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

[cAPSLOCK]

I have to weigh in on this 1 millionth Big/Small block detour.

People still see this as entirely black and white.  Bitcoin chose small therefore it = digital gold.  Period.

This completely ignores the fact that more and more folks are working on the tech behind doing transactions on layers.  Spending bitcoin quickly (and even in a trust minimized way) is already working somewhat, and will only work better and better with MANY choices and tradeoffs.  Just like you can spend the USD with credit cards, checks, cash, payal etc, and see that settle in your account daily, and have those banks settle via FEDwire Bitcoin is starting to work the same way.

With ONE importnt difference.  WE are fedwire.  You do not have to be a bank to use the BTC blockchain.

"But it will be too expensive to transact on the base chain!"  Says who?  You can still do it.  Anyone can do it.  Having small transactions priced out is compitition and we have chosen that path to secure the best distributed/decentralized ffuture possible for the base layer.

Someone fleeing their oppressive country cannot use Fedwire to take their savings with them.  But they can bitcoin. (Or lightning, or liquid, etc)

Bitcoin WILL be used transactionally.  Folks (ex Saylor) are knowingly downplaying this right now EXACTLY because the longer we can keep the "digital gold only" narrative going the longer the reserve banks will drag their asses.

But we should know better gents...

[1714721419]

1714721419

[1714721419]

1714721419

[1714721419]

1714721419

[1714721419]

1714721419

[1714721419]

1714721419

[lightfoot]

I liked Trump, but that's politics and theater and "entertainment"... He did shake up the government. (I'm not murican, so .. but I still liked him.)

I know it's OT, but I always enjoy non US folks seeing him in a balanced light.  He was lots of theater and entertainment, for sure.  It is frustrating living here in this polarized hellscape with a broken and manipulative media force feeding a single narrative into the culture 24/7.  I think he was terribly misunderstood.  And it was mostly his own fault.  But I really believe he was an outsider, and I think TPTB made sure to FIX that this time around.  I was not fond of him in many ways and are somewhat glad he's faded into the background, lol, but I wish he had more chance to "shake up the government".  I certainly liked that part, though it has destabilized the whole world somewhat.  It also pulled the masks off just about ALL the institutions.  No one sees the media, the FBI/CIA/NSA, the government, the tech giants etc. the same way, and that is a net good.

Oh well...

The key problem with Trump was that he was far too easy to sway and manipulate. The people who wound up manipulating him just turned out to be a pretty.... interesting bunch. Couple that with his whole "one I make a decision I never go back" and you have a recipe for disaster.

When you have no destination, any road can get you there.

[Biodom]

https://twitter.com/100trillionUSD/status/1379770685401268229?s=20

I added "2x per year" trend lines to his chart...



It looks like his 200-weeks graph follows that "100% a year" trend quite nicely.

It's just too many people started talking about "200% a year" lately, even Saylor, which is annoying.

Au contraire...he was talking about the FUTURE, maybe.
If this year we would go as hard as we went in Q1, then, together with over-performance last year, it very well may be 200%.
Not to criticize, but what is the significance of two brown lines (why there are two of them)?

Sans graphs, from $20 (two pizzas) for 10000 btc to $57245/btc is 28622500X appreciation, which comes down to an average of 476% a year (in 11 years), so 200% might be a somewhat solid number.

[rolling]

I have to weigh in on this 1 millionth Big/Small block detour.

People still see this as entirely black and white.  Bitcoin chose small therefore it = digital gold.  Period.

This completely ignores the fact that more and more folks are working on the tech behind doing transactions on layers.  Spending bitcoin quickly (and even in a trust minimized way) is already working somewhat, and will only work better and better with MANY choices and tradeoffs.  Just like you can spend the USD with credit cards, checks, cash, payal etc, and see that settle in your account daily, and have those banks settle via FEDwire Bitcoin is starting to work the same way.

With ONE importnt difference.  WE are fedwire.  You do not have to be a bank to use the BTC blockchain.

"But it will be too expensive to transact on the base chain!"  Says who?  You can still do it.  Anyone can do it.  Having small transactions priced out is compitition and we have chosen that path to secure the best distributed/decentralized ffuture possible for the base layer.

Someone fleeing their oppressive country cannot use Fedwire to take their savings with them.  But they can bitcoin. (Or lightning, or liquid, etc)

Bitcoin WILL be used transactionally.  Folks (ex Saylor) are knowingly downplaying this right now EXACTLY because the longer we can keep the "digital gold only" narrative going the longer the reserve banks will drag their asses.

But we should know better gents...

I guess we don't all agree. I stand corrected.

Sidechains may have a major use case in the future, we will see.  Right now they are just experimental.

The main chain as a store of value is what is giving us this price and is the driver behind any significant price increases going forward.

We don't need a swiss army knife, we just need a stable store of value. That's what the world needs.

[cAPSLOCK]

I have to weigh in on this 1 millionth Big/Small block detour.

People still see this as entirely black and white.  Bitcoin chose small therefore it = digital gold.  Period.

This completely ignores the fact that more and more folks are working on the tech behind doing transactions on layers.  Spending bitcoin quickly (and even in a trust minimized way) is already working somewhat, and will only work better and better with MANY choices and tradeoffs.  Just like you can spend the USD with credit cards, checks, cash, payal etc, and see that settle in your account daily, and have those banks settle via FEDwire Bitcoin is starting to work the same way.

With ONE importnt difference.  WE are fedwire.  You do not have to be a bank to use the BTC blockchain.

"But it will be too expensive to transact on the base chain!"  Says who?  You can still do it.  Anyone can do it.  Having small transactions priced out is compitition and we have chosen that path to secure the best distributed/decentralized ffuture possible for the base layer.

Someone fleeing their oppressive country cannot use Fedwire to take their savings with them.  But they can bitcoin. (Or lightning, or liquid, etc)

Bitcoin WILL be used transactionally.  Folks (ex Saylor) are knowingly downplaying this right now EXACTLY because the longer we can keep the "digital gold only" narrative going the longer the reserve banks will drag their asses.

But we should know better gents...

I guess we don't all agree. I stand corrected.

Sidechains may have a major use case in the future, we will see.  Right now they are just experimental.

The main chain as a store of value is what is giving us this price and is the driver behind any significant price increases going forward.

We don't need a swiss army knife, we just need a stable store of value. That's what the world needs.

I think we DO agree mostly.  And I agree that BTC as a store of value is use case #1.  It's just that the digital, ephemeral nature of BTC lends itself to technological solutions with few boundaries which will happen quickly and take it into the realm of a transactional asset as well.  I also think use case #1 is really the only one we should be focusing on now... at least in certain contexts.

[Dabs]

This whole discussion was initiated by someone asking why Bitcoin was losing marketshare so indeed, the point was that people are using them. We don't appear to be disagreeing on the details, just the framing.

Oh, in that case, nevermind then?

Bitcoin will always be losing some marketshare in terms of marketcap against all other altcoins simply because anyone can create a fork or a new coin or token, and it could possibly have some value to some people, maybe even in the millions of dollars, and ... bitcoin loses marketshare.

With more than 7000 different altcoins and tokens, it's no surprise. It's just that, everything beyond the first or top 50 is not really relevant. Some are experimental and have billions in value, which takes away from bitcoins "marketshare".

But if you never look at any other altcoins, then Bitcoin, all by itself, with it's 1 trillion market cap, is much better today than it was last year. I would personally still keep an eye on ETH and the stablecoins, and maybe the other "eth killers" like ADA and DOT.

Even UNI has a bigger cap than LTC ... which in turn is higher than BCH or BSV.

Use case #1 also implies that the true value of BTC per whole coin is indeed going to 100 million USD. Eventually. It will take decades maybe. Around the year 2050 we will find out. Some of us will be gone, others will have just "matured" ... We will see... we will see...

[Phil_S]

from $20 (two pizzas) for 10000 btc

No no no. Going that much back makes no sense. It was completely unreliable territory price-wise.

[Richy_T]

With more than 7000 different altcoins and tokens, it's no surprise. It's just that, everything beyond the first or top 50 is not really relevant. Some are experimental and have billions in value, which takes away from bitcoins "marketshare".

Top 10 at best. Probably top 5. With the caveat that some in the top 10 shouldn't even be there (looking at you, XRP) and there is always going to be a bit of churn and some coins will temporarily obtain high market caps due to shenanigans.

[BitcoinGirl.Club]

Good afternoon WO!
Observing @ $57,820

[xhomerx10]

"Bitcoin is a ‘Chinese financial weapon’ that threatens the US dollar – billionaire Peter Thiel"

Well he isn't wrong though just need little correction here...

"Bitcoin is a ‘Chinese financial weapon’ that threatens the US dollar , Euro, GBP, AUD, CAD, CNY and etc ".... now it's correct.


https://www.rt.com/business/520434-china-bitcoin-financial-weapon-us/

FTFY

[cAPSLOCK]

*sigh* that Thiel quote is grossly misrepresented.  But whatevs...  There is no stopping the FUD train.

[JayJuanGee]

[Lots of stuff, as usual]

All very nice stuff. Completely fails to address the arguments I made (which are not for altcoins or big blocks or anything like that, merely that if you restrict capacity, the thing complained about is merely an expected outcome), of course so I'm not going to bother addressing most of it. The idea that "We had the discussion about the tire being flat yesterday and I didn't do anything about it" in any way stops the tire from being flat today and still needing to be fixed is asinine.

However, if you continue to refuse to countenance discussion of factors which might be influencing price or adoption, I heartily recommend this link



I will, myself, continue to listen to many voices including those with whom I am not in agreement. Echo chambers are such a bore.

You are missing the point, we don't care if the tire is flat or not, we don't discuss tires at all in this thread. Doing so just makes people irritated.
If you want to discuss tires, for whatever reason, do so in other threads and leave this thread tire free.
Is that so hard to understand?

Personally, I don't even consider that there is a problem with trying to present various flat tire theories in regard to bitcoin supposedly being the flat tire - but there continues to be something that is quite off in regards to Richy_T's ongoing presentation of the supposed flat tire matter and bringing up stupid-ass arguments that have been beaten to death and largely rebutted by facts and logic, but he seems to be wanting to package them as if they are ongoing concerns - and just assuming a lot of baloney in regards to what bitcoiners want or what they should want in terms of being able to perform small transactions on chain for low fees and therefore seems to be speculating about factual scenarios that do not actually exist - kind of taking jbrehers place who was taking jstolfi's place.. and yeah there were some others along the way, too who liked to beat up on bitcoin regularly and assuming hypotheticals that were just pie in the sky in terms of present situation or future development.

Another problem that seems to thread through Richy_T's ongoing whining about some of the scaling matters, is that he seems to be ongoingly suggesting that the solutions are being presented through some other coins rather than really attempting to figure out how such potential solutions could be developed on bitcoin - so he is implicitly in a kind of pumpening of other coins even if he is not really specifying the various amorphous coins that supposedly have better solutions for transaction fees that he seems to want to be able to engage in low transaction fees onchain for small transactions - and largely he is just ongoingly bashing bitcoin in amorphous kinds of ways with old talking points.. while amorphously pumping other coins as if they were somehow better than bitcoin... blah blah blah.

[AlcoHoDL]

All is fine.

I vote for Bitcoin as it currently functions on-chain. And I vote for 2nd-layer solutions for coffee purchases. We've all seen what's happened with BCH (a.k.a. bcash LOL) and BSV (a.k.a. Craig Wrong - Calvin Ayre pedo-island coin)...

I trust Bitcoin's future in the capable hands of the brilliant coders in the core development team, that slowly and extra-carefully add new elements in the code (SegWit being the most important of them so far), all under a strict consensus scheme. It's easy to criticize and suggest changes, big blocks, changes in PoW, some even want PoS FFS, but it's not at all obvious how those changes could affect the robustness and stability of the network. Just let 2nd-layer solutions handle coffee-sized purchases, and if they fail, get rid of them and develop new ones—the core network remains unaffected. It's a win-win. Don't mess with something that's proven to be the most successful network ever invented, with 100% uptime since 2009.

