I prefer the G650, but to each his own..
So fly like a G6..
http://www.gulfstream.com/products/g650/
Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 1519. (Read 2032274 times)
Fuel that baby up for the party were gonna be having with all the moneys we be makin'..
I prefer the G650, but to each his own..
So fly like a G6..
http://www.gulfstream.com/products/g650/
I prefer the G650, but to each his own..
So fly like a G6..
http://www.gulfstream.com/products/g650/
Bye, bye $600's. It was nice knowin' ya!
Ok I'm sick of guessing... wtf is ftj?
FUEL THE JETS! as in:
Ok I'm sick of guessing... wtf is ftj?
FTJ baby!!
AAPL is 600+ all the way!!
AAPL is 600+ all the way!!
I love u man...
Can't fault a man for exuberance, misguided as it may be!
FTJ baby!!
AAPL is 600+ all the way!!
AAPL is 600+ all the way!!
Apple plans to conduct a conference call to discuss financial results of its second fiscal quarter on Tuesday, April 24, 2012 at 2:00 p.m. PT
place your bets!
Apple plans to conduct a conference call to discuss financial results of its second fiscal quarter on Tuesday, April 24, 2012 at 2:00 p.m. PT
this may be the last time Apple sees $600. $500, here we come! 
Still that metric shows much lower counts than it showed for much of late 2011 and earlier this year. I don't have the numbers but when there was a rally or selloff, there was numbers like 600 or more concurrent if I remember correctly. Although, it just as easily could have been bots / fabricated connections since people are using it for making trade decisions.
Bear in mind that there are now more alternative live feed viewers (clarmoody and btccharts at least) than there were in 2011. If the users have divided equally then the ~200 on mtgoxlive in 2012 is equivalent of 600 on mtgoxlive in 2011.
I don't know what the division actually is, but it's certainly incorrect to use connection count measures over years as any kind of metric.
ok, i need and education then. i thought the Connected on mtgoxlive meant the users connected to their accts to trade, not just connected to mtgoxlive. am i wrong?
Yes. It counts the number of clients on mtgoxlive. When mtgoxlive used to go down more often you would see this number get wiped out to 0 as the feed was trying to come back up, but trading would resume as normal.
Still that metric shows much lower counts than it showed for much of late 2011 and earlier this year. I don't have the numbers but when there was a rally or selloff, there was numbers like 600 or more concurrent if I remember correctly. Although, it just as easily could have been bots / fabricated connections since people are using it for making trade decisions.
Bear in mind that there are now more alternative live feed viewers (clarmoody and btccharts at least) than there were in 2011. If the users have divided equally then the ~200 on mtgoxlive in 2012 is equivalent of 600 on mtgoxlive in 2011.
I don't know what the division actually is, but it's certainly incorrect to use connection count measures over years as any kind of metric.
ok, i need and education then. i thought the Connected on mtgoxlive meant the users connected to their accts to trade, not just connected to mtgoxlive. am i wrong?
Still that metric shows much lower counts than it showed for much of late 2011 and earlier this year. I don't have the numbers but when there was a rally or selloff, there was numbers like 600 or more concurrent if I remember correctly. Although, it just as easily could have been bots / fabricated connections since people are using it for making trade decisions.
Bear in mind that there are now more alternative live feed viewers (clarmoody and btccharts at least) than there were in 2011. If the users have divided equally then the ~200 on mtgoxlive in 2012 is equivalent of 600 on mtgoxlive in 2011.
I don't know what the division actually is, but it's certainly incorrect to use connection count measures over years as any kind of metric.
I'm a little embarrassed to admit that I didn't know there was such a metric. Would you mind sharing how this is determined?
http://mtgoxlive.com/orders?dark
Oh, .. mtgoxlive. Yes, that's different. I thought somehow the number of web visits to mtgox.com and/or connections for their API were being reported somehow.
Still that metric shows much lower counts than it showed for much of late 2011 and earlier this year. I don't have the numbers but when there was a rally or selloff, there was numbers like 600 or more concurrent if I remember correctly. Although, it just as easily could have been bots / fabricated connections since people are using it for making trade decisions.
Trading volume for a 10% move like this (since the weekend's $4.72 low) is pretty weak. Bitcoinica shows 10K for 24 hour volume. I think during the runup yesterday it was about 25K if I remember correctly -- way lower than the 100K to 200K earlier this year. Mt. Gox 24 hour volume is 45K at the moment.
Transaction volume is really zipping up though. Hope that isn't fabricated. 60 day history, 7-day average:
- http://blockchain.info/charts/n-transactions?showDataPoints=false×pan=60days&show_header=true&daysAverageString=7&scale=0
Sisyphus is biting his lip....hard.
current connections on gox are higher than normal.
I'm a little embarrassed to admit that I didn't know there was such a metric. Would you mind sharing how this is determined?
http://mtgoxlive.com/orders?dark
Bottom left- "currently connected: ?"
btccharts also has a "? online" in the top right
current connections on gox are higher than normal.
I'm a little embarrassed to admit that I didn't know there was such a metric. Would you mind sharing how this is determined?
But what about 1 hundredth of a percent? By your formula, that would be 20 USD per BTC. The big investment banks are aware of bitcoin. What percent of the money flowing out of assets do you think they control? Would they throw a hundredth of a percent at Bitcoin when no other assets will hold value? Perhaps.
JP Bitcoinica!
The result would happen as a process over a long period anyway, maybe a decade. With lots of ups & downs.
At that point, I'd be thinking more about a percentage of total derivatives, not just the equities markets - $700 trillion ($1.4+ quadrillion prior to BIS revisions). Gold established as a global reserve would need to back all outstanding debt on top of existing money supplies in order to stabilise the system - likely at a minimum of 10%. Bitcoin system denomination at 100th of that would be $700 to $1400 billion in 2011 dollars, or ~$30,000/BTC.
And then there's System D...
Oh god, this stuff again? It's making me feel like it's April 2011 all over again.
But what about 1 hundredth of a percent? By your formula, that would be 20 USD per BTC. The big investment banks are aware of bitcoin. What percent of the money flowing out of assets do you think they control? Would they throw a hundredth of a percent at Bitcoin when no other assets will hold value? Perhaps.
JP Bitcoinica!
The result would happen as a process over a long period anyway, maybe a decade. With lots of ups & downs.
At that point, I'd be thinking more about a percentage of total derivatives, not just the equities markets - $700 trillion ($1.4+ quadrillion prior to BIS revisions). Gold established as a global reserve would need to back all outstanding debt on top of existing money supplies in order to stabilise the system - likely at a minimum of 10%. Bitcoin system denomination at 100th of that would be $700 to $1400 billion in 2011 dollars, or ~$30,000/BTC.
And then there's System D...
Do we have a service yet where I can use my BTC to short AAPL, the bubble is about to pop, quick someone provide a service and make this possible....
I love them BBW's!! Warm in the winter, Shady in the summer!!
I just threw up a little in my mouth.
Jump to: