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

[d_eddie]

Magnet link for the facebook flat files. 15G

magnet:?xt=urn:btih:0595273ab674e05131a757f69f494a4285b429aa&dn=Facebook%20Leak%20%5b2019%5d%5b533M%20Records%5d%5b106%20Countries%5d

Torrent looks dead here.

[1715069615]

1715069615

[1715069615]

1715069615

[1715069615]

1715069615

[BitcoinGirl.Club]

Well any way... sorry to tell you guys... but you all are wrong... it's an ant!!

You are wrong, it's an Elephant Ant!!! Such huge, I never seen in my life 😂

Naah. It's an elephANT!

You f**kers are creative! 😂

[d_eddie]

Aha, now I see. Lender makes a btc transaction to the borrower. So, no longer the lender's keys. This checks out.

If the btc are not back by the given time, the collateral is released (to the lender, I suppose). So the risk would be an insolvent borrower AND the collateral not covering the "new" value of btc at loan expiry. This also checks out.

What does not check out is the following. Imagine being the borrower. Imagine being asked for, say, 200% collateral. Maybe in USDC/USDT? OK. So at expiry, if the btc you borrowed is worth more than the collateral, why give the loan back? Let the lender just have the collateral. On the contrary, if the btc you borrowed is worth less than half the collateral, give it back of course, and keep your relatively precious collateral. In other words: a shorter's paradise. (EDIT - No: it's more like an arbitrage, since it's impossible to lose if this is all there is to it.) Am I missing something? It's obvious I am, but I don't know exactly what - or I wouldn't be missing it  

Another thing that escapes me: if you can post, say, 100k usd collateral, why would you borrow a bitcoin rather than buying one - or two? For simplicity, I'm assuming 1btc = 50k$.

Biodom, have you been able to figure this one out?

Just sounds like market forces then. Gotta predict what's going to happen and hope for the best. Either side could win or lose.

Yeah, market forces - but would you lend your btc in such a scenario? I sure wouldn't. Or I would ask for maybe 500% collateral, so I'm covered if she makes less than a 5x. No borrower in their right mind would put up that much collateral if they have it in a blockchainable form, that is, in some crypto token as opposed to, say, real estate.

Imagine that on top of this, there's interest to be paid(borrower)/gained(lender) too - which means even more incentive (statistically) for the borrower to stay insolvent and let you have the collateral if number go up enough.

That's why I think I've missed something.

[Biodom]

Aha, now I see. Lender makes a btc transaction to the borrower. So, no longer the lender's keys. This checks out.

If the btc are not back by the given time, the collateral is released (to the lender, I suppose). So the risk would be an insolvent borrower AND the collateral not covering the "new" value of btc at loan expiry. This also checks out.

What does not check out is the following. Imagine being the borrower. Imagine being asked for, say, 200% collateral. Maybe in USDC/USDT? OK. So at expiry, if the btc you borrowed is worth more than the collateral, why give the loan back? Let the lender just have the collateral. On the contrary, if the btc you borrowed is worth less than half the collateral, give it back of course, and keep your relatively precious collateral. In other words: a shorter's paradise. (EDIT - No: it's more like an arbitrage, since it's impossible to lose if this is all there is to it.) Am I missing something? It's obvious I am, but I don't know exactly what - or I wouldn't be missing it  

Another thing that escapes me: if you can post, say, 100k usd collateral, why would you borrow a bitcoin rather than buying one - or two? For simplicity, I'm assuming 1btc = 50k$.

Biodom, have you been able to figure this one out?

Just sounds like market forces then. Gotta predict what's going to happen and hope for the best. Either side could win or lose.

Yeah, market forces - but would you lend your btc in such a scenario? I sure wouldn't. Or I would ask for maybe 500% collateral, so I'm covered if she makes less than a 5x. No borrower in their right mind would put up that much collateral if they have it in a blockchainable form, that is, in some crypto token as opposed to, say, real estate.

Imagine that on top of this, there's interest to be paid(borrower)/gained(lender) too - which means even more incentive (statistically) for the borrower to stay insolvent and let you have the collateral if number go up enough.

That's why I think I've missed something.

Possible, it is difficult to say before the proposal is fleshed out, but you are probably right: if the value of loaned btc exceeds the collateral (they are talking 200% of current value), then it could be beneficial to the borrower to never return the loaned bitcoin. However, this could be remedied by simply buying a call option at 200% current price. then, it is just a matter of whether that call option has a larger premium than what you get from a loan. If yes-no deal, if no-deal is possible. All and all-not for the faint-hearted, but but there could be some takers, especially if btc slows down from 200% a year.

[heslo]

Man, the 59-60k range is proving to be a right pain in the ass

[Biodom]

Man, the 59-60k range is proving to be a right pain in the ass

Why? It surely beats going down. This stability is rather fake and won't last, imho.
Frustration is mostly felt with stupid coins popping left and right, not with btc itself.

[d_eddie]

Aha, now I see. Lender makes a btc transaction to the borrower. So, no longer the lender's keys. This checks out.

If the btc are not back by the given time, the collateral is released (to the lender, I suppose). So the risk would be an insolvent borrower AND the collateral not covering the "new" value of btc at loan expiry. This also checks out.

What does not check out is the following. Imagine being the borrower. Imagine being asked for, say, 200% collateral. Maybe in USDC/USDT? OK. So at expiry, if the btc you borrowed is worth more than the collateral, why give the loan back? Let the lender just have the collateral. On the contrary, if the btc you borrowed is worth less than half the collateral, give it back of course, and keep your relatively precious collateral. In other words: a shorter's paradise. (EDIT - No: it's more like an arbitrage, since it's impossible to lose if this is all there is to it.) Am I missing something? It's obvious I am, but I don't know exactly what - or I wouldn't be missing it  

Another thing that escapes me: if you can post, say, 100k usd collateral, why would you borrow a bitcoin rather than buying one - or two? For simplicity, I'm assuming 1btc = 50k$.

Biodom, have you been able to figure this one out?

Just sounds like market forces then. Gotta predict what's going to happen and hope for the best. Either side could win or lose.

Yeah, market forces - but would you lend your btc in such a scenario? I sure wouldn't. Or I would ask for maybe 500% collateral, so I'm covered if she makes less than a 5x. No borrower in their right mind would put up that much collateral if they have it in a blockchainable form, that is, in some crypto token as opposed to, say, real estate.

Imagine that on top of this, there's interest to be paid(borrower)/gained(lender) too - which means even more incentive (statistically) for the borrower to stay insolvent and let you have the collateral if number go up enough.

That's why I think I've missed something.

Possible, it is difficult to say before the proposal is fleshed out, but you are probably right: if the value of loaned btc exceeds the collateral (they are talking 200% of current value), then it could be beneficial to the borrower to never return the loaned bitcoin. However, this could be remedied by simply buying a call option at 200% current price. then, it is just a matter of whether that call option has a larger premium than what you get from a loan. If yes-no deal, if no-deal is possible. All and all-not for the faint-hearted, but but there could be some takers, especially if btc slows down from 200% a year.

Thanks for confirming it looks as it looks. Agreed - market forces, as P_Shep said. Lending would make much more sense in a bear market.

[heslo]

Man, the 59-60k range is proving to be a right pain in the ass

Why? It surely beats going down. This stability is rather fake and won't last, imho.
Frustration is mostly felt with stupid coins popping left and right, not with btc itself.

Oh I'm not complaining, we're extremely privileged to be part of this at the price we are at. I've just had enough of watching it drop down every time we hit that range again. #firstworldproblems 

[hv_]

Hah,

seems there they re getting the btc tops ?

Dec 2017

https://www.moneytalksnews.com/ask-stacy-should-i-buy-bitcoin/

now

https://www.moneytalksnews.com/is-it-too-late-to-buy-bitcoin/

 

[Biodom]

An interesting piece in Barron's

https://www.barrons.com/articles/bitcoin-is-going-mainstream-what-investors-need-to-know-51617393392

[vapourminer]

Magnet link for the facebook flat files. 15G

i wonder if there are records for those who "deleted" facebook and yet are still in the database.

[BitcoinBunny]

Hah,

seems there they re getting the btc tops ?

Dec 2017

https://www.moneytalksnews.com/ask-stacy-should-i-buy-bitcoin/

now

https://www.moneytalksnews.com/is-it-too-late-to-buy-bitcoin/

 

What a load of FUD crap.

Jimmy Nguyen's argument is no different than suggesting collectors should not be allowed to own and trade expensive paintings because they were designed to be a gift to individuals or on display at a certain household, not in a museum or in a private collection.
His argument could also be applied to wine: it was meant to be a drink so should never cost more than 5 bucks per bottle. Just drink it, regardless of how old and special the bottle is.
His argument could also be applied to real estate: well these houses were meant for small families so shouldn't cost more than $100K, even in New York City.
His argument could also be applied to land: well all 7 billion of us should get an equal bit of space so I should pay the same for a bit of land in the centre of London as a desolate outpost in Utah.
Gold has a usage in manufacturing, so why is it allowed to be traded or hodled?
In the 1960s no one (except for Gene Roddenberry perhaps) foresaw that every individual would have access to a computer so should we hand them all back? There are even old videos of "scientists" suggesting you would go down to your "local" computer in a village / city to get a computation done and go back home.

etc.

What a dumbass and what a dumbass presenter for just taking his word and not challenging his arguments with facts.

The fact that Bitcoin has evolved into something more valuable than a peer to peer payment network I think is only a good thing.
Finally individuals can keep their assets safe.
Individuals who for centuries were systematically kept out of the stock exchange game.

To sum up his stance:
"All cryptos are crap and unnecessary except ours. We can do all the things all other cryptos do."
"There are so many cryptos out there because BTC did not scale." -except that's not the reason, it's easy to make a crypto after the idea was out there. Like creating a rivalling company to almost anything in the world in the past. In the end most fail and the best ones will remain. And with best, that is a very loose term, it is mostly due to supply and demand and what is more attractive to the average person and what grows via word of mouth. You could have a better singer than Ariana Grande, if that person doesn't look as good and isn't marketed as well that person doesn't stand a chance.
What a complete fraudster or fudster.

[Philipma1957cellphone]

Man, the 59-60k range is proving to be a right pain in the ass

It is a beautiful plateau get used to it.

[Biodom]

The role of bitcoin (just the current role  ) is played by Bernie "Mittens" Sanders and Bilal is the current market vibe. lol.
Hopefully, it would reverse soon.

Honestly, i just like the vibe-could listen to it many times.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0iraPdxD9Q

[Richy_T]

Should have created my own blockchain token called Random Asshole Tokens or RATS and watch it go up 20% today for no reason too.

I mean, this is the reason there are more than 7000 alts so why not?

[Richy_T]

A guess: Alts continue to rise BeCaUsE tHeY aRe So GoOd

Alts are crap but Bitcoin continues to have a capacity issue.

[BitcoinBunny]

A guess: Alts continue to rise BeCaUsE tHeY aRe So GoOd

Alts are crap but Bitcoin continues to have a capacity issue.

https://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-lightning-network-10k-active-nodes

[_javi_]

I'm not concerned about the deliberately picked ranges for the indicators, but worried about a possible self fulfilled prophecy..

I know.. math and science.. but.. but...

https://www.lookintobitcoin.com/charts/pi-cycle-top-indicator/

[shahzadafzal]

A guess: Alts continue to rise BeCaUsE tHeY aRe So GoOd

Alts are crap but Bitcoin continues to have a capacity issue.

Shitcoins will always be shitcoins...

[Kylapoiss]

Bitcoin very soon
Will explode to the moon
Past floors forgotten