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

[PoolMinor]

I observed this wall today, uploaded for your pleasure.
Edited: vandal's graffiti.

[podyx]

FTFY

[KeyserSoze]

I observed this wall today, uploaded for your pleasure.

Thanks to you my confidence in a price rise is even more "concrete."

[billyjoeallen]

I simply want to live in a society where all interactions are voluntary and property rights are respected. If that sounds too distopian to you, find comfort in the fact that I am philosophically am opposed to forcing anyone to create such a society, to live there or to stay there. Can you the the same of your society?

Those are very nice and lofty principles in theory, and they are NOT even bad things to which to aspire.  NONETHELESS, we are likely NOT going to be able to achieve complete voluntaryism, especially your concept of the term, and there are social and public benefit and social and public property that are from time to time going to impinge upon the boundaries and property rights of others that are NOT likely resolvable voluntarily.   But, in theory I would like a world that also aspires to those kinds of broad principles, to the extent feasible.. so maybe we kind of agree to the broad principles, but NOT to the absolutism of such broad principles to the detriment of society as a whole.

The debate might end here, then. There are several strong utilitarian arguments to be made in favor of distributed governance, but I'm probably not the right person to make them. I'm a Natural Rights kind of guy and I don't think coercion is justified even if it produced a net benefit for society, which I strongly believe it doesn't.

Our community just donated over $25,000 worth of bitcoin to a victim of irresponsible media. Is that not evidence of our charitable disposition?

You cannot run a society like that.... this situation got a lot of attention, but there are so many situations of public need that do NOT get attention, and the problem of free riding or free loading is a well known principle in economics and human psychology that people are NOT going to just freely invest in certain public goods, and they are just going to wait for the other guy... b/c they know that they can get it for free.. there are so many examples of this and even examples of natural monopolies that it is very inefficient to build redundant systems.. and those kinds of systems are public goods.     I think a lot of you anti-government folks do NOT account for these various factors, and somehow expect that everything important is going to be covered by some kind of hands-off voluntary/free/individualistic system.

I don't want to run a society. I want it to run without anyone running it. Kind of like Bitcoin. Free riders are not the primary issue to the truly altruistic. The main issue is "are the needs of the helpless being met?"   

[AlexGR]

That is a lot of pages to read!

Would you advise to buy hold or sell now? I have fiat waiting, I can't decide if I should wait a bit, I bought some already and I may buy if it dives or start going up

I don't really like giving advice on what others should do with their money.

On a personal level I think Bitcoin is worth far more than triple-digit USDs, but whether or not it'll realize, say, five or six digit numbers is highly dependent on whether people really understand its value or due to some psychological "brake" think: "wait... this is madness... bits costing XXX.XXX dollars?" Besides, everyone has their price at which they are willing to cash out. For some it was a few pizzas, for others it was $1 or $10, etc. And if it hits, say, 20k, even 1k might seem like a joke.

[686f646c]

Atlas Ceo on fox business
he said 1000s of signups yesterday

[Tyson95]

Atlas Ceo on fox business
he said 1000s of signups yesterday

Why would people want to use a Mon-Fri 9-5 exchange? I don't see any extra services that would make me want to trade there unless i'm missing something.

[vints998]

There is a very pronounced "wall" at 630 (on BTC-e) over the last few hours. Shows up very strongly on the bitcoinwisdom chart, don't remember seeing straight lines like this since last month on Gox. Would like to hear you guys take on this.

[hdbuck]

meanwhile.. in Dogecoinland..

[billyjoeallen]

Atlas Ceo on fox business
he said 1000s of signups yesterday

Why would people want to use a Mon-Fri 9-5 exchange? I don't see any extra services that would make me want to trade there unless i'm missing something.

If you are a seller, you go where the buyers are. Wall Street has money, and if that money finds it's way onto the bid side of the Atlas order book, My BTC will find it's way to the ask side. That's a big "if" at this point, though.

[JorgeStolfi]

I haven't got a PhD in computer science, however, I came to realize that bitcoin is so fascinating, that one has to be a fool to neglect the consequences that arise from this technology.

My knowledge of programming and computer science may be limited, but one must be quite narrow minded not to see the broader picture here.

[ ... ]

I for one believe that bitcoin is something much grander than we can even comprehend right now.

As humanity makes the transition from a type 0 civilization (the most primitive type of a civilization on the Kardashev scale) to a planetary civilization, bitcoin could indeed mark a step towards a global economy. Everything becomes globalized and digitalized, so why not currency? Bitcoin is a normal step towards a digitalized world economy.

As I wrote many times, I have no doubts about the technical aspects of cryptographic currency; and if it succeeds at its basic original goal --- a cheap, fast, relatively uncomplicated method for internet payments, especially across borders -- I would be most happy, and certainly will use it.

However, I am more than a bit skeptical about its chances of success; not for technical reasons, but for several economical and political problems that I have yet to see adequately answered.  But I have already written about them, and they are not the point here.

I also have a very strong and negative opinion about *bitcoin as an investment*, a topic which is completely distinct from that original goal. But I have already written about that too, and it would be pointless to repeat it here.

I resent this recurrent implication that anyone who does not adore bitcoin must be very stupid, stubborn, or have hidden motives.  If anyone is clinging to old beliefs, it is the bitcoiners who still claim that "governments cannot stop bitcoin",  altcoins are not viable because of the "network effect" and "first-player advantage", "bitcoin will be extremely valuable because of its limited supply", and so on.  Bitcoiners could be forgiven for believing those claims a year ago, but the facts now have categorically disproved them.

In particular, I cannot understand why some bitcoiners still believe that crypto-currency in general, and bitcoin in particular, will free them from governments or banks.  If that is what you expect from bitcoin, prepare to be severely disappointed.  Governments can render cyptocurrencies useless with a single stroke of the pen; we saw that happen in China and other countries.

More generally, one cannot expect that a technological invention, by itself, will bring fundamental social, political or economic change.  The people whose wealth and power could be threatened by such change will fight it, with all the resources that their wealth and power gives them.  In particular, technology cannot give to the people of a country any freedoms that their government is denying them.

GPS made a big difference in travel and other fields; Google made information vastly more accessible; Wikipedia put old encyclopedias out of business; and so on -- but none of those inventions changed society in a fundamental way (like, say, the French Revolution, World War II, or the end of Apartheid did).   If anything, technological advances only strengthen the existing power structures.  Big social/political problems can be solved only with lots of social/political action.  With luck, crypto-currencies may have similar impact as those technologies -- but they will have the same limitations.

Then there is the question of the bitcoin "ecosystem", the people and businesses that have collectively taken possession of the technology and/or are exploting it.  Sure, in theory bitcoin is a pure abstract concept that is not affected by them; but in practice, for the common people, the word "bitcoin" includes Silk Road, a couple dozen still-unpunished scams (like MtGOX and BitcoinRain), the salesmen who claim that bitcoin is a good hedge against inflation, and much more.   It is hard to love the bitcoin skeleton when the meat around it is so rotten...

(For example, several hundred thousand bitcoins are now owned by the MtGOX thief, and there seems to be little hope or will to identify that thief and return the coins to their rightful owners.  If bitcoin were to succeed as bitcoiners hope, that thief would own several percent of all the money supply in the world.  You expect me to root for that?)

I've got a PhD in theoretical physics [ ... ]

Well, that may explain it:  I understand that to do theoretical physics these days one must learn to suspend one's skepticism first.    By the way, the last time I made a bet with someone, I won a pizza and a bear beer from a theoretical physicist who was absolutely sure that the OPERA results were correct. 

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[donut]

In particular, I cannot understand why some bitcoiners still believe that crypto-currency in general, and bitcoin in particular, will free them from governments or banks.  If that is what you expect from bitcoin, prepare to be severely disappointed.  Governments can render cyptocurrencies useless with a single stroke of the pen; we saw that happen in China and other countries.

More generally, one cannot expect that a technological invention, by itself, will bring fundamental social, political or economic change.  The people whose wealth and power could be threatened by such change will fight it, with all the resources that their wealth and power gives them.  In particular, technology cannot give to the people of a country any freedoms that their government is denying them.

Are you honestly suggesting that black markets don't exist?

Are you really ignoring that the internet fundamentally changed society and is the reason the protests and revolutions from 2011 on are even possible despite the wishes of local dictators?

[bassclef]

meanwhile.. in Dogecoinland..

Switch to 12h view, move the neckline up a bit and watch the double top play out. We just bounced off the original support line as resistance. Buy target is 80 once all the nooblets let go.

Given the constant inflation of DOGE upon the market I probably won't even buy then.

[Chalkbot]

In particular, I cannot understand why some bitcoiners still believe that crypto-currency in general, and bitcoin in particular, will free them from governments or banks.  If that is what you expect from bitcoin, prepare to be severely disappointed.  Governments can render cyptocurrencies useless with a single stroke of the pen; we saw that happen in China and other countries.

More generally, one cannot expect that a technological invention, by itself, will bring fundamental social, political or economic change.  The people whose wealth and power could be threatened by such change will fight it, with all the resources that their wealth and power gives them.  In particular, technology cannot give to the people of a country any freedoms that their government is denying them.

Are you honestly suggesting that black markets don't exist?

Are you really ignoring that the internet fundamentally changed society and is the reason the protests and revolutions from 2011 on are even possible despite the wishes of local dictators?

Wow, yeah. While I mostly stopped paying attention to his posts, as they struck me as yet another self proclaimed intellectual casting judgement in the absence of some fundamental understandings, this seems like pretty good justification for my assumption (at the risk of sounding hypocritical). Not enough time in my day to hear all these guys out. Nothing personal.

[billyjoeallen]

I haven't got a PhD in computer science, however, I came to realize that bitcoin is so fascinating, that one has to be a fool to neglect the consequences that arise from this technology.

My knowledge of programming and computer science may be limited, but one must be quite narrow minded not to see the broader picture here.

[ ... ]

I for one believe that bitcoin is something much grander than we can even comprehend right now.

As humanity makes the transition from a type 0 civilization (the most primitive type of a civilization on the Kardashev scale) to a planetary civilization, bitcoin could indeed mark a step towards a global economy. Everything becomes globalized and digitalized, so why not currency? Bitcoin is a normal step towards a digitalized world economy.

As I wrote many times, I have no doubts about the technical aspects of cryptographic currency; and if it succeeds at its basic original goal --- a cheap, fast, relatively uncomplicated method for internet payments, especially across borders -- I would be most happy, and certainly will use it.

However, I am more than a bit skeptical about its chances of success; not for technical reasons, but for several economical and political problems that I have yet to see adequately answered.  But I have already written about them, and they are not the point here.

I also have a very strong and negative opinion about *bitcoin as an investment*, a topic which is completely distinct from that original goal. But I have already written about that too, and it would be pointless to repeat it here.

I resent this recurrent implication that anyone who does not adore bitcoin must be very stupid, stubborn, or have hidden motives.  If anyone is clinging to old beliefs, it is the bitcoiners who still claim that "governments cannot stop bitcoin",  altcoins are not viable because of the "network effect" and "first-player advantage", "bitcoin will be extremely valuable because of its limited supply", and so on.  Bitcoiners could be forgiven for believing those claims a year ago, but the facts now have categorically disproved them.

In particular, I cannot understand why some bitcoiners still believe that crypto-currency in general, and bitcoin in particular, will free them from governments or banks.  If that is what you expect from bitcoin, prepare to be severely disappointed.  Governments can render cyptocurrencies useless with a single stroke of the pen; we saw that happen in China and other countries.

More generally, one cannot expect that a technological invention, by itself, will bring fundamental social, political or economic change.  The people whose wealth and power could be threatened by such change will fight it, with all the resources that their wealth and power gives them.  In particular, technology cannot give to the people of a country any freedoms that their government is denying them.

GPS made a big difference in travel and other fields; Google made information vastly more accessible; Wikipedia put old encyclopedias out of business; and so on -- but none of those inventions changed society in a fundamental way (like, say, the French Revolution, World War II, or the end of Apartheid did).   If anything, technological advances only strengthen the existing power structures.  Big social/political problems can be solved only with lots of social/political action.  With luck, crypto-currencies may have similar impact as those technologies -- but they will have the same limitations.

Then there is the question of the bitcoin "ecosystem", the people and businesses that have collectively taken possession of the technology and/or are exploting it.  Sure, in theory bitcoin is a pure abstract concept that is not affected by them; but in practice, for the common people, the word "bitcoin" includes Silk Road, a couple dozen still-unpunished scams (like MtGOX and BitcoinRain), the salesmen who claim that bitcoin is a good hedge against inflation, and much more.   It is hard to love the bitcoin skeleton when the meat around it is so rotten...

(For example, several hundred thousand bitcoins are now owned by the MtGOX thief, and there seems to be little hope or will to identify that thief and return the coins to their rightful owners.  If bitcoin were to succeed as bitcoiners hope, that thief would own several percent of all the money supply in the world.  You expect me to root for that?)

I've got a PhD in theoretical physics [ ... ]

Well, that may explain it:  I understand that to do theoretical physics these days one must learn to suspend one's skepticism first.    By the way, the last time I made a bet with someone, I won a pizza and a bear beer from a theoretical physicist who was absolutely sure that the OPERA results were correct. 

You want to bet a pizza and a beer that bitcoin will be at a higher price level a year from now and therefore prove to be a good store of value, investment and hedge on inflation?  Name your time frame.  Name your toppings. I think you'll be eating crow.

[philip2000uk]

Current volume chart featuring Gayoon

Right BAGS packed for South Korea 
Seriously they are the loveliest in the world along with Hong Kong and Japan

[Erdogan]

The Bank of England have released a quarterly bulletin which is mainly about the definition of money, and its role in a modern economy. It (of course) includes some stuff on Bitcoin and digital currencies, as well as local currencies - Coin Desk have an overview here, or you can read the PDF directly here.

I couldn't possibly allege that something the bank of england write about money is wrong, could I, but they say that money is an IOU (I owe you). When it comes to base money (notes and token coins, also bitcoin), it is specifically not an IOU. When an exchange is performed, there is no trust relationship left between the traders. I exclude trust in the system here, this is more exactly described as speculation or foresight about the future value of money, or the probability that the money will keep its value in the future.

They define currency as notes, which really is the base money above. Currency is not well defined, most often what is meant is the type of money that is in common use in the land. I don't like that word to be used in serious discussions about money.

They correctly describe bank deposits as money. Bank deposits are money because it is debt (to the account holder) that can easily be used in exchange using an internet bank or a card. Edit: The voume of tradable debt affects the price level (the value of the money), just like base money. But it is not base money, it is included in a wider definition of money. The deposits are of course IOU's. Any IOU, whether it is your timesheet at work, or an agreement to pay for something later, depends on trust between the parties (and they are only money if they can be traded, that is, used as money elsewere).

This is by the way an important trait of bitcoins, which is one of the reasons for its future success. Bitcoin is trustless just like modern fiat base money, and at the same time, it can be passed over the network just like modern fiat-derived debt money. This is, for some, even for bankers, hard to understand.

[Richy_T]

I exclude trust in the system here,

This is where you slip up. It is an IOU from the state which people trust enough to trade between themselves as if it had value.

[dreamspark]

So it looks like were going to generally trend upwards on low volume. Im feeling a big surge upwards once the voume picks up.