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

[JayJuanGee]

Sorry, but the belief that it is possible to get rid of governments, and that society will be better without them, is religion.

And while there is not much historical evidence suggesting a government-less society would or would not function due to absence of data,...

I think you can safely assume the planet functioned perfectly fine billions of years without having a government.

Yes, if there are less than a few thousand people scattered through all corners of the earth, then probably there was NO government and no need for a government; however, when people started to live in community and to share resources and resources become limited, then the more need there is for a government.

Or the more likely a bully stands up because he has more power and strength than others so he can demand others to work for him.
Because others thought they were fed by him and were scared they were starting to worship him, a government was born.

If that's your understanding of what is government, then you have probably been watching too much Fox "news"

1. I don't watch television (anymore)
2. I never watched fox, I live in europe.
3. Fox is just as bad as almost any other network.

Sorry to oversimplify and to assume regarding your media viewing preferences (and to get it wrong), but to me it did sound as if you had been attempting to oversimplify the role of government into narrow sets of coercion and lack of voluntary participation - which are the same kinds of diversionary talking points that they engage in on Fox "news." 

If you have more subtle and nuanced views regarding the various aspects of the role of government, then you had NOT been showing such with your apparent exaggerated descriptors of government as a bunch of thugs.

In that regard, my point was that you may NOT need government if there are NOT very many people in the world or if you do NOT have to share resources, but as soon as you begin to have the development of large populations and when you need to share resources and the more you have relationships beyond the family the more that there are going to be developments of institutions that are government-like.. whether you call them government or if you call them something else...

Surely, it is possible that we are debating over semantics.. rather than practicality.

My suggestion is that modern societies cannot just go from their current state of complex and multitude of government to a state of NO government without various transitional plans and a large number of societal changes.. and really it seems to be pie in the sky to be describing such a society, because historically government like institutions exist in almost all societies with a large number of people beyond one large family.

Otherwise, if we were to attempt to transform various current societal set-ups into government-less states, then a lot of people with a variety of legitimate stakes in the current system are gonna get screwed, so if you are describing some pie in the sky "no government" society, then that description, in my thinking, is much too vague and does NOT really address how we would get from the present state of affairs to that future supposedly ideologically preferred state of affairs without providing some details about what is gonna look like and how do we get there and also need for a lot of give and take from a lot of different circles in order to have such transformations from the status quo.

[1714661786]

1714661786

[1714661786]

1714661786

[JayJuanGee]

Sorry, but the belief that it is possible to get rid of governments, and that society will be better without them, is religion.

And while there is not much historical evidence suggesting a government-less society would or would not function due to absence of data,...

I think you can safely assume the planet functioned perfectly fine billions of years without having a government.

Yes, if there are less than a few thousand people scattered through all corners of the earth, then probably there was NO government and no need for a government; however, when people started to live in community and to share resources and resources become limited, then the more need there is for a government.

Or the more likely a bully stands up because he has more power and strength than others so he can demand others to work for him.
Because others thought they were fed by him and were scared they were starting to worship him, a government was born.

If that's your understanding of what is government, then you have probably been watching too much Fox "news"

1. I don't watch television (anymore)
2. I never watched fox, I live in europe.
3. Fox is just as bad as almost any other network.

Fox is still ahead of the rest. Have fun on youtube

For the most part, Fox is pushed forward in its spread of the word (and various messages) by a narrow set of interests of the ideological rich elitists.  I am NOT sure how those kinds of circumstances can cause Fox to be "ahead" in any kind of meaningful and real world way?

[JayJuanGee]

Truth being told, the whole US 'media' culture is losing grip with reality in unprecedented ways... the Joe Sixpack with a Cowboy Hat that save the bombing day anyone?

That could be the Sylvester Stalone Rambo image of a true american... he he he... another fantasy..

[JorgeStolfi]

There cannot be rigorous arguments in that sort of subject.

Called it.

Maintaining your belief requires you to preemptively deny the possibility of being wrong, just like any other religion.

Quite the contrary.  Believing that your belief is certain and objective, rather than just probable and subjective, is the mark of religion.

There can't be rigorous arguments in economics or other "soft sciences".  It is pointless to debate if we start disagreeing right there...

