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

[windjc]

The last time windjc and seleme were that agressive we were around 800$
Where´s Billie Jean btw? Busy buyin up all those cheap coins :-D

What part of "I am short" did you not comprehend?

[Davyd05]

The last time windjc and seleme were that agressive we were around 800$
Where´s Billie Jean btw? Busy buyin up all those cheap coins :-D

What part of "I am short" did you not comprehend?

Billy is selling his soul for more fiat, to then lock it into btc.

I really need to get to buying.. or sending money.. but I am some what content with my stash.. but 2 years from now I don't want to be saying I should have bought more on the dips.

[JorgeStolfi]

Could you please go beserk, you have been talking about this possibility for quite some time.

Beserk? No, the lesson will be delivered calmly, with just a few keystrokes.  But it is not a decision to be taken lightly.

[seleme]

The last time windjc and seleme were that agressive we were around 800$
Where´s Billie Jean btw? Busy buyin up all those cheap coins :-D

What part of "I am short" did you not comprehend?

Hehe, that's MatTheCat school of thinking.. if you're not talking bullshit all the time and crying on each dollar's movement of BTC, spreading FUD etc.. you must be losing the money with current price, lol

[N12]

That article doesn't make me feel uncomfortable. I called you a knucklehead because that's exactly how you act sometimes. You refused to say why this is relevant to today. You refused to acknowledge what others have said in response. You refused to concede an inch ever.

I didn't answer because I thought it obvious. It's relevant always so long as Bitstamp is a major exchange. Might interest people who deal with them (I do too for lack of better options).

I didn't concede an inch because I see nothing to concede. Seems to me it is illegal in the same way as gambling and securities running outside of the US to have an exchange running outside of the US that does not comply with US regulations yet serves US customers. So I agree to disagree.

[Walsoraj]

If FINCEN can:

1) prohibit US banks from transacting with banks associated with non-compliant foreign exchanges; and/or

2) prohibit US companies such as Coinbase from transacting with non-compliant foreign exchanges,

then bitcoin bulls are fucked. These prohibitions around the same time as the china crackdown = $10 bitcoins by mid-summer.

[aminorex]

Then why are the altcoins still thriving?

There are no altcoins that are thriving.

You can have your opinion about the likelihood of bitcoin surviving, but the fact are that there is no justification now to claim that they will die, and bitcoin will not. 

I gave you several reasons.  Altcoins are mined to death.  Altcoins are pump-n-dump schemes.  

AUR just got forked into oblivion.  You can't even operate a blockchain without a large network.

Then there is the issue of vendor acceptance, currency exchange.  No matter how many times you are told, you don't seem to understand.  I don't think its because you are stupid.

The "first players advantage" and "network effect", if they were real, should have prevented the altcoins from starting. That they started and are thriving is proof that those advantages are not that significant.

"Thriving" is a fantasy, Jorge.  Your idea was proven wrong by history.  Revise it.

(I hope no one will claim that "bitcoin is now too big to fail".  )

It is definitely too big to fail the way AUR just did.

[seleme]

That article doesn't make me feel uncomfortable. I called you a knucklehead because that's exactly how you act sometimes. You refused to say why this is relevant to today. You refused to acknowledge what others have said in response. You refused to concede an inch ever.

I didn't answer because I thought it obvious. It's relevant always so long as Bitstamp is a major exchange. Might interest people who deal with them (I do too for lack of better options).

I didn't concede an inch because I see nothing to concede. Seems to me it is illegal in the same way as gambling and securities running outside of the US to have an exchange running outside of the US that does not comply with US regulations yet serves US customers. So I agree to disagree.

Yet the guy who talks about it on that article specifically saying:

Mr. Cohen said the Treasury Department is working with other governments and multilateral institutions to seek to draft consistent rules for digital currencies around the world. He said the international Financial Action Task Force, which sets standards for anti-money-laundering and counterterrorist financing practices, will later this year release a paper that will update common definitions for digital currencies and lay out potential benefits and vulnerabilities for the sector.

[seleme]

If FINCEN can:

1) prohibit US banks from transacting with banks associated with non-compliant foreign exchanges; and/or

2) prohibit US companies such as Coinbase from transacting with non-compliant foreign exchanges,

then we are fucked. These prohibitions around the same time as the china crackdown = $10 bitcoins by mid-summer.

I agree with that of course. Blocking US money coming to exchanges would not be good.

But then again, there are already FINCEN compliant exchanges that could take the business from US customers, and there will be many more professional ones by the end of this year that would take lot of that business from all current exchanges anyway.

So, it's barely an issue. If USA ever moves against current set of exchanges it will be to make a room for some US exchanges to thrive. More taxes for USA, lobbying stuff etc, etc.. making the end of the world from it is nothing more but FUD as anyone with half brain could take same logical reasoning why it is not that as I did.

[Davyd05]

It regards to this debate of exchanges.. CaVirtEx follows strict KYC and AML ..and have yet to be successfully defrauded of a dollar as of the march 2014 video update and now monthly planned newsletter

[JayJuanGee]

its telling me go short.

I do NOT understand why the bottom line is shorter than the top one.  You are just trying to line them up with what you consider to be logical points?   I am NOT suggesting any manipulation.. I am just wondering, since there seems to be quite a bit of line drawing variation.

im not sure what you mean by the bottom line shorter, do you mean why have I shaved off the tip of the low?

because Im trying to illustrate what I believe is a wedge to the best of my ability, not because it's shaped like a pretty triangle, but because it is a contracting range, and liquidity is dry.

Those lines meet the points of greatest co-incidence. Also notice how the bottom was quickly rejected out of the the territory of 465, and rested on the lower trend line I have drawn.

I don't know enough about line drawing in order to know the more relevant questions to ask.  My initial impression was that the top line was measuring from a different time period; however, if you are saying that this chart is measuring BTC performance from the same time period ( one day or two days or three days), then fine.. you may want to use that as a guide to decide probabilities that BTC price is going to go in one direction or another.

In other words, I may have initially misread the time period for which you were drawing the lines...

[N12]

That article doesn't make me feel uncomfortable. I called you a knucklehead because that's exactly how you act sometimes. You refused to say why this is relevant to today. You refused to acknowledge what others have said in response. You refused to concede an inch ever.

I didn't answer because I thought it obvious. It's relevant always so long as Bitstamp is a major exchange. Might interest people who deal with them (I do too for lack of better options).

I didn't concede an inch because I see nothing to concede. Seems to me it is illegal in the same way as gambling and securities running outside of the US to have an exchange running outside of the US that does not comply with US regulations yet serves US customers. So I agree to disagree.

Yet the guy who talks about it on that article specifically saying:

Mr. Cohen said the Treasury Department is working with other governments and multilateral institutions to seek to draft consistent rules for digital currencies around the world. He said the international Financial Action Task Force, which sets standards for anti-money-laundering and counterterrorist financing practices, will later this year release a paper that will update common definitions for digital currencies and lay out potential benefits and vulnerabilities for the sector.

I saw it, but I don't understand why them working on internationally harmonizing AML/KYC rules in the future would change the present regulations where exchanges must be registered. Are you assuming they will not enforce it until they come to an understanding with other governments?

[windjc]

That article doesn't make me feel uncomfortable. I called you a knucklehead because that's exactly how you act sometimes. You refused to say why this is relevant to today. You refused to acknowledge what others have said in response. You refused to concede an inch ever.

I didn't answer because I thought it obvious. It's relevant always so long as Bitstamp is a major exchange. Might interest people who deal with them (I do too for lack of better options).

I didn't concede an inch because I see nothing to concede. Seems to me it is illegal in the same way as gambling and securities running outside of the US to have an exchange running outside of the US that does not comply with US regulations yet serves US customers. So I agree to disagree.

Yet the guy who talks about it on that article specifically saying:

Mr. Cohen said the Treasury Department is working with other governments and multilateral institutions to seek to draft consistent rules for digital currencies around the world. He said the international Financial Action Task Force, which sets standards for anti-money-laundering and counterterrorist financing practices, will later this year release a paper that will update common definitions for digital currencies and lay out potential benefits and vulnerabilities for the sector.

Those who spread FUD and those who feel like Bitcoin's community have wronged them always seek to paint doom and glom scenarios as everyday conversation. Those who feel let down by the bitcoin community or are aggravated by bitcoin enthusiasts would rather hurt bitcoin than see those people happy.

[KFR]

Could you please go beserk, you have been talking about this possibility for quite some time.

Beserk? No, the lesson will be delivered calmly, with just a few keystrokes.  But it is not a decision to be taken lightly.

Are you actually threatening people now?  I guess something must have touched a nerve.

[JayJuanGee]

So the reason why the price is cheap is: somebody wants to do it, but they cannot coerce people to sell if they believe that it goes to the moon. So they instill as much fear as possible. Pretty well done..   Just remember - you only make money if you BUY in this kind of situations and SELL when it is toppy. Other way round you are sheep, baa baa.

Rather: the reason price is still up is because those who hold thousands of coins need other people to invest so that the price will go up. So they pay for ads and positive reviews, to keep spreading lies and hiding the uncomfortable facts.  

Jorgi, are you a paid troll? Serious question.

Of course the answer is not.  Are you a paid salesman?

Why so defensive?? If you are a paid troll, are you allowed to deny it? I guess you would be. But your defensiveness makes it seem like you're more guilty.

You are just being argumentative Windjc...  for a couple of reasons... first of all, Jorge has denied this accusation several times and second, even if it were true, he is NOT going to admit it... so, it is a waste of time to ask or to continue to ask and it seems to be just provoking an argument for NO Apparent good reason...

[seleme]

That article doesn't make me feel uncomfortable. I called you a knucklehead because that's exactly how you act sometimes. You refused to say why this is relevant to today. You refused to acknowledge what others have said in response. You refused to concede an inch ever.

I didn't answer because I thought it obvious. It's relevant always so long as Bitstamp is a major exchange. Might interest people who deal with them (I do too for lack of better options).

I didn't concede an inch because I see nothing to concede. Seems to me it is illegal in the same way as gambling and securities running outside of the US to have an exchange running outside of the US that does not comply with US regulations yet serves US customers. So I agree to disagree.

Yet the guy who talks about it on that article specifically saying:

Mr. Cohen said the Treasury Department is working with other governments and multilateral institutions to seek to draft consistent rules for digital currencies around the world. He said the international Financial Action Task Force, which sets standards for anti-money-laundering and counterterrorist financing practices, will later this year release a paper that will update common definitions for digital currencies and lay out potential benefits and vulnerabilities for the sector.

I saw it, but I don't understand why them working on internationally harmonizing AML/KYC rules in the future would change the present regulations where exchanges must be registered. Are you assuming they will not enforce it until they come to an understanding with other governments?

I am not assuming anything about any world's government rules, they can do whatever they want really. But I am looking at current situation and don't see it as threat.

USA is pretty friendly to Bitcoin and unless they are making us all fools they won't do anything hard to harm it.

And again as I wrote in answer to Walsoraj, we already have FINCEN registered exchanges and many more to come so it's not an issue at all. If Bitstamp is not good to do the business with USA (and they made enough money to register with FINCEN if required) someone else will do.

[adamstgBit]

That article doesn't make me feel uncomfortable. I called you a knucklehead because that's exactly how you act sometimes. You refused to say why this is relevant to today. You refused to acknowledge what others have said in response. You refused to concede an inch ever.

I didn't answer because I thought it obvious. It's relevant always so long as Bitstamp is a major exchange. Might interest people who deal with them (I do too for lack of better options).

I didn't concede an inch because I see nothing to concede. Seems to me it is illegal in the same way as gambling and securities running outside of the US to have an exchange running outside of the US that does not comply with US regulations yet serves US customers. So I agree to disagree.

Yet the guy who talks about it on that article specifically saying:

Mr. Cohen said the Treasury Department is working with other governments and multilateral institutions to seek to draft consistent rules for digital currencies around the world. He said the international Financial Action Task Force, which sets standards for anti-money-laundering and counterterrorist financing practices, will later this year release a paper that will update common definitions for digital currencies and lay out potential benefits and vulnerabilities for the sector.

I saw it, but I don't understand why them working on internationally harmonizing AML/KYC rules in the future would change the present regulations where exchanges must be registered. Are you assuming they will not enforce it until they come to an understanding with other governments?

I am not assuming anything about any world's government rules, they can do whatever they want really. But I am looking at current situation and don't see it as threat.

USA is pretty friendly to Bitcoin and unless they are making us all fools they won't do anything hard to harm it.

And again as I wrote in answer to Walsoraj, we already have FINCEN registered exchanges and many more to come so it's not an issue at all. If Bitstamp is not good to do the business with USA (and they made enough money to register with FINCEN if required) someone else will do.

what is this new  FINCEN registered exchange?

[seleme]

Could you please go beserk, you have been talking about this possibility for quite some time.

Beserk? No, the lesson will be delivered calmly, with just a few keystrokes.  But it is not a decision to be taken lightly.

Are you actually threatening people now?  I guess something must have touched a nerve.

He is going to break Bitcoin encryption people, run, run away 

[Walsoraj]

Nobody uses the fincen registered exchanges. I wonder why? 

[Richy_T]

If anyone is wondering about ChartBuddy, my hosting provider is currently experiencing issues.