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

[adamstgBit]

operation stabilize bitcoin complete!

[1714703970]

1714703970

[Walsoraj]

http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/bond/10_year

Set period to 1yr. Rate liftoff? If so, zombie apocalypse just around the corner.

[adamstgBit]

in other news

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

[JorgeStolfi]

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.

there is Economics the Hard science (the Austrian leaning View)

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

Take the current bitcoin economy, for example (to stay on topic).  It has a single fungible "product" that can be moved instantaneously and for free across the globe, without "shelf life", etc..  It should be simple to make an economic theory for it that could predict its price, in the short or long range.

But one runs into problems right at the definition of "supply" and "demand".  The number of existing bitcoins is known and objective, but that cannot be considered the "supply" for price fixing purposes because some large holders will not sell (they say) for less than 10 k$/BTC, so it is like if those coins did not exist.  To simulate the price in the short run, what matters is the amount of coins that could be sold or bought for prices in the 200$--2000$ range.  The order books at the exchanges do not tell us that, because many traders keep their working assets outside the exchanges, and because there may be substantial OTC trading going on. 

As for demand, there is some demand for several utilitarian purposes, but we have no data about its magnitude. There is much evidence that it is dwarfed by the speculative demand for investment at various time scales.  And we do not have complete data about that either, for the same reasons above.

More importantly, the demand and supply of bitcoin can change drastically and unpredictably in a matter of hours, because they depend on the beliefs that buyers and sellers have about its future -- and those beliefs mat be radically changed by news, regulation, competition, etc..

So, what is the use of a neat and "rigorous" equation that relates price, supply and demand, if one cannot even objectively define -- much less measure and predict -- the future supply and demand?

[adamstgBit]

http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/bond/10_year

Set period to 1yr. Rate lift off? If so, zombie apocalypse just around the corner.

lol it was 3% last time i checked.

operation stabilize  US economy Complete!

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[molecular]

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

Hmm. 'verge of collapse'? where have I heard that before?

Right: URGENT, Bitcoin is on the verge of collapse !!!

[Walsoraj]

http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/bond/10_year

Set period to 1yr. Rate lift off? If so, zombie apocalypse just around the corner.

lol it was 3% last time i checked.

operation stabilize  US economy Complete!

3% is the threshold. If it hits 4%, the apoc begins. At 5%, no hope for a cure.

[Adrian-x]

And even the simplest "economic atoms" are already way more complicated than a tropical storm...

Lol, that's the FUD the lie, the simplest "economic atoms" are supply and demand.

No, the simplest "economic atoms" are suppliers and consumers.  Try making a mathematical model for either of them...

No you on the wrong track suppliers and consumers are a construct. You need to go back to the point you were born, it was demand (need) and supply (a loving parent) and as the relationship evolved (eating of an apple if you're religious) the earth the supply and people the need, the economic atoms of supply and demand are a fact in nature that determine the optimum for managing the limit of supply - and not accepting the limit is innovation,  psychopaths gaining control create a self managing system that is now obsolete.

[NotLambchop]

operation stabilize bitcoin complete!
http://38.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m89v1eXiYf1rprjz2o1_500.gif

adam crool 2 dogs

[adamstgBit]

operation stabilize bitcoin complete!
[img crazy gif /img]http://

adam crool 2 dogs

lol

your right...

this gif is deadly

[adamstgBit]

in other news

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

this is pretty big news

and points to extreme price stability if you ask me.

[JorgeStolfi]

You seem to think it is somehow not 'hard science' to study dynamic nonlinear systems, and that no good can come of such study. [ ... ]You answer does not address whether it is possible that there might exist a hard science of economics, as opposed to a mere philosophy, which was the original point.  Characterizing economics as a dynamic nonlinear system (which it certainly is), does not invalidate it as a subject of hard science.

The problem is not that the economy is non-linear, the problem is that the system is too big and complex, and it has so many unpredictable external inputs, that we cannot build a useful scientifically sound model for it.  To have any hope of being predictive, the model would have to include corporations and consumers of all size, governments, religions, the media, greedy dishonest bankers, etc. etc.  One cannot predict predict its behavior with a few simple equations of three or four variables whose values have to be guessed.  That is not science, it is pseudo-science.

[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

Probably because I'm not native english. You figured out why I'm also not very specific in my english writing.
Lets convert to Dutch, then I'm able to have an intellectual discussion with you because I don't master all the words in english.

Of course, this is an English language thread, and therefore you should expect to exchange ideas in English - if you are participating in such a thread.

Like I already said in my earlier post, I was merely responding to some ideas that you already expressed in your earlier post, which seemed to be a blanket suggestion to get rid of government, which maybe it would be a good idea for you to refrain from such controversial topics in the event that you are NOT capable of adequately describing your thoughts. 


I do NOT consider describing thoughts as an intellectual conversation, but instead just basic communications.   On the other hand, since you seem to NOT like to be told or advised what to do, then you can do whatever the fuck you want in regards to whether you attempt to engage yourself in potentially controversial topics.

I doubt that your ideas would be better in dutch than they are in English... surely, you would be able to express yourself more eloquently, but that does NOT take away the fact that your earlier statement was way too broad and made a claim without any attempt at supporting such claim.. which seems to be more of a lack of logic rather than a lack of English language skills.  

In any event, I will just accept that you did NOT really mean what you said in your earlier post, and you and I need NOT further pursue this topic... at least, NOT for now.

BTC to the Moon... CCMF!!!

[xyzzy099]

You seem to think it is somehow not 'hard science' to study dynamic nonlinear systems, and that no good can come of such study. [ ... ]You answer does not address whether it is possible that there might exist a hard science of economics, as opposed to a mere philosophy, which was the original point.  Characterizing economics as a dynamic nonlinear system (which it certainly is), does not invalidate it as a subject of hard science.

The problem is not that the economy is non-linear, the problem is that the system is too big and complex, and it has so many unpredictable external inputs, that we cannot build a useful scientifically sound model for it.  To have any hope of being predictive, the model would have to include corporations and consumers of all size, governments, religions, the media, greedy dishonest bankers, etc. etc.  One cannot predict predict its behavior with a few simple equations of three or four variables whose values have to be guessed.  That is not science, it is pseudo-science.

You are describing dynamic nonlinear (chaotic) systems:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamical_system#Nonlinear_dynamical_systems_and_chaos

[Adrian-x]

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.

there is Economics the Hard science (the Austrian leaning View)

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

Take the current bitcoin economy, for example (to stay on topic).  It has a single fungible "product" that can be moved instantaneously and for free across the globe, without "shelf life", etc..  It should be simple to make an economic theory for it that could predict its price, in the short or long range.

But one runs into problems right at the definition of "supply" and "demand".  The number of existing bitcoins is known and objective, but that cannot be considered the "supply" for price fixing purposes because some large holders will not sell (they say) for less than 10 k$/BTC, so it is like if those coins did not exist.  To simulate the price in the short run, what matters is the amount of coins that could be sold or bought for prices in the 200$--2000$ range.  The order books at the exchanges do not tell us that, because many traders keep their working assets outside the exchanges, and because there may be substantial OTC trading going on. 

As for demand, there is some demand for several utilitarian purposes, but we have no data about its magnitude. There is much evidence that it is dwarfed by the speculative demand for investment at various time scales.  And we do not have complete data about that either, for the same reasons above.

More importantly, the demand and supply of bitcoin can change drastically and unpredictably in a matter of hours, because they depend on the beliefs that buyers and sellers have about its future -- and those beliefs mat be radically changed by news, regulation, competition, etc..

So, what is the use of a neat and "rigorous" equation that relates price, supply and demand, if one cannot even objectively define -- much less measure and predict -- the future supply and demand?

This is why I think there is a possibility a 3 letter abbreviated agency may have invented Bitcoin, the monetarist have good models but they are ineffective because it is unenlightened self interest that adjust the unit of measure (the currency) , Bitcoin adds only one thing a fixed quantity of supply, this limits only the outer limits as the actual supply is manage by random individuals.

[findftp]

in other news

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

this is pretty big news

and points to extreme price stability if you ask me.

Well, as long as it is a 45 degree slope pointing to the moon it's okay.

[JimboToronto]

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.

1. I don't watch television (since 1995) except baseball games before they were available online. Just say no to TV.

2. I always avoided Fox, even though it's accessible in southern Canada. Just say no to Republican propaganda.

3. Fox is as bad as any propaganda medium anywhere. Just say no to sleaziness.

Just say no.

[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.

Did a thousand years of alchemy prove that chemistry didn't exist?

That does not counter (or even relate to) my argument. I talked about individual preference, you talk about non-rigorous vs. rigorous pursuit of a field.


Then again, I invited that response to a degree: I agree with Jorge's conclusion that there cannot be "rigorous economic arguments" in what is conventionally called a "discussion about economics".

I disagree with his idea that academic economics (or at least, parts of it) are or can become "hard sciences" in the sense that the field provides testable predictive models for fragments of economic reality.

[grappa_barricata]

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

Of course, this is an English language thread, and therefore you should expect to exchange ideas in English - if you are participating in such a thread.

Like I already said in my earlier post, I was merely responding to some ideas that you already expressed in your earlier post, which seemed to be a blanket suggestion to get rid of government, which maybe it would be a good idea for you to refrain from such controversial topics in the event that you are NOT capable of adequately describing your thoughts. 


I do NOT consider describing thoughts as an intellectual conversation, but instead just basic communications.   On the other hand, since you seem to NOT like to be told or advised what to do, then you can do whatever the fuck you want in regards to whether you attempt to engage yourself in potentially controversial topics.

I doubt that your ideas would be better in dutch than they are in English... surely, you would be able to express yourself more eloquently, but that does NOT take away the fact that your earlier statement was way too broad and made a claim without any attempt at supporting such claim.. which seems to be more of a lack of logic rather than a lack of English language skills.  

In any event, I will just accept that you did NOT really mean what you said in your earlier post, and you and I need NOT further pursue this topic... at least, NOT for now.

BTC to the Moon... CCMF!!!

What is your point, exactly? None at all.
I think I'm starting to get you. For the last month I through you were a passive-aggressive asshole. Only now I realize my mistake! You are the grand diva of drama-queen country. All hail to the grand diva! Let her reign be long and prosperous, lets celebrate her glorious daily menstruation.