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

[exocytosis]

It's happening again!

(sub 480 )

We'll soon see sub 450 as well.
450 will be the new 500, the new point BTC will struggle to stay above. The unsustainability of this Ponzi scheme is becoming apparent even to some cultists now. Thus they dump their holdings.

[adamstgBit]

It's happening again!

(sub 480 )

We'll soon see sub 450 as well.
450 will be the new 500, the new point BTC will struggle to stay above. The unsustainability of this Ponzi scheme is becoming apparent even to some cultists now. Thus they dump their holdings.

go buy an ounce of gold

[NotLambchop]

...stealing and fraud are still stealing and fraud...

But many people here call taxes stealing.  Do you see how petty semantics aren't petty semantics, and that attempting to formalize shit and reconcile different interpretations of "what's right" gave us The Body Of Law?

[ErnieX]

Could dip below 400 then rally.

[adamstgBit]

Could dip below 400 then rally.

we'd see at least 3 dead cat bounces b4 that, just ask falling, this cat is always bouncing

[bigdave]

Could dip below 400 then rally.

we'd see at least 3 dead cat bounces b4 that, just ask falling, this cat is always bouncing

[xyzzy099]

What freedoms are you talking about, in particular?  For instance, your notion that my freedoms should stop where yours begin seems overbroad.  Can I take from you what I believe to be rightfully mine?

Of course you could, if you could if your could provide sufficient proof to support your claim.

My perception is that you are too focused on semantics.
...

Not at all.
Many people sincerely feel that private property is theft, i.e. it doesn't and shouldn't belong to you.  How would you handle those?
Some people feel that if they're starving while you have plenty, they are entitled to take it from you.  How would you handle those?
Do you see where this is going?
You mention proof.  "Proof" is an empty concept unless everyone agrees on the premises and rules of derivation (they don't--hence wars, revolutions, and forum posts).

http://www.wiso.uni-hamburg.de/fileadmin/wiso_vwl/johannes/Ankuendigungen/Berlin_twoconceptsofliberty.pdf

I can't rewrite it here better than Dr. Berlin did there.

It's clear from your postings that you are highly intelligent, and that you have put considerable thought into what you say.  You have an admirable mind.  But it seems that you always get laser-focused on semantics, and seem to miss the actual concept others are trying to express.

Please read the paper I linked, and see if you don't find a better definition of what 'free markets' might mean.

Neither of the concepts of 'free markets' nor 'liberty' will, in itself, answer all of the complex issues of human social, political, and economic interaction, such as you pose above.  Again, you are wanting to conflate a rather simple concept with 'all of human thought and action' - and that's just not what is actually meant.

[NotLambchop]

...
Ok so I was just confirming, that basically you are saying BTC wil become irrelevant because it will no longer  "do what it says on the tin"

First, some housekeeping.
Sentences end with a period.  Ellipsis: three dots.  Take the extra dots in your ellipses and stick them at the end of your sentences.  Put the rest in your pocket--sell them to your friends.
Again, I did not say "will" (or "wil [sic]").
Try putting moar care into reading than you do into writing.

and you do not know what "a solution to centralization means?"  

well, you infer that Bitcoin was only relevant because it is decentralised .........what made it relevant?  because it was offering a solution to ......  ... ... centralisation..... right or no?

No.  I Bitcoin is a solution to money.  It never tried to offer a "solution to centralization" because centralization need to be solved as much as peanut butter.
Being decentralized helps Bitcoin.  Being centralized hurts Bitcoin.  How can I make this any simpler 4 U?

@empowering:  But I have just gave you a concrete, non-trivial, and common example of the semantics not being semantics at all!

...stealing and fraud are still stealing and fraud...

But many people here call taxes stealing.  Do you see how petty semantics aren't petty semantics, and that attempting to formalize shit and reconcile different interpretations of "what's right" gave us The Body Of Law?

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[X7]

...
Ok so I was just confirming, that basically you are saying BTC wil become irrelevant because it will no longer  "do what it says on the tin"

First, some housekeeping.
Sentences end with a period.  Ellipsis: three dots.  Take the extra dots in your ellipses and stick them at the end of your sentences.  Put the rest in your pocket--sell them to your friends.
Again, I did not say "will" (or "wil [sic]").
Try putting moar care into reading than you do into writing.

and you do not know what "a solution to centralization means?"  

well, you infer that Bitcoin was only relevant because it is decentralised .........what made it relevant?  because it was offering a solution to ......  ... ... centralisation..... right or no?

No.  I Bitcoin is a solution to money.  It never tried to offer a "solution to centralization" because centralization need to be solved as much as peanut butter.
Being decentralized helps Bitcoin.  Being centralized hurts Bitcoin.  How can I make this any simpler 4 U?

@empowering:  But I have just gave you a concrete, non-trivial, and common example of the semantics not being semantics at all!

...stealing and fraud are still stealing and fraud...

But many people here call taxes stealing.  Do you see how petty semantics aren't petty semantics, and that attempting to formalize shit and reconcile different interpretations of "what's right" gave us The Body Of Law?

Solution for peanut butter = Nutella

[NotLambchop]

^YUM!

[adamstgBit]

shorts up, longs down.

[adamstgBit]

i'd like to see the cost of borrowing BTC's double again. you let them borrow your BTC's so they can try to manipulate the market down, what's in it for you? raise the rates!

just say'n

[NotLambchop]

...
I would like to add that a 'free market world' is a world were solutions to problems are allowed to compete and the best and most efficient survive until appropriate, while the ones that were wacky to start with, or became so with time, are allowed to fade out. It is an environment were problem-solving solutions evolve.

Well sure!  And, unless you think that today's economy is the ideal free market, the free market itself was phased out and replaced by not_free_market, because, in your words, "most efficient survive ... while the ones that were wacky to start with, or became so with time, are allowed to fade out."

Why is this not obvious?

[grappa_barricata]

...
I would like to add that a 'free market world' is a world were solutions to problems are allowed to compete and the best and most efficient survive until appropriate, while the ones that were wacky to start with, or became so with time, are allowed to fade out. It is an environment were problem-solving solutions evolve.

Well sure!  And, unless you think that today's economy is the ideal free market, the free market itself was phased out and replaced by not_free_market, because, in your words, "most efficient survive ... while the ones that were wacky to start with, or became so with time, are allowed to fade out."

Why is this not obvious?

Because there is a fundamental market that is not free, and has never be: the 'violence market'.

[spooderman]

^ lol

also.....dumpity doo-dah

[X7]

ok im out... nite 

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[NotLambchop]

...
I would like to add that a 'free market world' is a world were solutions to problems are allowed to compete and the best and most efficient survive until appropriate, while the ones that were wacky to start with, or became so with time, are allowed to fade out. It is an environment were problem-solving solutions evolve.

Well sure!  And, unless you think that today's economy is the ideal free market, the free market itself was phased out and replaced by not_free_market, because, in your words, "most efficient survive ... while the ones that were wacky to start with, or became so with time, are allowed to fade out."

Why is this not obvious?

Because there is a fundamental market that is not free, and has never be: the 'violence market'.

Nazis.
Oh teh edge...

Now explain to me how free_market allowed the violence_market to come about?  Why did our problem-solving free_market ubermensch allow such a travesty to happen?
Is it what you call "best and most efficient"?
Or... Was it a cruel whim of our Mighty Reptilian Overlords?
Finally, does your free market exist today?  Did it ever exist?  Or is it just talk?

[fonzie]

http://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-brokers-trade-millions-without-exchange/

Edit1: Lol@10% slippage for a 100BTC order
Edit2: Since when does Bitstamp offer stop-loss and why should it help to reduce slippage?

Pretty interesting article beside those mistakes, if anything of what the interviewed persons say is true at least.