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

[hyphymikey]

Keep selling chunks of coins no matter the price or trend, the sooner you run out of coins the sooner we can moon without you.

[1714957526]

1714957526

[1714957526]

1714957526

[1714957526]

1714957526

[JayJuanGee]

I am NOT sure if I understand this situation sufficiently in layman's terms. 

Does the Bitstamp announcement mean that after 28 days, everyone participating with Bitstamp will have verified accounts? 

And before the 28 days are concluded, Bitstamp account holders can withdraw their funds from Bitstamp or do those accounts just get frozen (seized) in the event that the accounts do NOT get verified?  I was of the expectation that funds could NOT be withdrawn from non-verified Bitstamp accounts, is that not correct?

I don't know, it just sounds good. Facts aren't really important when it's perception that creates reality.



May or may not be bull FUD.

Who am I to say? 

I am just a regular Joe Blow (oh by the way, that's NOT my real name), and I just thought that if facts are easily verifiable, then we should attempt to incorporate those known facts into our speculation(s), when feasible.

In this case, I thought that there were limitations on unverified accounts to be able to withdraw (whether fiat or BTC); however, maybe there are ways around such and maybe they can withdraw small amounts?  I really don't know, but I thought someone would be able to describe those facts to be able to fit them into any speculation that we might make regarding the most recent announcement of the 28 days to verify your account or else. 

[JayJuanGee]

someone said it use to be you had to be verified to withdraw even bitcoin, but not anymore ( i guess they wanted to cover their ass while the laws we're clear )

in any case its probably a lot easier to send in some fake ID to get verified at stamps and withdraw bitcoin then it is to fake a bank account and withdraw fiat.

I would think that would NOT be that difficult to accomplish, and just to abandon Bitstamp and move over to BTC-e or some other exchange that seems to NOT have those same levels of KYC requirements

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

everyone stfu the daily candle is about to solidify

and
there
it
goes

384. TodayIsABarndNewDay

That candle sucked

[JayJuanGee]

You better watch out, because some posters here believe that bulltrolls are the same as beartrolls (merely opposites)...   

It's definitely not the same thing. If I post highly speculative stuff that is bearish, usually I'll get insulted left and right. If I do it in bullish, noone will give a shit and some will approve.

Fair enough.  Therefore, it is probably NOT good to post any FUD; however, if you are going to post FUD that goes contrary to the weight of the evidence and/or contrary to the bullish concepts in the BTC world, then you better back it up with some evidence, rather than just throwing it out there without any evidence. 

Maybe some may consider my above statement to be a double standard, but in reality, it is NOT a double standard because many of us who participate in this thread that are informed about bitcoin understand quite a few of the basics of the BTC fundamentals, and if posters are posting information that is contrary to those BTC basics, then the posters better have some fucking evidence...otherwise suffer the rath...... In this regard, either shut the fuck up or give a logical explanation regarding why the poster does NOT have evidence while taking into account BTC basics.

[ejinte]

You better watch out, because some posters here believe that bulltrolls are the same as beartrolls (merely opposites)...    

It's definitely not the same thing. If I post highly speculative stuff that is bearish, usually I'll get insulted left and right. If I do it in bullish, noone will give a shit and some will approve.

Fair enough.  Therefore, it is probably NOT good to post any FUD; however, if you are going to post FUD that goes contrary to the weight of the evidence and/or contrary to the bullish concepts in the BTC world, then you better back it up with some evidence, rather than just throwing it out there without any evidence.  

Maybe some may consider my above statement to be a double standard, but in reality, it is NOT a double standard because many of us who participate in this thread that are informed about bitcoin understand quite a few of the basics of the BTC fundamentals, and if posters are posting information that is contrary to those BTC basics, then the posters better have some fucking evidence...otherwise suffer the rath...... In this regard, either shut the fuck up or give a logical explanation regarding why the poster does NOT have evidence while taking into account BTC basics.

Listen to this people!
Listen and understand!
JayJuanGee has spoken!

[derpinheimer]

Just 150 coins btw. spot and that huobi bid wall. I dont see it going down.. have seen crazier things though  

EDIT: Getting redder...

<100 coins to test

[BrewCrewFan]

someone said it use to be you had to be verified to withdraw even bitcoin, but not anymore ( i guess they wanted to cover their ass while the laws we're clear )

in any case its probably a lot easier to send in some fake ID to get verified at stamps and withdraw bitcoin then it is to fake a bank account and withdraw fiat.

I would think that would NOT be that difficult to accomplish, and just to abandon Bitstamp and move over to BTC-e or some other exchange that seems to NOT have those same levels of KYC requirements

BTC-e does not have the same requirements? And can I do what I said I would like to do there at btc-e? I dont want to link a bank account, I just would like to be able to trade BTC to fiat and then back to BTC.... I rather just have one point ( site ) that I have an account linked too... just dont like having that kind of info all over the place.

[octaft]

snip

I take it you are ignoring my last response to you because it proves how ridiculous your assertion was?

[adamstgBit]

You better watch out, because some posters here believe that bulltrolls are the same as beartrolls (merely opposites)...    

It's definitely not the same thing. If I post highly speculative stuff that is bearish, usually I'll get insulted left and right. If I do it in bullish, noone will give a shit and some will approve.

Fair enough.  Therefore, it is probably NOT good to post any FUD; however, if you are going to post FUD that goes contrary to the weight of the evidence and/or contrary to the bullish concepts in the BTC world, then you better back it up with some evidence, rather than just throwing it out there without any evidence.  

Maybe some may consider my above statement to be a double standard, but in reality, it is NOT a double standard because many of us who participate in this thread that are informed about bitcoin understand quite a few of the basics of the BTC fundamentals, and if posters are posting information that is contrary to those BTC basics, then the posters better have some fucking evidence...otherwise suffer the rath...... In this regard, either shut the fuck up or give a logical explanation regarding why the poster does NOT have evidence while taking into account BTC basics.

Listen to this people!
Listen and understand!
JayJuanGee has spoken!

hes right tho, we want to keep disinformation at a minimum here

its fine to post your speculations bullish or bearish, or even some FUD spiced speculation, but flat out disinformation won't be tolerated
I tried to make that clear when someone posted some very bullish thing about stamps not processing fiat withdrawals and the only way out was BTC
had me going for a bit, then it was revealed to be flat out disinformation.
I locked the thread, made a bit of a fuss, poeple we're PMing me all kinds of shit.
it sucked, i wont lock the thread anymore, but if you spot disinformation call it out, correct it.

[JayJuanGee]

I got an email from Bitstamp earlier during the evening to get my account verified or they will seize it. I logged on Bitstamp after 7 months and I had $2 in it. I, hereby, allow Bitstamp to hand it over to whoever the fuck they will hand over to.

Don't give the thieving government a single cent, they'll only waste it on even more stupid regulations. Convert your $2 to BTC and withdraw IMO. And tell us whether that actually works.

That is, if Bitstamp allows doing a $2 transaction. Not sure on that.

seriously!

market buy with that 2$  NOW and withdraw like a pro.

There is a $5 minimum limit on orders at stamp.

Exactly. I can't be bothered. Might as well leave them there.

then send 5$ of bitcoin sell it then buy 7$ of bitcoin back
 

Yeah...... stick it to the man, $2 at a time!!!!!

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[octaft]

hes right tho, we want to keep disinformation at a minimum here

its fine to post your speculations bullish or bearish, or even some FUD spiced speculation, but flat out disinformation won't be tolerated
I tried to make that clear when someone posted some very bullish thing about stamps not processing fiat withdrawals and the only way out was BTC
had me going for a bit, then it was revealed to be flat out disinformation.
I locked the thread, made a bit of a fuss, poeple we're PMing me all kinds of shit.
it sucked, i wont lock the thread anymore, but if you spot disinformation call it out, correct it.

This is fair. This is also not really what he was saying, which should be made obvious by the fact that this makes sense and does not ramble for 10,000 words about something that could be said in 100.

