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

[fonzie]

Lol, Cannabiscoin has taken over Monero in marketcap. I like that :-D
I don´t own any of them.
XMR chart looks pretty horrible, even new lows have been made, haven´t watched it for a while. Any hodlers in here?

[adamstgBit]

bitchick is that you??

[adamstgBit]

Lol, Cannabiscoin has taken over Monero in marketcap. I like that :-D
I don´t own any of them.
XMR chart looks pretty horrible, even new lows have been made, haven´t watched it for a while. Any hodlers in here?

yes i know, and i sold long ago! FFS I can't catch a break.

i sold it for ether.... 

[fonzie]

Lol, Cannabiscoin has taken over Monero in marketcap. I like that :-D
I don´t own any of them.
XMR chart looks pretty horrible, even new lows have been made, haven´t watched it for a while. Any hodlers in here?

yes i know, and i sold long ago! FFS I can't catch a break.

i sold it for ether.... 

 

[adamstgBit]

Lol, Cannabiscoin has taken over Monero in marketcap. I like that :-D
I don´t own any of them.
XMR chart looks pretty horrible, even new lows have been made, haven´t watched it for a while. Any hodlers in here?

yes i know, and i sold long ago! FFS I can't catch a break.

i sold it for ether.... 

 

its alright tho i have a plan, i have 1million piggy coins, as soon as they hit 1$ each, I'm agan be rich!

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[fonzie]

Lol, Cannabiscoin has taken over Monero in marketcap. I like that :-D
I don´t own any of them.
XMR chart looks pretty horrible, even new lows have been made, haven´t watched it for a while. Any hodlers in here?

yes i know, and i sold long ago! FFS I can't catch a break.

i sold it for ether.... 

 

its alright tho i have a plan, i have 1million piggy coins, as soon as they hit 1$ each, I'm agan be rich!

  LMAO

btw DOGE > PIGGY   

[adamstgBit]

[JayJuanGee]

Lol, Cannabiscoin has taken over Monero in marketcap. I like that :-D
I don´t own any of them.
XMR chart looks pretty horrible, even new lows have been made, haven´t watched it for a while. Any hodlers in here?

yes i know, and i sold long ago! FFS I can't catch a break.

i sold it for ether.... 

 

its alright tho i have a plan, i have 1million piggy coins, as soon as they hit 1$ each, I'm agan be rich!

  LMAO

btw DOGE > PIGGY   

It looks like at current market prices 1 piggy coin will get you about 10 satoshis, so it appears that currently piggy is 10x more valuable than the satoshi.

[adamstgBit]

Lol, Cannabiscoin has taken over Monero in marketcap. I like that :-D
I don´t own any of them.
XMR chart looks pretty horrible, even new lows have been made, haven´t watched it for a while. Any hodlers in here?

yes i know, and i sold long ago! FFS I can't catch a break.

i sold it for ether.... 

 

its alright tho i have a plan, i have 1million piggy coins, as soon as they hit 1$ each, I'm agan be rich!

  LMAO

btw DOGE > PIGGY   

It looks like at current market prices 1 piggy coin will get you about 10 satoshis, so it appears that currently piggy is 10x more valuable than the satoshi.

so it would SEEM

[JorgeStolfi]

Metcalfe's "law" is used in bitcoin to "prove" that X will grow like Y squared, for some suitable quantities X and Y.  Problem is, the law does not say that Y will continue growing, that it is not being affected by MtGOX, that it will not suffer from ApplePay, that it is not determined by China, etc.

You seem to be describing interruptions to the growth of the network, but you are NOT describing the law to be invalid.... because the question becomes whether the network keeps growing or NOT and that may NOT be known while we are in the middle of the growth whether it has substantially slowed down or stopped... but after the fact, we may be able to look back and see the direction of the growth... or have better means to measure the extent of the growth... which some of those measurement systems already exist in bitcoin... but still does NOT necessarily tell us to where the trajectory is going or whether the trajectory has been materially and significantly interrupted.

There are several problems there...

For one thing, how to define the "size of the network", and how to measure it?

Total hash power is a poor measure, since over the lst couple of years the hash power is now concentrated in a few large pools.  The justification given for Metcalfe's law is that each node can interact with all the other N-1 nodes, so as N increases the number of possible interactions grows as N², and the value of the network is guessed to be proportional to that number.  But if the network, instead of adding mode nodes,  is concentrating all use in a few big nodes, the interaction actually goes down.  And, aniway, miners don't interact with each other.

I explained already why I believe that the blockchain traffic (whether measured in TX, BTC, or USD) is mostly bitcoins moving between addresses with the same owner; so it cannot be assumed to measure the size of the network, either.  In fact, we do not have any reliable data about the bitcoin economy, except the market price, the number of coins mined, and the total hash power.

In the plots that are said to show that bitcoin follows Metcalfe's law, the last year is squeezed into a tiny area a few millimeters tall by a couple centimetres wide.   But that is where most of the "weight" is.  It is like plotting some property of bodies of water, from a teaspoon to the Pacific Ocean, and having the data for all the seas and oceans squeezed into that tiny sliver of the plot.  Why should one assume that a property that holds for small bodies of water, from teaspoon-size to lake-size, will continue holding for ocean-size ones?  (And indeed we know that real oceans have many phenomena that you don't see in lakes, like currents driven by climate differences.  In particular, for all small bodies of water there are bodies that are 10x bigger; but that is not true for oceans...) If that "Bitcoin Metcalfe" plot were to be trimmed to the last 12 months and expanded to fill all the plot area, what would it show?

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[BBmmBB]

2000BTC wall@ 2300 CNY@Huobi. Is it the same one who put up the 5000 wall before we started the big rise to 418$?  
A lot of buy orders right below 2300CNY, he probably wants em get filled.

Edit: Wall eaten(probably by himself as a single 1500 buy order was among it)
"How to create volume 101"

now hes placing bids at the front line and fill them him self too

who to create volume 102!

There are only a few guys who are trading on all of the exchanges.  Maybe 10 guys at the most.   The same as those who are posting in this thread... and I am getting sick of you fucking idiots!!!!!!!!!!    

This is trading and wall observing 103.

I am starting to have the same feeling (as a next step after this: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.msg9216112#msg9216112).

yes the market is out to get you, buy 1 full coin and the market WILL drop and wait for you to sell that 1 coin back and then rise again, all volume between YOUR REAL trades is faked.

Mostly I was joking.. and/or exaggerating for shits and giggles.... as some may say.

Overall, I am NOT as pessimistic as you fellows seem to be making this out to be (at least at the moment).... but overall, if it is really true that some of the Chinese exchanges (and maybe even some of the other exchanges) are actually engaged in a sort of fractional reserve banking, then there may be some fuckerie going on, and I hope that is NOT the case.  

We do need to get some mechanisms in place to disallow fractional reserve banking of BTC because then sooner or later, these fucking whale manipulators will run out of coins.  However, if these whale manipulators really are cheating by trading coins that they do NOT have, then that kind of problem is kind of BIG... and mechanisms need to be put in place to remove and/or minimize the ability for whale manipulators to accomplish such cheating (b/c bitcoin was NOT designed for fractional reserve banking).  I know that there is quite a bit of work in various aspects of the bitcoin space to attempt to address these fractional reserve banking issues... and hopefully sufficient progress is being made in order that we are able to channel our bitcoins into the right mechanisms (such as posters have mentioned the decentralized exchanges when they hopefully evolve).

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



 


((yawn))

[cbeast]

Metcalfe's "law" is used in bitcoin to "prove" that X will grow like Y squared, for some suitable quantities X and Y.  Problem is, the law does not say that Y will continue growing, that it is not being affected by MtGOX, that it will not suffer from ApplePay, that it is not determined by China, etc.

You seem to be describing interruptions to the growth of the network, but you are NOT describing the law to be invalid.... because the question becomes whether the network keeps growing or NOT and that may NOT be known while we are in the middle of the growth whether it has substantially slowed down or stopped... but after the fact, we may be able to look back and see the direction of the growth... or have better means to measure the extent of the growth... which some of those measurement systems already exist in bitcoin... but still does NOT necessarily tell us to where the trajectory is going or whether the trajectory has been materially and significantly interrupted.

There are several problems there...

For one thing, how to define the "size of the network", and how to measure it?

Total hash power is a poor measure, since over the lst couple of years the hash power is now concentrated in a few large pools.  The justification given for Metcalfe's law is that each node can interact with all the other N-1 nodes, so as N increases the number of possible interactions grows as N², and the value of the network is guessed to be proportional to that number.  But if the network, instead of adding mode nodes,  is concentrating all use in a few big nodes, the interaction actually goes down.  And, aniway, miners don't interact with each other.

Hashrate is a measure of miners, not pools. Miners are independent entities that can change pools at any time. You can't use pools as a reliable source because they are not physical, only the miners themselves are physical.

I explained already why I believe that the blockchain traffic (whether measured in TX, BTC, or USD) is mostly bitcoins moving between addresses with the same owner; so it cannot be assumed to measure the size of the network, either.  In fact, we do not have any reliable data about the bitcoin economy, except the market price, the number of coins mined, and the total hash power.

Those transactions pay fees. You think people just move money around for no reason? If you don't like the metric, then claim that it needs to be weighted, not discounted. I would conservatively guess transaction volume about 20% as actual transactions because businesses report actual sales in bitcoins.

In the plots that are said to show that bitcoin follows Metcalfe's law, the last year is squeezed into a tiny area a few millimeters tall by a couple centimetres wide.   But that is where most of the "weight" is.  It is like plotting some property of bodies of water, from a teaspoon to the Pacific Ocean, and having the data for all the seas and oceans squeezed into that tiny sliver of the plot.  Why should one assume that a property that holds for small bodies of water, from teaspoon-size to lake-size, will continue holding for ocean-size ones?  (And indeed we know that real oceans have many phenomena that you don't see in lakes, like currents driven by climate differences.  In particular, for all small bodies of water there are bodies that are 10x bigger; but that is not true for oceans...) If that "Bitcoin Metcalfe" plot were to be trimmed to the last 12 months and expanded to fill all the plot area, what would it show?

You are the one claiming that people use Metcalfe's Law to describe Bitcoin growth. That model is too simple for my tastes. I never read anything about Metcalfe's Law being fractal where you could zoom in and out to see the same patterns. It seems to me it's not really a predictive model and that there are many variations. Your argument is a strawman, because you haven't specified exactly which variant is "used in bitcoin."

[touhonoob]

QE4 is Coming
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZBoP2aBbuw

[noobtrader]

bitcoin price is flat just like the difficulty, boring boring...

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[janos666]

QE4 is Coming
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZBoP2aBbuw

He also says (not in this video but from a long time ago and up to this day) that BTC will crash to double or even single digits in the not so distant future and probably never come back up.

[lyth0s]

QE4 is Coming
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZBoP2aBbuw

I love how he is able to stand up against the Fox news reporters and be honest about why most likely we will have a QE4 and beyond.

My single problem with people like Mike Maloney and Schiff is that they are backed/paid by gold/silver sellers and thus their paychecks DEPEND on being against bitcoin and 100% in favor of gold/silver.

[findftp]

The problem with Schiff is that he says that bitcoin has no utility and can therefore not work or be valuable in the long run. Muhahahaha muhahaha. What a moron