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

[sirazimuth]

Now I want to see her post a tweet explaining bitcoin.

This one is still out there...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4APcgsRdW6w

Lol. Never seen that one. Thanx m8.

 (I know....I must be living under a rock)

[1715126289]

1715126289

[1715126289]

1715126289

[1715126289]

1715126289

[1715126289]

1715126289

[1715126289]

1715126289

[Torque]

Now I want to see her post a tweet explaining bitcoin.

This one is still out there...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4APcgsRdW6w

Lol. Never seen that one. Thanx m8.

 (I know....I must be living under a rock)

Played back at 0.75 speed, that dude sounds exactly like one of my cousins I see at XMas time, when he's had way too much to drink.

[heslo]

Silk.Road.2021.1080p.Bluray.DTS-HD.MA.5.1.X264-EVOx

Cheers for the heads up, let's see how good (bad) this is

[d_eddie]

I'm probably late, but.. we did it ! 

I am slow.

What does this mean...?

Give it to me straight.

It means that it is still early days. You need to pay 21 bitcoins for a million dollars.

Specifically, that's the level where each member of the One Million Club is a millionaire.

[Biodom]

I also listened to those and also to NUPL discussion somewhere else, but it seems exceedingly unlikely that we would be able to maintain the tempo until December, which, in my opinion, makes this cycle similar to 2013 (two-humped) with a first peak earlier than expected, say, the end of Feb-early April at much higher than now (maybe 65-100K), then a steep correction to 40-55K (depending on whether it starts at 65 or 100), then flat city until the end of August, then the cycle hurrah burst to whatever number we can reach (150-288K, maybe even higher), ending in Nov-Dec, as usual.

The way that you are describing the double peak (similar to 2013) may well justify that the second half of the peak get drug out for a much longer period of time than it had played out in 2013 - surely reasonable to drag out into any of the first 3 quarters of 2022 - yet the longer that such second peak might drag out might cause it to fall into a bit of a category that ends up being a supercycle rather than anything really so comparable to 2013 and even including smaller dips.. .. Even your exact proposed scenario of a correction from $65k to $100k down to $40k to $55k (45%-ish) is way the hell of a smaller correction than what had happened in 2013 when the peak was something like $263 and the correction was down to $70-ish (85%-ish).

That's just how I see it and using your numbers, 263 to 70 is a 73.3% correction, not 85%. I do expect a touch less volatility, or at least i hope so.
Bitcoin is unpredictable, though. all above is just a conjecture. future numbers would show if i am right or not.
In a big 5-10 year picture it probably does not matter anyway.

[sirazimuth]

....
Played back at 0.75 speed, ....

lmao. And of course I had to try .5 speed too.... because well... why not?

[Hueristic]

Silk.Road.2021.1080p.Bluray.DTS-HD.MA.5.1.X264-EVOx

Cheers for the heads up, let's see how good (bad) this is

I'm interested to see how the bent fbi agents are portrayed.

[cAPSLOCK]

This all makes sense, as long there are no major Bitcoin ETFs.

When major and prominent Bitcoin ETFs become a thing, they will likely blow a hole in the typical halving/bull-bear cycles of Bitcoin, as price will rise suddenly and dramatically in a hockey stick fashion, and then the curve will flatten out. Which will completely obscure any past price discovery mechanism of bitcoin through a supply/demand model, as prices will likely be orders of magnitude higher than typical due to Wall Street's extreme margin fueled over-leveraging. Bitcoin mining hashrate will possibly lag for years and years behind this event as mega miners struggle to get new hardware online.

That's why it's so critical for today's Average Joe to get in before Bitcoin ETFs begin to rule the day. Once this event passes, all bets are off and God knows who will be controlling the price of bitcoin beyond that point.

But ETFs follow the price and do not dictate the price. The price will only go up because the fund manager is forced to "physically" acquire more of the underlying, as in, to actually get the bitcoins, either from OTC or from exchanges, or they have some sort of connection with the big custodial ones that service institutions (Gemini, Grayscale, Coinbase are some examples).

It would also be a danger to the ETF fund manager / owner, to rehypothecate. They would need to show the BTC somehow, either through a regulated custodial entity, or if they self-custody, some sort of proof perhaps showing the address or the balance, or at least telling the world how many bitcoins they have.

Sure, this might be the case in the beginning, but surely Dabs you are not so naive as to think it will stay that way for very long?

As happened with the PMs not long after PM ETFs became a thing, there eventually will be relaxed rules around the underlying Bitcoin asset, eventually relaxed reserve rules and lack of audits/transparency, then re-hypothecation, phantom shares, over-leveraged naked shorting, etc., etc. And the SEC will turn a blind eye to all of it.

It will all happen to Bitcoin too eventually, guaranteed. It's not a matter of if, only a matter of when.

This thought has been rolling around in my head for a long time.  I have always been relieved at the absence of an ETF.  But whenever I think of it, I also realize there is something different about Bitcoin.  It is a digital bearer asset.  So people can take custody of it.  And so can the firms.  

How does that change the dynamics of the equation?  I mean, It does, doesn't it?

[cAPSLOCK]

OK!  Indulge me in a little thought experiment, if you would...

We like to talk about bitcoin in terms of gold.  Perhaps as a percentage of the gold marketcap.  If we are feeling frisky... equal to, or if high... multiples of.

But as long as we are isolating one single solitary asset for bitcoin to measure itself by, why do we pick gold?  I say because we have tethered it to that concept in our minds even though it limits our perception, while having no real effect on BTC.

I was just thinking... How many houses are there in the world?

In 2012: 1,593,563,453.

If that is ALL we priced in BTC, they would have an average cost of BTC0.01317 . 

Right now that's not even 700 dollars.

That was fun wasn't it?  As far as thought experiments go.  Hopefully your mind keeps going on that one a little...

[d_eddie]

This all makes sense, as long there are no major Bitcoin ETFs.

When major and prominent Bitcoin ETFs become a thing, they will likely blow a hole in the typical halving/bull-bear cycles of Bitcoin, as price will rise suddenly and dramatically in a hockey stick fashion, and then the curve will flatten out. Which will completely obscure any past price discovery mechanism of bitcoin through a supply/demand model, as prices will likely be orders of magnitude higher than typical due to Wall Street's extreme margin fueled over-leveraging. Bitcoin mining hashrate will possibly lag for years and years behind this event as mega miners struggle to get new hardware online.

That's why it's so critical for today's Average Joe to get in before Bitcoin ETFs begin to rule the day. Once this event passes, all bets are off and God knows who will be controlling the price of bitcoin beyond that point.

But ETFs follow the price and do not dictate the price. The price will only go up because the fund manager is forced to "physically" acquire more of the underlying, as in, to actually get the bitcoins, either from OTC or from exchanges, or they have some sort of connection with the big custodial ones that service institutions (Gemini, Grayscale, Coinbase are some examples).

It would also be a danger to the ETF fund manager / owner, to rehypothecate. They would need to show the BTC somehow, either through a regulated custodial entity, or if they self-custody, some sort of proof perhaps showing the address or the balance, or at least telling the world how many bitcoins they have.

Sure, this might be the case in the beginning, but surely Dabs you are not so naive as to think it will stay that way for very long?

As happened with the PMs not long after PM ETFs became a thing, there eventually will be relaxed rules around the underlying Bitcoin asset, eventually relaxed reserve rules and lack of audits/transparency, then re-hypothecation, phantom shares, over-leveraged naked shorting, etc., etc. And the SEC will turn a blind eye to all of it.

It will all happen to Bitcoin too eventually, guaranteed. It's not a matter of if, only a matter of when.

This thought has been rolling around in my head for a long time.  I have always been relieved at the absence of an ETF.  But whenever I think of it, I also realize there is something different about Bitcoin.  It is a digital bearer asset.  So people can take custody of it.  And so can the firms.  

How does that change the dynamics of the equation?  I mean, It does, doesn't it?

I think it does, somewhat, if you can redeem it for the underlying.

[cAPSLOCK]

I'm probably late, but.. we did it ! 

I am slow.

What does this mean...?

Give it to me straight.

It means that it is still early days. You need to pay 21 bitcoins for a million dollars.

Fuck that.  No way would I give 21 BTC for a paltry million bucks.  That's like buying wampum with gold.

[BobLawblaw]

Fuck that.  No way would I give 21 BTC for a paltry million bucks.  That's like buying wampum with gold.

Eh, locked and loaded a little bit more than that on Gemini. Ready to pull the trigger whenever. Probably Monday.

[JayJuanGee]

This all makes sense, as long there are no major Bitcoin ETFs.

When major and prominent Bitcoin ETFs become a thing, they will likely blow a hole in the typical halving/bull-bear cycles of Bitcoin, as price will rise suddenly and dramatically in a hockey stick fashion, and then the curve will flatten out. Which will completely obscure any past price discovery mechanism of bitcoin through a supply/demand model, as prices will likely be orders of magnitude higher than typical due to Wall Street's extreme margin fueled over-leveraging. Bitcoin mining hashrate will possibly lag for years and years behind this event as mega miners struggle to get new hardware online.

That's why it's so critical for today's Average Joe to get in before Bitcoin ETFs begin to rule the day. Once this event passes, all bets are off and God knows who will be controlling the price of bitcoin beyond that point.

But ETFs follow the price and do not dictate the price. The price will only go up because the fund manager is forced to "physically" acquire more of the underlying, as in, to actually get the bitcoins, either from OTC or from exchanges, or they have some sort of connection with the big custodial ones that service institutions (Gemini, Grayscale, Coinbase are some examples).

It would also be a danger to the ETF fund manager / owner, to rehypothecate. They would need to show the BTC somehow, either through a regulated custodial entity, or if they self-custody, some sort of proof perhaps showing the address or the balance, or at least telling the world how many bitcoins they have.

Sure, this might be the case in the beginning, but surely Dabs you are not so naive as to think it will stay that way for very long?

As happened with the PMs not long after PM ETFs became a thing, there eventually will be relaxed rules around the underlying Bitcoin asset, eventually relaxed reserve rules and lack of audits/transparency, then re-hypothecation, phantom shares, over-leveraged naked shorting, etc., etc. And the SEC will turn a blind eye to all of it.

It will all happen to Bitcoin too eventually, guaranteed. It's not a matter of if, only a matter of when.

This thought has been rolling around in my head for a long time.  I have always been relieved at the absence of an ETF.  But whenever I think of it, I also realize there is something different about Bitcoin.  It is a digital bearer asset.  So people can take custody of it.  And so can the firms.  

How does that change the dynamics of the equation?  I mean, It does, doesn't it?

I think it does, somewhat, if you can redeem it for the underlying.

Yes, you can redeem it easily and quickly - unless you tie your own hands by entering into some kind of contract that says that you cannot have it, and with the passage of time, there are likely going to be people who come to realize that they do not want to tie their own hands in the way that they hold their BTC - except maybe ONLY small percentages of their stash... Perhaps?  Perhaps?

[philipma1957]

I'm probably late, but.. we did it ! 

I am slow.

What does this mean...?

Give it to me straight.

It means that it is still early days. You need to pay 21 bitcoins for a million dollars.

Fuck that.  No way would I give 21 BTC for a paltry million bucks.  That's like buying wampum with gold.

For some it would be the correct thing to do.  For others it would be a  really stupid thing to do.

[cAPSLOCK]

Fuck that.  No way would I give 21 BTC for a paltry million bucks.  That's like buying wampum with gold.

Eh, locked and loaded a little bit more than that on Gemini. Ready to pull the trigger whenever. Probably Monday.

Well if you got enough gold to build a race track out of wampum???  And still have tons of gold left?  Different game.

[600watt]

regarding the golden age of shitcoinery.
i will never get it why people would invest in shitcoins. since they do anyway, why not draw conclusions. it does not matter how crappy the code is, it does not matter how stupid the idea is. it dies not matter that a superior digital money network exists and by superior i mean by orders of magnitude in every way you slice it. factor 10mil more superior. it does not matter that all those wanna-be tokens are competing with 8433 other wanna-be tokens.
economic soundness doesnt seem to matter. clean code engineering does not seem to matter. the only thing tht seems to matter is the smallest sliver of some far out plausibility. something a marketing division could spit out that resembles whatever stupid idea that resonances in the mind of a potential fool = buyer.

even when they seem to have fatal flaws, even with buggy code, even abandoned projects - they as a whole seem to weirdly stubborn and resilient. they have nothing, on top of it they have fatal problems, but they are still in various zombiefied stages.

digital money networks are astoundingly stable. even if total shit from the get go. the crappiest of the crappiest have buyers and defenders.

it tells me that the only digital money network that is actually safe, decentralized, solid, clean coded and a real breakthrough in computer science must be orders of magnitude more resilient and stable. even if there should be some bug to be detected, even if some stiff headwind from regulators is coming, even if .. whatever - bitcoin will shrug it off. if a total crap coin like xrp can thrive with the sec basically declaring it illegal, bitcoin will thrive 10 000x if getting declared illegal.

shitcoins will all bleed their "value" into the dominant network over time. they are vehicles of parting noobs and their money. the scammers will steal the money from the noobs and put it into bitcoin.

[savetherainforest]

Fuck that.  No way would I give 21 BTC for a paltry million bucks.  That's like buying wampum with gold.

Eh, locked and loaded a little bit more than that on Gemini. Ready to pull the trigger whenever. Probably Monday.

Chart says on 17-18 February you might get a 50K+ price.


And happy vacation on all the exotic islands you will be traveling.

[ivomm]

Just published: front page of the Financial Times UK edition Saturday February 13 https://on.ft.com/3aVNCvs



https://twitter.com/FinancialTimes/status/1360330360450605058

[Biodom]

shitcoins will all bleed their "value" into the dominant network over time. they are vehicles of parting noobs and their money. the scammers will steal the money from the noobs and put it into bitcoin.

Highlighted is what is giving me pause. I don't want main investors in btc to be people whose major contribution was "stealing" money from the hapless alt investors.
BTW, who got the GME "money"? That trade in the final analysis surely looked like a bitconnect pyramid scheme aside from the initial putatively noble cause of "sticking it to the evil hedge funds".
In the end, those who were long from $5 or even $18 happily locked in their gains and left the late comers with huge losses. I know that 'they' blocked the entry point, but profit WAS taken.

[Sayeds56]

Just published: front page of the Financial Times UK edition Saturday February 13 https://on.ft.com/3aVNCvs



https://twitter.com/FinancialTimes/status/1360330360450605058

https://t.me/cryptosignalsMG/5603