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

[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!

[TeeBone]

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


http://pricedingold.com/bitcoin/

About as useless a 'parity' as you'll ever find, as gold's global market cap is 8 trillion plus.

[gembitz]

market cap pinning towards the moon!! :-D  Market Cap $17,384,841,769

https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/bitcoin/

[marcus_of_augustus]

A bitcoin ETF would be for the bitcoin 'market cap' like an IPO for big. tech. stock ....

[notme]

A bitcoin ETF would be for the bitcoin 'market cap' like an IPO for big. tech. stock ....

Opens way too high, crashes immediately, then slowly recovers to 4X the IPO price?

[savetherainforest]

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

bahahahaha

good luck!

I imagine we will actually have that problem! ... And probably the best answer will be : "fake funny paper monopoly money that people believed it was real and held the illusion of actually having value!" ... kids will scratch their heads a bit when hearing that...  




                                                                                                                                                                                  

[marcus_of_augustus]

A bitcoin ETF would be for the bitcoin 'market cap' like an IPO for big. tech. stock ....

Opens way too high, crashes immediately, then slowly recovers to 4X the IPO price?

lol, yeah probably.

What about the whole gets pumped insanely by Cramer on Mad Money and rumours swirled about by suits on Wall St., public money is bewildered, bemused and titillated at crazy valuation volatility but puts mad money in anyway, some early investor techies lose their shit and drop out of rat race, marrying for the 3rd time and going native in a forest somewhere, different groups inside the organisation form factions and start vying for control until open war breaks out and CEO gets fired by the new board chairman appointed by the suits. etc. etc? ... you know the whole tech. IPO nine yards thing.

[Karartma1]

A bitcoin ETF would be for the bitcoin 'market cap' like an IPO for big. tech. stock ....

Opens way too high, crashes immediately, then slowly recovers to 4X the IPO price?

lol, yeah probably.

What about the whole gets pumped insanely by Cramer on Mad Money and rumours swirled about by suits on Wall St., public money is bewildered, bemused and titillated at crazy valuation volatility but puts mad money in anyway, some early investor techies lose their shit and drop out of rat race, marrying for the 3rd time and going native in a forest somewhere, different groups inside the organisation form factions and start vying for control until open war breaks out and CEO gets fired by the new board chairman appointed by the suits. etc. etc? ... you know the whole tech. IPO nine yards thing.

I think you are missing an important part of the puzzle. There are many small/medium size investors that want to invest in such an instrument. They don't want to hold bitcoin they will never get it but they want a share in the ETF. And they will buy it and trade like they always did.

[machasm]

So close to breaking through to 1000 euro!