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

[Arriemoller]

You know, my brain's wheels are turning right now with a thought:

"Is an inflationary money policy the driver behind the desire to endlessly consume?"

Yes.

Our financial system depends on perpetual growth. Since all money is debt-based, we are always creating more of it to service the interest from having borrowed it into existence. If all debts were to be paid off simultaneously, there wouldn't be enough money in the world to actually do it. So we keep creating more. This is monetary inflation, which eventually leads to price inflation unless you monetize more goods, meaning you make more things available for purchase for the newly created money, thereby balancing out supply & demand and preventing price inflation.

We are being driven towards endless consumption in order to perpetuate the status quo. We are always to be two missed paychecks from destitution so we will latch onto any false form of material happiness marketed towards our fears and frustrations.

Remember this the next time some smug douchebag pulls the "muh EnErGy cOnSumpTIon" card against Bitcoin. Deflationary crypto may yet be the biggest boon for the environment. It turns people from consumers into hodlers.

Disagree, growth is at it's core driven by ever increasing efficiency, lately accelerated by cheap energy.
Consuming is a feature of our brain, not a bug.
The constant search for food and things to make clothes and shelter from is what made us survive and in the end become the most successful animal on the planet, modern day consuming is just a continuation of that behavior, it's hard coded in our brains.
Bitcoin won't stop that behavior, it will just postpone it for a while, and when we do spend the money we will spend so much more of it, IE we will consume much more than before.
For example buying lakes or building small private states in Texas.

[Arriemoller]

B. Maher says that we are full of s-t in conclusion:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HaJpYjO136o

, but I think that it is he who is full of it instead.

 He might have had some valid points but he lost me when he started with, "I fully understand that our financial system isn't perfect but at least it's real."

Dan Held explained it nicely:
https://twitter.com/danheld/status/1387783269710655503

 Exactly!  Humans use too much energy - even the ones using the real financial system.

Mechanical/biological POV: boiled down, it's how much of a quasi-monoculture of humans can this planet sustain at various levels of mutual comfort? If we were in the low-mid hundreds of myriads, no problem: have all the tantalium you want - or buffalo, or whatever you can realistically find. Just a matter of price. Oops. Be it the economy or just a kind of behavioral physics, we end up doing hat many other animals - or plants - do when left alone in a place where they "just can": multiply and grow in shapes that often are exponential up to a ceiling, much like an S of sorts. But I digress. There are S-curves that spin more pleasant thought, and this gentlemen.

Nah, population growth have stopped, the average ratio planetwide is two children per family, and it is dropping, in a not to distant future a diminishing population will be our biggest problem.
The reason it doesn't look like that is because the older generations that are now dying of where fewer in number then the ones being born now, when that tip of what used to be a pyramid but now is an obelisk is gone it will be a tower that will slowly turn in to a upside down pyramid.

[Arriemoller]

@Coindesk
JUST IN: #Bitcoin 's biggest upgrade in years, Taproot, has started the activation process. If enough miners signal support before August 11, it will be online in November. @TheBlueMatt @benthecarman @bitentrepreneur
By @AsILayHodling
https://t.co/iqkPFRcA6q
https://twitter.com/coindesk/status/1388588797106036744?s=21



The forums very own achow101 ——->


@achow101
Signaling for the Taproot Speedy Trial has now begun. The first block whose signal actually counts is the next block at height 681408
https://twitter.com/achow101/status/1388586979063967747?s=21



@DocumentingBTC
#Bitcoin  Taproot activation has started!
https://twitter.com/documentingbtc/status/1388589809380335624?s=21



@DocumentingBTC
#Bitcoin  Taproot activation has started!

If 90% of blocks mined within the next difficulty period, signal for the update, (or another period before August 11th) Taproot "locks in" for November this year.
https://twitter.com/documentingbtc/status/1388590450072768516?s=21




Follow Taproot Activation progress here ——->

https://taproot.watch/

What's taproot and why do we need it?

[philipma1957]

B. Maher says that we are full of s-t in conclusion:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HaJpYjO136o

, but I think that it is he who is full of it instead.

 He might have had some valid points but he lost me when he started with, "I fully understand that our financial system isn't perfect but at least it's real."

Dan Held explained it nicely:
https://twitter.com/danheld/status/1387783269710655503

 Exactly!  Humans use too much energy - even the ones using the real financial system.

Mechanical/biological POV: boiled down, it's how much of a quasi-monoculture of humans can this planet sustain at various levels of mutual comfort? If we were in the low-mid hundreds of myriads, no problem: have all the tantalium you want - or buffalo, or whatever you can realistically find. Just a matter of price. Oops. Be it the economy or just a kind of behavioral physics, we end up doing hat many other animals - or plants - do when left alone in a place where they "just can": multiply and grow in shapes that often are exponential up to a ceiling, much like an S of sorts. But I digress. There are S-curves that spin more pleasant thought, and this gentlemen.

Nah, population growth have stopped, the average ratio planetwide is two children per family, and it is dropping, in a not to distant future a diminishing population will be our biggest problem.
The reason it doesn't look like that is because the older generations that are now dying of where fewer in number then the ones being born now, when that tip of what used to be a pyramid but now is an obelisk is gone it will be a tower that will slowly turn in to a upside down pyramid.

Interesting.

Every year over the last 50 years we have gone up in population.

I think the last set of negative years was during world war two.

Maybe you are correct we should know in under ten-twenty years time.

[Hueristic]

The vulnerabilities in Pulse Connect Secure, a VPN that employees use to remotely connect to large networks, include one that hackers had been actively exploiting before it was known to Ivanti, the maker of the product. The flaw, which Ivanti disclosed last week, carries a severity rating of 10 out of a possible 10. The authentication bypass vulnerability allows untrusted users to remotely execute malicious code on Pulse Secure hardware, and from there, to gain control of other parts of the network where it's installed.

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/04/more-us-agencies-potentially-hacked-this-time-with-pulse-secure-exploits/

[Arriemoller]

B. Maher says that we are full of s-t in conclusion:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HaJpYjO136o

, but I think that it is he who is full of it instead.

 He might have had some valid points but he lost me when he started with, "I fully understand that our financial system isn't perfect but at least it's real."

Dan Held explained it nicely:
https://twitter.com/danheld/status/1387783269710655503

 Exactly!  Humans use too much energy - even the ones using the real financial system.

Mechanical/biological POV: boiled down, it's how much of a quasi-monoculture of humans can this planet sustain at various levels of mutual comfort? If we were in the low-mid hundreds of myriads, no problem: have all the tantalium you want - or buffalo, or whatever you can realistically find. Just a matter of price. Oops. Be it the economy or just a kind of behavioral physics, we end up doing hat many other animals - or plants - do when left alone in a place where they "just can": multiply and grow in shapes that often are exponential up to a ceiling, much like an S of sorts. But I digress. There are S-curves that spin more pleasant thought, and this gentlemen.

Nah, population growth have stopped, the average ratio planetwide is two children per family, and it is dropping, in a not to distant future a diminishing population will be our biggest problem.
The reason it doesn't look like that is because the older generations that are now dying of where fewer in number then the ones being born now, when that tip of what used to be a pyramid but now is an obelisk is gone it will be a tower that will slowly turn in to a upside down pyramid.

Interesting.

Every year over the last 50 years we have gone up in population.

I think the last set of negative years was during world war two.

Maybe you are correct we should know in under ten-twenty years time.

It was clear already 11 years ago, watch this lecture. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FACK2knC08E

This one might be even better. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezVk1ahRF78

Or just jump to the conclusion here. https://youtu.be/ezVk1ahRF78?t=616

[philipma1957]

B. Maher says that we are full of s-t in conclusion:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HaJpYjO136o

, but I think that it is he who is full of it instead.

 He might have had some valid points but he lost me when he started with, "I fully understand that our financial system isn't perfect but at least it's real."

Dan Held explained it nicely:
https://twitter.com/danheld/status/1387783269710655503

 Exactly!  Humans use too much energy - even the ones using the real financial system.

