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

[Hueristic]

@BitHodlers - So, I'll ask you; Why do you think MSTR moved BTC to Fidelity? Do you think Fidelity cannot be trusted? Apparently MSTR thinks Fidelity can be trusted! What say you?

Bitcoin is about removing trust, why would you want to add back trust?

Anyway that is not relevant to my second part of the post. The more one entity has Bitcoin the higher the risk, it does not matter how trustworthy they are. It is easier to compromise 1 entity holding 100 000 BTC than it is to compromise 100 000 entities holding 1 BTC each. Always will be. If an occasional holder is hacked somehow that is not a big deal but if a big custodian ever gets hacked we are in a big mess..

So why did MSTR choose to move 165,709 BTC to Fidelity if (as many here stupidly say) Fidelity cannot be trusted?

They are in a multisig, Fidelity cannot touch them.

[JayJuanGee]

Strategy confirmed its balance sheet strength, maintaining a 2.0x assets-to-debt ratio even if Bitcoin drops to $25,000.

It diversified custody by moving 165,709 BTC to Fidelity.

Yes - that says Fidelity! A trusted global U.S. based financial institution.
► https://phemex.com/news/article/strategy-transfers-58390-btc-to-fidelity-custody-reducing-coinbase-reliance-39621

Why would MSTR move BTC to Fidelity if Fidelity cannot be trusted to custody BTC as some of you idiots claim?
► https://phemex.com/news/article/strategy-transfers-58390-btc-to-fidelity-custody-reducing-coinbase-reliance-39621
Some of you look more stupid each day as you are proven wrong and flat out liars. I'm looking at you JJG and OOM  - you dumbasses have shit on your face...

Individuals are not the same as institutions, and there are likely legitimate business reasons for MSTR to not be self-custodian all of their coins - yet surely historically, MSTR has been criticized about not custodian any of their coins and other aspects of their proclaiming to not believe that public verification of their addresses would be a good practice.

Surely, institutions and governments have some differing concerns as compared with individuals, including but not limited to fiduciary responsibilities in connection with anyone who might have an interest in the coins that the fiduciary holds, assets and/or other aspects of the fiduciary.

We have already discussed the many self-sovereignty aspects connected with holding your own coins, even though surely there can be instances in which it could be justifiable and rational for some portion of wealth to be held with third-parties  - yet it also seems that more and more abilities need to be developed so that individuals can remove coins from custody on fairly short notice in order to help to assure that custodians have the coins that they claim to have.  

Of course, these days so many financial relations are built upon abilities to issue debt in regards to assets and/or currencies, so bitcoin is going to ongoingly be used in those kinds of ways, so in that regard, questions and concerns in connection with how much debt issuance is responsible and reasonable is likely to continue to get 3rd party custodians and even governments into trouble, and many of us likely realize that keeping governments and institutions responsible and responsive in regards to their getting too far over their debt issuance skiis in connection with the bitcoin that they supposedly hold is either the verification of their having custody of such coins that they claim to have and/or the abilities of individuals to fairly easily and fairly timely to take custody over such coins.

Of course, even on an individual level we are still getting used to the various ways that we can become separated from our coins, and that is not ONLY related to the devaluing of the coins through third parties holding them, yet even our abilities to move in and out of such third-party relations without too much friction, if we were to choose to keep any meaningful portions of our coins in such custody.... and yeah, there are some folks who just seem to love third-party custodial relations, which seems to show that either they might not really recognize and/or understand what brings value to bitcoin or perhaps they are purposefully engaging in third-party relations to undermine bitcoin's value proposition, which does not seem logical for larger player bitcoin holders to come at bitcoin from a perspective to undermine the value of their own bitcoin holdings.

You are still in denial.  That's ok.  Someday you will admit you made a mistake and wish you listened to me.  You will sell everything at the bottom and rage quit.  I will still be here next cycle (God willing).

Nope, I don't sell small tops. I am not a fiat addict like yourself. Keep trying wannabe OG. You are BitPoor and I am a BitHodler.  

That's a fairly decent point.  Guys who are fucking around selling any meaningful amount of their sats with expectations of buying back cheaper or even expectations that they are going to be better off for selling their bitcoin, they likely don't really understand bitcoin.

Of course, there should be no problem for guys to shave off small portions of their bitcoin along the way or even some meaningful amounts if there is some subjective purpose for doing so... Guys who are greater than 10x or even in the ballpark of 100x of profits might not really find great differences between selling at $126k versus selling at $86k, especially if there is some reason to do so and maybe they are ONLY selling less than 10% of their BTC stash.  At the same time, it seems logical that if any of the longer term HODLers are selling some of their coins in advance, perhaps in the ballpark of 5% or 10%.  I, personally, would find it difficult to sell anywhere close to 10% of my stash at a time, yet sure, there could be some reason(s) that might come up, so I am not opposed to possibilities of such coming into the picture.

You might be right that in many things he does represent the overall thoughts here fairly well.  But... He is also the only member of this group who has a designated day on which we can tell him to fuck off. I can't remember what day that is and I'm not usually wanting to say it anyway.

And on the other hand, Mr. Nasty is currently kind of poking the bear here, or the bull maybe I should say, and his popularity, so to speak, may be at a local bottom.

It's just the word "nobody" is very black and white.

How does one earn a day like that? What did JayJuanGee do?

Reminds me of the opening song of "Fiddler on the roof" where there might be questions and uncertainties in regards to how any kind of thing had begun to happen.

[BTCETFInvestor]

Strategy confirmed its balance sheet strength, maintaining a 2.0x assets-to-debt ratio even if Bitcoin drops to $25,000.

It diversified custody by moving 165,709 BTC to Fidelity.

Yes - that says Fidelity! A trusted global U.S. based financial institution.
► https://phemex.com/news/article/strategy-transfers-58390-btc-to-fidelity-custody-reducing-coinbase-reliance-39621

Why would MSTR move BTC to Fidelity if Fidelity cannot be trusted to custody BTC as some of you idiots claim?
► https://phemex.com/news/article/strategy-transfers-58390-btc-to-fidelity-custody-reducing-coinbase-reliance-39621

Some of you look more stupid each day as you are proven wrong and flat out liars. I'm looking at you JJG and OOM  - you dumbasses have shit on your face...

Individuals are not the same as institutions, and there are likely legitimate business reasons for MSTR to not be self-custodian all of their coins - yet surely historically, MSTR has been criticized about not custodian any of their coins and other aspects of their proclaiming to not believe that public verification of their addresses would be a good practice.

Surely, institutions and governments have some differing concerns as compared with individuals, including but not limited to fiduciary responsibilities in connection with anyone who might have an interest in the coins that the fiduciary holds, assets and/or other aspects of the fiduciary.

[HUGE SNIP]

JJG - Your wordy response is totally a word salad and completely meaningless, which is always expected of you, you dipshit scumbag liar.

[BTCETFInvestor]

@BitHodlers - So, I'll ask you; Why do you think MSTR moved BTC to Fidelity? Do you think Fidelity cannot be trusted? Apparently MSTR thinks Fidelity can be trusted! What say you?

Bitcoin is about removing trust, why would you want to add back trust?

Anyway that is not relevant to my second part of the post. The more one entity has Bitcoin the higher the risk, it does not matter how trustworthy they are. It is easier to compromise 1 entity holding 100 000 BTC than it is to compromise 100 000 entities holding 1 BTC each. Always will be. If an occasional holder is hacked somehow that is not a big deal but if a big custodian ever gets hacked we are in a big mess..

So why did MSTR choose to move 165,709 BTC to Fidelity if (as many here stupidly say) Fidelity cannot be trusted?

They are in a multisig, Fidelity cannot touch them.

But, but, but - regardless of multisig, Fidelity cannot be trusted to securely provide custody according to many dumbasses here.

[BitHodlers]

But, but, but - regardless of multisig, Fidelity cannot be trusted to securely provide custody according to many dumbasses here.

Dude, give it a break. You are purposely ignoring important points of arguments when writing a response. Even I am considering putting you on ignore now.. your IQ should help you learn and adapt accordingly. If you can't even do that, I have bad news for you..

You are still in denial.  That's ok.  Someday you will admit you made a mistake and wish you listened to me.  You will sell everything at the bottom and rage quit.  I will still be here next cycle (God willing).

Nope, I don't sell small tops. I am not a fiat addict like yourself. Keep trying wannabe OG. You are BitPoor and I am a BitHodler.  

That's a fairly decent point.  Guys who are fucking around selling any meaningful amount of their sats with expectations of buying back cheaper or even expectations that they are going to be better off for selling their bitcoin, they likely don't really understand bitcoin.

Of course, there should be no problem for guys to shave off small portions of their bitcoin along the way or even some meaningful amounts if there is some subjective purpose for doing so... Guys who are greater than 10x or even in the ballpark of 100x of profits might not really find great differences between selling at $126k versus selling at $86k, especially if there is some reason to do so and maybe they are ONLY selling less than 10% of their BTC stash.  At the same time, it seems logical that if any of the longer term HODLers are selling some of their coins in advance, perhaps in the ballpark of 5% or 10%.  I, personally, would find it difficult to sell anywhere close to 10% of my stash at a time, yet sure, there could be some reason(s) that might come up, so I am not opposed to possibilities of such coming into the picture.

Selling appropriate amounts for important things or to get through a planned bear cycle makes sense, otherwise one would have to sell some anyway at much lower prices during a bear market. However for this purpose it is not necessary to target the top, anywhere close to it is sufficient. Most people trying to target something eventually make a huge mistake that undoes all the previous gains. The game should be maximizing BTC, not maximizing every single dirty dollar when you are selling some. Yes I know you will sell slightly more if you don't sell at the exact top, but that is besides the point. It does not come for free, nothing is free..

You might be right that in many things he does represent the overall thoughts here fairly well.  But... He is also the only member of this group who has a designated day on which we can tell him to fuck off. I can't remember what day that is and I'm not usually wanting to say it anyway.

And on the other hand, Mr. Nasty is currently kind of poking the bear here, or the bull maybe I should say, and his popularity, so to speak, may be at a local bottom.

It's just the word "nobody" is very black and white.

How does one earn a day like that? What did JayJuanGee do?

Reminds me of the opening song of "Fiddler on the roof" where there might be questions and uncertainties in regards to how any kind of thing had begun to happen.

Nobody really knows then, it is just a thing. I retract my question.  

[cAPSLOCK]

Individuals are not the same as institutions, and there are likely legitimate business reasons for MSTR to not be self-custodian all of their coins - yet surely historically, MSTR has been criticized about not custodian any of their coins and other aspects of their proclaiming to not believe that public verification of their addresses would be a good practice.

Indeed, just the sheer value of what strategy holds makes custody very different than the average holder. They are a target, and they need extremely well thought out security processes for their coins.

As the impact of this news has trickled into my brain meat, I have become very pleased that Strategy is making this move.  For more than one reason.

First of all, it's just smart. If you're going to hold an enormous amount of coins, and there are more than one experienced and trustable custodians available, it only makes sense to spread your attack surface out. I would be delighted to find out if strategy is working on their own system for custody.  

(Every single time I have to use a checkout from a vendor that has signed up with Coinbase marketplace or whatever it's called, I am reminded of how Brian Armstrong has proved over and over again that he is an enemy of Bitcoin.  Maybe that's a little strong in that obviously he is an advocate for Bitcoin too, but his business practices show over and over again that he pushes towards all kinds of convoluted shitcoin mechanisms and ignores Bitcoin almost entirely for payments.  The lightning network beats all of that crap.  I don't know that fidelity is just another JP Morgan with a better costume, but even just the way they speak about Bitcoin shows that they understand it far better than Armstrong either does or wants to.)

But the second reason that this news delights me is even more important to me in a way. I think this shows that Michael Saylor is at least more honest than all the rest of them.  I doubt very seriously that the recent attacks from the Federal Reserve and its shareholders on Michael Saylor and his company are not theater.  This is them trying to force the bit into his mouth and the fact that he's fighting back is a positive. And I do see them moving custody over multiple custodians as at least a little evidence that they're thinking about minimizing the risk of collusion between custodians and bad actors.

Reminds me of the opening song of "Fiddler on the roof" where there might be questions and uncertainties in regards to how any kind of thing had begun to happen.

Oh, I know the lyrics you're thinking of. "Yaba diba diba diba diba diba diba diba diba dum."!!!

No wait, that's not the opening song. Too bad, that would have fit pretty well.

The question is, how do we keep our balance on the roof? How do we keep our keys safe all by ourselves? How do we avoid selling our Bitcoin to evil people? How do we hold or trade through the waves that come in the Bitcoin world?  And of course more to the point. How do we know what day we can say mean things to J? How do we know how not to get a bat slap? How do we know how to keep respecting each other and having fun doing it at the same time, hopefully?

Tradition?

[BTCETFInvestor]

But, but, but - regardless of multisig, Fidelity cannot be trusted to securely provide custody according to many dumbasses here.

Dude, give it a break. You are purposely ignoring important points of arguments when writing a response. Even I am considering putting you on ignore now.. your IQ should help you learn and adapt accordingly. If you can't even do that, I have bad news for you..

@BitHodlers - Get over you newfound love for some of these idiots! I despise stupid people, liars, bullys and scumbag thugs like JJG and OOM.  

[Hueristic]

@BitHodlers - So, I'll ask you; Why do you think MSTR moved BTC to Fidelity? Do you think Fidelity cannot be trusted? Apparently MSTR thinks Fidelity can be trusted! What say you?

Bitcoin is about removing trust, why would you want to add back trust?

Anyway that is not relevant to my second part of the post. The more one entity has Bitcoin the higher the risk, it does not matter how trustworthy they are. It is easier to compromise 1 entity holding 100 000 BTC than it is to compromise 100 000 entities holding 1 BTC each. Always will be. If an occasional holder is hacked somehow that is not a big deal but if a big custodian ever gets hacked we are in a big mess..

So why did MSTR choose to move 165,709 BTC to Fidelity if (as many here stupidly say) Fidelity cannot be trusted?

They are in a multisig, Fidelity cannot touch them.

But, but, but - regardless of multisig, Fidelity cannot be trusted to securely provide custody according to many dumbasses here.

But But But, I'm not sure you understand what the fuck a multi sig is.

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation
Chartbuddy thanks talkimg.com

[cAPSLOCK]

Well then... The corn riseth slightly.

[Hueristic]

[d_eddie]

Well then... The corn riseth slightly.

I think it's shorts being liquidated. It was widely predicted at this level. If this unrolls nicely, it could bring us to 96k soonish.

[philipma1957]

So today I am moving my PayPal purchased fully kyc'd with traceable cash into my own address.

I did a lot of buying the last few weeks and do not want a PayPal fail to hurt my holdings.  

all labeled with a digital trail.

I will cash if and when needed. these coins can be considered clean as the digital  trail is

1) direct deposit pension check to bank

2) bank to paypal account

3) use PayPal account to buy from PayPal

4) move from PayPal to clean address never used

To follow up PayPal has told me wait 48 hours for security to remove more BTC.





This is why ETF or any derivative of BTC is inferior to actually holding the  BTC in your own wallet that you control.

I will play with withdraws until they are released. When they are released I will post back.

I did want to have fully kyc'd BTC in case I ever cash some. But as you can see I am being restricted to move it for now.

finally allowed me to transfer to the trezor

[d_eddie]

Why would MSTR move BTC to Fidelity if Fidelity cannot be trusted to custody BTC as some of you idiots claim?
► https://phemex.com/news/article/strategy-transfers-58390-btc-to-fidelity-custody-reducing-coinbase-reliance-39621
Some of you look more stupid each day as you are proven wrong and flat out liars. I'm looking at you JJG and OOM  - you dumbasses have shit on your face...

Individuals are not the same as institutions, --snip--

And apart from that, it's a different game for Fidelity too. They can't screw multisig custody, at least not without help from the other signers, but imagine they could and did. The torrent of shit moving with a multi-billion lawsuit could drag even Fidelity down. And I'm pretty sure Saylor would sue the living daylights out of them without a second thought. I imagine the language in the custody deal is tight and has been reviewed by a pack of lawyers on both sides.

On the contrary, dealing with, say, 10000 small fries - each holding, say, $5000-$10000 or so of Fidelity's ETF - that's a whole different game. Do Fidelity hold THOSE cornz in multisig? If anybody thinks so, well, think better. They don't. They have good reasons not to. And who would the other multi-signers be anyway? The ETF holders one by one? I don't think so, either. Did any ETF holder ask Fidelity's lawyers to rephrase or amend any part of the contract? Aha. That's what I thought, too.

If Fidelity plays with those cornz as if they were their own, or if things go south for any other reason, they might have wording in the ETF charter that keeps them safe, as long as they can keep a convenient (for them) narrative. Even if they don't, suppose for a moment that they are caught with their hands in the cookie jar and it becomes semi-public knowledge (or just likely) that they did screw up or play foul. If it's only a few small fish being fucked over, who's gonna sue? Each single small fish? Reconsider. It's a whole different game.

I'm talking about this from experience, specifically with Fidelity. If they can fuck you over, THEY WILL. The loopholes to go through in order to be able to sue are such that it's practically impossible without a class action - unless you've got a lot of time and money on your hands.

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation
Chartbuddy thanks talkimg.com

[BTCETFInvestor]

Why would MSTR move BTC to Fidelity if Fidelity cannot be trusted to custody BTC as some of you idiots claim?
► https://phemex.com/news/article/strategy-transfers-58390-btc-to-fidelity-custody-reducing-coinbase-reliance-39621
Some of you look more stupid each day as you are proven wrong and flat out liars. I'm looking at you JJG and OOM  - you dumbasses have shit on your face...

Individuals are not the same as institutions, --snip--

And apart from that, it's a different game for Fidelity too. They can't screw multisig custody, at least not without help from the other signers, but imagine they could and did. The torrent of shit moving with a multi-billion lawsuit could drag even Fidelity down. And I'm pretty sure Saylor would sue the living daylights out of them without a second thought. I imagine the language in the custody deal is tight and has been reviewed by a pack of lawyers on both sides.

On the contrary, dealing with, say, 10000 small fries - each holding, say, $5000-$10000 or so of Fidelity's ETF - that's a whole different game. Do Fidelity hold THOSE cornz in multisig? If anybody thinks so, well, think better. They don't. They have good reasons not to. And who would the other multi-signers be anyway? The ETF holders one by one? I don't think so, either. Did any ETF holder ask Fidelity's lawyers to rephrase or amend any part of the contract? Aha. That's what I thought, too.

If Fidelity plays with those cornz as if they were their own, or if things go south for any other reason, they might have wording in the ETF charter that keeps them safe, as long as they can keep a convenient (for them) narrative. Even if they don't, suppose for a moment that they are caught with their hands in the cookie jar and it becomes semi-public knowledge (or just likely) that they did screw up or play foul. If it's only a few small fish being fucked over, who's gonna sue? Each single small fish? Reconsider. It's a whole different game.

I'm talking about this from experience, specifically with Fidelity. If they can fuck you over, THEY WILL. The loopholes to go through in order to be able to sue are such that it's practically impossible without a class action - unless you've got a lot of time and money on your hands.

@d_eddie - I've had many millions of dollars in Fidelity accounts for many years and Fidelity has never fucked me over.  

I think it is you that needs to think better!    After reading the information below, don't you think so? Tell the truth - don't lie like JJG and OOM...

~~~~~~~~~~~

[Emeraldo]

But, but, but - regardless of multisig, Fidelity cannot be trusted to securely provide custody according to many dumbasses here.

Dude, give it a break. You are purposely ignoring important points of arguments when writing a response. Even I am considering putting you on ignore now.. your IQ should help you learn and adapt accordingly. If you can't even do that, I have bad news for you..

@BitHodlers - Get over you newfound love for some of these idiots! I despise stupid people, liars, bullys and scumbag thugs like JJG and OOM.  

Take it easy and don't get upset. This people you have mentioned are nice guys with good ethics.
Check yourself again and again and never forget to debug.

[cAPSLOCK]

Well then... The corn riseth slightly.

I think it's shorts being liquidated. It was widely predicted at this level. If this unrolls nicely, it could bring us to 96k soonish.

In 2014, during the American version of La Festa del Ringraziamento myself and my family were camping as we did often during those times. "Thankscamping" we called it".

I was staring at my phone a lot that long weekend.  Disbelief that Bitcoin had just gone over four figures.

This was also the trip on which I met Joe Exotic in person. If you'd never heard of him, Google him. He wasn't quite famous yet.

I would like to see it unroll the way you were predicting. It's probably too much to ask that it top 100 again, just to do an echo of 11 years ago.  But I've waited this long.

[OgNasty]

You are still in denial.  That's ok.  Someday you will admit you made a mistake and wish you listened to me.  You will sell everything at the bottom and rage quit.  I will still be here next cycle (God willing).

Nope, I don't sell small tops. I am not a fiat addict like yourself. Keep trying wannabe OG. You are BitPoor and I am a BitHodler.  

I would bet every sat I own that I am currently holding more than 10x as much BTC as you without the slightest worry.

Bitcoin nearing the top of its trading range in this downward trend. With any luck we’ll see it blast through the resistance at $93K instead of another rejection. Although I would have preferred it stayed low until the first for my monthly DCA buy.

[Richy_T]

Hmm, not saying either way but in this text, the phrases that stand out to me are "proprietary cold storage system" and "mirrors the principle"