Quote from: danadc on June 13, 2025, 03:20:47 PM

Now, with the recent drumbeat of war between Iran and Israel , most market analysts say that Gold continues to rise in price, but come on , BTC is the boss here.

Quote

Treasury companies are adding Bitcoin to their balance sheets. Sovereign wealth funds have begun to follow suit. Retail investors keep buying, too, thanks to easier trading apps and ETFs like IBIT. A handful of public companies have raised millions to buy Bitcoin outright.

Original from: https://www.newsbtc.com/bitcoin-news/bitcoin-at-1-million-novogratz-says-its-the-price-to-beat-gold/
The article talks about how BTC is on its way to a million, I do believe it... I just hope the war or possible war between those two countries doesn't escalate further , that causes panic in the markets and therefore they can go Down , now more than ever we must have Complete Conviction in BTC.

I doubt that any of us really need conviction and/or to gang together to compete with gold, since there is an asymmetric play going on, and so many folks (including individuals, institutions and governments) have such difficulties recognizing and/or appreciating that bitcoin beats gold in every category of moniness except for historical reputation (physical tangibility - to the extent that is necessary for moniness) and network effects.

It seems quite difficult, even for seemingly smart people, to really wrap their heads around the likely fact that bitcoin is 1/10th the price of gold (in terms of overall estimated market cap), yet 1,000x better than gold, so then even if there happens to be a lot of short term price moves that might cause us to consider that we might want to "own some gold too" or to consider that gold is reasonably comparable to bitcoin, those folks are distracted and really failing/refusing to put in enough time (to their level of competency) to really recognize and/or appreciate the various qualities (hint hint hint related to moniness) that makes bitcoin a superior asset (currency) as compared with gold and as compared with other assets and/or currencies.

Even a large number of folks who are already in bitcoin seems to fail/refuse to understand bitcoin in terms of bitcoin being more than just money go up technology, and sure bitcoin is money go up technology including that it is kind of disadvantaging other assets and/or currencies based on its still being so early in its adoption curve, so in that early adopter curve status, bitcoin unfairly has been beating the pants (in terms of percentage returns) off of all other assets and/or currencies, while at the same time, there is no real sign that bitcoin is going to stop beating the pants off of other assets/currencies (including but not limited to gold) since it seems likely that we are still only around 1% of the world's population owning any significant amounts of bitcoin.. and the mostly no coiners (and yeah sure a decent amount of low coiners in such category) who still don't have any or significant amounts of bitcoin don't really seem to be figuring it out .. The no coiners and low coiners still tend to be quite dumb as fuck (even if they are smart) since they seem to get so distracted by ideas that they are too late and much of the pump is over.. which really is quite an uninformed (and perhaps lazy?) way of viewing bitcoin as an investment asset/currency.

For sure, I have frequently been bothered by the unfairness of analyzing bitcoin's price moves relative to other assets/currencies in terms of the unfairness of the early adoption exponential s-curve adoption slope that came from bitcoin starting out from zero in 2009 and still pretty much being at or close to zero into about the middle of 2010, so then I so much don't want to count those earliest of niche phases of bitcoin becoming known, and so I like to start measuring from early 2012 (I like to use $5 from January 1, 2012 - even though the 200-WMA was factually only around $5.. but anyhow I like to just ballparkedly call it $5 for both spot price and 200-WMA starting January 1, 2012). I have probably been using 1/1/12 as my bitcoin analysis starting date for a couple of years.. and just ongoingly considering it as a reasonably fair compromise even though we might be able to argue that even starting from early 2012 could be interpreted as unfair, yet with any analysis, there are needs to start somewhere and trying to be somewhat fair in regards to the points being made and/or argued. I think that for my own purposes (and senses of fairness) starting the measuring and the relative comparisons of bitcoin to other assets and/or currencies, starting the measuring from early 2012 is reasonably fair as a compromise.. and then just let the chips fall where they will.. which also does not necessarily preclude anyone from using some kind of a later date as a comparative starting point if they might be trying to attempt to remove some noise that might exist when certain factors are likely quite missing in bitcoin's pre-2012 times as compared to various factors that have been ongoingly developing since then, including various kinds of financialization with various financial instruments that surely can influence price factors, perception factors, adoption factors and likely other important factors that I am not mentioning (we can also think about the network effects as outlined by Trace Mayer).

Quote from: OgNasty on June 13, 2025, 03:22:31 PM

Amazon and Walmart exploring issuing their own stablecoins… Very odd what is happening. Companies are going to try to make money from stablecoins similarly to how they make money with gift cards. Not sure this is really good for Bitcoin or anything, but it is interesting to see how big companies are chasing easy profits at the cost of their customer.

Yeah.. there are questions regarding what is going to be the bitcoin bubble creating kind of activity for this cycle that includes activities around bitcoin that are not quite bitcoin but related to bitcoin, so in historical times we had the proliferation of shitcoins and ICOs and then we had the various lending products (and I suppose fractional reserve matters?) around FTX and the various products that were using peoples bitcoin to get yield.. and so now we have stable coins and various kinds of strategic reserves, yet some of them still result in getting others to hand over their bitcoin with an expectation that they might be able to make more money than if they were to buy bitcoin directly.. I suppose ETFs might be considered as part of our potentially current unstable momentum, if some of them might not really be keeping the coins they claim to hold.. .. but yeah, in regards to stable coins there surely can be some utility and even some perceptions that they are less rug-pullable if several of them have received some regulatory nods of approval.

Quote from: philipma1957 on June 13, 2025, 03:22:59 PM

Quote from: danadc on June 13, 2025, 03:20:47 PM

[edited out]

yeah as there is no reason to think gold is way safer than btc.

so during uncertainty and war btc should 🐋 whale 🐳
[/quote]

Are you being facetious?

I know that you are easily distracted, but still... Your backhanded bitcoin complements are much to be desired...

How many of the WO regulars might have had suspected that no one can be that much of a real passive/aggressive bitcoin skeptic while claiming to be profiting from the ups and downs in its price moves... so in essence considering that you musten be yes, a government plant? Give you the benefit of the doubt in terms of your brainwashing and just recognize that perhaps, you cannot help ur lil selfie.. Cheesy

Quote from: d_eddie on June 13, 2025, 03:43:12 PM

Quote from: MainIbem on June 13, 2025, 03:04:45 PM

This could've been one of the best year of Bitcoin growth but

There's always a but. Zoom out. Bitcoin doesn't care too much and chugs along.

If you know you know, right d_eddie?

Several of us have been around for enough of these pumps to recognize/appreciate that so many times bitcoin gets pumped the fuck (and even staircases up to new levels) during times in which a decent number of less informed folks are selling the fuck out of it and losing each time they sell, bitcoin goes up another 30-50% and they place another short and then get recked again, and again and again, and the narratives are like, "its gotta correct at some point," and then bitcoin ONLY ends up correcting after wielding considerable damage on the shorters, the naysayers, the fence sitters and so many of the guys who had been profiting the fuck out of largely holding have also been traumatized, while banking on such craziness at the same time...

Is there a lesson in this? I am not sure about the lessen, except that we have to be careful in regards to either not buying bitcoin and/or selling too much too soon.. and sure, each of us might be tempted by our retrospective perspective that we could have had placed the waves "better," while at the same time, recognizing/appreciating that trying to seek the better or the perfect has so many chances of causing us to underperform a more passive practice that errors on the side of ongoing accumulating and/or holding in the event that we aren't sure.

Quote from: NotATether on June 13, 2025, 03:46:01 PM

Quote from: OgNasty on June 13, 2025, 03:22:31 PM

Amazon and Walmart exploring issuing their own stablecoins… Very odd what is happening. Companies are going to try to make money from stablecoins similarly to how they make money with gift cards. Not sure this is really good for Bitcoin or anything, but it is interesting to see how big companies are chasing easy profits at the cost of their customer.

They are wasting their time doing this. Do they really want to worry about all sorts of AML issues that the federal government will inevitably pester them about?

It's best for them to use an already existing stablecoin like Circle or even Tether. (I very much obviously prefer Circle here because it's not heavily abused around the world like USDT is.)

I am largely just responding to the parathesis portion of your post.. Otherwise I largely agree with what seems to be your points. Hahahahaha..

Tether hating seems to be in your username.

You maybe are coming off as one of those Tether haters, and aren't they labelled as "Tether denialists?" I am not claiming to be a Tether lover, but from my perspective Tether has always seem to defer to bitcoin and recognize bitcoin as the basis for their ability to exist, and surely the Tether deniers have been around since soon after Tether's entrance onto the scene (in 2014-ish). .

...and it seems to me that Tether has beat the pants off of so many of the denialists and the naysayers, including the time in 2016 or so? I cannot recall exactly when they had something like $800 million stolen from them in some Panamanian financial institutions, likely with winks and nods from branches of the US government trying to figure out how to take Tether down in terms of considering that they were sufficiently vulnerable to financial fuckery...and yeah, US government attacks on USDT while at the same time seeming to reach some agreements with them in terms of some allowance of back doors into tether and getting Tether to lock funds, cooperate with governments, which might even relate to surveillance arrangements, which seems to have had been the arrangement since some of the NY District cases were dropped in the past 4-5 years.

I am not claiming to having had studied these Tether matters in detail beyond just coming across these various dynamics within the bitcoin related space from time to time in which USDT has become a behemoth and not really seeming to pull some of the shady cozying up to government like the maneuvers that the Circle managers/leaders have been seeming to be inclined to practice.

I also get the impression that the USDT guys are really recognizing and appreciating bitcoin as the superior play, while the Circle guys consider appeals to government authority to be the superior play, and the Circle guys do not seem to hesitate to try to throw bitcoin under the bus when they consider that it might be to their advantage.. maybe partially evidenced by which side of the 2017 blocksize wars that each of these players fell.