The markets are rigged

[Naida_BR]

I wouldn't use the word "rigged". I would agree that the Stock market will go always upwards in a long-term period. The money that is printed is for the banks and for the usage of giving loans to companies. The low class gets poorer and high class gets richer as this money is going to be paid from the taxed citizens and not from the companies that will take the loans or they are in the verge of bankruptcy. The vicious cycle of economies.

[1715129038]

1715129038

[1715129038]

1715129038

[1715129038]

1715129038

[1715129038]

1715129038

[jademaxxiss012]

More and more newbie nowadays are relatively good in posting and even earn few merits. This is one proof that merit system is working and that admins should never worry with the shitposts that was being created some time ago and still bein read until now. This is just a transition and later on bitcointalk will be good for cryptocurrency discussion.

[MULTIK888]

I don't see the slightest connection to the falsification of the wound on this chart. The chart has been growing steadily for 3 decades - this is clearly seen, but this chart is now globally similar to the 5 wave chart.
And now there is a correction after the rapid growth of the 5th wave. You say this is another manipulation, but it is not proven, so leave your theory in the past

[Isiaka208]

I partially don't believe that because if the markets are rigged,  then why the FOMO? Why the weak hands? And who is continually rigging the markets?  It is true there's an existence of pump and dumps, but that doesn't really have impacts on a large scale hence,  you can't really tag it markets rigging

[geyayy]

Have you ever considered inflation? Because inflation is a factor for price increase and it should be remove to know weather the value of that asset is increased or not. Since the chart you show to us doesn't have those consideration then your statement is not 100% reliable. We can say that the market is still a chaos.

[jjjfff]

Have you ever considered inflation? Because inflation is a factor for price increase and it should be remove to know weather the value of that asset is increased or not. Since the chart you show to us doesn't have those consideration then your statement is not 100% reliable. We can say that the market is still a chaos.

We discussed a inflation compensated chart on the previous page.

Note how similar it is to the FED debt balance sheet.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

Have you ever considered inflation?

You've got to be joking, you shitposter.  Obviously you haven't read this entire thread or even all of the first page, where I mentioned it and made it a sticking point for this entire thread.  You're a great example of why things can't be discussed in Economics reasonably, because it's not a discussion, it's a shitpost-a-thon.

We discussed a inflation compensated chart on the previous page.

We did indeed discuss it, but I think you didn't draw any conclusions from it and have gotten some basic points wrong, like what the slope of a line is.  I've been trying to get people who know math, economics, and TA to respond here but it seems like everyone is off in their own little world.  I've even been enticing them with merits in this thread, yet I still haven't gotten any explanations that give me a much better understanding of the math behind all of this.

The FED controls the markets. That's the whole point.

And another of my points that I'd like input on is whether your point is a huge oversimplification of a complex issue.  I have a feeling it's exactly that.

[jjjfff]

Have you ever considered inflation?

You've got to be joking, you shitposter.  Obviously you haven't read this entire thread or even all of the first page, where I mentioned it and made it a sticking point for this entire thread.  You're a great example of why things can't be discussed in Economics reasonably, because it's not a discussion, it's a shitpost-a-thon.

We discussed a inflation compensated chart on the previous page.

We did indeed discuss it, but I think you didn't draw any conclusions from it and have gotten some basic points wrong, like what the slope of a line is.  I've been trying to get people who know math, economics, and TA to respond here but it seems like everyone is off in their own little world.  I've even been enticing them with merits in this thread, yet I still haven't gotten any explanations that give me a much better understanding of the math behind all of this.

Again, just look at the FED debt balance sheet and the stock market curve.

They're nearly identical.

A few words from the FED the past few weeks were enough to crash the markets.

The FED controls the markets. That's the whole point.

[cellard]

Roach as always makes some valid points but also as always, misses the point of Bitcoin and goes all in on metals instead of allocating some of your portfolio in Bitcoin

I  would buy shitcoins again if there was a single one where transaction validators aren't designed to centralize, but there's not.  If transaction validators are designed to centralize, they have no fundamentals, and who the fuck buys something with no fundamentals? 

The only current fundamentals of shitcoins are regulatory arbitrage, but since transaction validators centralize, the govt can completely control them with ease and there will be no regulatory arbitrage.  Who the hell wants to willingly use a non-fungible token in a centralized system regulated and controlled by the govt?  That is the cashless society slavery system people like Aaron Russo talked about:

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

Shitcoins have built-in middlemen, are designed to centralize, and don't remove counterparty risk.  They have no fundamentals compared to physical metals.

You make big claims with no proof at all.

You claim "transaction validators centralize" which leads to "centralized system regulated and controlled by the govt". By transaction validators you mean miners I assume.

Well, can you point me to a single instance in which a transaction has been censored by a government?

In fact, we recently had the US government censoring 2 Bitcoin addresses:

https://www.trustnodes.com/2018/11/29/worlds-first-two-bitcoin-addresses-sanctioned-by-us-but-does-it-work

Yet short after, people were trolling by sending coins there with messages. So if governments have control of Bitcoin, why are they being made a mockery instead of blocking these transactions? exactly, because they can't do shit about it, proving it is decentralized.

[jjjfff]

Yet short after, people were trolling by sending coins there with messages. So if governments have control of Bitcoin, why are they being made a mockery instead of blocking these transactions? exactly, because they can't do shit about it, proving it is decentralized.

You made several good points in your reply to the other message, but I'd just like to ask : couldn't the people sending money to these addresses be held liable in the US?

If people are caught trolling sanctioned BTC addresses wouldn't the US government simply consider it some form of complicity?

I find it kind of amusing that people would troll the govt like this using the power of cryptos to send money anywhere, but when cryptos are finally regulated wouldn't this be considered illegal?

[cellard]

Yet short after, people were trolling by sending coins there with messages. So if governments have control of Bitcoin, why are they being made a mockery instead of blocking these transactions? exactly, because they can't do shit about it, proving it is decentralized.

You made several good points in your reply to the other message, but I'd just like to ask : couldn't the people sending money to these addresses be held liable in the US?

If people are caught trolling sanctioned BTC addresses wouldn't the US government simply consider it some form of complicity?

I find it kind of amusing that people would troll the govt like this using the power of cryptos to send money anywhere, but when cryptos are finally regulated wouldn't this be considered illegal?

Well, the way I understand it is that it is already illegal. Or do they need to pass a law strictly that says "this and that specific address are illegal?" The way I say it is that a law already exists that censors sending money to whatever they add on that their list.

Obviously, I wouldn't risk doing illegal things, but the point here is, the Bitcoin protocol doesn't care about any laws beyond the laws governing the protocol itself, and these transactions just prove it not only in theory but in practice. It matters not how many laws they pass about it, as long as there's people ballsy enough to transact, the network goes on and will do whatever their users want to do.

[Xk80jq]

  I think you can rigged the market if you have billions of dollars. But I don't think billioners doing that way for what  purpose to hi Jack the market price maybe because money is superiority if you have plenty of money you can do what you need.

[awik p]

Yet short after, people were trolling by sending coins there with messages. So if governments have control of Bitcoin, why are they being made a mockery instead of blocking these transactions? exactly, because they can't do shit about it, proving it is decentralized.

You made several good points in your reply to the other message, but I'd just like to ask : couldn't the people sending money to these addresses be held liable in the US?

If people are caught trolling sanctioned BTC addresses wouldn't the US government simply consider it some form of complicity?

I find it kind of amusing that people would troll the govt like this using the power of cryptos to send money anywhere, but when cryptos are finally regulated wouldn't this be considered illegal?

Well, the way I understand it is that it is already illegal. Or do they need to pass a law strictly that says "this and that specific address are illegal?" The way I say it is that a law already exists that censors sending money to whatever they add on that their list.

Obviously, I wouldn't risk doing illegal things, but the point here is, the Bitcoin protocol doesn't care about any laws beyond the laws governing the protocol itself, and these transactions just prove it not only in theory but in practice. It matters not how many laws they pass about it, as long as there's people ballsy enough to transact, the network goes on and will do whatever their users want to do.

as if it was illegal because not many countries have ratified it, but with a decentralized system of course bitcoin can stand alone, even though the development is not as good as if the government legalizes it. from the existence of these loopholes, there are many whales who use them to make their own profits