[JayJuanGee]

snip

Simply put, you don't understand what you are talking about (and I knew immediately when you asked me to name names, despite the fact that is completely irrelevant to your own argument), are totally misapplying the fallacy, and are throwing me under the bus for your ignorance while calling me names. Why the hell should I cooperate with that, especially considering you did not cooperate with me by clarifying your position so I didn't have to read between the lines to figure out how ridiculous your argument is?

That makes a whole lot of sense.        NOT.   In essence you are saying that my request for examples and names made you NOT want to cooperate.  Whatever.

But you know what, I'm a glutton for punishment, so you want cooperation, here's your cooperation:

Apparently, both of us are gluttons for punishment to continue this silly-ass conversation in which it appears that we are at a stalemate (and have been for some time).

Correct way to apply the fallacy you referenced: Someone says "You don't like heroin? Well tylenol is a drug. If you want to get rid of heroin, you've got to get rid of tylenol."

Yes they are both drugs, but there is no logical connection to the level of damage one drug does over the other: people don't use tylenol to get high, and heroin causes significantly more damage. In order to agree with that statement, you need to make a whole lot of wild and incorrect assumptions about tylenol, namely that it will cause the same or close to the same amount of damage as heroin.

Sure, that seems to be one application of the false equivalencies fallacy. 

What I'm saying in light of that fallacy: Beartrolls and bulltrolls are both trolls. Trolls are trolls. If you want to complain about/ban some trolls, you've got to be willing to ban them all.

Yes, probably we agree again that if there is a desire (or policy) to ban trolls, then surely all trolls should be banned, and NOT be banned based on the direction of their trolling, but merely because of the fact that they are trolling.  But, having said that, there still probably are NOT any examples of bull trolls, but one has to look at the contents of their posts and NOT merely a label.

The only assumption being made is that both beartrolls and bulltrolls are trolls, which doesn't seem like that much of a leap of faith considering the word "troll" is in the name.

meaningless to discuss this because whether some poster is a troll or NOT depends on conduct that rises to the level of trolling  - NOT whether the contents of the message is bearish or bullish.

Your fallacy only applies when there is no clear connection, which means, as I have showcased as best I can, that it does not apply here. If you don't get it after all of that, well I just don't know what to tell you other than you are wrong.

My fallacy?  I did NOT invent any fallacy - instead, you fell into the fallacy of false equivalencies by making it.  To my understanding, you have NOT really explained your way out of it, but that's fine.. NO problema.. We can just agree to disagree because this whole discussion seems to be devolving into meaninglessness and seems to be just arguing for the sake of arguing.. which I have NO real interest in such (my only interest would be to clarify, if needed, and further clarification does NOT really seem to be needed at this point).

Now if you want to argue whether bulltrolls exist or not, that's another issue. My point is simply that I did not commit the logical fallacy you are accusing me of, and if you truly understood that logical fallacy, you would know that.

Seems that we agree that if there were a policy against trolling that it should be enforced in spite of the contents, but just by the fact that the poster is engaging in trolling conduct.  Sure, we seem to agree on that. 

Nonetheless, it still seems to me that if you had been attempting to assert that there were some kinds of bulltrolls in reality, which I still doubt to be the case.   Anyhow, we do NOT really need to get into this further because it seems that we have beaten this troll to death - whether bear or bull.   

[JayJuanGee]

You better watch out, because some posters here believe that bulltrolls are the same as beartrolls (merely opposites)...    

It's definitely not the same thing. If I post highly speculative stuff that is bearish, usually I'll get insulted left and right. If I do it in bullish, noone will give a shit and some will approve.

Fair enough.  Therefore, it is probably NOT good to post any FUD; however, if you are going to post FUD that goes contrary to the weight of the evidence and/or contrary to the bullish concepts in the BTC world, then you better back it up with some evidence, rather than just throwing it out there without any evidence.  

Maybe some may consider my above statement to be a double standard, but in reality, it is NOT a double standard because many of us who participate in this thread that are informed about bitcoin understand quite a few of the basics of the BTC fundamentals, and if posters are posting information that is contrary to those BTC basics, then the posters better have some fucking evidence...otherwise suffer the rath...... In this regard, either shut the fuck up or give a logical explanation regarding why the poster does NOT have evidence while taking into account BTC basics.

Listen to this people!
Listen and understand!
JayJuanGee has spoken!

Why would it matter if I have spoken or NOT...?  It is just one opinion, no?

[octaft]

Like I said, if what I said before could not convince you, then I don't know what else to say but you are wrong. That's all there is to it, the fallacy you're talking about does not apply here, plain and simple. I explained why twice already, and quite frankly I can't think of a way to dumb it down for you any more than that.

EDIT: What I meant by your fallacy is "the fallacy you are referencing." I never said you committed any fallacy, just that it's annoying to be falsely accused of committing one, myself. I'm beginning to wonder if you aren't being intentionally dense to fuck with me, or do you really need things explained to you this specifically?

[marcus_of_augustus]

HSBC had impeccable KYC/AML policies and practices in place no doubt .... these regulations mean nothing if the people running the show are fundamentally dishonest, it actually makes it worse, since they can hold up these pathetic regs as a fig leaf to cover over the disgusting swamp of corruption.

People have to start wondering if Swamp is involved in a bitcoin grab that perhaps they are about to go tits up?

I mean for the amount of "non-verified" customers, all of whom have btc addresses on file there, why wouldn't they just liquidte and send the btc back instead of this funds confiscation BS?

The BitSwamp is fast earning the Gox reputation in my book ... roll on the decentralised exchanges, it's clear the other way doesn't work with Bitcoins, too much heat on one single center to handle.

[hmmmstrange]

I remember that you had to get verified last year to even withdraw BTC. So older accounts of people who had money/BTC stuck there are at risk, which probably has been priced in already.

Ya, last year they gave notice about needing verify to withdraw so I stuck my btc in stamp btc IOUs in ripple

[JayJuanGee]

someone said it use to be you had to be verified to withdraw even bitcoin, but not anymore ( i guess they wanted to cover their ass while the laws we're clear )

in any case its probably a lot easier to send in some fake ID to get verified at stamps and withdraw bitcoin then it is to fake a bank account and withdraw fiat.

I would think that would NOT be that difficult to accomplish, and just to abandon Bitstamp and move over to BTC-e or some other exchange that seems to NOT have those same levels of KYC requirements

BTC-e does not have the same requirements? And can I do what I said I would like to do there at btc-e? I dont want to link a bank account, I just would like to be able to trade BTC to fiat and then back to BTC.... I rather just have one point ( site ) that I have an account linked too... just dont like having that kind of info all over the place.

I have had an account at BTC-e since about November 2013, but I have never had an account at BitStamp.  I have held up to 20BTC on BTC-e, but several times I got nervous about them, and I reduced my BTC holdings with them (currently less than 10 BTC).  I have never had any problem transferring BTC into or out of BTC-e.. so far.  The most I attempted to transfer out at any given time was less than 14BTC.

When I opened my account at BTC-e, it took only a short period of time to open (maybe less than a half an hour)... I believe that I had to provide a verification through e-mail regarding my e-mail (but NOTHING else).  Anyhow, I believe that a lot of people have continued to accuse BTC-e of being to lackadaisical in their formalities and relations with their customers because they employ little to NO KYC or AML policies.  BTC-e has also been known to be very secretive about the identities of its owners and/or principles.  Therefore, some people think that it is fairly risky to do large scale business with BTC-e. 

NONETHELESS, having had said all of that, I believe that it is still possible to achieve trading with BTC-e... to transfer BTC in and to trade and to transfer BTC out.  Maybe how much BTC you would put at risk, may be in accordance with your risk tolerance(s).  Personally, I attempt to keep only the BTC that I am currently considering trading on BTC-e, but I am currently NOT in any trading mood (even though I hold nearly 10 BTC on BTC-e like i mentioned above).  Since I personally have NOT gotten the sense that BTC-e is going out of business soon or that there are any meaningful threats to my BTC held on BTC-e, I would be willing to put up to 20 or 25 BTC there, if I were in the mood to engage in trading...... which may come about when the price goes up sufficiently (maybe into the $600+ range).   

[bzzard]

First there was 900btc sell into wall but not much after.
Now wall is back to 3.4k and some buying starting.