Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion

[koryu]

Also I know most people aren't interested but DOGE is seriously crashing right now.

haha, but its going up again... such rally, wow

[1714677511]

1714677511

[1714677511]

1714677511

[1714677511]

1714677511

[dreamspark]

Also I know most people aren't interested but DOGE is seriously crashing right now.

haha, but its going up again... such rally, wow

Its the dead dog bounce

[aminorex]

Of the last three lows above 600, consider an angle formed by rays from the first to the second and to the third. The former is parallel to a median trendline through the stable summer ascent in 2013 on a linear chart. The second is parallel to a similar trendline over the same period on a logarithmic chart.

Recall that the absolute rate of increase in the number of active wallets on a daily basis  is substantially greater than the rate during that low volatility ascent between capitulation and the foothills of the bubble, but the relative rate of increase is somewhat less.  Also recall that the price regresses to the 2.26 power of the number of active wallets.

We are again in a low volatility gradual ascent after a capitulation.  

My hypothesis, therefore, is that the actual forward support baseline will lie in that angle, until the next regime change.  To estimate the actual baseline predicted by this approach, I would need the blockchain.info charts back online, or else scrounge the data myself.  Actually I should probably do that as an exercise in any case.  When I get to it, unless events have invalidated my hypothesis, I will post it here.

[pietje]

Is it me or is blockchain.info down?

[chrisLG]

Is it me or is blockchain.info down?

Down: https://twitter.com/blockchain/status/443417329146540032

[JayJuanGee]

Many would consider what we have to be working, isolated echo chambers aside. For those people, the burden of proof is on YOU on why we should change, and the burden of proof is on YOU on as to why we're wrong, and why we should go through a huge upheaval to meet the desires of a small minority of people.

Please tell me more about how I would go about producing this kind of proof? I hope you don't mean "talk about it"?

For the extent of your attempts to lecture about this topic, you surely are pleading a high level of failure to understand.  It seems that both Octaft and I are repeating this theme in various ways to suggest that you cannot just make bare assertions about something being preferred without showing how it applies in real life... where has it been done... Is there a pilot program being applied somewhere?  You are providing nothing.   In the meantime, we have thousands of examples of various kinds of governments and their application... too numerous to list.  Neither Octaft nor I are embracing these various governments as being the solution, but each of us have been saying that if you are proposing another system, then let us know what that would be exactly and how it would play out.  We would NOT remove the whole US Government systems and asparatuses without having a plan.  Since it seems to be your idea to remove the government, then it is your job to come up with the plan, NOT those of us who are NOT proposing such removal.

You are truly pulling this summary of my previous statement(s) out of your ass.  Sorry to be so crude in my description of what you seem to be doing, but I have NOT made any assertions about human nature in ways that you are attributing to me.

I am truly sorry, but you seem to be misunderstanding me here. I reckon English is not your primary language? I didn't mean to put words in your mouth. I have stated that I have often seen this argument being made, as well as what sort of ideas usually follow. This doesn't necessarily mean, that you hold these same ideas, right? Well, to be fair, I find your way of expressing yourself confusing and I'm not quite sure what your points are most of the time. Please don't take this as an attempt to insult you.

Yes, YOU can attempt to search for some kind of weakness all that you want.  YOU are grasping at straws....   B/c you do NOT understand demonstrates a point that we are engaging in a fruitless battle, here, and it seems best that we just leave this topic until some point that you are able to come with some more concrete ideas or life examples or something beyond pure speculation and hypotheticals.

Look, guys - octaft and JayJuanGee. I have done this many times and I can see where this is going. You'll be asking me to provide proof that some other system would be better. You will ask me how this other system would work, how it would achieve this or that. And I'll be replying that I do not know, after which you will probably feel like you "won the debate" because I can't produce any counter arguments. When in fact my argument is precisely that I do not know. Neither do you. And that is the reason why none of us should be in charge of all of us. The point is that having one single system is a bad idea. Multiple choices are needed.

Currently, we do NOT have one single system.  There are a multitude of varying kinds of government systems in the United states... both on the federal level and then even more numerous examples on the local level.  You seem to have a tendency to oversimplify your rendition of facts and fail to provide specific examples or discussion points which provides very little confidence that you are attempting to accomplish anything beyond speaking in generalities.... which is a big waste of our time.

Self organizing systems and Emergent order exist in life all around us. Utilizing them for the full benefit of society just runs counter to our prevailing culture and financial status quo. I'm at a loss to explain this to you. If I knew how a free and decentralized society would organize itself it would cease being the superior option, because we could just go ahead and do exactly that, right now. Do you see what I mean? The superior alternative quite obviously is something you and I on our own can't think of, that is why it is superior. You are familiar with the concept of synergy, I presume?

There is nothing wrong with attaching references to wikipedia articles, and I have NO problems with the concepts described within the articles.  These concepts can be applied to existing systems or can be used to revise existing systems.

This is one of the reasons why the technology behind Bitcoin is so powerful. There is absolutely no way to predict all the ways how it will be used, by whom and for what purpose. People through trial and error, will come up with innovations so astounding that we probably can't even imagine them right now. They can innovate, without permission, because the technology is open source and decentralized. Yet here we are, on bitcointalk, proclaiming the superiority of decentralized open source financial technology, when in fact so far there has been little evidence that it is better right now. I find myself constantly amazed by the amount of bitcoiners who just don't seem to get this.

I believe that a lot of people involved in bitcoin already seem to agree on these points that bitcoin has the ability to assist us to reorganize society and to adopt truly revolutionary changes in the way that people  interact or even the distribution of benefits in society. So long as bitcoin continues to exist, these kinds of innovations (yet to be known precisely) are going to continue to come about.  We can agree that these kinds of innovations are taking place and are going to continue to take place.  However, that does NOT mean that we are going to agree that we should throw away our existing system, prior to the more broader implementations of these various innovations.

[BitChick]

I guess Bitcoin was on Conan last night!  http://teamcoco.com/video/79157/bitcoins-coo-explains-what-bitcoin-is

It has moments.  Perhaps we can get a new demographic with Conan's fans? 

[KeyserSoze]

why do you think, while most people don't want to live in a dog eat dog world, that we will have one in a free society?

naivete at its finest. why did we develop a code of laws to begin with, because everyone is an angel?

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[KeyserSoze]

In the end it boils down to the question of whether you trust people in general. I do. And if you don't, you're afraid that they'll be mean to you without the presence of some punishing force...I would suggest traveling around a bit more.

It isn't a matter of trust. We have history to show us people are animals. While it has lately become vogue to sneer at the U.S., our laws, police and fire forces are the reason people KEEP coming here in droves. Unfounded trust provides a scammer's paradise because people are animals.

Edit: nevermind. I'm going to skip ahead a few pages. From time to time when they're focused on price I forget how annoying and dim Libertarians and Anarchists are. I need to jump ahead to some dinosaur charts or something. The naivete is exasperating.

[zyk]

why do you think, while most people don't want to live in a dog eat dog world, that we will have one in a free society?

naivete at its finest. why did we develop a code of laws to begin with, because everyone is an angel?

why do we hodl bitcorns ?....to fuck the next sucker over, right?

too bad that TBF is fucking us over in the meantime

[JayJuanGee]

These are  are real fantasy land examples, if you are of the belief that you could establish infrastructure and/or practices to accomplish either one of these without some kinds of community consensus (in other words govt-like input)

Naked assertions are so tiresome.

You have a tendency to remove relevant context from my quotes...


Here, my quote above came from a point in which I was referring to your assertion that we are going to achieve flying cars and magical tubes, but you failed therein or even subsequently to describe how those innovations could be accomplished in some world free of government.  You seem to be suggesting that government impedes innovations... So Yes, you seem to be making naked assertions. 

My point, on the other hand, is NOT making any assertion, but merely asking you to provide some clothes for your assertion(s), which in later posts you pretty much admitted that these assertions were mere examples of the vast possibilities of a world without government.  Nearly, pure speculation on your behalf, no? 


Also, your subsequent criticism of my response is to attempt to get me to do the work for you to suggest that I have some kind of obligation to provide evidence to back up my assertion(s), when I am merely questioning the adequacy of your assertions.   


MY point ids, if you are going to make an assertion about flying cars or magical tubes, then give us some context about how that will work, in your perceptions of world possibilities...,. without such context, your description of possible worlds seem pie in the sky... 

[F-bernanke]

why do we hodl bitcorns ?....to fuck the next sucker over, right?

No, Same reason as why we hodl GOLD.

Because when hodling USD/EUR you are sure to get fucked over.

[MAbtc]

Nobody posts TA on this forum anymore. 

[UnDerDoG81]

why do we hodl bitcorns ?....to fuck the next sucker over, right?

No, Same reason as why we hodl GOLD.

Because when hodling USD/EUR you are sure to get fucked over.

With GOLD you have at least something in your hands, no matter if it is really worth the price or not. Bitcoins are just bits, only virtual, nothing manifested. You cant hold it in your hands like money (yeah its only paper), gold, ice cream or whatever. I think most people, including me, have problems with this.

[flynn]

Nobody posts TA on this forum anymore. 

TA = Tyrannosaurus Analysis

[F-bernanke]

With GOLD you have at least something in your hands, no matter if it is really worth the price or not. Bitcoins are just bits, only virtual, nothing manifested. You cant hold it in your hands like money (yeah its only paper), gold, ice cream or whatever. I think most people, including me, have problems with this.

Gold only has value because people give it value, never the less, I hold gold as wel as a SHTF hedge, but I think BTC will be more succesfull.

[Spaceman_Spiff]

why do we hodl bitcorns ?....to fuck the next sucker over, right?

No, Same reason as why we hodl GOLD.

Because when hodling USD/EUR you are sure to get fucked over.

With GOLD you have at least something in your hands, no matter if it is really worth the price or not. Bitcoins are just bits, only virtual, nothing manifested. You cant hold it in your hands like money (yeah its only paper), gold, ice cream or whatever. I think most people, including me, have problems with this.

So would you value a turd over a bitcoin, because you can hold it in your hands?  (if so, I have some stuff I want to sell you  )
How bout the digital movie file for the next big block buster, which hasn't been released yet.  Not tangible, but you should be able to make some money out of it, no?

[BitChick]

Nobody posts TA on this forum anymore.  

I feel inadequate in my TA abilities.  No fancy charts or anything.

But here is my attempt:

Bitcoin was on Conan.  Conan said the description of Bitcoin was "bullshit" as he put it, but I think the fact that it was on Conan at all is bullish.  

Next (this one I am actually serious about) news today says that Jim Harper, director of information policy studies at the Cato Institute, is joining the Bitcoin Foundation.  He was involved with lobbying for Paypal.  This will definitely give legitimacy to Bitcoin and should cause serious investors eyes to open and funds will follow. http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/03/11/bitcoin-foundation-bolsters-its-ranks/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

My prediction, $700 by the end of the week.  $800+ by next week.

[JayJuanGee]

I was merely attempting to refer to Octaft's hypothetical  in which he seemed to be attempting to describe a preset amount (such as 30%).  Something like this could be either compelled or voluntary... I was merely playing along with the hypothetical... but I admit that I may have lost the point about whether such a hypothetical was going to compel such contributions or leave them up to individuals.

There is no such thing as compelled charity. If it is compelled, it is not charity.

Surely, we must all realize by NOW that certain individuals, including Billyjoeallen (based on his earlier comments), is NOT going to contribute if voluntary ... unless such a charity meets all his likely impossible to accomplish and vague parameters..

I realize no such thing. I see nothing that he has said that has any relation to his willingness to pay voluntarily to charities. That is all in your imagination. I expect that he deliberately avoided making any such mention specifically to hook you with you biases and prejudices.

By the way, would you mind stating your definition of the word "theft"? I would love to hear what that is.

Again, you seem to be engaging in some kind of lame attempt to distract, and to cause me to perform work on your terms.  Maybe you have control issues, or a failure/refusal to engage in a meaningful dialogue?

Likely, we should all realize by now, that our definitions of theft are likely NOT materially different from one another.  We have been engaging in discussions of government and whether a government is necessary to carry out varying functions.  These varying functions are NOT theft, merely b/c some people feel that they do NOT want to contribute... or they want to set their own terms.  It is NOT really clear how either you or Billyjoeallen want to contribute.  To me it appears that anything short of complete voluntary will cause people like you to opt out of paying.. but surely you will be wanting to get some of the benefits... such as clean air or such as material goods like fancy cars or speedy tubes.  IN FACT, probably the need for prison and fines and tax penalties are exactly made for people like you and billyjoeallen b/c if you are NOT coerced into paying taxes, you will NOT contribute.  YOU have to be forced.