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

[adamstgBit]

the great digital currency wars have started.
we are bitcoin.
your economies will adapt to service us.
resistance is futile.

[1714988692]

1714988692

[1714988692]

1714988692

[1714988692]

1714988692

[1714988692]

1714988692

[1714988692]

1714988692

[1714988692]

1714988692

[wachtwoord]

Make it illegal. Come on, I dare you!

[xyzzy099]

What are you going to do with your now illegal BTC?

Again, BTC wouldn't be illegal.  Converting to USD would be illegal.  You could sell for other currencies in countries not hostile to Bitcoin.  If somehow all the countries of the world were to criminalize exchanges between Bitcoin and their currencies (very big stretch here), there would always be a market between Bitcoin and Gold, or anything else with actual value.

It wouldn't matter if it was, really.  Ownership of gold bullion was illegal in the US from 1932 to 1971, but I think it still retained it's value pretty well if you happened to have some anyway.

[Dragonkiller]

The point is that governments will stamp out crypto, like they got rid of BSCs, if they perceive that crypto is actually going to do what it was intended to do. 

Government can never completely eliminate currencies based on decentralized consensus blockchains.  They can only make it more difficult to trade this currency for their own currency, and vice versa.  If government pushes Bitcoin into a black market currency, it will still exist.  In fact, if the war on drugs is anything to judge by, a war on Bitcoin will only make it worth more.

No. It makes me cringe every time someone says this.

It's the truth.  Please read here: http://economics.about.com/od/demand/ss/black_market.htm

The supply of bitcoins are not reduced if they are made illegal. There will still be 21 million of them.

No.  The supply of Bitcoins being sold for USD will be greatly reduced.  That would be the effect of any legislation criminalizing Bitcoin in the United States.  Converting Bitcoin into USD will suddenly make that seller a criminal.  This will make it much more difficult to buy Bitcoin, thus resulting in an increased BTC/USD price.  Most exchanges for BTC/USD will be shut down.

Mining would become easier.

You're missing the main point anyway - the utility of illegal drugs are not affected by their legal status. The utility of BTC is greatly reduced if it is made illegal. And what's the "intrinsic" value of BTC in the first place? Its utility.

No.  Bitcoin's utility as a store of value would not be affected.  Only its use as a currency would be affected.  The use as a store of value is what most directly translates into its exchange price today.

What are you going to do with your now illegal BTC?

Again, BTC wouldn't be illegal.  Converting to USD would be illegal.  You could sell for other currencies in countries not hostile to Bitcoin.  If somehow all the countries of the world were to criminalize exchanges between Bitcoin and their currencies (very big stretch here), there would always be a market between Bitcoin and Gold, or anything else with actual value.

The truth is if the US decides to be hostile towards BTC, most other countries would follow for fear of economic sanctions etc. This may not be true in the future, but it is the reality today.

Now say you want to purchase a car, a house etc with your wealth stored in BTC. What incentive does the merchant have to accept your illegal BTC instead of legal USD? Maybe you can persuade him by paying more... What benefit does BTC offer him over USD for him to risk confiscation, prison etc?

[empowering]

The truth is if the US decides to be hostile towards BTC, most other countries would follow for fear of economic sanctions etc. This may not be true in the future, but it is the reality today.

Now say you want to purchase a car, a house etc with your wealth stored in BTC. What incentive does the merchant have to accept your illegal BTC instead of legal USD? Maybe you can persuade him by paying more... What benefit does BTC offer him over USD for him to risk confiscation, prison etc?

Truth is they won't decide to.

[edwardspitz]

Take a look at this:



I guess someone is going all in with 7^e-8 BTC order But seriously, does anyone know if an order this size is even possible? Using the web interface the smallest order you can do is 0.001 BTC

Edit: It is on Finex

[Raystonn]

The point is that governments will stamp out crypto, like they got rid of BSCs, if they perceive that crypto is actually going to do what it was intended to do. 

Government can never completely eliminate currencies based on decentralized consensus blockchains.  They can only make it more difficult to trade this currency for their own currency, and vice versa.  If government pushes Bitcoin into a black market currency, it will still exist.  In fact, if the war on drugs is anything to judge by, a war on Bitcoin will only make it worth more.

No. It makes me cringe every time someone says this.

It's the truth.  Please read here: http://economics.about.com/od/demand/ss/black_market.htm

The supply of bitcoins are not reduced if they are made illegal. There will still be 21 million of them.

No.  The supply of Bitcoins being sold for USD will be greatly reduced.  That would be the effect of any legislation criminalizing Bitcoin in the United States.  Converting Bitcoin into USD will suddenly make that seller a criminal.  This will make it much more difficult to buy Bitcoin, thus resulting in an increased BTC/USD price.  Most exchanges for BTC/USD will be shut down.

Mining would become easier.

You're missing the main point anyway - the utility of illegal drugs are not affected by their legal status. The utility of BTC is greatly reduced if it is made illegal. And what's the "intrinsic" value of BTC in the first place? Its utility.

No.  Bitcoin's utility as a store of value would not be affected.  Only its use as a currency would be affected.  The use as a store of value is what most directly translates into its exchange price today.

What are you going to do with your now illegal BTC?

Again, BTC wouldn't be illegal.  Converting to USD would be illegal.  You could sell for other currencies in countries not hostile to Bitcoin.  If somehow all the countries of the world were to criminalize exchanges between Bitcoin and their currencies (very big stretch here), there would always be a market between Bitcoin and Gold, or anything else with actual value.

The truth is if the US decides to be hostile towards BTC, most other countries would follow for fear of economic sanctions etc. This may not be true in the future, but it is the reality today.

Now say you want to purchase a car, a house etc with your wealth stored in BTC. What incentive does the merchant have to accept your illegal BTC instead of legal USD? Maybe you can persuade him by paying more... What benefit does BTC offer him over USD for him to risk confiscation, prison etc?

You're speaking again in terms of using Bitcoin as a currency.  Obviously that would be handicapped with criminalization of exchange between BTC and USD.  We've already covered that.  Bitcoin would still function as a store of value, however.  It could still be used to transfer value between people nearly instantly, and could still be exchanged for Gold, Silver, and anything else of value outside the jurisdiction of hostile governments.  Bitcoin would likely become a proxy for Gold, as it's much easier to safely move.  Imagine half the market cap of Gold moved into Bitcoin.

[seleme]

I think you are overreacting, pretty weak dumps so far.

Also like the idea of creating muhammadCoin and relocating all the terrorists there.

How about you relocate to my DickCoin?

[Adrian-x]

What do you think crypto is intended to do? and by whom?

Cryptocurrencies are meant to allow payments that governments (and banks, which can be conflated with them)  cannot see, block, divert, or undo.

That is not explicit in Satoshi's paper, but seems to have been a basic assumption by most of the crypto fans, especially the most ardent ones. (Reducing credit card fees is not something that would get people that excited about, is it?).

Most cryptocoins seem to be designed and supported with that goal in mind.  Some bitcoiners are even adopting other coins because they do not see bitcoin as sufficiently robust in that regard.  Few coins, if any (Ripple perhaps? I don't  know about it)  are designed to allow the same level of control that governments now have on bank transfers.

it looks like some connections to the central banks get it:
http://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/news/pboc-official-sovereignty-bitcoin-internet-age-will-change-china-around-world/2014/07/07

Bitcoin is not about facilitating illicit activities, it’s about subverting them. 

[Raystonn]

The reality is the US Government already knows what I've stated to be the truth.  They will not attempt to ban exchange between USD and BTC.  They will instead attempt to control it, regulate it, and tax it.  They will insert themselves into key points of infrastructure to gather intelligence.  As mining hardware is expensive, they will not attempt to destroy Bitcoin through a proof of work attack (51%).  That would only result in movement to another proof of work algorithm, making their hardware investment worthless.  Instead, they will focus on gathering intelligence.  The blockchain was/is the first step.  Data collection at exchanges is the next.  It's actually much easier to trace the flow of Bitcoin than the flow of cash.  So I would expect the US Government to happily support Bitcoin as it provides superior data on their enemies.

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[Bitcoin_is_here_to_stay]

I think short-term Huobi is going down and 'Stamp would follow.

[Bagatell]

What do you think crypto is intended to do? and by whom?

Cryptocurrencies are meant to allow payments that governments (and banks, which can be conflated with them)  cannot see, block, divert, or undo.

That is not explicit in Satoshi's paper, but seems to have been a basic assumption by most of the crypto fans, especially the most ardent ones. (Reducing credit card fees is not something that would get people that excited about, is it?).

Most cryptocoins seem to be designed and supported with that goal in mind.  Some bitcoiners are even adopting other coins because they do not see bitcoin as sufficiently robust in that regard.  Few coins, if any (Ripple perhaps? I don't  know about it)  are designed to allow the same level of control that governments now have on bank transfers.

it looks like some connections to the central banks get it:
http://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/news/pboc-official-sovereignty-bitcoin-internet-age-will-change-china-around-world/2014/07/07

Bitcoin is not about facilitating illicit activities, it’s about subverting them. 

Ireland central bank official warns virtual currencies ‘can challenge sovereignty of states’
http://www.pfhub.com/ireland-central-bank-official-warns-virtual-currencies-can-challenge-sovereignty-of-states-909/

[JorgeStolfi]

Bitcoiners are a broad church [ ... ]  [ Bitcoin is not ] a political tool invented by political extremists.  Bitcoin is a technology.  Like Bittorrent.  Like the Internet.  Like electricity.  Like guns.  Like fire.  Some people use it to make things; others to break and/or take things.

Just to pick a nit, something is "just a technology" while it remains confined to papers and lab demos.  Once it is deployed and used by thousands of people and moves millions of dollars, it becomes an "industry" or a "service"; and the question of what it could be used for is overshadowed by  what it is actually being used for.  Bitcoin was "just a technology" right after "Satoshi" posted their paper, but is not anymore.

But even pure technologies have their goals. When it was proposed, the goal of the internet was just to move information efficiently between computers.  While some people may have dreamed of many things fo it,  the many specific  goals that are now assigned to "the" internet -- like universal access,  freedom of information, anonymity, privacy, etc. --  were not goals of the technology.  In fact, until the 1990s, "the"  internet was a completely different thing than what it is now - politically, socially, economically.  

On the other hand, the goal of bitcoin as a technology was to be a global currency allowing p2p payments between anonymous arbitrary parties without a trusted intermediary and without a central  controlling authority.  Take away any of those goals, and the solution described by "Satoshi" does not make any technical sense. But I don't see how it possible to achieve those goals, without also

allowing payments that governments (and banks, which can be conflated with them)  cannot see, block, divert, or undo.

And that seems to be the conclusion of most bitcoin supporters, too.

EDIT: bolding

[aminorex]

I'm still wondering how on earth Chinese exchanges get their yuans now.

Bitcoin ATMs, among others.

[aminorex]

and central bank official warns virtual currencies ‘can challenge sovereignty of states’
http://www.pfhub.com/ireland-central-bank-official-warns-virtual-currencies-can-challenge-sovereignty-of-states-909/

"If somehow the future Internet only accepted RMB, this would not be feasible nor wanted.... In the future, in the Internet generation, every country will slowly relax sovereign control and even dilute the concept of sovereignty."

-- Xu Nuojin, PBoC, at China Internet Finance Forum (June 19, 2014)

[empowering]

What do you think crypto is intended to do? and by whom?

Cryptocurrencies are meant to allow payments that governments (and banks, which can be conflated with them)  cannot see, block, divert, or undo.

That is not explicit in Satoshi's paper, but seems to have been a basic assumption by most of the crypto fans, especially the most ardent ones. (Reducing credit card fees is not something that would get people that excited about, is it?).

Most cryptocoins seem to be designed and supported with that goal in mind.  Some bitcoiners are even adopting other coins because they do not see bitcoin as sufficiently robust in that regard.  Few coins, if any (Ripple perhaps? I don't  know about it)  are designed to allow the same level of control that governments now have on bank transfers.

it looks like some connections to the central banks get it:
http://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/news/pboc-official-sovereignty-bitcoin-internet-age-will-change-china-around-world/2014/07/07

Bitcoin is not about facilitating illicit activities, it’s about subverting them.  

Ireland central bank official warns virtual currencies ‘can challenge sovereignty of states’
http://www.pfhub.com/ireland-central-bank-official-warns-virtual-currencies-can-challenge-sovereignty-of-states-909/

This just made me think of this.....

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/inside-anglo-the-secret-recordings-29366837.html


http://youtu.be/8pJ_b_zN5nk

" Mr Bowe is asked by Mr Fitzgerald how they had come up with the figure of €7bn. He laughs as he is taped saying: "Just, as Drummer (then-CEO David Drumm) would say, 'picked it out of my arse'." "

[conspirosphere.tk]

Ireland central bank official warns virtual currencies ‘can challenge sovereignty of states’
http://www.pfhub.com/ireland-central-bank-official-warns-virtual-currencies-can-challenge-sovereignty-of-states-909/

Sovereignty pertains to the ppl 
For everything else, debt is the money of serfs.

[empowering]

Spot on comment

Just to pick a nit, something

Much like the internet Bitcoin will become a completely different thing  politically, socially, economically.  

The goal of bitcoin as a technology is to be a global network allowing p2p payments between pseudonymous arbitrary parties without a trusted intermediary and without a central  controlling authority.  Take away any of those goals, and the solution described by "Satoshi" does not make any technical sense. But I don't see how it possible to achieve those goals, without also

allowing payments that governments (and banks, which can be conflated with them) can see cannot see, but not block, divert, or undo.

And that seems to be the conclusion of a fair few bitcoin supporters, too.

FTFY

[kodtycoon]

...
Ireland central bank official warns virtual currencies ‘can challenge sovereignty of states’
http://www.pfhub.com/ireland-central-bank-official-warns-virtual-currencies-can-challenge-sovereignty-of-states-909/

This just made me think of this.....

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/inside-anglo-the-secret-recordings-29366837.html


http://youtu.be/8pJ_b_zN5nk

" Mr Bowe is asked by Mr Fitzgerald how they had come up with the figure of €7bn. He laughs as he is taped saying: "Just, as Drummer (then-CEO David Drumm) would say, 'picked it out of my arse'." "

If anyone hasn't heard those tapes please give them a listen, they say all that needs to be said about banks in Ireland.

they are a God damn joke. Not one if them went to jail. But yet Quinn who provided more jobs than any other business in the private sector and worked honestly, went to jail over not paying fines or something. Was only recently one of the head banksters at bank of Ireland walked free. And now we have to pay a "universal social charge" that's not far off 10% of income on top of extortionate tax to pay off the debt those fucks left's behind.