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

[lucas.sev]

I think it's for effect.

If you have 1k in coins, you really need fiat bad enough that you will dump them on Bitstamp at up to $10 lower than you can get them elsewhere? Doesn't ring true to me.

Could be.
But my premise is not about 'needing fiat bad enough' it is about the value of a Gox IOU vs $'s at Bitstamp. The Gox $ IOU's appear to be becoming worth less (notice the space for the moment)

what do you mean by IOU's?

[1714197009]

1714197009

[1714197009]

1714197009

[1714197009]

1714197009

[1714197009]

1714197009

[Its About Sharing]

so, we will retest 100 $ soon.

We really need to break that resistance.

It really looks to me that what is being bought on Gox is being dumped on BitStamp in a hurry
I think we could be about to see a REAL price dislocation in the coming days. Something wierd is going on.

I'm thinking about this... why would someone do that? What would it get them?
Are they trying to get BitStamp to explode up when the selling there stops? And then folks react on Gox, and so on?
(Sort of like creating a coiled spring on BitStamp. Then they sell their coins higher on Gox at a later time (as the rally continues).

Something just seems weird (as usual) with the movement...

What it gets them is fiat in their bank not a Gox IOU ...
Perhaps they were tying to create a bit of panic selling on Gox by slamming Bitstamp, and doing it the other way round. ie selling coins on Bitstamp and then buying on Gox after. Not a problem if you already own a bunch. And has the same net effect of moving out of Gox.
Didn't really work though in terms of panic. Just cost them more in slippage  

I think it's for effect.

If you have 1k in coins, you really need fiat bad enough that you will dump them on Bitstamp at up to $10 lower than you can get them elsewhere? Doesn't ring true to me.

Exactly my thinking... why would someone sell on stamp for $83 instead at gox for 94$ (13% lower). There is some strange info we don't know yet about.

Hmmm, what about Gox actually having liquidity problems. Is it possible they are manipulating the price there to get others to follow and then sell coins to raise $$$?

[tutkarz]

Exactly my thinking... why would someone sell on stamp for $83 instead at gox for 94$ (13% lower). There is some strange info we don't know yet about.

This reminds me of a priest who was paid not long ago $2.5m for moving $10m to another country. 13% is cheap if you consider this.

[RationalSpeculator]

I remember the wall observer threads when the market was bubbling. Zoomed out, the buying wall looked like a tsunami, ready to overflood the gradual upward curve of the selling wall. Some made drawings of surf boarders on the buying waves, and on the selling wall, drawed people fleeing from the wave etc.

Since the crash I've seen the inverse, now the selling wall looks like a wave, sometimes tsunami, ready to overflow the gradual upward curve of the buying wall.

I'm surprised these pictures showing the strong selling tsunami and making funny drawings on it are not posted here though. Or did I miss those?

[Its About Sharing]

I remember the wall observer threads when the market was bubbling. Zoomed out, the buying wall looked like a tsunami, ready to overflood the gradual upward curve of the selling wall. Some made drawings of surf boarders on the buying waves, and on the selling wall, drawed people fleeing from the wave etc.

Since the crash I've seen the inverse, now the selling wall looks like a wave, sometimes tsunami, ready to overflow the gradual upward curve of the buying wall.

I'm surprised these pictures showing the strong selling tsunami and making funny drawings on it are not posted here though. Or did I miss those?

ehheeh, I liked to describe that breaking wave of sells in the same way. It is building as we speak actually. Even though the price is rising, I'm reluctant with that building sell wave there.

[jbcv]

yooooo any idea why its going up now?

[MoreFun]

I remember the wall observer threads when the market was bubbling. Zoomed out, the buying wall looked like a tsunami, ready to overflood the gradual upward curve of the selling wall. Some made drawings of surf boarders on the buying waves, and on the selling wall, drawed people fleeing from the wave etc.

Since the crash I've seen the inverse, now the selling wall looks like a wave, sometimes tsunami, ready to overflow the gradual upward curve of the buying wall.

I'm surprised these pictures showing the strong selling tsunami and making funny drawings on it are not posted here though. Or did I miss those?

I can't see that the selling wall would be so huge... would you try to visualize what you are talking about?

[crumbs]

You arent making sense.

Someone market ordered to 96.

Someone else placed an ask shortly after for 95.5

No other orders had taken place.

Lowest ask: 95.5
Current price: 96

Very simple.

Thanks.  & @phoenix1. I'm not thinking.

[humanitee]

I think it's for effect.

If you have 1k in coins, you really need fiat bad enough that you will dump them on Bitstamp at up to $10 lower than you can get them elsewhere? Doesn't ring true to me.

Could be.
But my premise is not about 'needing fiat bad enough' it is about the value of a Gox IOU vs $'s at Bitstamp. The Gox $ IOU's appear to be becoming worth less (notice the space for the moment)

The major buys on Gox do not line up with the major sells on Stamp. Your theory holds no water.

[Walsoraj]

In speculative markets, all trading is insider trading.

[crumbs]

I think it's for effect.

If you have 1k in coins, you really need fiat bad enough that you will dump them on Bitstamp at up to $10 lower than you can get them elsewhere? Doesn't ring true to me.

Could be.
But my premise is not about 'needing fiat bad enough' it is about the value of a Gox IOU vs $'s at Bitstamp. The Gox $ IOU's appear to be becoming worth less (notice the space for the moment)

The major buys on Gox do not line up with the major sells on Stamp. Your theory holds no water.

If you were interested in doing what phoenix1 describes, would you want to make it transparent & obvious?

[Nightowlace]

Whatever it is I don't know if I am feeling to confident about it. I just moved everything I had on Gox off. Better to play it a little safe right now. IMO.

