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

[ImThour]

Happy Birthday Satoshi (It's Hal for me)

46, Male
Japan

And BTC also around $46k, unable to cross $46k.

Is it a coincidence? Or a divine signal?

A divine signal to buy or short? 

[BitcoinBunny]

[Toxic2040]

interesting


https://twitter.com/MartyBent/status/1511364201276657672

+1 WOsMerit

----

some extremely talented and dedicated individuals out there working on this game changing project called bitcoin

thank you

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[Toxic2040]

morning moving averages

Saylor bought another 4k corn....market mini dumps...only better indicator might be our resident llama     

Elon buys 9% stake in Twitter...dogs rejoice

bitcoin consolidating heavily today..down 1.7% overnight and currently trading near $45.8kish


dyor

6h


12h


3d

stronghands

[Hueristic]

17 million customers and 19,000 registered sellers and recorded at least $1.35 billion in sales in 2020 alone. Despite the massive revenue, however, the German police were only able to seize 543 Bitcoin worth around $25 million at current prices due to the “Bitcoin Bank Mixer,” a proprietary mixing service for obfuscating Bitcoin transactions provided by the platform.

https://cryptobriefing.com/germany-seizes-25m-bitcoin-darknet-marketplace-bust/

[cAPSLOCK]

interesting


https://twitter.com/MartyBent/status/1511364201276657672

+1 WOsMerit

----

some extremely talented and dedicated individuals out there working on this game changing project called bitcoin

thank you

You beat me to it.

I think this is gonna kind of cause some folks some discomfort.

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[NoorulHuda]

Bitcoin's Lightning Labs Raises $70 Million, Announces Taro Stablecoin Protocol
https://decrypt.co/96921/bitcoin-lightning-labs-raises-70-million-taro-stablecoin-protocol

[NoorulHuda]

The percentage of supply that hasn't moved for at least a year (orange area) is nearing an ATH.
When we roll over we're at the spots marked by green circles — the start of a new bull market.



https://mobile.twitter.com/therationalroot/status/1511041107617935361

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[Richy_T]

There are working price strategies that can be used to keep the spot price of Bitcoin depressed while all this accumulation is going on.  I have mentioned it many times before but the idea is for a large entity to be buying X coins on the OTC markets and then selling a percentage of those coins on the retail markets as they continue to buy.  I used to consider this a theory.  But at this point I believe it is an inevitability.

I believe this is almost certainly going on. Given that the OTC purchasers have certainly negotiated a discount on the market price, it's the logical thing to do.

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[shahzadafzal]

I want this cup.



https://twitter.com/d_lastname_/status/1511416344775782400?s=21

[Toxic2040]

the noon wall report

dyor

ascending channel...not great
1h


or it could be we just haven't broke out of this bull flag
4h

stronghands

[HI-TEC99]

I want this cup.



https://twitter.com/d_lastname_/status/1511416344775782400?s=21

$15.99 + shipping, and you can probably pay with bitcoin as excellion redirects you to the GloBee payment gateway.

https://www.excellion.com/product/fck-you-money-mug/

[JayJuanGee]

Intel Launches New Bitcoin Mining Chips Focused on Sustainability

That doesn't make sense. If efficient chips are cheap, miners will just buy more of them and consume more energy.
If the chips are expensive, I bet producing them costs a lot of energy. One way or another, the sum of money spent on hardware and electricity will depend on how much money there is to be made mining.

Going from 27.5 or 31 J/TH to 26 J/TH doesn't really do much for sustainability anyway.

It is a closed-loop, energy-conserved system. If Intel releases mining chips that are more efficient (i.e., consume less energy per terahash) than conventional chips, miners will simply buy more such chips to make use of the resulting energy surplus. Difficulty will increase, reaching a new equilibrium, where the total energy used will get back to where it was before Intel's chips. The only way to limit energy usage is by legislation, i.e. somehow making it illegal to exceed an upper energy threshold when mining Bitcoin, effectively putting a cap on Bitcoin's price. As long as miners are allowed to use all energy available to them for mining, they will (and Bitcoin's price will increase accordingly). Whether that energy is powering GPUs or ASICs is irrelevant.

The reason Bitcoin mining uses more energy now than 10 years ago is not because of ASICs or new technology. It's simply because 10 years ago miners didn't care so much about Bitcoin and thus did not want to use a lot of energy. That's why price was so low then and is so high now. The more energy the network uses, the higher Bitcoin's value becomes. Limiting energy used for mining is equivalent to limiting Bitcoin price from increasing.

It's called Proof of Work for a reason. It's all about energy transfer. Electrical energy to "monetary" energy (value), and, according to the 1st law of thermodynamics, energy is conserved. Limit one, and you limit the other.

In several ways, I agree with points that you are making, but several of your points are phrased in ways that are confusing to me, because even though I consider incentives behind bitcoin mining to be a kind of moving dynamic – that will adjust to changes in technology, BTC price legislative factors and other factors such as number of other miners, I still find some of your explanation to be problematic because I cannot really tell if you are suggesting that miners are responding to BTC price or causing the BTC price to change, and also the part about legislators being able to control aspects of mining seems to be playing into what they want to do, but not so much describing what they are able to accomplish. 

Of course, I am not going to be saying anything that you do not know, but one of the interesting  dynamics of bitcoin is that it both assumes selfish behavior and it assumes bad actors, so in some sense bitcoin has some abilities to adjust to bad actors – including the difficulty adjustment, but also if legislators/governments put impediments onto bitcoin, then the mining and perhaps even use cases for bitcoin will likely move to less hostile jurisdictions, so part of the dynamics of having value imbedded into the coin would be that to engage in certain kinds of attacks against the network, the attacker has to engage in behavior that attacks himself….so I am bothered about whether that is fairly described as a “closed loop” or a self correction mechanism that you seem to be hinting at.. and for sure the dynamics are going to change and move in accordance with where some of the attacks might be made – and hopefully be able to survive in the end… so yeah, merely having a stake in the system is not enough to control the system, either… and maybe I am just bothered by a kind of seeming assumption that legislators might be able to be successful without having to gain widespread control in a variety of jurisdictions – which seems really difficult to achieve because some legislators are already getting on the bitcoin train and are likely to continue to get on the bitcoin train rather than attacking it (if they know what is for their own good)….

But one thing about bitcoin is that there is no coercion… Legislators, financial institutions, status quo rich, can each decide whether to jump on the bitcoin train, fight against bitcoin or to remain neutral, and with the passage of time, we will find out how their decisions are playing out, and even if they do not jump on board in 2014, or in 2018 or in 2021 or in 2025, there is nothing stopping them from jumping on board later, even if the train has gone further up the hill and they might have to jump on the more luxury version rather than the previously clunky version.

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[Arriemoller]

Ukraine’s General Staff: 18,500 Russian soldiers killed during invasion. Russian troops have also lost 676 tanks, 1,858 armored fighting vehicles, 332 artillery pieces, 107 multiple rocket launchers, 55 surface-to-air missiles, 150 jets, 134 helicopters, 7 ships, 76 fuel tanks, 94 drones, and 4 ballistic missile systems, the General Staff said on April 5.

A longer video of an ambush with Ukraines own Stugna-P.  They check out the column and when they see a TOS-1 Thermobaric artillery also known as  Borotino, they shoot. Apparently the first shot misses due to winds or something shaking the tripod, and the shooter gets, shall we say, a bit irritated, "suka pederasti blyat".
When the war is over  Stugna-P is gonna be a huge export succes me thinks. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PfOwUp_dos&ab_channel=%23BABYLON%2713

Not everything is small infantry units ambushing, heres a short clip of classic tank warfare over open fields, Canadian volontaires participated. https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=536050051278901&extid=CL-UNK-UNK-UNK-AN_GK0T-GK1C&ref=sharing

[JayJuanGee]

For those who want green bitcoin only.

“Norwegian #Bitcoin is super green.
100% of the country's energy supply comes from wind and hydropower.”

https://cointelegraph.com/news/green-oasis-for-bitcoin-mining-norway-has-almost-1-of-global-btc-hash-rate

Fuck that nonsense label.. green bitcoin.  Who fucking cares, unless you want to play into the "green" attack vector.

Bitcoin's are totally fungible so stop fucking around trying to assert that some bitcoins are better than others or some bitcoin are worse than others.... you are just playing into artificial frameworks that are not so much related to bitcoin except to attack bitcoin..,. best way to win, is not to play.. as the saying goes..,. or just to tell them to fuck off whenever such nonsense is raised.

And bitcoin mining is not ONLY carried out to mine new bitcoin, but to secure the bitcoin already in existence and any potential transactions happening at the time of the mining.

Energy is going to need to come from all kinds of sources, and no problem if a decent amount of that might be produced from wind, hydropower, geothermal, solar or whatever other means that are considered to be less costly to capture... and perhaps fewer externalities as well.... whether that energy is used for mining bitcoin or otherwise is likely user's choice..

By the way, I heard an interview of that twat Chris Larsen on Pomp's podcast several days ago, and when Pomp attempted to describe various ways that bitcoin might be mined prior to that energy being available for retail, Larsen proclaimed that he wanted to ONLY focus on energy that is available for retail and therefore assert that the retail energy might be used for better reasons than to mine bitcoin... .. Fuck Chris Larsen.  

One of the aspects of incentives behind bitcoin mining is that it is likely going to create all kinds of innovations in the energy sector by both using energy that had not previously been used (or available for retail) and also potentially causing the price of energy to go up at the retail level in some areas as well... but in the end, the benefits of bitcoin being involved in energy consumption are likely going to continue to outweigh the costs (partly because of the innovations that bitcoin will likely contribute towards, but just benefits in having bitcoin in itself, secured)... but so many folks are going to fail/refuse to recognize that the various benefits of bitcoin mining outweigh the costs because they fail/refuse to even understand  what bitcoin is or even what is bitcoin mining or whatever they are fearing about bitcoin's supposed (or should I say imaginary?)  high energy usages (relatively speaking).