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

[The Sceptical Chymist]

Seems like there's a little flame war in progress here, but when I was thinking of where the math geeks and TA people hang out on bitcointalk, this was the first thread I thought of.

I made a thread in Economics asking for some smarty-pants math analysis of another thread I was posting in, where the OP (jjjfff) seems to be getting things wrong--but as I explained in my own thread, it's been a long time since I've applied math to anything and don't trust my own analytical skills to figure out what's wrong with what jjjfff is saying.  What he posted about (the Fed printing money and the stock market's response to it and so forth) is interesting to me, but that little voice inside my head is screaming that he's a nutty conspiracy theorist who might be getting his facts wrong.

My thread in Economics is self-moderated and only got two replies so far, only one of which was a little bit useful.  That section is a shithole and I'm sure my thread is getting buried under a mountain of garbage threads.  I'm offering some merits to anyone who can give me some insight into jjjfff's claims, i.e., whether they're correct or way off base.

If anyone is interested in maybe earning some merits and knows math and can explain some of jjjfff's assertions with math to back it up, and also knows a little bit about inflation, the stock market, inflation-adjusted stock charts and TA, please read both my thread and the one by jjjfff that I linked to above and respond in my thread.  I made it self-moderated due to the shitposting problem, but I won't delete posts by anyone who puts some effort into their reply.  My sMerits may run out, but if they do I'll keep track of who made informative posts and merit them when I get more.  I know I'm not offering a huge reward for this, but I hate when people post wrong information.  I'm just not 100% certain jjjfff is wrong. 

Just as an example:  jjjfff made a statement that the slope of the 30-year DJIA chart=% gain, and I know that to be false.  I tried to rebut that, but he said I was overthinking it.

Thanks in advance for any help.

[realr0ach]

^I just started looking at it and all I can say is that jjjfff red line on the chart is the most arbitrary, meaningless line I've ever seen.  About the same or worse than most arbitrary, meaningless lines shitcoiners use in these threads.  There's no type of trend or anything there.  The real line would probably be more like the purple one I drew below, but his goal was to make stocks look better than they are.  

It doesn't matter how much money the govt prints, there are other markets besides the stock market for the money to go into.  Nobody buys overpriced assets no matter how much money you print.  Right now commodities are cheaper compared to all other assets than they've been in like decades, so that's where the money will go.

[jojo69]

Lol

I am now, at some small risk to my opsec, going to alienate myself from both sides of our little WO climate debate.

I remember the first time I heard of climate change.  It was at the Round River Rendezvous in Idaho, '95 I believe it was.  We were having a great time digging up logging roads and drinking beer with Wild Rockies Earth First! when a crew of creepy ass bay area CPUSA types showed up.  They had all their talking points together boy.  They insisted that everyone needed to drop our various campaigns and get together on this climate thing pronto.

This experience has tainted my view of the, often quite compelling, climate science as it developed over the subsequent decades.

I remain agnostic on anthropogenic climate change.

There are quite enough disastrous effects of over industrialization perfectly plain and manifest to anyone who is not willfully ignorant, to give us ample pause about continued growth.  One need not rely on climate change to understand that our effects here are going dangerously asymptotic.  While it is true that life, in some form, will continue regardless of what we do, I rather prefer the ecosystem in which I evolved.

Willful ignorance is a special kind of evil.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

^I just started looking at it and all I can say is that jjjfff red line on the chart is the most arbitrary, meaningless line I've ever seen.  About the same or worse than most arbitrary, meaningless lines shitcoiners use in these threads.

All the mathematics I've learned so long ago is somewhere hidden in my brain, but that info is contributing to my intuition, which is drawing the same conclusion. 

I just don't understand enough about the Fed's money-printing and how it actually works and whether that contributes to the "linearity" of that 30-year chart jjjfff displayed.  I would imagine that interest rates and many other factors are at work, but it appears jjjfff is tunnel vision about the Federal Reserve.

Thanks for replying.  I'd like people to post in my thread or his.  If he's full of shit, I'd like him to hear it and he's not going to if it's all posted in this thread--and it would be way off-topic anyway.  Thanks again, though.

[realr0ach]

^I just started looking at it and all I can say is that jjjfff red line on the chart is the most arbitrary, meaningless line I've ever seen.  About the same or worse than most arbitrary, meaningless lines shitcoiners use in these threads.

All the mathematics I've learned so long ago is somewhere hidden in my brain, but that info is contributing to my intuition, which is drawing the same conclusion.  

I added more to my post with another chart showing commodities too since he seems to pretend money is required to flow to the stock market when it's not.  The commodity super cycle should just be beginning right now. As a side note, I was saying like 2 years ago the DOW would implode to 10k or lower when this bubble bursts, so it's funny the corrected version of that chart aligns directly with that level.  That assumes any type of free market actually exists, though.  If they convert the govt to just full blown communism and never allow mark to market, I guess you can rig the number to anything you want in communism.

[Toxic2040]

... ever seen what happens ...
-snipped-

Sorry..ain't buying it. I think you know something is happening and is continuing to happen this century. The data is sound and has been reviewed many times.

While I agree with you that the Earth will continue its orbit regardless of what humanity does I think it naive to doubt what hard science has proven. Co2 levels are rising at a extraordinary rate. Pumping billions of barrels of hydrocarbons from beneath the ground and then burning it just does not sound like a good idea any more. Are innovation and change difficult? Yes..  Is it expensive to be a first mover in a nascent market?  Yes..extremely so.. 
Things change and we grow wiser.

https://nypost.com/2018/12/28/climate-change-expert-aaron-doering-charged-with-choking-his-fiance/

... when the lying and shilling becomes too much in the face of cool factual analysis, all that is left is demented rage and violent incoherence I guess.

... climate science never is and never will be a 'hard science', it's full of charlatans and political appointees. It's basically a renegade academic cult masquerading as a branch of science now, with fully-developed propaganda and PR smearing units targetting dissenters ("deniers").

That escalated quickly...

en garde

Do not put words into my mouth, I never said or implied that. I said and was implying that scientific principles have been brought to bear on these problem's and the results are pretty conclusive in my "humble" opinion. If you wish to use incendiary rhetoric and some non-tangential quote from the Post(the Post for God's sake man!) be my guest. If you think my responses are demented and incoherent feel free to ignore me. Otherwise, perhaps listen to what I am saying because not only can I(and have) pull up reams of accredited papers by the worlds leading scientists. I have seen it with mine own eye's. 30+ years in the field in not only hazardous remediation but the energy sector as well. It's not a pretty site. The cavalier attitude many people seem to have towards responsible, sustainable shepherding of this planet..this Earth we call home is sickening to me on a fundamental level.

[realr0ach]

Co2 levels are rising at a extraordinary rate

I wonder who was burning all that gasoline 600 million years ago to send c02 through the roof which didn't even seem to have a correlation with temperature, but it did cause plants to be more efficient, create more oxygen, and caused some insects like dragonflys to be the size of cars.

[HairyMaclairy]

You can choose gay frogs guy or you can choose NASA.  

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities.

If you trust gay frogs guy over NASA, then I can’t help you.  

[realr0ach]

You can choose gay frogs guy or you can choose NASA.  

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Got it.  The govt does not lie.  Everything on CNN is true.  And even though the media, banking system, and most powerful govt lobbies are all Jewish controlled, Jews do not control the govt either.  And "climate change science" that does not directly align with the govt pre-scripted conclusion is not immediately defunded and refused to be published either.

[Paashaas]

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1078682801954799617.html

So BUY BTC skip ETH for some enthusiasts.

Great tweetstorm on the current state of ETH.  

I didn’t buy into the ETH ICO @ 2,000 ETH/BTC because I thought ETH was a scam. Turns out I was right. Doesn’t help that I could have been rich along the way.  

Nice thread indeed.

Top comment on Reddit...

He's trying too hard. Tuur, just a many other 'influencers', got lucky because they invested early in Bitcoin. Now they are self-proclaimed experts

https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/aac4hr/tuurs_criticism_discussion_thread/

[Arriemoller]

You can choose gay frogs guy or you can choose NASA.  

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities.

If you trust gay frogs guy over NASA, then I can’t help you.  

Since when is scientific truth decided by majority vote?
The day IPCC get one of their endless predictions right I will consider contemplating their hypothesis.

[Toxic2040]

You can choose gay frogs guy or you can choose NASA.  

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities.

If you trust gay frogs guy over NASA, then I can’t help you.  

Since when is scientific truth decided by majority vote?
The day IPCC get one of their endless predictions right I will consider contemplating their hypothesis.

 

[nikauforest]

Well I am happy to make money off of the 97% pushing there climate agenda.
https://www.carbonfund.co.nz/

What I do find much more interesting is the so called 3% who don't quite agree with the consensus. Many scientists are shut out of the debate. Here is one scientist who spoke at the Global Warming Policy Forum and many scientists wanted to shut her up.

