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

[jbreher]

I guess if I wouldn't have had these monthly buying needs I would have been out already.

Interesting. I can't see myself ever as out.

[1714184319]

1714184319

[1714184319]

1714184319

[1714184319]

1714184319

[1714184319]

1714184319

[Searing]

I guess if I wouldn't have had these monthly buying needs I would have been out already.

Interesting. I can't see myself ever as out.

I'm retired and out. (goal is to use crypto ...mostly alts...and mining to get buy next 3 years when I touch traditional soc sec and investments....don't

really need to do this ..but hey, its a goal)

HOWEVER, scrypt-pow mining may be 'dead' to me by August 2018, if these prices vs difficulty keep up...vs difficulty

Thus, I will likely, crack, like a walnut, (overkill) either by BTC hitting say, 8k again or 15k again...I might dump up to 25%

of my Hoard (not sure the mixture of alts to btc) ....due to the fact I REALLY, REALLY LIKE NOT WORKING FOR ANYONE...



I must say, however, IF, the frigging BTC price would be floating sideways at around the say 13k to 15k range...I'd have a LOT

less angst on this whole thing...as I assume others would and sure ...some would be sold....but far less IMHO...vs another 8k dump

So, IMHO with others and with me, I figure that IF BTC dumps to 8k a lot of folks will dump as a hedge on further drops...

and if BTC goes to say 13-15K people will also dump as a hedge ..again, on a further dump, even if less drastic

Right now at this 9k range...everyone is sitting on their hands (like myself) watching the price ...and fidgeting with confusion


so, yeah, you get rid of the job it is great...but then you have to 'live on what you kill" mining or otherwise....tis annoying

So, yeah, got to eat....sigh....

[Theb]

Well that is it, Bitcoin has failed another inverse head and shoulder breakout for the 2nd time ever since this drop, not unless Bitcoin will soon test the right shoulder we might not have a clear signal when it will go above 10,000$. But clearly the 700$ drop this day is a way to shake out the newbies and the weakhands as BTC hasn't been this looking good to hold for a long time. The bulls must find a way to bring back Bitcoin above 9,400$ to make it easier to go back and re-test the 9,900$ level.

[HairyMaclairy]

I’ve been away for five days. I see we have gone from $9100 to $9400 which is nice.  Also about 45 pages to read.

[realr0ach]

It is immoral.  I've posted in this thread numerous times before that the basis of human trade is barter, and the further you abstract away from barter, the bigger a scam it is.  Now, humans utilize specialization in labor, so a medium to facilitate trade that reduces friction of barter might be necessary (or maybe not necessary at all, just convenient), so you might need to abstract one step away from barter.  It just so happens that the exchange of physical commodity currency, whether it's wood, grains, physical silver, oil, etc, just so happens to be the closest thing to barter without actually being barter - the lesser of all evils.

If I try and exchange something like grains or silver with you, I'm clearly not trying to swindle you because these items have intrinsic value for humans.  It's virtually the same as me exchanging some bread for one of your cows, just slightly more streamlined and convenient. However, the second I try and initiate a trade with you using an item that has NO INTRINSIC VALUE WHATSOEVER, whether it's US dollars or bitcoins, it would make me party to a scam, even if I did not create the scam myself.

It does not matter if you're able to dump the dollars or bitcoins before they go to zero, rendering our trade amiable in circumstance, you are STILL party to a game of hot potato where you're trying to leave someone else holding the bag on a valueless object somewhere down the line, making YOU a scammer yourself, even if done in a highly obfuscated manner.   A moral person would reject entirely ANY type of system that has no intrinsic value because you're inherently trying to scam people by default.

Even if it is the case that the bitcoin protocol as a whole is a scam it certainly does not follow that individual actors are trying to scam people by trying to barter with something that they personally value and are hoping that others will value as well. Your proposition is absurd.

Of course they're scammers.  Willing or unwittingly makes no difference.  Just because the information on these subjects is hugely asymmetric, stupidity doesn't disqualify them from being scammers.  If you were delusional and make believe Mexicans are alien invaders from Mars instead of illegal aliens and start shooting them, does that disqualify you from being a murderer by stupidity?  No.

Most people are not intelligent enough to figure out that it's 100% impossible to create a decentralized digital currency.  They view the problem from some primitive viewpoint, unable to grasp what problem they're trying to solve in the first place and think, oh, hey, there will probably be some type of shoddy hack right around the corner to fix everything!  That's how I viewed shitcoins for a while, but if you have enough brainpower, to put it simply, you will usually figure out you need some type of focal point for convergence, and that focal point is always going to centralize through something like compound interest, economy of scale, or other means.

If you know the objective truth that it's impossible to create a decentralized digital currency, they're all scams by default.  Just like being delusional is not an excuse for murder, stupidity does not excuse you from being a scammer.

[Anon136]

Willing or unwittingly makes no difference.

You think it is possible for someone to unwittingly scam someone? So like if I accidentally sell someone a counterfeit good that I had no idea was counterfeit that makes me a scammer?

[realr0ach]

Willing or unwittingly makes no difference.

You think it is possible for someone to unwittingly scam someone? So like if I accidentally sell someone a counterfeit good that I had no idea was counterfeit that makes me a scammer?

Was the person who received the good "scammed"?  The answer is yes.  For that person to have received the binary status of not-scammed (0) or scammed (1), there had to be an initiator of said transaction, and that initiator was you.  So yes, willing or unwittingly makes no difference for that particular state change for the person on the other side of the trade.

[Anon136]

Willing or unwittingly makes no difference.

You think it is possible for someone to unwittingly scam someone? So like if I accidentally sell someone a counterfeit good that I had no idea was counterfeit that makes me a scammer?

Was the person who received the good "scammed"?  The answer is yes.  For that person to have received the binary status of not-scammed (0) or scammed (1), there had to be an inintiator of said transaction, and that initiator was you.  So yes, willing or unwittingly makes no difference for that particular state change.

Well ok. You are free to define words how ever you like. Just be aware that you are defining this word very idiosyncratically. Here is a quick ddg.gg search definition. This is what most normal people interpret this word to mean.

scam
n.  A fraudulent business scheme; a swindle.
v.  To defraud; swindle.

defraud
v.   To take something from by fraud; swindle: defrauded the immigrants by selling them worthless land deeds.

fraud
n.   A deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain.
n.   A piece of trickery; a trick.
n.   One that defrauds; a cheat.

Idiosyncratic definitions can hamper the ability to have discussions, so if you are going to use them make sure you explicitly state how you are doing so, to avoid confusion.

[Ludwig Von]

Willing or unwittingly makes no difference.

You think it is possible for someone to unwittingly scam someone? So like if I accidentally sell someone a counterfeit good that I had no idea was counterfeit that makes me a scammer?

Was the person who received the good "scammed"?  The answer is yes.  For that person to have received the binary status of not-scammed (0) or scammed (1), there had to be an initiator of said transaction, and that initiator was you.  So yes, willing or unwittingly makes no difference for that particular state change for the person on the other side of the trade.

Bof Roach, you dissapoint me here. Isn 't every trade that has no mutual benefit a scam? If I sell you my old car because I know the clutch is going to fail soon, but I can camouflage it to lure you in it, then it is a scam if you bought it to really use it for longtime driving. If you have understood the potential problem very fast and you sell it to the next, it is not a scam for you, but for the next... .

[fluidjax]

Willing or unwittingly makes no difference.

You think it is possible for someone to unwittingly scam someone? So like if I accidentally sell someone a counterfeit good that I had no idea was counterfeit that makes me a scammer?

Was the person who received the good "scammed"?  The answer is yes.  For that person to have received the binary status of not-scammed (0) or scammed (1), there had to be an inintiator of said transaction, and that initiator was you.  So yes, willing or unwittingly makes no difference for that particular state change.

Well ok. You are free to define words how ever you like. Just be aware that you are defining this word very idiosyncratically. Here is a quick ddg.gg search definition. This is what most normal people interpret this word to mean.

scam
n.  A fraudulent business scheme; a swindle.
v.  To defraud; swindle.

defraud
v.   To take something from by fraud; swindle: defrauded the immigrants by selling them worthless land deeds.

fraud
n.   A deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain.
n.   A piece of trickery; a trick.
n.   One that defrauds; a cheat.

For 'scamming' (defrauding) , the mens rea (intent) of dishonesty is required.
Clearly you can't be dishonest if you don't believe you are being dishonest.

[Anon136]

For 'scamming' (defrauding) , the mens rea (intent) of dishonesty is required.
Clearly you can't be dishonest if you don't believe you are being dishonest.

That's about the long and short of it.

[realr0ach]

Idiosyncratic definitions can hamper the ability to have discussions, so if you are going to use them make sure you explicitly state how you are doing so, to avoid confusion.

That's an unimportant semantics argument.  The basis of the argument was:  If it's objectively 100% impossible to create a decentralized digital currency, is everyone who touches bitcoin automatically a scammer even if they don't know it's impossible to create a decentralized digital currency?

You can easily replace the word "scammer" with a million other words like thief or swindler or whatever.  The definition of swindler says a person who uses dishonest means to take.  If you have no fucking clue if it's even possible to create a decentralized digital currency or not, but claim to others your dogcoins are a decentralized digital currency while trying to sell to them, then you likely fit the bill of dishonest anyway.  Thus you could also apply other words like conman and such as well.

[Anon136]

words and stuff

So tell me if I am understanding your claim correctly. You are agreeing with munger that people who use crypto currencies are immoral because they have failed to do the requite research necessary in order to arrive at the same conclusions you have?

[infofront]

I’ve been away for five days. I see we have gone from $9100 to $9400 which is nice.  Also about 45 pages to read.

I can summarize for you:
Global Warming?
Bcashers being bcashers
Bitcoin died again
Something about Berkshire Hathaway selling baby brains
Oh, and Jimbo's back in the jungle

[realr0ach]

words and stuff

So tell me if I am understanding your claim correctly. You are agreeing with munger that people who use crypto currencies are immoral because they have failed to do the requite research necessary in order to arrive at the same conclusions you have?

I stand by the fact that it's objectively 100% impossible to create a decentralized digital currency.  If people are claiming a dogcoin or bitcoin is a decentralized digital currency while trying to hock it off onto someone, then I claim they're dishonest by using promotional terms they don't even know if they're true or not.  They're unqualified to make these claims in other words due to asymmetric information distribution.

Now we're in a semantics lawyer game of:  Does taking someone else's fraudulent word for it from a pumper like Andreas Antonopolous make you party to a scam?

If Andreas Antonopolous starts trying to hock off uranium based suntan lotion to people and you sign up as a reseller, I don't think pleading stupidity is going to save you.  Resellers are usually held accountable for their actions and you can't really get away with saying "well, I had no idea if bitcoin actually was decentralized or not", or "I had no idea uranium suntan lotion was a bad idea".  Negligence is an actual thing.  If you're unqualified to decypher what the objective reality of the situation is, it usually lands you in hot water trying to make unsubstantiated claims in a business transaction.

[Anon136]

words and stuff

So tell me if I am understanding your claim correctly. You are agreeing with munger that people who use crypto currencies are immoral because they have failed to do the requite research necessary in order to arrive at the same conclusions you have?

I stand by the fact that it's objectively 100% impossible to create a decentralized digital currency.  If people are claiming a dogcoin or bitcoin is a decentralized digital currency while trying to hock it off onto someone, then I claim they're dishonest by using promotional terms they don't even know if they're true or not.  They're unqualified to make these claims in other words due to asymmetric information distribution.

Now we're in a semantics lawyer game of:  Does taking someone else's fraudulent word for it from a pumper like Andreas Antonopolous make you party to a scam?

If Andreas Antonopolous starts trying to hock off uranium based suntan lotion to people and you sign up as a reseller, I don't think pleading stupidity is going to save you.  Resellers are usually held accountable for their actions and you can't really get away with saying "well, I had no idea if bitcoin actually was decentralized or not", or "I had no idea uranium suntan lotion was a bad idea".  Negligence is an actual thing.  If you're unqualified to decypher what the objective reality of the situation is, you will land in hot water.

You're boring.

[El duderino_]

9200 is broken

9400 as well
where does either 1 of the 2 put us ??

[El duderino_]

Billions and silicon valley are both great TV

for this moment DO NOT forget la casa de papel (or money heist ) ......

[savetherainforest]

https://forkdrop.io/ lots of forks

God F^cking Damn... ... STAWHP!!! PLZ!!! FFS... I'm starting to become allergic to forks...

Btw... price seems to want to go a few hundred bucks down... then UP! UP! UP!..

[El duderino_]

QUICK list 12288 is finisht GOOD LUCK   WO's

16/04/2018 serveria.com
27/04/2018 BinaryReign
28/04/2018 Toxic2040
29/04/2018 BobLawblaw
30/04/2018 RayX12
05/05/2018 kaicrypzen
07/05/2018 InvoKing
08/05/2018 ChinkyEyes
13/05/2018 mfort312
15/05/2018 Paashaas
16/05/2018 player99
17/05/2018 bikerleszno
19/05/2018 Bitcoinaire
20/05/2018 willope
21/05/2018 rafanadal
22/05/2018 strawbs
24/05/2018 yonton
25/05/2018 JimboToronto
26/05/2018 Colonel Panic
29/05/2018 ivomm
30/05/2018 Lontonbit
31/05/2018 BTCMILLIONAIRE
01/06/2018 RoomBot
02/06/2018 rjclarke2000
03/06/2018 oblox
04/06/2018 wachtwoord
05/06/2018 Wekkel
08/06/2018 hisslyness
09/06/2018 LodisMcguire
11/06/2018 Raja_MBZ
12/06/2018 bitcoinPsycho
13/06/2018 erre
14/06/2018 vroom
15/06/2018 d_eddie
16/06/2018 coralreefer
18/06/2018 Robin,Hood
20/06/2018 rolling
22/06/2018 Biodom
23/06/2018 Dunkelheit667
25/06/2018 bones261
26/06/2018 Arriemoller
28/06/2018 klaaas
30/06/2018 DarkStar_
01/07/2018 o_e_l_e_o
02/07/2018 jojo69
03/07/2018 Karatma1
04/07/2018 Elwar
13/07/2018 sirazimuth
14/07/2018 Ludwig Von
21/07/2018 Lauda
22/07/2018 LFC_Bitcoin
26/07/2018 Icygreen
02/08/2018 fragout
03/08/2018 supremnoob
06/08/2018 cAPSLOCK
08/08/2018 infofront
10/08/2018 HairyMaclairy
15/08/2018 Phil_S
16/08/2018 Rosewater Foundation
17/08/2018 B1tUnl0ck3r
19/08/2018 Imbatman
21/08/2018 BitcoinBunny
27/08/2018 soullyG
28/08/2018 RealMachasm
29/08/2018 STT
04/09/2018 flynn
08/09/2018 xhomerx10
09/09/2018 vapourminer
11/09/2018 Dakustaking76
20/09/2018 Digigami
22/09/2018 Agapios
26/09/2018 itod
30/09/2018 DeathAngel
12/10/2018 IntroVert
15/10/2018 explorer
18/10/2018 Searing
26/10/2018 kurious
09/11/2018 fabiorem
15/11/2018 bitserve
20/11/2018 Globb0
22/11/2018 Last of the V8s
01/12/2018 Alexander_Z
07/03/2019 CoinCube
15/04/2019 Spaceman_Spiff_Original
20/06/2019 bitebits
13/12/2019 nikauforest
10/04/2020 yefi
05/09/2020 samson   
23/06/2021 fortune143