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

[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.

[ChuckBuck]

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

So, I think we should start at a time when Bitcoin is at $ 900? Somewhere around late 2015 and early 2016. Really not sure if I remember correctly, I believe it doesn't make much difference taking this landmark into the graph  

~skip

OH MY GOD   just kidding, I was stunned by the length of your post

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

But the citizens still support their policy

[Biodom]

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.

No, sorry, as it traded ALL 2011, 2012 and few months of 2013 under $50.
In fact, our first block halving was when we were at $12.27 in Nov 2012.
Basically, that argument (that we should ignore prices below $50) is a Reductio ad absurdum.

[Dabs]

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.

Hashcash was supposed to do exactly that for email. Proof of work to send every email. For a normal user, they can mine for 1 or 2 seconds worth of CPU power, then send the email. For normal users, that was fine, for spammers and mass emailers, if they had to do that for 1 million emails, they would never be able to send it.

It just didn't work out that way or ever get implemented in the major email clients / services.

[Dabs]

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.

No, sorry, as it traded ALL 2011, 2012 and few months of 2013 under $50.
In fact, our first block halving was when we were at $12.27 in Nov 2012.
Basically, that argument (that we should ignore prices below $50) is a Reductio ad absurdum.

I was around when prices were below $50, I even got some (but did not HODL them). But if I may, I think it makes more sense or more meaningful to start looking when prices were above $100 already. From $100 to $200 took a few months ... From $1 to $100 took a few years where there were no major investors or buyers or even exchanges (yes, maybe the early exchanges did exist, but most of them are dead now, except for BitStamp and Kraken.)

Just an opinion from someone who bought at below $10. Start looking at $100 as when it all really started. No point thinking about pizzas for 10k BTC.

I once saw someone bet 7000 BTC on a dice game. And lost it. (that's not the whole story tho, he started around 1000 BTC and kept betting until it got to 7000).

[bitebits]

The amount of times "Bitcoin" was mentioned in a companies earnings reports:


https://twitter.com/DocumentingBTC/status/1380133227940220928

[JayJuanGee]

[ Original Chart ]

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.

Saylor may be talking about instantaneous price value, not averages, or we don't know his averaging parameters, or he may be excluding certain events as outliers. It's all a matter of interpretation, averaging horizon, etc.

Not disagreeing with any of this, and sometimes I personally wonder how much the earlier days should be counted.. when we are talking about pre-2013, but surely there is some kind of value there because bitcoin did begin to have a certain amount of price discovery in 2010 and of course, it was not as sophisticated, but even that earlier data could lend some insights into subsequent behaviors which are not necessarily different in kind, just degree.. and sure, of course, having tools that allow for the betting against bitcoin rather than just betting for bitcoin or the ONLY way to bet against it is to sell (which means that you have to buy it previously) do seem to be incomplete in terms of assisting with more accurate price discovery.

Some predictions talk about $400k/BTC by the end of 2021, so that's a 1200% gain for 2021 (assuming $30k/BTC at the start of 2021)... Wild, sure, but does King Daddy care?

I really do not consider analysis to be very accurate when we might pick seemingly random timelines such as calendar years or months or quarters or whatever, and sure there is going to be some helpfulness in some of these kinds of dynamics, but really the way bitcoin is designed in terms of issuance does cause way better assessments to at least be considered in terms of the four year cycles - even maybe if at some point, we can attempt to some sub-analysis within the cycles... so even with those kinds of attempt to reframe the assessment, we might not really know what might be a fair starting point for this particular price rise (that we are in the middle of).. so reasonable peeps can come to differing conclusions about whether the extreme of $3,124 (of December 17, 2018) should be used as the base or maybe the $4k-ish bouncing off point around April 1, 2019.. or maybe we should attempt to figure out various gravitation points averaging out the more or less bottom of 2019 time frame (maybe looking at price movements in 2018 and 2020), which might bring us to around $6k as a starting point for our current price run up. 

Personally, I am gravitating towards a $4k-ish price to be the bouncing off point for this cycle.. just like I consider around $250-ish to be a fair bouncing off point for the 2015-2017 run (by the way, I come to $250 for the 2015-17 cycle mostly because through a large part of 2015.. around 10 months in total, the BTC passed through such price point and even gravitated around it quite a bit).

Personally, I consider a "stable" price of $100k/BTC by the end of 2021 to be a realistic, healthy, and pretty damn good scenario. That's a 230% gain for 2021, which pretty much agrees with Saylor's Crystal Ball^TM. By "stable", I mean safely above $100k, say, $120k-$130k, with the usual volatility and ant-pump/dumpenings.

