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

[Arriemoller]

Hal Finney used $200 trillion as estimation for worldwide wealth.

He divided that number by 20 million bitcoins, and the result is $10 mil per bitcoin estimation.

Ok, sounds more reasonable, but still, Worldwide wealth doesn't matter, that's in no way a cap on any commodity.

[1713482436]

1713482436

[1713482436]

1713482436

[LFC_Bitcoin]

@APompilano

The world will look back and laugh at how archaic it was for elites to arrogantly believe they were better at monetary policy than programmatic software code.

https://twitter.com/apompliano/status/1388840187640299520?s=21

[Arriemoller]

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? 

Thanks, didn't know that.

[JayJuanGee]

[edited]

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  

Sure the rhetoric of traditional systems is about "perpetual growth," and there is some truth in that because technological changes do allow for various kinds of ongoing growth - but there is also some smoke and mirrors going on too in terms of the various kinds of manipulation that goes on with the monetary attempts to direct rewards and punishments, somewhat outside of the free market - and surely, I do believe that there are some roles for government because I do believe that there are some public goods whose usage and enjoyment are not going to get resolved voluntarily (or through the free market).  

Whatever the various dynamics, I doubt that it is fair to characterize traditional monetary (debt) systems (or whatever systems you are criticizing - the rhetoric, perhaps?) as cancerous, unless you are anti-human, but I do believe that bitcoin does provide a lot of incentives to reign in a lot of the excesses and the sloppinesses around money (which ends up affecting a lot of other areas, too) - and the seemingly perpetual debt system that many of us believe to be out of control, even though some BIGGER players say publicly that they believe that they can keep our monetary system sustainable (yeah right...   )  

Bitcoin may well NOT fix everything, but surely bitcoin remains part of our future picture because it is going to continue to provide a transitioning vehicle that may well take another 20 to 50 years for the tougher parts of it to play out, and those of us** who have been investing early into bitcoin (financially, psychologically, skills and knowledge building, and perhaps other ways) are likely to profit quite handsomely for our early involvement as a kind of bonus side-benefit in terms of being recipients of a likely greatest wealth transfer ever witnessed in humanity - even while nothing is guaranteed and we cannot really know details of how all of the bitcoin-related matters will play out - beyond speculation based on knowns and unknowns. 

**By the way, some of us have already profited stupendously from bitcoin, but whatever get over it if you are a newbie or a no coiner or a few coiner.  Even newbies are likely going to profit stupendously if they get the fuck started in bitcoin ASAP.... (and stop sitting around and failing/refusing to take an adequate stake in bitcoin) and figure out some kind of sound and reasonable way to both get a reasonable stake in bitcoin and to continue to assess and reassess their involvement (stake) in bitcoin by maintaining (and perhaps even increasing) their stake with the passage of time.

[Richy_T]

Basically, yes and yes.
The supply and demand formula tells us that when there is a limited supply (or infinite demand, like for example hospital treatment for a life threatening heart attack), the price goes up much, much faster/higher when demand increases then in a normal market situation, it's called inelastic supply.
Now assume that about two percent of the world population owns bitcoin today, and the price is already at 60k, then just imagine what the price will be when 50 percent of the worlds population owns bitcoin, and add institutional investors on top of that, then 1 bil doesn't seem to far away anymore.

Well, the demand part is also important. Bitcoin doesn't solve "life threatening" problems.

I always like to go to first principles. Supply and demand as it relates to Bitcoin is not a first order effect. It always comes down to one person trading with another on an exchange. Multiply that by thousands of someones and supply/demand effects on price falls out of it but it's a stochastic effect. Sentiment is always going to dominate. If everyone absolutely agrees that a Bitcoin is worth $60000, it doesn't matter what the supply/demand is, that's what it's going to trade at. Fortunately, everyone has a different idea of what it's worth and over time, those who believe it has higher value are winning.

[Phil_S]

Hal Finney used $200 trillion as estimation for worldwide wealth.

He divided that number by 20 million bitcoins, and the result is $10 mil per bitcoin estimation.

Ok, sounds more reasonable, but still, Worldwide wealth doesn't matter, that's in no way a cap on any commodity.

Is there a historical example of some commodity that worth more than worldwide wealth?

[JimboToronto]

Good morn Bitcoinland.
Five six seven twenty four
(Bitcoinaverage).

Another Sunday...
A good time to take a bath,
Lie back and relax.

Knowing that Bitcoin
Is there to secure for us
A happy future.

[Arriemoller]

Basically, yes and yes.
The supply and demand formula tells us that when there is a limited supply (or infinite demand, like for example hospital treatment for a life threatening heart attack), the price goes up much, much faster/higher when demand increases then in a normal market situation, it's called inelastic supply.
Now assume that about two percent of the world population owns bitcoin today, and the price is already at 60k, then just imagine what the price will be when 50 percent of the worlds population owns bitcoin, and add institutional investors on top of that, then 1 bil doesn't seem to far away anymore.

Well, the demand part is also important. Bitcoin doesn't solve "life threatening" problems.

I always like to go to first principles. Supply and demand as it relates to Bitcoin is not a first order effect. It always comes down to one person trading with another on an exchange. Multiply that by thousands of someones and supply/demand effects on price falls out of it but it's a stochastic effect. Sentiment is always going to dominate. If everyone absolutely agrees that a Bitcoin is worth $60000, it doesn't matter what the supply/demand is, that's what it's going to trade at. Fortunately, everyone has a different idea of what it's worth and over time, those who believe it has higher value are winning.

Well, an increasing demand for the foreseeable future is of course a given. I really shouldn't have to spell everything out in this thread like you were some kind of n00bs that needs to have everything explained.

And " If everyone absolutely agrees that a Bitcoin is worth $60000, it doesn't matter what the supply/demand is, that's what it's going to trade at. Fortunately, everyone has a different idea of what it's worth and over time, those who believe it has higher value are winning."
That IS how supply and demand works.

[JayJuanGee]

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.

We should not be ascribing sorcery status to anyone, even smart peeps (whether Hal or Satoshi or whoever), especially for things that they said in early 2009 when bitcoin was merely just getting off the ground.  They are giving broad and overview ideas, but they cannot really know some of the specific branches that might grow in the future or even some specific attributes that might get incorporated into main aspects of the tree.  

Accordingly, I would suspect that Hal was attempting to give a ballpark figure of various aspects of what he understood to have been then storage of wealth and monies.. so I doubt that it necessarily accounts for some various kinds of innovative storage of wealth and monies (even if they might remain a relatively smaller component), and I would think that his ballparking was based on 2009 valuations - so inflation would surely affect his figure - $10million today is not what $10million was in 2009, and likely $10million in 10 to 30 years from now is likely going to be considerably degraded based con what we currently see happening (and doubts about whether there are desires (or will develop desires) within traditional systems to reign in aspects of the ongoing denigration of the dollar to allow it to continue to survive - if that is even possible).    

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?

Seems that Arriemoller is accounting for ongoing denigration of the dollar - so maybe $10million and $1billion will be the same?  hahahahahaha.. but I see your point, Phil_S.. Arriemoller does seem to have lost some degree of tether (not the currency) to reality, which is not really unusual for him (based on his post history), for whatever that's worth..  

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...

Huh?  Why you so bearish AlcoHoDL?    

Historically, we have had in the ballpark of 80x to 150x for each of the 4 year cycles (referring to 2011 150x(+) (maybe does not count), 2013 = 100x, 2017 = 80x, and 2021 so far = 16x).**  Of course, with decreasing multiples with the passage of time, but still, even if there are far from any guarantees, why would we be expecting outrageous curtailment of the upward leg of the s-curve.  It's like you are prematurely suggesting that we are getting to the flat portion of the s-curve.  Yeah.. I know that there is no guarantees, but why presume that we are at the top of the s-curve without any real or meaningful evidence of such?

**By the way, to some degree, I can appreciate criticisms that my numbers are a bit loosey goosey, but I give few fucks, because I believe that my numbers are largely fair and reasonable because they attempt to go off of reasonable floor starting points for each cycle to provide estimates for the top of each of the previous cycles, the current cycle and attempting to project where future cycles may well go (without guarantees, of course).

So, if we concede that $64,895 is the top of this cycle at 16x, then maybe we get to your numbers of $1million by 2030, but it seems quite reasonable that this cycle is not over and it is NOT going to bring us only 16x.  

For this cycle, relatively conservative estimates still get us to $100k to $300k (so that would be 25x to 75x).  There are more bold and bullish out there (maybe just referring to peeps like my lil selfie) that suggest over shootings in the $500k to $1.5million territory. which would either already deliver $1million or would be within 2x of your $1million target - even though if something like $500k, were to be reached, $500k would not be the bouncing off point for the next cycle, but instead we would have to see where its floor ends up, which may well be anywhere between $40k and $100k as starting off point for the next cycle, which would still allow for $1million to be reached with 10x to 25x in the 2025 cycle's culmination.

In regards to the relatively more conservative estimates of $100k to $300k for this cycle, then for the next cycle we would likely have bouncing off points of $20k to $60k, so I am thinking that still $1million would still be within reasonable reach of the next cycle because $20k to $60k would be 16.6x to 50x for that cycle.. And, so (as I type) I can start to see that presuming 50x for the next cycle to be a bit presumptuous, even though I consider it to be reasonable.. and I will also say that reaching a million by 2029 or 2030 would be reasonable, too, even though it is likely not necessary to attempt to extract too much about what might happen two additional cycles down the road when we still have not finished this cycle nor have seen what the next cycle might have in store for us (which none of us longer term observers of the BTC space, including ur lil selfie, AlcoHoDL, would be surprised by $1million in the next cycle - even if we might be surprised by it in this cycle).  

Regarding your point about reaching 10x fuck you status, so yeah sure, there is likely a kind of entry level fuck you status and then there are multiples of that, but I am going to stick with my guns in terms of continuing to accuse you, and likely others too, of problematic thinking when continuing to asserts the price of tops as fuck you status level because of at least two reasons:  1) we know that tops have tended to be quite unreliable in bitcoin so 2) based on 1, you end up having to rely upon either cashing out some bitcoin or overly valuing your wealth in dollars to consider tops as your fuck you status achievements.

I will continue to agree with you and others (including that I do the same thing) about tops having importance and significance in terms of showing us where bitcoin is capable of going and showing where it is likely to go in future cycles, and also tops providing cushion regarding how much DOWNity would be feasibly within the cards and also there are likely going to be some cashing outs (shavings) of some of our BTC value at various price points on the way up, even if NOT being able to (nor wanting to) time the price top with any kind of precision.

[Arriemoller]

Hal Finney used $200 trillion as estimation for worldwide wealth.

He divided that number by 20 million bitcoins, and the result is $10 mil per bitcoin estimation.

Ok, sounds more reasonable, but still, Worldwide wealth doesn't matter, that's in no way a cap on any commodity.

Is there a historical example of some commodity that worth more than worldwide wealth?

I don't know, and I'm too tired to look.

But theoretically it would work something like this: the whole world population is 10 people, they have 1000 dollars each, so the world wealth is 10 000 dollars, one of them invents a currency called titcoin, all the other men in the world likes the idea and wants to buy some titcoins, there is only five coins in the world, two of these are auctioned out, the guys keep bidding and bidding and in the end they have pumped up the price so high that none of them can afford to buy a whole coin anymore. In the end one drops out (to simplify my math) and the remaining eight all buy a fourth of a coin for 900 dollars each, this puts the price of a whole coin at 3600 dollars. 3600 dollars times five is 18 000 dollars, that's 8000 dollars more than the world wealth.

You could alternatively say that they pay 900 dollars for a twelfth of a coin, that would put the price of a single coin at 10800 dollars, that would be more than the whole world wealth.

Edited.

[JayJuanGee]

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.

That's ridiculous Arriemoller.  Bitcoin makes little to no sense if it is NOT at least limited to world-wide wealth, so in some sense you are showing that at least your "creative" thinking is not tethered to anything.. hahahahhaha.. #nohomo

[edited out]

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.

A lot of us make mistakes along the way, and frequently, we will describe them in a kind of passive way as "mistakes were made."  

Probably we can attempt to learn from our mistakes, even if we frame them passively, and of course, if we take responsibilities for our mistakes, we should attempt NOT to beat too much on ourselves or to overreact in the opposite direction - which might cause us NOT to sufficiently learn from our mistakes in order to accomplish whatever tweakenings to our plans, approach and/or strategies without throwing out the baby with the bath water.

In other words, I am glad that you identified some of your mistakes, and I hope that you are able to find some kind of balance that works for you to tweak but not to overly tweak because I believe that in the end, whatever system(s) you are attempting to plan, create and follow for yourself does need to be specifically tailored to your situation and comforts while attempting to be realistic and prudent within your own tolerances at the same time.

It's no easy balance for any of us, and just figuring out all of our own details can be quite difficult to accomplish (maybe always a bit of a project?), and then even more difficult when we try to figure out some kind of balance with such a likely to continue to be considerably volatile asset, such as bitcoin.

By the way, another balance in participating in a forum (thread) like this does remain figuring out how much to share within the thread/forum versus going through some kind of self-directed process that allows you to figure out some of your own details in order that you can attempt to be somewhat strategic in terms of how much to share.  

I am currently considering sharing some information about some bitcoin related project(s) that I have been batting around in my head for a good several months, but I surely have to spend a wee bit more time working out some of the outline (and thereafter sorting through some of what I believe to be where some of the details are heading) before the ideas are really ripe to share on the forum (and surely likely to be a different thread when I get around to it - even though I will probably share some of the ideas in this thread too.. since this thread has been my main hanging out point on the forum anyhow, and maybe I will notice that there could already be some other threads on the forum that I might end up jumping into those threads rather than creating my own thread on the topic.. still to be figured out)...

*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!

Of course, value can be created through bitcoin in order to exceed the value of other current worldwide wealth assets/moneys, but there still remains some kind of limit in terms of people finding it useful or maybe the price goes beyond what it should actually be worth, then it corrects.  

In any event, even if some additional wealth is being created through the actual existence and increases in use cases/utility of bitcoin, it still seems that it needs to be tethered to something rather than what appears to be Arriemoller's vague, amorphous, pie in the sky proclamation that bitcoin has no tether... blah blah blah.

[Biodom]

I am reading on the interwebs that Coinbase Pro is about to add Tether.
Does it mean that tether finally made it and tether-related fud would be gone?
It makes sense as with tether being available in US, they (US institutions) would have access to the entire money flow.

[Toxic2040]

good morning and a blessed Sunday all

support building between $53k and $58k is a net positive for continuation of the Bull stampede
troops have been fighting hard and deserve a respite...a short one
take 10 minutes everyone!
SOMA report(next week sounds great)
some charts   #dyor
that is all

1h



4h

#stronghands

[Torque]

OT: So this is just how fucked up inflation has gotten.

In 2000 if you had taken your life savings and kept it in $USD fiat, you would now have lost ~37% of your purchasing power.
https://www.in2013dollars.com/us/inflation/2000?amount=1

So if you had $1M of paper money in 2000, it would today only buy $630,000 worth of goods.

Ironically if instead of dollars you had put it all into $1M of pre-1983 pennies, you would now be up 6.78X your money.

So if in 2000 you had instead dumped $1M into pure copper pennies (or bars), you would now have $6.78M, and roughly ~$4.27M worth of purchasing power.

Even fkn lowly copper has trounced fiat.

[STT]

Copper silver and gold were the traditional monetary metals I guess everyone knows but I think still it matters and will be relevant in future. I dont see commodities becoming redundant especially elements but perhaps varying according with demand in any applicable product..   Palladium is also in Islamic banking, probably a few other instances of possible monetary worth like platinum but those first initial three haven't exactly ever gone away.  It wasnt long ago but China banned copper from retention as a form of asset wealth by companies, they do have capital controls for the benefit of the state over private concerns I think.  All currencies had to reduce or deduct any proper worth from coins because the face value is so little.   Something like this bubble of value owed happened in Roman empire and made its citizens poorer , thats the silly thing we are repeating historic mistakes only the crypto and digital element gives any hope this time of some different outcome.   Monetary velocity is higher then what coins probably had a hundred or decades ago so its a bigger distortion of face value that isnt actually deliverable in total.

BTC is under 12hr  2 day and 30 day moving averages for the moment but more important would be relative to the 50 day and where we close the week.

So you think the total value of all bitcoins reaching the total worldwide household wealth is 'conservative'?

We have to estimate what we are seeing a peak of not in prices but usage perhaps like coal was at one time the energy market, it peaked it didnt stop just declined.    I think we're seeing a peak to FIAT currency and debt based or promissory value, it'll carry on but its never to dominate the world trade like it has now.   Inefficiency and failure have made some very poor due to their distance from the printing presses to themselves politically, nationally geographically and by sector.  The failure means some inventive industry who are productive didnt get capital in deference to those who merely juggled debt well and gained advantage by deducting a profitable difference in negatives.  Obviously finance and banking as the enablers of debt have gained the most favor from debt trading superior to working assets.
   We'll see a greater variety of traded assets then we have now, to see only BTC describe all world wealth is viewing the future through a vision made in the current era

[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? 

Thanks, didn't know that.

I made myself the mistake to buy a few days before a futures expiry last time, pretty close at ATH 
Could have gotten a good 5%+ discount if i would have been more cautionos about that...

CME Futures are at $57.315, so i'd be not too surprised if BTC stays below that until shortly after futures contracts expiry datetime.
We'll see anyway 

[Phil_S]

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?

Seems that Arriemoller is accounting for ongoing denigration of the dollar - so maybe $10million and $1billion will be the same?  hahahahahaha.. but I see your point, Phil_S.

Here, I highlighted the relevant parts in bold.

[Phil_S]

Hal Finney used $200 trillion as estimation for worldwide wealth.

He divided that number by 20 million bitcoins, and the result is $10 mil per bitcoin estimation.

Ok, sounds more reasonable, but still, Worldwide wealth doesn't matter, that's in no way a cap on any commodity.

Is there a historical example of some commodity that worth more than worldwide wealth?

I don't know, and I'm too tired to look.

Of course there no such examples.

It should be obvious:
The price of all gold in the world never exceeded the worldwide wealth.
The price of all copper in the world never exceeded the worldwide wealth.
The price of all real estate never exceeded the worldwide wealth.

Because the worldwide wealth is the sum of all that stuff.

[El duderino_]

[fillippone]

@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?

In brief: Taproot is the first step to have many other nice things in Bitcoin Fungibility (privacy).

The ultimate goal: Cross Input Signature Aggregation, which ultimately will make every bitcoin transaction look like a conjoin.
Learn more here:

Taproot Proposal
A Treatise on Bitcoin and Privacy

Maybe it's too soon, but things started rolling quite slowly.


According to Taproot.watch only a few miners with a cumulated hashpower of little more than 25% have been signalling activation: