saying something here........ NOT.  You are just making up facts out of your ass.

The use of bitcoin for investment and speculation had two other bad consequences.  First, it lifted the price to 100 times what it should have been, given its current level of usage.  The price is floating in the air, high up, anchored to itself through the hopes of traders and holders.  It could crash from there at any moment.  No company in its right mind would want to hold it, even temporarily.  Imagine a manager accepting a payment of 1000 BTC today, and the price crashing tomorrow, before he can spend or sell those coins.  How could he explain that to the company owners? (You can find out there an audio of Overstock's CEO trying to explain something like that to the other shareholders; but AFAIK he is the majority holder, so he won't get fired for that...)

YES.... what if, what if...   You know better than that.  if you are using bitcoin as a payment system, then you have the option to cash out right away or to hold them for a specific cash out time. With anything new, there may be a learning curve concerning decisions regarding when to cash out, if cashing out is part of the plan.

Second, but tied to the first: bitcoin's use as instrument of speculative trade made its price extremely volatile.  Even in times of "stability", like the past 7 months, the price has changed by ±10% in a few hours, several times.  Volatility is bad for a currency: the user who buys BTC to pay for something will lose money if the BTC price drops between the two actions, and will not really win if it goes up -- because he will be left with a small amount of BTC that he may not find a good use for.

That is why a good cryptocurrency must be designed to NOT be a good investment.

Yes, if an asset is volatile, then that needs to be taken into account, but that volatility does NOT mean that it is a bad thing because, as I already mentioned, BTC is much more than a currency.    You again are attempting to frame facts in an incomplete way in order to engage in scare tactics....

All of these months in bitcoin, and you still have NOT learned how to be more comprehensive in your analysis rather than simplified and selective extrapolations?

his suggestion that Satoshi would agree...    Wat da fuck?

From what I have read, I am satisfied that  Satoshi intended bitcoin to be what he wrote in the whitepaper: a system for peer to peer payments through the internet that did not require a trusted third party.  He believed that the world needed such a thing, but no one knew how to build it, and thought that he had found a way.    That seems to have been his motivation to design the bitcoin protocol; and he then implemented it to see whether the idea worked out in practice.

But Satoshi was a computer scientist, not an economist.  He thought that it would be nice if the currency had no inflation.  For "everybody" knows that inflation is bad, right? I thought so too.

His he pleased about what bitcoin turned out to be?  Well, on one hand it is always satisfying to do something big, even if it is a big nuclear accident or the sinking of the Titanic.  But I doubt that he is happy about what his creature has become...

Your further explanation supports that you are engaged in a BIG ASS guessing game regarding what Satoshi thought or what he would think.  It does little to no good for you to engage in this kind of speculation to go back to "original intent" or to attempt to attribute the direction of bitcoin to the "founder," because in fact, Satoshi either removed himself or fell out of the bitcoin scene.... Accordingly, bitcoin became a dynamic phenomenon that is influenced by a variety of players (rather than by any one player).   in other words, bitcoin has become a sort of community asset, and there is some freedom for anyone to buy into it or to refrain from such.  Even though you are fairly informed about bitcoin, you seem to be someone who has knowingly chosen NOT to financially invest into bitcoin, but instead chosen to invest into denigrating bitcoin.... I'm fairly certain that some anti-bitcoin entities would be willing to pay you to continue in such supposedly voluntary and unpaid conduct.  So, are you being paid for all of the time that you spend in the various bitcoin forums?  You must be receiving some payments for your work and/or your publications and/or your attempts to build your reputation as some kind of anti-bitcoin "expert." 

Sorry to some of you for using the term "expert" in the same sentence in which I am referring to Stolfi.....   

Why so much agro and upset about Jorge's posts? He's not threatening you (or perhaps he is somehow?). He has a view and he expresses and articulates that view pretty well. I don't agree with much of what he says either but I appreciate that his posts are coherent, quite well written and free from personal attacks or vitriol. In fact, he's very gracious in his responses to many of you that get all so incensed that he's expressing the views that he is; and this is indicative that some of what he's saying has seriously hooked your innards and is tearing at you in some manner. That you're responding in such an affronted way says to me you're not 100% sure and his line of thought on this stuff causes internal conflict.

If you don't agree with his take on Bitcoin (and crypto in general), just point out calmly and unemotionally where his logic, assumptions or beliefs are flawed. I think it's very good to have someone like him putting the ideas up he does as it makes for interesting consideration of his views versus alternatives.

Isn't this what a thread like this is about?

@ renegademan,truly you are worth to be a senior member from your utterance.we do not have to be volatile.how can some1 like fatman3001 be referring to me as ''it''?.i never knew some form of racism exists in the bitcoin world!

[Fatman3001]

@ renegademan,truly you are worth to be a senior member from your utterance.we do not have to be volatile.how can some1 like fatman3001 be referring to me as ''it''?.i never knew some form of racism exists in the bitcoin world!

I have been called a speciesist by Peter Singer fans.

[JayJuanGee]

In fact, many of the problems that he describes are in fact features and NOT bugs

Since you are a holder and speculator, of course we disagree on that.  In my view, you are one of bitcoin's problems.  

Little bit disingenuous of you to participate in a thread to judge others who are investing into something and to call them "problems" because they are investing.  What are you investing in?  naysaying the activities of others?

a claim that there needs to be a built in approximate 2% inflation (or devaluation) is preposterous because it supposedly addresses a non-existing problem, at least at this time.

so make it a bad investment?

Bitcoin was created to be a currency, not another speculative asset- and dividend-free investment fund (or pyramid scheme, its more honest name).  There is no shortage of the latter, and (as I wrote earlier) that use of bitcoin will not make the world better, create new wealth, or render some useful service; it will just move wealth from some people to other people.

You are full of shit!!!!  Bitcoin was created for a variety of purposes, including the currency aspect.  You seem to be oversimplifying matters in order to create strawmen arguments.  and mislead others by oversimplification.

Economists have know for 500 years that a currency must have some inflation, otherwise people will hoard it and it will not be available for use as a currency.  

Yeah.. appeal to authority... 500 years  OMG... you really are saying something here........ NOT.  You are just making up facts out of your ass.

The use of bitcoin for investment and speculation had two other bad consequences.  First, it lifted the price to 100 times what it should have been, given its current level of usage.  The price is floating in the air, high up, anchored to itself through the hopes of traders and holders.  It could crash from there at any moment.  No company in its right mind would want to hold it, even temporarily.  Imagine a manager accepting a payment of 1000 BTC today, and the price crashing tomorrow, before he can spend or sell those coins.  How could he explain that to the company owners? (You can find out there an audio of Overstock's CEO trying to explain something like that to the other shareholders; but AFAIK he is the majority holder, so he won't get fired for that...)

YES.... what if, what if...   You know better than that.  if you are using bitcoin as a payment system, then you have the option to cash out right away or to hold them for a specific cash out time. With anything new, there may be a learning curve concerning decisions regarding when to cash out, if cashing out is part of the plan.

Second, but tied to the first: bitcoin's use as instrument of speculative trade made its price extremely volatile.  Even in times of "stability", like the past 7 months, the price has changed by ±10% in a few hours, several times.  Volatility is bad for a currency: the user who buys BTC to pay for something will lose money if the BTC price drops between the two actions, and will not really win if it goes up -- because he will be left with a small amount of BTC that he may not find a good use for.

That is why a good cryptocurrency must be designed to NOT be a good investment.

Yes, if an asset is volatile, then that needs to be taken into account, but that volatility does NOT mean that it is a bad thing because, as I already mentioned, BTC is much more than a currency.    You again are attempting to frame facts in an incomplete way in order to engage in scare tactics....

All of these months in bitcoin, and you still have NOT learned how to be more comprehensive in your analysis rather than simplified and selective extrapolations?

his suggestion that Satoshi would agree...    Wat da fuck?

From what I have read, I am satisfied that  Satoshi intended bitcoin to be what he wrote in the whitepaper: a system for peer to peer payments through the internet that did not require a trusted third party.  He believed that the world needed such a thing, but no one knew how to build it, and thought that he had found a way.    That seems to have been his motivation to design the bitcoin protocol; and he then implemented it to see whether the idea worked out in practice.

But Satoshi was a computer scientist, not an economist.  He thought that it would be nice if the currency had no inflation.  For "everybody" knows that inflation is bad, right? I thought so too.

His he pleased about what bitcoin turned out to be?  Well, on one hand it is always satisfying to do something big, even if it is a big nuclear accident or the sinking of the Titanic.  But I doubt that he is happy about what his creature has become...

Your further explanation supports that you are engaged in a BIG ASS guessing game regarding what Satoshi thought or what he would think.  It does little to no good for you to engage in this kind of speculation to go back to "original intent" or to attempt to attribute the direction of bitcoin to the "founder," because in fact, Satoshi either removed himself or fell out of the bitcoin scene.... Accordingly, bitcoin became a dynamic phenomenon that is influenced by a variety of players (rather than by any one player).   in other words, bitcoin has become a sort of community asset, and there is some freedom for anyone to buy into it or to refrain from such.  Even though you are fairly informed about bitcoin, you seem to be someone who has knowingly chosen NOT to financially invest into bitcoin, but instead chosen to invest into denigrating bitcoin.... I'm fairly certain that some anti-bitcoin entities would be willing to pay you to continue in such supposedly voluntary and unpaid conduct.  So, are you being paid for all of the time that you spend in the various bitcoin forums?  You must be receiving some payments for your work and/or your publications and/or your attempts to build your reputation as some kind of anti-bitcoin "expert." 

Sorry to some of you for using the term "expert" in the same sentence in which I am referring to Stolfi.....   

Why so much agro and upset about Jorge's posts? He's not threatening you (or perhaps he is somehow?). He has a view and he expresses and articulates that view pretty well. I don't agree with much of what he says either but I appreciate that his posts are coherent, quite well written and free from personal attacks or vitriol. In fact, he's very gracious in his responses to many of you that get all so incensed that he's expressing the views that he is; and this is indicative that some of what he's saying has seriously hooked your innards and is tearing at you in some manner. That you're responding in such an affronted way says to me you're not 100% sure and his line of thought on this stuff causes internal conflict.

If you don't agree with his take on Bitcoin (and crypto in general), just point out calmly and unemotionally where his logic, assumptions or beliefs are flawed. I think it's very good to have someone like him putting the ideas up he does as it makes for interesting consideration of his views versus alternatives.

Isn't this what a thread like this is about?

I think that my various responses had the right tone.   I have been reading his posts for at least a year and a half. 

 There is NO personal attack contained within my responses... a little colorful language and to suggest that someone is simplifying and misleading is NOT a personal attack, it is an attack on his generally disingenuous presentation and he should know better regarding a variety of his points, that he is full of shit... and that is NOT a personal attack..   

[ChartBuddy]

Coin
Explanation

[JayJuanGee]

Why so much agro and upset about Jorge's posts? He's not threatening you (or perhaps he is somehow?). He has a view and he expresses and articulates that view pretty well. I don't agree with much of what he says either but I appreciate that his posts are coherent, quite well written and free from personal attacks or vitriol. In fact, he's very gracious in his responses to many of you that get all so incensed that he's expressing the views that he is; and this is indicative that some of what he's saying has seriously hooked your innards and is tearing at you in some manner. That you're responding in such an affronted way says to me you're not 100% sure and his line of thought on this stuff causes internal conflict.

If you don't agree with his take on Bitcoin (and crypto in general), just point out calmly and unemotionally where his logic, assumptions or beliefs are flawed. I think it's very good to have someone like him putting the ideas up he does as it makes for interesting consideration of his views versus alternatives.

Isn't this what a thread like this is about?

Your gracious friend has been trolling this forum for years now. I agree that there is no need to get all fired up about it, but to "point out calmly and unemotionally where his logic, assumptions or beliefs are flawed" is even more of a waste.

He has some ideas that (I think) are the very antithesis of what crypto is all about. Suggesting that there'll inevitably have to be a rethink on the 21 million cap and that an increase will eventually happen is the slippery slope to Bitcoin being just another manipulated disaster like we're seeing with almost all fiat currencies (and, obviously to get it to be manipulatable like that, will require some dramatic action and reallocation of mining resources away from the current Bitcoin community). In fact he basically seems to have a line of thought that takes the current monetary system's "features" and attributes and retrospectively applies them to Bitcoin like "it's just how money works and if Bitcoin doesn't hold these properties it will fail". That I find to be backward thinking as it's failing to see the paradigm of how central bankers and Wall Street "run" the monetary system is THE problem and to use it as a framework of sorts for how crypto needs to operate is everything crypto isn't and should never be (but any conversation about 'money' is by nature controversial and complex).

My point though is he appears to have many people quite riled up and that's unfortunate. His points simply need to be deconstructed and the flaws pointed out. But if it's a waste of time doing that (and I haven't been in this thread for more than a few months) then probably best to just let him post and not respond.

Either way I don't find his posts to be trollish in their nature (but maybe his "graciousness" is hiding a whole other agenda I'm not aware of) and I appreciate he's expressing his view and that's perfectly okay.

People are riled up, somewhat, with Stofl because his posts are generally deceptive and misleading and accordingly disingenuous...

Many times, he has actually admitted to being a troll of these forms...

In other words, trolls deal in disingenuous arguments and distractions and really attempt to incite others with their ridiculous points... surely from time to time Stofli makes decent points, but that generally is the exception rather than the rule...   most of the time he is misleading and spinning... ..

surely we can ignore him or communicate rationally with him, but sometimes he needs to be called out because otherwise some people, including what appears to be yourself, will begin to believe some of his several stupid ass misleading posts.

[becoin]

Economists have know for 500 years that a currency must have some inflation, otherwise people will hoard it and it will not be available for use as a currency.  

Well, do you really think that people would prefer to live in misery, die out of thirst, hunger, cold, and diseases but hoard their money? Are you one of those 'economists'?

[Fatman3001]

I think that my various responses had the right tone.   I have been reading his posts for at least a year and a half. 

 There is NO personal attack contained within my responses... a little colorful language and to suggest that someone is simplifying and misleading is NOT a personal attack, it is an attack on his generally disingenuous presentation and he should know better regarding a variety of his points, that he is full of shit... and that is NOT a personal attack..   

Or complexifying and misleading, in any event, he's doing it for the lulz.

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

....
My point though is he appears to have many people quite riled up and that's unfortunate. His points simply need to be deconstructed and the flaws pointed out. But if it's a waste of time doing that (and I haven't been in this thread for more than a few months) then probably best to just let him post and not respond.

Either way I don't find his posts to be trollish in their nature (but maybe his "graciousness" is hiding a whole other agenda I'm not aware of) and I appreciate he's expressing his view and that's perfectly okay.

I agree. The only ones who get really riled up by Jorge are the guys who believe that bitcoin will *somehow* make them incredibly wealthy, but who cannot quite understand the mechanics of how it will happen. When anyone pokes wholes in that balloon, they fight back angrier than a bag full of cats.

But I've always found his posts interesting, if perhaps following a set narative. Jorg feel bitcoin will fail because of inherent flaws in its design.

 I, on the other hand, feel it just might succeed in spite of them!  

[gizmoh]

Je suis Stolfi

[ChartBuddy]

Coin
Explanation

[smoothie]

It was quite clear that the short term rally started. We clearly saw a triangle formation in our bitcoin forecast

lol this was a rare moment of TA is working with Bitcoin. remember all the not counted and untold (from you) cases where the dumps ruled the price and TA was not working because in this Bitcoin market too few trading with the rules of TA.

BTW it is so easy to open the mouth AFTER something did happened. the next time I will be much more impressed if you open your moth BEFORE something will happen.  

EDIT: so a serious question for you expert? is this the bottom? 

thanks for the flowers :-)

Subscribers know that bullbearanalytics.com gives the right bitcoin forecast before things happen. The performance chart shows it.

Wow such bullshit ^

[julian071]

*bullbearshit

[ChartBuddy]

Coin
Explanation

[var53]

It was quite clear that the short term rally started. We clearly saw a triangle formation in our bitcoin forecast

lol this was a rare moment of TA is working with Bitcoin. remember all the not counted and untold (from you) cases where the dumps ruled the price and TA was not working because in this Bitcoin market too few trading with the rules of TA.

BTW it is so easy to open the mouth AFTER something did happened. the next time I will be much more impressed if you open your moth BEFORE something will happen.  

EDIT: so a serious question for you expert? is this the bottom? 

thanks for the flowers :-)

Subscribers know that bullbearanalytics.com gives the right bitcoin forecast before things happen. The performance chart shows it.

Wow such bullshit ^

How come that chart shows Bitcoin shooting up from $150 to $1000+ in November 13, but their funds only went up a tiny little bit in November 13? If their strategies are so great then their funds should have increased in value faster than Bitcoin back then. Why did Bitcoin shoot up in value in November 13, but their funds didn't? Anyone holding Bitcoin back then could make money just by sitting back and watching it shoot up in value

[billyjoeallen]

Can you imagine a design of cryptocurrency that would be to your liking, or is the concept as a whole damned to failure in your mind?

Hopefully that negative interest would be enough to dissuade hoarders and speculators.  

Most of this forum think the inflation of fiat currencies is a bad thing and that bitcoin has solved a problem with its fixed supply. They dont understand that inflation is a very important tool to keep investments going.


Imagine your national currency without inflation. The money you have in your pocket would never loose value. Seems nice if you dont have a lot of money but what happen if you had a lot of money. You could just hoard the money and live of ot for the rest of your life. There would be no interest in investing to make more money since investing is a risk.

With todays inflating fiat there is no point in hoarding money. Your money supply loose value if you just hoard them. You have to get the money out there and work for you. Either by investing or putting them in a bank and let them invest for you.

A fixed supply economy like bitcoin would be the end of investing. Why invest if you can just hodl to increase your holdings.

Perhaps you didn't read up where I explained that "hoarding" is savings and it is absolutely essential for a healthy economy.  If there is no incentive to consume less than one produces, an entire economy's wealth is stagnant at best and consumed in one generation at worst.  We are currently watching this play out on a global scale.

It's laughable to claim that there would be no investing with a deflationary currency. The late nineteenth century in America saw prices fall almost everywhere and a massive increase in the standard of living. People would still spend a currency even if they knew it would go up in value forever because nobody lives forever. They just wouldn't spend it frivolously. That's a bad thing? We all need billboard-sized flat screen television sets and a new car every two years?

You must separate normal working people and rich people as i tried to do. Buying a new television is not investing. Building a sky skraper is investing.

Inflation gives those with a lot of money a push to get their money invested somewhere or it will loose value. A fixed supply coin like bitcoin is not good for investing but for holding. If we imagine a future with mainstream use of bitcoin it would be better to hold your bitcoin than to use them. The more you hold the more you earn because the value only goes up. Only stupid people would invest money they know would increase value into anything that might be risky. Thats why national banks will force inflation to the right level. To low inflation would ruin the economy since all investments stops. To high inflation is also bad since it makes people swap their money for something that will hold value and nobody invests.

The fixed supply of bitcoin is only good for speculation like this thread is about. Knowing what the supply is and what it will be in the future makes it easier to do the right moves when you trade.

Separate "normal working people" from rich people? I completely disagree. "Rich" people need to save for truck factories the same way that people like me need to save for a truck.  People who are pressured to spend their savings before it gets diluted through inflation are more likely to misallocate their capital. They could for example build a solar panel factory only to find that technological advances makes their solar panels obsolete. 

The people who make the argument for inflation because it frees up capital are short-sighted.  Capital that is freed up by definition is not available for future use.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin
Explanation

[findftp]

How come that chart shows Bitcoin shooting up from $150 to $1000+ in November 13, but their funds only went up a tiny little bit in November 13? If their strategies are so great then their funds should have increased in value faster than Bitcoin back then. Why did Bitcoin shoot up in value in November 13, but their funds didn't? Anyone holding Bitcoin back then could make money just by sitting back and watching it shoot up in value

They probably only count the dollars when they've sold the bitcoins.
Once you have bought bitcoin, you can't say you hold dollars.
Once you sell the bitcoin, you get dollars again.
Therefor, when the price dropped, their chart goes up because they're selling bitcoin to covert them for dollars.

Obviously they count their gains in dollars.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin
Explanation