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

[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.

[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.

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.

You don't understand, the price of a commodity has nothing to do with the total wealth of the world, they are two separate things.
My prediction is no more overboard then 1100 USD was in 2011 or 20000 USD was in 2015, but time will tell, its just an educated guess.

[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.

You don't understand, the price of a commodity has nothing to do with the total wealth of the world, they are two separate things.
My prediction is no more overboard then 1100 USD was in 2011 or 20000 USD was in 2015, but time will tell, its just an educated guess.

The only way I see your "$1B / BTC in 2050" prediction coming true is if the Fed's money printers go real brrrrrrrrrr!

Edit: And, of course, I'm talking about 2050's money, not today's money. "$1B / BTC in today's money" is just insane, at least the way I understand it (and the way Hal understood it when he made that post, I think).

[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.

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.

You don't understand, the price of a commodity has nothing to do with the total wealth of the world, they are two separate things.
My prediction is no more overboard then 1100 USD was in 2011 or 20000 USD was in 2015, but time will tell, its just an educated guess.

The only way I see your "$1B / BTC in 2050" prediction coming true is if the Fed's money printers go real brrrrrrrrrr!

Why?

Do you think all demand will dry up when we hit 10 mil?
The only way we will stop at 10 mil is if everybody in the whole world has adopted bitcoin at that point and the price is now stable.
I very much doubt that.

[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.

You don't understand, the price of a commodity has nothing to do with the total wealth of the world, they are two separate things.
My prediction is no more overboard then 1100 USD was in 2011 or 20000 USD was in 2015, but time will tell, its just an educated guess.

The only way I see your "$1B / BTC in 2050" prediction coming true is if the Fed's money printers go real brrrrrrrrrr!

Why?

Do you think all demand will dry up when we hit 10 mil?
The only way we will stop at 10 mil is if everybody in the whole world has adopted bitcoin at that point and the price is now stable.
I very much doubt that.

So, you're saying that we'll stop at $10M / BTC if worldwide Bitcoin adoption is 100%, but we can go 100x (at $1B / BTC) if worldwide Bitcoin adoption is less than 100%?

I'm clearly not understanding something here...

Edit: I guess what you mean is that there will come a time when BTC coins will be seen as extremely rare objects of desire, much like Leonardo da Vinci's Mona Lisa, so the price can be set arbitrarily high. Well, there is only one Mona Lisa, but millions of BTC... I don't think Mona Lisa's price would be the same if there were 18 million identical Mona Lisas available. Supply & demand. In any case, $10M / BTC is already beyond most HoDLers' wildest expectations, and I would prefer a worldwide adoption approaching 100%, which gives HoDLers safety, as well as wealth.

[Sayeds56]

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.

You are absolutely right.





https://www.tradingview.com/chart/BTCUSD/pUjKZdrh-BITCOIN-All-bearish-barriers-broken-Stairway-to-70k/

[Kylapoiss]

*SNIP*

So, you're saying that we'll stop at $10M / BTC if worldwide Bitcoin adoption is 100%, but we can go 100x (at $1B / BTC) if worldwide Bitcoin adoption is less than 100%?

I'm clearly not understanding something here...

Edit: I guess what you mean is that there will come a time when BTC coins will be seen as extremely rare objects of desire, much like Leonardo da Vinci's Mona Lisa, so the price can be set arbitrarily high. Well, there is only one Mona Lisa, but millions of BTC... I don't think Mona Lisa's price would be the same if there were 18 million identical Mona Lisas available. Supply & demand. In any case, $10M / BTC is already beyond most HoDLers' wildest expectations, and I would prefer a worldwide adoption approaching 100%, which gives HoDLers safety, as well as wealth.

So you say if there were 18 million Mona Lisas then each and every one of them would cost 60k? I doubt that.

I understand what Arrie is saying but I think 1b is a bit overthrown, maybe somewhere around 100mil in todays value by 2050.

Does todays money supply even matter? Why BTC can't overrun the total monetary value?

[AlcoHoDL]

*SNIP*

So, you're saying that we'll stop at $10M / BTC if worldwide Bitcoin adoption is 100%, but we can go 100x (at $1B / BTC) if worldwide Bitcoin adoption is less than 100%?

I'm clearly not understanding something here...

Edit: I guess what you mean is that there will come a time when BTC coins will be seen as extremely rare objects of desire, much like Leonardo da Vinci's Mona Lisa, so the price can be set arbitrarily high. Well, there is only one Mona Lisa, but millions of BTC... I don't think Mona Lisa's price would be the same if there were 18 million identical Mona Lisas available. Supply & demand. In any case, $10M / BTC is already beyond most HoDLers' wildest expectations, and I would prefer a worldwide adoption approaching 100%, which gives HoDLers safety, as well as wealth.

So you say if there were 18 million Mona Lisas then each and every one of them would cost 60k? I doubt that.

I understand what Arrie is saying but I think 1b is a bit overthrown, maybe somewhere around 100mil in todays value by 2050.

Does todays money supply even matter? Why BTC can't overrun the total monetary value?

Bitcoin is transcending from being a store of value to being value itself.

I like the sound of that!

[Kylapoiss]

https://99bitcoins.com/bitcoin-obituaries/

This hasn't been posted for a while, looks like we are gaining immortality

[OutOfMemory]

Price going down yo.

Say hello to CME futures expiry 
Tomorrow it's settlement day, number be going up yo 
Did i already mention i hate bitcoin options and futures contracts, because of the manipulators they attracted? 

[Phil_S]

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.

World wide wealth is not 10 million dollars.

[Sayeds56]

Price going down yo.

Say hello to CME futures expiry 
Tomorrow it's settlement day, number be going up yo 
Did i already mention i hate bitcoin options and futures contracts, because of the manipulators they attracted? 

Absolutely right. Options and Futures contracts are SHOW STOPPERS.

[somac.]

Price going down yo.

Say hello to CME futures expiry  
Tomorrow it's settlement day, number be going up yo  
Did i already mention i hate bitcoin options and futures contracts, because of the manipulators they attracted?  

This same thing happens every Sunday though. I'm tempted to channel proudhon on the Saturday and go max short with 100x leverage until the Monday.  

[ImThour]

Finally, my parents are going to invest in BTC. 
Let's hope they get the same profit percentage I got in 2 years.

[lightfoot]

This little video clip explains shitcoins perfectly.

https://i.imgur.com/4ANvLEV.mp4

[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.

World wide wealth is not 10 million dollars.

No of course not, it's not my words, it's apparently Hal Finney's