Explanation
Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 27895. (Read 26634305 times)
May 01, 2014, 12:00:50 PM
May 01, 2014, 11:59:34 AM
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/24fyjj/lmax_exchange_digital_currencies_are_here_to_stay/
Apologies if already posted.
Apologies if already posted.
Is it large?
"Exchange spruiks new market shock"
May 01, 2014, 11:58:39 AM
Interesting how closely the price of Bitcoin mimics the Wall Observer survey results.
May 01, 2014, 11:58:28 AM
We're reaching game!
CCMF? 
May 01, 2014, 11:55:39 AM
We're reaching game!
May 01, 2014, 11:54:53 AM
As long as BTC is concentrated in the hands of people who have a negative fiat cash flow outside of BTC appreciation, selling pressure will continue.
But it isn't. Almost no one holding BTC is unable to accumulate more.
How do you know that? I for one am flat broke at present
May 01, 2014, 11:54:09 AM
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/24fyjj/lmax_exchange_digital_currencies_are_here_to_stay/
Apologies if already posted.
Apologies if already posted.
Is it large?
May 01, 2014, 11:51:58 AM
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/24fyjj/lmax_exchange_digital_currencies_are_here_to_stay/
Apologies if already posted.
Apologies if already posted.
May 01, 2014, 11:43:52 AM
This guy is really loading up on coins without moving the price... makes me very optimistic.
Optimistic that we won't run out of sellers?
The net purchase of the last 3-4 days has not overcome the divestment of a week ago.
So if the buyer is the dumper from last week, he has managed to buy the dumped coins back more cheaply.
Basic accumulation/distribution metrics at play, c.f. William O'Neil.
May 01, 2014, 11:43:28 AM
May 01, 2014, 11:43:13 AM
weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.
May 01, 2014, 11:41:01 AM
Ah. I remember that monster. The best time to use it is in the middle of the night when there aren't many cars!
I never got near it. I did, however, live in Basingstoke for a while, otherwise known as "Roundabout City". Unfortunately, I didn't have a motorcycle at the time.
May 01, 2014, 11:38:38 AM
460 resistance destined to become support?
I think so!
I think so!
I'd like to see one more drop in the 410-425 range.
May 01, 2014, 11:36:39 AM
460 resistance destined to become support?
I think so!
I think so!
May 01, 2014, 11:35:00 AM
You do realize that nothing needs to be certain, only "beyond a reasonable doubt" to get a conviction, right? If someone goes on a website designed to distribute something, then purchases that something after seeing an ad, it's pretty reasonable to think that they intended to buy that something regardless of which ad they read.
To say that it is an unreasonable assumption would surely be independent thought, but independent does not mean correct.
To say that it is an unreasonable assumption would surely be independent thought, but independent does not mean correct.
"correct" according to you? It's reasonable to doubt that a person is just as likely to commit a crime when he sees an ad encouraging him to commit a crime as when he doesn't. The ad makes him more likely to buy, as all ads do. That's why we have ads. If ads didn't work, Madison Avenue would be just another street. The ad made him more likely to buy and we don't know by how much, but if it's not reasonable to say that it could have made the difference between deciding to buy and not deciding to buy, then it would also be unreasonable for anyone but cops to place ads in the first place. Since other people do place ads, reasonable doubt should be a given.
Nothing needs to be certain, but the prosecutor's case isn't only that that ad didn't convince him to buy. The prosecution has to claim that the ad COULDN'T convince him to buy in order to meet the threshold of reasonable doubt. That's a tough sell. You'd need twelve jurors who never placed or responded to an ad.
It's quite contrarian to argue that someone visiting a site designed to distribute something, then buying that something, was not intending to buy regardless of that one particular ad out of potentially 100's. I notice my edit wasn't included in your quote, so allow me to put it up again: Let's try this with something legal that isn't bitcoin to see if it sticks. I want to buy the most beautiful bow for my daughters birthday present. I go on etsy or some shit and start looking up bows. I see this one ad with this terrific bow, it's so beautiful and perfect! So I buy it. Wouldn't it be reasonable to say if I didn't see that ad, I would not have simply given up on buying bows, but rather would have bought a different bow?
No, it's not that simple. It's reasonable that you might have bought her something else. You might have bought her another bow, but you might have bought her something else. Your case is reasonable, but it's not beyond a reasonable doubt. You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the burden of proof that applies here.
Yeah it's a bad analogy on my part because the place would have to be selling specifically bows and only bows for it to work.
On a personal level, I agree totally with the sentiment. In addition, I think busting small time buyers who only plan to consume is a huge waste of money and resources spent catching them, putting them on trial, and imprisoning them. Why not legalize it, save a ton of money when we stop the "war on drugs," and take away some power from the criminal organizations that are currently distributing it?
What I am saying is, according to what I have read and how I interpret it (not being a lawyer or an officer of the law), these arguments you are presenting would be quite suspect in court.
May 01, 2014, 11:34:03 AM
By the way is this the longest thread ever created?
on the entire internet
yes.
May 01, 2014, 11:32:03 AM
By the way is this the longest thread ever created?
May 01, 2014, 11:19:37 AM
One of the biggest questions is whether you tried to resist the crime, so the fact that you "couldn't resist" necessarily makes it not entrapment.
Yeah, I tried to resist, I was mentally torn for hours before actually buying, I just couldn't resist; prove to me that I wasn't. /sarcasmYou could always ask everyone if they are the FBI before buying coins from them, that should keep you in the clear
Incorrect. The police can flat-out lie to you and still have it not be considered entrapment. It's when they harass you over and over until you eventually cave that is considered entrapment, or when they threaten you in some way to the point where it would be a reasonable assumption that you committed the crime out of fear.
In the US, in other countries it will be easier to prove entrapment
To all the bears : Bitcoin is only valued 5billions atm; it is ridiculously cheap
I am not familiar with commodities and what they should be worth.
What market cap is bitcoin worth (to you)? (50 bn? 500bn?)
May 01, 2014, 11:17:10 AM
One of the biggest questions is whether you tried to resist the crime, so the fact that you "couldn't resist" necessarily makes it not entrapment.
Yeah, I tried to resist, I was mentally torn for hours before actually buying, I just couldn't resist; prove to me that I wasn't. /sarcasmYou could always ask everyone if they are the FBI before buying coins from them, that should keep you in the clear
Incorrect. The police can flat-out lie to you and still have it not be considered entrapment. It's when they harass you over and over until you eventually cave that is considered entrapment, or when they threaten you in some way to the point where it would be a reasonable assumption that you committed the crime out of fear.
In the US, in other countries it will be easier to prove entrapment
To all the bears : Bitcoin is only valued 5billions atm; it is ridiculously cheap
May 01, 2014, 11:17:01 AM
You do realize that nothing needs to be certain, only "beyond a reasonable doubt" to get a conviction, right? If someone goes on a website designed to distribute something, then purchases that something after seeing an ad, it's pretty reasonable to think that they intended to buy that something regardless of which ad they read.
To say that it is an unreasonable assumption would surely be independent thought, but independent does not mean correct.
To say that it is an unreasonable assumption would surely be independent thought, but independent does not mean correct.
"correct" according to you? It's reasonable to doubt that a person is just as likely to commit a crime when he sees an ad encouraging him to commit a crime as when he doesn't. The ad makes him more likely to buy, as all ads do. That's why we have ads. If ads didn't work, Madison Avenue would be just another street. The ad made him more likely to buy and we don't know by how much, but if it's not reasonable to say that it could have made the difference between deciding to buy and not deciding to buy, then it would also be unreasonable for anyone but cops to place ads in the first place. Since other people do place ads, reasonable doubt should be a given.
Nothing needs to be certain, but the prosecutor's case isn't only that that ad didn't convince him to buy. The prosecution has to claim that the ad COULDN'T convince him to buy in order to meet the threshold of reasonable doubt. That's a tough sell. You'd need twelve jurors who never placed or responded to an ad.
It's quite contrarian to argue that someone visiting a site designed to distribute something, then buying that something, was not intending to buy regardless of that one particular ad out of potentially 100's. I notice my edit wasn't included in your quote, so allow me to put it up again: Let's try this with something legal that isn't bitcoin to see if it sticks. I want to buy the most beautiful bow for my daughters birthday present. I go on etsy or some shit and start looking up bows. I see this one ad with this terrific bow, it's so beautiful and perfect! So I buy it. Wouldn't it be reasonable to say if I didn't see that ad, I would not have simply given up on buying bows, but rather would have bought a different bow?
No, it's not that simple. It's reasonable that you might have bought her something else. You might have bought her another bow, but you might have bought her something else. Your case is reasonable, but it's not beyond a reasonable doubt. You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the burden of proof that applies here.
Jump to: