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

[BitcoinBunny]

It's like BTC is on a stacked set of trampolines.

It keeps jumping up and down and then eventually breaks through to one below it and the same thing happens.

Hopefully there is an elevator with a booster jet waiting down below.


I still think on / after Thanksgiving we are going to get a boost. Just like in 2017.

[1715632301]

1715632301

[1715632301]

1715632301

[1715632301]

1715632301

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[tertius993]

I think that bitcoin cycles are already largely diminished, therefore the price dynamics will follow a random trajectory with a trend up, but we are not going to get an average of 200% per year anymore (maybe 50-100%).

I, too, a few months back suggested that the halvings are getting less and less relevant. Of course I didn't have this insight myself - it's something I read during the 2017 bull run. I got picked by a few fellow WOers, and there was a little discussion - quite civilized actually, no flame wars. After all that, however, I'm still not sure how "relevant" the last halving is going to be.

I definitely agree with this: over time as more coins are minted the relative impact of the halving reduces and so I think it is reasonable to expect the effect of the halving to reduce over time - probably resulting in lower peaks and a "rounder" more smoothed top.

If you consider in the first epoch, 10.5 million coins were issued.
In the second epoch, half that, so 5.25 million - but that is still roughly a third of the whole available supply (total 15.75 million).  Accordingly the impact of the first halving was large.
In the third epoch, half again so 2.625 million coins, 14% of the available supply (18.375 million)
In the fourth epoch (ie where we are now) 1.312 million coins will be issued, by the next halving that will amount to just 7% of the available supply (19.687 million).

So as each halving occurs its influence on the total supply will get smaller and smaller and so I would expect we will see a steady smoothing out of the halving impact, like a wave decaying over time.

[Majormax]

I think that bitcoin cycles are already largely diminished, therefore the price dynamics will follow a random trajectory with a trend up, but we are not going to get an average of 200% per year anymore (maybe 50-100%).

I, too, a few months back suggested that the halvings are getting less and less relevant. Of course I didn't have this insight myself - it's something I read during the 2017 bull run. I got picked by a few fellow WOers, and there was a little discussion - quite civilized actually, no flame wars. After all that, however, I'm still not sure how "relevant" the last halving is going to be.

I definitely agree with this: over time as more coins are minted the relative impact of the halving reduces and so I think it is reasonable to expect the effect of the halving to reduce over time - probably resulting in lower peaks and a "rounder" more smoothed top.

If you consider in the first epoch, 10.5 million coins were issued.
In the second epoch, half that, so 5.25 million - but that is still roughly a third of the whole available supply (total 15.75 million).  Accordingly the impact of the first halving was large.
In the third epoch, half again so 2.625 million coins, 14% of the available supply (18.375 million)
In the fourth epoch (ie where we are now) 1.312 million coins will be issued, by the next halving that will amount to just 7% of the available supply (19.687 million).

So as each halving occurs its influence on the total supply will get smaller and smaller and so I would expect we will see a steady smoothing out of the halving impact, like a wave decaying over time.

That is a good explanation of the chart-pattern we have been seeing over the last year. The lack of an exponential peak was leading many observers to conclude that this bull run was only in an early stage. However that does not fit the pattern very well.

It would seem logical that, as the market matures (and stock/flow, halving influence is part of that maturity, as well as adoption) the chart patterns will evolve and change. There will still be waves, but they are changing and flattening.

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[dragonvslinux]

I think that bitcoin cycles are already largely diminished, therefore the price dynamics will follow a random trajectory with a trend up, but we are not going to get an average of 200% per year anymore (maybe 50-100%).

I, too, a few months back suggested that the halvings are getting less and less relevant. Of course I didn't have this insight myself - it's something I read during the 2017 bull run. I got picked by a few fellow WOers, and there was a little discussion - quite civilized actually, no flame wars. After all that, however, I'm still not sure how "relevant" the last halving is going to be.

I definitely agree with this: over time as more coins are minted the relative impact of the halving reduces and so I think it is reasonable to expect the effect of the halving to reduce over time - probably resulting in lower peaks and a "rounder" more smoothed top.

[...]

So as each halving occurs its influence on the total supply will get smaller and smaller and so I would expect we will see a steady smoothing out of the halving impact, like a wave decaying over time.

That is a good explanation of the chart-pattern we have been seeing over the last year. The lack of an exponential peak was leading many observers to conclude that this bull run was only in an early stage. However that does not fit the pattern very well.

It would seem logical that, as the market matures (and stock/flow, halving influence is part of that maturity, as well as adoption) the chart patterns will evolve and change. There will still be waves, but they are changing and flattening.

Personally I don't see the relationship between the halvings and the scale of market tops. Each halving the impact on supply/demand is simply halved, so the idea of it's impact reducing like a wave breaking sounds about right, without needing to over-complicate the idea. But the tops are driven by the volume of rampant speculation that lacks rationale, I therefore don't see any price correlation with the halvings, only time-based.

The reasoning why tops are less parabolic and blow-off as each cycle passes, is simply due to the shift from retail to institutional investors, the need for an increasing amount of money to move the market. Along the lines of the first blow off top in 2011 being caused of nerds going a bit wild, followed by the 2013 top based on market-based speculators following suit. The 2017 top was retail based, when there was more mainstream adoption. Based on the amount of volume now required to have a parabolic blow off top, it would need to come from institutions, now that Bitcoin is a trillion dollar asset class. The reason it might not, is because institutions are usually more financially conservative and patient than retail investors, and less like to fomo, as well as panic sell for that matter.

Unless Bitcoin suddenly get's adopted by most US/EU banks when reaching 6 figures, and becomes easily accessible to vast percentages of population, or something similar, I don't see how retail investors can really create a bubble top this time around, especially while in the background many institutions will be taking profits. I still think the chance of a blow-off top coming from institutional investors, or more likely bored billionaires, is more than possible, but simply less extreme. There are many that won't invest until it's worth $2 trillion, $3 trillion, even $5 trillion. Despite the trend recommending to remain patient, there will be certain funds required to start investing their 1-2%, regardless of the short-term, because the market has reached a certain threshold required for long-term investment.

To me this explains why BTC spent a while above $60K early in the year before crashing, as it had reached a $1 trillion evaluation, and therefore required investment from certain institutions.

[tertius993]

I think that bitcoin cycles are already largely diminished, therefore the price dynamics will follow a random trajectory with a trend up, but we are not going to get an average of 200% per year anymore (maybe 50-100%).

I, too, a few months back suggested that the halvings are getting less and less relevant. Of course I didn't have this insight myself - it's something I read during the 2017 bull run. I got picked by a few fellow WOers, and there was a little discussion - quite civilized actually, no flame wars. After all that, however, I'm still not sure how "relevant" the last halving is going to be.

I definitely agree with this: over time as more coins are minted the relative impact of the halving reduces and so I think it is reasonable to expect the effect of the halving to reduce over time - probably resulting in lower peaks and a "rounder" more smoothed top.

[...]

So as each halving occurs its influence on the total supply will get smaller and smaller and so I would expect we will see a steady smoothing out of the halving impact, like a wave decaying over time.

That is a good explanation of the chart-pattern we have been seeing over the last year. The lack of an exponential peak was leading many observers to conclude that this bull run was only in an early stage. However that does not fit the pattern very well.

It would seem logical that, as the market matures (and stock/flow, halving influence is part of that maturity, as well as adoption) the chart patterns will evolve and change. There will still be waves, but they are changing and flattening.

Personally I don't see the relationship between the halvings and the scale of market tops. Each halving the impact on supply/demand is simply halved, so the idea of it's impact reducing like a wave breaking sounds about right, without needing to over-complicate the idea. But the tops are driven by the volume of rampant speculation that lacks rationale, I therefore don't see any price correlation with the halvings, only time-based.

The reasoning why tops are less parabolic and blow-off as each cycle passes, is simply due to the shift from retail to institutional investors, the need for an increasing amount of money to move the market. Along the lines of the first blow off top in 2011 being caused of nerds going a bit wild, followed by the 2013 top based on market-based speculators following suit. The 2017 top was retail based, when there was more mainstream adoption. Based on the amount of volume now required to have a parabolic blow off top, it would need to come from institutions, now that Bitcoin is a trillion dollar asset class. The reason it might not, is because institutions are usually more financially conservative and patient than retail investors, and less like to fomo, as well as panic sell for that matter.

Unless Bitcoin suddenly get's adopted by most US/EU banks when reaching 6 figures, and becomes easily accessible to vast percentages of population, or something similar, I don't see how retail investors can really create a bubble top this time around, especially while in the background many institutions will be taking profits. I still think the chance of a blow-off top coming from institutional investors, or more likely bored billionaires, is more than possible, but simply less extreme. There are many that won't invest until it's worth $2 trillion, $3 trillion, even $5 trillion. Despite the trend recommending to remain patient, there will be certain funds required to start investing their 1-2%, regardless of the short-term, because the market has reached a certain threshold required for long-term investment.

To me this explains why BTC spent a while above $60K early in the year before crashing, as it had reached a $1 trillion evaluation, and therefore required investment from certain institutions.

I would say that is more or less right as well (see qualifying note below), however, the investor profile (retail vs institutional vs ...) is independent of the halving cycle and the points made about the reduction of the halving impact over time was entirely responding to that point, i.e. will we see the relative size of the "cycles" reduce as the halvings get smaller over time.

Qualifying point: I think the market cap or $1 trillion valuation is a very misleading figure - the market cap is a purely mechanical construct that has very little do do with the money required to move the market, as that depends on the volume of coins that are actually available on the market (a tiny fraction of the total) and the demand for buying them. 

[Tash]

If implemented damn the world would dip over because to many people on one place, oh hang on already did. No seriously a true economic power house because people would have money in pocket to spent. It be compulsory for the girlfriend to go shopping. No room for freeloaders.
https://australiaoneparty.com/policies-summary/

[dragonvslinux]

I think that bitcoin cycles are already largely diminished, therefore the price dynamics will follow a random trajectory with a trend up, but we are not going to get an average of 200% per year anymore (maybe 50-100%).

I, too, a few months back suggested that the halvings are getting less and less relevant. Of course I didn't have this insight myself - it's something I read during the 2017 bull run. I got picked by a few fellow WOers, and there was a little discussion - quite civilized actually, no flame wars. After all that, however, I'm still not sure how "relevant" the last halving is going to be.

I definitely agree with this: over time as more coins are minted the relative impact of the halving reduces and so I think it is reasonable to expect the effect of the halving to reduce over time - probably resulting in lower peaks and a "rounder" more smoothed top.

[...]

So as each halving occurs its influence on the total supply will get smaller and smaller and so I would expect we will see a steady smoothing out of the halving impact, like a wave decaying over time.

That is a good explanation of the chart-pattern we have been seeing over the last year. The lack of an exponential peak was leading many observers to conclude that this bull run was only in an early stage. However that does not fit the pattern very well.

It would seem logical that, as the market matures (and stock/flow, halving influence is part of that maturity, as well as adoption) the chart patterns will evolve and change. There will still be waves, but they are changing and flattening.

Personally I don't see the relationship between the halvings and the scale of market tops. Each halving the impact on supply/demand is simply halved, so the idea of it's impact reducing like a wave breaking sounds about right, without needing to over-complicate the idea. But the tops are driven by the volume of rampant speculation that lacks rationale, I therefore don't see any price correlation with the halvings, only time-based.

The reasoning why tops are less parabolic and blow-off as each cycle passes, is simply due to the shift from retail to institutional investors, the need for an increasing amount of money to move the market. Along the lines of the first blow off top in 2011 being caused of nerds going a bit wild, followed by the 2013 top based on market-based speculators following suit. The 2017 top was retail based, when there was more mainstream adoption. Based on the amount of volume now required to have a parabolic blow off top, it would need to come from institutions, now that Bitcoin is a trillion dollar asset class. The reason it might not, is because institutions are usually more financially conservative and patient than retail investors, and less like to fomo, as well as panic sell for that matter.

Unless Bitcoin suddenly get's adopted by most US/EU banks when reaching 6 figures, and becomes easily accessible to vast percentages of population, or something similar, I don't see how retail investors can really create a bubble top this time around, especially while in the background many institutions will be taking profits. I still think the chance of a blow-off top coming from institutional investors, or more likely bored billionaires, is more than possible, but simply less extreme. There are many that won't invest until it's worth $2 trillion, $3 trillion, even $5 trillion. Despite the trend recommending to remain patient, there will be certain funds required to start investing their 1-2%, regardless of the short-term, because the market has reached a certain threshold required for long-term investment.

To me this explains why BTC spent a while above $60K early in the year before crashing, as it had reached a $1 trillion evaluation, and therefore required investment from certain institutions.

I would say that is more or less right as well (see qualifying note below), however, the investor profile (retail vs institutional vs ...) is independent of the halving cycle and the points made about the reduction of the halving impact over time was entirely responding to that point, i.e. will we see the relative size of the "cycles" reduce as the halvings get smaller over time.

Yes am aware I was going off point, simply to provide a perspective as to why prices will be less parabolic/volatile as each cycle passes, in order to shift away from halving speculation on price impact. Also agree the size of such cycles, or ups and downs let's say, will be reduced as the impact of the havlings are reduced. Even if this correlation isn't related, nor a cause and effect.

