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

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[JayJuanGee]

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).

Oda Krell: 

I agree with everything you say here, yet I believe that one aspect that affects perceptions of value remains whether or NOT various entities are engaging in Bitcoin scams and potentially faking the existence of coins through forms of fractional reserve banking (maybe kind of like Gox).  IMHO, even those kinds of scams and rip-offs and corruption will NOT kill bitcoin, but they will have tendencies to deflate BTC prices and affect perceptions of BTC value.

I am fairly confident that we are going to see BTC prices in the $10k to $30k range in the next 5 years  and possibly even more, so long as there is some semblance of continued adoption in our current direction, yet it also seems likely that we still have to experience continued and ongoing downward price manipulations.  At some point, probably, some of these larger manipulator players are going to perceive it to be in their interest to manipulate BTC prices upwards - and yes, we will all want to be onboard when that begins to occur and the momentum kicks in... b/c I would think that there is quite a bit of smart money that is just sitting on the side and just waiting to enter - but they do NOT want to enter while there remains some downward momentum and seeming incentives to push the price into the $200s and possibly lower than that... double digits do seem nearly impossible, but I would NOT even rule that out at this point.

[criptix]

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).

Oda Krell:  

I agree with everything you say here, yet I believe that one aspect that affects perceptions of value remains whether or NOT various entities are engaging in Bitcoin scams and potentially faking the existence of coins through forms of fractional reserve banking (maybe kind of like Gox).  IMHO, even those kinds of scams and rip-offs and corruption will NOT kill bitcoin, but they will have tendencies to deflate BTC prices and affect perceptions of BTC value.

[...]

im pretty sure that we will soonish (1-2 years) see real solutions to the problem of centralized exchanges (fiat <-> crypto).

just the fact that banks are already experimenting with blockchain technology is the first step to it.
just imagine that bank money will be able to freely transfered to/on a blockchain system; that will enable future decentralized exchanges to run without problems.

[grappa_barricata]

im pretty sure that we will soonish (1-2 years) see real solutions to the problem of centralized exchanges (fiat <-> crypto).

No, there isn't a 'solution' for this. You can't convert 'fiat' in a 'token' without a issuer of that token. Hence there will never be decentralized exchanges that involve fiat.

[JayJuanGee]

I can taste the despair right now but I prefer to buy during panic...I will hold off a little longer.

I agree that we seem to be in a sort of despair, and it seems that we already had various panics.  I am doubting whether any of us can count on additional panics... so despair it is, but this dispair cannot last forever... 1 to 8 months more at most, no?   You really think that a flat or downward trending market is going to go beyond 8 more months?  Anyone?

[jonoiv]

Caption competition... extra points for using MOON

[aminorex]

im pretty sure that we will soonish (1-2 years) see real solutions to the problem of centralized exchanges (fiat <-> crypto).

No, there isn't a 'solution' for this. You can't convert 'fiat' in a 'token' without a issuer of that token. Hence there will never be decentralized exchanges that involve fiat.

Your words are difficult to parse meaningfully.  Could you please rephrase?

I am generally wont to do anything which is claimed to be impossible, if it is easy to do.  Thus I would like to know what you think is impossible.

[aminorex]

Caption competition... extra points for using MOON

Winklevii phone home.

[grappa_barricata]

im pretty sure that we will soonish (1-2 years) see real solutions to the problem of centralized exchanges (fiat <-> crypto).

No, there isn't a 'solution' for this. You can't convert 'fiat' in a 'token' without a issuer of that token. Hence there will never be decentralized exchanges that involve fiat.

Your words are difficult to parse meaningfully.  Could you please rephrase?

I am generally wont to do anything which is claimed to be impossible, if it is easy to do.  Thus I would like to know what you think is impossible.

I understand you are a coder. If that is the case, consider the problem of developing a decentralized exchange between USD and BTC.
It will became evident that it is not possible.
Because while bitcoin has decentralized issuing, USD (or any other fiat) has centralized issuing.
Hence, at best, you can develop a sort-of-decentralized exchange involving pseudo-USD tokens/IOU, released from some kind of provider.
That is the way ripple et all attempted to solve the problem. But a truly decentralized solution is not possible.

EDIT: to elaborate further, the problem is that exclusive storage of FIAT on a data structure isn't possible

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[criptix]

EDIT: to elaborate further, the problem is that exclusive storage of FIAT on a data structure isn't possible

can you please explain why it wouldn't be possible?

i can imagine a blockchain system where generating blocks is actually transfering "fiat" into "blockchain-fiat", withdrawal could mean sending the "blockchain-fiat" to a genesis block which would destroy it.

[jonoiv]

EDIT: to elaborate further, the problem is that exclusive storage of FIAT on a data structure isn't possible

can you please explain why it wouldn't be possible?

Because fiat is backed by gold, and gold can't be stored as a series of 0's & 1's as data. maybe?

[criptix]

EDIT: to elaborate further, the problem is that exclusive storage of FIAT on a data structure isn't possible

can you please explain why it wouldn't be possible?

Because fiat is backed by gold, and gold can't be stored as a series of 0's & 1's as data. maybe?

ah i see fiat is backed by gold 

[Chang Hum]

EDIT: to elaborate further, the problem is that exclusive storage of FIAT on a data structure isn't possible

can you please explain why it wouldn't be possible?

Because fiat is backed by gold, and gold can't be stored as a series of 0's & 1's as data. maybe?

This is really bullish news for fiat 

[findftp]

It's a pitty I don't have the balls, but I really should sell all my bitcoins and sell some more on margin because I am 100% confident that we are going lower to at least 300 within 4 weeks
Take it as free advice.

You are always free to donate me some satoshis you earned by listening to me.
You can find my address on my profile page.

Damn it. I should put my money where my mouth is.
Too bad I then have to break one of my golden rules...



I'm a greedy scared motherfucker, that's why.

[NotLambchop]

...
Because fiat is backed by gold, and gold can't be stored as a series of 0's & 1's as data. maybe?

The astounding ignorance of Bitcoiners  
Fiat currency is not backed by gold or any other prehistoric commodity.

Look up the word "fiat" and educate yourself.

[adamstgBit]

EDIT: to elaborate further, the problem is that exclusive storage of FIAT on a data structure isn't possible

can you please explain why it wouldn't be possible?

Because fiat is backed by gold, and gold can't be stored as a series of 0's & 1's as data. maybe?

This is really bullish news for fiat 

this explains why the USD has been doing so well past few months.

[grappa_barricata]

EDIT: to elaborate further, the problem is that exclusive storage of FIAT on a data structure isn't possible

can you please explain why it wouldn't be possible?

i can imagine a blockchain system where generating blocks is actually transfering "fiat" into "blockchain-fiat", withdrawal could mean sending the "blockchain-fiat" to a genesis block which would destroy it.

can you please explain why it wouldn't be possible?

Sure, no problem.

generating blocks is actually transfering "fiat" into "blockchain-fiat"

At that moment you have the same 'wealth' in both FIAT (that isn't destroyed) and BLOCKCHAIN-FIAT.

withdrawal could mean sending the "blockchain-fiat" to a genesis block which would destroy it

Then you need an issuer to give you the FIAT back.

[empowering]

EDIT: to elaborate further, the problem is that exclusive storage of FIAT on a data structure isn't possible

can you please explain why it wouldn't be possible?

Because fiat is backed by gold, and gold can't be stored as a series of 0's & 1's as data. maybe?

sorry but, wut?

[criptix]

EDIT: to elaborate further, the problem is that exclusive storage of FIAT on a data structure isn't possible

can you please explain why it wouldn't be possible?

i can imagine a blockchain system where generating blocks is actually transfering "fiat" into "blockchain-fiat", withdrawal could mean sending the "blockchain-fiat" to a genesis block which would destroy it.

can you please explain why it wouldn't be possible?

Sure, no problem.

generating blocks is actually transfering "fiat" into "blockchain-fiat"

At that moment you have the same 'wealth' in both FIAT (that isn't destroyed) and BLOCKCHAIN-FIAT.

withdrawal could mean sending the "blockchain-fiat" to a genesis block which would destroy it

Then you need an issuer to give you the FIAT back.

yeah thats what banks are experimenting with right now.

atleast if they say "experimenting with blockchain technology" i guess it would be not to far from what i think