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

[billyjoeallen]

Sub 800 wouldn't even be worth the wait. If that is all you are waiting for might as well just go all in now. You are talking about .15 BTC difference. Most people are waiting for $500 and lower.

I'm close to all-in, but my job as a speculator is to help stabilize the price (buy low sell high and make bitcoin more useful for merchants). Can't very well do that without some dry powder, can I?

It gets below $500 and I start selling motorcycles, trucks, houses to buy much, much more- but it's just no going to happen. Bitcoin hodlers who didn't sell after a drop from $1200 to $500 sure as hell won't panic after a drop from $800 to $500. The panicky and their bitcoins soon part. We hodlers are battle-hardened veterans.

It happens all the time in these types of moves. I just posted an chart of that very thing occurring. Many who have coins will sell if they think the price is going back down to sub $500 or close to. Same thing happened in the last move to $260. There was a massive sell-off, it rose back again to $160 or more, then came back down to $60, back up to $120, down again briefly, and then on to $1250. That is how it works, the price doesn't just pick a spot after a huge move and stay there levitating. There is still a lot of uncertainty and lack of confidence in the price.

Sure, it COULD happen, but it's unlikely, IMHO. It doesn't take a genius to read a four year log chart and realize there's an awful lot of freshly-printed fiat sloshing around right now looking for the next bubble. That QE money has got to go somewhere. if 1% of 1% makes in into bitcoin,  That's $8 million/month just in the U.S.A. 108000 bitcoins /month are being mined, that's $74/BTC. Now if you consider almost all central banks are printing like mad, multiply that by 20 and you get to $1481/BTC.  at one percent of one percent. For banksters, it's a hedge bet. life insurance. It's the smart move and I hope they don't take it, but they prolly will.

[aminorex]

I hope they don't take it, but they prolly will.

Mostly won't, at least not if they're old.  By that time they believe their own propaganda.  That's the danger of lying all day -- eventually you start to believe it.  Then reality bites.

[billyjoeallen]

I hope they don't take it, but they prolly will.

Mostly won't, at least not if they're old.  By that time they believe their own propaganda.  That's the danger of lying all day -- eventually you start to believe it.  Then reality bites.

I agree. Only one percent of the one-percenters have to buy BTC with their free money. And that's if the rest of us do nothing. What are the odds the other six and a half billion people are going to just stand around watching the purchasing power of our fiat drain away?  

On the other end of the spectrum you got guys like me. I had nothing. I maxed out my credit cards in 2011 and bought in around $10/BTC because I had nothing to lose. A lot of 0% APR credit cards out there.  Sure, you shouldn't borrow to invest, but the entire housing market is built on doing just that. Look at the four year log chart. It would be a lot less stupid and risky to do that today than when I did it three years ago.

[marcus_of_augustus]

Extreme wealth may be insanity, but bitcoin is the most democratic money on the planet. in a free market, wealth distribution is still unequal, but less so because the marginal utility of money is like any other marginal utility. Only with the uneven playing field created by the State can wealth disparity reach the levels we see today.

I want to see some rigorous studies done to demonstrate these facts unequivocally ... I'm quite sure it is the case. If we had some good observational evidence of this we could rub the Statists' noses in it every time they bring up their mad-cap wealth inequality and taxation, property redistribution propaganda. The wealth inequality is the direct product of the State, and mostly Central Banks, interfering in natural free market processes of creative destruction that remove wealth from incompetent, corrupt or simply unfortunately-timed ventures and places it in areas society demands. With the massive capital mis-allocation practised by the Central banks, and their cronies in the Mega banks, wealth is pooling in ever increasing size in essentially useless holdings, while much of the world starves for liquidity and is over-run with unpayable government debts.

[billyjoeallen]

Extreme wealth may be insanity, but bitcoin is the most democratic money on the planet. in a free market, wealth distribution is still unequal, but less so because the marginal utility of money is like any other marginal utility. Only with the uneven playing field created by the State can wealth disparity reach the levels we see today.

I want to see some rigorous studies done to demonstrate these facts unequivocally ... I'm quite sure it is the case. If we had some good observational evidence of this we could rub the Statists' noses in it every time they bring up their mad-cap wealth inequality and taxation, property redistribution propaganda. The wealth inequality is the direct product of the State, and mostly Central Banks, interfering in natural free market processes of creative destruction that remove wealth from incompetent, corrupt or simply unfortunately-timed ventures and places it in areas society demands. With the massive capital mis-allocation practised by the Central banks, and their cronies in the Mega banks, wealth is pooling in ever increasing size in essentially useless holdings, while much of the world starves for liquidity and is over-run with unpayable government debts.

There are so many ways of tilting the playing field , that I'm afraid it would be extremely difficult to prove empirically. Barriers to entry are as varied as snowflakes. The best one I know of is the metrics used by the World Health Organization that showed Somalia actually improved in most measured areas under statelessness. Unfortunately wealth distribution was not one of those metrics. Legally nuanced differences between property ownership and control also make wealth distribution measurements problematic. Logically, it's easily proven via public choice economics and praxeology, which is prolly why those fields of economics are given such short shrift by the establishment.

[MAbtc]

Dude, no thanks. I wasted two years of my life espousing that morally bankrupt philosophy and that's two years I'll never get back. Speaking as an anarchist, your conclusion was not logical. It seems that you see ancap and state capitalism as polar opposites. I don't see it that way. Pushed to extremes, ancap/NAP under private property can justify the very basest of human action -- there simply are no limits under a purely capitalist paradigm. (Just ask Walter Block.) Should monopolistic dynamics arise, how genuine is the right of exit that you mentioned in rpietila’s thread? I am of the opinion that consent does not exist without viable alternatives. There are compelling reasons why mutualists and market anarchists historically opposed private property, and viewed the state as far more expansive than simply "government."

But seeing as this is a bitcoin forum, I probably shouldn't discuss this here. If you are interested in my thoughts on this subject, PM me.

Dr. Block teaches at Tulane just down the road from me. Pretty smart guy. I think you might misunderstand him.  The root of our disagreement seems to be private property which you appear to be opposed to. This actually ties into the thread topic because ownership effectively meas control.

Regarding Block, I'm fairly sure I don't misunderstand him. See his thoughts on slave contracts, or sexual harassment in the workplace. What do you think of his views? Here, you are conflating private property with ownership; that should not imply that I oppose ownership, or advocate for "state" ownership, or any such thing.

That's the way it is, regardless of how you think it ought to be. The State cannot control society so it makes no difference if you think it should.

I'm not sure if you are talking generally, or if you are confused about my position. I see now that it may not have been clear. I'm an anarchist, and I don't consider ancaps to be anarchists. Even Rothbard agreed with that. Regardless, the idea of morality is a bit more expansive than "government"...

The very basest of human action can be justified under any philosophy. It's wise to see things as they are and not what you think they ought to be.

On the first point, this is patently false. On the second, how do you say this after writing out the Rothbardian boilerplate on morality? To be clear, you believe that voluntary contracts justify anything, right? I noticed you didn't address my question about what happens when monopolistic dynamics arise in an ancap society -- how meaningful is consent then? How "free" is such a market, and how ethical are usurious contracts entered into by such force of circumstance?

You said you were against monopoly -- see Benjamin Tucker. The absence of government won't mean that monopolies are magicked away, and ancap theory has no problem with that.

[chessnut]

The very basest of human action can be justified under any philosophy. It's wise to see things as they are and not what you think they ought to be.

On the first point, this is patently false. On the second, how do you say this after writing out the Rothbardian boilerplate on morality? To be clear, you believe that voluntary contracts justify anything, right? I noticed you didn't address my question about what happens when monopolistic dynamics arise in an ancap society -- how meaningful is consent then? How "free" is such a market, and how ethical are usurious contracts entered into by such force of circumstance?

[/quote]

why is it patently false?
I 100% agree, anything is possible.

[billyjoeallen]

Regarding Block, I'm fairly sure I don't misunderstand him. See his thoughts on slave contracts, or sexual harassment in the workplace. What do you think of his views? Here, you are conflating private property with ownership; that should not imply that I oppose ownership, or advocate for "state" ownership, or any such thing.

Yes, I agree with Block on those views also, because the alternative is worse. The HR gestapo that polices sex harassment issues in modern work-spaces is worse. And if my Navy enlistment wasn't a slave-contract, then I don't know what one is. But this is something for another thread.

I'm an anarchist, and I don't consider ancaps to be anarchists. Even Rothbard agreed with that. Regardless, the idea of morality is a bit more expansive than "government"...

I don't really care if you consider me a true anarchist or not. I'm Rothbardian and we both know what that means. I hold that the State is neither morally legitimate or necessary, but private property is.  Couldn't care less if I'm in your extremely unpopular club or not.

The very basest of human action can be justified under any philosophy. It's wise to see things as they are and not what you think they ought to be.

On the first point, this is patently false. On the second, how do you say this after writing out the Rothbardian boilerplate on morality? To be clear, you believe that voluntary contracts justify anything, right? I noticed you didn't address my question about what happens when monopolistic dynamics arise in an ancap society -- how meaningful is consent then? How "free" is such a market, and how ethical are usurious contracts entered into by such force of circumstance?

You said you were against monopoly -- see Benjamin Tucker. The absence of government won't mean that monopolies are magicked away, and ancap theory has no problem with that.
[/quote]

With respect to Mr. Tucker, monopolies are only possible under the State. Private monopolies start to lose market share the moment they exploit their dominant position unless the State prevents them from doing so. Even the most capital-intensive industries see competition. Virgin Galactic is a good example. OTOH, a monopoly may exist if it doesn't exploit it's dominant position, but why would we even care in that case? Competition is there to benefit consumers, not competitors.

and if voluntary contracts don't justify everything, then you have to be saying that people do not have the right to enter into certain kinds of contracts, even if they want to do so. Who decides what types of contracts are ok? You? You think you can take away people's rights for their own good? Who are you to interfere? You think you can run people's lives better than they can? Do you have the same incentives to make the right choices? obviously you don't, even if you're sooooo much smarter and wiser than them. Such arrogance.

Not believing in property would be like claiming Bitcoin could function with two public keys and no private keys. Your'e not against bitcoin because you don't think it works. You're against it because it works too well. well, your cognitive dissonance is not my problem. Welcome to my ignore list.

[MAbtc]

The very basest of human action can be justified under any philosophy. It's wise to see things as they are and not what you think they ought to be.

On the first point, this is patently false.

why is it patently false?
I 100% agree, anything is possible.

This is in the realm of moral philosophy. How does an anarcho-capitalist justify taxation? How does a communist justify private property? How does a Catholic nun justify adultery?

[MAbtc]

Regarding Block, I'm fairly sure I don't misunderstand him. See his thoughts on slave contracts, or sexual harassment in the workplace. What do you think of his views? Here, you are conflating private property with ownership; that should not imply that I oppose ownership, or advocate for "state" ownership, or any such thing.

Yes, I agree with Block on those views also, because the alternative is worse. The HR gestapo that polices sex harassment issues in modern work-spaces is worse. And if my Navy enlistment wasn't a slave-contract, then I don't know what one is. But this is something for another thread.

The alternative? How is the only alternative government? It's as if you don't read. Okay then, I guess I'll miss the next slave auction.

For reference:

Consider the sexual harassment which continually occurs between a secretary and a boss . . . while objectionable to many women, [it] is not a coercive action. It is rather part of a package deal in which the secretary agrees to all aspects of the job when she agrees to accept the job, and especially when she agrees to keep the job. The office is, after all, private property. The secretary does not have to remain if the ‘coercion’ is objectionable.

That's good stuff right there.

I'm not sure if you are talking generally, or if you are confused about my position. I see now that it may not have been clear. I'm an anarchist, and I don't consider ancaps to be anarchists. Even Rothbard agreed with that. Regardless, the idea of morality is a bit more expansive than "government"...

I don't really care if you consider me a true anarchist or not. I'm Rothbardian and we both know what that means. I hold that the State is neither morally legitimate or necessary, but private property is.  Couldn't care less if I'm in your extremely unpopular club or not.

I was just clarifying the comment "speaking as an anarchist" because you seemed confused, saying that I think the state ought to control society. It seems you either don't read posts that you respond to, or simply have this gut-response thing going where you accuse people of being a statist when they disagree with you.

With respect to Mr. Tucker, monopolies are only possible under the State. Private monopolies start to lose market share the moment they exploit their dominant position unless the State prevents them from doing so. Even the most capital-intensive industries see competition. Virgin Galactic is a good example. OTOH, a monopoly may exist if it doesn't exploit it's dominant position, but why would we even care in that case? Competition is there to benefit consumers, not competitors.

and if voluntary contracts don't justify everything, then you have to be saying that people do not have the right to enter into certain kinds of contracts, even if they want to do so. Who decides what types of contracts are ok? You? You think you can take away people's rights for their own good? Who are you to interfere? You think you can run people's lives better than they can? Do you have the same incentives to make the right choices? obviously you don't, even if you're sooooo much smarter and wiser than them. Such arrogance.

Not believing in property would be like claiming Bitcoin could function with two public keys and no private keys. Your'e not against bitcoin because you don't think it works. You're against it because it works too well. well, your cognitive dissonance is not my problem. Welcome to my ignore list.

You've done nothing to prove that monopolies are only possible under government. That's just ancap dogma. Actually, I fully support peoples' rights to enter immoral contracts -- I don't support a social system where people are forced to enter into such contracts through the monopolization of scarce resources. You just have blinders on so high that anyone that disagrees with you wants to "run peoples' lives."

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[cee-euros]

fat lump on 820 btc-e, eep!

[ampere9765]

fat lump on 820 btc-e, eep!

wow hadnt noticed....over 900 to break 820 now, 2700 to break 830

[ErisDiscordia]

You've done nothing to prove that monopolies are only possible under government. That's just ancap dogma.

I'm interested in this. Not quite sure who the burden of proof should fall upon here - the one claiming that monopolies are possible only with government or the one claiming monopolies are possible without government. We certainly have lots of cases of monopolies co-existing with government, but I know of no cases of monopolies existing without government. This might primarily be because we have few cases of there being no government, period. Personally I tend to think that the institutionalization of the monopoly on coercive force is quite instrumental in upholding monopolies. I can see them being created without there being a government, but don't see them lasting very long without providing excellent products/services and/or developing government-like qualities themselves. Could you perhaps point me towards some materials supporting your claim that this is just an-cap dogma?

[cee-euros]

fat lump on 820 btc-e, eep!

wow hadnt noticed....over 900 to break 820 now, 2700 to break 830

yeah looks pretty mean

tidal wave about to hit fishing village

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[bambou]

meanwhile, in china..

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-01-22/chinas-first-default-coming-heres-what-expect

[chessnut]

You've done nothing to prove that monopolies are only possible under government. That's just ancap dogma.

I'm interested in this. Not quite sure who the burden of proof should fall upon here - the one claiming that monopolies are possible only with government or the one claiming monopolies are possible without government. We certainly have lots of cases of monopolies co-existing with government, but I know of no cases of monopolies existing without government. This might primarily be because we have few cases of there being no government, period. Personally I tend to think that the institutionalization of the monopoly on coercive force is quite instrumental in upholding monopolies. I can see them being created without there being a government, but don't see them lasting very long without providing excellent products/services and/or developing government-like qualities themselves. Could you perhaps point me towards some materials supporting your claim that this is just an-cap dogma?

perhaps government and monopoly are synonymous terms. monopoly and government may fall under the same species.

[mellowyellow]

I just mailed your posts to some participants from the upcoming senate hearing...

Can you share their email addresses? I'd like to send a few emails myself.

We're doomed

[billyjoeallen]

You've done nothing to prove that monopolies are only possible under government. That's just ancap dogma.

I'm interested in this. Not quite sure who the burden of proof should fall upon here - the one claiming that monopolies are possible only with government or the one claiming monopolies are possible without government. We certainly have lots of cases of monopolies co-existing with government, but I know of no cases of monopolies existing without government. This might primarily be because we have few cases of there being no government, period. Personally I tend to think that the institutionalization of the monopoly on coercive force is quite instrumental in upholding monopolies. I can see them being created without there being a government, but don't see them lasting very long without providing excellent products/services and/or developing government-like qualities themselves. Could you perhaps point me towards some materials supporting your claim that this is just an-cap dogma?

The original monopolies such as the East India Company were explicitly issued exclusive licenses to operate by the State. Later monopolies used more subtle means such as the rigidly-enforced patents and copyrights of Microsoft.

By contrast, Standard Oil http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Oil was given few if any special privileges by the government and is often cited for predatory practices...against competitors, but not consumers. Oil prices actually went up when anti-trust legislation broke it into thirty three separate companies. Ironically, the combined stock value of the 33 companies made Rockefeller even wealthier than he was before.