If anything, higher fees can serve as a spam deterrent: "Wanna transact on-chain? You'd better be serious about it." Just imagine having to pay $0.10 for every email you send. Email spam would be zero. I'm OK with that. Let 2nd-layer solutions gather your yearly espressos, cappuccinos and lattes with near-zero fees, and commit them all in a large $1000 on-chain transaction, with a $5 fee.

My 2 sats.

Edit: Updated my 2nd-layer solution example with more realistic numbers.

[cAPSLOCK]

THIS is the guy who is joining the "Crypto whatever Initiative" as well as sending his  CRYPTO company public next week.

[xhomerx10]

*sigh* that Thiel quote is grossly misrepresented.  But whatevs...  There is no stopping the FUD train.

 Would have been more believable if he had said "Iran".  China doesn't need Bitcoin since they already hold massive amounts of US debt.  They could easily use this leverage to slow US economic growth.  Bitcoin not required.

[Hueristic]

*sigh* that Thiel quote is grossly misrepresented.  But whatevs...  There is no stopping the FUD train.

 Would have been more believable if he had said "Iran".  China doesn't need Bitcoin since they already hold massive amounts of US debt.  They could easily use this leverage to slow US economic growth.  Bitcoin not required.

China and US have the same goals, citizen repression, china just doesn't have to hide it.

[Biodom]

from $20 (two pizzas) for 10000 btc

No no no. Going that much back makes no sense. It was completely unreliable territory price-wise.

Actually, yes, it does (to a degree).
According to the link below:

In July 2010, bitcoin began trading at a value of US$0.0008, climbing to US$0.08 by month’s end.

https://investingnews.com/daily/tech-investing/blockchain-investing/bitcoin-price-history/

let's take the later value of $0.08 as the first price.
57823/0.08=727787.5X (appreciation factor)
A simple calculation shows that this corresponds to 3.4X a year, which is in conventional terms 240%, which is exactly what Saylor mentioned.

On the other hand, 100% a year appreciation (which is 2^11=2048) would result in a starting btc price of $28, which is clearly not valid as a historical argument.

Ergo, it is looking more 200% than 100%.

[lightfoot]

*sigh* that Thiel quote is grossly misrepresented.  But whatevs...  There is no stopping the FUD train.

 Would have been more believable if he had said "Iran".  China doesn't need Bitcoin since they already hold massive amounts of US debt.  They could easily use this leverage to slow US economic growth.  Bitcoin not required.

China and US have the same goals, citizen repression, china just doesn't have to hide it.

FTFY

[Phil_S]

Actually, yes, it does (to a degree).

That wasn't really a trading. Just random numbers with tiny volume. Completely irrelevant.

What happened under $50 can and should be ignored.

[JayJuanGee]

We all know the rules of the game and rule # 1

"Don't invest more than you can afford to lose."

If HODLING is the strategy then selling and buy are the tactics.

Here's my post warning people about "Don't invest more than you can afford to lose" when the price was $325.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=843822.0

How many times do I have to repeat this:

always invest what you can afford to lose.

It's starting to look like a hype:

the point is you must invest what you can afford to lose mate
(...)

I don't even believe that this particular expression is contrary to the "don't invest more than you can afford to lose" statement.  They are just two kinds of way of expressing a kind of personal assessment of your various personal variables, and the one above just ends up advocating a maxing out of the investment into bitcoin regarding what you can afford to lose.... and ends up coming off (and likely even playing out) as a more aggressive approach towards investing into bitcoin.

So, yeah, even with my ongoing suggestion that people should start out by investing 1% to 10% of their quasi-liquid investible assets into bitcoin, which kind of assumes that they are starting out by hardly knowing shit about bitcoin, which is likely the case with a lot of people, even people who are already in bitcoin... but gosh, even before anyone gets to the stage where they should be actually putting money into bitcoin, they should be assessing their personal situation.. in terms of the variables that get repeated so often: cashflow, other investments, view of bitcoin as compared with other investments, timeline, risk tolerance and skills, abilities and time to plan, learn and tweak which suggest reallocating from time to time and/or trading.

Perfect should not be the enemy of the good, either, so in that respect, there are a lot of people who do not really have any kind of handle exactly on their personal financial circumstances, so they can learn as they go, and sometimes just getting started with a low allocation to bitcoin that becomes more and more aggressive once they have made proper assessments of their personal variables...... so yeah, for example, being really young such as pre-20s might allow for a certain high level of aggressiveness with the knowledge that there will be time to recover from mistakes - but I still would not suggest gambling or getting into shitcoins absent some limited exposure and pretty clear entrance and exit strategies, and while bitcoin would remain a long term kind of investment that should, in itself, provide enough challenges that there should not really need to be any need to really be gambling with projects that may well end up exit scamming on your ass and then cause you to be in your 30s and starting over, rather than having had built a decent base by that time.  

So yeah, aggressiveness in bitcoin could allow for various kinds of leveraging of debt or whatever so long as cashflow is sufficient to cover the servicing of the debt and emergency contingencies are accounted for, and I have frequently made sure that I had 6 months of cashflow minimum (using excel as a very solid way to keep track with customized ways of formulating various kinds of cashflow projections and other related matters, as well), but the more complex systems that are employed, there should be more cashflow projection for those kinds of situations rather than less (maybe even going out to 18 months to 24 months especially if you are servicing loans out that far or you have a variety of kinds of uncertain cashflows that come from business successes/failures and including that cashflows should be projected in conservative ways - especially if they have a lot of built in uncertainties).. otherwise gambling - rather than investing is taking place.

https://twitter.com/100trillionUSD/status/1379770685401268229?s=20

I added "2x per year" trend lines to his chart...

How are the lower and the upper lines chosen?  You just pick a price starting point from January 2013?  or are your starting points coming from earlier (even though Plan B is using January 2013 as the starting point for this particular chart)?

It looks like his 200-weeks graph follows that "100% a year" trend quite nicely.

It's just too many people started talking about "200% a year" lately, even Saylor,

I am wondering if a large number of these folks really mean 100% per year, even though they are saying 200% per year... I can see how the concepts could easily get mixed up because going up, on average of 100% per year is doubling every year, on average... but you could still see why people might think that their average of having the 100% at the beginning of the year has turned into 200% by the end of the year, so they see that what they had, on average, has doubled.. when looked at on a long enough time horizon.. surely it did not feel as if it were doubling in 2014 and 2015 (when caught in the middle) just like it did not feel as if it were doubling in 2018 or 2019 when caught in the middle, either.

which is annoying.

Are you annoyed by their seeming to get the numbers wrong?  or are you annoyed because they are stealing your idea without giving proper credit?

Regarding the second concept, surely there is a lot of symbiosis in this space.. and sometimes any of us who might come across a kind of unique framing of an issue, it is likely that we are taking many aspects of the idea from other sources or making our own spin, but hardly are we deserving of individual credit.. which also seems to be part of the humbleness of Saylor.  Even though Saylor might come across as a bit an arrogant prick, the fact of the matter is that he continuously proclaims that he was ONLY able to ramp up his knowledge and perspective(s) about bitcoin so quickly based on the various foundations of a variety of others in the space from podcasts and articles and sure some of the ideas come from various threads on reddit and this forum as well.. so surely some of us might not be getting proper credit sometimes even if we might have some of our own unique spins on some subjects, but I personally do not give too many shits if I get proper credit and if some of my ideas or framing of matters end up getting incorporated into some article.. and then I say.. hey?  I was saying that 4 years ago.. or I saw that x, y or z member of the forum said that, so how could it be an original idea?  We do see  several media pieces that seem to be taken from some of the ideas that some of us bat around in the forum.. and sometimes those media pieces are pure crap as compared with the quality of ideas batted around in these here parts... or we may have already treated the issue several days earlier or even weeks before the ideas end up getting put into some article claiming an original perspective. blah blah blah.