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

[JayJuanGee]

Whats this crap about alts on the green and btc being tiny red?

Anon prediction about BTC dominance at 40-46%? He never said when.. but but...

My theory about this is that when the mainstream coins like Libra hit the market, they will bring the Bitcoin dominance down because they will be pumped/inflated. Im sure next year we will see Google, Apple, Amazon, etc all jump in. Bitcoins dominance will have to compete with those coins to which would likely bring the dominance down.

P.S. this guy is going to become an absolute god if we hit $16,000 next month.....

-He called the bottom (A lot of people thought we were going much lower when he posted it)
-He called the exact length of the accumulation phase (Said it would end in March and start in April)
-He called the April boom we saw in the first week
-He called the correct price in April
-He called the correct price in July (Bitcoin almost made it out of July without touching $9200, turns out $9100 was the bottom; we haven't gone lower since)

So October will be interesting, this is a legendary posts regardless, the amount of things he has gotten correct already is remarkable.

Likely a lot of luck in there.

None of us should get sucked into the trap of deifying posters into sorcerers. 

Remember how revered Vinnie Lingham was in 2015/16 and how he squandered such reputation in early 2017? - but probably only after a decent number of folks got R3ckt  by selling because they actually relied on his bullshit early 2017 propositions that bitcoin was going below $500.

[JayJuanGee]

Oh look, even after a decade, millions billions of people are still convinced that Bitcoin is a fly-by-night scam.... even though a single bitcoin is now worth more a good used car.

When 1 BTC = middle class house?  Soon^tm.  

FTFY

The next 5 years will be taken up with people discussing different aspects of lightning network.
   

Then they should open a WO LN thread, here we talk about Bitcoin.^tm

FTFY

What the fuck?

I gotta spend time fixing peeps all day long?

[JayJuanGee]

Oh look, even after a decade, millions of people are still convinced that Bitcoin is a fly-by-night scam.... even though a single bitcoin is now worth more a good used car.

When 1 BTC = middle class house?  Soon^tm. 

Soonish^tm

Talk timeline boys..... Mic can't follow with soon and soonish....

Can't you assign your "team"^tm to crowd sourcing (even within the team) the clarification of the confusion situation?   

[Icygreen]

OT
Released today  

[Biodom]

Communism/ socialism has definitely gained popularity among the younger crowd.  Doesn't take a math genius to look at where all the new productivity gains are going to, heres a hint: its not going to hourly workers on the bottom the totem pole.  Wealth disparity is similar to what it was in the gilded age.

Wealth disparity is not the worst thing...historical forces that typically remove the disparity are much more disagreeable.
I am reading a book that systematically looked at what reduces inequality..and turns out only major wars and deadly pandemics (plaque in medieval Europe) were able to temporarily reduce inequality.

All societies "naturally'" trend toward increasing inequality in relatively peaceful conditions (over centuries).

It's called pareto distribution.

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4GMUamUjT8

Thanks, but we were mostly talking about dynamic changes in inequality.
You cannot explain change by referencing Pareto.
That principle does not explain why in some epoch Gini is 0.35 while in other 0.85
The book at least shows correlation with historical events and even then it is not a proof of the causation, however, it is at least a starting point.

Sidenote...who put a cap on bitcoin? Bizarro.

[kurious]

Attn: Gentlemen of the order of the 21st (you know who you are)

PMs issued - check orders.

Message ends.

[_javi_]

Whats this crap about alts on the green and btc being tiny red?

Anon prediction about BTC dominance at 40-46%? He never said when.. but but...

My theory about this is that when the mainstream coins like Libra hit the market, they will bring the Bitcoin dominance down because they will be pumped/inflated. Im sure next year we will see Google, Apple, Amazon, etc all jump in. Bitcoins dominance will have to compete with those coins to which would likely bring the dominance down.

P.S. this guy is going to become an absolute god if we hit $16,000 next month.....

-He called the bottom (A lot of people thought we were going much lower when he posted it)
-He called the exact length of the accumulation phase (Said it would end in March and start in April)
-He called the April boom we saw in the first week
-He called the correct price in April
-He called the correct price in July (Bitcoin almost made it out of July without touching $9200, turns out $9100 was the bottom; we haven't gone lower since)

So October will be interesting, this is a legendary posts regardless, the amount of things he has gotten correct already is remarkable.

Likely a lot of luck in there.

None of us should get sucked into the trap of deifying posters into sorcerers. 

Remember how revered Vinnie Lingham was in 2015/16 and how he squandered such reputation in early 2017? - but probably only after a decent number of folks got R3ckt  by selling because they actually relied on his bullshit early 2017 propositions that bitcoin was going below $500.

You are right, Juan.
That Anon meme is only one of the million predictions over there.. We only cherry pick the one thats semi accurate, and make fun with it.
But truth must be told.. he was right!! lol 

[Negotiation]

Big Picture

#Bitcoin dominance is falling
Bitcoin going sideways
ALTs staging local breakouts

Most ALT/$BTC pairs will face 50/100/200 Daily MA Resistance & will keep getting rejected until a major trend reversal

Play local breakouts & book profits against key resistance


Source: https://twitter.com/tradingroomapp/status/1173881560719691776

[Torque]

Remember how revered Vinnie Lingham was in 2015/16 and how he squandered such reputation in early 2017? - but probably only after a decent number of folks got R3ckt  by selling because they actually relied on his bullshit early 2017 propositions that bitcoin was going below $500.

Yep, Vinny is one of many douchebags that came sweeping in during a Bitcoin bullrun and suddenly crowned himself a Bitcoin Prophet^TM.

There are others, but I won't waste time listing them. It doesn't matter if they are perma-bulls or short term bullish/bearish, they're all full of fkn shit. NONE of them have a fkn clue what the price action of Bitcoin is going to be tomorrow, next month, or next year.

The fact that they have "followers" that hang on their every word makes me ill.

[Biodom]

Remember how revered Vinnie Lingham was in 2015/16 and how he squandered such reputation in early 2017? - but probably only after a decent number of folks got R3ckt  by selling because they actually relied on his bullshit early 2017 propositions that bitcoin was going below $500.

Yep, Vinny is one of many douchebags that came sweeping in during a Bitcoin bullrun and suddenly crowned himself a Bitcoin Prophet^TM.

The fact that they have "followers" that hang on their every word makes me ill.

not Vinny...his days being a "prophet" are officially over since 2017.
I wonder if planB will encounter similar treatment (if price fails to deliver), but maybe not since his opinion was based on numbers, not some made up "influencer" stuff.

[jojo69]

ooooooh

secret club

[realr0ach]

Thanks for the info Roach,

I doubt you today consider that you were a retard in 2015 when you believed in Bitcoin. If you came to the conclusion once that Bitcoin was the future, how can you be certain that you wont again come to this conclusion

People always ask me some derivative of this question, so let's set the record straight.  Bitcoin was never the future or a sure thing to me.  I always saw it for exactly what it was, a sort of experimental contraption with extremely questionable "decentralization" and poor options for scalability due to the inherent extreme overhead of anything using a blockchain.  Nevertheless, the so called value prospect of Bitcoin was NEVER what it currently is *right now*, it's value proposition was always what it could possibly be some other day in the future.

Where the problem with this arises is, although digital shitcoins are composed of completely arbitrary variables, the number of ways you can create a digital shitcoin are actually very finite; finite enough where anyone with sufficient economic, technical, and even physics knowledge already knows all the possibilities at this point for variables such as 'focal points'.  Once you know all these possibilities, you know it was never even possible to create a decentralized digital currency in the first place - not now, not in the future.

The summary of these focal point systems is that they're mostly just a rehash of governance systems that have already existed for thousands of years.  Hence the existence of things like the 51% attack - it's not an 'attack', it's just a stupid form of democracy.  Why would anyone ever submit their personal finances to be governed by some unaccountable, faceless bureaucracy when you don't even know who the owners are.  And yes, they all turn into a centralized, unelected slum lord govt because proof of work isn't actually 'work'.  No 'work' is being done, all you're doing is putting an ASIC on cruise control and collecting interest then parlaying the profits into more interest generating ASICs, so it's just like any exponential interest system - complete centralization.

If you wanted digital shitcoins to actually be valid and not a retarded exponential interest system that completely centralizes, you would need to create a digital shitcoin that requires humans to physically solve some sort of captcha in a race for blocks.  In that manner you're not generating work-free interest because you can't parallelize your brain to solve thousands of captchas at the same time.  It's inherently restricted to one man, one vote such as the Bitcoin whitepaper fraudulently claims but fails to deliver.

Such a system would just be gamed by weak AI, so it's also completely useless.  Not to mention the fact there's STILL no point whatsoever in submitting your personal finances to an outside governance system by using imaginary, valueless, digital shitcoins with built-in rent seeking middlemen when you don't have to and can just use physical metals instead.

[nutildah]

Well that was fun. Think he's logged off, physically and mentally. He'll be back in another 3-6 months to show how little he's changed.

You are likely correct, nutildah.  Roger does not come around in order to actual interact.  He wants to pump out his various dumbass talking points and then disappear back to the slums from which he had come.

What's dumb is he took the opportunity to say nothing new. He just regurgitated the same tired talking points he's been yammering on about for the last 3 years. It's almost as if he is completely unaffected by Bcash's dismal failure as compared to BTC. He wants to pretend Bcash is cash while Bitcoin is not because it has lower fees. That's dumb.

If he wants to get technical about it, actual peer-to-peer cash transactions have zero fees, which renders EOS even more bitcoiny than bcash, according to his scale.

If he wants to get super technical about it, no bitcoin system is actually "peer to peer" since each transaction must be broadcast to the entire network and validated by miners before moving from one peer to the next. The Lightning Network is much closer to a "peer to peer" interaction than Bitcoin, or Bcash for that matter.

[jbreher]

Jeebus Cripes. So much wrong, I hardly know where to start. Let's try.

Good news gents. Andrew Yang, the only self proclaimed crypto friendly US presidential candidate, is seeing a surge in popularity.

While Yang being crypto-friendly is cool and all, the balance of his insanity makes this 'surge in popularity' the antithesis of 'good news'.

any popularity is good for Bitcoin as it will help encourage other candidates to pander to crypto community like Yang has.

Ohkaaaayy....
ThatWordYouKeepUsingItIDon'tThinkItMeansWhatYouThinkItMeans.png

If this guy gets to the next round of debates watch out as his constant drum beat of giving every American a UBI of 1000usd per month(he calls it the Freedom Dividend) will only gain more and more traction as he gets more exposure.

He is the only candidate to go from polling at 0 percent to make it to the 3-4 percent range.

Thereby demonstrating once again that the easiest way to garner mindshare is to throw money at the people, never matter the true cost. Never underestimate the stupidity of the mob.

Yang is a long shot, but a real possibility as he has the support of the Crypto community and by default the support of the future financial elite.  

*cough* bullshit squared. Most crypto enthusiasts are too smart to not be repelled by this inane pandering.

[jojo69]

Did somebody say free stuff?

[jbreher]

Interesting to read a debunking of the 'in jail for fireworks' line:

I somehow don't believe his story of going to jail for 10 months for selling firecrackers on ebay.  I think there is something to the story he is leaving out.

Here's a transcript of the sentencing hearing, detailing exactly why he was sentenced to 10 months in jail, including the parts of the story he may have left out. Spoiler alert: pipe bombs aren't firecrackers.

I'm not so sure. I'm not going spelunking through the entire trial transcript. But from the sentencing, it appears that the term 'pipe bomb' appears only once. To wit:

"I think one factor that the Court can take into consideration or at least should consider is there were some pipe bombs involved in this case as well that were not charged and are not incorporated in the conduct that's before the Court..."
(emphasis added)

To me, this looks as if the matter of any pipe bombs were never even discussed in trial -- no evidence entered, no testimony revealing, etc -- and that the prosecution was allowed to get a sideswipe freebie in unchallenged.

Of course, 'pipe bomb' is a pretty specific term of art. I'd be curious to know what the legal definition of such was -- if indeed any evidence referring to such was ever entered into trial. But it apparently was not.

Until someone points me at anything within the trial transcript itself indicating evidence of dealing in pipe bombs, I'm inclined to accept Roger at his word.

As a sidebar, I find it kind of funny how this here crypto community is absorbed by long-past actions of various parties that have absolutely nothing to do with any crypto topic whatsoever.

[jbreher]

My theory about this is that when the mainstream coins like Libra hit the market, they will bring the Bitcoin dominance down because they will be pumped/inflated. Im sure next year we will see Google, Apple, Amazon, etc all jump in.

You seem to be presuming that these postulated coins will actually be cryptocurrencies, as per accepted definitions. Definitely not a foregone conclusion.

[JayJuanGee]

Interesting to read a debunking of the 'in jail for fireworks' line:

I somehow don't believe his story of going to jail for 10 months for selling firecrackers on ebay.  I think there is something to the story he is leaving out.

Here's a transcript of the sentencing hearing, detailing exactly why he was sentenced to 10 months in jail, including the parts of the story he may have left out. Spoiler alert: pipe bombs aren't firecrackers.

I'm not so sure. I'm not going spelunking through the entire trial transcript. But from the sentencing, it appears that the term 'pipe bomb' appears only once. To wit:

"I think one factor that the Court can take into consideration or at least should consider is there were some pipe bombs involved in this case as well that were not charged and are not incorporated in the conduct that's before the Court..."
(emphasis added)

To me, this looks as if the matter of any pipe bombs were never even discussed in trial -- evidence entered, testimony revealing, etc -- and that the prosecution was allowed to get a sideswipe freebie in unchallenged.

Of course, 'pipe bomb' is a pretty specific term of art. I'd be curious to know what the legal definition of such was -- if indeed any evidence referring to such was ever entered into trial. But it apparently was not.

Until someone points me at anything within the trial transcript itself indicating evidence of dealing in pipe bombs, I'm inclined to accept Roger at his word.

As a sidebar, I find it kind of funny how this here crypto community is absorbed by long-past actions of various parties that have absolutely nothing to do with any crypto topic whatsoever.

Roger's character and integrity does come into question, in part because the frequently emotional dumbass takes matters personal and makes matters personal.  Therefore, his history is relevant and likely sheds some light  on his character and integrity.

On the other hand, it is possible that Roger was more sane in his youth and has become more pickled in his older age.  Cannot turn a pickle back into a cucumber, for whatever that is worth?

[d_eddie]

Meanwhile for some crypto watchers out in Vegas baby where duke is from!

read the fine print at the bottom if you can save and zoom in to the pic

Can't read it. Care to help?

[realr0ach]

Can't read it. Care to help?

It says Jews at Goldman Sachs have purchased lots of imaginary, centralized, digital shitcoins that have no value whatsoever and are looking for someone to dump them on but there's a global liquidity crisis and peak debt so no greater fool exists.  We will then attempt to waive regulatory requirements in order to dump them on you.