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

[lucas.sev]

bids filling in, asks being eaten away.

Are you all in yet?

He said he will buy in at 111.

[Pale Phoenix]

We're already past the point where half of the coins are in circulation. But think about the bold bit of your quote. You are suggesting they could kill bitcoins by giving to bitcoin owners the market value in fiat.
That is not killing it, that is embracing it. They would need to buy many bitcoins, I don't know what your definition of slowly is, but you are suggesting they would provide continuous demand for BTC. By the time they dump them, the markets will gratefully eat them and ask for more.

I think the point is that a government actor could most easily destabilize the BTC market this way, and in doing so, make it too risky to use.

A billion dollar market is a tenth of a rounding error to a large government, and if this was carried out in the name of "national security," the costs would be irrelevant (and classified) anyway. They wouldn't care that they enrich a few thousand people in order to shut down a way for evil-doers to finance their operations.

This is an interesting idea to play with, but IMO, highly unlikely. I think they are more likely to apply the necessary pressure to the weak points in the system in order to track and monitor the movement of large sums.

[adamstgBit]

bids filling in, asks being eaten away.

Are you all in yet?

my bids have almost no chance of being filled, so I'm panic buying at 111 like everyone else....

[Adrian-x]

The big speculators are easy to beat. Just don't play their game.

BUY??? SELL???

Hold. And/or just buy what you need, when you need it.

^ This

[Rampion]

I'll go for *potentially* game changing.

I dream of a hardware miner/wallet that you'd use as your home ATM...plug and play, secure.

That's a pretty cool idea.  However, that assumes that what is being kept secure, is still valuable.  With this manipulation and no safeguards in place any big money player can destroy Bitcoin.  I didn't realize that before, but now it is blatantly clear.  Let's use any government that has $1 billion to spare.

They could build massive mining rigs and with the rest, purchase BTC slowly.  It wouldn't take long before they would control enough BTC to just continually smash the markets with wave after wave of coordinated "dump attacks".  All confidence would be would be lost.  Current investors would flee into other currencies and investments.  Potential investors would stay away from a corrupt and manipulated currency.  It's actually a better Achilles heel than any regulation could dream of having.  

So in the end, Bitcoin's greatest weakness, is it's very own principles of non-regulation.  The irony is quite amusing.

Worst. Attack. Idea. Ever.

The attacker would be dumping free money until he/she runs out and then the system would continue to run as usual.

Indeed they are free to donate their money to the market. Then again, it isn't really their money to begin with is it?

BTC is so tiny that the FED could just buy enough BTC to make it skyrocket in en epic pump, then crash it to single digits, creating a few notable fortunes and ruining millions of people on the way. Burning people with BTC seems indeed more effective than simply banning it.

Still, they would be burning piles of money, this is an expensive stunt to perform, "affordable" only by an economic super-power willing to virtually destroy money to try to get rid of Bitcoin. BTC is still too small to deserve such kind of attention, if they decide to play the pump&dump game they really need to go till the end, waking up the sleeping monster

In a few years, not even the FED may afford such kind of attack. And if they do, it will be a hell of a ride and nice fight. Keep'em coming.

[dexX7]

bids filling in, asks being eaten away.

Are you all in yet?

I'm panic buying at 111 like everyone else....

Why 111? Above would be a new D3 high with next possible major resistance at 120, I guess? I'm asking, because you sound very convinced and I'm not sure if I'm missing something here.

[lucas.sev]

bids filling in, asks being eaten away.

Are you all in yet?

I'm panic buying at 111 like everyone else....

Why 111? Above would be a new D3 high with next possible major resistance at 120, I guess? I'm asking, because you sound very convinced and I'm not sure if I'm missing something here.

Because this would mean that basically the drop got cancelled. However 3 days ago we had 30k to below 100 and now we have 9k so I am not as trusting as Adam.

[wachtwoord]

BTC is so tiny that the FED could just buy enough BTC to make it skyrocket in en epic pump, then crash it to single digits, creating a few notable fortunes and ruining millions of people on the way. Burning people with BTC seems indeed more effective than simply banning it.

If they do this I'll thank them. It would be easier for them to wire me the funds directly though.

[adamstgBit]

bids filling in, asks being eaten away.

Are you all in yet?

I'm panic buying at 111 like everyone else....

Why 111? Above would be a new D3 high with next possible major resistance at 120, I guess? I'm asking, because you sound very convinced and I'm not sure if I'm missing something here.

Because this would mean that basically the drop got cancelled. However 3 days ago we had 30k to below 100 and now we have 9k so I am not as trusting as Adam.

bid depth is misleadingly low, there are big buyers there's no question.

[Rampion]

We're already past the point where half of the coins are in circulation. But think about the bold bit of your quote. You are suggesting they could kill bitcoins by giving to bitcoin owners the market value in fiat.
That is not killing it, that is embracing it. They would need to buy many bitcoins, I don't know what your definition of slowly is, but you are suggesting they would provide continuous demand for BTC. By the time they dump them, the markets will gratefully eat them and ask for more.

I think the point is that a government actor could most easily destabilize the BTC market this way, and in doing so, make it too risky to use.

A billion dollar market is a tenth of a rounding error to a large government, and if this was carried out in the name of "national security," the costs would be irrelevant (and classified) anyway. They wouldn't care that they enrich a few thousand people in order to shut down a way for evil-doers to finance their operations.

This is an interesting idea to play with, but IMO, highly unlikely. I think they are more likely to apply the necessary pressure to the weak points in the system in order to track and monitor the movement of large sums.

It's true that 1 billion cap is tiny, but to buy enough coins to really control the market in a "definitive" way you need to spend A LOT more than its seems, supply is very limited, and for this kind of attack you really want to expose as many people as possible to your stunt - traders are not afraid of volatility, if you want people to run away from BTC you need to really skyrocket it to the moon to then crush it to the closest to 0 as possible. That wont cost hundreds of millions, that will cost billions ATM, and every year that passes this kind of attack gets more and more expensive.

And then, do not forget that Satoshi never moved a single coin. He controls at least 1M BTC. He's holding to be able to neutralize any deep-pockets attacker (tinfoil hat mode off)

[Rampion]

BTC is so tiny that the FED could just buy enough BTC to make it skyrocket in en epic pump, then crash it to single digits, creating a few notable fortunes and ruining millions of people on the way. Burning people with BTC seems indeed more effective than simply banning it.

If they do this I'll thank them. It would be easier for them to wire me the funds directly though.

Well, I'd say you would be in the "few notable fortunes" group. Adam too. TheKoziTwo, too. Coinseeker, no, because he has probably dumped all his coins for XRPs

[dexX7]

Burning people with BTC seems indeed more effective than simply banning it.

There were many burned in the 266 crash, but overall I think a crazy market is an magnet for speculators.

if you want people to run away from BTC you need to really skyrocket it to the moon to then crush it to the closest to 0 as possible. That wont cost hundreds of millions, that will cost billions ATM, and every year that passes this kind of attack gets more and more expensive.

Which would be a lot of free money. And the lower it crashes, the more demand there will be. It's a zero-sum game with the FED loosing all the time.

[ChartBuddy]

[Rampion]

Burning people with BTC seems indeed more effective than simply banning it.

There were many burned in the 266 crash, but overall I think a crazy market is an magnet for speculators.

if you want people to run away from BTC you need to really skyrocket it to the moon to then crush it to the closest to 0 as possible. That wont cost hundreds of millions, that will cost billions ATM, and every year that passes this kind of attack gets more and more expensive.

Which would be a lot of free money. And the lower it crashes, the more demand there will be. It's a zero-sum game with the FED loosing all the time.

A crash from $266 to 50 is nothing (1/5). A crash from $32 to $2 is nothing (1/16). That's volatility.

A 1/10,000 crash... Well, thats something. That's "a ponzi" that hugely rewards the first in and first out and leave holding the bag everyone else. But still, money it's not infinite even if it seems to be, the burning has to stop at some point... BTC market will always be manipulated as all the markets are, including and especially the commodities ones (prominently gold and silver), but the more BTC grows, the more expensive it becomes to effectively control it. So, this may be an obvious attack to BTC (manipulation), but an expensive one that has an uncertain outcome. I'm also convinced that BTC would survive.

[rdsc]

Is this a Goomboo Bot Spike?
http://s22.postimg.org/gnchg2kgx/Screen_Shot014.jpg

This was the 10/21 crossover early on June 10 - I missed it because I was asleep but it seems to be holding

[adamstgBit]

Is this a Goomboo Bot Spike?


This was the 10/21 crossover early on June 10 - I missed it because I was asleep but it seems to be holding

the spike made the crossover,  the crossover did not make the spike.

[Rampion]

Is this a Goomboo Bot Spike?


This was the 10/21 crossover early on June 10 - I missed it because I was asleep but it seems to be holding

the spike made the crossover,  the crossover did not make the spike.

Correct, little grasshopper

[rdsc]

the spike made the crossover,  the crossover did not make the spike.
[/quote]

Good point - really hard to tell without a higher resolution.  So you think it was a single big buy?

[lucas.sev]

the spike made the crossover,  the crossover did not make the spike.

Good point - really hard to tell without a higher resolution.  So you think it was a single big buy?

I was awake when it happened and described it in detail here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=231934.0

[rdsc]

This was the 10/21 crossover early on June 10 - I missed it because I was asleep but it seems to be holding
[/quote]

Correct, little grasshopper


[/quote]

Ah so, Mr Po. For now, I am cultivating patience.