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

[Moria843]

I've got sell orders above $530 and buy orders below $495. Tired of this sideways shuffle. Do something

[jonoiv]

Does anybody also have a bad feeling about this? The Chinese will continue dumping for years...
At least we know now who the wall guys are.

http://www.thecoinsman.com/2014/08/bitcoin/inside-one-worlds-largest-bitcoin-mines/

3600 coins are 3600 coins, and it doesn't matter whether they are mined on some guys phone or a wall of silicon a mile high.  But the guy who has to buy the mountain of silicon is a lot less likely to sell them for peanuts.

Even one location like this is NOT going to mine all of the coins... maybe 30% at best, no?

It's possibly 18% IE the "unknown" mining operation.   However some could be minded via a pool, to hide the true hash power.  Or it could be discus fish.


https://blockchain.info/pools

[Schickeria]

$513 to 508.74 is enough to bring out the trolls?  That has to be bullish with less than a 1% drop is the most they can hope for.

I can remember a lot of threads and comments on higher price levels where people were shouting "That's all you can do, bears (trolls)?" and a few days after there came a lot, lot more. So should I interpret your comment as a bearish indicator?

No, it's nearly meaningless who's shouting here, but I would wish to read more cautious statements, a wish that will never come true, as some people don't learn from the past and keep shouting.

[Moria843]

Does anybody also have a bad feeling about this? The Chinese will continue dumping for years...
At least we know now who the wall guys are.

http://www.thecoinsman.com/2014/08/bitcoin/inside-one-worlds-largest-bitcoin-mines/

3600 coins are 3600 coins, and it doesn't matter whether they are mined on some guys phone or a wall of silicon a mile high.  But the guy who has to buy the mountain of silicon is a lot less likely to sell them for peanuts.

Not a bad feeling, a good one. Somebody obviously believes there's continuing future profit to be made in BTC or they wouldn't have invested this much. Unless of course it's the Chinese government trying to "break or control" BTC

[Sandia]

Funny to see that the main posts concerning the wall observer are:
 - technical analysis, predicting the future based on some historical movement
 - manipulation, buys and sells are always whales who want to move or keep the price to/at a certain level

It seems that most do not accept that the price is mainly a result of supply and demand from all buyers and sellers in the market influenced by the news and the resulting general market sentiment.

Placing >5k in walls spread across exchanges at the same time is not normal supply and demand.  That IS price manipulation.  Did the seller decide Bitstamp coins are worth 520 and Bfx coins were only worth 515 because of value?  No, he set his walls a few USD above current price on each exchange.  Did the seller who dumped 7k coins in a single order last week do it because of supply and demand?  No, he expected to make money are long margin calls.

Btc IS a highly manipulated market.  I don't expect that to change for years, until the early adopters sell off coins.

[oda.krell]

Upwards momentum on daily looks moderately strong, but SMA20 (currently ~$520) won't be broken anytime soon I think. So, staying within the $490-$520 range for the coming days, then another attempt to break the resistance, otherwise acceleration downwards again?

[Richy_T]

@adam LOL

"It's my thread and.."


Catch you in 12 hours....calculator ready

Ah, the reason I stopped watching Doctor Who back in the day.

[falllling]

$513 to 508.74 is enough to bring out the trolls?  That has to be bullish with less than a 1% drop is the most they can hope for.

I can remember a lot of threads and comments on higher price levels where people were shouting "That's all you can do, bears (trolls)?" and a few days after there came a lot, lot more. So should I interpret your comment as a bearish indicator?

No, it's nearly meaningless who's shouting here, but I would wish to read more cautious statements, a wish that will never come true, as some people don't learn from the past and keep shouting.

sub $500 soon

[Phillis]

$513 to 508.74 is enough to bring out the trolls?  That has to be bullish with less than a 1% drop is the most they can hope for.

I can remember a lot of threads and comments on higher price levels where people were shouting "That's all you can do, bears (trolls)?" and a few days after there came a lot, lot more. So should I interpret your comment as a bearish indicator?

No, it's nearly meaningless who's shouting here, but I would wish to read more cautious statements, a wish that will never come true, as some people don't learn from the past and keep shouting.

sub $500 soon

get out of here you silly troll

[falllling]

Upwards momentum on daily looks moderately strong, but SMA20 (currently ~$520) won't be broken anytime soon I think. So, staying within the $490-$520 range for the coming days, then another attempt to break the resistance, otherwise acceleration downwards again?

$520 was the top of dead cat bounce, sub $500 downtrend again of cause

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[JayJuanGee]

Does anybody also have a bad feeling about this? The Chinese will continue dumping for years...
At least we know now who the wall guys are.

http://www.thecoinsman.com/2014/08/bitcoin/inside-one-worlds-largest-bitcoin-mines/

3600 coins are 3600 coins, and it doesn't matter whether they are mined on some guys phone or a wall of silicon a mile high.  But the guy who has to buy the mountain of silicon is a lot less likely to sell them for peanuts.

Even one location like this is NOT going to mine all of the coins... maybe 30% at best, no?

It's possibly 18% IE the "unknown" mining operation.   However some could be minded via a pool, to hide the true hash power.  Or it could be discus fish.


https://blockchain.info/pools

O.k. From our understanding, the article was referring to a bitcoin mining location that was NOT even open yet; however, the bitcoin mining location was anticipated to contain four warehouses full of mining equipment and to be "one of" the largest in China. 

 I know that this is the speculation thread and all, but really,  if the location is one of the largest, but there are more similar sized ones, we have no real knowledge of how much of the bitcoin mining it currently takes nor how much mining power it will take 6 months from now or 1 year from now.  They seemed to indicate that each warehouse took about 30 days to put into place, but in the end, I remained unclear about whether any of the mining locations, at that spot were currently operational. 

Even when it is all open, could such a location mine more than 30 % of the bitcoins, unless it is conglomerated with other locations?

[oda.krell]

Funny to see that the main posts concerning the wall observer are:
 - technical analysis, predicting the future based on some historical movement
 - manipulation, buys and sells are always whales who want to move or keep the price to/at a certain level

It seems that most do not accept that the price is mainly a result of supply and demand from all buyers and sellers in the market influenced by the news and the resulting general market sentiment.

Placing >5k in walls spread across exchanges at the same time is not normal supply and demand.  That IS price manipulation.  Did the seller decide Bitstamp coins are worth 520 and Bfx coins were only worth 515 because of value?  No, he set his walls a few USD above current price on each exchange.  Did the seller who dumped 7k coins in a single order last week do it because of supply and demand?  No, he expected to make money are long margin calls.

Btc IS a highly manipulated market.  I don't expect that to change for years, until the early adopters sell off coins.

That is an awfully permissive definition of "manipulation", though. Truth is, given sufficient buying pressure, those walls would be pulled, or absorbed, the latter at a loss (presumably) for the whale who placed them.

But maybe what I would call "larger players trying to guide the market for longer-term profit" you call "manipulation", in which case we agree on the phenomenon, even if we don't agree on the name for it.

[xyzzy099]

Going with your evolution analogy:
Evolution is not a progression from "worse" to "better"--"better" (or "wonderful," to use your language) is a post-factum value judgement imposed by us, the survivors.  It produced what it has produced, and the "wonder" existence holds it holds only for us, the product.  Nothing suggests that if the end result of biological evolution was undifferentiated slime, that slime would be any less "wonderful" to bits of that slime (if "wonder" was even a thing for those slime bits, but you get my drift).

Evolution simply produces what it produces.  Going by its definition, "survival of the fittest," everything extant is the fittest.
Again, by definition.
Not "the best," not "the best of all possible worlds," but simply "that which exists."

Another tangent:  You can no more encourage, deride or discourage enlightened self-interest than you could encourage, deride, or encourage evolution.  TL;DR: I ain't.  Is this a bit clearer?

*This is getting pretty far away from watching Teh Wall, but there's not much happening there [that I can understand or work with].  Hope we're not annoying the purists.

I don't disagree with anything you have said above re: evolution, but it seems you have gone way off in the weeds to try to invalidate a perfectly good analogy.

When I originally responded to your response to Richy_T, I did so in the belief that you were dismissing the power of individuals acting freely in their self-interest to effect significant change, but after a couple of exchanges with you now, I have re-read it, and you seem to be equating 'people acting in their enlightened self interest' with 'everything that humans do, ever, full stop".  If that is indeed what you mean, then, indeed, everything that has ever happened re: the human species is definitely the result of 'enlightened self interest'.

That, however, is almost certainly not the idea that Richy_T was promoting, and that you appeared to be trying to contradict.  Re-reading that post, it seems that he never spoke of 'enlightened self interest' at all, and that concept certainly does not seem to be necessary to support the claim he was making - that local control is frequently more responsive and effective than centralized control at some higher level (if I understand him correctly).

[xyzzy099]

As a bitcoin fan, you obviously want to stick as many applications as possible into the Satoshi2009 blockchain, in order to get more support for it.  But there are other blockchains in existence, and the bitcoin network's hashing power could be harnessed for other protocols and applications if offered suitable rewards.

Jorge, I didn't say anything about any specific blockchain at all.  I actually did not envision this working on the existing Bitcoin blockchain, although I am sure that could be done.

When I brought this to your attention, I did so simply because I genuinely thought that it might be something you might be interested in, since you have a background of having worked with some e-voting issues.  I see now that you are PROFOUNDLY uninterested, so I will let an old dog go back and lay down in the shade   I will not disturb you further.

[Richy_T]

If you assume that ASIC farms are stretching their finances so thin that they do NOT have any fiat and they only have BTC,then maybe they would have to sell some of them.

Mining being a free market, it should be the case that the supply (miners) expands and ajusts until the activity is about as profitable as any other business.  In that case one would expect miners to make only 10-20% over costs.

(However, since the difficulty and price change rather quickly,  the mining market may far from equilibrium, in either way.)

The set of miners and the set of people who believe in bitcoin-to-the-moon may overlap to some extent, but do not have to.  A person can be skeptical of bitcoin but engage in large-scale mining (or day-trading) if he thinks that it is lucrative.  Bythe same token, there seem to be many bitcoiners who day-trade altcoins even though they think that all altcoins will die.

The huge cost of a large-scale mining operation is not proof of long-term faith in bitcoin.  The investors must know that all that equipment will be junk within a year anyway.  They are betting that that BTC price & total hashrate wll be within certain ranges for the next year or so, so that mining will yield more (in dollar terms) than their investment, within that time frame.  Otherwise they should have either kept their dollars or used them to buy bitcoins on the market, depending on their long-term outlook.

Good post.

[xyzzy099]

Going by its definition, "survival of the fittest," everything extant is the fittest.

Except that is not the definition of evolution; merely a soundbite. It is often used to justify capitalist systems or excuse social inequality but it has nothing to do with Darwin's theory and IRCC no-where does he use the phrase in "OotS" never mind offer it as a definition.

While I don't necessarily disagree that the above is not the 'definition' of evolution, the notion of 'survival of the fittest' being a component of evolutionary action seems pretty intuitive, no?  I don't think Darwin's use (or non-use) of that specific term is really meaningful.

[adamstgBit]

@adam LOL

"It's my thread and.."


Catch you in 12 hours....calculator ready

Ah, the reason I stopped watching Doctor Who back in the day.

I switched off pretty much after Colin Baker's first season...but I'm told McCoy's last season improved things considerably.

what's your calculator telling you?

has there been well over 5K vol at this range?

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[Richy_T]

I switched off pretty much after Colin Baker's first season...but I'm told McCoy's last season improved things considerably.

I's actually forgotten why I stopped watching and was pondering that the other day. I remembered being an avid watcher through Tom Baker and a bunch of Davidson then nothing.

I hated her whiny screechy voice and had to turn over every time she showed up on TV with her annoying affected perkiness. And then they went and put her in my favorite show.

Then I just kinda missed the Baker stuff. I'm going back and watching it bit by bit.

Then they had Sylvester McCoy, the guy who was so crap on "3-2-1", ruining every sketch he was in. And that was a feat considering how low-brow they were. And the Ace thing was just so cartoony. Probably set the stage for some of the more regrettable aspects of the New Who. Fortunately, it's still pretty watchable overall.