What would convince bears to be bulls and what would convince bulls to be bears?
For bears: How long should bitcoin price rise and to what price that we can call this dip over?
For bulls: How low must bitcoin fall before someone agree that it will never reach more than 1000USD again until several years from now?
Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 27983. (Read 26710026 times)
April 27, 2014, 04:13:09 PM
April 27, 2014, 04:12:45 PM
EDIT: and their data has not been updated for 3 hours already. Another DDOS attack? Or the owner went to pay a visit to Danny Brewster?
This is a funny twist on Atlas Shrugged! Libertarians keep saying Bitcoin is like Atlas Shrugged. Perhaps Galt's Gulch (the place in the novel to where "captains of industry" disappear) is in actuality the place to where Bitcoin scammers/criminals disappear after absconding. Karpeles, pirateat40, DPR, they're all vacationing in Libertarian heaven, Galt's Gulch.
April 27, 2014, 04:12:09 PM
Yeah, but I prefer CCMF stuff here! 
Well price hasn't been cooperative for that lately and I'm kind of sick of reading people caring about what the hell China does.
please do i'm rally busy with the market atm...
April 27, 2014, 04:10:41 PM
Yeah, but I prefer CCMF stuff here!
Well price hasn't been cooperative for that lately and I'm kind of sick of reading people caring about what the hell China does.
Fear of what? Alien abduction?
April 27, 2014, 04:10:07 PM
Yeah, but I prefer CCMF stuff here!
Well price hasn't been cooperative for that lately and I'm kind of sick of reading people caring about what the hell China does.
April 27, 2014, 04:07:22 PM
Yeah, but I prefer CCMF stuff here!
Well price hasn't been cooperative for that lately and I'm kind of sick of reading people caring about what the hell China does.
April 27, 2014, 04:04:29 PM
Yeah, but I prefer CCMF stuff here!
April 27, 2014, 04:02:58 PM
Newton would have seemed to you a heretic [Jorge], for he presented a theory that was strongly at variance with established beliefs and customs. This is not unlike how you view bitcoin as heresy today.
The laws of physics we use today are a model. A model is a simplification of reality (which is simply too complex) which is close enough to reality to be useful while also being simple enough to be practical. Science is the process of optimizing this model by observation, experimentation and hypothesizing.
Precisely. They are models that we slowly optimize as we seek out truth. The most useful models influence our perception of the universe in all of its complexity that we see in front of us.
Reshaping our perception of reality is both exciting and frightening. Some embrace it and ask how they can use it to their advantage. Others cling tightly to their past beliefs, trolling internet forums as the pressure from their cognitive dissonance grows, for these people know deep inside that their worldview will never be the same.
Yes, but while I completely agree with you we must always consider the possibility that we are wrong. I think it's highly unlikely but the chance of that is certainly non-zero. If I end up being wrong it will surely hurt me financially.
Exactly. A scientist is never afraid to admit a wrong estimation. That's what true scientists do. Test and verify, then (if an error is found) reshape theory then verify... until the model is (almost) perfect.
PS: WTF are you people doing here? Isn't it the WoT?
Wall observer is kind of the shoutbox of bitcointalk
April 27, 2014, 04:01:52 PM
Newton would have seemed to you a heretic [Jorge], for he presented a theory that was strongly at variance with established beliefs and customs. This is not unlike how you view bitcoin as heresy today.
The laws of physics we use today are a model. A model is a simplification of reality (which is simply too complex) which is close enough to reality to be useful while also being simple enough to be practical. Science is the process of optimizing this model by observation, experimentation and hypothesizing.
Precisely. They are models that we slowly optimize as we seek out truth. The most useful models influence our perception of the universe in all of its complexity that we see in front of us.
Reshaping our perception of reality is both exciting and frightening. Some embrace it and ask how they can use it to their advantage. Others cling tightly to their past beliefs, trolling internet forums as the pressure from their cognitive dissonance grows, for these people know deep inside that their worldview will never be the same.
Yes, but while I completely agree with you we must always consider the possibility that we are wrong. I think it's highly unlikely but the chance of that is certainly non-zero. If I end up being wrong it will surely hurt me financially.
Exactly. A scientist is never afraid to admit a wrong estimation. That's what true scientists do. Test and verify, then (if an error is found) reshape theory then verify... until the model is (almost) perfect.
PS: WTF are you people doing here? Isn't it the WoT?
April 27, 2014, 04:00:55 PM
April 27, 2014, 03:33:22 PM
Newton would have seemed to you a heretic [Jorge], for he presented a theory that was strongly at variance with established beliefs and customs. This is not unlike how you view bitcoin as heresy today.
The laws of physics we use today are a model. A model is a simplification of reality (which is simply too complex) which is close enough to reality to be useful while also being simple enough to be practical. Science is the process of optimizing this model by observation, experimentation and hypothesizing.
Precisely. They are models that we slowly optimize as we seek out truth. The most useful models influence our perception of the universe in all of its complexity that we see in front of us.
Reshaping our perception of reality is both exciting and frightening. Some embrace it and ask how they can use it to their advantage. Others cling tightly to their past beliefs, trolling internet forums as the pressure from their cognitive dissonance grows, for these people know deep inside that their worldview will never be the same.
Yes, but while I completely agree with you we must always consider the possibility that we are wrong. I think it's highly unlikely but the chance of that is certainly non-zero. If I end up being wrong it will surely hurt me financially.
April 27, 2014, 03:32:29 PM
Omg look at that trend reversal on massive volume on Huobi CCMF.
April 27, 2014, 03:17:14 PM
Newton would have seemed to you a heretic [Jorge], for he presented a theory that was strongly at variance with established beliefs and customs. This is not unlike how you view bitcoin as heresy today.
The laws of physics we use today are a model. A model is a simplification of reality (which is simply too complex) which is close enough to reality to be useful while also being simple enough to be practical. Science is the process of optimizing this model by observation, experimentation and hypothesizing.
Precisely. They are models that we slowly optimize as we seek out truth. The most useful models influence our perception of the universe in all of its complexity that we see in front of us.
Reshaping our perception of reality is both exciting and frightening. Some embrace it and ask how they can use it to their advantage. Others cling tightly to their past beliefs, trolling internet forums as the pressure from their cognitive dissonance grows, for these people know deep inside that their worldview will never be the same.
April 27, 2014, 03:11:12 PM
This is how we make progress in theoretical physics. A good example is Newton's Second Law: f = m a. A lot people think that this is some discovery about a "fundamental law of the universe," but it is actually just a definition. The net force acting on an object is defined by humans to be equal to the product of the object's mass and acceleration. You could equally create another "law" that says f2 = m v, where v is velocity and f2 is "force 2.0." Both are correct by definition, but only one is useful. If you calculate the "force 2.0" of gravity, you'll get a complex mess; whereas the "force" of gravity is an elegant equation.
Well, I would take issue with that. Sure, mathematically one can choose any set of consistent concepts and true statementes as the starting point, and treat the remainder as derived.However, that is not how f = ma developed historically. Acceleration of course is defined as the second derivative of position with respect to time, and Galileo, before Newton, was one who contributed to the understanding of uniformly accelerated motion. Force however can be "felt" and measured independently of any motion (e.g. with a dynamometer), and well before f = ma there was allready a large consistent quantitative theory of forces without motion, that included weight ("two identical objects have twice the weight of one"), levers, pulleys, and inclined planes, buoyancy and more. So when Newton stated f = ma, he indeed discovered a law of nature.
Jorge, you'll need to take it up with Richard Feynman because I borrowed the example from him (from Feynman Lectures on Physics; however, he called it a "gorce" rather than "force 2.0").
You interpretation of this history of physics and calculus shows that you've never questioned how our perception of reality is shaped by those among us with the courage to pursue truth.
What is a dynamometer? A simple way to construct one is to use a spring and mark equally-spaced lines to indicate how far the spring has stretched. You can then place a "mass" on the end of the spring and measure the spring's stretch by counting lines. You then say that "force is the change in the number of lines," but by doing this you are implicitly assuming that Hooke's law holds (that f = k x). All of physics is a bunch of definitions and equations piled up on top of each other that are self-consistent and that explain what we see in the natural world. They are human constructions.
Satoshi Nakamoto once said that "humans are pattern-seeking, story-telling animals." Newton saw patterns and he made up a convincing story to explain it. That story proved to be so useful and so powerful that it became entrenched in our perception of reality, and now generations of physicists have built on top of it. But it is just a story that explains what we see in nature. It is not nature itself.
When Newton wrote "Principia," he planted the seeds that would change mankind's perception of reality over the next several hundred years. When Satoshi wrote "Bitcoin: a peer-to-peer electronic cash system," I would argue that he did the same thing.
I think if you were alive in the days of Newton, you would have been a bishop of the Catholic Church. I believe you would have claimed that calculus was "pointless" and because of your mental obstinance, you wouldn't have even understood what it was that Newton meant by "acceleration is the second derivative of position." But you are also smart, and you would have realized that Newton was able to accurately explain the motion of the heavens, diligently recorded by Nicolaus Copernicus 200 years early. This would have frightened you, Jorge. You would have written about the evils that would come from physics and that no man can understand the complexity of God's creation.
Newton would have seemed to you a heretic, for he presented a theory that was strongly at variance with established beliefs and customs. This is not unlike how you view bitcoin as heresy today.
i like your comparison. but would a catholic bishop really take the effort to dig deep into correspondence of/with the great scholars of that time ? i guess a bishop would rather pay another not-that-great scholar to get this done and report to him...
April 27, 2014, 03:03:13 PM
This is how we make progress in theoretical physics. A good example is Newton's Second Law: f = m a. A lot people think that this is some discovery about a "fundamental law of the universe," but it is actually just a definition. The net force acting on an object is defined by humans to be equal to the product of the object's mass and acceleration. You could equally create another "law" that says f2 = m v, where v is velocity and f2 is "force 2.0." Both are correct by definition, but only one is useful. If you calculate the "force 2.0" of gravity, you'll get a complex mess; whereas the "force" of gravity is an elegant equation.
Well, I would take issue with that. Sure, mathematically one can choose any set of consistent concepts and true statementes as the starting point, and treat the remainder as derived.However, that is not how f = ma developed historically. Acceleration of course is defined as the second derivative of position with respect to time, and Galileo, before Newton, was one who contributed to the understanding of uniformly accelerated motion. Force however can be "felt" and measured independently of any motion (e.g. with a dynamometer), and well before f = ma there was allready a large consistent quantitative theory of forces without motion, that included weight ("two identical objects have twice the weight of one"), levers, pulleys, and inclined planes, buoyancy and more. So when Newton stated f = ma, he indeed discovered a law of nature.
Jorge, you'll need to take it up with Richard Feynman because I borrowed the example from him (from Feynman Lectures on Physics; however, he called it a "gorce" rather than "force 2.0").
You interpretation of this history of physics and calculus shows that you've never questioned how our perception of reality is shaped by those among us with the courage to pursue truth.
What is a dynamometer? A simple way to construct one is to use a spring and mark equally-spaced lines to indicate how far the string has stretched. You can then place a "mass" on the end of the spring and measure the spring's stretch by counting lines. You then say that "force is the change in the number of lines," but by doing this you are implicitly assuming that Hooke's law holds (that f = k x). All of physics is a bunch of definitions and equations piled up on top of each other that are self-consistent and that explain what we see in the natural world. They are human constructions.
Satoshi Nakamoto once said that "humans are pattern-seeking, story-telling animals." Newton saw patterns and he made up a convincing story to explain it. That story proved to be so useful and so powerful that it became entrenched in our perception of reality, and now generations of physicists have built on top of it. But it is just a story that explains what we see in nature. It is not nature itself.
When Newton wrote "Principia," he planted the seeds that would change mankind's perception of reality over the next several hundred years. When Satoshi wrote "Bitcoin: a peer-to-peer electronic cash system," I would argue that he did the same thing.
I think if you were alive in the days of Newton, you would have been a bishop of the Catholic Church. I believe you would have claimed that calculus was "pointless" and because of your mental obstinance, you wouldn't have even understood what it was that Newton meant by "acceleration is the second derivative of position." But you are also smart, and you would have realized that Newton was able to accurately explain the motion of the heavens, diligently recorded by Nicolaus Copernicus 200 years early. This would have frightened you, Jorge. You would have written about the evils that would come from physics and that no man can understand the complexity of God's creation.
Newton would have seemed to you a heretic, for he presented a theory that was strongly at variance with established beliefs and customs. This is not unlike how you view bitcoin as heresy today.
The laws of physics we use today are a model. A model is a simplification of reality (which is simply too complex) which is close enough to reality to be useful while also being simple enough to be practical. Science is the process of optimizing this model by observation, experimentation and hypothesizing.
April 27, 2014, 03:00:56 PM
April 27, 2014, 02:57:53 PM
I just sold all my shorts.
Waiting to see what market does here.
This last Houbi sell off seemed to be profit taking from weekend, and hedging against bad news tomorrow.
If bad news doesn't come tomorrow, I think people will be suckered in to believing this was a double bottom and in a day or so, I'll be able to short again.
Waiting to see what market does here.
This last Houbi sell off seemed to be profit taking from weekend, and hedging against bad news tomorrow.
If bad news doesn't come tomorrow, I think people will be suckered in to believing this was a double bottom and in a day or so, I'll be able to short again.
April 27, 2014, 02:55:24 PM
This is how we make progress in theoretical physics. A good example is Newton's Second Law: f = m a. A lot people think that this is some discovery about a "fundamental law of the universe," but it is actually just a definition. The net force acting on an object is defined by humans to be equal to the product of the object's mass and acceleration. You could equally create another "law" that says f2 = m v, where v is velocity and f2 is "force 2.0." Both are correct by definition, but only one is useful. If you calculate the "force 2.0" of gravity, you'll get a complex mess; whereas the "force" of gravity is an elegant equation.
Well, I would take issue with that. Sure, mathematically one can choose any set of consistent concepts and true statementes as the starting point, and treat the remainder as derived.However, that is not how f = ma developed historically. Acceleration of course is defined as the second derivative of position with respect to time, and Galileo, before Newton, was one who contributed to the understanding of uniformly accelerated motion. Force however can be "felt" and measured independently of any motion (e.g. with a dynamometer), and well before f = ma there was allready a large consistent quantitative theory of forces without motion, that included weight ("two identical objects have twice the weight of one"), levers, pulleys, and inclined planes, buoyancy and more. So when Newton stated f = ma, he indeed discovered a law of nature.
Jorge, you'll need to take it up with Richard Feynman because I borrowed the example from him (from Feynman Lectures on Physics; however, he called it a "gorce" rather than "force 2.0").
You interpretation of this history of physics and calculus shows that you've never questioned how our perception of reality is shaped by those among us with the courage to pursue truth.
What is a dynamometer? A simple way to construct one is to use a spring and mark equally-spaced lines to indicate how far the spring has stretched. You can then place a "mass" on the end of the spring and measure the spring's stretch by counting lines. You then say that "force is the change in the number of lines," but by doing this you are implicitly assuming that Hooke's law holds (that f = k x). All of physics is a bunch of definitions and equations piled up on top of each other that are self-consistent and that explain what we see in the natural world. They are human constructions.
Satoshi Nakamoto once said that "humans are pattern-seeking, story-telling animals." Newton saw patterns and he made up a convincing story to explain it. That story proved to be so useful and so powerful that it became entrenched in our perception of reality, and now generations of physicists have built on top of it. But it is just a story that explains what we see in nature. It is not nature itself.
When Newton wrote "Principia," he planted the seeds that would change mankind's perception of reality over the next several hundred years. When Satoshi wrote "Bitcoin: a peer-to-peer electronic cash system," I would argue that he did the same thing.
I think if you were alive in the days of Newton, you would have been a bishop of the Catholic Church. I believe you would have claimed that calculus was "pointless" and because of your mental obstinance, you wouldn't have even understood what it was that Newton meant by "acceleration is the second derivative of position." But you are also smart, and you would have realized that Newton was able to accurately explain the motion of the heavens, diligently recorded by Nicolaus Copernicus 200 years early. This would have frightened you, Jorge. You would have written about the evils that would come from physics and that no man can understand the complexity of God's creation.
Newton would have seemed to you a heretic, for he presented a theory that was strongly at variance with established beliefs and customs. This is not unlike how you view bitcoin as heresy today.
April 27, 2014, 02:52:52 PM
this must best the longest bear market in bitcoin history.
It will be something to tell your grandchildren about when you want them to stop being ungrateful shits.
No it isn't. After the peaks to $32 in the summer of 2011 it took until Feb 2013 (1.5 years later) to pass $32 again. If we haven't passed 1163 next year it'll be about the same time.
Anyway, in 2011 it was 5 months and 8 days long, June 8th to November 18th. We gotta go lower than $340 after May the 8th to surpass that.
April 27, 2014, 02:52:38 PM
Reddit thread with some well-written English comments by a OKCoin rep:
http://www.reddit.com/r/BitcoinMarkets/comments/243j3p/how_are_huobi_okcoin_deposit_funding_currently/
It's a good explanation of the recharge code system. The only thing I don't understand is how they will be able to receive money from the recharge code sellers if all the banks stop working with them. They could work with cash, but that seems unlikely.
http://www.reddit.com/r/BitcoinMarkets/comments/243j3p/how_are_huobi_okcoin_deposit_funding_currently/
It's a good explanation of the recharge code system. The only thing I don't understand is how they will be able to receive money from the recharge code sellers if all the banks stop working with them. They could work with cash, but that seems unlikely.
Jump to: