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

[neutrinox]

People should sleep more. All this fighting and insulting makes me nervous.

Should I sell my coins now?

Short answer: Yes.

Long answer: Of course not.

[Odrec]

People should sleep more. All this fighting and insulting makes me nervous.

Should I sell my coins now?

Short answer: Yes.

Long answer: Of course not.

Lol good answer.

[Davyd05]

I wonder if the 0% trading fees at the largest exchanges (china & gox) is contributing to this misleading stability.

wouldn't it be more likely to cause instability greater swing trade gains

[rpietila]

A certain regular contributor to here has two 'attack threads' about him set up - WTF?!

I think it's the last phase before: "...then you win". Oh well 

[MOVERZZZ]

http://www.rtcons.com/wall/16039.14.small.png

/\15OO street price! *ETF/FOREX peeps talking $5000-$10,000+
 [-coming soon-]  

$BTC = Buy/Mine & Hold type coin  *IMO!*

[gambitv]

/\15OO street price! *ETF/FOREX peeps talking $5000-$10,000+
 [-coming soon-]  

$BTC = Buy/Mine & Hold type coin  *IMO!*

So only one way price going on a Saturday night... To the Disco Ball....

[notme]

I wonder if the 0% trading fees at the largest exchanges (china & gox) is contributing to this misleading stability.

wouldn't it be more likely to cause instability greater swing trade gains

Can you explain by what mechanism that could possibly work?  My experience and several academic papers would disagree with you.

For example: http://m.rfs.oxfordjournals.org/content/25/11/3389.short

Competition among trading platforms has considerably reduced trading fees in stock markets. We show that this evolution is not necessarily beneficial to investors. Although they increase gains from trade when a trade happens, lower trading costs can induce investors to post limit orders with a smaller execution probability. In this case, gains from trade are realized less frequently and investors can be worse off.

In other words, lower fees leads to a full book and thus more stability.

[Davyd05]

I wonder if the 0% trading fees at the largest exchanges (china & gox) is contributing to this misleading stability.

wouldn't it be more likely to cause instability greater swing trade gains

Can you explain by what mechanism that could possibly work?  My experience and several academic papers would disagree with you.

For example: http://m.rfs.oxfordjournals.org/content/25/11/3389.short

Competition among trading platforms has considerably reduced trading fees in stock markets. We show that this evolution is not necessarily beneficial to investors. Although they increase gains from trade when a trade happens, lower trading costs can induce investors to post limit orders with a smaller execution probability. In this case, gains from trade are realized less frequently and investors can be worse off.

In other words, lower fees leads to a full book and thus more stability.

I thought because it was a break..from them not necessarily permanently 0% trading fees you'd see more variance.. pretty much what we saw when the bots weren't configured for it, Thursday.

Gox that is

[notme]

I wonder if the 0% trading fees at the largest exchanges (china & gox) is contributing to this misleading stability.

wouldn't it be more likely to cause instability greater swing trade gains

Can you explain by what mechanism that could possibly work?  My experience and several academic papers would disagree with you.

For example: http://m.rfs.oxfordjournals.org/content/25/11/3389.short

Competition among trading platforms has considerably reduced trading fees in stock markets. We show that this evolution is not necessarily beneficial to investors. Although they increase gains from trade when a trade happens, lower trading costs can induce investors to post limit orders with a smaller execution probability. In this case, gains from trade are realized less frequently and investors can be worse off.

In other words, lower fees leads to a full book and thus more stability.

I thought because it was a break..from them not necessarily permanently 0% trading fees you'd see more variance.. pretty much what we saw when the bots weren't configured for it, Thursday.

Gox that is

I wasn't watching much on Thursday because I live in the US (Thanksgiving holliday).  However, in the past temporary 0 fees on gox has generally led to more stability.

So if I understand correctly, you are saying that people will rush to trade since the fees will be going back up?  There may be some truth to that, but the book will still be thicker, especially close to the price.

[thezerg]

A certain regular contributor to here has two 'attack threads' about him set up - WTF?!

I think it's the last phase before: "...then you win". Oh well 

hang in there man and ignore that ad hominem garbage.  

Your advice is sound.  Although I remain a short, medium and long term bull, anyone who has done well with bitcoin would be foolish not to let a few coins go just for diversification, risk reduction and a small celebration!

On topic... I think its surprising how well the price has held up given bank holidays, bitcoin friday, and general holiday spending.  Its an advantage of a worldwide market, local variances get smoothed out.  We also saw this in a big way a few weeks ago when US and Europe "caught" the Chinese bubble pop.

[vps15]

I wonder if the 0% trading fees at the largest exchanges (china & gox) is contributing to this misleading stability.

wouldn't it be more likely to cause instability greater swing trade gains

Can you explain by what mechanism that could possibly work?  My experience and several academic papers would disagree with you.

For example: http://m.rfs.oxfordjournals.org/content/25/11/3389.short

Competition among trading platforms has considerably reduced trading fees in stock markets. We show that this evolution is not necessarily beneficial to investors. Although they increase gains from trade when a trade happens, lower trading costs can induce investors to post limit orders with a smaller execution probability. In this case, gains from trade are realized less frequently and investors can be worse off.

In other words, lower fees leads to a full book and thus more stability.

I thought because it was a break..from them not necessarily permanently 0% trading fees you'd see more variance.. pretty much what we saw when the bots weren't configured for it, Thursday.

Gox that is

I wasn't watching much on Thursday because I live in the US (Thanksgiving holliday).  However, in the past temporary 0 fees on gox has generally led to more stability.

So if I understand correctly, you are saying that people will rush to trade since the fees will be going back up?  There may be some truth to that, but the book will still be thicker, especially close to the price.

gox should have mentioned 0 fees earlier, the earliest i heard of this was today in an email from them (i guess like everybody else), one day after it's already started.  if they had made it more public i expect there would have been massive fluctuations as people who want to get in would be that much more inclined to buy given that they would have gained an extra 0.6% btc, and the opposite goes for traders that want to get out (gaining 0.6% more fiat).

this is common sense, expect volatility

[kurious]

A certain regular contributor to here has two 'attack threads' about him set up - WTF?!

I think it's the last phase before: "...then you win". Oh well 

I may not agree with all you say, but (to paraphrase Voltaire) I will of course defend your right to say it.

That of course logically applies to anyone who attacks what you say too, I am afraid.

This is a forum about Bitcoin, however, and so I found the personal aspect of those attacks offensive and unnecessary.

[notme]

I wonder if the 0% trading fees at the largest exchanges (china & gox) is contributing to this misleading stability.

wouldn't it be more likely to cause instability greater swing trade gains

Can you explain by what mechanism that could possibly work?  My experience and several academic papers would disagree with you.

For example: http://m.rfs.oxfordjournals.org/content/25/11/3389.short

Competition among trading platforms has considerably reduced trading fees in stock markets. We show that this evolution is not necessarily beneficial to investors. Although they increase gains from trade when a trade happens, lower trading costs can induce investors to post limit orders with a smaller execution probability. In this case, gains from trade are realized less frequently and investors can be worse off.

In other words, lower fees leads to a full book and thus more stability.

I thought because it was a break..from them not necessarily permanently 0% trading fees you'd see more variance.. pretty much what we saw when the bots weren't configured for it, Thursday.

Gox that is

I wasn't watching much on Thursday because I live in the US (Thanksgiving holliday).  However, in the past temporary 0 fees on gox has generally led to more stability.

So if I understand correctly, you are saying that people will rush to trade since the fees will be going back up?  There may be some truth to that, but the book will still be thicker, especially close to the price.

gox should have mentioned 0 fees earlier, the earliest i heard of this was today in an email from them (i guess like everybody else), one day after it's already started.  if they had made it more public i expect there would have been massive fluctuations as people who want to get in would be that much more inclined to buy given that they would have gained an extra 0.6% btc, and the opposite goes for traders that want to get out (gaining 0.6% more fiat).

this is common sense, expect volatility

Your "common sense" contradicts my experience.  Also, the email in my inbox is dated 11-28.

[vps15]

gox should have mentioned 0 fees earlier, the earliest i heard of this was today in an email from them (i guess like everybody else), one day after it's already started.  if they had made it more public i expect there would have been massive fluctuations as people who want to get in would be that much more inclined to buy given that they would have gained an extra 0.6% btc, and the opposite goes for traders that want to get out (gaining 0.6% more fiat).

this is common sense, expect volatility

Your "common sense" contradicts my experience.  Also, the email in my inbox is dated 11-28.

well ya bitcoin is unpredictable, so just because something should happen doesnt mean it will,

but do you agree with what im saying? lower fees means more profitable transactions, gives people more incentive to trade

[SnowMonkey_CG]

British Island Wants to Make Physical Bitcoins with UK Royal Mint Deal

http://www.coindesk.com/british-island-physical-bitcoins-uk-royal-mint/

A tiny island in the English Channel, Alderney, wants to mint physical bitcoins as part of a larger campaign to become one of the world’s first financial services centers devoted to digital currency.

[ElectricMucus]

British Island Wants to Make Physical Bitcoins with UK Royal Mint Deal

http://www.coindesk.com/british-island-physical-bitcoins-uk-royal-mint/

They are made of gold so when the price collapses you can melt it down to recover some of the investment.
I find this not the least but ironic.

[philip2000uk]

British Island Wants to Make Physical Bitcoins with UK Royal Mint Deal

http://www.coindesk.com/british-island-physical-bitcoins-uk-royal-mint/

They are made of gold so when the price collapses you can melt it down to recover some of the investment.
I find this not the least but ironic.

that article is weird, it says they wont have the private key on them.  So it's just a lump of gold with the bitcoin symbol on it?

[gandhibt]

Volume is NOT gone down according to D1 graph.



Google Trends.



Ready for the next stair to heaven?

[octaft]

British Island Wants to Make Physical Bitcoins with UK Royal Mint Deal

http://www.coindesk.com/british-island-physical-bitcoins-uk-royal-mint/

They are made of gold so when the price collapses you can melt it down to recover some of the investment.
I find this not the least but ironic.

that article is weird, it says they wont have the private key on them.  So it's just a lump of gold with the bitcoin symbol on it?

That you can later exchange for a bitcoin, if I understood correctly.

[SnowMonkey_CG]

British Island Wants to Make Physical Bitcoins with UK Royal Mint Deal

http://www.coindesk.com/british-island-physical-bitcoins-uk-royal-mint/

They are made of gold so when the price collapses you can melt it down to recover some of the investment.
I find this not the least but ironic.

that article is weird, it says they wont have the private key on them.  So it's just a lump of gold with the bitcoin symbol on it?

Not sure but it does sound bizarre.  The original Financial Times article might give more details but it's behind a paywall... anybody have access?

It says an independent company would hold the coins' private keys in escrow ready to be exchanged by paying a visit to the island.  Can anyone else see the problem with this?  Doesn't this open the door to fractional reserve?  What's to stop them issuing more coins than they have keys?