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

[magicmexican]

266 soon? btc-e is about to break 300

[NotLambchop]

Gentlemen!
Less bickering, more buying!
311 is unacceptable

[btcney]

300 about to break 

[JorgeStolfi]

so if I had 50000BTC siting in my address for 1 year, and I decided to move/spend 1000BTC, the days destroyed for that transaction would be 1000*365, which is not that big really when looking to the daily sum:

Thanks for the exmaple, but: If the 50'000 BTC were sitting in one address (and one utxo), wouldn't there be a 49'000 BTC change-back output too on that transaction?  Would that output be excluded from the BDD? What if the change-back went to a different address?

[JayJuanGee]

SHIT JUST HIT THE FAN
CHECK SATOSHIS WALLETS
FUCK

Confirmed. Holy shit... RIP bitcoin. Even I didn't expect this!

Link or it didn't happen

Check block chain. Huge volume of coins being moved.

Maybe, but what is this 'satoshi wallets' bullshit? Pathetic FUD?

All of Satoshi's coins are in the early blocks... just checked and haven't seen any coins moved from those, definitely FUD.

Also there has been no real spike in the number of older coins moved.. NOT since March 2014.

See the blockchain charts:

https://blockchain.info/charts/bitcoin-days-destroyed

this argument is not that valid, see my posts from yesterday : post 1 , and post 2

So if i understand your claims correctly, you are suggesting that either older users are engaging in ongoing coin movement to disguise the bitcoin days destroyed quantity that is generated by their coin movements (to make the bitcoin days destroyed number smaller) or they are transferring access to their accounts/wallets without moving coins?

Correct me if I have misstated your claims, but if the above are your claims: 1) it seems to be a bit cumbersome to engage in such conduct to camouflage coin movements and therefore does NOT seem to be very plausible explanations and 2) if the conduct is happening, would there be any solution(s) to make such movement of coins more transparent?   

[runam0k]

300 about to break 

Arbitrary number about to break!

[Wandererfromthenorth]

Bull-tards still not accepting the reality.

[fonsie]

Bear-tards still not accepting the reality.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qh2sWSVRrmo

[Rat_Poison]

Bull-tards still not accepting the reality.

There are beanie baby holders who still think they'll have their day in the sun again. Don't expect the bulltards here to face reality any time soon.

[grappa_barricata]

Oh fuck, we are not over yet

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[Davyd05]

Bull-tards still not accepting the reality.

Were fully accepting it. I think you don't appreciate how many bulls have gone bear.

[fonzie]

Oh fuck, we are not over yet

Stamp seems unwilling to follow China anymore at least volume wise, no big dumps happening anymore. Mostly small traders actin.
Also BTC-E is only 10$ below Stamp. Which could (mean) that we are close to a (temporary) bottom.

[explorer]

Oh fuck, we are not over yet

Stamp seems unwilling to follow China anymore at least volume wise, no big dumps happening anymore. Mostly small traders actin.

All of the coins have changed hands, nothing left to dump 

[mmitech]

so if I had 50000BTC siting in my address for 1 year, and I decided to move/spend 1000BTC, the days destroyed for that transaction would be 1000*365, which is not that big really when looking to the daily sum:

Thanks for the exmaple, but: If the 50'000 BTC were sitting in one address (and one utxo), wouldn't there be a 49'000 BTC change-back output too on that transaction?  Would that output be excluded from the BDD? What if the change-back went to a different address?

in the wiki it is explained like this:

If someone has 100BTC that they received a week ago and they spend it then 700 bitcoin days have been destroyed. If they take those 100BTC and send them to several addresses and then spend them then although the total transaction volume could be arbitrarily large the number of bitcoindays destroyed is still 700.

I was trying to understand that as well, but I often see small transaction from large holding addresses (for example BTC-e's cold cold storage or Bitsamp's cold storage) where they send only a couple thousands of coins to a new address, after checking the days destroyed chart I don't see any spike !!!

For example watch this transaction it took place 28-08-2014 and it is Bitstamp sending 3000BTC to an address and the change to another address, now this is how the days destroyed looks like that day:

[Davyd05]

https://www.tradingview.com/v/ipICZoOf/ wow this is pretty interesting play it out to now. I'm willing to imagine a 280 bot 2x what I paid last October.

[DutchTrades]

Who is actually making money out of this market?

[Davyd05]

Who is actually making money out of this market?

Exchanges 

Uh shorters ND swing traders

[Wandererfromthenorth]

Who is actually making money out of this market?

Exchanges 

Uh shorters ND swing traders

Yes.

If you are not making any profit out of this market you are doing it wrong.

[rebuilder]

Re: days destroyed, the convention for wallet software appears to be that change addresses are hidden from the user. Change doesn't count as spent coins, and shouldn't contribute to days destroyed.