(Haven't you never read priests, politicians, and assorted pundits "prove rigorously" all sort of weird and contradictory ideas, from creationism to communism to why gun control is good/bad and beyond?  Why do you think that those sciences are called "soft"?)

[JayJuanGee]

From now call me weak hand, I'm going to sell a small percent of my hodling coins.

Keep in mind people like you are causing the price to drop.
You can't sell and then complain that the prices go down.

I'm talking about 0,2 btc I'm just a poor hodler

The low quantity does NOT make it a smarter decision... however, you do need to invest according to your risk tolerance, and the fact that you are selling now probably demonstrates that either you were over invested or you have a variety of misconceptions about the current status of the market.

[ardana123]

Does anyone have the link to the video where Mark Karpeles is sitting on a bouncy ball giving an interview to a reporter?

thanks

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=LLjlOw3TVc8#t=79

thanks

[adamstgBit]

urgent! many are working to silence my warning! bitcoin is on the verge of collapse!

here are the reasons:

goxed,no one with a college degree will invest any serious sums into bitcoin after MTGOX fiasco, The market is currently only a playground for gamblers and fanatics
51% pool (easy came easy gone easy return)
crackers and governments and shit having 1200k coins(mtgox 200k, Ross Ulbricht 140k, crackers: 850k)
no new money
governments warning and banning
many scam IPOs including Ethereum and others
everyone is selling / spending
Dell / Expedia / Newegg / House dealer / etc are selling in real time
Winklevoss ETF will actually be shot down
GABI is already priced in but shorting on bitcoin or failed to raise fund ($200 million is just fake)
Dubai exchange won't create any thing new
more PayPal or whatever businesses "accept" bitcoin (immediately dump it on exchanges via market sells), the more it will crash.
etc..

ya, uh oh, thats gr8.

[spooderman]

@jorge

I've read through your posts, especially the ones from more recently.

You have begun to make sense. I've found my self convinced by some of your arguments.

Also, bitcoin has caused me too much anxiety for this year

I think it is time for me to throw in the towel.









Said NO ONE EVER

[grappa_barricata]

Truth being told, the whole US 'media' culture is losing grip with reality in unprecedented ways... the Joe Sixpack with a Cowboy Hat that save the bombing day anyone?

That could be the Sylvester Stalone Rambo image of a true american... he he he... another fantasy..

That is more than a fantasy, it is an engineered mythology that leverage pre-existing symbol associations in the brains of the masses. It appear ridiculous to us because somewhat we have been able to overcome the propaganda bombardment that mold beliefs of the vast majority. But new ways of one-to-many communication are making this propaganda ineffective, with time. Lots of time it seems.

[inca]

I just want to commend blitz on reducing the trollery on here last 24 hours..a breath of fresh air.

[dropt]

I just want to commend blitz on reducing the trollery on here last 24 hours..a breath of fresh air.

+1  I just reported warren_buffer

[NotLambchop]

...
That is more than a fantasy, it is an engineered mythology that leverage pre-existing symbol associations in the brains of the masses...

Wait, engineered by whom?  Hollywood/networks/youtube in on this?
Where are you from, grappa_barricata, and whose Kool Aid did you swig to think like that?

[oda.krell]

There cannot be rigorous arguments in that sort of subject.

Called it.

Maintaining your belief requires you to preemptively deny the possibility of being wrong, just like any other religion.

Quite the contrary.  Believing that your belief is certain and objective, rather than just probable and subjective, is the mark of religion.

There can't be rigorous arguments in economics or other "soft sciences".  It is pointless to debate if we start disagreeing right there...

(Haven't you never read priests, politicians, and assorted pundits "prove rigorously" all sort of weird and contradictory ideas, from creationism to communism to why gun control is good/bad and beyond?  Why do you think that those sciences are called "soft"?)

Agreeing with Sr. Stolfo here. Economics, politics, etc. are at least partially based on an individual's set of preferences. Arguing which of those sets is superior to another won't work unless you appeal to a set of higher axioms, which eventually always turn out to be ideologically motivated.

That said, there is one case in which a rigorous political/economical argument can be made: in showing that one's set of preferences is contradictory.

However, the problem is that even in those potentially rigorous arguments, one will need to make some assumptions that are not easily seen as "objective", so we're back to the first point - that economical/political objectivity doesn't practically exist.

[Chuckee]

I just want to commend blitz on reducing the trollery on here last 24 hours..a breath of fresh air.

+1  I just reported warren_buffer

I have reported you for lying to impressionable new investors. cut your loose before it's too late!

lmao! The bulls here are getting desperate to silence anyone who doesn't agree with their ridiculous ideas, you should know that.

Bitcoin has been falling in value all year and they don't want to be reminded of that. So ban anyone who doesn't agree!

[xyzzy099]

There can't be rigorous arguments in economics or other "soft sciences".  It is pointless to debate if we start disagreeing right there...

Is it really true that economics is a 'soft' science, or is it that people seem to have a ridiculously difficult time separating the philosophy of economics from the actual science of economics?

Every science, even the hardest of sciences, like mathematics and physics, also have multiple philosophies underlying them, but somehow people don't seem to get the two aspects confused.

Economics seems to be a special case in the sciences in a number of ways though.  It seems that scientific thought advanced steadily throughout history in pretty much every field except one - economics.  The ancient Greeks started to develop a science of economic thought, but somehow it seems to have just faded away, for reasons not entirely clear to me.  The situation stayed that way for quite some time, until Adam Smith reestablished economics as a science.

It has to make you wonder - how could one aspect of existence, especially one so vital to our well-being, be left so utterly neglected for so long?  Could it be that some folks have a vested interest in most people NOT having a real scientific understanding of economics?  Could it be that some people STILL have conflicted interests along these lines, and profit from blurring the lines between economic science and economic philosophy?

[WoopDeBoop]

I have a question i hope someone with more insight of market could answer:
Let's say you have a large sum of stolen bitcoins, i mean really a lot of them.
A lot of people, motivated and skilled in blockchain analysis is rightfully after you.
What can you do? You can't trust mixers or any other gambling sites, because the magnitude of the operation will either take too long or expose you.
In my opinion the only thing you can do is transfer them anonimously in a exchange, sell them and buyback with a legit account(s).
For this to work you must choose an exchange with good volume and also without hidden orders books, for those would let you know beforehand the entity of the inevitable loss you are going to take in the operation.

Could this be? don't throw tomatoes please  

There is no "take too long" if you're selling millions in stolen btc.....plus sites like FakeIDKing.com sell scans that pass verification all the time - I've used them for bitstamp before with no issues.


It's really not hard

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[adamstgBit]

I have a question i hope someone with more insight of market could answer:
Let's say you have a large sum of stolen bitcoins, i mean really a lot of them.
A lot of people, motivated and skilled in blockchain analysis is rightfully after you.
What can you do? You can't trust mixers or any other gambling sites, because the magnitude of the operation will either take too long or expose you.
In my opinion the only thing you can do is transfer them anonimously in a exchange, sell them and buyback with a legit account(s).
For this to work you must choose an exchange with good volume and also without hidden orders books, for those would let you know beforehand the entity of the inevitable loss you are going to take in the operation.

Could this be? don't throw tomatoes please  

There is no "take too long" if you're selling millions in stolen btc.....plus sites like FakeIDKing.com sell scans that pass verification all the time - I've used them for bitstamp before with no issues.


It's really not hard

lol where do you withdraw fiat tho?

you know wat

i dont wana know...

[Dump3er]

I just want to commend blitz on reducing the trollery on here last 24 hours..a breath of fresh air.

+1  I just reported warren_buffer

I have reported you for lying to impressionable new investors. cut your loose before it's too late!

lmao! The bulls here are getting desperate to silence anyone who doesn't agree with their ridiculous ideas, you should know that.

Bitcoin has been falling in value all year and they don't want to be reminded of that. So ban anyone who doesn't agree!

Keep on the good work! Cultist will keep denying heavy bear market. Let them dream of 100,000,000$ soon but later than tommorow. Someone has to pay our bills and they are willing to do this. So we keep selling them cheap coins in their bullrun(-traps).

[NotLambchop]

... Could it be that some folks have a vested interest in most people NOT having a real scientific understanding of economics?  Could it be that some people STILL have conflicted interests along these lines, and profit from blurring the lines between economic science and economic philosophy?

No.  Best you forget about it.



Edit: Could you give me an example of economic science and economic philosophy?
Also, check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science (haven't actually read the page, but should give you an idea of how blurry the line between science and phil. is).