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

[Toxic2040]

Elwar seems to have gotten his trezor to work.

+1 WOsMerit

yeah...I got a really bad feeling about the coming weeks

Pussy.

I'm doing an extra morning set of 10 reps with my titanium plates. I feel no pain. The only way is up.

Please let me suggest you to add some cologne spraying between each rep for full endurance training.

From the horse's mouth. Duly merited now. WOsMerit alone couldn't pay justice to crabs and stuff.

-----------




searching for support along the 0.236 fib as most short term indicators appear to be turning south
1h


$4.7k might be the new floor  #dyor
3d

#stronghands'19

[DaRude]

You don't have those kinds of options with traditional physical assets like fiat or PMs...  Even having $10 million in cash would not be easy to move around, like it is with bitcoin.  A billion dollars on bitcoin could be stored and managed a whole hell-of-a lot easier than the same value in cash or Pms.

You demonstrate a complete failure of economics 101 understanding.  It's not possible for something to qualify as "money" if it doesn't even qualify as a commodity first.  Nobody refers to video games on Steam as a "commodity" because it's blatantly obvious it's a state-run racket/scam called intellectual property and entirely based on artificial scarcity.  

Bitcoin is no different - another artificial scarcity scam/racket.  The hallmark trait of all currencies is artificial scarcity, while actual money is required to be physical commodity in the real world and not an artificial scarcity racket.  So, no, you are not "storing" $10 million of anything in bitcoin because it's not possible to store value in something completely imaginary based on artificial scarcity.  It's a currency and not money, and on a long enough timeline the value of a currency always goes to zero.  

All you're holding is a temporary pump and dump grenade or financial scam that you're attempting to pass off onto someone else before it explodes, not "storing value".  You need a physical commodity that doesn't expire to do that.

While your rationale works well for video games on Steam it does not hold for Bitcoin. While true that the scarcity is artificial by virtue of being programmed in it's not comparable to video games on Steam which can be sold without any limitations.

As soon as some malicious actor tried to remove scarcity by increasing the amounts of Bitcoins we'd simple tell them to fork off by forking off ourselves.


You could make an argument that this would be a democratic process and that the majority of humans is too fucking retarded to realize when they're being manipulated into believing that increasing the amount of coins is a non-issue. But that would still result in two chains, one with the idiots and one with the rest.

Now another argument that you could attempt would be to state that the scarcity was broken through the fork. But as we have already seen quite clearly forks only have a fraction of the original value and the more forks there are the less valuable each fork will be with a quick convergence towards value for erroneous forks. Hence irrelevant for both the Economy as a whole as well as the 21m Bitcoin chain.

His old brittle mind burned too many brain cells on nazi propaganda to see that there is no difference between natural and coded scarcity as long as it's truly scares. But that's alright many grandmas struggle with the concept of decentralized consensus, and that you can't copy and paste to get more BTC and it's not because of some DRM.

[JayJuanGee]

The scarcity of bitcoin is not artificial you dimwit.  Stop spreading misinformation.

If this statement is not concrete proof JayJuanGee is negative 4000 IQ, I don't know what is.

There is no negative IQ... 

[JayJuanGee]

The scarcity of bitcoin is not artificial you dimwit.  Stop spreading misinformation.

The entire Bitcoin protocol is a human creation and hence artificial. That includes everything with in it, such as the limited supply and hence scarcity of Bitcoins.

Code:

artificial
/ɑːtɪˈfɪʃ(ə)l/
adjective
adjective: artificial

    1.
    made or produced by human beings rather than occurring naturally, especially as a copy of something natural.
    "her skin glowed in the artificial light"

O.k. Technically, you are correct, yet we are not talking about technical correctness, we are talking about real world application.

Accordingly, try to change the 21 million bitcoin versus trying to figure out the extent to which the gold supply is scarce or not manipulated by paper inflation?  Which one is more scarce in real application and what the fuck problem has bitcoin attempted to solve?  

With bitcoin, we are talking practical application and a programmed and consensual scarcity, not some pie in the sky theory about what could or might happen in some hypothetical (not likely to happen scenario).  And, that is part of the reason why, currently, bitcoin has the strongest and hardest money that has ever been created  (until proven otherwise).

[edited out]

His old brittle mind burned too many brain cells on nazi propaganda to see that there is no difference between natural and coded scarcity as long as it's truly scares. But that's alright many grandmas struggle with the concept of decentralized consensus, and that you can't copy and paste to get more BTC and it's not because of some DRM.

That is be called Koreck!!!!

[Icygreen]

VLOG #6 | T.A. With Bitcoin

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKE20QZ69KQ&feature=youtu.be

Thanks, that was ballzy of them and cute. Haha 

Put ALL your money in bitcoin! Get a mortgage, if you have one maybe take out second one. [quote/]

[realr0ach]

there is no difference between natural and coded scarcity

No difference in real world scarcity and artificial scarcity?  Okay, by your own statement there's no difference between bitcoin and any altcoin - both are "coded scarcity" - so supply is then infinite because there's no overhead to create them and thus no Schelling point.

This is the stupid world of shitcoiners where they just make up random nonsense to try to rationalize using shitcoins over metals.  Then every piece of propaganda they create to try and rationalize the use of digital shitcoins only rationalizes the use of fiat and an infinite number of altcoins too.  So they then backtrack and try to apply nonsensical double standards to attempt to not promote altcoins or fiats with their horrid, illogical arguments.

[BTCMILLIONAIRE]

O.k. Technically, you are correct, yet we are not talking about technical correctness, we are talking about real world application.

Accordingly, try to change the 21 million bitcoin versus trying to figure out the extent to which the gold supply is scarce or not manipulated by paper inflation?  Which one is more scarce in real application and what the fuck problem has bitcoin attempted to solve?  

With bitcoin, we are talking practical application and a programmed and consensual scarcity, not some pie in the sky theory about what could or might happen in some hypothetical (not likely to happen scenario).  And, that is part of the reason why, currently, bitcoin has the strongest and hardest money that has ever been created  (until proven otherwise).

You've stated that Bitcoin's scarcity is not artificial which is strictly false.

Bitcoin's scarcity is artificial, period. No technicalities, no real world application, no anything. It is de facto and unequivocally artificial.

I'd like to ask you to stop degenerating our language.

It's bad enough that liberalism is functionally equivalent to fascism these days and that a progressive is acting in regressive ways. If terms are defined in a dictionary stick to the definition. Otherwise all hell breaks lose and fascists start thinking they're fighting for the greater good.


As far as the scarcity argument goes, it doesn't even exist. One is limited in supply, the other is not.

[realr0ach]

Scarcity vs artificial scarcity be damned, JayJuanGee is not even correct that bitcoin has scarcity in the first place.  It's technically no real difference from the federal reserve.  They state a 2% inflation rate targeting, but political forces can obviously push it higher or lower.  Bitcoin's inflation target is...a predefined slope, but the exact same political powers can change that just like the fed.  

Transaction validators in shitcoins are always designed to centralize because it's not possible to create a decentralized digital currency, so they have NO NASH EQUILIBRIUM and are subject to the exact same political power vacuum of central banks with govts just exerting force over the 1-10 transaction validators (ASIC warehouses and pools) to apply AML/KYC, inflation, and whatever else.  Anyone who's not an idiot in the field of shitcoins knows that POW chains are far less secure the lower the fixed block reward subsidy becomes and that they might not even be viable at all without inflation.  

If it doesn't work out because of lack of subsidy, before bitcoin dies off completely, they would obviously either add inflation or fork to proof of stake - a bogus, closed entropy system that doesn't even pretend to be decentralized like how bitcoin pretends designed to centralize PoW is.

[BTCMILLIONAIRE]

Scarcity vs artificial scarcity be damned, JayJuanGee is not even correct that bitcoin has scarcity in the first place.  It's technically no real difference from the federal reserve.  They state a 2% inflation rate targeting, but political forces can obviously push it higher or lower.  Bitcoin's inflation target is...a predefined slope, but the exact same political powers can change that just like the fed.  

Transaction validators in shitcoins are always designed to centralize because it's not possible to create a decentralized digital currency, so they have NO NASH EQUILIBRIUM and are subject to the exact same political power vacuum of central banks with govts just exerting force over the 1-10 megaminer warehouses to apply AML/KYC, inflation, and whatever else.  Anyone who's not an idiot in the field of shitcoins knows that POW chains are far less secure the lower the fixed block reward subsidy becomes and that they might not even be viable at all without inflation.  

If it doesn't work out because of lack of subsidy, before bitcoin dies off completely, they would obviously either add inflation or fork to proof of stake - a bogus, closed entropy system that doesn't even pretend to be decentralized like how bitcoin pretends designed to centralize PoW is.

Interesting that you ignored my earlier response and then proceeded to make the same false claims regarding Bitcoin's scarcity all over again. It is very different from the federal reserve.

[realr0ach]

It is very different from the federal reserve.

It's actually worse.  The fact transaction validators are always designed to centralize because it's not actually possible to create a decentralize digital currency in the first place means they both suffer from the exact same political power vacuum.  Yet, fiat bills at least provide some minor form of fungibility and permisionless behavior, while bitcoin provides you with none since there's no fungibility at all and you need to ask permission to one of the 1-10 transaction validators to do anything and...a permanent govt surveillance grid that abolishes the 5th amendment.

Your arguments are entirely based around the OPENING INNINGS of the game, not it's real endgame form.  That and the perspective of a greedy goyim attempting to suck out some type of profit from a possible pump and dump.  If you look at it from a perspective of playing god where pump and dump scamming profit is meaningless to you and all you care about is the feasibility of the system, fungibility and permisionless behavior, and prohibiting the construction of a dystopian police state, then of course both fiats and digital shitcoins are complete garbage compared to physical metals.

[JayJuanGee]

there is no difference between natural and coded scarcity

No difference in real world scarcity and artificial scarcity?  Okay, by your own statement there's no difference between bitcoin and any altcoin - both are "coded scarcity" - so supply is then infinite because there's no overhead to create them and thus no Schelling point.

You are the only one attempting to make up shit and to put words in the mouths of other posters in order to make your own points, including conflating bitcoin and other shitcoins in order to attempt to act like any other coin can inflate bitcoin's supply, and it cannot.  Bitcoin established the network and ONLY it's supply counts.. All of those other bullshit coins are merely imitations and snake oil, so they don't count. .. Of course, you know that, but you just want to pump out bullshit misinformation.

This is the stupid world of shitcoiners where they just make up random nonsense to try to rationalize using shitcoins over metals.  

Yes.  Exactly.  You are the one trying to make up random bullshit.

Then every piece of propaganda they create to try and rationalize the use of digital shitcoins only rationalizes the use of fiat and an infinite number of altcoins too.  So they then backtrack and try to apply nonsensical double standards to attempt to not promote altcoins or fiats with their horrid, illogical arguments.

You are the only one making horrid, illogical arguments.... or at least attempting to make them, but they are so baloney, you are not too successful in these here parts.

[JayJuanGee]

O.k. Technically, you are correct, yet we are not talking about technical correctness, we are talking about real world application.

Accordingly, try to change the 21 million bitcoin versus trying to figure out the extent to which the gold supply is scarce or not manipulated by paper inflation?  Which one is more scarce in real application and what the fuck problem has bitcoin attempted to solve?  

With bitcoin, we are talking practical application and a programmed and consensual scarcity, not some pie in the sky theory about what could or might happen in some hypothetical (not likely to happen scenario).  And, that is part of the reason why, currently, bitcoin has the strongest and hardest money that has ever been created  (until proven otherwise).

You've stated that Bitcoin's scarcity is not artificial which is strictly false.

Who gives a ratt's ass about your technical points.  It doesn't matter to the points being made.

Bitcoin's scarcity is artificial, period. No technicalities, no real world application, no anything. It is de facto and unequivocally artificial.

I'd like to ask you to stop degenerating our language.

You can ask me all that you like.  You ar the one confusing the topic, with bullshit technicals that don't matter to the points bing made.

It's bad enough that liberalism is functionally equivalent to fascism these days and that a progressive is acting in regressive ways. If terms are defined in a dictionary stick to the definition. Otherwise all hell breaks lose and fascists start thinking they're fighting for the greater good.

NO there is no problem.  You are making a problem out of nothing.

As far as the scarcity argument goes, it doesn't even exist. One is limited in supply, the other is not.

One of the significant reasons that bitcoin is valuable remains its scarcity, and no one gives a ratt's ass if it could technically be changed through consensus, because it is not going to happen, at least not in the foreseeable future, not in any practical way, and such a change that is theoretically possible is not relevant because it is not going to happen, and if it does happen, then we could address such point at that time.  If you believe bitcoin's supply is going to change at any time in the near future, then you are surely in some whimsical thinking that no one else is planning around such scenario.. but yet you still want to talk about it?  Get a a grip, BTCMILLIONAIRE.

[JayJuanGee]

Scarcity vs artificial scarcity be damned, JayJuanGee is not even correct that bitcoin has scarcity in the first place.  It's technically no real difference from the federal reserve.  They state a 2% inflation rate targeting, but political forces can obviously push it higher or lower.  Bitcoin's inflation target is...a predefined slope, but the exact same political powers can change that just like the fed.  

Transaction validators in shitcoins are always designed to centralize because it's not possible to create a decentralized digital currency, so they have NO NASH EQUILIBRIUM and are subject to the exact same political power vacuum of central banks with govts just exerting force over the 1-10 transaction validators (ASIC warehouses and pools) to apply AML/KYC, inflation, and whatever else.  Anyone who's not an idiot in the field of shitcoins knows that POW chains are far less secure the lower the fixed block reward subsidy becomes and that they might not even be viable at all without inflation.  

