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

[NotLambchop]

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.

You're thinking of "Social Darwinism."

Re "definition":  A definition may be as terse or expansive as it needs to be within a given context (dictionary definition, encyclopedic definition, working definition, etc., etc.).
"Going by definition" mean "appealing to the definition," not "here's the exhaustive definition," which I clearly did not attempt.
Pedantry isn't clever, funny or sexy, creekbore.  Cut it out

[JustAnotherSheep]

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?

I would say so, although I think it may be sooner than a few days. There's a falling wedge forming, and seemingly some bullish divergence on 15m, which should optimistically provide enough upwards momentum to break it and confirm the reversal pattern, thus gaining even more momentum.



Normally I try to follow lucif's approach to the orderbook, that, in his words; "Walls are nothing when wave runs. They melting down like ice in summer." , and so far it has proven to be fairly accurate (depending on volume the wall(s) blocking the initial move from taking form tend to be eaten, pulled or manage to hold price in place for a while and sometimes cause a slight drop, yet keep getting retested until the wave can overcome it). However, in this case I am highly doubtful whether the wall can be passed through "natural means". I just don't see enough buying pressure materializing to overcome BTC3-4.5k in one move, so unless it gets pulled (at least partially) or a friendly fiat whale comes along, we'll probably either stay here for a long while or the bulls will give up and just let it drop lol

[NotLambchop]

...
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'.

Let's try to formalise this a bit.
It would be absurd to dismiss "...the power of individuals acting freely in their self-interest to effect significant change..."
There were historical occurrences of just that, so a denial of potential efficacy of such acts is provably false. <==We agree and are hopefully done here.

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).

You're right, he never used the phrase, that's why I prefixed what I typed with "seem to be."  Things snowballed from there.  
If his claim was indeed "...that local control is frequently more responsive and effective than centralized control at some higher level," then, again, it is a trivial claim which could be empirically and historically validated with a single occurrence, making it provably true, and making anyone disagreeing with it provably wrong.
I assumed, perhaps mistakenly, that he was making a non-trivial claim.

[adamstgBit]

price has held up pretty good so far, last night bulls were budding up agisnt the massive wall, not backing down. clearly the market wants to go up. looks good to me, price is solid. as i said last night price holding above 510 would be crazy bullish,  well it didn't, but 507.5 is pretty darn close. maybe not crazy bullish, but definitely a bullish signal.

[JorgeStolfi]

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.

Thanks for the thought, but indeed I am profoundly uninterested on any vote-from-home proposal.  That is like a water-powered car or a gamma-ray fly killer: a bad idea in itself, independently of the technical details.  I will not waste time reading such proposals.

What many "puppies" fail to realize is that the only purpose of an election is to convince the losers that they do not have enough support.   Note the emphasis on "losers".  It does not matter if the election convinces the majority, the media, the election committee, the UN observers, a jury, a platoon of academics, or a gang of zit-faced geniuses.  If the losers think that they have been robbed, they will not accept the result and may resort to violence or other non-democratic means.  Elections were invented precisely as a smart, efficient and painless alternative to those more primitive means of settling political disputes.

Complicated crypto-based systems generally fail on this count.  The losers cannot be expected to trust a system that requires a PhD in computer science to analyze.  Especially if they ask a honest cryptographer and learn that the fundamental tools of public-key cryptography -- SHA, ECC, RSA, etc -- have never been proved to be secure, theoretically or empirically. 

On the other hand, everybody can understand paper-backed e-voting, enough to trust it.  In Venezuela, for example, at least twice the opposition tried to start a civil war and depose the government by force by claiming that elections had been rigged.  Fortunately their voting machines had paper backing, the recounts confirmed the result, and convinced the opposition that they were indeed the minority.  No matter what one thinks of their government, most people in Venezuela would rather have them in power than a civil war.

Since I have been involved with this issue, at every election I get calls from minority parties and candidates who are sure that they have been robbed by the system and want to know what they could do about it.  Unfortunately, with a purely digital system, the answer is nothing.  Even in cases when the evidence of fraud was fairly strong, appeals were flatly dismissed because the entity that judges such matters (TSE) is the same entity that buys the equipment and manages it.   Twice in the past Congress determined the use of paper backup, but twice TSE reversed the decison -- once by lying to the party leaders and suppressing public debate, the second time by having paper backup declared inconstitutional.  Whereas the German Suprme Court ruled that purely electronic (DRE) voting is inconstitutional, because the citizen has the right to understand how his vote is counted.

[ShroomsKit]

How nice. One person controls the whole market again and he decides that we should go down.

[derpinheimer]

BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOORINGGGG

[adamstgBit]

BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOORINGGGG

i take it you don't like stability with much liquidity.

since the wall appeared there has been about 10K volume without touching the wall.

if this wall is indeed there to force sells its working.

[hd060053]

any1 know why he is removing parts of the wall and adding them again all the time ? also he sometimes places and removes buy walls.

[derpinheimer]

BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOORINGGGG

i take it you don't like stability with much liquidity.

since the wall appeared there has been about 10K volume without touching the wall.

if this wall is indeed there to force sells its working.

All I see is walls flashing. I want to see red all over my screen. RED EVERYWHERE!

[Tzupy]

Patience, just a few more days. Bulls have to exhaust ammo first.

[JorgeStolfi]

PS. Another thing that election system designers often fail to notice is that the mere suspicion that votes could be leaked is enough to coerce voters.  For example: a mafia boss spreads the rumor that he has an agent inside the system who can obtain that information, and anyone in his domain who did not vote for XYZ may get a surprise visitor carrying a baseball bat.  Even of the rumor is totally false, a voter who thinks that it could be true will probably vote XYZ, just in case.  To prevent such things, the system must be such that every voter can dismiss such rumors and trust that his vote will not be revealed.  Any system that is built on top of a cryptocoin protocol is already way too complicated for that.

Yet another often overlooked fact is that open source is necessary, but not sufficient, to ensure that the system has no exploitable bugs or backdoors.  The basic difficulty there is that the binary that is actually running in the equipment may not correspond to the published and verified source; and there is no secure way to check for that risk in practice.  (That is also a fundamental problem of the Trezor and other hardware wallets, by the way.  It seems that the Trezor fans too have trouble grasping this detail.)

[derpinheimer]

1k bidwall flashing on $506

[EFS]

We just gettin' started, don't panic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVReXN2sFck

[bigdave]

I love how everyone is saying something is a bullish or bearish signal no matter how far fetched it seems. So here's one for you... I took a shit this morning and only had to wipe 3 times. Is that bullish or bearish?

[NotLambchop]

I love how everyone is saying something is a bullish or bearish signal no matter how far fetched it seems. So here's one for you... I took a shit this morning and only had to wipe 3 times. Is that bullish or bearish?

Did you shit in the woods?
(If so--bearish)

[bigdave]

My house is in the woods so I guess technically you could say yes.

[dropt]

How nice. One person controls the whole market again and he decides that we should go down.

If it's only one person it's because the rest of the market is letting them.  If the market wants to go up, then buy the shit out of his walls, keep buying and don't look back.  Take his coins and don't panic sell them back to the guy like a momo at every little retrace.

TL;DR: If it's one guy, he's got power because we're giving it to him.

[xyzzy099]

Thanks for the thought, but indeed I am profoundly uninterested on any vote-from-home proposal.  That is like a water-powered car or a gamma-ray fly killer: a bad idea in itself, independently of the technical details.  I will not waste time reading such proposals.

It's not clear to me why you seem to think that this technology could only be used to vote from home.

What many "puppies" fail to realize is that the only purpose of an election is to convince the losers that they do not have enough support.   Note the emphasis on "losers".  It does not matter if the election convinces the majority, the media, the election committee, the UN observers, a jury, a platoon of academics, or a gang of zit-faced geniuses.  If the losers think that they have been robbed, they will not accept the result and may resort to violence or other non-democratic means.  Elections were invented precisely as a smart, efficient and painless alternative to those more primitive means of settling political disputes.

Complicated crypto-based systems generally fail on this count.  The losers cannot be expected to trust a system that requires a PhD in computer science to analyze.  Especially if they ask a honest cryptographer and learn that the fundamental tools of public-key cryptography -- SHA, ECC, RSA, etc -- have never been proved to be secure, theoretically or empirically. 

I don't agree with this...  People learn to trust technology they don't understand all the time, both from necessity and from convenience.  Most people don't understand ANY technology, really.

[BTCfan1]

so bored