I think she is interesting, she connects the solar out put of the suns energy to climate change over long periods of time. She is calling for a return of a mini ice age.

https://www.thegwpf.com/professor-valentina-zharkova-the-solar-magnetic-field-and-the-terrestrial-climate/

If you want to believe the 97% go ahead, but it might still be wise to listen to the 3% ( I doubt these numbers, 97% sounds like propaganda, climate change is now an institutionalized big business. ) For instance, if you want to study red squirrels and their mating habits add the line " as it relates to global warming" you will get the funding.

Remember "97%" of scientists thought the sun revolved around the earth. (Way back in the 1400's - 1500's)

Best to keep an open mind. Sure ...does human activity affect the climate. I would say yes, however is it the main driver? What about that giant yellow ball in the sky?

[marcus_of_augustus]

Since when is scientific truth decided by majority vote?
The day IPCC get one of their endless predictions right I will consider contemplating their hypothesis.

 

here let me just update that for you since conveniently for your argument left out the last two years of the chart data ... always happens that way huh?



 

[HairyMaclairy]

You can choose gay frogs guy or you can choose NASA.  

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities.

If you trust gay frogs guy over NASA, then I can’t help you.  

Since when is scientific truth decided by majority vote?
The day IPCC get one of their endless predictions right I will consider contemplating their hypothesis.

It’s not a vote.  It’s 97% agreement.  Try getting 97% of bitcoiners to agree on something.  

[nikauforest]

Well I am happy to make money off of the 97% pushing their climate agenda.
https://www.carbonfund.co.nz/

What I do find much more interesting is the so called 3% who don't quite agree with the consensus. Many scientists are shut out of the debate. Here is one scientist who spoke at the Global Warming Policy Forum and many scientists wanted to shut her up.

I think she is interesting, she connects the solar out put of the suns energy to climate change over long periods of time. She is calling for a return of a mini ice age.

https://www.thegwpf.com/professor-valentina-zharkova-the-solar-magnetic-field-and-the-terrestrial-climate/

If you want to believe the 97% go ahead, but it might still be wise to listen to the 3% ( I doubt these numbers, 97% sounds like propaganda, climate change is now an institutionalized big business. ) For instance, if you want to study red squirrels and their mating habits add the line " as it relates to global warming" you will get the funding.

Remember "97%" of scientists thought the sun revolved around the earth. (Way back in the 1400's - 1500's)

Best to keep an open mind. Sure ...does human activity affect the climate. I would say yes, however is it the main driver? What about that giant yellow ball in the sky?

The problem I see is that scientists who disagree are being pushed out of the debate. Which leads to dogma and very little science.

[HairyMaclairy]

The problem I see is that scientists who disagree are being pushed out of the debate. Which leads to dogma and very little science.

We had that issue in my country.  Some background checks were done on the scientists that disagreed with the 97%.  It turns out they were funded by an independent policy think tank. Whose largest donor was a large coal company.

Sometimes even scientists are corrupt. 

[realr0ach]

Can any of you shitcoiners explain the following phenomenon?  One of the main aspects of a Ponzi are the supposed guaranteed gains just by participating at all.  You can argue whether bitcoin itself is a Ponzi or not, but that's tangential to this subject.  The subject is people that use the word "hodl" imply the gains are guaranteed.  If bitcoin is marketed as a hodl ponzi - and face it, that is the only way bitcoin is marketed to the public, it's not marketed in any other way - how is it not a Ponzi by default? lol.

A Ponzi scheme: "Maintaining the illusion of a sustainable business as long as there continue to be new investors willing to contribute new funds, and as long as most of the investors do not demand full repayment and are willing to believe in the non-existent assets that they are purported to own."

[marcus_of_augustus]

... and straight in there with the usual bodged data and smear tactics tricks.

"Man-made climate change" was never about the science, they were just some useful idiots for the socialists to push their shabby agenda of control and shared mediocrity.

Any chance of useful debate or reasoning is gone now ... perhaps that is just how the socialists like it?

[realr0ach]

they were just some useful idiots for the socialists to push their shabby agenda of control and shared mediocrity.

Stop using the rat kike Ben Shapiro definition of communism and socialism.  Communism is a Jewish monetary scam to centralize all the wealth, power, and assets so the Jews can steal it all and rule over the populace as slaves like they did in Russia.  Then when the system inevitably implodes, the assets are all transfered off to the Yiddish controllers.  Why do you think just about every single Russian Oligarch who ended up with the stolen wealth of Russia is Jewish?