Is this where big money is secretly gobbling up all the cheap coins as i have been promised for about a year now?
Yes?
Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 24091. (Read 26609267 times)
December 08, 2014, 07:56:15 PM
Yes?
December 08, 2014, 07:55:44 PM
Is this where big money is secretly gobbling up all the cheap coins as i have been promised for about a year now?
Is Wallstreet still dying to get in? For someone who can't get wait to get in they sure wait a long time.
Is Wallstreet still dying to get in? For someone who can't get wait to get in they sure wait a long time.
December 08, 2014, 07:51:43 PM
^ 
December 08, 2014, 07:50:54 PM
December 08, 2014, 07:49:29 PM
When you have very little liquidity in a market and speculators you will get wild swings in price its normal
December 08, 2014, 07:49:03 PM
Some time ago, I've had a flashback to 2011. The next and final stage of the bear market began when difficulty began to decrease.
Oh, Blitz... Thought this sort of thing was beneath you
December 08, 2014, 07:47:45 PM
(So it may be that one of the bidders who won a 2000 BTC block defaulted, and the USMS has transferred the 48 000 BTC to those who paid, and didn't bother to split off the 2000 BTC chunk yet, waiting for the next bidder to pay.) Yes agreed... that is my take on it also.
Yes. Looks like that's already happened
https://blockchain.info/fr/address/1CkrQEuoo7vX4YKjNPkgWExnRwEp9fVPaP
It also seems like there are several members of our little group who don't understand how Bitcoin change addresses work.
Hands up! I don't, but I will take a guess now ...
It could be instantly be deduced from apparent the lack of apparent tx fee on the 52k that is was being sent as change. This is now confirmed by the further split into two separate wallets again with no tx fees. Hence the USMS is still in control of the total 52k
Close?
While that's true, it's not directly related to the change address issue.
Bitcoin values in your wallet are stored as various "chunks" of bitcoins and complete chunks must be spent but can be distributed to multiple addresses. Thus to spend say 6 out of a 10 bitcoin chunk, you'd send 6 bitcoins to the target and 4 bitcoins back to yourself.
A wallet can contain multiple private/public addresses for reasons apparently related to privacy, rather than sending to the original address, the change from a transaction is sent to a different address within the wallet (these addresses are pre-generated in the standard client). This often confuses people who see their bitcoins going off to an address they don't recognize. It can also lead to bitcoin loss if those additional keys are not transferred or backed up.
If you don't spend all of a chunk, the remainder is distributed to whoever mined the block as the mining fee.
It's worth noting that there are wallets with single addresses and also ones with deterministic generation of the keys (which takes care of some of the issue of wallet integrity.
December 08, 2014, 07:47:03 PM
Blitz could be thought of as, if the fundamentals of bitcoin changed adversely.. averaging down wouldn't be a good idea, but if you believe them to have not changed and its just speculative pressure averaging in isn't a terrible idea?
December 08, 2014, 07:46:34 PM
Maybe some more thoughts on averaging down: To speculate, we all have some hypothesis that prices will unfold in some manner. Of course you could anticipate that the price will likely move up now, but if it doesn't move up now, then it has to move up after it goes down to some support of your liking. So in that context, averaging down makes sense of course, assuming your hypothesis is close to reality.
But the real danger with averaging down is that the hypothesis begins to change and even though the original hypothesis may have already been falsified by reality, a human is prone to modify it to suit himself to avoid having to realize a loss, or even a gain if it isn't what was hoped for.
Getting out of the market when you've been proven wrong is necessary if you want to preserve your capital, and it gives you a chance to form a new opinion.
But the real danger with averaging down is that the hypothesis begins to change and even though the original hypothesis may have already been falsified by reality, a human is prone to modify it to suit himself to avoid having to realize a loss, or even a gain if it isn't what was hoped for.
Getting out of the market when you've been proven wrong is necessary if you want to preserve your capital, and it gives you a chance to form a new opinion.
Changed your mind?
"Please, just once more cheap coins. Soon."
December 08, 2014, 07:46:16 PM
Some time ago, I've had a flashback to 2011. The next and final stage of the bear market began when difficulty began to decrease.
I have to say, I wouldn't have expected a difficulty decrease with ASICs, though the one we have is so minor it could be attributed to a stagnating network and randomness of hashes with the same machines. It should be impossible for difficulty to decline as much as with GPUs because ASICs can only do the one task, and they will be sold to whoever has cheapest energy.
I have to say, I wouldn't have expected a difficulty decrease with ASICs, though the one we have is so minor it could be attributed to a stagnating network and randomness of hashes with the same machines. It should be impossible for difficulty to decline as much as with GPUs because ASICs can only do the one task, and they will be sold to whoever has cheapest energy.
December 08, 2014, 07:43:47 PM
Just this morning 360 seemed like unbreakable support. Now its resistance 
December 08, 2014, 07:42:10 PM
Just this morning 360 seemed like unbreakable support. Now its resistance
December 08, 2014, 07:35:24 PM
Maybe some more thoughts on averaging down: To speculate, we all have some hypothesis that prices will unfold in some manner. Of course you could anticipate that the price will likely move up now, but if it doesn't move up now, then it has to move up after it goes down to some support of your liking. So in that context, averaging down makes sense of course, assuming your hypothesis is close to reality.
But the real danger with averaging down is that the hypothesis begins to change and even though the original hypothesis may have already been falsified by reality, a human is prone to modify it to suit himself to avoid having to realize a loss, or even a gain if it isn't what was hoped for.
Getting out of the market when you've been proven wrong is necessary if you want to preserve your capital, and it gives you a chance to form a new opinion.
But the real danger with averaging down is that the hypothesis begins to change and even though the original hypothesis may have already been falsified by reality, a human is prone to modify it to suit himself to avoid having to realize a loss, or even a gain if it isn't what was hoped for.
Getting out of the market when you've been proven wrong is necessary if you want to preserve your capital, and it gives you a chance to form a new opinion.
December 08, 2014, 07:33:14 PM
It also seems like there are several members of our little group who don't understand how Bitcoin change addresses work.
If you know how to define a custom txfee then you probably know how to define the original sending address as change address (to avoid this kind of confusion).
Yeah, because the cops are going to worry about confusing some dweebs on an internet forum.
December 08, 2014, 07:31:51 PM
Heading up...
December 08, 2014, 07:30:10 PM
[troll]
Mozilla Foundation finds that a link "Donate with bitcoin" in small print at the bottom of their donation form would have a significant efect in their donations, ~140'000 USD:
https://fundraising.mozilla.org/bitcoin-donations-to-mozilla-17-days-in/
[/troll]
Mozilla Foundation finds that a link "Donate with bitcoin" in small print at the bottom of their donation form would have a significant efect in their donations, ~140'000 USD:
https://fundraising.mozilla.org/bitcoin-donations-to-mozilla-17-days-in/
[/troll]
December 08, 2014, 07:28:26 PM
Some pretty cynical gaming of the exchanges. I look forward to the day the market isn't so thin.
Still noise until 340 or 320 IMO.
Still noise until 340 or 320 IMO.
December 08, 2014, 07:25:24 PM
What do you mean, "bottomed out"? How do you know if it did?
I thought it was supposed to be MACD crossovers, ie the MACD line closes above its signal line. According to Tradingview, the last time such a buy signal was generated, @weekly, the price closed at 658. Sell signal was 590.
I thought it was supposed to be MACD crossovers, ie the MACD line closes above its signal line. According to Tradingview, the last time such a buy signal was generated, @weekly, the price closed at 658. Sell signal was 590.
I worded the original buy/sell statement poorly.. and you're totally right that crossover is a pretty poor single alone to buy or sell.
I guess what I am seeing is more or less the wave like pattern, that seems to rarely meet enough resistance..to change. The trend in macd from Apr13 to Jun1 for example shows what I so poorly illustrated for when I'd start taking it as a single for buying. I can agree that it wouldn't be fool proof enough to call TA as much as it is gambling.
Edit: the bullish pressure or perhaps just a pump and dump manipulating noobs with a thought process like me, really ate the pain of the crossover day, as it opened at 658 and closed at 588..
and that my indicator is trying to front run on the momentum that might be building.. again as I think of it all now it sounds like dice rolling. but Really April 13 to may 4th ..would be a signal in my analysis to buy ..and you would've made money if on the crossover being a fakeout.
December 08, 2014, 07:20:57 PM
I am lost to why you think weekly macd crossover are not a good indicator of a buy signal.. just looking at the charts.. makes me think that you're not 100% serious with that statement. In regards to bitcoin trading.
Because it has a poor historical performance as far as I see (have you looked at the last signals it gave?), and it's been my experience with the daily as well. Much more important than crossovers are the establishment and break of the zero and signal line as support and resistance.It's like saying the people who bought at 266, are going to regret avg down on the rebound from 80ish last november. If you thought bitcoin was going to 0 .. then sure..averaging down makes zero sense.
No, but it can go a lot lower than you imagine (will you have sufficient size to buy with to equal the others if it falls again and again and again?) and stay there for lower than you can imagine. Averaging is viable if you only want exposure and determine beforehand that this will be your strategy for entry, but then it should be bound to progressing time, and not decreasing price.Yeah, but I am not to say buy as it is dipping. I waited for 275 as a bottom and a high volume reversal started, so I didn't get 275usd.. and because it was Canadian it was close to the range of 340-350+ cad. The bottom at my exchange was 309cad.
I do agree that I have much more to learn and appreciate you taking your time to give me actual responses
December 08, 2014, 07:18:54 PM
What do you mean, "bottomed out"? How do you know if it did?
I thought it was supposed to be MACD crossovers, ie the MACD line closes above its signal line. According to Tradingview, the last time such a buy signal was generated, @weekly, the price closed at 658. Sell signal was 590.
I thought it was supposed to be MACD crossovers, ie the MACD line closes above its signal line. According to Tradingview, the last time such a buy signal was generated, @weekly, the price closed at 658. Sell signal was 590.
Jump to: