TLDR; A large percentage of a significantly large group of bitcoin users would sell in a short timeframe.
So these users immediately knew the news was fake fud and didn't sell?
Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 28724. (Read 26657016 times)
March 27, 2014, 12:34:33 AM
So these users immediately knew the news was fake fud and didn't sell?
March 27, 2014, 12:28:36 AM
Holy crap. Has anyone seen "Atlas Shrugged?" Rearden Metal = Bitcoin
Rearden refused to sell out to gov't buyout offer, subjected to media smear campaign/FUD...
Rearden refused to sell out to gov't buyout offer, subjected to media smear campaign/FUD...
March 27, 2014, 12:26:55 AM
Really? Let's see, more or less likely to sell them if they are given 3 weeks notice to remove them from exchanges... more, or less? likely? It is a difficult one, I know.
Are you saying that it is obvious they would remove coins from the exchanges to bitcoin wallets, or obvious that they would sell every coin in their possession and remove yuan?Is it also obvious to you how many coins are actually held by the Chinese?
None of us know exactly how much BTC is Chinese owned but I think we can be fairly confident that it is a not-insignificant amount.
TLDR; A large percentage of a significantly large group of bitcoin users would sell in a short timeframe.
March 27, 2014, 12:25:15 AM
I don't think he was asserting rules or trends, simply saying that at present BTC is not being used in China in the way it is in the US or some places in Europe.
He said
Anyway, the bottom line (IMHO) is the "Party" is going to keep kicking BTC until it is either dead or they own as many as to control it.
This is completely not in evidence. It is justified only by a hoax. That's very weak ground to stand upon.
March 27, 2014, 12:22:03 AM
I'm catching up here. Is this what happened?
We were going up, someone spread some fake info, the sheep panic sold, info turns out to be fake, price stays down. Correct?
Another perspective:We were going up, someone spread some fake info, the sheep panic sold, info turns out to be fake, price stays down. Correct?
We we're going down, hit the minor 540 support into a dead cat bounce, then some sheep started panic buying because of all the latest 'hot news'. Now that the hype is over, we can resume the downtrend.
I wasn't here too see what happened. I guess the answer is simple. Did the selling start when that China "news" came out?
Amazing how there is so much good news and it does nothing to the price while any person can create a fake tweet or whatever to instantly make the price crash.
March 27, 2014, 12:18:36 AM
I'm catching up here. Is this what happened?
We were going up, someone spread some fake info, the sheep panic sold, info turns out to be fake, price stays down. Correct?
Another perspective:We were going up, someone spread some fake info, the sheep panic sold, info turns out to be fake, price stays down. Correct?
We we're going down, hit the minor 540 support into a dead cat bounce, then some sheep started panic buying because of all the latest 'hot news'. Now that the hype is over, we can resume the downtrend.
I wasn't here too see what happened. I guess the answer is simple. Did the selling start when that China "news" came out?
Amazing how there is so much good news and it does nothing to the price while any person can create a fake tweet or whatever to instantly make the price crash.
Bitstamp was trending down after a failed upward breakout. Couple walls totalling about 1.5kBTC popped up before the China news. Then those walls moved down.
That was about it.
March 27, 2014, 12:16:54 AM
I'm catching up here. Is this what happened?
We were going up, someone spread some fake info, the sheep panic sold, info turns out to be fake, price stays down. Correct?
Another perspective:We were going up, someone spread some fake info, the sheep panic sold, info turns out to be fake, price stays down. Correct?
We we're going down, hit the minor 540 support into a dead cat bounce, then some sheep started panic buying because of all the latest 'hot news'. Now that the hype is over, we can resume the downtrend.
I wasn't here too see what happened. I guess the answer is simple. Did the selling start when that China "news" came out?
Amazing how there is so much good news and it does nothing to the price while any person can create a fake tweet or whatever to instantly make the price crash.
March 27, 2014, 12:15:28 AM
Im cautiously optimistic.. but all these failed upwards breakouts are becoming hard to bear.
Ask and bid sum seems to be locked on 12m 20k last few days.
Ask and bid sum seems to be locked on 12m 20k last few days.
March 27, 2014, 12:08:34 AM
I'm catching up here. Is this what happened?
We were going up, someone spread some fake info, the sheep panic sold, info turns out to be fake, price stays down. Correct?
Another perspective:We were going up, someone spread some fake info, the sheep panic sold, info turns out to be fake, price stays down. Correct?
We we're going down, hit the minor 540 support into a dead cat bounce, then some sheep started panic buying because of all the latest 'hot news'. Now that the hype is over, we can resume the downtrend.
March 27, 2014, 12:04:57 AM
I'm catching up here. Is this what happened?
We were going up, someone spread some fake info, the sheep panic sold, info turns out to be fake, price stays down. Correct?
We were going up, someone spread some fake info, the sheep panic sold, info turns out to be fake, price stays down. Correct?
March 26, 2014, 11:52:39 PM
I would like to explain the effects of good news vs bad news on the price of bitcoin (how it may convince people to buy or sell or hold):
I will refer to Joseph T. Klapper, who in 1960 wrote of the limited effects model of the media: the media do not have predictable effects. The effects of the media are small and unpredictable. The reception of a message depends on the source (credibility) and topic (preexisting opinion) of a message. The role of the media is to reinforce existing opinions. Confirmation bias. The media are more likely to reinforce opinions than to change them. Political campaigns and ad campaigns will typically find their way to those who are already among the converted.
Think about this carefully when interpreting the effects of news, good or bad.
It's also important to note that although belief in the limited effects theory later declined, to a perspective that the media did have a strong effect, but more nuanced and subtle and difficult to gauge, the general rules about the effects of media on the public still hold true. We consider ourselves opinion leaders, and this being a bull forum, might influence our decisions more than we might care to admit.
“The effort to state an absolute fact is simply an attempt to achieve what is humanly impossible.” “All I can do is give you my interpretation of the facts.” - Ivy Lee
I will refer to Joseph T. Klapper, who in 1960 wrote of the limited effects model of the media: the media do not have predictable effects. The effects of the media are small and unpredictable. The reception of a message depends on the source (credibility) and topic (preexisting opinion) of a message. The role of the media is to reinforce existing opinions. Confirmation bias. The media are more likely to reinforce opinions than to change them. Political campaigns and ad campaigns will typically find their way to those who are already among the converted.
Think about this carefully when interpreting the effects of news, good or bad.
It's also important to note that although belief in the limited effects theory later declined, to a perspective that the media did have a strong effect, but more nuanced and subtle and difficult to gauge, the general rules about the effects of media on the public still hold true. We consider ourselves opinion leaders, and this being a bull forum, might influence our decisions more than we might care to admit.
“The effort to state an absolute fact is simply an attempt to achieve what is humanly impossible.” “All I can do is give you my interpretation of the facts.” - Ivy Lee
If I understand your point, you're saying that this China news only had any effect on the market because mass sentiment is that Bitcoin is vulnerable and this news served to confirm that sentiment?
While that may be true in many cases, this one would have meant a mass sell off of a very large percentage of international exchange funds. In light of that fact, the drop was actually pretty minor and insignificant.
Edit: assuming the drop is over since the news has been debunked.
Sure. I probably should have mentioned the role of the id as well though. We are irrational creatures, and are affected more by emotion than rational information, regardless of what we'd like to believe.
This irrationality is also the main reason, if I can use that word, why I am HODLING.
I must admit there is a lot of passion and belief in holding BTC long term but you rationalise it not to stop being true to your passion
Most successful human traders and all trading posts are mainly taking rational decisions though
March 26, 2014, 11:49:04 PM
Really? Let's see, more or less likely to sell them if they are given 3 weeks notice to remove them from exchanges... more, or less? likely? It is a difficult one, I know.
Are you saying that it is obvious they would remove coins from the exchanges to bitcoin wallets, or obvious that they would sell every coin in their possession and remove yuan?
Is it also obvious to you how many coins are actually held by the Chinese?
March 26, 2014, 11:40:19 PM
I would like to explain the effects of good news vs bad news on the price of bitcoin (how it may convince people to buy or sell or hold):
I will refer to Joseph T. Klapper, who in 1960 wrote of the limited effects model of the media: the media do not have predictable effects. The effects of the media are small and unpredictable. The reception of a message depends on the source (credibility) and topic (preexisting opinion) of a message. The role of the media is to reinforce existing opinions. Confirmation bias. The media are more likely to reinforce opinions than to change them. Political campaigns and ad campaigns will typically find their way to those who are already among the converted.
Think about this carefully when interpreting the effects of news, good or bad.
It's also important to note that although belief in the limited effects theory later declined, to a perspective that the media did have a strong effect, but more nuanced and subtle and difficult to gauge, the general rules about the effects of media on the public still hold true. We consider ourselves opinion leaders, and this being a bull forum, might influence our decisions more than we might care to admit.
“The effort to state an absolute fact is simply an attempt to achieve what is humanly impossible.” “All I can do is give you my interpretation of the facts.” - Ivy Lee
I will refer to Joseph T. Klapper, who in 1960 wrote of the limited effects model of the media: the media do not have predictable effects. The effects of the media are small and unpredictable. The reception of a message depends on the source (credibility) and topic (preexisting opinion) of a message. The role of the media is to reinforce existing opinions. Confirmation bias. The media are more likely to reinforce opinions than to change them. Political campaigns and ad campaigns will typically find their way to those who are already among the converted.
Think about this carefully when interpreting the effects of news, good or bad.
It's also important to note that although belief in the limited effects theory later declined, to a perspective that the media did have a strong effect, but more nuanced and subtle and difficult to gauge, the general rules about the effects of media on the public still hold true. We consider ourselves opinion leaders, and this being a bull forum, might influence our decisions more than we might care to admit.
“The effort to state an absolute fact is simply an attempt to achieve what is humanly impossible.” “All I can do is give you my interpretation of the facts.” - Ivy Lee
If I understand your point, you're saying that this China news only had any effect on the market because mass sentiment is that Bitcoin is vulnerable and this news served to confirm that sentiment?
While that may be true in many cases, this one would have meant a mass sell off of a very large percentage of international exchange funds. In light of that fact, the drop was actually pretty minor and insignificant.
Edit: assuming the drop is over since the news has been debunked.
Sure. I probably should have mentioned the role of the id as well though. We are irrational creatures, and are affected more by emotion than rational information, regardless of what we'd like to believe.
This irrationality is also the main reason, if I can use that word, why I am HODLING.
March 26, 2014, 11:37:26 PM
If I understand your point, you're saying that this China news only had any effect on the market because mass sentiment is that Bitcoin is vulnerable and this news served to confirm that sentiment?
While that may be true in many cases, this one would have meant a mass sell off of a very large percentage of international exchange funds. In light of that fact, the drop was actually pretty minor and insignificant.
While that may be true in many cases, this one would have meant a mass sell off of a very large percentage of international exchange funds. In light of that fact, the drop was actually pretty minor and insignificant.
Isn't your bolded text the very essence of the myth?
Personally, I don't know how many coins are actually held by the "chinese" and I also don't know whether they would be more or less likely to sell them in a "ban" scenario.
Really? Let's see, more or less likely to sell them if they are given 3 weeks notice to remove them from exchanges... more, or less? likely? It is a difficult one, I know.
March 26, 2014, 11:36:49 PM
Also, I seem to recall you having a go at Jorge in the past for using anecdotal evidence, while your friends prove a rule. Perhaps we can see a link to the Real Estate company that is openly selling leases for BTC?
That's a fair comment, but observe that Jorge asserted a categorical rule, rather than a trend. Also for clarity I should say that the transaction was nominally in CNY although the payment was in BTC at Huobi instantaneous rates. Like myself, the friend in question is scrupulously observant of local laws and customs to the degree possible. My Chinese is intermediate at best, but his is fluent, and he is 华人。
March 26, 2014, 11:36:06 PM
Someone is tryin to use the small upwards momentum to unload a few packages of 500 BTC.
MARK can you hear me?
MARK can you hear me?
March 26, 2014, 11:30:10 PM
If I understand your point, you're saying that this China news only had any effect on the market because mass sentiment is that Bitcoin is vulnerable and this news served to confirm that sentiment?
While that may be true in many cases, this one would have meant a mass sell off of a very large percentage of international exchange funds. In light of that fact, the drop was actually pretty minor and insignificant.
While that may be true in many cases, this one would have meant a mass sell off of a very large percentage of international exchange funds. In light of that fact, the drop was actually pretty minor and insignificant.
Isn't your bolded text the very essence of the myth?
Personally, I don't know how many coins are actually held by the "chinese" and I also don't know whether they would be more or less likely to sell them in a "ban" scenario.
March 26, 2014, 11:25:51 PM
It seems that every day you reveal ever more disregard for reality and honesty in pursuit of your hostile agenda. I don't know how you can respect yourself.
No need to take it out on me. Price will recover today, you'll see. 3628 CNY on Huobi, 593 USD on Bitstamp, by 19:30 UTC. March 26, 2014, 11:20:50 PM
I would like to explain the effects of good news vs bad news on the price of bitcoin (how it may convince people to buy or sell or hold):
I will refer to Joseph T. Klapper, who in 1960 wrote of the limited effects model of the media: the media do not have predictable effects. The effects of the media are small and unpredictable. The reception of a message depends on the source (credibility) and topic (preexisting opinion) of a message. The role of the media is to reinforce existing opinions. Confirmation bias. The media are more likely to reinforce opinions than to change them. Political campaigns and ad campaigns will typically find their way to those who are already among the converted.
Think about this carefully when interpreting the effects of news, good or bad.
It's also important to note that although belief in the limited effects theory later declined, to a perspective that the media did have a strong effect, but more nuanced and subtle and difficult to gauge, the general rules about the effects of media on the public still hold true. We consider ourselves opinion leaders, and this being a bull forum, might influence our decisions more than we might care to admit.
“The effort to state an absolute fact is simply an attempt to achieve what is humanly impossible.” “All I can do is give you my interpretation of the facts.” - Ivy Lee
I will refer to Joseph T. Klapper, who in 1960 wrote of the limited effects model of the media: the media do not have predictable effects. The effects of the media are small and unpredictable. The reception of a message depends on the source (credibility) and topic (preexisting opinion) of a message. The role of the media is to reinforce existing opinions. Confirmation bias. The media are more likely to reinforce opinions than to change them. Political campaigns and ad campaigns will typically find their way to those who are already among the converted.
Think about this carefully when interpreting the effects of news, good or bad.
It's also important to note that although belief in the limited effects theory later declined, to a perspective that the media did have a strong effect, but more nuanced and subtle and difficult to gauge, the general rules about the effects of media on the public still hold true. We consider ourselves opinion leaders, and this being a bull forum, might influence our decisions more than we might care to admit.
“The effort to state an absolute fact is simply an attempt to achieve what is humanly impossible.” “All I can do is give you my interpretation of the facts.” - Ivy Lee
If I understand your point, you're saying that this China news only had any effect on the market because mass sentiment is that Bitcoin is vulnerable and this news served to confirm that sentiment?
While that may be true in many cases, this one would have meant a mass sell off of a very large percentage of international exchange funds. In light of that fact, the drop was actually pretty minor and insignificant.
Edit: assuming the drop is over since the news has been debunked.
March 26, 2014, 11:15:20 PM
I would like to explain the effects of good news vs bad news on the price of bitcoin (how it may convince people to buy or sell or hold):
I will refer to Joseph T. Klapper, who in 1960 wrote of the limited effects model of the media: the media do not have predictable effects. The effects of the media are small and unpredictable. The reception of a message depends on the source (credibility) and topic (preexisting opinion) of a message. The role of the media is to reinforce existing opinions. Confirmation bias. The media are more likely to reinforce opinions than to change them. Political campaigns and ad campaigns will typically find their way to those who are already among the converted.
Think about this carefully when interpreting the effects of news, good or bad.
It's also important to note that although belief in the limited effects theory later declined, to a perspective that the media did have a strong effect, but more nuanced and subtle and difficult to gauge, the general rules about the effects of media on the public still hold true. We consider ourselves opinion leaders, and this being a bull forum, might influence our decisions more than we might care to admit.
“The effort to state an absolute fact is simply an attempt to achieve what is humanly impossible.” “All I can do is give you my interpretation of the facts.” - Ivy Lee
I will refer to Joseph T. Klapper, who in 1960 wrote of the limited effects model of the media: the media do not have predictable effects. The effects of the media are small and unpredictable. The reception of a message depends on the source (credibility) and topic (preexisting opinion) of a message. The role of the media is to reinforce existing opinions. Confirmation bias. The media are more likely to reinforce opinions than to change them. Political campaigns and ad campaigns will typically find their way to those who are already among the converted.
Think about this carefully when interpreting the effects of news, good or bad.
It's also important to note that although belief in the limited effects theory later declined, to a perspective that the media did have a strong effect, but more nuanced and subtle and difficult to gauge, the general rules about the effects of media on the public still hold true. We consider ourselves opinion leaders, and this being a bull forum, might influence our decisions more than we might care to admit.
“The effort to state an absolute fact is simply an attempt to achieve what is humanly impossible.” “All I can do is give you my interpretation of the facts.” - Ivy Lee
Jump to: