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

[hdbuck]

pure example of why control and centralisation is useless and can be avoided with minimum harm:



http://www.tuxboard.com/photos/2014/04/pas-besoin-de-rond-point.gif

http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/controlled-chaos-european-cities-do-away-with-traffic-signs-a-448747.html

Everyone who bashed this GIF with no second thought or research proved they are completely clueless in life.

Removing all traffic laws and signs (except a few like 50 km/h speed limit in towns) made traffic more fluent, safer and faster on average.
The Autobahns have significantly fewer accidents NORMALIZED for traffic volume than many other highways.
This movement will most likely become more widespread.

It goes with the Clarkson quote with spikes in the steering wheel and a few other ideas from behavioural economics:
1. People ignore >70% of traffic signs, and much more in the US where the sign spam is completely out of control.
2. People read recommendations as mandatory
    a. Lacking speed limits, most people drive at their comfort speed. Speed LIMITS are by definition above the comfort zone of most people; otherwise they are inefficiently low. With speed limits, people drive at speed limits or above (usually) even if that is no longer comfortable for them (i.e. how tired they are).
    b. When banks recommend a MAXIMUM of ~34% monthly income to go to house mortgage, the vast majority of people take that as default and end up over-extending.

In short, if you take the signs away, people drive more carefully and organically, minding their surroundings. This is completely foreign to US drivers due to feelings of entitlement and "being in the right" no matter what the local traffic conditions are. That's also one of the main causes for how many accidents there are on the US highways (mostly, in merging and lane changing).

In my home city, in my mostly lawless-driving EU country, people routinely drive at 100+ km/h during the night in cities, even if the speed limit is the classic 50. Almost all accidents happen when drivers were DUI, racing or irresponsible local-mafia brats.

Y'all really need to get your head out of the "we need to control you or you would kill eachother" arsehole. I though "antifragile" was trending?

yeay thx bud, thats the spirit

[JorgeStolfi]

The above quote is a level 3 play, he is appealing to the rational risk taking in of the average trader, but in fact is planting a the seeds of greed, sell now to buy more later. Sell now so there is little support when the Chinese markets lose fiat liquidity

Hey, I am not recommending anything.  Anyone can decide whether what I wrote makes sense or not.  Do you mean that trolls are posters who force people to think?

we will only find out later if Jorge is a septic or a cynic.  

Argh, there goes my cover!  I confess, I am "septic" -- I am trying to infect my compatriots with deadly skepticism. 

[Adrian-x]

http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/controlled-chaos-european-cities-do-away-with-traffic-signs-a-448747.html

Everyone who bashed this GIF with no second thought or research proved they are completely clueless in life.

Removing all traffic laws and signs (except a few like 50 km/h speed limit in towns) made traffic more fluent, safer and faster on average.
The Autobahns have significantly fewer accidents NORMALIZED for traffic volume than many other highways.
This movement will most likely become more widespread.

It goes with the Clarkson quote with spikes in the steering wheel and a few other ideas from behavioural economics:
1. People ignore >70% of traffic signs, and much more in the US where the sign spam is completely out of control.
2. People read recommendations as mandatory
    a. Lacking speed limits, most people drive at their comfort speed. Speed LIMITS are by definition above the comfort zone of most people; otherwise they are inefficiently low. With speed limits, people drive at speed limits or above (usually) even if that is no longer comfortable for them (i.e. how tired they are).
    b. When banks recommend a MAXIMUM of ~34% monthly income to go to house mortgage, the vast majority of people take that as default and end up over-extending.

In short, if you take the signs away, people drive more carefully and organically, minding their surroundings. This is completely foreign to US drivers due to feelings of entitlement and "being in the right" no matter what the local traffic conditions are. That's also one of the main causes for how many accidents there are on the US highways (mostly, in merging and lane changing).

In my home city, in my mostly lawless-driving EU country, people routinely drive at 100+ km/h during the night in cities, even if the speed limit is the classic 50. Almost all accidents happen when drivers were DUI, racing or irresponsible local-mafia brats.

Y'all really need to get your head out of the "we need to control you or you would kill eachother" arsehole. I though "antifragile" was trending?

+1

I could not believe it but in many Chinese  cities (not the mega city's with traffic lights that people use) but the 3+ million people strong cities, where people treat the signs as as advisory only, how there are no tragic jams, the tragic just keeps moving it just gets slower during the peak. It is not easy to adjust, I may never adjust, driving head on into oncoming tragic on the wrong side of the road to avoid the two loan idiots who stopped at the tragic light that scares the s#!t out of me, but it works, and I was impressed, my favorite tragic sign.

[JorgeStolfi]

PS. Unless "septic" was intented to be the term for a polynomial of degree seven (after "quadratic", "cubic", "quartic", "quintic", and "sextic").  I have seen mathematicians use other bizarre terms like "septonic" or "septemic" in a vain attempt to avoid chuckles in the audience.

[silverfuture]

pure example of why control and centralisation is useless and can be avoided with minimum harm:



http://www.tuxboard.com/photos/2014/04/pas-besoin-de-rond-point.gif

http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/controlled-chaos-european-cities-do-away-with-traffic-signs-a-448747.html

Everyone who bashed this GIF with no second thought or research proved they are completely clueless in life.

Removing all traffic laws and signs (except a few like 50 km/h speed limit in towns) made traffic more fluent, safer and faster on average.
The Autobahns have significantly fewer accidents NORMALIZED for traffic volume than many other highways.
This movement will most likely become more widespread.

It goes with the Clarkson quote with spikes in the steering wheel and a few other ideas from behavioural economics:
1. People ignore >70% of traffic signs, and much more in the US where the sign spam is completely out of control.
2. People read recommendations as mandatory
    a. Lacking speed limits, most people drive at their comfort speed. Speed LIMITS are by definition above the comfort zone of most people; otherwise they are inefficiently low. With speed limits, people drive at speed limits or above (usually) even if that is no longer comfortable for them (i.e. how tired they are).
    b. When banks recommend a MAXIMUM of ~34% monthly income to go to house mortgage, the vast majority of people take that as default and end up over-extending.

In short, if you take the signs away, people drive more carefully and organically, minding their surroundings. This is completely foreign to US drivers due to feelings of entitlement and "being in the right" no matter what the local traffic conditions are. That's also one of the main causes for how many accidents there are on the US highways (mostly, in merging and lane changing).

In my home city, in my mostly lawless-driving EU country, people routinely drive at 100+ km/h during the night in cities, even if the speed limit is the classic 50. Almost all accidents happen when drivers were DUI, racing or irresponsible local-mafia brats.

Y'all really need to get your head out of the "we need to control you or you would kill eachother" arsehole. I though "antifragile" was trending?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1533248/Is-this-the-end-of-the-road-for-traffic-lights.html

http://www.impactlab.net/2010/10/19/turning-traffic-lights-off-improves-flow-and-safety/

[Adrian-x]

Hey, I am not recommending anything.  Anyone can decide whether what I wrote makes sense or not.  Do you mean that trolls are posters who force people to think?

Most people will never understand macro impact, they think as far as self interest, but until one is enlightened to the fact that we are part of an ecosystem that is wholly dependent on all players ( plants micro organisms and animals) acting on self interest, you realize your success is dependent on success of the whole.

Your input in the context of someone who is invested in Bitcoin has consequences, it implies the logical thing to do is acting on greed sell now to buy more later at the expense of those who will be forced to sell later, this input while valid is valuable to the ecosystem as a whole, but it does not serve the best interests of the whole, it serves to confirm the ramifications of your cynicism. A true researcher would look to draw a conclusion without creating influential feedback.

So one can only conclude you are a researcher and researching something where your input is part of the experiment, you are diligently trying not to influence.

[derpinheimer]

So I watched some videos of these 'shared space' intersections.


As expected,traffic slows to a crawl and that is in a tiny,barely used set of roads.

Lol@people thinking these are a serious replacement for city lights.

[Adrian-x]

PS. Unless "septic" was intented to be the term for a polynomial of degree seven (after "quadratic", "cubic", "quartic", "quintic", and "sextic").  I have seen mathematicians use other bizarre terms like "septonic" or "septemic" in a vain attempt to avoid chuckles in the audience.

no I like Jorge the skeptic

[p0peji]

Hey, I am not recommending anything.  Anyone can decide whether what I wrote makes sense or not.  Do you mean that trolls are posters who force people to think?

Most people will never understand macro impact, they think as far as self interest, but until one is enlightened to the fact that we are part of an ecosystem that is wholly dependent on all players ( plants micro organisms and animals) acting on self interest, you realize your success is dependent on success of the whole.

Your input in the context of someone who is invested in Bitcoin has consequences, it implies the logical thing to do is acting on greed sell now to buy more later at the expense of those who will be forced to sell later, this input while valid is valuable to the ecosystem as a whole, but it does not serve the best interests of the whole, it serves to confirm the ramifications of your cynicism. A true researcher would look to draw a conclusion without creating influential feedback.

So one can only conclude you are a researcher and researching something where your input is part of the experiment, you are diligently trying not to influence.

1. Prisoners dilemma
2. The problem with this statement is that you never know what is the best interest of the whole.

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[adamstgBit]

nice buy.

[adamstgBit]

http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/controlled-chaos-european-cities-do-away-with-traffic-signs-a-448747.html

Everyone who bashed this GIF with no second thought or research proved they are completely clueless in life.

Removing all traffic laws and signs (except a few like 50 km/h speed limit in towns) made traffic more fluent, safer and faster on average.
The Autobahns have significantly fewer accidents NORMALIZED for traffic volume than many other highways.
This movement will most likely become more widespread.

It goes with the Clarkson quote with spikes in the steering wheel and a few other ideas from behavioural economics:
1. People ignore >70% of traffic signs, and much more in the US where the sign spam is completely out of control.
2. People read recommendations as mandatory
    a. Lacking speed limits, most people drive at their comfort speed. Speed LIMITS are by definition above the comfort zone of most people; otherwise they are inefficiently low. With speed limits, people drive at speed limits or above (usually) even if that is no longer comfortable for them (i.e. how tired they are).
    b. When banks recommend a MAXIMUM of ~34% monthly income to go to house mortgage, the vast majority of people take that as default and end up over-extending.

In short, if you take the signs away, people drive more carefully and organically, minding their surroundings. This is completely foreign to US drivers due to feelings of entitlement and "being in the right" no matter what the local traffic conditions are. That's also one of the main causes for how many accidents there are on the US highways (mostly, in merging and lane changing).

In my home city, in my mostly lawless-driving EU country, people routinely drive at 100+ km/h during the night in cities, even if the speed limit is the classic 50. Almost all accidents happen when drivers were DUI, racing or irresponsible local-mafia brats.

Y'all really need to get your head out of the "we need to control you or you would kill eachother" arsehole. I though "antifragile" was trending?

+1

I could not believe it but in many Chinese  cities (not the mega city's with traffic lights that people use) but the 3+ million people strong cities, where people treat the signs as as advisory only, how there are no tragic jams, the tragic just keeps moving it just gets slower during the peak. It is not easy to adjust, I may never adjust, driving head on into oncoming tragic on the wrong side of the road to avoid the two loan idiots who stopped at the tragic light that scares the s#!t out of me, but it works, and I was impressed, my favorite tragic sign.

unreal.

[sporket]

...
1. Prisoners dilemma
2. The problem with this statement is that you never know what is the best interest of the whole.

Yup.  Not even sure about the intended meaning of "best interests of the whole."

[elg]

excuse for the noob question,

so a red candle on wisdom means more sell volume than buy volume?
and a red candle can be higher (than previous candles)due to a a higher sell price?

[p0peji]

excuse for the noob question,

so a red candle on wisdom means more sell volume than buy volume?
and a red candle can be higher (than previous candles)due to a a higher sell price?

Just means that the opening price was higher than the closing price, it has nothing to do with volume.

[elg]

excuse for the noob question,

so a red candle on wisdom means more sell volume than buy volume?
and a red candle can be higher (than previous candles)due to a a higher sell price?

Just means that the opening price was higher than the closing price, it has nothing to do with volume.

thx!
but the lenght of the candle has to do with the volume i suppose

[adamstgBit]

excuse for the noob question,

so a red candle on wisdom means more sell volume than buy volume?
and a red candle can be higher (than previous candles)due to a a higher sell price?

Just means that the opening price was higher than the closing price, it has nothing to do with volume.

thx!
but the lenght of the candle has to do with the volume i suppose

no.

candles show the price movement for a given time frame. 1 hour candles show, open close and range of price movement during that hour

they have nothing to do with volume.

volume bars should be under these candles but i don't how that works on wisdom

[p0peji]

excuse for the noob question,

so a red candle on wisdom means more sell volume than buy volume?
and a red candle can be higher (than previous candles)due to a a higher sell price?

Just means that the opening price was higher than the closing price, it has nothing to do with volume.

thx!
but the lenght of the candle has to do with the volume i suppose

No the body of the candle (the thick part) consists of the opening and closing price, the small sticks indicate the highest or lowest price during the time in which candle is formed.

[adamstgBit]

nubs are studying and learning

BUY BUY BUY!

[p0peji]

nubs are studying

BUY BUY BUY!

Probably because of that misleading documentary about bitcoin and how everyone supposedly made a fortune on trading bitcoin.