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

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[xhomerx10]

✨ Singer Lily Allen turning down 200,000 #Bitcoin  BTC  to play live on Second Life

Over $3,000,000,000 today  





Source

Wonder what she would do for 200,000 BTC today.



...

 Probably colour her hair.

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[BitcoinBunny]

✨ Singer Lily Allen turning down 200,000 #Bitcoin  BTC  to play live on Second Life

Over $3,000,000,000 today  





Source

Wonder what she would do for 200,000 BTC today.



...

 Probably colour her hair.

I'll give her 0.1 BTC for wearing my cap for a year in public instead. Deadline offer: end of 2023.
Hopefully she will listen this time and not regret it again in 10 years when 1 BTC is $100 million.

[strawbs]

I know next to nothing about NFTs, which my question below might demonstrate.

https://cointelegraph.com/news/nft-influencer-falls-victim-to-cyberattack-loses-300k-cryptopunks

Surely one of the qualities of an NFT is that it is not fungible. Therefore, there is only one of its kind. So if this individual going by the name of "CryptoNovo" has had two "CryptoPunks" stolen and then apparently immediately sold onwards, surely the current owner is now in receipt of clearly stolen goods (since they are non-fungible)? Wouldn't the logical conclusion be that they therefore have no resale value and are therefore worth nothing? Much like the Mona Lisa being stolen - who would buy it when it's clearly been stolen?

I just don't get it. In fact, I just don't get NFT 'art' (if it can be called that) at all, but that's another point altogether. You could just do a screenshot of it, if you wanted it that badly, and pretend it was 'original....I dunno.

[nutildah]

Surely one of the qualities of an NFT is that it is not fungible. Therefore, there is only one of its kind. So if this individual going by the name of "CryptoNovo" has had two "CryptoPunks" stolen and then apparently immediately sold onwards, surely the current owner is now in receipt of clearly stolen goods (since they are non-fungible)? Wouldn't the logical conclusion be that they therefore have no resale value and are therefore worth nothing? Much like the Mona Lisa being stolen - who would buy it when it's clearly been stolen?

OpenSea does blacklist stuff if the original owner can clearly prove it was stolen. However, they can still be sold on other markets or P2P I suppose. CryptoPunks is one of the first series of "PFP collectible" NFTs on Ethereum, which is why they are worth big money. I think they look like crap but wouldn't say no if someone wanted to give me one.

I just don't get it. In fact, I just don't get NFT 'art' (if it can be called that) at all, but that's another point altogether. You could just do a screenshot of it, if you wanted it that badly, and pretend it was 'original....I dunno.

You could also do a screenshot of the Mona Lisa. No one's stopping you, go right ahead.

[BitcoinBunny]

I know next to nothing about NFTs, which my question below might demonstrate.

https://cointelegraph.com/news/nft-influencer-falls-victim-to-cyberattack-loses-300k-cryptopunks

Surely one of the qualities of an NFT is that it is not fungible. Therefore, there is only one of its kind. So if this individual going by the name of "CryptoNovo" has had two "CryptoPunks" stolen and then apparently immediately sold onwards, surely the current owner is now in receipt of clearly stolen goods (since they are non-fungible)? Wouldn't the logical conclusion be that they therefore have no resale value and are therefore worth nothing? Much like the Mona Lisa being stolen - who would buy it when it's clearly been stolen?

I just don't get it. In fact, I just don't get NFT 'art' (if it can be called that) at all, but that's another point altogether. You could just do a screenshot of it, if you wanted it that badly, and pretend it was 'original....I dunno.

Just a scam, like so many things these days.

Oh I know, I'll make a shitty drink, call it shitface and get it pumped to the heavens by a shit "celebrity", you "need this in your life". Another scam.

[krishnaverma]

I know next to nothing about NFTs, which my question below might demonstrate.

https://cointelegraph.com/news/nft-influencer-falls-victim-to-cyberattack-loses-300k-cryptopunks

Surely one of the qualities of an NFT is that it is not fungible. Therefore, there is only one of its kind. So if this individual going by the name of "CryptoNovo" has had two "CryptoPunks" stolen and then apparently immediately sold onwards, surely the current owner is now in receipt of clearly stolen goods (since they are non-fungible)? Wouldn't the logical conclusion be that they therefore have no resale value and are therefore worth nothing? Much like the Mona Lisa being stolen - who would buy it when it's clearly been stolen?

I just don't get it. In fact, I just don't get NFT 'art' (if it can be called that) at all, but that's another point altogether. You could just do a screenshot of it, if you wanted it that badly, and pretend it was 'original....I dunno.

I also do not know much about NFT but their is digital signature kind of thing to prove ownership. You cannot screenshot it and claim it to be yours.

[strawbs]

You could also do a screenshot of the Mona Lisa. No one's stopping you, go right ahead.

Yup, that's my point!

[nutildah]

You could also do a screenshot of the Mona Lisa. No one's stopping you, go right ahead.

Yup, that's my point!

A bit different from owning the original tho innit.

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[eXPHorizon]

I know next to nothing about NFTs, which my question below might demonstrate.

https://cointelegraph.com/news/nft-influencer-falls-victim-to-cyberattack-loses-300k-cryptopunks

Surely one of the qualities of an NFT is that it is not fungible. Therefore, there is only one of its kind. So if this individual going by the name of "CryptoNovo" has had two "CryptoPunks" stolen and then apparently immediately sold onwards, surely the current owner is now in receipt of clearly stolen goods (since they are non-fungible)? Wouldn't the logical conclusion be that they therefore have no resale value and are therefore worth nothing? Much like the Mona Lisa being stolen - who would buy it when it's clearly been stolen?

I just don't get it. In fact, I just don't get NFT 'art' (if it can be called that) at all, but that's another point altogether. You could just do a screenshot of it, if you wanted it that badly, and pretend it was 'original....I dunno.

Just a scam, like so many things these days.

Oh I know, I'll make a shitty drink, call it shitface and get it pumped to the heavens by a shit "celebrity", you "need this in your life". Another scam.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rwsqb4B1lKY

 POV: Logan Paul Steals Your Wallet



pretty funny 

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[xhomerx10]

I know next to nothing about NFTs, which my question below might demonstrate.

https://cointelegraph.com/news/nft-influencer-falls-victim-to-cyberattack-loses-300k-cryptopunks

Surely one of the qualities of an NFT is that it is not fungible. Therefore, there is only one of its kind. So if this individual going by the name of "CryptoNovo" has had two "CryptoPunks" stolen and then apparently immediately sold onwards, surely the current owner is now in receipt of clearly stolen goods (since they are non-fungible)? Wouldn't the logical conclusion be that they therefore have no resale value and are therefore worth nothing? Much like the Mona Lisa being stolen - who would buy it when it's clearly been stolen?

I just don't get it. In fact, I just don't get NFT 'art' (if it can be called that) at all, but that's another point altogether. You could just do a screenshot of it, if you wanted it that badly, and pretend it was 'original....I dunno.

Just a scam, like so many things these days.

Oh I know, I'll make a shitty drink, call it shitface and get it pumped to the heavens by a shit "celebrity", you "need this in your life". Another scam.

 What's in that stuff, Gwyneth Paltrow's urine?

[BitcoinBunny]

I know next to nothing about NFTs, which my question below might demonstrate.

https://cointelegraph.com/news/nft-influencer-falls-victim-to-cyberattack-loses-300k-cryptopunks

Surely one of the qualities of an NFT is that it is not fungible. Therefore, there is only one of its kind. So if this individual going by the name of "CryptoNovo" has had two "CryptoPunks" stolen and then apparently immediately sold onwards, surely the current owner is now in receipt of clearly stolen goods (since they are non-fungible)? Wouldn't the logical conclusion be that they therefore have no resale value and are therefore worth nothing? Much like the Mona Lisa being stolen - who would buy it when it's clearly been stolen?

I just don't get it. In fact, I just don't get NFT 'art' (if it can be called that) at all, but that's another point altogether. You could just do a screenshot of it, if you wanted it that badly, and pretend it was 'original....I dunno.

Just a scam, like so many things these days.

Oh I know, I'll make a shitty drink, call it shitface and get it pumped to the heavens by a shit "celebrity", you "need this in your life". Another scam.

 What's in that stuff, Gwyneth Paltrow's urine?

I hope she didn't eat asparagus.

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[cygan]

i miss ya....

Explanation

[shahzadafzal]

i miss ya....

Explanation

I miss you too buddy!!!

Explanation

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation