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

[klee]

I have some sliver coins got stolen. Please teach me how I could recover them.

You go to the police and hope that they can catch the thief and get your coins back.

So just do the same in case your bitcoin is stolen.

Do you know of any case?

If they could catch DPR and seize his bitcoin I can't see why it is fundamentally impossible to catch a bitocin thief.

The case is that they have revalved the true location of servers quite easily (FBI) even without needing NSA or however they are called, i did read it today.
And fake IDs addressed to DPR got catched by customs.

CAPTCHA -> GOTCHA

[DubFX]

I have some sliver coins got stolen. Please teach me how I could recover them.

You go to the police and hope that they can catch the thief and get your coins back.

So just do the same in case your bitcoin is stolen.

Do you know of any case?

If they could catch DPR and seize his bitcoin I can't see why it is fundamentally impossible to catch a bitocin thief.

The case is that they have revalved the true location of servers quite easily (FBI) even without needing NSA or however they are called, i did read it today.
And fake IDs addressed to DPR got catched by customs.

CAPTCHA -> GOTCHA

How do you know it was captcha for sure?

[grappa_barricata]

I've noticed a 0.9BTC willy bot at bitstamp. It's there for some days/weeks

It both buys and sells depending on the market

I think that you saw the 'red' in bitcoinwisdom trade history? There is a 'glitch': sometimes market buy orders are red, sometimes market sell orders are green in that list.

[Brewins]

This is the third major wall on bit stamp alone in ~10 days, totaling about 7000btc.

Include bitfenix and its more than double that.

Yet we still have people saying moon.

Walls can be created and removed at any time. I see that happening real time when we broke the 480.

BTW: how low will be the weekend dump this time?

[DubFX]

I've noticed a 0.9BTC willy bot at bitstamp. It's there for some days/weeks

It both buys and sells depending on the market

I think that you saw the 'red' in bitcoinwisdom trade history? There is a 'glitch': sometimes market buy orders are red, sometimes market sell orders are green in that list.

No, he is probably speaking about the repeated buys and sells of 0.9 BTC

[klee]

I have some sliver coins got stolen. Please teach me how I could recover them.

You go to the police and hope that they can catch the thief and get your coins back.

So just do the same in case your bitcoin is stolen.

Do you know of any case?

If they could catch DPR and seize his bitcoin I can't see why it is fundamentally impossible to catch a bitocin thief.

The case is that they have revalved the true location of servers quite easily (FBI) even without needing NSA or however they are called, i did read it today.
And fake IDs addressed to DPR got catched by customs.

CAPTCHA -> GOTCHA

How do you know it was captcha for sure?

I am not sure, this is what I read:
http://krebsonsecurity.com/2014/09/dread-pirate-sunk-by-leaky-captcha/

[klee]

I've noticed a 0.9BTC willy bot at bitstamp. It's there for some days/weeks

It both buys and sells depending on the market

I think that you saw the 'red' in bitcoinwisdom trade history? There is a 'glitch': sometimes market buy orders are red, sometimes market sell orders are green in that list.

Maybe I am not sure - and I had the impression that sometimes what I see is weird at wisdom, so this might explain it.

[grappa_barricata]

http://krebsonsecurity.com/2014/09/dread-pirate-sunk-by-leaky-captcha/

Ouch!

Or, how a Securimage setup destroyed a global drug trafficking business.

[edwardspitz]

look what happens when you put a coin in dry ice, so COOL!!!

It farts! I would never have guessed a coin could do that. I guess them fiat coins are inflated and full of air 

[derpinheimer]

This is the third major wall on bit stamp alone in ~10 days, totaling about 7000btc.

Include bitfenix and its more than double that.

Yet we still have people saying moon.

Walls can be created and removed at any time. I see that happening real time when we broke the 480.

BTW: how low will be the weekend dump this time?

So far, they're all being sold.

They're depleting the fiat reserves of cautious buyers and bulls with minimal slippage.

If it continues for another 10 days, expect the price to totally collapse.

[tarmi]

yes, somebody is patiently dumping his coins above 480 on stamp.

bid side is looking very thin btw. bulls must be exhausted.

once they are out of ammo - > capitulation.

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[dakota neat]

Dumping 1k+ has less and less effect as demand is slowly but constantly increasing. BTW i expect another large dump within 8 hours. Reason: Hashrate peaked, Chinese ready to unload. But it probably will recover quite fast.

[JorgeStolfi]

Note that the verdict there was based on the fact that the current owner of that physical note acquired it by legitimate means in good faith, so the court had a good argument to decide that that physical note was no longer the victim's property.   The victim of course still retained the right to get the amount of 20£ (not that physical note) back from the thief, if he would ever be identified; in which case the government would take that amount from the thief's possessions, in whatever form they would find it, and return it to the victim.  

You have missed the point.  The 'problem' you describe is not a problem at all, but a fundamental requirement of ALL currencies.  It's called 'fungibility'.

The ruling of the court in this case recognized the validity of the Royal Bank's claim that allowing 'marked' bills to be forcibly returned to their rightful owner in the case of a theft would utterly destroy the utility of the notes as money.  Fungibility is a hard requirement for any real currency.

I know what "fungibility" means, But note the boldfaces in my post.  That is exactly what I wrote.  The court ruled that that physical  banknote was not the victim's property any more.  But of course the 20£ (as abstract amount) that the thief stole remained the victim's property, and the government would take 20£ from the thief and return then to the victim, if they were to identify him and found that he had that much money in his possession or in his bank account.

EDIT: quote markup

[grappa_barricata]

BTCitcoin is good, mmmmkay.

[dakota neat]

For all those who fundamentally deny a relation between hashrate and price. Check the 60 day charts at blockchain.info and tell me theres no inverted proportionality.

[Brewins]

For all those who fundamentally deny a relation between hashrate and price. Check the 60 day charts at blockchain.info and tell me theres no inverted proportionality.

See the charts for at least one year range, and you will see price rising and the hashrate too.

So you can find evidence of both kind of relation(direct and reverse), so I guess the hashrate alone is not a good predictor.

[xyzzy099]

Note that the verdict there was based on the fact that the current owner of that physical note acquired it by legitimate means in good faith, so the court had a good argument to decide that that physical note was no longer the victim's property.   The victim of course still retained the right to get the amount of 20£ (not that physical note) back from the thief, if he would ever be identified; in which case the government would take that amount from the thief's possessions, in whatever form they would find it, and return it to the victim.  

You have missed the point.  The 'problem' you describe is not a problem at all, but a fundamental requirement of ALL currencies.  It's called 'fungibility'.

The ruling of the court in this case recognized the validity of the Royal Bank's claim that allowing 'marked' bills to be forcibly returned to their rightful owner in the case of a theft would utterly destroy the utility of the notes as money.  Fungibility is a hard requirement for any real currency.

I know what "fungibility" means, But note the boldfaces in my post.  That is exactly what I wrote.  The court ruled that that physical  banknote was not the victim's property any more.  But of course the 20£ (as abstract amount) that the thief stole remained the victim's property, and the government would take 20£ from the thief and return then to the victim, if they were to identify him and found that he had that much money in his possession or in his bank account.

They did not say that.  You are putting your words into the mouths of 18th century jurists

The entire importance of this case is that it is the first legal recognition of the requirement of fungibility for usable currency.

That being said, I can't imagine that the legal powers that be would not see X amount of bitcoin returned to one from whom it had been robbed, if the robber could be positively identified, just as they might with X US dollars that had been stolen.  It's not clear to me why you emphasize the 'physical note', because with most modern currencies, the owner rarely actually possesses a physical note of any kind.

It's also not clear to me why you think legal remedies for theft of bitcoins must differ significantly from what they would be for other effectively virtual currencies, like US dollars.

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[dakota neat]

For all those who fundamentally deny a relation between hashrate and price. Check the 60 day charts at blockchain.info and tell me theres no inverted proportionality.

See the charts for at least one year range, and you will see price rising and the hashrate too.

So you can find evidence of both kind of relation(direct and reverse), so I guess the hashrate alone is not a good predictor.

You are right. However in the long run hashrate/difficulty which is an estimate for the basic production cost per BTC (excluding HW, OC) will approach or even show congruency with the price per BTC. At least that is what Satoshi assumed: "The price of any commodity tends to gravitate toward the production cost. If the price is below cost, then production slows down. If the price is above cost, profit can be made by generating and selling more." Feb. 21, 2010 Satoshi Nakamoto