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

[Biodom]

Some VCs are thinking that 'crypto' is finished in US. They obviously don't separate bitcoin from others, so there is that.
Take a listen:

https://youtu.be/WvTTDxMuAis?t=4886

One of them, C. Palihapitiya, always talkshis current market position, though, so it might not mean much.
I found that link on dailyhodl, where you can read the synopsis, if you want:

https://dailyhodl.com/2023/04/23/crypto-now-dead-in-america-as-us-authorities-target-nascent-industry-says-billionaire-chamath-palihapitaya/

[1714721956]

1714721956

[1714721956]

1714721956

[1714721956]

1714721956

[1714721956]

1714721956

[1714721956]

1714721956

[1714721956]

1714721956

[Gachapin]

can anybody tell if the conversion of hash/s to flop/s was done correctly?

if yes, this is really amazing... over half a million times !

the world of humans is going full digital and this shows what power in the digital realm Bitcoin is... and that imo it is extremely undervalued rn, at least by 10x-100x...  


https://twitter.com/DocumentingBTC/status/1650152272670728196

[Gachapin]

Some VCs are thinking that 'crypto' is finished in US. They obviously don't separate bitcoin from others, so there is that.

with "they" you mean the US regulators with, right?

how is it obvious to you that they don't distinguish?


Two outcomes imo:
1)
The US don't distinguish and drive everything out:
Bitcoin will survive and many shitcoins will probably die

2)
They drive only unregistered securities out:
Money from these will flow into the rest, primarily Bitcoin (which fails the Howey-test afaik)

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[AlcoHoDL]

can anybody tell if the conversion of hash/s to flop/s was done correctly?

if yes, this is really amazing... over half a million times !

the world of humans is going full digital and this shows what power in the digital realm Bitcoin is... and that imo it is extremely undervalued rn, at least by 10x-100x...


https://twitter.com/DocumentingBTC/status/1650152272670728196

Interesting.

The period between mid-2011 and 2013, where the two lines coincide, is striking. Now we can have a pretty good guess at how the Ph.D. students and IBM employees of that time were using their computer resources!  

[Biodom]

Some VCs are thinking that 'crypto' is finished in US. They obviously don't separate bitcoin from others, so there is that.

with "they" you mean the US regulators with, right?

how is it obvious to you that they don't distinguish?


Two outcomes imo:
1)
The US don't distinguish and drive everything out:
Bitcoin will survive and many shitcoins will probably die

2)
They drive only unregistered securities out:
Money from these will flow into the rest, primarily Bitcoin (which fails the Howey-test afaik)

"They" obviously refers to the prior phrase VCs, who were discussing the current state of affairs.

Here is a more interesting non-linear "take" from A. Hayes:

https://cryptohayes.medium.com/exit-liquidity-3052309e6bfa

TL;DR Don't be an "exit liquidity" if you can.

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[Gachapin]

Some VCs are thinking that 'crypto' is finished in US. They obviously don't separate bitcoin from others, so there is that.

with "they" you mean the US regulators with, right?

how is it obvious to you that they don't distinguish?


Two outcomes imo:
1)
The US don't distinguish and drive everything out:
Bitcoin will survive and many shitcoins will probably die

2)
They drive only unregistered securities out:
Money from these will flow into the rest, primarily Bitcoin (which fails the Howey-test afaik)

"They" obviously refers to the prior phrase VCs, who were discussing the current state of affairs.

Here is a more interesting non-linear "take" from A. Hayes:

https://cryptohayes.medium.com/exit-liquidity-3052309e6bfa

TL;DR Don't be an "exit liquidity" if you can.

Thanks for the clarification !  (English is not my mother tongue)

I wonder why they wouldn't differentiate...
It's hard to imagine that big VCs are so stupid not to value a digital entity built and secured by the strongest computational power on earth over some database arbitrarily controlled by bunch of VCs....  oh wait  


Also thanks for the Hayes article... I like his stuff ...will read it tomorrow while traveling

[Richy_T]

I mean... it's wrong.  Like on so many things... but...

The name "Wall Observer" is derived from the idea of watching the Bitcoin price movement as if it were a chart on a wall.  And notr even a hint to the shit-posting.

 

Reminds me of when that reporter said that the nickname "spam" came from the effect of throwing a can of spam at a fan.

We may not have achieved actual artificial intelligence but it's pretty close to artificial dumbass.

[Gachapin]

haha fittingly..


If you think they’re mad now, just wait until @elonmusk puts badges on Epstein clients:

https://twitter.com/EndWokeness/status/1649961280478797827

not to defend him but that leg and foot could belong to an 18-25 year old. ...

I thought about that too..
How long would you guess that foot measures?

it looks smaller than his hand

yeah I did six or seven holds of my size 11 feet with my large hands glove size 9 .

the heel of my hand lined up to my foot is two inches shorter than my size 11 hand.

usa sizes . I am around 6ft just the beginning of large.

 i looked up size 4.5 american women feet they are 8.5 inches

so my hand would be ½ inch bigger than a women with a size 4.5

I also held my left foot with my left hand and it does look a lot like my hand is the same size as my foot.

Prospective makes the hand look bigger as it is closer to your eye.

Or in the photo. But who knows.

Yeah you are right. The difference in size would probably be nothing special...

Even though I can very well imagine Tarantino doing pervert stuff to kids, that photo is probably fake.. also taking OutOfMemory's opinion into account

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[philipma1957]

Where them 30’s at

After the fed does its may 2  + 0.25% jump. the 30's will come.

[Biodom]

I was "playing" with bitcoin numbers and have some thoughts on the matter.

Tops ($): 31, 1160, 19780, 68900

To me, it looks like the ATH number 'should have been' $154000 instead of $68900 in the prior peak.
Therefore, it suggests that it was not a "natural" progression, but interference from multiple sources (we all know that Chinese interfered first by shutting down mining and then the rally simply run out of steam due to time constrains plus the beginning of a tightening cycle). In the case of "natural progression" the multiplier might have been 7.8X in a 37X, 17X, 7.8X series-those are multiples from the prior post-halving ATH (and I don't count first peak in 2013). Therefore, the next (2024-2025) peak theoretically should be a 3.58X of the prior peak (which should have been 154K), suggesting a higher bound value of 551K and a lower bound of 246.9K (a product of 68.9X3.58). This suggests that if left alone, bitcoin could produce a super-cycle to "compensate" for the prior cycle underachievement.

However, the trough series are more menacing:
Bottoms: 2, 175, 3200, 15700 (tentatively)

Therefore, the multiple in these series are 87.5X, 18.3X and 4.9X, suggesting that the next trough would be maybe at 1.6X of 15700 or 24600.
If next trough to peak is 0.3 (7 percentage points better than 77% in the current cycle), this would suggest ATH of "only" 82K, which would be a disappointment to many, including myself.

TL;DR The cycle got messed with last time and it is not clear if there would be a "rebound' to the "natural" progression in the form of a 'super-cycle" or not. If yes, then 246-551K is achievable and if not, we might peak at much more pedestrian 82K.

[hisslyness]

can anybody tell if the conversion of hash/s to flop/s was done correctly?

if yes, this is really amazing... over half a million times !

the world of humans is going full digital and this shows what power in the digital realm Bitcoin is... and that imo it is extremely undervalued rn, at least by 10x-100x...  


https://twitter.com/DocumentingBTC/status/1650152272670728196

Chart is a little misleading though…

You can’t restrict one thing (Constantly 500 SC)  and not the other (Constantly Growing Number of Nodes)

I believe both should be following Moore’s Law as predicted.

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[HI-TEC99]

I mean... it's wrong.  Like on so many things... but...

The name "Wall Observer" is derived from the idea of watching the Bitcoin price movement as if it were a chart on a wall.  And notr even a hint to the shit-posting.

 

Reminds me of when that reporter said that the nickname "spam" came from the effect of throwing a can of spam at a fan.

We may not have achieved actual artificial intelligence but it's pretty close to artificial dumbass.

[philipma1957]

I was "playing" with bitcoin numbers and have some thoughts on the matter.

Tops ($): 31, 1160, 19780, 68900

To me, it looks like the ATH number 'should have been' $154000 instead of $68900 in the prior peak.
Therefore, it suggests that it was not a "natural" progression, but interference from multiple sources (we all know that Chinese interfered first by shutting down mining and then the rally simply run out of steam due to time constrains plus the beginning of a tightening cycle). In the case of "natural progression" the multiplier might have been 7.8X in a 37X, 17X, 7.8X series-those are multiples from the prior post-halving ATH (and I don't count first peak in 2013). Therefore, the next (2024-2025) peak theoretically should be a 3.58X of the prior peak (which should have been 154K), suggesting a higher bound value of 551K and a lower bound of 246.9K (a product of 68.9X3.58). This suggests that if left alone, bitcoin could produce a super-cycle to "compensate" for the prior cycle underachievement.

However, the trough series are more menacing:
Bottoms: 2, 175, 3200, 15700 (tentatively)

Therefore, the multiple in these series are 87.5X, 18.3X and 4.9X, suggesting that the next trough would be maybe at 1.6X of 15700 or 24600.
If next trough to peak is 0.3 (3 percentage points better than 77% in the current cycle), this would suggest ATH of "only" 82K, which would be a disappointment to many, including myself.

TL;DR The cycle got messed with last time and it is not clear if there would be a "rebound' to the "natural" progression in the form of a 'super-cycle" or not. If yes, then 246-551K is achievable and if not, we might peak at much more pedestrian 82K.

so 82-246-551 are your three separate possible tops for 2025.

[Biodom]

I was "playing" with bitcoin numbers and have some thoughts on the matter.

Tops ($): 31, 1160, 19780, 68900

To me, it looks like the ATH number 'should have been' $154000 instead of $68900 in the prior peak.
Therefore, it suggests that it was not a "natural" progression, but interference from multiple sources (we all know that Chinese interfered first by shutting down mining and then the rally simply run out of steam due to time constrains plus the beginning of a tightening cycle). In the case of "natural progression" the multiplier might have been 7.8X in a 37X, 17X, 7.8X series-those are multiples from the prior post-halving ATH (and I don't count first peak in 2013). Therefore, the next (2024-2025) peak theoretically should be a 3.58X of the prior peak (which should have been 154K), suggesting a higher bound value of 551K and a lower bound of 246.9K (a product of 68.9X3.58). This suggests that if left alone, bitcoin could produce a super-cycle to "compensate" for the prior cycle underachievement.

However, the trough series are more menacing:
Bottoms: 2, 175, 3200, 15700 (tentatively)

Therefore, the multiple in these series are 87.5X, 18.3X and 4.9X, suggesting that the next trough would be maybe at 1.6X of 15700 or 24600.
If next trough to peak is 0.3 (7 percentage points better than 77% in the current cycle), this would suggest ATH of "only" 82K, which would be a disappointment to many, including myself.

TL;DR The cycle got messed with last time and it is not clear if there would be a "rebound' to the "natural" progression in the form of a 'super-cycle" or not. If yes, then 246-551K is achievable and if not, we might peak at much more pedestrian 82K.

so 82-246-551 are your three separate possible tops for 2025.

essentially.

[JayJuanGee]

I was "playing" with bitcoin numbers and have some thoughts on the matter.

Tops ($): 31, 1160, 19780, 68900

To me, it looks like the ATH number 'should have been' $154000 instead of $68900 in the prior peak.
Therefore, it suggests that it was not a "natural" progression, but interference from multiple sources (we all know that Chinese interfered first by shutting down mining and then the rally simply run out of steam due to time constrains plus the beginning of a tightening cycle). In the case of "natural progression" the multiplier might have been 7.8X in a 37X, 17X, 7.8X series-those are multiples from the prior post-halving ATH (and I don't count first peak in 2013). Therefore, the next (2024-2025) peak theoretically should be a 3.58X of the prior peak (which should have been 154K), suggesting a higher bound value of 551K and a lower bound of 246.9K (a product of 68.9X3.58). This suggests that if left alone, bitcoin could produce a super-cycle to "compensate" for the prior cycle underachievement.

However, the trough series are more menacing:
Bottoms: 2, 175, 3200, 15700 (tentatively)

Therefore, the multiple in these series are 87.5X, 18.3X and 4.9X, suggesting that the next trough would be maybe at 1.6X of 15700 or 24600.
If next trough to peak is 0.3 (3 percentage points better than 77% in the current cycle), this would suggest ATH of "only" 82K, which would be a disappointment to many, including myself.

TL;DR The cycle got messed with last time and it is not clear if there would be a "rebound' to the "natural" progression in the form of a 'super-cycle" or not. If yes, then 246-551K is achievable and if not, we might peak at much more pedestrian 82K.

I don't agree with several of your ways of getting to your final conclusions, but I do appreciate your showing your work and your overall conclusion ended up coming out to be fairly reasonable, too.... so go figure?   

[edited out]

so 82-246-551 are your three separate possible tops for 2025.

essentially.

Even though I get the sense that "we" experienced pretty traumatic events in the last year (in terms of our BTC price DOWNity - including bringing "us" way below the 200 WMA and keeping us there for way longer than seems reasonable (like in the ballpark of 9 months)), I still speculated that BTC is not any less bullish (or less strength of its investment thesis) than it was in 2020 and 2021, so accordingly, there really should be no need to make my December 16, 2021 numbers into less bullish and/or more wimpy than they were at the time that I posted them (can be seen here)..

In udder wurds, at this point, I cannot justify describing this cycle as having less UPpity potential than I had been describing in that December 16, 2021 post.. so maybe I am falling into a kind of selection bias.. or a bias in which I am too stubborn to move off of my previous numbers (because pride and/or wanting to be right.. but I don't believe that I am that kind of person.. in terms of my feeling that I am still inclined to have the facts/logic drive my assessments rather than my preferences),. so in some sense, either I am sticking with my earlier numbers or there might even be some kind of a justifiable need to move my numbers higher than I had made them on December 16, 2021, no?

This is bitcoin right?  Don't we have higher and higher price points?  Don't we have Lindy Effect?  Why would all of the ongoing sloppiness and desperateness with the money cause bitcoin's investment thesis to become weaker rather than stronger with the passage of time, even if the bearwhale fucktwats are surely taking as much advantage as they can to ongoingly manipulate the BTC price down as much as they can and for as long as they can.. but still I doubt that the chances for their getting away with DOWNity manipulation has become stronger, merely because the rhetoric seems to be stronger, currently.... The rhetoric (and the doom and gloom) always seems to be strong, even when the BTC price ends up going on variations of "upward tears".. and I am not even taking for granted that there is any kind of guarantee that we will even get back up to our previous $69k ATH.. since there are no guarantees in this "game" while at the same time, the upside scenarios do not really seem to either be off the table or needing to be tempered merely because more and more powerful no coiners, bitcoin naysayers and shitcoin pumpeners seem to be either becoming more aware of the power of king daddy or taking stronger anti-bitcoin actions in recent times... the odds for their success to keep king daddy down do not really seem to be getting stronger, even if we might be able to acknowledge and recognize that "they" are talking a BIGGER game.. and perhaps even taking some seemingly more draconian measures.

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation