Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 14923. (Read 26716778 times)

Implying I share the same attitude?

Huh?

Confusing because I didn't write ?

Or maybe I really think black people are like monkies and was giving a subtle hint?

Or you just a bit too pedantic?

Such a minefield

I for one hope we can all wave to Bob soon. He seems too stressed for someone on the brink of early retirement with a bag full of BTC. The man deserves some relaxation.  

Worried about cowboys chasing you? 

Bids are still growing while asks have remained relatively stable. Someone wave to Bob as we go by please...

https://medium.com/@bitfinexed/bitfinex-fails-to-perform-promised-audits-instead-they-have-a-shareholder-tell-everyone-its-all-965ae7037b5d
https://twitter.com/tetherprinter

This is bad.. I was really hoping they'd let an audit happen to prove their books were good.
As each day passes i really think they cooked their books using Tether.
Rather than mandating KYC maybe the govt should mandate audits on the exchanges.

Are you trying to claim this statement isn't true?  It's probably the most factually accurate statement ever written:

You don't even have to tell who.

It's a good strategy when you have groups of people attempting to act as "white people stalkers" to follow them around and act as parasites on them.  Whites and asians seem to build the best civilizations, while most people regard white women as looking the best.  So the monkeys try to get into the white civilization to displace the white inhabitants and take their stuff + women.  You would need to be a super cuckold to want that to happen, so it seems like a good idea calling them monkeys to let them know they're not wanted to keep them out.  

just did put someone on ignore for the first time ever

One thing that I haven’t fully understood with BTC price fluctuations I am hoping someone might have some theories on.

So the price of BTC against the dollar seems to fluctuate during these climbs and dips by percentages of quite a large magnitude (sometimes greater than 50%!).
Would it be correct to assume that during its earlier periods it would have been easier to manipulate the price due to the fact that
A: fewer players were in the game and would have owned larger amounts of BTC and
B: the dollar price was lower making it easier to buy larger amounts of BTC.?

Now with further distribution of BTC can we not assume that more people have smaller stashes (BLB aside!)?
Shouldn’t this make larger dumps less frequent?
Also large buys are a lot harder since it would require much larger sums of dollars to move the price up?

Yet we still see massive swings in the price. Can someone tell me why/how?

Divisibility:

Why bother discussing divisibility?  It's obvious people have already used physical silver as money in the past.  You know, the stories from your grandparents about going to the movies with a nickel or something.  There is no shortage of granularity when factoring in gold, silver, and copper, so there's no point rehashing an experiment that has already been done.  Both options probably have more granularity than actually needed.

Portability:

I did not bring up portability because crapcoiners like to pretend that in international trade, one country would just accept an infinite amount of bitcoins from another country while they send them ALL of their natural resources and receive imaginary tokens in return.  That's not how international trade works.  They would flat out refuse the bitcoins, so the portability argument is way more complicated when real world goods have to be shipped from both countries no matter what and then bitcoin receives no real advantage in the end.  

Yes, it's faster to dump bitcoins than metals in some other scenarios, but I also do not consider that as being a positive due to things like the Paretto principle.  If all capital eventually congregates in a tiny number of people, which causes the whole capitalist system to collapse, then the facilitation of gigantic capital flights entering and leaving places constantly is going to cause that monopoly board game to come to a conclusion MUCH FASTER, then collapse and have to restart the game by violent revolution again.

Just like the speed of light is needed to act as a governer on the universe, some governers are beneficial in economics to retard globalization, force things more local, and allow local economies to exist at all.  Then you have absolutely retarded scenarios like if bitcoin was the world reserve currency, what if a rogue Chinese employee worked at the treasury of your govt and enters a few keystrokes sending your entire nation's GDP to the Guang Dong province?  What are you going to do?  Get Vitalik to roll back the chain?  The portability (aka facilitation of capital flight to subsidize globalization) is a negative in many ways for economics and security.  Pretty obvious no nation is going to use such a system as their reserve currency either if one person going insane or comitting espionage can just steal your entire treasury with a mouse click.

well apparently he won you as one , eh?

Here's where you learn there's no such thing as easy money because if bitcoin actually was $100,000, probably every single person holding any would immediately sell everything, which is why it's not going to happen.  Even Shlomo Nakamoto the NSA would be dumping the premine coins on exchange.

well apparently he won you as one , eh?

https://medium.com/@bitfinexed/bitfinex-fails-to-perform-promised-audits-instead-they-have-a-shareholder-tell-everyone-its-all-965ae7037b5d
https://twitter.com/tetherprinter

This is bad.. I was really hoping they'd let an audit happen to prove their books were good.
As each day passes i really think they cooked their books using Tether.
Rather than mandating KYC maybe the govt should mandate audits on the exchanges.