could btc/usd prices be impacted by cryptsys huge volume of XRP markets ? and would altcoins help or make it worse for the growth of BTC/USD?
The altcoins that come to mind that seek larger speculation of growth like Coin Magi (XMG), Primecoin (XPM), Peercoin (PPC) ..?
DOGE is a pretty big one its hard to say exactly how it these alts effect he BTC market but the idea that BTC is needed to bid in these markets is rather bullish for BTC. Alts have diluted capital flow into BTC. Perhaps just fool's money, but imagine if all the cash that went into DOGE et al. went into BTC. money moving towards alts is getting less: YES!!! That is certainly an interesting trend, when some people try to give so much importance to the supposed dynamic of alts stealing away market cap from BTC, when we look more closely at the facts, the story seems to be quite to the contrary... alts are proliferating and so far pretty much stealing from each other rather than from bitcoin b/c as a whole bitcoin is NOT losing market share to such alts. NOW again, that is a good metric to monitor b/c it could change in a year or so or somewhere down the line some of the alts may begin to take some market share from BTC. Well, that was how I was thinking too, but the percentage has been around 90% for the past week. Will be interesting to see if it goes nearer 95% again, perhaps when bitcoin is back in the $600s |
|
|
|
|
rocks, Great summary of the historical long-term situation. I agree 100%.
Looking forward now, 20 months to the next halving, the assumption might be that this event is priced in. And should be, but whatever floor is under the price in the run-up to 12.5 btc blocks, will certainly hold, because new money pouring in will then be chasing coins that are unavailable at anything like the current price.
|
|
|
|
Well, my theory is just pointing out that placing the wall originally at 280 (where it was destabilizing the market), then moving to 320 (where it was getting action), then to 300 isn't rational *unless* you're trying to set up some OTC trade in the other direction and need a "stable" multi-hour average on Bitstamp as a pricing reference for the OTC trade. So to fit that with your theory, you could still argue that it was Pantera executing the final load-up via such an OTC trade, and the 30k wall was theirs and simply necessary for the price-fix. Still fits with your point asking who would trust an unregulated Slovenian exchange with 30kBTC...
Anyway, I honestly don't know what to think. I don't really understand moving the wall from $320 to $300 outside of the price-fix OTC-buy theory which seems a little complicated for my usual liking. But, as I repeatedly say, I'm not a trader, so I have little instinct for how much shenanigans like that actually happen. Maybe it's more common than I think.
6 hours on a Sunday is not enough time, nor even a possible time, to set up an OTC trade of that magnitude. those things take days, if not weeks to negotiate and setup for that amount. if you look at the address and read Dan Moorehead's tweets, the 30K BTC were transferred to Bitstamp just before the wall went up on Sunday and the coins originating from that address were accumulated from April 2013. That 30k sell looked like it was a panicked one-off decision, by a non-trader who was suffering from seeing a paper holding of $30m decrease steadily to $10m. Greed and fear all over again. The decline to $300 had a lot of people thinking that $200 or even $100 was imminent. It is reasonable that at least one of those people had a large holding and acted accordingly. |
|
|
|
My concern is that there is little room for error with geometric growth. Lets say that things are happily humming along with bandwidth and block size both increasing by 50% per year. Then a decade goes by where bandwidth only increases by 30% per year. In that decade block size grew to 5767% while bandwith grew to 1379%. So now peoples connections are only 24% as capable of handling the blockchain.
Not a big deal? Well, except that we can expect the power of nodes to follow some sort of curve ("exponential" in the vernacular) such that most nodes are barely above the threshold to be viable. Meaning that this event would mean that the majority of nodes would shut down, likely permanently.
Compression techniques (e.g. by using transaction hashes and/or IBLT), once implemented, will certainly keep the new block message size growth rate much lower than the bandwidth growth rate. At the moment the 1MB in checkblock is agnostic as to how the blocks are received. // Size limits
if (block.vtx.empty() || block.vtx.size() > MAX_BLOCK_SIZE || ::GetSerializeSize(block, SER_NETWORK, PROTOCOL_VERSION) > MAX_BLOCK_SIZE)
return state.DoS(100, error("CheckBlock() : size limits failed"),
REJECT_INVALID, "bad-blk-length");
Consider that bandwidth is the constraint and disk space, perhaps 10x less so. This implies that a 1MB block maximum for transmitted blocks should be reflected as a 10MB maximum for old blocks read from / written to disk (especially when node bootstrapping is enhanced by headers-first and an available utxo set). Put another way, a newly mined block of 2MB might be transmitted across the network in a compressed form, perhaps of only 200KB, but it will get rejected, yet it should be acceptable as it is within currently accepted resource constraints. |
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure satoshi is someone within MTGOX.
Within MTgox !!! like Mark...who else could it be within gox ? well it is possible.... Not. Interesting first-hand account here: http://www.ipad9.com/?p=8871 |
|
|
|
So in the event that multiple banks get wiped out again, how do they pay for it? Is there a fund with cash in the bank? Do any of our alphabet agencies actually have reserves? No they do not. Just look at Social Security--it's a bunch of IOUs. It's worse.  I am curious about this. What exactly is the meaning of negative numbers in 2009-2010? To me it indicates that they paid out more money than they had, but where did it come from? They were 20 bil in the "hole" and still managed it somehow. There is no FDIC insurance fund. It is just a line in the US Treasury's consolidated accounts. If and when the FDIC needs money then bonds and bills are sold to the Fed (indirectly via the primary dealers, so the TBTF banks can get their free zero-risk percentage, and the law is pretended to be observed). The Fed uses the control-P key to create the cash which is effectively "airdropped" into the economy. |
|
|
|
That's actually quite a fun article, very well written. |
|
|
|
There was a transaction last year with a huge fee >3x block reward: So, despite the block reward being >$1000, and not due for halving until 3.75 years time, fees are forced to do a moonshot.
That "moonshot" is because someone created a single transaction with 94BTC in fees: 13dffdaef097881acfe9bdb5e6338192242d80161ffec264ee61cf23bc9a1164Fees are rising, but they haven't spiked like you think they have. |
|
|
|
swimming pool formation at 5min chart! Bullish!
haha. yes, a "whale bath" formation... |
|
|
|
But why are people buying instead of dumping?
We went all the way down from $1,200 to $300. We are in a bear market.
Just because a 30,000BTC sell wall appears out of nowhere, everyone needs to buy into that wall?
Makes no sense to me!
Seems like only you and Mr. Whalewall haven't heard the news. Bear market is over, bull market revving up! |
|
|
|
|
That 30k hasn't caused a crash. 50% of it was soaked up around $300 and the price is still $300.
|
|
|
|
my opinion is that the wall is a bank or some vested interest in keeping the price suppressed.
But to what end? In a few hours fresh fiat will arrive (Monday morning in Europe) and that wall will be history and the (new) market trend will continue. FWIW, I expect a rally and a period of stability near $433. sqrt(cycle high 683 * cycle low 275) |
|
|
|
Also, is the bid sum dropping by the equivalent amount every nibble? Or is this fiat mostly invisible?
It looks like $1m has come from the visible orderbook since the 30k appeared, so about $3m more of the buying was from hidden fiat. http://coinsight.org/bitstampguys, I just got up. Can someone give me a quick history (last ~6 hours) of that wall on stamp?
How big was it when it was put there? 17k?
Was the ~7k eaten or was the wall partly pulled?
About 5k was dumped in the market, and rest left at $300, after moving it around a few times. |
|
|
|
|
Even the bid-eating bot has given up.
|
|
|
|
Why do you think the price is staying so flat? I've never seen anything like it. Huobi and Bitfinex have both stayed about $6-8 above this flatline on BitStamp. Something odd is happening.
A 1200 chuck was bought just moments ago. The cost of arbitrage allows the Chinese exchanges to be somewhat higher than Bitstamp. The price is flat because there is no one willing to sell lower at these remarkably low prices. Buyers are not numerous enough to buy the whole block and move prices higher. The ask wall is currently 18130 BTC. I have not seen anything like this either - and sure would like to get a piece of it - when my local ATM opens. I hope that you are right, as it would imply an almost guaranteed breakout from this level. It just doesn't add up because if your opinion is correct, than whoever is selling these coins is a terrible trader, and most terrible traders don't have 30k bitcoins. It also doesn't add up because people were willing to sell below these remarkably low prices earlier today. But I don't have a better explanation... This is the most odd market action I've ever witnessed. I think it is a hoarder who got sick and tired of seeing the price decline all year, and has finally thrown in the towel, but at the worst possible moment, when the curve on the daily chart has gone vertically down. |
|
|
|
The guy walks off with 8 million $ while having spent pennies. Clearly burning money :/ Could have walked off with a couple of million more by drip-feeding into rallies. Not a hell of a lot of extra work. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
