rpietila Wall Observer - the Quality TA Thread ;)

[creekbore]

But with Chinese funds looking increasingly insecure, where is the new money going to come from?  It seems unlikely to come from a 'new' market like China was a new market last year.  So, if we can no longer count on fresh 'geographic' markets, then it has to come from sectors within established markets.

China is still a new market. Penetration is less than 0.003%.  99.997% upside remains.

Thanks for trying to drag us back on topic

My point is China is a market that is being strangled -- the percentages are irrelevant, 99% of nothing if the 'wise old men' ban BTC (and lets face reality, it seems they want to do so) -- so where are the new funds coming from?

India?  South America?

It seems the only place investment is coming from are 'Western' countries, where BTC currently is a couple of steps up from time share and life insurance in terms of public perception.  We can talk about adoption curves, trend lines, Metcalf's Law, Kondratief Waves and all the rest....its makes great copy but...brass tacks now

...show me the money!

[Pruden]

Depending on the building, fire might be enough or not. In Madrid in 2005 the Windsor Tower (103 meters high) burned like a torch but didn't collapse. Every case is different.

Not true: only the wtc7 case is different.  All other cases are the same.  No other steel frame tower in history has ever collapsed due to fire.  Extraordinary claims.... zero evidence.

I only know what Wikipedia and its sources refer, but there is certainly evidence: Visible buckling of the structure, and the study showed a key girder came out of its place because of thermal expansion. Given that every steel frame tower is different, and that I have not studied every steel frame tower fire in history, unlike what you seem to imply you have done, I don't have any problem with that explanation.

EDIT: And the Windsor Tower was reinforced concrete, I reckon shouldn't have brought into the discussion.

[aminorex]

Every case is different.

Not true: only the wtc7 case is different.  All other cases are the same.  No other steel frame tower in history has ever collapsed due to fire.  Extraordinary claims.... zero evidence.

I only know what Wikipedia and its sources refer, but there is certainly evidence: Visible buckling of the structure, and the study showed a key girder came out of its place because of thermal expansion. Given that every steel frame tower is different, and that I have not studied every steel frame tower fire in history, unlike what you seem to imply you have done, I don't have any problem with that explanation.

My "zero evidence" comment was foolish rhetoric, for which I apologize.  Such hyperbole rarely if ever adds clarity to a discussion, and in this case was a short-sighted self-sabotage.  

In fact there is an abundance of evidence.  The question at hand is how it should be correctly interpreted.  My position is that the least absurdity in the interpretation of the physical evidence is found in the interpretation which places the conspiracy within a center of military-intelligence-industrial power, among the beneficiaries of the crime, who were consequently relieved of responsibility for the misplacement of 2.3 trillion USD of public funds, rather than in a cave in Afghanistan supposedly motivated by "hatred for our freedom", among those who suffered death as a result of the crime, thus losing their control of central Asian petroleum pipelines.

Visible buckling of the structure is characteristic of a wide variety of failure modes, all of which involve heat generation, which always involves thermal expansion.  A wide range of studies have arrived at contradictory conclusions, and none should be cherry-picked to support a preferred view.  Some of the structural studies I have seen assumed their conclusions from the inception.  This is how one insures that one arrives at the desired conclusion, after all.  I can tell you that studies have shown that vaccines cause epidemic autism, but that should not be persuasive to you.  I can provide studies which are purported to provide conclusive physical evidence of pre-planned demolition.  I imagine you are aware of at least a few yourself.  The fact is that we do not have the time, or the place, here and now, to adequately address the vast and complex body of evidence.  The NIST study is poor, and unreliable.  NIST engineers resigned in disgust.  I can see why.

I respect your method of discourse.  I do not respect the conclusions which you appear to be intending, because of my peculiar history of investigation into the question.  It may be that the evidence available to you well justifies your conclusion.  For me, it would be an act of moral cowardice and intellectual dishonesty not to raise ready objections to that supposed conclusion.  Most people will never have the opportunity or motivation to form an opinion, and most who do will do so on a rash and shallow basis, sadly.  I once considered the case for my interpretation to be slam-dunk.  Today my recollection of the specific points of evidence and the chain of reasoning which dunked that ball is stale, and time-consuming to reference.  I must yield the field in preference to other fronts of advance.

[aminorex]

China is still a new market. Penetration is less than 0.003%.  99.997% upside remains.

Thanks for trying to drag us back on topic

I also contribute my share to tangents, as I am sure you have noticed.

My point is China is a market that is being strangled -- the percentages are irrelevant, 99% of nothing if the 'wise old men' ban BTC (and lets face reality, it seems they want to do so) -- so where are the new funds coming from?

I do not take your point as granted, however.  Consider:  If they wanted to ban BTC they would simply ban BTC.  They want to keep it around, but contained.  Containers leak.  After the situation stabilizes, and becomes well-understood, so that risks are not feared, and corrupt cadres know how to use BTC to expatriate their dirty money, then they will do it.  That may take a while, but it is still a sizable future upside.  I mention this demographic because the funds are concentrated and BTC is natural fit, and it does not depend on even tacit state approval.  There are certainly many others.

India?  South America?

The geographic question is your focus.  Certainly Argentina, Venezuela, Vietnam, Russia, India, Pakistan, Switzerland, Luxembourg, Singapore, Macau, Hong Kong have use cases driven by their peculiar economic and cultural  conditions.  I have no special insight into any of these cases, but I would observe that any one of them can release a proportionately sized flood of fiat into BTC at any time, and one or more probably will, given enough time.  They key factor regarding movement of concentrated wealth is perception of risk.  BTC is probably too small yet for large-scale laundering.  I could see laundering 20, maybe 50 or even conceivably 100 millions, perhaps, but not billions, in a given year, if I were responsible for laundering funds.  I could see storing up to perhaps 50 bp of BTC market float in crypto -- say 20 million -- if it were part of a diversified concealment strategy.  These are limits imposed by the medium.  Limits appropriate to a use-case will vary with the parameters of the use case.

It seems the only place investment is coming from are 'Western' countries, where BTC currently is a couple of steps up from time share and life insurance in terms of public perception.  We can talk about adoption curves, trend lines, Metcalf's Law, Kondratief Waves and all the rest....its makes great copy but...brass tacks now

...show me the money!

There is plenty of money.  Central banks are running their Heidelberg 9000's at full tilt, 24x7.  It's just not going into exchange-traded BTC right now.  That's not terribly surprising right?  We just blew off a hype cycle.  

Most of the money going into BTC for the foreseeable future will be stealth money or grass-roots nickel & dime, which is important only in aggregate, and not so easy to track.  It shows up more in the block chain and less on the exchange. It flows in gradually.  Exchange prices will react, either in a diffusive tide or in a discrete reactive jump, at some point.  We would like to know when, but it is challenging to model.

Institutional money is easier to track.  You can check out the second market BIT observer thread.  Some fund managers occasionally mention personal stakes on CNBC or Bloomberg or WSJ media.  Most will not mention it because fund managers typically prefer a very conservative image.  Some smaller funds are paid to be aggressive, but they are usually also stealthy.

[JoeyD]

I was wondering if Bobby Lee is correct about how the average Chinese exchange operates, and his observations do seem to be valid explanations of odd marketreactions in China, how can you still make any kind of usable market prediction considering all that fraud. To name a few, he lists, exchanges padding volumes with zeros, selling to itself, repeating past sales to hide low activity and phantom liquidity (via fake buy and sell orders that cause flash crashes when someones marketorder falls right through them), add to that zero fees and you've got a rather explosive mix, that's more destructive than helpful to the market.

If you consider this, then I'm having a real hard time seeing what is supposed to be so bad about the news that China is banning exchanges. If what Bobby says is even a little true, then the ban can't come soon enough in my opinion, in the mean time it might be a good idea for the market to completely disregard any market prices from China, because it looks like they do not have even remotely the marketshare or volume that everyone seems to believe they have and therefore should not have the same impact on marketprice either.

[aminorex]

I was wondering if Bobby Lee is correct about how the average Chinese exchange operates, and his observations do seem to be valid explanations of odd marketreactions in China, how can you still make any kind of usable market prediction considering all that fraud. To name a few, he lists, exchanges padding volumes with zeros, selling to itself, repeating past sales to hide low activity and phantom liquidity (via fake buy and sell orders that cause flash crashes when someones marketorder falls right through them), add to that zero fees and you've got a rather explosive mix, that's more destructive than helpful to the market.

If you consider this, then I'm having a real hard time seeing what is supposed to be so bad about the news that China is banning exchanges. If what Bobby says is even a little true, then the ban can't come soon enough in my opinion, in the mean time it might be a good idea for the market to completely disregard any market prices from China, because it looks like they do not have even remotely the marketshare or volume that everyone seems to believe they have and therefore should not have the same impact on marketprice either.

I think this is a good point.  Data providers should be advised of it.  Bitcoinwisdom, bitcoincharts, bitcoinity, etc.  The case is something like this:

(1) Once, it was important to add Chinese data, because it was a large and growing free market.

(2) The facts have changed, and like Mt.Gox before them, the Chinese markets are no longer free, nor growing.

(3) The Chinese data is now tainted.  Propagating it hurts the Bitcoin economy and the users of your service.

[AnonyMint]

Anonymint - Don't bother with your standard (arrogant) "you don't understand" response just because I don't lap up your every word.

Breaking News! Smoking gun! Eyewitness account released by well known Jim Rickards (former intelligence agent turned analyst and author of best seller, Currency Wars) who was in the room when the CIA was doing the insider trading on option puts against the two airlines involved in 9/11. Corroborated by Max Keiser who was talking to Cantor Fitzgerald brokers who told him they were betting short against bombings and airplane attacks imminent on New York.

So STFU mofo! You dumb ass white boy slave.

You've had all these prior examples of false-flags, e.g. Pearl Harbor, Reichstag fire, etc. and you see the clear motivation for 9/11 was the Patriot Act and subsequent executive orders and laws that have created all seeing police and tax slavery state exposed by Edward Snowden. Yet you still want to believe your white world isn't so corrupt as it is. You want to live in your fantasy bubble.

The only thing you might understand is "Mooo. Mooo".

Arrogance? No. Just don't want to join dumb ass fools. I prefer humble, but am I supposed to just fall into the queue with you chattel.

It has nothing to do with lapping up my word. It has to do with you being too lazy to actually research. If you did the research, you would understand why it is physically impossible for the steel buildings to entirely collapse from fire and debris. Add to that free fall velocity of collapse, meaning no resistance. The only way for WTC7 to collapse the way it did was demolition. And if you are not an engineer then maybe you don't understand that, but we engineers understand why. And yes in fact the building was evacuated several times for long periods leading up to this. And in fact there were dozens of workers in the elevator shafts of the twin towers (where the structural steel beams were) for many weeks leading up to the demolitions. If you did some research and capable of understanding engineering and science, then you would know this.

This is another example of what I was explaining upthread (about Bitcoin's white male nerd demographic) wherein we can be separated from the masses who will never be able to comprehend the engineering about 9/11 and so will believe the government's impossible concocted whitewash (or in Bitcoin's case masses are not adopting, only white males against central banking are). We see the same ignorance of science or facts mechanism in play with all the current things white people are fooled into fighting for (to do what the elite want), e.g. Bitcoin, man-made climate change, discrimination, feminism, environment, etc.. The elite lull you into your comfort zone where you can be manipulated with emotional propaganda, e.g. "save those cute polar bears or cute little African kids".

Cantor Fitzgerald traders were insider-trading the options on the attacks that killed them.  Unbelievable.  Insider information provided by Jim Rickards in his new book The Death of Money reveals the CIA was aware of trading on targeted airlines leading up to 9/11.  Max Keiser corroborates this with his own experience.  Amazing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sI0GUdYwS68&list=UUvsye7V9psc-APX6wV1twLg

People always ask why 9/11 whistleblowers don't come forward.  This is why.  They are afraid to speak out too soon.  Many have been killed.  But enough people are out there, keeping themselves in the public view so that they can safely reveal their piece of the puzzle when the time is right.

We natives refuse to be slaves (I am % Cherokee) and I see the same daily here in the Philippines, they refuse to obey laws (and that is why I love living here). Some white people (or all except for those who adjust) hate it here because no one follows the rules. They complain incessantly and everyone just leaves the room and lets them blabber to themselves. It is quite hilarious to see the white control freaks go into a livid hissy fit (reminds me of a child whining on the floor of Toys-R-Us about a toy) because the hotel staff refuses to listen to their tirade, wherein the staff escapes to and is giggling in the back office. Here you have no law support to tell your neighbor to stop blasting their karaoke all night for days and weeks. Instead if you want peace, you better buy a large enough area of land. And that is a free market. No big brother to hold your feeble hand.

Even if you think you've enslaved a filipino, they will be doing what ever they damn well please when you turn your head. They live for the moment, so it is very difficult to change their motivation to what you want them to do. Of course I also have white traits in me, such as planning for the future. So it is interesting how I try to balance the two cultures that inhabit myself.

And those armchair sociologists who accuse of me of being racist are equivalently insane. Should I be racist against white or brown people when I am both? Nonsense.

[rpietila]

Anonymint - Don't bother with your standard (arrogant) "you don't understand" response just because I don't lap up your every word.

Breaking News! Smoking gun! Eyewitness account released by well known Jim Rickards (former intelligence agent turned analyst and author of best seller, Currency Wars) who was in the room when the CIA was doing the insider trading on option puts against the two airlines involved in 9/11.

So STFU mofo! You dumb ass slave.

Cantor Fitzgerald traders were insider-trading the options on the attacks that killed them.  Unbelievable.  Insider information provided by Jim Rickards in his new book The Death of Money reveals the CIA was aware of trading on targeted airlines leading up to 9/11.  Max Keiser corroborates this with his own experience.  Amazing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sI0GUdYwS68&list=UUvsye7V9psc-APX6wV1twLg

People always ask why 9/11 whistleblowers don't come forward.  This is why.  They are afraid to speak out too soon.  Many have been killed.  But enough people are out there, keeping themselves in the public view so that they can safely reveal their piece of the puzzle when the time is right.

This information is so important that I don't think you need to go so verbal against somebody who is seeking the truth, but is just not as far as you in the quest.

Perhaps it is helpful if I share that it took me about 5 years of almost full-time study to de-educate myself from the predominant mindset to something I consider a clean mind. I am only now able to start learning anything. I still get irritated by the undescribable evils that the depopulationists force on us in name of "welfare" and whatnot, and the feeble response of the governed, who do not understand anything, like you said. But attacking people seldom helps. Unless you are searching the very gems, who only thrive when insulted. But if that is the case, do it in your own thread.

[JoeyD]

I was wondering if Bobby Lee is correct about how the average Chinese exchange operates, and his observations do seem to be valid explanations of odd marketreactions in China, how can you still make any kind of usable market prediction considering all that fraud. To name a few, he lists, exchanges padding volumes with zeros, selling to itself, repeating past sales to hide low activity and phantom liquidity (via fake buy and sell orders that cause flash crashes when someones marketorder falls right through them), add to that zero fees and you've got a rather explosive mix, that's more destructive than helpful to the market.

If you consider this, then I'm having a real hard time seeing what is supposed to be so bad about the news that China is banning exchanges. If what Bobby says is even a little true, then the ban can't come soon enough in my opinion, in the mean time it might be a good idea for the market to completely disregard any market prices from China, because it looks like they do not have even remotely the marketshare or volume that everyone seems to believe they have and therefore should not have the same impact on marketprice either.

I think this is a good point.  Data providers should be advised of it.  Bitcoinwisdom, bitcoincharts, bitcoinity, etc.  The case is something like this:

(1) Once, it was important to add Chinese data, because it was a large and growing free market.

(2) The facts have changed, and like Mt.Gox before them, the Chinese markets are no longer free, nor growing.

(3) The Chinese data is now tainted.  Propagating it hurts the Bitcoin economy and the users of your service.

Tainted might be to nice a word for what's going on, we're talking faked numbers that are off by multiple factors of 10. I'd like to know where the current 10% CNY BTC-marketshare numbers are coming from, because if you can divide that number through 10 then what remains of the total volume then?

I'm starting to believe that the Chinese stake in the bitcoinmarket has been severely overestimated and even more damaging than the whole m-t-Gox fiasco.  It might indeed be advisable to just scrap the Chinese exchanges from all charts until it can be proven that they are trustworthy enough to be listed. It's one thing if it's a local joke that a few Chinese are into, but I don't see why the rest of the world should play along with that little game then.

[AnonyMint]

Risto you are probably correct, but do you know I've tried being polite in forums about this topic (on and off over a decade) and am tired of being labeled a kook.

I don't like to talk to someone that way. But it is a two-way street. I have invested an enormous portion of my life being knowledgeable about such issues and being a sheepdog (meaning I am protecting society), and it is very frustrating when n00bs blather at me and disrespect my effort.

[rpietila]

Risto you are probably correct, but do you know I've tried being polite in forums about this topic (on and off over a decade) and am tired of being labeled a kook.

I don't like to talk to someone that way. But it is a two-way street. I have invested an enormous portion of my life being knowledgeable about such issues and being a sheepdog (meaning I am protecting society), and it is very frustrating when n00bs blather at me and disrespect my effort.

The issue is that your boiling is taking the situation to the opposite direction than where you want it. Sometimes seemingly losing the battle earns you more converts and respect than winning it.

To illustrate, let's assign a number 1-5 to each reader.

"5" means that the reader already idolizes you, and believes what you say blindly.
"4" is that she respects you and is receptive to your facts.
"3" means that she is open to different interpretations and questions your stuff to learn more.
"2" does not believe you or think much of you, or ignores you.
"1" believes you are a kook.

Now, whom should you address? Political parties say that it is best to target the group 3-4. The fanatical supporters support you nevertheless, and the fanatical supporters of the other party won't support you anyway.

In BCT, I try to ignore 1-2 people because they are themselves unwilling to learn, and the discussion level comes down if you fight with them.

[Zapffe]

Surprised to see that this name isn't banned.
Rpietila, it's surprising to see that you have grown enough balls for not running to the admin to cry how the boys are making fun of you. Now, if you also wouldn't be as vain as an 10 year old girl, then you would be another step closer for being a man.

[chessnut]

breakdown.

[arepo]

breakdown.

triangles have a tendency to breakout into larger triangles, forming a fractal pattern of self-similar nested triangles. proper breakouts need to be accompanied by large volume to be confirmed. be patient

[Torque]

I was wondering if Bobby Lee is correct about how the average Chinese exchange operates, and his observations do seem to be valid explanations of odd marketreactions in China, how can you still make any kind of usable market prediction considering all that fraud. To name a few, he lists, exchanges padding volumes with zeros, selling to itself, repeating past sales to hide low activity and phantom liquidity (via fake buy and sell orders that cause flash crashes when someones marketorder falls right through them), add to that zero fees and you've got a rather explosive mix, that's more destructive than helpful to the market.

If you consider this, then I'm having a real hard time seeing what is supposed to be so bad about the news that China is banning exchanges. If what Bobby says is even a little true, then the ban can't come soon enough in my opinion, in the mean time it might be a good idea for the market to completely disregard any market prices from China, because it looks like they do not have even remotely the marketshare or volume that everyone seems to believe they have and therefore should not have the same impact on marketprice either.

I think this is a good point.  Data providers should be advised of it.  Bitcoinwisdom, bitcoincharts, bitcoinity, etc.  The case is something like this:

(1) Once, it was important to add Chinese data, because it was a large and growing free market.

(2) The facts have changed, and like Mt.Gox before them, the Chinese markets are no longer free, nor growing.

(3) The Chinese data is now tainted.  Propagating it hurts the Bitcoin economy and the users of your service.

Tainted might be to nice a word for what's going on, we're talking faked numbers that are off by multiple factors of 10. I'd like to know where the current 10% CNY BTC-marketshare numbers are coming from, because if you can divide that number through 10 then what remains of the total volume then?

I'm starting to believe that the Chinese stake in the bitcoinmarket has been severely overestimated and even more damaging than the whole m-t-Gox fiasco.  It might indeed be advisable to just scrap the Chinese exchanges from all charts until it can be proven that they are trustworthy enough to be listed. It's one thing if it's a local joke that a few Chinese are into, but I don't see why the rest of the world should play along with that little game then.

It's very refreshing to see a few people openly acknowledging something that I have been thinking about myself since November.  With the exception of BTC China which may be on the level (for now Bobby Lee seems to be an upstanding guy, at least until proven otherwise), my fear is that the other Chinese exchanges are masking a world of fraud.  Fraud in the Chinese culture is not as frowned upon as it is in the U.S. and other countries, because they don't see it the same way... over there it is survival of the fittest, so many there would be willing to "bend the rules" if it gives them an edge.  Things that we found to be completely outrageous and unacceptable with Mt Gox, such as running a Ponzi, cooking the books, likely inflating BTC prices and volume levels, etc. might be seen in China as "business as usual", since there is no regulation to stipulate that they have to do anything on the level.

So what happens if it's proven that they are all inflating prices and volumes, running Ponzi's with phantom BTC, etc.?  What then, another extreme crash?  The more time that passes, the more extreme such a crash could be.  And more importantly, why should the rest of the world's bitcoin exchanges trust them enough to follow their price patterns?  Why should we allow them to pull the rest of the world's exchanges down?  Until someone credible is allowed to go in and audit the Chinese exchanges, I'll always remain dubious.  I guess the same could be said of having suspicions of Bitstamp and BTC-e, but I'm more inclined to trust a Bitstamp or a Kraken at this point than I am BTC-e or any of the Chinese exchanges.

[AnonyMint]

Risto in spite of knowing the masses will always be fooled, I am the naive optimist who believes every individual can be convinced to be rational. Throughout my life I engaged in discussion those people who disagreed with me, e.g. my grandmother on my father's side from the deep South (New Orleans) who had some negative stereotype of blacks in the 1970s and I think before she died her view had moderated. Probably wasn't due to me, rather society shifted. Also I dislike winning by being politically cunning (which is very obvious I am intentionally trying to fail politically), because I feel it is disingenuous. I despise political organization so much that I actively seek to destroy my political standing. I'd rather my arguments be in the open. I am never trying to win politically. Those times when I do win (and we have to fail often before we win), it is because of algorithmic or marketing insight. Those wins are absolute, and those are the best kind in my opinion. Politics is like a sinking sand, because every person has at least one issue they disagree with you on, and they turn from your supporter to your enemy overnight (there is a scripture about this). It requires so much effort to keep the supporters cohesive. The only self-sufficient wins are technological. I think what aggravated me so much is those who keep trying to turn it into a political contest. I want scientific debate. If someone disagrees with me, then presents some facts. Those snide political retorts have no merit. I really respect someone who had done research and can teach me something. I am not impressed by those who ignore history, as if human nature has changed and history doesn't repeat.

I am really a geek.

P.S. I will moderate my derogatory language in your threads.

[AnonyMint]

The discussion on China is intriguing. You all appear to be looking at it only from the perspective of Bitcoin. You all appear to continue to have this tunnel vision which is forced on you by your vested interest. I think we need to fight our vested interest in order that we don't miss the bigger picture.

Am I correct that Chinese masses are more open to black market investments than Westerners? They have this shadow banking underground sub-economy wherein relatives refer each other to non-standard investments.

Thus is China Inc. forced to regulate more strongly because unlike in the west where Bitcoin appears to mostly limited to white males who hate central banking or high tech merchants who hate credit card payments, in China perhaps they see the seeds of a mass movement towards Bitcoin, i.e. not as a currency for normal purchases but as an investment vehicle and an investment currency?

Bear in mind that Chinese haven't been able to easily invest outside of their country and their culture really values investing excess income and the participation rate in the stock market and condo bubbles was apparently very high. Also the real interest rate paid on savings accounts is even more negative than in the west, so this forces the middle class to invest instead of save. Also the mainstream investment bubbles are popping already (not yet in the west). Michael Pettis's (mpettis.com) main point is that China's consumption share of GDP is 38% (with investment share at 58%) whereas normal is 50% and in the USA it is 70+% (thus investment share is much lower).

The differing regulation might tell us the different adoption demographics in each country. This might be a very insightful proxy.

If that assumption is correct, then apparently the Communist party are pushing Bitcoin further towards the underground economy (which I am hoping becomes the dominant economy).

This seems to play perfectly towards decentralized exchanges and anonymous coins.

I had already pondered that China (Asia) would be potentially the largest market for an anonymous altcoin due to the extremely high levels of corruption and bribery, e.g. Philippines still has a bank secrecy law for domestic citizens (for now although the IMF et al are working to get it removed ... no conspiracy eh?). Note as a foreigner the bank secrecy doesn't apply to you, the Philippines already has agreements with for example the IRS to share data on any foreign owned local bank account.

Interested to read your thoughts. Hopefully someone can dig up some data.

[Torque]

The discussion on China is intriguing. You all appear to be looking at it only from the perspective of Bitcoin. You all appear to continue to have this tunnel vision which is forced on you by your vested interest. I think we need to fight our vested interest in order that we don't miss the bigger picture.

Am I correct that Chinese masses are more open to black market investments than Westerners? They have this shadow banking underground sub-economy wherein relatives refer each other to non-standard investments.

Thus is China forced to react more strongly because unlike in the west where Bitcoin appears to mostly limited to white males who hate central banking, in China perhaps they see the seeds of a mass movement towards Bitcoin, i.e. not as a currency for normal purchases but as an investment vehicle and an investment currency?

The differing regulation might tell us the different adoption demographics in each country. This might be a very insightful proxy.

If that assumption is correct, then apparently the Communist party are pushing Bitcoin further towards the underground economy.

This seems to play perfectly towards decentralized exchanges and anonymous coins.

I had already pondered that China (Asia) would be potentially the largest market for an anonymous altcoin.

Interested to read your thoughts. Hopefully someone can dig up some data.

AnonyMint, actually I don't see it just from the bitcoin perspective, but have read a lot of different articles on the subject of China's shadow banking system.  Do you believe that it grew out of frustration with the government-blessed conservative banking agenda around standard low return investments, or that the Chinese entrepreneurs typically are just greedy as hell and have way more appetite for risk?  

Sometimes I get the feeling that it's a cultural thing.  That typical Chinese are not conservative minded at all, but are like WallStreeters on steroids.  That they all feel they are entitled to be wealthy, and will do anything to get there, no matter who of their own people might get hurt along the way.  And that they feel that their government is just holding them back.  Sometimes it seems to me that the Chinese government knows this of their own people's engrained behavior (just look at their politicians, they see it in the mirror), i.e. that they can be irresponsible/corrupt with money and power, and wants to basically babysit and protect the Chinese people from themselves before things get out of hand.  Hence their government's popping of bubbles every time they pop up, like playing whack-a-mole.  Also, anything in China that approaches something that resembles a "mania" (e.g., Falun Dafa, Tiananmen square, etc.) is immediately squashed like a bug.  I'm sure their gov't is worried that bitcoin mania may start to go down this path as well.

Regardless, I think the shadow banking system in China is starting to show some serious cracks from being so over-leveraged.

On altcoins, I hear that there are now hundreds of Chinese-flavored alt coins, and that this is what they all now talk about on QQ instead of bitcoin.  True or..?  Not sure how anonymous any of them are though.

[chessnut]

breakdown.

triangles have a tendency to breakout into larger triangles, forming a fractal pattern of self-similar nested triangles. proper breakouts need to be accompanied by large volume to be confirmed. be patient

test positive of upper wedge - no such evidence for the lower part.

if this does break into a larger fractal, the wedge should resume in the direction it came - down. Im taking profit of longs.

[AnonyMint]

Torque, my guess (based on talking to them here in the Philippines) is it is more cultural than incentivized by the economic realities of their governance, but aren't the two probably causing each other any way (symbiotic). Realize that to large extent the Communist Party is now a mirage, and what is really going on is a lot of crony capitalism.

My guess is the Chinese are clamoring for something to move their money to from those bubbles which are cracking.

Interesting point on the speculation on numerous altcoins, and point taken that anonymity may have nothing to do with it. However anonymity might be desirable, because for example the Chinese have developed ways of obfuscating their comments in blogs and forums by hiding the main point in a joke or an idiom that has multiple meanings. And perhaps more so as the officials clamp down on crypto-currency. Although the government is allowing more freedom now, so maybe it is becoming unnecessary.

Also normal human nature is the more the government restricts something, the more people want to do it. Unlike Westerners who have become quite compliant (fattened with debt, filled with noise on TV, etc), the Chinese are still fighting for their success and appear to have 50,000 protests and riots per year (wonder if that is moderating since the government has been raising minimum wages rather aggressively of late).

What is the first thing you did when your mom said, "don't do that".

Also the Asians are really adopting technology. Even here in the Philippines, the most prized possession is a smart phone (a computer). So the crypto-currency may appear to be a like a game currency paradigm to the Chinese (but they haven't hit consciousness yet in Philippines but if someone makes a game with them then they will). In that case, proliferation of currencies would probably be what they would embrace.

I was told by Charles Hoskinson, that the Chinese are drooling to invest in altcoins. He said he could bring $10s to $100s of millions into an altcoin. And you see he has done it already twice with ProtoShares and Ethereum.

Bitcoin is the exchange currency between them, so the more the altcoins grow, the more Bitcoin grows.