Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 7084. (Read 26709638 times)

I can't believe SJW rot has infiltrated Bitcoin Core, to the point they ACKED a merge to change "blacklist" to "blocklist".

For Bitcoin.

A blockchain.

...

Eh, I don’t buy it.  The mother is always the greatest influence on the development of a child’s character.

That’s not feminist stuff.  Even Napoleon said so; and he was so much not-a-feminist that he banned women from wearing pants in public within the city of Paris, on pain of arrest by the police.  (That law was repealed in 2013, when feminists realized it was still on the books and screamed bloody murder.  Napoleon’s own mother, by the way, was of such a famously forceful character that Nietzsche later cited her as an example of “the most powerful and influential women in the world” (Beyond Good and Evil, Aphorism 239).  And she raised a son who conquered the Continent...)

Indeed, I would go so far as to say that all of a man’s efforts directly to shape a child’s character are nugatory.  A father is, in the abstract, a fixed axis of power and authority in a household (which is why modernity prefers single motherhood...).  His primary influence on the child is through his relationship with his wife; it is the attitude that she exudes toward him which is absorbed by the child, at the very young ages when the mind has the plasticity to be shaped—a matter of emotions, the woman’s domain, and not of rational didacticism.  If a woman respects and admires her husband, then the children will absorb her devotion, and they will later report being “close to Dad growing up”.  If she despises him, then even without conscious intention, she will undermine him; and the children will always have “daddy issues”, no matter what he does.

If it seems I make women out to be powerful—yes, they are.  In all times and societies in which men have held exclusive political leadership and “oppressed” women through “patriarchy”, women have exercised a profound influence on the world by shaping the next generation of sons—and the next generation of mothers for grandsons.  The sexes are unavoidably interdependent; and talk about men “going their own way” is equally foolish to feminist nonsense about fish and bicycles.

Moreover, if you were to look back to times when families were really stable—before 1850, maybe even earlier—you will find that society had a very different idea of the paternal rôle.  Fathers weren’t babysitters; they were certainly involved with their families, but much more detached from daily childrearing (especially of very young children) than people would expect nowadays.  Within the family, fathers and mothers were not “partners in childcare” or anything of that nature.  Don’t forget that the feminist masculinization of women has been linked to the feminization of men, which has been ongoing for at least 170 years now.  Much is made of how far women have moved into masculine jobs; how much have men moved into women’s work?

Before approximately the middle of the Nineteenth Century, indeed, the respective rôles of the sexes were so drastically different that it is difficult for us nowadays even to imagine what life was really like.

None of this discussion is new.  Read books on the subject from the circa 1900, plus or minus a few decades; you will find them eerily similar to arguments seen all over the Internet nowadays, but much more insightful.  And they, in turn, will provide you references stretching back much further.

For my part, when I contemplate the general pattern of human society throughout most of history, excepting only periods of cultural degeneration and the collapse of civilizations, I am willing to bet on what enduring experience has shown to work.

And in the instances that you describe, I think you will find that there were many sources of dysfunction other than simply, “Dad was too busy.”

---

For obvious reasons, I have ignored the opposite case of the “a man usually” clause.  Of course, if a mother devotes her life to her chasing money, money, money at the expense of her children, they will grow up to be neurotic, perhaps psychotic.

Exactly see to trample near the supporting area also i think approximately $8k supporting area albeit not break $9200 We now have to wait to see the next boundaries or bottom over and hit exactly the bottom point.

Bad boy, V8.

You deserve a spanking.



Seems that the rod may well  be spared, in this case.  


Add three zeros, and you are going to have troubles finding any situation in which you would be able to buy below $5k - even in a hypothetical fire sale... but we can all have some kinds of fantasies, I suppose.

https://twitter.com/OnlyAltcoins/status/1296237036949721093
soon
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tz87FG1zH4k

Absolutely. You have absolutely misused words to mean something quite opposed to their actual meaning, and when called out on it, you have used the 'words mean exactly what I want them to mean whenever I want them to mean that' defense.

Although, truth be told, it was not "to your advantage", as it was an egregious transparent act of disingenuosity ( <- alas - probably not available in the dictionary) fooling nobody, and therefore gaining you no advantage whatsoever.

Nothing egregious of late, this is true. But Pepperidge Farm remembers. As, no doubt, do you. Dissemble no further!

Observing $10265

Bitcoin already now going to up then last 24 hours hopefully $15k line over out at this month that this thinking specially bitcoin lover. like you can be believed bitcoin price going to up and up starting soon.

About heirs, we often hear of stories where basically someone (a man usually) has worked his ass off all his life to be richer and richer, with the justification that "it's for my children", the problem being that they didn't actually take care of their children while doing that. Then they realize too late that they did it wrong.

mind...., forget it

off topic? normal
on topic? on occasion
covid? bleh.. just stop

lines? now there ya go
bitcoin going up and up?
yeah baby lets talk

#haiku

In Bitcoinland, it is unsurprising that some should be cryptic.

Cynical though I am, that is to me a shocking view of most investors.  Has the world really changed so much while I was sleeping?  “Back in the day”, I think, the goal that I stated was a significant motivating factor for most people who were striving to accrue wealth, and even a primary motive for not a few.

“I want a better future for my children and grandchildren, and their grandchildren” is unrealistic to expect as a motive for most investors?

On the other hand, maybe that explains why the markets are so fucked up:  The types of speculators who seek to Get Rich Quick are not typically long-term thinkers!  Of course, they would not give a hoot about their descendants.  Perhaps they may be fanatical Christians:  They take no thought for the morrow (Matthew 6:34).

(Boldface is Jay’s.)

I know that this will shock the hyper-individualists in the peanut gallery:  As an ethical matter, heirs do not receive bequests as their individual property.  Ethically if not legally, it is collective property held in trust for the family—for posterity, for future generations.

To protest this would be shameful.  There is no such thing as a free lunch.  With every privilege comes a duty.  People who receive wealth from their parents must accept that duty; thus, enjoy it though they may within the spans of their own lives, they must tend it wisely, and ultimately pass down the gifts that they have received.  You can’t have your cake and eat it, too.

No, heirs don’t have a right to spend their inheritances on “hookers, lambos and blow”.  If they do choose to do so, at least they should be subject to severe social shaming.  I think that used to be the case, when prodigal heirs were the exception rather than the rule.

Those who insist on having only absolute individual property rights should relieve themselves of this burden by having a solemn talk with their parents, and requesting to be disinherited.  That’s only fair.  Such individualists should earn their own wealth all by themselves, totally alone, and thus free up their parents to re-allocate bequests to their other children, or spend it all on their own pleasures, or bequeath it all to charity, or put it all into gold and then sink the gold to the bottom of the ocean.  It is their individual property right, yes?

That said, I don’t think that laws and legally enforceable terms in wills can help much here.  Perhaps a bit.  For example, once upon a time, in some European countries, there were laws that protected familial ownership of the family home.  If the inheritor of the family home tried to sell it outside the family, other potential heirs who were next in line could challenge and prohibit the sale; thus, the family home was effectually inalienable from the family, unless a unanimity of a whole generation should be in folly.

This must be unimaginable to most Americans:  There were families who held the same home for centuries.  I do not speak only of the nobility with their familial castles and palaces:  In some parts of Europe, it was not even rare for a family of peasant freeholders or the petite bourgeoisie to hold the same home for ten or twenty generations.  I think that most of this broke down during the Twentieth Century, and most of the relevant laws are probably no longer on the books.  It’s a shame.  Those people had excellent social stability.  They were productive and happy.  Children did not rebel against their parents, as seems to be expected nowadays (!).

But such things depend on the living.  Such “hand from beyond the grave” long, complex chains of devises as prohibited by the Rule Against Perpetuities could not instill in prodigal heirs the character that they lacked; and if they did not lack such character, the terms of long-ago wills would only be an unnecessary burden.

The point of my post was that the human element is much more important than the legalities.  If you have good kids, you don’t need fancy wills or trusts; but if your kids are


...then no legal instruments can make them behave themselves after you are gone.


Not just any others:  Their own descendants.  I hope that it is not politically incorrect nowadays to point out that people do and should prefer to benefit their own descendants over arbitrary “others”.  If so, then surely, mankind will go extinct.  I think that Darwin would agree with me:  What creature could long survive, if it did not prefer its own offspring?

(Of course, people often make bequests to charity, etc.—just as they often give such gifts in their lifetimes.  It is a different motive.  My point is that a bequest to one’s own posterity is very specific, and not just based on a vague notion of touching someone’s life out there.)

---

I suppose that this ran far afield of the original discussion about investments.  Re-reading the above before posting, I hope that it doesn’t come off as too negative; it’s certainly not intended to be argumentative.

It seems that whenever I start to think that I am too cynical, I find that to the contrary, I am naïve; and that idea that most investors don’t even include intergenerational wealth in their explicit goals is really shocking to me.  Perhaps, to some degree, that may be the “ethnic” in me speaking; in some parts of the world, much of what I have said would be commonplace.  But then, as noted above, such thinking used to be commonplace amongst Europeans, too.

No wonder the world is doomed.  Life is cheap, and people have lost all sense of purpose.  They are all short-term thinkers:  Life is short!

Well, it’s an important insight, in and of itself...  I’m glad to have this discussion.

Some of that/all of that is probably true, but what to do about it is up in the air. I'm below 40 so even with comorbidities I'm unlikely to die from COVID, I have a very strong immune system (I haven't been seriously ill since childhood, the few times I catch something I sleep it off with a bit of fever and it's gone in one night), should I seek to get the virus ? How would I do that ?

Also, some of the worst cases of COVID seem to be linked to the immune system going berserk, so my strong immune system might be a disadvantage after all.

Sunday passes by
One more week must be endured
'til haikus return

Until then, we watch
Lines, charts. Merits come and go.
So sweet to hodl.

Lying awake now
Wondering whether hodl
Should be one or two?

The longer we take for a vaccine, the more mutations there will be. Which is by itself not something you want.

Russia prematurely released a vaccine without testing much. Europe makes promises and shows no results. USA's too busy trying to keep everyone happy so they don't riot, especially with the corona economy and a president who spends his time acting out WWE fights... We got nothing.

Even if over 70% of the deaths are 65+ years or already sick. We remain with 30% of the young and healthy dropping like flies. Corona lungs will already be permanently damaged. What happens if you get corona again? Are you going to become part of the "elderly and already sick" death statistic?

Our biggest hope right now is that Europe or Israel does something.

OT: Covid-19 crap / Braindump

There's this dude on Twitter named @JamesTodaroMD, who is talking a lot about T-Cell Memory serving as a form of immunity to Coronaviruses, and Covid-19.

It's being hypothesized that folks with healthy immune systems, are near middle age, and have no co-morbidities, have good protection against Covid-19, if you've had colds in the past (been exposed to Coronaviruses before, on several occasions); can fight off and develop an immunity to a strain of Covid-19.

Also, T-Cells apparently are capable of forming immunity memory against Covid-19, and this is leading to PCR Tests for re-testing infections as near useless. If you've had Covid-19 already, test negative; it's possible to retest positive, while asymptomatic, at a later date, because the PCR test is detecting dead viral shedding of a Covid-19 infection that was already taken care of by your T-Cell memory, generating the needed immune response.

Also, it is speculated by the medical community there is "at least one more strain of Covid-19" which is possible to become full-course reinfected with, again.

Again, speaking about healthy folk here, with strong immune systems, and no co-morbidities.

I don't have anymore merit so IOU 1 merit.

Covid arguments
inevitably pointless
it is what it is

inevitably
what will bring us all solace
is Bitcoin of course


(and by the way..)

The Wall Observer
Does not need to Justify
Freedom of merit

come on you beautiful bastard, give us some fucking bounce. Looked promising to break up few hours ago, but it's struggling again.

at this point i would just settle for a line, period. and i swore off that a loooong time ago too.