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

[bassclef]

Come on Lamby buy back in.
You know you want to.

The pay is certainly better, thinking for yourself rather than for someone else.

[mymenace]

What the hell's happening. Does anyone know why we are seeing a rise all of a sudden right now ?
Can't believe this

weekly macd seems to be turning green

[Cconvert2G36]

What the hell's happening. Does anyone know why we are seeing a rise all of a sudden right now ?
Can't believe this

Barry's ETF got approved.

[Trolfi]

I've been in contact with the actual Jorge Stolfi--he himself disavows any knowledge of the imposter here who spends his days arguing with kids about Bitcoin

really!

either that, or he's also trollin' IRL . . .

[Afrikoin]

What the hell's happening. Does anyone know why we are seeing a rise all of a sudden right now ?
Can't believe this

Kanye West is calling his upcoming album So Help Me God

http://www.theverge.com/2015/3/1/8128891/kanye-west-new-album-title

[JorgeStolfi]

forget winkletwin ETF, we now have an approved bitcoin OTC tradeable fund

http://www.wsj.com/articles/bitcoin-investment-trust-gets-finras-ok-to-become-public-bitcoin-fund-1425242094

This story getting legs now

Indeed the price rise is probably due to this "news".  But note that it is still actually a rumor, because it is not clear what it means exactly.  So it fits the rule "buy the rumor, sell the news" 

First, "OTC" is short for "over the counter" which means private deals (directly or through brokers) rather than on public exchanges.  Confusingly, "OTC Markets" is the stupid name of a company that runs some exchange-like services for instruments that do not qualify for the major exchanges like NYSE and NASDAQ.  The SM BIT shares (not to be confused with shares of SM BIT) will be listed on OTCQX, one of those "exchanges".  Capisce?

I could not find exactly how the trading will work.  I have seen a quote from OTC Market page saying that they cater only to brokers, not directly to "retail" investors.  Also I don't know whether OTCQX will hold shares for trading, like the bitcoin exchanges, or whether the brokers will hold the shares and OTCQX will be just an index, like the WinkIndex.

Jorge should be pleased now that the BIT investors will finally have a way to sell their shares.

I take that as being sarcasm...

What I would like to know is whether SMBIT will re-enable redemption, that is, whether the people with SMBIT shares can return them to SM and get the nominal value back (which is defined as the market's dollar price of 0.1 BTC).  Or whether the clients will have to look for Greater Fools, at OTCQX or through brokers, in order to get their money back.

[NotLambchop]

I've been in contact with the actual Jorge Stolfi--he himself disavows any knowledge of the imposter here who spends his days arguing with kids about Bitcoin

really!

either that, or he's also trollin' IRL . . .

Why do you Bitcoiners have so much hatred for those more intelligent and better educated than you?  Is that some sort of a libertardian thing?

Edit VVV See?

[gentlemand]

I've been in contact with the actual Jorge Stolfi--he himself disavows any knowledge of the imposter here who spends his days arguing with kids about Bitcoin

really!

either that, or he's also trollin' IRL . . .

I genuinely cannot believe that a working professor with a fair bit of real world rep would be up to something on here, especially the sheer volume of it. But the internet can do strange things to otherwise rational people.

[inca]

Are you writing a book stolfi?

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

I've been in contact with the actual Jorge Stolfi--he himself disavows any knowledge of the imposter here who spends his days arguing with kids about Bitcoin

really!

either that, or he's also trollin' IRL . . .

I genuinely cannot believe that a working professor with a fair bit of real world rep would be up to something on here, especially the sheer volume of it. But the internet can do strange things to otherwise rational people.

Well someone is lying

[GreekGeek]

What I would like to know is whether SMBIT will re-enable redemption, that is, whether the people with SMBIT shares can return them to SM and get the nominal value back (which is defined as the market's dollar price of 0.1 BTC).  Or whether the clients will have to look for Greater Fools, at OTCQX or through brokers, in order to get their money back.

stupid question:

 is this a kind of IPO ?

[ensjovis]

What the hell's happening. Does anyone know why we are seeing a rise all of a sudden right now ?
Can't believe this

Barry's ETF got approved.

It's not an ETF. It' s an OTC (over the counter), a penny stock. Institutional money is not allowed to trade this.

[JorgeStolfi]

I've been in contact with the actual Jorge Stolfi--he himself disavows any knowledge of the imposter here who spends his days arguing with kids about Bitcoin, and whose posts coincidentally occur near the end of "troll waves" where all the trolls and their sock puppets quote each other to reinforce a point.

You mean that imposter?  Ha. Don't pay attention to him.  He is actually Satoshi Nakamoto, trying to save his experiment from us trolls -- the only attack vector that bitcoin was not designed to survive.

[Fatman3001]

[Cconvert2G36]

What the hell's happening. Does anyone know why we are seeing a rise all of a sudden right now ?
Can't believe this

Barry's ETF got approved.

It's not an ETF. It' s an OTC (over the counter), a penny stock. Institutional money is not allowed to trade this.

It's a fund, and will be traded on the pink sheets exchanges. Obviously not as big as news of COIN going live on the nasdaq. And no one was suggesting pension funds would be jumping in.

Edit: Most importantly, this is the first time investors can gain exposure to BTC with almost any personal brokerage account.

[Erdogan]

Well, the price being 252$, it means that everybody who who owns bitcoin thinks that they are worth more than 245$; but, on the other hand, everybody in the world who has some money to spare thinks that 1 BTC is not worth 255$.

You really are not much of an economist, are you ? How does such an oversimplifying way to look at economic choice even go together with your ability to solve abstract mathematical problems?

Okay. To name just one objection to such an incredibly naive model of the market:

Misrepresentation of your actual valuation for strategic purposes.

Similar to the misrepresentation, "tactical voting", in voting theory: sometimes it is individually rational for an actor not to cast a vote according to his sincere preference.

He is basically right this time. Since bitcoins are neither produced not destroyed (by consumption), the only basis for demand is people who think it is worth more, and the only source of supply is people who think it is worth less. Historic value could for some be of importance, but should not, again since they are not consumable there is no reference. Only expected future value should matter. Just like cold and heat, where cold is just absence of heat, and darkness and light, where darkness is just absense of light, bitcoin supply is the same as absence of demand. So in case of bitcoin (and other pure money types), there is really only one parameter: The demand.

The speculation is about projecting the demand for bitcoins in the future. Those never exposed to the idea are one source of future demand.

Only that my argument wasn't about people who haven't heard of it yet. I was talking about the (overly simplistic) idea that current market price is identical to everybody's sincere valuation, the "worth" of one bitcoin.

"... everybody who who owns bitcoin thinks that they are worth more than 245$; but, on the other hand, everybody in the world who has some money to spare thinks that 1 BTC is not worth 255$."

I'll even point out this goes both ways: someone planning to execute a pump & dump will be (temporarily) willing to pay a higher price than he sincerely values it at (as long as he's convinced he can get rid of the stuff at a profit, before others do), someone who's commited to build a large long-term position might not bid at market for the full amount to avoid driving up price in the process.

Your first paragraph: Neither he nor I have said that the market price is identical to everybody's sincere valuation. The point is that everybody has a different valuation, either above or below the last price.

The other paragraphs: Yeah, all kinds of reasons for what people do.

[Erdogan]

Well, the price being 252$, it means that everybody who who owns bitcoin thinks that they are worth more than 245$; but, on the other hand, everybody in the world who has some money to spare thinks that 1 BTC is not worth 255$.

You really are not much of an economist, are you ? How does such an oversimplifying way to look at economic choice even go together with your ability to solve abstract mathematical problems?

Okay. To name just one objection to such an incredibly naive model of the market:

Misrepresentation of your actual valuation for strategic purposes.

Similar to the misrepresentation, "tactical voting", in voting theory: sometimes it is individually rational for an actor not to cast a vote according to his sincere preference.

He is basically right this time. Since bitcoins are neither produced not destroyed (by consumption), the only basis for demand is people who think it is worth more, and the only source of supply is people who think it is worth less. Historic value could for some be of importance, but should not, again since they are not consumable there is no reference. Only expected future value should matter. Just like cold and heat, where cold is just absence of heat, and darkness and light, where darkness is just absense of light, bitcoin supply is the same as absence of demand. So in case of bitcoin (and other pure money types), there is really only one parameter: The demand.

The speculation is about projecting the demand for bitcoins in the future. Those never exposed to the idea are one source of future demand.

This not correct whatsoever, because future value is discounted by time preference.

So you will have to compensate for that in your personal valuation, not?

[NotLambchop]

I've been in contact with the actual Jorge Stolfi--he himself disavows any knowledge of the imposter here who spends his days arguing with kids about Bitcoin, and whose posts coincidentally occur near the end of "troll waves" where all the trolls and their sock puppets quote each other to reinforce a point.

You mean that imposter?  Ha. Don't pay attention to him.  He is actually Satoshi Nakamoto, trying to save his experiment from us trolls -- the only attack vector that bitcoin was not designed to survive.

OMG! NLC?

Everything posted here that isn't raving about BTC & NAMBLA is probably NLC.
I mean, who else doesn't want to own Bitcoin or defile underage minor children?

[oda.krell]

$245 is about where I thought I'd draw the line yesterday between "minor retracement, upwards move has some staying power" and "we're probably going back to square one, i.e. $220" ... Holding above $250 is pretty damn good actually, more than I expected.

[NotLambchop]

^
>above $250 is pretty damn good actually, more than I expected

See how nicely things work out if you just lower your expectations?