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

[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

[1713971399]

1713971399

[1713971399]

1713971399

[1713971399]

1713971399

[1713971399]

1713971399

[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.

[Arriemoller]

95.2 million barrels of oil was produced daily in 2019.
The price was something like 65 USD a barrel.
95,2 million times 65 USD is a lot more than the world wide wealth of 10 million dollars, how is that possible? there is no way people is going to be able to buy all that oil, there is not enough money in the world.
Oh, wait, they did, because that's not how you count in economics.
His strength was in coding, not economics.

[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?

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.

Yes, but all those Bitcoins will be owned by people... Won't they then be part of the "total wealth of the world" by definition?

[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.

Yes, but all those Bitcoins will be owned by people... Won't they then be part of the "total wealth of the world" by definition?

I don't know, I don't know where Hal got his numbers from and if those numbers included commodities owned or if it was just fiat money owned.

[Kylapoiss]

https://news.bitcoin.com/some-african-crypto-users-see-bitcoin-as-an-alternative-source-of-retirement-income/


Is this the so called mainstream adoption?

I don't really see that as any kind of new phenomena.  Sure more and more people are becoming aware of bitcoin and figuring out ways to attempt to allow bitcoin to either supplement their other expected sources of retirement income or to replace their other expected sources of retirement income.

Many of us here realize that if you attempt to rush such a retirement or "fuck you" plan, you could well end up screwing up such plan because you get overly excited, you pull the fuck you lever too soon, you fail/refuse to calculate for BTC's volatility or transfer into fiat based assets which actually might not help you in terms of how you treated BTC's volatility, you get distracted into ideas of earning "interest" on your bitcoin and then put too much of your bitcoin at risk, or other ways of insufficiently planning based on personal situations and also reasonable attempting to understand how bitcoin might fit into that by trying to have a decent grasp on how to use such bitcoin to your advantage.

In sum, I don't really consider the contents of such above-linked article as anything really new because the devil is in the details in terms of how bitcoin might be incorporated into a retirement plan, and of course, today we likely will consider the matter of how to incorporate bitcoin into such retirement plan differently as compared with 3-8 years ago, but even with much of what us longer-term bitcoiners perceive to be increases in liquidity, options and adoption, there still seem to be quite a bit of ongoing lackenings of widespread adoption (mainstream) because in some sense retail remains somewhat scared about recent price increases of 5-6x (so they do not understand and they fear getting dumped on- which is a real and legitimate fear), while BIGGER players and institutions are behind the scenes scooping up bitcoins and also playing around with some of the various evolving bitcoin related financial products to attempt to figure out if there are ways that they can profit through the use of such ongoingly developing financial products that are not so much accessible by retail (while retail is increasingly getting scared by hurdles including KYC, AML and other bullshit complications of just trying to get some systems set up for their lil selfies and perhaps their modest DCA'ing or other reasonable tactics that they might perhaps consider employing).

I fucked up my plan once already, won't be that stupid again. This thread has been a huge reason why I even got back and did it even in somewhat smart way.

[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?

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.

Yes, but all those Bitcoins will be owned by people... Won't they then be part of the "total wealth of the world" by definition?

I don't know, I don't know where Hal got his numbers from and if those numbers included commodities owned or if it was just fiat money owned.

I think Hal was suggesting a price of $10M / BTC. That's well within the "total wealth of the world". It's your $1B / BTC prediction that's going way overboard...

Unless you mean that USD will be so devalued by that time, that it will be worth a tiny fraction of today's USD worth. Which means that using USD to measure BTC value may not be a good indicator.