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

[DaRude]

WAY better than nothing. Though "portfolio cash value" is not the same as USD Fiat on deposit. It could be all on Tesla stock for what we know or any sort of high risk high yield investments.

The portfolio may even be in the form of Tether!

P.S.: Also one single signature from some UNIDENTIFIED person and not even an official bank seal..... It's almost comical when you are certifying almost 2 Billion USD.

For reals, dude.

"USD Fiat on deposit" is nothing if you don't know their debts. i.e. money could've been borrowed for a day and deposited to the account short term just for the letter. Bottom line, it's most likely illegal and will always require trust in 3rd party. Those that don't know history are doomed to repeat it.

Yes. It doesn't say anything about liabilities. That being said I don't think it is that easy for a shady crypto exchange to obtain a (nowhere near) 1.8Billion short term lending at *ANY* cost. The risk of those founds being frozen "in transit" are HUGE. So it must probably be theirs OR the bank is in it OR everything is fake.

What if it's a photoshoped document all together, don't think banks are legally allowed to confirm it to outside parties? Anything outside of full audit by big four is pretty useless, so why bother

[Biodom]

Can someone make Arthur Hayes shut up ?

https://www.ccn.com/bitcoin-price-bitmex-ceo-doubles-down-on-bear-call-says-btc-could-fall-to-2000/

CCN reported earlier this week that Hayes, a former Citigroup trader, is now predicting that the bitcoin downtrend could last another 18 months, mirroring the “nuclear bear market” the crypto industry experienced in 2014 and 2015. Writing in Friday’s edition of the BitMEX Crypto Trader Digest, Hayes doubled down on that portentous outlook.

How the does he know that?
Trace Mayer was saying that market would go to 28K, it went to 20K and stopped cold.
Now Trace is saying that 3.5K is possible, however, maybe it's already done it's bear cycle (mostly).

Nobody knows what the market would do, and if they do, ostensibly, they are not going to tell us.

Is 2k possible. maybe, but is it likely-f, NO.

From where are you getting the Trace Mayer assertion of $3.5k is possible?  Is that a recent statement, and what is the context of such statement? 

As you have already astutely asserted, I think that both of us have recognized that there is a decent difference in the picture that might be portrayed between purporting that some BTC price movement is "possible" and ascribing "likelihood" to that same BTC price movement.

Trace...where?
here (my bad, not 3.5, but rather 3K):
https://twitter.com/TraceMayer?lang=en

he is wrong, IMHO.

[realr0ach]

From where are you getting the Trace Mayer assertion of $3.5k is possible?  Is that a recent statement, and what is the context of such statement?  

All the people who claimed I was speaking "fud" when the price was $20k and I said it was going to plummet to $4.2kish and likely stabilize there with a likely flash crash to $3k before it stabilizes are now basically copying my statement word for word except 10 months late.  This of course assumes bitcoin has to obey some type of general accounting practices and they don't just print a quadrillion tethers out of thin air to make the price do whatever.  

Am I a buyer at $4k?  Nope.  Not when the price of metals is this low.  I mean, they even 'discovered' the national debt is $40 trillion instead of $20 trillion then tried to cover it up under "national security".  Price of gold with typical 90%+ correlation to US debt should already be $2500ish now.  With a $40+ trillion national debt it would be $5000 an ounce gold ($166 an ounce silver in the bull run to 30:1 GSR, unless they peg 15:1 and it's $320 silver).

Some random economist talking about his discovery of the govt's "missing" $21 trillion:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4XRbcBz2Z4

[jbreher]

If you believe that a band of thugs extracting what they want from you at gunpoint under color of law is in any way legitimate, what the hell difference is it if they do it based upon income or based upon current net holdings? From an ethical standpoint, it is the exact same thing.

Band of thugs and government is not the same thing.  You seem to be ascribing government as if it were a "band of thugs" and then attempting to be technically correct because you are saying that the "band of thugs" is acting under "color of law."

Your framing amounts to faulty logic, even though anti-government folks like to talk like that, if you are mixing up the difference between government and thugs (or at least presuming government to be "thugs").

'Splain me the difference?

If something is unethical for one person to do to another, then that thing is unethical for any group (e.g., so-called 'government') to do to any individual. For if the government gets its authority by assent of the governed, that government has no legitimate power that those governed do not have to begin with.

[realr0ach]

If something is unethical for one person to do to another, then that thing is unethical for any group (e.g., so-called 'government') to do to any individual.

Except "unethical" is a completely subjective, meaningless word.  You have to cite some type of fixed point in the universe in order to define what is ethical or not in order to see what strays away from that position.  This is why Hitler said "like anything else, Nature is the best teacher".  In this manner you have defined a fixed position, such as observing mammals like dogs and cats, they typically don't attempt cruel and unusual punishment like torture.  As in Vlad the Impaler impaling each other on stakes, or crucifixion.  

You could define natural law in this manner as things that don't stray from evolutionary purpose.  If the activity is just plain psychotic in nature like killing people for sport and wearing their skin as a mask like in Texas Chainsaw Massacre, then you've obviously strayed from natural law.  As for whatever medical experiments the Japanese or Nazis might have done, I consider modern medicine virtually identical to some form of satanism in practice, and far more people than Japanese and Nazis do it.  It's in every country on earth.

What's the difference in sacrificing a creature to some likely imaginary demons in hopes of them granting you power and modern medicine sacrificing some creature in order to try and be granted some hidden knowledge? It's the same thing, just one is possibly more effective than the other.

[Elwar]

I just don't like it when people do want to use hospitals, roads, the fire department etc etc and still don't want to pay taxes.

Where I used to live in the US only 1 out of 3 of those is paid by the government.

Taxation is a form of raising money if you're not smart enough to come up with something better. It's lazy governance that is only allowed because people accept it as necessary.




I just don't like it when people go the store and have the choice of a variety of goods which they pay for with the money they earn and they still don't want capitalism.

[sirazimuth]

I don't know why the 1st thing I noticed about the name of the dude in this cockroach linked vid ( Dr Mark Skidmore) is that backwards it's  

more skid Mark Dr...  (maybe its cuz I just did the laundry)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4XRbcBz2Z4

[infofront]

I'm just bitter because I sold all my bitcoins at $600, and bought silver, which has depreciated 25% since then.

It'll be okay.

[realr0ach]

Wonder how much of that "missing" $21 trillion from the govt was used to prop up shitcoins to try and bait and switch buffoons into a cashless society slave system instead of using physical metals.

[JayJuanGee]

Can someone make Arthur Hayes shut up ?

https://www.ccn.com/bitcoin-price-bitmex-ceo-doubles-down-on-bear-call-says-btc-could-fall-to-2000/

CCN reported earlier this week that Hayes, a former Citigroup trader, is now predicting that the bitcoin downtrend could last another 18 months, mirroring the “nuclear bear market” the crypto industry experienced in 2014 and 2015. Writing in Friday’s edition of the BitMEX Crypto Trader Digest, Hayes doubled down on that portentous outlook.

How the does he know that?
Trace Mayer was saying that market would go to 28K, it went to 20K and stopped cold.
Now Trace is saying that 3.5K is possible, however, maybe it's already done it's bear cycle (mostly).

Nobody knows what the market would do, and if they do, ostensibly, they are not going to tell us.

Is 2k possible. maybe, but is it likely-f, NO.

From where are you getting the Trace Mayer assertion of $3.5k is possible?  Is that a recent statement, and what is the context of such statement?  

As you have already astutely asserted, I think that both of us have recognized that there is a decent difference in the picture that might be portrayed between purporting that some BTC price movement is "possible" and ascribing "likelihood" to that same BTC price movement.

