If you don't think large players have USD reserves to buy the dips, you are short sighted.
Of course they have reserves of USD, but not large reserves. Maybe some millions, but that's not enough to protect against a crash. When the Winklevii twins are giving there keynote(s) - maybe that is the moment for the bears to attack. Satoshi having $100M worth more bitcoins is not the same as having $100M he can buy bitcoins with. All Satoshi could do is stop the price from going higher. All Bill Gates could do is stop the price from going down. At this moment in bitcoin history with the market cap the size it is, there are very few people, if anyone, who has enough BTC and USD to control BOTH up AND down of the price. If you have millions of dollars in bitcoins it would only be prudent to keep some USD at the ready to support the value of your holdings. You may be right that there are some noneconomical types who wound up with too many bitcoins, but there are quite a few large holders with some risk management sense. |
|
|
|
I'll play along and track this with you. However, I am a strong believer that the past does not predict the future. The core premise of technical analysis is that the past predicts the future.
No, that is not the core premise. This is your first misunderstanding of what TA actually is. Past trades most certainly do correlate with the current positions of the various market participants. Support and resistance levels are areas where lots of trades have happened in the past, so they mark important price levels for many people. In reality, there are always many different variables in the equation when comparing different time periods and chart action. In the stock market, the only reason technical analyis works is because enough people make purchase and sell decisions using it. With bitcoin, I am hoping that the psuedo-science of "technical" analysis will not catch on.
I agree there is a lot that passes for TA that is not rigorous enough to be worth anything, but I believe that when rigor is applied and the number are crunched, you can do better than random. Once you have that, it's all about letting the winners run and cutting losses quickly. |
|
|
|
big sell wall pushing the price down. Is it a short and distort?
Its an Idiot Wall. Either an idiot trying to push the price down, or an idiot thinking they were 'selling into (non-existent) strength' when it was rising up to 118, hahaha. Seems more likely to be someone trying to push it down. You can't speculatively (profitably) long bitcoins, you can only short. So it's probably some supernode trying their capabilities (American likely), but I will be impressed only after breaching $.11. If I can do $.119->$.09752 in 3 days, surely others can do even better!  Um, you mention the word 'supernode' quite often but I don't understand what you mean by it. 0.0th class supernode = BTC1M
0.5th class supernode = BTC100,000
1.0st class supernode = BTC10,000
1.5th class supernode = BTC3,000
2.0nd class supernode = BTC1,000
2.5th class supernode = BTC300
3.0th class supernode = BTC100 3th... threeth? |
|
|
|
Right now there are no coins that offer significant improvements over bitcoin. The cost of switching is too great - bitcoin has proven legitimacy, wide support across merchant platforms (well compared to other coins anyway...), and a much higher market cap allowing for a real economy to take place.
The only way for an alt-coin to replace it will either be a massive technological and/or practical advantage, or backing by a government/bank/other influential entity.
I'm pretty sure PPCoin offers pretty significant improvement over Bitcoin. There's no need for energy wasting PoW mining for starters, plus PPC is nearly impossible to 51% attack unless you hold 51% or more of all PPC in existence, which is not probable due to you will drive up the price so much you won't be able to afford it. Or if you can get the holders of 51% of the currency to collude. This type of attack is not possible with Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
I considered myself relatively mentally unstable until I stumbled upon certain people's posts on this forum.
It's a pity that ignore doesn't work with quotes...
Dude, we're all crazy. It's the people that think they are sane you have to worry about. |
|
|
|
In my mind the conference will help raise the value of bitcoin slightly (3-7%) but also if there was a time for a large holder to make a play at "doubling" down with a large selloff (50k BTCs or more) then buying right back in this would be the time to do it as some of the major players are at work groups.
The large players you speak of, they all have lots of BTC, not lots of USD. So the main way they could swing the price would be down, with a large sells. I don't see how it would be an ideal time for someone to dump BTC in an attempt to cause price crash. That would be when all of the USD are tied up in a conference. If you don't think large players have USD reserves to buy the dips, you are short sighted. |
|
|
|
wall is gone too  i wish it stayed there.. a panic buy could have eaten it so easy.. I guess we're fresh out of panic buyers then. |
|
|
|
If you find the 3-D depth chart unhelpful, then simply ignore the Chartbuddy user - its a bot.
I just find it confusing. How is one to interpret the chart? mtgoxlive.com over time... each post is snapshots taken over the previous hour |
|
|
|
Chartbuddy stop spamming
Dumbastronaut stop spamming |
|
|
|
Isnt the problem that these transactions that occur on phones, digital devices, etc, take forever with bitcoin? Can this be changed from minutes to milliseconds? You see the transaction nearly instantly. But for the first hour or so it is only as good as a check Fine for friends and for local residents at stores. Checks, on the other hand, can be reversed for quite some time after they are cashed, or the funds might not even be there when it is written. Not to open a can of worms or anything, but this is the issue with zero-conf that everyone is so happy to argue about. And the check analogy is almost perfect. Zero-conf transactions are like saying "the check's in the mail." Yet we have websites, on the internet, accepting zero-conf like it's perfectly fine. Ever tried to pass a personal check these days? Either they have scanners that debit your account instantly, or they take your ID. Hopefully brick-and-mortar stores that accept zero-conf (probably very few) understand it's no better than a personal check** and that they should take ID to reduce risk of fraud. Websites that do this should think twice about how well they think they understand the protocol. ** Actually it is slightly better, because as notme pointed out, you can't reverse a bitcoin transaction once it's been properly confirmed. So the risk of fraud is smaller with a zero-conf and perhaps some folks think it's fine to accept zero-conf from an untrusted party for this reason. I don't agree (that the risk level becomes manageable for that reason), but we'll see who gets burned. It's only an issue for physical transactions and IP based business models. Stuff where you pay to gain access to the magic bits immediately. Once you have them, they can't revoke them. For that case, you need to have a few confirms, but most other models either aren't bothered by an hour or restricting withdrawals until your deposit confirms. For physical transactions, you have restrictions like with checks. Only accept bitcoins from local residents and/or ask for ID, etc. Of course, you should adjust your cautiousness when transactions are larger than normal. |
|
|
|
The bulls are running out of time to set the trend. If they don't do it in the next few days you can expect a bear raid. |
|
|
|
good point, I'll check it out next time.
what's the reasoning for log-charts again? Because then you're "looking at relative changes"?
Exactly. but then a straigt line is actually a exponential curve... isn't that a problem? No, because the slope of the line is proportional to the growth rate. It shows change in growth rate much better than looking at the linear scale chart and just seeing it shoot to the moon and not much other detail. |
|
|
|
Printed money is shitty for long distance transactions. Bitcoins are great for long distance transactions. Bitcoins are shitty for face to face transactions, printed money is great for face to face transactions.
If we look into the future Bitcoins might actually be better than printed money. Printed money takes up space, needs to be counted and so on. Bitcoin on the other hand could be sent through phones, devices, digital cards and all sorts of new technologies, I guess in a similar fashion as credit/debit cards. Isnt the problem that these transactions that occur on phones, digital devices, etc, take forever with bitcoin? Can this be changed from minutes to milliseconds? You see the transaction nearly instantly. But for the first hour or so it is only as good as a check Fine for friends and for local residents at stores. Checks, on the other hand, can be reversed for quite some time after they are cashed, or the funds might not even be there when it is written. |
|
|
|
It is not a store of value. It is not money. What you transact for it—that is the money.
I disagree. Crypto-currencies in general and Bitcoin in particular are the purest form of money that has ever been available to men: They implement the requirements of money the best. That thinking may be popular, but it is an abstraction. The thing that actually makes Bitcoin work is triple-entry bookeeping. It is a receipt which proves that specific transactions have occured in the blockchain. Forgetting this, will lead you to make fatal mistakes concerning your risk management. What you say is completely true. How does it argue against my statement though? Money is an abstraction for exchanging one thing for another. There is a hierarchy of for this abstraction. Bitcoin exists in a lower level of of that abstraction. It is not money—Bitcoin is a receipt. It is closer to the objects being exchanged in the abstraction because it is more specific, and money is more general. Not all bitcoin transactions are receipts of previous transactions though. You seem to be glossing over the significance of coinbase transactions when bitcoins are created into 'existence' by mining ... what receipt do these transactions represent? The miners traded their equipment's longevity, electricity, and time for those btc. Coinbase records those transactions. Remember, the blockchain only ever stores the bitcoin half of the transaction. |
|
|
|
It can last weeks.
That's not very long in the grand scheme of things. I beg to differ. Confidence is about knowing we won't tank. Compare with 2011. We're doing pretty good. And what happens if we do tank? The price will probably go down to sub $50 levels and eventually rebound after a period of consolidation. It will be a very good buying opportunity but calling the real low won't be easy as there will be many lows with 'bounces' on the way down. Fuck calling a bottom, buy every x% down. If you want to get a better price and trust there will be a lot more downward movement, increase the order size at each level. |
|
|
|
$1M usd disappeared today from the order book. We may see cheap coins soon The speculation game seems a lot like warfare. Did the army actually withdraw, or did they want to make you believe they withdrew before attacking? All I know is that the $1m that was removed was at under $50 USD. Could have removed it to wait and put it back in higher. Or to spike the price with a market order. |
|
|
|
The best one, which right now is still hypothetical, will use the MtGox API, and not your login data. You can configure the API to be only authorized to trade and not withdraw. So the bot couldnt steal money (directly). Payment for this? Transfer a part of the earnings manually to the bot's adress, or get your bot-activity suspended if you fail to do this in time. Still hypothetical, and until such a bot goes public, no bot will see any larger sum from me.
Ente
They could still wash out a large chuck of their users if they have access to everyone's orders, so order handling needs to be done client side with verifiable code to make sure positions and api credentials aren't sent to the server. |
|
|
|
|
Your Open Orders
DATE TYPE STATUS AMOUNT PRICE TOTAL CURRENCY CANCEL
2013-05-10 17:50:45 Ask Open 0.24371000 124.25669 30.28 USD Cancel
2013-05-10 17:50:42 Ask Open 0.24525000 122.66209 30.08 USD Cancel
2013-05-10 17:50:41 Ask Open 0.24681000 121.08794 29.89 USD Cancel
2013-05-10 17:50:40 Ask Open 0.24840000 119.53400 29.69 USD Cancel
2013-05-11 08:50:28 Ask Open 0.25000000 118.00000 29.5 USD Cancel
2013-05-12 02:07:59 Bid Open 0.25327000 114.99081 29.12 USD Cancel
2013-05-11 16:56:57 Bid Open 0.25494000 113.51511 28.94 USD Cancel
2013-05-10 17:50:44 Bid Open 0.25663000 112.05835 28.76 USD Cancel
2013-05-10 23:30:33 Bid Open 0.25834000 110.62029 28.58 USD Cancel
2013-05-11 02:46:31 Bid Open 0.26007000 109.20068 28.4 USD Cancel
2013-05-11 16:23:11 Bid Open 0.26183000 107.79929 28.23 USD Cancel
|
|
|
|
whenever you buy something from a merchant that uses bitpay the coins are basically going right to an exchange. In this way buying things to help the bitcoin economy will actually lower the price of bitcoin the more it is done. Only when bitcoin makes a full circle and employees and suppliers are paid in bitcoin will that change. I don't see that happening for several years at least. (Okay the internet archive might do it a little bit)
Merchants can select a percentage to keep in bitcoin. As soon as one of their suppliers start accepting bitcoin, they will bump that from 0% to 5%. As the bitcoin network expands, and more suppliers add support, the merchant can keep more and more in bitcoin. As a computer programmer and systems administrator, I can pay for all my expenses to build and run a custom website using bitcoin. |
|
|
|
|
Price can influence difficulty (price goes up, more people kick on hardware because now it is worth the electricity, same threshold is hit at a certain price for each piece of hardware depending on hashs/watt and they kick it off when price/difficulty drops too low). Difficulty can be said to have a small effect on price due to higher difficulty meaning a more secure transaction processing network, although the security is rarely in question so it's questionable how much impact this has except during exceptional events.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
