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

[dakota neat]

well i am out...good luck

[1715444552]

1715444552

[empowering]

weak hands being shaken, over and over again. this is nothing new and its just a lol when people panic sell. You guys realize GABI is starting to trade tomorrow right, as in 200 mill USD in attaining bitcoin.... (yes, it may come from large scale miners, but its still big news).

1st of September is just a rumour/ myth. Having spoken to them, I would be very, very surprised if we magically saw them buying lots of Bitcoin as of 9AM tomorrow morning.

agreed... but they did say that they would start trading starting in sept... not expecting massive 200mm buying straight off on day 1 ...

I do believe there is another player that has hinted they will start trading "around start of sept" too  

[X7]

this Video teach us a simple yet important thing: First Follower: Leadership Lessons from Dancing Guy


Click the image to watch the video




in Bitcoin's case, Hal finney was that brave first follower

Hilarious... you have no idea how many times I have been the first crazy shirtless guy at a party... the lone nut... ha ha .. nothing to do with being a leader...  but when I was younger ......the music really used to grab me....  ah man.. those were the days...

good vid  

lol that was great - man when will people stop nerfing bitcoin with all this needless manipulation... let it grow...

[empowering]

One last design added to my store


All sales commission (a lousy 10%) goes towards replacing the coins stolen by Brewster et al.

Bitcoin not to be associated with a murdering c*nt pleasethankyou.

a symbol  of liberation.. depending on perspective.

I'm considering the perspective of all the innocent people he murdered. Not a liberating experience, I'm lead to believe.

I hear you.. but then I feel the same way about Bill Clinton tbh.

[inca]

What is driving the market, right now. During the last downturn it was pretty clear that a mixture of fear and TA were spot on. However, TA doesn't seem to be so applicable outside of a rout. So, what the hell is really driving the price, here. Is there some bad news we don't know about because there seems to not only be good news coming out, but less than priced in good news.

What was "driving the market" between end of 2011 and end of 2012?



Mostly price stagnation, and when there's finally a decent rally (to $16), it gets dumped back to half of that. And keep in mind, at that point, the "ATH" was $32, by that time about 1.5 years in the past.

Sorry, but "stagnation" sounds more like description, rather than explanation What was driving the stagnation? Would it be too tinfoil to suggest that it was coins, stolen from MtGox, sold gradually?

Not sure I agree. I understand the desire to read the market in more fundamental ways, to understand "reasons" for price movements, but most of the time, that line of reasoning goes back to fundamentals and news - and that, in my experience and opinion, misses a big part of what actually drives the market more than half the time.

Anyway, I'm sure there is a narrative for the stagnation period of 2012 that is slightly more explanatory. In essence: necessary consolidation after an extremely volatile period ($1 -> $32 -> $2), together with the fact that no "real world" events took place that were strong enough to overcome that market sentiment (like: Argentinians decide big time to use btc as an inflation hedge).

As for a possible (partial) explanation of the current stagnation, see my point below...

Plus, while I don't have the tools to test this hypothesis, I consider it completely possible that a price suppression regimen is in place, by large accumulating entities (i.e. buying off-exchange at roughly market price, selling a portion on-exchange to suppress market price, repeat). I know it's what I would do if I would plan to buy in to the tune of 100k coins now.

I suspect it can't be done for long. OTC market, just like exchange market, has its own depth chart, it's just invisible. Big OTC purchases would drive OTC price up. OTC market would run out of cheap coins. And miners would start arbitraging: Sell 100K coins off-exchange to suppressors for $550, bought them back from them on-exchange for 500$, rinse, repeat

I don't claim I believe with certainty that this is going on, I am submitting that, if a large enough entity (or several) would plan to buy large amounts of coins, and have some patience, this would probably a scenario worth exploring. In terms of tax efficiency, waiting for the ETF would probably be the better choice, but in terms of price control, the method I described would in principle beat a fund that is, ultimately, positive feedback linked to the markets.

I disagree that miners would prevent this taking place. No disrespect to miners, they're the backbone of the network, but amateur miners seem to be not necessarily the most economically rational actors. Go look around in this forum how often the fall for the fallacy: 'It's sunk cost anyway, I'll let my outdated miners run as long as they produce coins', and how often more economically minded users need to tell them that the actual calculation needs to be based on total cost of future production of coins (mainly: energy costs) vs. number of coins bought at market for the same costs.

Larger mining operations are undoubtedly much more economically savvy, but I've argued over and over again that I believe that, with the increasing "professionalization" of Bitcoin and Bitcoin mining, short-term profit opportunity will probably outclass long-term speculative investment. In other words: large miners sell more than they hold, especially considering that we are currently nowhere near a new uncontested bull market (which means the ratio of sold vs. held coins can change if the market sentiment changes, and miners might hold more than they sell if they feel it's a sure thing price will go up.)

Finally, we have plenty of evidence that public market price as determined by on exchange trading is a major reference point for off exchange transactions (just one example: the SR coin auction, where every party that spoke on it refered to "the market price" as if it were the obvious metric). Binding a large mining operation to you in a mid to long-term contract, maybe even offering a premium (although, from hearsay, I've only heard of large holders being made sub market offers, off exchange), then using some fraction of the coins to strategically depress price, would seem like a very good strategy to me, and relatively risk free: if it works, market price stays low, and accumulation proceeds at a low cost. If it fails, and price refuses to be depressed, the account value of coins gained so far appreciates, which is a sweet little consolation price.

Arbitrage by miners could throw a spanner in the works of this mechanism, but profits would be comparably marginal: the goal of the accumulator is not to destroy the on-exchange price, just to keep a lid on it. For the arbitreur miner, the reward is small (sold his coins at market price, is able to buy them back slightly below perhaps), and more importantly: for the large operations, the initial problem would re-appear - what to do with a large amount of coins, when you in reality prefer to hold USD (by my assumption that professional mining operations are short-term opportunistic, and not long-term married to Bitcoin success).

It's a tragedy of the commons style scenario: presumably, miners would be better off selling directly on the exchanges, since the higher volume generated there would ultimately drive up price, but individually, they fear the risk of lower profits because of increased selling pressure on exchange, so they seek arrangements off exchange.

I'll say it one more time: The above is (motivated, I think) speculation. I make no claim this is necessarily happening. I only point out that I believe it is a possible, maybe even probable, mechanism taking place, accounting - at least partially - for the current stagnation period.

Interesting

Both interesting and extremely likely. We know that at least one bank was planning to bid for US marshalls coins.

Oda says the goal of the accumulator is to keep a lid on prices. But if you think about it, it is possible to actually depress exchange prices with enough selling power if you are not seeking profit. In fact in such a thin market a bad actor such as a rogue central or private bank could easily both build a large % of bitcoin holdings OTC whilst simultaneously attacking the price on exchange with coordinated technical selling.

[Richy_T]

Explanation

What a mess, Chartbuddy. A real mess.

Chartbuddy glitch or bit stamp glitch?

This is tame compared to what we have seen in the past. Nice to see a bit of choppiness though.

[empowering]

Which one of these belongs to Aminorex?

[ImI]

One last design added to my store


All sales commission (a lousy 10%) goes towards replacing the coins stolen by Brewster et al.

Bitcoin not to be associated with a murdering c*nt pleasethankyou.

a symbol  of liberation.. depending on perspective.

I'm considering the perspective of all the innocent people he murdered. Not a liberating experience, I'm lead to believe.

I hear you.. but then I feel the same way about Bill Clinton tbh.

i cant remember of any clinton tshirts at festivals...

also you may "feel" the same about bill clinton, but that doesnt lead to them being the same in a historic point of view.

[abercrombie]

BTC-E volume dried up 20 minutes ago. Guessing the Bot owner lives in the United States, West Coast.  

Perhaps Silicon Valley?

Watch out for suicide attempts, some kid threatening to jump out the window from his mother's basement.

Spoke too soon, BTC-E volume spikes again!

[JorgeStolfi]

if people would really believe that gabi has an incredible impact the price would be much higher, or do you think they want to buy AFTER gabi puts in their 200mil?

There is much noise about GABI and little information.  If GABI works like SMBIT, they will buy only if and when clients buy their shares.  The 200 M$ is what they HOPE to get in 1 year.  SMBIT (~107'000 BTC, ~50 M$) is not growing; I haven't seen any reason why GABI would be more attractive.

[empowering]

One last design added to my store


All sales commission (a lousy 10%) goes towards replacing the coins stolen by Brewster et al.

Bitcoin not to be associated with a murdering c*nt pleasethankyou.

a symbol  of liberation.. depending on perspective.

I'm considering the perspective of all the innocent people he murdered. Not a liberating experience, I'm lead to believe.

I hear you.. but then I feel the same way about Bill Clinton tbh.

i cant remember of any clinton tshirts at festivals...

also you may "feel" the same about bill clinton, but that doesnt lead to them being the same in a historic point of view.

No you are right ... clinton has FAR more blood on his hands...  take a look.

[oda.krell]

I don't claim I believe with certainty that this is going on, I am submitting that, if a large enough entity (or several) would plan to buy large amounts of coins, and have some patience, this would probably a scenario worth exploring. In terms of tax efficiency, waiting for the ETF would probably be the better choice, but in terms of price control, the method I described would in principle beat a fund that is, ultimately, positive feedback linked to the markets.

I disagree that miners would prevent this taking place. No disrespect to miners, they're the backbone of the network, but amateur miners seem to be not necessarily the most economically rational actors. Go look around in this forum how often the fall for the fallacy: 'It's sunk cost anyway, I'll let my outdated miners run as long as they produce coins', and how often more economically minded users need to tell them that the actual calculation needs to be based on total cost of future production of coins (mainly: energy costs) vs. number of coins bought at market for the same costs.

Larger mining operations are undoubtedly much more economically savvy, but I've argued over and over again that I believe that, with the increasing "professionalization" of Bitcoin and Bitcoin mining, short-term profit opportunity will probably outclass long-term speculative investment. In other words: large miners sell more than they hold, especially considering that we are currently nowhere near a new uncontested bull market (which means the ratio of sold vs. held coins can change if the market sentiment changes, and miners might hold more than they sell if they feel it's a sure thing price will go up.)

Finally, we have plenty of evidence that public market price as determined by on exchange trading is a major reference point for off exchange transactions (just one example: the SR coin auction, where every party that spoke on it refered to "the market price" as if it were the obvious metric). Binding a large mining operation to you in a mid to long-term contract, maybe even offering a premium (although, from hearsay, I've only heard of large holders being made sub market offers, off exchange), then using some fraction of the coins to strategically depress price, would seem like a very good strategy to me, and relatively risk free: if it works, market price stays low, and accumulation proceeds at a low cost. If it fails, and price refuses to be depressed, the account value of coins gained so far appreciates, which is a sweet little consolation price.

Arbitrage by miners could throw a spanner in the works of this mechanism, but profits would be comparably marginal: the goal of the accumulator is not to destroy the on-exchange price, just to keep a lid on it. For the arbitreur miner, the reward is small (sold his coins at market price, is able to buy them back slightly below perhaps), and more importantly: for the large operations, the initial problem would re-appear - what to do with a large amount of coins, when you in reality prefer to hold USD (by my assumption that professional mining operations are short-term opportunistic, and not long-term married to Bitcoin success).

It's a tragedy of the commons style scenario: presumably, miners would be better off selling directly on the exchanges, since the higher volume generated there would ultimately drive up price, but individually, they fear the risk of lower profits because of increased selling pressure on exchange, so they seek arrangements off exchange.

I'll say it one more time: The above is (motivated, I think) speculation. I make no claim this is necessarily happening. I only point out that I believe it is a possible, maybe even probable, mechanism taking place, accounting - at least partially - for the current stagnation period.

Interesting

Both interesting and extremely likely. We know that at least one bank was planning to bid for US marshalls coins.

Oda says the goal of the accumulator is to keep a lid on prices. But if you think about it, it is possible to actually depress exchange prices with enough selling power if you are not seeking profit. In fact in such a thin market a bad actor such as a rogue central or private bank could easily both build a large % of bitcoin holdings OTC whilst simultaneously attacking the price on exchange with coordinated technical selling.

I have made a similar distinction a bit earlier in cypherdoc's thread. The difference between the 'accumulation' scenario and the 'attack on the network' scenario is in the ratio of coins held vs. coins sold to suppress price, and in the long-term profitability goal.

The accumulator expects positive return on his investment in the long run (accepting short to mid term losses, perhaps), the attacker is willing to actually lose money on this method, since the goal is preserving a status quo at all costs.

That said, I don't consider the attacker scenario likely. Central banks, governments are not particularly nimble. More likely, imo, that if anyone is forward thinking enough to install such a regimen, it'd be a private sector actor.

[empowering]

if people would really believe that gabi has an incredible impact the price would be much higher, or do you think they want to buy AFTER gabi puts in their 200mil?

There is much noise about GABI and little information.  If GABI works like SMBIT, they will buy only if and when clients buy their shares.  The 200 M$ is what they HOPE to get in 1 year.  SMBIT (~107'000 BTC, ~50 M$) is not growing; I haven't seen any reason why GABI would be more attractive.

200 mm is what they are aiming for in first six months to start off with

and they are just one player...

nothing makes any difference to you Jorge..  even if BTC went to $100,000 tomorrow and become the defacto world currency you would still be trying to shit on it... so it is becoming less and less interesting to "talk" with you..  

[oda.krell]

if people would really believe that gabi has an incredible impact the price would be much higher, or do you think they want to buy AFTER gabi puts in their 200mil?

There is much noise about GABI and little information.  If GABI works like SMBIT, they will buy only if and when clients buy their shares.  The 200 M$ is what they HOPE to get in 1 year.  SMBIT (~107'000 BTC, ~50 M$) is not growing; I haven't seen any reason why GABI would be more attractive.

It pains me to agree with El Stolfi, but, yeah. That's my understanding as well: they hope to rake in $200M and buy accordingly, not that they're sitting on that amount waiting to spend it from Sept. 1st.

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[adamstgBit]

its time to buy the news is terrific and so is the price.

[X7]

its time to buy the news is terrific and so is the price.

It is always time to buy... Bitcoin is the bailout for the people

[empowering]

if people would really believe that gabi has an incredible impact the price would be much higher, or do you think they want to buy AFTER gabi puts in their 200mil?

There is much noise about GABI and little information.  If GABI works like SMBIT, they will buy only if and when clients buy their shares.  The 200 M$ is what they HOPE to get in 1 year.  SMBIT (~107'000 BTC, ~50 M$) is not growing; I haven't seen any reason why GABI would be more attractive.

It pains me to agree with El Stolfi, but, yeah. That's my understanding as well: they hope to rake in $200M and buy accordingly, not that they're sitting on that amount waiting to spend it from Sept. 1st.

I agree , for sure, with the HOPE or AIM bit ... and they do state "up to 200mm" but I am pretty sure that Masters has feathered his arrows ; )

also the "in the first six months" + "to start off with"  is important too..

I put more stock in Daniel Masters, than I do Jorge, not much.. but at least a little more.. sure one is talking his book, (and his past books are pretty impressive reads) but the other is totally blinkered at best, or totally not genuine at worst, though seems quite likeable.. which makes it worse.

At least one of them married a total "£%!£%%

[wachtwoord]

Great movie. And a great quote in this context

Great movie? That was the most boring, most meaningless piece of junk I ever saw.

[oda.krell]

Great movie. And a great quote in this context

Great movie? That was the most boring, most meaningless piece of junk I ever saw.

What can I say. I'm a sucker for boring, meaningless movies, as long as they feature beautifully composed crane shots.