If it doesn't work out because of lack of subsidy, before bitcoin dies off completely, they would obviously either add inflation or fork to proof of stake - a bogus, closed entropy system that doesn't even pretend to be decentralized like how bitcoin pretends designed to centralize PoW is.

Who cares? I am not going to concede that bitcoin is going to change, but for now, there is a schedule that continues to mine rewards until the year 2140.  At that point, or at sometime before that, maybe 2100-ish, there could be  a decision to change the supply and to cause an inflation. but is your dead body going to care about whatever monetary changes are made - presumably through some kind of meaningful consensus, which also might be hard to achieve? 

[realr0ach]

JayJuanGee doesn't seem to comprehend that everything that occurs inside computers is essentially a different, artificially constructed, parallel universe to ours where nothing that happens inside it actually matters because you do not inhabit it.  There are no resources inside computers.  There is no scarcity inside computers with any meaningful relationship to your world.  The bonds between the two are fake, and people can be tricked into yielding to that artificial reality temporarily, but not sustainably on any real timeline.

[BTCMILLIONAIRE]

O.k. Technically, you are correct, yet we are not talking about technical correctness, we are talking about real world application.

Accordingly, try to change the 21 million bitcoin versus trying to figure out the extent to which the gold supply is scarce or not manipulated by paper inflation?  Which one is more scarce in real application and what the fuck problem has bitcoin attempted to solve?  

With bitcoin, we are talking practical application and a programmed and consensual scarcity, not some pie in the sky theory about what could or might happen in some hypothetical (not likely to happen scenario).  And, that is part of the reason why, currently, bitcoin has the strongest and hardest money that has ever been created  (until proven otherwise).

You've stated that Bitcoin's scarcity is not artificial which is strictly false.

Who gives a ratt's ass about your technical points.  It doesn't matter to the points being made.

Bitcoin's scarcity is artificial, period. No technicalities, no real world application, no anything. It is de facto and unequivocally artificial.

I'd like to ask you to stop degenerating our language.

You can ask me all that you like.  You ar the one confusing the topic, with bullshit technicals that don't matter to the points bing made.

It's bad enough that liberalism is functionally equivalent to fascism these days and that a progressive is acting in regressive ways. If terms are defined in a dictionary stick to the definition. Otherwise all hell breaks lose and fascists start thinking they're fighting for the greater good.

NO there is no problem.  You are making a problem out of nothing.

This isn't technical. Are you literally fucking retarded or do you genuinely think that you can use random words and pretend that they mean whatever you want them to?

As far as the scarcity argument goes, it doesn't even exist. One is limited in supply, the other is not.

One of the significant reasons that bitcoin is valuable remains its scarcity, and no one gives a ratt's ass if it could technically be changed through consensus, because it is not going to happen, at least not in the foreseeable future, not in any practical way, and such a change that is theoretically possible is not relevant because it is not going to happen, and if it does happen, then we could address such point at that time.  If you believe bitcoin's supply is going to change at any time in the near future, then you are surely in some whimsical thinking that no one else is planning around such scenario.. but yet you still want to talk about it?  Get a a grip, BTCMILLIONAIRE.

Learn to read you illiterate fucking moron.

"One is limited in supply (BITCOIN), the other is not (GOLD).

You clearly have no comprehension of the English language. You just chain words arbitrarily with little to no content. No wonder you manage to make so much noise without saying anything.

[Lambie Slayer]

https://twitter.com/nathanielpopper/status/1121868559330598912

I find the timing suspicious. I wouldnt be surprised if TDAmeritrade influenced TPTB to go after Bitfinex to help free up some new customers for their big launch. Long term it will be great to get rid of Bitfinex, but short term, lets be real, this is gonna suck for price for the next few weeks or month.

Gonna bump us out of the "BTC*** BTC***"?

JJG, good to see you back and not implicated in a local bitcoins sting. A lot of overreach by authorities lately. Infidels are fighting hard for their money printing masters.

To your question, no sir, not imho. I just expect it to give us a similar 2015 style correction with a new low over 3100, hopefully 4kish. I think we are in the fractal one of our esteemed WO TA experts Hairy has often posted but just with a distortion to the upside from moneyprinting headwinds.   See https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=178336.msg50776067#msg50776067 for my full theory.

If we break 3100 then I guess I will have to start posting "Bear Market all is fucked" countdowns  

but till then.....

133 days into new BTCaby BTCull Market and all is well

also I forgot to post this week the 73 percent complete with halvening cycle milestone. The next 27 will fly by.

[BTCMILLIONAIRE]

It is very different from the federal reserve.

It's actually worse.  The fact transaction validators are always designed to centralize because it's not actually possible to create a decentralize digital currency in the first place means they both suffer from the exact same political power vacuum.  Yet, fiat bills at least provide some minor form of fungibility and permisionless behavior, while bitcoin provides you with none since there's no fungibility at all and you need to ask permission to one of the 1-10 transaction validators to do anything and...a permanent govt surveillance grid that abolishes the 5th amendment.

Your arguments are entirely based around the OPENING INNINGS of the game, not it's real endgame form.  That and the perspective of a greedy goyim attempting to suck out some type of profit from a possible pump and dump.  If you look at it from a perspective of playing god where pump and dump scamming profit is meaningless to you and all you care about is the feasibility of the system, fungibility and permisionless behavior, and prohibiting the construction of a dystopian police state, then of course both fiats and digital shitcoins are complete garbage compared to physical metals.

No, they are not.  I've pretty much mapped out the future in my chain of arguments. The gap is merely quantitative, not qualitative.

[realr0ach]

It is very different from the federal reserve.

It's actually worse.  The fact transaction validators are always designed to centralize because it's not actually possible to create a decentralize digital currency in the first place means they both suffer from the exact same political power vacuum.  Yet, fiat bills at least provide some minor form of fungibility and permisionless behavior, while bitcoin provides you with none since there's no fungibility at all and you need to ask permission to one of the 1-10 transaction validators to do anything and...a permanent govt surveillance grid that abolishes the 5th amendment.

Your arguments are entirely based around the OPENING INNINGS of the game, not it's real endgame form.  That and the perspective of a greedy goyim attempting to suck out some type of profit from a possible pump and dump.  If you look at it from a perspective of playing god where pump and dump scamming profit is meaningless to you and all you care about is the feasibility of the system, fungibility and permisionless behavior, and prohibiting the construction of a dystopian police state, then of course both fiats and digital shitcoins are complete garbage compared to physical metals.

No, they are not.  I've pretty much mapped out the future in my chain of arguments. The gap is merely quantitative, not qualitative.

How are you unable to process in your brain that a non-fungible currency where transaction validators are designed to centralize is a full-blown police state by default?

[JayJuanGee]

[edited out]
Gonna bump us out of the "BTC*** BTC***"?

JJG, good to see you back and not implicated in a local bitcoins sting. A lot of overreach by authorities lately. Infidels are fighting hard for their money printing masters.

To your question, no sir, not imho. I just expect it to give us a similar 2015 style correction with a new low over 3100, hopefully 4kish. I think we are in the fractal one of our esteemed WO TA experts Hairy has often posted but just with a distortion to the upside from moneyprinting headwinds.   See https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=178336.msg50776067#msg50776067 for my full theory.

If we break 3100 then I guess I will have to start posting "Bear Market all is fucked" countdowns  

but till then.....

133 days into new BTCaby BTCull Market and all is well

also I forgot to post this week the 73 percent complete with halvening cycle milestone. The next 27 will fly by.

Ok. so largely, we agree, at least in regards to seeing how this $4,200 to $5,200 price range plays out, so retesting support in the $4,200 area is feasible in the coming weeks, and the further down you go, the more difficult that it will be to reach.  $3,122 is a quite a ways into the distance, and I am starting to lean towards the possibility that it has a less than 50% chance of being challenged again in this cycle.... so more and more, the longer we don't get any meaningful corrections or testing of various support lines, the more likely we are going to be able to assert that the bottom is in... meaning that $3,122 is not going to be retested.  Surely, there must be a lot of buy support between $3,700 and $4,200, too, so just breaking below $4,200 would be far from a done deal regarding any proposed testing of the current $3,122 bottom.

Edit:  Regarding my local bitcoin's transactions, historically, I had been purposefully sticking to pretty low numbers on the transaction sizes, even though frequently people would try to get me to transact more than my advertisement limits.  I generally used those buy/sell limits as filters to try to appeal to smaller beginner type of traders rather than the ones striving to engage in BIG trades, which was not my thing.  I did not want to make money like that.

[JayJuanGee]

[edited out]

This isn't technical. Are you literally fucking retarded or do you genuinely think that you can use random words and pretend that they mean whatever you want them to?

[edited out]

Learn to read you illiterate fucking moron.

"One is limited in supply (BITCOIN), the other is not (GOLD).

You clearly have no comprehension of the English language. You just chain words arbitrarily with little to no content. No wonder you manage to make so much noise without saying anything.

Speak for yourself, and your own level of incoherence in terms of both words and how you string them together to formulate nonsensical irrelevancies.