Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 13650. (Read 26715131 times)

Damn. They must be run by The Jews® then.
/s

Edit: I'm adding this quote from Eric Meltzer of INBlockchain because its a slow day here:

It may indeed never get cleared out. But they surely played the most sophisticated scam ever : they played the role of central bank in crypto... .  

As a jew, I find the existence of basically unseizable money outside of state control massively comforting. To jews, the state is an unpredictable monster that flips out every century or so. Having the ability to leave without leaving everything behind is key.”

It may indeed never get cleared out. But they surely played the most sophisticated scam ever : they played the role of central bank in crypto... . 

It may be unfashionable to think it, but I don't really believe there is one any more. Even if at one point it was money out of thin air, and there's no proof either way, they've likely earned it back now.

It's going to be a forever mystery I reckon that's rolled out every now and then for a quick scare.

I don't see exchanges, devs and users complaining how flawed Segwit it, nobody lost money ore saw critical errors.  I only see that bullshit in the Bcash camp.

Can you provide me technical arguments/proof why Segwit is 'flawed' ore show it at the Github?

All those devs are interested in youre arguments.


Trying to convince me that you did your homework while you dont even looked at Segwit features..

(Bcash) shit noob.

I'm not following the whole USDT drama, to me it's just like another alt/shitcoin, i.e. if anything, people would try to escape into BTC when it crashes. Of course it can take down some exchanges, but if you keep your BTC on exchanges thats the risk that you're taking

https://www.omniexplorer.info/search/330e1d253fe93c44cd8c64635c8742cfe0bb4fe9b5435b4d22a02345d1c9f513

Looks like someone still believes in USDT, namely its creators.

What do you think about Bitcoin not breaking the support 5500€ / 6800$?

I'm not very confident that this will be the bottom, there was not enough panic selling and FUD imo! Maybe we'll see a break of the support first, then a bull run for new highs can start.

I figure that BTC price and Alts etc are going to Yo/Yo at best between 5k and 6k for the next 9 months

especially if mt. gox keeps kicking out $125 million of BTC dump the 10th of every month until the surplus of 1.40 billion is gone

just the way it is

that and the fact IF there is a run, seems exchanges always go down or are hacked ..thus driving prices down further

buckle up boys and girls it is gonna suck big time

(again, better minds then me prove I'm wrong...please...please...)

brad

--------
Bitcoin

Good morning.

Cloud pierced. Time to push thru? Actual analysis after coffee? Maybe...still hodling.

Why did you leave? You found a better place to live? Where did you go? Somewhere crypto&tax friendly ?

ass

I thought germany was very crypto friendly ......

Bitcoin isn't fungible anyway.

And I think he was referring to the fact that LN pretty much required segwit.

University of Texas at Austin finance professor John Griffin and graduate student Amin Shams just posted a paper suggesting that cryptocurrency prices are manipulated.  The paper has received a great deal of attention in the media, but there is a disconnect between the paper and the press coverage in terms of quantification.

For example:

    The authors suggest the cryptocurrency exchange Bitfinex buys bitcoin with another cryptocurrency -- tether -- to push up Bitcoin prices. How much? Four basis points per 100 bitcoin. With Bitcoin at $10,000, for example, that means Bitfinex spends $1 million to push the price up to $10,004.
    The authors assert that the purchases are not random in that they occur more often after Bitcoin prices have fallen. How much? After the biggest drops in Bitcoin price, 1  Bitfinex buys 72 extra bitcoin. More than 100,000 Bitcoin frequently trade in an hour, and often much more during periods of high volatility.
    The authors examined the 87 hours with the largest flows of bitcoin and tether and found that the hours following them accounted for 50 percent of the "meteoric rise" in bitcoin. That sounds impressive, but the rise over the period discussed was from about $1,000 to $8,000. The authors used compounded returns, which mean returns in those 87 hours averaged 1.2 percent. For the S&P 500 Index, a 1.2 percent move is a big hour. For Bitcoin, not so much.

To an academic, it's often more important that a result have “statistical significance,” which is to be clearly something other than random noise, than “practical significance,” which is to be of a size that would interest a trader or regulator. But, here too, the results are less than impressive.

    The four basis-point increase in Bitcoin prices explains less than 1 percent of the variance. While it technically meets normal standards of statistical significance, given the guesswork the authors had to do to collect data and the complexity of the analysis, I consider it more likely to be noise than signal.
    The authors have only 20 data points to support the claim of 72 extra Bitcoin, and they fit them using a model with six parameters. The usual rule of thumb is you want 30 observations per parameter to rely on the results, and that's not taking into account the data and complexity issues mentioned above.
    The 50 percent "meteoric rise” claim is declared significant because the authors picked 10,000 sets of 87 hours at random, and none of them averaged a 1.2 percent return for Bitcoin. That is indeed strong evidence that the 87 hours following the hours with the largest Bitcoin and tether flows are not random. But we already knew they weren't random, they were times of high transaction volume, which would be expected to have more volatile prices than average, and trading volume was much higher on the upswings than the downswings.

I don't mean to be completely negative on the paper.  I've played with the data the authors use, and it is very frustrating. There is a lot of work -- including a lot of guesswork, unfortunately -- to compile numbers that can be used to test hypotheses. The tests themselves are complex. Moreover, it's likely that the phenomena under study are evolving rapidly during the study period. As a result, any conclusions have to be taken as suggestive only. But in areas as little understood as cryptocurrency trading dynamics, even suggestions are valuable. (Full disclosure: I own Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies.)

I've only touched on the headline claims of the article. There is a lot more substance in it. Some of the claims that got less attention have better support. Anyone seriously interested in these issues should read the paper, not as an authoritative last word, but as a plausible account backed by some data.

I also don't mean to deny that cryptocurrency prices are manipulated. I'm a crypto-believer, and am impressed by the huge amount of honest developer talent and innovative vision improving the crypto code base every day, whether prices are soaring or crashing, more for love than money. That is where I put my faith. But there are plenty of crooks and profiteers as well. It would be extraordinary if some of them weren't trying to manipulate prices -- and worse.

Moreover there are obvious inconsistencies in the complex and novel cryptocurrency markets. That makes it unclear whether behavior is manipulation or rationalization. This paper is a small step in improving our understanding, not an indictment of tether or cryptocurrencies.
 

This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.

    Specifically, the paper looked at all three-hour periods from March 1, 2017 to March 31, 2018 and found that after the 5 percent with the largest declines, Bitfinex bought an average of 72 bitcoin in the following hour.

Why did you leave? You found a better place to live? Where did you go? Somewhere crypto&tax friendly ?