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

[JayJuanGee]

Oh, well, @JJG...mostly true, but mining is sacred for every bitcoiner, don't ya know?

I don't mind the good deed aspects of bitcoin mining.. so I might have been going a wee bit too far to criticize phil for his mining activities.. since I most was just providing some counter-narrative in regards to his trying to brag about his silver and/or copper activities... as if he was dealing with the whole matter of the ways that he invests his time, energies and value in a smart ways given that he has known about bitcoin since 2011/2012... .. and so instead of going all the way back to 2011/2012, I just used an example to go back to 2018 - while at the same time throwing in his own ongoing seeming distractedness and/or failure/refusal to focus on bitcoin, since from my view, bitcoin is a longer term investment and so it becomes a bit irritating if some guys are pumping inferior assets..

So, yeah, I might have gone a bit overboard in my including mining in my rebuttal (and criticisms) of Philip (in his investment practices and his wanting to brag about his silver investments) - even though surely on a personal financial level, even bitcoin mining is not really a straight-forward approach in regards to spending time, energy and value and guys have rights to figure out how to invest themselves. At the same time, I cannot really know how much he is allocating into bitcoin mining at various points in time along the way rather than stocking away bitcoin - even going back to 2018 in terms of my example of 8 years and two cycles of investing and focusing on bitcoin just as an example to take him off his dumbass lame claims of being smarter than others in 2025 based on his lucky allocation to silver, when it likely does not matter on such short-term timelines since I am not much of a supporter of guys bragging about their various trades.. even though from time to time any of us may well end up running in to some lucky situations.. which I have run into some lucky situations myself from time to time, too... being in the right place at the right time, etc, etc. etc.

So, that part is wrong...even when losing some "money" initially, it always pays up later on...that happened so far, without even considering it being essential for bitcoin as a whole.

Without mining bitcoin is just another fancy alt.

Fair enough.  I do concede that overall bitcoin mining is good thing, it is a beneficial thing, it helps all bitcoiners, and is necessary for bitcoin since bitcoin was designed that way, and some of the miners are less profitable than others and may well end up doing a lot of work that pays off for bitcoin as a whole... so maybe I will take back a wee tiny bit of what I said, since maybe I allowed Philip to get to me, which contributed towards my throwing in more arguments than I needed to make in order to adequately make my various principle points.

Og and JJG can both go fuck off for various reason.
I do not like og insisting on believing in a 4 year cycle
I do not like JJG for dissing my silver and copper sales that allowed me to add more than .25 btc and to have cash for my power bill for mining.

Phil - This brings back memories of the welcome I received, being jumped on mercilessly and dogpiled about literally anything.

The only thing missing here to bash your opinion about matters is OOM, d_eddie and a few others circling the wagon ready to jump you!   Nice, huh?
Hang in there friend!  

You trying to find comrades in arms in your attempt to ally with Phil in your thoughts that Phil is being ganged-up upon unfairly.  I doubt it, and Phil tends to be able to take any of the beatings most of the time, even though every once in a while he will lash out with some pretty high levels of seemingly uncontrollable dumb too.. which kind of contributes to his deserving some of the beatings that he gets.. He even admits, sometimes, that he was purposefully being annoying..

JJG and I are known to trade barbs.
It just gets old as he needs,to go back in time to find ways to attack me.
Reminds me of my wife.

WHENEVER I AM correct she smiles and says Lake Titty Ca Ca
Yeah I can spell it correctly.
Lake Titicaca

I suppose the comparison could be worse in terms of being compared to his wife.  For sure I don't always disagree with Phil, and yeah, sometimes I even try to help, when he is not irritating me too much.. .. and then sometimes, I feel that I gotta go back and point out some historical examples just to emphasize certain points.. and maybe it is getting a bit worn...and I don't have to repeat it so much.. .. it is like that saying, "familiarity breeds contempt."

Anyhow, I feel sorry for Phil's wife... even though surely we know that couples get used to each other and so there are surely values in having close relationships with other people, even when there are also difference of opinion and sometimes even fairly strong personality differences too..

 

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation
Chartbuddy thanks talkimg.com

[philipma1957]

Yeah I feel sorry for her too.

We will be married for 40 years in August she is fairly saint like to put up with me this long

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation
Chartbuddy thanks talkimg.com

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation
Chartbuddy thanks talkimg.com

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation
Chartbuddy thanks talkimg.com

[philipma1957]

buddy on three well at least we are some close to 100k

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation
Chartbuddy thanks talkimg.com

[Paashaas]

Brian Armstrong cancelled Crypto bill.

After reviewing the Senate Banking draft text over the last 48hrs, Coinbase unfortunately can’t support the bill as written.

There are too many issues, including:

- A defacto ban on tokenized equities
- DeFi prohibitions, giving the government unlimited access to your financial records and removing your right to privacy
- Erosion of the CFTC’s authority, stifling innovation and making it subservient to the SEC
- Draft amendments that would kill rewards on stablecoins, allowing banks to ban their competition

We appreciate all the hard work by members of the Senate to reach a bi-partisan outcome, but this version would be materially worse than the current status quo. We’d rather have no bill than a bad bill. Hopefully we can all get to a better draft.

We'll keep fighting for all Americans and for economic freedom. Crypto needs to be treated on a level playing field with the rest of financial services so we can build this industry in a safe and trusted way in America.

X

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation
Chartbuddy thanks talkimg.com

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation
Chartbuddy thanks talkimg.com

[BitHodlers]

Very good post, maybe I just here would say that total adoption is maybe 5 to 10 percent. But this counts people who bought a couple bucks of Bitcoin just for the sake of it too, so true adoption is even lower. The potential is still enormous. As we have been always, we are still very early.

You seem to want to define "significant" even lower than cAPSLOCK, which is probably the ONLY way that we might get close to 5-10% adoption.

I am willing to drop down my own 1% of annual income within the past 5-ish years requirement to maybe 0.5%, but I am not willing to accept that "a few bucks" constitutes "significant portions" of stored wealth.  I am not even willing to accept that a few hundred dollars from a guy with $50k or higher annual income constitutes "significant portions" of stored wealth.

Call me an "elitist" if you like, but I have my doubts that if a guy cannot even get up to 0.5% of his annual income into bitcoin over the last 5 years, then he can fuck off in terms of being counted as a person who owns bitcoin.

By the way, I am not even talking about overall wealth.. I am willing to go with 0.5% of annual income for any year in the past 5 years which is a lower bar than counting overall wealth (even though sure others might agree with me that no one has much if any wealth anyhow since "everyone" is in debt, so a very large portion of the world's population has no actual and material networth).

No there seems to have been a misunderstanding here. I was trying to say that the adoption metrics which puts estimations at 5 to 10 percent of the people tend to include people who do not have any significant wealth stored in Bitcoin at all. This includes people who have just a couple of dollars in it for whatever reason. I do not consider that adoption. We can argue that amount of wealth should be put into it, and what could be considered adoption exactly but it is clear that this is not it. Therefore I put the actual percentage of people who have adopted Bitcoin at much less, so we are still very early.

I like your idea relating to annual income but the number you have given is pretty low too in a way? 0.5% of a $50k guy is just $250 per year being invested in Bitcoin? I don't know how much discretionary spending that would allow, depends a lot on where people live but if you think about the price of streaming services and other subscriptions these days $250 per year is cheap.

100 by end of Jan, surely. But can we keep it?

100 by Monday and we keep it through remained of January would be better. 

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation
Chartbuddy thanks talkimg.com

[cAPSLOCK]

Brian Armstrong cancelled Crypto bill.

After reviewing the Senate Banking draft text over the last 48hrs, Coinbase unfortunately can’t support the bill as written.

There are too many issues, including:

- A defacto ban on tokenized equities
- DeFi prohibitions, giving the government unlimited access to your financial records and removing your right to privacy
- Erosion of the CFTC’s authority, stifling innovation and making it subservient to the SEC
- Draft amendments that would kill rewards on stablecoins, allowing banks to ban their competition

We appreciate all the hard work by members of the Senate to reach a bi-partisan outcome, but this version would be materially worse than the current status quo. We’d rather have no bill than a bad bill. Hopefully we can all get to a better draft.

We'll keep fighting for all Americans and for economic freedom. Crypto needs to be treated on a level playing field with the rest of financial services so we can build this industry in a safe and trusted way in America.

X

Hmm.  Sounds like Brian is mostly upset about various limitations on his shitcoinery. 

We're fighting for the very nature of money.  The old guard is not going to and was never going to just lay down.

It's a shame one of our most visible advocates is such a doofus.

Somebody please prove me wrong.

[d_eddie]

Brian Armstrong cancelled Crypto bill.

After reviewing the Senate Banking draft text over the last 48hrs, Coinbase unfortunately can’t support the bill as written.

There are too many issues, including:

- A defacto ban on tokenized equities
- DeFi prohibitions, giving the government unlimited access to your financial records and removing your right to privacy
- Erosion of the CFTC’s authority, stifling innovation and making it subservient to the SEC
- Draft amendments that would kill rewards on stablecoins, allowing banks to ban their competition

We appreciate all the hard work by members of the Senate to reach a bi-partisan outcome, but this version would be materially worse than the current status quo. We’d rather have no bill than a bad bill. Hopefully we can all get to a better draft.

We'll keep fighting for all Americans and for economic freedom. Crypto needs to be treated on a level playing field with the rest of financial services so we can build this industry in a safe and trusted way in America.

X

Predictable reaction, and legitimate coming from Coinbase.

The issue is, if stablecoins are allowed to pay out "interest" (or whatever you call it) for the simple fact of lying there, the banks would see their own liquidity drained, as they offer a pittance - especially when gauged against inflation, or at least against stablecoin yield.

The movement of funds from bank accounts into stablecoins wouldn't be limited to smaller regional banks, but would reach even "too big to fail" banks. Obviously the banks don't want that, and the gov'ment doesn't either. Not only because of banks lobbying the lawmakers, but also because the whole thing would inevitably entail even more national debt, and in turn brr printing via a serious hike for treasury yields or some other covert mechanism.

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation
Chartbuddy thanks talkimg.com

[cAPSLOCK]

Yeah I feel sorry for her too.

We will be married for 40 years in August she is fairly saint like to put up with me this long

My wife and I are in our mid-30s at this point, the last five of which have been pretty rough on her, thanks to me.

But at the same time, bitches be crazy.  I wasn't gonna say it, but we all know it's true.  I mean, the dear woman married me in the first place.

[Hueristic]

Brian Armstrong cancelled Crypto bill.

After reviewing the Senate Banking draft text over the last 48hrs, Coinbase unfortunately can’t support the bill as written.

There are too many issues, including:

- A defacto ban on tokenized equities
- DeFi prohibitions, giving the government unlimited access to your financial records and removing your right to privacy
- Erosion of the CFTC’s authority, stifling innovation and making it subservient to the SEC
- Draft amendments that would kill rewards on stablecoins, allowing banks to ban their competition

We appreciate all the hard work by members of the Senate to reach a bi-partisan outcome, but this version would be materially worse than the current status quo. We’d rather have no bill than a bad bill. Hopefully we can all get to a better draft.

We'll keep fighting for all Americans and for economic freedom. Crypto needs to be treated on a level playing field with the rest of financial services so we can build this industry in a safe and trusted way in America.

X

Hmm.  Sounds like Brian is mostly upset about various limitations on his shitcoinery. 

We're fighting for the very nature of money.  The old guard is not going to and was never going to just lay down.

It's a shame one of our most visible advocates is such a doofus.

Somebody please prove me wrong.

Grok
@grok
16h
Okay, imagine your brain's a bit foggy from those shots. Here's the simple breakdown:

Coinbase boss Brian Armstrong hates the new Senate crypto bill draft. Why? It basically:

- Bans turning stocks into digital tokens

- Crushes DeFi (decentralized finance) and lets gov snoop on your money without privacy

- Weakens one regulator (CFTC) to boost another (SEC), slowing innovation

- Kills rewards on stablecoins, helping big banks kill rivals

He says it's worse than nothing—better no bill than this mess. They're pushing for fixes to keep crypto fair in the US.

Jan 14, 2026 · 9:33 PM UTC

https://xcancel.com/grok/status/2011552237189734546#m

[Biodom]

Brian Armstrong cancelled Crypto bill.

After reviewing the Senate Banking draft text over the last 48hrs, Coinbase unfortunately can’t support the bill as written.

There are too many issues, including:

- A defacto ban on tokenized equities
- DeFi prohibitions, giving the government unlimited access to your financial records and removing your right to privacy
- Erosion of the CFTC’s authority, stifling innovation and making it subservient to the SEC
- Draft amendments that would kill rewards on stablecoins, allowing banks to ban their competition

We appreciate all the hard work by members of the Senate to reach a bi-partisan outcome, but this version would be materially worse than the current status quo. We’d rather have no bill than a bad bill. Hopefully we can all get to a better draft.

We'll keep fighting for all Americans and for economic freedom. Crypto needs to be treated on a level playing field with the rest of financial services so we can build this industry in a safe and trusted way in America.

X

Predictable reaction, and legitimate coming from Coinbase.

The issue is, if stablecoins are allowed to pay out "interest" (or whatever you call it) for the simple fact of lying there, the banks would see their own liquidity drained, as they offer a pittance - especially when gauged against inflation, or at least against stablecoin yield.

The movement of funds from bank accounts into stablecoins wouldn't be limited to smaller regional banks, but would reach even "too big to fail" banks. Obviously the banks don't want that, and the gov'ment doesn't either. Not only because of banks lobbying the lawmakers, but also because the whole thing would inevitably entail even more national debt, and in turn brr printing via a serious hike for treasury yields or some other covert mechanism.

I disagree with the bold, alas it is true, but ONLY if banks would refuse to pay interest on deposits, as they do, currently.
They are collecting 250bil/year in interest on OUR money and sharing a pittance.
Banks were supposed to make money on loans, mortgages, etc, NOT by not paying interest.

[Hueristic]

Yeah I feel sorry for her too.

We will be married for 40 years in August she is fairly saint like to put up with me this long

My wife and I are in our mid-30s at this point, the last five of which have been pretty rough on her, thanks to me.

But at the same time, bitches be crazy.  I wasn't gonna say it, but we all know it's true.  I mean, the dear woman married me in the first place.

TMI, Jesus man they got lube for a reason!