Topic: rpietila Wall Observer - the Quality TA Thread ;) - page 84. (Read 907229 times)
it will go up when you least expect it.. and not when noobs buy
Returning to AT and to last Sunday's flashcrash to 275, I think that the 30k whale intentionally drawed a high volume bottom at 275. Somehow showing that the accumulation phase had started. And accumulation phase could last for months...
Revisiting 275 by mid December is highly probable, in my opinion.
Revisiting 275 by mid December is highly probable, in my opinion.
maybe I'm missing something but I thought the accumulation phase was during the previous down trend
now that wweak hands have been shaken out. whales will want it to go up
That's far too logical and sensible. Conspiracy theory requires the whales to be eternally selling, trying to crash the price, so that they can somehow "own it all".
Returning to AT and to last Sunday's flashcrash to 275, I think that the 30k whale intentionally drawed a high volume bottom at 275. Somehow showing that the accumulation phase had started. And accumulation phase could last for months...
Revisiting 275 by mid December is highly probable, in my opinion.
Revisiting 275 by mid December is highly probable, in my opinion.
We don't have to revisit it exactly; we can overshoot to $240-270 or undershoot to $295 or even $320.
The majority of my coins were purchased at higher prices, but I am not selling, unless bitcoin becomes unviable.
Returning to AT and to last Sunday's flashcrash to 275, I think that the 30k whale intentionally drawed a high volume bottom at 275. Somehow showing that the accumulation phase had started. And accumulation phase could last for months...
Revisiting 275 by mid December is highly probable, in my opinion.
Revisiting 275 by mid December is highly probable, in my opinion.
maybe I'm missing something but I thought the accumulation phase was during the previous down trend
now that wweak hands have been shaken out. whales will want it to go up
Returning to AT and to last Sunday's flashcrash to 275, I think that the 30k whale intentionally drawed a high volume bottom at 275. Somehow showing that the accumulation phase had started. And accumulation phase could last for months...
Revisiting 275 by mid December is highly probable, in my opinion.
Revisiting 275 by mid December is highly probable, in my opinion.
This is a very reasonable proposal, and will definitely increase adoption since
Support +1.
Sooo... I wonder if bits is still useful for nickname or xbit? Exhibit seems too many syllables and doesn't flow smoothly for saying a lot. I kind of hope XBT is just referred to as bits.
+1
@AstroChicks question about "who has authority": stop asking for authority, don't ask for permission. Anyone is free to use whichever unit they wish. However note that there is strong opposition both against the specific name "bits" and also for "changing the unit and confusing people". Whichever unit will be used, it will be a decision made by use.
I am with the opposition to "bits", but it does not matter, as OP said. Use determines the terms.
However, the only way to logically reconcile Bitcoin foundation proposal with historical status is to use base unit of "bitcoin" (XBT) and satoshi at 1:100 of XBT.
BTC can be used as a historical unit. The only thing that is required is recalculation of XBT as 100 satoshi(s).
Result: Everyone with one BTC will be XBT millionaire.
Although the last point is somewhat silly, the positive psychological effect is undeniable.
If Bitcoin fully replaces fiat and its value stabilizes in 1 million USD:
- One BTC or "Bitcoin" (first letter uppercase) would be equivalent to one million dollars or one million "bitcoins" or "coin".
- One XBT or "bitcoin" (first letter lowercase) or "coin" would be equivalent to one dollar.
- One "Satoshi" would be equivalent to one cent.
I like that.
It's difficult for people to remember more than two decimals. Today's 8 decimals are a headache..
BTW, the price of BTC is currently below the mining cost for a majority of miners if you include the price of equipment as well.
If it stays this way, network will crash hard (hashing will decline ~50%) soon.
If it stays this way, network will crash hard (hashing will decline ~50%) soon.
Non sequitur. The equipment costs will not come into play the way you suggest. No one is going to let mining rigs sit idle unless the cost of electricity (plus whatever other maintenance costs exist) is greater than the yield in bitcoin. The high purchase price of equipment would mean they won't be buying any more. But it would not make them turn off what they already have.
True re equipment costs as the only cause, but if no new equipment is deployed, but old equipment is decommissioned, then the network speed WILL decrease.
here is the first mining "bearwhale" for you, but there will be more
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/about-50ths-offline-youre-welcome-fellow-miners-813649
There are at least two self-correcting mechanisms that will kick in to support the network speed. The question is not whether they will kick in, but when. We should not be alarmed when we see them kick in, because these mechanisms are part of the design.
1. Every decrease in hash power makes all the rest of the mining rigs more profitable.
2. If network speed becomes a problem, then users of the network will be willing to pay more in mining fees.
yeah, i am not concerned at all, just commenting on BTC price vs network speed. In 2011 we did have ~50% reduction in hashing power.
I would welcome it right now because even the best current rigs available for consumer purchases are unprofitable.
In a long run it did not change anything.
There is much more mining then is needed for security of the network currently, but for the concentration of the mining control.
The worst effect is that these that are the least profitable tend to be the most decentralized.
BTW, the price of BTC is currently below the mining cost for a majority of miners if you include the price of equipment as well.
If it stays this way, network will crash hard (hashing will decline ~50%) soon.
If it stays this way, network will crash hard (hashing will decline ~50%) soon.
Non sequitur. The equipment costs will not come into play the way you suggest. No one is going to let mining rigs sit idle unless the cost of electricity (plus whatever other maintenance costs exist) is greater than the yield in bitcoin. The high purchase price of equipment would mean they won't be buying any more. But it would not make them turn off what they already have.
True re equipment costs as the only cause, but if no new equipment is deployed, but old equipment is decommissioned, then the network speed WILL decrease.
here is the first mining "bearwhale" for you, but there will be more
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/about-50ths-offline-youre-welcome-fellow-miners-813649
There are at least two self-correcting mechanisms that will kick in to support the network speed. The question is not whether they will kick in, but when. We should not be alarmed when we see them kick in, because these mechanisms are part of the design.
1. Every decrease in hash power makes all the rest of the mining rigs more profitable.
2. If network speed becomes a problem, then users of the network will be willing to pay more in mining fees.
yeah, i am not concerned at all, just commenting on BTC price vs network speed. In 2011 we did have ~50% reduction in hashing power.
I would welcome it right now because even the best current rigs available for consumer purchases are unprofitable.
In a long run it did not change anything.
BTW, the price of BTC is currently below the mining cost for a majority of miners if you include the price of equipment as well.
If it stays this way, network will crash hard (hashing will decline ~50%) soon.
If it stays this way, network will crash hard (hashing will decline ~50%) soon.
Non sequitur. The equipment costs will not come into play the way you suggest. No one is going to let mining rigs sit idle unless the cost of electricity (plus whatever other maintenance costs exist) is greater than the yield in bitcoin. The high purchase price of equipment would mean they won't be buying any more. But it would not make them turn off what they already have.
True re equipment costs as the only cause, but if no new equipment is deployed, but old equipment is decommissioned, then the network speed WILL decrease.
here is the first mining "bearwhale" for you, but there will be more
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/about-50ths-offline-youre-welcome-fellow-miners-813649
There are at least two self-correcting mechanisms that will kick in to support the network speed. The question is not whether they will kick in, but when. We should not be alarmed when we see them kick in, because these mechanisms are part of the design.
1. Every decrease in hash power makes all the rest of the mining rigs more profitable.
2. If network speed becomes a problem, then users of the network will be willing to pay more in mining fees.
BTW, the price of BTC is currently below the mining cost for a majority of miners if you include the price of equipment as well.
If it stays this way, network will crash hard (hashing will decline ~50%) soon.
If it stays this way, network will crash hard (hashing will decline ~50%) soon.
Non sequitur. The equipment costs will not come into play the way you suggest. No one is going to let mining rigs sit idle unless the cost of electricity (plus whatever other maintenance costs exist) is greater than the yield in bitcoin. The high purchase price of equipment would mean they won't be buying any more. But it would not make them turn off what they already have.
True re equipment costs as the only cause, but if no new equipment is deployed, but old equipment is decommissioned, then the network speed WILL decrease.
here is the first mining "bearwhale" for you, but there will be more
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/about-50ths-offline-youre-welcome-fellow-miners-813649
BTW, the price of BTC is currently below the mining cost for a majority of miners if you include the price of equipment as well.
If it stays this way, network will crash hard (hashing will decline ~50%) soon.
If it stays this way, network will crash hard (hashing will decline ~50%) soon.
Non sequitur. The equipment costs will not come into play the way you suggest. No one is going to let mining rigs sit idle unless the cost of electricity (plus whatever other maintenance costs exist) is greater than the yield in bitcoin. The high purchase price of equipment would mean they won't be buying any more. But it would not make them turn off what they already have.
Did any of you stop to think that Satoshi = Sir Richard?
no
there should be no decimals, only whole numbers
When btc is a billion $, (or whatever, I can't count), decimals can be added
So you want us to work from satoshis. Personally, I believe that you are the exception, and most people are good with two decimal places b/c we are used to it, and we can easily identify two digits behind the decimal without developing a major brain fart.
So it seems that we agree on two digits beyond the decimal. It's just a matter of how it gets implemented. I wasn't being totally serious in my answer but I guess my point was not to do it in a way that necessitates the need to keep making changes.
Now that we have solved that, how about world peace?
BTW I just talked to Satoshi and he thinks that everybody here speculating about his identity is really quite amusing.
It seems that you are never really going to get away without making some kind of change, at least under the hood... Bitcoins are not real physical bits, anyhow, they are digital, so why does it matter if there is change?
I can pay for a cup of coffee or an iphone or a motorcycle or a lambo or a yaht... there are so many different valuations, and NOT matter what there is going to be change.... or one person transmits BTC to another person and then the second person transmits back. Even the technical-side explanations of the transmittals of bitcoin does NOT cause us to rest b/c bitcoin is anything but simple. NONETHELESS, I believe that I get your point (and we seem to agree about making interface matters easier for the user).
For example, let's say you have 1 bitcoin in your bitcoin wallet, and you come over to my place because you want to buy my bicycle for .7 bitcoin. I tell you that I am not taking anything less than .8btc, and in the end we agree upon .75btc. Apparently, even the transmission of that .75BTC from you to me does NOT cause one straight forward transmission of the btc, but instead causes several transmissions, and I do NOT even know how to explain it (or whether I understand it, but so long as I get the .75BTC and you still have .25BTC in your wallet, then what does it matter?).
I realize that the transmission of BTC and a lot of aspects of BTC are complicated beyond my ability to understand them. Further, I am NOT sure whether as an end user I need to understand the technicalities as long as I am easily able to use the system to accomplish my objectives of storing and/or transmitting value and I can understand the value... and I believe part of the point to convert from the BTC to the XBT is to make the whole value concept more concrete for the masses, even though making a change to the unit does not really change anything about the fundamental technicalities of either system.
Anyhow, my point is that it seems inevitable that some change is going to need to be made in the process of making BTC transactions (at least under the hood).. even though maybe NOT at the user consciousness level.. and the place of the decimal would NOT really change the fundamentals.
Did any of you stop to think that Satoshi = Sir Richard?
yes, and then I started thinking again
One thing is clear, satoshi is either british or someone educated or living in Great Britain.
Why? Because his software have reference to the "Chancellor of Exchequer" and second bailout of british banks.
Nobody outside of UK even know about this title (position).
Illogical (by denial of antecedent), on account of I knew about the "Chancellor of Exchequer" and the bailout, I am American, and I am also not Satoshi. This is insufficiently arcane knowledge to qualify nationality.
I am merely well traveled and well read, as also is Satoshi.
Most folks who have made a study of financial history also know that Winston Churchill held this position and attempted to return GB to a gold standard.
Unfortunately a market based gold standard (a gold coin standard) was not attempted, and so this effort was doomed to fail as governments are not good at managing monetary policy when citizens are able to vote the treasure be handed on them without paying for it (thanks to Keynes, gold coin standards are considered old fashioned).
Ecuador is about to face this same issue with their government created crypto-currency.
I wish them luck and wisdom, it will be a great challenge for them.
Please stop trying to dox Satoshi. It is unbecoming of you, as well as rude and disrespectful.
Nobody is trying to dox satoshi-at least I am not.
two points:
1. I did not say that he is not american, I merely suggested that he might have either lived in Britain for a while or was educated there.
2. With all due respect, for non-British people, the "Chancellor of Exchequer" actions and the bailout of british banks were NOT the focal points of the fiscal crisis IF you lived outside of Britain and/or if a majority of your interests were outside of UK. In US the "epicenter" was Lehman, followed up by a manic September plus Citibank and AIG rescue. So, this argument is moot, in my mind. A small correction: when I said "nobody' I meant "only a few people"-this would be more accurate. Personally, I also knew it.
3. The suggestion stands, and I don't see any harm in it whatsoever. If he did not want people talking about it, then why include this note in the SOFTWARE?
BTW, the price of BTC is currently below the mining cost for a majority of miners if you include the price of equipment as well.
If it stays this way, network will crash hard (hashing will decline ~50%) soon.
Did any of you stop to think that Satoshi = Sir Richard?
yes, and then I started thinking again
One thing is clear, satoshi is either british or someone educated or living in Great Britain.
Why? Because his software have reference to the "Chancellor of Exchequer" and second bailout of british banks.
Nobody outside of UK even know about this title (position).
Illogical (by denial of antecedent), on account of I knew about the "Chancellor of Exchequer" and the bailout, I am American, and I am also not Satoshi. This is insufficiently arcane knowledge to qualify nationality.
I am merely well traveled and well read, as also is Satoshi.
Most folks who have made a study of financial history also know that Winston Churchill held this position and attempted to return GB to a gold standard.
Unfortunately a market based gold standard (a gold coin standard) was not attempted, and so this effort was doomed to fail as governments are not good at managing monetary policy when citizens are able to vote the treasure be handed on them without paying for it (thanks to Keynes, gold coin standards are considered old fashioned).
Ecuador is about to face this same issue with their government created crypto-currency.
I wish them luck and wisdom, it will be a great challenge for them.
Please stop trying to dox Satoshi. It is unbecoming of you, as well as rude and disrespectful.
Did any of you stop to think that Satoshi = Sir Richard?
yes, and then I started thinking again
One thing is clear, satoshi is either british or someone educated or living in Great Britain.
Why? Because his software have reference to the "Chancellor of Exchequer" and second bailout of british banks.
Nobody outside of UK even know about this title (position).
Did any of you stop to think that Satoshi = Sir Richard?
yes, and then I started thinking again
One thing is clear, satoshi is either british or someone educated or living in Great Britain.
Why? Because his software have reference to the "Chancellor of Exchequer" and second bailout of british banks.
Nobody outside of UK even know about this title (position).
Did any of you stop to think that Satoshi = Sir Richard?
no
there should be no decimals, only whole numbers
When btc is a billion $, (or whatever, I can't count), decimals can be added
So you want us to work from satoshis. Personally, I believe that you are the exception, and most people are good with two decimal places b/c we are used to it, and we can easily identify two digits behind the decimal without developing a major brain fart.
So it seems that we agree on two digits beyond the decimal. It's just a matter of how it gets implemented. I wasn't being totally serious in my answer but I guess my point was not to do it in a way that necessitates the need to keep making changes.
Now that we have solved that, how about world peace?
BTW I just talked to Satoshi and he thinks that everybody here speculating about his identity is really quite amusing.
Did any of you stop to think that Satoshi = Sir Richard?
yes, and then I started thinking again
One thing is clear, satoshi is either british or someone educated or living in Great Britain.
Why? Because his software have reference to the "Chancellor of Exchequer" and second bailout of british banks.
Nobody outside of UK even know about this title (position).
You've done a survey, have you?
Did any of you stop to think that Satoshi = Sir Richard?
yes, and then I started thinking again
One thing is clear, satoshi is either british or someone educated or living in Great Britain.
Why? Because his software have reference to the "Chancellor of Exchequer" and second bailout of british banks.
Nobody outside of UK even know about this title (position).
Did any of you stop to think that Satoshi = Sir Richard?
yes, and then I started thinking again
Jump to: