https://blockchain.info/pools?timespan=24hrs
Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 27254. (Read 26652427 times)
June 10, 2014, 03:17:11 PM
June 10, 2014, 03:07:54 PM
Okay, who's gonna do market buys?
June 10, 2014, 03:05:38 PM
Who'd've thunk it just a couple of years ago? I thought They wanted to go for XBT as the nomenclature though.
Is it sad I think this is one of the coolest things ever?
Yeah, I know it is ....
June 10, 2014, 03:01:02 PM
June 10, 2014, 02:39:50 PM
I believe it's a brand new development.
June 10, 2014, 02:39:06 PM
Who'd've thunk it just a couple of years ago? I thought They wanted to go for XBT as the nomenclature though.
Does this mean that yahoo finance just started to list BTC? or has it been there for a while?
June 10, 2014, 02:27:52 PM
Bitcoin is disappointing us negatively this week.
The poll still seems rather bullish!
That's the problem, everybody is already loaded and have no spare FIAT to buy more.
Actually I do have some spare, but I have spread them out from 450 - 550.
Always helps to keep a bit of fiat for the sharp drops.
As time passes, a large majority of people continue to acquire additional fiat, and then the question becomes how that person wishes to store the value of that fiat b/c the opportunity to buy BTC between $450 and $550 has passed and currently is NOT available.
Accordingly, do we consider $650 to be a good value to store fiat in BTC, or do we believe storing fiat in some other investment vehicle or leaving it in fiat would be preferable?
Each of us needs to decide for ourselves what is the best storage of that newly acquired fiat.
Personally in the past several months, I have been putting my newly acquired fiat into BTC b/c currently, I consider BTC prices to be a good value as compared with other ways that I could store/invest that newly acquired fiat. Keeping it in fiat does NOT seem to be a very prudent approach in my current thinking.
I am happy as long as I have more BTCs than to begin with. The remaining fiat is a bonus, if it drops I get more BTC, if it does not I have some fiat to burn.
I think many of the longer-term holders may be fully invested in BTC with little fiat to throw in at this point. However, most newbies begin with Bitcoin by just "getting their feet wet" so to speak. They throw a little in thinking it is too risky to put more in. When they see the price double in a short period of time they realize they should have thrown in much more and then suddenly they throw caution to the wind and buy as much as they possibly can which fuels the fire and that is how we get our runs to new ATH.
So my advice to any "newbie" reading this is learn from this. Waiting to buy with Bitcoin is generally a bad idea, especially as the price is showing movement upwards. Just my two cents here.
Bitchick:
I largely agree with you; however, there is another dynamic here, that seems to influence the way investors talk about BTC, and that is if you have already experienced a bubble and you were in BTC, then you are going to have a cushion of already being largely in the black.
I started investing in November 2013 at the top of the last bubble, but I had already realized that the previous run up had been pretty intense.. NONETHELESS, I wanted to get in at $1200 b/c I had just learned about some of the fundamentals at that point.. .and surely I have been learning more since but continuing my investment... currently, I am in the black, but just barely... yet I am NOT worried about it and I am continuing to invest in BTC as my fiat comes in.... YET at the same time, I am NOT going balls to the walls with high level investing b/c that is NOT my style, and I like to remain diversified (even though I am going to make less during the next bubble).
Also, I agree with you that currently waiting would NOT be a good idea.. b/c the train is likely going to be leaving and the bits are NOT going to get a whole hell-a-va lot cheaper.... though we may be in the flat for a month or so, but if I were just getting into BTC, I would front load a lot more of my investment currently, as compared to when the price was at $1200 in last November.
June 10, 2014, 02:13:50 PM
Someone is desperated about price going over $650 at Bitstamp now for a few days (and have a lot of coins).
We cant do much, just sit here and wait for jump or right time.
Let's just hope it happens soon
Me want actionz!
I have a small sell pending. The swings are quite small but I am bored and want to make something.
good luck with that... maybe I take back my previous comment and we are NOT thinking in the same terms.... but anyhow, you may be able to profit and trade in this current market. I personally believe thatit is NOT worth the effort.. and better to play long.. and maybe trade later...
However, if you acquired your BTC at below $266, then maybe it does NOT matter too much to skim off a few profits here and there.. at this price or at $800... either way, it is profits.
Most traders would be better off holding, among those some get lucky and make a profit / holding
June 10, 2014, 02:01:03 PM
June 10, 2014, 02:00:53 PM
Someone is desperated about price going over $650 at Bitstamp now for a few days (and have a lot of coins).
We cant do much, just sit here and wait for jump or right time.
Let's just hope it happens soon
Me want actionz!
I have a small sell pending. The swings are quite small but I am bored and want to make something.
good luck with that... maybe I take back my previous comment and we are NOT thinking in the same terms.... but anyhow, you may be able to profit and trade in this current market. I personally believe thatit is NOT worth the effort.. and better to play long.. and maybe trade later...
However, if you acquired your BTC at below $266, then maybe it does NOT matter too much to skim off a few profits here and there.. at this price or at $800... either way, it is profits.
June 10, 2014, 01:57:18 PM
Bitcoin is disappointing us negatively this week.
The poll still seems rather bullish!
That's the problem, everybody is already loaded and have no spare FIAT to buy more.
Actually I do have some spare, but I have spread them out from 450 - 550.
Always helps to keep a bit of fiat for the sharp drops.
As time passes, a large majority of people continue to acquire additional fiat, and then the question becomes how that person wishes to store the value of that fiat b/c the opportunity to buy BTC between $450 and $550 has passed and currently is NOT available.
Accordingly, do we consider $650 to be a good value to store fiat in BTC, or do we believe storing fiat in some other investment vehicle or leaving it in fiat would be preferable?
Each of us needs to decide for ourselves what is the best storage of that newly acquired fiat.
Personally in the past several months, I have been putting my newly acquired fiat into BTC b/c currently, I consider BTC prices to be a good value as compared with other ways that I could store/invest that newly acquired fiat. Keeping it in fiat does NOT seem to be a very prudent approach in my current thinking.
I am happy as long as I have more BTCs than to begin with. The remaining fiat is a bonus, if it drops I get more BTC, if it does not I have some fiat to burn.
You and I may be engaging in a very similar practice.
I invest in BTC with my spare fiat, yet I keep a reserve of fiat, just in case the price falls further.
However, if you do, as you describe, buy more BTC as the price is going down, then over the last 4-5 months, the price had been going down a lot... therefore, there were a lot of opportunities to buy BTC.
I ran out of some of my disposable fiat that was in my bank accounts and attempting to transfer at various times caused me to lose some opportunities. Also, some lump sums of fiat did NOT come to me until after the price had gone back up.
So for example this week I had a lump sum of about $25k come in my direction. I can use about $20k of that to invest in BTC, or I could keep it in fiat or I could invest in something else. I choose to invest most of it in BTC b/c I believe that BTC prices are going to be going up some more in the near future.. maybe 1 week or could be later on in the year... either way, I am NOT expecting to get at the $20k that was invested into BTC until 1 or 2 years from now.. ... well, in BTC land, one or two years is an eternity, but anyhow, you get the point that my investment is longer-term rather than expecting an immediate turn-around of the investment.
June 10, 2014, 01:46:22 PM
its a selling bot on stamp, its the same pattern as it was on gox at the end.
u should have ur btc ready there to sell just in case.
u should have ur btc ready there to sell just in case.
what does that even mean? that they're going under? in that case, why would you want to sell your btc there and not be able to withdraw? makes no sense dude
June 10, 2014, 01:36:02 PM
its a selling bot on stamp, its the same pattern as it was on gox at the end.
u should have ur btc ready there to sell just in case.
u should have ur btc ready there to sell just in case.
Pics or bullish.
Seriously, got a graph to show?
June 10, 2014, 01:31:40 PM
its a selling bot on stamp, its the same pattern as it was on gox at the end.
u should have ur btc ready there to sell just in case.
u should have ur btc ready there to sell just in case.
June 10, 2014, 01:31:23 PM
Serious question, to those who are deeper into the matter: Is there any way bundled hashrate could be identified and punished, or maybe rather: non-centralized hashrate gets a "discount" at solving blocks?
I'm not talking about an easy fix to the ghash situation here, just wondering what is theoretically possible in limiting hashrate centralization.
I'm not talking about an easy fix to the ghash situation here, just wondering what is theoretically possible in limiting hashrate centralization.
You are right the key trick here is to identify hash that is under a single entities' control. To do so in a decentralized manner, we must create an incentive to mine coins to the same output address (once a single entities' coins go to the same output address, its easy to make an algorithm penalize an output address that is getting lots of coins by reducing the mining reward or increasing difficulty for only that address).
One way to do this would be to only allow coinbase transactions to spend to addresses with a long prefix (essentially a "vanity" address). For example, all coinbase addresses must begin with "1coinbaseTxn". So if you want to "look" like multiple entities, you must be continually devoting lots of processing power towards generating new coinbase capable addresses.
There are lots of problems with this idea. For example, it encourages centralization because it could take a long time for a small miner to generate a coinbase capable address.
Very interesting, thanks. I was thinking more along the lines of 'network comprised of uniquely identifiable entities, and how they interact'. As I understand it, there is essentially no way to identify the members of the network in a way that cannot be spoofed. I guess I'm wondering if there is a way to a) assign a immutable identifier to each miner and b) map how they interact, hoping that hashrate under a single entities control (or being in a pool) would act differently than isolated miners' hashrate.
June 10, 2014, 01:30:51 PM
Serious question, to those who are deeper into the matter: Is there any way bundled hashrate could be identified and punished, or maybe rather: non-centralized hashrate gets a "discount" at solving blocks?
I'm not talking about an easy fix to the ghash situation here, just wondering what is theoretically possible in limiting hashrate centralization.
I'm not talking about an easy fix to the ghash situation here, just wondering what is theoretically possible in limiting hashrate centralization.
The only fix I can think of off-hand that might be effective, and for which the "miscreant" would have no easy defeating work-around, is white-listing peers.
June 10, 2014, 01:29:44 PM
Placed probes right up to the tippy top of their customer's colons.
And 'deverified' existing customers and asked for ludicrous and invasive extra documentation including tax documents in certain cases.
And 'deverified' existing customers and asked for ludicrous and invasive extra documentation including tax documents in certain cases.
I was left untouched... Still verified and able to withdraw and deposit fiat and BTC.
Weird, had no clue that was happening.
June 10, 2014, 01:25:43 PM
Placed probes right up to the tippy top of their customer's colons.
And 'deverified' existing customers and asked for ludicrous and invasive extra documentation including tax documents in certain cases.
And 'deverified' existing customers and asked for ludicrous and invasive extra documentation including tax documents in certain cases.
June 10, 2014, 01:21:36 PM
what is with bearstamp? never seen such a big spread between stamp and bfx except in the middle of a massive pump.
Seems like people are willing to pay $15 extra per BTC to avoid Stamp's anal probe.
I think you are correct. Almost like a reverse Gox.
What did Bitstamp do wrong in the first place?
June 10, 2014, 01:13:25 PM
Serious question, to those who are deeper into the matter: Is there any way bundled hashrate could be identified and punished, or maybe rather: non-centralized hashrate gets a "discount" at solving blocks?
I'm not talking about an easy fix to the ghash situation here, just wondering what is theoretically possible in limiting hashrate centralization.
I'm not talking about an easy fix to the ghash situation here, just wondering what is theoretically possible in limiting hashrate centralization.
You are right the key trick here is to identify hash that is under a single entities' control. To do so in a decentralized manner, we must create an incentive to mine coins to the same output address (once a single entities' coins go to the same output address, its easy to make an algorithm penalize an output address that is getting lots of coins by reducing the mining reward or increasing difficulty for only that address).
One way to do this would be to only allow coinbase transactions to spend to addresses with a long prefix (essentially a "vanity" address). For example, all coinbase addresses must begin with "1coinbaseTxn". So if you want to "look" like multiple entities, you must be continually devoting lots of processing power towards generating new coinbase capable addresses.
There are lots of problems with this idea. For example, it encourages centralization because it could take a long time for a small miner to generate a coinbase capable address.
Jump to: