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

[hdbuck]

Maybe I should remove my 425 bids

Should I?

Why did you have them there if you weren't hoping for the price to go there?

Hahaha he only wants to buy flash crashes it seems.

lmao killer meme

[magicmexican]

hm will 2600 hold

[rpietila]

Dat wall at 435 has scared everybody for like 3 hours already 

[JorgeStolfi]

I know the difference. Dodgy insider dealings and bankruptcy? It's not a real-world comparison.

You mean, something like what happened at MtGOX's? 

Note that it took two years between the time some people lost faith in the company's future (the start of the share price downtrend) until the real extent of Worldcom's problems became known, and it filed for bankruptcy.

Was MtGOX just a bump in the road for Bitcoin, or an early sign? 

[wachtwoord]

 Here is a thought experiment: imagine that tomorrow everybody somehow "knows" that the price of bitcoin would never increase, but that the price of bitcoin would never decrease either.  It is simply a fact that 1 BTC will forever buy the same basket of goods.  Would you expect world-wide demand to hold bitcoin to increase or decrease?

Increase, by a large multiple!

Bitcoin is more useful than fiat currency, and as its value would forever be stable against goods (like gold's value is, even though gold cannot be transacted), there would be no risk in holding bitcoins. I would imagine that perhaps 10,000x today's number of bitcoin would be demanded by the market.

Which would cause a price increase and in effect stop the stabilization. This effect will occur with the current (non-static) prices as well, but take while longer to manifest.

[solex]

Here is a thought experiment: imagine that tomorrow everybody somehow "knows" that the price of bitcoin would never increase, but that the price of bitcoin would never decrease either.  It is simply a fact that 1 BTC will forever buy the same basket of goods.  Would you expect world-wide demand to hold bitcoin to increase or decrease?

Increase, by a large multiple!

Bitcoin is more useful than fiat currency, and as its value would forever be stable against goods (like gold's value is, even though gold cannot be transacted), there would be no risk in holding bitcoins. I would imagine that perhaps 10,000x today's number of bitcoin would be demanded by the market.

Exactly. Bitcoin is not going to drift toward zero like Worldcom while the fundamentals are incredibly strong.
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/243upz/coinbase_has_hit_12_million_consumer_wallets/   (Coinbase has hit 1.2 million consumer wallets)

[Walsoraj]

Dat wall at 435 has scared everybody for like 3 hours already 

That's hardly a wall, you noob.

[windjc]

Whats wrong with Houbi on Bitcoinwisdom? It is stuck at 2744 for me.

[magicmexican]

Whats wrong with Houbi on Bitcoinwisdom? It is stuck at 2744 for me.

Its working fine for me, maybe try different browser?

[windjc]

Whats wrong with Houbi on Bitcoinwisdom? It is stuck at 2744 for me.

Its working fine for me, maybe try different browser?

I tried Safari and Firefox. Everything work but Houbi.

[Simon8x]

Whats wrong with Houbi on Bitcoinwisdom? It is stuck at 2744 for me.

No problem for me. I am using firefox 28.

[OldGeek]

...snip...
Do you think the ramblings on this thread have much of an impact on the price?  
I don't know honestly, I just assume the comments don't matter for convenience's sake.  Well, at least in the short term.  The fact that ideas are being discussed is a good thing, and might have an effect long-term (depending on how much "capital" is reading this thread).

There was a time when I thought that the general consensus expressed here did have an effect on the price.  That may, or may not, have been true some time back but with so many of the old sooth-sayers absent I don't think so now.  ** remembering a few of the cryptic comments by Loaded and the effect they had **

My comment about multi-level thinking was intended to spur deeper thoughts in the ones here that I would consider 'The Virgins'.  I'm thinking of the many times I've read something like this:  "OMG!  You said last week that $850 was a cheap price.  Now I've lost $xxxx dollars".

I would go beyond the usual advice of not trusting an internet forum post as proof of a buy/sell opportunity, and add this: think about what might be motivating the person to post a comment such as "this is a great place to buy" or "this is the top, sell now".

None of us "KNOW" what the outcome will be.  Our own biases, reinforced by others, allow us to confirm and act.  Beware.

[KeyserSoze]

EDIT: and their data has not been updated for 3 hours already.  Another DDOS attack? Or the owner went to pay a visit to Danny Brewster?

This is a funny twist on Atlas Shrugged! Libertarians keep saying Bitcoin is like Atlas Shrugged. Perhaps Galt's Gulch (the place in the novel to where "captains of industry" disappear) is in actuality the place to where Bitcoin scammers/criminals disappear after absconding. Karpeles, pirateat40, DPR, they're all vacationing in Libertarian heaven, Galt's Gulch.

[nrd525]

Reddit thread with some well-written English comments by a OKCoin rep:
http://www.reddit.com/r/BitcoinMarkets/comments/243j3p/how_are_huobi_okcoin_deposit_funding_currently/

It's a good explanation of the recharge code system.  The only thing I don't understand is how they will be able to receive money from the recharge code sellers if all the banks stop working with them.  They could work with cash, but that seems unlikely.

[Pruden]

this must best the longest bear market in bitcoin history.

It will be something to tell your grandchildren about when you want them to stop being ungrateful shits.

No it isn't. After the peaks to $32 in the summer of 2011 it took until Feb 2013 (1.5 years later) to pass $32 again. If we haven't passed 1163 next year it'll be about the same time.

A bear market does not end at ATH. It is easy to see its end looking at a chart. The bad news is that bear and bull markets only exist in hindsight.

Anyway, in 2011 it was 5 months and 8 days long, June 8th to November 18th. We gotta go lower than $340 after May the 8th to surpass that.

[Peter R]

This is how we make progress in theoretical physics.  A good example is Newton's Second Law: f = m a.  A lot people think that this is some discovery about a "fundamental law of the universe," but it is actually just a definition.  The net force acting on an object is defined by humans to be equal to the product of the object's mass and acceleration.  You could equally create another "law" that says f2 = m v, where v is velocity and f2 is "force 2.0."  Both are correct by definition, but only one is useful.  If you calculate the "force 2.0" of gravity, you'll get a complex mess; whereas the "force" of gravity is an elegant equation.

Well, I would take issue with that. Sure, mathematically one can choose any set of consistent concepts and true statementes as the starting point, and treat the remainder as derived.

However, that is not how f = ma developed historically.  Acceleration of course is defined as the second derivative of position with respect to time, and Galileo, before Newton, was one who contributed to the understanding of uniformly accelerated motion.  Force however can be "felt" and measured independently of any motion (e.g. with a dynamometer), and well before f = ma there was allready a large consistent quantitative theory of forces without motion, that included weight ("two identical objects have twice the weight of one"), levers, pulleys, and inclined planes, buoyancy and more.   So when Newton stated f = ma, he indeed discovered a law of nature.

Jorge, you'll need to take it up with Richard Feynman because I borrowed the example from him (from Feynman Lectures on Physics; however, he called it a "gorce" rather than "force 2.0").  

You interpretation of this history of physics and calculus shows that you've never questioned how our perception of reality is shaped by those among us with the courage to pursue truth.  

What is a dynamometer?  A simple way to construct one is to use a spring and mark equally-spaced lines to indicate how far the spring has stretched.  You can then place a "mass" on the end of the spring and measure the spring's stretch by counting lines.  You then say that "force is the change in the number of lines," but by doing this you are implicitly assuming that Hooke's law holds (that f = k x).  All of physics is a bunch of definitions and equations piled up on top of each other that are self-consistent and that explain what we see in the natural world.  They are human constructions.

Satoshi Nakamoto once said that "humans are pattern-seeking, story-telling animals."  Newton saw patterns and he made up a convincing story to explain it.  That story proved to be so useful and so powerful that it became entrenched in our perception of reality, and now generations of physicists have built on top of it.  But it is just a story that explains what we see in nature.  It is not nature itself.  

When Newton wrote "Principia," he planted the seeds that would change mankind's perception of reality over the next several hundred years.  When Satoshi wrote "Bitcoin: a peer-to-peer electronic cash system," I would argue that he did the same thing.  

I think if you were alive in the days of Newton, you would have been a bishop of the Catholic Church.  I believe you would have claimed that calculus was "pointless" and because of your mental obstinance, you wouldn't have even understood what it was that Newton meant by "acceleration is the second derivative of position."  But you are also smart, and you would have realized that Newton was able to accurately explain the motion of the heavens, diligently recorded by Nicolaus Copernicus 200 years early.  This would have frightened you, Jorge.  You would have written about the evils that would come from physics and that no man can understand the complexity of God's creation.  

Newton would have seemed to you a heretic, for he presented a theory that was strongly at variance with established beliefs and customs.  This is not unlike how you view bitcoin as heresy today.  

[windjc]

I just sold all my shorts.

Waiting to see what market does here.

This last Houbi sell off seemed to be profit taking from weekend, and hedging against bad news tomorrow.

If bad news doesn't come tomorrow, I think people will be suckered in to believing this was a double bottom and in a day or so, I'll be able to short again.

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[wachtwoord]

This is how we make progress in theoretical physics.  A good example is Newton's Second Law: f = m a.  A lot people think that this is some discovery about a "fundamental law of the universe," but it is actually just a definition.  The net force acting on an object is defined by humans to be equal to the product of the object's mass and acceleration.  You could equally create another "law" that says f2 = m v, where v is velocity and f2 is "force 2.0."  Both are correct by definition, but only one is useful.  If you calculate the "force 2.0" of gravity, you'll get a complex mess; whereas the "force" of gravity is an elegant equation.

Well, I would take issue with that. Sure, mathematically one can choose any set of consistent concepts and true statementes as the starting point, and treat the remainder as derived.

However, that is not how f = ma developed historically.  Acceleration of course is defined as the second derivative of position with respect to time, and Galileo, before Newton, was one who contributed to the understanding of uniformly accelerated motion.  Force however can be "felt" and measured independently of any motion (e.g. with a dynamometer), and well before f = ma there was allready a large consistent quantitative theory of forces without motion, that included weight ("two identical objects have twice the weight of one"), levers, pulleys, and inclined planes, buoyancy and more.   So when Newton stated f = ma, he indeed discovered a law of nature.

Jorge, you'll need to take it up with Richard Feynman because I borrowed the example from him (from Feynman Lectures on Physics; however, he called it a "gorce" rather than "force 2.0"). 

You interpretation of this history of physics and calculus shows that you've never questioned how our perception of reality is shaped by those among us with the courage to pursue truth. 

What is a dynamometer?  A simple way to construct one is to use a spring and mark equally-spaced lines to indicate how far the string has stretched.  You can then place a "mass" on the end of the spring and measure the spring's stretch by counting lines.  You then say that "force is the change in the number of lines," but by doing this you are implicitly assuming that Hooke's law holds (that f = k x).  All of physics is a bunch of definitions and equations piled up on top of each other that are self-consistent and that explain what we see in the natural world.  They are human constructions.

Satoshi Nakamoto once said that "humans are pattern-seeking, story-telling animals."  Newton saw patterns and he made up a convincing story to explain it.  That story proved to be so useful and so powerful that it became entrenched in our perception of reality, and now generations of physicists have built on top of it.  But it is just a story that explains what we see in nature.  It is not nature itself. 

When Newton wrote "Principia," he planted the seeds that would change mankind's perception of reality over the next several hundred years.  When Satoshi wrote "Bitcoin: a peer-to-peer electronic cash system," I would argue that he did the same thing.   

I think if you were alive in the days of Newton, you would have been a bishop of the Catholic Church.  I believe you would have claimed that calculus was "pointless" and because of your mental obstinance, you wouldn't have even understood what it was that Newton meant by "acceleration is the second derivative of position."  But you are also smart, and you would have realized that Newton was able to accurately explain the motion of the heavens, diligently recorded by Nicolaus Copernicus 200 years early.  This would have frightened you, Jorge.  You would have written about the evils that would come from physics and that no man can understand the complexity of God's creation. 

Newton would have seemed to you a heretic, for he presented a theory that was strongly at variance with established beliefs and customs.  This is not unlike how you view bitcoin as heresy today. 

The laws of physics we use today are a model. A model is a simplification of reality (which is simply too complex) which is close enough to reality to be useful while also being simple enough to be practical. Science is the process of optimizing this model by observation, experimentation and hypothesizing.

[600watt]

This is how we make progress in theoretical physics.  A good example is Newton's Second Law: f = m a.  A lot people think that this is some discovery about a "fundamental law of the universe," but it is actually just a definition.  The net force acting on an object is defined by humans to be equal to the product of the object's mass and acceleration.  You could equally create another "law" that says f2 = m v, where v is velocity and f2 is "force 2.0."  Both are correct by definition, but only one is useful.  If you calculate the "force 2.0" of gravity, you'll get a complex mess; whereas the "force" of gravity is an elegant equation.

Well, I would take issue with that. Sure, mathematically one can choose any set of consistent concepts and true statementes as the starting point, and treat the remainder as derived.

However, that is not how f = ma developed historically.  Acceleration of course is defined as the second derivative of position with respect to time, and Galileo, before Newton, was one who contributed to the understanding of uniformly accelerated motion.  Force however can be "felt" and measured independently of any motion (e.g. with a dynamometer), and well before f = ma there was allready a large consistent quantitative theory of forces without motion, that included weight ("two identical objects have twice the weight of one"), levers, pulleys, and inclined planes, buoyancy and more.   So when Newton stated f = ma, he indeed discovered a law of nature.

Jorge, you'll need to take it up with Richard Feynman because I borrowed the example from him (from Feynman Lectures on Physics; however, he called it a "gorce" rather than "force 2.0").  

You interpretation of this history of physics and calculus shows that you've never questioned how our perception of reality is shaped by those among us with the courage to pursue truth.  

What is a dynamometer?  A simple way to construct one is to use a spring and mark equally-spaced lines to indicate how far the spring has stretched.  You can then place a "mass" on the end of the spring and measure the spring's stretch by counting lines.  You then say that "force is the change in the number of lines," but by doing this you are implicitly assuming that Hooke's law holds (that f = k x).  All of physics is a bunch of definitions and equations piled up on top of each other that are self-consistent and that explain what we see in the natural world.  They are human constructions.

Satoshi Nakamoto once said that "humans are pattern-seeking, story-telling animals."  Newton saw patterns and he made up a convincing story to explain it.  That story proved to be so useful and so powerful that it became entrenched in our perception of reality, and now generations of physicists have built on top of it.  But it is just a story that explains what we see in nature.  It is not nature itself.  

When Newton wrote "Principia," he planted the seeds that would change mankind's perception of reality over the next several hundred years.  When Satoshi wrote "Bitcoin: a peer-to-peer electronic cash system," I would argue that he did the same thing.  

I think if you were alive in the days of Newton, you would have been a bishop of the Catholic Church.  I believe you would have claimed that calculus was "pointless" and because of your mental obstinance, you wouldn't have even understood what it was that Newton meant by "acceleration is the second derivative of position."  But you are also smart, and you would have realized that Newton was able to accurately explain the motion of the heavens, diligently recorded by Nicolaus Copernicus 200 years early.  This would have frightened you, Jorge.  You would have written about the evils that would come from physics and that no man can understand the complexity of God's creation.  

Newton would have seemed to you a heretic, for he presented a theory that was strongly at variance with established beliefs and customs.  This is not unlike how you view bitcoin as heresy today.  

i like your comparison. but would a catholic bishop really take the effort to dig deep into correspondence of/with the great scholars of that time ? i guess a bishop would rather pay another not-that-great scholar to get this done and report to him...