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

[derpinheimer]

Wow... volume nearly non-existent

Bearish  

Gox death is a very bearish event. It would be a miracle if we dont crash down to 300 or less.

[MAbtc]

Great time to be lending BTC on bitfinex - it is sitting at an incredible 0.35% daily right now!  That is around 127% APR - compounded daily which would make it an effective annual rate of over 255%!!  Why are more people not lending BTC over there??

Perhaps because they expect BTC shorts to get squeezed into margin calls and bankruptcy?

Yes, this is the #1 reason not to lend. Flash moves can simply wipe you out. However, Bitfinex has openly stated that it will roll back trades to protect liquidity providers, so take that for what you will.

Not just stated. Have done within last couple of weeks. Like it or not they have put the reputation and security of lender money over profit of margin traders. People complain, but from a business perspective it's smart. It's still the best margin trading opp anywhere by far right now.

I agree. I've done well trading there and I try to take them as they come. It did hurt pretty bad to lose > $10k unrealized profit when they kept trading halted as other markets rallied 25% (the 10th? I can remember) ...

I can deal with the stated policy, but they should be more responsible about holding leveraged positions open when every other market is moving with great volatility.

[cbutters]

I think its so quiet because we are literally at a major crossroads in bitcoin...  yes of course it was going to bounce after a crash like we just had, but the real question is where from here? We've had a forced bottoming out... but does that mean the trend is over?  Noone knows..
Look at this chart.... its just following this flag, floating down the channel:



but look at the greater overall picture on the same lines:



The next few hours will literally decide if we are out of the bear market or not IMO.

[Sitarow]

[kkaspar]

easily replicated if that is the case could Bitcoin not easily adopt the new feature, and continue on with its headstart, plus a neat new feature?
and really, easily replicated innovation? so I guess the 150 odd coins that have just come out did not want to easily replicate the innovation?
Do you think that innovation is the realm of big business? is that what you are hinting at? so you are saying that a corporate coin will pop up and it will easily innovate better features, because innovation is easy? or easier with more money?bigger teams budgets?
 
You do not code, but you are making judgement calls on innovation in coding, and making judgement calls on if more bells and whistles will actually make a better product... but you still have not said much about what these features are... these betetr qualities, ease of use as in? what else will it be able to do ? and why will it attract more miners to build a bigger better decentralised network? and in the nest year , two at that.... its all one thing to accuse people who are Bitcoin cultists, of using the argument "because I say it is so" but you cannot then use that argument yourself.  What are the features? and have you considered that maybe certain features may have been left out on purpose?  and that not complex is part of its genius? you see I agree with you, Satoshi did miss a few things which are problematic to the network and they may be solved by a new coin , but the ease of use argument does not hold up as this is being delt with by the surrounding ecosystem...and while innovations can be replicated... with time, effort, money but most importantly brains, a decentralised distributed network has to grow.. again when the coin pops up, in the next lets say 6 months for it to fit into your timecales... then please tell me about it straight away... it will be obvious if it is so superior, and then while the miners are abandoing BTC and the network starts to shrink, then before this coin reaches say 3 billion market cap , then I will buy lots of them... so then it will be a 3rd/quarter of BTC if BTC price stays approx static,  that will be about right, so surely about a year off right?  but we should know in the next 6 months what that coin will be...  when you find it.... you must seek me out and tell me, and I will be all ears !!! when the moment comes remember to tell us all!! we are counting on you kkaspar- this is our most desperate hour. Help me, Obi-Wan Kenobi. You're my only hope.

 When it arrives I am IN.

probably

Yes, bitcoin could easily implement new features, but the history, present and future plans don't show any signs that they will. I think that the "cult of Satoshi" is to blame here, where followers take Satoshis vision with dogmatic belief and actually start attacking people who question it.
Innovation has been done already with bitcoin. Now the innovation only needs technical perfection. New creators don't have to be innovative, but they have to be more complex with their work.

I have told about the needed features countless times already, but I'll repeat myself again, what I see that needs fixing but isn't adressed with bitcoin: a) Speed of increasing wealth concentration b) Deflationary system that prohibits price stability c) Inefficiency of mining where new resources are spent while the network doesn't gain in speed or security.

I have given BTC about 1-2 years left in it, so you can see that it is a rough estimate. I don't know yet exactly when will "The coin" emerge but I bet that you will see it without the need of me pointing it out. Just don't be religious about bitcoin and you will see the right exit point with ease.

[aminorex]

... we ... functional ... exchanges.

very very much agree with this part.  functional, meaning reliable and efficient.

my #1 wishlist item for bitcoin is localbitcoins penetration into every nation on earth (except russia, they can eat rubles when the SHTF).  
#1 because it is achievable.  #2 wishlist item is SMS access to reliable, low slippage exchange in local currency in said nations.  
#3 wishlist item is efficient exchanges at volume in all global reserve currencies, available globally via the internet, interlinked for efficient arbitrage.

i prefer cryptographic guarantees over regulatory guarantees and "legal" "recourse" which is neither, and unavailable to the masses due to costs and graft, and which will come with intolerable restrictions on freedom.

regulated exchanges will never be able to compete with free markets once adequate cryptographic guarantees to insure security of lodged funds are provided with a usable workflow.

[hdbuck]

Is anyone not jealous of Mark's biceps in this picture? I know I am. He looks like he could punch through a concrete wall and decapitate the person standing on the other side of it.

the guy cant even walk 3min without being breathless.

check that vid:

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9H_x22QPTc

at around 1:25 you can just "hear" his pain whilst walking...  
and i suspect its even worse now he gained 30 Kg

PS: now we know where you mama lives Mark...  

edit: oh and when he gets to the stairs... you just feel sorry for him...

[KeyserSoze]

I think its so quiet because we are literally at a major crossroads in bitcoin... 

I'm not sure Bitcoin can be said to have reached a figurative crossroads until Ralph Macchio has bought in.
http://youtu.be/NPB2qbxuiLM

[aminorex]

what I see that needs fixing but isn't adressed with bitcoin:
a) Speed of increasing wealth concentration

Firstly, bitcoin is net dispersive of wealth, on a global basis:  While it has a Gini comparable to some fiat economies, the population at the concentrated end of the distribution is largely non-overlapping with the corresponding population of the fiat economies.

Secondly I suspect that the various crashes and insolvencies have had a very dispersive effect.

Thirdly, circulation can be expected to have a dispersive effect.

Fourthly, why should your ressentiment play any role in bitcoin's success or failure?

b) Deflationary system that prohibits price stability

Since bitcoin supply is inflating, it's difficult for me to understand in what sense it is "deflationary".  Restating an incoherent point does not make it more coherent.  It is an effective propaganda technique, however.  

If you mean that you require a non-market-driven price adjustment mechanism in your "competitive" coin, I can assure you that it will never have a snowball's chance of competing on a value basis with a coin which refrains from punishing savers.  Certainly worthless coins are already available in abundance, and their sheer numbers prove them "competitive" on a reproductive basis, if that is your metric.

Price certainly has high variance, but this is because the network is growing so rapidly.  Thus the variance of price is a positive indicator, rather than a negative one.  Many applications will require that this be worked around with derivatives, futures, off-chain or on-chain, but many applications will not require such infrastructure, such as e.g. instantaneous fiat transfers.  Any possible competitor will face the same issues, only in greater force, as it will be less mature in this regard, at the point where it begins to actually compete with bitcoin.

(For that reason, and related, similar reasons too obvious and tedious to enumerate, and several unrelated reasons which have been discussed in this forum previously, I think that )
any future competitor to bitcoin which displaces bitcoin rather than simply compounding its uses and value will have to be not merely better, but at least an order of magnitude inarguably better for the overwhelming majority of use-cases in order to be anything but a perpetual niche player.

c) Inefficiency of mining where new resources are spent while the network doesn't gain in speed or security.

While this is certainly a negative for many people, it is not clear to me in what sense it is a negative for bitcoin itself.  We are already at a point where new mining hardware will not be purchased until/unless/except-upon-speculation-of a price increase.  Existing purchases will be deployed and operated until/unless price drops below profitability.  If the market values security at one price and you value it at a different price, it is reasonable to ask: which valuation is more likely to correctly reflect the economic value added by the security?

[kehtolo]

https://www.bitquick.co/bitquick-co-updates-api-to-show-proof-of-transparency-we-believe-in-making-bitcoin-trading-safe-and-simple

..step in the right direction...

[Sitarow]

[seleme]

Volume - zero 

[I_bitcoin]

Volume - zero 

Someone is watching the 1minute intervals 

[seleme]

Volume - zero  

Someone is watching the 1minute intervals  

Last 2 1 hour periods on Stamp volume was 400 combined.

It's so dull even this thread looks dead 

[cbutters]

suspense in the air is killing me!..... who will move first.... and who will move harder?

[kkaspar]

Firstly, bitcoin is net dispersive of wealth, on a global basis:  While it has a Gini comparable to some fiat economies, the population at the concentrated end of the distribution is largely non-overlapping with the corresponding population of the fiat economies.

Secondly I suspect that the various crashes and insolvencies have had a very dispersive effect.

Thirdly, circulation can be expected to have a dispersive effect.

Fourthly, why should your ressentiment play any role in bitcoin's success or failure?

It is known fact that having money, makes it easier to earn money. But with bitcoin system the money itself is generating new wealth. it's not just about having better investment opportunities with your money with bitcoin, and that is why wealth will be more concentrated with bitcoin then with fiat.

b) Deflationary system that prohibits price stability

Since bitcoin supply is inflating, it's difficult for me to understand in what sense it is "deflationary".  Restating an incoherent point does not make it more coherent.  It is an effective propaganda technique, however.  

If you mean that you require a non-market-driven price adjustment mechanism of your "competitive" coin, I can assure you that it will never have a snowball's chance of competing on a value basis with a coin which refrains from punishing savers.  Certainly worthless coins are already available in abundance, and their sheer numbers prove them "competitive" on a reproductive basis, if that is your metric.

Price certainly has high variance, but this is because the network is growing so rapidly.  Thus the variance of price is a positive indicator, rather than a negative one.  Many applications will require that this be worked around with derivatives, futures, off-chain or on-chain, but many applications will not require such infrastructure, such as e.g. instantaneous fiat transfers.  Any possible competitor will face the same issues, only in greater force, as it will be less mature in this regard, at the point where it begins to actually compete with bitcoin.

The price is deflationary, and exactly because the supply of bitcoins is inflating while the wealth of the world is increasing. I agree that you could run a currency with a stable 1% a year deflationary rate, but with bitcoin the rate is ridiculous. Everyone who knows anything about finance knows that a currency has to "punish savers" to work. Saving wealth in money is not good, because money should not be used in saving wealth but used for transacting wealth. If money will be taken as a source of wealth by itself, then it will mess up every chance of financial stability because people are actually considering something valuable that really has very little value. And that will cause unprogressive investments. Money should be something that accounts value, so trade can take place. Taking money as value is stupid and wrong.
The coin that succeeds is the coin that attracts people by it's utility and use, not because it seems attractive as an speculative investment oportunity.

c) Inefficiency of mining where new resources are spent while the network doesn't gain in speed or security.

While this is certainly a negative for many people, it is not clear to me in what sense it is a negative for bitcoin itself.  We are already at a point where new mining hardware will not be purchased until/unless/except-upon-speculation-of a price increase.  Existing purchases will be deployed and operated until/unless price drops below profitability.  If the market values security at one price and you value it at a different price, it is reasonable to ask: which valuation is more likely to correctly reflect the economic value added by the security?

It is harmful on bitcoin itself because the entire system is supported by a network that is wasting resources without any gain. That means if an competitor comes, that can run the network with more constructive use of resources, then it will have a strong edge over bitcoin.
If bitcoin would become big, then it means that A LOT of worlds resources are spent on running a network that could be very well run by the network that is 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% the size. And that is the vision that would have fitted perfectly in the movie "idiocracy". The future where things didn't make any sense anymore and resources were just wasted without any vision or gain.

[seleme]

suspense in the air is killing me!..... who will move first.... and who will move harder?

I have a feeling it's up. I've tested it a bit and whatever I have thrown got eaten on the ask side (few 20 BTC sales), I don't see much being thrown to the bid side so most of current low volume are buys.

[oda.krell]

... we ... functional ... exchanges.

very very much agree with this part.  functional, meaning reliable and efficient.

my #1 wishlist item for bitcoin is localbitcoins penetration into every nation on earth (except russia, they can eat rubles when the SHTF).  
#1 because it is achievable.  #2 wishlist item is SMS access to reliable, low slippage exchange in local currency in said nations.  
#3 wishlist item is efficient exchanges at volume in all global reserve currencies, available globally via the internet, interlinked for efficient arbitrage.

i prefer cryptographic guarantees over regulatory guarantees and "legal" "recourse" which is neither, and unavailable to the masses due to costs and graft, and which will come with intolerable restrictions on freedom.

regulated exchanges will never be able to compete with free markets once adequate cryptographic guarantees to insure security of lodged funds are provided with a usable workflow.

Huh, who said something about (governmental) regulation?

#1 on my wishlist is a truly decentralized exchange, one that handles the fiat interface as graceful as is possible considering that it is, and probably will, always be the weakest link.

#2, in lieu of #1, is a centralized exchange that is doing more than the existing ones to convince their users that all funds are in place, that they're fully accountable, and as safe as possible. In other words, a more *transparent* centralized exchange, not a more *regulated* one.

[optimi]

suspense in the air is killing me!..... who will move first.... and who will move harder?

Gox in trouble -> publicity -> more people understand btc -> people decide they want to be part of it -> a few days pass until they get their money into the exchanges -> I'm writing this post -> another day passes -> the money hits the exchanges -> better wear your space suit

[kkaspar]

suspense in the air is killing me!..... who will move first.... and who will move harder?

Gox in trouble -> publicity -> more people understand btc -> people decide they want to be part of it -> a few days pass until they get their money into the exchanges -> I'm writing this post -> another day passes -> the money hits the exchanges -> better wear your space suit

I would really like to meet this person who goes "Hey! Look! People who invested in bitcoin lost money because the exchange service turned out to be fraudulent. Wife, give me my wallet, I'll better transfer some money to a bitcoin exchange quickly to buy those bitcoins"