About 90% of my trades have been profitable ones. I've made approx. 30-40 trades on tradehill. Try flipping a coin 30-40 times and see how often you get 90% heads.
Since you're the one claiming it would be out of the ordinary, why don't you do the math  You of course know how to do basic statistical calculations. (PS: Traders talking about their success rates after the fact, using words like "about" and "approx" don't ever show up in scientific research. Can you guess why that would be?) Ugh fine. Trials = 40 40*.9 = 36 What is the chance that I flip AT LEAST 36 heads (at MOST 4 tails) -- That is, if the choices are profiting vs. not profiting on a trade, what is the likelihood that I will profit AT LEAST 36 times? Total possible outcomes = 2^40 = 1024^4 = 1099511627776 nCr (40,4) = 91,310 possible 4 tail outcomes nCr (40,3) = 9880 possible 3 tail outcomes nCr (40,2) = 780 possible 2 tail outcomes nCr (40,1) = 40 possible 1 tail outcomes nCr(40,0) = 1 possible 0-tail outcomes = 102011 possible outcomes or 4 tails or less (91,310/1099511627776) + (9880/1099511627776) + (780/1099511627776) + (40/1099511627776) + (1/1099511627776) ~ 9.279^-8 .00000009279 = .000009279% chance I will flip at least 36 heads (i.e. trade positively at least 36/40 times) .000009279 * x = 100 x = 100/.000009279 = 10777023.38614075 Yep, I guess I got really lucky! There was only ABOUT a 1 in 10,777,023 chance that I was as least as successful as I was! That is because, as you know...I profited purely by chance. Edit: Note this calculation is an oversimplification of the problem and impossible to truly demonstrate. There are fees, there is a possibility the market will not move at all, or will not move enough to compensate for the fees. Simply put, it is impossible to create a formula for calculating the 'chances' of profiting x number of times after y trades because there are too many (key word) UNKNOWN variables. These unknown variables are what make you think the market is due to chance, but in reality they are simply that -- unknown. Edit 2: You do realize that the chances of trading at 90% profit become less likely the more times I trade...right? I hope you weren't implying that my chances of doing this across 40 trials were good, were you? |
|
|
|
Each US dollar has it's own individual serial number, but the US dollar is recognized as having value because it is legal tender for all goods and services public or private. There is no such legal staple for Bitcoin.
Nor gold, heirlooms, sheep or socks. That's completely irrelevant as to how something gets valued. You're not even a good troll. You are taking one sentence that I wrote and analyzing it in isolation from the rest. The rest explains why Bitcoin is different than gold, or heirlooms, or sheep, or socks. |
|
|
|
Here we go... 1. Promote pseudo legalese 2. Attack the victim 3.  4. Profit! What's wrong , the first line of attack failed , so now you guys are now going to trot out a red herring as a distraction? All he did was compile publicly available information and consolidate it in one place. If the dude wasn't a thief he wouldn't have the problems. Out of curiosity, do we know for absolute certain that the Intersango guy didn't simply create multiple user names on chat, an account on Intersango, and send the coins to himself and then "argue" with himself and try to convince us all that he was really the victim and not the profiteer? $4,000+ is a fair sum of cash, and with all the scams going on nowadays... Just making sure and wondering if anyone considered it. Intersango have already stated they will cover all lost customer funds, so no, I don't see this theory being plausible. Ok. Hopefully this happens. |
|
|
|
Here we go... 1. Promote pseudo legalese 2. Attack the victim 3. 4. Profit! What's wrong , the first line of attack failed , so now you guys are now going to trot out a red herring as a distraction? All he did was compile publicly available information and consolidate it in one place. If the dude wasn't a thief he wouldn't have the problems. Out of curiosity, do we know for absolute certain that the Intersango guy didn't simply create multiple user names on chat, an account on Intersango, and send the coins to himself and then "argue" with himself and try to convince us all that he was really the victim and not the profiteer? $4,000+ is a fair sum of cash, and with all the scams going on nowadays... Just making sure and wondering if anyone considered it. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin provides network access. Bitcoins do not. There is nothing intrinsically valuable about a Bitcoin. Your references to market value are invalid because the market is not legally recognized as such. "Value in use" and "value in exchange" are consequently irrelevant. If what you are saying is true legally, then copyright laws wouldn't need to exist as everything would be a form of copyright since anyone could claim that there is value (and thus ownership) associated with anything you generate or type on your computer.
Property is determined by its value, and this value must be proven according to existing law. What you seem to be getting at is that there is an electrical cost associated with the generation of a Bitcoin, and just as the clothmaker would say that there is a manufacturing/time cost associated with the production of the cloth, there is a manufacturing/time cost associated with the production of a Bitcoin. But there is also a manufacturing/time cost associated with anything I type on the internet, on any post, in any text document, etc., yet this information can legally be 'stolen' and exchanged freely without any legal consequence so long as there is no copyright protection. So, the definitions you gave are invalid with regard to certain lawful applications, thus rendering their use in this argument invalid.
Can you send info on the BTC network without Bitcoins? NO! Bitcoins are the access token for the network so you are wrong... again... Everything else is your opinion and it's not supported by any law. Who are you to determine what is "legally recognized"? The IRS recognizes "pre-paid access" So again you are wrong. You say bitcoins have no intrinsic value. Niether to Federal Reserve Notes . The value is extrinsic which is enough to support a contract. Even a promise which has no intrinsic value is a good and valuable consideration. Let me ask you what does a notary public do? They authenticate documents. What does the Bitcoin network do? It authenticates electronic data continuously. A bitcoin allows access to the authentication system (Bitcoin peer to peer network). Like I said it is an access token. I didn't say anything about electrical costs , stop flailing... In Bitcoin didn't have any value every single transaction that ever happened involving them would be fraud. You know that's not true. Bitcoins let you perform a function which you can not perform without them. One more thing... Property is determined by value? WTF are you talking about , that is one of the most nonsensical thing I ever heard. Property is nomen generalissimum, and extends to every species of valuable right and interest, including real and personal property, easements, franchises, and other incorporeal hereditaments. Lawrence v. Hennessy, 65 S. W. 717, 719, 165 Mo. 659; Boston & L. R. Corp. v. Salem & L. R. Co., 68 Mass. (2 Gray) 35; Scranton v. Wheeler, 21 Sup. Ct 48, 59, 179 U. S. 141, 45 L. Ed, 12G; Caro v. Metropolitan El. Ry. Co., 46 N. Y. Super. Ct. (14 Jones & S.) 164, 168; Metropolitan City Ry. Co. v. Chicago W. D. Ry. Co., 87 111. 317; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Commissioners of Highways of Town of Mattoon, 43 N. E. 1100, 1101, 161 111. 247; Southern Kansas Ry. Co. v. Oklahoma City, 69 Pac. 1050, 12 Okl. 82.
In its modern sense, confined to that which may be touched by the hand or seen by the eye. What is called "tangible property" has come to be, in most great enterprises, but the embodiment physically of an underlying life; a life that in its contribution to success is immeasurably more effective than mere physical embodiment Such, for example, are properties built upon franchises, on grants of government, on good will on trade-names, and the like. It is needless to say that to every Ingredient of property thus made up, the intangible as well as the tangible, that which is discernible to mind only as well as that susceptible to physical touch, equity extends appropriate protection. National Tel. News Co. v. Western Union Tel. Co. (U. S.) 119 Fed. 294, 299, 56 C. C. A. 19S, 60 L. R. A. 805. You sir, do not have a clue what you are talking about. If we were in a strict common law system you would be right. However law was merged with equity after Erie v Tompkins. Property rights are not limited to the physical world. Sorry to burst your bubble. AT this point you are wasting your time ... and mine. Network access is different than sending information. You said network access, not sending information. When I open my client, I connect to the network regardless if I am sending information or not (I am sending information in order to connect to the network, but I may own no Bitcoins and still send this information). The network is needed in order to send information. I can't send information through it unless I have access to it first or unless the network is created upon the sending of information. Edit How could the Bitcoins that are generated (including the first ones) be verified were it not for a preexisting network with at least one computer to do the confirming? After all, if they're not verified yet, we can't be sure they're Bitcoins yet, can we? According to oregon law, property must have a given value. That is, something cannot be said to be one's property until you can establish some value of it. This was taken from someone's direct reference of the law itself. Whether or not you believe it's nonsensical is besides the point. That's one of the criteria property must have according to law given that the other poster's citation was accurate; it needs to have value. I wasn't arguing that it doesn't have value because of it's intangible nature. The US dollar has value because it's recognized as 'legal tender' according to law. Bitcoin does not fall into this category, so you need another way to establish the value of each one individually; after all, each is unique. Each Bitcoin is unique unto itself, but since it is not legally recognized as a currency, each must be treated according to its own value, much like a painting. If Picasso paints a painting, one may sell for $1,000,000 and that indicates an instance of value associated with that individual painting. That does not imply that all of his paintings are worth $1,000,000 but only that that particular painting is. The same is true with Bitcoins, the difference being that it is the work of the computer and not an individual that creates them. When a transaction is made with a particular Bitcoin or group of Bitcoins, there is then an indication of value for those particular Bitcoins, but this does not imply that all the other Bitcoins are worth the same amount. Each US dollar has it's own individual serial number, but the US dollar is recognized as having value because it is legal tender for all goods and services public or private. There is no such legal staple for Bitcoin. Again, I can produce a simple java code (akin to the Bitcoin client and miner) that will do 'work,' such as producing a list of integers from 1-1000 by 2's (the list is akin to a Bitcoin). Someone may pay me $1,000,000 for this list that my computer has generated. Does that mean that if someone then steals that list that the 'victim' should be compensated $1,000,000? According to your argument, they should; after all, it was their property wasn't it? And isn't that property valuable? But, no, not all lists of integers 1-1000 by 2's are worth $1,000,000. That single list happened to be worth that much at that particular instance. But, according to law (specifically copyright law), that list could be stolen and generated millions of times over and distributed throughout the world with no legal consequence. |
|
|
|
|
Hm, interesting that 'someone' apparently deleted over 30 posts from this thread since yesterday.
Come to realize that poor PR might make ya look bad?
|
|
|
|
There is absolutely no way to establish that BTC has any value whatsoever, though.
This is absolutely wrong. At the very least Bitcoin provides a network access. People that adamantly believe Bitcoin have no value need to look up the law on what a valuable consideration is before opening their trap. I know some of you people went to the GW Bush School of Logic but repeating a lie enough times doesn't make it true. I'm going to put this to bed FOREVER. The word "value," in its commonly received signification, means the sum of money a thing will produce to the seller when it is sold. We are aware that this is not abstractly the true measure of value. The quantity of labor and capital necessary to produce a given article, or, in other words, the actual cost of its production. Is the true criterion of , Its worth. For instance, if a manufacturer | be asked the vafue of a yard of cloth, his opinion of the value will be determined by his calculation of the expense of producing a yard of cloth of similar quality. If we ask a retail dealer the value of a yard of cloth, his opinion of its value will be determined by the quantity of money such an article will produce in the market It is apparent that the marketable value may be affected by a multitude of circumstances which; will not in their results extend to the cost of production. Value Is in its nature so vague 'and indefinite that no human scrutiny can | seize all its constituent parts, and therefore opinions of value are admissible in evidence from the necessity of the case. Town of Rochester v. Town of Chester, 3 N. H. 349, j 358.
The word "value," It Is to be observed, has two different meanings, and sometimes expresses the utility of some particular object, and sometimes the power of purchasing other goods which the possession of that object conveys. The one may be called "value in use"; the other "value in exchange." State v. Yates, 10 Ohio Dec. 150, 158, 19 Wkly. Law Bui. 150 (citing Smith, Wealth of Nations).
The value of property consists in its use, and he who owns the use forever, though it be on condition subsequent, la the true owner of the property for the time being. Wells v. City of Savannah, 21 Sup. Ct. 697, 702, 181 U. S. 531, 45 L. Ed. 986.
The primary meaning of "value" Is worth; and this worth is made up of the useful or estimable qualities of the thing. Ordinarily, when an article of sale is in the market, and has a market value, there is no difference between Its value and the
market price, and the law adopts the latter as the proper evidence of value. This Is not however, because "value" and "price" are really convertible terms, but only because they are ordinarily so In a fair market Kountz v. Kirkpatrick, 72 Pa. (22 P. F. Smith) 376. 386, 13 Am. Rep. 687.
As market value.
Bouvier, In his definition of value, says: "This term has two different meanings. It sometimes expresses the utility of an object, and sometimes the power of purchasing other articles with it The first may be called the 'value In use' and the latter the 'value in exchange.' Webster recognizes a difference between extrinsic and exchangeable value." But In condemnation proceedings "value" will be held to mean market value. Little Kock Junction Ky. v. Woodruff, 5 S. W. 792, 795, 49 Ark. 381, 4 Am. St. Rep. 51.
When applied to property, and no qualification is expressed or Implied, "value" moans the price which the property could command In the market. In re McGhee's Estate. 74 N. W. 695, 697. 105 Iowa. 9.
Value consists In the estimate or opinion of those influencing the market attachable to certain intrinsic qualities belonging to the article to be valued. Washington Ice Co. v. Webster, 68 Me. 449, 463.
Price synonymous
All the lexicographers, both law and general. In certain instances, give the words "value" and "price" as convertible and synonymous. As used in Code, c. 145, g 14, requiring an indictment for larceny to state the value of a thing stolen, if not synonymous with, it is at least equivalent to, the word "price," as used in an indictment charging the larceny of property of a certain price. State v. Sparks, 3 S. E. 40, 41, SO W. Va. 101.
Ordinarily, when an article of sale is in
the market and has a market value, there is no difference between its value and the market price, and the law adopts the latter as the proper evidence of the value. "Value" and "price" are, therefore, not synonymous, or the necessary equivalents of each other, though commonly "market value" and "market price" are legal equivalents. Theiss v. Weiss, 31 Atl. 63, 66, 166 Pa. 9, 45 Am. St Rep. 638 (citing Kountz v. Kirkpatrlck, 72 Pa. [22 P. F. Smith] 376, 13 Am. Rep. 687).
The primary meaning of "value" is ■worth. "Price" is not synonymous with "value," but frequently "market value" and "market price" are used synonymously. Chicago, K. & W. R. Co. v. Parsons, 32 Pac. 1083, 1084, 51 Kan. 40a
"'Value' is a word more comprehensive than 'price.' By the price of a thing, therefore, we shall henceforth understand Its val
ue in money; by the value or exchange value of a thing its general power of purchase; the command its position gives over purchasable commodities in general." Marriner v. John L. Roper Co., 16 S. E. 906, 907, 112 N. C. 164.
The terms "value of the use" of the premises, and "rental value," mean substantially the same thing. Alexander v. Bishop, 13 N. W. 744, 747, 59 Iowa, 572. Bitcoin provides network access. Bitcoins do not. There is nothing intrinsically valuable about a Bitcoin. Your references to market value are invalid because the market is not legally recognized as such. "Value in use" and "value in exchange" are consequently irrelevant. If what you are saying is true legally, then copyright laws wouldn't need to exist as everything would be a form of copyright since anyone could claim that there is value (and thus ownership) associated with anything you generate or type on your computer. Property is determined by its value, and this value must be proven according to existing law. What you seem to be getting at is that there is an electrical cost associated with the generation of a Bitcoin, and just as the clothmaker would say that there is a manufacturing/time cost associated with the production of the cloth, there is a manufacturing/time cost associated with the production of a Bitcoin. But there is also a manufacturing/time cost associated with anything I type on the internet, on any post, in any text document, etc., yet this information can legally be 'stolen' and exchanged freely without any legal consequence so long as there is no copyright protection. So, the definitions you gave are invalid with regard to certain lawful applications, thus rendering their use in this argument invalid. |
|
|
|
Only when BTCs are purchased for USD or some other property that has human value does the BTC become the property of humans. If this is true, then if a human initiates the sale of the bitcoins owned by the computer, then that is theft and the computer would have been victimized by the criminal human. Haha true though computers don't have rights under current law. It's an iffy scenario. Of course, one could argue that they own the computer and thus any work done by the computer they own is also theirs. But, it's interesting that then the 'work' is being confirmed by other computers who are also owned by other individuals, but not by the individuals themselves. Nonetheless, I can write a basic java program to do 'work' as well...such as running a simple script to generate, say, a list of integers from 1-1000 by increments of 2 (i.e. 2,4,6,8....1000). Do these numbers have value? If I mistakenly send this list to another individual (i.e. the product of the work done), do I have the legal right to reclaim it? Mind you, I have no copyright for this list, just as BTCs are not under copyright. |
|
|
|
BTC is not legally recognized as a currency tied to a USD exhange rate.
Again with the personal ramblings. The above is utterly irrelevant. (But feel free to explain why courts all over the world prosecute over Runescape swords, Habbo hotel furniture and Zynga poker chips with your fantasy above in mind) No idea what any of that stuff is. It's not utterly irrelevant, it's completely irrelevant because property must have value. Without any value, BTC's cannot be property as defined by law. Dude, this really isn't that hard. |
|
|
|
Regarding the intention, did you read my other post?
Yes. Your posts contain no information of interest. And, you're ignoring the description of the law itself. Property must have 'value,' and there is absolutely nothing that gives mined BTC value to humans. I can only assume you're trying to be funny. The value of a bitcoin at the nearest exchange is enough, just like with gold. Mined BTCs are not the product of human work, and thus have no human value. They are the product of computer work. Only when BTCs are purchased for USD or some other property that has human value does the BTC become the property of humans.
This is what I meant with your personal ramblings. Don't do forums when on LSD. BTC is not legally recognized as a currency tied to a USD exhange rate. You don't have to report your BTC holdings to the IRS. Only when you exchange them for USD do you have to report this. BTC is absolutely not like gold. These aren't personal 'ramblings'. I'm interpreting the language of the law. You'd make a shitty lawyer. |
|
|
|
These laws would be applicable had intersango not voluntarily relinquished ownership of the coins. Intersango "agreed" by signing the coins away to bendavis that they are no longer the owners.
No, since it wasn't their intention. Bitcoin's technical implementation is of no relevance. I'm arguing according to how the law is defined and according to what BTC is.
No. You're ignoring both the existing case law that has been posted as well as claiming BTC is somehow "special". The only way I can see why you would do that is if you completely ignore all the information in the thread in preference for your own ramblings. That's pointless. This is a clear cut case, based in law, with no special provisions needed for it being about bitcoins. Regarding the intention, did you read my other post? The 'mistake' of the owner was to be ignorant of the parameters of the code. There was no mistake in the transaction...the code worked as written. That's why I made the analogy to getting drunk. If you get drunk and then give someone money that you later want back, the mistake wasn't giving someone money, it was getting drunk. The sender's mistake was ignorance of the code, not in the transfer of BTC. And, you're ignoring the description of the law itself. Property must have 'value,' and there is absolutely nothing that gives mined BTC value to humans. Just because it's on your computer doesn't mean it's yours or that it has value. Is Google yours, even though it's running on your browser? No. It belongs to someone else because it is the product of their WORK. Mined BTCs are not the product of human work, and thus have no human value. They are the product of computer work. Only when BTCs are purchased for USD or some other property that has human value does the BTC become the property of humans. |
|
|
|
My argument is
... completely irrelevant. Start by reading the existing posts, everything is covered there and personal speculation is completely pointless. How irrelevant? I'm arguing according to how the law is defined and according to what BTC is. I'm arguing that BTC is not property as defined by law unless it meets certain criteria. Some guy wants his BTC back. I'm saying they might not be his, and also describing how he could go about showing if they are his or not. Edit: Law is up for interpretation. This is what lawyers do. |
|
|
|
It absolutely does matter if it's a currency, since as you state... ?? tangible and intangible personal property, ... My argument is, if BTC are mined only, then it's not property yet. Only when BTC are purchased with USD or other property does the BTC become property. |
|
|
|
|
It absolutely does matter if it's a currency, since as you state...
5) “Property” means any article, substance or thing of value, including, but not limited to, money, tangible and intangible personal property, real property, choses-in-action, evidence of debt or of contract. [1971 c.743 §121]
While BTC is "intangible," it still must have "value" to be considered property. There is absolutely no way to establish that BTC has any value whatsoever, though. That's the thing about a digital but legally-unrecognized currency. Humans didn't make it. There is no human value tied to it yet. You'd have a better chance arguing that it has value to computers since it is the product of a computer's work and is recognized as work by other computers. It isn't like traditional property (whether tangible or intangible) that is tied to the product of a human and therefore can be given a value in relation to humans.
Computers made BTC. Although the program was the product of a human, BTCs are not. They are a product of computers and computers alone, for no human can make BTC. Because of this, it's even hard to establish that BTC constitutes property.
The only exception to this is if the BTC were purchased with USD or some other form of property. If they are purely mined, then I'm not sure they are anyone's property. So, actually, I'd like to revise what I originally said...
If the sender can prove that these exact BTC were purchased by him using USD or some other property, then I think that legally he has a claim (although then there's still the question of whether or not he 'mistakenly sent them' as I described in my other post). However, if he cannot prove this, or if in fact these BTC were mined and arrived purely on his exchange through deposits, then they are not even his property to begin with and he has no right to reclaim them.
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting...didn't read the whole thread, but here's my initial thought.
Ethically, I think it'd be nice if the Bitcoins were returned.
However, technically speaking, I'm not sure this is legally required.
The 'mistakenly' sent Bitcoins constitute one transaction. Bitcoins are not yet a legal currency. When the BTC was then converted to USD, this seems to constitute a 2nd and separate transaction. Since there was obviously no mistake in the conversion of BTC to USD, there is nothing wrong with this transaction. And, since the first transaction, the transfer of BTC, is a distinct and separate transaction not involving a legal form of currency, I'm not really sure if there can be any legal claim. In other words, the first transaction consisted of a transfer of BTC in which the value of the BTC was NOT tied to USD. However, in the 2nd transaction, the BTC was sold for and therefore valued in USD.
'Mistakenly' sent is also debatable. If a bank mistakenly sends someone an extra $500, it means that someone accidentally typed in a wrong input into some computer -- a human error. The BTC transfer however was described as being due to a 'bug.' The BTC was then sent according to the parameters of whatever code was currently operating. The sender, being the exchange owner, should be aware of these parameters.
Here's an analogy (albeit a little confusing) to consider. Suppose the owner got drunk and there was a 'bug' in his thinking and this led to him 'mistakenly' transferring 511 BTC, then claimed he wanted them back. Had he not been drunk, the parameters guiding his thinking would not allow for such an occurrence. But, being drunk, the parameters were different and this accounted for the BTC transfer to occur. Similarly, it seems as if in the case of described in the OP, the ignorance of the code's parameters is akin to the owner getting drunk. The code acted according to its current state and carried out the transaction. This is NOT a matter of the sender accidentally inputting a wrong number, but rather the code carrying out the transaction in its current state. The owner should have been responsible for knowing how this code would affect the transfer of BTC.
In the case of a wrong-number input, the code remains the same, but the USER messes up in that he/she mistakenly input a wrong number. However, in this case, if there is bug claimed to be in the code, then this bug in the code is a separate mistake. The transaction was NOT a mistake. That is, the mistake only relates to the code, and NOT the transfer since this transfer was simply a consequence of the original mistake. Relating back to the analogy, the mistake was to get drunk. Anything that occurs after this is a consequence of getting drunk.
Edit: My apologies. This is probably one of the most poorly-written posts I've ever made lol. The last paragraph is the gist of what I'm getting at.
|
|
|
|
But, there is no chance in trading. There may be factors unknown to you, but that does not make it chance. Everyone is placing conscious bid/sell orders and the bots are running according to algorithms dependent upon set parameters.
What's the weather going to be like in six days? (Traders still don't outperform chance. If you want to claim they do, please point to relevant data) The weather example is irrelevant. You don't need to know what the exact market value will be to make a profit. You just have to know which direction it's going. I'm in Chicago. We just got out of a very warm front and a cold front is moving in today. It has been over 90 degrees the last few days. I predict the weather will be cooler than 90 degrees in 6 days. And, I predict it will be even colder in 2 months from now. About 90% of my trades have been profitable ones. I've made approx. 30-40 trades on tradehill. Try flipping a coin 30-40 times and see how often you get 90% heads. |
|
|
|
Joint you are not my customer anyhow!!! LOL.
I know, but I was interested in a few things. Now, I'm not. |
|
|
|
Problem is they can not be sure how the people is going to react, and they can end up loosing instead of making money. It all depends if they manage to control the reaction. If they do they win, if they dont they can loose big time.
I think figuring out how the people will act is a lot more difficult once the price jumps above $3-4. I'm fairly positive that anything below that and people will scoop them up like hotcakes. |
|
|
|
|
So, let's suppose we wanted to kick BTC value increase into overdrive.
Hypothetical scenario - Would this do the trick?
Let's say you got 20 guys on Mt. Gox who all bought at over $15 Lets say they also bought 5,000 plus coins. I'm sure this is a relatively plausible number (where relatively plausible = no lower than 10 but possibly way more than 20). Let's all say they decided to coordinate the sell-off of all sell-offs.
First, they all set up very low and outrageously huge buy orders. They then start the sell-off...2-3 dumps of 5,000+ coins, allowing panic selling to set in. Then, either another 2-3 dumps of 5,000+ coins to potentially encourage a historic panic sell (or, equally possible, a panic buy by this point allowing some to feel they got in at a good price), and/or then simply dump the rest, sending the BTC price absolutely spiraling.
The price falls to pennies. Naturally, with their buy orders in place they get the largest amount of the dumped coins back. Massive panic buying ensues as people eat up all the coins at pennies, then dollars, potentially into the 7-8 range within minutes.
The thing is, the buy pressure at this point would be enormous. Why sell now? Everyone got in early except a few who missed out on selling the 1,000 or 2,000 they had. Even they would be encouraged to buy additionally at this point.
What kind of impact would it have on the market if nearly EVERYONE bought in at a psychologically low price (where psychologically low = lower or much lower than the current values)?
Would this eliminate current sell pressure? Would this create a new media frenzy attracting new investors rapidly, recreating the June bubble but pushing it above and beyond its previous limit with the total number of new investors?
In either case, it wouldn't completely crash the market. Too many people would buy up the low value coins. The questions are, would the new bubble occur? And, if it did, would the resounding sell off after it's peak be what crashes the market?
|
|
|
|
smoothie, you are starting to embarrass yourself. Please just shut up before it is too late. One more thing, Smoothie, because money means everything to you, I just like to point out that your earnings trading coin are mediocre at best. Please, keep the day job making milkshakes and pealing bananas. Only real losers brag how much money they made (and usually this gain is imaginary) Solidcoin dude(s), please get yourself a better spoke person and keep this delusional programmer guy away from the public. Let him program, hes is probably good at it. If he starts telling you, he is the best in the world and starts admiring hes reflection in the monitor, let him go and find another one. Last thing you need is shitty PR. Honestly, your product is good. Do not let it get fucked up buy your own teams bloated egos. Less yapping, more coding (BTC team, this for you too)! Keep up the good work! PS! Solidcoin dude(s), if you are just a one guy with a multiple personality disorder, please get better meds and keep the good You around. Dump the rest, thy shit where they eat. Wow I did not realize I could get FREE counseling from a retarded eskimo on this forum. LOL Yeah I suppose making 427 BTC in 3 weeks is mediocre when cashing them out at $10 roughly that's $4270 for what 20 hours of work? LOL. Don't quit your ice-fishing job to be a counselor, you're not very effective at it. BWAHAHAHA! lol Dude, use a degree. Then you can make that every 20 hours for a lifetime. It's called being rich. Oh thanks your the advice. What are you netting right now while living in your parents' home? HAHAHA holy shit I had no idea you were the one on this thread I made that comment to until I came back and looked. Dude, I work in a hospital. Later. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
