Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 4478. (Read 26709863 times)

Explanation

https://twitter.com/RadioSilentplay/status/1459683988029775880

It sounds to me like you have a preoccupation with shitcoins. Your previous voluminous post about falling bitcoin dominance being likely to prevent further BTC v fiat gains; a chart to try to show some similar point; and now trying to argue that a downside of El Salvador's pioneering move to accept bitcoin as legal tender is that you might have to pay tax on profits from shitcoins.

Do you have some heavy bags of shitcoins, by any chance?

Explanation

Lawmaker could easily argue you owe them BTC tax, if you make BTC profits from alts. The only reason in other countries that BTC based profits are not taxed is because they don't accept Bitcoin as currency. In summary, you can't send them profits that they don't or can't accept. El Salvador have taken a different role it seems, they accept your Bitcoin profits from altcoins I image, and will probably expect it as well.

This is probably one of the only downsides of a nation accepting Bitcoin as currency, having to send them BTC from altcoin profits... it also sounds like a small price to pay in the long-term.

However does this mean you don't owe tax from fiat currency profits, if you return it to the nation's currency? It's confusing  

Coins only move when the private key holder says so. PERIOD. END OF DISCUSSION.

An interesting way of talking about it.  


Basically the assets are:

 1) lost
 2) abandoned
 3) hidden and or hodled

In the case of both the ships or the BTC

My argument is rules are in place to encourage and or discourage treasure hunting all over the world.  They are complex rules and they are not always followed but there are rules.

To think that in 2059 there will not be a cry for rules to recover those

lost
abandoned
hodled

btc

Is  pretty naive.

But what do  i know not much.

... or maybe the lawmaker could argue when you buy bitcoin or swap some shitcoin for bitcoin, you're also "cashing out" the (crypto)currency into a legal tender - so you owe CGT.

You never know what byzantine concepts the lawmakers are going to come up with.

Imo, it's simply Bitcoin's dominance struggling to move higher. Not something I've ever said before or considered relevant, but now it appears highly correlated. For the past 2 months or so Bitcoin's rise in value has correlated with a rise (reclamation) in it's domination. The corrections and sideways price actions has resulted in BTC dominance decreasing. Unlike in early 2021, BTC dominance decreasing is no longer bullish for Bitcoin, it has inherently become bearish. Bitcoin needs to break out of it's dominance's long-term downtrend, this is the only bearish factor I see in it's charts right now. Whether considered relevant or not.



Back above 45% and dominance can move to 50%, even 60%. This would likely mean a move to $80-100K if the dominance correlation to price remains relevant. As I said, BTC dominance has never been an "issue" before, because it's decline was correlated with an increase in price (> specualtion). Now the inverse is true, the decline is dominance is no longer bullish for Bitcoin.

I still don't believe it's time to panic, but I do see the hidden resistance in the charts at the moment given new ATH twice broken: the downtrend in BTC dominance.

There are no laws that can pull the ships from the deep to the surface, though.
I thought that's what we were talking about.

Absolutely ridiculous.

I'm DCA-ing further into BTC.

There is no way this money printing is ever going to stop.

Some covert institutional whale selling some bitcoin to pay for Evergrande fiat fuckups?

Explanation

Strong hourly candle coming in after yesterday's close   Only the 1 hr chart, but bouncing off the 200 MA (aka the 4hr 50 MA) like a boss 💪



That yellow area I've designated as the accumulation/distribution zone. It's based on the price between the April ATH and highest Weekly close of that month.

Looking forward to a close above $65.5K on this time frame for further upside and new ATH personally.

Weekly candle was looking like bearish trash but hopefully weekend can save it...

Yep this site is asking you to sign in.

Just have had another pleasant meal with a WO’r

Price going up too

Happy Saturday

Cheers

"Private area?" Come on man!

Just received a reality check on the sentiment of Bitcoin from a old-school-boomer & no-coiner this evening. A retired investor involved in the old money world of tax, and very curious on cryptocurrencies and their upside potential. Given they come from the "Gold age", they were surprisingly very interested and generally much less sceptical than the conversations I had with retired individuals in previous years.

They had no understanding of how blockchains functioned, cryptographic algorithms, mining and the like, but after realising they didn't understand how https or SSL certificates were verified, as well as the mechaincs of motor or electric cars, but still used and trusted them, were much more inclined to understand. They could certainly relate to the idea that pieces of paper are only worth what they are deemed to be valued at, as opposed to a fixed value, and concerned with increasing inflation - this being one of the best angles for boomers for reference sake, re "The Age of Gold". Bare with me, there is a point in here that isn't the usual.

However. Despite my conversation being focused around Bitcoin as an investment, and only Bitcoin, they still had their mind focused on the overall value of cryptocurrencies, rather than simply Bitcoin. More interested in "what cryptocurrencies to invest in" rather than "how much to invest in Bitcoin" as it were. Despite another boomer referencing the potential of Ethereum, the analogy I used was that a blockchain platform is like Windows, even if it's the most valuable one. There may be good upgrades, there may be others that go wrong, and when it comes to value transactions, going wrong is a serious problem. Ie it's not an immutable ledger like Bitcoin.

I was told using the term "immutable" was a very Gen X concept, which is understandable given the idea of computing and cryptography, and intended as a compliment rather than an insult. Even though I'm an early Millennial. Furthermore, the idea that Bitcoin is 12 years old and therefore time-tested was considered laughable: the idea that a decade is a long enough test of time. This appeared to help shift the idea away from a blockchain platform that upgrades every 6 months or so and therefore liable to fault, and why Bitcoin can be considered risky enough as it is, even with a decade of reliability behind it.

All in all, Bitcoin being a minority of the cryptocurrency market became an obvious issue to this conversation, because it is only a piece of the speculation pie right now as opposed to the main chunk. Being the no.1 cryptocurrency appears almost irrelevant at this point and it felt unnoticed. It's recognised more so as the first cryptographic form of money, but not the most reliable nor the most valuable it seems. This again was a reminder of why I "feel" Bitcoin needs to reclaim 50% of market dominance in order to reach 6 figures, even if temporarily, just to show how it can lead in this market rather than continue to fall behind.

This isn't intended as an attack on Bitcoin, but a realisation that altcoin dominance has become problematic to gaining older investors. This is simply what I believe. First the altcoin profits as well as liquidity need to move back to Bitcoin, as part of a Bitcoin season. This is what will give confidence to newcomers as to which is the most relevant cryptocurrency to invest in. The reality is many investors like to diversify, given in the age of computing investing all in Mircosoft would have been an worthless idea, but instead diversifying into Apple would of been a worthwhile concept. But the difference is, cryptos are not OS's nor devices.

I'm not against some market weighted diversification strategy of (for example) 80% Bitcoin and 20% Ethereum, but clearly it comes at a price. Because while boomers are happy to invest 20% in ETH, Gen Z are more inclined to invest 50% in Ethereum and 50% in the latest speculative technology that may or may not succeed, without even considering Bitcoin, it can come across as "too old for them" or "too expensive". It's as if Bitcoin is for the boomers, and the Millennials and younger want something more speculative, more risky. As if Bitcoin isn't speculative enough. This is confirmed by the fact that altcoins are the majority of the cryptocurrency market, not Bitcoin anymore. Not since 2017/2018 altseason. This is just my experience, but it is what I see right now. Soon enough, things will need to change in order to move forward.

So how does this change? I genuinely think it's through ProShares, the newly discovered and arguably undervalued ETF. Because most boomers don't have the technical experience to buy Bitcoin, let alone own it. They've only just got their head around Paypal and they still don't trust it either. Greyscale has always been there, but likely considered a ponzi scheme (even though it's not), without doing a lot of due diligence. Having access to moving shares into a Bitcoin ETF is a safe and easy way to gain the exposure of Bitcoin's potential, something that other cryptocurrencies simply do not provide. This is where Bitcoin gains it's edge in the market I believe, because if you sign up to a cryptocurrency exchange you can gain exposure to all sorts, but if you invest in ETFs, you can only get Bitcoin. First mover advantage right there.

We can talk to end of time of why Bitcoin is more reliable, more valuable, a better investment and form of reserve currency, as well as a reserve asset, but ultimately other cryptocurrencies will always distort the idea of investing in it, rather than incentivize it. Not to mention most won't understand fundamentally nor technologically why Bitcoin is more reliable and therefore more valuable.. Because it simply confuses the idea of Bitcoin being on a playing field with altcoins, rather than a playing field with fiat currencies. Whereas the idea of a ledger being 100% reliable and 100% immutable is unique. I hope that makes sense.

Explanation

Thank you for reaching out and sharing.