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

[vapourminer]

Coinbase is one of the worst of evil exchanges. 

edit: TRIGGER WARNING

yup i hate coinbase because of their history and actions.

but guess which exchange i tell starting btc noobs who arent very computer literate and even less cyber security conscious? yup. coinbase. for the simple reason that they are legit from a usa law point of view.  it offers yubikey security.
accounts can be transferred to surviving spouse or executor if the account holder dies.
 

ok thats it, haters may now proceed to list the myriad ways They Suck. fine by me as i might be some that im not aware of yet and ive been with them since 2013.

now if a btc noob is slightly better informed i tell them gemnini.

please dont forget here in the usa (land of the free) we have limited choice in a lot of things.

full disclosure: coinbase is a backup exchange for me.

[Hamza2424]

The bitter Reality of this whole world is just this.

[savetherainforest]

Explanation

I haven't looked at the charts for like 3 days now. But good for you keeping me up-to-date Buddy.      


Soo.... I have looked at the mighty charts. And everything might go to sh!t in a day or two.      

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[DVlog]

Coinbase is one of the worst of evil exchanges. 

edit: TRIGGER WARNING

yup i hate coinbase because of their history and actions.

but guess which exchange i tell starting btc noobs who arent very computer literate and even less cyber security conscious? yup. coinbase. for the simple reason that they are legit from a usa law point of view.  it offers yubikey security.
accounts can be transferred to surviving spouse or executor if the account holder dies.
 

Not only coinbase most of the centralized exchange is evil. Another top-tier exchange binance is being accused of money laundering through hacking and exploits. I can see why binance has become a hub for hackers and scammers. I know centralized exchange offers many services which make our life easy when using crypto but it gives them more chances to do illegal activities.

There are rumors that Formar Binance's CEO will be imprisoned for money laundering charges.

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[ivomm]

For me the most secure exchange is kraken. The best in terms of fees is Coinbase - for withdrawal it is almost 0 fee. The worst exchange without any doubt is Bitstamp. The fee is enourmous 0.005BTC. And each week they send me new emails asking insane things, to prove the origin of my bitcoins and fiat, by sending bank and credit card statements, pool statistics, and many other things. I stopped using this hilarious exchange several months ago.

[Hhampuz]

For me the most secure exchange is kraken. The best in terms of fees is Coinbase - for withdrawal it is almost 0 fee. The worst exchange without any doubt is Bitstamp. The fee is enourmous 0.005BTC. And each week they send me new emails asking insane things, to prove the origin of my bitcoins, fiat, by sending bank and credit card statements, pool statistics, and many other things. I stopped using this hilarious exchange several months ago.

I used bitstamp 1-2 times in 2016 and I STILL get emails from them asking to finish setting up my profile and send them additional info like what you describe.. Hilarious, indeed!

[Pente]

For me the most secure exchange is kraken. The best in terms of fees is Coinbase - for withdrawal it is almost 0 fee. The worst exchange without any doubt is Bitstamp. The fee is enourmous 0.005BTC. And each week they send me new emails asking insane things, to prove the origin of my bitcoins, fiat, by sending bank and credit card statements, pool statistics, and many other things. I stopped using this hilarious exchange several months ago.

I used bitstamp 1-2 times in 2016 and I STILL get emails from them asking to finish setting up my profile and send them additional info like what you describe.. Hilarious, indeed!

I opened an account with them in 2013, they closed it around 2016 because I lived in Hawaii at the time. Fast forward six years later and they still send emails asking for info updates even though I can't even log in.

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[savetherainforest]

For me the most secure exchange is kraken. The best in terms of fees is Coinbase - for withdrawal it is almost 0 fee. The worst exchange without any doubt is Bitstamp. The fee is enourmous 0.005BTC. And each week they send me new emails asking insane things, to prove the origin of my bitcoins, fiat, by sending bank and credit card statements, pool statistics, and many other things. I stopped using this hilarious exchange several months ago.

I used bitstamp 1-2 times in 2016 and I STILL get emails from them asking to finish setting up my profile and send them additional info like what you describe.. Hilarious, indeed!

I opened an account with them in 2013, they closed it around 2016 because I lived in Hawaii at the time. Fast forward six years later and they still send emails asking for info updates even though I can't even log in.

Good job folks! Naw you are in the system. And they will send dogs after you to take all your assets and confiscate your BTCiTcoins or anything you have till you give them their BTCiTcoins that they want to steal it from you.
 So you need to kill them first naw, cuz you have no other choice. Before they come after you!!    

[Richy_T]

Everyone here will love Blockstream,

Not everyone.

their Blockstream Satellite project which is essentially altruism (not only B2C, but made to help poor people in poor countries use Bitcoin!),

A hype project that has helped nobody and makes no sense.

well—where does Blockstream make their money?  I don’t know their internal structure or their financials (none of my business!), but I plausibly guess that their bread and butter is Liquid, and their Lightning infrastructure projects, and their hosted mining—all B2B, and/or for very wealthy customers.

VC capital. None of their stuff makes money AFAIK (I believe they do some mining but that's not their core business). More people should be asking questions like this.

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[savetherainforest]

I heard people talking about abortion 30 years ago.              


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSZoG8JVMss                 

[El duderino_]

[JayJuanGee]

Bitcoin will get to $250K “by late 2022 or early 2023" says Tim Draper.

Bullshit.

doubting thomas..  

I don't know if they were daydreaming. Of course, BTC can potentially go $250K or more in the future. That doesn't mean it will Boom in a few months. LOL.

Eventually, sure. And probably sooner than most would think. We're in the doldrums for at least another year though, I think. Healing is needed, bad memories need to fade, confidence needs to return.

Nothing is going to happen before the next halving which is scheduled for May-June 2024.
Do not have any false hopes like those Crypto guys on Twitter.

Bitcoin no doesn't work like that.

I don't know if they were daydreaming. Of course, BTC can potentially go $250K or more in the future. That doesn't mean it will Boom in a few months. LOL.

Eventually, sure. And probably sooner than most would think. We're in the doldrums for at least another year though, I think. Healing is needed, bad memories need to fade, confidence needs to return.

Nothing is going to happen before the next halving which is scheduled for May-June 2024.
Do not have any false hopes like those Crypto guys on Twitter.

Nah, I think we will stay around 20 000 to 30 000 ish, maybe with a shortlived drop to 17 000 to 15 000 until winter/christmas, and then a slow rise for the coming two years wit the obligatory skittish jumping around the halving. And then comes the next top of course.

Bitcoin no doesn't work like that, either.

I know Jbreher used to name drop Coinbase a lot, and probably just to get little digs in here and there.. not that jbreher is particularly mean.. but he was kind of against going along with certain things, including our use of Stamp as our thread price reference.

jbreher is a bigblocker.  No wonder he loves Coinbase!  Zing!

(Sort of joking.  I know he had a sick fetish for Bcash; remind me, what did he think of NYA?  He irrationally hated Segwit, so I guess that doesn’t really make sense.)

I am not sure how fruitful it is to remember who said what in terms of the blocksize limitation wars, even though surely from time to time it does come in handy to see those kinds of historical stances that various people/businesses took.

I am pretty sure that jbreher was a bcasher and then pretty much got stuck in the Bcash SV camp, and surely some of that makes little sense because who the fuck would consider that any forkening of Bcash that was promoted/funded by Wright/Ayers would have any semblance of legitimacy but jbreher frequently proclaimed that peeps could still support BcashSV without having to agree with the various claims of Wright et al.

I am pretty sure that jbreher was supporting all of the BIG blocker nonsense from the start - back to late 2015 when Gavin would spout out the various talking points about a need for a path forward and doing all the stuffs on layer one.. so there seems to have been a time in which segwit was proposed and so many of them thought that it was a decent compromise - even Gavin, but then the code was written in early 2016 and then went on testnet and seems that in about mid-2016 once the segwit code went into its ready to be merged stage then a bunch of the BIGblocker dweebs started to proclaim that segwit was not good any longer, and so that escalated into the time around the NYA in early 2017, no? (there was a HongKong agreement, too, right?  weren't they mad because the devs would not accept the hong kong agreement so therefore new coalition formed that resulted in the NYA?)..

Anyhow, yeah, I cannot remember jbreher deviating from any of those BIGblocker partyline talking points to any great extent including remaining a Bcash SV supporter but then kind of going on silent mode in the past year or so.. but yeah, he seemed to support the NYA as a great compromise.  If you recall, the vast majority of the strong vocal BIG blocker dweebs did not even care that much about the technical aspects of the big blocker nonsense whether the NYA or the resulting segwit2x, but instead they were largely trying to merely change BTC governance to make it easier to change bitcoin however the fuck might be desired in the future (a desire to demote devs and promote miners - but probably really trying to get then BIG money and exchanges to have more say than normies plebs) .. framing it as majority rule and other baloney stuff like that.

Edit:  Made some clarification edits to the last paragraphs/segment around the time of AlcoHoDL's below response.. whoops.

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[JayJuanGee]

.... there is a theoretical possibility that there will be no new ATH, if things with the institutions turn out to be much worse than we think (like Greyscale going bankrupt), or the other extreme - to go way over 200K and compensate for the lack of a sharp top in the previous cycle. In my opinion, this can only happen with the appearance of significant news around the normal peak, as happened in 2017.

Sure, it is theoretically possible that there will be no new ATH ever again, but you are surely talking about a pretty low-likely edge case, and even kind of presuming that BTC needs BIG players in order to achieve another ATH.

Bitcoin remains the most powerful for the smaller players or the structually disadvantaged folks, and surely some of the smaller players and structurally disadvantaged folks have a shitton of capital when amalgamated together..

Gresham's law will continue to gravitate value into BTC and surely the more sophisticated BIG players know that and they are front running retail and will continue to do so.  Sure there are going to continue to be weak as fuck BIG players who are able to come in with more coins and to dump more coins than the earlier smaller players, but I doubt that the fact that we merely have bigger players showing that they can frequently be weaker hands than the most feeble of the FOMO driven retail gamblers does not likely change the calculus too much in terms of the inevitability of bitcoin ongoing Gresham law superior money dynamics, even if they have all kinds of more sophisticated tools to manipulate and bet against bitcoin.. they still have abilities to get bit in the ass when playing with those tools with a bearer instrument asset like my lil precious, too.

gm folks!
the breakfast of a Bitcoin pleb 🍉🥗
stay healthy and hodl

Much better presentation than we tend to see from some folks in these here parts.. arriemoller... cough cough..

I am not confident that bitcoiner are fruitarians, though.

Are you sure that you did not get that image from some ESG-promoting page?  In other words, where's the beef?

I am starting to feel like a Wendy's promoter.. "Where's the beef?" reference.

[nanobtc]

jbreher and I have PM a few times. He owns some historic world-class music instruments. You have heard it on famous recordings.

[AlcoHoDL]

[...]

I am not sure how fruitful it is to remember who said what in terms of the blocksize limitation wars, even though surely from time to time it does come in handy to see those kinds of historical stances that various people/businesses took.

I am pretty sure that jbreher was a bcasher and then pretty much got stuck in the Bcash SV camp, and surely some of that makes little sense because who the fuck would consider that any forkening of Bcash that was promoted/funded by Wright/Ayers would have any semblance of legitimacy but jbreher frequently proclaimed that peeps could still support BcashSV without having to agree with the various claims of Wright et al.

I am pretty sure that jbreher was supporting all of the BIG blocker nonsense from the start - back to late 2015 when Gavin would spout out the various talking points about a need for a path forward and doing all the stuffs on layer one.. so there seems to have been a time in which segwit was proposed and so many of them thought that it was a decent compromise - even Gavin, but then the code was written in early 2016 and then went on testnet and seems that in about mid-2016 once the segwit code went into its ready to be merged stage then a bunch of the BIGblocker dweebs started to proclaim that segwit was not good any longer, and so that escalated into the time around the NYA in early 2017, no? (there was a HongKong agreement, too, right?  weren't they mad because the devs would not accept the hong kong agreement so therefore new coalition formed that resulted in the NYA?)..

Anyhow, yeah, I cannot remember jbreher deviating from any of those BIGblocker partyline talking points to any great extent including remaining a Bcash SV supporter but then kind of going on silent mode in the past year or so.. but yeah, he seemed to support the NYA as a great compromise.  If you recall, the vast majority of the strong vocal BIG blocker dweebs did not even care that much about the technical aspects of the big blocker nonsense whether the NYA or the resulting segwit2x, but instead they were largely trying to merely change BTC governance to make it easier to change bitcoin however the fuck might be desired in the future (a desire to demote devs and promote miners - but probably really trying to get then BIG money and exchanges to have more say than normies plebs) .. framing it as majority rule and other baloney stuff like that.

I believe/remember that jbreher had done some mathematical calculation that showed that, at the current (small block) transaction rate (transactions per second—tps) it would take several decades for the entire world population to own BTC on-chain. I think it was a simple division operation, dividing the world population by Bitcoin's transaction rate, to compute the time needed to get the entire world population on Bitcoin's blockchain.

Something like this:

World population size: 8 billion (approx.)
Bitcoin transaction rate: 7 tps (best-case value, approx.)

Total time for the entire world to become BTC owners: 8,000,000,000 / 7 = 1,142,857,143 seconds = 13,228 days = 36 years!

Note that the above result allocates only one (1) on-chain Bitcoin transaction per person, when in practice more than one transaction would be needed to make use of the owned BTC, thus increasing the above time estimate to the order of hundreds of years.

So, according to the above result, jbreher reasoned that Bitcoin's block size, and subsequent transaction rate, is simply not enough to cater for the future needs of the entire world population in a practical sense. I think this result was (still is?) his primary motivation for supporting big blocks.

Perhaps jbreher can chime in and confirm or correct the above.

My opinion on this matter, is that Bitcoin is not a static entity and is open to changes, as and when they are needed. When the time comes for changes relating to the block size (or any other modifications or improvements to the code), they will be adopted in a structured, orderly manner, based on rigorous and thorough testing, and via a worldwide consensus mechanism. The problem with BCH (a.k.a. Bcash) and BSV is that they are governed by arrogant, selfish, toxic individuals that effectively attempted to take control of Bitcoin for their own, insidious, malevolent motives. To that, the community has clearly objected, as reflected by the subsequent failure of these attempts, and indicated by the current value of these forked coins, as compared to BTC.

When the time comes, and the need arises, the Bitcoin ecosystem will be adapted and improved as necessary, and in different ways (via on- and off-chain solutions). That is how I see it. I see the BCH/BSV forks as malevolent actions aiming to take control of the code base. And they have failed miserably.

Edit: Updated JayJuanGee's quoted text to its latest, edited version.