Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 2701. (Read 26713229 times)

Explanation

Bitcoin's just gone up a little bit!

let me find the links.

https://news.yahoo.com/york-signs-2-crypto-mining-103633482.html

carbon based electrical

mines can not be built.


and this one may get shut down

https://decrypt.co/98067/greenidge-faces-uphill-battle-renew-bitcoin-mining-permit-regulator

If what you say is true, hopefully, other state leaders are not as retarded as the New York legislators. .. so yeah.. "interesting" to find out the extent to which retardedness is contagious.

Explanation

Sure... .Saylor is likely getting a bit nervous now, and sure he might have contributed towards some of the "going overboard" ideas in regards to leveraging, yet he still did not go as far overboard as a lot of folks, and sure there might have still been some luck in some of his timing.. including that there might be some ongoing attempts to continue to search for his stops.. but I doubt that he is as "reckless" as people are making him out to be....

In other words, there are people who went way further than Saylor while using Saylor's ideas as a justification.

It is true that Saylor could have had gotten fucked if he had been holding some of his coins with FTX or even Genesis or with some similar irresponsible third party, so we are not necessarily out of the woods in terms of people not necessarily admitting to their exposure and/or their losses.. We still have some of the information about the relationships coming out of the woodwork, which can be problematic even if we might have thought that we had "responsible" custodians who were playing with their coins with some "yield" products.



It's not just people, the whole system is designed on various debt systems, and people get ahead by using debt so long as they do not over do it.. so we are getting tests on the differences between using debt and overdoing it.. and then sometimes other "mistakes" that could be made.   Any of us could have used some of those products.. or just a portion of our BTC into some of those products or had business relationships with people who were using those products (and they did not disclose to us), and then we might end up trying to figure out if they are still good for their debt to us.. or if their behaviors had caused us losses.. and some of us might not be saying anything.  Yet.


We are not going to be able to transition straight into having bitcoin as the standard, and we are likely going to have to juggle at least the two systems (fiat and bitcoin), and maybe in our lifetimes, we might ONLY get part way to bitcoin becoming more and more of a standard, after thousands of more people get burnt..

Remember 2014-ish mostly individuals getting burnt.... and then currently more institutions getting burnt (although some pension plans were involved in some of this year's burnings), and maybe in the next cycle we will have nation states getting burnt.. or maybe this time we already had some smaller level governments who might not have disclosed some of their exposure to some of the failed bitcoin-related (or do we call those crypto, or debt or fake bitcoin?) systems.


We are likely going to be hearing some disclosures of various WO regulars who got burnt on some of the current products... remember Deathwish telling us about some of his matters while we were dropping down to $30k and then lower and he was supposedly disclosing his losses as he was getting supposedly liquidated but he still seemed to have been refusing to stop the process from happening, continuing to want to believe that the "bottom was in" when it wasn't.. and yeah, none of us knew.. and sometimes it seems difficult to protect yourself, even while it is happening, and you know about ways that you could get out of the bad situation and take an immediate haircut before losing all of the collateral.


You are presuming down.. which may or may not happen.  Good luck.. you will likely need it if you are ONLY preparing for one direction... and presuming all of the "BIG players" are talking their book... or whatever it is that you are trying to imply with your wish for down and your wish to attempt to call the bottom.


That is if Saylor is telling the truth about his liquidation level (let's say lower $3ks), and I even did a couple of sequential posts on this topic in fillippone's thread (this one and this one) in order to describe way that he could continue to buy on the dip in order to make his liquidation even lower.. if he really has the dollars that he claims to have.

Explanation

Do we (royal perhaps?) have to pull out the fish chart again?  not that I would be able to exactly figure out which fish chart should be used as "currently applicable" to our current times.  Also, not that I have suggested that I have been able to accumulate much more than the 0.63 BTC that I have admitted to .. even though I have proclaimed that I have been accumulating sats, so those sats do end up adding up.. by definition, the more you stack, the more you end up having.

So.. besides what I have already said, I still consider that time in the market does provide a lot of opportunities to stack sats in such a way that the longer that we have been in, then the more likely that we are going to be in profits, too.

It surely is possible that even someone who has been into bitcoin for 5 years, might not have been able to keep his/her costs below current prices if s/he bought at the wrong time and did not buy consistently, and also even a consistent sats stacker who got into bitcoin after mid-November 2020 might have pretty high likelihood of currently having his/her BTC stash in the negative.. even by pretty large percentages of greater than 30% in the negative... devils in the details.. which is one of the stressful aspects of our current price position for those who might have stacked big earlier and who might be running out of money to stack currently, but still if they had not been into bitcoin for very long, there are still possibilities, then they could feel sufficiently o.k. about stacking sats while their overall holdings are in the negative in order to bring down the average cost per BTC for those BTC that are held.   Maybe even you, ImThour, fit in the category of those who really did not get into serious stacking until around that late 2020 time.. and I think that you even had proclaimed as much, even though you also proclaimed to have had made some decently good (or lucky?) trades that would have had the net advantage of both bringing down your cost per BTC and allowing you to stack more sats than you had originally speculated that you were going to be able to stack.. and sometimes even those "good" or "lucky" plays might not even be seeming as great since buying on the dip does not seem to feel as good when the dip keeps dipping.


Hm?  You want to suggest that you had some kind of idea that this correction was coming, even though it corrected "a bit" more than you expected.

I would suggest that my system does not really attempt to fuck around with trading or trying to time the BTC price - so I don't understand why you would be trying to attribute those kinds of practices to my approach.  Yes, I have a system that sells on the way up and buys on the way down, and yeah, maybe I could attempt to tweak it to attempt to sell a bit more or to buy a bit more, but any tweaks that I do are not generally playing around with selling in order to buy lower.. so in that sense, if I am selling, I am selling on the way up.. not in order to buy back lower, and if the price ends up going lower, then I buy if I have money.  I am not unhappy with my whole approach.  It works for me, and fits all of my various parameters quite well... even if there could be moments of ":could have done this or could have done that" but overall it seems to work quite well in account to my whole financial and psychological situation.. and also, if you had not noticed, I do not tend to be very receptive to very many of the TA calls, unless they are famed in somewhat humble ways.. historically, your calls have not been framed very humbly.. even though it is possible that you could get better in that direction.. even though you are still trying to suggest that you "knew" or "felt" that the price would be going to the places where it has ended up going... which leans in the annoying.. rather than humble direction.. but hey.. not everyone is humble, and so sometimes there will be clashes.. including with me, when I see guys going overboard in that direction.. and sure it is somewhat subjective.. including that if someone has a pretty long posting history here, and they have some periods of NOT acting humble, I won't even say anything until it gets to a certain irritating point.. and so yeah, I admit that there is some subjectivity involved.. including that mature people do not tend to be braggers anyhow.. and maturity is not ONLY about age, either.

You might say that I am guilty of the same "non-humbleness" that I am accusing others of demonstrating, and sure, there might be some evidence of that.. or it might appear to be that any of us is presenting ourselves and our ideas with too much arrogance, and you are free arrive at your own conclusions in that direction... it is NOT always clear in regards to "who started it," and sometimes some level of arrogance is needed.. especially when dealing with trolls, shills and twats .. so.. it is probably better to leave it there for now.. and maybe you get what I am saying, and maybe you don't..


Sometimes we talk about retiring as a another way of suggesting getting to entry-level fuck you status.. so there are a variety of ways to measure that, especially if BTC is part of the package of what will be kept within a retirement planning package.. or if there might be ideas that retirement includes getting out of BTC.. So I am not exactly sure what you mean, and sometimes people might consider that they wind down their work, rather than completely stopping their work - which is also a way of suggesting that they are in a "kind of fuck you status" in which they are more able to pick and choose whether to work and the quantity of work if they choose to work... or whether they take on projects.

There is no real way to measure 2025 as being longer than 3 years - ish if you are talking about retiring by the end of 2025.. so three more years can fly by pretty quick, and I would imagine anyone who is currently working and planning on transitioning into NOT having to work within 3 years would be in a position in which they are getting pretty close to being able to pull the trigger to get into such status.. so most of the ducks are already mostly in a row.

Of course, prior to March 2020, I had been using a quasi-liquid investment portfolio of $1 million for consideration of entry-level fuck-you status (so that is considering having a passive income of $3,333 per month or $40k per year), and after March 2020, I have been using $2 million (which is double the expected passive income), even though I have heard several folks use differing target amounts in regards to what they believe that they will need - even if they are trying to speak generally in terms of something like a western lifestyle.. so of course, there can be quite a bit of variation in regards to how much is needed, how such an investment portfolio might be allocated in order to allow for not having to work and even being able to sustain the lifestyle that a guy/gal is used to or whatever level of lifestyle s/he expects to have through living on that investment portfolio (and perhaps retaining work as optional rather than something that has to be done). 

10k will be really hard to go under.

You would need 1 or more exchanges failing

Now New York Passed a BTC mining law that has some restrictions on new miners.

ie any new large mine must use renewable energy.

So

Niagara falls = yes
Solar           = yes
Wind mills    = yes

all other = no


this could prove to be an interesting twist for mining if it catches on in the USA.

Explanation

The only way it will drop to his liquidation level is if the fuckery is so high it can be easily exposed.

What i have experienced during my HODL Journey till now is when the big players talk about BTC positively, there is always a big down trend after then. I wonder now how dip we will go from here?
A-) $14,5k
B-) $12K
C-) lower
or
D-) is it already the end of bottom line?

I did. Not on the very low, but at levels slightly above of what we are today. I had a little cash and no use, before the astrography camera incident, so i was lucky not to spend it all, while i was speculating on another V (leg down, leg up), but so far ir didn't come.

Explanation

I dunno...Saylor was considered a role model, but he borrowed "through the nose" to buy most of his bitcoin.
I guess people just can't get rid of "leverage to the hilt" mentality.
Maybe we all, as 'investors', can never have a true bitcoin mentality, hence the volatility.
I was one of "them" back in 2000 when I thought that my margin borrowing was safe...proceeded to almost zero out a significant brokerage account (sold to at least not owe any money) .
No leverage for me since (albeit i dabble in small bets on options).

Explanation

The "problem" issue seems to be getting worse and even more convoluted - because in recent times, it is starting to feel more difficult to figure out what kinds of matters are causing BTC's price to experience so many downward pressures, and it might not even seem like a bitcoin versus crypto problem, and instead seems to be a problem that is embedded into the fiat debt system that allows for gambling on BTC and gambling on "crypto" and the fact that BTC and crypto are relatively liquid, some of the "crypto" aspects start to seem as if they might be innocent - because the weakness seems to be coming from a slightly different angle in which even the supposed "responsible" bitcoiners (such as miners and financial institutions like GBTC some others) had gotten wrapped up in various kinds of debt relations in which bitcoin ends up appearing to be part of the problem because people are playing around with bitcoin that they do not have and some of us bitcoiners had been thinking that some of those practices were potentially o.k (at least something that we are not so easy to escape such usage).. but then now we see contagion everywhere... .

....but still I am not going to be giving up on the need to at least clarify what the fuck they are talking about when they refer to "crypto."  Are they talking about bitcoin or not?  And if so how much of it is related to bitcoin and how much is some other topic, that might not be irrelevant, but they still should be trying to clarify what the fuck they are talking about exactly, because even if they might think that we know what they mean, if they do not define it then how are we going to know because many of us bitcoiners realize that there is no such thing as "crypto" even if really smart people insist on using that term.

I recently had someone (in real life) go a bit ape shit on me because I asked him what he meant by "crypto," and when I told him that I did not know what he was talking about, he told me that he would "use whatever word that he likes," even if I don't like it.  So I did not give up even though he was bordering upon actual violence, even though he was being quite confrontational about his wanting to use that word, and I continued to say that I am not going to know what he is talking about if he keeps saying "crypto" merely because everyone else uses the term, but he is actually talking about bitcoin or something else.  If he is talking about "bitcoin" then he should say that is what he is talking about.  He did give in somewhat.. but really seems to not want to use the word bitcoin for some reason.

It seems to me that there are some people who are starting to fight back in terms of their insistence upon using vague words and refusing to use the word bitcoin, and so I suppose if they continue to say that they are going to keep using those kinds of vague words, and we do not know what they mean, then it seems that we have a duty to make sure they specify what they are talking about.. even if it might lead to violence and we might not be able to walk away.. what if we start getting beaten until we allow them to say what they like?  Should we continue to insist so that if they use the term crypto and define it, then we know if they are talking about bitcoin or something else, and if they are talking about bitcoin, then why not just use the word, "bitcoin"?  

If we do not insist, then we are also going to get lured into such sloppy references, and even we will not know what we are talking about either if we are using such term without specifying it on a fairly regular basis.  There is no real short cut if we really want to have some kind of a meaningful conversation rather than just spouting out vagaries.


If I am following you WatChe, you lost me.... How could it be that POW and POS are merely just different but similar systems?

Bitcoin's POW is an invention of something new.. so probably you need to understand what POW is and what it invented if you are going to compare POW to some random other system in order to understand if the other random system (in this case POS) actually brings any value or is comparable.

It seems to me that there is nothing new with POS.  It is not really inventing anything - except perhaps trying to convolute matters and to appear as if there is some kind of an innovation when it is just largely perpetuation of various status quo systems, but instead shifts power to people who are staking.

....and how does that empowering of stakers do anything except for maintain a status quo group that is in power or just switch the group in power in status quo institutions to another group that is created under the POS system (which if we are referring to ethereum, then that group of centralized stakers get control).  

The whole POS thing seems like a kind of digital pyramid program in which the early stakers are nearly impossible to change.. .. it is like a self-referencial oracle that refers to the status of truth to the incumbent power holders (the ones with the most stake) including that with ethereum specifically, there is a lack of transparency in terms of the total number of ethereum that had ever been in existence in the first place, so it is quite difficult to even know what the value of the numerator is (staked versus circulating) when we cannot even know how many coins existed in the first place... and then if you do not know the starting point of how many coins were invented, then how are you ever going to be able to establish if coins are not just being created randomly at various strategic points in time and benefiting the early-stakers (coin holders) as compared to the late arriving patsies (suckers, gullible ones)... you never know because you cannot even verify the whole number of coins.. so that non-verification goes beyond the idea of POS..

It's giving me a headache.. again to feel that there is any need to even go down this road.. .. there is no there there, but you (WatChe) still want to somehow suggest that POS is actually adding something of value?


Why would I complain (do I look like a complainer?) about a true statement (in the form of a question) that you just made?

Or you are saying that you can say whatever the fuck vague thing that you want and expect people to understand, recognize and appreciate what you are talking about?

I would suggest if you feel that you "need to use" the word "crypto" that you at least clarify what you are talking about.  Once you clarify what you are talking about, then you have conquered at least half the battle, and one you have clarified what it is that you are talking about, then you might decide that you might not even need to use that vague-ass word, aka "crypto," in order to say what you are wanting to say. Go figure.

Not a very exciting game...it is probably still too hot there.
England had three good chances, US maybe two (hit the bar).

How much are you willing to bet on that ?

Explanation