Trace...where?
here (my bad, not 3.5, but rather 3K):
https://twitter.com/TraceMayer?lang=en

he is wrong, IMHO.

Thanks for the link, Biodom.. I see that the statement is only from a few days ago... .  

It seems to me that Trace is largely just exaggerating BTC price performance possibilities and attempting to look at the bright side to possible BTC price drops, which would end up weeding out froth from the space (which he views as a positive) - and Trace is likely mostly and relatively neutral to such ongoing negative BTC price performance in terms of his own BTC holdings and his costs per BTC being quite low and that he remains a long term BTC optimist (I think a self proclaimed BTC maximalist... hahahahaha) that really does not proclaim to have insight regarding the extent to which bear manipulators might be able to continue to push BTC prices down.

In other words, Trace remains amongst the most bitcoin bullish peeps in the space while being analytically (and intellectually) open enough to recognize the irrational extremes of markets that can also be explained in positive terms of shaking out weak hands.

I think that you and I largely agree, Biodom, about the low likelihood of going down to either $3.5k or $3k, but we might attribute different tentative probabilies to such negative BTC price prediction possibilities.  

In that regard, in one of my earlier posts in this thread from today, I had thrown out a ballpark estimate, and I had attributed about a less than 10% to the BTC price going down to $2k in the remainder of this calendar year (2018).  

Surely the odds of going down to either $3.5k or $3k would be higher than the odds of going down to $2k, but still going down to either $3.5k or to $3k in this calendar year would likely be in the less than 30% arena (based on current information).

If BTC prices break below $6k and then below $5,500, then my tune would likely change and the odds of BTC prices going down to either $3.5k this calendar year or $3k would become much higher - but we have to cross the higher BTC price thresholds of breaking below $6k and breaking below $5.5k before getting too obsessed with what seem to be currently less than 30% BTC price performance scenarios of going down to either $3.5k or $3k.

[realr0ach]

Taxation is a form of raising money if you're not smart enough to come up with something better.

Taxation is money spent to defend and maintain ethnocentric city-states.  If your govt is doing the exact opposite of this and is working to destroy the ethnocentric majority instead, then your govt has been taken over by Jews and you must expel them.

[JayJuanGee]

From where are you getting the Trace Mayer assertion of $3.5k is possible?  Is that a recent statement, and what is the context of such statement?  

All the people who claimed I was speaking "fud" when the price was $20k and I said it was going to plummet to $4.2kish and likely stabilize there with a likely flash crash to $3k before it stabilizes are now basically copying my statement word for word except 10 months late.  

Get the fuck out of here with your self-serving assertions that you know anything about BTC and it's price performance or that you are some kind of clairvoyant that knows more than other people about BTC's price performance.

Seems pretty obvious that if you are proclaiming that bitcoin is a bubble all the way up from $250 to $20k that sooner or later you are going to be correct.

So, you don't know shit - otherwise you would not have sold all your BTC in the $500 and bought gold and silver with that....

Your failure/refusal to invest in BTC and your hopium about PMs seems to be a shot in the dark of hopium rather than any kind of smartness that you might arguably have deep down on the inside...    which probably we need to dig really deep to locate any grain of smartness in your seeming lack of diversification into bitcoin when you seem to know quite a bit about it.

This of course assumes bitcoin has to obey some type of general accounting practices and they don't just print a quadrillion tethers out of thin air to make the price do whatever.  

Yes.. give some hopeful and narrow explanation for why BTC has been maintaining above $6k for the past 8 months....

Am I a buyer at $4k?  Nope.  Not when the price of metals is this low.  

This is called humor.  I think that statements like this is why infofront tolerates you hanging around with us in the WO thread because infofront seems to appreciate some of your nonsense humor.  He probably cannot stop rolling on the ground from some of your nonsense humor posts, which could be a bit dangerous especially if viewing WO thread on mobile and perhaps NOT in a safe roach viewing space.

I mean, they even 'discovered' the national debt is $40 trillion instead of $20 trillion then tried to cover it up under "national security".

You attempting to paint the picture so dire that your wish for Armageddon comes because that is likely one of the ONLY scenarios in which your PMs might become valuable - likely a less than a 1% long shot.   

 Price of gold with typical 90%+ correlation to US debt should already be $2500ish now.  With a $40+ trillion national debt it would be $5000 an ounce gold ($166 an ounce silver in the bull run to 30:1 GSR, unless they peg 15:1 and it's $320 silver).

Good luck with your projections of undervaluation with those anarchic metals, and your investment theory that seems to rely on a kind of Armageddon  (maybe could be called Armageddon hopium?)

Some random economist talking about his discovery of the govt's "missing" $21 trillion:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4XRbcBz2Z4

 

Perhaps those facts, if true, might be more relevant to bitcoin than to your dumbass armageddon reliant PM hopium?

[HairyMaclairy]

What if it's a photoshoped document all together, don't think banks are legally allowed to confirm it to outside parties? Anything outside of full audit by big four is pretty useless, so why bother

Banks share information about their customers all the time. That’s how credit reporting agencies get their data.

I’m inclined to believe that the letter is real and that Bitfinex really did have $1.8 billion in cash on that particular day.  If the letter was fake, the bank would have said something.

Binance supposedly earned over a billion dollars last year so no reason why Bitfinex / Tether couldn’t earn $2 billion over 5 years.


That being said, I think it is unlikely that Bitfinex just leaves the money lying in the bank account.  They want to earn interest on it.  Some is probably invested in US Treasuries.  Where it gets dangerous is if they are getting cute around the margins and buying large quantities of junk bonds in what appears to be the tail end of a bull market.   Their cash management strategy could blow up. The Big 4 won’t touch them with a barge pole because the management are all cowboys. Far too risky.

[JayJuanGee]

If you believe that a band of thugs extracting what they want from you at gunpoint under color of law is in any way legitimate, what the hell difference is it if they do it based upon income or based upon current net holdings? From an ethical standpoint, it is the exact same thing.

Band of thugs and government is not the same thing.  You seem to be ascribing government as if it were a "band of thugs" and then attempting to be technically correct because you are saying that the "band of thugs" is acting under "color of law."

Your framing amounts to faulty logic, even though anti-government folks like to talk like that, if you are mixing up the difference between government and thugs (or at least presuming government to be "thugs").

'Splain me the difference?

Don't act stupid.  You are using an expression that is internally contradictory, and making up a creature that does not exist by describing government as a thug acting under the color of law.

The burden is on you to prove your point because even though governments have tendencies to become corrupted, they are not designed that way and are supposed to be instruments that exercise the will of the people ..   so you are trying to come up with some kind of short hand hybrid definition that presumes anti-government points and to presume that government doesn't have any purpose.. The burden remains on you to explain your points, I am just pointing out the internal contradiction that you seem to want to presume away.

If something is unethical for one person to do to another, then that thing is unethical for any group (e.g., so-called 'government') to do to any individual.

Another bad presumption.  If a government is acting under the color of law, then they are not thugs and not merely the assembly of various individualisms (like a gang) and what you are presuming.

For if the government gets its authority by assent of the governed, that government has no legitimate power that those governed do not have to begin with.

Huh?  you do seem to understand that government has its most power when it is acting on behalf of the people.. and of course, sometimes the actions of government officials can be disputed and challenged regarding whether such government action is violations some personal rights or being wrongly applied..  ...

Anyhow, you seem to sufficiently understand but just want to be argumentative and purposefully throw out anti-government exaggerated statements trying to suggest that the government is the same as some random thugs.

[JayJuanGee]

Wonder how much of that "missing" $21 trillion from the govt was used to prop up shitcoins to try and bait and switch buffoons into a cashless society slave system instead of using physical metals.

Probably none.    Go figure? 

[realr0ach]

Wonder how much of that "missing" $21 trillion from the govt was used to prop up shitcoins to try and bait and switch buffoons into a cashless society slave system instead of using physical metals.

Probably none.    Go figure?  

Don't be so sure about that.  Bloomberg accidentally revealed silver is a $5 trillion a year market.  Gold is $18 trillion.  The market cap of bitcoin is higher than that of above ground physical silver.  Do you think bitcoin is anywhere near a $5 trillion market?  Fuck no.  Yet it's market cap is higher entirely through fraud on Bitfinex pushing shitcoins up and fraud pushing silver down.  Longterm events like this do not occur without tacit govt approval.  The govt wants you to use designed to centralize, Orwellian tracking system shitcoins and wants to keep you away from metals in other words.  Real price discovery will happen as the debt based dollar system decays more.

[JayJuanGee]

Wonder how much of that "missing" $21 trillion from the govt was used to prop up shitcoins to try and bait and switch buffoons into a cashless society slave system instead of using physical metals.

Probably none.    Go figure?  

Don't be so sure about that.  Bloomberg accidentally revealed silver is a $5 trillion a year market.  Gold is $18 trillion.  The market cap of bitcoin is higher than that of above ground physical silver.  Do you think bitcoin is anywhere near a $5 trillion market?  Fuck no.  Yet it's market cap is higher entirely through fraud on Bitfinex pushing shitcoins up and fraud pushing silver down.  Longterm events like this do not occur without tacit govt approval.  The govt wants you to use designed to centralize, Orwellian tracking system shitcoins and wants to keep you away from metals in other words.

Assuming a kind of manipulation of PMs is true (something similar to what you are alleging), in the end, who gives a shit?  The fact of the matter remains that you are investing in the wrong asset class.  

If you were putting anywhere between 5% and 20%  of your quasi-investment funds into PMs then more than 90% of that 5-20% PMs' allocation would likely be much, much, much better off to divert into Bitcoin - because your PMs theory is too reliant on a less than 1% Armageddon scenario (and less than 1% means that it has a slim chance in hell of happening, so why you over-allocating in that pie in the sky Armageddon based scenario?)

[realr0ach]

The JayJuanGee false dichotomy that it requires nuclear armageddon for metals to have value.  The last time I checked, they have had value for over 5000 years and there was no nuclear armageddon going on.  And no, the future is not valueless, imaginary tokens.  Those are the same as fiat and are the past.  People are not going to be tricked into fiat 2.0 when the debt based system blows up.

[JayJuanGee]

The JayJuanGee false dichotomy that it requires nuclear armageddon for metals to have value.  The last time I checked, they have had value for over 5000 years and there was no nuclear armageddon going on.

The last time I checked, PMs were NOT the topic of this thread, so I don't have to justify my position and get into the weeds of your off-topic bullshit.  Your point is NOT really to make any kind of connection to crypto but to pump your bullshit, which remains irrelevant to this thread, so who gives a ratt's ass if you happen to be correct because you are off topic.

 And no, the future is not valueless, imaginary tokens.  

Yes, you don't believe in either bitcoin or other crypto, and that is understood.

Those are the same as fiat and are the past.  People are not going to be tricked into fiat 2.0 when the debt based system blows up.

This thread is NOT about those, so get ur selfie on topic.  If you say that bitcoin is the same as fiat, then you better back up what you are saying because on the face of it, you make little to no sense. Bitcoin is not government run nor centralized, so you better get into specifics if you want to show that, and regarding other monetary traits (especially sound money) there seems to be a lack of connection too.. You have the burden to back up your vague assertions, if you are trying to argue that bitcoin is the same as fiat - either you don't understand bitcoin or you are just making up shit because I doubt that you will be able to make such connection that makes any fucking sense based on actual evidence and logic.. Go ahead.. I am all ears.

[realr0ach]

JayJuangee, have you ever seen a grown man naked