Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 184. (Read 26711215 times)

it's enough buddy... tear down that wall!

Explanation
Chartbuddy thanks talkimg.com

Explanation
Chartbuddy thanks talkimg.com

Explanation
Chartbuddy thanks talkimg.com

We have heard some folks refer to groups in terms of the year that they entered BTC, such as "class of 2017," even though that surely can be a bit of an incomplete descriptive... but still could give some ideas.

I probably would consider myself more in terms of the class of 2014 rather than the class of 2013, even though I did get started in 2013.. so I suppose officially I should be trying to use my start date.

There are a lot of folks also who characterize themselves at a later date, since so many times and for so many folks the earlier entrance date is met with so many screw ups, so many folks fell more comfortable describing their second entrance (or the time that they were enlightened about bitcoin) as their official entrance date... which might also be fair for folks to try to figure where they feel that they best fit based on their actual entrance into BTC circumstances.


Hahahahaha

Reminds me of the actual bitcoin reality of tick tock, next block.


Touché.. .    

hahahaha  

Also one of the benefits of having enough or more than enough BTC is not to get too worried about how many BTC that we might have had, since some of us likely have assessed that we have enough and/or more than enough.. so then the more central matter becomes engaging in practices to safeguard what we already gots.


I do like the idea of cycles.... but it seems that bitcoin does not have a long enough history to really figure out.. even though yeah technically 3 epoch does fit too, even though I am thinking that some additional granularity might be preferable in regards to categorizing entry timelines of folks... to the extent that it might be a useful category, at all.


Fair enough.  You seem to support one of my argued points in regards to variance of the group, too... and think about it.. some 2012-ers are no longer into bitcoin, and perhaps some of them came back later.. so they might not even consider themself to be a 2012-er.

Actually, maybe I should take back some of what I said?  since there are a lot of 2012-ers who might not even be describing various things that they did, the good, the bad and/or the ugly, so frequently not as many details are known.. which can be good or bad to have some of those details out there... and even appreciating value that might come from others being able to get some insight from forum members who are willing to share some of their historical and personal experiential details.  I try to be a bit more vague than you Phil, but I still have quite a bit of stuff out there that might add up towards being informative in terms of some aspects of my bitcoin-related personal experiences.. .. some of it is contradictory, which is fine with me.


I doubt that the issue is that straight forward since there are plenty of decently good arguments that current birthrates are too low rather than too high.

New ATH Weekly Close: $98068

Explanation
Chartbuddy thanks talkimg.com

https://x.com/i/status/1859666085600964619

Mr. Novogratz is bullish.

Let us go to moon.









pls

*AsianGreenDildo.gif*

 let's see, let's see

yeah here we go asia here we go lets push us up and over the top.

Now Asia wakes up
The bidding war continues
Eggs in my ramen!

Sunday in N.J.
100k is in site
Will it be today?



my last sunday haiku before 100k


hoping the wait for the next sunday haiku is only a week

Never poor again
OG's rose through every storm
The journey goes on

Nearly at the mark,
Hundred thousand comes in sight,
A new phase unfolds


Take dibs on the last Sunday haiku before we cross the $100K for the first time. (Forum time)  

Explanation
Chartbuddy thanks talkimg.com

I don't think we need to anything about population growth, except maybe have more children.  Throughout the history of the earth every organism has strived to spread itself, grow it's influence and dominate it's environment.  It's only natural.  Other than our level of self awareness, humanity is no different.  Like any lichen, algae, or virus, it's only a matter of time before it infects another host, in our case, a planet and eventually, another solar system.  It's hard to imagine technology that could allow us to reach another galaxy, but that's not out of the realm of possibilities, either.

At this point the only thing that can prevent or delay that from happening is a natural or man-made mass extinction event.  Regardless of what you think might happen in geo-political terms, we are past due for a natural mass extinction event.  As far as I'm concerned, over population of the earth is an opportunity, not a curse.

On the whole, humanity is an extraordinary organism.  The universe's way of becoming self-aware.  We may or may not be the only such organism, but here we are.

Explanation
Chartbuddy thanks talkimg.com

But what about a non-nuclear attack? We know Oreshnik missile is strictly non-nuclear. We also know the priority target for next Oreshnik 'test':

https://www.yahoo.com/news/us-missile-priority-target-destruction-184513831.html

What happens then? I wouldn't say we'll have predictable outcome, in fact the reaction would be hard to predict.

Explanation
Chartbuddy thanks talkimg.com

I don't even know if an increasing number of humans in the universe is a bad thing:

It could even be that shrinking or staying at 8.1 bil is worse for our future. Who really knows!
Again, an increase (as well as non-stop shrinking) comes with problems. But solving these could be one step of our evolution, maybe even a necessary one.



some other interesting thoughts on it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nE8UU9Qa78E

You had to start before the 50 to 25 ½ ing to be an OG









_______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
off topic




We are both saying we think fixing would be better than not fixing it.


So we are both right as the alternative is crash and burn which I do not advocate and I do not think you want that either.

If we do nothing and we slowly switch to negative growth in under 10 or 15 years it could be the best solution.
https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/world-population-by-year/#google_vignette



World Population by Year

Year   
World Population
Yearly
Change   Net
Change   Density
(P/Km²)
2024   8,161,972,572   0.87 %   70,237,642   55
2023   8,091,734,930   0.88 %   70,327,738   54
2022   8,021,407,192   0.84 %   66,958,801   54
2021   7,954,448,391   0.86 %   67,447,099   53
2020   7,887,001,292   0.97 %   75,707,594   53
2019   7,811,293,698   1.05 %   81,390,917   52
2018   7,729,902,781   1.10 %   84,284,827   52
2017   7,645,617,954   1.15 %   87,063,428   51
2016   7,558,554,526   1.18 %   88,062,654   51
2015   7,470,491,872   1.20 %   88,875,628   50
2014   7,381,616,244   1.23 %   89,822,659   50
2013   7,291,793,585   1.26 %   90,591,100   49
2012   7,201,202,485   1.27 %   90,278,720   48
2011   7,110,923,765   1.27 %   89,191,617   48
2010   7,021,732,148   1.28 %   88,965,732   47
2009   6,932,766,416   1.29 %   88,308,754   47
2008   6,844,457,662   1.29 %   87,148,881   46
2007   6,757,308,781   1.29 %   85,856,766   45
2006   6,671,452,015   1.28 %   84,481,883   45
2005   6,586,970,132   1.29 %   83,592,360   44
2004   6,503,377,772   1.29 %   83,016,138   44
2003   6,420,361,634   1.30 %   82,631,292   43
2002   6,337,730,342   1.32 %   82,793,883   43
2001   6,254,936,459   1.35 %   83,233,466   42
2000   6,171,702,993   1.36 %   82,696,654   41
1999   6,089,006,339   1.36 %   81,939,649   41
1998   6,007,066,690   1.39 %   82,278,874   40
1997   5,924,787,816   1.42 %   82,732,082   40
1996   5,842,055,734   1.44 %   83,176,752   39
1995   5,758,878,982   1.47 %   83,327,727   39
1994   5,675,551,255   1.50 %   84,006,458   38
1993   5,591,544,797   1.55 %   85,554,981   38
1992   5,505,989,816   1.61 %   87,253,925   37
1991   5,418,735,891   1.71 %   90,932,781   36
1990   5,327,803,110   1.78 %   93,371,378   36
1989   5,234,431,732   1.80 %   92,439,190   35
1988   5,141,992,542   1.83 %   92,246,145   35
1987   5,049,746,397   1.85 %   91,673,559   34
1986   4,958,072,838   1.83 %   89,129,373   33
1985   4,868,943,465   1.81 %   86,767,946   33
1984   4,782,175,519   1.81 %   84,847,946   32
1983   4,697,327,573   1.84 %   84,654,152   32
1982   4,612,673,421   1.85 %   83,896,115   31
1981   4,528,777,306   1.83 %   81,171,070   30
1980   4,447,606,236   1.81 %   79,066,708   30
1979   4,368,539,528   1.78 %   76,442,026   29
1978   4,292,097,502   1.76 %   74,233,706   29
1977   4,217,863,796   1.78 %   73,617,419   28
1976   4,144,246,377   1.81 %   73,511,100   28
1975   4,070,735,277   1.86 %   74,319,181   27
1974   3,996,416,096   1.93 %   75,611,054   27
1973   3,920,805,042   1.97 %   75,887,362   26
1972   3,844,917,680   1.99 %   75,069,815   26
1971   3,769,847,865   2.03 %   75,164,071   25
1970   3,694,683,794   2.08 %   75,192,215   25
1969   3,619,491,579   2.10 %   74,304,328   24
1968   3,545,187,251   2.07 %   71,774,371   24
1967   3,473,412,880   2.04 %   69,371,755   23
1966   3,404,041,125   2.08 %   69,507,422   23
1965   3,334,533,703   2.15 %   70,046,364   22
1964   3,264,487,339   2.25 %   71,679,511   22
1963   3,192,807,828   2.22 %   69,433,513   21
1962   3,123,374,315   1.91 %   58,504,640   21
1961   3,064,869,675   1.64 %   49,398,781   21
1960   3,015,470,894   1.67 %   49,520,543   20
1959   2,965,950,351   1.88 %   54,700,680   20
1958   2,911,249,671   2.06 %   58,631,334   20
1957   2,852,618,337   2.05 %   57,208,343   19             I was born this year
1956   2,795,409,994   2.01 %   55,196,202   19
1955   2,740,213,792   2.02 %   54,318,932   18
1954   2,685,894,860   1.97 %   51,788,625   18
1953   2,634,106,235   1.94 %   50,019,896   18
1952   2,584,086,339   1.86 %   47,159,304   17



so we are close to reverse maybe it happens and it is slow and gradual without a big issue at all.