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

[findftp]

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?

I said Fox is just as bad, but he means it's even worse. So, fox is ahead in telling bullshit.

[findftp]

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.

Who are you to decide what I should or shouldn't be showing?
It looks like you are very sure of yourself. I don't like that attitude.
I have a very good reason for keeping it short and you obviously don't know why.

[adamstgBit]

really liking that not a shit is given about that wall on bitfinex.

its just stopping the rally, i wonder how long it will hold.

[Hunyadi]

3500 ask wall at Bitfinex 

*couch*

[adamstgBit]

really liking that not a shit is given about that wall on bitfinex.

its just stopping the rally, i wonder how long it will hold.

What rally?  I see us maybe being in the 300s in November hopefully when ETF gets announced.  And NOte I am PermaBull

feels like thats all thats left.

PermaBulls

[Hunyadi]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/09/12/us-usa-bitcoin-cftc-idUSKBN0H71FU20140912?feedType=RSS&feedName=technologyNews

Has this been posted here yet?

[adamstgBit]

when all cower in fear



we remain!

[JayJuanGee]

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?

I said Fox is just as bad, but he means it's even worse. So, fox is ahead in telling bullshit.

Oh... I agree that Fox is ahead in telling bullshit.. that it is why it tends to be a good tactic (even though maybe a bit inflammatory) to throw out an insult to someone by suggesting that s/he relies too much on Fox... hehehehe...   

[JorgeStolfi]

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?

Self-interest certainly plays a role.  For one thing, banks and financial companies employ the most economists and pay the best salaries.  That fact has an enormous influence on the axioms that economists choose, e.g. what should be the goal of economic planning and regulation, and what is taught at economics schools.  Even those economists who reject those axioms choose their own axioms based on their political preferences or business interests.  How could it be otherwise?

Lack of data is also another problem.  The world's economy is such a complicated system that no one can know its state and workings well enough to make any useful predictions.  Technological innovation is a major source of uncertainty. So are natural events and disasters (wars, droughts, eruptions, oilfield discoveries, nuclear meltdowns, etc.)

Yet another problem is that few if any economists have the mathematical knowledge and tools that are needed to usefully model a system of that size.

For example, some very crude models of the economy start assuming a linear feedback between, say, supply or price of each major product (oil, coal, electricity, grain, etc.) on the price of other products.  Mathematically, such a model includes a matrix of coefficients with tens of thousands of rows and columns, that express those mutual influences.    So, even if economists could get the data to fill that matrix, they would be unable to use that model for predictions or insight.  They would probably do what they do now: pick a few products, guess a few entries in that matrix, and pretend that they can make useful predictions from them alone, without considering the rest of the matrix. But one of the most important things one learns in linear algebra is that one cannot use intuition or shortcuts to predict the behavior of such linear feedback systems: small changes in just one of those millions of numbers could make the system behave in completely different ways.

[iram3130]

really liking that not a shit is given about that wall on bitfinex.

its just stopping the rally, i wonder how long it will hold.

What rally?  I see us maybe being in the 300s in November hopefully when ETF gets announced.  And NOte I am PermaBull

There is nothing like PermaBull or PermaBear, you trade like according to situation.
If you trade with emotion then you will never earn big enough with trading.

[Bittings]

really liking that not a shit is given about that wall on bitfinex.

its just stopping the rally, i wonder how long it will hold.

What rally?  I see us maybe being in the 300s in November hopefully when ETF gets announced.  And NOte I am PermaBull

feels like thats all thats left.

PermaBulls

DOZENS!

https://i.imgur.com/JqYTmjn.gif

EDIT: I don't know whats worse on this forum, the trolls or the god damn invalid image.

[JayJuanGee]

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.

Who are you to decide what I should or shouldn't be showing?

You may need to employ some reading skills - because I am describing my perception about what you did.  I am NOT telling you what the fuck to do.. how the fuck can I tell someone what to do? 

It looks like you are very sure of yourself. I don't like that attitude.

Yeah... I better NOT be too sure of myself.  That could be a problem.   Instead, I should be a fucking wimp and waffle a bit more.. maybe look down more and maybe I should question more about whether black really is black.. that might make you feel better.   

I have a very good reason for keeping it short and you obviously don't know why.

Yes... go ahead and keep any potential reasons to yourself.  I like a little mystery.

You know that you can believe whatever you want, and say whatever you want.   This dialogue began between us because of something that you said that was full of incompleteness.  I was merely responding to that incompleteness and providing you an opportunity to explain.  Instead of explaining, you spouted out a few additional quasi-ridiculous points.  Yes, you have a right to be ridiculous if you so choose.. that's the freedom in posting in a quasi-anonymous internet forum... I suppose.

[Adrian-x]

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?

It hasn't been neglected thinkers like Ludwig von Mises and Hayek create a distinct divide between the social science and the actual science. the social science in economic = at what point do people start paying more for lobster than for cod, when calculating a supply and demand problem. the actual science is when there is a limited supply, the price will increase if the demand stays constant increases, or if there is monetary inflation and the demand stays constant the price will rise consistently if the new money is introduced equally.

it is for the exact reason that individuals are irrational and some are slow to learn, that Mises rejects the notion that you can objectively manage a central controlled money supply.

ie, it is because economists (of influence - Keynesian) blur the lines between science (as in the flow of gas moves from a high to a low pressure) to a social science as in (consumption is stable because per capita consumption of Ikea Lamps is constant - when what is actually happening is per capita consumption of lamps is declining, and due to the low quality more people are replacing them creating the illusion of stability.) and using that metric as an objective measure of price stability.

there is Economics the Hard science (the Austrian leaning View)
and there is Economics the soft science (the Keynesian View)

both are valuable, it just so happens that a central controlled economy is not an effective way to manage resources objectivly, so the soft science in economics should not venture parts the private hands of corporations.

the hard facts in any science are universal and can be leveraged but not manipulated, the same is true in economics the rest is the social science of economics.

[xyzzy099]

The world's economy is such a complicated system that no one can know its state and workings well enough to make any useful predictions.  Technological innovation is a major source of uncertainty. So are natural events and disasters (wars, droughts, eruptions, oilfield discoveries, nuclear meltdowns, etc.)

The science of physics is an attempt to understand All of Reality, which is generally considered to be an even larger set of phenomena than your description of economics  

Are you suggesting that since we can never really understand All of Reality, that no 'hard science' of physics can exist, and that such a purported 'hard science' of physics can't have any predictive power or utility?

[Adrian-x]

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?

Self-interest certainly plays a role.  For one thing, banks and financial companies employ the most economists and pay the best salaries.  That fact has an enormous influence on the axioms that economists choose, e.g. what should be the goal of economic planning and regulation, and what is taught at economics schools.  Even those economists who reject those axioms choose their own axioms based on their political preferences or business interests.  How could it be otherwise?

Lack of data is also another problem.  The world's economy is such a complicated system that no one can know its state and workings well enough to make any useful predictions.  Technological innovation is a major source of uncertainty. So are natural events and disasters (wars, droughts, eruptions, oilfield discoveries, nuclear meltdowns, etc.)

Yet another problem is that few if any economists have the mathematical knowledge and tools that are needed to usefully model a system of that size.

For example, some very crude models of the economy start assuming a linear feedback between, say, supply or price of each major product (oil, coal, electricity, grain, etc.) on the price of other products.  Mathematically, such a model includes a matrix of coefficients with tens of thousands of rows and columns, that express those mutual influences.    So, even if economists could get the data to fill that matrix, they would be unable to use that model for predictions or insight.  They would probably do what they do now: pick a few products, guess a few entries in that matrix, and pretend that they can make useful predictions from them alone, without considering the rest of the matrix. But one of the most important things one learns in linear algebra is that one cannot use intuition or shortcuts to predict the behavior of such linear feedback systems: small changes in just one of those millions of numbers could make the system behave in completely different ways.

that's why Bitcoin wins in the end, there are no system controllers making mistakes - not understanding systematic financial contagion, just millions individuals cooperating for the optimum outcome in pursuit of the Nash equilibrium.

[Xer0]

interessting what the effect of scotland leaving uk would have on bitcoin (euro loosing value)

[hmmkay]

interessting what the effect of scotland leaving uk would have on bitcoin (euro loosing value)

Euro losing value? Rather the pound losing value..

[NotLambchop]

The world's economy is such a complicated system that no one can know its state and workings well enough to make any useful predictions.  Technological innovation is a major source of uncertainty. So are natural events and disasters (wars, droughts, eruptions, oilfield discoveries, nuclear meltdowns, etc.)

The science of physics is an attempt to understand All of Reality, which is generally considered to be an even larger set of phenomena than your description of economics  

Are you suggesting that since we can never really understand All of Reality, that no 'hard science' of physics can exist, and that such a purported 'hard science' of physics can't have any predictive power or utility?

Please.  Before writing, read.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science

It's only wikip.  Learning lite.  Just enough to point to what you don't know.

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[JimboToronto]

Ridiculous FUD

Another brand new trollbear I see. Be grateful Noob Jail was discontinued

You forgot to mention lying cultist bagholders loosing the coins they bought at $680.

Troll faiiiil.