Bitcoin Forum
June 14, 2025, 03:35:43 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 29.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Poll
Question: How far will this leg take us?
$110K - 6 (7.2%)
$120K - 14 (16.9%)
$130K - 11 (13.3%)
$140K - 9 (10.8%)
$150K - 14 (16.9%)
$160K - 1 (1.2%)
$170K+ - 28 (33.7%)
Total Voters: 83

Pages: « 1 ... 34223 34224 34225 34226 34227 34228 34229 34230 34231 34232 34233 34234 34235 34236 34237 34238 34239 34240 34241 34242 34243 34244 34245 34246 34247 34248 34249 34250 34251 34252 34253 34254 34255 34256 34257 34258 34259 34260 34261 34262 34263 34264 34265 34266 34267 34268 34269 34270 34271 34272 [34273] 34274 34275 34276 34277 34278 34279 34280 34281 34282 34283 34284 34285 34286 34287 34288 34289 34290 34291 34292 34293 34294 34295 34296 34297 34298 34299 34300 34301 34302 34303 34304 34305 34306 34307 34308 34309 34310 34311 34312 34313 34314 34315 34316 34317 34318 34319 34320 34321 34322 34323 ... 34634 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion  (Read 26793239 times)
This is a self-moderated topic. If you do not want to be moderated by the person who started this topic, create a new topic. (174 posts by 1 users with 9 merit deleted.)
cAPSLOCK
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 4046
Merit: 6165



View Profile
February 19, 2025, 05:20:33 PM
Merited by vapourminer (1), JayJuanGee (1), d_eddie (1)


maxis and marxists are loser extremist belief systems that do not work.

BTC sucked in price until shitcoins were invented.

Simple fact.

and Marxist countries are filled with rich fucks that rip off workers

Simple fact.


Most people realize blending beliefs are better.

But full out believers are loud mouthed and are heard more then sane people that work to acheive a proper blend.

If you go back and read history President Nixon realized that the silent majority were viable power base and he attempted to reach them.

Now we mostly here from far right or far left morons with simplified beliefs in complex stituations.

So BTC maxis = unrealistic morons that refuse to see how shit coins allowed btc to thrive.
and Marxists = unrealistic morons that pretend people can share the wealth equally.

Now both believers above have some points that can be blended by realists into working systems.

A. we certainly do not need 10,000 shitcoins = true
B. some wealth sharing can help the overall setup for humanity.

of course some one will automatically come attack this post because they what to push their agenda.

I agree with some of this, with a bit of my own nuance i guess.

My thought on Communism (and the softer utopian systems like socialism mostly) is connected to my worldview in general.  I think mankind is a mixture of noble and ignoble.  I could tie this to my faith beliefs and start a whole new potential for conflict, but shall not.

But since, IMHO, humankind is imperfect at best, and has the potential for great evil, a utopian system like communism will ALWAYS fail.  Greed and self preservation will always lead to the end we have seen over and over (apocalyptic in most cases).  Capitalism is an imperfect system too for sure.  But much less so.  Since it acknowledges  things like greed in the first place it can use them to actually fuel a system that can, when well implemented cause a rise for all members of society.  I think the proof is easily seen in western nations as even the poor live like kings when compared to the poor in communist countries (there are probably 14 asterisks to add to this like the communist/capatalist combo of China and how it thrives/oppresses).

As to Bitcoin "maximallism" (a term ironically coined by Vitalik Buterin as a slur (too bad "mountain man" did not catch on quite as well...))

It has it's good points and it's poisonous ones.  I do NOT think Alt coins were needed for Bitcoin's rise, but i do see what you mean as they created a symbiotic relationship that became one of Bitcoin's first use cases.  But just like Silk Road, the shitcoin casino  had quite a dark side.  And still does, sadly.  Just look at that doorknob Portnoy.  Or if you prefer that numbskull "Bitboy".  And look how a damned MEMCOIN might be taking down a promising leader in Javiar Milei based on what seems to be a lack of understanding.  A problem that causes the shitcoin cycle to repeat over and over impoverishing hopeful fools and enriching scammers.

On the other hand denying there has been important things done in "crypto" is just a straight up lack of critical thinking.  Even the absolute failures have proven out important ideas.  ETH comes to mind.  Its design tradeoffs have doomed to to centralization and therefore failure from the start... but as one of the first fairly unlimited testbeds for smart contracts it has forwarded ideas that will be important to bitcoin.  I will not mention (again) the one project i think has had an actual impact that though it made different tradeoffs it was not invalidated by them.  You are welcome.

Still the overwhelmingly VAST majority of crypto projects that were/are not scams from the start either offered nothing all that new or made tradeoffs that broke the fundamental innovation the Bitcoin brought.  And the non-scam projects are a tiny minority in the overall scope.

To tie the two things together... I see a HUGE crossover between the current Meme coin explosion/travesty as I do with communism.  The owners of the means of production (who issue the coins) profiting off the backs of the proles.

In the end the working class gets slaughtered, but even the idealistic(?) leaders end up damaged in many cases...

wavessurfing
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 507
Merit: 64


View Profile
February 19, 2025, 05:50:28 PM
Merited by jojo69 (1), d_eddie (1)

..................

I agree with some of this, with a bit of my own nuance i guess.

My thought on Communism (and the softer utopian systems like socialism mostly) is connected to my worldview in general.  I think mankind is a mixture of noble and ignoble.  I could tie this to my faith beliefs and start a whole new potential for conflict, but shall not.

But since, IMHO, humankind is imperfect at best, and has the potential for great evil, a utopian system like communism will ALWAYS fail.  Greed and self preservation will always lead to the end we have seen over and over (apocalyptic in most cases).  Capitalism is an imperfect system too for sure.  But much less so.  Since it acknowledges  things like greed in the first place it can use them to actually fuel a system that can, when well implemented cause a rise for all members of society.  I think the proof is easily seen in western nations as even the poor live like kings when compared to the poor in communist countries (there are probably 14 asterisks to add to this like the communist/capatalist combo of China and how it thrives/oppresses).

As to Bitcoin "maximallism" (a term ironically coined by Vitalik Buterin as a slur (too bad "mountain man" did not catch on quite as well...))

It has it's good points and it's poisonous ones.  I do NOT think Alt coins were needed for Bitcoin's rise, but i do see what you mean as they created a symbiotic relationship that became one of Bitcoin's first use cases.  But just like Silk Road, the shitcoin casino  had quite a dark side.  And still does, sadly.  Just look at that doorknob Portnoy.  Or if you prefer that numbskull "Bitboy".  And look how a damned MEMCOIN might be taking down a promising leader in Javiar Milei based on what seems to be a lack of understanding.  A problem that causes the shitcoin cycle to repeat over and over impoverishing hopeful fools and enriching scammers.

On the other hand denying there has been important things done in "crypto" is just a straight up lack of critical thinking.  Even the absolute failures have proven out important ideas.  ETH comes to mind.  Its design tradeoffs have doomed to to centralization and therefore failure from the start... but as one of the first fairly unlimited testbeds for smart contracts it has forwarded ideas that will be important to bitcoin.  I will not mention (again) the one project i think has had an actual impact that though it made different tradeoffs it was not invalidated by them.  You are welcome.

Still the overwhelmingly VAST majority of crypto projects that were/are not scams from the start either offered nothing all that new or made tradeoffs that broke the fundamental innovation the Bitcoin brought.  And the non-scam projects are a tiny minority in the overall scope.

To tie the two things together... I see a HUGE crossover between the current Meme coin explosion/travesty as I do with communism.  The owners of the means of production (who issue the coins) profiting off the backs of the proles.

In the end the working class gets slaughtered, but even the idealistic(?) leaders end up damaged in many cases...


don't forget that the market's analysis by MARX were profound and astute, and constituted "per se" a considerable event.

he is usually linked to communism, but was rather a political economist who gave birth to successive utopias developing with time: communism, then socialism, and more recently mondialism.

in the present phase mondialism has had a recent defeat, giving place to some chaos.

money, centralized or not recently, has always been a close fabricated parameter allowing or not the resulting "happiness for people".

so we are waiting presently the resolution of the present crisis with unwritten events.
ChartBuddy
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2576
Merit: 2210


1CBuddyxy4FerT3hzMmi1Jz48ESzRw1ZzZ


View Profile
February 19, 2025, 06:01:18 PM


Explanation
Chartbuddy thanks talkimg.com
serveria.com
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2618
Merit: 1349


Privacy Servers. Since 2009.


View Profile WWW
February 19, 2025, 06:38:07 PM

🇺🇸 Binance US resumes USD deposits and withdrawals for the first time since February 13, 2023.

REF

Bullish! $100k in hours!
serveria.com
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2618
Merit: 1349


Privacy Servers. Since 2009.


View Profile WWW
February 19, 2025, 06:45:47 PM
Merited by JayJuanGee (1), cAPSLOCK (1)


BTC sucked in price until shitcoins were invented.

Simple fact.

So BTC maxis = unrealistic morons that refuse to see how shit coins allowed btc to thrive.

I'm not going to attack anything but this here is a very bold and arguable statement. It's not that BTC sucked in price and shitcoins made it's price increase but simply BTC was the first and it was an early development phase. Infact, if shitcoins wouldn't be invented, all current "crypto" marketcap would be BTC. So I fail to see how "shitcoins made BTC great".  Grin
ChartBuddy
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2576
Merit: 2210


1CBuddyxy4FerT3hzMmi1Jz48ESzRw1ZzZ


View Profile
February 19, 2025, 07:01:16 PM


Explanation
Chartbuddy thanks talkimg.com
cAPSLOCK
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 4046
Merit: 6165



View Profile
February 19, 2025, 07:24:10 PM
Merited by El duderino_ (10), philipma1957 (3), psycodad (1), PowerGlove (1)


BTC sucked in price until shitcoins were invented.

Simple fact.

So BTC maxis = unrealistic morons that refuse to see how shit coins allowed btc to thrive.

I'm not going to attack anything but this here is a very bold and arguable statement. It's not that BTC sucked in price and shitcoins made it's price increase but simply BTC was the first and it was an early development phase. Infact, if shitcoins wouldn't be invented, all current "crypto" marketcap would be BTC. So I fail to see how "shitcoins made BTC great".  Grin

Agree here.

I think the only rational argument is BTC was, for a time, the "reserve currency" for shitcoin casinos.  For things like Namecoin, and Solidcoin, and Primecoin, Litecoin, Feathercoin and so on.

And then up to Ethereum.  Eventually stable coins took some of this from Bitcoin.

I think this is another reason people from the earlier days of BTC history are sort of anathema to the whole Maxi/Shitcoinner dichotomy.  Certainly some of them (us) are maxis, but most of us saw interesting things in the development of alts at the time. Greg Maxwell had an XMR address in his profile here for years.  I think the whole thing looks different from the viewpoint of before mtgox or when that was the only exchange.  This can be oversimplified.

The illogic goes like this: 

cAPS openly praises Monero (still). --->  Therefore cAPS is a shitcoinner. --->  Therefore cAPS likes big blocks and Solana.

I call this logical fallacy "Reductum ad retardum".  And if that name hurts your feeling feel free to use "Reductum ad oversimplificationum".  I will use the former. Wink

Even Satoshi did not discourage the development of altcoins.  Revisit Namecoin.  In fact he encouraged it so what it was doing would not divert the core purpose of BTC.

On top of THAT Satoshi not only had something to do with the advent of Namecoin, but he actually invented merged mining with the idea of BitDNS This is something I know Phillip appreciates with his fondness for Litecoin/DOGE.

This alone should give Maxis pause.  But... also consider this... *gasp*  Satoshi could ALSO have been an idiot on this topic and his ideas around merged mining were foolish.  I do not think that is true though.  But I also think Hal had clearer vision when it came to the future of Bitcoin... this is one of the reasons I think he was not Satoshi... but as great as Satoshi in his own right.

Nothing is black and white.  Even in this ridiculously polarized world.

<3 cAPS
ChartBuddy
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2576
Merit: 2210


1CBuddyxy4FerT3hzMmi1Jz48ESzRw1ZzZ


View Profile
February 19, 2025, 08:01:15 PM


Explanation
Chartbuddy thanks talkimg.com
ChartBuddy
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2576
Merit: 2210


1CBuddyxy4FerT3hzMmi1Jz48ESzRw1ZzZ


View Profile
February 19, 2025, 09:01:20 PM


Explanation
Chartbuddy thanks talkimg.com
philipma1957
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 4522
Merit: 9928


'The right to privacy matters'


View Profile WWW
February 19, 2025, 09:14:39 PM
Merited by El duderino_ (10), cAPSLOCK (3), vapourminer (1)


BTC sucked in price until shitcoins were invented.

Simple fact.

So BTC maxis = unrealistic morons that refuse to see how shit coins allowed btc to thrive.

I'm not going to attack anything but this here is a very bold and arguable statement. It's not that BTC sucked in price and shitcoins made it's price increase but simply BTC was the first and it was an early development phase. Infact, if shitcoins wouldn't be invented, all current "crypto" marketcap would be BTC. So I fail to see how "shitcoins made BTC great".  Grin

Agree here.

I think the only rational argument is BTC was, for a time, the "reserve currency" for shitcoin casinos.  For things like Namecoin, and Solidcoin, and Primecoin, Litecoin, Feathercoin and so on.

And then up to Ethereum.  Eventually stable coins took some of this from Bitcoin.

I think this is another reason people from the earlier days of BTC history are sort of anathema to the whole Maxi/Shitcoinner dichotomy.  Certainly some of them (us) are maxis, but most of us saw interesting things in the development of alts at the time. Greg Maxwell had an XMR address in his profile here for years.  I think the whole thing looks different from the viewpoint of before mtgox or when that was the only exchange.  This can be oversimplified.

The illogic goes like this: 

cAPS openly praises Monero (still). --->  Therefore cAPS is a shitcoinner. --->  Therefore cAPS likes big blocks and Solana.

I call this logical fallacy "Reductum ad retardum".  And if that name hurts your feeling feel free to use "Reductum ad oversimplificationum".  I will use the former. Wink

Even Satoshi did not discourage the development of altcoins.  Revisit Namecoin.  In fact he encouraged it so what it was doing would not divert the core purpose of BTC.

On top of THAT Satoshi not only had something to do with the advent of Namecoin, but he actually invented merged mining with the idea of BitDNS This is something I know Phillip appreciates with his fondness for Litecoin/DOGE.

This alone should give Maxis pause.  But... also consider this... *gasp*  Satoshi could ALSO have been an idiot on this topic and his ideas around merged mining were foolish.  I do not think that is true though.  But I also think Hal had clearer vision when it came to the future of Bitcoin... this is one of the reasons I think he was not Satoshi... but as great as Satoshi in his own right.

Nothing is black and white.  Even in this ridiculously polarized world.

<3 cAPS


Well I am not going to write 10,000 word posts explain why maxi's do not get it.

but to the other side of the coin 10,000 plus shitcoins are pretty much ludicrous.

We could likely do with under 500 coins in all rather than have 10,000 plus. But if we were only BTC I think if would have never become as big as it is.

I was more of a gear head and got into this because I liked building rigs.

I built 1000 gpu rigs. I modded a few hundred asic rigs. So of me it was able working with my hands and making a few bucks.

I was far too small minded from 2011/2012 to 2017 dec. (it was obvious btc was the king by then)

I would also argue my choices from 2017 to 2024 involved okay partnerships that made profit. But that the last year I have been more on my own and have enough confidence to be okay with my actions. I can be a slow learner. Many were pushing hodl back in 2012 not sure how many held 100 or more coins from 2012 to 2025 but anyone that did that did great. I do not think BTC would have grown without shitcoin influence . from 2012 to 2021.

I also think shitcoins are now too many in number and are not needed at levels of 10,000 + shitcoins.

I guess there is a lot of ebb and flow in the world of digital wealth. (better than crypto) as wealth always implies value while crypto does have a lot of shit with no value.
ChartBuddy
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2576
Merit: 2210


1CBuddyxy4FerT3hzMmi1Jz48ESzRw1ZzZ


View Profile
February 19, 2025, 10:01:16 PM


Explanation
Chartbuddy thanks talkimg.com
bestcandy
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 238
Merit: 10


View Profile
February 19, 2025, 10:35:09 PM


BTC sucked in price until shitcoins were invented.

Simple fact.

So BTC maxis = unrealistic morons that refuse to see how shit coins allowed btc to thrive.

I'm not going to attack anything but this here is a very bold and arguable statement. It's not that BTC sucked in price and shitcoins made it's price increase but simply BTC was the first and it was an early development phase. Infact, if shitcoins wouldn't be invented, all current "crypto" marketcap would be BTC. So I fail to see how "shitcoins made BTC great".  Grin

Agree here.

I think the only rational argument is BTC was, for a time, the "reserve currency" for shitcoin casinos.  For things like Namecoin, and Solidcoin, and Primecoin, Litecoin, Feathercoin and so on.

And then up to Ethereum.  Eventually stable coins took some of this from Bitcoin.

I think this is another reason people from the earlier days of BTC history are sort of anathema to the whole Maxi/Shitcoinner dichotomy.  Certainly some of them (us) are maxis, but most of us saw interesting things in the development of alts at the time. Greg Maxwell had an XMR address in his profile here for years.  I think the whole thing looks different from the viewpoint of before mtgox or when that was the only exchange.  This can be oversimplified.

The illogic goes like this: 

cAPS openly praises Monero (still). --->  Therefore cAPS is a shitcoinner. --->  Therefore cAPS likes big blocks and Solana.

I call this logical fallacy "Reductum ad retardum".  And if that name hurts your feeling feel free to use "Reductum ad oversimplificationum".  I will use the former. Wink

Even Satoshi did not discourage the development of altcoins.  Revisit Namecoin.  In fact he encouraged it so what it was doing would not divert the core purpose of BTC.

On top of THAT Satoshi not only had something to do with the advent of Namecoin, but he actually invented merged mining with the idea of BitDNS This is something I know Phillip appreciates with his fondness for Litecoin/DOGE.

This alone should give Maxis pause.  But... also consider this... *gasp*  Satoshi could ALSO have been an idiot on this topic and his ideas around merged mining were foolish.  I do not think that is true though.  But I also think Hal had clearer vision when it came to the future of Bitcoin... this is one of the reasons I think he was not Satoshi... but as great as Satoshi in his own right.

Nothing is black and white.  Even in this ridiculously polarized world.

<3 cAPS


Well I am not going to write 10,000 word posts explain why maxi's do not get it.

but to the other side of the coin 10,000 plus shitcoins are pretty much ludicrous.

We could likely do with under 500 coins in all rather than have 10,000 plus. But if we were only BTC I think if would have never become as big as it is.

I was more of a gear head and got into this because I liked building rigs.

I built 1000 gpu rigs. I modded a few hundred asic rigs. So of me it was able working with my hands and making a few bucks.

I was far too small minded from 2011/2012 to 2017 dec. (it was obvious btc was the king by then)

I would also argue my choices from 2017 to 2024 involved okay partnerships that made profit. But that the last year I have been more on my own and have enough confidence to be okay with my actions. I can be a slow learner. Many were pushing hodl back in 2012 not sure how many held 100 or more coins from 2012 to 2025 but anyone that did that did great. I do not think BTC would have grown without shitcoin influence . from 2012 to 2021.

I also think shitcoins are now too many in number and are not needed at levels of 10,000 + shitcoins.

I guess there is a lot of ebb and flow in the world of digital wealth. (better than crypto) as wealth always implies value while crypto does have a lot of shit with no value.
The impression that invention of shitcoin enhance the price of Bitcoin is arguable because Bitcoin has already started gaining momentums before altcoins and it's also the main anchored head of every other digital currencies. The idea behind altcoins was emulated from Bitcoin. I would even say that altcoins seem to be like a huddle to the price of Bitcoin because if it was not invented Bitcoin would have be the only digital currency and as such all the investment made in altcoins would have been invested in Bitcoin which would have even resulted to more increased in the price of Bitcoin.
Biodom
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 4158
Merit: 5088



View Profile
February 19, 2025, 10:37:47 PM

In my opinion, the hasty jump from bitcoin to VBcoin and others essentially bypassed the built-out of layers on the top of bitcoin.
Nobody ever expected bitcoin to do everything, but if financial rails were built on bitcoin first, it would have been much more "organic", imho.
Currently, "crypto" (apart from btc) is a disorganized mess with, unfortunately, lately developing criminality, like recent 'sniping', etc.

So, my position is that s-tcoin took something from btc, and gave almost nothing...for now.
Yeah, as an exception, perhaps they increased the velocity of money because people were constantly moving between s-tcoins and btc and then stables, as was rightfully noted, but i am not sure how important it was as far as the market size is concerned.
ChartBuddy
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2576
Merit: 2210


1CBuddyxy4FerT3hzMmi1Jz48ESzRw1ZzZ


View Profile
February 19, 2025, 11:01:15 PM


Explanation
Chartbuddy thanks talkimg.com
JayJuanGee
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 4116
Merit: 12339


Self-Custody is a right. Say no to "non-custodial"


View Profile
February 19, 2025, 11:05:08 PM
Last edit: February 19, 2025, 11:52:37 PM by JayJuanGee

please can you explain to me more about Maxis and Marxists. Thank you.
Marxist = A follower of Karl Marx, the inventor of Communism. Here's a simplistic explanation of communist thought. In capitalism, the wealth produced by the whole population isn't equally shared by all participants. All profit comes from inputs + means of productions. For example, when you make and sell a hamburger,

Means of production: cooking equipment, shop (lease or own).
Inputs: meat, bread etc., human work (burger flipping guy).
If you pay all this (meat, bread, rent, 5 minutes of flipper's work etc.) $3 and you sell the burger for $5, the $2 of profit are only possible because you underpay the burger flipper, who doesn't own the cooking equipment or (part of) the physical shop. So you are "stealing" from the workers, who should collectively own the shop and share the $2. Ownership of the burger enterprise (the shop, pans, cooking equipment, meat and bread orders etc.) should be distributed among the workers.

In practice, collective ownership turns into a nightmare where the big political bosses own everything and the burger flipping plebs own nothing. No one is motivated to open burger shops. It may be illegal to open your business, even. The economy stagnates, poverty spreads.
TL;DR Some people get richer than others because they own the means of production (factories) and pay the workers less than fairly.

Fair enough summary - even though there could be all kinds of ways that various forms of Marxist societies could end up playing out, and surely there are ways that incentives get screwed up through Marxist practices in ways that are dissimilar to the ways that incentives get screwed up in debt-ladden monetary societies, which seems to be a current state of our world that bitcoin seems to be attempting to address.

Maxi = Bitcoin maximalist. Here's a simplistic explanation of bitcoin maximalism. There's bitcoin and there are shitcoins. The latter are very different from bitcoin. Bitcoin is good, shitcoins are bad.

TL;DR Shitcoins are shit.

Examples:  JJG and many others here.

I suppose my behaviors might cause you to label me as bitcoin maxi, and it is not like I can really fight such label, even though I would suggest that I believe that there are roles for the government and there are various kinds of public goods - even though I seem to be becoming even more and more confused in regards to how boundaries between government intervention might be needed versus where private ownership might be preferred... There are surely challenges, even for bitcoin to address some of these kinds of balances.  Bitcoin can fix a lot of things, but not all things.  

I recently listened to an early 2022 interview with Robert Breedlove and Noam Chomsky, and surely Noam Chomsky has abilities to make the case for government having a role in society.. just like several others of the liberal left.

Also in regards to shitcoins, part of my opposition to them comes from when they are pumped in this thread, since it seems to be mostly off-topic and also a slippery slope to allow one shitcoin and then when do we stop trying to figure out which shitcoin happens to be less shitty?  I have likely always acknowledged a belief that shitcoins will continue to exist and even to exist in various wild and crazy stages, even surely I have been surprised by some of the levels of craziness (and creativities in scamming people) in the shitcoin scene over the years, yet I am likely more against the pumping of the various shitcoins rather than the acknowledgement that they exist, will likely continue to exist and might even have one or two redeeming attributes from time to time.  

I am also quite irritated when vague terms are used that may or may not be referring to bitcoin (when there seems to even be a purposeful avoiding of saying the word bitcoin, perhaps to sound smarter?), so I am not so much against the use of the term "crypto," when there might be some relevance to the idea being discussed, yet when the term is vaguely used to lump together bitcoin and shitcoins without any clarification of the topic, then the whole practice of using vague words just comes off as sloppy in the better interpretation and potentially misleading in a more sinister interpretation, even though many of us likely hear those kinds of vague references by quite a few people in mainstream circles and probably even in real life circles (even coming from seemingly smart and aware people).

In practice, Maxis and Marxists are distinct groups. Very few maxis are marxists. Very few marxists are maxis. Maxis are usually capitalist at their core, often with an anarcho-capitalist tinge. Especially old school maxis, such as the people you can find in this little club.

I thought that bitcoin is for anyone, even though everyone might not be ready, willing and/or able to directly own bitcoin... while at the same time, bitcoin seems to be intended to help everyone through the creation of a more fair money - even though we can still see that early adopters are getting advantages over later adopters, and still the ones coming into bitcoin late might not feel enthusiastic to be pumping the bags of the earlier adopters, but at the same, time it does not really help them if they wait.  What is it called?  Damned if you do and damned if you dont, but probably more damned if you wait when you could have had been able to join the club by buying some cornz.

I hope this helps.

It kind of does.  But I am still confused.

We could likely do with under 500 coins in all rather than have 10,000 plus. But if we were only BTC I think if would have never become as big as it is.

I must chime in to emphasize that the tail does not wag the dog so frequently you seem to get lost in regards to basic doggie facts. nuff ruff ruff said.
 
I also think shitcoins are now too many in number and are not needed at levels of 10,000 + shitcoins.

This repeated theme of yours regarding the proper number of shitcoins comes off a bit pie in the sky contradictory. It is like you are saying: "I like shitcoins, but more than 500 is too much."   Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes

 Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy

In my opinion, the hasty jump from bitcoin to VBcoin and others essentially bypassed the built-out of layers on the top of bitcoin.
Nobody ever expected bitcoin to do everything, but if financial rails were built on bitcoin first, it would have been much more "organic", imho.
Currently, "crypto" (apart from btc) is a disorganized mess with, unfortunately, lately developing criminality, like recent 'sniping', etc.

So, my position is that s-tcoin took something from btc, and gave almost nothing...for now.
Yeah, as an exception, perhaps they increased the velocity of money because people were constantly moving between s-tcoins and btc and then stables, as was rightfully noted, but i am not sure how important it was as far as the market size is concerned.

Shitcoins seem to have created a decent amount of deflection from bitcoin and surely various kinds of affinity scams that confuse people, and yeah, whether shitcoins have played out as a net good or a net bad could be debatable, to the extent that it even matters in terms of being able to control what happens in the real world and the various ways that markets were already set up prior to bitcoin coming onto the scene.  

Yeah, bitcoin may have had nearly a whole cycle of relative obscurity, yet even when I came to bitcoin in late 2013, there were congressional hearings, and silk road, and China continuing to take its own aggressive stances towards bitcoin, even while businesses were getting built around bitcoin, and some of them rug pulling their users and others having other questionable technical and/or incompetence questions, like some of the MTGOX developments...

And there were already shitcoins in late 2013 when I got started in bitcoin, but the shitcoins really did not start to get pumped until around the time that Ethereum launched in 2015 -  even though I am pretty sure there was some prelaunch attempts at pumping ethereum, too... but yeah various bitcoin threads we were constantly battling off the shitcoin pumpeners...which has never completely stopped, but just sometimes coming in different kind of ways, and probably certain circles are more inclined towards which shitcoin they are going to pump, or figuring out ways to "get in early," and those kinds of nonsenses that seem to have some  similar patterns, just with some changes in the actors..to the extent that any of "us" bitcoiners are dedicating any of our time to follow those kinds of developments (and topics).
philipma1957
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 4522
Merit: 9928


'The right to privacy matters'


View Profile WWW
February 19, 2025, 11:11:57 PM
Last edit: February 20, 2025, 02:43:42 AM by philipma1957
Merited by vapourminer (1)

In my opinion, the hasty jump from bitcoin to VBcoin and others essentially bypassed the built-out of layers on the top of bitcoin.
Nobody ever expected bitcoin to do everything, but if financial rails were built on bitcoin first, it would have been much more "organic", imho.
Currently, "crypto" (apart from btc) is a disorganized mess with, unfortunately, lately developing criminality, like recent 'sniping', etc.

So, my position is that s-tcoin took something from btc, and gave almost nothing...for now.
Yeah, as an exception, perhaps they increased the velocity of money because people were constantly moving between s-tcoins and btc and then stables, as was rightfully noted, but i am not sure how important it was as far as the market size is concerned.

I think in the 2011 to 2021 era shitcoins were helpful. They created the need for exchanges which boosted to liquidity of btc and allowed for trading of it and hodl of it.

since eth split and left pow shitcoins in general draw. btc bigly.

Now if you want to argue zero coins just btc would have been better yeah maybe.

but it is not what happened.

One could argue that 3 blocks an hour and slowing the 1/2 ing would be better but that is not what happened.

the reality is shit coins were a driving force for many years but they are now way to common and do not help btc in general.

so 2009 to 2011  btc and very slow growth
2011 to 2017 btc and shit coins very fast growth
2017 to 2021 btc and shit coins and slower growth
2021 to 2025 btc and shit coins slower growth.



if you believe 2011 to 2017 shitcoins were not helpful I disagree.

If you believe 2017 dec to now shitcoins were not helpful maybe
if you believe 2021 to now shit copies hurt digital wealth yeah they do.

but to throw out 2011 to 2017 dec  as shit coins not helping digital wealth nah you are wrong.


look jjg without shitcoins in the 2011 to 2017 era we would have not gotten any demand for exchanges.

with out exchanges btc would not have skyrocketed in the 2011 to 2017 era.

one could argue the first effort to hurt shit coins was by the Donald when he signed off on the 2018 jan 1 end of like kind exchanges.

which promptly tanked the market. for years to come.

( I will have others attack me on that to)


But that is what the forums are for.

BTW I am 7 or 8 to 1 btc to combined shit coins.

so it is not like I am a major player in the shit coin world
ChartBuddy
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2576
Merit: 2210


1CBuddyxy4FerT3hzMmi1Jz48ESzRw1ZzZ


View Profile
February 20, 2025, 12:01:17 AM


Explanation
Chartbuddy thanks talkimg.com
JayJuanGee
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 4116
Merit: 12339


Self-Custody is a right. Say no to "non-custodial"


View Profile
February 20, 2025, 12:21:26 AM

[edited out]
I think in the 2011 to 2021 era shitcoins were helpful. They created the need for exchanges which boosted to liquidity of btc and allowed for trading of it and hodl of it.
since eth split and left pow shitcoins in general draw. btc bigly.

Now if you want to argue zero coins just btc would have been better yeah maybe.
but it is not what happened.

One could argue that 3 blocks an hour and slowing the 1/2 ing would be better but that is not what happened.
the reality is shit coins were a driving force for many years but they are not way to common and do not help btc in general.

so 2009 to 2011  btc and very slow growth
2011 to 2017 btc and shit coins very fast growth
2017 to 2021 btc and shit coins and slower growth
2021 to 2025 btc and shit coins slower growth.

if you believe 2011 to 2017 shitcoins were not helpful I disagree.
If you believe 2017 dec to now shitcoins were not helpful maybe
if you believe 2021 to now shit copies hurt digital wealth yeah they do.

but to throw out 2011 to 2017 dec  as shit coins not helping digital wealth nah you are wrong.

You can have your opinion to characterize what happened, but that does not cause your framing of the matter to be factual... You are mixing facts and opinions in order to  attempt to describe what you consider to be facts.

look jjg without shitcoins in the 2011 to 2017 era we would have not gotten any demand for exchanges.

You proclamation  that shitcoins contributed to bitcoin's growth is a BIG SO WHAT, even if it were true.  Do you think that you could run some kind of experiment to show if this happened and to eliminate certain parts and/or add other parts?  You make little sense, when you are mixing facts and opinion, and then proposing a counter-narrative of hypothetical facts and opinion to proclaim how the world would have turned out under your alternative scenario.

I am not sure how you became such an expert anyhow, you were likely not even paying attention to bitcoin, shitcoins or anything else until perhaps 2020 or so since you had been so busy worshipping the dollar.

you are still blinded by your ongoing worship of the dollar, so many of us should be taking your rendition of history and the various "what ifs?" with a decently sized grain of salt.

You might be better off if you try to describe some facts without weaving in your opinions and then you might be able to see what you are saying from a more objective perspective, if that is even possible with you.

with out exchanges btc would not have skyrocketed in the 2011 to 2017 era.

Exchanges were a mechanism that helped with price discovery located all around the world... so what?  There were fewer of them in 2011 dominated by MTGOX until it shut down in early 2014, yet even in early 2014 there were a lot of other exchanges,  likely dominated by Chinese (perhaps a lot of fake volume between 2014 and 2016), and more exchanges by the time we got to 2017 as compared with 2011.  So what?

one could argue the first effort to hurt shit coins was by the Donald when he signed off on the 2018 jan 1 end of like kind exchanges.

which promptly tanked the market. for years to come.
( I will have others attack me on that to)

Yeah, because you come up with overly simplified explanations and promote them as if they were the gospel.

Remember during the 2017 pump - perhaps even towards the top of the pump in December-ish, CME BTC futures (settled in cash) went live, and one of the leaders of that entity said that they had come into the space in order to "tame bitcoin?"  Some folks attributed bitcoin's 2018 correction to the CME BTC futures, yet if  we had already had a 78x price appreciation from late 2015 (at $250) to late 2017 at ($19,666) weren't we due for a correction anyhow, even if the CME BTC futures were trying to claim credit for such?

I am  not trying to proclaim any explanation, except to say that there are many factors that affects BTC price, so your seeming ongoingly want to overly simpflify is not even very helpful, even if you were to have some actual meaningful data to back up your ongoing seemingly overly simplified explanations.

But that is what the forums are for.

Yeah, of course, you can spout all kinds of bullshit, and surely if you back up your bullshit, then it would likely be more helpful.. to the extent that you might want to engage in some kind of meaningful discussion rather than  pumping your frequently nonsensical tail wagging the dog theories.  Maybe you want to proclaim more nonsense about hashrate causing BTC price too, while you are at it?

BTW I am 7 or 8 to 1 btc to combined shit coins.

so it is not like I am a major player in the shit coin world

Maybe that is around 12% to 14% in shitcoins then?  That is a bit much in shitcoins for my liking, but it is not totally unreasonable, relatively speaking. 

There are some "crypto folks" who have the opposite.  They have like 80% to 90% in shitcoins and only 10% to 20% in bitcoin.. so at least you are not skewed in the extreme shitcoin end even though you seem to love to talk about shitcoins and seem to fail and/or refuse to recognize bitcoin as the leader in the space.   Of course, there are some guys who have absolutely no bitcoin and ONLY shitcoins.

But still seems pretty retarded to have much if any bitcoin once we recognize the leader of the space.. but hey, you can do what you like in terms of distracting yourself financially, psychologically and perhaps in terms of your mental energy and your time.
philipma1957
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 4522
Merit: 9928


'The right to privacy matters'


View Profile WWW
February 20, 2025, 12:59:36 AM

[edited out]
I think in the 2011 to 2021 era shitcoins were helpful. They created the need for exchanges which boosted to liquidity of btc and allowed for trading of it and hodl of it.
since eth split and left pow shitcoins in general draw. btc bigly.

Now if you want to argue zero coins just btc would have been better yeah maybe.
but it is not what happened.

One could argue that 3 blocks an hour and slowing the 1/2 ing would be better but that is not what happened.
the reality is shit coins were a driving force for many years but they are not way to common and do not help btc in general.

so 2009 to 2011  btc and very slow growth
2011 to 2017 btc and shit coins very fast growth
2017 to 2021 btc and shit coins and slower growth
2021 to 2025 btc and shit coins slower growth.

if you believe 2011 to 2017 shitcoins were not helpful I disagree.
If you believe 2017 dec to now shitcoins were not helpful maybe
if you believe 2021 to now shit copies hurt digital wealth yeah they do.

but to throw out 2011 to 2017 dec  as shit coins not helping digital wealth nah you are wrong.

You can have your opinion to characterize what happened, but that does not cause your framing of the matter to be factual... You are mixing facts and opinions in order to  attempt to describe what you consider to be facts.

look jjg without shitcoins in the 2011 to 2017 era we would have not gotten any demand for exchanges.

You proclamation  that shitcoins contributed to bitcoin's growth is a BIG SO WHAT, even if it were true.  Do you think that you could run some kind of experiment to show if this happened and to eliminate certain parts and/or add other parts?  You make little sense, when you are mixing facts and opinion, and then proposing a counter-narrative of hypothetical facts and opinion to proclaim how the world would have turned out under your alternative scenario.

I am not sure how you became such an expert anyhow, you were likely not even paying attention to bitcoin, shitcoins or anything else until perhaps 2020 or so since you had been so busy worshipping the dollar.

you are still blinded by your ongoing worship of the dollar, so many of us should be taking your rendition of history and the various "what ifs?" with a decently sized grain of salt.

You might be better off if you try to describe some facts without weaving in your opinions and then you might be able to see what you are saying from a more objective perspective, if that is even possible with you.

with out exchanges btc would not have skyrocketed in the 2011 to 2017 era.

Exchanges were a mechanism that helped with price discovery located all around the world... so what?  There were fewer of them in 2011 dominated by MTGOX until it shut down in early 2014, yet even in early 2014 there were a lot of other exchanges,  likely dominated by Chinese (perhaps a lot of fake volume between 2014 and 2016), and more exchanges by the time we got to 2017 as compared with 2011.  So what?

one could argue the first effort to hurt shit coins was by the Donald when he signed off on the 2018 jan 1 end of like kind exchanges.

which promptly tanked the market. for years to come.
( I will have others attack me on that to)

Yeah, because you come up with overly simplified explanations and promote them as if they were the gospel.

Remember during the 2017 pump - perhaps even towards the top of the pump in December-ish, CME BTC futures (settled in cash) went live, and one of the leaders of that entity said that they had come into the space in order to "tame bitcoin?"  Some folks attributed bitcoin's 2018 correction to the CME BTC futures, yet if  we had already had a 78x price appreciation from late 2015 (at $250) to late 2017 at ($19,666) weren't we due for a correction anyhow, even if the CME BTC futures were trying to claim credit for such?

I am  not trying to proclaim any explanation, except to say that there are many factors that affects BTC price, so your seeming ongoingly want to overly simpflify is not even very helpful, even if you were to have some actual meaningful data to back up your ongoing seemingly overly simplified explanations.

But that is what the forums are for.

Yeah, of course, you can spout all kinds of bullshit, and surely if you back up your bullshit, then it would likely be more helpful.. to the extent that you might want to engage in some kind of meaningful discussion rather than  pumping your frequently nonsensical tail wagging the dog theories.  Maybe you want to proclaim more nonsense about hashrate causing BTC price too, while you are at it?

BTW I am 7 or 8 to 1 btc to combined shit coins.

so it is not like I am a major player in the shit coin world

Maybe that is around 12% to 14% in shitcoins then?  That is a bit much in shitcoins for my liking, but it is not totally unreasonable, relatively speaking. 

There are some "crypto folks" who have the opposite.  They have like 80% to 90% in shitcoins and only 10% to 20% in bitcoin.. so at least you are not skewed in the extreme shitcoin end even though you seem to love to talk about shitcoins and seem to fail and/or refuse to recognize bitcoin as the leader in the space.   Of course, there are some guys who have absolutely no bitcoin and ONLY shitcoins.

But still seems pretty retarded to have much if any bitcoin once we recognize the leader of the space.. but hey, you can do what you like in terms of distracting yourself financially, psychologically and perhaps in terms of your mental energy and your time.

I mine the shit coins at considerable profit and buy btc with them.

But I always hold some of them.

And as to my time farming the past I do agree with you that its the past fuck it.

For right now we have far far far far far too many shitcoins that their sole purpose is to dilute wealth of the "crypto" holder.

Does it mean I am a maxi no.

Which someplace I wrote but maybe on altcoinstalks. Not bitcointalk that I seek to blend some from here and some from there.

 As My chance to get rich at this was lost by 2017, but I did get far more financially comfortable then I would have holding cash bonds and silver/gold.
ChartBuddy
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2576
Merit: 2210


1CBuddyxy4FerT3hzMmi1Jz48ESzRw1ZzZ


View Profile
February 20, 2025, 01:01:16 AM


Explanation
Chartbuddy thanks talkimg.com
Pages: « 1 ... 34223 34224 34225 34226 34227 34228 34229 34230 34231 34232 34233 34234 34235 34236 34237 34238 34239 34240 34241 34242 34243 34244 34245 34246 34247 34248 34249 34250 34251 34252 34253 34254 34255 34256 34257 34258 34259 34260 34261 34262 34263 34264 34265 34266 34267 34268 34269 34270 34271 34272 [34273] 34274 34275 34276 34277 34278 34279 34280 34281 34282 34283 34284 34285 34286 34287 34288 34289 34290 34291 34292 34293 34294 34295 34296 34297 34298 34299 34300 34301 34302 34303 34304 34305 34306 34307 34308 34309 34310 34311 34312 34313 34314 34315 34316 34317 34318 34319 34320 34321 34322 34323 ... 34634 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!