Mortgage the house and buy some back. Or get a second loan and buy some back. You will eventually be able to pay of the second loan and still have some coins in case (which there is a decent chance) we get to $100,000 and beyond.
Only on bitcointalk can you find this sort of advice. My goodness. Debt is so deeply rooted in US folks mentality that it hurts. I really have a simpathy for Bitchick, I'm a long-term bull myself, but came on... To advise someone to get in debt (even worse, to mortgage his house) to buy a high-risk experimental currency is so fucked up it blows my mind. We where speaking about "opportunities you cannot afford to lose"... Well, being in debt or losing your house to gamble is something NOBODY should afford to do. And that type of mentality leads me to think that eventually BTC will implode sooner than later, people tends to auto-destruction and greed is one of the main mind-fuckers. Rampion is my favorite now  |
|
|
|
The post is copied from another thread, which has since been locked. Links are not copied yet. " Bitcoin is a technology. It is a blockchain-based transaction ledger. There is a limited number of claims to this ledger. These are called satoshis, or bitcoins (10^8 satoshi). We are here to deduce if Bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme, a Pyramid scheme, a Greater-Fool's-game or just a freely-traded something, subject to markets' whims, resulting in booms, busts, bubbles and crashes. A) I start with assuming that "Ponzi scheme" option is already refuted beyond doubt. B) As for "Pyramid scheme", after much deliberation I fail to see the logic, how Bitcoin would qualify. I wonder if we even read the same definitions for a Pyramid scheme: - Wikipedia - Investopedia. The essential qualifications for a pyramid are not met. C) What has been discussed upthread under the name Pyramid scheme, should more precisely be called Greater-Fool's-game. The essence in this would be that people buy in anticipation of a price rise, without regard of the intrinsic value. If the price is indeed rising, this may suck quite many people in, resulting in a spectacular collapse if the intrinsic value fails to meet the expectations. It does not matter whether we are talking about Internet stocks with currently negative earnings, tulip bulbs, shares of the Blockchain pie, or something "completely useless" such as modern art. The fact is that people are (in most jurisdictions) free to invent, produce and sell things for whatever price they can gouge in a voluntary market. Also buying at inflated prices is not criminalized. At most, Bitcoin could be classified in this category. It has to be noted that this kind of speculative bubbles are almost completely harmless. If the product does not have intrinsic value, its production does not burden the real economy. Every time someone buys the bag at a higher price, another one receives the money. The only way to become bankrupt is to take excessive risk or leverage, which are always very stupid actions and people prone to them cannot be helped unless all banks and casinos are closed. Unlike Ponzis and Pyramid schemes, which revert to zero when unfolding, speculative bubbles revert to their intrinsic value. There are many Internet stocks that are doing good in Nasdaq, tulip bulbs have a certain price, bitcoins will always have a price and art has its valuation. The real economy lives on quite unaffected of the speculative valuation. D) It seems that the crux of the matter is, whether Bitcoin/bitcoins have intrinsic value as a currency/money or not. If not, it has been a recurring fad over several years and numerous bubbles, which have repeatedly risen higher and higher. In fact, the numbers we are seeing in the exchanges testify that every day until this week has been a bear trap. It is hardly possible that Bitcoin would have survived the 2011 bubble if there was not a promise of significant utility. The word promise is important, because money is a high network-effect thing. If I have all the money in the world, it is most likely worth less than half of it. Money tends to be worth the most when it is distributed in a Pareto way. If all money belongs to a few and others are uniformly poor, the rich cannot employ their money to buy goods and services because the poor are not capitalized to produce them. Similarly the poor cannot buy from the rich because they don't have the money. The (hypothetical and unachievable) situation that everyone has the same amount of money, quickly leads to Pareto distribution (or "worse" top-heaviness, unless the rule of law is present). Let's think the valuation of Facebook from the user perspective. When Facebook had one user, it was worthless. I would say the value per user grew rather quickly when the earliest users came. Just out of my hat, let's say they valued it at $100 on average. As new users were added, the value for them was initially just above zero (the threshold of joining in is to receive positive value), but the old users' value was increased due to network effects. The more Facebook grew, the more value for everyone. From systems perspective, it should have been obvious that the supermajority of the target segment globally would become users. The valuation of Facebook in the stock market is $112 billion, which is $95 per monthly active user. If the ownership of the system were possible for everyone in every stage of the adoption process, we would have an ownership distribution curve similar to Bitcoin's. (Now there is some 29-year old geek that owns 24% of all, talk about inequality  ) In both cases, the value is roughly proportional to the number of users, but the issuance is fixed. Facebook would not have become so valuable if it had not become widespread. Then the investors would have lost their stake. If Bitcoin fails, investors lose likewise. If someone sees the failure before the others and sells out, good for him. It is not a reason to be jailed. This is the basic free stock market operation, nothing new to see there. And there is no way to deconcentrate it from the current 90+% of BTC is in a few hands. Thus it can't be a widely accepted currency, because it is not widely held and can't be widely held. By the time 1% of the global population has purchased, it will be priced on the order $30,000+ and then the other 99% won't be able to afford to get much BTC at all. You say that is okay, but it means you impoverish the rest of the world relative to early adopters so the velocity of money would collapse, because very rich people spend a much smaller % of their money than middle class people. The 99% will never go for that arrangement, they will stick with fiat and then the collapse of Bitcoin's bubble will ensue and the stampede to the exits with all trampled and value lost.
Bitcoin is currently distributed in an even theoretically near-optimal scale-invariant Pareto way. Bitcoins can be easily traded in many parts of the world. The free market ensures that they are most optimally distributed, because if someone finds himself with too many bitcoins, he can sell. The one lacking can buy. The distribution of bitcoins is way more efficient and widespread than Facebook stock, and will soon become possible for practically everyone on the planet, which is unprecedented for any investment vehicle or even currency! We share the vision that the inordinate gains in price drive adoption quicker than the general understanding of Bitcoin spreads. This will lead to a bubble of extraordinary valuation. But that will pop even quicker than it formed and no value will have been lost. The recent examples to be carefully analyzed are the Nasdaq bubble of 1999-2000 and the PM in 1980. Bubbles act as boosters to the underlying. Nasdaq bubble fueled the all-pervasiveness of Internet in the 2000s by providing ample VC money to everyone interested. PM bubble encouraged mining, resulting in tumbling PM prices when the mines started operations a decade later. The bubble happens when the 2nd % wants to buy. Then it crashes and the 98% can slowly start buying. My father still owns Internet stocks, he only bought them long after the bubble Wink Life and markets go on and do not magically stop at the bubble top. Bitcoin exchange rate will not go to zero, it will go down and provide a spectacular buying opportunity in the wake of mass adoption that will drive the price to its realistic long term value (if there is one). I see it can never scale as a currency, thus it has no value to you once the gains stop. Thus you and everyone else will exit and the value will go to near 0. Because only a very small fraction of the market cap is using it for spending.
This can't change, because Bitcoin isn't designed to distribute out to the masses to get them involved in spending it.
Gold is also not used as a currency. Gold is the most salable commodity, meaning that it is the easiest to part with in large quantities. This has been called Money in the past. As bitcoin grows bigger, it may surpass gold in this regard, or may have already done so. Thought experiment is that a person finds himself in a random place with $1 million worth of gold or bitcoins. How long time and how many % loss he must spend to make the transactions necessary to convert the value to what he needs. Silver used to be the most hoardable commodity, meaning that it is easiest to accumulate in small increments. Bitcoin has already become the most hoardable thing, proven by tipboxes etc. In long-range applications bitcoins are easier to accumulate than even cash! There is a reason why the word 'silver' and 'money' are the same in 49 languages.Distributing the mining coin rewards to millions of people who download it with one-click will do that.
And the investors can buy from them. So no problem the greed will help then.
Bitcoin is the inverse (converse)!
The investors mine the coins, then the masses are expected to buy them. brain dead design for a coin.
The Russians tried to privatize the communist state wealth directly to the people. The result was 50 million people who owned their share of huge enterprises for a few minutes, until somebody bought it from them at a price of a small bottle of vodka, or a cup of coffee. The companies ended back in oligarch control. It is not optimal, workable or possible for everybody to own a little. It invariably ends in somebody owning it all, and the masses do not get much of a benefit for selling their share. As much as we both would like it, faucets don't work. In a more theoretical vein, if we assume that the altcoin system is worth $1,000 per user, and the users generate the value for themselves by CPU mining, and the inflation rate mimics gold's 2% APR, then the mining reward is $20 per user per year, and it is indeed a perfect analogy to exchange your monthly reward for a cup of coffee. Hardly a recipe for a stealth mass-adoption. |
|
|
|
Yes. I did not empty my Casascius coins, only pawned them...
oh man, i really hope you have some btc left... this train might not ever stop again! Money is actually overrated. AnonyMint is doing well without any BTC... |
|
|
|
any bears left? xD
Me, and Wekkel. Everybody else is all in. - Wekkel, do you by chance have 20,000 coins? Lets sell the crap out of this sucker's trap! i hope you still hold some btc! Yes. I did not empty my Casascius coins, only pawned them... |
|
|
|
My buy some more and hold strategy worked so far. I dribbled out quite a few fractional buys: 511, 601, 598, 622, 606, 593, 600 and 607. Currently, MtGox is surging upwards, beyond $700 as I finish this.
I am worried about Risto's big bet that prices are going lower.
I hope he bought back at a loss already  You can bet he did. He has much experience and knows you always cut your losses when your stop-loss is hit. Problem is BTC China. Hope he can trade well on that. I guess I should say that everyone sucks at speculation. I've never heard of a speculator that didn't end up at 0 eventually. I know too many stories that I can not share (not about Risto, although we have some too). I have a strategy, which does not involve a stop-loss. It involves a concept called creep from last May.  I am still short the coins.. ..but I have to say it hurts. Just like it hurt after selling in September and seeing the price go up. When enough people have this realization, perhaps we will see singularity after all.  |
|
|
|
any bears left? xD
Me, and Wekkel. Everybody else is all in. - Wekkel, do you by chance have 20,000 coins? Lets sell the crap out of this sucker's trap! |
|
|
|
Bitcoin is a technology. It is a blockchain-based transaction ledger. There is a limited number of claims to this ledger. These are called satoshis, or bitcoins (10^8 satoshi). We are here to deduce if Bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme, a Pyramid scheme, a Greater-Fool's-game or just a freely-traded something, subject to markets' whims, resulting in booms, busts, bubbles and crashes. A) I start with assuming that "Ponzi scheme" option is already refuted beyond doubt. B) As for "Pyramid scheme", after much deliberation I fail to see the logic, how Bitcoin would qualify. I wonder if we even read the same definitions for a Pyramid scheme: - Wikipedia- Investopedia. The essential qualifications for a pyramid are not met. C) What has been discussed upthread under the name Pyramid scheme, should more precisely be called Greater-Fool's-game. The essence in this would be that people buy in anticipation of a price rise, without regard of the intrinsic value. If the price is indeed rising, this may suck quite many people in, resulting in a spectacular collapse if the intrinsic value fails to meet the expectations. It does not matter whether we are talking about Internet stocks with currently negative earnings, tulip bulbs, shares of the Blockchain pie, or something "completely useless" such as modern art. The fact is that people are (in most jurisdictions) free to invent, produce and sell things for whatever price they can gouge in a voluntary market. Also buying at inflated prices is not criminalized. At most, Bitcoin could be classified in this category. It has to be noted that this kind of speculative bubbles are almost completely harmless. If the product does not have intrinsic value, its production does not burden the real economy. Every time someone buys the bag at a higher price, another one receives the money. The only way to become bankrupt is to take excessive risk or leverage, which are always very stupid actions and people prone to them cannot be helped unless all banks and casinos are closed. Unlike Ponzis and Pyramid schemes, which revert to zero when unfolding, speculative bubbles revert to their intrinsic value. There are many Internet stocks that are doing good in Nasdaq, tulip bulbs have a certain price, bitcoins will always have a price and art has its valuation. The real economy lives on quite unaffected of the speculative valuation. D) It seems that the crux of the matter is, whether Bitcoin/bitcoins have intrinsic value as a currency/money or not. If not, it has been a recurring fad over several years and numerous bubbles, which have repeatedly risen higher and higher. In fact, the numbers we are seeing in the exchanges testify that every day until this week has been a bear trap.It is hardly possible that Bitcoin would have survived the 2011 bubble if there was not a promise of significant utility. The word promise is important, because money is a high network-effect thing. If I have all the money in the world, it is most likely worth less than half of it. Money tends to be worth the most when it is distributed in a Pareto way. If all money belongs to a few and others are uniformly poor, the rich cannot employ their money to buy goods and services because the poor are not capitalized to produce them. Similarly the poor cannot buy from the rich because they don't have the money. The (hypothetical and unachievable) situation that everyone has the same amount of money, quickly leads to Pareto distribution (or "worse" top-heaviness, unless the rule of law is present). Let's think the valuation of Facebook from the user perspective. When Facebook had one user, it was worthless. I would say the value per user grew rather quickly when the earliest users came. Just out of my hat, let's say they valued it at $100 on average. As new users were added, the value for them was initially just above zero (the threshold of joining in is to receive positive value), but the old users' value was increased due to network effects. The more Facebook grew, the more value for everyone. From systems perspective, it should have been obvious that the supermajority of the target segment globally would become users. The valuation of Facebook in the stock market is $112 billion, which is $95 per monthly active user. If the ownership of the system were possible for everyone in every stage of the adoption process, we would have an ownership distribution curve similar to Bitcoin's. (Now there is some 29-year old geek that owns 24% of all, talk about inequality ) In both cases, the value is roughly proportional to the number of users, but the issuance is fixed. Facebook would not have become so valuable if it had not become widespread. Then the investors would have lost their stake. If Bitcoin fails, investors lose likewise. If someone sees the failure before the others and sells out, good for him. It is not a reason to be jailed. This is the basic free stock market operation, nothing new to see there. And there is no way to deconcentrate it from the current 90+% of BTC is in a few hands. Thus it can't be a widely accepted currency, because it is not widely held and can't be widely held. By the time 1% of the global population has purchased, it will be priced on the order $30,000+ and then the other 99% won't be able to afford to get much BTC at all. You say that is okay, but it means you impoverish the rest of the world relative to early adopters so the velocity of money would collapse, because very rich people spend a much smaller % of their money than middle class people. The 99% will never go for that arrangement, they will stick with fiat and then the collapse of Bitcoin's bubble will ensue and the stampede to the exits with all trampled and value lost.
Bitcoin is currently distributed in an even theoretically near-optimal scale-invariant Pareto way. Bitcoins can be easily traded in many parts of the world. The free market ensures that they are most optimally distributed, because if someone finds himself with too many bitcoins, he can sell. The one lacking can buy. The distribution of bitcoins is way more efficient and widespread than Facebook stock, and will soon become possible for practically everyone on the planet, which is unprecedented for any investment vehicle or even currency! We share the vision that the inordinate gains in price drive adoption quicker than the general understanding of Bitcoin spreads. This will lead to a bubble of extraordinary valuation. But that will pop even quicker than it formed and no value will have been lost. The recent examples to be carefully analyzed are the Nasdaq bubble of 1999-2000 and the PM in 1980. Bubbles act as boosters to the underlying. Nasdaq bubble fueled the all-pervasiveness of Internet in the 2000s by providing ample VC money to everyone interested. PM bubble encouraged mining, resulting in tumbling PM prices when the mines started operations a decade later. The bubble happens when the 2nd % wants to buy. Then it crashes and the 98% can slowly start buying. My father still owns Internet stocks, he only bought them long after the bubble Life and markets go on and do not magically stop at the bubble top. Bitcoin exchange rate will not go to zero, it will go down and provide a spectacular buying opportunity in the wake of mass adoption that will drive the price to its realistic long term value (if there is one). I see it can never scale as a currency, thus it has no value to you once the gains stop. Thus you and everyone else will exit and the value will go to near 0. Because only a very small fraction of the market cap is using it for spending.
This can't change, because Bitcoin isn't designed to distribute out to the masses to get them involved in spending it.
Gold is also not used as a currency. Gold is the most salable commodity, meaning that it is the easiest to part with in large quantities. This has been called Money in the past. As bitcoin grows bigger, it may surpass gold in this regard, or may have already done so. Thought experiment is that a person finds himself in a random place with $1 million worth of gold or bitcoins. How long time and how many % loss he must spend to make the transactions necessary to convert the value to what he needs. Silver used to be the most hoardable commodity, meaning that it is easiest to accumulate in small increments. Bitcoin has already become the most hoardable thing, proven by tipboxes etc. In long-range applications bitcoins are easier to accumulate than even cash! There is a reason why the word 'silver' and 'money' are the same in 49 languages.Distributing the mining coin rewards to millions of people who download it with one-click will do that.
And the investors can buy from them. So no problem the greed will help then.
Bitcoin is the inverse (converse)!
The investors mine the coins, then the masses are expected to buy them. brain dead design for a coin.
The Russians tried to privatize the communist state wealth directly to the people. The result was 50 million people who owned their share of huge enterprises for a few minutes, until somebody bought it from them at a price of a small bottle of vodka, or a cup of coffee. The companies ended back in oligarch control. It is not optimal, workable or possible for everybody to own a little. It invariably ends in somebody owning it all, and the masses do not get much of a benefit for selling their share. As much as we both would like it, faucets don't work. In a more theoretical vein, if we assume that the altcoin system is worth $1,000 per user, and the users generate the value for themselves by CPU mining, and the inflation rate mimics gold's 2% APR, then the mining reward is $20 per user per year, and it is indeed a perfect analogy to exchange your monthly reward for a cup of coffee. Hardly a recipe for a stealth mass-adoption. |
|
|
|
Shorting = borrowing coins to sell them, in the hopes that the price per coin will be lower when you have to give them back. A "short sell" is to sell an asset (BTC) you don't own, you just have borrowed it to sell it because you anticipate the price to go down.
That's extremely dangerous with BTC, because the price has the potential to double multiple times very quickly, and thus you can face huge losses by shorting.
That's what "shorting" means, but in these forums many people say they are "short" when they have sold coins, which is not correct. What can you expect in a forum where most of people thinks that ROI is a synonym for break-even....
"Shorting" is that you own any asset that you don't need, but you decide to not sell it and purchase bitcoins instead. |
|
|
|
Many people are modeling the current situation based on the April crash. That of course would make the current bounce a bull trap.
I think we need to remember that the situation is very very different at the moment. April was basically "okay, bitcoin just died" for many. This time I think pretty much everyone is confident that bitcoin is here to stay. Nobody is really scared that their bitcoins will suddenly become worthless. This wasn't the case after the April crash.
The question is not anymore "will bitcoin make it". Bitcoin has already made it. It has already become a massive success story.
This time it's different. This time, it's so different. |
|
|
|
This might for 6 months be known as the "the chance you had to sell at the top of that bulltrap" but I can't bring myself to do it...
If I was the manipulator, I would lure all the suckers in now, and then drop the bomb with a market order. The "price per coin sold" times "number of coins possible to sell" is now much higher than at the pop. Main question - if bitcoin is short term worth this price, no problem. If not, somebody will notice and sell some |
|
|
|
Its more than a bit arrogant to equate # of bitcoins with knowledge or intelligence in trading. It makes you sound small for suggesting it.
More big money is coming into this market and the amount of coins someone needs to "manipulate" it is becoming larger and larger.
Go ahead, dump 10k coins right now. Lets see where we are in 24 hours. I would suggest we would be at the same level or maybe higher.
You want to risk 10k+ coins to see if you can move the market down a few dollars from your average cost of coin sold? Ha. Ok, be my guest.
Unless there are a room full of 50k+ bitcoin owners strategizing together, then I doubt there is very much successful manipulation going on.
I mean, you were on here earlier today preaching bear to try to drive down the price and everyone saw right through your motivations right away.
But, lets do an open experiment. Choose an exchange. Dump 10k coins and see what you can buy them back for. I'd love to see this case study. It certainly would shut everyone the hell up for a while about manipulation and "whale power."
It is not intelligence but the resources and tools available for trading: With BTC10 trading capital you can pick opportunities that the elephants cannot. But the elephants can use their BTC1,000 trading capital to manipulate the bid/ask volumes, erect small walls and do dumps. As for the large holders ( BTC100,000), the market is at their mercy when it is ripe for a correction, because they can do whatever they want. Only rule is that when they relinguish coins, the average price has to be higher than the buyback. For this reason, based on the trend analysis, this was a good chance to go bearish. Even if I am wrong initially, sitting tight on this fiat position is all right because I know that bitcoins are a tad high atm, and only after 4 months they "should" be worth this much. There may be collusion between some large owners, I don't know. But the same effect follows even if everybody just acts individually, trying to outsmart others. I think BTC100,000 manipulates this market more now than ever, because of the exchange situation... But I don't have such money to play with. Otherwise I think you are right. |
|
|
|
Well I think you're just having too much fiat on your hands and want to scoop up more coins at a cheaper price. There are many rich wannabe manipulators in this game but I doubt most are very successful at it.  Actually all of this I can agree with. Luckily, with bitcoin you never lose. I have set a distribution schedule that goes all the way to $5M/ BTC (in purchasing power). All the time it goes up, I get more cash flow that can be diversified, while still having more value in bitcoins. If it goes down, I get to buy back at profit. No matter what happens it's good to be covered. |
|
|
|
If you think that 27M in bids on Gox and 13M on Bitstamp (both at ATH) is irrelevant well good luck to you trying to swim upstream.  Read the post again, young man. Upon waking up, I removed 25% of BTC China (world's biggest exchange) bid depth. The guys who have more bitcoins than I do, control the bid depth in Gox and Stamp. When they remove the bids and start rolling, the price moves down however much they like. This is how it works. Read the post again, so you understand why I wrote it in a byzantine way. |
|
|
|
Today was a really intense day. I turned bear.
Just to clarify. Is the a short/medium/long bearish sentiment? thnx In my terminology, a bear is someone who holds fiat in hopes of buying back the coins. If I did not trust bitcoin in the medium/long term, I would sell out and not waste a word on this forum. These are not bears. (Being "bearish" on something that you don't have and don't intend to buy, is just talk, because only money has a vote.) The long-term is outlined in the trend analysis thread. Bitcoin has a very convincing history and promising future from an investor point of view. AnonyMint has broght some political dangers to our attention, which is good. You should carefully monitor if the promise of conquering the fiat system still holds, because most of the exchange rate is based on speculation that this would be the case. In medium term, we are ahead of the trend. Like a rubber band, when it starts to contract, it has a tendency to contract to the lowest energy state, which is about $400 in December. I sold at an average price of $672. If it goes down to $400 and below, I will buy back. If not, I have several months to buy back before the trend catches my sell price. It does not matter even if we go to $2000, because it will be followed by a crash due to exchange dynamics etc. The "worst" outcome for me is that this is 2010 all over again. That year price could go up 10x, followed by a bull trap with no real retracement in price, then go up 10x again. Technical analysis was helpless because everyone just wanted a piece of the pie. If this materializes, bitcoin can go to 5 digits next year, and I will still have most of my position intact in a paper wallet. For a large holder, selling is a win-win. If it runs away from you, your remaining coins are worth more. If it crashes, you get more coins. |
|
|
|
So are you saying with all these bids, someone could still crash the market? During the last correction, it was over once we met with these solid bidwalls. What do you think theres some of those guys from the old gox days waiting to dump 100k btc loads all at once?
Did the walls look like this in april before crashing to 50?
How many bitcoins do you have? You don't need to tell me. How much do you know about bitcoin, compared to the ones that have 10x less? Yes, you tend to have a very different knowledge and mindset than they do. Now is the difficult part. How do the people think that have more bitcoins than you do, let's say 10x more? Don't they think differently than you? What are the implications? I have a certain number of bitcoins and think a certain way. I extrapolate that the guys above me know even more and better than I do. If they have figured out that this is a good time to have a breather, they will execute their will. If I am wrong, I will eat my losses ($2 million in bank is a such a shame to have). Bitcoin is a managed currency. --Of course the walls etc. have predictive value, but the difference is: you accept them, I erect them. The actual game is, whether (or: who of the) manipulators can increase their coincount, and how to keep the price appreciating such that it preserves bitcoin's long term potential to replace fiat. |
|
|
|
Ye woke up and couldnt resist. This consolidation is taking too long and with all the massive bids, its looking too bullish.
If this is a bull trap, well played bears. Ill take my loss and go back in.
CHOO CHOO MF
Did you check the bids before or after I took 25% off of BTC China orderbook? (Yes, feels like a boss  ) "Look at the Chinese buying so many BTC". Ahem. China is now about 65% higher than a week ago. If the ones there that actually have bitcoins, decide to take profits, it can and should fall to <3000. Some of the buying in the west in the last 24 hours has gone to keep the lid on China price and there are still arbitrage opportunities left. It is important that China goes down in daily chart. |
|
|
|
Ye woke up and couldnt resist. This consolidation is taking too long and with all the massive bids, its looking too bullish.
If this is a bull trap, well played bears. Ill take my loss and go back in.
CHOO CHOO MF
Did you check the bids before or after I took 25% off of BTC China orderbook? (Yes, feels like a boss ) |
|
|
|
And here's why we're not crashing very hard. These bids have all formed in the past day. Throughout this drop, the amount of fiat on btcchina and bitstamp has gone up nearly 100%. bitstamp now has a mtgox-like order book. And then there's the dark orders.  This lets the dumpers get rid of a number of coins. The original pop was achieved with so low volume that there was no possibility to sell in quantity. Reminder: Dump is not only for suppressing the price but also for profiting. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
