Miners haven't been mining at such great loss for a long time, so they hold or they short. Most of them are smart and know the market is collapsing, so they short, causing more pressure for the market to go down, causing them to have to short more, causing more pressure. See this market CAN only crash, there isn't even potential to go up.
There's a flaw in your logic: Miners don't have to increase their hedging volume when price drops. |
|
|
|
The marketcap was $720mil at the highest, you really think this coin is gonna reach those prices again? Because its gonna have to actually go higher than that to be a real national currency. I swear i think the winklevoss twins were behind that big pump then. They moved on bruhs.
The market cap for auroracoin will reach 15 billion dollars once it replaces the krona and trillions once it replaces the euro And 1 cent when you wake up  hehehe. that made me lol. you both have good points, btw. |
|
|
|
very well-written article. thanks. I'll back that up. Nice article. When will the price reach 75k Sat? In 2 weeks tm |
|
|
|
Damit werden 30k in den nächsten 30 Tagen nachgekauft. Das nenne ich bullish.  mal die USD swaps angeschaut? 25.8 millionen USD. Bisschen mehr als 30 kBTC würd ich sagen. Ich frag mich wann die liquidiert werden... |
|
|
|
Does anyone see the connection between Mt.Gox and the western banking system?
Your balances in the bank are soon only nominally same thing as cash in hand. They never were quite the same, but as convertibility is severed, the price will also diverge.
I see the connection. But I also see a difference: with mtGox, when it became clear the risk was substantial, trading sites popped up that allowed trading of the goxBTC IOUs vs. real BTC. That's probably not going to happen with traditional bank deposits. |
|
|
|
Damn, I was close to forgetting him finally. lol. did you make a bet with him back then? |
|
|
|
So it could be that distribution of funds across addresses increased (probably correlated to lower address reuse and increased use of HD wallets). When funds are spread accross more addresses within wallets, naturally the error in measuring transaction volume decreases, because wallets can find more suitable inputs from the larger set => change percentage in transactions decreases => error decreases.
Address balances don't matter by the way, nor does address reuse, because outputs feed transactions, not addresses. You could be right. After much thinking and playing with some numbers, I'm not sure anymore. Postponed. |
|
|
|
Stimmt schon... das letzte Mal, als wir bei 210 bis 220$ rumgedümpelt sind, sah das Orderbook aber sehr ähnlich aus. Daher meine Vermutung, dass wir wieder steigen könnten...
Ich wünsch's mir auch, ja. Anonsten könnt's ganz schön runtergehen... weeeeeeee! |
|
|
|
This is a variant of a bank run.
Yes. A central bank run? |
|
|
|
Ich schätze mal, dass wir in den nächsten Stunden wieder auf > 220$ steigen werden. Dafür spricht zumindest das Orderbook der verschiedenen Börsen wie z.B. das von Bitstamp:  Ich bezweifle die Aussagekraft von Orderbooks. Früher ging das mal ganz gut, 2011 und so. Aber mittlerweile wird das Ding halt vollgemalt mit Luftnummern von Bots und Tradern. |
|
|
|
found a typo: certaintanty
very well-written article. thanks. |
|
|
|
That article is well worth a read. The argument for denying the large cash withdrawal the Pension Fund Association wanted to make goes from International anti-money laundering (AML) guidelines require banks to monitor and report suspicious activity on accounts.
to Banks are completely within their rights to refuse to enact transactions that they believe may be intended to facilitate financial crime or money laundering.
So the argument goes from "required by guidelines to report transactions" to "judge transactions and refuse to enact them". Quite a jump. So essentially the bank is both judge and executor? wow. And the "international guidelines on AML" (which seem to get elevated to law here) are written by who? It'll be interesting to follow this. If the refusal of the cash withdrawal is deemed lawful (which I assume will happen), the mechanism which Hans Peter Konrad doesn't want to admit he understands can continue. The director of the Pension Fund Association ASIP, Hans Peter Konrad, has been angry for weeks about the fact that pension funds suffer from negative interest rates. He says: “We do not understand why the banks are getting involved.”
If on the other hand the bank is forced to allow the cash withdrawal... get out the wheelbarrows? |
|
|
|
Aren't "inflation" (monetary) and "negative rates" directly correlated (by central bank action)? |
|
|
|
hm, that's interesting. So USD tx volume is roughly stable but number of transactions skyrockets. This means the average amount of a tx is going down.
Any rationale for this? Number of transactions is an objective number that's easy to measure. There's more uncertainty about USD volume, since there's no way to be 100% sure which output in a transaction is a spend and which one is change. good point. So it could be that distribution of funds across addresses increased (probably correlated to lower address reuse and increased use of HD wallets). When funds are spread accross more addresses within wallets, naturally the error in measuring transaction volume decreases, because wallets can find more suitable inputs from the larger set => change percentage in transactions decreases => error decreases. |
|
|
|
 yet another ATH in BTC swaps. I'm still flabbergasted by the amount of USD swaps, though. It's still roughly 4-5 times higher than the BTC ones. |
|
|
|
 that guy lost around 300k from the falling bitcoin price shorts are going crazy as usual lol How do you know that this transaction is from the guy who got his short margin called? I believe it is just some random big transaction we don't really know the source of. Sure, it could be some early adopter cashing out, but it could just be an exchange shifting around some money. : someone with a huge wallet moved 101 BTC. Interesting. I only now see that the assumed amount if BTC actually transacted is at 101 BTC. I've seen this metric being off a few times with transactions of my own. Is the algorithm behind this figure known? It's always great to read all the wild theories people develop when such a big transaction occurs from time to time. I bet part of the metric is the precision of the output amounts. High precision amounts have higher likelyhood of being the change output. 101 has much higher precision than 69,471.082201. Ah yes, that makes actually a lot of sense! I unfortunately can't quite remember the transaction where blockchain.info mis-guessed the amount if was transferring. Still interesting to see what this transaction may have accomplished for the owner of the address... maybe cashing out 101 BTC? Yes, he probably moved 101 BTC to an exchange. PREPARE FOR DUMP!!! ;-) |
|
|
|
230er Marke hat wohl doch nicht gehalten, geht wohl erstmal wieder abwärts
Sieht so aus, ja. Wir suchen also einen günstigen Einstiegspunkt (long). Um jetzt noch zu shorten, ist es meiner Meinung nach zu spät. Zumindest könnte ich mir keine Kursmarke setzen. hatte bei 228 noch geshortet und position jetzt geschlossen bei 220$. Warte ersteinmal ab ob 220$ hält, wenn ja, gehe ich long mit engem stop loss. Denke werden sich gute long trading möglichkeiten in den nächsten tagen ergeben wenn 220$ hält. 200$ marke ist schon eine ziemlich starke psychologische grenze und ich sehe ehrlich gesagt keinen grund warum wir die noch einmal durchbrechen sollten.Tja, $220 hat nicht gehalten. Grund für < $200 könnte höchstens Panik sein, denke ich. Oh well: be greedy when others are fearful. |
|
|
|
chart linked by NotHatinJustTrollin:  hm, that's interesting. So USD tx volume is roughly stable but number of transactions skyrockets. This means the average amount of a tx is going down. Any rationale for this? |
|
|
|
ah, hey, Kühlschrank, guck ma, Bildchen! jetzt nibbeln wir am der 78.6% fibonacci retractment rum:  Zu Deiner Verteidigung und aller Unterhaltung kommt heute im Kursverlauf-TV: Harald Lesch - RadosophieViel mir gerade ein. Muss ich bei Fibonacci oft dran denken. |
|
|
|
Nimmt eigentlich irgendjemand diese ganzen Bildchen mit Linien und Pfeilen ernst?
Das ist hier doch alles ein Witz, die kurzfristigen Bewegungen sind ziemlich Random und diese ganze hin und hergetrade meiner Meinung nach ne ziemliche Zeitverschwendung.
Überlegt euch am besten einfach, wo der Kurs in nem Jahr steht und dann könnt ihr entsprechend Bitcoins kaufen oder verkaufen. Bei allem anderen macht ihr euch doch nur was vor und das erinnert ein bisschen an den Roulette-Spieler, der glaubt ein "System" gefunden zu haben, mit dem er die Bank schlägt.
Wieso so angepisst? Lass uns doch. Manche Leute stossen mit Holzstöcken Kugeln auf einem Tisch rum bis sie in Löcher fallen. Dann holen sie diese wieder raus und das Spiel geht von vorn los. Dazu fällt mir ein schöner Quote aus der Heute Show ein. Etwa im Sinne von:"Lass uns doch! Ich möchte, dass mein Bullshit gleichberechtigt neben den Fakten steht."  Da ging es aber auch um Impfgegner... Naja... Kühlschrank ist ja freiwillig hier und wir verlangen ja nicht, daß unsere Charts in der Tagesschau kommen. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
