Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 893. (Read 2032266 times)
Dow: Friday's advance re-established a short term buy signal but, as i expected, we still got a weekly, or intermediate term, sell signal. if this persists, it will be unfolding with a bearish left translated configuration, which is very bearish. given that the longer term monthly cycle top is due, stock jocks need to be on high alert:
gold continuing to collapse:
Lolno. Cypherdoc. Editing now 
Done.
Done.
Sarcasm? At me?
Oh. Hehe. Perma-bulls get plenty heat
No way I'm buying back in over $300 this week that's for sure
Oh. Hehe. Perma-bulls get plenty heat
No way I'm buying back in over $300 this week that's for sure
the manipulative ask walls have been so obvious that i hope it strengthens the remaining traders who should learn from this.
You're too smart for manipulators. You understand everything they're trying to accomplish and know all their tells. It's almost too easy 4 U.
Some guy called nemesis is taking responsibility.
Nemesis bought 10k coins in 2012, but unless he has done some pretty hot trading since, he would not control an address with 35k
Whoever it was could have crashed the market hard by dumping. It's a caution sign
Some guy called nemesis is taking responsibility.
Nemesis bought 10k coins in 2012, but unless he has done some pretty hot trading since, he would not control an address with 35k
the manipulative ask walls have been so obvious that i hope it strengthens the remaining traders who should learn from this.
Could classify it as a "social attack", via price manipulation algos on centralised exchanges.
This also explains the flood of scamcoin pushers showing up and disrupting our Bitcoin meetups.Like Ethereum
Could classify it as a "social attack", via price manipulation algos on centralised exchanges.
This also explains the flood of scamcoin pushers showing up and disrupting our Bitcoin meetups. Shorting any financial asset is a valid and usually very risky speculative strategy. In the case of gold, it needs a massive amount of money and, in order to negate the risk, zero fear of losing that money. The only entities that are in that position are central banks. But aside from governments and banks, who else would be interested in driving down the price of bitcoin to the extent that it might ultimately kill off the golden goose? And more importantly, who else would have both the money/means and motive to do so? This feels more like a slow and steady attack on bitcoin's core rather than shorting for long term profit. Perhaps I'm being paranoid.
Nope, I agree. Could classify it as a "social attack", via price manipulation algos on centralised exchanges.
Pretty sure there is good evidence for it beginning around 600 level in late June early July time frame when the momentum for the next natural wave up was building substantially.
Most likely some of the big banks got together (or would only take one like e.g. Morgan Stanley size) and got sick of waiting for governments to do something about bitcoin and decided to take matters into their own hands, so to speak.
My biggest fear
It was this guy https://blockchain.info/address/19Gt9VKmmyMpMHEv6dkf8ddwmwddoSoJ8w
Some guy called nemesis is taking responsibility.
Shorting any financial asset is a valid and usually very risky speculative strategy. In the case of gold, it needs a massive amount of money and, in order to negate the risk, zero fear of losing that money. The only entities that are in that position are central banks. But aside from governments and banks, who else would be interested in driving down the price of bitcoin to the extent that it might ultimately kill off the golden goose? And more importantly, who else would have both the money/means and motive to do so? This feels more like a slow and steady attack on bitcoin's core rather than shorting for long term profit. Perhaps I'm being paranoid.
Nope, I agree. Could classify it as a "social attack", via price manipulation algos on centralised exchanges.
Pretty sure there is good evidence for it beginning around 600 level in late June early July time frame when the momentum for the next natural wave up was building substantially.
Most likely some of the big banks got together (or would only take one like e.g. Morgan Stanley size) and got sick of waiting for governments to do something about bitcoin and decided to take matters into their own hands, so to speak.
My biggest fear
It was this guy https://blockchain.info/address/19Gt9VKmmyMpMHEv6dkf8ddwmwddoSoJ8w
Shorting any financial asset is a valid and usually very risky speculative strategy. In the case of gold, it needs a massive amount of money and, in order to negate the risk, zero fear of losing that money. The only entities that are in that position are central banks. But aside from governments and banks, who else would be interested in driving down the price of bitcoin to the extent that it might ultimately kill off the golden goose? And more importantly, who else would have both the money/means and motive to do so? This feels more like a slow and steady attack on bitcoin's core rather than shorting for long term profit. Perhaps I'm being paranoid.
Nope, I agree. Could classify it as a "social attack", via price manipulation algos on centralised exchanges.
Pretty sure there is good evidence for it beginning around 600 level in late June early July time frame when the momentum for the next natural wave up was building substantially.
Most likely some of the big banks got together (or would only take one like e.g. Morgan Stanley size) and got sick of waiting for governments to do something about bitcoin and decided to take matters into their own hands, so to speak.
My biggest fear
...aside from governments and banks, who else would be interested in driving down the price of bitcoin ... Perhaps I'm being paranoid.
Curses, you've seen right through my sinister ploy!
Who would have thought a good little girl like you could destroy my beautiful wickedness?
yeah, lucky the big wall ran with its tail btwn its legs. would've gotten taken out.
Thats a nice graph but think I have to agree. It could mean we have greater business involvement now and so chart shows here the concentration or by proxy usage of the masses in fewer distinct wallets.
Isnt it always best for a distributed network to be showing greater active addresses as a sign of prosperity
Of course the ownership or control of the wallet itself could change without us knowing
Isnt it always best for a distributed network to be showing greater active addresses as a sign of prosperity
Of course the ownership or control of the wallet itself could change without us knowing
none of us early adopters are going anywhere!
How do you know that sums of biggest wallets represent early adopters? It could just as easily be increased concentration of holdings at Circle, Coinbase, etc. or even coins being moved to Bitstamp to dump. At the very least you would need to include coin age or possibly wallet age for this to be valid.
Look at the dates. Purchased in 2012
https://blockchain.info/address/19Gt9VKmmyMpMHEv6dkf8ddwmwddoSoJ8w
...aside from governments and banks, who else would be interested in driving down the price of bitcoin ... Perhaps I'm being paranoid.
Curses, you've seen right through my sinister ploy!
Who would have thought a good little girl like you could destroy my beautiful wickedness?
Shorting any financial asset is a valid and usually very risky speculative strategy. In the case of gold, it needs a massive amount of money and, in order to negate the risk, zero fear of losing that money. The only entities that are in that position are central banks. But aside from governments and banks, who else would be interested in driving down the price of bitcoin to the extent that it might ultimately kill off the golden goose? And more importantly, who else would have both the money/means and motive to do so? This feels more like a slow and steady attack on bitcoin's core rather than shorting for long term profit. Perhaps I'm being paranoid.
Nope, I agree. Could classify it as a "social attack", via price manipulation algos on centralised exchanges.
Pretty sure there is good evidence for it beginning around 600 level in late June early July time frame when the momentum for the next natural wave up was building substantially.
Most likely some of the big banks got together (or would only take one like e.g. Morgan Stanley size) and got sick of waiting for governments to do something about bitcoin and decided to take matters into their own hands, so to speak.
none of us early adopters are going anywhere!
How do you know that sums of biggest wallets represent early adopters? It could just as easily be increased concentration of holdings at Circle, Coinbase, etc. or even coins being moved to Bitstamp to dump. At the very least you would need to include coin age or possibly wallet age for this to be valid.
look here and tell me what you think:
http://bitcoinrichlist.com/top100
none of us early adopters are going anywhere!
How do you know that sums of biggest wallets represent early adopters? It could just as easily be increased concentration of holdings at Circle, Coinbase, etc. or even coins being moved to Bitstamp to dump. At the very least you would need to include coin age or possibly wallet age for this to be valid.
Yea, that just looks like one big chart representing people ready to dump all over us noobs.
Jump to: