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

[Erdogan]

700BTC buy in finex.

I feel pretty confident. Thank fuck I took in a long position yesterday at $465.

Looks like net=0 on that. Sell of 683 followed by a Buy of 683. Unlikely its just a coincidence.

Why would anyone sell at 691 and then buy at 697... unless they thought that there deliberate dump did NOT work, and they were going to miss the train?... but looks way too soon in time (only 2 minutes between the sell and the buy)

It does not have to be one selling and then buying.

It could be the same guy selling in both thrades, alternatively, the same guy buying. When you sell, you have the choice to accept an offer or place an offer that is later accepted by someone else. It is quite common for a trader to buy or sell the same quantity repeatedly. It is even common to identify the trades with odd numbers, like repeatedly buying f.ex 1.0035 BTC. It is the same with shares of equity. It could be a secret language between traders. Culture, in other words.

[kehtolo]

Bullish pennant there?

(i dunno, i just thought i'd add some wall observing)

I don't see a wall

Look to your left then!

Yeah, obviously, by looking at the picture, there are no walls to be seen.

I still see a bullish pennant though..

[Erdogan]

If you go to a bank and take out money to buy a car, then when you buy the car you find out the money is counterfeit? What do you do?

By the way, the place to buy fake banknotes is the dark web, apparently. See for instance
http://qkj4drtgvpm7eecl.onion/

They have no fake bitcoins.

But wait.... <fill in your preferred altcoin>

[BTCfan1]

damn the FUD is strong on this board tonight

[Erdogan]

I watched the video yesterday.  Yes, it is a very nice presentation.  

It's good that he avoids the exaggerated sales hype of most bitcoin enthusiasts.  However it seems he has been listening from one ear only, as he barely mentions some of the problems, or omits them altogether.  Like the impossibility of correcting mistakes or thefts.  

But, well, you can't expect an old man to properly understand such a new thing, can you?  

At one point he says that bitcoin is great because it has no rich bankers buying out government.  Is he aware of KnC buying their way into the Bitcoin Foundation, and "electing" their investor/friend Brock Pierce to the board of directors?

He is an old man but it is not right to say that he does not properly understand bitcoin. This guy gave a 1 hour plus lecture on bitcoin. Try doing that if one does not know about the subject.

If you think that you can offer a more balance view and you know more than him, try doing a video or at least write a paper to present your case? It would be more helpful than giving comments which are often IMHO distractions from the main subject.

Whether Jorge is a professor or NOT, he has already demonstrated in his nearly 4,000 posts here that he is more than capable of stringing along a series of irrelevant points and building upon them to the extent to which they begin to seem almost relevant.  In other words, I would NOT mix up quantity with quality, and Jorge surely seems to be capable of producing quantity.. He could probably carry out a 24 hour marathon series of presentation of irrelevance, just to prove the point that he is NOT at a loss of words and that he is UP to the challenge to show his presentation prowess (problem will be to recognize whether there is anything meaningful related to BTC contained therein).

I did some research and seems Jorge Stolfi is a University level professor and researcher in computer science.

He een has a wikipedia page for him:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jorge_Stolfi

Considering his account is not a fake one, would be interesting see his technical opinions about the bitcoin protocol, but he keeps acting like an academic version of the fallllling guy.

The reason that I referred to Jorge's "professor" status in a snarky way is because it does (and should) NOT matter whether one is a professor or a snotty nosed 5 year old in order to post decent ideas in this forum.  So it is an irrelevant distraction at best or an inappropriate attempt to appeal to authority in distracting people into giving him more credibility than he deserves.  In essence, it should NOT matter, too much, whether he is who he claims to be.

In other words, the ideas of his posts should stand on their own, without any need to appeal to authority, and surely some people build their credibility in these kinds of forums through their various past posts.

Don't get me wrong b/c I believe that every once in a while Jorge brings up good points and has fair and reasoned input... and other times Jorge, like any troll, can add some interesting entertainment value to the thread; however, his frequent misrepresentations (and sometimes appearing to be purposeful) actually undermines, in my thinking, the value of his other once in a while decent posts.  In this regard, sometimes we, as posters, become so Jorge distracted that we either fail or neglect to adequately address or even to recognize other areas in which we could be more meaningfully focusing our energies towards bitcoin evangelism, marketing and/or other improvements.

By the way, Evangelism means to spread the good word about bitcoin - which is NOT necessarily based on religious or cultist adherence, even though the word, evangelism, is frequently associated in such religious contexts.

In the beginning, he displayed his credentials rather prominently in his posts. Using the scientific method, I can therefore prove that it is not certain that he learned about bitcoin first, the internet next.

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[JayJuanGee]

700BTC buy in finex.

I feel pretty confident. Thank fuck I took in a long position yesterday at $465.

Looks like net=0 on that. Sell of 683 followed by a Buy of 683. Unlikely its just a coincidence.

Why would anyone sell at 691 and then buy at 697... unless they thought that there deliberate dump did NOT work, and they were going to miss the train?... but looks way too soon in time (only 2 minutes between the sell and the buy)

It does not have to be one selling and then buying.

It could be the same guy selling in both thrades, alternatively, the same guy buying. When you sell, you have the choice to accept an offer or place an offer that is later accepted by someone else. It is quite common for a trader to buy or sell the same quantity repeatedly. It is even common to identify the trades with odd numbers, like repeatedly buying f.ex 1.0035 BTC. It is the same with shares of equity. It could be a secret language between traders. Culture, in other words.

It still seems to be a strange phenomenon when there seems to be manipulation to keep the price up; however the example given, if it is NOT fake, seems to be that 683BTC was sold at $$691  $491 and then 2 minutes later 683BTC was bought at $697 $497.    As far as I can infer, that seems to be an attempt to manipulate the price upward, but it did NOT get any legs or momentum b/c the top of the prices only got to $697  $497... so that explanation as an attempted upward manipulation makes NO sense ...   The whole thing makes NO sense... whether done by one person or multiple people, and even if it were a coincidence, it makes little sense either that the BTC price would NOT have gone up after a 683BTC buy at $697  $497(top of the day's price).


Edit:  Fixed $697 to $497 - the first typing was a freudian slip or something.. maybe i am only half awake.. or half asleep.  

[kehtolo]

Where you seeing 697?? do you mean $497 ??

Then that makes sense.

[JayJuanGee]

700BTC buy in finex.

I feel pretty confident. Thank fuck I took in a long position yesterday at $465.

Looks like net=0 on that. Sell of 683 followed by a Buy of 683. Unlikely its just a coincidence.

Why would anyone sell at 691 and then buy at 697... unless they thought that there deliberate dump did NOT work, and they were going to miss the train?... but looks way too soon in time (only 2 minutes between the sell and the buy)

It does not have to be one selling and then buying.

It could be the same guy selling in both thrades, alternatively, the same guy buying. When you sell, you have the choice to accept an offer or place an offer that is later accepted by someone else. It is quite common for a trader to buy or sell the same quantity repeatedly. It is even common to identify the trades with odd numbers, like repeatedly buying f.ex 1.0035 BTC. It is the same with shares of equity. It could be a secret language between traders. Culture, in other words.

It still seems to be a strange phenomenon when there seems to be manipulation to keep the price up; however the example given, if it is NOT fake, seems to be that 683BTC was sold at $691  $491 and then 2 minutes later 683BTC was bought at $697  $497.    As far as I can infer, that seems to be an attempt to manipulate the price upward, but it did NOT get any legs or momentum b/c the top of the prices only got to $697  $497... so that explanation as an attempted upward manipulation makes NO sense ...   The whole thing makes NO sense... whether done by one person or multiple people, and even if it were a coincidence, it makes little sense either that the BTC price would NOT have gone up after a 683BTC buy at $697  $497 (top of the day's price).

Maybe a more convincing explanation is that there was some kind of faking of BTC transactions going on?  Or alternatively, that there was some kind of software glitch, and that trade did NOT really take place?  Actually, I looked at the price and the BTC history, and the price was $697.24  $497.24 (the number that exactly shows the bitfinex high price of the day).. NO SLIPPAGE??  REALLY?


Edit:  Again fixed $697 to $497... due to my repeated mistyping (maybe I am finding it subconsciously impossible to accept these current $4xx   price points as BTC current and real status?).

[JayJuanGee]

Where you seeing 697?? do you mean $497 ??

Then that makes sense.

Woops, $497... sorry wishful slip... maybe I should fix the posts?

[JayJuanGee]

damn the FUD is strong on this board tonight

What do you mean?  Which information is FUD, so far?  And, anyhow there frequently is FUD mixed in with real information; however, if you are referring to attempts to resolve glitches or contradictory information as FUD, then that, in my thinking, is a very imaginative definition regarding what constitutes FUD.

[JayJuanGee]

I watched the video yesterday.  Yes, it is a very nice presentation.  

It's good that he avoids the exaggerated sales hype of most bitcoin enthusiasts.  However it seems he has been listening from one ear only, as he barely mentions some of the problems, or omits them altogether.  Like the impossibility of correcting mistakes or thefts.  

But, well, you can't expect an old man to properly understand such a new thing, can you?  

At one point he says that bitcoin is great because it has no rich bankers buying out government.  Is he aware of KnC buying their way into the Bitcoin Foundation, and "electing" their investor/friend Brock Pierce to the board of directors?

He is an old man but it is not right to say that he does not properly understand bitcoin. This guy gave a 1 hour plus lecture on bitcoin. Try doing that if one does not know about the subject.

If you think that you can offer a more balance view and you know more than him, try doing a video or at least write a paper to present your case? It would be more helpful than giving comments which are often IMHO distractions from the main subject.

Whether Jorge is a professor or NOT, he has already demonstrated in his nearly 4,000 posts here that he is more than capable of stringing along a series of irrelevant points and building upon them to the extent to which they begin to seem almost relevant.  In other words, I would NOT mix up quantity with quality, and Jorge surely seems to be capable of producing quantity.. He could probably carry out a 24 hour marathon series of presentation of irrelevance, just to prove the point that he is NOT at a loss of words and that he is UP to the challenge to show his presentation prowess (problem will be to recognize whether there is anything meaningful related to BTC contained therein).

I did some research and seems Jorge Stolfi is a University level professor and researcher in computer science.

He een has a wikipedia page for him:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jorge_Stolfi

Considering his account is not a fake one, would be interesting see his technical opinions about the bitcoin protocol, but he keeps acting like an academic version of the fallllling guy.

The reason that I referred to Jorge's "professor" status in a snarky way is because it does (and should) NOT matter whether one is a professor or a snotty nosed 5 year old in order to post decent ideas in this forum.  So it is an irrelevant distraction at best or an inappropriate attempt to appeal to authority in distracting people into giving him more credibility than he deserves.  In essence, it should NOT matter, too much, whether he is who he claims to be.

In other words, the ideas of his posts should stand on their own, without any need to appeal to authority, and surely some people build their credibility in these kinds of forums through their various past posts.

Don't get me wrong b/c I believe that every once in a while Jorge brings up good points and has fair and reasoned input... and other times Jorge, like any troll, can add some interesting entertainment value to the thread; however, his frequent misrepresentations (and sometimes appearing to be purposeful) actually undermines, in my thinking, the value of his other once in a while decent posts.  In this regard, sometimes we, as posters, become so Jorge distracted that we either fail or neglect to adequately address or even to recognize other areas in which we could be more meaningfully focusing our energies towards bitcoin evangelism, marketing and/or other improvements.

By the way, Evangelism means to spread the good word about bitcoin - which is NOT necessarily based on religious or cultist adherence, even though the word, evangelism, is frequently associated in such religious contexts.

In the beginning, he displayed his credentials rather prominently in his posts. Using the scientific method, I can therefore prove that it is not certain that he learned about bitcoin first, the internet next.

Yes.. he seems to be a very strange form of artificial intelligence (that is if you want to give so much credit as to call his posts intelligent rather than mere distractions).   

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[JorgeStolfi]

In the beginning, he displayed his credentials rather prominently in his posts. Using the scientific method, I can therefore prove that it is not certain that he learned about bitcoin first, the internet next.

Not true. I used my real name, but it took maybe a month or more before people here bothered to check who I was.

[empowering]

Obvious troll is becoming obvious.

It is a student question automaton. The purpose is, by means of automation, to support the students in their quest to understand bitcoin, and a test to make sure they can answer all expression of doubt with adequate clarity.

As new and ever greater waves of students enter with the passing of time, the learning starts on the base level, with the same problems. The automaton saves time that otherwise would have to be expended from the hodlers. Of course, should a student go astray, the real teacher's are only a click away, scanning the messages boards while simultaniously staring at bitcoinwisdom.

The propositions the students have to adequately refute, are presented in a round robin manner. Note that there are some inconsistencies, and there is some truthiness to some of them. This is just to sharpen the brain of the students. Here is the list (reading it before exams constitutes fraud):

It's a ponzi.

It's a pyramid.

There is no intrinsic value.

There is intrinsic value.

Transactions are expensive.

It's unsecure

It's not needed.

Price will go to 10

Killed by governments

You need a big company

Governments work as specified.

You are not supposed to be free.

They can be produced infinitely using alternative chains

It's not anonymous

Used for drugs

Its too volatile

It is not a unit of account

Nobody can understand bitcoin

There should be a bitcoin central bank

There should be a different coin in each country

When you trade using bitcoin, you have to convert currency trice

ISIS use them

gold is the only money

Nobody can afford a bitcoin

Mining monopoly will kill it

Mining is too expensive

There is no backing

There is no redemption

You can not eat bitcoin

The world is unfair

Rich people should never be allowed to decide where the factory should be located.

Girls use bitcoin

Bitcoin can run on solar power

An asteroide will hit the earth.

I should not go to bed now

   

and "truthiness" brilliant word.

(if you watch this show....... and I hope that you do)

[spooderman]

Jorge, in the top left of your screen, there is some data about how much time you've spent trolling these forums.

Would you mind sharing that with us?

[empowering]

For anyone that has not seen the video posted by Jorge, of Jorge playing with his balls please view here
http://youtu.be/rFEGFEGMDBc

 

[NotLambchop]

...
The reason that I referred to Jorge's "professor" status in a snarky way is because it does (and should) NOT matter whether one is a professor or a snotty nosed 5 year old in order to post decent ideas in this forum.  ...

It should not matter, but it do.  This crowd lusts for authorities--I keep reading posts appealing to names I should know but have to Google, like "NeoBee can't be a scam U hater--Mr. Snuffleupagus called it an excellent investment!!1!"

I mean, Reptilia validates his confinement-worthy prognostications with "If I'm wrong, then how come I managed to buy the ruins of an abandoned mental hospital in the middle of nowhere a castle?  Hmm?"

So yeah...

[silverfuture]

For anyone that has not seen the video posted by Jorge, of Jorge playing with his balls please view here
http://youtu.be/rFEGFEGMDBc

 

There is no evidence that Jorge was there or even has balls. I'm skeptical.

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation