Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 25006. (Read 26710661 times)

based on my analysis of bitcoin movements (data set taken between 6 hours ago and now) I have concluded that bitcoin will never move in price again.

You are absolutely, unequivocally wrong in invoking the "false equivalency" fallacy regarding what I said, especially when what I said can be boiled down to something as simple as "don't be a hypocrite."

If you don't see that you are wrong based on the explanations and examples I gave, again, I just don't know how to dumb it down further. I'm perfectly content in the knowledge that my response was suitable and you have been unable to counter it in any meaningful way (because you can't).

I wonder how long the Huobi high volume bot will continue to operate with that wall keeping it from manipulating the price.

we've been going sideways for over 6hours now, will bitcoin ever move again O_o?

"bitstamp criminals"  aren't necessary parama bulls, the guys are criminals, not geniuses  , they probably sold just to not be subject to bitcoin extreme and scary volatility.

but a few poeple reported here they had old stamps accounts with like 2$ felt in it, this probably constitutes 90% of the unverified accounts, i'm betting most "bitcoin criminals" know to go sell on btc-e or better yet OTC.

Yeah... that is a GREAT FUCKING IDEA. 

This thread needs a word count policeperson (or a bot), and maybe an editor to approve that posts are NOT too wordy.  10,000 to 100 is a tragedy and a real waste of valuable thread space.  Just think about all those cyber digits that would be saved.. and trees?  GREAT IDEEER, OCTAFT!!!!!!   

Explanation

do you guys believe there will be another crypto bubble like in 2013??

Why would "bitstamp criminals" as blitz keeps saying leave the money in fiat in first place? BTC all the way surely? Maybe they tried to do some day tarding but surely no more than 50% of them would choose to leave the money in fiat, unless they became bearish at some point (understandable actually, lol I think I just answered my own question).

JJG your walls of text never cease to amaze me.

Yes, more apparently white knighting with your failing and/or refusing to quote my posts in order that we can easily see about what you are referring. 

You know I put myself at a disadvantage by giving you the courtesy to quote your posts, but maybe that's where the saying nice guys finish last comes from, and I am being way too nice to you?

To answer your question.. .yes, I responded to your "last response".... but the fact that I did NOT respond right away does NOT mean anything regarding the merit (or lack thereof) of my prior assertions, except that your assertion in the above post seems to show that you easily become anxious and/or pushy, and maybe that you are being a little bit disingenuous to be goading me into arguing with you about trivial matters.   

First there was 900btc sell into wall but not much after.
Now wall is back to 3.4k and some buying starting.

I have had an account at BTC-e since about November 2013, but I have never had an account at BitStamp.  I have held up to 20BTC on BTC-e, but several times I got nervous about them, and I reduced my BTC holdings with them (currently less than 10 BTC).  I have never had any problem transferring BTC into or out of BTC-e.. so far.  The most I attempted to transfer out at any given time was less than 14BTC.

When I opened my account at BTC-e, it took only a short period of time to open (maybe less than a half an hour)... I believe that I had to provide a verification through e-mail regarding my e-mail (but NOTHING else).  Anyhow, I believe that a lot of people have continued to accuse BTC-e of being to lackadaisical in their formalities and relations with their customers because they employ little to NO KYC or AML policies.  BTC-e has also been known to be very secretive about the identities of its owners and/or principles.  Therefore, some people think that it is fairly risky to do large scale business with BTC-e. 

NONETHELESS, having had said all of that, I believe that it is still possible to achieve trading with BTC-e... to transfer BTC in and to trade and to transfer BTC out.  Maybe how much BTC you would put at risk, may be in accordance with your risk tolerance(s).  Personally, I attempt to keep only the BTC that I am currently considering trading on BTC-e, but I am currently NOT in any trading mood (even though I hold nearly 10 BTC on BTC-e like i mentioned above).  Since I personally have NOT gotten the sense that BTC-e is going out of business soon or that there are any meaningful threats to my BTC held on BTC-e, I would be willing to put up to 20 or 25 BTC there, if I were in the mood to engage in trading...... which may come about when the price goes up sufficiently (maybe into the $600+ range).   

Ya, last year they gave notice about needing verify to withdraw so I stuck my btc in stamp btc IOUs in ripple

HSBC had impeccable KYC/AML policies and practices in place no doubt .... these regulations mean nothing if the people running the show are fundamentally dishonest, it actually makes it worse, since they can hold up these pathetic regs as a fig leaf to cover over the disgusting swamp of corruption.

People have to start wondering if Swamp is involved in a bitcoin grab that perhaps they are about to go tits up?

I mean for the amount of "non-verified" customers, all of whom have btc addresses on file there, why wouldn't they just liquidte and send the btc back instead of this funds confiscation BS?

The BitSwamp is fast earning the Gox reputation in my book ... roll on the decentralised exchanges, it's clear the other way doesn't work with Bitcoins, too much heat on one single center to handle.

Like I said, if what I said before could not convince you, then I don't know what else to say but you are wrong. That's all there is to it, the fallacy you're talking about does not apply here, plain and simple. I explained why twice already, and quite frankly I can't think of a way to dumb it down for you any more than that.

EDIT: What I meant by your fallacy is "the fallacy you are referencing." I never said you committed any fallacy, just that it's annoying to be falsely accused of committing one, myself. I'm beginning to wonder if you aren't being intentionally dense to fuck with me, or do you really need things explained to you this specifically?

Why would it matter if I have spoken or NOT...?  It is just one opinion, no?

That makes a whole lot of sense.        NOT.   In essence you are saying that my request for examples and names made you NOT want to cooperate.  Whatever.



Apparently, both of us are gluttons for punishment to continue this silly-ass conversation in which it appears that we are at a stalemate (and have been for some time).



Sure, that seems to be one application of the false equivalencies fallacy. 



Yes, probably we agree again that if there is a desire (or policy) to ban trolls, then surely all trolls should be banned, and NOT be banned based on the direction of their trolling, but merely because of the fact that they are trolling.  But, having said that, there still probably are NOT any examples of bull trolls, but one has to look at the contents of their posts and NOT merely a label.



meaningless to discuss this because whether some poster is a troll or NOT depends on conduct that rises to the level of trolling  - NOT whether the contents of the message is bearish or bullish.



My fallacy?  I did NOT invent any fallacy - instead, you fell into the fallacy of false equivalencies by making it.  To my understanding, you have NOT really explained your way out of it, but that's fine.. NO problema.. We can just agree to disagree because this whole discussion seems to be devolving into meaninglessness and seems to be just arguing for the sake of arguing.. which I have NO real interest in such (my only interest would be to clarify, if needed, and further clarification does NOT really seem to be needed at this point).



Seems that we agree that if there were a policy against trolling that it should be enforced in spite of the contents, but just by the fact that the poster is engaging in trolling conduct.  Sure, we seem to agree on that. 

Nonetheless, it still seems to me that if you had been attempting to assert that there were some kinds of bulltrolls in reality, which I still doubt to be the case.   Anyhow, we do NOT really need to get into this further because it seems that we have beaten this troll to death - whether bear or bull.   

This is fair. This is also not really what he was saying, which should be made obvious by the fact that this makes sense and does not ramble for 10,000 words about something that could be said in 100.

Explanation

Yeah...... stick it to the man, $2 at a time!!!!!