Bitcoin

[FelixO]

Trolls be trollin'

[humanitee]

Quite obviously this market is victim to heavy manipulation and very likely secret price agreements among large stakeholders.

My question now is - and I am very much aware that this is dangerous territory - what do think about forming a bitcoin guard whose members would act together to keep bitcoin strong. By that I am mean for instance establishing a buy wall in case of mass panic sell or price manipulation. If for example all buyers who bought around 600 euros ( so from 580 to 620) would have joined forces and set buy orders at for instance 610 it would have had a tremendous stopping power, especially psychologically, because it would have conveyed security and stability.

Of course speculators would see limited potential gains, but I still believe that most of us want bitcoin to succeed in the long run.

The actions would be solely publicly discussed and executed which could draw more and more willing contributors in.
Potentially of course large bitcoin holders could still be able use this information for their own agenda but in the long run it may help to stabilize bitcoin.

So what do you guys think? Am I crazy because I didn't sleep for 24 hours? Too regulative for a concept that should originally help us free ourselves from regulating authorities?

"I want to stop manipulation by manipulating."    

[Hfertig]

To me, it looks that you bought in high and are looking for some help to protect your assets. You only registered a bit more than a week ago. I hope that this was not your entry point, or why are you getting no sleep ?

THIS is manipulation at its best...

[Steveia]

"I want to stop manipulation by manipulating."    
[/quote]

Well, if that is what you want to call it, then I guess yes. It would be decentralized manipulation (everybody can participate) to counter manipulation by a few powerful individuals
[/quote]

You're already seeing that. This happened this weekend. Powerful players who have a vested interest in protecting their coins and the currency prevented a huge "bank run." Consider this. The price dropped as low ad $540.00 or so on Bitstamp. From there, it went straight up. The reason for this was principally because powerful players sought to stop the bleeding. They bought huge amounts of Bitcoin in large numbers. This did two things. I gave the impression that people were bullish on Bitcoin (despite the obvious bear market) and they bought in cheap. If everyone waited for the bleeding to stop on its own, the price would have kept sinking and more panic selling would have ensued. Hell, the price could have dropped to $200.00 or less without the intervention of powerful interests.

I am not sure that this was a coordinated effort or not, but it worked.

[mistress_magpie]

You're not crazy, but such a conspiracy requires trust.  Whereas simply encouraging people to use bitcoins in ordinary commerce, buying goods and services, would also provide a bulwark of stability; the more ordinary commerce there is, the less volatility there will be.  I don't put fiat into bitcoins and I don't take fiat out.  I earn bitcoins through labour - my job, sex work and adult content creation - and I take out goods and services - thus far, sex toys and graphic design services!

[PenAndPaper]

Of course speculators would see limited potential gains, but I still believe that most of us want bitcoin to succeed in the long run.

For bitcoin to succeed in the long run you don't have to try and stop crashes which is impossible anyway. Also this is in a way market manipulation the very same thing you accuse others for

[byronbb]

This is a job for Satoshi, everyone else would be under funded. JP Morgan tried a similar thing during the crash of 1929 and got his ass handed to him.

[JimboToronto]

This is a job for Satoshi, everyone else would be under funded. JP Morgan tried a similar thing during the crash of 1929 and got his ass handed to him.

Why do I get the feeling that Satoshi would not want to meddle in a free market?

[Spaceman_Spiff]

This is a job for Satoshi, everyone else would be under funded. JP Morgan tried a similar thing during the crash of 1929 and got his ass handed to him.

Why do I get the feeling that Satoshi would not want to meddle in a free market?

+1

[notmichael]

What if you could have an exchange that would trade without bots? A human-only exchange? Is this feasible (2 point authorization on any trade?), or reasonable? Maybe it doesn't make sense, but I was wondering if an exchange with less volume, but more legitimate (per se) trading would foster a healthier market?

I'm still trying to learn how the exchanges work, but this was something I had been considering..

[byronbb]

This is a job for Satoshi, everyone else would be under funded. JP Morgan tried a similar thing during the crash of 1929 and got his ass handed to him.

Why do I get the feeling that Satoshi would not want to meddle in a free market?

How would "meddling" in the market make the market "unfree"......