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

[damnek]

Interesting, could have some implications for bitcoin adoption by Google:

Rumor: Google Inc To Buy 40% Stake In EBay Inc At $68/Share
http://www.benzinga.com/news/14/09/4846049/rumor-google-inc-to-buy-40-stake-in-ebay-inc-at-68share

[grappa_barricata]

Interesting, could have some implications for bitcoin adoption by Google:

Rumor: Google Inc To Buy 40% Stake In EBay Inc At $68/Share
http://www.benzinga.com/news/14/09/4846049/rumor-google-inc-to-buy-40-stake-in-ebay-inc-at-68share

DANG! This is their move against the recent apple faggotry... Well played.

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[damnek]

Interesting, could have some implications for bitcoin adoption by Google:

Rumor: Google Inc To Buy 40% Stake In EBay Inc At $68/Share
http://www.benzinga.com/news/14/09/4846049/rumor-google-inc-to-buy-40-stake-in-ebay-inc-at-68share

DANG! This is their move against the recent apple faggotry... Well played.

Yep, this could be their move

[hannscryo]

Interesting, could have some implications for bitcoin adoption by Google:

Rumor: Google Inc To Buy 40% Stake In EBay Inc At $68/Share
http://www.benzinga.com/news/14/09/4846049/rumor-google-inc-to-buy-40-stake-in-ebay-inc-at-68share

DANG! This is their move against the recent apple faggotry... Well played.

That's a good start if it will be confirmed.

[grappa_barricata]

The future of this project look as bright as the sun.

[Thomas-s]

http://www.coindesk.com/tim-draper-bitcoins-price-still-headed-10k/

[lemonte]

Interesting, could have some implications for bitcoin adoption by Google:

Rumor: Google Inc To Buy 40% Stake In EBay Inc At $68/Share
http://www.benzinga.com/news/14/09/4846049/rumor-google-inc-to-buy-40-stake-in-ebay-inc-at-68share

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/09/12/us-ebay-google-idUSKBN0H71TQ20140912 - rumour quashed

[JayJuanGee]

The benefit of being a holder is i can now disappear off for a month and then get the surprise of finding out about the price when i return. The price could be back in the 6xx's or have plumbed new lows. A few low ball bids on stamp just in case.

Seems like you have described too few scenarios because it is possible that the price will be the same or a little lower or a little higher.. there are lots of possibilities for what could take place in one month.. including a 10x increase or a 10x decrease in price (10x decrease would be 1/10 of current price b/c without leverage you cannot lose more than 1x.. he he hehe the beauty of potential growth.  


Also, I remain of the belief that a 10x increase scenario (in one month) is more likely than the 10x decrease....    

[ardana123]

Does anyone have the link to the video where Mark Karpeles is sitting on a bouncy ball giving an interview to a reporter?

thanks

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[ChancellorOnABrink]

http://rapsinews.com/legislation_news/20140912/272103876.html

http://en.itar-tass.com/economy/749283

http://cdn.meme.li/instances/500x/46833113.jpg



Some russian to double check in today publication please ?

[esse83]

Does anyone have the link to the video where Mark Karpeles is sitting on a bouncy ball giving an interview to a reporter?

thanks

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=LLjlOw3TVc8#t=79

[findftp]

I don't want to spoil the party, but I really really think the bubble will start between september 25th and october 25th.
Somewhere in between we will see the 8888th page of this thread, and then it will happen. I'll promise.

7777 didn't work so this must be it.

[hannscryo]

I don't want to spoil the party, but I really really think the bubble will start between september 25th and october 25th.
Somewhere in between we will see the 8888th page of this thread, and then it will happen. I'll promise.

7777 didn't work so this must be it.

This may be the most realistic prediction I have seen here

[NotLambchop]

The benefit of being a holder is i can now disappear off for a month and then get the surprise of finding out about the price when i return. The price could be back in the 6xx's or have plumbed new lows. A few low ball bids on stamp just in case.

Seems like you have described too few scenarios because it is possible that the price will be the same or a little lower or a little higher.. there are lots of possibilities for what could take place in one month.. including a 10x increase or a 10x decrease in price (10x decrease would be 1/10 of current price b/c without leverage you cannot lose more than 1x.. he he hehe the beauty of potential growth.  


Also, I remain of the belief that a 10x increase scenario (in one month) is more likely than the 10x decrease....    

Just for the sake of completeness, there's at least one scenario you both overlooked:  Coming back in a month, and finding the exchange [and your money] gone

[JayJuanGee]

Sorry, but the belief that it is possible to get rid of governments, and that society will be better without them, is religion.

And while there is not much historical evidence suggesting a government-less society would or would not function due to absence of data,...

I think you can safely assume the planet functioned perfectly fine billions of years without having a government.

Yes, if there are less than a few thousand people scattered through all corners of the earth, then probably there was NO government and no need for a government; however, when people started to live in community and to share resources and resources become limited, then the more need there is for a government.

Or the more likely a bully stands up because he has more power and strength than others so he can demand others to work for him.
Because others thought they were fed by him and were scared they were starting to worship him, a government was born.

If that's your understanding of what is government, then you have probably been watching too much Fox "news"

1. I don't watch television (anymore)
2. I never watched fox, I live in europe.
3. Fox is just as bad as almost any other network.

Sorry to oversimplify and to assume regarding your media viewing preferences (and to get it wrong), but to me it did sound as if you had been attempting to oversimplify the role of government into narrow sets of coercion and lack of voluntary participation - which are the same kinds of diversionary talking points that they engage in on Fox "news." 

If you have more subtle and nuanced views regarding the various aspects of the role of government, then you had NOT been showing such with your apparent exaggerated descriptors of government as a bunch of thugs.

In that regard, my point was that you may NOT need government if there are NOT very many people in the world or if you do NOT have to share resources, but as soon as you begin to have the development of large populations and when you need to share resources and the more you have relationships beyond the family the more that there are going to be developments of institutions that are government-like.. whether you call them government or if you call them something else...

Surely, it is possible that we are debating over semantics.. rather than practicality.

My suggestion is that modern societies cannot just go from their current state of complex and multitude of government to a state of NO government without various transitional plans and a large number of societal changes.. and really it seems to be pie in the sky to be describing such a society, because historically government like institutions exist in almost all societies with a large number of people beyond one large family.

Otherwise, if we were to attempt to transform various current societal set-ups into government-less states, then a lot of people with a variety of legitimate stakes in the current system are gonna get screwed, so if you are describing some pie in the sky "no government" society, then that description, in my thinking, is much too vague and does NOT really address how we would get from the present state of affairs to that future supposedly ideologically preferred state of affairs without providing some details about what is gonna look like and how do we get there and also need for a lot of give and take from a lot of different circles in order to have such transformations from the status quo.

[JayJuanGee]

Sorry, but the belief that it is possible to get rid of governments, and that society will be better without them, is religion.

And while there is not much historical evidence suggesting a government-less society would or would not function due to absence of data,...

I think you can safely assume the planet functioned perfectly fine billions of years without having a government.

Yes, if there are less than a few thousand people scattered through all corners of the earth, then probably there was NO government and no need for a government; however, when people started to live in community and to share resources and resources become limited, then the more need there is for a government.

Or the more likely a bully stands up because he has more power and strength than others so he can demand others to work for him.
Because others thought they were fed by him and were scared they were starting to worship him, a government was born.

If that's your understanding of what is government, then you have probably been watching too much Fox "news"

1. I don't watch television (anymore)
2. I never watched fox, I live in europe.
3. Fox is just as bad as almost any other network.

Fox is still ahead of the rest. Have fun on youtube

For the most part, Fox is pushed forward in its spread of the word (and various messages) by a narrow set of interests of the ideological rich elitists.  I am NOT sure how those kinds of circumstances can cause Fox to be "ahead" in any kind of meaningful and real world way?

[JayJuanGee]

Truth being told, the whole US 'media' culture is losing grip with reality in unprecedented ways... the Joe Sixpack with a Cowboy Hat that save the bombing day anyone?

That could be the Sylvester Stalone Rambo image of a true american... he he he... another fantasy..

[JorgeStolfi]

There cannot be rigorous arguments in that sort of subject.

Called it.

Maintaining your belief requires you to preemptively deny the possibility of being wrong, just like any other religion.

Quite the contrary.  Believing that your belief is certain and objective, rather than just probable and subjective, is the mark of religion.

There can't be rigorous arguments in economics or other "soft sciences".  It is pointless to debate if we start disagreeing right there...

(Haven't you never read priests, politicians, and assorted pundits "prove rigorously" all sort of weird and contradictory ideas, from creationism to communism to why gun control is good/bad and beyond?  Why do you think that those sciences are called "soft"?)