Bitcoin Forum
July 24, 2019, 01:25:38 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.18.0 [Torrent] (New!)
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Poll
Question: July 28 Closing Price:
<$3,000 - 6 (7.2%)
<$8,000 - 5 (6%)
$8,001-$8,500 - 2 (2.4%)
$8,501-$9,000 - 1 (1.2%)
$9,001-$9,500 - 11 (13.3%)
$9,501-$10,000 - 6 (7.2%)
$10,001-$10,500 - 8 (9.6%)
$10,501-$11,000 - 14 (16.9%)
$11,001-$11,500 - 8 (9.6%)
$11,501-$12,000 - 4 (4.8%)
$12,001-$12,500 - 4 (4.8%)
$12,501-$13,000 - 3 (3.6%)
$13,001-$13,500 - 2 (2.4%)
$13,501-$14,000 - 2 (2.4%)
>$14,000 - 3 (3.6%)
>$18,000 - 4 (4.8%)
Total Voters: 83

Pages: « 1 ... 12020 12021 12022 12023 12024 12025 12026 12027 12028 12029 12030 12031 12032 12033 12034 12035 12036 12037 12038 12039 12040 12041 12042 12043 12044 12045 12046 12047 12048 12049 12050 12051 12052 12053 12054 12055 12056 12057 12058 12059 12060 12061 12062 12063 12064 12065 12066 12067 12068 12069 [12070] 12071 12072 12073 12074 12075 12076 12077 12078 12079 12080 12081 12082 12083 12084 12085 12086 12087 12088 12089 12090 12091 12092 12093 12094 12095 12096 12097 12098 12099 12100 12101 12102 12103 12104 12105 12106 12107 12108 12109 12110 12111 12112 12113 12114 12115 12116 12117 12118 12119 12120 ... 24625 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion  (Read 21297238 times)
This is a self-moderated topic. If you do not want to be moderated by the person who started this topic, create a new topic. (103 posts by 19 users deleted.)
12345mm
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 406
Merit: 250


View Profile
April 12, 2015, 01:59:09 AM

give me all your money and a box of snickerdoodles !

*breaks beer bottle*
1563931538
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1563931538

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1563931538
Reply with quote  #2

1563931538
Report to moderator
1563931538
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1563931538

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1563931538
Reply with quote  #2

1563931538
Report to moderator
The grue lurks in the darkest places of the earth. Its favorite diet is adventurers, but its insatiable appetite is tempered by its fear of light. No grue has ever been seen by the light of day, and few have survived its fearsome jaws to tell the tale.
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
empowering
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 952
Merit: 1044



View Profile
April 12, 2015, 01:59:56 AM
Last edit: April 12, 2015, 02:27:29 AM by empowering

Yeez Louise!

I did a quick search and it turns out that every lovable american comedian is a canadian!

Jim Carrey, Mike Myers, John Candy, Seth Rogen, Phil Hartman, Norm Macdonald, Leslie Nielsen, Martin Short, Rick Moranis and Dan Akroyd. Heck, even Captain Kirk is canadian!

Bill Hicks, George Carlin, Bill Burr, Richard Prior, Patrice O'Neal, Doug Stanhope..... but to name a few.... American non Canadians.

Not that I have anything against a Canadian, love everyone I have properly met, and I have met a lot.

 (I had always thought that Steven Wright was a Canadian, and as it turns out.. he is not, that guy can deliver a deadpan one liner)
empowering
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 952
Merit: 1044



View Profile
April 12, 2015, 02:01:49 AM

give me all your money and a box of snickerdoodles !

*breaks beer bottle*

Sure, no problem, as soon as you give me some punctuation and grammar.

No, it is not the same information, syntax is important dude, how lazy can you be?

(ps good natured ribbing ^^)
KFR
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 560
Merit: 500


Per ardua ad luna


View Profile
April 12, 2015, 02:02:55 AM

...
My main point was that you can find leftists, socialists, anarchists, religious fanatics, capitalists, statists, nihilists, and everyone else under the sun here. They may not have direct representation in the government, but they're here.

Well that's kinda the point isn't it.  If a substantial part of your population sees the sense in socialised healthcare and welfare support but both of their political leadership options consider such things anathema, then their opinions count for nought and all the outside world sees is the US' sense of nationalist exceptionalism getting in the way of plain economic and socio-political practicality.  This conflation of socialism with communism and the resultant phobias and misinformation have caused a complete misunderstanding of the fundamentals among the American population at large.

I don't think I'm alone in thinking that US politics has been destroyed by private interests, greed and outright corruption.  Get some of the billionaires out of media and party politics and it'd be a whole different story I'm sure.

To those of us outside the US that have harboured a longtime and deeply held affection for the nation, its people and its culture, it's looked pretty bleak for many years to be honest.  Undecided
Dotto
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 972
Merit: 1002


No maps for these territories


View Profile
April 12, 2015, 02:13:07 AM

Bitcoin: that magnetospheric eternally collapsing object

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetospheric_eternally_collapsing_object
Cconvert2G36
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 392
Merit: 250


View Profile
April 12, 2015, 02:13:24 AM

...
My main point was that you can find leftists, socialists, anarchists, religious fanatics, capitalists, statists, nihilists, and everyone else under the sun here. They may not have direct representation in the government, but they're here.

Well that's kinda the point isn't it.  If a substantial part of your population sees the sense in socialised healthcare and welfare support but both of their political leadership options consider such things anathema, then their opinions count for nought and all the outside world sees is the US' sense of nationalist exceptionalism getting in the way of plain economic and socio-political practicality.  This conflation of socialism with communism and the resultant phobias and misinformation have caused a complete misunderstanding of the fundamentals among the American population at large.

I don't think I'm alone in thinking that US politics has been destroyed by private interests, greed and outright corruption.  Get some of the billionaires out of media and party politics and it'd be a whole different story I'm sure.

To those of us outside the US that have harboured a longtime and deeply held affection for the nation, its people and its culture, it's looked pretty bleak for many years to be honest.  Undecided

My view is that the states should be able to set policies, giving an opportunity for a diversity of arrangements. The one sure thing is that managing all 50 states from washington DC is folly. Some states have their own low income safety net plans, which are largely covered by the taxpayers. There is also welfare and housing, child benefits.

If you don't like the state you are in? Moving is not incredibly difficult. Like a free market of at least some govt policies.
12345mm
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 406
Merit: 250


View Profile
April 12, 2015, 02:16:36 AM

give me all your money and a box of snickerdoodles !

*breaks beer bottle*

Sure, no problem, as soon as you give me some punctuation and grammar.

No, it is not the same information, syntax is important dude, how lazy can you be?

(ps good natured ribbing ^^)

I got a perfect on my math SAT exams , but did do poorly on the written part by comparison. I never could learn a foreign language either. Just not really wired for or care about guud talkin pencilworks. I'm not sure how lazy I can be. That's an interesting philosophical question.

 Smiley  Smiley  Smiley
KFR
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 560
Merit: 500


Per ardua ad luna


View Profile
April 12, 2015, 02:21:12 AM

...
...
...

My view is that the states should be able to set policies, giving an opportunity for a diversity of arrangements. The one sure thing is that managing all 50 states from washington DC is folly. Some states have their own low income safety net plans, which are largely covered by the taxpayers. There is also welfare and housing, child benefits.

If you don't like the state you are in? Moving is not incredibly difficult. Like a free market of at least some govt policies.

I understand.  But you make it sound easy to uproot and move to a new home.  I believe that if you'd experienced true poverty and hardship personally then you'd have a broader perspective.

I feel that the US would be better served by establishing consensus, looking to its peers and indeed population for critical counsel rather than unquestioning loyalty.  Expecting people to move to a State they like based on its own volatile interpretation of the apparently holy and untouchable Constitution is somewhat unrealistic in my opinion. Smiley
empowering
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 952
Merit: 1044



View Profile
April 12, 2015, 02:23:27 AM
Last edit: April 12, 2015, 02:37:40 AM by empowering

Big money has always been able to get coins easily, even withoit any ETF.  For example, back in late 2013, the Fortress investment group (>60 billion USD in managed assets, >300 million USD/year of revenue) bought 13 million USD worth of bitcoins (which they later disposed of).  Basically anyone with a fair income and a million dollars in hand could buy BIT shares, since Sep/2013.  The last USMS auction got no big buyers, not even Tim Draper.

Obviously, "big money" is not buying bitcoins because they are not interested.  

First of, the ""big money" is not buying bitcoins because they are not interested." part is utterly wrong. They do care, but as I said they have no EASY way in. It's different than ie: I want to buy 200,000 Apple stocks today. This has to change.

What ETFs want to do is to provide easy access to BTCs for the masses. Small money or big money doesn't matter. If I want to go on and buy in, NOW, because I think it's a nice thing to do, then I'll be able to do it, so will everybody else. If I want to sell, then it will be feasible too.

I gave above a couple examples showing that "big money" did in fact buy bitcoins, and therefore could buy; but then did not buy more, even though it had the opportunity to do so.  Not for regulation problems, but just because "big money" does not like to lose money.

Quote
PLUS: It's gonna be TRANSPARENT!
Not sending money to some Polish bank account named after John Doe & Co.
Big money did not have to interact with the exchanges directly.  Intermediaries could easily buy 200'000 bitcoins for them, on or off the exchanges, for a modest fee to compensate for their risk. Second Market bought at least 120'000 over 8 months, and surely what made them stop was not lack of bitcoins, but lack of investors.

Quote
Not without every transaction is recorded and be visible to EVERYBODY.
Bitcoin ownership is not easily identifiable. Even if you could identify my 660'000 BTC in the blockchain, if you saw them being moved to another address, can you tell whether I sold them, or they are still mine?

On the other hand, although ownership and trades of fund shares are not public, they are known to the brokers and are recorded in a centralized share registry.  ("Bearer bonds" have been outlawed decades ago.)

Quote
Not without knowing FOR SURE, what's real and what's not.
Not with a Willy Bot that buys in virtual BTCs with virtual money.
If you have the private keys, you know that you have the bitcoins.  I you own BIT or COIN shares, you have to trust that the fund management company did not lose their coins by hacking, embezzlement, accident, or incompetence.  (Yes, they are audited -- like Enron was.  No, they are not insured against those things.)  



Great thesis... but, can you deny, that "big money" would be put off by a lack of clarity regulation-wise? Sure "big money" could buy into anything at anytime, your assertion that they could have bought in, and chose not to, is kinda limp, as you have implied yourself, and I can attest to from personal experience, in actual fact, serious money IS put off by regulatory issues, more than ANYTHING else!! businesses and investors do not like uncertainty (unless they are in a privileged position to profit from it) and there is a definite correlation between lack of regulation, and lack of backing by "serious" or "institutional" investors. To claim that is not the case is plain daft imo (and again, I am not guessing here.. I am talking from experience)  

The thing is , and what  I disagree with you on Jorge, is you seem to have this picture that investors, who are in a position to make meaningful investments in BTC, only do so essentially  "to make money from the greater fools " and I put it to you, that actually, if all they wanted to do is earn a "few bucks" by scamming a few newbies, then in actual fact they have many MANY FAR less riskier ventures that they could be involved with that could earn them a decent, and far far less riskier  and easier return from far larger  and more understood markets,  than being involved with BTC.  So ergo, most investors that are involved in BTC are not just involved to make a few bucks in a "risky" as fuck and uncertain market.. sure you could argue that they saw an opportunity and leveraged funds to make a quick and "easy" profit , but if they have the money to enter the BTC market, then they have the money to enter all sorts of other ventures, with a fraction of the risk, and perfectly decent returns. Go figure.
Cconvert2G36
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 392
Merit: 250


View Profile
April 12, 2015, 02:28:35 AM

...
...
...

My view is that the states should be able to set policies, giving an opportunity for a diversity of arrangements. The one sure thing is that managing all 50 states from washington DC is folly. Some states have their own low income safety net plans, which are largely covered by the taxpayers. There is also welfare and housing, child benefits.

If you don't like the state you are in? Moving is not incredibly difficult. Like a free market of at least some govt policies.

I understand.  But you make it sound easy to uproot and move to a new home.  I believe that if you'd experienced true poverty and hardship personally then you'd have a broader perspective.

I feel that the US would be better served by establishing consensus, looking to its peers and indeed population for critical counsel rather than unquestioning loyalty.  Expecting people to move to a State they like based on its own volatile interpretation of the apparently holy and untouchable Constitution is somewhat unrealistic in my opinion. Smiley

I have experienced at least mild poverty for a good chunk of my life, and can't say govt was particularly helpful in that situation.

I appreciate the latter part of what you say, the US is indeed deeply fucked up in many ways, corrupt to the core in others. But the entire world has a dash of that these days.
empowering
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 952
Merit: 1044



View Profile
April 12, 2015, 02:30:12 AM

...
...
...

My view is that the states should be able to set policies, giving an opportunity for a diversity of arrangements. The one sure thing is that managing all 50 states from washington DC is folly. Some states have their own low income safety net plans, which are largely covered by the taxpayers. There is also welfare and housing, child benefits.

If you don't like the state you are in? Moving is not incredibly difficult. Like a free market of at least some govt policies.

I understand.  But you make it sound easy to uproot and move to a new home.  I believe that if you'd experienced true poverty and hardship personally then you'd have a broader perspective.

I feel that the US would be better served by establishing consensus, looking to its peers and indeed population for critical counsel rather than unquestioning loyalty.  Expecting people to move to a State they like based on its own volatile interpretation of the apparently holy and untouchable Constitution is somewhat unrealistic in my opinion. Smiley

+ 1  + 1 + 1

shmadz
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1512
Merit: 1000


@theshmadz


View Profile
April 12, 2015, 02:33:29 AM

...
...
...

My view is that the states should be able to set policies, giving an opportunity for a diversity of arrangements. The one sure thing is that managing all 50 states from washington DC is folly. Some states have their own low income safety net plans, which are largely covered by the taxpayers. There is also welfare and housing, child benefits.

If you don't like the state you are in? Moving is not incredibly difficult. Like a free market of at least some govt policies.

I understand.  But you make it sound easy to uproot and move to a new home.  I believe that if you'd experienced true poverty and hardship personally then you'd have a broader perspective.

I feel that the US would be better served by establishing consensus, looking to its peers and indeed population for critical counsel rather than unquestioning loyalty.  Expecting people to move to a State they like based on its own volatile interpretation of the apparently holy and untouchable Constitution is somewhat unrealistic in my opinion. Smiley

Ex-patriation from the U.S. is an increasingly popular option.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2013/08/11/irs-releases-list-of-americans-hoping-to-expatriate-number-tops-1000/

Seems like people are voting with their feet. It's unfortunate that the federal gov't is trying to limit the exodus by increasing the toll, thus screwing the poor once again, but since when have they ever cared about the poor?
http://dailycaller.com/2014/08/29/us-quadruples-expat-fee-as-record-numbers-of-americans-renounce-citizenship/

It's becoming obvious, the collapse is near.
Cconvert2G36
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 392
Merit: 250


View Profile
April 12, 2015, 02:35:33 AM

It's becoming obvious, the collapse is near.

I don't disagree with you. What was bad in 08 got printed into worse. It won't be an isolated event, however.

Edit: Chinese wash volume... grumble grumble.
shmadz
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1512
Merit: 1000


@theshmadz


View Profile
April 12, 2015, 02:48:01 AM

It's becoming obvious, the collapse is near.

I don't disagree with you. What was bad in 08 got printed into worse. It won't be an isolated event, however.

Not isolated for certain. Nearly all countries are complicit in the fiat money scam.

Interesting times.
KFR
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 560
Merit: 500


Per ardua ad luna


View Profile
April 12, 2015, 02:53:31 AM

Somebody should invent something.
ChartBuddy
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1050
Merit: 1000


1PwXK9TpmmaaqaZz2eqcLkPU2C1Fcva39G


View Profile
April 12, 2015, 02:58:30 AM

Coin
Explanation
Cconvert2G36
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 392
Merit: 250


View Profile
April 12, 2015, 03:00:54 AM

Somebody should invent something.

That part's done. It's the scaling up section that gets sticky with disparate incentives and motives.
Sitarow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1778
Merit: 1043



View Profile
April 12, 2015, 03:25:30 AM

https://bitreserve.org/en/how-it-works
JorgeStolfi
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 910
Merit: 1002



View Profile
April 12, 2015, 03:28:39 AM

Great thesis... but, can you deny, that "big money" would be put off by a lack of clarity regulation-wise? Sure "big money" could buy into anything at anytime, your assertion that they could have bought in, and chose not to, is kinda limp, as you have implied yourself, and I can attest to from personal experience, in actual fact, serious money IS put off by regulatory issues, more than ANYTHING else!! businesses and investors do not like uncertainty, and there is a definite correlation between lack of regulation, and lack of backing by "serious" or "institutional" investors. To claim that is not the case is plain daft imo (and again, I am not guessing here.. I am talking from experience)

The gist of this argument seems to be that "big money" does not want to invest now in raw bitcoins for fear of future regulations, but it would invest now in bitcoin fund shares because future regulations will not affect them.

I do not quite see what regulatory risks could apply to companies investing in raw bitcoins, that would not apply also to companies investing in bitcoin fund shares, and on the funds temselves.

Suppose, for example, that some future regulation essentially forces Coinbase and all other "clean" exchanges to shut down, so that it becomes nearly impossible to trade raw bitcoins in an open market.  Presumably the "bubble-packaged" bitcoins (fund shares) will remain tradeable on OTCQX, NASDAQ, and the like.  But then the bitcoin funds themselves will no longer be able to trade their bitcoins in an open market.  Whatever channel the funds will retain to do that (e.g. OTC trading), the large long-term investors should be able to use too.  In that eventuality, raw bitcoins then would become low-liquidity assets like real estate or industrial installations.  How could raw bitcoins lose value because of those restrictions, without the fund shares losing value too?

So I would think that "big money" presently does not want to invest in raw bitcoins or in bitcoin fund shares, because it sees both as bad investments, with considerable risk (including, but not only, the risk of both being hit by future regulatory changes), and without any solid fundamentals or potential market that could justify an expectation of rising prices.  On the contrary, this expectation is entirely based on the hope that 'big money' will start investing in bitcoin; but, if such a "circular" demand could lift the price of bitcoin, it could lift the price of any penny stock.

Quote
The thing is , and what  I disagree with you on Jorge, is you seem to have this picture that investors, who are in a position to make meaningful investments in BTC, only do so essentially  "to make money from the greater fools " and I put it to you, that actually, if all they wanted to do is earn a "few bucks" by scamming a few newbies, then in actual fact they have many many MANY FAR less riskier ventures that they could earn them a decent, and far far less riskier  and easier return from far larger  and more understood markets,  than being involved with BTC.  So ergo, most investors that are involved in BTC are not just involved to make a few bucks in a "risky" as fuck and uncertain market.. sure you could argue that they saw an opportunity and leveraged funds to make a quick and "easy" profit , but if they have the money to enter the BTC market, then they have the money to enter all sorts of other ventures, with a fraction of the risk, and perfectly decent returns. Go figure.

I would not say that all big investors are explicitly aiming to make money out of "greater fools", but they are generally indifferent to that possibility, provided that the profits are reasonably likely.  

For example, if some 'big money' had predicted the evolution of gold prices 15 years ago, it would surely buy a lot just before the bubble, and sell everything at the peak, with no moral scruples -- while knowing well that its profit would come entirely from the loss of the "greater fools" who bought at the peak.

That said, I did not get your point in the above paragraph.  Do you mean that there is 'big money' that would invest in BTC for the long run, hoping for its lasting success, rather than for sort-term speculation -- if there was no risk?  I can believe there is such money, but I cannot see how it could see bitcoin as "too risky" without seeing bitcoin funds in the same way.
cmacwiz
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 706
Merit: 270


BookiePro.Fun - The World's Betting Exchange


View Profile
April 12, 2015, 03:30:14 AM

Damn, now I have to look at Stolfi when he posts. 
Pages: « 1 ... 12020 12021 12022 12023 12024 12025 12026 12027 12028 12029 12030 12031 12032 12033 12034 12035 12036 12037 12038 12039 12040 12041 12042 12043 12044 12045 12046 12047 12048 12049 12050 12051 12052 12053 12054 12055 12056 12057 12058 12059 12060 12061 12062 12063 12064 12065 12066 12067 12068 12069 [12070] 12071 12072 12073 12074 12075 12076 12077 12078 12079 12080 12081 12082 12083 12084 12085 12086 12087 12088 12089 12090 12091 12092 12093 12094 12095 12096 12097 12098 12099 12100 12101 12102 12103 12104 12105 12106 12107 12108 12109 12110 12111 12112 12113 12114 12115 12116 12117 12118 12119 12120 ... 24625 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!