why all the selling? I expect a breach of the 265 USD barrier and we will go towards 300 USD. Downtrnd resistance is breaking!
Virtual Bitcoins are virtually worthless. Virtual Bitcoin is dead and will go to nowhere but down. Cut your loose  Virtual Bitcoins offer no advantage over virtual Beanie Babies ^_^ @sgbett Starts to look like you made the right call. I apologize |
|
|
|
|
One suggestion: Learn about, familiarize yourself and work with with different types of moving averages. If your background is in signal processing or statistics anyway, this will probably be a given, but it took me a while to see the importance in this, and get a (slightly) deeper understanding beyond "hur dur let's use the SMA with different parameters".
|
|
|
|
GO ON then, sell $253.12
You're trying to prove a point, aren't you? |
|
|
|
I'm skeptical about a convincing (and surviving ) breakout at this point... but I'm getting more skeptical as well about much lower prices in the near term. (EDIT) daily MFI painting a rather unconvincing picture so far, being the main reason that I don't fully trust this breakout yet. More of the old sideways then, maybe, just a few dollar higher than before. (EDIT) But if nothing else, it's good to see DSMA50 (@6h) being attacked finally:  |
|
|
|
|
@Bitcoinwisdom
Coinbase exchange data (including volume), please?
I know. I repeat myself ^_^
|
|
|
|
I guess I'll give you points for being consistent: you're probably not simply 'anti Bitcoin', but against the larger development of excessive 'financialization' (through financial derivatives), right?
You bet. Money is not real wealth, it is just a token that one can exchange for real wealth. Some kinds of money have reasonably stable exchange value, and nearly universal acceptance (at least within one country) that we get used to think of them as wealth; and for the purposes of personal wealth accounting, that is a good principle. For the purpose of understanding the world's economy, however, it is important to distinguish wealth from the money that merely represents it. The "hyperfinancialization" of the economy has created excessive amounts of money, that, if taken at its market value, would correspond to immensely more wealth than actually exists. Many people believe that they own (through the money proxy) a lot of cars, land, pizzas, etc; but there is not enough wealth to actually realize those claims. The financial system is like a land registrar that keeps multiple records of ownership for the same piece of land; except that, since money is not attached to any specific piece of lad, no one can tell which money is good and which is bad. Sometimes the fiction becomes untenable, and then politics or violence decides, more or less arbitrarily, who keeps the real wealth (usually big financial corporations) and who loses it (usually the plebs). Maybe that wasn't clear enough... I guess I'll give you points for being consistent
... was my polite way of saying I think you're wrong, but at least I think you're only empirically wrong, not logically inconsistent (which is inexcusable)  |
|
|
|
[...]
Real wealth is houses, land, cars, food, services, etc. Wealth gets created and destroyed, sometimes both in quick succession, as when a cook prepares a meal that gets eaten right away.
[...]
Nice theory, but... maybe time to join the 21st century, prof?  I guess I'll give you points for being consistent: you're probably not simply 'anti Bitcoin', but against the larger development of excessive 'financialization' (through financial derivatives), right? |
|
|
|
...
Already registered March 2014. Someone's playing the long game, huh. Alas, 't was the last post I will have read of him. |
|
|
|
Willy bought a very large amount of bitcoin on MtGox during the period of September 27 – November 30 during 2013 [...] a total of over 250,000 BTC. MtGox volume, September 27 – November 30: 1.9M (btccharts data) => ~13% of total volume. I take back the "drop in the ocean" remark. But you sure you want to continue talking about 'majority of volume at times'? I mean, I'm sure there were brief moments were 13% of the total happened to be the majority, but in total, 87% of the volume came from someone else. |
|
|
|
The bogous assumption in these kinds of discussions, is that bitcoin is in competition with these bank like services. Bitcoin is not that, bitcoin is money, base money, like banknotes. The confusion stems from the fact that bitcoins are so easily transferrable, globally, instantly, that they seem to be something different from normal money. But they are money, only very easily transferrable.
The services of banking is of course possible for bitcoin, just as with any kind of fiat (and gold). So anything from the banking world that is useful, will be implemented by the market in due time.
Hear, hear! Bitcoin doesn't make banks redundant, only a few cash cows will disappear. Like international money transfers, which are now tediously slow, expensive, and complicated. But few people will like to have a lot of BTC at home. If banks offer deposit insurance, they will happily put their BTC at the bank in return for ease of mind (like Circle already does in a limited way). And people will still need loans, mortgages, etc. Dear diary. Today was a good day: I read a post by a newbie account that actually didn't make me want to claw my eyes out. Seriously though, completely agreed. Bitcoin (or crypto, in general) being innovative, and quite possibly highly disruptive to certain industries doesn't mean all existing customs and wants of mankind will go away or change. Customer protection will continue to exist. Loans will continue to exist. Central banks will continue to exist. QE will continue to exist ^_^ ... I'm betting on a profitable (though not frictionless) coexistence of the above with crypto, not the former being replaced by the latter. |
|
|
|
Since were braking up from here, if bull volume fails were probably ending up in 160$ around double bottom
Explain how? I don't see this as a possibility at all. If the push is not strong enough at this time more sideways action is more likely than a dump. The way I read the market there is absolutely no incentive to sell coins below $220. Sideways action is usually bearish. Depends. Sideways (on falling volume, even) could either lead to a sudden break of resistance like in May, or of support, like in November.  Your guess is as good as mine, although I'm slightly leaning towards upwards, because of the sheer size of the January capitulation. Hopefully your correct. Im hoping for another small drop so I can pickup some more, but at the same time i'm slightly short in futures atm, but I have a very tight stoploss incase something goes against me. I really mean slightly leaning in that direction In a thread I opened a few weeks ago, inviting people to submit a 3 month prediction for High/Low/VWMA, I entered myself that I expect another sub-200 drop. Don't really think it'll be as smooth (relatively) as in April / May. |
|
|
|
Since were braking up from here, if bull volume fails were probably ending up in 160$ around double bottom
Explain how? I don't see this as a possibility at all. If the push is not strong enough at this time more sideways action is more likely than a dump. The way I read the market there is absolutely no incentive to sell coins below $220. Sideways action is usually bearish. Depends. Sideways (on falling volume, even) could either lead to a sudden break of resistance like in May, or of support, like in November. Your guess is as good as mine, although I'm slightly leaning towards upwards, because of the sheer size of the January capitulation. |
|
|
|
If I'm not mistaken the willy report says that one of the bots was involved in the first 2013 run.
"Willy" traded September to November 2013. "Markus" is probably what you have in mind, but a) where the reports on Willy are pretty detailed, there's a lot less info on Markus, and b) that still doesn't account for the huge $32 rally in 2011, or less extreme but still pretty impressive rally to $16 in late 2012. Seriously, anyone who thinks rallies (or crashes) in any market need an external fraudulent "cause" is probably in deep denial about human nature and market behavior. |
|
|
|
Looks like some people here still use the fact that bitcoin recovered from a almost complete retrace crash in 2011/2012 when marketcap was more than 100 times smaller than today (and the whole landscape was completely different) as an argument that it will do the same now.
*sigh*
Hardly anyone I take serious does that. What it can be used as is the following argument: just because there's a severe correction / bear market going on, doesn't necessarily mean price will never recover again (which some in here are absolutely sure about, and make statements to that effect). Catch the difference? Historic precedence --> Guaranteed to happen again! ( bad) Historic precedence --> Possibility for it to happen again exists. ( good) |
|
|
|
They're taking an pragmatic approach to dealing with the zealots of the cult. That's to be expected, I would. I'll bet they have been flooded with angry messages. Gladly I'm not in the spotlight, so: The scenario where the Willy & Markus bots not only played a major role but actually caused the rapid price inflation we've seen is more plausible than any other scenario I've heard of. I base this not only on the available data on the bots themselves but also on the observed social dynamics of the Bitcoin community, in particular how the mtgox bankruptcy went down. Again: by your own standards, as posted in here by yourself, that's bullshit. a) You have no way to tell what the market would have looked like without Willy. b) There are valid arguments both stating that the impact of Willy shouldn't be underestimated (basically, constant buying adding low level pressure) and equally valid arguments limiting the upside of Willy's impact (basically, total Willy volume was a drop in the ocean). c) It completely ignores China, which is widely considered to be at least one of the most important factors in the $1200 run-up. d) It ignores that previous rallies ignited without Willy (i.e. Willy didn't run in 2011 and early 2013). |
|
|
|
Sweet. Looks like the trolls are out in full force again today. I mean, I get what their general strategy is here, but didn't they learn anything from 2011/2012? Forum looked like a minefield then as well (that's my impression by going back to the old pages... wasn't actually a member then), but ultimately, forum impact is limited, and once the ball starts rolling, no amount of bearish spamming here helps against it.* * Same for the bull spam of course: once a correction is underway, no amount of their starry eyed projections will matter much. |
|
|
|
 Short term movements are happening on teh wallZ Cut your loosez!! But, but... no adoption! Failed technology! No real demand! Beanie babies! |
|
|
|
|
@silverfuture I see what you're doing there. And I like it.
|
|
|
|
too soon?  Way too soon ^_^ Still, nice to see the market refusing to go much deeper, despite short-to-mid term momentum turning slightly negative. |
|
|
|
I do, and did. "hurr durr brain size men smarter" shows an incredible lack of knowledge/research on the subject. It's not even close to that simple.
Agreed. (EDIT) I have the habit of "defending" positions the way I think they should have been made, not the way they were actually presented. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
