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

[Cconvert2G36]

...
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.  

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.

[1713522495]

1713522495

[1713522495]

1713522495

[1713522495]

1713522495

[12345mm]

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.

     

[KFR]

...

...

...

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.

[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.

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.

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.)

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]

...

...

...

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.

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]

...

...

...

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.

+ 1  + 1 + 1

[shmadz]

...

...

...

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.

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]

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]

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]

Somebody should invent something.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin
Explanation

[Cconvert2G36]

Somebody should invent something.

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

[Sitarow]

https://bitreserve.org/en/how-it-works

[JorgeStolfi]

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.

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]

Damn, now I have to look at Stolfi when he posts. 

[coinableS]

Somebody should invent something.

Somebody should invent something that is irreversible, so that it can only be purchased with bitcoin.

[JorgeStolfi]

Damn, now I have to look at Stolfi when he posts. 

Hm, sorry about that.  I will consider replacing my avatar by something less scary or disgusting... 

[Cconvert2G36]

I think there's a fair amount of reluctance for average investors to send international wires to bitcoin exchanges. I think the redemption terms really killed the traditional BIT as a vehicle (also the center of their stealth listing of GBTC option).

Not to say that I think GBTC will unleash a tidal flow of investment, but it is a channel that hasn't existed before. Buying paper bitcoin exposure with a Scottrade acct.

[JorgeStolfi]

Somebody should invent something.

Somebody should invent something that is irreversible, so that it can only be purchased with bitcoin.

It is naive to expect a technological solution to a social/political/economic problem.  The bad guys -- "powers that be", criminals, corrupt politicians and officers, cartels, etc. -- will either ban it, neutralize it, or twist it to serve their purposes. (You can see it happening with bitcoin already.) Such problems can be addressed only by substantial, sustained, and clear-thinking political effort.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin
Explanation