[BitPirate]

Whatever it is I don't know if I am feeling to confident about it. I just moved everything I had on Gox off. Better to play it a little safe right now. IMO.

It's possible that this is exactly what the dumper on BitStamp was aiming for.

[Its About Sharing]

Whatever it is I don't know if I am feeling to confident about it. I just moved everything I had on Gox off. Better to play it a little safe right now. IMO.

Agreed. When they prove that everything is ok (and I don't mean by getting a non accountant BTC personality to vouch for them), then all is ok to go back there.
Till then, we should be careful.

[Its About Sharing]

Whatever it is I don't know if I am feeling to confident about it. I just moved everything I had on Gox off. Better to play it a little safe right now. IMO.

It's possible that this is exactly what the dumper on BitStamp was aiming for.

Scary thought...

[BitPirate]

Easier than doing it on Mt. Gox  


Anyway looks like things might settle down for a bit -- 'stamp is oh-so-slowly climbing, and Gox is all whaled out.

[thezerg]

Easier than doing it on Mt. Gox  


Anyway looks like things might settle down for a bit -- 'stamp is oh-so-slowly climbing, and Gox is all whaled out.

And campbx was tracking gox not bitstamp which is abnormal.   A few days ago gox pulled up to 92, while cbx hit 90 but bitstamp below 85.  So I figured I could trade this by selling on cbx and letting it relax back down to bitstamp.  Didn't really work... bitstamp is rising now.  I got out (AKA back into BTC) with a buck per btc profit on very low volume... I was looking for 5.

[adamstgBit]

walls falling with ease, good show!

[Walsoraj]

https://www.sec.gov/servlet/Satellite/News/PressRelease/Detail/PressRelease/1370539730583

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
2013-132 Washington D.C., July 23, 2013 — The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged a Texas man and his company with defrauding investors in a Ponzi scheme involving Bitcoin, a virtual currency traded on online exchanges for conventional currencies like the U.S. dollar or used to purchase goods or services online.
The SEC alleges that Trendon T. Shavers, who is the founder and operator of Bitcoin Savings and Trust (BTCST), offered and sold Bitcoin-denominated investments through the Internet using the monikers “Pirate” and “pirateat40.”  Shavers raised at least 700,000 Bitcoin in BTCST investments, which amounted to more than $4.5 million based on the average price of Bitcoin in 2011 and 2012 when the investments were offered and sold.  Today the value of 700,000 Bitcoin exceeds $60 million.

The SEC alleges that Shavers promised investors up to 7 percent weekly interest based on BTCST’s Bitcoin market arbitrage activity, which supposedly included selling to individuals who wished to buy Bitcoin “off the radar” in quick fashion or large quantities.  In reality, BTCST was a sham and a Ponzi scheme in which Shavers used Bitcoin from new investors to make purported interest payments and cover investor withdrawals on outstanding BTCST investments.  Shavers also diverted investors’ Bitcoin for day trading in his account on a Bitcoin currency exchange, and exchanged investors’ Bitcoin for U.S. dollars to pay his personal expenses.

The SEC issued an investor alert today warning investors about the dangers of potential investment scams involving virtual currencies promoted through the Internet.

“Fraudsters are not beyond the reach of the SEC just because they use Bitcoin or another virtual currency to mislead investors and violate the federal securities laws,” said Andrew M. Calamari, Director of the SEC’s New York Regional Office.  “Shavers preyed on investors in an online forum by claiming his investments carried no risk and huge profits for them while his true intentions were rooted in nothing more than personal greed.”

According to the SEC’s complaint filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Shavers sold BTCST investments over the Internet to investors in such states as Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Louisiana, Massachusetts, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania.  Shavers posted general solicitations on a website dedicated to Bitcoin discussions, and he misled investors with such false assurances about his investment opportunity as “It’s growing, it’s growing!” and “I have yet to come close to taking a loss on any deal,” and “risk is almost 0.”  Contrary to the representations made to investors, BTCST was not in the business of buying and selling Bitcoin at all.

The SEC alleges that Shavers, who lives in McKinney, Texas, paid 507,148 Bitcoin in investor withdrawals and purported interest payments.  He transferred at least 150,649 Bitcoin to his personal account at an online Bitcoin currency exchange.  Shavers suffered a net loss from his day trading, but realized net proceeds of $164,758 from his sales of 86,202 Bitcoin.  Shavers transferred $147,102 from his personal account at the online Bitcoin currency exchange to accounts he controlled at an online payment processor as well as his personal checking account.  He used this money to pay his rent, utilities, and car-related expenses as well as for food and retail purchases and gambling.

The SEC’s complaint charges Shavers and BTCST with offering and selling investments in violation of the anti-fraud and registration provisions of the securities laws, specifically Sections 5(a), 5(c) and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Exchange Act Rule 10b-5.  The SEC is seeking a court order to freeze the assets of Shavers and BTCST in addition to other relief, including permanent injunctions, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains with prejudgment interest, and financial penalties.

The SEC’s investor alert, prepared by the agency’s Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, recommends that investors be wary of so-called investment opportunities that promise high rates of return with little or no risk, especially when dealing with unregistered, Internet-based investments sold by unlicensed promoters.

“Ponzi scheme operators often claim to have a tie to a new and emerging technology as a lure to potential victims,” said Lori J. Schock, Director of the SEC’s Office of Investor Education and Advocacy.  “Investors should understand that regardless of the type of investment, a promise of high returns with little or no risk is a classic warning sign of fraud.”

[adamstgBit]

https://www.sec.gov/servlet/Satellite/News/PressRelease/Detail/PressRelease/1370539730583


 

Great find!

Nice!

they got him!