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

[jbreher]

You would think an MIT grad and subsequent computer simulations modeler would've understood Bitcoin back in 2013.

I'm no MIT grad and I got it almost immediately back then.

Hell within a few days of research, I completely understood how groundbreaking a breakthrough it was, and how it would fundamentally change the financial world.

While that all makes sense, one must first actually stick their head in the rabbit hole before one can start to understand.

edit: 'tis one of my regrets that I did not give the rabbit hole more than a cursory glance at first sight. Oh well. C'est la guerre.

[1714029735]

1714029735

[1714029735]

1714029735

[LFC_Bitcoin]

@Workedia
BTC whales are no longer making deposits on the exchange. Without whale deposits, there is no dumping, and in the long run, it could indicate a bullish signal.

The 90-day moving average of the ratio btw the whales' deposits and total exchange inflow renews low ..
https://twitter.com/workedia/status/1306664932629389312?s=21



Bullish....

[_javi_]

https://twitter.com/100trillionusd/status/1306601195721625600?s=21

I pray the Lord they have strong hands. They were naysayers years ago.. what if they change their mind again?

I dont like a new whale.. I prefer tons of plankton

[jbreher]

So, are there any knife catchers left trying to gain from 5 min 1-2% drops? They must be completely blinded and not being able to see the big picture.

Some of us are well into the divestment phase. Given that that is an actual thing, if you cannot see the advantage in harvesting the substantial interim volatility, then it is you that is blindeded.

[friends1980]

https://www.wohats.com
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=178336.msg55110194#msg55110194

El Royal Dudeness, is this the Dude drinking a scented candle, and if so, which scent?



[edit: original way of beating bad breath though]

[jbreher]

I don't get quantum computers. Why build one? What's the point?
They only talk about destructive purpuses: "with a quantum computer we can break this or that".
If it's only useful as a doomsday device, then stop trying to make one, dammit!

...starring Phil_S as President Merkin Muffley...

Quantum computers will be built. Regardless of any particular entities' desire for such. (And despite whether or not their nature as true quantum machines is real or imagined, which seems to be still a topic of some discussion) Technology has its own evolutionary imperative, to which we mere humans are only tools.

And to be able to deal with such eventuality -- and the implications thereof -- one must study such thingies. And in order to properly study such, one need be able to poke and prod an actual specimen of such. Hence the defensive need for such development, even if one is not interested in quantum computing for its own sake.

[jbreher]

https://www.wohats.com
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=178336.msg55110194#msg55110194

El Royal Dudeness, is this the Dude drinking a scented candle, and if so, which scent?



[edit: original way of beating bad breath though]

Gwynneth Paltrow's vijayjay.

After her visit to snowy moksva, presumably
edit: for coffee

[nullius]

Some of us are well into the divestment phase.

HoDLer’s reaction:

[Dabs]

I don't get quantum computers. Why build one? What's the point?
They only talk about destructive purpuses: "with a quantum computer we can break this or that".
If it's only useful as a doomsday device, then stop trying to make one, dammit!

Lot's of things were invented by ... by their inventors for altruistic purposes. Explosives, Dynamite, the atom-bomb.

I believe there will eventually be quantum computers, but they'll never break 256 bit encryption as we know it today, or rather they won't be able to brute force it. They will break something else, or find some weakness, but it seems very unlikely.

[jbreher]

In this moment I am ithyphallic.

I musta read that wrong. Initially, I thought you had a sexual fetish for fish.

[PoolMinor]

What ever happened to goldy man, I would mention the name but we don't need that beetlejuice shit happening.

After nearly 7 years silver finally doubled and gold up 50%.

As a Bitcoiner who has also always been a goldbug at heart, I never understood why some Bitcoiners feel a need to bash gold.  It is understandable that some goldbugs may be reasonably (i.e., unlike r0ach) skeptical about Bitcoin, given that gold has a millennia-long proved record, and will survive the demise of yet another civilization (= no electricity, no Internet, no billion-dollar fabs making chips...); Bitcoin is a radical leap into uncharted territory, not the comfortable, conservative, non-risky (except for risk of theft, especially government seizures) asset.  But why is there any Bitcoiner antipathy toward gold?

I see the two as complementary.  Each has valuable properties that the other lacks.

For those looking for a store of value and not a get-rich-quick Ponzi, who cares if gold is “only” up 50% in 7 years?  That is not the point.  In a finite universe, no asset can infinitely increase in value forever.  In a high-entropy world, the greater problem is to keep value.  Gold will do that.  Indeed, gold and its lesser brethren in the precious metals asset class are the only non-immovable, major market assets which are guaranteed to never go to zero.

Gold is the supreme hedge against the total collapse of all industry and technology.  It is an asset that will assuredly retain its value a thousand years from now, or in ten thousand years, or longer—if humans still exist.  Civilizations come and go; gold stays valuable.  Are you really a long-term thinker?  Buy gold.  Take delivery.  And have heirs.

Whereas gold is just not very useful in the present.  Not in the daily “I need to buy and sell things” sense.  Maybe it could be, if society were different—but then, this whole discussion would be otiose.  If society were different, then children would obey their parents, marriage would not be a sham, governments in so-called “free” countries would not be extractive gangs of armed robbers and mass-murderers, people would ordinarily use gold as money...  What was I saying?

With considerable effort, but much less effort than would be necessary with gold, I obtained Bitcoin with total anonymity.  I can and do send bitcoins around the world at the press of a button, and receive bitcoins from anyone, anywhere just as easily.  Bitcoin is incomparably more portable than gold, more divisible than gold (unless you have the facilities to melt and reform a metal with a high melting point), and, all things considered, so very much easier to secure (if you know what you are doing).

Bitcoin makes life better today, and promises to make life even better tomorrow.  Therefore, people want it—therefore, it is valuable.  I could explain further, but that would be preaching to the choir here...

The two are so different, and both valuable—why not have both?


P.S., characterizing r0ach as “goldy man” is like characterizing a “WHEN MOON???” Ponzi-loving get-rich-quick forum sigspammer as “Bitcoin man”.  Picking the worst, lowest-credibility person purportedly connected with something as a representative of that thing is a pretty good broadbrush smear tactic—often used against Bitcoin, too.

P.P.S., in a matter with real impact on my life and the lives of others here:

Go, Bitcoin, go!

Are you really a long-term thinker?  Buy gold.  Take delivery.

Buy bitcoin, much better store of value over the ever inflating fiats of the world.
Should/could ask why PM are "worth" more yet the functionality hasn't changed nor the scarcity.
----
That's 1 time denoted in "pink", 2 more and we get a bonus revisit.

[jbreher]

News in btc:

https://twitter.com/msantoriESQ/status/1306236234675740672

@Krakenfx
 just won approval to create America’s first crypto bank.

Haha! Score! Extra points for having 'Little chained-up pens'!

Mostly, triple score to State of WY for legislating that SPDIs maintain 100% reserve requirements.

[d_eddie]

If Apple and Microsoft announce a long term holding position in BTC

Along with Samsung ,AMD and Nvidia.

500k a coin could happen.

Something to dream about.

you forgot to add Berkshire Hathaway
And I'm not sarcastic.

They've just stepped into gold at least indirectly: 560M$ or something like that ( https://www.marketwatch.com/story/warren-buffett-undergoes-a-conversion-on-gold-should-you-follow-him-2020-08-17 ).

A similarly sized position in BTC is not out of the question, and apart from mechanical market effects, it would certainly have huge "marketing" consequences when it gets disclosed at the end of the quarter.

[Toxic2040]

1h


4h


D

[jbreher]

As a Bitcoiner who has also always been a goldbug at heart, I never understood why some Bitcoiners feel a need to bash gold. 

I'm going to preface this with a statement that I was a PM holder before a Bitcoiner. I still have significant investment in PMs. I have no plans to divest such. That said...

Gold is the supreme hedge against the total collapse of all industry and technology.  It is an asset that will assuredly retain its value a thousand years from now, or in ten thousand years, or longer—if humans still exist. 