I was about to call you "a fucking bear," AlcoHoDL, largely based on your going along with $400k-ish as being a kind of reasonable blow off top for this cycle.. and maybe I am a bit delusional with my own expectations, but surely that would be reasonable with my consideration of $4k as our jumping off point, which would be about a 100x for this particular cycle.. so gosh can we really expect much more than that, even with some of the institutional FOMO and the bullshit pie in the sky supercycle theories.... but then if we balance out a decent number of the factors we should be expecting that the peaks and the troughs should be becoming less and less extreme with the passage of time, but if we still end up getting 100x out of this particular cycle, that would end up playing out more bullish than the 2017 cycle which ended up being around a bit less than 80x ($19,666 / $250)

Then, when I read your whole paragraph in regards to the bottom, I am kind of considering that you might be a wee bit too optimistic to consider that $100k would be holding as a bottom.. gosh.. maybe you might be right especially if the top "ONLY" reaches $400k, then a 75% drop or even less might be reasonable based on overall circumstances.

These are all SOMA guesses of course, as I believe SOMA guesses to be the best price predictors. No math or science involved—I leave that to our resident expert, the singing llama.

Edit: I calculate % gain as 100 x [V(t) - V(t-1)] / V(t-1), i.e., a 2x gain is a 100% gain.

Sure, many of us are employing some amount of SOMO in our analysis in terms of how much weight to assign to a variety of factors, including some of the most current (and seemingly valid) BTC price prediction models that might be weaving through our subconsciousness without our even having had known it.. you fucking stealer of ideas.#nohomo.. we are all doing it.. well at least those of us who are seriously attempting to grapple with some of the ongoing BTC price dynamic happenings.

[Phil_S]

How are the lower and the upper lines chosen?  You just pick a price starting point from January 2013?

Starting points do not matter, since the idea is to illustrate a slope, and compare it to the BLACK SLOPE of 200WMA.
I just think the slopes are approximately similar.

I am wondering if a large number of these folks really mean 100% per year, even though they are saying 200% per year...

No, it started with some recent article, that compared recent prices with the prices 10 years ago, and claimed that it triples every year. Everyone started repeating it, even Saylor who is smart enough to know better. So they're basing this conclusion on going way too much into the past, into unreliable territory of tiny volumes/prices.

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?

The first.

I just think it's important to establish a rough estimate of a multi-year trend for such volatile asset. Since it's based on 4-year halving cycle, I think considering the last 8 years is fine, like on that PlanB's chart. His black 200WMA line is also fine, since it roughly keeps the slope year-after-year. It's almost linear.

[JayJuanGee]

Some of the shitcoins, even the bcash ones that you seem to like may well end up still serving some kind of purpose because they still function but they may well be relying on the security that is provided by the bitcoin .. the king daddy.. You even stated that you used litecoin for some transaction, and sure those shitty and not very used coins could still be used to transact value.. but they would not be alive at all if it were not for the security blanket provided to the whole space by king daddy... so yeah, let's say that you have $100k... and $95k might be held in bitcoin and maybe $4k to $5k would be in various other services such as lightning.. but then maybe you might use some shitcoin such as litecoin or one of the bcashes to the extent that they might continue to exist rather than scamming themselves out of even functioning.. so yeah, you could use those lighter trafficked coins for some transactions to buy coffee or buy that $5 to $1,000 good or service that you are aiming to buy but not wanting to pay $20 to $100 in BTC transaction fees..   but if you need to move your $95k, you might not mind paying $20 to $100 in fees to do that.

So what I appear to be reading here is that you agree that there are implications from the capacity limitations of Bitcoin that encourage ownership and usage of alts and that make Bitcoin less useful as a currency. So I don't see what the issue is.

On an individual level, we can attempt to appreciate a variety of use cases that may be in front of us and weigh the various use cases and how we might want to allocate our holdings - and surely, I am not suggesting to hold much if any value in shitcoins, even though they could be used in short term ways for transactions, if transactions is what you want in the short term.

A significant part of the issue that you seem to be wanting to continue to gloss over is that you are ongoingly bashing on bitcoin and asserting that it is broken in various regards because you cannot buy coffee with it or even a $1k transaction might seem infeasible if the fees are anywhere between $20 and $100 for that transaction.   

Another thing is that you seem to be ongoingly suggesting (or is it whining) that there are some other coins out there that are better than bitcoin, but surely you leave these implications in vague ways because you probably realize that there ain't shit out there that is even close to being as good as bitcoin, but you want to leave that vague implication out there as if there is some kind of valid criticism of bitcoin that is contained within it.

In the end, bitcoin gives you options, and gives you way more options if you hold some of it (in case it catches on), and I hope that your ongoing vague ass whining is not dissuading very many people from getting a decent stake in bitcoin without coming to stupid ass false ideas that there might be some better coins out there, which there is nothing even close, in spite of your vague assertions to the contrary.

Tell us Richy_T.. which coins even come close to bitcoin.. go on.. do it. do it.  You may as well do it, and after you do it, then either I or some other member here will tell you to take the pumping of that crap to some other thread.. because if you name any coin, inevitably you are going to name some piece of shit... hahahahaha.. go on.. do it.   

Personally I find these meta discussions much more annoying so I'm going to try and make this my last post on the subject today. Again, I suggest that those that can't deal with opinions different from their own use the ignore button or just learn to do what I do and roll their eyes and move on.  

Bullshit, Richy.  You do not deserve to be ignored and to let you spout out your ongoing nonsense unrebutted.

Yeah, sure you are likely derailing this thread in some regards with your nonsense, but I personally do not consider ignoring you as a meaningful and viable solution for some of your ongoing crap (and surely sometimes subtle, too because you are a seemingly smart guy with even some decent technical insights on various issues, which is part of the trickiness of some of your ideas appear to be much better than they actually are).

[Richy_T]

Another thing is that you seem to be ongoingly suggesting (or is it whining) that there are some other coins out there that are better than bitcoin, but surely you leave these implications in vague ways because you probably realize that there ain't shit out there that is even close to being as good as bitcoin, but you want to leave that vague implication out there as if there is some kind of valid criticism of bitcoin that is contained within it.

Well, since I was directly asked, I will respond. No, I'm certainly not shilling other coins. I don't hate them other than the obvious scams (of which there are too many to count), I simply have no interest in them. The trivial amount of Litecoin I have is from trying out scrypt mining with a GPU way back when and the ETH is a similarly tiny amount bought on a whim. I had hoped that BCH would be able to address the capacity issue but for a variety of reasons, it was unable to take the crown and as its major attraction over other alts was that its fork nature meant that it had the potential to take the user base with it. As time has passed, it has moved more and more away from that and has basically reverted to just another alt. BSV is simply a joke because of the close association with the clown, CSW.

Here's the thing, love SOV as much as you like, not addressing the on-chain capacity restriction is going to have some effect on certain aspects of Bitcoin that were long considered to be important aspects of it. When those aspects are brought up in thread, the correct answer is simply the correct answer. Now, adding a different perspective on that answer "That is true but SOV/decentralization/what have you is more important" is fine but people go off on all sorts of tangents about what they think I'm saying. Not so many years ago, it was quite common to give away a little bit of bitcoin to get people interested. Not reasonable anymore. Bitcoin used to be viewed as for the world and now it's just for the rich. Now, whether that's OK or not is a discussion that could be had but people just don't want to admit it.

I don't really have much against second layer solutions either but we hit full blocks in 2016 and now it's 2021. LN was already in development at that stage and still is not delivering. Someone will quote me some number of LN nodes but that's a totally irrelevant stat if it is still not properly useful. It should also be noted that opening an LN channel requires one transaction and closing it another. Simply put, Bitcoin doesn't have the capacity for LN to be used by a meaningful number of people. The LN developers have even effectively stated this themselves. LN, although potentially an excellent solution for what it was designed for, micropayments, also has several shortcomings for use in the manner that second-layer proponents are advocating. Seriously, if you're a LN advocate and haven't read and comprehended LN's shortcomings, you're underinformed and in for a shock.

So yeah, in summary, while I've never been a hardline BTC maximalist, it's always been my favorite coin and I just wish we weren't still passing around blocks on these.

[rolling]

So yeah, in summary, while I've never been a hardline BTC maximalist, it's always been my favorite coin and I just wish we weren't still passing around blocks on these.

Now you're complaining bitcoin is too efficient and you wish it used more space.

[Richy_T]

Now you're complaining bitcoin is too efficient and you wish it used more space.

 

[JayJuanGee]

No, we try to not have that kind of discussions, it's not denial, it's just keeping this thread free from shitcoin talk.
If you must talk about them there are literally dozens of other threads, keep this one clean.

OK, now I have to reply to this accusation. I wasn't talking about shitcoins. Pay attention. Someone asked why Bitcoin was losing market dominance and I suggested it was capacity issues with Bitcoin. It's everyone else who jumps on with suggestions of using shitcoins for some reason.

Oh poor lil Richy_T.....   trying to stay on topic (like a good bitcoin maximalist.. #nohomo), but everyone else causing his lil selfie to have to respond.   

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.

One of the good things about bitcoin is that it gives no shits about either use case number 1 or use case number 2, and each of us can choose whichever use case that we want, including use case number 3 or even the use case of NOT using it.  It does appear that a large number of us believe that use case number 1 is driving a lot of bitcoin's current value, but many of us also appreciate that bitcoin can already be used for a variety of other use cases, even if some of those other use cases are more limited in their availabilities or user-friendliness.. but bitcoin has capacities beyond use case number 1 and 2.

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...

Sure, it could take another 10 to 30 years for BTC to reach $100 trillion.. which is a mere 100x from here.. or $5.5 million per coin... but it does seem that you are outlining this in a bit too much of a bearish way because the more bullish scenarios could actually quite easily reach $5.5 million per coin within 2 cycles.  I don't need to elaborate on the numbers, do I?

This cycle could top anywhere between $62k and $1.5million.. and let's just look at the more bearish of numbers (that's 2021)

The next cycle could then top $200k to $500k (remember bearish numbers).. (that's 2025)

The next cycle could then top $1 million to $5.5million (remember bearish numbers).. (that's 2029)

Are we going to need another cycle if the numbers are even more bearish than I have outlined? or could it take another 5 cycles as seem to be suggesting could be the case..

yeah.. I don't really expect to make it to 2050.. but sure there could be a chance.. as with anything.  In recent years, I did have a doctor tell me that I could make it to 2060-ish (not in those words, exactly), and my health has not really deteriorated since such statement but still taking such optimism with a decently large grain of salt.... I am a bit skeptical of experts - even though it did make me feel good at such time the statement was made.

[LFC_Bitcoin]

https://twitter.com/haileylennonbtc/status/1380248830252253185?s=21


@cryptomanran
Let's bet that $BITCOIN breaks All Time High the day Coinbase lists next week!
https://twitter.com/cryptomanran/status/1380254708506501133?s=21

[nullius]

Divers days, I pin my e-mail inbox to a dartboard and toss a dart at a random WO-post whilst on break from Building Empires and/or sleeping in the Void of Nullity.  It’s amazing what I may hit:

Not so many years ago, it was quite common to give away a little bit of bitcoin to get people interested. Not reasonable anymore. Bitcoin used to be viewed as for the world and now it's just for the rich. Now, whether that's OK or not is a discussion that could be had but people just don't want to admit it.

Translation:

“Please, please be interested in my cryptonerd toy money.  I will give you some to get started!  Please come play with me. 🥺” = Success!

“Holy wow, are you kidding me!?  This is actually... real money.” = Bitcoin has failed.

Nobody gives away money to get people interested in money.  People are interested in money because it is valuable.  I have never heard your particular complaint being made about gold.  But soon, it will be quite common to give away a little bit of dollars to get people interested.  —Well, they are already doing that.  I hereby suggest DollarFaucet.gov to “President” Biden, so that he can save the U.S. economy.  View malware-laden ads, solve CAPTCHAs as a good little slave to robots, get stimulus!


I do understand the desire for fun.  Here on the Wall, I have previously Observed:

I enjoy actually using Bitcoin.  Sending and receiving money is so easy!  With the push of a button, I transact with anybody, anywhere in the world!  Wheeee!  It’s so simple and downright fun that sometimes, I spam testnet/regtest transactions to myself for sheer pleasure.

N.b. the references to suitable toy-money pseudocoins.

I myself recently made a puzzle giving away a chance at some real Bitcoin.  It is replete with a txid which starts with nine 0s, and what may perhaps be the only cat emoji embedded in the blockchain—fun!  I thereby observed:

Remember when Bitcoin was fun?  It still is!

And I only loaded the puzzle with 0.001 BTC!  That is the maximum amount of real money that I can afford to—no, more than I can properly afford potentially to give away to random strangers on the Internet for the lulz and meows.  Think about it:  It is as if I put a $50 bill and change where anybody in the world can come and pick it up—for fun.  And as I thereby said, I expect for that prize to be worth thousands of dollars someday.  Am I crazy!?

Well, I guess that’s it.  Bitcoin is being treated as real money.  Bitcoin is dead.


This is a hit-and-run.  Catch y’all later.  I hate plagiarism—I really hate plagiarism—so don’t forget to give me credit for the DollarFaucet.gov idea.  If the Americans actually do it, then I will make an address for them to send me royalties in Tethers.

[El duderino_]

https://twitter.com/BTC_Archive/status/1380194411905171460?s=20