Mechanical/biological POV: boiled down, it's how much of a quasi-monoculture of humans can this planet sustain at various levels of mutual comfort? If we were in the low-mid hundreds of myriads, no problem: have all the tantalium you want - or buffalo, or whatever you can realistically find. Just a matter of price. Oops. Be it the economy or just a kind of behavioral physics, we end up doing hat many other animals - or plants - do when left alone in a place where they "just can": multiply and grow in shapes that often are exponential up to a ceiling, much like an S of sorts. But I digress. There are S-curves that spin more pleasant thought, and this gentlemen.

Nah, population growth have stopped, the average ratio planetwide is two children per family, and it is dropping, in a not to distant future a diminishing population will be our biggest problem.
The reason it doesn't look like that is because the older generations that are now dying of where fewer in number then the ones being born now, when that tip of what used to be a pyramid but now is an obelisk is gone it will be a tower that will slowly turn in to a upside down pyramid.

Interesting.

Every year over the last 50 years we have gone up in population.

I think the last set of negative years was during world war two.

Maybe you are correct we should know in under ten-twenty years time.

It was clear already 11 years ago, watch this lecture. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FACK2knC08E

So I looked at last 32 years and peak numbers were in 1985 to 1992 which would be a result of the baby boomers having kids.

so world war two did a double tap in population growth but the 1985-1992 babied now 28 to 35 are not having a lot of kids. So maybe we do drop over the next 10-20 and reach negative growth.

Looks possible.

[Arriemoller]

B. Maher says that we are full of s-t in conclusion:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HaJpYjO136o

, but I think that it is he who is full of it instead.

 He might have had some valid points but he lost me when he started with, "I fully understand that our financial system isn't perfect but at least it's real."

Dan Held explained it nicely:
https://twitter.com/danheld/status/1387783269710655503

 Exactly!  Humans use too much energy - even the ones using the real financial system.

Mechanical/biological POV: boiled down, it's how much of a quasi-monoculture of humans can this planet sustain at various levels of mutual comfort? If we were in the low-mid hundreds of myriads, no problem: have all the tantalium you want - or buffalo, or whatever you can realistically find. Just a matter of price. Oops. Be it the economy or just a kind of behavioral physics, we end up doing hat many other animals - or plants - do when left alone in a place where they "just can": multiply and grow in shapes that often are exponential up to a ceiling, much like an S of sorts. But I digress. There are S-curves that spin more pleasant thought, and this gentlemen.

Nah, population growth have stopped, the average ratio planetwide is two children per family, and it is dropping, in a not to distant future a diminishing population will be our biggest problem.
The reason it doesn't look like that is because the older generations that are now dying of where fewer in number then the ones being born now, when that tip of what used to be a pyramid but now is an obelisk is gone it will be a tower that will slowly turn in to a upside down pyramid.

Interesting.

Every year over the last 50 years we have gone up in population.

I think the last set of negative years was during world war two.

Maybe you are correct we should know in under ten-twenty years time.

It was clear already 11 years ago, watch this lecture. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FACK2knC08E

So I looked at last 32 years and peak numbers were in 1985 to 1992 which would be a result of the baby boomers having kids.

so world war two did a double tap in population growth but the 1985-1992 babied now 28 to 35 are not having a lot of kids. So maybe we do drop over the next 10-20 and reach negative growth.

Looks possible.

https://youtu.be/ezVk1ahRF78?t=616

[mrjoy15]

Look at the charts from the last bull run. You will feel better about where we are right now.
I see something exceptionally parabolic move.
Halfway through the cycle.

[ErisDiscordia]

You know, my brain's wheels are turning right now with a thought:

"Is an inflationary money policy the driver behind the desire to endlessly consume?"

Yes.

Our financial system depends on perpetual growth. Since all money is debt-based, we are always creating more of it to service the interest from having borrowed it into existence. If all debts were to be paid off simultaneously, there wouldn't be enough money in the world to actually do it. So we keep creating more. This is monetary inflation, which eventually leads to price inflation unless you monetize more goods, meaning you make more things available for purchase for the newly created money, thereby balancing out supply & demand and preventing price inflation.

We are being driven towards endless consumption in order to perpetuate the status quo. We are always to be two missed paychecks from destitution so we will latch onto any false form of material happiness marketed towards our fears and frustrations.

Remember this the next time some smug douchebag pulls the "muh EnErGy cOnSumpTIon" card against Bitcoin. Deflationary crypto may yet be the biggest boon for the environment. It turns people from consumers into hodlers.

I agree. But if you look at the FRED M2 money velocity chart I posted, you can see that up to 1997, monetary expansion policy actually seemed to buoy the economy even in the face of falling wages (adjusted for inflation, of course.) They decided to make personal credit cheaper and cheaper to fill in the wage gap, so that Average Joes would continue spending into the real economy despite their slowing wage growth and growing personal debt load.

And so continuing to expand the money supply and cheaper credit worked for a while. Until 1997. And then it didn't anymore. You can also see on the chart where consumer spending fell completely off the cliff.

We are now at a point where wages are no longer increasing (to keep up with *real* inflation), mom and pop cannot take on any more personal debt to fill the gap, and thus all consumer spending has fallen to a minimum life support level.

What the Fed doesn't seem to grasp is, all the free stimmy checks or even UBI in the world won't make a lasting turn in consumer spending. Stimmies are just a temporary bump. Only wages going back up relative to *real* inflation will do that. And that just ain't gonna happen.

What the Fed is doing now (sending money directly to consumers) smacks of desperation. It's a joke.

The sad thing is that none of what you have described addresses the root cause of the problem, which is our perpetual growth model of economics. Everything is about "how do we continue to grow" instead of "shouldn't we stop growing at some point?". Only cancer grows forever. And maybe Bitcoin. hmmmm 

*tons of population talk snipped for brevity*

https://youtu.be/ezVk1ahRF78?t=616

I think if you scratch the surface, you will find that Ariemoller is concerned about the lack of growth of one particular kind of population...

[lightfoot]

I think if you scratch the surface, you will find that Ariemoller is concerned about the lack of growth of one particular kind of population...

Redheads?

[Arriemoller]

You know, my brain's wheels are turning right now with a thought:

"Is an inflationary money policy the driver behind the desire to endlessly consume?"

Yes.

Our financial system depends on perpetual growth. Since all money is debt-based, we are always creating more of it to service the interest from having borrowed it into existence. If all debts were to be paid off simultaneously, there wouldn't be enough money in the world to actually do it. So we keep creating more. This is monetary inflation, which eventually leads to price inflation unless you monetize more goods, meaning you make more things available for purchase for the newly created money, thereby balancing out supply & demand and preventing price inflation.

We are being driven towards endless consumption in order to perpetuate the status quo. We are always to be two missed paychecks from destitution so we will latch onto any false form of material happiness marketed towards our fears and frustrations.

Remember this the next time some smug douchebag pulls the "muh EnErGy cOnSumpTIon" card against Bitcoin. Deflationary crypto may yet be the biggest boon for the environment. It turns people from consumers into hodlers.

I agree. But if you look at the FRED M2 money velocity chart I posted, you can see that up to 1997, monetary expansion policy actually seemed to buoy the economy even in the face of falling wages (adjusted for inflation, of course.) They decided to make personal credit cheaper and cheaper to fill in the wage gap, so that Average Joes would continue spending into the real economy despite their slowing wage growth and growing personal debt load.

And so continuing to expand the money supply and cheaper credit worked for a while. Until 1997. And then it didn't anymore. You can also see on the chart where consumer spending fell completely off the cliff.

We are now at a point where wages are no longer increasing (to keep up with *real* inflation), mom and pop cannot take on any more personal debt to fill the gap, and thus all consumer spending has fallen to a minimum life support level.

What the Fed doesn't seem to grasp is, all the free stimmy checks or even UBI in the world won't make a lasting turn in consumer spending. Stimmies are just a temporary bump. Only wages going back up relative to *real* inflation will do that. And that just ain't gonna happen.

What the Fed is doing now (sending money directly to consumers) smacks of desperation. It's a joke.

The sad thing is that none of what you have described addresses the root cause of the problem, which is our perpetual growth model of economics. Everything is about "how do we continue to grow" instead of "shouldn't we stop growing at some point?". Only cancer grows forever. And maybe Bitcoin. hmmmm 

*tons of population talk snipped for brevity*

https://youtu.be/ezVk1ahRF78?t=616

I think if you scratch the surface, you will find that Ariemoller is concerned about the lack of growth of one particular kind of population...

If you are going to debate you have to stop making things up.
I'm not worried about the lack of growth, we, humanity, will fix that, just as we are now fixing the overgrowth.
And I have nowhere mentioned any particular population, that remark says a lot about you and nothing about me.

[Arriemoller]

But I would like more redheads though, I like redheads.

[Karartma1]

You know, my brain's wheels are turning right now with a thought:

"Is an inflationary money policy the driver behind the desire to endlessly consume?"

Yes.


We are being driven towards endless consumption in order to perpetuate the status quo. We are always to be two missed paychecks from destitution so we will latch onto any false form of material happiness marketed towards our fears and frustrations.

And so continuing to expand the money supply and cheaper credit worked for a while. Until 1997. And then it didn't anymore. You can also see on the chart where consumer spending fell completely off the cliff.

What the Fed is doing now (sending money directly to consumers) smacks of desperation. It's a joke.

The sad thing is that none of what you have described addresses the root cause of the problem, which is our perpetual growth model of economics. Everything is about "how do we continue to grow" instead of "shouldn't we stop growing at some point?". Only cancer grows forever. And maybe Bitcoin. hmmmm 

*tons of population talk snipped for brevity*

https://youtu.be/ezVk1ahRF78?t=616

I think if you scratch the surface, you will find that Ariemoller is concerned about the lack of growth of one particular kind of population...

Time preference.
That's the deal.
People have been fooled into this work, obey, consume routine and they can't escape.
Most of the ghosts around us are like Cypher from the Matrix: you may know the steak is not real, but you like it anyway.

[Arriemoller]

Price going down yo.

[AlcoHoDL]

https://youtu.be/ezVk1ahRF78?t=616

Interesting talk. Thanks.

[Phil_S]

I believe 10 million is a very conservative estimate.

So you think the total value of all bitcoins reaching the total worldwide household wealth is 'conservative'?
I think Hal was trying to estimate the upper limit for btc price.

I believe that within 30 years bitcoin will be worth around 1billion USD in todays money.

So the total value of all bitcoins would be... 100x of worldwide wealth?

[AlcoHoDL]

I believe 10 million is a very conservative estimate.

So you think the total value of all bitcoins reaching the total worldwide household wealth is 'conservative'?
I think Hal was trying to estimate the upper limit for btc price.

I believe that within 30 years bitcoin will be worth around 1billion USD in todays money.

So the total value of all bitcoins would be... 100x of worldwide wealth?

I think Bitcoin reaching $1M by 2030 will be a truly life-changing event for most (almost all) of us WOers. This will be "fuck you" richness x10 for most, giving us both wealth and safety.

Now, if only it would come by 2025... Dreams, dreams...

[Kylapoiss]

I believe 10 million is a very conservative estimate.

So you think the total value of all bitcoins reaching the total worldwide household wealth is 'conservative'?
I think Hal was trying to estimate the upper limit for btc price.

I believe that within 30 years bitcoin will be worth around 1billion USD in todays money.

So the total value of all bitcoins would be... 100x of worldwide wealth?

I think Bitcoin reaching $1M by 2030 will be a truly life-changing event for most (almost all) of us WOers. This will be "fuck you" richness x10 for most, giving us both wealth and safety.

Now, if only it would come by 2025... Dreams, dreams...

No need to be hasty, 2030 will do well

[Arriemoller]

I believe 10 million is a very conservative estimate.

So you think the total value of all bitcoins reaching the total worldwide household wealth is 'conservative'?
I think Hal was trying to estimate the upper limit for btc price.

I believe that within 30 years bitcoin will be worth around 1billion USD in todays money.

So the total value of all bitcoins would be... 100x of worldwide wealth?

Yes, world wide wealth is a very sucky indicator.
Wealth is unevenly distributed, all it takes is for the wealthy to buy all the bitcoin they can, and the price will surge well above the "total wealth of the world"

To be clearer, bitcoin is a commodity, the price is set by supply and demand. The price of a single bitcoin has nothing to do with the total world wealth, just like the price of a barrel of oil or a Rolls Royce has nothing to do with total world wealth.

Edited.