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

[criptix]

http://www.nationaldebtclocks.org/debtclock/unitedstates


Debt as % of GDP:

103.56%
[blank lines redacted]
Interesting Facts
    You could wrap $1 bills around the Earth 69,719 times with the debt amount!
    If you lay $1 bills on top of each other they would make a pile 1,955,980 km, or 1,215,389 miles high!
    That's equivalent to 5.09 trips to the Moon!
[blank lines redacted]yeah to the moon  

Interesting fact:  Those debts you're talking about?  They're owed in $$$.  We make $$$ out of thin air because fiat.  We don't even need to print them.
Not a problem

[1714687015]

1714687015

[1714687015]

1714687015

[1714687015]

1714687015

[NotLambchop]

^

[btcney]

Doooooooooooooooown 

[JayJuanGee]

careful NotLambTroll will troll his way into your hearts with those little pink ponies (bit creepy no?)

Definitely......

Gets me every time to see NOT NotPork in such an endearing pose.   

[brg444]

Bitcoiners, gold bugs and other Austrian School vandals now wish to destroy decades of economic progress

 

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[justusranvier]

Bitcoin is a clumsy throwback to the gold standard days.  The rest of the world has long since discovered the benefits of elastic money supply--benefits proven both empirically and through the works of John Maynard Keynes, the father of modern economics.

Bitcoiners, gold bugs and other Austrian School vandals now wish to destroy decades of economic progress, thrusting the world back into pre-Keynesian economic darkness.

This is absolutely true.

The ruling classes and their minions who control the issuance of money reap enormous benefits from an elastic money supply.

A fixed money supply truly is a dark age as far as they are concerned. Millions of people who will suddenly be forced to get real jobs, to earn only what their skills will generate via voluntary market exchanges instead of what they can enjoy by earn via the politics of pull.

For that class of people, Bitcoin is an unmitigated catastrophe.

[Erdogan]

you "sound money" luddites

It's hilarious that the people promoting electronic, programmable virtual currency are the "Luddites" in your mind

The expression "sound money" was appropriated by goldbugs--the ones who want to go back to the gold standard.  It has nothing to do with electronic, programmable currency currently inflating @~10% per year.

Always happy to educate.


@macsga: I'll see what I can do.

It has everything to do with bitcoin. It is the main thing.

Bitcoin is a clumsy throwback to the gold standard days.  The rest of the world has long since discovered the benefits of elastic money supply--benefits proven both empirically and through the works of John Maynard Keynes, the father of modern economics.

Bitcoiners, gold bugs and other Austrian School vandals now wish to destroy decades of economic progress, thrusting the world back into pre-Keynesian economic darkness.

Luddites

You have to read more. When elasticity is needed, the market will compensate with expanding the credit.

Anyway, we (the sound money supporters) are going to prove, in a world scale experiment, that it works and it fixes the main problems of the monetary policy of today (the zero interest rate policy and the expanding money supply), namely wealth distribution from savers to bankers and loaners, and waste of capital through bad investments.

[Dotto]

Good morning gentlemen!
What's the accepted backstory for today's meteoric rise?

I'll give my amateurish observations on the matter:

Whale #1 was busy all day slowly buying up coins on Stamp. That thinned the already meagre ask side out even more. Then s.o. placed a ~700BTC wall @ $329 on Finex, which scared the market up on both Finex and Stamp. As $330 swiftly broke on Stamp, whale #2 got FOMO and threw ~1mil. in fiat onto the market on Finex. Together with a bunch of shorts closing this caused Finex to go up $10. The price was then driven down slowly by 2000BTC in ask walls (Finex) until they got eaten in one swoop by s.o. going margin long, and got immediately replaced by ~2000 coins worth of bids which have kept us in this price range since then.

So I'd say it's just some big players trying to accumulate while the price is still (perceived by them as) low.

Cool! 

[JorgeStolfi]

THIS is what Bitcoin is. The ability of Random Matrix Math to solve the human greed factor. The flaw is not the money. It's US.

People often suggest there is a greater "Math" behind why bitcoin is limited in supply.
Basically it is a few lines of code in the protocol an the fact that the majority of miners and users follow that protocol.
It is horribly trivial to change the supply of bitcoin to an arbitrary amount if there was enough backing by the community for it.
Saying it is impossible to change is having a fundamental misunderstanding of how or why bitcoin works

What you say may be true. But bitcoin's value proposition lies in those few lines of code. And that is why they will never be changed.

Bitcoin was meant to be an e-payment method (decentralized, trutless, etc.).  A fixed bitcoin supply is not necessary for that goal.  Indeed, bitcoin is being used in that role, in spite of still having 10%/year inflation (and even higher in the past).  And dollars and euros work fine as payment methods, in spite of their "horrendous" 1-2%/year inflation rate.

Thus, the argument that "raising the emission limit would destroy the value of bitcoin" does not sound convincing.  Hoarders would be very unhappy, of course.  Miners, however, may someday find it advantageous, especially by the time they are expected do depend on transaction fees instead of block rewards.  Block reward is steady and predictable, whereas fees depend on transaction volume -- which will probably shrink substantially if fees became mandatory.   People who use bitcoin for payments may not care, or may prefer block rewards because they provides "free" transactions.

It has been argued that, if some miners tried to change the protocol, the rest of the network would stick to the old one.  However, this correction mechanism has never been tested, and it seems difficult to predict what would happen, in all possible scenarios.  (After all, it was "proved", with the same certainty, that altcoins would die as soon as they were born.)  What if those "some miners" had 70% of the hash rate?  What if a large subset of the users became convinced that the change was necessary for the health of the network, or got some immediate benefit from it (such as no-fee transactions)? What if payment processors and merchants accepted only the "new" bitcoin?  

(By the way, some bitcoiners seem to be trying to convince people to adopt bitcoin by telling them that money sucks.  I sense a problem with that marketing strategy: it seems that many people have used money sometime in their lives, and may even have enjoyed the experience -- unlikely as that may sound.  )

[mooncake]

I sense a problem with that marketing strategy: it seems that many people have used money sometime in their lives, and may even have enjoyed the experience -- unlikely as that may sound.  )

It is awfully painful to read that self-contradicting statement.

[Dotto]

WOW




















VERY MARKETCAP!!

[Erdogan]

THIS is what Bitcoin is. The ability of Random Matrix Math to solve the human greed factor. The flaw is not the money. It's US.

People often suggest there is a greater "Math" behind why bitcoin is limited in supply.
Basically it is a few lines of code in the protocol an the fact that the majority of miners and users follow that protocol.
It is horribly trivial to change the supply of bitcoin to an arbitrary amount if there was enough backing by the community for it.
Saying it is impossible to change is having a fundamental misunderstanding of how or why bitcoin works

What you say may be true. But bitcoin's value proposition lies in those few lines of code. And that is why they will never be changed.

Bitcoin was meant to be an e-payment method (decentralized, trutless, etc.).  A fixed bitcoin supply is not necessary for that goal.  Indeed, bitcoin is being used in that role, in spite of still having 10%/year inflation (and even higher in the past).  And dollars and euros work fine as payment methods, in spite of their "horrendous" 1-2%/year inflation rate.

Thus, the argument that "raising the emission limit would destroy the value of bitcoin" does not sound convincing.  Hoarders would be very unhappy, of course.  Miners, however, may someday find it advantageous, especially by the time they are expected do depend on transaction fees instead of block rewards.  Block reward is steady and predictable, whereas fees depend on transaction volume -- which will probably shrink substantially if fees became mandatory.   People who use bitcoin for payments may not care, or may prefer block rewards because they provides "free" transactions.

It has been argued that, if some miners tried to change the protocol, the rest of the network would stick to the old one.  However, this correction mechanism has never been tested, and it seems difficult to predict what would happen, in all possible scenarios.  (After all, it was "proved", with the same certainty, that altcoins would die as soon as they were born.)  What if those "some miners" had 70% of the hash rate?  What if a large subset of the users became convinced that the change was necessary for the health of the network, or got some immediate benefit from it (such as no-fee transactions)? What if payment processors and merchants accepted only the "new" bitcoin?  

(By the way, some bitcoiners seem to be trying to convince people to adopt bitcoin by telling them that money sucks.  I sense a problem with that marketing strategy: it seems that many people have used money sometime in their lives, and may even have enjoyed the experience -- unlikely as that may sound.  )

It would still be sound money, if the supply was expanding forever. As long as it is predefined, it does not matter. More money to the miners, but that will only make it the mining effort more costly. Since it is predetermined, future payments and interest rate will be adjusted with the inflation rate. So since it does not matter, it is more straightforward to have a fixed supply.

You could argue that loss of coins and expanding population could make prices more stable with a small inflation rate, but I prefer fixed supply, it feels more sane, sound and solid. We have to live with changes in prices anyway, it is an intrinsic trait to an organic economy.

[fonzie]

WOW





VERY MARKETCAP!!

Finally, it was about time. Those goddamn manipulators couldn´t hold it down any longer!  

Fair price for a fair coin!

Wow, it seems like i´m a USD billionaire right now!  

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[shmadz]

debt is good?
dear keynesians, this only would have worked if central banks could not print fiat out of thin air to lend it with interest to the government.

how often did the US has to change their debt ceiling in the last 3-4 years?
and its not only a US problem, pretty much every industry nation is nearing a debt crisis, which gonna explode sooner or later under their butt.

So every industrialized nation in the world is stupid and don't know The Truth about economics that you and some of your crustier friends do.
I suggest you start calling world leaders and educating them, it looks as if without your help, the world is heading for Armageddon.



P.S:  In the meantime, that rally sorta stopped rallying a while back
P.P.S:  Maybe you can just email world leaders with YouTube links to "Money As Debt"?  Sounds like a plan?

Burying your head in the sand won't make the problem go away.

Laughing at the lunatic fringe is called normalcy, not "burry[ing] your head in the sand."

Dude, I can't wait till you start trollin' the bears on the way back up...

...although it's looking like I might be waiting a long time 

[downtosimple]

I think it's a misunderstanding  that fiat will be obsolete because of its elastic supply. No, there is nothing wrong in the elastic money supply. The wrong is humans just can not manage their greed through fiat.

It is also a misunderstanding that the possible success of Bitcoin is because of its fixed supply. A fixed  money supply creates high interest rate, lowering the velocity, which kills itself, said as " the one kills greed kills himself".

No, it's not true that the fixed supply makes Bitcoin possibly succeed. It is the way it produces itself, which is a better management on greed and fraud over fiat.

 In a certain timeframe, Bitcoin supply is not fixed. In the technology itself, it's not either. I think complaints about fiat for its incapabability of managing greed misleads the reason to its elastic money supply, and further misleads us from the true reasons of bitcoin's possible success.

[NotLambchop]

you "sound money" luddites

It's hilarious that the people promoting electronic, programmable virtual currency are the "Luddites" in your mind

The expression "sound money" was appropriated by goldbugs--the ones who want to go back to the gold standard.  It has nothing to do with electronic, programmable currency currently inflating @~10% per year.

Always happy to educate.


@macsga: I'll see what I can do.

It has everything to do with bitcoin. It is the main thing.

Bitcoin is a clumsy throwback to the gold standard days.  The rest of the world has long since discovered the benefits of elastic money supply--benefits proven both empirically and through the works of John Maynard Keynes, the father of modern economics.

Bitcoiners, gold bugs and other Austrian School vandals now wish to destroy decades of economic progress, thrusting the world back into pre-Keynesian economic darkness.

Luddites

You have to read more. When elasticity is needed, the market will compensate with expanding the credit.

Anyway, we (the sound money supporters) are going to prove, in a world scale experiment, that it works and it fixes the main problems of the monetary policy of today (the zero interest rate policy and the expanding money supply), namely wealth distribution from savers to bankers and loaners, and waste of capital through bad investments.

Modern money is not mattress stuffing.  It is not meant to be hoarded, that's not what money is for.
Re. "we (the sound money supporters) are going to prove, in a world scale experiment":  Thus far, it's been little more than a sideshow of greed, petty criminality, and incompetence.
TL;DR:  Not impressed.  Neither with the talk nor the product

[derpinheimer]

WOW





VERY MARKETCAP!!

Finally, it was about time. Those goddamn manipulators couldn´t hold it down any longer!  

Fair price for a fair coin!

Wow, it seems like i´m a USD billionaire right now!  

Dont sell your Doge for $400. Its a beartrap. Wait for $10,000.

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation