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

[savetherainforest]

I really start to think that Saylor reads the WO...

[...]

Saylor is just trying to catch up with us, we are only 30844 pages ahead of him.

There are some pearls of wisdom in all this madness. If you look tight & closely for them.   

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[Biodom]

One thing that miffs me a bit after so many years is why the legitimacy of bitcoin is still being discussed and attacked so many years later.
Compare with internet: in 1999-2000 it was already clear that Internet would support many kinds of businesses and since then nobody (or almost nobody) opined that "we gonna tax that 'evil' internet or declare that it consumes too much server power".

Short answer 1:  Not to be snide, but either you are very young, or you have a short memory.  The way you said that—LOLWUT?  Of course, there was and is plenty of hyperventilating about the “evil Internet!!!!”

The Internet ignited political firestorms over free speech, among other issues.  Remember the Blue Ribbon campaign?

"not to snide"...proceeds to snide, lol

On the subject: political storms about Internet (which I am aware of) have nothing to do with interfering in the ability to form large businesses on it.
Contrary, in the case of bitcoin, there is a lot of effort to prevent bitcoin from truly flourishing.
For example: efforts in EU to "ban" POW or NY to ban mining that uses hydrocarbons; China almost completely banned everything but the ownership ffs, etc.
You compare things that are very different in nature.
Sen Cruz is right on that, don't be cocky and think that it is all hunky-dory. It is not.
However, bitcoin might still have the upper hand in the end.

[JayJuanGee]

One thing that miffs me a bit after so many years is why the legitimacy of bitcoin is still being discussed and attacked so many years later.
Compare with internet: in 1999-2000 it was already clear that Internet would support many kinds of businesses and since then nobody (or almost nobody) opined that "we gonna tax that 'evil' internet or declare that it consumes too much server power".

Short answer 1:  Not to be snide, but either you are very young, or you have a short memory.  The way you said that—LOLWUT?  Of course, there was and is plenty of hyperventilating about the “evil Internet!!!!”

The Internet ignited political firestorms over free speech, among other issues.  Remember the Blue Ribbon campaign?

"not to snide"...proceeds to snide, lol

On the subject: political storms about Internet (which I am aware of) have nothing to do with interfering in the ability to form large businesses on it.
In the case of bitcoin, there is a lot of effort to prevent bitcoin from truly flourishing.
For example: efforts in EU to "ban" POW or NY to ban mining that uses hydrocarbons; China almost completely banned everything but the ownership ffs, etc.
You compare things that are very different in nature.
Sen Cruz is right on that, don't be cocky and think that it is all hunky-dory. It is not.

It may well be that many of us are thinking about these matters in similar ways, but merely making our emphases from differing perspectives in our blind men (and perhaps a woman or two) attempting to identify the elephant.

At the same time, I am not sure how it could have been lost upon you Biodom that Bitcoin represents a truly new level of threat - and of course, it is similar to the threats of the internet, but it also has that value transferring and value holding component to it that was likely underappreciated by various powers that be for several years (the flying under the radar aspect). 

It's not like either the Govt or even various status quo powers that be rich institutions, are able to muster/coordinate their resources, so in that regard sure, there may well have been various persons within governments/status quo financial institutions raising alarm bells, but still difficult to coordinate - and even the incentive structures (and game theory) within bitcoin would likely cause distrusting folks to NOT necessarily coordinate in their attacks against bitcoin.... because some of the folks even within some of those institutions are not going to necessarily agree, will see bitcoin in their interests, and also end up defecting in one way or another if the suppression of bitcoin becomes the party line.

So for sure there are trade-offs within governmental systems to overtly attack or more subtly attack and even if they are able to maintain coalitions to attack a system that is quite likely objectively better for anyone who is able to use their brain rather than just going along with the party line.. Even partyline followers may well end up questioning the value of following the party line when they figure out that having an objective monetary system resolves a lot of corruption/societal problems.  Sure, bitcoin likely does not fix every single thing because bitcoin operates in a kind of interweaving way with humans.. so geez, the hubris of men (including their understanding of status quo institutions that have dominated humanity to date) will continue to cause them to believe that they are going to be able to reign bitcoin in.... and perhaps some of their attempts will be successful for a while (or in certain kinds of ways), until they are not... which could take 20 years to 50 years, to 100 years or more to resolve.. and for sure most of us are likely to be dead by the time the matters are really resolved, yet we can still make our BTC investment allocation decisions in the meantime... and figure out how much of our (time, energy and monetary) value that we are going to want to plug into bitcoin, including that each of us also should be attempting to tailorize our own participation in terms of our own individual particulars, too... so we are able to psychologically and financially handle the likely ongoing inevitable battles.   

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[Biodom]

@JJG...my main point is that "money interests" (PTB) are LOSING in the current system, even when, on the surface, they are able to have some meager returns.
By fully accepting Bitcoin, EVERYONE wins, including those entrenched parties.

[Next-door]

Please don't mind anyone. I'm telling you to think a little.
One day we too will die

[OutOfMemory]

Sorry if this has been posted here before:

They describe "Proof of Work" as anything with a complexity adjustment? Complexity != Difficulty

Diff adjustment doesn't change the "complexity" of the competition since the algorithm remains the same, it changes "difficulty" to get the desired hash

Passed as is, mining is fine https://t.co/9xDXhfxqGO

https://twitter.com/Regnar__/status/1532761420466688001?s=03

[JayJuanGee]

@JJG...my main point is that "money interests" (PTB) are LOSING in the current system, even when, on the surface, they are able to have some meager returns.
By fully accepting Bitcoin, EVERYONE wins, including those entrenched parties.

Ok..

So even if it appears that you are reiterating your "main point" in a way that seems to have shifted, we may well have different points then (to the extent that "we" (royal of course) are able to pin you down.. you fuck, #no homo)

It's not like I completely disagree with what seems to have become your "main point," even if I had some other points that I considered to be relevant in such discussion.. and sure maybe you don't agree with my points in regards to our transition into some kinds of bitcoin adoption, bitcoin gaining ascendance, bitcoin battles and bitcoin reaching larger dominance (one a spectrum of course).. which is fine..

To reiterate, I still believe that it could take a whole hell of a long time for a lot of folks to either recognize that they are "winning".. and some folks may well go to their graves battling under the impression that they are not winning.

Do the deets matter in regards to how this bad boy goes down (meaning up)?  perhaps to some it matters in terms of predicting where you might want to position ur lil selfie?  perhaps not as much to others who believe that they are able to stay somewhat detached.  Can we even sum up all human behaviors (rational or not, or mixed)?  even if we just try to characterize those behaviors in the context of our historical, current or future BTC adoption?  I doubt it.

Please don't mind anyone. I'm telling you to think a little.
One day we too will die

Hahahaha

I had to click on your profile Next-door - because when I first read your post I thought to myself:  "was I the one who merited that dweeb?"

hahahahaha

[Next-door]

Please don't mind anyone. I'm telling you to think a little.
One day we too will die

Hahahaha

I had to click on your profile Next-door - because when I first read your post I thought to myself:  "was I the one who merited that dweeb?"

hahahahaha

Do you understand?

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[JayJuanGee]

Please don't mind anyone. I'm telling you to think a little.
One day we too will die

Hahahaha

I had to click on your profile Next-door - because when I first read your post I thought to myself:  "was I the one who merited that dweeb?"

hahahahaha

Do you understand?

Biodom would not say that.

He's too nice.   

[BlackHatCoiner]

https://twitter.com/notgrubles/status/1533165961813032967

 

[Biodom]

Within that twitter thread, an interesting file linked by M. Saylor:

https://assets.website-files.com/614e11526f6630959fc98679/629a961965b5a15419d5c72b_On%20Impossible%20Things%20Before%20Breakfast.pdf

TL;DR: NYDIG: DeFi is uninvestable and "...all algorithmic stablecoins will fail and the vast majority – possibly all – of DeFi’s current versions will fail."
Suggests to build LiFi on lightning.

[eXPHorizon]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7D2Mlce6sg


This scene always makes me laugh 🤣🤣🤣

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[Gachapin]

I really start to think that Saylor reads the WO...
[...]

Saylor is just trying to catch up with us, we are only 30844 pages ahead of him.

I wonder, Remember from the beginning Michael Saylor said Bitcoin had no chance,
all of a sudden he became Bitcoin ambassador,  one very thing I have known about Billionaires is that they will only tell you half the truth.

In several interviews Saylor explained very precisely why and how he changed his view on BTC.

Actually, he understands Bitcoin and its implications on a deeper level than most other public figures.


Saylor is no ambassador.  But he puts his money where his mouth is and sacrifices a lot of his time educating other people about BTC.

He wouldn't have to do it... he is super rich... he could just enjoy life fucking models all day long until he dies.


Saylor acts on conviction, because he gets how important BTC is for the world.  And that's what many Bitcoiners value.

[Piesel]

I really start to think that Saylor reads the WO...
[...]

Saylor is just trying to catch up with us, we are only 30844 pages ahead of him.

I wonder, Remember from the beginning Michael Saylor said Bitcoin had no chance,
all of a sudden he became Bitcoin ambassador,  one very thing I have known about Billionaires is that they will only tell you half the truth.

In several interviews Saylor explained very precisely why and how he changed his view on BTC.

Actually, he understands Bitcoin and its implications on a deeper level than most other public figures.


Saylor is no ambassador.  But he puts his money where his mouth is and sacrifices a lot of his time educating other people about BTC.

He wouldn't have to do it... he is super rich... he could just enjoy life fucking models all day long until he dies.


Saylor acts on conviction, because he gets how important BTC is for the world.  And that's what many Bitcoiners value.

Saylor got in very late, the Bitcoin party started long ago while he was busy playing the public critics role against Bitcoin most other figures in the Bitcoin community were busy accumulating more, now the music has changed and Saylor wants to join the party by all means. Anyways he is welcome on the list he can still fill some bags just left over anyway. The best pizza was served long ago.

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation