That definitely clears up the issue for me, and NOW, I see why I was having confusion with the regular candlestick b/c I was thinking that the bars should be represented as a candlestickHLC in order to logically make more sense in my head.  Accordingly, candlestickHLC is almost like using the exit and entrance transaction price in each 30 minute period (if that is the setting) in order that the periods flow together... which makes more sense for me.. even though such a flow is a little bit of an artificial construction.

There is NO real problem with making points and even exaggerating various points.  However, frequently, I believe that exaggerated points are better made, if they are NOT strewn into SO MANY sentences.... 

Well, that may be your style...  like YOU WANT TO WRITE in ALL CAPS.... he he he... 

in bitcoinwisdom, we can choose "candlestick" or "candlestickHLC"  Does anyone know the difference?  Coinhamster: you are saying that candlestickHLC is explanation 1, but then what is "candlestick"?

I don't really like that word, "commie" b/c it seems to carry with it a lot of unnecessary baggage... maybe it is my own negative experience that is tainting my reaction?

I believe that I still do NOT really understand the candles.

Let's just take the 30 minute candle.

There is an entry price and an exit price for the 30 minute period.  Yes, I understand that the length of the candle will reflect all the prices in which BTC traded during that 30 minutes. 

Explanation 1:  The candle will be red if the exit price is lower than the entrance price and the candle will be green if the exit price is higher than the entrance price.

Explanation 2:  The candle will be green if buying outpaces selling during that period and red if selling out paces buying.


Regarding Explanation 1: If the thick part of the candles reflects the price entrance and exit points,  sometimes the thick part of the candle does NOT seem to match with the supposed price entrance and exit points... b/c the exit of one candle does NOT match up with the entrance of the next candle or possibly with the entrance into the next candle after that... or the thick portion of the candle is just sitting aloof and not connected to either side..   Something seems to be wrong with my understanding of these candles b/c frequently the thick parts of the candles do NOT seem to match up. 

Regarding Explanation 2:  This seems more plausible b/c explanation 1 does NOT seem to pan out regarding the matching of the entrance and exit locations - the thick parts of the candles.   

NO bull needs to bring up the topic, b/c you bring up the topic every other post.  hehehehe... 

Yes!!!  I wonder whether such bitcoin payment promotion goes beyond one franchise's offerings and promotions?

Are you sharpening your knives for hari kari?

We are almost at the future... May that is.   

How would you know if the transactions are coming from the "same account?"

BJA :  It seems to me that you are being too generous to Jorge.  Jorge's assertion about early adopters wanting to benefit from a monopoly nature that may exist in  bitcoin is so speculative and fanciful that it is barely worthy to be addressed.

First, hardly anyone, except for the truly fanatical are really of the belief that anytime in the near future bitcoin could replace all currencies and payment systems... and very rosey outlooks would put bitcoin replacing 25% of all currencies and payment systems (which would be more than a $25 trillion market cap and $2.5 million per BTC).  These kinds of projections seem to be far above and beyond the speculations of even the most bullish of BTC enthusiasts.

Second, bitcoin could achieve some fraction of success, such as taking over less than 5% of all currencies and payment systems to cause early adopters of BTC to be rich beyond their wildest dreams and beliefs (as long as they had hung on to a fraction of their coins).  In this kind of fraction of success scenario, 5% of all would put BTC  at about a $5trillion market cap and would signify about $500k per BTC.  Just holding 2 BTC would put someone as a BTC millionaire with only a fraction of BTC representing currencies and payment systems.

Third, I really question what the fuck difference it makes whether some early bitcoin adopters acquire some wealth.  Just seems like some people are acting and whining about being butt hurt by the mere thought of early adopters potentially gaining some wealth, and even if some early adopters are able to hang onto some of their bitcoins and become rich beyond their wildest dreams, we already know that as BTC prices increase, many BTC are already going to be distributed to the already rich (the status quo rich) b/c regular people are genuinely confused, ill informed and ignorant about the value prospects of BTC,

Fourth, even if bitcoin prices were to become somewhat highly priced for regular people, so what, it does NOT matter b/c people can buy into BTC at fractions, and those fractions will continue to grow, so long as the peeps have enough foresight to HODL Dem.... and when they HODL dem for over 20 years, or 40 years or whatever happens to be their savings timeline, then the money that was held in BTC will have appreciated value at a better rate than other asset classes... so even poor people would be able to benefit by the adoption and proliferation of a BTC currency/storage of value system.

Really, you seem to be thinking of the wrong audience.  My understanding is that the BTC is being distributed to students who graduate from MIT, which means that a large majority of these recipients are NO longer going to be students, but they are instead going to be young and budding professionals (who may or may NOT be able to find a job), who are likely continuing to be curious about the world and wanting to make some kind of dent in the ways of the world (NOT yet too jaded by frequent realities and exploitations of the working world).  The ability and avenues to spend BTC on campus(es) seems to be a somewhat separate question.

In some senses I agree with you, and I have found myself quite frustrated with bitcoin prices and manipulation too.  However, I believe that they can only hold the price down and manipulate downward for so long.  After a while, the upward momentum will get too strong and the manipulators will NOT be able to hold back some of the upward pressures.

All markets are manipulated to some extent, and the smaller the market, the easier it will be to manipulate the market.  In the case of BTC, it seems that the exchanges control the price, and there seems to be quite a bit of behind the scenes shenanigans. 

Surely, that manipulation needs to be accounted for in person's assessment of the situation regarding how much when and if to invest.

If you do NOT invest in BTC, then in what are you going to invest?

Well, each of us has to decide our own tolerances and in what we chose to invest our time, money and energies.

I believe that I agree quite a bit with what Tera says in her response to you; however, it really sounds as if you over invested in BTC at the time that you invested or you do NOT have the stomach for investing in any potentially volatile assets.  Your state of mind, that comes through your writing, seems to indicate a potential for panic.... .. and what are you going to do if the price never goes back to $575?

Yet, if you pull out at $575 or $585 (in order to break even b/c of various administrative costs), then you will likely NOT have learned or become stronger from the situation - although maybe your lesson would have been that you learned about yourself and that you are NOT suited for certain kinds of investments?

Actually, this is an interesting concept that really I never did consider too much in depth, and I can see why it would be useful. 

So for example, if a person owned 100BTC, and his/her average price per BTC were $500, then that means that s/he would, on paper, be in the red right now and would have invested $50K into BTC, but if he she cashed out would only be able to get around $44K.  12% in the red.

Scenario 2) If that same person had a zero cost per BTC, and s/he cashed out right now, then s/he would be about $44k ahead in fiat (though may be an oxymoron to say you are ahead, if in fiat)


Scenario 3) If that same person had a negative $1,000 cost per BTC, then s/he would have already been cashed out of $100k, and s/he cashed out of the remainder of his/her coins, then s/he would be about $144k "ahead" in fiat.

That is how I read being below zero in your cost per BTC - which means for every BTC you hold, you are profitable by the value of the BTC plus the price of the BTC multiplied by the average price per BTC ahead.

I agree with a lot of your points in this above post - except I do NOT really understand your framework to describe yourself as a part of the Austrian economist "we."     

You and I have engaged in discussions of several topics, and even through these limited experiences of mine, I have many doubts that your various intellectual positions are so circumscribed and/or disciplined as to fit within any particular school of thought, beyond the BJA for the day school of thought.  I could be wrong, but that is just my assessment.

Regarding your above implication of my stance on the status quo, I am neither for the status quo nor against it; however, I consider the status quo as a starting point in which anyone arguing opposition to such has the burden of proof and persuasion to establish why such departure from the status quo is the more prudent course of action and to outline a specific path(s) to guide us in our new direction away from the status quo.

Saving GOX would be much better for GOX coin stakeholders and better for bitcoin as a whole, rather than liquidation of assets.. which would screw gox coin holders and would set a bad precedent for how defunct and/or corrupt exchanges are treated. 

These attempts have been going on for a while.. and I thought that the Japanese Court's ruling to liquidate would sniffle out any additional news or additional attempts to get the liquidation ruling reversed or revisited.  In other words, it seems that the odds are pretty slim that the japanese court would reverse itself or revisit the issue on its liquidation ruling...

Yes.  I agree with a lot of your logic and mostly that the govt has procedures in place to auction off assets and to get rid of them as quickly as possible. 

This may or may NOT play out in that way with bitcoin, and really do you believe your own words regarding ridiculously low prices with a fairly liquid asset, such as bitcoin?   Yes a $10 million dollar house may end up selling for $1million, but that is b/c the asset may NOT be very liquid.. and even its encumbrances unclear.  Same with a $100k pink cadillac with 24 karate gold rims may sell for less than $10K.... the market value of bitcoin can be traced precisely on the day of the auction, and I doubt they are selling BTC for less than 90% of their retail value.. .. unless they were conducting some kind of secret auction.. which would NOT usually be the case.

The other possibility is that the govt contains various hidden agendas... and has NOTHING to do with my bullish or bearish but instead about perceiving BTC as a threat or a menace.  Those kinds of perceptions by govt actors can cause problematic behaviors and uncertainty about how they are going to proceed, but we are NOT there.. yet regarding each of these various BTC stashes that are in Governmental hands. 

I understand that this last motivation description that i have outlined remains contradictory and ambiguous, and really we do NOT know how various governmental entities feel about BTC.  There is NO one size fits all b/c govt is all over the place regarding BTC.

The referred to thread does NOT relieve you of your responsibility in your having had spread FUD.