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

[billyjoeallen]

Andreas Antonopoulos on Singularity 1 on 1: "Bitcoin is not currency, it's the internet of money!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KW_wYvZ1eZg

Antonoplis is great, but he overlooked a few issues on why deflation would not be a problem, namely that Bitcoin is not and likely never will be legal tender. The supply of bitcoin is finite but the supply of cryptocurrency is not. If there is not enough liquid BTC, then BTC derivatives or something like litecoin can fill the gap.

[1715029149]

1715029149

[1715029149]

1715029149

[1715029149]

1715029149

[1715029149]

1715029149

[KeyserSoze]

The Feds claim they've already sold over 3 Million dollars worth. The whom? does anybody know?

If they're smart they sold the coins all over the country via LocalBitcoins.com so they could then arrest all those people for operating an exchange without a license or disregarding AML rules.

That's entrapment. Local cops do that kind of shit all the time, but the Feds at least usually pretend to follow the rules when they could so easily be shown to be actually initiating the "crime" they are prosecuting.

So your argument is: local cops use entrapment but federal officers do not?
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/national-affairs/how-fbi-entrapment-is-inventing-terrorists-and-letting-bad-guys-off-the-hook-20120515

[billyjoeallen]

The Feds claim they've already sold over 3 Million dollars worth. The whom? does anybody know?

If they're smart they sold the coins all over the country via LocalBitcoins.com so they could then arrest all those people for operating an exchange without a license or disregarding AML rules.

That's entrapment. Local cops do that kind of shit all the time, but the Feds at least usually pretend to follow the rules when they could so easily be shown to be actually initiating the "crime" they are prosecuting.

So your argument is: local cops use entrapment but federal officers do not?
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/national-affairs/how-fbi-entrapment-is-inventing-terrorists-and-letting-bad-guys-off-the-hook-20120515

I said they usually pretend to follow the rules, because local cops don't face as much scrutiny from entities like Rolling Stone. I'm not defending them. I'm just saying local cops are often worse when it comes to entrapment. I think the FBI believes they've been given almost carte blanche in regards to the GWOT. This isn't the same with white collar crime.  Just wait until the first bitcoin-funded terrorist action is committed. That's when the shit hits the fan.

[octaft]

The Feds claim they've already sold over 3 Million dollars worth. The whom? does anybody know?

If they're smart they sold the coins all over the country via LocalBitcoins.com so they could then arrest all those people for operating an exchange without a license or disregarding AML rules.

That's entrapment. Local cops do that kind of shit all the time, but the Feds at least usually pretend to follow the rules when they could so easily be shown to be actually initiating the "crime" they are prosecuting.

I do not believe that this scenario would legally be considered entrapment.

[billyjoeallen]

The Feds claim they've already sold over 3 Million dollars worth. The whom? does anybody know?

If they're smart they sold the coins all over the country via LocalBitcoins.com so they could then arrest all those people for operating an exchange without a license or disregarding AML rules.

That's entrapment. Local cops do that kind of shit all the time, but the Feds at least usually pretend to follow the rules when they could so easily be shown to be actually initiating the "crime" they are prosecuting.

I do not believe that this scenario would legally be considered entrapment.

I've had this conversation with cops several times. Nothing is ever entrapment. OK, Give me an example of what YOU consider entrapment.

[Spaceman_Spiff]

Andreas Antonopoulos on Singularity 1 on 1: "Bitcoin is not currency, it's the internet of money!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KW_wYvZ1eZg

Antonoplis is great, but he overlooked a few issues on why deflation would not be a problem, namely that Bitcoin is not and likely never will be legal tender. The supply of bitcoin is finite but the supply of cryptocurrency is not. If there is not enough liquid BTC, then BTC derivatives or something like litecoin can fill the gap.

Maybe I am missing something, but why would there be 'not enough liquid BTC'?  If there is too little value available, BTC prices will rise and compensate for the lack in liquidity, no?   Why would anyone buy other stuff than the thing that keeps rising in value?

[freebit13]

Andreas Antonopoulos on Singularity 1 on 1: "Bitcoin is not currency, it's the internet of money!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KW_wYvZ1eZg

I was just arguing the same thing with someone on this forum.  I look forward to checking out the vid.  Thanks alot for sharing.

No problem, when Andreas speaks, I listen 

Antonoplis is great, but he overlooked a few issues on why deflation would not be a problem, namely that Bitcoin is not and likely never will be legal tender. The supply of bitcoin is finite but the supply of cryptocurrency is not. If there is not enough liquid BTC, then BTC derivatives or something like litecoin can fill the gap.

I agree. Around 30mins he mentions the possibly of cryptocurrencies backed by bitcoin and he talked about it somewhere else, but I think the main thing is that we're very early on and most of the possibilities haven't not even been thought of yet.

[mmitech]

Andreas Antonopoulos on Singularity 1 on 1: "Bitcoin is not currency, it's the internet of money!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KW_wYvZ1eZg

Antonoplis is great, but he overlooked a few issues on why deflation would not be a problem, namely that Bitcoin is not and likely never will be legal tender. The supply of bitcoin is finite but the supply of cryptocurrency is not. If there is not enough liquid BTC, then BTC derivatives or something like litecoin can fill the gap.

Maybe I am missing something, but why would there be 'not enough liquid BTC'?  If there is too little value available, BTC prices will rise and compensate for the lack in liquidity, no?   Why would anyone buy other stuff than the thing that keeps rising in value?

because they can.... human nature.

[billyjoeallen]

Andreas Antonopoulos on Singularity 1 on 1: "Bitcoin is not currency, it's the internet of money!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KW_wYvZ1eZg

Antonoplis is great, but he overlooked a few issues on why deflation would not be a problem, namely that Bitcoin is not and likely never will be legal tender. The supply of bitcoin is finite but the supply of cryptocurrency is not. If there is not enough liquid BTC, then BTC derivatives or something like litecoin can fill the gap.

Maybe I am missing something, but why would there be 'not enough liquid BTC'?  If there is too little value available, BTC prices will rise and compensate for the lack in liquidity, no?   Why would anyone buy other stuff than the thing that keeps rising in value?

In general, you are correct, but let's say you wanted to buy a couple of supertankers worth of crude oil tomorrow and to pay for it with bitcoin. You couldn't easily acquire enough bitcoin to do that without seriously disrupting the markets, especially if the seller was going to cash out to fiat at the other end. You'd need to use a futures contract to avoid paying too much or too little.

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[Spaceman_Spiff]

Andreas Antonopoulos on Singularity 1 on 1: "Bitcoin is not currency, it's the internet of money!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KW_wYvZ1eZg

Antonoplis is great, but he overlooked a few issues on why deflation would not be a problem, namely that Bitcoin is not and likely never will be legal tender. The supply of bitcoin is finite but the supply of cryptocurrency is not. If there is not enough liquid BTC, then BTC derivatives or something like litecoin can fill the gap.

Maybe I am missing something, but why would there be 'not enough liquid BTC'?  If there is too little value available, BTC prices will rise and compensate for the lack in liquidity, no?   Why would anyone buy other stuff than the thing that keeps rising in value?

because they can.... human nature.

My question is : why would they?  You buy litecoin as a speculative play now.  In my mind, people want a "cheap" alternative, so there is a demand for it.  The harder bitcoin rises, the more it is perceived as "expensive" and people look for alternatives.  But what about in a more end-game environment, where bitcoin is more stable, and rises lets say 5% a year (pulling this number out of my ass), based on population growth and productivity gains.  I don't think people would perceive it as 'too expensive', because the appreciation isn't as sudden.  Where is the incentive for an alternative (genuine question)?

PS: of course you could say that litecoin or whatever altcoin have merits of their own which make them better than bitcoin, but then I would expect one of them to take over the field. I am talking about buying alternatives to the dominant crypto because it is too deflationary.

[dreamspark]

Andreas Antonopoulos on Singularity 1 on 1: "Bitcoin is not currency, it's the internet of money!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KW_wYvZ1eZg

Antonoplis is great, but he overlooked a few issues on why deflation would not be a problem, namely that Bitcoin is not and likely never will be legal tender. The supply of bitcoin is finite but the supply of cryptocurrency is not. If there is not enough liquid BTC, then BTC derivatives or something like litecoin can fill the gap.

Maybe I am missing something, but why would there be 'not enough liquid BTC'?  If there is too little value available, BTC prices will rise and compensate for the lack in liquidity, no?   Why would anyone buy other stuff than the thing that keeps rising in value?

In general, you are correct, but let's say you wanted to buy a couple of supertankers worth of crude oil tomorrow and to pay for it with bitcoin. You couldn't easily acquire enough bitcoin to do that without seriously disrupting the markets, especially if the seller was going to cash out to fiat at the other end. You'd need to use a futures contract to avoid paying too much or too little.

Forgive me if I'm being ignorant but

Why would you do that and not just pay with fiat if fiat is the start and end goal?

How does an alternative crypto currency with even less liquidity solve that problem?

[EuroTrash]

Meh.



Cheers.

[Spaceman_Spiff]

Meh.



Cheers.

I could totally go for $280 bitcoins  .

[octaft]

The Feds claim they've already sold over 3 Million dollars worth. The whom? does anybody know?

If they're smart they sold the coins all over the country via LocalBitcoins.com so they could then arrest all those people for operating an exchange without a license or disregarding AML rules.

That's entrapment. Local cops do that kind of shit all the time, but the Feds at least usually pretend to follow the rules when they could so easily be shown to be actually initiating the "crime" they are prosecuting.

I do not believe that this scenario would legally be considered entrapment.

I've had this conversation with cops several times. Nothing is ever entrapment. OK, Give me an example of what YOU consider entrapment.

A cop is not the person to ask. An officers job is to catch people committing crimes and arrest them. You don't get to scream "entrapment!" and walk away without an arrest. Your lawyer just gets an additional potential defense to get you off.

First two relevant (as in, not yahoo answers) google search results for "entrapment examples" turns up:

http://nationalparalegal.edu/public_documents/courseware_asp_files/criminalLaw/defenses/Entrapment.asp

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/entrapment-basics-33987.html

Some copy and pastes from those sites, for the lazy.

Case Example 1. Mary-Anne Berry is charged with selling illegal drugs to an undercover police officer. Berry testifies that the drugs were for her personal use and that the reason she sold some to the officer is that at a party, the officer falsely said that she wanted some drugs for her mom, who was in a lot of pain. According to Berry, the officer even assured Berry that she wasn't a cop and wasn't setting Berry up. The police officer's actions do not amount to entrapment. Police officers are allowed to tell lies. The officer gave Berry an opportunity to break the law, but the officer did not engage in extreme or overbearing behavior.

Case Example 2. Mary-Anne Berry is charged with selling illegal drugs to an undercover police officer. Berry testifies that, "The drugs were for my personal use. For nearly two weeks, the undercover officer stopped by my apartment and pleaded with me to sell her some of my stash because her mom was extremely sick and needed the drugs for pain relief. I kept refusing. When the officer told me that the drugs would allow her mom to be comfortable for the few days she had left to live, I broke down and sold her some drugs. She immediately arrested me." The undercover agent's repeated entreaties and lies are sufficiently extreme to constitute entrapment and result in a not guilty verdict.

Case Example. Let's say Jim is charged with serving as a lookout during a liquor store robbery carried out by a street gang. Jim claims that Snitch, a neighborhood friend who turned out to be an undercover police officer, entrapped him by telling him that he had to participate in the robbery or Snitch would be unable to protect him from gang retribution. In a state that employs an objective test for entrapment, a jury decides whether Snitch's actions would have induced a normally law-abiding person to participate in the robbery. In a state that employs a subjective test for entrapment, the prosecutor can offer evidence of Jim's predisposition to commit the crime, including that Jim had a lengthy rap sheet and that he was anxious to join the street gang and wanted to prove his mettle by participating in a violent crime. A jury would then decide whether Jim participated in the robbery out of his own willingness to do so, regardless of Snitch's actions.

1) Fred, a law abiding citizen, is walking home from work one afternoon when Wilma, a prostitute, approaches him and offers her services for the price of fifty dollars. Fred has never used the services of a prostitute before, but he decides to give it a try and he takes Wilma up on her offer. Wilma leads Fred to a nearby motel room and, once inside, she identifies herself as an undercover police officer and arrests Fred. In this situation, an entrapment defense will probably not be available to Fred because Fred responded readily to the opportunity to commit this crime. Therefore, although Wilma provided Fred with the opportunity to commit the crime, she did not induce him to do it.

2) Fred, a law abiding citizen, is walking home from work one day when Wilma, a prostitute, approaches him and offers him her services for the price of fifty dollars. Fred tells Wilma he is not interested and continues walking. Over the next several blocks Wilma follows Fred and repeatedly offers her services to him, which Fred repeatedly rejects. However, after a few minutes, Wilma’s repeated offers pique Fred’s curiosity and he decides to give it a try. Wilma then leads Fred to a nearby motel room and once inside she identifies herself as an undercover police officer and arrests Fred. In this case, Fred will have the entrapment defense at his disposal because Wilma repeatedly requested that Fred commit the crime and it was only after several rejections by Fred that Wilma succeeded in getting him to actually commit the crime. Therefore, in this case, Wilma has actually induced Fred, who does not seem to be predisposed to committing this kind of crime, into committing the crime.

Note how the localbitcoins scenario involves no undue pressure to buy, and it would be quite easy to convince a jury that you would have bought those bitcoins regardless of whether you had seen their ad.

[magicmexican]

2h macd cross was a pretty strong bear signal in the past weeks/days, lets see what happens

[billyjoeallen]

Forgive me if I'm being ignorant but

Why would you do that and not just pay with fiat if fiat is the start and end goal?

Because you're buying the oil from Iran.

How does an alternative crypto currency with even less liquidity solve that problem?

It wouldn't in that exact case, but I'm sure you could imagine a scenario where some other crypto is temporarily more liquid than BTC.  When the U.S. was on the gold standard, many small purchases were completed with silver.

[JayJuanGee]

yer cause the FBI is going to drop a market sell on Stamp 

Bitcoins are fungible. Whoever is buying FBI coins will not be buying on Stamp, so the effect is the same. Whoever is buying FBI coins might sell on stamp, however.

Let's just say that if I were to buy 100,000 BTC at auction from the FBI for let's say 20 million dollars, you're damn right I'd dump a few thousand of them on the exchanges. That is a real downside risk.

Nobody is getting 100K BTC for more than 50% off of retail.  Bitcoin is just waaaaaayyy too liquid for that level of a discount. They would be getting fucked up lucky if they were able to get 100K BTC for 20% off of retail, maximum.  More likely anyone is going to be paying at least 90 to 95% retail on such a liquid asset.

[freebit13]

In general, you are correct, but let's say you wanted to buy a couple of supertankers worth of crude oil tomorrow and to pay for it with bitcoin. You couldn't easily acquire enough bitcoin to do that without seriously disrupting the markets, especially if the seller was going to cash out to fiat at the other end. You'd need to use a futures contract to avoid paying too much or too little.

At the moment, you are correct bitcoin is not ready for massive transactions like that at the moment, the market is too small and any big buy or sell seriously affects the price. I'm hoping with wider adoption and a higher value per bitcoin that it won't become an issue and if it does, some kind of two-way-pegging would take care of that.

Bitcoin came totally out of left field, who knows what's next when enough people have had enough years thinking in blockchain... I remember when I started programming a long while back and read a book called "Thinking in Java" which totally changed the way I think and even they way I viewed the world after that... I think bitcoin has the power to change the world on a fundamental level that will take a few years for most to even begin to realize and after that it'll be a household word, like internet spoon...

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation