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

[TERA2]

Those fucking nocoiners that didn't want to go all in max leveraged long at 10k.

[1714989312]

1714989312

[1714989312]

1714989312

[1714989312]

1714989312

[JayJuanGee]

I cannot believe how much money Google spent developing the JayJuanGee chat AI for these results.

Must be one of those cases in which one questions whether everything in the whole word is a simulation, which remains doubtful on the existential level.

The fact that nocoiners, like you, seem to recognize some value in AI, thus you should recognize some value in bitcoin, too.. but some of the AI endorsing fucks are getting distracted by supposed value of various other cryptos rather than recognizing the real innovations of bitcoin...... similar to you, who seems to get distracted in recognizing value in PMs, it is like you are living in the past, yet you seem smart enough that even you probably don't believe the nonsense PM pumping bullshit that you spout nor the identity politics inflamatory posts, either.

Those fucking nocoiners that didn't want to go all in max leveraged long at 10k.

That is a strawman argument, if I have ever seen one.



Only you troll shills are suggesting that regular peeps should be playing around with leverage, because you hope that you can cause peeps to perceive BTC investing as gambling rather than the long term value that it actually is.  Fact of the matter, Tera, remains that it does not matter exactly when you began to buy into bitcoin, including starting at $19,666, because if you maintain a prudent strategy and you continue to prudently invest in BTC, such as dollar cost averaging, incrementalism, accumulation and buying on dips, you are quite likely to thank yourselfie profusely in 3-5 years (and perhaps a shorter period of time) that you took an active approach to get involved in BTC and to take stake and accumulate as many BTC as you can within your reasonable means (perhaps using some leverage, but certainly not max leveraging anything because past BTC performance should teach any reasonable person that BTC is like to continue to be volatile and even downwardly manipulated below its fundamental value).

[Elwar]

Oh please. the way banknotes started in the first place is merchants wanted to store their gold at a bank, rather than lugging it around themselves or setting up their own fort and small militia to protect it. Then they were issued a piece of paper, a banknote. When the bankers discovered people were using the banknotes like money, they discovered a way to loan people paper and run a fractional reserve. It doesn't matter what medium you use as money. Someone is going to find a way to put them self in the middle and exact their usurious fees. Or just plain use force or stealth and outright steal your bounty.

Interestingly, the first technology to be developed since the advent of fractional reserve banking that actually has a real chance of putting a stop to most of the double counting of reserve assets is... drum-roll... blockchain!

Except not even exchanges are currently using that "feature".

Thanks to blockchain exchanges could be already guaranteeing they don't run fractional reserve. It would be as simple as this:

- Every exchange user is given a "unique private identifier".
- Every day, the exchange publish a balance sheet that comprises a listing of all UPI's and its individual balances. The total is the minimum amount of reserves the exchange must control to prove absence of fractional reserve "banking".
- Simultaneously the exchange publish a listing of addresses which individual balances (can be checked on their respective blockchains for accuracy) sum, at least, the total needed. Obviously they sign a timestamped code with those addresses to prove ownership.

- Individual users could check their balances are included and accounted for in the balance sheet.

... But not a single one exchange is still doing this. Wonder why.....

Agreed. Decentralized exchanges need to take hold.

Bisq is an ok start but p2p is not good for liquidity.

I started work on a decentralized exchange that acts just like a regular exchange with fiat. But it's not the simplest of things to accomplish, will take some time.

[Anon136]

you know what goes here

Oh please. the way banknotes started in the first place is merchants wanted to store their gold at a bank, rather than lugging it around themselves or setting up their own fort and small militia to protect it. Then they were issued a piece of paper, a banknote. When the bankers discovered people were using the banknotes like money, they discovered a way to loan people paper and run a fractional reserve. It doesn't matter what medium you use as money. Someone is going to find a way to put them self in the middle and exact their usurious fees. Or just plain use force or stealth and outright steal your bounty.

Interestingly, the first technology to be developed since the advent of fractional reserve banking that actually has a real chance of putting a stop to most of the double counting of reserve assets is... drum-roll... blockchain!

I'm sorry. I don't subscribe to your point of view either.  All I have seen in the 4 years in this cryptocurrency space is scam after scam and scheme after scheme. There is no salvation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPVpMxVn6mk

Ok what If I modify my statement a bit.

Interestingly, the first technology to be developed since the advent of fractional reserve banking that actually has a real chance is theoretically technologically capable of putting a stop to most of the double counting of reserve assets is... drum-roll... blockchain!

Would you disagree that it is a tool that is, at least in theory, capable of combating this in a meaningful way? If so, would you agree that it is the first technology that has ever been invented that is potentially capable of doing this?

The main reason that we see so much scamminess in this space is that blockchain is largely about censorship resistance, which is for the most part only needed by people who would be censored, and, big surprise, it turns out that a lot of the people who would have been censored are people who would have been up to no good. IMAGINE THAT! Anyway, just because that sort of thing is the lowest hanging fruit and so developed out first, I don't think this means that blockchain technology will never find legitimate use cases in safeguarding against scams (like the double counting of precious metals reserves).

4 years is not a long time, it is a flash in the pan.

[bones261]

Interestingly, the first technology to be developed since the advent of fractional reserve banking that actually has a real chance of putting a stop to most of the double counting of reserve assets is... drum-roll... blockchain!

Except not even exchanges are currently using that "feature".

Thanks to blockchain exchanges could be already guaranteeing they don't run fractional reserve. It would be as simple as this:

- Every exchange user is given a "unique private identifier".
- Every day, the exchange publish a balance sheet that comprises a listing of all UPI's and its individual balances. The total is the minimum amount of reserves the exchange must control to prove absence of fractional reserve "banking".
- Simultaneously the exchange publish a listing of addresses which individual balances (can be checked on their respective blockchains for accuracy) sum, at least, the total needed. Obviously they sign a timestamped code with those addresses to prove ownership.

- Individual users could check their balances are included and accounted for in the balance sheet.

... But not a single one exchange is still doing this. Wonder why.....

Agreed. Decentralized exchanges need to take hold.

Bisq is an ok start but p2p is not good for liquidity.

I started work on a decentralized exchange that acts just like a regular exchange with fiat[/b]. But it's not the simplest of things to accomplish, will take some time.

And this is the crux of the problem. BTC needs to find a way to decouple itself from fiat. Unfortunately, there is not enough adoption at this time to accomplish this. One would be really hard pressed to be able to fully purchase all of the goods and services they need directly with BTC.

[bones261]

Interestingly, the first technology to be developed since the advent of fractional reserve banking that actually has a real chance of putting a stop to most of the double counting of reserve assets is... drum-roll... blockchain!

I'm sorry. I don't subscribe to your point of view either.  All I have seen in the 4 years in this cryptocurrency space is scam after scam and scheme after scheme. There is no salvation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPVpMxVn6mk

Ok what If I modify my statement a bit.

Interestingly, the first technology to be developed since the advent of fractional reserve banking that actually has a real chance is theoretically technologically capable of putting a stop to most of the double counting of reserve assets is... drum-roll... blockchain!

Would you disagree that it is a tool that is, at least in theory, capable of combating this in a meaningful way? If so, would you agree that it is the first technology that has ever been invented that is potentially capable of doing this?

The main reason that we see so much scamminess in this space is that blockchain is largely about censorship resistance, which is for the most part only needed by people who would be censored, and, big surprise, it turns out that a lot of the people who would have been censored are people who would have been up to no good. IMAGINE THAT! Anyway, just because that sort of thing is the lowest hanging fruit and so developed out first, I don't think this means that blockchain technology will never find legitimate use cases in safeguarding against scams (like the double counting of precious metals reserves).

4 years is not a long time, it is a flash in the pan.

Unfortunately, there is nothing to prevent someone from building a layer on top of a blockchain and issuing tokens that are supposed to be backed by deposits and then running a fractional reserve. (Many accuse Tether of doing just that.) Furthermore, blockchains have difficulty scaling. That is why BTC has resorted to the lightning network to attempt to address the scaling problem.

[DaRude]

Interestingly, the first technology to be developed since the advent of fractional reserve banking that actually has a real chance of putting a stop to most of the double counting of reserve assets is... drum-roll... blockchain!

I'm sorry. I don't subscribe to your point of view either.  All I have seen in the 4 years in this cryptocurrency space is scam after scam and scheme after scheme. There is no salvation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPVpMxVn6mk

Ok what If I modify my statement a bit.

Interestingly, the first technology to be developed since the advent of fractional reserve banking that actually has a real chance is theoretically technologically capable of putting a stop to most of the double counting of reserve assets is... drum-roll... blockchain!

Would you disagree that it is a tool that is, at least in theory, capable of combating this in a meaningful way? If so, would you agree that it is the first technology that has ever been invented that is potentially capable of doing this?

The main reason that we see so much scamminess in this space is that blockchain is largely about censorship resistance, which is for the most part only needed by people who would be censored, and, big surprise, it turns out that a lot of the people who would have been censored are people who would have been up to no good. IMAGINE THAT! Anyway, just because that sort of thing is the lowest hanging fruit and so developed out first, I don't think this means that blockchain technology will never find legitimate use cases in safeguarding against scams (like the double counting of precious metals reserves).

4 years is not a long time, it is a flash in the pan.

Unfortunately, there is nothing to prevent someone from building a layer on top of a blockchain and issuing tokens that are supposed to be backed by deposits and then running a fractional reserve. (Many accuse Tether of doing just that.) Furthermore, blockchains have difficulty scaling. That is why BTC has resorted to the lightning network to attempt to address the scaling problem.

So BTC is a solution, but it's really not a solution because someone can come up with a different solution on top of BTC which wouldn't really be a solution at all, thus making underlying BTC not a solution. Think i got it. And then BTC is having problem scaling so that's why they introduced a scaling solution called LN. Did i get it right?

[jojo69]

Okey so whats next???


Were gonne drop to €3k???

thinking BTC is just testing the doug polk 10K bet

I haven't seen anything from DPolk, recently, but I would imagine that he must be getting a bit nervous..... Tone Vays did have the better side of the bet in terms of being able to use the bet as leverage.. but it did seem that DPolk did make what seemed to be a reasonably decent bet in which odds seemed to be working pretty good for him.. and not so much now..

I seriously doubt Doug is the least bit nervous.  He is a pro, he knows his odds and is resigned to the outcome the fates deliver.

Also, he isn't exactly going hungry if he loses.

edit/ I see capslock beat me to it

[Elwar]

And this is the crux of the problem. BTC needs to find a way to decouple itself from fiat. Unfortunately, there is not enough adoption at this time to accomplish this. One would be really hard pressed to be able to fully purchase all of the goods and services they need directly with BTC.

I got to about 90% of purchases when I lived in Germany (I think gasoline was the final thing).

In the US it would have been so much easier. Bitcoin people in the US have it so easy for spending bitcoins but they don't even know it.

[bones261]

Unfortunately, there is nothing to prevent someone from building a layer on top of a blockchain and issuing tokens that are supposed to be backed by deposits and then running a fractional reserve. (Many accuse Tether of doing just that.) Furthermore, blockchains have difficulty scaling. That is why BTC has resorted to the lightning network to attempt to address the scaling problem.

So BTC is a solution, but it's really not a solution because someone can come up with a different solution on top of BTC which wouldn't really be a solution at all, thus making underlying BTC not a solution. Think i got it. And then BTC is having problem scaling so that's why they introduced a scaling solution called LN. Did i get it right?

If the solution you want is to totally prevent people from running fractional reserves, then no, the blockchain is not the solution. Perhaps if you could cram all of the functionality onto the blockchain itself it may be a solution. However, when you try to cram all of the functionality onto the blockchain itself, you run into a scaling issue. You can get a blockchain to scale, but this always comes at the cost of the network being more centralized.

[DaRude]

Unfortunately, there is nothing to prevent someone from building a layer on top of a blockchain and issuing tokens that are supposed to be backed by deposits and then running a fractional reserve. (Many accuse Tether of doing just that.) Furthermore, blockchains have difficulty scaling. That is why BTC has resorted to the lightning network to attempt to address the scaling problem.

So BTC is a solution, but it's really not a solution because someone can come up with a different solution on top of BTC which wouldn't really be a solution at all, thus making underlying BTC not a solution. Think i got it. And then BTC is having problem scaling so that's why they introduced a scaling solution called LN. Did i get it right?

If the solution you want is to totally prevent people from running fractional reserves, then no, the blockchain is not the solution. Perhaps if you could cram all of the functionality onto the blockchain itself it may be a solution. However, when you try to cram all of the functionality onto the blockchain itself, you run into a scaling issue. You can get a blockchain to scale, but this always comes at the cost of the network being more centralized.

Oh ok i think you cleared it up now, but just to make sure, so it's impossible to cram every possible functionality in any system, and it's also impossible to prevent a derivatives market based on any underlying asset. And since BTC exists in our faulty universe BTC is burdened with the restrictions that apply to every other system. Thus we draw a conclusion that BTC is a failed experiment and will die? I believe the scientific name for this argument is 'R0ach logic'

[nanobtc]

Please don't quote the established trolls. You cannot win, and they gain traction.

[DaRude]

Oh please. the way banknotes started in the first place is merchants wanted to store their gold at a bank, rather than lugging it around themselves or setting up their own fort and small militia to protect it. Then they were issued a piece of paper, a banknote. When the bankers discovered people were using the banknotes like money, they discovered a way to loan people paper and run a fractional reserve. It doesn't matter what medium you use as money. Someone is going to find a way to put them self in the middle and exact their usurious fees. Or just plain use force or stealth and outright steal your bounty.

Interestingly, the first technology to be developed since the advent of fractional reserve banking that actually has a real chance of putting a stop to most of the double counting of reserve assets is... drum-roll... blockchain!

Except not even exchanges are currently using that "feature".

Thanks to blockchain exchanges could be already guaranteeing they don't run fractional reserve. It would be as simple as this:

- Every exchange user is given a "unique private identifier".
- Every day, the exchange publish a balance sheet that comprises a listing of all UPI's and its individual balances. The total is the minimum amount of reserves the exchange must control to prove absence of fractional reserve "banking".
- Simultaneously the exchange publish a listing of addresses which individual balances (can be checked on their respective blockchains for accuracy) sum, at least, the total needed. Obviously they sign a timestamped code with those addresses to prove ownership.

- Individual users could check their balances are included and accounted for in the balance sheet.

... But not a single one exchange is still doing this. Wonder why.....

Because since fiat reserves cannot be verified in this manner, you're going through all this trouble to only verify 50% of your reserves. Meaning they can still theoretically run 50% fractional reserve but now you'd have that warm comforting feeling that those number mean something that they really don't.

[DaRude]

Did you guys know that now you can ask rabbi a question at https://www.chabad.org/asktherabbi/default_cdo/jewish/Ask-the-Rabbi.htm
and they also accept BTC donations at https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/2444289/jewish/Donate-Bitcoins.htm

Good roach it's like you're almost relevant in this form!

[bitserve]

Oh please. the way banknotes started in the first place is merchants wanted to store their gold at a bank, rather than lugging it around themselves or setting up their own fort and small militia to protect it. Then they were issued a piece of paper, a banknote. When the bankers discovered people were using the banknotes like money, they discovered a way to loan people paper and run a fractional reserve. It doesn't matter what medium you use as money. Someone is going to find a way to put them self in the middle and exact their usurious fees. Or just plain use force or stealth and outright steal your bounty.

Interestingly, the first technology to be developed since the advent of fractional reserve banking that actually has a real chance of putting a stop to most of the double counting of reserve assets is... drum-roll... blockchain!

Except not even exchanges are currently using that "feature".

Thanks to blockchain exchanges could be already guaranteeing they don't run fractional reserve. It would be as simple as this:

- Every exchange user is given a "unique private identifier".
- Every day, the exchange publish a balance sheet that comprises a listing of all UPI's and its individual balances. The total is the minimum amount of reserves the exchange must control to prove absence of fractional reserve "banking".
- Simultaneously the exchange publish a listing of addresses which individual balances (can be checked on their respective blockchains for accuracy) sum, at least, the total needed. Obviously they sign a timestamped code with those addresses to prove ownership.

- Individual users could check their balances are included and accounted for in the balance sheet.

... But not a single one exchange is still doing this. Wonder why.....

Because since fiat reserves cannot be verified in this manner, you're going through all this trouble to only verify 50% of your reserves. Meaning they can still theoretically run 50% fractional reserve but now you'd have that warm comforting feeling that those number mean something that they really don't.

Being able to verify they are not running fractional reserve on crypto alone would be a great advantage. Also, FIAT funds can be proved by a signed and stamped bank statement. It could be forged yeah.... but, anyways, the FIAT reserves of the exchanges, being stored in bank accounts, are ALREADY being subject to fractional reserve by the banks itself

Do you really not think an exchange that proofs daily that they have all the crypto they are suppossed to have would not be a big improvement to current system?

[bitserve]

I officially bull trolled myself out of a once in a lifetime opportunity to make something of myself. That is so me.

AMA.

Did you sell?

[DaRude]

Oh please. the way banknotes started in the first place is merchants wanted to store their gold at a bank, rather than lugging it around themselves or setting up their own fort and small militia to protect it. Then they were issued a piece of paper, a banknote. When the bankers discovered people were using the banknotes like money, they discovered a way to loan people paper and run a fractional reserve. It doesn't matter what medium you use as money. Someone is going to find a way to put them self in the middle and exact their usurious fees. Or just plain use force or stealth and outright steal your bounty.

Interestingly, the first technology to be developed since the advent of fractional reserve banking that actually has a real chance of putting a stop to most of the double counting of reserve assets is... drum-roll... blockchain!

Except not even exchanges are currently using that "feature".

Thanks to blockchain exchanges could be already guaranteeing they don't run fractional reserve. It would be as simple as this:

- Every exchange user is given a "unique private identifier".
- Every day, the exchange publish a balance sheet that comprises a listing of all UPI's and its individual balances. The total is the minimum amount of reserves the exchange must control to prove absence of fractional reserve "banking".
- Simultaneously the exchange publish a listing of addresses which individual balances (can be checked on their respective blockchains for accuracy) sum, at least, the total needed. Obviously they sign a timestamped code with those addresses to prove ownership.

- Individual users could check their balances are included and accounted for in the balance sheet.

... But not a single one exchange is still doing this. Wonder why.....

Because since fiat reserves cannot be verified in this manner, you're going through all this trouble to only verify 50% of your reserves. Meaning they can still theoretically run 50% fractional reserve but now you'd have that warm comforting feeling that those number mean something that they really don't.

Being able to verify they are not running fractional reserve on crypto alone would be a great advantage. Also, FIAT funds can be proved by a signed and stamped bank statement. It could be forged yeah.... but, anyways, the FIAT reserves of the exchanges, being stored in bank accounts, are ALREADY being subject to fractional reserve by the banks itself

Do you really not think an exchange that proofs daily that they have all the crypto they are suppossed to have would not be a big improvement to current system?

I'm an exchange, you deposit BTC100 with me and r0ach deposits his 2643940 shekels. I buy a lambo i mean get "hacked" for BTC50. I go to another exchange and purchase BTC50 with roaches 1321970 shekels. And at the end of the day i can still provide verifiable proof that i hold BTC100 which corresponds to my balance sheet. Yay for false sense of security!! Partial audits are pretty useless. Now this possibly could work on those crypto only exchanges, that's the future we hope to have one day

Edit: Oh and i also go to another bank and take a loan out for 1321970 shekels, and deposit it in the first bank and provide a legit statement of the full 2643940 shekels in the first bank. Never mind my 1321970 shekel liability to the 2nd bank. Unfortunately fiat is untraceable thats why all the drug cartels, pimps, and war lords use it, would be awesome to replace it with something better 

[bitserve]

Oh please. the way banknotes started in the first place is merchants wanted to store their gold at a bank, rather than lugging it around themselves or setting up their own fort and small militia to protect it. Then they were issued a piece of paper, a banknote. When the bankers discovered people were using the banknotes like money, they discovered a way to loan people paper and run a fractional reserve. It doesn't matter what medium you use as money. Someone is going to find a way to put them self in the middle and exact their usurious fees. Or just plain use force or stealth and outright steal your bounty.

Interestingly, the first technology to be developed since the advent of fractional reserve banking that actually has a real chance of putting a stop to most of the double counting of reserve assets is... drum-roll... blockchain!

Except not even exchanges are currently using that "feature".

Thanks to blockchain exchanges could be already guaranteeing they don't run fractional reserve. It would be as simple as this:

- Every exchange user is given a "unique private identifier".
- Every day, the exchange publish a balance sheet that comprises a listing of all UPI's and its individual balances. The total is the minimum amount of reserves the exchange must control to prove absence of fractional reserve "banking".
- Simultaneously the exchange publish a listing of addresses which individual balances (can be checked on their respective blockchains for accuracy) sum, at least, the total needed. Obviously they sign a timestamped code with those addresses to prove ownership.

- Individual users could check their balances are included and accounted for in the balance sheet.

... But not a single one exchange is still doing this. Wonder why.....

Because since fiat reserves cannot be verified in this manner, you're going through all this trouble to only verify 50% of your reserves. Meaning they can still theoretically run 50% fractional reserve but now you'd have that warm comforting feeling that those number mean something that they really don't.

Being able to verify they are not running fractional reserve on crypto alone would be a great advantage. Also, FIAT funds can be proved by a signed and stamped bank statement. It could be forged yeah.... but, anyways, the FIAT reserves of the exchanges, being stored in bank accounts, are ALREADY being subject to fractional reserve by the banks itself

Do you really not think an exchange that proofs daily that they have all the crypto they are suppossed to have would not be a big improvement to current system?

I'm an exchange, you deposit BTC100 with me and r0ach deposits 2643940 shekels. I buy a lambo i mean get "hacked" for BTC50. I go to another exchange and purchase BTC50 with roaches 1321970 shekels. And at the end of the day i can still provide verifiable proof that i hold BTC10 which corresponds to my balance sheet. Yay for false sense of security!!

It's not only for "security". As soon as you are not running fractional reserve on crypto you are not lowering the price of it. It's ok to me if every (or any, for starters) exchange is forced to proof they hodl the real btc balance. And as I said, it could also be complemented with a bank balance certificate of FIAT funds in the "traditional" way.

[bones261]

Unfortunately, there is nothing to prevent someone from building a layer on top of a blockchain and issuing tokens that are supposed to be backed by deposits and then running a fractional reserve. (Many accuse Tether of doing just that.) Furthermore, blockchains have difficulty scaling. That is why BTC has resorted to the lightning network to attempt to address the scaling problem.

So BTC is a solution, but it's really not a solution because someone can come up with a different solution on top of BTC which wouldn't really be a solution at all, thus making underlying BTC not a solution. Think i got it. And then BTC is having problem scaling so that's why they introduced a scaling solution called LN. Did i get it right?

If the solution you want is to totally prevent people from running fractional reserves, then no, the blockchain is not the solution. Perhaps if you could cram all of the functionality onto the blockchain itself it may be a solution. However, when you try to cram all of the functionality onto the blockchain itself, you run into a scaling issue. You can get a blockchain to scale, but this always comes at the cost of the network being more centralized.

Oh ok i think you cleared it up now, but just to make sure, so it's impossible to cram every possible functionality in any system, and it's also impossible to prevent a derivatives market based on any underlying asset. And since BTC exists in our faulty universe BTC is burdened with the restrictions that apply to every other system. Thus we draw a conclusion that BTC is a failed experiment and will die? I believe the scientific name for this argument is 'R0ach logic'

Did I ever state that BTC is a failed experiment? Or is that what is implied whenever someone dare states that the blockchain and BTC are not the end all be all solution to everything. 

[DaRude]

...
It's not only for "security". As soon as you are not running fractional reserve on crypto you are not lowering the price of it. It's ok to me if every (or any, for starters) exchange is forced to proof they hodl the real btc balance. And as I said, it could also be complemented with a bank balance certificate of FIAT funds in the "traditional" way.

See my edit above