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

[Mbitr]

I'm just leaving some arbitrary numbers so I can quote them in the far future:

Wall Observer page 30,000: 1 BTC = $89,653.

 

Gotta love Bitcoin

“As for the future, your task is not to foresee it, but to enable it.”
—  Antoin de Saint-Exupéry, 1900-1940, French writer

[OutOfMemory]

C'mon  
DUDE WEARS NO HAT?!

+1 WOsMerit for the find  


PlanB got good company:

https://twitter.com/fairfreedigital/status/1461144630972534788?t=g5rKryzv28SLKvoj8bTdHg&s=03

Read the paper.

SPOILER ALERT
I skip to the main part:

30,000 pages and still no new forum software.

Never change a running system.
Never change a winning team.
Never change WO 

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[OutOfMemory]

About these purple "no trespassing" markings, can't this be used by someone to get away with murder? You drag someone inside the fence, you shoot him dead, and then claim he was trespassing and did not respond to verbal warnings and warning shots. How would the authorities in the relevant USA territories deal with this?

Shooting trespassers is not actually legal. However, the truth of the matter is that if you have any amount of land, you could make the body disappear and that would probably be that.

You get better chances with a little help of our animal friends...

Oregon serial killer Susan Monica murdered two men, dismembered them and fed them to her hogs. But she was caught when remains were found on her 20-acre farm.

So hogs won’t eat everything?

The TV Tropes website seems to verify this, explaining that a pig will “eat meat if they are able to come by it. Fact of the matter is, pigs can eat almost anything they can chew. (They’ve even been known to eat pork if they find it.)”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xUynRdzzsM

That's where i got the original idea from. Great movie, too.
Fun fact: The blonde guy in the scene is Goldie, a UK based jungle/drum'n bass pioneer, who helped a lot establishing the genre in the mainstream (and charts), co-founded "Metalheadz" Label, which was one foundation of today's common drum'n bass, evolving out of the Jungle genre.
I think his breakthrough track was "inner city life".

[LoyceV]

Here we go AGAIN...WTF!
CMC-one minute it shows 51K, another-$7.3 mil.

Alpha testing their system for hyperinflation

[Arriemoller]

Is that not a problem?  According to an earlier post (no pun intended!) the purple paint must be “placed so that the bottom of the mark is not less than 3 feet from the ground or more than 5 feet from the ground.“ so if it goes right down to the ground it's not compliant.
Probably not serious, but you wouldn't want an issue on a technicality.

tl;dr: Posts painted entirely purple are more than is required.

Texas Penal Code § 30.05. Criminal Trespass

Sec 2 (D) the placement of identifying purple paint marks on trees or posts on the property, provided that the marks are:

(ii) placed so that the bottom of the mark is not less than three feet from the ground or more than five feet from the ground;  and

.... this seems quite clear that the mark needs to end 3 to 5 feet above the ground

.... a post painted all the way to the ground is just a purple post, not a purple-marked post

... at least it's an upgrade on a rusty old pipe

Doesn't the "not less than" part mean that you can paint it more if you so desire

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[tertius993]

Is that not a problem?  According to an earlier post (no pun intended!) the purple paint must be “placed so that the bottom of the mark is not less than 3 feet from the ground or more than 5 feet from the ground.“ so if it goes right down to the ground it's not compliant.
Probably not serious, but you wouldn't want an issue on a technicality.

tl;dr: Posts painted entirely purple are more than is required.

Texas Penal Code § 30.05. Criminal Trespass

Sec 2 (D) the placement of identifying purple paint marks on trees or posts on the property, provided that the marks are:

(ii) placed so that the bottom of the mark is not less than three feet from the ground or more than five feet from the ground;  and

.... this seems quite clear that the mark needs to end 3 to 5 feet above the ground

.... a post painted all the way to the ground is just a purple post, not a purple-marked post

... at least it's an upgrade on a rusty old pipe

Doesn't the "not less than" part mean that you can paint it more if you so desire

Don’t think so. I am not a lawyer but that reads as “at least” to me. E.g. two feet or even no feet is “less than” three feet and so fails the “not less than” test.  I assume the point being that it shows as a clearly applied mark rather than simply happening to be a purple bit of material that was used to it make a fence.

It may be that it has become common for the posts to be wholly purple and it will be thus generally understood that that is equally acceptable.

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[Arriemoller]

Is that not a problem?  According to an earlier post (no pun intended!) the purple paint must be “placed so that the bottom of the mark is not less than 3 feet from the ground or more than 5 feet from the ground.“ so if it goes right down to the ground it's not compliant.
Probably not serious, but you wouldn't want an issue on a technicality.

tl;dr: Posts painted entirely purple are more than is required.

Texas Penal Code § 30.05. Criminal Trespass

Sec 2 (D) the placement of identifying purple paint marks on trees or posts on the property, provided that the marks are:

(ii) placed so that the bottom of the mark is not less than three feet from the ground or more than five feet from the ground;  and

.... this seems quite clear that the mark needs to end 3 to 5 feet above the ground

.... a post painted all the way to the ground is just a purple post, not a purple-marked post

... at least it's an upgrade on a rusty old pipe

Doesn't the "not less than" part mean that you can paint it more if you so desire

Don’t think so. I am not a lawyer but that reads as “at least” to me. E.g. two feet or even no feet is “less than” three feet and so fails the “not less than” test.  I assume the point being that it shows as a clearly applied mark rather than simply happening to be a purple bit of material that was used to it make a fence.

It may be that it has become common for the posts to be wholly purple and it will be thus generally understood that that is equally acceptable.

I read that as a minimum requirement that you can exceed if you so desire. But I'm not a native speaker.

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[tertius993]

Is that not a problem?  According to an earlier post (no pun intended!) the purple paint must be “placed so that the bottom of the mark is not less than 3 feet from the ground or more than 5 feet from the ground.“ so if it goes right down to the ground it's not compliant.
Probably not serious, but you wouldn't want an issue on a technicality.

tl;dr: Posts painted entirely purple are more than is required.

Texas Penal Code § 30.05. Criminal Trespass

Sec 2 (D) the placement of identifying purple paint marks on trees or posts on the property, provided that the marks are:

(ii) placed so that the bottom of the mark is not less than three feet from the ground or more than five feet from the ground;  and

.... this seems quite clear that the mark needs to end 3 to 5 feet above the ground

.... a post painted all the way to the ground is just a purple post, not a purple-marked post

... at least it's an upgrade on a rusty old pipe

Doesn't the "not less than" part mean that you can paint it more if you so desire

Don’t think so. I am not a lawyer but that reads as “at least” to me. E.g. two feet or even no feet is “less than” three feet and so fails the “not less than” test.  I assume the point being that it shows as a clearly applied mark rather than simply happening to be a purple bit of material that was used to it make a fence.

It may be that it has become common for the posts to be wholly purple and it will be thus generally understood that that is equally acceptable.

I read that as a minimum requirement that you can exceed if you so desire. But I'm not a native speaker.

I don’t think so, though I agree it is poorly worded.  I believe what it is trying to say is that the bottom (i.e. the lowest point) of the mark must be between 3 and 5 feet above the ground.

[philipma1957]

Is that not a problem?  According to an earlier post (no pun intended!) the purple paint must be “placed so that the bottom of the mark is not less than 3 feet from the ground or more than 5 feet from the ground.“ so if it goes right down to the ground it's not compliant.
Probably not serious, but you wouldn't want an issue on a technicality.

tl;dr: Posts painted entirely purple are more than is required.

Texas Penal Code § 30.05. Criminal Trespass

Sec 2 (D) the placement of identifying purple paint marks on trees or posts on the property, provided that the marks are:

(ii) placed so that the bottom of the mark is not less than three feet from the ground or more than five feet from the ground;  and

.... this seems quite clear that the mark needs to end 3 to 5 feet above the ground

.... a post painted all the way to the ground is just a purple post, not a purple-marked post

... at least it's an upgrade on a rusty old pipe

Doesn't the "not less than" part mean that you can paint it more if you so desire

Don’t think so. I am not a lawyer but that reads as “at least” to me. E.g. two feet or even no feet is “less than” three feet and so fails the “not less than” test.  I assume the point being that it shows as a clearly applied mark rather than simply happening to be a purple bit of material that was used to it make a fence.

It may be that it has become common for the posts to be wholly purple and it will be thus generally understood that that is equally acceptable.

I read that as a minimum requirement that you can exceed if you so desire. But I'm not a native speaker.

As a native speaker taught in Brooklyn , NY

I read it as inbetween 36 and 60 inches.

Interestedly it does mean it could be a small mark about an inch of purple say at the 48 inch mark.

Which is cooler since the piece of shit may not see it.


Bob can paint a rainbow at the 12 inch to 36 inch mark to correct his error.

pun intended

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[El duderino_]

Who’s selling at bottom ?

Or at -38% ?

Anything from here to lower is considered very very weird to say the least

[cAPSLOCK]

Wasn't that long ago that we were celebrating BTC hitting WO post parity.

I wish.

If Bitcoin does not fail, and is not superseded by another project, your wish will be granted.

[cAPSLOCK]

30,000 pages and still no new forum software.

SMF really is nice forum software.  I ran a little forum for a while using it.

But it's amazingly odd that this forum has withstood the sorts of pressures it has running an outdated version of what was an early release of the software.

Seriously... it sort of does not make any sense at all.  I have noticed mods combining sequential posts a lot recently.  I assume the database is becoming unwieldy.

[cAPSLOCK]

https://twitter.com/fairfreedigital/status/1461144630972534788?t=g5rKryzv28SLKvoj8bTdHg&s=03

Read the paper.

SPOILER ALERT
I skip to the main part:

Well... That is a wacky sort of graph.  But I kind of like it!  Still, I feel certain Proudhon would not approve of the math/science behind that one.

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[Gachapin]

Who’s selling at bottom ?

Or at -38% ?

Anything from here to lower is considered very very weird to say the least

I woke up, saw the push back down and thought exactly the same.

Maybe manipulation to buy cheap OTC.
But def. some frustration to the short term bulls.