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

[hdbuck]

If this bear market has been largely caused by Chinese miners that can do nothing with bitcoins except sell them, then it is likely to end when one of two things happen: Either they run out of stockpiled coins to sell over and above coins they are mining, or when the Chinese economy gets so bad that they realize that the killer app is to sneak out of the country with them.

Right now Bitcoins seems to be an answer in search of a problem: Most obviously capital controls in a world where capital is still largely mobile. When this situation changes, it is likely to be sudden and swift although the time frame is difficult to predict with any accuracy.

Mined coins are not that much, 3600 per day and the Chinese probably only have less than 35% share of that so thats only 1200 coins per days assuming they sell all of them every day. 

There is more belief of short traders and options sellers using leverage.

BTC3600 is not that much  that's like additional $850,000 sell pressure every single day. BTC is not that liquid to easily sustain that.

But some relief will come in 18months

Let assume that only 15% of population will use bitcoin in next 20 years.
=> it is 1,000,000,000  / 20 years
=> 50,000,000 new adopters per year
=> 136,000 new adopters every day

$850,000 / 136,000 new adopers =  $6.25 per new person

lol

Check reality. Price is $230+ and rising. :-)

not yet 136k new users errday tho

[NotLambchop]

In particular, I believe that it is not a coincidence that there are so few women who are "into" bitcoin.  

The bitcoin phenomenon today is a combination of naked greed, selfishness, delusions of grandeur, sense of entitlement, narcissism, extreme idiocy and sociopathic scam-prone behavior/thinking patterns.

Definitely not a coincidence.

This post is so good I just had to quote it. Sure, it should be in the 'meta' section, but still.

+1  Excellent, informative post, should be stickied.

[troleybüs]

Price is rising low because 220$ is already new low value. Miners don't sell for loss, but Chinese miners have very low product cost, so they can put pressure on price anyway.

[GaliX]

If this bear market has been largely caused by Chinese miners that can do nothing with bitcoins except sell them, then it is likely to end when one of two things happen: Either they run out of stockpiled coins to sell over and above coins they are mining, or when the Chinese economy gets so bad that they realize that the killer app is to sneak out of the country with them.

Right now Bitcoins seems to be an answer in search of a problem: Most obviously capital controls in a world where capital is still largely mobile. When this situation changes, it is likely to be sudden and swift although the time frame is difficult to predict with any accuracy.

Mined coins are not that much, 3600 per day and the Chinese probably only have less than 35% share of that so thats only 1200 coins per days assuming they sell all of them every day. 

There is more belief of short traders and options sellers using leverage.

BTC3600 is not that much  that's like additional $850,000 sell pressure every single day. BTC is not that liquid to easily sustain that.

But some relief will come in 18months

Let assume that only 15% of population will use bitcoin in next 20 years.
=> it is 1,000,000,000  / 20 years
=> 50,000,000 new adopters per year
=> 136,000 new adopters every day

$850,000 / 136,000 new adopers =  $6.25 per new person

lol

Check reality. Price is $230+ and rising. :-)

there is absolutely no volume behind this rise... These rises are happening because the order book is relatively thin and indicators tell bots/traders to buy.

Once real trades and Volume kicking back in we will just see another big red candle an be back where the rise started.

[silverfuture]

I believe that it is not a coincidence that there are so few women who are "into" bitcoin.  

bitcoin or computer science or engineering or any of the stuff that separates us from primitive subsistence-level savages.

When the first computer science courses opened in Brazil, women were often more that half of the students, and the brightest students were often women.  Over the years the proportion has dropped to the same level as in electrical and civil engineering, that is 5--10% or maybe less.

We had endless debates about why women don't apply to computer science anymore, with no conclusions.  It is not because computer science is "difficult". It is actually one of the professions where even dumb people can succeed.  There are plenty of women in medicine, chemistry, mathematics -- where you really need a functioning brain to work.  I taught intro computing to chemical engineering freshmen last semester, and to my surprise the class was again half women, and again some of the best students were women.

It must be some subtle thing in the popular image of the computer professional.  Perhaps the idea that he is an antisocial nerd who hardly leaves his mom's basement --- a way of life which may appeal to many adolescent men, but not to adolescent women.

women [ ... ] living in houses they didn't build, talking on phones they didn't invent, typing on computers they didn't program, driving cars they didn't design, going to stores they don't manage to spend money they didn't earn.

And you still think that men are more intelligent than women? 

You can't even divide it up between genders like that, and I think BJA is a little off base there. We all have a relatively wide range of biological individuality (Except for maybe the Winkelvii )  Women tend toward different types of intelligence and other qualities than men as a group for whatever reason and we seem better off as a network for it. Women seem to tend toward social, emotional, and creative intelligence and men tend toward logical, rational, and physical intelligence but those are only tendencies and, again, wide ranges can be expected in any population.  Intelligence is a tough quantitative analysis to make and the tools are still crude at best.

It is an often repeated myth to say that all bitcoiners are men, white, etc. etc.  It's a pretty diverse group but of course the bell curve does lean heavily to the white male geek stereotype to the delight of naysayers who use that as some sort of racist, sexist argument against bitcoin tech. I reject that thinking and think some people should just get a life and go do something productive instead. 

  Case in point, it was only a small, hardcore group of men who were the initial enthusiasts for the Ultimate Fighting Championship. They were so hardcore, they would go train and fight for next to nothing in pay, fans would travel for miles to see the shows, etc.  UFC almost was shut down and experienced many times when either regulatory bodies or (John McCain) politiciansa called for bans.  There were less women in support of it than there is for bitcoin and most opposed it as violence.  Cooler heads prevailed though and now we are at a point of mass adoption where Rhonda Rousey is one of the biggest stars and draws of the show. She beautiful, intelligent, and tough as fucking nails. A good role model for empowering women IMO.








UFC is the fastest growing sport in the world now and that type of event only happened in Brazil a little over 20 years ago when I first found out about it and started watching and training MMA.  Bitcoin shows many of the same developments as the UFC in its early adoption on the way to mainstreaming.

[cakir]

Reminder: Coindesk's news about wordpress.com is a lie. Check this out: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=965605.msg10556629#msg10556629

[ChartBuddy]

Coin
Explanation

[ErisDiscordia]

Some absolute crap getting discussed today on here.

Take it to off topic.

I agree.  Is this garbage what we want the newbies who just watched that CNN special to read when they hit bitcointalk and look at active threads?

I understand that there's a fine line between trolling and a completely valid bearish perspective.  So it is not right to moderate on-topic bearish posts.  But the trash I'm reading today is not the image we want to present to new bitcoiners.  Letting it stay here is a bad idea if you care about Bitcoin, even if you care but happen to be short today.

So I'm here posting on this thread to ask other bitcoiners to en-masse ask the moderators to start monitoring this thread until the off-topic trolling -- in fact all the off topic posting -- goes somewhere else. 

Please reply to this post if you agree!!!   Drown out the garbage posts with replies so the trolls see how little we appreciate their off-topic "contributions".

And also start clicking the "report to moderator" link on off-topic posts to this thread.

thanks,
theZerg

I disagree. This thread has always been full of off-topic discussions/flamewars about absolutely everything and I, for one, would like to keep it that way. Let other threads on the forum be heavily moderated a trollbox has its place here as well imo.

[bassclef]

I'd rather have off topic discussion than pages of low quality troll posts.

[NotLambchop]

[silverfuture]

Some absolute crap getting discussed today on here.

Take it to off topic.

I agree.  Is this garbage what we want the newbies who just watched that CNN special to read when they hit bitcointalk and look at active threads?

I understand that there's a fine line between trolling and a completely valid bearish perspective.  So it is not right to moderate on-topic bearish posts.  But the trash I'm reading today is not the image we want to present to new bitcoiners.  Letting it stay here is a bad idea if you care about Bitcoin, even if you care but happen to be short today.

So I'm here posting on this thread to ask other bitcoiners to en-masse ask the moderators to start monitoring this thread until the off-topic trolling -- in fact all the off topic posting -- goes somewhere else. 

Please reply to this post if you agree!!!   Drown out the garbage posts with replies so the trolls see how little we appreciate their off-topic "contributions".

And also start clicking the "report to moderator" link on off-topic posts to this thread.[/size]

thanks,
theZerg

I agree completely. Moderation here really sucks and it's why the place has run amok with scumbags and chased away valued postings.  I've had the moderators remove one of my posts with this image in it, because someone was butthurt and didn't like it   I wonder who that was?









When I tried to return the favor to NotLambchop by reporting one of his despicable, slanderous, trollposts here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=178336.msg10550381#msg10550381

I reported it hours and hours ago and yet it remains up along with all the other off topic crappy shit this cretin and his troll sock knob-gobblers post. Incredible! What does it take to get some decent moderation and participation to make this most popular thread more bitcoin friendly without all the shitfest?  I like contrary opinions and views and love a good laugh but this is ridiculous to see on the front page of bitcoin talk. 

[silverfuture]

I'd rather have off topic discussion than pages of low quality troll posts.

Agreed. I like this place as raucous as it can be in the best of times and hate to see it get crapped up so badly by a few malcontent bridge dwellers and possibly paid operatives.

 

[Bagatell]

What does it take to get some decent moderation and participation to make this most popular thread more bitcoin friendly without all the shitfest? 

New forum software?

[gentlemand]

What does it take to get some decent moderation and participation to make this most popular thread more bitcoin friendly without all the shitfest? 

New forum software?

Nope. Just a tiny amount of attention from the mods.

[NotLambchop]

...
When I tried to return the favor to NotLambchop by reporting one of his despicable, slanderous, trollposts here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=178336.msg10550381#msg10550381

I reported it hours and hours ago and yet it remains up along with all the other off topic crappy shit this cretin and his troll sock knob-gobblers post. Incredible! What does it take to get some decent moderation and participation to make this most popular thread more bitcoin friendly without all the shitfest?  I like contrary opinions and views and love a good laugh but this is ridiculous to see on the front page of bitcoin talk. 

You mean this?  How is it slanderous, do you even know what the word means?

Don't turn a blind eye!
Help stop Bitcoin perverts!

[oda.krell]

in a modern world full of ak47, m16 and other machinery the "biological equivalence of abilities of men and women" sounds like the women are only not able to join dick swinging contests. nothing more.

try to marry some of those guys and you will find out the meaning of the word violence.

Yeah, see this is where bja is precisely right: by your own standards, anyone holding an opinion that makes him unpalatable to you to marry has an unacceptable opinion (societally speaking).

I prefer my society (and principles) to be slightly more permissive for variety of ideas than that.

no, people like billyjoe should be institutionalized!

Why? I disagree with him on the matter, but that's not the point we were discussing here.

Here's my view on the topic: there's scant biological evidence that women are intellectually less capable than men, and there's a lot more evidence that they underperform on, say, standardized tests because of cultural effects. So, personally, I'm leaning towards "Let's assume we're equally capable, until we've ruled out all or most cultural effects influencing the result". Basically, the argument Neil deGrasse Tyson made a while ago:

I’ve never been female, but I have been black my whole life. So let me perhaps offer some insight from that perspective, because there are many similar social issues ...throughout my life – I’ve known that I wanted to do astrophysics since I was nine years old on a first visit to the Hayden Planetarium ... And all I can say is, the fact that I wanted to be a scientist, an astrophysicist, was, hands down, the path of most resistance through the forces of nature, the forces of society. Any time I expressed this interest, teachers would say, “Don’t you want to be an athlete?” I wanted to become something that was outside of the paradigms of expectation of the people in power. ...

So, my life experience tells me that when you don’t find blacks in the sciences and you don’t find women in the sciences, I know that these forces are real and I had to survive them in order to get where I am today. So before we start talking about genetic differences, you’ve got to come up with a system where there’s equal opportunity. Then we can have that conversation.

Note that his quote has been misinterpreted often, as saying "There are no genetic differences between men and women, black and white people." He said no such thing. He's saying something a lot more sensible: As long as there's strong evidence of cultural forces preventing women and black people from entering science, it's pointless to speculate about the much more vague, less understood genetic component.


All of that said:

You don't have to see it like that. You can have your reasons to believe women are less smart than men by nature. That belief still allows for two different paths: one where you go violently about bringing women down, and one where you only make your own choices based on the assumption above, i.e. the non-violent path. The line separating the two paths is not always completely clear, there's a gradual difference, but as a general distinction, it remains valid in my opinion.

That's the violent vs. non-violent sexist distinction I have in mind. "Violent" meaning, more or less, the same as "intolerant" in this context. And I know plenty of people who think that, as long as you have the right opinion - say, that women and men are equally smart - it's okay to be intolerant of the opposing views.

At that point, I disagree, and agree with BJA's earlier comment: I'd take a non-violent sexist over a violent non-sexist (where "violent/non-violent" mostly runs along the lines of tolerance of opposing opinions).


Here's the short version:

I consider being tolerant more important than being right, because the latter is heavily subjective anyway, despite what we tell ourselves to make it look like our rightness is righter than the other guy's rightness.

[pinky]

Slowly word is spreading.

[octaft]

Your ability to put succinctly into words what I've been thinking anyway makes me happy.

I think this sums up quite well why people are complimenting the guy now. He's saying things that bulls want to hear.

I will say that his bitcoin posts are alright, in that there is nothing really offensive in there (except when he's attacking another user, which is fine if he attacks THAT USER and doesn't generalize). It's the rest of the stuff that annoys me, and honestly I can't just dismiss that stuff. It's to the point where even when I agree with the guy, I really hate to admit it out of not wanting the guy to think I like him.

Believe me, I know there are people on here who feel the same way about me. I'm not fooling myself. But at least I can sleep at night knowing that it can't be because I'm a bigot.

In short: I wish the guy would just stick to the bitcoin posts.

[neurotypical]

1. “There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home.” — Ken Olson, president, chairman and founder of Digital Equipment Corp. (DEC), maker of big business mainframe computers, arguing against the PC in 1977.

2. “We will never make a 32 bit operating system.” — Bill Gates

3. “Lee DeForest has said in many newspapers and over his signature that it would be possible to transmit the human voice across the Atlantic before many years. Based on these absurd and deliberately misleading statements, the misguided public … has been persuaded to purchase stock in his company …” — a U.S. District Attorney, prosecuting American inventor Lee DeForest for selling stock fraudulently through the mail for his Radio Telephone Company in 1913.

4. “There is practically no chance communications space satellites will be used to provide better telephone, telegraph, television, or radio service inside the United States.” — T. Craven, FCC Commissioner, in 1961 (the first commercial communications satellite went into service in 1965).

5. “To place a man in a multi-stage rocket and project him into the controlling gravitational field of the moon where the passengers can make scientific observations, perhaps land alive, and then return to earth – all that constitutes a wild dream worthy of Jules Verne. I am bold enough to say that such a man-made voyage will never occur regardless of all future advances.” — Lee DeForest, American radio pioneer and inventor of the vacuum tube, in 1926

6. “A rocket will never be able to leave the Earth’s atmosphere.” — New York Times, 1936.

7. “Flight by machines heavier than air is unpractical (sic) and insignificant, if not utterly impossible.” – Simon Newcomb; The Wright Brothers flew at Kittyhawk 18 months later.

8. “Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible.” — Lord Kelvin, British mathematician and physicist, president of the British Royal Society, 1895.

9. “There will never be a bigger plane built.” — A Boeing engineer, after the first flight of the 247, a twin engine plane that holds ten people

10. “Nuclear-powered vacuum cleaners will probably be a reality in 10 years.” -– Alex Lewyt, president of vacuum cleaner company Lewyt Corp., in the New York Times in 1955.

11. “This is the biggest fool thing we have ever done. The bomb will never go off, and I speak as an expert in explosives.” — Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy during World War II, advising President Truman on the atomic bomb, 1945.[6] Leahy admitted the error five years later in his memoirs

12. “The energy produced by the breaking down of the atom is a very poor kind of thing. Anyone who expects a source of power from the transformation of these atoms is talking moonshine.” — Ernest Rutherford, shortly after splitting the atom for the first time.

13. “There is not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will ever be obtainable. It would mean that the atom would have to be shattered at will.” — Albert Einstein, 1932

14. “The cinema is little more than a fad. It’s canned drama. What audiences really want to see is flesh and blood on the stage.” -– Charlie Chaplin, actor, producer, director, and studio founder, 1916

15. “The horse is here to stay but the automobile is only a novelty – a fad.” — The president of the Michigan Savings Bank advising Henry Ford’s lawyer, Horace Rackham, not to invest in the Ford Motor Co., 1903

16. “The Americans have need of the telephone, but we do not. We have plenty of messenger boys.” — Sir William Preece, Chief Engineer, British Post Office, 1878.

17. “This ‘telephone’ has too many shortcomings to be seriously considered as a means of communication. The device is inherently of no value to us.” — A memo at Western Union, 1878 (or 1876).

18. “The world potential market for copying machines is 5000 at most.” — IBM, to the eventual founders of Xerox, saying the photocopier had no market large enough to justify production, 1959.

19. “I must confess that my imagination refuses to see any sort of submarine doing anything but suffocating its crew and floundering at sea.” — HG Wells, British novelist, in 1901.

20. “X-rays will prove to be a hoax.” — Lord Kelvin, President of the Royal Society, 1883.

21. “The idea that cavalry will be replaced by these iron coaches is absurd. It is little short of treasonous.” — Comment of Aide-de-camp to Field Marshal Haig, at tank demonstration, 1916.

22. “How, sir, would you make a ship sail against the wind and currents by lighting a bonfire under her deck? I pray you, excuse me, I have not the time to listen to such nonsense.” — Napoleon Bonaparte, when told of Robert Fulton’s steamboat, 1800s.

23. “Fooling around with alternating current is just a waste of time. Nobody will use it, ever.” — Thomas Edison, American inventor, 1889 (Edison often ridiculed the arguments of competitor George Westinghouse for AC power).

24. “Home Taping Is Killing Music” — A 1980s campaign by the BPI, claiming that people recording music off the radio onto cassette would destroy the music industry.

25. “Television won’t last. It’s a flash in the pan.” — Mary Somerville, pioneer of radio educational broadcasts, 1948.

26. “[Television] won’t be able to hold on to any market it captures after the first six months. People will soon get tired of staring at a plywood box every night.” — Darryl Zanuck, movie producer, 20th Century Fox, 1946.

27. “When the Paris Exhibition [of 1878] closes, electric light will close with it and no more will be heard of it.” – Oxford professor Erasmus Wilson

28. “Dear Mr. President: The canal system of this country is being threatened by a new form of transportation known as ‘railroads’ … As you may well know, Mr. President, ‘railroad’ carriages are pulled at the enormous speed of 15 miles per hour by ‘engines’ which, in addition to endangering life and limb of passengers, roar and snort their way through the countryside, setting fire to crops, scaring the livestock and frightening women and children. The Almighty certainly never intended that people should travel at such breakneck speed.” — Martin Van Buren, Governor of New York, 1830(?).

29. “Rail travel at high speed is not possible because passengers, unable to breathe, would die of asphyxia.” — Dr Dionysys Larder (1793-1859), professor of Natural Philosophy and Astronomy, University College London.

30. “The wireless music box has no imaginable commercial value. Who would pay for a message sent to no one in particular?” — Associates of David Sarnoff responding to the latter’s call for investment in the radio in 1921.

[silverfuture]

...
When I tried to return the favor to NotLambchop by reporting one of his despicable, slanderous, trollposts here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=178336.msg10550381#msg10550381

I reported it hours and hours ago and yet it remains up along with all the other off topic crappy shit this cretin and his troll sock knob-gobblers post. Incredible! What does it take to get some decent moderation and participation to make this most popular thread more bitcoin friendly without all the shitfest?  I like contrary opinions and views and love a good laugh but this is ridiculous to see on the front page of bitcoin talk. 

You mean this?  How is it slanderous, do you even know what the word means?

Don't turn a blind eye!
Help stop Bitcoin perverts!

My google isn't broken brah. I know what it means. Pedos will be pedos no matter whether bitcoin exists or not. As a matter of fact bitcoin is more likely to get them busted like Ross Ulbrict than save them from good police work. The association you are implying is unfair and slanderous to bitcoiners as a group and you know it. You are intentionally trying to make these types of associations repeatedly in lots of threads and have been for a long time. You can't take the heat when it is turned on you and run to the hall monitor when you get pwned. Fuck off.