A few hundred coins just got sold into 210. 578 coins left of the wall.  |
|
|
|
My natural thought is that when there is sooo much bullishness that the only way to go is down.
Yes, all the bull in here is pretty overwhelming! Still, thought we might break below 210 last night. It was not to be. |
|
|
|
This room has a familiar sound to it. BUY BUY BUY! UP UP UP!  |
|
|
|
 210 wall is ~150 lighter than a couple hours ago. May be ready for another test. |
|
|
|
 211 on Gox. 620 BTC to 210, couple hundred more at 210 than an hour ago. |
|
|
|
|
Is Gox frozen or something? I see like 2 or 3 trades in the last half hour. Site seems up though.
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, Bitstamp's order book page shows a bit under 3000 now..... bears would have loved that.
|
|
|
|
Yeah, how big was the sell down to $200? Now its wavering between $199 and $200.  |
|
|
|
Update..
Rsnel messaged me back and says he will do it but he is working on other projects for this week atleast. He may be available to start the work in a week or so. I will continue to bug him until he gives me definitive dates or does the code.
Jag
Good news, at least that's an approximate start date. Thanks for the update, much appreciated. |
|
|
|
I feel for you! You could consider picking up a small % of your previous holdings and tuck it away... come back in 5 years. Can't hurt.  |
|
|
|
 Bears got a shot here, maybe. What do you think? |
|
|
|
This is the disconnect. The very meaning of the words "priced in" indicates "at the present time". If something "will be priced in in the future" then it is, obviously, not priced in currently. I think there is a clear difference between news -- upon which speculators react dynamically -- and future demand spurned by that news over time.
See, then this is pointless. When you ask if something is priced in then all you are asking is "what is the price right now". No, that's not it. When you ask if something is priced in, you're asking if speculators have acted on it to the extent that they will. If news came out today that Amazon will accept bitcoin, there would be a threshold at which speculators would stop buying based on the perceived future valuation. So if the price jumped from $215 to $600 in two days, you could be fairly sure that the news was being priced into the market to some extent. The full extent is obviously subject to speculation -- and that is specifically the question of whether or not something is "priced in."By your definition, there is never, ever an answer. Nothing is ever priced in, because we have no idea what future demand looks like. It is much less tangible -- especially because of the multitude of variables and the inability to isolate the effect of any one event on future demand. Perhaps the first reward halving will be "priced in" two years from now. How would we know? And once it is "news" I think a lot of speculators in bitcoin exchanges are not leading the action, they are following it. The market is too volatile to try to lead. And most dont have the financial leverage to take those risks. Therefore, if the news generates new money into the markets, there is a delayed effect. That effect is then further "priced in" or "over priced in" once the speculators start following the action. So, in China, there have been news stories for months. Money finally found its way into the market and started leading. Speculators then drove the price up through the roof. Bolded does not compute. And we're not talking about rumors, but news. A lack of liquidity does not mean that speculators can't buy or sell based on news. Who are speculators following? Are they not following other speculators? I don't think money "finally found" its way to the Chinese market because of news circulating for months... Speculators drove the price up overnight, probably based on Baidu news. No, you are wrong. News may drive new money to the markets. There is a delayed effect. Speculators follow the moves that new money makes. The only time speculators drive the markets is in flash crashed and panic sells. Some of them get out so they can try to buy back lower and some of them just panic. But upward sustained motion is not led by speculation. Its lead by new money. The April rally was lead by new money. It was sent into the stratosphere by speculation. Plus, the fact that you don't think the ability for a market to "buy the rumor sell the news" is not an indicator of speculators driving day to day prices, shows what you are missing about these markets. You need to do some day trading for a couple for years on the Nasdaq and come back and have this conversation again. You haven't explain how I am wrong. I never said news doesn't drive money to markets. I am saying there is a distinction between the long term effect on demand and the short to mid term effect of speculators trading on said news. Keep thinking speculators have nothing to do with markets outside of panic selling. How would you have any idea whether it's "new money" or money that has been sitting on the exchanges? And I said nothing remotely close to the notion that news/exposure doesn't bring new money. I don't see how one can separate speculators from the equation. They speculate on the prospect of new money coming in. Speculators are the ones who have provided the liquidity and have money on exchanges to drive the price up in the first palce. The "new blood" will continue buying at the top, indeed, and will be crushed when the market turns. And honestly, blurting out a slogan like "buy the rumor sell the news" is simply ridiculous and completely irrelevant. What are you even talking about? Can you explain to me what you're saying, in the context of what I said? Ok, look, I don't think we disagree on everything. And I think some of it might be semantics. When I think of speculators, I think of day traders - active speculators. Not speculators in the sense of intermediate term players. There is a term called smart money. Smart money can mean the market makers, which only today has an enchange opened that gave people the ability to be market makers (UK exchange). Smart money can also be seasoned or "inside information" traders. Often these traders take advantage of trends, including a popular one, which involves buying into a rumor of potential good news forth coming. This basically "prices in" the news, whether the news comes or not. So by the time the news arrives (or doesnt) the smart money is out and the stock flatlines or goes down. Most people just read the news and react. And that is just one common scenario in a seasoned market. I just do not see these types of plays being done in the BTC market. I mean, its pretty obvious that alot of BTC day traders (what I am referring to as speculators) are not seasoned traders. Just read the hundreds of threads and posts about "whales" and "market manipulation" and "Gox theories of trapped coins" and "what dump caused the last flash crash" and "when will we be at 10k". These people are following trends not setting them. The market is going up because more money is coming into it. Thats the only reason. And, in my opinion, most of that new money is not from day traders. Yeah, I don't think it's coming from day traders. But I do think it was largely speculators already in the game, with money on the sidelines, that fueled the rally. When I say "speculators" I definitely don't mean for it to be taken as "day trader." I consider myself a speculator, as someone who invests on a mid to long term basis. For example, I had my trading funds in all fiat until after the SR crash, and have been all in since. I understand the notion of smart money, and I see what you're saying. That's not what I meant at all -- everything I said was in the context of news that had already happened, meaning, like you said, people reading and reacting. But at this point, I think price movement is driving price movement. And the new money is new blood. We'll see how high they drive up the price. |
|
|
|
This is the disconnect. The very meaning of the words "priced in" indicates "at the present time". If something "will be priced in in the future" then it is, obviously, not priced in currently. I think there is a clear difference between news -- upon which speculators react dynamically -- and future demand spurned by that news over time.
See, then this is pointless. When you ask if something is priced in then all you are asking is "what is the price right now". No, that's not it. When you ask if something is priced in, you're asking if speculators have acted on it to the extent that they will. If news came out today that Amazon will accept bitcoin, there would be a threshold at which speculators would stop buying based on the perceived future valuation. So if the price jumped from $215 to $600 in two days, you could be fairly sure that the news was being priced into the market to some extent. The full extent is obviously subject to speculation -- and that is specifically the question of whether or not something is "priced in."By your definition, there is never, ever an answer. Nothing is ever priced in, because we have no idea what future demand looks like. It is much less tangible -- especially because of the multitude of variables and the inability to isolate the effect of any one event on future demand. Perhaps the first reward halving will be "priced in" two years from now. How would we know? And once it is "news" I think a lot of speculators in bitcoin exchanges are not leading the action, they are following it. The market is too volatile to try to lead. And most dont have the financial leverage to take those risks. Therefore, if the news generates new money into the markets, there is a delayed effect. That effect is then further "priced in" or "over priced in" once the speculators start following the action. So, in China, there have been news stories for months. Money finally found its way into the market and started leading. Speculators then drove the price up through the roof. Bolded does not compute. And we're not talking about rumors, but news. A lack of liquidity does not mean that speculators can't buy or sell based on news. Who are speculators following? Are they not following other speculators? I don't think money "finally found" its way to the Chinese market because of news circulating for months... Speculators drove the price up overnight, probably based on Baidu news. No, you are wrong. News may drive new money to the markets. There is a delayed effect. Speculators follow the moves that new money makes. The only time speculators drive the markets is in flash crashed and panic sells. Some of them get out so they can try to buy back lower and some of them just panic. But upward sustained motion is not led by speculation. Its lead by new money. The April rally was lead by new money. It was sent into the stratosphere by speculation. Plus, the fact that you don't think the ability for a market to "buy the rumor sell the news" is not an indicator of speculators driving day to day prices, shows what you are missing about these markets. You need to do some day trading for a couple for years on the Nasdaq and come back and have this conversation again. You haven't explain how I am wrong. I never said news doesn't drive money to markets. I am saying there is a distinction between the long term effect on demand and the short to mid term effect of speculators trading on said news. Keep thinking speculators have nothing to do with markets outside of panic selling. How would you have any idea whether it's "new money" or money that has been sitting on the exchanges? And I said nothing remotely close to the notion that news/exposure doesn't bring new money. I don't see how one can separate speculators from the equation. They speculate on the prospect of new money coming in. Speculators are the ones who have provided the liquidity and have money on exchanges to drive the price up in the first palce. The "new blood" will continue buying at the top, indeed, and will be crushed when the market turns. And honestly, blurting out a slogan like "buy the rumor sell the news" is simply ridiculous and completely irrelevant. What are you even talking about? Can you explain to me what you're saying, in the context of what I said? |
|
|
|
This is the disconnect. The very meaning of the words "priced in" indicates "at the present time". If something "will be priced in in the future" then it is, obviously, not priced in currently. I think there is a clear difference between news -- upon which speculators react dynamically -- and future demand spurned by that news over time.
See, then this is pointless. When you ask if something is priced in then all you are asking is "what is the price right now". No, that's not it. When you ask if something is priced in, you're asking if speculators have acted on it to the extent that they will. If news came out today that Amazon will accept bitcoin, there would be a threshold at which speculators would stop buying based on the perceived future valuation. So if the price jumped from $215 to $600 in two days, you could be fairly sure that the news was being priced into the market to some extent. The full extent is obviously subject to speculation -- and that is specifically the question of whether or not something is "priced in."By your definition, there is never, ever an answer. Nothing is ever priced in, because we have no idea what future demand looks like. It is much less tangible -- especially because of the multitude of variables and the inability to isolate the effect of any one event on future demand. Perhaps the first reward halving will be "priced in" two years from now. How would we know? And once it is "news" I think a lot of speculators in bitcoin exchanges are not leading the action, they are following it. The market is too volatile to try to lead. And most dont have the financial leverage to take those risks. Therefore, if the news generates new money into the markets, there is a delayed effect. That effect is then further "priced in" or "over priced in" once the speculators start following the action. So, in China, there have been news stories for months. Money finally found its way into the market and started leading. Speculators then drove the price up through the roof. Bolded does not compute. And we're not talking about rumors, but news. A lack of liquidity does not mean that speculators can't buy or sell based on news. Who are speculators following? Are they not following other speculators? I don't think money "finally found" its way to the Chinese market because of news circulating for months... Speculators drove the price up overnight, probably based on Baidu news. |
|
|
|
This is the disconnect. The very meaning of the words "priced in" indicates "at the present time". If something "will be priced in in the future" then it is, obviously, not priced in currently. I think there is a clear difference between news -- upon which speculators react dynamically -- and future demand spurned by that news over time.
See, then this is pointless. When you ask if something is priced in then all you are asking is "what is the price right now". No, that's not it. When you ask if something is priced in, you're asking if speculators have acted on it to the extent that they will. If news came out today that Amazon will accept bitcoin, there would be a threshold at which speculators would stop buying based on the perceived future valuation. So if the price jumped from $215 to $600 in two days, you could be fairly sure that the news was being priced into the market to some extent. The full extent is obviously subject to speculation -- and that is specifically the question of whether or not something is "priced in."By your definition, there is never, ever an answer. Nothing is ever priced in, because we have no idea what future demand looks like. It is much less tangible -- especially because of the multitude of variables and the inability to isolate the effect of any one event on future demand. Perhaps the first reward halving will be "priced in" two years from now. How would we know? |
|
|
|
"old news will be priced in at X time" is ridiculous, on its face.
That's what I am arguing against and, from my perspective is what you are arguing FOR but just saying X=Right now You're basically saying that news is never priced in. Where does that get us? I'm saying that the market -- quite obviously -- reacts to news. The fact that markets are dynamic and news ubiquitously available (i.e. traders don't live under a rock) suggests that it is constantly being priced in. This is by definition. What I'm saying is that recent news suggests increased exposure and thus increased future demand -- speculators are accounting for that. You're saying that good news drives demand, and that we haven't seen that reflected in the market. That's fine. But speculators pricing in news ≠ demand. When speculators expect a rise in exposure/adoption/new blood, they buy. That's exactly what "pricing in the news" is. That doesn't mean that new investors won't enter, and it doesn't mean that the trend won't reverse.
The premise here is one I don't buy and that's speculators alone determine price. I believe that speculators have 0 actual knowledge and just flail about and react more irrationally then they'd like you to believe. I know this isn't a popular opinion here and wont' bother arguing it What determines price if not those who trade? The "price" you seem to allude to is not the "price" reflected on the market (by exchanges). Hence, our conversation. Re #2, yeah, who knows what will happen tomorrow? Maybe following a momentum shift, there will be a slew of bad news that will propel the market downwards in tune with momentum. What does that have to do with anything? Are you telling me that in that case, we will have to wait weeks or months for the market to price in the news? Markets are dynamic -- they don't sit around waiting for people to twiddle their thumbs.
You're talking about this as if this is just a linear process: people read news, they learn about bitcoin, then they buy some. You take into account absolutely no market activity outside of that.
No, of course there are a lot more forces at play then JUST this linear process and I'm taking the idea of being "priced in" in a much longer term view than I think you are. The ripples from any single news spread out and can have larger reactions than just the immediate future. It seems to me that the idea of "priced in" that you are trying to define is by definition whatever the price is right now and that just doesn't seem useful to discuss. For example, prior to the reward halving when the price was still like 7ish there were people saying that the halving was already "priced in" and the minute the halving happened and the price didn't instantly double they said "told you so it was already priced in!" In my opinion, the slow price increase that followed the month or two after is a result of this halving and it just had a delayed effect. We are in real uncharted territory with bitcoin and we really don't know what events will have what impacts. Even the most experienced trader (who can hardly handle real markets) has no prayer of accurately predicting pricing. This is the disconnect. The very meaning of the words "priced in" indicates "at the present time". If something "will be priced in in the future" then it is, obviously, not priced in currently. I think there is a clear difference between news -- upon which speculators react dynamically -- and future demand spurned by that news over time. |
|
|
|
malawi, you got some balls. You know that you just threw away US$2 Million, right?
Oh no, I gotta rush to buy back in a few days or a couple of weeks. Have got some standing orders in the 100-125 range just in case. I like your style. $100 bitcoins, here we come! |
|
|
|
seizing something doesnt make it legally seized. thats why there are courts and judges. the legal system is in place for a reason, right?
Sure, they've been seized and not forfeited. But if you look into asset forfeiture in the US, you'll find that it is much easier to achieve forfeiture than to convict. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
