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

[Miz4r]

Seeing all those alpha type corporate guys networking and powertalking to each was a) somewhat disillusioning (Bitcoin idealism is dead, sorry guys) and b) made me realize that Bitcoin isn't going to go away anytime soon, now that big money got its greedy paws on it.

Oda, could you expand on what you mean by "bitcoin idealism is dead"?  I had dinner last night with a colleague who attended the Amsterdam Conference and he seemed quite excited by the opportunities that are rapidly emerging.

But I've never understood what "idealism" even means in the context of bitcoin.  Bitcoin is useful.  People will therefore use it to advance their agendas.  And there are all sorts of different people with all sorts of agendas in this world.  Greater interest in bitcoin from a broader swath of the population tells me that bitcoin is evolving as it should.  

I mean that those who have a disproportionally large influence on Bitcoin (be it by their elevated position in the ecosystem for reasons of trust, be it by the size of their dick wallet) will have to make choices balancing between the "Bitcoin values" that got many of us excited about Bitcoin in the first place (free flow of property, combined with anonymity, of sorts, in summary: the democratization of money) and making Bitcoin useful for businesses, as well as palatable to politics, and they will, by and large, prioritize the the latter over the former.

And why are those two mutually exclusive in your opinion? Is making Bitcoin useful for businesses detrimental to the democratic nature of Bitcoin? I don't see how really, and I also don't see how the initial ideals can ever come to fruition if you don't make it useful for businesses and palatable to politics.

[JorgeStolfi]

Would have been interesting to know how you would have felt if you would have visited, for example, the Amsterdam Bitcoin conference...

Seeing all those alpha type corporate guys networking and powertalking to each [ ... ] made me realize that Bitcoin isn't going to go away anytime soon, now that big money got its greedy paws on it.

I can see that there are many new enterprises trying to take money out of bitcoin users' pockets. 

BitPay says that they made 100 M USD last year, which means at least 3 M USD of fee revenue, right?  SecondMarket BIT bought over 100'000 BTC for its investors, it must have made several M USD from fees and smart buying, with hardly any cost.  Large miners seem to be still profitable, exchanges earn lots in fees, etc.  If a few million of the hoarded coins start moving, service companies could easily skim off hundred of millions of dollars from that traffic.

[MaxwellsDemon]

And why are those two mutually exclusive in your opinion? Is making Bitcoin useful for businesses detrimental to the democratic nature of Bitcoin? I don't see how really, and I also don't see how the initial ideals can ever come to fruition if you don't make it useful for businesses and palatable to politics.

Here you go:

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/26apno/bitstamp_will_not_process_withdrawal_unless_you/

This is what happens when you try to make bitcoin palatable to the state.

[Miz4r]

And why are those two mutually exclusive in your opinion? Is making Bitcoin useful for businesses detrimental to the democratic nature of Bitcoin? I don't see how really, and I also don't see how the initial ideals can ever come to fruition if you don't make it useful for businesses and palatable to politics.

Here you go:

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/26apno/bitstamp_will_not_process_withdrawal_unless_you/

This is what happens when you try to make bitcoin palatable to the state.

That's just Bitstamp, and it's precisely because of the unclear regulatory nature of Bitcoin right now that they are erring on the safe side. Not all the exchanges are asking those kind of intrusive questions, so if you don't like it then use another exchange or don't use an exchange at all.

[bamsbamx]

Choo choo on stamp right now ?

Edit : false alarm 

[Timmmaahh]

its going to rise )))

[oda.krell]

Seeing all those alpha type corporate guys networking and powertalking to each was a) somewhat disillusioning (Bitcoin idealism is dead, sorry guys) and b) made me realize that Bitcoin isn't going to go away anytime soon, now that big money got its greedy paws on it.

Oda, could you expand on what you mean by "bitcoin idealism is dead"?  I had dinner last night with a colleague who attended the Amsterdam Conference and he seemed quite excited by the opportunities that are rapidly emerging.

But I've never understood what "idealism" even means in the context of bitcoin.  Bitcoin is useful.  People will therefore use it to advance their agendas.  And there are all sorts of different people with all sorts of agendas in this world.  Greater interest in bitcoin from a broader swath of the population tells me that bitcoin is evolving as it should.  

I mean that those who have a disproportionally large influence on Bitcoin (be it by their elevated position in the ecosystem for reasons of trust, be it by the size of their dick wallet) will have to make choices balancing between the "Bitcoin values" that got many of us excited about Bitcoin in the first place (free flow of property, combined with anonymity, of sorts, in summary: the democratization of money) and making Bitcoin useful for businesses, as well as palatable to politics, and they will, by and large, prioritize the the latter over the former.

And why are those two mutually exclusive in your opinion? Is making Bitcoin useful for businesses detrimental to the democratic nature of Bitcoin? I don't see how really, and I also don't see how the initial ideals can ever come to fruition if you don't make it useful for businesses and palatable to politics.

Not all choices are mutually exclusive, but some are, and even more are a balancing between two sides of a struggle. How is that different from any other fields of life? Taxation? Low enough to encourage wealth creation, high enough to afford social services. Policing? Severe enough to discourage crime, lenient enough to keep the electorate happy by and large. Parenting? Permissive enough to allow your kid to develop freely, strict enough to... you get the idea.

I'm not saying it's black and white. I'm saying that I'm under the impression that those who wield more influence than most of us are possibly -- probably going to tip the scales on some important questions in a direction that a majority of the early users, miners, supporters wouldn't like.

[MaxwellsDemon]

And why are those two mutually exclusive in your opinion? Is making Bitcoin useful for businesses detrimental to the democratic nature of Bitcoin? I don't see how really, and I also don't see how the initial ideals can ever come to fruition if you don't make it useful for businesses and palatable to politics.

Here you go:

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/26apno/bitstamp_will_not_process_withdrawal_unless_you/

This is what happens when you try to make bitcoin palatable to the state.

So don't use Stamp anymore.

I assure you, I won't. But this is part of a growing trend.
Compliance will come at the expense of privacy and fungibility. There's no way around that.

[oda.krell]

Would have been interesting to know how you would have felt if you would have visited, for example, the Amsterdam Bitcoin conference...

Seeing all those alpha type corporate guys networking and powertalking to each [ ... ] made me realize that Bitcoin isn't going to go away anytime soon, now that big money got its greedy paws on it.

I can see that there are many new enterprises trying to take money out of bitcoin users' pockets.  ;)

BitPay says that they made 100 M USD last year, which means at least 3 M USD of fee revenue, right?  SecondMarket BIT bought over 100'000 BTC for its investors, it must have made several M USD from fees and smart buying, with hardly any cost.  Large miners seem to be still profitable, exchanges earn lots in fees, etc.  If a few million of the hoarded coins start moving, service companies could easily skim off hundred of millions of dollars from that traffic.

Can't take money out of our pockets without creating volume.

Can't create volume without price appreciating accordingly.

Can't have price appreciating without us early parasites adopters becoming rich. Filthy rich! To da moon filthy rich!


Did you buy a coin yet, old man? :D

[MaxwellsDemon]

And why are those two mutually exclusive in your opinion? Is making Bitcoin useful for businesses detrimental to the democratic nature of Bitcoin? I don't see how really, and I also don't see how the initial ideals can ever come to fruition if you don't make it useful for businesses and palatable to politics.

Here you go:

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/26apno/bitstamp_will_not_process_withdrawal_unless_you/

This is what happens when you try to make bitcoin palatable to the state.

That's just Bitstamp, and it's precisely because of the unclear regulatory nature of Bitcoin right now that they are erring on the safe side. Not all the exchanges are asking those kind of intrusive questions, so if you don't like it then use another exchange or don't use an exchange at all.

That's just it, I don't think they're erring on the safe side. I think they're heralding the future.
It's just a question of time until all exchanges are forced to become this intrusive. It's just what governments do.
If this becomes the norm, bitcoin will lose its primary benefits: privacy and fungibility. It will then either disappear or become a backend solution for the existing financial system.

[Miz4r]

Not all choices are mutually exclusive, but some are, and even more are a balancing between two sides of a struggle. How is that different from any other fields of life? Taxation? Low enough to encourage wealth creation, high enough to afford social services. Policing? Severe enough to discourage crime, lenient enough to keep the electorate happy by and large. Parenting? Permissive enough to allow your kid to develop freely, strict enough to... you get the idea.

I'm not saying it's black and white. I'm saying that I'm under the impression that those who wield more influence than most of us are possibly -- probably going to tip the scales on some important questions in a direction that a majority of the early users, miners, supporters wouldn't like.

Maybe they will, but it still operates in a democratic way and if the majority thinks the direction they're taking is wrong we can fork the chain or move over to another cryptocoin.

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[JorgeStolfi]

Can't take money out of our pockets without creating volume.

SecondMarket is doing just that.  They earn money from keeping bitcoins locked up.

Can't create volume without price appreciating accordingly.
Can't have price appreciating without us early parasites adopters becoming rich. Filthy rich! To da moon filthy rich!

If old coins get dumped on the market, volume will probably go up, at least for a while, while price goes down.  We saw that in every past crash.  Exchanges will make more money during price crashes, than when the price is stable.  

BitPay will make money even if the BTC price falls, as long as there are people buying with bitcoin.

SecondMarket's BIT could make a lot of money with falling BTC price, if they didn't  actually buy the coins when clients invest in them, but only when they liquidate.  I don't know the exact terms of their contract (they are revealed only to investors) and whether they could be prosecuted for failing to honor it.

Did you buy a coin yet, old man?

And ruin my trading record?   Not likely soon...

[elasticband]

market depth looks great.

[Miz4r]

And why are those two mutually exclusive in your opinion? Is making Bitcoin useful for businesses detrimental to the democratic nature of Bitcoin? I don't see how really, and I also don't see how the initial ideals can ever come to fruition if you don't make it useful for businesses and palatable to politics.

Here you go:

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/26apno/bitstamp_will_not_process_withdrawal_unless_you/

This is what happens when you try to make bitcoin palatable to the state.

That's just Bitstamp, and it's precisely because of the unclear regulatory nature of Bitcoin right now that they are erring on the safe side. Not all the exchanges are asking those kind of intrusive questions, so if you don't like it then use another exchange or don't use an exchange at all.

That's just it, I don't think they're erring on the safe side. I think they're heralding the future.
It's just a question of time until all exchanges are forced to become this intrusive. It's just what governments do.
If this becomes the norm, bitcoin will lose its primary benefits: privacy and fungibility. It will then either disappear or become a backend solution for the existing financial system.

I think your outlook is too pessimistic, what about the possibility of decentralized exchanges or direct peer-to-peer trades without a third party? I think that will be the future if all the exchanges are forced to become this intrusive. And there are also more anonymous coins coming on the market now and I don't think those governments want to push us all away from Bitcoin and towards those coins. So I think they will be forced to come to the bargaining table and loosen up on their intrusiveness.

[oda.krell]

Not all choices are mutually exclusive, but some are, and even more are a balancing between two sides of a struggle. How is that different from any other fields of life? Taxation? Low enough to encourage wealth creation, high enough to afford social services. Policing? Severe enough to discourage crime, lenient enough to keep the electorate happy by and large. Parenting? Permissive enough to allow your kid to develop freely, strict enough to... you get the idea.

I'm not saying it's black and white. I'm saying that I'm under the impression that those who wield more influence than most of us are possibly -- probably going to tip the scales on some important questions in a direction that a majority of the early users, miners, supporters wouldn't like.

Maybe they will, but it still operates in a democratic way and if the majority thinks the direction they're taking is wrong we can fork the chain or move over to another cryptocoin.

I'm glad you're that optimistic. It's a good thing.

This discussion started when I said, one or two pages ago, that I went to the conference/annual meeting and came back somewhat disillusioned about the, let's say: moral state of Bitcoin, while also becoming more confident about the investment aspect of it.

So that's just it, my personal impression. I'm not trying to force it on anyone. Should have said that earlier, I guess.

[gentlemand]

And why are those two mutually exclusive in your opinion? Is making Bitcoin useful for businesses detrimental to the democratic nature of Bitcoin? I don't see how really, and I also don't see how the initial ideals can ever come to fruition if you don't make it useful for businesses and palatable to politics.

Here you go:

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/26apno/bitstamp_will_not_process_withdrawal_unless_you/

This is what happens when you try to make bitcoin palatable to the state.

That's just Bitstamp, and it's precisely because of the unclear regulatory nature of Bitcoin right now that they are erring on the safe side. Not all the exchanges are asking those kind of intrusive questions, so if you don't like it then use another exchange or don't use an exchange at all.

That's just it, I don't think they're erring on the safe side. I think they're heralding the future.
It's just a question of time until all exchanges are forced to become this intrusive. It's just what governments do.
If this becomes the norm, bitcoin will lose its primary benefits: privacy and fungibility. It will then either disappear or become a backend solution for the existing financial system.

If there's Dollars or Euros or whatever flowing through a centralised entity then the AML thing is inevitable.

I don't need to do anything other than provide address and ID to trade millions of diverse financial instruments through brokers across the globe. It shouldn't be any different for bitcoin. Bitstamp will soon be a quaint memory.

[MaxwellsDemon]

I think your outlook is too pessimistic, what about the possibility of decentralized exchanges or direct peer-to-peer trades without a third party? I think that will be the future if all the exchanges are forced to become this intrusive. And there are also more anonymous coins coming on the market now and I don't think those governments want to push us all away from Bitcoin and towards those coins. So I think they will be forced to come to the bargaining table and loosen up on their intrusiveness.

I certainly hope you're right... Like oda.krell, I'm glad you're optimistic 
Nevertheless, we must not ignore the existence of a conflict between the interests of the state and the core values of bitcoin. My view is that bitcoin is a revolutionary technology in political (and not just financial) terms. Stripped of its political significance, all it could ever be is a slightly cheaper way for moving money between existing financial institutions.

[phosphorush]

My guess is that if bitcoin becomes really big, the revolution will not be that "clean".

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation