Todays news actually, funny that. If all Chinese exchanges are on the brink of closing as many in here believe, why are they being added to the foundation board?
Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 27845. (Read 26709821 times)
May 06, 2014, 09:35:26 AM
Todays news actually, funny that. If all Chinese exchanges are on the brink of closing as many in here believe, why are they being added to the foundation board?
May 06, 2014, 09:26:42 AM
Todays news actually, funny that. If all Chinese exchanges are on the brink of closing as many in here believe, why are they being added to the foundation board?
May 06, 2014, 09:13:20 AM
Wow another day above $400. The sun is rising on the United States of America and the blockchain is still as strong as ever!
I hear China banned Bitcoin
NA, Europe, India, and Antarctica plenty enough for $20K/BTC
I hear China banned Bitcoin
NA, Europe, India, and Antarctica plenty enough for $20K/BTC
May 06, 2014, 09:05:57 AM
Another day in the mid 400s range. I'm telling you we will be in 400-500 land for quite a while. Accept it.
for a long time sellers have been in control of this market.
because, bad news weekly.
price wants to gravitate higher, because increased adoption despite bad news, but so long as sellers are ready and willing to sell at these prices, price will stay here.
i see a slow and steady stream of coins changing hands , which will lead to an inevitable rise in price once sellers are done.
i see the rise in price as inevitable because the increased adoption / recognition of bitcoin on a global stage has already happened, once we are done milking the cheap coin offered by weak hands and profit takers, the market will have no choice but to obey supply and demand to its inevitable conclusion; 18,000$ / BTC
1) Once sellers are done? You do realize that at this moment bitcoin is still inflationary right?
2) Increased adoption? China has just stated that it does not want anything to do with bitcoin, as well as Russia, so global must mean the rest of the world, excluding the two largest countries on earth?
the global perception of what bitcoin means & its future implications , has changed, it matters not what laws sutren governments put on it.
if anything these laws are further proof of the fundamental shift in perception happening today.
May 06, 2014, 09:05:41 AM
The more and more fearful weeks are coming, non-stop, hahahahaha
Only 3 more weeks according to my best estimators. For the next 6 months BTC should outperform.In my day job, I construct systems which build predictive graphical models. The best model I have for predicting XBTUSD right now puts the next bottom somewhere between 15 May and 30 May. My best performing (F1) model of the broad US market (roughly, the Russell 2000) has a sequence of high mass concentrations at progressively lower price ranges in mid-June, early-August, and early-October. Since there is no lower mass concentration on longer time frames, when intregrating over price points, these models indicate that BTC will outperform the market until Winter, when their mass diffuses.
(Picking this up from yesterday)
To clarify, your models suggest that:
1) BTC will bottom out in the period you have suggested (shortly after the China deadline, as it happens)
2) The US stock market is due for a downturn later this year (pointing to an economic downturn a few months later?)
3) Therefore Bitcoin 'outperforming' in this context could mean no growth at all, while the stock markets dip
What are your models' track records?
May 06, 2014, 09:03:07 AM
Another day in the mid 400s range. I'm telling you we will be in 400-500 land for quite a while. Accept it.
for a long time sellers have been in control of this market.
because, bad news weekly.
price wants to gravitate higher, because increased adoption despite bad news, but so long as sellers are ready and willing to sell at these prices, price will stay here.
i see a slow and steady stream of coins changing hands , which will lead to an inevitable rise in price once sellers are done.
i see the rise in price as inevitable because the increased adoption / recognition of bitcoin on a global stage has already happened, once we are done milking the cheap coin offered by weak hands and profit takers, the market will have no choice but to obey supply and demand to its inevitable conclusion; 18,000$ / BTC
1) Once sellers are done? You do realize that at this moment bitcoin is still inflationary right?
2) Increased adoption? China has just stated that it does not want anything to do with bitcoin, as well as Russia, so global must mean the rest of the world, excluding the two largest countries on earth?
May 06, 2014, 09:00:59 AM
May 06, 2014, 09:00:02 AM
Another day in the mid 400s range. I'm telling you we will be in 400-500 land for quite a while. Accept it.
for a long time sellers have been in control of this market.
because, bad news weekly.
price wants to gravitate higher, because increased adoption despite bad news, but so long as sellers are ready and willing to sell at these prices, price will stay here.
i see a slow and steady stream of coins changing hands , which will lead to an inevitable rise in price once sellers are done.
i see the rise in price as inevitable because the increased adoption / recognition of bitcoin on a global stage has already happened, once we are done milking the cheap coin offered by weak hands and profit takers, the market will have no choice but to obey supply and demand to its inevitable conclusion; 18,000$ / BTC
May 06, 2014, 08:57:09 AM
Thats fine if you dont care that much but the fact is this is happening and the OP is out $83 because of it. The fact that you can do a trade size on the API smaller than on their website is troubling enough.
Okay, didn't realize there's a mismatch between order placement via website and API. That changes the situation for me somewhat, they should clearly have the same rules across all methods of placing orders.
May 06, 2014, 08:56:07 AM
Funny how I was reading about prospect theory for my msc thesis and I immediately had to think of the bitcoin fanatics.
May 06, 2014, 08:54:20 AM
BTC China, Huobi, Okcoin and two other exchanges are pulling out of the BTC Summit.
http://www.coindesk.com/five-chinese-exchange-ceos-pull-out-conference/
"CEOs of five major Chinese bitcoin exchanges have withdrawn from this weekend’s Global Bitcoin Summit in Beijing, after banks forced most of them to close accounts related to bitcoin activity."
http://www.coindesk.com/five-chinese-exchange-ceos-pull-out-conference/
"CEOs of five major Chinese bitcoin exchanges have withdrawn from this weekend’s Global Bitcoin Summit in Beijing, after banks forced most of them to close accounts related to bitcoin activity."
I saw that too. It seems pretty last minute and pretty bearish.
May 06, 2014, 08:51:48 AM
I can see how you think this is a matter of principle, but your solution is raising the minimum trade amount to 5 USD? I can see bot traders complaining about that...
Who matters more to Stamp, some bot traders who should know that they are likely to lose money using bots on Stamp due to this issue (it was also brought up that this is a reason people dont use bots on Stamp) and are also only making trades worth $1 or a customer moving on who reguarly trades amounts in the 20BTC area?
Look, from what I wrote it should be clear I really don't mind if they define some min. order size.
But my point was whether this is "fee fraud". And whether I'd consider Bitstamp fraudulent, and not a place where I'd want to keep my money if they continue as they do now. And the answer to that is: I just don't care that much.
If you want to know what I /really/ consider problematic, take a look at the Bitstamp service thread and the discussion about what they accept (or not) as a response to their KYC questionnaire. Link
Yeah I know, you will see comments from myself about it in the thread.
Thats fine if you dont care that much but the fact is this is happening and the OP is out $83 because of it. The fact that you can do a trade size on the API smaller than on their website is troubling enough.
Whether its fee fraud is questionable but when you click sell you are agreeing to sell x amount for x amounts of $ and with a fee of x. That is what you should be charged.
mmitech I'm glad that your experience with Stamp is grand, the fact that you know the CEO and employees isnt a reason to have confidence in your assertions though. Its not no matter what you do people will call you a scammer fraud etc its when what your doing directly causes people to lose out that they feel like that. Make it so its not the case and no one can say anything.
May 06, 2014, 08:51:39 AM
The BTC/GOLD trend line is finally broken!
May 06, 2014, 08:44:30 AM
Another day in the mid 400s range. I'm telling you we will be in 400-500 land for quite a while. Accept it.
for a long time sellers have been in control of this market.
because, bad news weekly.
price wants to gravitate higher, because increased adoption despite bad news, but so long as sellers are ready and willing to sell at these prices, price will stay here.
May 06, 2014, 08:39:58 AM
I can see how you think this is a matter of principle, but your solution is raising the minimum trade amount to 5 USD? I can see bot traders complaining about that...
Who matters more to Stamp, some bot traders who should know that they are likely to lose money using bots on Stamp due to this issue (it was also brought up that this is a reason people dont use bots on Stamp) and are also only making trades worth $1 or a customer moving on who reguarly trades amounts in the 20BTC area?
Look, from what I wrote it should be clear I really don't mind if they define some min. order size.
But my point was whether this is "fee fraud". And whether I'd consider Bitstamp fraudulent, and not a place where I'd want to keep my money if they continue as they do now. And the answer to that is: I just don't care that much.
If you want to know what I /really/ consider problematic, take a look at the Bitstamp service thread and the discussion about what they accept (or not) as a response to their KYC questionnaire. Link
you must learn that you cant satisfy all customers, no matter what you will do, there will be always someone shouting and yelling about his dissatisfaction and call you all names, scammer or a fraud or....
why do I advocate Bitstamp ? because they simply work for me, I get my deposits and withdrawals the same or next day and they answer all my tickets, beside, knowing the CEO and some of the employees I think they are far from the "fee fraud" description, in fact I want all businesses around Bitcoin to be as efficient as Bitstamp...
That was the point I was trying to make. Thanks for phrasing it a lot better than me :)
May 06, 2014, 08:37:28 AM
I can see how you think this is a matter of principle, but your solution is raising the minimum trade amount to 5 USD? I can see bot traders complaining about that...
Who matters more to Stamp, some bot traders who should know that they are likely to lose money using bots on Stamp due to this issue (it was also brought up that this is a reason people dont use bots on Stamp) and are also only making trades worth $1 or a customer moving on who reguarly trades amounts in the 20BTC area?
Look, from what I wrote it should be clear I really don't mind if they define some min. order size.
But my point was whether this is "fee fraud". And whether I'd consider Bitstamp fraudulent, and not a place where I'd want to keep my money if they continue as they do now. And the answer to that is: I just don't care that much.
If you want to know what I /really/ consider problematic, take a look at the Bitstamp service thread and the discussion about what they accept (or not) as a response to their KYC questionnaire. Link
you must learn that you cant satisfy all customers, no matter what you will do, there will be always someone shouting and yelling about his dissatisfaction and call you all names, scammer or a fraud or....
why do I advocate Bitstamp ? because they simply work for me, I get my deposits and withdrawals the same or next day and they answer all my tickets, beside, knowing the CEO and some of the employees I think they are far from the "fee fraud" description, in fact I want all businesses around Bitcoin to be as efficient as Bitstamp...
May 06, 2014, 08:36:47 AM
Another day in the mid 400s range. I'm telling you we will be in 400-500 land for quite a while. Accept it.
May 06, 2014, 08:33:37 AM
BTC China, Huobi, Okcoin and two other exchanges are pulling out of the BTC Summit.
http://www.coindesk.com/five-chinese-exchange-ceos-pull-out-conference/
"CEOs of five major Chinese bitcoin exchanges have withdrawn from this weekend’s Global Bitcoin Summit in Beijing, after banks forced most of them to close accounts related to bitcoin activity."
http://www.coindesk.com/five-chinese-exchange-ceos-pull-out-conference/
"CEOs of five major Chinese bitcoin exchanges have withdrawn from this weekend’s Global Bitcoin Summit in Beijing, after banks forced most of them to close accounts related to bitcoin activity."
May 06, 2014, 08:19:35 AM
I can see how you think this is a matter of principle, but your solution is raising the minimum trade amount to 5 USD? I can see bot traders complaining about that...
Who matters more to Stamp, some bot traders who should know that they are likely to lose money using bots on Stamp due to this issue (it was also brought up that this is a reason people dont use bots on Stamp) and are also only making trades worth $1 or a customer moving on who reguarly trades amounts in the 20BTC area?
Look, from what I wrote it should be clear I really don't mind if they define some min. order size.
But my point was whether this is "fee fraud". And whether I'd consider Bitstamp fraudulent, and not a place where I'd want to keep my money if they continue as they do now. And the answer to that is: I just don't care that much.
If you want to know what I /really/ consider problematic, take a look at the Bitstamp service thread and the discussion about what they accept (or not) as a response to their KYC questionnaire. Link
May 06, 2014, 08:15:47 AM
I can see how you think this is a matter of principle, but your solution is raising the minimum trade amount to 5 USD? I can see bot traders complaining about that...
Who matters more to Stamp, some bot traders who should know that they are likely to lose money using bots on Stamp due to this issue (it was also brought up that this is a reason people dont use bots on Stamp) and are also only making trades worth $1 or a customer moving on who reguarly trades amounts in the 20BTC area?
Jump to: