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

[rpietila]

Another quick poll: is there anyone here at all who does not believe that, by 2027, 1 BTC will buy all the wealth in the world? 

We always have you.

If everybody else believe that, they are obviously wrong.

The best outcome (for bitcoin) will be that all bitcoins, not one, will have all the savings value in the world, all the value that people will have in reserve for a shorter or longer time. This is not related at all to all the real value that exists. What people want to have in reserve in money, compared to what value they will have in houses, cars, excavators, factories, toothbrushes and son on, is a personal choice for each individual. It can be less than they have in real value, or more.

The fact that better money will be available, may change the preferences.

Nobody knows. Wait and see.

I believe that in the nomadic times (such as some part of the Old Testament), the liquid wealth (money) of the world was far in excess to the physical wealth. Land did not have much value then, and people could not have much stuff b/c they carried them all with them. So in that kind of society the value of all money >> the value of "real wealth".

Some have argued that in the heyday of industrialism, both the factories and land had much value, so the money ~== real wealth (or even real wealth > money).

Now I would say that real estate is quite expensive, possibly overvalued. Corporations perhaps more so. We may be entering new "nomadic era" as evidenced by the minimalist tendencies of many people who are rich in liquid assets. Even I personally own much more liquid assets (mainly BTC) than the value of my physical assets (mainly castle). It is not inconceivable that the value of all bitcoins goes north of the value of everything else. I am looking at a conservative 25-50% myself but Stephen Reed has argued that bitcoin's holding is so easy that they might be just held and everything else goes into permanent price deflation.

If the price goes up really fast, the big holders are not able to utilize the alternative opportunities and will have to just hold the majority of their stash, creating the very cycle described by Stephen.

My own experience from buying the castle is that it has made me really busy (and will in the coming years), and curtail my interest in any further bitcoin sales, since I can only handle so much real wealth, but hold any number of bitcoins.

This is barring any coercive intervention of course.

[okthen]

666 is nice. Now let's go to 777

I'd prefer 6666

[dreamspark]

Looks to me like we're almost out of the woods 

1 week MacD crossover would be fucking epic buy signal.

While true, you need to wait for the confirmed cross which is 2 weeks away I think. bitcoinwisdom updates its MACD on the fly so it can cross and then a drop in price can make it uncross again like it never happened 

[dreamspark]

666 is nice. Now let's go to 777

I'd prefer 6666

or 7777

It is strange how $666 has this lure, the more people talk about it the more it becomes a thing so everybody shush

[kurious]

Someone quoted the price forecast for BTC on http://www.cryptocoinstats.com/priceforecaster.php

I note that under the BTC price prediction is DRK's 1 year prediction.

Darkcoin    1 Year prediction:   $23,139,965,602,552.5156

Reliable stuff

[bitgeek]

Up and down, decide already you bitcoin you!
What's so special about $680?

[Erdogan]

Another quick poll: is there anyone here at all who does not believe that, by 2027, 1 BTC will buy all the wealth in the world? 

We always have you.

If everybody else believe that, they are obviously wrong.

The best outcome (for bitcoin) will be that all bitcoins, not one, will have all the savings value in the world, all the value that people will have in reserve for a shorter or longer time. This is not related at all to all the real value that exists. What people want to have in reserve in money, compared to what value they will have in houses, cars, excavators, factories, toothbrushes and son on, is a personal choice for each individual. It can be less than they have in real value, or more.

The fact that better money will be available, may change the preferences.

Nobody knows. Wait and see.

I believe that in the nomadic times (such as some part of the Old Testament), the liquid wealth (money) of the world was far in excess to the physical wealth. Land did not have much value then, and people could not have much stuff b/c they carried them all with them. So in that kind of society the value of all money >> the value of "real wealth".

Some have argued that in the heyday of industrialism, both the factories and land had much value, so the money ~== real wealth (or even real wealth > money).

Now I would say that real estate is quite expensive, possibly overvalued. Corporations perhaps more so. We may be entering new "nomadic era" as evidenced by the minimalist tendencies of many people who are rich in liquid assets. Even I personally own much more liquid assets (mainly BTC) than the value of my physical assets (mainly castle). It is not inconceivable that the value of all bitcoins goes north of the value of everything else. I am looking at a conservative 25-50% myself but Stephen Reed has argued that bitcoin's holding is so easy that they might be just held and everything else goes into permanent price deflation.

If the price goes up really fast, the big holders are not able to utilize the alternative opportunities and will have to just hold the majority of their stash, creating the very cycle described by Stephen.

My own experience from buying the castle is that it has made me really busy (and will in the coming years), and curtail my interest in any further bitcoin sales, since I can only handle so much real wealth, but hold any number of bitcoins.

This is barring any coercive intervention of course.

You got that right, basically.

Two worlds, one where everybody is in debt, another one where everybody has lots of money savings, are both possible, everything else the same.

The difference comes from what people want, and, the fact that nowadays saving in money is not possible, because someone fucks the money system. They also fuck with peoples minds, like Krugman, who wants us to believe that it is better for everybody when we are all in debt.

[Erdogan]

666 is nice. Now let's go to 777

I'd prefer 6666

or 7777

It is strange how $666 has this lure, the more people talk about it the more it becomes a thing so everybody shush

Magic numbers are no good in bitcoin, because bitcoin is world money, and bitcoin traders have different cultures and different fiat money references. Just give it up.

[latoxine]

666 is nice. Now let's go to 777

I'd prefer 6666

or 7777

It is strange how $666 has this lure, the more people talk about it the more it becomes a thing so everybody shush

Magic numbers are no good in bitcoin, because bitcoin is world money, and bitcoin traders have different cultures and different fiat money references. Just give it up.

true...Like for example, BITcoin in france mean ''DICKcoin'' so...

[dreamspark]

666 is nice. Now let's go to 777

I'd prefer 6666

or 7777

It is strange how $666 has this lure, the more people talk about it the more it becomes a thing so everybody shush

Magic numbers are no good in bitcoin, because bitcoin is world money, and bitcoin traders have different cultures and different fiat money references. Just give it up.

True, but discount China and pretty much everyone else trades in $. I'd rather trade in £ but its just not liquid enough.

[flynn]

666 is nice. Now let's go to 777

I'd prefer 6666

or 7777

It is strange how $666 has this lure, the more people talk about it the more it becomes a thing so everybody shush

Magic numbers are no good in bitcoin, because bitcoin is world money, and bitcoin traders have different cultures and different fiat money references. Just give it up.

true...Like for example, BITcoin in france mean ''DICKcoin'' so...

more precisely, it means "DICKS CORNER"

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[Erdogan]

666 is nice. Now let's go to 777

I'd prefer 6666

or 7777

It is strange how $666 has this lure, the more people talk about it the more it becomes a thing so everybody shush

Magic numbers are no good in bitcoin, because bitcoin is world money, and bitcoin traders have different cultures and different fiat money references. Just give it up.

true...Like for example, BITcoin in france mean ''DICKcoin'' so...

Funny, but as a consequence of bitcoin being world money, on everybody's lips every day, the frog eaters will have to change their language. No shit man, they will have to. Like hereabouts, we had to swallow the fact that facebook in the local language had something to do with farting. We are over that now.

[latoxine]

666 is nice. Now let's go to 777

I'd prefer 6666

or 7777

It is strange how $666 has this lure, the more people talk about it the more it becomes a thing so everybody shush

Magic numbers are no good in bitcoin, because bitcoin is world money, and bitcoin traders have different cultures and different fiat money references. Just give it up.

true...Like for example, BITcoin in france mean ''DICKcoin'' so...

more precisely, it means "DICKS CORNER"

Yes, and it can also mean dick ''pussy'' ( bite cogne ) with south accent ( where I live )  

[finder_keeper]

If one bitcoin could buy all the wealth in the world, it would make the other 20999999 worthless. It's not logically possible.

Technically it is possible. If the remaining coins are lost (eg sent to 1BitcoinEaterAddressDontSendf59kuE by mistake), and all other world currencies become obsolete, then that last remaining bitcoin would represent all the wealth in the world.

[Erdogan]

If one bitcoin could buy all the wealth in the world, it would make the other 20999999 worthless. It's not logically possible.

Technically it is possible. If the remaining coins are lost (eg sent to 1BitcoinEaterAddressDontSendf59kuE by mistake), and all other world currencies become obsolete, then that last remaining bitcoin would represent all the wealth in the world.

No, only the money value in the world, not the value of useful things and services.

Edit: Then we have credit, which always will extend the money to some degree. (edit2: , making that last bitcoin's value less.)

[freebit13]

If one bitcoin could buy all the wealth in the world, it would make the other 20999999 worthless. It's not logically possible.

Technically it is possible. If the remaining coins are lost (eg sent to 1BitcoinEaterAddressDontSendf59kuE by mistake), and all other world currencies become obsolete, then that last remaining bitcoin would represent all the wealth in the world.

Technically maybe, but not logically. It might be technically possible to send 20999999 bitcoin to the bitcoin eater, but it's not logical is it?

[T.Stuart]

Yes, and it can also mean dick ''pussy'' ( bite cogne ) with south accent ( where I live )  

Du pain, du vin, et du bitcoin 

[fonzie]

Leveraged long Finex holders, how does it feel to pay 1% interest per day?

[ejinte]

Leveraged long Finex holders, how does it feel to pay 1% interest per day?

As long as I'm in the green totally, I'm happy.
Isn't the interest rate the same if going short? I think so.