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

[scarsbergholden]

Buying a little bit to lower average.

Wondering why people expect btc to rise to usd10k? for what reason they believe in this?

Well, the exponential growth trend (though that is lagging heavily to the downside now)..... Metcalfe's law (although the accuracy of that theory is up for debate)..... the storage of value and value transfer capabilities of BTC......

[1715196301]

1715196301

[1715196301]

1715196301

[1715196301]

1715196301

[1715196301]

1715196301

[1715196301]

1715196301

[1715196301]

1715196301

[ErisDiscordia]

It seems like the market is trying to get enough people to despair and capitulate before it's ready to rise again. The irresistible force (market) meets the immovable object (legions of permabulls)....what will happen?

[HarHarHar9965]

It seems like the market is trying to get enough people to despair and capitulate before it's ready to rise again. The irresistible force (market) meets the immovable object (legions of permabulls)....what will happen?

That's what it feels like -- we're headed towards capitulation. Well, I'll tell you this, I'm not selling. I missed my opportunity to sell and buy back already. You bears won't be getting my coins cheap!

[nioc]

I coulda sworn I had falllling on ignore. Does he just keep registering more accounts with more l's in the name?

Must be on your end as I see him as ignored and has been since he first got here.

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[Threebits]

Buying a little bit to lower average.

Wondering why people expect btc to rise to usd10k? for what reason they believe in this?

Well, the exponential growth trend (though that is lagging heavily to the downside now)..... Metcalfe's law (although the accuracy of that theory is up for debate)..... the storage of value and value transfer capabilities of BTC......

From Wikipedia: Metcalfe's law states that the value of a telecommunications network is proportional to the square of the number of connected users of the system (n2).

With Metcalfe's law, bitcoin is indeed quite promising, as the users have been increasing and are expected to increase further.

This means the value of bitcoin is increasing. Could this argument be valid?

[Searing]

It seems like the market is trying to get enough people to despair and capitulate before it's ready to rise again. The irresistible force (market) meets the immovable object (legions of permabulls)....what will happen?

That's what it feels like -- we're headed towards capitulation. Well, I'll tell you this, I'm not selling. I missed my opportunity to sell and buy back already. You bears won't be getting my coins cheap!

thats right....go to the grave with it on a usb stick in the coffin...(there my coins damn it! mine,mine, mine...whooo a shiny stone in the driveway)

I'm such a silly hairless monkey primate.....no wonder the aliens fled the planet after Roswell

smart they were

Searing

(ohhhhh ...another shiny rock.......and a stick....)

[JayJuanGee]

While some peeps are panicking, I'm anticipating cheap coins... why worry if the fundamentals haven't changed?

In fact, the network scalability fundamentals have improved with Gavin's invertible bloom table proposal.

Cheap coins means longer adoption phase, more people being able to buy them, and creating a bigger ecosystem in the long run than if we suddenly spike and crash...

No wait... most people looking at the prices just want to get rich quick... carry on. 

People can buy 100 dollar worth in Bitcoin now or when it's 10.000. So your point is invalid.
Bitcoin going down simply isn't good. No matter what excuse you guys come up with.

The amount of bullshit coming out of your mouth, is just, WOW

Did you really expect to be set for life, by buying 1BTC last week???

Fonsie (with an "s"):  You should know that you gotta read between the lines with Shroomie.... I mean it is all good and fun to tease him over his silly-ass temper tantrums and his attention whoring - but he is NOT telling the truth when he said that he traded down from a total portfolio of 2 btc to 1 btc over a week's time.... He was just making up a story to make a point and to get attention - and maybe there are multiple little shroomities using his account... but anyhow, he's a lie-ing goofball, and I know that you are trying to call him out on it... but he just made it up in the first place...     

[JayJuanGee]

Bitcoin going down simply isn't good. No matter what excuse you guys come up with.

I think if we could push below 500, we'd have a nice oversold shakeout capable of rallying hard. These bottom fishing attempts almost feel like staving off the inevitable, but I could certainly be wrong....

YOU certainly could be wrong... b/c these prices have been lingering and downward and flat and up and more flat for months now... .We really do NOT need more (or further shakeout in order to facilitate a hard rally)....   NONETHELESS, I get the sense that we may have some downward testing of prices this week.. maybe we will get a rally, but we will likely get further downward testing and sideways, too...

[JayJuanGee]

It seems like the market is trying to get enough people to despair and capitulate before it's ready to rise again. The irresistible force (market) meets the immovable object (legions of permabulls)....what will happen?

Today's little "fun" in the downward movement pressures will likely cause a few more additional hands to fold... will it be enough though?   or do we need more sideways before the "shaking out" and "shaking up" costs just become too much for the whale manipulators to bear.. and even some whale manipulators get too anxious to begin to resume the move upward....

[JorgeStolfi]

With Metcalfe's law, bitcoin is indeed quite promising, as the users have been increasing and are expected to increase further.
This means the value of bitcoin is increasing. Could this argument be valid?

We do not know whether the number of "bitcoin users" is increasing.

The sources that I know (such as blockchan.info) do not give that information.  They give some quantities (such as wallet software downloads, transactions per day, total BTC volume per day) from which some people claim to be able to derive the number of users.  However, those quantities include an unknown amount of operations that do not imply real additional use.  Some of them (like total BTC volume) have been relatively constant for the last 6 months.  Moreover, there is no information at all about people who stopped "using" bitcoin, e.g. after buying a bit just for curiosity.

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[barbs]

What about the fact that such a small percentage of bitcoins floating around for trading are what make up the price?  Greedy long term hodlers and early adopters need to let go of more of their bitcoins before we start seeing any real valuation of what a bitcoin is worth. Until then it's just a casino.

[Bagatell]

What about the fact that such a small percentage of bitcoins floating around for trading are what make up the price?  Greedy long term hodlers and early adopters need to let go of more of their bitcoins before we start seeing any real valuation of what a bitcoin is worth. Until then it's just a casino.

No it's a financial market and it's manipulated as they all are. Live with it.

P.s. I don't need to spend my coins and will continue to hold until I do.

[Threebits]

With Metcalfe's law, bitcoin is indeed quite promising, as the users have been increasing and are expected to increase further.
This means the value of bitcoin is increasing. Could this argument be valid?

We do not know whether the number of "bitcoin users" is increasing.

The sources that I know (such as blockchan.info) do not give that information.  They give some quantities (such as wallet software downloads, transactions per day, total BTC volume per day) from which some people claim to be able to derive the number of users.  However, those quantities include an unknown amount of operations that do not imply real additional use.  Some of them (like total BTC volume) have been relatively constant for the last 6 months.  Moreover, there is no information at all about people who stopped "using" bitcoin, e.g. after buying a bit just for curiosity.

With Metcalfe's law, bitcoin is indeed quite promising, as the users have been increasing and are expected to increase further.
This means the value of bitcoin is increasing. Could this argument be valid?

We do not know whether the number of "bitcoin users" is increasing.

The sources that I know (such as blockchan.info) do not give that information.  They give some quantities (such as wallet software downloads, transactions per day, total BTC volume per day) from which some people claim to be able to derive the number of users.  However, those quantities include an unknown amount of operations that do not imply real additional use.  Some of them (like total BTC volume) have been relatively constant for the last 6 months.  Moreover, there is no information at all about people who stopped "using" bitcoin, e.g. after buying a bit just for curiosity.

It is quite a surprise that there's no concrete information confirming increasing users,  though news is flying daily for more adoption!

Giving it a careful consideration, I agree Jorge's comment. Anyone have different opinion.

If users are not convinced to increase, Metcalfe's law is not valid for bitcoin. How do we get to be convinced for increasing users?

[JayJuanGee]

With Metcalfe's law, bitcoin is indeed quite promising, as the users have been increasing and are expected to increase further.
This means the value of bitcoin is increasing. Could this argument be valid?

We do not know whether the number of "bitcoin users" is increasing.

The sources that I know (such as blockchan.info) do not give that information.  They give some quantities (such as wallet software downloads, transactions per day, total BTC volume per day) from which some people claim to be able to derive the number of users.  However, those quantities include an unknown amount of operations that do not imply real additional use.  Some of them (like total BTC volume) have been relatively constant for the last 6 months.  Moreover, there is no information at all about people who stopped "using" bitcoin, e.g. after buying a bit just for curiosity.

With Metcalfe's law, bitcoin is indeed quite promising, as the users have been increasing and are expected to increase further.
This means the value of bitcoin is increasing. Could this argument be valid?

We do not know whether the number of "bitcoin users" is increasing.

The sources that I know (such as blockchan.info) do not give that information.  They give some quantities (such as wallet software downloads, transactions per day, total BTC volume per day) from which some people claim to be able to derive the number of users.  However, those quantities include an unknown amount of operations that do not imply real additional use.  Some of them (like total BTC volume) have been relatively constant for the last 6 months.  Moreover, there is no information at all about people who stopped "using" bitcoin, e.g. after buying a bit just for curiosity.

It is quite a surprise that there's no concrete information confirming increasing users,  though news is flying daily for more adoption!

Giving it a careful consideration, I agree Jorge's comment. Anyone have different opinion.

If users are not convinced to increase, Metcalfe's law is not valid for bitcoin. How do we get to be convinced for increasing users?

Sometimes you have to conclude based on a combination of direct evidence and inferential evidence.  Accordingly, Maybe you will begin to understand that there is increased adoption when you begin to see the price go up?  You are asking for more direct evidence, and maybe that direct evidence is ambiguous. so therefore inferences need to be made from it....   Reasonable inferences, that is... You can argue that a reasonable inference is less adoption ... when that is NOT reasonable...   But trolls and FUD spreaders like to engage in this kind of selective vision.....

Increase liquidity opportunities, investments, conferences and various mainstream news pieces on bitcoin also help to establish that bitcoin adoption is going up and has been going up...   If you blindly do NOT want to see various signs that adoption has been going up, then pointing out more direct evidence will NOT help your selective blindness.. imhbo....

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[Threebits]

With Metcalfe's law, bitcoin is indeed quite promising, as the users have been increasing and are expected to increase further.
This means the value of bitcoin is increasing. Could this argument be valid?

We do not know whether the number of "bitcoin users" is increasing.

The sources that I know (such as blockchan.info) do not give that information.  They give some quantities (such as wallet software downloads, transactions per day, total BTC volume per day) from which some people claim to be able to derive the number of users.  However, those quantities include an unknown amount of operations that do not imply real additional use.  Some of them (like total BTC volume) have been relatively constant for the last 6 months.  Moreover, there is no information at all about people who stopped "using" bitcoin, e.g. after buying a bit just for curiosity.

With Metcalfe's law, bitcoin is indeed quite promising, as the users have been increasing and are expected to increase further.
This means the value of bitcoin is increasing. Could this argument be valid?

We do not know whether the number of "bitcoin users" is increasing.

The sources that I know (such as blockchan.info) do not give that information.  They give some quantities (such as wallet software downloads, transactions per day, total BTC volume per day) from which some people claim to be able to derive the number of users.  However, those quantities include an unknown amount of operations that do not imply real additional use.  Some of them (like total BTC volume) have been relatively constant for the last 6 months.  Moreover, there is no information at all about people who stopped "using" bitcoin, e.g. after buying a bit just for curiosity.

It is quite a surprise that there's no concrete information confirming increasing users,  though news is flying daily for more adoption!

Giving it a careful consideration, I agree Jorge's comment. Anyone have different opinion.

If users are not convinced to increase, Metcalfe's law is not valid for bitcoin. How do we get to be convinced for increasing users?

Sometimes you have to conclude based on a combination of direct evidence and inferential evidence.  Accordingly, Maybe you will begin to understand that there is increased adoption when you begin to see the price go up?  You are asking for more direct evidence, and maybe that direct evidence is ambiguous. so therefore inferences need to be made from it....   Reasonable inferences, that is... You can argue that a reasonable inference is less adoption ... when that is NOT reasonable...   But trolls and FUD spreaders like to engage in this kind of selective vision.....

Increase liquidity opportunities, investments, conferences and various mainstream news pieces on bitcoin also help to establish that bitcoin adoption is going up and has been going up...   If you blindly do NOT want to see various signs that adoption has been going up, then pointing out more direct evidence will NOT help your selective blindness.. imhbo....

Being a holder,  I wish to have some encouraging information. However, the information needs to be convincing.

Seriously, a hodler's combination of information is unavoidably with prejiduce and that is always my problem.

 Adoption/wallets are inductive for increasing users. But, I tend to believe it may double if price double overnight ( which is also inductive).

[JayJuanGee]

With Metcalfe's law, bitcoin is indeed quite promising, as the users have been increasing and are expected to increase further.
This means the value of bitcoin is increasing. Could this argument be valid?

We do not know whether the number of "bitcoin users" is increasing.

The sources that I know (such as blockchan.info) do not give that information.  They give some quantities (such as wallet software downloads, transactions per day, total BTC volume per day) from which some people claim to be able to derive the number of users.  However, those quantities include an unknown amount of operations that do not imply real additional use.  Some of them (like total BTC volume) have been relatively constant for the last 6 months.  Moreover, there is no information at all about people who stopped "using" bitcoin, e.g. after buying a bit just for curiosity.

With Metcalfe's law, bitcoin is indeed quite promising, as the users have been increasing and are expected to increase further.
This means the value of bitcoin is increasing. Could this argument be valid?

We do not know whether the number of "bitcoin users" is increasing.

The sources that I know (such as blockchan.info) do not give that information.  They give some quantities (such as wallet software downloads, transactions per day, total BTC volume per day) from which some people claim to be able to derive the number of users.  However, those quantities include an unknown amount of operations that do not imply real additional use.  Some of them (like total BTC volume) have been relatively constant for the last 6 months.  Moreover, there is no information at all about people who stopped "using" bitcoin, e.g. after buying a bit just for curiosity.

It is quite a surprise that there's no concrete information confirming increasing users,  though news is flying daily for more adoption!

Giving it a careful consideration, I agree Jorge's comment. Anyone have different opinion.

If users are not convinced to increase, Metcalfe's law is not valid for bitcoin. How do we get to be convinced for increasing users?

Sometimes you have to conclude based on a combination of direct evidence and inferential evidence.  Accordingly, Maybe you will begin to understand that there is increased adoption when you begin to see the price go up?  You are asking for more direct evidence, and maybe that direct evidence is ambiguous. so therefore inferences need to be made from it....   Reasonable inferences, that is... You can argue that a reasonable inference is less adoption ... when that is NOT reasonable...   But trolls and FUD spreaders like to engage in this kind of selective vision.....

Increase liquidity opportunities, investments, conferences and various mainstream news pieces on bitcoin also help to establish that bitcoin adoption is going up and has been going up...   If you blindly do NOT want to see various signs that adoption has been going up, then pointing out more direct evidence will NOT help your selective blindness.. imhbo....

Being a holder,  I wish to have some encouraging information. However, the information needs to be convincing.

Seriously, a hodler's combination of information is unavoidably with prejiduce and that is always my problem.

 Adoption/wallets are inductive for increasing users. But, I tend to believe it may double if price double overnight ( which is also inductive).

I understand what you are saying, but I maintain that there is plenty of inferential evidence available, and you can read through a bunch of threads in this forum and by doing various searches through BTC articles. 

I think you are erroneous in your perception if you are giving more weight to the opinions of Jorge b/c he does NOT hold BTC or to give more weight to the information of other non-HODLers.  There are a lot of posters who are providing good and objective information in spite of their level of holdings.  Jorge has already been proven over and over to be someone who selectively spins his information and uses academics and good / polite language to make it appear as if he is being neutral and objective, when in fact he is purposefully and intentionally blind and intentionally trying to focus on some nitpicky irrelevancy to get others to believe that to be the most important thing in the bitcoin space. 

I understand that in the end, you need to feel comfortable with your own senses of probabilities regarding the direction of BTC... and part of your concerns about whether adoption may be lacking... or less than it is purported to be.

[mmitech]

cashed out my last coins... I think this sucker will still crash even more, maybe I will buy back at 300 or less, or whenever it seems right.