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

[windjc]

Surprisingly consistent bullish channel on Houbi with increasing volume.

[1715626671]

1715626671

[1715626671]

1715626671

[1715626671]

1715626671

[JorgeStolfi]

Define "large number of people".

If it is clearly stable and long term, even a few tens of thousands of legitimate users can be counted as success, I guess.  But note that there must be enough payment volume to support the miners through fees, once block reward dwindles.

[wachtwoord]

What happened at Huboi 2 hours ago? 

[Cassius]

Define "large number of people".

If it is clearly stable and long term, even a few tens of thousands of legitimate users can be counted as success, I guess.  But note that there must be enough payment volume to support the miners through fees, once block reward dwindles.

And in the interests of making it a fair experiment, do you ever worry that your posts/articles might prevent that limited adoption happening (which would seem very unscientific)? And if not, what is the purpose of making them?
Finally, do you have a hat that you would be prepared to eat in the event that your threshold for adoption is met?

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[razibuzouzou]

What happened at Huboi 2 hours ago?  

I am not sure the problem comes from huobi, I didn't catch anything strange on Coinorama

edit: actually, it may depend on the API being used

[Trolololo]

Big spike in Huobi 1d chart.





Also in the Huobi 1m chart:

[JorgeStolfi]

As for the rest of the bitcoin protocol, and the Satoshi blockchain in particular, I am more skeptical than ever.

From you posting history, you seems much more interested in the timing of Chinese people eating and sleeping, rather than the design of blockchain.

I already answered that too, maybe 15,998,822 posts after that other question.  I am satisfied that the technical aspects of the bitcoin protocol are sound. (Except for the fact that it relies on a mathematical conjecture for which there is no evidence whatsoever; but if that conjecture fails, all internet payment schemes will collapse, not just bitcoin.)  It is the economical, political, and practical aspects that I am very skeptical about.

The sleeping and eating patterns of the Chinese are relevant to understanding what will happen to the price, which, you must agree, is an important factor in predicting its success.  They can indicate, for example, whether the volume there is fake or not, which exchanges are leading the market, why those Overstock and Winklevoss noises have no effect on price, etc.  Not as enlightening as dinosaurs, but infinitely more than any TA (even my own Chinese Slumber Method) or those log-scale straight line extrapolations.

[JorgeStolfi]

And in the interests of making it a fair experiment, do you ever worry that your posts/articles might prevent that limited adoption happening (which would seem very unscientific)? And if not, what is the purpose of making them?

I doubt that this thread has more than 1000 readers.  If having one skeptical poster here can prevent the success of bitcoin, then you should all dump your coins and get out of this losing game, as fast as you can.

Independently of its probability of success as defined above, bitcoin may be a fun gambling game, but is a terrible investment, because there is no reliable way to estimate its future value.  Unfortunately some sleazy salesmen are touting bitcoin to unwary people as a good investment, even as a hedge against the 1%/yr inflation of the dollar or the 6-7%/yr inflation of Brazil.  (Even with the recent spurt, Bitcoin's annualized inflation rate since january has been ~100%/yr.)  We see plenty of examples right here.  (Sure, if one had a time machine and could invest in September 2013, the return would be fantastic; but, with that tool, playing the roulette at Las Vegas would be even better.)  Thus if you want to help someone, tell him/her NOT to invest in bitcoin.

[JustAnotherSheep]

Big spike in Huobi 1d chart.

Beached whale?

[JorgeStolfi]

You only need an extremely rough estimate of future value to make this a good investment as long as the estimate is several orders of magnitude above the current price.

The collective mind of the market obviously does not believe in that...

[Cassius]

And in the interests of making it a fair experiment, do you ever worry that your posts/articles might prevent that limited adoption happening (which would seem very unscientific)? And if not, what is the purpose of making them?

I doubt that this thread has more than 1000 readers.  If having one skeptical poster here can prevent the success of bitcoin, then you should all dump your coins and get out of this losing game, as fast as you can.

Independently of its probability of success as defined above, bitcoin may be a fun gambling game, but is a terrible investment, because there is no reliable way to estimate its future value.  Unfortunately some sleazy salesmen are touting bitcoin to unwary people as a good investment, even as a hedge against the 1%/yr inflation of the dollar or the 6-7%/yr inflation of Brazil.  (Even with the recent spurt, Bitcoin's annualized inflation rate since january has been ~100%/yr.)  We see plenty of examples right here.  (Sure, if one had a time machine and could invest in September 2013, the return would be fantastic; but, with that tool, playing the roulette at Las Vegas would be even better.)  Thus if you want to help someone, tell him/her NOT to invest in bitcoin.

You're not just posting in this thread. You've written articles about bitcoin and you're advising your students not to go near it.
I don't think that's going to have a serious effect on bitcoin's long-term adoption prospects, either. It may even be beneficial.
I'm just not entirely sure you know why you spend so much time here.

[wachtwoord]

You only need an extremely rough estimate of future value to make this a good investment as long as the estimate is several orders of magnitude above the current price.

The collective mind of the market obviously does not believe in that...

lol @ perfect market theory. There are endless examples of why that theory is as flawed as can be. The market is retarded (every market is, shallow markets more than others) and there lies the opportunity to buy assets for less than they're worth.

[billyjoeallen]

@Jorge
I'm curious. You're an academic, and a scientist, I believe. So any theory you hold must be falsifiable in order to be viewed as credible.
Under what criteria would you entertain the idea that you might be wrong about bitcoin, or cryptocurrency in general?

I answered this some 6,223,678,221 pages ago on this thread.  "Success" will be when bitcoin (or crypto) gets used by a large number of people because it is cheaper/faster/safer/easier/whatever than the alternatives.  Not because one has a BTC stash to burn, not to support the cause, not to evade taxes or make illegal payments, not because it is hip, not to speculate with, not out of curiosity, etc.

Offline key/address generation and asymmetric crypto-signing of "digital checks" are undeniable wins that I am sure will be widely adopted eventually.  As for the rest of the bitcoin protocol, and the Satoshi blockchain in particular, I am more skeptical than ever.

What's notable is that Trolfi admitted he couldn't be argued out of his position, so only empirical evidence will convince him.

[wachtwoord]

@Jorge
I'm curious. You're an academic, and a scientist, I believe. So any theory you hold must be falsifiable in order to be viewed as credible.
Under what criteria would you entertain the idea that you might be wrong about bitcoin, or cryptocurrency in general?

I answered this some 6,223,678,221 pages ago on this thread.  "Success" will be when bitcoin (or crypto) gets used by a large number of people because it is cheaper/faster/safer/easier/whatever than the alternatives.  Not because one has a BTC stash to burn, not to support the cause, not to evade taxes or make illegal payments, not because it is hip, not to speculate with, not out of curiosity, etc.

Offline key/address generation and asymmetric crypto-signing of "digital checks" are undeniable wins that I am sure will be widely adopted eventually.  As for the rest of the bitcoin protocol, and the Satoshi blockchain in particular, I am more skeptical than ever.

What's notable is that Trolfi admitted he couldn't be argued out of his position, so only empirical evidence will convince him.

So taking part in discussion is no longer useful for him. He needs to sit back and wait.

[sidhujag]

Doing some simple economics tells you at this price Bitcoin is a great investment.. all signs are a go not sure why I would tell anyone not to invest other than those who dont have a grasp on supply demand and cant see the skew towards higher demand in the future. Just that those that I would tell wouldnt have a high enough IQ to understand what I was saying without fully going through the learnig curve of understanding all of the basic dynamics of bitcoin investment. So to average people I tell them read about it.. to smarter ppl  I tell them yes its a buy.

[mmitech]

windjc didn't respect the terms of our bet, we made a deal that each one has to keep 20 BTC in a separate address that he controls so we can check all the time, but soon after he used the 20 BTC again, I think he thought I would just check once instead I had the address on my watching list.

be a man or stop pretending to be one. I withdraw my bet.  

[xalex]

It's the Pimp dinosaur!

Big spike in Huobi 1d chart.

https://i.imgur.com/54L72h2.png

there is clearly an urgent need for some dinosaurs

http://i.gyazo.com/7694e645bc7f207bcb7e5ab1de144593.png

[billyjoeallen]

@Jorge
I'm curious. You're an academic, and a scientist, I believe. So any theory you hold must be falsifiable in order to be viewed as credible.
Under what criteria would you entertain the idea that you might be wrong about bitcoin, or cryptocurrency in general?

I answered this some 6,223,678,221 pages ago on this thread.  "Success" will be when bitcoin (or crypto) gets used by a large number of people because it is cheaper/faster/safer/easier/whatever than the alternatives.  Not because one has a BTC stash to burn, not to support the cause, not to evade taxes or make illegal payments, not because it is hip, not to speculate with, not out of curiosity, etc.

Offline key/address generation and asymmetric crypto-signing of "digital checks" are undeniable wins that I am sure will be widely adopted eventually.  As for the rest of the bitcoin protocol, and the Satoshi blockchain in particular, I am more skeptical than ever.

What's notable is that Trolfi admitted he couldn't be argued out of his position, so only empirical evidence will convince him.

So taking part in discussion is no longer useful for him. He needs to sit back and wait.

It's worse than that. A man who can't be persuaded by logic or reason is attempting to persuade others by logic or reason. That necessarily means the only people he could convince are people more open to logic and reason than he is himself. It's a hypocrisy that speaks more to the sorry state of academia than to anything else. These professors are not teaching students how to think. They are telling them WHAT to think.

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation