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

[DARKHOLDER]

Why there is not new pool question updated?

Looks like $600 and $700 won this round, and we have not seen Adam in here for several days, maybe even a week ago?

Maybe a poll about the price at the precise block of the halvening would be an interesting and precise time?

Yes thats exactly what I think about!

[PoolMinor]

Why there is not new pool question updated?

Looks like $600 and $700 won this round, and we have not seen Adam in here for several days, maybe even a week ago?

Maybe a poll about the price at the precise block of the halvening would be an interesting and precise time?

Looks like <$1000, <$800, <$700 won this round.

[Elwar]

[Its About Sharing]

To the minute eh? The rumors/posting were out hours before the jump, and the lack of any denial from the miners escalates the chance these events were correlated.

p.s. *gasps

Possibly, but the timing no longer coincides well. Also, such a development would surely instill uncertainty, which is not bullish.

p.s. /me performs a tracheotomy to aid your breathing.

A year ago uncertainty was scary, 6 months ago uncertainty was scary, 4 months ago... "individuals" said some nice things and took some pictures, and made a deal they don't intend to keep. Now... well... hell, it almost feels like a relief someone is calling the big bluff.

P.S. murder isn't cool you two

Your version of history is a whole hell-of-a lot of nonsense spinning and grasping at straws.

The reality of the matter is that what had happened 6 months ago, is that BTC prices shot up from $200 to $500.. and this shooting up was in part because of ongoing BTC price suppression that had lasted more than a year, and the price shot up because the bears couldn't really keep it down anymore, inspite of attempts to spread nonsense..  then after the price shot to $500 and came back down a bit of price battling back and forth settled back down into the $360 to $460 range. 

I would hardly call that scared uncertainty in the bitcoin space, even though a lot of FUCD was being spread around during those few months that BTC prices floated largely in the $360 to $460 range.

Yeah, sure, four months ago, we got some additional FUCD spreading... coupled with rage quitting and hyperbole.. . but really, by the time mid-to-end of May came along. ... and even with the fairly heavy Ethereum pumping, folks began to realize that bitcoin really is not broken as had been hyped and continued to be hyped by marginal loud mouth nonsense spreading shills...

Anyhow, in late May, we broke passed $500, and there is considerable amount of difficulties for bears and anti-bitcoiners in attempting to put the genie back in the bottle and to attempt to get BTC prices to go back down, below $500 would be good for these kinds of anti-bitcoin folks...

So, upward we go, and upward pressure we continue to experience, and surely it wouldn't be a good time to be a bear under current market upwards price pressures, no?

Something to add to the picture is that with all the talk of the halving, EVERYTHING to this point and till the halving is speculation. The real halving will occur when the daily supply is halved. So, the months following Friday the 8th or so, will really show us the affects. We have to consider if selling of existing coins will be able to make up the difference in the lowered supply and I really really doubt it will.

[julian071]

Why there is not new pool question updated?

Looks like $600 and $700 won this round, and we have not seen Adam in here for several days, maybe even a week ago?

Maybe a poll about the price at the precise block of the halvening would be an interesting and precise time?

Yes thats exactly what I think about!

Adam ran out of champagne again. He's out getting more. It may take a while, because this time it's gonna be really expensive exotic champagne and it's also a lot. I heard he was buying for the whole wall observer thread.

[poncho32]

To the minute eh? The rumors/posting were out hours before the jump, and the lack of any denial from the miners escalates the chance these events were correlated.

p.s. *gasps

Possibly, but the timing no longer coincides well. Also, such a development would surely instill uncertainty, which is not bullish.

p.s. /me performs a tracheotomy to aid your breathing.

A year ago uncertainty was scary, 6 months ago uncertainty was scary, 4 months ago... "individuals" said some nice things and took some pictures, and made a deal they don't intend to keep. Now... well... hell, it almost feels like a relief someone is calling the big bluff.

P.S. murder isn't cool you two

Your version of history is a whole hell-of-a lot of nonsense spinning and grasping at straws.

The reality of the matter is that what had happened 6 months ago, is that BTC prices shot up from $200 to $500.. and this shooting up was in part because of ongoing BTC price suppression that had lasted more than a year, and the price shot up because the bears couldn't really keep it down anymore, inspite of attempts to spread nonsense..  then after the price shot to $500 and came back down a bit of price battling back and forth settled back down into the $360 to $460 range.  

I would hardly call that scared uncertainty in the bitcoin space, even though a lot of FUCD was being spread around during those few months that BTC prices floated largely in the $360 to $460 range.

Yeah, sure, four months ago, we got some additional FUCD spreading... coupled with rage quitting and hyperbole.. . but really, by the time mid-to-end of May came along. ... and even with the fairly heavy Ethereum pumping, folks began to realize that bitcoin really is not broken as had been hyped and continued to be hyped by marginal loud mouth nonsense spreading shills...

Anyhow, in late May, we broke passed $500, and there is considerable amount of difficulties for bears and anti-bitcoiners in attempting to put the genie back in the bottle and to attempt to get BTC prices to go back down, below $500 would be good for these kinds of anti-bitcoin folks...

So, upward we go, and upward pressure we continue to experience, and surely it wouldn't be a good time to be a bear under current market upwards price pressures, no?

Something to add to the picture is that with all the talk of the halving, EVERYTHING to this point and till the halving is speculation. The real halving will occur when the daily supply is halved. So, the months following Friday the 8th or so, will really show us the affects. We have to consider if selling of existing coins will be able to make up the difference in the lowered supply and I really really doubt it will.

Who will sell their stored existing coins shortly after halving day when they know they will get a better price by holding them for a few months? The only people selling shortly after halving day will be the ones who need to pay bills and don't have any other savings. Everyone else will be holding.

[fichtn12345]

Why there is not new pool question updated?

Looks like $600 and $700 won this round, and we have not seen Adam in here for several days, maybe even a week ago?

Maybe a poll about the price at the precise block of the halvening would be an interesting and precise time?

Yes thats exactly what I think about!

Adam ran out of champagne again. He's out getting more. It may take a while, because this time it's gonna be really expensive exotic champagne and it's also a lot. I heard he was buying for the whole wall observer thread.

Confirmed. 

[JayJuanGee]

Why there is not new pool question updated?

Looks like $600 and $700 won this round, and we have not seen Adam in here for several days, maybe even a week ago?

Maybe a poll about the price at the precise block of the halvening would be an interesting and precise time?

Looks like <$1000, <$800, <$700 won this round.

O.k.  Maybe some people would read the "<" as  "less than" signs, but really they appear to be best interpreted as sloppy attempts by Adam to make bullets, and what i said initially appears to be the best interpretation....

Accordingly, on 6/30 the price was closest to $600 and $700   because accordingly the price traversed from about $630 to $685 throughout the day.

Of course, Adam should make these polls more unambiguous, but that is not the Adam that we have...  

we got the Adam that we got   

[Dotto]

^^ Ignored at first sight

[Dotto]

[European Central Bank]

wow, this page is dead at the moment apart from psychotic assholes who get binned.

anyway - http://moneymorning.com/2016/07/01/why-the-winklevoss-bitcoin-etf-is-back-on-track-for-approval/

the winklevosssssss's application has a new law firm and the reason they went with the bats exchange is that they, not nasdaq, were prepared to implement a rule change that means we'll know if the etf gets approved in the next 8 months. it might be alot sooner. after that it might be never.

[PoolMinor]

Why there is not new pool question updated?

Looks like $600 and $700 won this round, and we have not seen Adam in here for several days, maybe even a week ago?

Maybe a poll about the price at the precise block of the halvening would be an interesting and precise time?

Looks like <$1000, <$800, <$700 won this round.

O.k.  Maybe some people would read the "<" as  "less than" signs, but really they appear to be best interpreted as sloppy attempts by Adam to make bullets, and what i said initially appears to be the best interpretation....

Accordingly, on 6/30 the price was closest to $600 and $700   because accordingly the price traversed from about $630 to $685 throughout the day.

Of course, Adam should make these polls more unambiguous, but that is not the Adam that we have...  

we got the Adam that we got   

I am pretty sure that 37.9% of the respondents would not have agreed with <$1000 if they had not assumed the "<" was meant to be a less than symbol.

Also if Adam wished to make a bullet point it is quite easy to do without making it ambiguous.

*   1000   - 148 (37.9%)
*    800   - 66 (16.9%)
*    700   - 88 (22.6%)

See really easy.

[Dotto]

So many good news in a row. Perfect storm is brewing.








Bears probably sad

[sirazimuth]

^^ Ignored at first sight

yeah i almost did the same, but then i thought the prick is gonna be nuked in the next 15 minutes, so why bother?

anyway...i reckon $700's gotta be just round the corner.....

[DARKHOLDER]

So many good news in a row. Perfect storm is brewing.

What news ?

[European Central Bank]

some winklevoss etf action. they've adjusted their application to make it a whole lot more viable. the new exchange they've chosen to work with is willing to implement a rule that nasdaq wasn't.

[Ted E. Bare]

Bitcoin Block Reward Halving Countdown:
Only 8 more days!

Reward drop ETA: Sat, 9 Jul 2016 18:05:46 GMT

[JayJuanGee]

Why there is not new pool question updated?

Looks like $600 and $700 won this round, and we have not seen Adam in here for several days, maybe even a week ago?

Maybe a poll about the price at the precise block of the halvening would be an interesting and precise time?

Looks like <$1000, <$800, <$700 won this round.

O.k.  Maybe some people would read the "<" as  "less than" signs, but really they appear to be best interpreted as sloppy attempts by Adam to make bullets, and what i said initially appears to be the best interpretation....

Accordingly, on 6/30 the price was closest to $600 and $700   because accordingly the price traversed from about $630 to $685 throughout the day.

Of course, Adam should make these polls more unambiguous, but that is not the Adam that we have...  

we got the Adam that we got   

I am pretty sure that 37.9% of the respondents would not have agreed with <$1000 if they had not assumed the "<" was meant to be a less than symbol.

Also if Adam wished to make a bullet point it is quite easy to do without making it ambiguous.

*   1000   - 148 (37.9%)
*    800   - 66 (16.9%)
*    700   - 88 (22.6%)

See really easy.

Sure ... it's easy enough to make polls less ambiguous; however, possibly, you seem to be wishing for an Adam other than the AdamstgBit that we gots....

There is a bit of a pattern and practice of ambiguous polls from Adam, and that is just a statement of fact rather than any kind of complaint from me.... 

Surely, the polls tend to be ambiguous not only in respect to what they mean exactly but frequently in terms of what, when and how much they are referring to.. and people likely just make their best approximation.. to the extent that they are not using the polls to troll.

Furthermore, it doesn't even really matter what Adam intends the polls to mean, but instead how people interpret the polls when they place their answer.

I think that you and I have a bit of a different interpretation regarding what people thought overall of this particular poll.. and I personally believe that they a large many of the poll participants were just picking the number that was closest to what they thought the price would be on June 30 rather than any kind of an attempt to be absolutely literal and/or correct. 

Otherwise, if participants actually wanted to be correct, they would have picked <1,000 because that was the most likely to be the most literally correct out of the possible answers available  - that is if they had read the "<" sign as a "less than" 1000. 

[yefi]

wow, this page is dead at the moment apart from psychotic assholes who get binned.

anyway - http://moneymorning.com/2016/07/01/why-the-winklevoss-bitcoin-etf-is-back-on-track-for-approval/

the winklevosssssss's application has a new law firm and the reason they went with the bats exchange is that they, not nasdaq, were prepared to implement a rule change that means we'll know if the etf gets approved in the next 8 months. it might be alot sooner. after that it might be never.

Wow, interesting news. Thanks for the link.

[adamstgBit]

Why there is not new pool question updated?

Looks like $600 and $700 won this round, and we have not seen Adam in here for several days, maybe even a week ago?

Maybe a poll about the price at the precise block of the halvening would be an interesting and precise time?

Looks like <$1000, <$800, <$700 won this round.

O.k.  Maybe some people would read the "<" as  "less than" signs, but really they appear to be best interpreted as sloppy attempts by Adam to make bullets, and what i said initially appears to be the best interpretation....

Accordingly, on 6/30 the price was closest to $600 and $700   because accordingly the price traversed from about $630 to $685 throughout the day.

Of course, Adam should make these polls more unambiguous, but that is not the Adam that we have... 

we got the Adam that we got   

I am pretty sure that 37.9% of the respondents would not have agreed with <$1000 if they had not assumed the "<" was meant to be a less than symbol.

Also if Adam wished to make a bullet point it is quite easy to do without making it ambiguous.

*   1000   - 148 (37.9%)
*    800   - 66 (16.9%)
*    700   - 88 (22.6%)

See really easy.

Sure ... it's easy enough to make polls less ambiguous; however, possibly, you seem to be wishing for an Adam other than the AdamstgBit that we gots....

There is a bit of a pattern and practice of ambiguous polls from Adam, and that is just a statement of fact rather than any kind of complaint from me.... 

Surely, the polls tend to be ambiguous not only in respect to what they mean exactly but frequently in terms of what, when and how much they are referring to.. and people likely just make their best approximation.. to the extent that they are not using the polls to troll.

Furthermore, it doesn't even really matter what Adam intends the polls to mean, but instead how people interpret the polls when they place their answer.

I think that you and I have a bit of a different interpretation regarding what people thought overall of this particular poll.. and I personally believe that they a large many of the poll participants were just picking the number that was closest to what they thought the price would be on June 30 rather than any kind of an attempt to be absolutely literal and/or correct. 

Otherwise, if participants actually wanted to be correct, they would have picked <1,000 because that was the most likely to be the most literally correct out of the possible answers available  - that is if they had read the "<" sign as a "less than" 1000. 

"<" = "less than"
">" = "gr8er than"