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

[traincarswreck]

Everywhere I read its recommended to withdraw coins from exchanges until the dust settles sometime after Aug.1st. That would create very thin pools everywhere without the option to transfer back and prices could move any direction much easier.

How does this equal bcc gaining value or you gaining value from going against the crowd (or with the crowd)?

[TeeBone]

I can see sharks playing crazy tricks here with stop losses on exchanges that arent giving BCC. Watch out if you're on stamp, liquidity will be shot.

[savetherainforest]

Everywhere I read its recommended to withdraw coins from exchanges until the dust settles sometime after Aug.1st. That would create very thin pools everywhere without the option to transfer back and prices could move any direction much easier.  The skeptic in me wonders if it might be better to put my coins on an exchange and perhaps just ignore the fork drama.   BTC seems to have a tendency to go the opposite direction of the masses.  

There are 2 options.

1. The price goes down. This means that the percentage of bitcoin that you can acquire is greater!

2. The price goes up. In this scenario the percentage of bitcoin that you can acquire diminishes, but the amount of fiat you can trade it for is greater.


Assuming you care only for the coin and not fiat. The demand will still be there, and you will be out of its way with u'r dead weight corpse dragging 'fake' trade. And any of those 2 scenarios would help you profit. So??

[Icygreen]

Everywhere I read its recommended to withdraw coins from exchanges until the dust settles sometime after Aug.1st. That would create very thin pools everywhere without the option to transfer back and prices could move any direction much easier.

How does this equal bcc gaining value or you gaining value from going against the crowd (or with the crowd)?

I'm not concerned about a BCC value and in fact I was never here for BCC in the first place. I would only be concerned with BCC value if I follow my greed to get MORE. Really, I'd never even heard of BCC before last week.   I'm suggesting to consider ignoring the "possible fork" or simply taking advantage of the likely volatility that would arise from thin pools where transactions are halted.
  
You seem like a smart individual but personally I can't bear to read much of what you write. Seems trollish to me, and where the hell did you come from anyway? No offence intended, just suspicious timing to enter WO with so much to argue about.
 

[x2666]

Everywhere I read its recommended to withdraw coins from exchanges until the dust settles sometime after Aug.1st. That would create very thin pools everywhere without the option to transfer back and prices could move any direction much easier.  The skeptic in me wonders if it might be better to put my coins on an exchange and perhaps just ignore the fork drama.   BTC seems to have a tendency to go the opposite direction of the masses.  

That's actually my exact train of thought. First everyone follows the often spouted ideal to withdraw their coins, then a large % will not redeem their airdropped BCH fast enough and get beat to the punch. Additionally, with all of the liquidity gone off exchanges the markets will get slapped around like a five dollar whore with far fewer coins while people sit there with their funds locked in wallets which need to sync and get transferred to exchanges creating a time buffer for market makers to react as they see fit.

[MinermanNC]

The price has been holding nicely last few days. I actually sold some yesterday on Coinbase with no issues. I don't think the BTC market will be much affected, or so it seems now.

Some may want to go chase the new alt coin BCC, just as in any other alts. Most exchanges will not be supporting it right away. Not to say as time goes on BCC wont gain ground. Hard to see it being the dominant chain.

Well its almost "fork eve"  

[Icygreen]

Everywhere I read its recommended to withdraw coins from exchanges until the dust settles sometime after Aug.1st. That would create very thin pools everywhere without the option to transfer back and prices could move any direction much easier.  The skeptic in me wonders if it might be better to put my coins on an exchange and perhaps just ignore the fork drama.   BTC seems to have a tendency to go the opposite direction of the masses.  

There are 2 options.

1. The price goes down. This means that the percentage of bitcoin that you can acquire is greater!

2. The price goes up. In this scenario the percentage of bitcoin that you can acquire diminishes, but the amount of fiat you can trade it for is greater.


Assuming you care only for the coin and not fiat. The demand will still be there, and you will be out of its way with u'r dead weight corpse dragging 'fake' trade. And any of those 2 scenarios would help you profit. So??

Dead weight corpse dragging fake trade?  Haha, didn't intend to put your knickers in a twist. I don't claim to know what will happen but being one who's gone against the crowd most of my life has worked out well for me so far.  Best of luck to you sir.

[traincarswreck]

I'm not concerned about a BCC value and in fact I was never here for BCC in the first place. I would only be concerned with BCC value if I follow my greed to get MORE.

You have to SELL the BCC to gain from them

[r0ach]

You have said bitcoin can't work and yet reality shows it does

Of course it doesn't work.  It's value is supposed to be based on decentralization yet it's completely centralized.  You make this buffoonish statement that it "works" just because there are entities trying to pump and dump it. A pump and dump does not validate something.  

Does "chaincoin" work just because someone pump and dumped it from 5 cents to $6 before it crashes to nothing again?  Everybody knows bitcoin completely failed at what it claimed to be set out to do.  Right now it's sole reason for existing is regulatory arbitrage - avoiding the legal system.  It's not actually required to be decentralized to accomplish that goal.  For example, bitcoin's centralized money laundering operation precursor:  The Liberty Reserve.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty_Reserve

[drbrockcoin]

I now have several BTC loaned on Poloniex at between 4 and 4.9999% daily rate.

5% being the max allowed.

Feeling a bit Jewish right now...

Sorry to be a bother.. can you just briefly explain to me how it works loaning BTC on Polio? Is it safe to do so? Is there ever a possibility you lose your coins?

[traincarswreck]

Of course it doesn't work.  It's value is supposed to be based on decentralization yet it's completely centralized.  You make this buffoonish statement that it "works" just because there are entities trying to pump and dump it.  A pump and dump does not validate something.  Does "chaincoin" work just because someone pump and dumped it from 5 cents to $6 before it crashes to nothing again? LOL.

You are denying reality and by YOUR OWN DEFINITION wasting your life on this forum.

[r0ach]

Of course it doesn't work.  It's value is supposed to be based on decentralization yet it's completely centralized.  You make this buffoonish statement that it "works" just because there are entities trying to pump and dump it.  A pump and dump does not validate something.  Does "chaincoin" work just because someone pump and dumped it from 5 cents to $6 before it crashes to nothing again? LOL.

You are denying reality and by YOUR OWN DEFINITION wasting your life on this forum.

The purpose of bitcoin is regulatory arbitrage and that's why even though bitcoin is completely centralized it has not failed yet.  Being decentralized is not a requirement of regulatory arbitrage.  For past examples see Liberty Reserve or Silk Road.  Being a centralized regulatory arbitrage network is an untenable position in the long run though, as can be seen by the fate of those other attempts at regulatory arbitrage in the past.  Mining pools and exchanges are a stupidly large attack vector so anyone can shut this centralized nonsense down whenever they want to.

[traincarswreck]

The purpose of bitcoin is regulatory arbitrage and that's why even though bitcoin is completely centralized it has not failed yet.  Being decentralized is not a requirement of regulatory arbitrage.  For past examples see Liberty Reserve or Silk Road.  Being a centralized regulatory arbitrage network is an untenable position in the long run though.

I might be able to disambiguate ur use of the word centralized and find some re-solution.

Bitcoin as a settlement system provided no one nation controls it takes the control from central banks.  They still control the value but their hands are tied, they have to tend towards more valuable currency or they lose their customers:



This is Nash's argument, he is not keynesian or pro central bank.



Everyone is keynesian, only nash was thinking beyond such a state of thinking:

There can be Keynesians Neo-Keynesians New-Keynesians Post-Keynesians. Even the Post-Keynesians are still Keynesians~Lecture, Ideal Money

[r0ach]

they have to tend towards more valuable currency or they lose their customers:

Your claim that central banks have to "invent" a more competitive form of money than other alternatives in the market is shockingly dumb.  Government is a monopoly on force.  The banks took over the government.  They are not here to "compete", they are here to use force to scam you.  There is no "competing" required besides deploying a larger amount of force than you can.  Any random fool on this forum knows that.

[traincarswreck]

Your claim that central banks have to "invent" a more competitive form of money than other alternatives in the market is shockingly dumb.  Government is a monopoly on force.  The banks took over the government.  They are not here to "compete", they are here to use force to scam you.  There is no "competing" required besides deploying a larger amount of force than you can.  Any random fool on this forum knows that.

You don't understand how banks work. Banks or ie the fed, makes policy that affects the quality of the money that is issued. I already cited this congressional research report that admits exactly what I claim:

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43339.pdf

Regarding the velocity of money, if the increase in the use of Bitcoin leads to a decrease in need for holding dollars, it would increase the dollar’s velocity of circulation and tend to increase the money supply associated with any given amount of base money (currency in circulation plus bank reserves held with the Fed).

In this case, for the Fed to maintain the same degree of monetary accommodation, it would need to undertake a compensating tightening of monetary policy. At a minimum, a substantial use of Bitcoins could make the measurement of velocity more uncertain, and judging the appropriate stance of monetary policy uncertain.

This is exactly what Nash points out:

The idea seems paradoxical, but by speaking of “inflation targeting” these responsible official are effectively CONFESSING…that it is indeed after all possible to control inflation by controlling the supply of money (as if by limiting the amount of individual “prints” that could be made of a work of art being produced as “prints).

If the usd starts to tank because bitcoin becomes relevant the fed can choose to let the dollar drop out of existence or it can create favorable policy so it's value is attractive to citizens.  You are effectively arguing the fed will let the dollars value drop to the point where no one uses it, which is asinine. The only logical option is to compete to survive.  

You simply haven't thought two steps ahead.

Everyone knows I know what I am talking about and that you don't understand the subject at hand.

[r0ach]

Regarding the velocity of money, if the increase in the use of Bitcoin leads to a decrease in need for holding dollars, it would increase the dollar’s velocity of circulation and tend to increase the money supply associated with any given amount of base money

More illogical nonsense.  Government is a monopoly on force.  Do you not know what the fucking word monopoly means?  If they want you to use dollars, worst case they just shoot you if you use something else.  Everything revolves around how much resources they're required to spend to stop you.  It requires VERY FEW resources to lock down the internet, exchanges, and mining pools to stop bitcoin, while it takes several orders of magnitude more resources to run a police state in the real world and prevent people from using metals.

[Ibian]

bug is in full troll mode. just ignore it.

[traincarswreck]

More illogical nonsense.  Government is a monopoly on force.  Do you not know what the fucking word monopoly means?  If they want you to use dollars, worst case they just shoot you if you use something else.  Everything revolves around how much resources they're required to spend to stop you.  It requires VERY FEW resources to lock down the internet, exchanges, and mining pools to stop bitcoin, while it takes several orders of magnitude more resources to run a police state in the real world and prevent people from using metals.

You've stated I'm being illogical and not making sense.  

The government does not have a monopoly on printing money anymore.   And my government nor the US government can shoot its citizens or force them to use USD.  There is an entire constitutional framework that limits its power and protects the freedoms of the citizens that give it its power.  

Nor can the government shut down the internet, nor will it ever do so.

You keep returning to "metals" but there are no metals that are suitable stores of value.  Gold is rapidly losing its monetary nature and technology will release the throttle on its supply.  You are saying "metals" but you are really not referring to any actual commodity because no commodity would be a suitable store of value.

And the US government already showed it can mandate the confiscation of gold

Executive Order 6102 is a United States presidential executive order signed on April 5, 1933, by President Franklin D. Roosevelt "forbidding the Hoarding of gold coin, gold bullion, and gold certificates within the continental United States".

I've consistently shown your argument to be flawed and inconsistent with itself. You keep CALLING me illogical but I cite all my arguments.  You are not using words or concepts by their standard accepted definition.  And you are constantly making assertions that are contrary to observable reality.  

Sir, you are denying reality that we all agree exists but you.

[JayJuanGee]

I now have several BTC loaned on Poloniex at between 4 and 4.9999% daily rate.

5% being the max allowed.

Feeling a bit Jewish right now...

You don't need to be Jewish to take advantage of a situation and profit.  I withdrew all of my BTC from Polo a couple of weeks ago, due to concerns being raised daily about their support/withdrawal issues and the recommendations of several trusted sources to move your coins to your control by August 1, just in case things go wrong. Also, I can now use my coins to claim free Byteball and BCC.
Just know, that POLO's policy will be to give free BCC to the person who took the loan and not the lender. May be why some people are willing to pay such outrageous rates to go long on bullshit. Guess they may think they have a hedge, now.

Are you sure that you got that correct?

If a loan is made before August 1, and bitcoin forks during the loan, then if Poloniex recognizes both chains, then would both chains be recognized as still being part of the pre-august 1 loan?  seems strange?

Same would be true on Bitfinex, and I did not think about the situation as being only one side of the loan.. so could be confusing, and maybe that is why Bitfinex rates are merely .4% per day, right now as compared with Poloniex rates? about a 10x difference in interest rates, no?

Yes, Bitfinex policy is to give the split coins to the lender. Poloniex policy is to give the split coins to the borrower.

https://www.bitfinex.com/posts/212/review
https://poloniex.com/press-releases/2017.07.24-Our-plans-to-handle-potential-BTC-network-disruptions/

Yeah.  I had read that Bitfinex statement about lenders.   Maybe it is just me, but I remain a bit unclear regarding how bitfinex treats borrowers of BTC?  They are paying back only BTC, and the lenders get the BCH from the transaction? That seems a bit strange;  however, maybe it is possible that Bitfinex considers that borrowers are more in control of their loans (as compared with lenders) because borrowers can chose to close the position; however, lenders cannot close a position, once it is taken - although they can choose to discontinue offering loans or cancel the loans before someone takes the loan... so yeah, lenders are locked in and borrowers are not..

So, if bitfinex is going to treat the matter of only crediting the lender, then borrowers should have a decent sized incentive to close all of their loans before the hardfork or otherwise they will likely lose any value that any BCC might have, if any.. hahahaha

My more layman's consideration of the matter, it seems to me that it would be most fair (even though a bit more complicated to calculate) to cause splitting (and credit) of BTC/BCH on both sides of the loan - whether we are talking about bitfinex or poloniex - however, the poloniex matter of crediting only the borrower seems to be worse situation and causing extremely disproportionate interest rates for borrowing BTC on their platform.

He (the borrower) has your money, with all risks involved, he should get BCC, BCH.
Hurts me, but this is the way it should be . . .

Huh?

I don't think that there is a blanket right or wrong answer... but the most fair thing would seem to be to recognize a split on both sides of the loan - unless it is clearly announced ahead of time what are the conditions of the loan.  If one side has an ability to get out of the loan early but the other side does not, then it would not be good to trap the side that cannot get out of the loan with the adverse consequences, and I think that was why bitfinex came out with an approach that differs from Poloniex.

[r0ach]

There is an entire constitutional framework that limits its power and protects the freedoms of the citizens that give it its power.  

Yea, that's the sci-fi channel explanation.  Force is the only valid consensus mechanism and everything else is meaningless, unless you can figure out some way to stop 4 grams and 1800J of energy with words.