Topic: BITSTAMP eXchange wall Observer. second biggest and best exchange - page 25. (Read 89337 times)

And how do you get volume?  Oh yeah, traders, who are attracted to volatility.

ok, boss

Without asks filling in, you'd have a full-on bubble with lots of volatility detracting investors and followed inevitably by an equally brutal crash that might break the trend. Slow and steady with a decent volume and liquidity is the way to go. Let's hold off bubbling till we break 260.

Yes, but that doesnt mean asks filling in is bullish...  [its still bearish]

Back to 19k.

And back to 17k.. lol

I think these "small" movements have to be ignored.

The "consciously creating the appearance of volume" is a possibility, but not even what I really consider the main factor. Take the following example:

Scenario 1: "indecisive" market (say in a consolidation phase), but low trading cost (which, for example, seems to be the case on the Chinese exchanges). Quite high volume despite the indecision, because trading is cheap, and there's always someone trying to make a small profit by selling high/buying back low(er).

Scenario 2: A rally, with many new buyers entering the market. Overall volume could in fact be the same as in scenario 1 (since a number of established btc holders are probably tempted to sell if price is rising too fast, in anticipation of a sudden drop), but the total amount USD entering exchanges is different (assuming of course that the sellers don't leave the market entirely).

I guess I see where the idea that it doesn't really matter comes from: if, in the long run, the traders that trade "back and forth" stay out of btc entirely, then it really doesn't matter. But the crucial difference is that at least a portion of the "new" money stays in the market, and at least a portion of the money of those that sold to the new entrants will (probably) stay on the exchanges, waiting for an opportunity to rebuy.

Here's another view on the matter: think of it in terms of price discovery. In scenario 1, the participants already paid a price per btc close to the price of the trade now. For them, their contribution to the overall price discovery is rather minimal (say a trader bought at 100, and now sells at 101). A new market participant will however mark a much more substantial adjustment of what the market thinks is a fair price: he previously "valued" btc at 0, and now values them at 100 (as per the example before). Volume doesn't distinguish between those two cases, but for the long-term market dynamics it does matter, in my opinion.

Thats why chinas volume is so high because most exchanges have no fee's and the same coins are moved back and forth.

FWIW that's how I interpreted it too.

That wasn't the specific distinction he was trying to make. He was trying to illustrate that two parties with a vested interest in pumping the volume on the exchange, could trade back and forth for minimal fees, to create the appearance of a robust market.

Feel free to correct me oda.

What's the difference between an old-time bitcoiner adding a fresh $1,000 worth of bitcoin to his porfolio/trading account than a new person coming along with $1,000?

I guess we disagree on this question, then. For the overall size of the market, and as a result, for overall buying pressure, it matters a lot whether new participants enter, or whether the same ones trade back and forth.

It doesn't matter as much as you might think.  It's all about outstanding positions, not whether it is your 1st position in btc, or your 1000th.

Here's the problem with volume analysis: there's now definitive way of knowing if some trade contributing to the volume is between two parties that both previously held btc (i.e. "trading back-and-forth"), or whether at least one party will buy btc for the first time (or in substantially higher quantities than before). The latter case is what we really want (and need), it's the "fresh money" that is necessary in the argument that says: price can only be sustained/go up if X amount of USD enter the market each month. Since from the outside there is no way of telling which of the cases applies, I'm extremely sceptical about arguments based on volume and price sustainability based on volume.

In order for the price move to be substantiated, there needs to be volume and this requires asks filling in.  19k (now 17k) is actually still low for stamp. It was 24k for a while.

Coins flooding in to Bitstamp? Asks back up and pushing toward 18k, from a low of 13k.

Now going to 19k.. Bid/Ask back under $100.

Nope, it's china. Shutdown, debt limit and sequester part 2, that is for december. Yummy.

If Gox stays stable where it is, very doubtful.  Also, btcchina would indicate otherwise, though that may change...

In English plrease?

Well i think we should expect some pressure all the way down to 130.

lulz, some spaz tard just market sold ~300 btc into nothing, selling as low as $132 in the process (already back at $136).

Someone is trying to get rid of around 500 BTC above 135. He is very carefull and half way through...