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

[bones261]

The market cap of above ground silver and bitcoin is similar now.  Bitcoin is no longer some cheap penny stock.  The US gold vs debt chart with 92% correlation shows gold will hit at least $2200 in the next bull run, which would bring the GSR to 30:1 or lower ($73 silver).  Bitcoin would need to hit $12,000 to compete with that almost guaranteed silver upside in the near future.  

But that's a very conservative number for just a stable market situation.  In a real crisis situation and rush to hard assets, gold would be more like $5000 and $166 silver or more.  Or a government metals revaluation of gold to $10k and silver to 1:15 ratio of astronomically high numbers like $600 silver.  Bitcoin would need to be able to hit $100k each to compete with that possible silver upside.  It will never happen.  Big corporations will just create their own scamcoins and try to force people into them and the crypto market cap will be divided up between 50 different coins (also due to poor scalability and high fees), unlike the metals market where you can't just "invent" a new gold or silver and are forced to buy the real thing.

Revelation 13:16-18
Maybe the mark is a QR code. 

[1714853690]

1714853690

[1714853690]

1714853690

[1714853690]

1714853690

[r0ach]

The market cap of above ground silver and bitcoin is similar now.  Bitcoin is no longer some cheap penny stock.  The US gold vs debt chart with 92% correlation shows gold will hit at least $2200 in the next bull run, which would bring the GSR to 30:1 or lower ($73 silver).  Bitcoin would need to hit $12,000 to compete with that almost guaranteed silver upside in the near future.  

But that's a very conservative number for just a stable market situation.  In a real crisis situation and rush to hard assets, gold would be more like $5000 and $166 silver or more.  Or a government metals revaluation of gold to $10k and silver to 1:15 ratio of astronomically high numbers like $600 silver.  Bitcoin would need to be able to hit $100k each to compete with that possible silver upside.  It will never happen.  Big corporations will just create their own scamcoins and try to force people into them and the crypto market cap will be divided up between 50 different coins (also due to poor scalability and high fees), unlike the metals market where you can't just "invent" a new gold or silver and are forced to buy the real thing.

Revelation 13:16-18
Maybe the mark is a QR code.  

If such a thing as the "mark of the beast" was actually real, I'm sure a lot of cucks in the west will take it, but it has around zero hope of spreading worldwide so you can always go somewhere else.  Does it look like you can force the "mark of the beast" on the Chechens for fucks sake?  The national pastime is pretending to be rambo:



You would need to nuke all of Russia and all kinds of other groups to make it happen.  Which is probably exactly why the evil Jews who have taken over the US govt are attempting to do exactly that.

[Dafar]

Michael Pento says metals will have broken all time highs by late 2018 and bitcoin useless:

https://youtu.be/U3qHMPgYy4c?t=1432

His quotes:
"That's the beauty about gold... it's extremely limited in supply" [as if bitcoin's aren't??]
"...and neither of those attributes [such as limited supply] can be said about ANY digital currency" WTF??

I happen to like Mike Pento, but he really needs to do some more research on Bitcoin before he makes such statements.

He's not stupid, he knows there's 900+ craptocurrencies and there's more incentive to create your own new pump and dump like Ethereum rather than be forced to buy someone else's already cornered scamcoin.  There will always be a market incentive to create new coins as well rather than people paying $5, $10, $100, or $1000 transaction fees.  The greater fool concept only works if people actually need what you have.  

If Elwar corners all 21 million bitcoins, guess what?  It doesn't mean anything to me.  I can just ignore him and go on with life and use metals or create my own craptocurrency to bypass him.  If I corner all $40 billion or so of above ground silver, you don't get to bypass me since it's actually a non-virtual good that's used in lots of things.  A "virtual commodity" as a concept definitely ranks up there as one of the biggest economic scams of all time.

No, he's pretty stupid if he thinks gold will outperform bitcoin lol  

The market cap of above ground silver and bitcoin is similar now.  Bitcoin is no longer some cheap penny stock.  The US gold vs debt chart with 92% correlation shows gold will hit at least $2200 in the next bull run, which would bring the GSR to 30:1 or lower ($73 silver).  Bitcoin would need to hit $12,000 to compete with that almost guaranteed silver upside in the near future.  

But that's a very conservative number for just a stable market situation.  In a real crisis situation and rush to hard assets, gold would be more like $5000 and $166 silver or more.  Or a government metals revaluation of gold to $10k and silver to 1:15 ratio of astronomically high numbers like $600 silver.  Bitcoin would need to be able to hit $100k each to compete with that possible silver upside.  It will never happen.  Big corporations will just create their own scamcoins and try to force people into them and the crypto market cap will be divided up between 50 different coins (also due to poor scalability and high fees), unlike the metals market where you can't just "invent" a new gold or silver and are forced to buy the real thing.

So gold will hit $2200 based off the arbritarty gold vs debt chart, and silver is guaranteed at least $73 because of gold silver ratio... ok.

We have 1000s of scam coins today, they are not holding bitcoin back one bit... your last point falls apart from the evidence we've have been seeing since the first altcoin.


Bitcoin will hit $10K before gold or silver has another rally (IF they have another rally). Menials will prefer bitcoin over gold, it's much more useful and upside is much higher. Sorry you sold.

[r0ach]

Menials will prefer bitcoin over gold, it's much more useful and upside is much higher.

Millenials have...zero money lol.

[yonton]

Yes they do thanks to bitcoin haha transfer of wealth!!

[TeeBone]

Roachy, gas the kikes.

[bones261]

The market cap of above ground silver and bitcoin is similar now.  Bitcoin is no longer some cheap penny stock.  The US gold vs debt chart with 92% correlation shows gold will hit at least $2200 in the next bull run, which would bring the GSR to 30:1 or lower ($73 silver).  Bitcoin would need to hit $12,000 to compete with that almost guaranteed silver upside in the near future.  

But that's a very conservative number for just a stable market situation.  In a real crisis situation and rush to hard assets, gold would be more like $5000 and $166 silver or more.  Or a government metals revaluation of gold to $10k and silver to 1:15 ratio of astronomically high numbers like $600 silver.  Bitcoin would need to be able to hit $100k each to compete with that possible silver upside.  It will never happen.  Big corporations will just create their own scamcoins and try to force people into them and the crypto market cap will be divided up between 50 different coins (also due to poor scalability and high fees), unlike the metals market where you can't just "invent" a new gold or silver and are forced to buy the real thing.

Revelation 13:16-18
Maybe the mark is a QR code.  

If such a thing as the "mark of the beast" was actually real, I'm sure a lot of cucks in the west will take it, but it has around zero hope of spreading worldwide so you can always go somewhere else.  Does it look like you can force the "mark of the beast" on the Chechens for fucks sake?  The national pastime is pretending to be rambo:



You would need to nuke all of Russia and all kinds of other groups to make it happen.  Which is probably exactly why the evil Jews who have taken over the US govt are attempting to do exactly that.

I'm sure these guys will be enough to take care of any self anointed Rambos 

[traincarswreck]

The market cap of above ground silver and bitcoin is similar now.  Bitcoin is no longer some cheap penny stock.  The US gold vs debt chart with 92% correlation shows gold will hit at least $2200 in the next bull run, which would bring the GSR to 30:1 or lower ($73 silver).  Bitcoin would need to hit $12,000 to compete with that almost guaranteed silver upside in the near future.  

But that's a very conservative number for just a stable market situation.  In a real crisis situation and rush to hard assets, gold would be more like $5000 and $166 silver or more.  Or a government metals revaluation of gold to $10k and silver to 1:15 ratio of astronomically high numbers like $600 silver.  Bitcoin would need to be able to hit $100k each to compete with that possible silver upside.  It will never happen.  Big corporations will just create their own scamcoins and try to force people into them and the crypto market cap will be divided up between 50 different coins (also due to poor scalability and high fees), unlike the metals market where you can't just "invent" a new gold or silver and are forced to buy the real thing.

The governments can shut the internet down you say but not rigged the markets.  You don't actually hold the physical metal you are investing in so you have no actual argument that metals are safer than bitcoin.  The price of metals is declining that is reality, not a good store of wealth, and that they are not scarce is a clue that their predictable supply cannot be relied on, we have watched oils bubble burst and gold is falling a slower but dramatic rate.  

50 coins?  The markets are split well beyond 50 coins. You are not making a coherent argument.  You cannot invent a new bitcoin which is the standard the markets have converged on, we are about to witness proof of this.

And how is it your conclusion can be based on the markets accepting scamcoins from corporations.  You are constantly denying observable reality.

[fluidjax]

By Szabo's definitions if you are unsure about bitcoin/bcc's future then you should diversify... (self.Bitcoin)

This means if you are unwilling to selling half your bitcoin equity for bcc then the strategy you have chosen is that bitcoin will win out. This goes for r/btc'ers and anyone claiming to favor bcc.

Sitting on only a proportion of bitcoin and airdropped bcc is not a proper vote for being unsure of the outcome. If you don't at least split your equity, whether you admit it or not, your strategy is heavily weighted towards bitcoin

If I give BCH a 0.1% chance of victory, I should hold 0.1% of my portfolio ($ value)  in BCH not 50%.

[TeeBone]

The fork in November is the one to worry about, CrackCash is nothing.

[r0ach]

You are not making a coherent argument.  

Funny how you keep spamming this nonsense of calling metals a "barbarous relic" while all other 999 million people in your country of India are buying metals like I am.  You can be the one single guy in India with no gold or silver! Someone might even put you in an insane asylum for having such views there.

[drbrockcoin]

The paper holds their folded faces to the floor. And every day, the paperboy brings more.

+1 for Bowie erm... Floyd 

[traincarswreck]

If I give BCH a 0.1% chance of victory, I should hold 0.1% of my portfolio ($ value)  in BCH not 50%.

if you give bch a .01% of victory I don't really consider that uncertain.  Uncertain in this sense implies 50/50. Regardless the optimal strategy is to converge the future winning coin as fast as possible as its determined. 

Those that converge on the winning coin first have the most to gain or not to lose

[traincarswreck]

Funny how you keep spamming this nonsense of calling metals a "barbarous relic" while all other 999 million people in your country of India are buying metals like I am.  You can be the one single guy in India with no gold or silver! Someone might even put you in an insane asylum for having such views there.

When I say you are ignoring observable reality this is what the beauty of an internationally constructed price is.  Gold is not a reliable store of value anymore.  You are pointing at history and ignoring its decline over the last 5 years.

It's been getting smashed: http://goldprice.org/

[traincarswreck]

As bitcoin's are being frozen around the world some people still NEED to use the network and this puts upward pressure on the price.

This pressure makes it increasingly difficult for would-be defectors to move their equity off the network.

 Even if they are pro fork their greed stops them from unilaterally deviating.

[hv_]

Funny how you keep spamming this nonsense of calling metals a "barbarous relic" while all other 999 million people in your country of India are buying metals like I am.  You can be the one single guy in India with no gold or silver! Someone might even put you in an insane asylum for having such views there.

When I say you are ignoring observable reality this is what the beauty of an internationally constructed price is.  Gold is not a reliable store of value anymore.  You are pointing at history and ignoring its decline over the last 5 years.

It's been getting smashed: http://goldprice.org/

What are 5 years compared to golds history?

[traincarswreck]

What are 5 years compared to golds history?

They are the most relevant years in our lifetime.  And I reject your assertion that because gold was valued for hedging inflation in the past that it necessarily will continue to be so in the future.  Furthermore Nash Szabo  AND Satoshi predict that gold will lose its monetary nature:

The price of any commodity tends to gravitate toward the production cost.

[jbreher]

Issue in a nutshell:
- On a network where miners do not honor SegWit, all segwit transactions are 'anyone can spend' transactions
- On such a network, each successful miner can spend any 'anyone can spend' transaction to himself
- As segwit is used (e.g., on a segwit-honoring network), more value gets locked up in segwit/'anyone can spend' transactions
- As more value is built up in segwit/'anyone can spend' transactions, this increases the incentive for miners to flip the network from segwit-honoring to non-segwit
- This pressure increases with increasing use of segwit. Even if initially stable, the system tends further toward instability.
The net is that smallblockers need to trust the miners -- whom they seem to already believe to be evil -- to not steal their segwit transactions.

Of course, one can convert a segwit coin back to a bitcoin by spending it to yourself in a non-segwit transaction. But that also mandates a second transaction, thereby nullifying and even reversing segwit's so-called capacity increase.

Sounds very speculative and hypothetical to me.

No. Just No.

Please employ proper logic. Every bulleted item above is a factual statement. Would you like to challenge any of these factual statements on their own merit?

Whether or not those steps get chained together in reality is currently a matter of speculation, yes. But I made no such claim. A set of factual statements is not "speculative and hypothetical".  Any speculation as to the consequences of the above has been left to the reader.

That is nonsense.  I can make all kinds of factual statements, and then there is no consequence unless you can describe some kind of logical connection.

For example:

1) The sky is clear (meaning no clouds) today

2) Billy bob drives a Toyota Prius

3) That window is dangerous because it slams down without any restraints

4) The goat eats a lot of grass, especially for its size.

5) The Iphone will be damaged if you drop it in the toilet, because it is an Iphone 4

6) If any one of those lightbulbs burn out, then the whole chain does not work,

7) e = mc squared


No matter the string of facts, the jbreher Conclusion is:  Segwit is going to be a disaster for bitcoin because it is too complicated, and even though segwit is a done deal, I am going to continue to whine about it and assert that we should employ a more simple and straight forward solution of increasing to 2mb block limits.   

You are being disingenuous and deceitful. Your statement was "very speculative and hypothetical". There was neither speculation, nor hypotheticals in the post you were replying to. Merely a listing of some of the attributes of the SegWit system. You are the one listing nonsense, as the topic here is Bitcoin.

[traincarswreck]

The amount of claimed fork coins will always be more uncertain that the amount of active bitcoins

 It is natural to suggest that the perceived amount of active bitcoin will be more certain than its cloned counterpart.

[JayJuanGee]

By Szabo's definitions if you are unsure about bitcoin/bcc's future then you should diversify... (self.Bitcoin)

This means if you are unwilling to selling half your bitcoin equity for bcc then the strategy you have chosen is that bitcoin will win out. This goes for r/btc'ers and anyone claiming to favor bcc.

Sitting on only a proportion of bitcoin and airdropped bcc is not a proper vote for being unsure of the outcome. If you don't at least split your equity, whether you admit it or not, your strategy is heavily weighted towards bitcoin

If I give BCH a 0.1% chance of victory, I should hold 0.1% of my portfolio ($ value)  in BCH not 50%.

your formula is too simple, but the essence of it is correct.

For example, they may have a 2% chance of surpassing the value of bitcoin.

They might have a 5% chance of equalling the value of bitcoin.

They might have a 10% chance of retaining 15% value of bitcoin. 

They might have a 30% chance of retaining 1% value of bitcoin.

I don't really know what these exact numbers are, but it is true that you should attempt to cause your holdings to be in line with your view of the various probabilities, even if you cause such view to be a simpler formula... that might evolve a bit with the passage of time.. .. like what the fuck, they were able to survive 3 months past the hardfork, and then maybe looking at them 6 months down the road or 1 year or 3 years or 5 years etc.