While I think the chance of this staying true at least for my lifetime* is better than 50-50, I'm not so sanguine about gold's longer-term prospects. What exactly makes you so sure of such?

*(and I hope to buy the best of life extension tech as it comes to market, though I may not be among the first cohort to reach escape velocity)

[jbreher]

The confirmed science and math that Satoshi didn't understand has to do with how poorly this system functions as a currency. We tried it for a few years. It doesn't work. It's only a bad speculative vehicle, which now people realize and have been dumping for 4 years. The project failed. Neat idea, but fractional reserve banking is clearly better based on all proven and confirmed science and math. I'm glad Satoshi tried this out, but now we know it doesn't work and we can go back to the way things are proven to work best.

Too bad Satoshi wasn't a smart guy like Craig Wright.

To be fair, for the entire interval of satoshi's public involvement, transaction volume never came anywhere near the (relatively very high level for the time) blocksize cap that he enacted under prodding from his most significant collaborator.

Plus, he explicitly explained exactly how trivial it would be to increase said blocksize cap such that transaction volume was never artificially throttled. Extending to exemplary code. To the eventual exasperation of those of us who would like the system to exceed such exceedingly tiny limits. As reliance on such economicallly braindead external exigencies is extreme folly.

[Last of the V8s]

My little fishy seems to have swum in to some cold water 

[jbreher]

I've been there.

Though the label be-ith green. I like my Bulleit in the Rye variant.

[jbreher]

Some of us are well into the divestment phase.

HoDLer’s reaction:

Laf it up, funny guy/gal. You have absolutely no fckin clue.

Incidentally, did yer momma not teach you that casting grotesque humor at others' phenotypes is rong?

[JayJuanGee]

Race to 12800 continues...



Really hope that 2020 top tops the 2019 top... still have 3.5 months for that.

Now Phil_S, if you had started each of those lines at the same place, on your nearly 2 year trajectory, you would likely see a bit of a different visual - not that I am suggesting that January of 2019 would be a good starting point (in terms of how representative, such starting point would be).

Here is an approximation of a chart that goes back 2 years and each starts at the same place.   

However, i do believe that anywhere between mid-2016 and September 2017 would, more or less, serve as a relatively fair starting point to start them each out at the same place and then to show percentage changes in each of them... from that point to present.  Correlated, or no?  I don't think so.

Here is an approximation of a chart that goes back 4 years and each starts at the same place.   

Another good starting point might be anywhere in 2012  - or even 2013 (though mid 2013 would probably be more representative than the March /April 2013 price peak.

Here is an approximation of a chart that goes back 8 years and each starts at the same place.   

Do you notice a pattern?

The further that you go back with the data, the more it appears that they lines are diverging from one another... even though they might look like they line up on shorter time horizons.

Sure, some peeps are going to want to argue that any of the starting points for measuring would be unfair, and part of the point is that bitcoin remains a fucking unfair investment.  Bitcoin remains an asymmetric bet that, so far, has been paying off quite stupendously for those who have been adventurous enough to create a plan, start to execute such plan and to stick with it, and in that regard, king daddy shows little to no signs that such asymmetric bet is going to stop or to slow down in its tendency to pay off for those with patience, willingness to act and to stick to a plan while maybe at the same time able to look at how the longer terms play out.   

In fact, to me, there seems to be a bit of a coiling going on currently in bitcoinlandia... Can you see it?  Can you see it?
 
I understand that maybe there can be some frustrations in showing BTC comparative data for longer periods of time because there seems to be a tendency that the price movements on the BTC part of the chart shows a lot of movements, and the equities and the gold portions have tendencies to remain relatively flat and to get dwarfed by BTC with the passage of time.

Sure those other assets, such as gold and equities are tending to trend upwards, but still... dwarfed,** right?

**Dwarfed means that you can barely see the equities and gold portions of the chart relative to the BTC portion.


What does all of this mean?  hm?



Coiling?  Correlated?