Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 9323. (Read 26711860 times)

This is not possible. Nature is a self-balancing system. More plants more oxygen more animals, and a new balance is eventually reached. Of course, if people actually believe we need more co2, well, we have a solution for that.

oooooo

Nice.  I like it.  I like it.

Well, you are likely correct, cabalism that when the BTC price goes down in several legs, taking us to nearly 45% retracement with the current local low of $7,734, then those lower prices become more possible, and we cannot presume an immediate reversal of the price momentum.

Bears (or maybe more properly referred to as bearwhales) are going to attempt to keep BTC's price going down as long as they still have momentum, and when we are still only a few percentage above $7,734, then we cannot rest assured that the bottom is "in".  I feel a lot more comfortable when the price has corrected 15% or 20% from the local bottom before I might to resume thinking about "up."  So, yeah, getting above $9k or so would be a good sign.

I am NOT sure about what level of down is reasonable, and surely, even a spike down to $5k would not necessarily take us out of our bull market, unless the BTC price sustainably stays below $7k or even $6k for a prolonged time.  $7k is just a bit above a 50% retracement... which would be a bit much of a retracement, except if it was merely just a flash crash sort of happening. 

I hate to put odds on various happenings, but getting below $6k would still seem to be less than 50/50 odds, in my thinking because that would more than  55% retracement.  Never say never in BTC-landia, but a 55% retracement seems a bit much, and surely would contribute to shaking a lot of weak hands - if that price is successfully cared out.

Next time I have a merit you will get one.
This is the funniest thing I have seen all week.

So you are the chosen messiah for the belgian people getting into this crypto f-storm!
All hail MicG!

We only have 10 years to avoid a climate catastrophe, said UN representative Maurice Strong.
in 1972.

via Imgflip Meme Generator

#HODLsleep

Only far to late

I worry about the future due to the way we are building our seasteads.

The hurricane free zones of the ocean make up 3 times the space as there is habitable land.

Each of our seasteads grows a coral ecosystem underneath.

Coral reefs harbour the highest biodiversity of any ecosystem globally and directly support over 500 million people worldwide, mostly in poor countries.

If we make enough seasteads to cover more than 3 times the habitable space in the world, with the amount of coral that goes along with it...

we may start running out of CO2 due to the coral.

Solution?

We need more humans. Both to live and buy the seasteads, and to create precious CO2 to feed the coral and other plants of the world.

How do we create more humans?

Sex.

Ocean Builders needs to encourage people to have more sex if they are going to live on seasteads.

And as the ocean is just the next frontier on the way to colonizing space...we need a lot more humans for the future.

So stop worrying about everything you may be concerned with now...and start figuring out how to have more sex.

QED

The primary problem with Hydrogen is storage and transport.  Steel tanks look like cheesecloth to Hydrogen.

Think about it, from what do you fabricate a container for the smallest of all elements?

Some light reading on the state of the tech https://hackaday.com/2019/09/04/are-hydrogen-cars-still-happening/

Fatman one liner
Believes in the climate lies
The climate scares him

in the mean time, magic 1 provides resistance

and Cathleens bike

A little more than common engines, overall it's an up from 35% to about 70% efficiency.

EDIT: off to sleep, soon dreaming about new ATH 

Hmm. Ok.

But I'd like to see you achieve and post the evidence of at least one extinction before the weekend is over.

Are hydrogen fuel cells efficient?  I don’t know anything about them

I eat plenty of meat and my farts are definitely deadly enough WITHOUT adding diesel to the mix, well at least according to my wife

That's good news, indeed.
They have to look for secondary effects by the production of h2o when massively using it. Of course, otto-cycle engines are still a too good way to waste fossil energy, while electrical powered engines would use the energy much more efficient and distribute less heat.

Caring about the environment is for pussies. You're supposed to eat raw meat and fart diesel fumes if you want to be a right wing Alpha in this day and age. If you want to prove yourself go bleach a coral reef and burn down a rain forest.

Guys here is the secret sauce to the whole climate question. Ready for it? Ready? There is nothing wrong with the climate.