Why does "large of volume" mean anything, when a nice chunk of that is obvious wash trades?
At least they could adjust the algo to make it a little more convincing... like the chinese appear to be doing.
Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 20151. (Read 26706937 times)
November 19, 2015, 12:04:33 AM
November 19, 2015, 12:01:12 AM
November 19, 2015, 12:00:23 AM
Will 2016 be the year of the bitcoin? 
It can either be the year of the bitcoin or the year of the morons. Stay tuned here folks for that turn out 
Why not both?
November 18, 2015, 11:58:37 PM
Here it is on a larger time frame.
Basically
Large Term - Bullish
Short Term - Bearish
Current Term - Neutral
Basically
Large Term - Bullish
Short Term - Bearish
Current Term - Neutral
November 18, 2015, 11:56:25 PM
yep, big volume clearing out the specs ...
November 18, 2015, 11:54:32 PM
Seems to be little movement due to large of volume. These are the area's to watch.
November 18, 2015, 11:41:01 PM
Yep, that totally real and organic trading in a couple dollar range on bitstamp.
November 18, 2015, 11:40:01 PM
Bitstamp's not sure if it's coming or going...
November 18, 2015, 11:38:33 PM
Will 2016 be the year of the bitcoin?
It can either be the year of the bitcoin or the year of the morons. Stay tuned here folks for that turn out I'd say 2017. Exciting to think by 2017 we should have functional 2 way pegged sidechains, payment channels, openbazaar, rootstock, voting pools, and new innovations on top of the bitcoin blockchain.
November 18, 2015, 11:37:22 PM
Will 2016 be the year of the bitcoin?
It can either be the year of the bitcoin or the year of the morons. Stay tuned here folks for that turn out November 18, 2015, 11:31:42 PM
Everyone here has died and been replaced by pod-trolls 
November 18, 2015, 11:21:09 PM
I'm beginning to think we are all getting trolled by "la cucaracha" 
I've been around a while and this is the first time I've actually realized that word was linked to its English translation. And now it's just so obvious.
November 18, 2015, 11:09:34 PM
Jorge is a bitcoiner, he just wants a spectacular crash to sub-dollar levels, then it can resume rightfully, without all the wanton speculation.
It pains me to see what little credit and admiration his buttcoin buddies bestow upon him tho, he is probably their most valuable redditor!
It pains me to see what little credit and admiration his buttcoin buddies bestow upon him tho, he is probably their most valuable redditor!
November 18, 2015, 11:07:36 PM
go ahead and ask somebody who breeds dogs for instance! he will contest that those dogs have often serious genetic diseases. or even better, go into some mountain village where they used to fuck each other for centuries. you will be astonished what happens after keeping your gene pool samesame.
Whachoo talkin' about?
November 18, 2015, 11:01:12 PM
November 18, 2015, 10:54:05 PM
No. I totally forgot that my other smart & totally sane friend, Hyena, is waiting for me at Illuminati End Game Started thread, which isn't full of filthy yids, lily-livered liberals and Marxist race traitors. Yeah, I'm going where my intellect, learnings, and firm grasp of reality will be appreciated. Fuck you guys.
Goodbye!
I'll totally miss your insights, but if you gotta go, I guess you gotta go. I understand.
lol.
Bitcoin to to test trend line of ascending triangle, then up to the $370-$380 zone, where I expect it to meet a brick wall erected by the same cunts who will ensure it breaks out, from this range to begin with. When that will happen I don't know. For now, Bitcoin is trading at 333. Which is half of 666, the Number of the Beast as written in the Book of Revelations, and also the inescable numerology of the Star of David, which isn't a symbol of Judiasm at all, but an occult Satanic symbol, adopted by warmongering Neocon Zionists hell bent on taking us all to hell.....
......but who cares, as long as Bitcoin does well out of it, that is all I really care about.
November 18, 2015, 10:35:30 PM
That is the sort of horrible simplification that "scientific racists" must make to justify the concept of "race".
You're way more fringe leftist than I imagined, trying to claim that anyone acknolwedging different ethnic groups or races exist at all is a "scientific racist". I have noticed that, since racism became politically incorrect in the US and other countries, many racists have simply search-replaced "race" by the politically correct "ethnic group" in their vocabulary -- and then continued to think of "ethnic groups" exactly as they thought or "race" before.
Sorry, but the two terms have completely different meaning. "Race" was assumed to be defined by biology, to be inherited, and to be immutable. "Ethnic group" is defined by culture; it is learned, and can be changed at will (given sufficient resources, and unless society prevents it). "Race" is now known to have no scientific basis. "Ethnic groups" are (for good or bad) very real.
(The term "Caucasian", by the way, is a relic from "scientific" racial classifications of the 19th century.)
Oh joy, now anyone filling in the word "caucasian" for race on the census is now a "19th century racist".
My apologies, I have checked and the notion that the "right" race came from the Caucasus did not originate in the 19th century, but from the 18th.
So, yes: the use of "Caucasian" shows that the "race" item in US census and other US is a relic of 18th century racial thinking.
There are known natural mechanisms that allow such jumping, and they have been adapted for genetic engineering. Again, it if such accident happens only once in a million years, that may be sufficient to transfer a gene from one to all individuals of a completely different species.)
Probably mutation + convergent evolution, which is why if life is discovered on other planets, it would likely be similar to what exists here or in the past.
In cultures that did not have African slavery for many centuries, or which for some reason never adopted the "one drop rule", skin color is perceived as a continuous variable that is either irrelevant, or does not trigger discrimination at some magic level.
Please cut the slavery BS. Brazil didn't even get rid of slavery completely until TWENTY FIVE YEARS after the emancipation proclamation in the US. Hilarious that you would actually bring this up while trying to demonize North America.Please read again what I wrote, and stop inventing. I was not referring to Brazil, where racial prejudices still exist (but with a different discourse).
(But, since you mention it: Brazil abolished slavery in 1850. Maybe not effectively, but without major upheavals. Whereas, in the US, abolition was forced on half of the country in ~1860, by a bloody Civil War; and a hundred years later the losing side still resented it...)
Quote
The Roman empire also had more white slaves than black slaves ever to exist.
Indeed; and, coincidentally, the Romans did not seem to have had prejudices about skin color. (That is not to say that they were egalitarian, even towards free Roman citizens). In fact, for all I know, their success as empire-builders was due to their policy of assimilating the conquered peoples, giving them citizen rights and opportunity to ascend the power hierarchy, even to the highest levels.
Quote
The basis of the so called "one drop rule" was most likely due to white genes being recessive.
Almost certainly not. Skin color genes are not really recessive, and (as others have pointed out) recessive genes do not work the way you think. (No shame in that, but you must read about it -- it is very basic genetics, that everybody should know.)
In Latin America, generally, that rule was never used -- not even by those "whites" who have prejudice against "blacks". One can adequately explain that cultural difference by considering the significant differences in the histories of the two countries.
The "one-drop" rule in the US, like the the (non)immigration rules of Japan, the chaste system of India, and many other similar binary barriers in many other places, almost certainly arose as a way to prevent the "leaking" of the lower class into the upper class's society through the children of mixed ancestry.
Quote
Without an ethnocentric majority, the nation state collapses.
Yeah, sure. Look at Switzerland, for example -- it collapsed in the Middle Ages and did not even realize it yet. Or at China, which has never worked as a state because of its 20 major languages and uncountable dialects.
Louis Agassiz and Arthur Gobineau were two of many Europeans who were horrified by the miscigenation that they saw in Brazil in the early 19th century. I think it was one of them who predicted that the country would collapse in a few decades because of that.
[/quote]
[/quote]
holy fucking shit Jorge buy a bitcoin already.
November 18, 2015, 10:32:46 PM
Will 2016 be the year of the bitcoin?
November 18, 2015, 10:32:22 PM
That is the sort of horrible simplification that "scientific racists" must make to justify the concept of "race".
You're way more fringe leftist than I imagined, trying to claim that anyone acknolwedging different ethnic groups or races exist at all is a "scientific racist". I have noticed that, since racism became politically incorrect in the US and other countries, many racists have simply search-replaced "race" by the politically correct "ethnic group" in their vocabulary -- and then continued to think of "ethnic groups" exactly as they thought or "race" before.
Sorry, but the two terms have completely different meaning. "Race" was assumed to be defined by biology, to be inherited, and to be immutable. "Ethnic group" is defined by culture; it is learned, and can be changed at will (given sufficient resources, and unless society prevents it). "Race" is now known to have no scientific basis. "Ethnic groups" are (for good or bad) very real.
(The term "Caucasian", by the way, is a relic from "scientific" racial classifications of the 19th century.)
Oh joy, now anyone filling in the word "caucasian" for race on the census is now a "19th century racist".
My apologies, I have checked and the notion that the "right" race came from the Caucasus did not originate in the 19th century, but from the 18th.
So, yes: the use of "Caucasian" shows that the "race" item in US census and other US is a relic of 18th century racial thinking.
There are known natural mechanisms that allow such jumping, and they have been adapted for genetic engineering. Again, it if such accident happens only once in a million years, that may be sufficient to transfer a gene from one to all individuals of a completely different species.)
Probably mutation + convergent evolution, which is why if life is discovered on other planets, it would likely be similar to what exists here or in the past.
In cultures that did not have African slavery for many centuries, or which for some reason never adopted the "one drop rule", skin color is perceived as a continuous variable that is either irrelevant, or does not trigger discrimination at some magic level.
Please cut the slavery BS. Brazil didn't even get rid of slavery completely until TWENTY FIVE YEARS after the emancipation proclamation in the US. Hilarious that you would actually bring this up while trying to demonize North America.Please read again what I wrote, and stop inventing. I was not referring to Brazil, where racial prejudices still exist (but with a different discourse).
(But, since you mention it: Brazil abolished slavery in 1850. Maybe not effectively, but without major upheavals. Whereas, in the US, abolition was forced on half of the country in ~1860, by a bloody Civil War; and a hundred years later the losing side still resented it...)
Quote
The Roman empire also had more white slaves than black slaves ever to exist.
Indeed; and, coincidentally, the Romans did not seem to have had prejudices about skin color. (That is not to say that they were egalitarian, even towards free Roman citizens). In fact, for all I know, their success as empire-builders was due to their policy of assimilating the conquered peoples, giving them citizen rights and opportunity to ascend the power hierarchy, even to the highest levels.
Quote
The basis of the so called "one drop rule" was most likely due to white genes being recessive.
Almost certainly not. Skin color genes are not really recessive, and (as others have pointed out) recessive genes do not work the way you think. (No shame in that, but you must read about it -- it is very basic genetics, that everybody should know.)
In Latin America, generally, that rule was never used -- not even by those "whites" who have prejudice against "blacks". One can adequately explain that cultural difference by considering the significant differences in the histories of the two countries.
The "one-drop" rule in the US, like the the (non)immigration rules of Japan, the chaste system of India, and many other similar binary barriers in many other places, almost certainly arose as a way to prevent the "leaking" of the lower class into the upper class's society through the children of mixed ancestry.
Quote
Without an ethnocentric majority, the nation state collapses.
Yeah, sure. Look at Switzerland, for example -- it collapsed in the Middle Ages and did not even realize it yet. Or at China, which has never worked as a state because of its 20 major languages and uncountable dialects.
Louis Agassiz and Arthur Gobineau were two of many Europeans who were horrified by the miscigenation that they saw in Brazil in the early 19th century. I think it was one of them who predicted that the country would collapse in a few decades because of that.
[/quote]
November 18, 2015, 10:25:58 PM