Qualifying point: I think the market cap or $1 trillion valuation is a very misleading figure - the market cap is a purely mechanical construct that has very little do do with the money required to move the market, as that depends on the volume of coins that are actually available on the market (a tiny fraction of the total) and the demand for buying them. 

I'm aware it has nothing to do with how much money is required to move the market etc, this is based on liquid supply as well as demand, but it's incredibly relevant to institutions. Many of which aren't able to touch an asset, or consider Bitcoin as a reserve asset, unless it's worth >$1 trillion. Others will be more conservative, they won't go near BTC until it's valued at $2 trillion, $3 trillion or even $10 trillion (private banks). Some will even be patiently waiting until it's worth Gold's $20 trillion, and won't touch it with a barge pole until then. State banks I imagine. The lower the risk required, the longer they will wait before adopting Bitcoin as a reserve asset. Bare in mind very few institutions are currently using BTC in this manner so far, even if enough have already dipped their toes in the water.

My point was, when a certain valuation threshold is reached, there are certain institutions that will be forced into purchasing in order to reduce risk, hence $60K holding for so long earlier in the year imo. The market was overvalued but remained as such for 3 months around $50K-60K, much longer than many expected. Whereas previously consolidation at such overbought levels is unprecedented for BTC.

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[d_eddie]

My point was, when a certain valuation threshold is reached, there are certain institutions that will be forced into purchasing in order to reduce risk, hence $60K holding for so long earlier in the year imo. The market was overvalued but remained as such for 3 months around $50K-60K, much longer than many expected. Whereas previously consolidation at such overbought levels is unprecedented for BTC.

This is some tasty insight.

+1 WOsMerit

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[aysg76]

While we all are waiting for btc to pump and break this $50k range including me i want to tell you all that i managed to complete my half yearly or say six months of Bitcoin investment journey and these dips have helped me a to accumulate more and that's why you know why i like them instead of panic sell.

My past six months Bitcoin journey

The more is yet to come and those who are busy making negative comments about it or are panic sell remember those who sold out in 2011-2015 are still regretting and same will happen to them also when you see $100-$200k range next year that's double almost but remember it's possible.Happy today 

[xhomerx10]

Winter is coming
Already too much darkness
Longing for the sun

 Being a shift-worker, I was always looking for something to help me switch back and forth.  Light therapy works and while there's nothing like natural sunlight, bright white LEDs seemed to do the trick.  I find it strange though how something called a SAD lamp can make one happy.

 https://www.healthline.com/health/sad-lamp

 There's also some research about light in the ears being beneficial and one company has come up with earbuds (sound capable!) to help with that.

 https://humancharger.com/global/

 I wonder when they'll come up with something similar to aid in perineum sunning?  Would it also come with sound?

[dragonvslinux]

My point was, when a certain valuation threshold is reached, there are certain institutions that will be forced into purchasing in order to reduce risk, hence $60K holding for so long earlier in the year imo. The market was overvalued but remained as such for 3 months around $50K-60K, much longer than many expected. Whereas previously consolidation at such overbought levels is unprecedented for BTC.

This is some tasty insight.

+1 WOsMerit

Welcome. A lot of my insight referenced comes from the likes of Willy Woo. He makes very rational arguments for why and when certain institutions will and won't invest, it all has nothing to do directly with price either, but market evaluations. One of his projections is 50% of the population holding Bitcoin by 2030. Not based on fundamentals nor specific theories, but simple statistical projections based on 12 years of blockchain data.
Currently 3% of the population own Bitcoin, at least by his metrics, and this % on average doubles every two years if I understand correctly.

[shahzadafzal]

“Boomers buy houses. Millennials mine bitcoin.”


Meme aside is it really possible to earn some Satoshis with couple of descent ASIC miner machines in the garage?

https://twitter.com/compass_mining/status/1462845243993337866?s=21

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[LoyceV]

Meme aside is it really possible to earn some Satoshis with couple of descent ASIC miner machines in the garage?

Only if you have really cheap electricity.

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[OutOfMemory]

Bounce, bounce, bounce...
Tis the new sideways?

Let the MSM declare Bitcoin as dead again and enjoy the pump shortly after.
Well, futures about to expire on friday, we might go down moar, or maybe whale manipulations are directed in the other direction, this time (Up, up, up before expiry).
I threw out my last lump-sum-money for a fresh dip of corn, i'll sit back and watch the show.
Hodling isn't easy, but it's easy, you know?