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

[JorgeStolfi]

A while away we learned that some internet trolls are paid to do what they do by some government agencies.

Jorge is a good example of this.

This the simplest explanation for someone spending so much time talking about something they don't rate very highly.

Of course I am "paid by some government agency": I am a teacher of computer science at a public university, and occasional public advocate on computer-related issues.

I already explained enough my position.  I am a troll just because I don't swallow all the bitcoiners hype and tripe? Because I am not willing to ignore all the scams that are growing on it?

[1715689706]

1715689706

[1715689706]

1715689706

[1715689706]

1715689706

[tailor]

A living example of a strawman setup by the original poster

The post I responded to, which you later edited, simply responded "Don't bother" to Zapffe.

You are talking about me, engaging in strawman... I dont think so... I am just engaging in a conversation.. and I am suggesting reasons why Zapffe seems to be wasting everyone's time and NOT contributing... but anyhow, I am basing on a set of communications with him... Yes, I could be proven wrong that he is in fact a good contributor... but in my experience with his various posts, he seems to admit that he is NOT really contributing in any kind of meaningful way.. of course, he does NOT use those words or come to that conclusion.. but whatever, if posters admit that their purpose is to just spread FUD, then what good are they?  NOT MUCH>.. and accordingly, they should be removed, expelled, etc... .. .

Of course, I have NO power or authority to influence how much trolling is tolerated by the forum... and they come to their own judgements regarding whether posters (members) are contributing to the forum

You missed my point completely. I replied to your original post before you'd edited it, hence the strawman. Perhaps I should have said moving target. Either way I simply meant my response was meaningless when set against the edits.

That said, who defines "contributing"? Those holding BTC and not wanting to hear anything that suggests money might be lost? Those looking to short? Bears? Bulls? Dinosaurs? Trolls (aka, anyone holding a viewpoint different than one's own)? Everything said is a contribution in this cesspool - at least any lurker probably thinks so.

[JorgeStolfi]

...
Thus, if the ban report is true,  it can only lead to a substantial and persistent drop in BTC price between Monday and April 15.

This has probably been argued to death already but when fiat was trapped in gox the price went up as coins where the only option for getting funds out.

Then why did the price drop on Thrsday?  For fear that the price may go up on monday? 

[aminorex]

What rumor?  You mean the rumor Jorge just started?  I hadn't heard of a "ban" until Jorge mentioned one.  All that Caixin said was that withdrawals from exchange bank accounts would cease on the 15th.  Deposits are already halted.  BTC trading continues regardless.  The only interesting questions are what the change in funding methods implies for the volume and price in onshore RMB, and how that affects the free markets.

Come on, "ban" is a shorthand for "ban on the use of bank accounts to move money into or out of the exchanges".

It is very easy to start a rumor that China has banned bitcoin.  This would hurt people, and be false.  I would request that you avoid shorthand if it is foreseeable that it could propagate a false impression to this effect.

Deposits are NOT already halted, that is part of the rumor.  If the rumor is false, everything will continue as it is now, with withdrawals AND deposits through the exchange's bank accounts.

If the rumor is true then deposits are already halted as it is a weekend.  Monday this will continue.  The effect of the directive is already in place and everything will continue as it is now, with withdrawals ONLY through the exchanges' bank accounts.

I'm thankful for your corrections to my own unclarities, lapses, or factual errors.  Since this one seems important to me, and the facts are agreed, forgive me if I seem punctilious about the details.

[tailor]

A while away we learned that some internet trolls are paid to do what they do by some government agencies.

Jorge is a good example of this.

This the simplest explanation for someone spending so much time talking about something they don't rate very highly.

The simplest explanation is some mysterious government agency cares about BTC? And does so enough that it went looking for someone to engage in counterattacks? And found Jorge? And now pays him to troll?  That's the simplest?

You must have read that on the internet. I read that everything on the internet is true.

[aminorex]

Then why did the price drop on Thrsday?  For fear that the price may go up on monday? 

The price did not drop because the future was known, but because a fear became known.  When the condition of fear recedes, the negative price impact will recede.  When this will occur seems an interesting open question.  

You think a decline will continue until the withdrawals are halted.  That's a reasonable factor attribution.  

I think the domestic share of exchange traffic is relatively small, and there is no particular reason to withdraw BTC, and so no particular reason for foreign withdrawals has been identified.  It is foreign withdrawals which will result in sales in the free markets, not domestic withdrawals.  Thus I think your factor should not be weighted too highly, as it might be if it were considered in isolation.

[JayJuanGee]

. Lots of money was lost there, putting people permanently out of the game. Gox was one of the major, if not the major propellant upwards. With that money out of the game and not supporting the high price anymore, the price is set to go a lot lower than 500.

Permanently out of the game means dead.  I don't think they died.
Gox victims have a lot of btc to buy if they hope to recover. 

Yeah, that's how people think..."hhmmm...I lost a load of money on BTC...I have no money left...I'd better work harder to buy MORE BTC".

C'mon...

Hey.... that is what i have been doing.. more or less...  It is called dollar cost averaging and I do NOT believe that i am crazy.. b/c it is an investment strategy.. have you heard of it?  It is a pretty solid investment strategy when predicting that an asset is going to go back up in value.  I began investing in BTC at $1200.  And, BTC prices have been declining ever since.  I have been buying BTC when the prices gets lower.

Yes, you are probably behaving rationally under your assumptions, to a high degree -- whether you are correct or incorrect about your price trajectory assumptions is another question.  But I think  creekbore's point remains:  Mass psychology is somewhat less rational, more brutish and reactive.  "Once burned, twice shy" is an apt aphorism describing his inferred assumptions about market behaviour.

Personally, I believe that you are giving Creekbore too much benefit of the doubt.   But to each his own....  To me, Creekbore seems to be engaging in broad generalizations that may have some truth to them, but largely he seems to be denigrating others for being stupider than he is. 

I do agree that frequently people will engage in bad investment and or speculation tactics, as the ones you describe, such as going into an investment balls to the walls, and then they cannot tolerate the unexpected price drop.  For example, if I had gone into BTC balls to the walls at $1200, then currently, I would be panicking with prices floating at $499... I am NOT panicking b/c I am continuing to buy.. but surely, I am more nervous now than when the price was higher and my number were looking better. 

Anyhow, with a balls to the walls strategy at $1,200, it would seem less likely to recover that investment that would be nearly 60% down versus an investment that continues to work the market and to be averaging $670 BTC price and is about 25% down.... Neither place is a good one, but the 25% down seems to be a better place.

[magicmexican]

This is coming out in 2 days - http://store.steampowered.com/app/265930/


Very bullish imo

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[arepo]

bid depth on stamp in the $400-$500 region seems to have shrunk considerably in the last 24 hours.

[Chainsaw]

I am not saying the causal flow is one direction.  I am saying it is vicious cycle.  When price is low, mining is attractive because it is profitable.  Miners rush in.  Mining becomes difficult and competitive.  As a result, miners cannot sell their coins, because they would take a loss.  Consequently, supply is restricted.  Prices rise.  Again mining is attractive.   It is similar to predator-prey dynamics, or a coupled oscillator system, with all the quasi-periodicity that entails, but in this case, it is confounded with exponentially expanding demand.  As a result it is a vicious rising spiral.

Exquisitely stated.

[JorgeStolfi]

This is coming out in 2 days - http://store.steampowered.com/app/265930/

Very bullish imo

Humpf.  Goatish, at most.

[JayJuanGee]

big move coming soon, probably in the next 48h

Of course, in 48 hours we will probably know whether the "PBoC ban" rumour is true or not.  Either way, we can expect a large change in price.

The price is NOT likely to spurt up in the event that the PBOC ban rumor is NOT true.. but the price may spurt down if the rumor were to be true (highly unlikely that the rumor is true in my opinion).  

And, clarification.. when is that going to come.. maybe the rumor will linger for a week or more.. no assurances to get clarification any time soon

What rumor?  You mean the rumor Jorge just started?  I hadn't heard of a "ban" until Jorge mentioned one.  All that Caixin said was that withdrawals from exchange bank accounts would cease on the 15th.  Deposits are already halted.  BTC trading continues regardless.  The only interesting questions are what the change in funding methods implies for the volume and price in onshore RMB, and how that affects the free markets.

YOU mean that Jorge started all of this rumor about BAN?  FML.....        When Jorge speaks, the BTC world listens!!!  OM f'n G!!

[JayJuanGee]

A while away we learned that some internet trolls are paid to do what they do by some government agencies.

Jorge is a good example of this.

This the simplest explanation for someone spending so much time talking about something they don't rate very highly.

This DOES seem to be a very plausible explanation. 

And, sometimes in this thread, I am amazed by the quantity of FUD and naysayers participated herein b/c in reality a forum such as this should have a larger percentage of bulls and circle jerkers... instead we are continuously dealing with the negativity .. and maybe some of them are legitimate bears investing in BTC and trying to profit off of shorts, etc etc... but others seem to be engaged in a sort of sabotage attempt, manipulation and disinformation campaign that seems to be coming from another deeper and eviler place and yes seems likely that they are being paid by someone...   Maybe NOT government agencies, but more likely by financial institutions.. but there could be some government entities that are motivated and or funded by banking-type interests?  which we know that this frequently occurs when wars are fought over oil and resources.. the USA people do NOT necessarily profit in any kind of meaningful way as compared with the billions in profits that go into private hands of the filthy rich.

[klondike_bar]

I am not saying the causal flow is one direction.  I am saying it is vicious cycle.  When price is low, mining is attractive because it is profitable.  Miners rush in.  Mining becomes difficult and competitive.  As a result, miners cannot sell their coins, because they would take a loss.  Consequently, supply is restricted.  Prices rise.  Again mining is attractive.   It is similar to predator-prey dynamics, or a coupled oscillator system, with all the quasi-periodicity that entails, but in this case, it is confounded with exponentially expanding demand.  As a result it is a vicious rising spiral.

Exquisitely stated.

Not sure if that was phrased properly. The correct (at least in my mind) cycle is this:
1) price is low; mining profits are meager against power costs and effort. Most coins are mined by a few larger farms that use thier size to make a reasonable profit against the lower distributed power/space/cooling costs.
2) The bigger miners are responsible for selling coins or using them to add equipment. Thus, much of the fresh coin supply can be controlled by the miners.
3) price goes up; media attracts new attention, mining becomes more feasible, more small-scale users are interested. Many more people are mining and thus capable of selling their coins for the faster turnaround, price is allowed to slump, which also scares out buyers and puts us in a position like now.
4) mining farms and larger entities are gathering coins. Mining looks less attractive with seemingly overpriced hardware. summer is coming. This should restart the cycle.

This is just with relation to mining. the bigger image is the balance of people who are not scared to invest in a bearish market vs current holders who want to cash out in case it drops further.

[boumalo]

I am not saying the causal flow is one direction.  I am saying it is vicious cycle.  When price is low, mining is attractive because it is profitable.  Miners rush in.  Mining becomes difficult and competitive.  As a result, miners cannot sell their coins, because they would take a loss.  Consequently, supply is restricted.  Prices rise.  Again mining is attractive.   It is similar to predator-prey dynamics, or a coupled oscillator system, with all the quasi-periodicity that entails, but in this case, it is confounded with exponentially expanding demand.  As a result it is a vicious rising spiral.

Exquisitely stated.

Not sure if that was phrased properly. The correct (at least in my mind) cycle is this:
1) price is low; mining profits are meager against power costs and effort. Most coins are mined by a few larger farms that use thier size to make a reasonable profit against the lower distributed power/space/cooling costs.
2) The bigger miners are responsible for selling coins or using them to add equipment. Thus, much of the fresh coin supply can be controlled by the miners.
3) price goes up; media attracts new attention, mining becomes more feasible, more small-scale users are interested. Many more people are mining and thus capable of selling their coins for the faster turnaround, price is allowed to slump, which also scares out buyers and puts us in a position like now.
4) mining farms and larger entities are gathering coins. Mining looks less attractive with seemingly overpriced hardware. summer is coming. This should restart the cycle.

This is just with relation to mining. the bigger image is the balance of people who are not scared to invest in a bearish market vs current holders who want to cash out in case it drops further.

You have some valid points but I think most small miners keep their coins, they may cash out when they buy new equipment with BTC that is sold by the miner company

A lot of holders who are here for the long run are buying more when the price dip

[aminorex]

I am not saying the causal flow is one direction.  I am saying it is vicious cycle.  When price is low, mining is attractive because it is profitable.  Miners rush in.  Mining becomes difficult and competitive.  As a result, miners cannot sell their coins, because they would take a loss.  Consequently, supply is restricted.  Prices rise.  Again mining is attractive.   It is similar to predator-prey dynamics, or a coupled oscillator system, with all the quasi-periodicity that entails, but in this case, it is confounded with exponentially expanding demand.  As a result it is a vicious rising spiral.

Exquisitely stated.

Not sure if that was phrased properly. The correct (at least in my mind) cycle is this:
1) price is low; mining profits are meager against power costs and effort. Most coins are mined by a few larger farms that use thier size to make a reasonable profit against the lower distributed power/space/cooling costs.
2) The bigger miners are responsible for selling coins or using them to add equipment. Thus, much of the fresh coin supply can be controlled by the miners.
3) price goes up; media attracts new attention, mining becomes more feasible, more small-scale users are interested. Many more people are mining and thus capable of selling their coins for the faster turnaround, price is allowed to slump, which also scares out buyers and puts us in a position like now.
4) mining farms and larger entities are gathering coins. Mining looks less attractive with seemingly overpriced hardware. summer is coming. This should restart the cycle.

This is just with relation to mining. the bigger image is the balance of people who are not scared to invest in a bearish market vs current holders who want to cash out in case it drops further.

Adding more factors does make the model more adequate and more nearly correct, better able to describe more behaviour.  It doesn't usually help isolate a factor, however.
I'm actually responding as an excuse to repeat something I said before, which I think is an important point, and would not wish to see lost:

*That* is the critical point for price dynamics.  Prices fall until enough marginal producers with-hold their supply so that demand exceeds supply at the market clearing price.  When prices rise, some of that supply comes back into the market.  If future marginal supply has higher cost than present marginal supply, then the price rise required in order to draw out that supply is greater.  The result is upward pricing pressure.

With bitcoin, future marginal supply always has higher cost than present marginal supply, in the limit where mining is homeostatic.  Eventually there is no marginal supply.

[Erdogan]

...
Thus, if the ban report is true,  it can only lead to a substantial and persistent drop in BTC price between Monday and April 15.

This has probably been argued to death already but when fiat was trapped in gox the price went up as coins where the only option for getting funds out.

Then why did the price drop on Thrsday?  For fear that the price may go up on monday? 

I think the chinese mostly will want to hold their coins, even if the exchanges should cease to function properly.

[Erdogan]

I am not saying the causal flow is one direction.  I am saying it is vicious cycle.  When price is low, mining is attractive because it is profitable.  Miners rush in.  Mining becomes difficult and competitive.  As a result, miners cannot sell their coins, because they would take a loss.  Consequently, supply is restricted.  Prices rise.  Again mining is attractive.   It is similar to predator-prey dynamics, or a coupled oscillator system, with all the quasi-periodicity that entails, but in this case, it is confounded with exponentially expanding demand.  As a result it is a vicious rising spiral.

Exquisitely stated.

Not sure if that was phrased properly. The correct (at least in my mind) cycle is this:
1) price is low; mining profits are meager against power costs and effort. Most coins are mined by a few larger farms that use thier size to make a reasonable profit against the lower distributed power/space/cooling costs.
2) The bigger miners are responsible for selling coins or using them to add equipment. Thus, much of the fresh coin supply can be controlled by the miners.
3) price goes up; media attracts new attention, mining becomes more feasible, more small-scale users are interested. Many more people are mining and thus capable of selling their coins for the faster turnaround, price is allowed to slump, which also scares out buyers and puts us in a position like now.
4) mining farms and larger entities are gathering coins. Mining looks less attractive with seemingly overpriced hardware. summer is coming. This should restart the cycle.

This is just with relation to mining. the bigger image is the balance of people who are not scared to invest in a bearish market vs current holders who want to cash out in case it drops further.

Adding more factors does make the model more adequate and more nearly correct, better able to describe more behaviour.  It doesn't usually help isolate a factor, however.
I'm actually responding as an excuse to repeat something I said before, which I think is an important point, and would not wish to see lost:

*That* is the critical point for price dynamics.  Prices fall until enough marginal producers with-hold their supply so that demand exceeds supply at the market clearing price.  When prices rise, some of that supply comes back into the market.  If future marginal supply has higher cost than present marginal supply, then the price rise required in order to draw out that supply is greater.  The result is upward pricing pressure.

With bitcoin, future marginal supply always has higher cost than present marginal supply, in the limit where mining is homeostatic.  Eventually there is no marginal supply.

It doesn't mean squat who holds the coins - miners, permabulls, bears, daytraders, merchandise buyers, merchants, wall street types, whales... The only thing that matters is aggregate demand. The supply is essentially fixed, the result of mining is largely known in advance, there is some hoarding, but we know they are there, some coins are lost, we don't know that but nobody knows that.

Miners could be totally uninterested in bitcoin, sell off everything, they could even sell them in advance ... it doesn't matter.

[JayJuanGee]

A living example of a strawman setup by the original poster

The post I responded to, which you later edited, simply responded "Don't bother" to Zapffe.

You are talking about me, engaging in strawman... I dont think so... I am just engaging in a conversation.. and I am suggesting reasons why Zapffe seems to be wasting everyone's time and NOT contributing... but anyhow, I am basing on a set of communications with him... Yes, I could be proven wrong that he is in fact a good contributor... but in my experience with his various posts, he seems to admit that he is NOT really contributing in any kind of meaningful way.. of course, he does NOT use those words or come to that conclusion.. but whatever, if posters admit that their purpose is to just spread FUD, then what good are they?  NOT MUCH>.. and accordingly, they should be removed, expelled, etc... .. .

Of course, I have NO power or authority to influence how much trolling is tolerated by the forum... and they come to their own judgements regarding whether posters (members) are contributing to the forum

You missed my point completely. I replied to your original post before you'd edited it, hence the strawman. Perhaps I should have said moving target. Either way I simply meant my response was meaningless when set against the edits.

That said, who defines "contributing"? Those holding BTC and not wanting to hear anything that suggests money might be lost? Those looking to short? Bears? Bulls? Dinosaurs? Trolls (aka, anyone holding a viewpoint different than one's own)? Everything said is a contribution in this cesspool - at least any lurker probably thinks so.

You seem to be engaging in your own various strawman creations by striving to create various points to argue with me about seemingly NON-issues...

Are these arguments meaningful to the thread or enjoyable by anyone reading the thread or a big waste of time for me to continue to engage in such?  who knows?  I am willing to entertain you a bit, though... to the extent that it makes some sense to go down these various rabbit holes and your various points do NOT get too lost into some attempt to argue over minor details.. such as saying to me "you changed your post."  So what?  I did NOT change my post after I read your message I changed my post about 5 minutes after I made it and before I read any responses to my post... so who cares if I changed my post after I had made it?   apparently, you care.. b/c apparently, you invested some time into responding to the earlier variation of my post...   I am sorry about that, but it was NOT my intention for anyone to spend extra time responding to my later revision... . but in the end, is this really an issue to pursue?    Seems a bit trivial to me.

Also, in my subsequent post, I expressed my opinion to suggest that some kinds of behavior is NOT contributing to this forum or this thread in any kind of meaningful way.  Ultimately, administrators decide what is contributing and what is meaningful and what is NOT and whether they believe that the posts or the members are helpful to their forum/thread. 

Obviously, I do NOT agree with your assessment that everyone is contributing NO matter what they post.. .but does it really matter what I think about that.. it is my opinion, and I have NO authority in this forum... except maybe to the extent that I MAY be able to convince someone with authority about my point of view regarding contribution and/or meaning... and I DONT even really know who those people may be without maybe researching into it.  I believe that creator(s) of threads have some authority over their thread and then there are various moderators assigned to certain thread areas who would also have some authority.    Also, I believe this forum is fairly tolerant to various kinds of expressions, but they do seem to ban some members, as well..