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

[keewee]

Have we reached the moon already?

2014 Lamborghini for 1 BTC

http://www.eggify.com/vehicles/cars/2014-lamborghini-aventador-lp-700-4-roadster_i1969

Bring it on 

[1714968768]

1714968768

[1714968768]

1714968768

[1714968768]

1714968768

[DaRude]

Oh great even more money floating over to China!

Yes, China is an exporter of bitcoins, and that transfers wealth from the West to China.

I don't know where the main mining ASIC manufacturers are (China, taiwan, Korea?) but that is a major industry too.

Wow do you consider USD inflation when calculating mastercards transaction costs too?

Not sure I get your point.  1.2 million per day is the cost of the bitcoin network in dollars. I did not consider the dollar inflation there, why should it be considered for MasterCard?

But anyway, Bitcoin inflation is 1.3 million bitcoins per year over 13 million existing bitcins, or 10% per year.  How much is the dollar's?

Because the intent of block reward is also a method for distribution of BTC. That's why it's only temporary

[DaRude]

Interesting, instead of trying to liquidate coins that BFX wall looks like it's just following Chinese rate. i.e. floats up when china goes up even if there's no volume/bids on BFX and vise versa.

[solex]

Some time ago, I've had a flashback to 2011. The next and final stage of the bear market began when difficulty began to decrease.

I have to say, I wouldn't have expected a difficulty decrease with ASICs, though the one we have is so minor it could be attributed to a stagnating network and randomness of hashes with the same machines. It should be impossible for difficulty to decline as much as with GPUs because ASICs can only do the one task, and they will be sold to whoever has cheapest energy.

That difficulty decrease stage might be put on hold for a while...

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=888260.msg9794133#msg9794133

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[Newbie1022]

sell sell sell sell sell

[macsga]

Some time ago, I've had a flashback to 2011. The next and final stage of the bear market began when difficulty began to decrease.

I have to say, I wouldn't have expected a difficulty decrease with ASICs, though the one we have is so minor it could be attributed to a stagnating network and randomness of hashes with the same machines. It should be impossible for difficulty to decline as much as with GPUs because ASICs can only do the one task, and they will be sold to whoever has cheapest energy.

That difficulty decrease stage might be put on hold for a while...

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=888260.msg9794133#msg9794133

That's great news. BUT... It's a long time till Spring...

[Deadstock]

Just drop to $200 already and wash out the weak hands

[klee]

Just drop to $200 already and wash out the weak hands

Why not 140$? Or 80$? Or 20$?
Oh wait, then YOU will be the weak hand...

[macsga]

Just drop to $200 already and wash out the weak hands

Why not 140$? Or 80$? Or 20$?
Oh wait, then YOU will be the weak hand...

I already bought some @ $350. Bearwhale driven or not, the price is right. This is gentlemen...

[klee]

Just drop to $200 already and wash out the weak hands

Why not 140$? Or 80$? Or 20$?
Oh wait, then YOU will be the weak hand...

I already bought some @ $350. Bearwhale driven or not, the price is right. This is gentlemen...

Yeah, I am not referring to what a fair price would be but the flaw in his thinking.

It is not healthy to shakeout investors, after a certain point you 'kill' the asset.

IMHO we should NOT fall below 340$, it would be really bad (only with a flash crash and then immediately bouncing up back).

[macsga]

Yeah, I am not referring to what a fair price would be but the flaw in his thinking.
It is not healthy to shakeout investors, after a certain point you 'kill' the asset.
IMHO we should NOT fall below 340$, it would be really bad (only with a flash crash and then immediately bouncing up back).

True. But that's how the world rolls. What can you say? As for $340, I don't find it impossible to touch, but it will initiate a strong force up (which btw, might be right after the corner as we speak). Remember flash crashes before, have lead to intense rallies right after.

[klee]

Yeah, I am not referring to what a fair price would be but the flaw in his thinking.
It is not healthy to shakeout investors, after a certain point you 'kill' the asset.
IMHO we should NOT fall below 340$, it would be really bad (only with a flash crash and then immediately bouncing up back).

True. But that's how the world rolls. What can you say? As for $340, I don't find it impossible to touch, but it will initiate a strong force up (which btw, might be right after the corner as we speak). Remember flash crashes before, have lead to intense rallies right after.

Let's hope..

[Istanbul34]

i think at this point in time bitcoin is a solution looking for a problem.

almost 24 months ago people though that bitcoin would revolutionize the business of international money transfers, people started working on designing ATMs, and fiat to bitcoin exchanges popped up in many jurisdictions. a solution to an old problem.

today we have some ATMs and a healthy number of exchanges, however both of these have very high regulatory costs.  as it turns out much of that "problem" is mostly the creation of various regulatory regimes, since we no longer generally ship around tons of gold on ships, that let us say are in place to allow incumbents to make money along with providing protocols that allow for reporting to governments primarily for reasons related to tax collection, but also the enforcement of embargoes, sanctions and the never ending hunt for organized crime (terror, drugs, etc).

frankly this is not what bitcoin, as one can plainly see, excels at.

one has to go back to the Satoshi Nakamoto white paper and re-read it occasionally to pull out new nuggets of insight based on what has transpired.

While the system works well enough for most transactions, it still suffers from the inherent weaknesses of the trust based model.
Completely non-reversible transactions are not really possible, since financial institutions cannot avoid mediating disputes.  The cost of mediation increases transaction costs, limiting the minimum practical transaction size and cutting off the possibility for small casual transactions, and there is a broader cost in the loss of ability to make non-reversible payments for nonreversible
services.

A few things to note here:

1. "the system works well enough for most transactions" means that Satoshi thought that "most transactions" concerning online commerce are handled well by the current system. therefor it is not likely that bitcoin applies to say the purchase of books on amazon.com.  Bitpay, circle and coinbase are sadly barking up the wrong tree.

2. so what is bitcoin perhaps good for?  there answer is right there in the first paragraph: "small casual transactions" and " non-reversible payments for nonreversible services".

What are interactions that may constitute say "small casual transactions"?

1. tipping - this has been relatively successful for reddit and doge it seems
2. online gambling - we can see that the dice sites appear to do decent business
3. ?
4. ??
5.

What are "nonreversible services"?

1. the time stamping of a digital document
2. the use of processing power
3. the use of data storage
4. the escrowing of something of value
5. the execution of a contract between some parties
6. the delivery of data
7.
8.
9.

Now ask yourselves, how many bitcoin services and business do you know which fall into some of these categories?

And then you, I think, shall understand why we are not yet at $10000/btc.

When folks on here can start naming popular services in a majority of these categories, and perhaps others, then we will see not only the foundation for more wide spread adoption but also price.

Most of the investments in the current space by VC are really throwing money into a fire. But I have full confidence that in time (say 2-3 years) other groups that are more nimble and not necessarily driven by rigid business plans will begin to execute on these.  Of course that is the reason why I really like projects like Ethereum, Counterparty and Storj.

You forgot to mention NXT;

Promising projects are IMO;

- Jinn https://nxtforum.org/news-and-announcements/(ann)-jinn/
- DORCS https://lythmmo.com/
- Nxtty https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.nxtty.main&hl=nl_NL
- SkyNet http://finhive.com/roadmap.html
- superNET http://www.supernet.org/index.php/en/
- NXTpoker https://nxtforum.org/stark-industries-(nxtdice)/business-plan/

+ Many more projects which will use NXT as their "fuel".

Check http://nxtreporting.com for the actual price and http://www.secureae.com/ if you want to invest directly with BTC.

And ofcourse NXT is not stopping with developments as well;

http://www.nxttechnologytree.com/

There is one important reason why these people have chosen NXT over Bitcoin;

Once you bought the equipment to support the network of NXT you have a fixed cost of electricity of running a node ($20/month for a decent node) and no other fees.

In PoW you need to upgrade your equipment every 6 months to be able compete in the mining race, spend time to maintain the hardware, electricity fees increase as you compete to gain a larger share of hashrate to mine the same amount of coins as before (some of the electricity fees may be offset by more energy-efficient ASICs, but I would guess there is still an increase). In short, it's a nightmare. Only few large datacenters could survive in the end and then they could all be easily coerced to make a PoW crypto centralized and regulated.

With NXT; The power will always belong to the users.

Ps; Someone set up a solar powered Rasperry Pi with the software of NXT;

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[oda.krell]

Just drop to $200 already and wash out the weak hands

Why not 140$? Or 80$? Or 20$?
Oh wait, then YOU will be the weak hand...

I already bought some @ $350. Bearwhale driven or not, the price is right. This is gentlemen...

Yeah, I am not referring to what a fair price would be but the flaw in his thinking.

It is not healthy to shakeout investors, after a certain point you 'kill' the asset.

IMHO we should NOT fall below 340$, it would be really bad (only with a flash crash and then immediately bouncing up back).

I'm not sold on the idea that  Bitcoin is dead if it falls below some price X.

Keep in mind, price decreased by factor 16 and recovered anyway, 2011 to 2013. I'm not  convinced yet we'll make a new significant low from here, but obviously I could be wrong. So let's say we'd go below 340, then 320, then back to 270, fall through and go below the previous ATH.

Going back below the previous ATH would be a first in BTC trading, that's for sure, but so what? What it would do is most likely kill all the previously held speculative notions, the idea that we're practically ensured to see an exponential price/mcap increase, or that "Bitcoin will go to 1 million USD eventually".

In that case there's a good chance a vast number of current investors would leave for good, and price would deflate to level that seems laughably low right now... but then what? Others will pick it up from there, as long as there is the confidence that Bitcoin is useful for something after all. Cue the trolls: "It's about as useful as beanie babies or tulips". I don't need to tell you that's just noise. The usefulness of Bitcoin (or crypto in general) is undisputed. What is up for debate is the scale at which it will be used (and, as a consequence, what the valuation of the network should be).

What I'm getting at is: the worst case you describe is effectively a worst case for the previous valuation model of Bitcoin, but that's not quite identical to the death of Bitcoin (or its valuation, for that matter).

[Omikifuse]

Inevitabley transaction  fees will  increase when miners  arent rewarded  enough as blocks divide  and the last coins are minted.

the last coins will take decades to be mined.

For now the problem with low reward for mining is not an issue

[Simakki]

i think at this point in time bitcoin is a solution looking for a problem.

almost 24 months ago people though that bitcoin would revolutionize the business of international money transfers, people started working on designing ATMs, and fiat to bitcoin exchanges popped up in many jurisdictions. a solution to an old problem.

today we have some ATMs and a healthy number of exchanges, however both of these have very high regulatory costs.  as it turns out much of that "problem" is mostly the creation of various regulatory regimes, since we no longer generally ship around tons of gold on ships, that let us say are in place to allow incumbents to make money along with providing protocols that allow for reporting to governments primarily for reasons related to tax collection, but also the enforcement of embargoes, sanctions and the never ending hunt for organized crime (terror, drugs, etc).

frankly this is not what bitcoin, as one can plainly see, excels at.

one has to go back to the Satoshi Nakamoto white paper and re-read it occasionally to pull out new nuggets of insight based on what has transpired.

While the system works well enough for most transactions, it still suffers from the inherent weaknesses of the trust based model.
Completely non-reversible transactions are not really possible, since financial institutions cannot avoid mediating disputes.  The cost of mediation increases transaction costs, limiting the minimum practical transaction size and cutting off the possibility for small casual transactions, and there is a broader cost in the loss of ability to make non-reversible payments for nonreversible
services.

A few things to note here:

1. "the system works well enough for most transactions" means that Satoshi thought that "most transactions" concerning online commerce are handled well by the current system. therefor it is not likely that bitcoin applies to say the purchase of books on amazon.com.  Bitpay, circle and coinbase are sadly barking up the wrong tree.

2. so what is bitcoin perhaps good for?  there answer is right there in the first paragraph: "small casual transactions" and " non-reversible payments for nonreversible services".

What are interactions that may constitute say "small casual transactions"?

1. tipping - this has been relatively successful for reddit and doge it seems
2. online gambling - we can see that the dice sites appear to do decent business
3. ?
4. ??
5.

What are "nonreversible services"?

1. the time stamping of a digital document
2. the use of processing power
3. the use of data storage
4. the escrowing of something of value
5. the execution of a contract between some parties
6. the delivery of data
7.
8.
9.

Now ask yourselves, how many bitcoin services and business do you know which fall into some of these categories?

And then you, I think, shall understand why we are not yet at $10000/btc.

When folks on here can start naming popular services in a majority of these categories, and perhaps others, then we will see not only the foundation for more wide spread adoption but also price.

Most of the investments in the current space by VC are really throwing money into a fire. But I have full confidence that in time (say 2-3 years) other groups that are more nimble and not necessarily driven by rigid business plans will begin to execute on these.  Of course that is the reason why I really like projects like Ethereum, Counterparty and Storj.

You forgot to mention NXT;

Promising projects are IMO;

- Jinn https://nxtforum.org/news-and-announcements/(ann)-jinn/
- DORCS https://lythmmo.com/
- Nxtty https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.nxtty.main&hl=nl_NL
- SkyNet http://finhive.com/roadmap.html
- superNET http://www.supernet.org/index.php/en/
- NXTpoker https://nxtforum.org/stark-industries-(nxtdice)/business-plan/

+ Many more projects which will use NXT as their "fuel".

Check http://nxtreporting.com for the actual price and http://www.secureae.com/ if you want to invest directly with BTC.

And ofcourse NXT is not stopping with developments as well;

http://www.nxttechnologytree.com/

There is one important reason why these people have chosen NXT over Bitcoin;

Once you bought the equipment to support the network of NXT you have a fixed cost of electricity of running a node ($20/month for a decent node) and no other fees.

In PoW you need to upgrade your equipment every 6 months to be able compete in the mining race, spend time to maintain the hardware, electricity fees increase as you compete to gain a larger share of hashrate to mine the same amount of coins as before (some of the electricity fees may be offset by more energy-efficient ASICs, but I would guess there is still an increase). In short, it's a nightmare. Only few large datacenters could survive in the end and then they could all be easily coerced to make a PoW crypto centralized and regulated.

With NXT; The power will always belong to the users.

Ps; Someone set up a solar powered Rasperry Pi with the software of NXT;

With NXT; The power will always belong to the few whales.

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[prophetx]

Some time ago, I've had a flashback to 2011. The next and final stage of the bear market began when difficulty began to decrease.

I have to say, I wouldn't have expected a difficulty decrease with ASICs, though the one we have is so minor it could be attributed to a stagnating network and randomness of hashes with the same machines. It should be impossible for difficulty to decline as much as with GPUs because ASICs can only do the one task, and they will be sold to whoever has cheapest energy.

That difficulty decrease stage might be put on hold for a while...

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=888260.msg9794133#msg9794133

to OP i expected it to happen....

to replier... too late buddy https://blockchain.info/charts/difficulty