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

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[1714189912]

1714189912

[1714189912]

1714189912

[1714189912]

1714189912

[1714189912]

1714189912

[1714189912]

1714189912

[AlcoHoDL]

Watched Attraction 2: Invasion...

[...]

Thanks for the film pointer. Never heard of either of them -- Attraction (2017), Invasion (2020). IMDb ratings look promising, they should both be worth watching.

[wachtwoord]

No it doesn't it's the other way around.

I'm not calculating market cap. I'm calculating the max value of a fixed coin asset, not the current.
If their scarcity is the same then their value per share(token) should be the same.
Therefore the token price multiplied by the max number of tokens should be the same.

I'm ignoring the other metrics like utility and decentralization which most certainly will have effect.

Lol scarcity being the same does not imply value is the same, that only holds with equal utility.

Anyway read this from 2017 if you're interested in a well-argued case about relative max valuations of store of value vs utility tokens: https://s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/john-pfeffer/An+Investor%27s+Take+on+Cryptoassets+v6.pdf

[WatChe]

Image source

[Wilhelm]

No it doesn't it's the other way around.

I'm not calculating market cap. I'm calculating the max value of a fixed coin asset, not the current.
If their scarcity is the same then their value per share(token) should be the same.
Therefore the token price multiplied by the max number of tokens should be the same.

I'm ignoring the other metrics like utility and decentralization which most certainly will have effect.

Lol scarcity being the same does not imply value is the same, that only holds with equal utility.

Anyway read this from 2017 if you're interested in a well-argued case about relative max valuations of store of value vs utility tokens: https://s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/john-pfeffer/An+Investor%27s+Take+on+Cryptoassets+v6.pdf

Thanks it's going to be a good read.

Yes an asset is more than its scarcity. For Eth going from not-scarce to scarse should have a positive effect regardless...

[wachtwoord]

No it doesn't it's the other way around.

I'm not calculating market cap. I'm calculating the max value of a fixed coin asset, not the current.
If their scarcity is the same then their value per share(token) should be the same.
Therefore the token price multiplied by the max number of tokens should be the same.

I'm ignoring the other metrics like utility and decentralization which most certainly will have effect.

Lol scarcity being the same does not imply value is the same, that only holds with equal utility.

Anyway read this from 2017 if you're interested in a well-argued case about relative max valuations of store of value vs utility tokens: https://s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/john-pfeffer/An+Investor%27s+Take+on+Cryptoassets+v6.pdf

Thanks it's going to be a good read.

Yes an asset is more than its scarcity. For Eth going from not-scarce to scarse should have a positive effect regardless...

That by itself is a positive event for intrinsic value but in the case of a 100x overvaluation right now it might not be reflected in a change of market price at all.

Further, aren't they switching from PoW to PoS? An extreme detrimental development wrt value as that leads to more centralization. As a centralized solution it's simply a terribly complex and expensive solution that is already done much cheaper and easier.

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[Mr.right85]

Yes an asset is more than its scarcity. For Eth going from not-scarce to scarse should have a positive effect regardless...

Scarcity in a way translate to value. A value that is demonstrated in its price given by the demand and supply. One might like to go for such commodity.

Although, I feel a lot safe with bitcoin.
The market today don't seem to reflect expectation but, I don't care so much on the price while am holding.

[Wilhelm]

No it doesn't it's the other way around.

I'm not calculating market cap. I'm calculating the max value of a fixed coin asset, not the current.
If their scarcity is the same then their value per share(token) should be the same.
Therefore the token price multiplied by the max number of tokens should be the same.

I'm ignoring the other metrics like utility and decentralization which most certainly will have effect.

Lol scarcity being the same does not imply value is the same, that only holds with equal utility.

Anyway read this from 2017 if you're interested in a well-argued case about relative max valuations of store of value vs utility tokens: https://s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/john-pfeffer/An+Investor%27s+Take+on+Cryptoassets+v6.pdf

Thanks it's going to be a good read.

Yes an asset is more than its scarcity. For Eth going from not-scarce to scarse should have a positive effect regardless...

That by itself is a positive event for intrinsic value but in the case of a 100x overvaluation right now it might not be reflected in a change of market price at all.

Further, aren't they switching from PoW to PoS? An extreme detrimental development wrt value as that leads to more centralization. As a centralized solution it's simply a terribly complex and expensive solution that is already done much cheaper and easier.

PoS discussion is the same as when Bitcoin mining pools had >50% of hashing rate.

With the banning of mining and the increasing need of cheap power for mining one could say that Bitcoin is getting more centralized too...

Eth needs validators which are currently centralized but should decentralize over time. The switch hasn't been made yet.

But let me state I have more faith in Bitcoin but Ethereum is a profitable investment at the moment.

I'd like to hear your proof for the 100x overvaluation...

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[JayJuanGee]

Don't you know Wihelm that eXPHorizon doesn't know nuttin?

If eXPHorizon had just invested $10 per week over the past 8 years (after he supposedly lost his MTGOX coins) then he would have right around 4 BTC right now.. Sure he would not necessarily be rich, but he would have more than the 3 BTC that he had been begging to receive for free from those of us who have been reasonably and prudently investing into bitcoin for a decent amount of time.

like a 1950s broken record  

No I did not know that.

Right now seems to be a good time to accumulate bitcoin, and surely no coiners or low coiners might not always know how much more they are advantaged to be accumulating BTC in times like these.

From personal experience, I know that it can sometimes be confusing in regards to how any particular BTC accumulation plan is playing out or has played out, especially in the short-term (such as 1-3 years depending on circumstances), and it can take a bit of time to set up some accounts or relationships to be able to accumulate BTC, and thereafter to just plod away with DCA, lump sum and buying on dip...

Anyone who started accumulating in BTC in the past year to year and a half might be confused regarding what to do, especially if they feel that they have already injected a decent amount into bitcoin, and there also may be some confusion for some of the shorter-term BTC accumulators going back further than the past couple of years - even though there should be some confidence with those who were able to get a decent amount of their BTC stake prior to September 2020.... and hopefully even the shorter term BTC accumulators recognize the value in their continuing to DCA accumulate in times like these rather than just HODL (or worse to end up selling.. that would be extremely dumb.. but I am sure some of the newbies (less than 1.5 years in BTC) are engaging in dumb behaviors due to lack of understanding/conviction in regards to bitcoin).. even though surely sometimes during times like these there might not be a lot of cash left in reserves for some people, and everyone and their dog is telling you that "cash is king," and surely there is some truth to that... and there is also some truth that if they never use their cash to buy pristine assets like bitcoin, then they may well have had lost opportunities.

Part of the reason that I mentioned that you could have had 4 BTC by now with only buying $10 per week of bitcoin over the last 8 year is to point out that it does not necessarily take a lot of capital to build a decent-sized BTC holdings, but there continue to be advantages that come to those who act, and maybe with you $10 per week continues to be a practical amount that could be invested, even though in the past year and a half or so, for people in the western world, I have moved my recommendation up from $10 per week to $100 per week - and surely my recommendation would be to continue to invest into BTC during times like these - especially if you had been DCA investing $100 per week and you had just started in the last couple of years or less.

But each of us does what we can, and we need to take the first step of getting started, and ultimately it does not take a lot of investment to be able to put yourself in a better position 4-10 or more years down the road, and sure being a bit more aggressive is going to likely put you into even a better spot, so long as you are not too aggressive without gambling (or overinvesting into BTC in such a way that you screw up your ability to pay your known ongoing expenses or screw up being prepared for various emergencies that can come up from time to time).  

So you can see if you, eXPHorizon, had been able to invest $100 per week rather than $10 per week over the past 8 years, you would have accumulated about 40 BTC right now rather than merely the 4 BTC from $10 per week.. which surely would not be a bad place to be for anyone (whether BTC is the ONLY investment or part of a more diversified investment portfolio).. and in the end, each of us should do what we are able to do, and BTC accumulation does seem to be amongst the better of investment strategies that are likely available to any of us in these here times, so long as we don't overdo it.

No it doesn't it's the other way around.

I'm not calculating market cap. I'm calculating the max value of a fixed coin asset, not the current.
If their scarcity is the same then their value per share(token) should be the same.
Therefore the token price multiplied by the max number of tokens should be the same.

I'm ignoring the other metrics like utility and decentralization which most certainly will have effect.

Lol scarcity being the same does not imply value is the same, that only holds with equal utility.

Anyway read this from 2017 if you're interested in a well-argued case about relative max valuations of store of value vs utility tokens: https://s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/john-pfeffer/An+Investor%27s+Take+on+Cryptoassets+v6.pdf

Thanks it's going to be a good read.

Yes an asset is more than its scarcity. For Eth going from not-scarce to scarse should have a positive effect regardless...

That by itself is a positive event for intrinsic value but in the case of a 100x overvaluation right now it might not be reflected in a change of market price at all.

Further, aren't they switching from PoW to PoS? An extreme detrimental development wrt value as that leads to more centralization. As a centralized solution it's simply a terribly complex and expensive solution that is already done much cheaper and easier.

Another way to describe what Ethereum is: Rube Goldberg machine

[BitcoinBunny]

Farewell Deutschland / EU.

Russia's Gazprom says new turbine halt will further cut gas to Germany via Nord Stream 1
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/kremlin-nord-stream-1-turbine-be-installed-volumes-will-adjust-2022-07-25/

[cygan]

the one and only stable network in the world


https://www.buybitcoinworldwide.com/bitcoin-uptime/

[vapourminer]

Another way to describe what Ethereum is: Rube Goldberg machine

oh man soooo right

back when eth started i tried running an eth node. using the mist and geth clients i think they were called. neither worked right they would always stall and choke on a block somewhere. the "solution" .. delete everything and start from scratch. repeat as needed and it was needed a LOT. i very quickly learned that there is Bitcoin.. and Not Bitcoin. no other distinction is needed.

edit especially considering the following statistic:

https://www.buybitcoinworldwide.com/bitcoin-uptime/

[JayJuanGee]

[edited out]

PoS discussion is the same as when Bitcoin mining pools had >50% of hashing rate.

You are really mixed up Wilhelm... grasping at straws to find ways that your piece of shitcoin might be equivalent to bitcoin, when it is not.. it is a bunch of smoke and mirrors scam in itself, but also facilitates the building and maintenance of further scams.

Take your dumbass lame hypothetical above.  POS would be the same as bitcoin if bitcoin were to have a sustainable greater than 50% controller of the mining..   Maybe it is true, but bitcoin did not have that, and likely never will.  Good luck with your supposed sustainable greater than 50% control of the BTC hashrate and your ability to keep bitcoin going under such a supposed pie in the sky hypothetical situation.

With the banning of mining and the increasing need of cheap power for mining one could say that Bitcoin is getting more centralized too...

You are dreaming. Bitcoin mining is located all over the world, and they will adjust to variation in the energy price, and the difficulty will adjust.  Bitcoin works the same even if there might be fewer miners, and at the same time the profits go up, if others cannot mine but the remaining miners are able to mine.. remember summer 2021? way back then?  China banned bitcoin mining and what happened?  it relocated and became more profitable for the remainders.  Do you think that it is going to be possible to ban all mining all around the world?  and with fewer miners they will end up cooperating?  You are in a fantasy, no?

Eth needs validators which are currently centralized but should decentralize over time. The switch hasn't been made yet.

Yes ethereum has never really ever been a finished product that actually works but a hypothesis about what it will become someday in dreamlandia.

But let me state I have more faith in Bitcoin but Ethereum is a profitable investment at the moment.

I'd like to hear your proof for the 100x overvaluation...

Fuck ethereum.. who cares.  Take your shitcoin pumpening talk to some other thread.

Bitcoin has an actual use case, and ethereum does not...that makes bitcoin way more valuable than ethereum, even though in the short term the ethereum dweebs can spin their confusing centralized bullshit to make it appear as if it was actually decentralized and actually like bitcoin (when it is not) and actually has value when it does not... so yeah, you are lucky if ethereum is actually even 1/100th the value of bitcoin. 

There is no need to have to justify why bitcoin is king and ethereum is a shitcoin in this thread.. and you Wilhelm want to quibble about what percentage of a shitcoin it happens to be whether it happens to have more value than some other shitcoin.. who fucking cares?  it's not relevant in these here parts regarding which shitcoin happens to be less shitty.

Did I say:  Fuck ethereum.. who cares.  Take your shitcoin pumpening talk to some other thread.

[wachtwoord]

No it doesn't it's the other way around.

I'm not calculating market cap. I'm calculating the max value of a fixed coin asset, not the current.
If their scarcity is the same then their value per share(token) should be the same.
Therefore the token price multiplied by the max number of tokens should be the same.

I'm ignoring the other metrics like utility and decentralization which most certainly will have effect.

Lol scarcity being the same does not imply value is the same, that only holds with equal utility.

Anyway read this from 2017 if you're interested in a well-argued case about relative max valuations of store of value vs utility tokens: https://s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/john-pfeffer/An+Investor%27s+Take+on+Cryptoassets+v6.pdf

Thanks it's going to be a good read.

Yes an asset is more than its scarcity. For Eth going from not-scarce to scarse should have a positive effect regardless...

That by itself is a positive event for intrinsic value but in the case of a 100x overvaluation right now it might not be reflected in a change of market price at all.

Further, aren't they switching from PoW to PoS? An extreme detrimental development wrt value as that leads to more centralization. As a centralized solution it's simply a terribly complex and expensive solution that is already done much cheaper and easier.

PoS discussion is the same as when Bitcoin mining pools had >50% of hashing rate.

With the banning of mining and the increasing need of cheap power for mining one could say that Bitcoin is getting more centralized too...

Eth needs validators which are currently centralized but should decentralize over time. The switch hasn't been made yet.

But let me state I have more faith in Bitcoin but Ethereum is a profitable investment at the moment.

I'd like to hear your proof for the 100x overvaluation...

I think you are quick to mix things up. Yes, some developments in Bitcoin increase centralization (eg. The effective block size increase sneaked in with segwit,  I still consider that the largest permanent damage done to Bitcoin) while others decrease it. Temporalily or permanently.

Ethereum, however, is in another league altogether and has always been orders of magnitude more centralized than Bitcoin (in part unavoidable because it's inherently complex nature, also bringing down it's potential value by orders of magnitude and part because of bad choices, eg reverting the blockchain in the DAO event and starting out with  pre-mine rather than a fair initial distribution like Bitcoin). But now on top of that they go to PoS which' end-state is just guarenteed to be fully centralized because of economic incentives.

It's like when I say the batter in your baseball team has never hit a ball ever and you reply by saying well sometimes your batter doesnt hit a home run. Sure your comment may be true but it does not counter the fact that your batter is terrible.

Edit:

The argumentation for the overvaluation is made in the link I provided you with.

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[goldkingcoiner]

Can we stop talking about shitcoins and which shitcoin is the best shitcoin? It makes the WO so boring.

[bitcoinPsycho]

Can we stop talking about shitcoins and which shitcoin is the best shitcoin? It makes the WO so boring.

100 wo/smerits

(Only follow the link if you want to discuss shitcoinery)
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=67.0

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation