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

[PoolMinor]

Did we loose lose feed from Whoboi? Did China finally ban BTC?

Here you go. https://cryptowat.ch/huobi/btccny

[becoin]

From a fundamental perspective, people that can actually understand how all these variables interact (which I think are very few) know that in current state bitcoin is relatively broken in terms of long term workability.  The only question is how high can the price go before people figure that out.

Bitcoin is relatively broken in terms of long term workability from day one, yet from $1 reached $1000. Obviously, it is not that broken, isn't it?
The Internet is relatively broken in terms of long term workability from day one, yet we continue to use it in our everyday life.

Bitcoin has many serious issues. But there is not a single one that is unsolvable!

[gembitz]

i think people who sensationalize a scalabilty problem should reevaluate the facts !  

This is nonsense.  The only reason you can type such a thing right now is because nobody has been priced out of on-chain transactions yet.  As soon as that happens (which is definitely not far away), that's when bitcoin hits a wall due to what I said here:

A settlement layer has to compete with or beat gold as a store of value.  Bitcoin cannot accomplish that task so it has to do something else besides being a settlement layer or there is no point!

This is the gorilla in the room.  It turns out Roger Ver is wrong because slightly bigger blocks solves nothing.  Bitcoin would require a full blown LN capacity or it doesn't really have a value proposition.  The only question is, can the LN actually function?  It seems like to me you would have to place all channel closing in a centralized queue, so I have my doubts about LN.  And that is the real fundamental analysis of Bitcoin that most people in this thread either can't comprehend or sort of know there are issues like this but choose to ignore them and hope someone will pump it anyway.

So for bitcoin holders to have any value for their coins would need both miners to adopt segwit and LN to actually work in a decentralized manner, and there is currently no assurance for either one.  Although, I think it's likely they will pass segwit once people figure the conclusion I derive is true.  But then you still need LN to work in a decentralized manner or it's just some obfuscated form of Paypal.  Economy of scale might already cause terminal centralization for the 1st tier bitcoin network in the first place though, by driving the reqs to participate to corporation level.

From a fundamental perspective, people that can actually understand how all these variables interact (which I think are very few) know that in current state bitcoin is relatively broken in terms of long term workability.  The only question is how high can the price go before people figure that out.

^bitcoin parity with gold is a nobrainer ~ segwit appears to me like a clear understandable palatable development whereas LN is leaning towards experimental and we are yet to see if it will actually work as discribed or is even an essential add-on that will be embraced by endusers.       *stay tuned*

[600watt]

i do expect that the price of bitcoin will trade betweem $850 and $950 for some time,

I don't think so. Too many people want to have at least one bitcoin.

true, and not even every millionaire (denominated in $) could have one. there are more millionaires existing than bitcoin.

I understand your point, but What a silly one, no?   At today's prices, as I type, a million dollars could get you about 1,093 bitcoins, but if you have a million to invest, you might need to diversify a little bit, no?

Frequently, I mention to people who might be skeptical about bitcoins, that 1% to 10% of your quasi-liquid investment funds could be reasonable to invest in bitcoin, but if you happen to be fairly skeptical and skittish about today's prices, then maybe you would feel comfortable with only 1% in bitcoin, and all those variations seem reasonable.  So, at today's prices, a person who has $1million to invest but is fairly sceptical about bitcoins could still get 10.93 bitcoins... in other words, what seems to be your point, 600watt, those millionaires should act now, while the price is seemingly reasonable in a globally distributed mindset and while supplies last (before everyone else finds out the value of bitcoin).

my point is that even today, hell, even if bitcoin price tanks to $100 - no matter what price - not every existing millionaire can have one bitcoin. even if all existing btc hodlers would sell all their coins. there is no theoretical way possible, because there are more millionaires than bitcoins. to me this is an interesting fact, to lots of others it seems silly. i don´t understand why people get so itchy about it.    

edit: hodlers

[Karartma1]

And many millionaires want Bitcoin right here right now, but they want them Over the counter. I've been informed that the CEO of a SME nearby Wien bought a $1.5M worth Bitcoin back in November.
There will not be enough BTC for everybody: even Satoshis will be hoarded one day

[Darker45]

And many millionaires want Bitcoin right here right now, but they want them Over the counter. I've been informed that the CEO of a SME nearby Wien bought a $1.5M worth Bitcoin back in November.
There will not be enough BTC for everybody: even Satoshis will be hoarded one day

Exactly. This is what I am thinking. And one day some people will wish that they could've persevered those faucets.

[gembitz]

i do expect that the price of bitcoin will trade betweem $850 and $950 for some time,

I don't think so. Too many people want to have at least one bitcoin.

true, and not even every millionaire (denominated in $) could have one. there are more millionaires existing than bitcoin.

I understand your point, but What a silly one, no?   At today's prices, as I type, a million dollars could get you about 1,093 bitcoins, but if you have a million to invest, you might need to diversify a little bit, no?

Frequently, I mention to people who might be skeptical about bitcoins, that 1% to 10% of your quasi-liquid investment funds could be reasonable to invest in bitcoin, but if you happen to be fairly skeptical and skittish about today's prices, then maybe you would feel comfortable with only 1% in bitcoin, and all those variations seem reasonable.  So, at today's prices, a person who has $1million to invest but is fairly sceptical about bitcoins could still get 10.93 bitcoins... in other words, what seems to be your point, 600watt, those millionaires should act now, while the price is seemingly reasonable in a globally distributed mindset and while supplies last (before everyone else finds out the value of bitcoin).

my point is that even today, hell, even if bitcoin price tanks to $100 - no matter what price - not every existing millionaire can have one bitcoin. even if all existing btc hodlers would sell all their coins. there is no theoretical way possible, because there are more millionaires than bitcoins. to me this is an interesting fact, to lots of others it seems silly. i don´t understand why people get so itchy about it.    

edit: hodlers

/\BTCitcoin is for BTCillionaires !    

[DARKHOLDER]

Cashed out. See you at $725..

Probably you  want to say see at 1025$

[Denker]

i do expect that the price of bitcoin will trade betweem $850 and $950 for some time,

I don't think so. Too many people want to have at least one bitcoin.

true, and not even every millionaire (denominated in $) could have one. there are more millionaires existing than bitcoin.

I understand your point, but What a silly one, no?   At today's prices, as I type, a million dollars could get you about 1,093 bitcoins, but if you have a million to invest, you might need to diversify a little bit, no?

Frequently, I mention to people who might be skeptical about bitcoins, that 1% to 10% of your quasi-liquid investment funds could be reasonable to invest in bitcoin, but if you happen to be fairly skeptical and skittish about today's prices, then maybe you would feel comfortable with only 1% in bitcoin, and all those variations seem reasonable.  So, at today's prices, a person who has $1million to invest but is fairly sceptical about bitcoins could still get 10.93 bitcoins... in other words, what seems to be your point, 600watt, those millionaires should act now, while the price is seemingly reasonable in a globally distributed mindset and while supplies last (before everyone else finds out the value of bitcoin).

my point is that even today, hell, even if bitcoin price tanks to $100 - no matter what price - not every existing millionaire can have one bitcoin. even if all existing btc hodlers would sell all their coins. there is no theoretical way possible, because there are more millionaires than bitcoins. to me this is an interesting fact, to lots of others it seems silly. i don´t understand why people get so itchy about it.    

edit: hodlers

This is interesting. I tried to find some data and decent information about the numbers of millionaires around the globe and found this article from mid 2015...

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/06/24/how-many-millionaires-in-the-world-it-depends.html

So depending which source you take, the number of millionaires at that time was around 14.5 to 35 million.
In addition to that there are ~1800 billionaires!
So hodl your coins guys!!

[becoin]

Cashed out. See you at $725..

Probably you  want to say see at 1025$

I cashed out too. See you at $1725.
I sold out my bank tokens and got bitcoins (the real cash).

[conspirosphere.tk]

This is the gorilla in the room.  It turns out Roger Ver is wrong because slightly bigger blocks solves nothing.  Bitcoin would require a full blown LN capacity or it doesn't really have a value proposition.  

Everything is fine.


The limited blockspace means just that BTC is supposed to be for serious stuff = perfect for storage of value/asset protection/diversification.
For tips and sh*t there is a thousand alts you can play with.

[r0ach]

bank tokens

I warned you guys for years and people didn't listen.  Bankers are literally shilling in the streets now:

http://www.dailystormer.com/white-men-against-trump-protester-called-out-as-filthy-jew-rat/

[European Central Bank]

For the super rich, it's all about rarity, subjective (perceived) value, and bragging rights.

i don't think the super rich pour money into new technologies for the sake of impressing anyone. the only reason they'd do it is to become more super rich which is fine by me.

[DieJohnny]

i think people who sensationalize a scalabilty problem should reevaluate the facts !  

This is nonsense.  The only reason you can type such a thing right now is because nobody has been priced out of on-chain transactions yet.  As soon as that happens (which is definitely not far away), that's when bitcoin hits a wall due to what I said here:

A settlement layer has to compete with or beat gold as a store of value.  Bitcoin cannot accomplish that task so it has to do something else besides being a settlement layer or there is no point!

This is the gorilla in the room.  It turns out Roger Ver is wrong because slightly bigger blocks solves nothing.  Bitcoin would require a full blown LN capacity or it doesn't really have a value proposition.  The only question is, can the LN actually function?  It seems like to me you would have to place all channel closing in a centralized queue, so I have my doubts about LN.  And that is the real fundamental analysis of Bitcoin that most people in this thread either can't comprehend or sort of know there are issues like this but choose to ignore them and hope someone will pump it anyway.

So for bitcoin holders to have any value for their coins would need both miners to adopt segwit and LN to actually work in a decentralized manner, and there is currently no assurance for either one.  Although, I think it's likely they will pass segwit once people figure the conclusion I derive is true.  But then you still need LN to work in a decentralized manner or it's just some obfuscated form of Paypal.  Economy of scale might already cause terminal centralization for the 1st tier bitcoin network in the first place though, by driving the reqs to participate to corporation level.

From a fundamental perspective, people that can actually understand how all these variables interact (which I think are very few) know that in current state bitcoin is relatively broken in terms of long term workability.  The only question is how high can the price go before people figure that out.

No, bitcoin does not need fungibility to have value. Bearer bonds, titanium, real estate, all are not close to being cash-fungible. Bitcoin only needs the ability transfer irrefutable ownership paired with critical-mass awareness, which Bitcoin achieved long ago, and which Bitcoin will never cease to have.

Bitcoin's path was set in stone 3 years ago, we are marching towards the inevitable. There are obviously going to be trivially small variations in that path, and there will be competitors, but Bitcoin as a global store of value has already happened. That value will only increase from a fast-growth perspective for 15-20 years, then increase only as the global economy increases.  

[Karpeles]

The last "crash" caused by a PBOC related issue lasted less than 12hours and caused a $40 drop in the price.

This time won't be different, by Monday the price will be back to $920+

Just as I predicted, the price is now back to $920 in less than 12 hours.

I don't think we are going to see prices much lower than $900 for any significant frame time anymore, so resistance probably will be around $900 for the short term

Not saying price won't fall, I just don't see any reason for a fall

[becoin]

No, bitcoin does not need fungability to have value.  

No. Bitcoin does need to be fungible if it wants to be money!
If it is not fungible people will start using another coin as money and bitcoin will lose its value!

[JayJuanGee]

i do expect that the price of bitcoin will trade betweem $850 and $950 for some time,

I don't think so. Too many people want to have at least one bitcoin.

true, and not even every millionaire (denominated in $) could have one. there are more millionaires existing than bitcoin.

I understand your point, but What a silly one, no?   At today's prices, as I type, a million dollars could get you about 1,093 bitcoins, but if you have a million to invest, you might need to diversify a little bit, no?

Frequently, I mention to people who might be skeptical about bitcoins, that 1% to 10% of your quasi-liquid investment funds could be reasonable to invest in bitcoin, but if you happen to be fairly skeptical and skittish about today's prices, then maybe you would feel comfortable with only 1% in bitcoin, and all those variations seem reasonable.  So, at today's prices, a person who has $1million to invest but is fairly sceptical about bitcoins could still get 10.93 bitcoins... in other words, what seems to be your point, 600watt, those millionaires should act now, while the price is seemingly reasonable in a globally distributed mindset and while supplies last (before everyone else finds out the value of bitcoin).

my point is that even today, hell, even if bitcoin price tanks to $100 - no matter what price - not every existing millionaire can have one bitcoin. even if all existing btc hodlers would sell all their coins. there is no theoretical way possible, because there are more millionaires than bitcoins. to me this is an interesting fact, to lots of others it seems silly. i don´t understand why people get so itchy about it.    

edit: hodlers

This is interesting. I tried to find some data and decent information about the numbers of millionaires around the globe and found this article from mid 2015...

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/06/24/how-many-millionaires-in-the-world-it-depends.html

So depending which source you take, the number of millionaires at that time was around 14.5 to 35 million.
In addition to that there are ~1800 billionaires!
So hodl your coins guys!!

I personally believe that the best measurement of wealth is to take all net assets that a person has and add them all up to determine whether the person is a millionaire (that is net worth); however, some folks have a much more liquid set of holdings than others, but that should not take away from their status regarding how much wealth they do have.

If a person is really wealthy in non-liquid assets, they are not going to be much of an investor because a large portion of their liquid is then going to be tied up just for daily living expenses, etc.

We likely need some term that is between millionnaire and billionnaire, anyhow because through inflation of the dollar, it has become a bit too easy to become a millionnaire, but it does not mean the same that it did 20 years ago.  With the inflation of recent times, maybe having $10 million in wealth would have a bit more of a meaningful significance as compared with the mere millionnaire status.

Finally, I do understand the point about not every millionnaire or whatever can have a whole bitcoin, but it still remains a bit of a silly point to me... because there are a lot of things that not everyone can have and it becomes a kind of so what, even if it is making a point about upside price potential of BTC when we already have some folks hoarding 100s or even thousands of coins, and other folks with a much smaller means, of course, struggling to build up their bitcoin holdings to even one coin (I doubt that all of those strugglers are teenagers, too)

[aztecminer]

hey all... i'm seeing btc between $1000 and $2400 first half of the year due to china unable to short or stop btc from rising when they yell stop pumping btc.... china is barely able to keep btc under $1000...the chinese mega whale almost got called at $1150.... the breakout will happen . .. china is panicking over price of bitcoin.

[d5000]

i think people who sensationalize a scalabilty problem should reevaluate the facts !  

This is nonsense.  The only reason you can type such a thing right now is because nobody has been priced out of on-chain transactions yet.  As soon as that happens (which is definitely not far away), that's when bitcoin hits a wall due to what I said here:

A settlement layer has to compete with or beat gold as a store of value.  Bitcoin cannot accomplish that task so it has to do something else besides being a settlement layer or there is no point!

This is the gorilla in the room.  It turns out Roger Ver is wrong because slightly bigger blocks solves nothing.  Bitcoin would require a full blown LN capacity or it doesn't really have a value proposition.

There are also alternative scenarios. For me, a possible solution of the scalability problem would be:

- LN for microtransactions - for very low amounts, it seems to offer an acceptable grade of centralization.
- a higher block size than today. I have made a (naive) calculation that 1 TB of blockchain space per year (~20 MB blocks, ~6 per hour like in BTC today) could handle ~325 million transactions per month - could be enough for about 50 to 100 million households if they use LN for microtransactions. That should be achievable in the medium term.
- multiple competing blockchains which are able to inter-operate with a form of atomic cross-chain trading.

This scenario would enable us to use on-chain transactions for all medium sized payments.

[DieJohnny]

No, bitcoin does not need fungability to have value.  

No. Bitcoin does need to be fungible if it wants to be money!
If it is not fungible people will start using another coin as money and bitcoin will lose its value!

Well the reason you are wrong is because you falsely conclude that ANY of bitcoins value today is because it "might" be as fungible as money in the future.

It 100% IS NOT as fungible as money today and never has been in the past.

I can assure you that bitcoin is not going to lose value on fungibility issues because it has always been as fungible as it has ever needed to be.