|
The current bid wall at 4.48 is just peanuts with what was there a few minutes ago - there was a bid for 50k bitcoins. It probably stoped the downturn - but why was it removed?
|
|
|
|
What do you mean?
It's gone. |
|
|
|
That mountain of bids at $4.47 and $4.45 right now looks rather impressive. Someone with a lot of cash doesn't want bitcoins to fall much further (than they already have). They really put a floor underneath the falling market. Will it hold?
Or maybe some early adopter is trying to sell off the rest of his stash? If you sell into this wall and he was serious - it bounces and you are the sucker. If you buy his last stash of bitcoins and he pulls that floor from under your feet - bitcoin crashes and you are the sucker. Risky business. |
|
|
|
As soon as enough traders become convinced it will not move, it will move.
I have quite a few grand that finally transferred into Dwolla a week or two ago. Usually I buy right away, but I'm now one of those waiting to be convinced it won't move before I help move it... (The Dwolla lady that called me, wondering what the heck, and verifying my identity, sounded very nice. I just hope Dwolla doesn't get Goxed) But you are not selling what you have yet? |
|
|
|
It's amazing how activity on this board also mirrors the volume traded. Even the chatter is dead. Nothing to do but sit back and wait for some event to push BTC either up or down.
That's what The Manipulator wants you to think. |
|
|
|
I noticed the same thing happening. I wonder what their goals are here.
That's simple - he is trying to drive us crazy! |
|
|
|
...
Bulls really need to step up and start propping up this pyramid, and soon. And I don't mean by posting here, I mean by cash injection. Once the downward spiral starts accelerating it may be too late.
I agree with you here.
It needs cash injection by existing bitcoin users and/or getting new people into it.But wasn't bitcoin supposed to be something else then just a pyramid scheme? |
|
|
|
The deleted wall is back, divided in more or less equal parts at every 50 cents.
Just ignore it, I am sure the owner of it will also back off if we bite them.
He saw the price rising faster than expected, so dropped his asks and raised his price a little bit. It's what i would do if I thought the price had a good chance of going above 5.20. But did you see that chance? In other words would you do that in current (or more precisely recent) circumstances if you had this amount of bitcoins on 5.20? Just asking. I just said in the post you quoted, that is what I would do. The real story is likely someone bought in on the dip in the past couple days, and is now waiting for a mini rally to sell them for a nice tidy profit. Rinse and repeat. You know, like people usually do with penny stocks? All this talk of a manipulator trying to keep bitcoin down just reeks of people new to the markets, who need something to blame. Well, not exactly - you guarded it with 'if I thought the price had a good chance' - my question is did you see that chance? This is just me being curious. I think that 'The Manipulator' meme is entertaining. |
|
|
|
The deleted wall is back, divided in more or less equal parts at every 50 cents.
Just ignore it, I am sure the owner of it will also back off if we bite them.
He saw the price rising faster than expected, so dropped his asks and raised his price a little bit. It's what i would do if I thought the price had a good chance of going above 5.20. But did you see that chance? In other words would you do that in current (or more precisely recent) circumstances if you had this amount of bitcoins on 5.20? Just asking. |
|
|
|
No one actually knows how money originated, and that essay doesn't do anything to illuminate the question. It is rife with glib assumptions. I like David Graeber's theory on the origin and original purpose of money, as it is at least based on observations of actual human cultures, as opposed to the bold evidence-free theorizing Szabo indulges in. But even it is highly speculative on this question. OK - I linked that essay to support the thesis that money has a business case even without government - the theory you linked to is not contradicting this. Once again what interests me are the total costs vesus the total benefits of the system - when it will start to break even? With any startup this is the most basic part of the plan - but here nobody tries to make this calculation which worries me, maybe it is just a pyramid scheme? |
|
|
|
I agree that this is insignificant now - but in theory this is the mechanism that will make bitcoin profitable. This is the same mechanism with every money, the exchanges enabled by it makes it globally profitable for humanity even if they do have a cost to produce and is not consumed in any way.
Incorrect. Money exists to provide a revenue stream to governments which issue the currency in the first place. It'd be very hard to tax commerce without money. So unlike bitcoin, yes, other currencies (or, more correctly, governments) DO have a business model. At the moment the only way to fuel the bitcoin network is by fresh infusions of investor cash. Money existed long before any governments: http://szabo.best.vwh.net/shell.html |
|
|
|
don't be so harsh  drawing trendlines is an art or do you complain to your barrista when he hands you his cafe latte with - last week the pattern was different!  Are you saying that next time that trend line will be drown even lower? |
|
|
|
Making a better bitcoin is precisely why I think it would be good. Fresh start, do something more innovative next time. Innovation would be easier from a small user-base (less concern for backwards-compatibility, etc.)
And with less dollars on the line there's less motivation for attack. One of the many reasons the various shitcoins (aside from their lack of merits) are problematic is they're very vulnerable to a double spend attack from any bitcoin pool that decides to squash them. If a promising new alternative to the current bitcoin chain does come along it'll also be likewise vulnerable from people with a vested interest in the current chain. I am waiting for a currency without that wasteful mining. |
|
|
|
|
"technical fundamentals" - isn't that an oxymoron?
|
|
|
|
|
It took about a week for my withdrawals back in July.
|
|
|
|
Exactly. Bitcoin value is determined 100% by speculative sentiment. Bitcoin does not generate any revenue directly, it's impossible to project an ROI or P/E since there ARE no earnings.
To be precise there are probably some earnings by the Silk Road folks - but I guess this is not significant in any way. I suspect those are a complete wash. The dealers sell their received bitcoins as soon as they get them, and customers just buy at the market price. End income to bitcoin community: nil. I agree that this is insignificant now - but in theory this is the mechanism that will make bitcoin profitable. This is the same mechanism with every money, the exchanges enabled by it makes it globally profitable for humanity even if they do have a cost to produce and is not consumed in any way. |
|
|
|
Charts are great for helping determine whether a trend is still in progress. That's their main use. They are lagging indicators, but if used properly can be great ones for fine tuning your trades assuming a higher likelyhood of continued trading range, bull or bear trends. So far charting has been 100% correct in confirming continuation of bitcoin trends (both bull and currently bear).
Yeah - but what to do now when the two main trends are in conflict? |
|
|
|
Exactly. Bitcoin value is determined 100% by speculative sentiment. Bitcoin does not generate any revenue directly, it's impossible to project an ROI or P/E since there ARE no earnings.
To be precise there are probably some earnings by the Silk Road folks - but I guess this is not significant in any way. |
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin, at least in some views, was created to insulate us from the corrupt financial institutions - but if there was an overall tendency to get rid of risky assets plus USD denominated debt crizis causing USD shortages, then bitcoins would be the first to be liquidated. At least by sophisticated 'big players'. This might be similar to gold - i.e. probably good in the long term, long term in the standard meaning - that is years ahead, but bad in the short term of months. Any thoughts?
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
