Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 27293. (Read 26610936 times)

We're about to find out if this 1,200 BTC wall is real on Stamps

Looks like Huobi is leading this rally?

ooops, the train is late
anyway - don't miss it!
 

Though I am fairly good with logic and understanding various concepts that are presented with by using mathematical models.  Sometimes I do get lost by some of the detailed and technical math b/c I have NOT received formal training in various higher level mathematical concepts or problem solving.

Nonetheless, I do appreciate some of the principles of Metcalfe's law to the extent that it appears to be describing increased  value and exponential growth that is based on networking and adoption increasing which will cause a considerable amount of growth based on the sheer fact that 300 nodes is more than 100 times more valuable than 3... but these measurements of value do NOT need to be exact in order to understand the concept that increased adoption of bitcoin is going to bring considerably greater increases in value to bitcoin for some time to come, so long as the adoption continues to increase.. then there is going to be various rippling effects caused by that and increased utility and more willingness of individuals to pay more for the utility of the expanding network.

Yup.  Somewhat of an anti-climax

If not for the good news about PayPal and eBay, this would be one of the most boring weeks in Bitcoin's history

Explanation

As I've also posted, Metcalfe's law isn't quite good...

Stamp needs a little push 

Don't get me wrong, I do appreciate the article, and that the article shares a perspective regarding bitcoin, and I do NOT really claim to understand all of the points of the article.

In that regard, other people may come to conclusions that differ from my perusing the article.

When I read claims in the article, such as, the Chinese BTC market does NOT affect the USD bitcoin market, I give less credibility to the article, and I feel less inclined to thoroughly read such articles in close detail.

Also, this particular article claims that bitcoin is NOT a safe haven for storing value, so in that regard, the article seems inadequately account for diversification of assets investing (which many more sophisticated investors are going to diversify their value storage to some extent, and consider probabilities of pay outs for various classes of investments). Bitcoin may be risky, but as a diversified asset, there seems to be considerable possibilities for storing value and for paying off.

The article does NOT really get into much of the dynamics of the affects of the political and the regulatory attempts and the difficulties and potential underlying hostilities that have existed with bitcoin b/c of the difficulties of governments and or other status quo institutions, such as banks, in controlling the peer to peer nature of bitcoin. In this regard, the article lacks discussion of the threats to the status quo regarding potential wealth redistribution that is posed by the existence of bitcoin (and other crypto currencies).

I find too much emphasis and attempt to emphasize mathematics to achieve validity of claims, when in fact the mathematics of the dynamics of bitcoin need to be taken with a grain of salt, given the other political and other human dynamics that are involved in markets that are NOT strictly predictable in mathematic terms....

NONETHELESS, I do appreciate some of the mathematical discussions that are involved with Metcalfe's law.. and Metcalfe's law predicts some of the exponential potential of bitcoin pricing and value and utility based on adoption and the networking effect causing exponential growth b/c of increased bitcoin adoption.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metcalfe%27s_law

I know several other participants in this thread are much more familiar than me about the significance of Metcalfe's law. 

Though the article makes some mentions of increased interest in bitcoin, the article does NOT really get into any kind of specific discussion of the impact of metcalfe's law or the networking effect on the dynamics of bitcoin.

Additionally, even though this particular article is published on 6/2/14, some of its graphs and claims seem to focus on the dynamics of the bitcoin market between September 2011 and February 2014, which causes me some hesitation about thoroughness of the claims, even though that period does cover most of bitcoin's life, so far.

I think it's a bit more founded than this.
I used to compute the "impulse" that brought us to 1163 by the mean of (1163,382) , but bitcoin works better with a log scale, thus the use of the geometric mean that magically leads to 666.

It just means to me that we are still under the influence of that pulse, and nothing really new happend in between.

Yeah right , moon in 2 days . Hearing that for over 2 months.
Still nothing. Just some faggots manipulation the price.
Nothing to see over here again.

Yeah more activity probably later today . Should get to atleast 680$ . When we go past 700$ then the party will begin.

Holy crap! BitSatan!
But that could be done anyhow, you're just searching for numbers that lead up to 666

Sorry to insist, but am I the only one to find this significant ?

Nevertheless, BTCChina is still keeping above 4000 CNY.

Your account opened on Dec 2013. Do you even know anything about bitcoin before that?

BTCChina was always the leading exchange in China, until they started to charge fee in mid-December 2013. Kristoufek's analysis is mainly about the pre-2014 price, so he should look at nothing but BTCChina

Explanation

OOooops, sorry I missed it ...

I've posted this yesterday. It's a great read.


So you think. You'll see the activity later today and tomorrow