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

[Cassius]

Why 1337 $ ??
For me will be a little lower than 1100

what matters is to top the previous high.

Getting over the previous gox high of $1242 is what matters.

^^^ irrelevant number due to insolvancy. Only $1165 Bitstamp matters.

Have to disagree. Technically, maybe. But mainstream media won't report that 'Bitcoin has risen above its ATH, where ATH means the Stamp high because the Gox high does count because there was this bot called Willy and...'

You're crediting them with a level of diligence they won't exercise. News will only come on $1,243.

Who gives a ratt's ass about mainstream media?  Apparently, you do Cassius, and yeah maybe a few other folks who have their tin foil hats tuned to the wrong frequencies.

Yeah, we have to account for various renditions, framings, emphasis and attention of mainstream media, but accounting for their bullshit does not mean that we let them define BTC fundamentals or more realistic BTC measurements and indicators..

So, in this regard, since when are we allowing FUD to define BTC fundamentals?  Oh yeah, trolls and detractors like to do that.  I almost forgot.  

This is why I usually have you on ignore.
It's very simple. Mainstream media attention brings new people and therefore new money. That seems pretty fundamental for adoption to me. It's the difference between $1241 and $1243. Sorry you don't grasp this.

It is called having a different opinion about the weight of mainstream media and the concept of "mass adoption", and you can keep others on ignore all you want and spout out your pie in the sky theories that may only tangentially be connected with reality that maybe every once in a while may come true (coincidentally  more than anything).

It does not make anyone a bad person when they engage on these kinds of topics or have differing opinions.

Regarding mass adoption... get the fuck out of here.   I know that a lot of folks talk about this, and sure bitcoin is becoming more and more well known and more and more adopted around the world, but we should have discovered quite a while ago that this talking point is not driving BTC prices in a direct way and there are much better ways to discuss the adoption issues.... including talking about the various network effect that exist and continue to exist and are expanding on an ongoing basis.

What the fuck is mass adoption, anyhow?    Yeah, it is going to come, but it is quite a long way out there...

What do we currently have in bitcoin?  less than .01% of the world's population in bitcoin in some kind of way?  i understand that there are a lot of measurements in bitcoin to attempt to guage expansion, but mass adoption? that talking point is so 2014... hahahaha

In other words, bitcoin does not need to experience "mass adoption" in order to be successful or to have various additional exponential price growth periods - even if "mass adoption" can and likely does contribute to ongoing upwards price pressures, it is not a controlling or even as much of a necessary factor as you seem to be asserting.. because we are way the fuck out from even being close to achieving anything near "mass adoption"  in bitcoinlandia.

I put you on ignore because you rarely if ever say anything coherent, lack the capacity to understand nuance and have become progressively unpleasant in the 3 years you've been active here. It's sad, but there it is.

[roony]

$1100 tonight?

Tomorrow it will happen sure, tomorrow the majority of the people receive their salarys, and certantly new money will do that climb

[JayJuanGee]

Why 1337 $ ??
For me will be a little lower than 1100

what matters is to top the previous high.

Getting over the previous gox high of $1242 is what matters.

^^^ irrelevant number due to insolvancy. Only $1165 Bitstamp matters.

Have to disagree. Technically, maybe. But mainstream media won't report that 'Bitcoin has risen above its ATH, where ATH means the Stamp high because the Gox high does count because there was this bot called Willy and...'

You're crediting them with a level of diligence they won't exercise. News will only come on $1,243.

Who gives a ratt's ass about mainstream media?  Apparently, you do Cassius, and yeah maybe a few other folks who have their tin foil hats tuned to the wrong frequencies.

Yeah, we have to account for various renditions, framings, emphasis and attention of mainstream media, but accounting for their bullshit does not mean that we let them define BTC fundamentals or more realistic BTC measurements and indicators..

So, in this regard, since when are we allowing FUD to define BTC fundamentals?  Oh yeah, trolls and detractors like to do that.  I almost forgot.  

This is why I usually have you on ignore.
It's very simple. Mainstream media attention brings new people and therefore new money. That seems pretty fundamental for adoption to me. It's the difference between $1241 and $1243. Sorry you don't grasp this.

It is called having a different opinion about the weight of mainstream media and the concept of "mass adoption", and you can keep others on ignore all you want and spout out your pie in the sky theories that may only tangentially be connected with reality that maybe every once in a while may come true (coincidentally  more than anything).

It does not make anyone a bad person when they engage on these kinds of topics or have differing opinions.

Regarding mass adoption... get the fuck out of here.   I know that a lot of folks talk about this, and sure bitcoin is becoming more and more well known and more and more adopted around the world, but we should have discovered quite a while ago that this talking point is not driving BTC prices in a direct way and there are much better ways to discuss the adoption issues.... including talking about the various network effect that exist and continue to exist and are expanding on an ongoing basis.

What the fuck is mass adoption, anyhow?    Yeah, it is going to come, but it is quite a long way out there...

What do we currently have in bitcoin?  less than .01% of the world's population in bitcoin in some kind of way?  i understand that there are a lot of measurements in bitcoin to attempt to guage expansion, but mass adoption? that talking point is so 2014... hahahaha

In other words, bitcoin does not need to experience "mass adoption" in order to be successful or to have various additional exponential price growth periods - even if "mass adoption" can and likely does contribute to ongoing upwards price pressures, it is not a controlling or even as much of a necessary factor as you seem to be asserting.. because we are way the fuck out from even being close to achieving anything near "mass adoption"  in bitcoinlandia.

I put you on ignore because you rarely if ever say anything coherent, lack the capacity to understand nuance and have become progressively unpleasant in the 3 years you've been active here. It's sad, but there it is.

Do what you like.. but it seems that we have had several exchanges where I attempt to get you to address substance, and you get all wrapped up in personal bullshit, or avoidance or diversion. 

So, either way.  You can ignore my posts if you like or attempt to engage, but it seems that it is becoming much more apparent that you may be having some difficulties grappling with actual substance - that is why you tend to either focus on personal attacks and/or labelling my various substantive points as "incoherent."

 I will continue to comment on your posts to the extent that I may consider any potential utility for such comments... and it is up to you whether to respond or not.   

[AlexGR]

it will get critical at gold parity (1 ounce is 31.1 grams):


http://pricedingold.com/bitcoin/

I like to think parity in terms of ~380 ounces per BTC. That's due to the ratio of 6.1 bn above ground ounces vs 16.15 mn bitcoins mined.

That would require a price of $456k per BTC - but at least the scarcity ratio would be accounted for...

As a side note, the problem with gold spiking upwards is its large marketcap and large annual production levels. At current prices, ~3500 tons of gold per year of new mining output (without factoring recycling) is ~110mn oz. That requires 132bn USD to absorb. A tenfold increase in the price of gold, would suddenly require 1.32 trillion USD per year just to buy annual production. The problem is that there is no such liquidity in the system for allowing this.

On the other hand, silver or bitcoin, can do much larger runs due to their smaller marketcap and much smaller liquidity requirements to buy their annual production.

BTC at 10500$ (10x) would require just 6.9 billion per year to buy the annual production (657k coins x 10.5k usd).
Silver at 170$ (10x) would require 136 billion per year to buy the annual mining output of ~800mn oz.

Gold is priced so high that the numbers involved are too high at 1.32 trillion USD (in a scenario of 10x price) for its 110mn oz. It could happen in a hyperinflation scenario, but then the money one takes wouldn't be worth it anyway. In a sense, gold is constrained from doing a huge run by its large marketcap and the liquidity requirements in the fiat system to sustain prices of 10x+. Silver less so, and bitcoin even less so.

Bitcoin seems to be the best bet in terms of upwards potential because it's so small and its fiat requirements to sustain its rise and mining output absorption are equally small.

[Cassius]

Why 1337 $ ??
For me will be a little lower than 1100

what matters is to top the previous high.

Getting over the previous gox high of $1242 is what matters.

^^^ irrelevant number due to insolvancy. Only $1165 Bitstamp matters.

Have to disagree. Technically, maybe. But mainstream media won't report that 'Bitcoin has risen above its ATH, where ATH means the Stamp high because the Gox high does count because there was this bot called Willy and...'

You're crediting them with a level of diligence they won't exercise. News will only come on $1,243.

Who gives a ratt's ass about mainstream media?  Apparently, you do Cassius, and yeah maybe a few other folks who have their tin foil hats tuned to the wrong frequencies.

Yeah, we have to account for various renditions, framings, emphasis and attention of mainstream media, but accounting for their bullshit does not mean that we let them define BTC fundamentals or more realistic BTC measurements and indicators..

So, in this regard, since when are we allowing FUD to define BTC fundamentals?  Oh yeah, trolls and detractors like to do that.  I almost forgot.  

This is why I usually have you on ignore.
It's very simple. Mainstream media attention brings new people and therefore new money. That seems pretty fundamental for adoption to me. It's the difference between $1241 and $1243. Sorry you don't grasp this.

It is called having a different opinion about the weight of mainstream media and the concept of "mass adoption", and you can keep others on ignore all you want and spout out your pie in the sky theories that may only tangentially be connected with reality that maybe every once in a while may come true (coincidentally  more than anything).

It does not make anyone a bad person when they engage on these kinds of topics or have differing opinions.

Regarding mass adoption... get the fuck out of here.   I know that a lot of folks talk about this, and sure bitcoin is becoming more and more well known and more and more adopted around the world, but we should have discovered quite a while ago that this talking point is not driving BTC prices in a direct way and there are much better ways to discuss the adoption issues.... including talking about the various network effect that exist and continue to exist and are expanding on an ongoing basis.

What the fuck is mass adoption, anyhow?    Yeah, it is going to come, but it is quite a long way out there...

What do we currently have in bitcoin?  less than .01% of the world's population in bitcoin in some kind of way?  i understand that there are a lot of measurements in bitcoin to attempt to guage expansion, but mass adoption? that talking point is so 2014... hahahaha

In other words, bitcoin does not need to experience "mass adoption" in order to be successful or to have various additional exponential price growth periods - even if "mass adoption" can and likely does contribute to ongoing upwards price pressures, it is not a controlling or even as much of a necessary factor as you seem to be asserting.. because we are way the fuck out from even being close to achieving anything near "mass adoption"  in bitcoinlandia.

I put you on ignore because you rarely if ever say anything coherent, lack the capacity to understand nuance and have become progressively unpleasant in the 3 years you've been active here. It's sad, but there it is.

Do what you like.. but it seems that we have had several exchanges where I attempt to get you to address substance, and you get all wrapped up in personal bullshit, or avoidance or diversion. 

So, either way.  You can ignore my posts if you like or attempt to engage, but it seems that it is becoming much more apparent that you may be having some difficulties grappling with actual substance - that is why you tend to either focus on personal attacks and/or labelling my various substantive points as "incoherent."

 I will continue to comment on your posts to the extent that I may consider any potential utility for such comments... and it is up to you whether to respond or not.   

I don't think you're intentionally trolling, though bct has not done your personality any favours for sure. So I'll try one more time. Forget mass adoption. Shorthand is useful when typing on a smartphone. Think greater adoption, a prerequisite of which is people actually knowing about bitcoin. New people, outside of the message boards which are a really very small part of the world.
The reality is that journos will only prick up their ears and publish a story at the Gox ath. Then more people will read about it and a proportion will be interested enough to look into it more. This is how lots of people come to bitcoin and new things in general.
It's such a simple progression. Exposure equals greater user base. I really don't see what's so difficult or controversial about that.

[roony]

I like to think parity in terms of ~380 ounces per BTC. That's due to the ratio of 6.1 bn above ground ounces vs 16.15 mn bitcoins mined.

That would require a price of $456k per BTC - but at least the scarcity ratio would be accounted for...

As a side note, the problem with gold spiking upwards is its large marketcap and large annual production levels. At current prices, ~3500 tons of gold per year of new mining output (without factoring recycling) is ~110mn oz. That requires 132bn USD to absorb. A tenfold increase in the price of gold, would suddenly require 1.32 trillion USD per year just to buy annual production. The problem is that there is no such liquidity in the system for allowing this.

On the other hand, silver or bitcoin, can do much larger runs due to their smaller marketcap and much smaller liquidity requirements to buy their annual production.

BTC at 10500$ (10x) would require just 6.9 billion per year to buy the annual production (657k coins x 10.5k usd).
Silver at 170$ (10x) would require 136 billion per year to buy the annual mining output of ~800mn oz.

Gold is priced so high that the numbers involved are too high at 1.32 trillion USD (in a scenario of 10x price) for its 110mn oz. It could happen in a hyperinflation scenario, but then the money one takes wouldn't be worth it anyway. In a sense, gold is constrained from doing a huge run by its large marketcap and the liquidity requirements in the fiat system to sustain prices of 10x+. Silver less so, and bitcoin even less so.

Bitcoin seems to be the best bet in terms of upwards potential because it's so small and its fiat requirements to sustain its rise and mining output absorption are equally small.

Well observerd, and I agree with you in all you said 

[swogerino]

$1100 tonight?

$1050 already.
So why not?
Still 8 hours left on my side of the world until midnight starts a new day in bitcoin land.

[JayJuanGee]

[edited out]

I don't think you're intentionally trolling, though bct has not done your personality any favours for sure.

I don't know how you know this or why or how it is even relevant to anything?  My personality has changed because of bitcoin?  Sure it has, based on more than three years of investing, studying and posting... but so fucking what.

You wish people stay the same and don't learn anything?  Again, seems quite tangential to the extent that it could be relevant to anything.

So I'll try one more time. Forget mass adoption. Shorthand is useful when typing on a smartphone. Think greater adoption, a prerequisite of which is people actually knowing about bitcoin. New people, outside of the message boards which are a really very small part of the world.

Yes, it could be that we are talking about similar things and phrasing the matter in different ways.  My earlier point was that you seem to be giving way too much emphasis to the concept of mass adoption in your attempt to suggest that the ATH of GOX is actually relevant to BTC fundamentals or any kind of price movement dynamics or psychological barriers.  Several posters, including me, have asserted that the GOX ATH deserves little to no attention (sure that does not mean that you ignore it completely, but it seems to be a quite less important factor as compared with other factors.. and why put a less important factor in front of more important factors is somewhat beyond me   ).  

The reality is that journos will only prick up their ears and publish a story at the Gox ath. Then more people will read about it and a proportion will be interested enough to look into it more. This is how lots of people come to bitcoin and new things in general.
It's such a simple progression. Exposure equals greater user base. I really don't see what's so difficult or controversial about that.

Again, what you are saying is not untrue.. it is just a matter of the amount of weight that you seem to be attributing to such...

Mass media attention is a factor; however, most of us should already realize that there is and has been and will continue to be a lot of misinformation out there about bitcoin, and certainly folks have to filter through these various conflicting information sources.

Part of my point, that I already made, is that bitcoin is going to move up and down and sideways based on a large number of factors, and mass media may be one of them.. yet it continues to be one that does not necessarily correlate well with anything (including price) as you seem to want to suggest.

Let's say for example, we get a lot of mass media attention while the price is going up and being pumped.. yeah.. that can temporarily push the price pump longer and further, but in the end, it is only one of many factors pushing the price.. and sometimes can even be a sign that price is about to go down.

[Biodom]

LOL, according to this notion eth all time high is $2000 and Zec's is $200000 because some "opportunists" traded a few tiny fractions of a unit at day one when there was like 0.03 zecs mined.

[savetherainforest]

$1100 tonight?

Maybe on the China exchanges...  

[raiblock]

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/bitcoin-price-soars-past-1060-as-political-worries-intensify-2017-02-07?siteid=bigcharts&dist=bigcharts

 

[conspirosphere.tk]

BTC at 10500$ (10x) would require just 6.9 billion per year to buy the annual production (657k coins x 10.5k usd).
Silver at 170$ (10x) would require 136 billion per year to buy the annual mining output of ~800mn oz.

very interesting.
Thx

[TaurusBit]

it will get critical at gold parity (1 ounce is 31.1 grams):


http://pricedingold.com/bitcoin/

I like to think parity in terms of ~380 ounces per BTC. That's due to the ratio of 6.1 bn above ground ounces vs 16.15 mn bitcoins mined.

That would require a price of $456k per BTC - but at least the scarcity ratio would be accounted for...

As a side note, the problem with gold spiking upwards is its large marketcap and large annual production levels. At current prices, ~3500 tons of gold per year of new mining output (without factoring recycling) is ~110mn oz. That requires 132bn USD to absorb. A tenfold increase in the price of gold, would suddenly require 1.32 trillion USD per year just to buy annual production. The problem is that there is no such liquidity in the system for allowing this.

On the other hand, silver or bitcoin, can do much larger runs due to their smaller marketcap and much smaller liquidity requirements to buy their annual production.

BTC at 10500$ (10x) would require just 6.9 billion per year to buy the annual production (657k coins x 10.5k usd).
Silver at 170$ (10x) would require 136 billion per year to buy the annual mining output of ~800mn oz.

Gold is priced so high that the numbers involved are too high at 1.32 trillion USD (in a scenario of 10x price) for its 110mn oz. It could happen in a hyperinflation scenario, but then the money one takes wouldn't be worth it anyway. In a sense, gold is constrained from doing a huge run by its large marketcap and the liquidity requirements in the fiat system to sustain prices of 10x+. Silver less so, and bitcoin even less so.

Bitcoin seems to be the best bet in terms of upwards potential because it's so small and its fiat requirements to sustain its rise and mining output absorption are equally small.

Nice analysis. 

[yefi]

$1050 already.
So why not?
Still 8 hours left on my side of the world until midnight starts a new day in bitcoin land.

We're certainly doing very nicely at the moment. It's tempting to think we might go exponential, which would wrong-foot everyone looking for triangles or handles.

[cmacwiz]

Looks like we are about to go into price exploration mode, as long as we bust through 1160

[Killerpotleaf]

it will get critical at gold parity (1 ounce is 31.1 grams):


http://pricedingold.com/bitcoin/

I like to think parity in terms of ~380 ounces per BTC. That's due to the ratio of 6.1 bn above ground ounces vs 16.15 mn bitcoins mined.

That would require a price of $456k per BTC - but at least the scarcity ratio would be accounted for...

As a side note, the problem with gold spiking upwards is its large marketcap and large annual production levels. At current prices, ~3500 tons of gold per year of new mining output (without factoring recycling) is ~110mn oz. That requires 132bn USD to absorb. A tenfold increase in the price of gold, would suddenly require 1.32 trillion USD per year just to buy annual production. The problem is that there is no such liquidity in the system for allowing this.

On the other hand, silver or bitcoin, can do much larger runs due to their smaller marketcap and much smaller liquidity requirements to buy their annual production.

BTC at 10500$ (10x) would require just 6.9 billion per year to buy the annual production (657k coins x 10.5k usd).
Silver at 170$ (10x) would require 136 billion per year to buy the annual mining output of ~800mn oz.

Gold is priced so high that the numbers involved are too high at 1.32 trillion USD (in a scenario of 10x price) for its 110mn oz. It could happen in a hyperinflation scenario, but then the money one takes wouldn't be worth it anyway. In a sense, gold is constrained from doing a huge run by its large marketcap and the liquidity requirements in the fiat system to sustain prices of 10x+. Silver less so, and bitcoin even less so.

Bitcoin seems to be the best bet in terms of upwards potential because it's so small and its fiat requirements to sustain its rise and mining output absorption are equally small.

Nice analysis. 

ya +1

[gembitz]

$1100 bitcoin i can smell it cooking... 

[Killerpotleaf]

There will be people in the world that will buy bitcoin, use bitcoin, want bitcoin, even need bitcoin.  They will do this for many different reasons. The vast majority of these people will not be rich.  Most will be poor.

But when the rich people of the world suddenly see the opportunity to buy up bitcoin, their future intention is to sell it back to the middle class and the poor at 5X, 10X, or even 20X the price of what it was before.  They can do this just by gobbling up supply.

That's what the rich have done with real estate, PMs, stocks, etc.

So take heed, people. Why wait?  You need to be selling bitcoin back to them at 20X.

In other words, if you cannot fight them, then join them... 

OR you use your BTC to buy a life time supply of goat shit from them, no more heating bill!

[marcus_of_augustus]

it will get critical at gold parity (1 ounce is 31.1 grams):


http://pricedingold.com/bitcoin/

I like to think parity in terms of ~380 ounces per BTC. That's due to the ratio of 6.1 bn above ground ounces vs 16.15 mn bitcoins mined.

That would require a price of $456k per BTC - but at least the scarcity ratio would be accounted for...

As a side note, the problem with gold spiking upwards is its large marketcap and large annual production levels. At current prices, ~3500 tons of gold per year of new mining output (without factoring recycling) is ~110mn oz. That requires 132bn USD to absorb. A tenfold increase in the price of gold, would suddenly require 1.32 trillion USD per year just to buy annual production. The problem is that there is no such liquidity in the system for allowing this.

On the other hand, silver or bitcoin, can do much larger runs due to their smaller marketcap and much smaller liquidity requirements to buy their annual production.

BTC at 10500$ (10x) would require just 6.9 billion per year to buy the annual production (657k coins x 10.5k usd).
Silver at 170$ (10x) would require 136 billion per year to buy the annual mining output of ~800mn oz.

Gold is priced so high that the numbers involved are too high at 1.32 trillion USD (in a scenario of 10x price) for its 110mn oz. It could happen in a hyperinflation scenario, but then the money one takes wouldn't be worth it anyway. In a sense, gold is constrained from doing a huge run by its large marketcap and the liquidity requirements in the fiat system to sustain prices of 10x+. Silver less so, and bitcoin even less so.

Bitcoin seems to be the best bet in terms of upwards potential because it's so small and its fiat requirements to sustain its rise and mining output absorption are equally small.

Some interesting points in here, especially the the scarcity ratio

Code:

380 oz: 1 btc

comparison between bitcoin:gold ...

... anyone watching this may also be interested in following this thread Gold Price Parity Watch

[Killerpotleaf]

Imagine yourself 20 years older, trying to explain to the new generation, what is fiat.

bahahahaha

good luck!