Pages:
Author

Topic: Manipulator manipulating on an unprecedented level (Read 5641 times)

hero member
Activity: 714
Merit: 504
^SEM img of Si wafer edge, scanned 2012-3-12.
I doubt it, to be honest…
Are you bi or tri-sexually curious?  Why do you have to define yourself by your sexual orientation?  Doesn't seem relevant to me...  We're talking bitcoin here. Huh
That's a good question. You see, I'm not bi-curious. But you mention tri-curious, and I have no idea what that would entail. Frankly, I'm curious. So I guess that makes me tri-curious-curious.

Also, what RandyFolds said. (Why is it relevant that Randy folds, anyway? Also, knowing this beforehand will probably do you no good in poker.)
Are you a fat guy named Marty? Doesn't seem relevant to me.
sr. member
Activity: 448
Merit: 250
hero member
Activity: 686
Merit: 500
Shame on everything; regret nothing.
I doubt it, to be honest…

Are you bi or tri-sexually curious?  Why do you have to define yourself by your sexual orientation?  Doesn't seem relevant to me...  We're talking bitcoin here. Huh

Are you a fat guy named Marty? Doesn't seem relevant to me.

lol +1
sr. member
Activity: 448
Merit: 250
I doubt it, to be honest…

Are you bi or tri-sexually curious?  Why do you have to define yourself by your sexual orientation?  Doesn't seem relevant to me...  We're talking bitcoin here. Huh

Are you a fat guy named Marty? Doesn't seem relevant to me.
hero member
Activity: 784
Merit: 1000
bitcoin hundred-aire
I doubt it, to be honest…

Are you bi or tri-sexually curious?  Why do you have to define yourself by your sexual orientation?  Doesn't seem relevant to me...  We're talking bitcoin here. Huh

BTCurious, your worries about your username just got confirmed Tongue
hero member
Activity: 742
Merit: 503
I doubt it, to be honest…

Are you bi or tri-sexually curious?  Why do you have to define yourself by your sexual orientation?  Doesn't seem relevant to me...  We're talking bitcoin here. Huh
hero member
Activity: 714
Merit: 504
^SEM img of Si wafer edge, scanned 2012-3-12.
I doubt it, to be honest…
donator
Activity: 392
Merit: 252
Why has no one proposed Dwolla's big release in businessweek as a possible motivator for the sell?

It seems logical: large startup comes out and says they are going to slay credit cards, and they actually have the infrastructure to do it. Kind of steals bitcoin's thunder, don't you think?

Maybe they'll use bitcoin to implement it.

^ Getting warmer? They certainly wouldn't use Bitcoin, though.

Conspiracy theory time: Consider the announcement date: December 15. Most students are on Christmas break -- like a mini summer vacation. What if they announce and release their own dollar backed cryptocoin for online microtransactions?
hero member
Activity: 686
Merit: 500
Shame on everything; regret nothing.
Why has no one proposed Dwolla's big release in businessweek as a possible motivator for the sell?

It seems logical: large startup comes out and says they are going to slay credit cards, and they actually have the infrastructure to do it. Kind of steals bitcoin's thunder, don't you think?

Maybe they'll use bitcoin to implement it.
sr. member
Activity: 448
Merit: 250
Why has no one proposed Dwolla's big release in businessweek as a possible motivator for the sell?

It seems logical: large startup comes out and says they are going to slay credit cards, and they actually have the infrastructure to do it. Kind of steals bitcoin's thunder, don't you think?
legendary
Activity: 1834
Merit: 1020
Get the price down enough so that nobody is profitable anymore -> miners quit -> difficulty drops -> system can be 51%ed very easily without $13 million etc. -> our wallets are wiped -> people lose confidence in the system -> no more problems with SR or other illegal things the gov. did not want you to buy.

A 51% attack doesn't let you steal wallets.  It only lets the attacker double spend their own coins.  Even then it's impractical to do in most cases.

I've said it before and I'll say it again:  Calling this guy (or group of guys) a manipulator is absolutely retarded because the goal of "making money" far outweighs any other incentive to manipulate the market.  .... Large sums of money move the market?  No shit?

Normally I agree with you.  In this case we have an individual who's placing some very large bids that go against obvious profit interest.  Short-term these moves are losing money in a big way.  He's either: 1) trying to help Bitcoin by propping up the price at his own expense; 2) trying to manipulate market sentiment for a risky long-term play; 3) a fool being parted from his money.

1 and 2 ARE manipulation.  3 is just business as usual except that we normally don't see a single person with that much money to burn.  Fools usually come in flocks.

(Picture of Mr. M)

I like the blue leather.  Black has been done to death.

I noticed  that too...the tendency to make irrational bids that "go against obvious profit interest" as you put it.

This is one reason I think Gox may be responsible.

Another explanation, which I think is also plausible, is that this person or group of persons has a large enough sum of money such that they would have no problem acting as a catalyst for a spike up to $10 or beyond.  Price is psychological and there are a lot of psychological reasons why a series of incredibly large buy orders could cause a panic buy mimicking characteristics of the value increase in June.

 $30 wasn't that long ago and, being realistic, Bitcoin trading is currently a legal form of gambling and that is the main reason it is used.  Nobody would give a rats ass about Bitcoin if it didn't have the potential to help their financial situation, and the temptation of immediate rewards is oh-so-much-more emotionally satisfying than ideal, long-term goals.  If people see the price going up and going up fast, they will buy.  It won't matter at that point how many retailers there are or how much the value of BTC "should" be worth given current market conditions.
hero member
Activity: 742
Merit: 503


Get the price down enough so that nobody is profitable anymore -> miners quit -> difficulty drops



If it is not profitable, bitcoin dies...

price instability kills the bitcoin economy...

GPU's have made the difficulty necessarily high to retard the number of bitcoins generated...so, you left off "gpu's no longer can be used to verify transactions"

I think you are wishing to go back to 1982 with Uncle Rico, cause he could have took state if coach would have left him in!
legendary
Activity: 980
Merit: 1008
Anyone interested in looking at the specific trades that took place can take a look at my post here.
member
Activity: 72
Merit: 10
hero member
Activity: 728
Merit: 500
165YUuQUWhBz3d27iXKxRiazQnjEtJNG9g
Get the price down enough so that nobody is profitable anymore -> miners quit -> difficulty drops -> system can be 51%ed very easily without $13 million etc. -> our wallets are wiped -> people lose confidence in the system -> no more problems with SR or other illegal things the gov. did not want you to buy.

A 51% attack doesn't let you steal wallets.  It only lets the attacker double spend their own coins.  Even then it's impractical to do in most cases.

I've said it before and I'll say it again:  Calling this guy (or group of guys) a manipulator is absolutely retarded because the goal of "making money" far outweighs any other incentive to manipulate the market.  .... Large sums of money move the market?  No shit?

Normally I agree with you.  In this case we have an individual who's placing some very large bids that go against obvious profit interest.  Short-term these moves are losing money in a big way.  He's either: 1) trying to help Bitcoin by propping up the price at his own expense; 2) trying to manipulate market sentiment for a risky long-term play; 3) a fool being parted from his money.

1 and 2 ARE manipulation.  3 is just business as usual except that we normally don't see a single person with that much money to burn.  Fools usually come in flocks.

(Picture of Mr. M)

I like the blue leather.  Black has been done to death.
full member
Activity: 168
Merit: 100


Hmmm sexy..... i want those lips on my dick
hero member
Activity: 490
Merit: 500
legendary
Activity: 1652
Merit: 1128
As I've said in past threads, apparently "the manipulator" = anyone with a substantially large sum of money.

I've said it before and I'll say it again:  Calling this guy (or group of guys) a manipulator is absolutely retarded because the goal of "making money" far outweighs any other incentive to manipulate the market.  If anyone else traded with the same large sums of money that were observed yesterday, they, too, would be called "manipulators."  Large sums of money move the market?  No shit?

Edit:  I'll allow a caveat for Gox manipulation.

Sounds like something a manipulator would say.  You can't fool me!  Grin
hero member
Activity: 672
Merit: 500
The only thing "the manipulator" wants is for the price to go down. There is no profit motivation in the way that he sells.

He sells on Sunday night/Monday morning knowing that most MtGox accounts do not get filled after the weekend until Monday evening.

If it was someone wanting to drop their BTC they would wait until during the week and drop in small portions when the price is high and people have cash in their accounts.

Makes me think of something someone mentioned where they had a conversation with an NSA friend of theirs who said that Bitcoin would be gone in 2 years. The government already does market manipulation, they would not need much to destroy Bitcoin from a financial perspective.

You mean the post where the guy photoshopped "top secret" documents out of old Comicon posters?
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/heed-my-warning-46000
legendary
Activity: 1834
Merit: 1020
As I've said in past threads, apparently "the manipulator" = anyone with a substantially large sum of money.

I've said it before and I'll say it again:  Calling this guy (or group of guys) a manipulator is absolutely retarded because the goal of "making money" far outweighs any other incentive to manipulate the market.  If anyone else traded with the same large sums of money that were observed yesterday, they, too, would be called "manipulators."  Large sums of money move the market?  No shit?

Edit:  I'll allow a caveat for Gox manipulation.
Pages:
Jump to: