Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 27662. (Read 26712671 times)

If someone waited through 800, then 700, then 600, then 500.  Why would they buy at 400?  The ones who were eager to buy, probably did at the higher prices.  Many people on here stated to be patient and not buy in a downtrend unless they were willing to take the potential loss (if it goes down even more).

Buying at an uptrend at 50-100 extra per btc is what some feel is ok (if they believe the reversal has happened).

Yup. I'm waiting for a third daily candle to close above the 5 month downward trend line, although I'm almost 100% sure it will close above the trend line. Will start my calculated buying process on the 4th daily.

I'm only waiting because I told myself I would, and breaking your trading plan is almost always a bad decision.

It's not odd at all. When you have months of bear market and tricky China situation, your best bet is to wait signs of reversal to buy in (if you're going for long term buys).

In last bubble I went full in only at 250+, never gave a flying one about not buying earlier when we hit the top. Of course I'd love if I did it earlier but gains were good enough to not lose any sleep about it.

I'm sure there are many others (like me) waiting for more of a confirmation before fully unleashing all our fiat

It's so odd how many of you waited for the price to reach 500 or so to buy back in.

No. Stop hoping for cheap coins. You've had months and months. It's time to move on.

+1

Stop talking sense though, the fundamentals of Bitcoin and why people have, want and use it is clearly too much to grasp.

All events are confounded

The early 2013 rally followed block reward halve and the release the AVALON, the first ASIC

The late 2013 rally started 10 days after the death of SilkRoad

So I could say both rallies were triggered by improvement in fundamentals, not speculation

Explanation

I'd love to see us drop one more time to 500 so I can get some last second buy-ins.

So do most people with an iota of common sense. Jorges argument is  that it was the reason for the last rally due to the price dropping after the pboc news. He ignores the fact that surely it should have dropped to the same levels if that was the sole reason. He ignores the fact that Bitcoin was traded in China way before Nov 13. He ignores the amount of infrastructure, adoption and business being built because he cannot fathom that something can happen that he doesn't understand. He ignores that the Chinese doesn't or didn't own 90% despite touting it around as fact. He ignores the fact that the Chinese exchanges had 0% fees which explain the much higher volume, he ignores you could trade 100BTC volume in a day even with one coin. He also says that we need to keep getting bigger and bigger markets. Its just not true, the whole worlds the market and it just so happened that a small section of that market tried to put the brakes on.

In early 2013 Bobby Lee joined tiny Shanghai-based BTC-China: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BTC_China  With experience from other large companies, he apparently improved their marketing and operations.  That seems to have coincided with the start of the early 2013 rally.

Shanghai is a special economic zone of China; I don't know whether that was a limiting factor for further expansion of BTC-China in the rest of the coutry.  In any case, Huobi and OKCoin later opened in Beijing, offering zero-fee trading.  Again, the time of their opening (second half of 2013) seems to coincide with the start of the October-November rally, whose first signs are detectable in late September.  (Looking at the daily volumes, it seems that they stole most of BTC-China's customers.)  

A couple of months ago, China had about 95% of the worlds trade volume.  People have claimed that most of their volume was fake, but I have not seen any sign of that.  (On the other hand, a large fraction of the volume in Western exchanges must be merely arbitrage with China.)  And, even if half of the Chinese volume was fake, the other half would still  be 90% of the world's total.

As I just posted, until last month the Chinese traders were obviously setting the price, and the rest of the world was just following the,.  (That may still be the case now, not clear yet.)

This is not blind extrapolation, but frequentist statistics applied to a structural model.  There is a difference.   By the first method, if it was dry yesterday and raining today, tomorrow would be an apocalyptic flood.  By the second method, tomorrow might be dry again, but colder.  Many improvements on the model I quoted are feasible, and may narrow the range substantially.  Only time and labor will tell.  (Also, I might observe that the estimate was for a decline in euro purchasing power, which is counter-trend, and hence is very very obviously not a linear extrapolation.)

In general it is not wise to argue "I am ignorant, therefore everything is unknowable".  I understand that it can be a persuasive and comforting argument, to the naive.  But rest assured that someone who is not a cognitive nihilist will be your master in that case.

/\
BTC PUMPING HARD TO 1000!!!WEEEEEEEEEEE1337+

chinese officials finally got their butterflylabs orders delivered so now they lift the ban lol ;-)

I think it's this article - http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/05/21/marc-andreessen-in-20-years-well-talk-about-bitcoin-like-we-talk-about-the-internet-today/

bitcoin dragon clawing north!!! muuhahahahha

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/05/21/marc-andreessen-in-20-years-well-talk-about-bitcoin-like-we-talk-about-the-internet-today/
I think this is the link he is referring to (not sure though)

"The investor and Web browser pioneer Marc Andreessen thinks we'll all look back in 20 years and conclude that Bitcoin was as influential a platform for innovation as the Internet itself was. He says that tech companies think their meetings with President Obama on privacy are a waste of time. And he calls net neutrality a "lose-lose." In a wide-ranging interview with The Washington Post this week, Andreessen painted a picture of a future that's distributed, messy and fraught with tension. Here's an edited transcript of our conversation."

Then how do you explain that the price crashed after the Chinese government decree of Dec/14, that it has reacted (amost?) exclusively to events and rumors that were relevant only to the Chinese market, and has not reacted to events that were relevant only to the Western market?

 

Link?