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

[r0ach]

BTC-E leading in price again.  This fucker trying to manipulate down on Bitfinex to make his $5 million dollar short work is gonna lose if Bitstamp and even BTC-E aren't gonna follow Finex.

[1714677715]

1714677715

[1714677715]

1714677715

[peonminer]

OKcoin looking ready to drop it like it's hot.

[peonminer]

Is it just me, or is lambie catching feels??

https://youtu.be/p8uOErVShiE

[Fatman3001]

<>
Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Long, sordid & convoluted tale. At the time, *everyone* was doing it, everyone wanted it to be done to them, and anyone daring to point out the obvious was the enemy of the state. Those who didn't buy HashFast miners invested in Neo&Bee, or ActiveMining, or LabCoin, or any number of lucrative investment opportunities. Their money was as good as gone, only a question of who ended up with it.
Can we really blame Cypher for capitalizing on the situation?
Yeah, I raged a bit -- turns out I was the idiot warning gay masochists about impending assrape.
Feel foolish, man

 ~Pepe

Sure, but you're like a broken clock.

Did you warn me about Luke-Jr and his BFL shilling?

That could have been useful.

Do we hate him as well? I forget.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1bengb/luke_jr_receives_first_little_single_asic_off_the/

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=163261.msg1713137#msg1713137

[Fatman3001]

<>
Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Long, sordid & convoluted tale. At the time, *everyone* was doing it, everyone wanted it to be done to them, and anyone daring to point out the obvious was the enemy of the state. Those who didn't buy HashFast miners invested in Neo&Bee, or ActiveMining, or LabCoin, or any number of lucrative investment opportunities. Their money was as good as gone, only a question of who ended up with it.
Can we really blame Cypher for capitalizing on the situation?
Yeah, I raged a bit -- turns out I was the idiot warning gay masochists about impending assrape.
Feel foolish, man

 ~Pepe

Sure, but you're like a broken clock.

Did you warn me about Luke-Jr and his BFL shilling?

That could have been useful.

Do we hate him as well? I forget.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1bengb/luke_jr_receives_first_little_single_asic_off_the/

Now look, Chubby, if the the time was *always 11:30,* there's no reason for a clock to say anything other than 11:30, amirite?
Analogously, there was no reason for me to confuse you by suggesting that certain 'investments' were good & had a chance to succeed -- they were all shit, each and every one.

Though my predictions lacked the variety you seem to demand, I'm content with them being (invariably) correct.

Granted, the broken clock analogy was not the best. My point is that you've been slinging shit on everything and everyone from the beginning of time, of course you're going hit someone who deserves it now and then. Besides, my mother says I'm just big boned.

Edit:

*And no, didn't warn you about BFL. We've all fallen short of the Glory of God.

Then you are useless in my eyes. In fact, your exclusion of them from your daily mudslinging schedule leads me to believe that you are in fact a paid BFL-shill.

BURN THE WITCH!!!!

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

Yes... it's confirmed to be happening in BJA's head.

Honest injun.

Okay, I'll bite.

What part of the analogy dont you like, or feel is less than accurate?

Frequently, libertarians, such as BJA, become very prejudgemental about group action and the motives of persons in authority, such as representatives or government authorities. 

Therefore, these libertarians paint a picture, not as artfully done as Animal Farm, regarding bad motives of government officials.  Sure there may be some truth to those kinds of bad motives playing out and developing in some situations, but bad motives and biases and self-dealings are not a given - except, I do understand that many countries, including the USA, need to figure out ways to lessen the influence of money in politics (and yes, there is a bit of an inexactness in suggesting the blockchain is governmental in the same way that politics is governmental. 

I am not taking any side for or against bigger blocks - well actually, it does seem that at some point in the near future, we are going to need to have bigger blocks... and even a plan going forward regarding bigger blocks without constant back and forth. 

To me, it seems that I am just a bit more comfortable and tollerant with allowing the back and forth process to  play itself out without getting so worked up about it and accusing bad motives of others, rather than painting every scenario as doom and gloom or continuing to assert that the sky is falling, when that surely is not the case.

What you need is a sense of humour. A sense of humour allows you to see things from both perspectives, because thats what jokes essentially are - regular stories which at some point suddenly change direction. Without it you will continue to see things from a fundamentalist perspective, and that it certainly no fun.

A sense of humour would allow you to see the intelligence of his post, but still retain your own belief.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[aminorex]

Would be pretty stupid to set off anything now

Now there you go.  You've said something I agree with.

Like many others, I expect ongoing accumulation and an August dump.  What does that tell you?

Are you the same monkey from a year ago, or did you sell your account?

I'm the human.  He's the monkey.

You used to be a lot more bullish and reasonable about bitcoin,

And indeed my comment above was a reflection of intense bullishness.  I am describing the prevailing anticipation of July halving, the popular expectations which reflect the experience of a 10x bubble during the last halving.

Maybe we can agree that around passing $350 in late November 2015 that we have passed pretty clearly into a btc bull trend.... ?    

The monkey (over there, not me) first registered a daily bull trend on 13 Oct 2015 at usd 245.  He expected it to end on 25 Oct at 280, but it did not.

He next registered a daily bull trend on 7 Dec 2015 at 390. and called an end to it on 17 Dec at 455, which was more accurate.

He currently sees a daily downtrend from 28 Dec at 424, and is holding faith with it so far, but not entirely comfortably.  

The current daily downtrend is a corrective phase, according to the monkey.  In monkey-speak we are half-way through a weekly uptrend which began in early December, and just beginning a monthly uptrend which began at 225 in September.

I hold bitcoin (as well as XMR).  I trade some bitcoin (but not very much and not very aggressively).  My general plan for long-term holdings of BTC and XMR is accumulation.  I do personally follow the monkey's monthly trend estimation when deciding whether to hoard or dishoard BTC.  I sometimes use the monkey's daily or weekly predictions to trade a small portion of BTC, either long or short, but not very much or very often, because he doesn't have a great track record analyzing crypto on shorter time scales.  At least on the monthly scale he hasn't been proven wrong yet.

why wait 8 months for a supposed dump

I was referring to a post-bubble event.  After a spike past, say, usd 4k, again, naively following the pattern of the last bubble spike.

In case anyone has read this far and has forgotten or never known, I provide some missing context:  The monkey is my algorithmic general-purpose predictor, trained on a very large universe of securities, regimes and time-scales. The monkey is often wrong.  My track record for stock picking, for example, is 54% winning without the monkey, 61% winning with the monkey, so my personal interpretations of his outputs appear to offer a 7 point edge in that asset class.  I don't have enough data to estimate the edge provided by the monkey in crypto, but it is almost certainly much less (conceivably even negative) at short time scales (which may be the fault of my interpretation as much as the monkey's analysis), but it seems to be getting better as the BTC market matures, and has always been significant on longer time scales, albeit the confidence interval for the edge estimate is wide for this asset class, due to paucity of historical price/event data on crypto.

(The 54,61 numbers are probably misleading unless I explain that they are binary classification accuracy numbers for swing trades on a scale of days, from 2008 to 2015 measured by the sign of the net return of the trade.)

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

We've all fallen short of the Glory of God.

Indeed.  

[peonminer]

[infofront]

We've all fallen short of the Glory of God Satoshi.

Indeed.  

[billyjoeallen]

 

To me, it seems that I am just a bit more comfortable and tollerant with allowing the back and forth process to  play itself out without getting so worked up about it and accusing bad motives of others, rather than painting every scenario as doom and gloom or continuing to assert that the sky is falling, when that surely is not the case.

It's not every scenario. It's just this one particular scenario. There aren't two sides that are attempting to negotiate a solution to a problem. There is one side that is trying to fix a problem and another side that is attempting to make the problem worse so they can sell a proprietary workaround or failing that, to delay fixing the problem as long as possible.

Smallblockers are not arguing in good faith. It makes no sense to change the way Bitcoin works so that we can avoid changing the way bitcoin works. It makes no sense to vilify opinions or procedures critical of centralized power if your chief concern is centralized power.

You don't shout down your opposition if you want a reasoned solution. You don't censor opposing viewpoints if your goal is rational discourse that addresses the concerns of all stakeholders. You sure as hell don't keep changing your rationalizations to support the same conclusion.

If you want a digital gold system, then you can't in good faith say the blockchain can't be used for non-monetary purposes with respect to colored coins, title transfers, timestamps and microtransactions. Gold isn't cash. If you want a digital cash system, then you can't jack up fees so high that small cash purchases become nonviable. If you want a network that can only be effectively used by directly by rich people, then you can't credibly claim to be the conservative force faithful to the original vision and purpose of Bitcoin. You should be honest enough to admit that you want to change Bitcoin, to take it away from those who built it, put in the effort and absorbed the risks and give it not to the people who need it but to people who stand in the middle and make profits from INCREASING rather than decreasing the friction in trade. 

[aminorex]

Civil engineer: Hey, Boss. Traffic on the bridge is increasing by 50% per month. Shouldn't we widen it?

Bureaucrat: Ha! That bridge has excess capacity. If traffic gets too high, we'll just increase the tolls. Most of those schmucks don't really need to go anywhere anyway.

Civil engineer: Do we know that for sure? What if there is an evacuation or something?

Bureaucrat: That bridge was intentionally designed with low capacity to prevent invasions! Widening it would be a dangerous departure from historic bridge operations.

Civil Engineer: Aren't bridges supposed to be used to facilitate travel?

Bureaucrat: Yes, but only the right sort of travel. That's for me to decide! If traffic gets too heavy, and tolls get too expensive, the people can use buses. Too many single passenger cars anyway.

Civil engineer: Do you own a bus company?

Bureaucrat: Purely coincidental! I'm just guarding against bridgebuilder centralization.

Civil engineer: I see. No conflict of interest there. What's the name of your company anyway, Busstream?

Bureaucrat: Bridgestream_TM, Smartass.

Awesome post, BJA!

Epic, classic.  Well-crafted rhetoric manifesting good faith is often more persuasive than bare facts and logic.  Humans "reason" almost entirely by analogy, so this is a most effective way to make your point.  The analogy flows easily, and neither is it labored, nor does it beg extension to a reductio.  

[Fatman3001]

Civil engineer: Hey, Boss. Traffic on the bridge is increasing by 50% per month. Shouldn't we widen it?

Bureaucrat: Ha! That bridge has excess capacity. If traffic gets too high, we'll just increase the tolls. Most of those schmucks don't really need to go anywhere anyway.

Civil engineer: Do we know that for sure? What if there is an evacuation or something?

Bureaucrat: That bridge was intentionally designed with low capacity to prevent invasions! Widening it would be a dangerous departure from historic bridge operations.

Civil Engineer: Aren't bridges supposed to be used to facilitate travel?

Bureaucrat: Yes, but only the right sort of travel. That's for me to decide! If traffic gets too heavy, and tolls get too expensive, the people can use buses. Too many single passenger cars anyway.

Civil engineer: Do you own a bus company?

Bureaucrat: Purely coincidental! I'm just guarding against bridgebuilder centralization.

Civil engineer: I see. No conflict of interest there. What's the name of your company anyway, Busstream?

Bureaucrat: Bridgestream_TM, Smartass.

Awesome post, BJA!

Epic, classic.  Well-crafted rhetoric manifesting good faith is often more persuasive than bare facts and logic.  Humans "reason" almost entirely by analogy, so this is a most effective way to make your point.  The analogy flows easily, and neither is it labored, nor does it beg extension to a reductio.  

I know this is the internet, but I sense irony.

BURN THE WITCH!!!!

[rocks]

Civil engineer: Hey, Boss. Traffic on the bridge is increasing by 50% per month. Shouldn't we widen it?

Bureaucrat: Ha! That bridge has excess capacity. If traffic gets too high, we'll just increase the tolls. Most of those schmucks don't really need to go anywhere anyway.

Civil engineer: Do we know that for sure? What if there is an evacuation or something?

Bureaucrat: That bridge was intentionally designed with low capacity to prevent invasions! Widening it would be a dangerous departure from historic bridge operations.

Civil Engineer: Aren't bridges supposed to be used to facilitate travel?

Bureaucrat: Yes, but only the right sort of travel. That's for me to decide! If traffic gets too heavy, and tolls get too expensive, the people can use buses. Too many single passenger cars anyway.

Civil engineer: Do you own a bus company?

Bureaucrat: Purely coincidental! I'm just guarding against bridgebuilder centralization.

Civil engineer: I see. No conflict of interest there. What's the name of your company anyway, Busstream?

Bureaucrat: Bridgestream_TM, Smartass.

Awesome post, BJA!

Epic, classic.  Well-crafted rhetoric manifesting good faith is often more persuasive than bare facts and logic.  Humans "reason" almost entirely by analogy, so this is a most effective way to make your point.  The analogy flows easily, and neither is it labored, nor does it beg extension to a reductio.  

Thermos' censorship on reddit and here only worked for awhile.

Now that we are getting closer to the limit where everyone will feel real pain from the artificial limit, more and more people are noticing the problem.

The rampant censorship that worked for the Blockstream team works less and less as more people start to ask why we are not doing the obvious thing we all understood would be done years ago. You can't censor everyone.

Core has stated over and over again they will not raise the 1MB limit (which Satoshi and everyone agreed would be raised for years). They even just reiterated this yesterday. This is both absurd and will not stand for the larger market. I won't be surprised if in 1 year from now no one is running core and  Bitcoin as moved on to other implementations that better reflect the vision.

[aminorex]

Since September 2012 the transaction rate on the bitcoin blockchain has been increasing by roughly 83% annually, with no sign of notable deviation from that trend impending.  (Prior to that date the rate of expansion was significantly larger.)
From September 2010 to September 2015 (selected as locally representative, to exclude exceptional periods of value transfer) the volume of BTC transmitted per unit of time has roughly doubled annually, even while the market value increased by a factor of 1000.

[AlexGR]

If you want a digital gold system, then you can't in good faith say the blockchain can't be used for non-monetary purposes with respect to colored coins, title transfers, timestamps and microtransactions.

Piling every proof-of-work quorum system in the world into one dataset doesn't scale.

Bitcoin and BitDNS can be used separately.  Users shouldn't have to download all of both to use one or the other.  BitDNS users may not want to download everything the next several unrelated networks decide to pile in either.

The networks need to have separate fates.  BitDNS users might be completely liberal about adding any large data features since relatively few domain registrars are needed, while Bitcoin users might get increasingly tyrannical about limiting the size of the chain so it's easy for lots of users and small devices.

Apparently billyjoeallen is a true visionary, unlike cripplecoiner Satoshi who put there the 1MB limit and only wanted Bitcoin's fate to be "restricted" into a much lesser role instead of wanting to include every possible dataset that can be "blockchained", into BTC's blockchain.

As an inventor, Satoshi would likely get enormous credit for creating something that could be used for 100 or 1000 stuff simultaneously instead of 1, 5 or 10. Yet he was quite open and honest about whether that would actually scale.

Satoshi showed the way: The invention of the blockchain could be used with parallel blockchains for different data sets. It was not necessary to put every single data set into the same blockchain.

But billyjoeallen knows better...

[JayJuanGee]

Yes... it's confirmed to be happening in BJA's head.

Honest injun.

Okay, I'll bite.

What part of the analogy dont you like, or feel is less than accurate?

Frequently, libertarians, such as BJA, become very prejudgemental about group action and the motives of persons in authority, such as representatives or government authorities. 

Therefore, these libertarians paint a picture, not as artfully done as Animal Farm, regarding bad motives of government officials.  Sure there may be some truth to those kinds of bad motives playing out and developing in some situations, but bad motives and biases and self-dealings are not a given - except, I do understand that many countries, including the USA, need to figure out ways to lessen the influence of money in politics (and yes, there is a bit of an inexactness in suggesting the blockchain is governmental in the same way that politics is governmental. 

I am not taking any side for or against bigger blocks - well actually, it does seem that at some point in the near future, we are going to need to have bigger blocks... and even a plan going forward regarding bigger blocks without constant back and forth. 

To me, it seems that I am just a bit more comfortable and tollerant with allowing the back and forth process to  play itself out without getting so worked up about it and accusing bad motives of others, rather than painting every scenario as doom and gloom or continuing to assert that the sky is falling, when that surely is not the case.

What you need is a sense of humour. A sense of humour allows you to see things from both perspectives, because thats what jokes essentially are - regular stories which at some point suddenly change direction. Without it you will continue to see things from a fundamentalist perspective, and that it certainly no fun.

A sense of humour would allow you to see the intelligence of his post, but still retain your own belief.

I guess somehow in your infinite wisdom and social/psycho analyses you've figured out what I need based on my making a few posts on a forum...


Go figure?

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[JayJuanGee]

Would be pretty stupid to set off anything now

Now there you go.  You've said something I agree with.

Like many others, I expect ongoing accumulation and an August dump.  What does that tell you?

Are you the same monkey from a year ago, or did you sell your account?

I'm the human.  He's the monkey.

You used to be a lot more bullish and reasonable about bitcoin,

And indeed my comment above was a reflection of intense bullishness.  I am describing the prevailing anticipation of July halving, the popular expectations which reflect the experience of a 10x bubble during the last halving.

Maybe we can agree that around passing $350 in late November 2015 that we have passed pretty clearly into a btc bull trend.... ?    

The monkey (over there, not me) first registered a daily bull trend on 13 Oct 2015 at usd 245.  He expected it to end on 25 Oct at 280, but it did not.

He next registered a daily bull trend on 7 Dec 2015 at 390. and called an end to it on 17 Dec at 455, which was more accurate.

He currently sees a daily downtrend from 28 Dec at 424, and is holding faith with it so far, but not entirely comfortably.  

The current daily downtrend is a corrective phase, according to the monkey.  In monkey-speak we are half-way through a weekly uptrend which began in early December, and just beginning a monthly uptrend which began at 225 in September.

I hold bitcoin (as well as XMR).  I trade some bitcoin (but not very much and not very aggressively).  My general plan for long-term holdings of BTC and XMR is accumulation.  I do personally follow the monkey's monthly trend estimation when deciding whether to hoard or dishoard BTC.  I sometimes use the monkey's daily or weekly predictions to trade a small portion of BTC, either long or short, but not very much or very often, because he doesn't have a great track record analyzing crypto on shorter time scales.  At least on the monthly scale he hasn't been proven wrong yet.

why wait 8 months for a supposed dump

I was referring to a post-bubble event.  After a spike past, say, usd 4k, again, naively following the pattern of the last bubble spike.

In case anyone has read this far and has forgotten or never known, I provide some missing context:  The monkey is my algorithmic general-purpose predictor, trained on a very large universe of securities, regimes and time-scales. The monkey is often wrong.  My track record for stock picking, for example, is 54% winning without the monkey, 61% winning with the monkey, so my personal interpretations of his outputs appear to offer a 7 point edge in that asset class.  I don't have enough data to estimate the edge provided by the monkey in crypto, but it is almost certainly much less (conceivably even negative) at short time scales (which may be the fault of my interpretation as much as the monkey's analysis), but it seems to be getting better as the BTC market matures, and has always been significant on longer time scales, albeit the confidence interval for the edge estimate is wide for this asset class, due to paucity of historical price/event data on crypto.

(The 54,61 numbers are probably misleading unless I explain that they are binary classification accuracy numbers for swing trades on a scale of days, from 2008 to 2015 measured by the sign of the net return of the trade.)

hahahahaha

Thanks for clarifying several of those points.

I understand that some of us will tend to anthropomorphize monkey, get frustrated with his points and also mix him up with his apparent human counterpart.   


Your clarification seems to straighten out a little of my own mixing up in  interpreting whether some of monkey's shorter term predictions were reflecting changes in the longer term outlook of alleged human in respects to bitcoin, and whether you might have invested too much in Monero, which seems not to be the case.

Thanks again.