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

[dakiller]

Can the very off topic discussions stop, and go off to some other thread? Less economic policy arguments and more Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion, for which this thread is for.

[1714898698]

1714898698

[1714898698]

1714898698

[1714898698]

1714898698

[Elwar]

Can the very off topic discussions stop, and go off to some other thread? Less economic policy arguments and more Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion, for which this thread is for.

The thread is called "wall observer" due to the wall of text we have to read in every post.

[traincarswreck]

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.

no its not science fiction, again its observable reality that you are denying: https://www.c-span.org/

[JayJuanGee]

I did have a theory on something that could push the price up a lot over time.

There was something like 600k bitcoins stolen from MtGox which apparently was flowing through btc-e being sold off over the years. btc-e has always had a lower price which may have kept the price low over the years. Now that the admins are on the run and they do not have btc-e to sell their coins they have stopped that flow of large amounts of bitcoins onto the market. Without this downward pressure, who knows how high the price will go.

Good theory, but how big was btc-e, apparently we shrug off btc-e quite easily.

Logically one would think such things like less coins available overall would increase the bitcoin price. But then I look at the Bitfinex hack. ~110K less coins on the market almost overnight, and yet that didn't seem to really affect the market price much at the time.

Sometimes, it appears that you are just making shit up, Torque.

Supposedly 119k coins were "hacked" from bitfinex, so yeah, those accounts moved the coins, but then those 119k coins were monitored, and seem to continue to be monitored.


Supposedly, the 119k coins represented 36% of bitfinex's total assets across all coins, so that would mean that their unhacked assets were about the equivalent of 330k coins.  The total would have been 450k bitcoins - but of course only a portion of that was bitcoins - probably more than half.. 225k bitcoins.

The market moved a lot during those times, whether that was due to the thought of bitcoin's dying or other removal of coins from the market is difficult to determine.  The price dropped from $600 to below $400 and then returned to the $500s for a considerable amount of time.  Are you saying that those were stable times and the bitcoin market was not affected by the several weeks removal of a large number of coins?

Sure a combination of factors affect the bitcoin price, and even removal of some coins could have some affect, no?

Did Btc-e allow shorting? I don't really know much about that exchange at all.

They did not allow shorting in their regular platform, and I don't really understand the relationship with xbtce - which seems to be related to btc-e, is not shut down and it going to have margin trading, perhaps?  It specifically says on the xbtce page that it does not provide services for usa residents - and I am not sure if that was added because of the btce situation or was there all along?  maybe no relationship to the btce situation?

[Dafar]

ATH is being broken this month... you heard it here first boys!!!

[r0ach]

Can the very off topic discussions stop, and go off to some other thread? Less economic policy arguments and more Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion, for which this thread is for.

I cry everytime

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPKMLAuat10

[Elwar]

ATH is being broken this month... you heard it here first boys!!!

This month?

As in July?

[Dafar]

ATH is being broken this month... you heard it here first boys!!!

This month?

As in July?

oops.... I meant August!

[JayJuanGee]

Can the very off topic discussions stop, and go off to some other thread? Less economic policy arguments and more Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion, for which this thread is for.

It looks like the roach mobile troll has met its crash match with the trainwreking troll?  They can both talk past each other until they are blue in the face.


 

[JayJuanGee]

ATH is being broken this month... you heard it here first boys!!!

You mean boys and girl, right?  You leaving out peeps?

[pfrtlpfmpf]

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.

No, it´s clear. The one, who has the money, has the power.
"The one, who has the money, has the power" ! !
And it is announced in the terms of conditions. Sorry.

[Asrael999]

Bitfinex is in line with the banking repo market, the lender of a security retains beneficial ownership, all payments and rights that accrue to owners of securities are passed to the beneficial owner (the lender) under a market repo agreement.

[spiderbrain]

Can the very off topic discussions stop, and go off to some other thread? Less economic policy arguments and more Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion, for which this thread is for.

^^^this.

[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.

No, it´s clear. The one, who has the money, has the power.
"The one, who has the money, has the power" ! !
And it is announced in the terms of conditions. Sorry.

You can repeat until you are blue in the face, and that is not going to make you correct.  These kinds of ownership matters can be described however the fuck that you want, especially if you are an exchange owner who has the private keys. 

If you read the above links, you will see that Poloniex and Bitfinex are treating the matter differently.

So, the fact that the owner of the coins does not possess the private keys, s/he is subject to the rules of each of these exchanges, and in the case of a split during an outstanding loan, Bitfinex is giving the bitcoin cash to the lender, and Poloniex is giving the bitcoin cash to the borrower.    Those are the points that are being made in the above discussion.  Are you saying something else about what is or are you making a statement about what ought to be, but asserting such statement as if it were what is?

[jbreher]

https://steemit.com/cryptocurrency/@anonymint/shocking-crisis-coming-to-cryptocurrency-in-sept

I don´t get the part of "stealing" segwit transactions. It sounds like bullshit, but Anonymint have a greater tech knowledge than me. Can some tech savvy user confirm it?

Yes. It is a well-known attribute of SegWit.

[becoin]

https://steemit.com/cryptocurrency/@anonymint/shocking-crisis-coming-to-cryptocurrency-in-sept

I don´t get the part of "stealing" segwit transactions. It sounds like bullshit, but Anonymint have a greater tech knowledge than me. Can some tech savvy user confirm it?

Yes. It is a well-known attribute of SegWit.

It is a well-known stupidity of people claiming this.

[Last of the V8s]

Latest update from BTC-E...

https://twitter.com/btcecom/status/891928666065707008

....

More detailed information about what happened to the BTC-e service.

On July 25, 11:00 the FBI staff came to the data center where our server equipment was located and seized all equipment, the servers contained databases and purses of our service.

Almost for 6 days we could not get from our hosting provider the sane information, what happened to our servers because of this information we publish only now.

July 28, the domain was confiscated.

To date, part of the service facility was arrested by the FBI

The next update will include information on what options are available to restore the service, and also the procedure for obtaining funds, in the event that the service is not started. In the current situation, if the service is not started before the end of August, then from September 1 we will start the process of refund.
In the next 1-2 weeks, we will evaluate and publish information about how much money fell into the hands of the FBI and what amount of funds is available for return.

For all those who buried us, I will remind you that the service has always worked on trust and we are ready to answer for it.
The funds will be returned to everyone!



Arrest of the Russian Vinnyk Alexandra:
Officially declare - Alexander was never the head or employee of our service.

Sincerely btc-e

P.S. In the subject write questions as far as possible we will answer them.

[jbreher]

https://steemit.com/cryptocurrency/@anonymint/shocking-crisis-coming-to-cryptocurrency-in-sept

I don´t get the part of "stealing" segwit transactions. It sounds like bullshit, but Anonymint have a greater tech knowledge than me. Can some tech savvy user confirm it?

Yes. It is a well-known attribute of SegWit.

It is a well-known stupidity of people claiming this.

Well, you can pretend that an 'anyone can spend' transaction is something other than an 'anyone can spend' transaction. But of course that would be tautologically impossible.

[Last of the V8s]

Szabo

If he was a credible person before, he's not anymore after working on an R3 banker backed IPO scamcoin called Ethereum so you can stop pretending he's god now.  You're from India where people worship authority figures and the state, so it's kind of obvious how your behavior is playing out where you constantly feel the need to cite some authority figure as the word of god without being able to put 2+2 together yourself.

Yes we have already established you don't understand the purpose of central banking and so you fear it.  But you will get no reasonable person to admit that Szabo is irrelevant.

mircea_popescu: !!rate szabo -10 "you'll die as you lived, in a flash of the blade, a fucktard remembered by no-one..."
http://btcbase.org/log-search?q=szabo

[Meuh6879]

Show your Weapon Money, Rally is BACK !