Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 28898. (Read 26609669 times)

Risk is not the only thing people are evaluating with bitcoin. To simplify;

If you could only choose from 2 investment options, one that paid 5% returns 95% of the time and another that paid 1000% returns 20% of the time, making that decision based on the risk alone would give you a flawed conclusion. (Not that this is representative of the situation, just illustrating that there are more factors to base this decision on than risk)

So while you may be going around warning of the risks, assuming we didn't take those into consideration because we've reached a different conclusion than you, instead start asking yourself what other benefits people might be seeing that you are not. I don't know of a lot of people in bitcoin that are not aware of the risks. Even if you explain it to someone who has zero exposure, they are going to start asking questions about risks, be it government regulation, or security, or what have you.

So current stamp walls, such as they are, are at 600, 630, 650.  More like stairsteps than walls, but hey, one observes what one can.

Fonzie the super bull?  

I wonder if I'll speak more, then will he buy more bitcoins with the current market, just to spite me?

All aboard!!
Choo Choo is about to start in the next 72 hours !!!
ALL in BTC , leveraged to the MAX!

First, they don't know what it is.
Second, they don't have easy access (say buy BTCs with paypal)
Third, they don't see the point - right now.
Fourth, they don't understand how an online currency can work.

3 and 4 are what give Bitcoin enormous potential.

It is the desire of the planetary "elite" to create a global digital currency that they can monitor, control, tax, impose fees - etc, all in a very centralized manner.

When this happens, and people start getting acquainted and understanding how the "official" centralized online currency work, and why it is a tool of tyranny and enslavement of the masses, Bitcoin will be the obvious and much-superior alternative. It will have the "problem" of having slower transactions but it will not be controlled, it will not charge fees, it will not be able to render people incapable of transacting just because the establishment said so, etc etc. By that point the whole "it's simple digits" skepticism will have evaporated, because the "official" currency will be digital also.

The theory underlying the hypothesis is that under low volatility conditions the longer-term trends are more likely to predominate.  The linear trend angle from the past period of low volatility represents what would be expected at a constant absolute rate of growth, when all the shorter-term noise is filtered out.  The logarithmic trend angle from the past period represents what would be expected at a constant compounding rate of growth, likewise.  Since the current rate of growth is between these two extremes, I consider the angle to be expected bounds for any extended period of low volatility.

Ignore button is useful. Please use it.

Well this thread sure isn't the best playground to hold this debate, it's moving too fast.


I do not advocate the "throwing away of our existing system". In fact, here is what I advocated some posts ago:


I can see why you would project that thought at me. As with any group of people, dogmatic, oversimplifying people seem to be a vocal majority among anarchists.


I really feel like debating Bitcoin with someone who just keeps asking me "yes OK I understand it is decentralized, but WHO RUNS IT? WHO CONTROLS IT?" I have told you, that I am advocating movement towards anarchy. How would you describe the "system" of anarchy? You don't, because there is no one single system. The point I keep repeating here is that you and I do not know what particular system would be better suited to our needs, nor do we know how a system change would play out and to claim we do is to engage in humongous hubris. It does not follow, though, that there can be no such system. The thought, that the best possible system can be devised by a person or a group seems ridiculous to me. I am saying that we should treat society more like an organism, which grows from the inside out, than a mechanism, which is assembled from its constituent parts according to a central plan, to fulfill certain functions.

Incidentally I am all in favor of this:


I have suggested this before: to simply "cancel" the government right now would probably prove disastrous in the short term. The culture, the infrastructure, practically everything is not ready for this, because there are no alternatives ready. Government has a too dominant role in most important areas of human life. In many of them they ban competition. Before we can transition to any kind of hypothetical government-free state, these alternatives need to be created first, otherwise the transition might prove too painful. Quitting cold turkey might not be advisable in this state of high addiction to government.

What I am saying is let us work on creating these alternatives. If you do not wish to participate, I sympathize (but why are you involved with Bitcoin, I wonder?). You keep asking me to provide proof that they can work, but how can I do that? We need to try, to find out. Besides, I have already stated that it might indeed be the case, that governmental organizations have been a necessary part of civilization until the advent of the internet. But I feel that with this technology at hand, we need to re-test this belief. I have provided no "proof", nor real life examples, just a bunch of concepts and explanations, speculations and musings on why self-organizing, decentralized systems exhibit properties of emergent order and why that might be a good thing to apply to society. What more can I provide? I don't have your desired thought out central plan how to achieve decentralization.  Should I go on about how Wikipedia is superior to the Encyclopedia Britannica due to its decentralized nature?

Anyways, I'm happy for you that you seem to be quite content with the current system. Hope you can appreciate people trying to explore alternatives and tolerate their sometimes heretical thoughts while they do so. In the end if the result is having more freedom of choice, you'll be better off to. Or is the freedom of choice between different flavors of government enough for you?

yea, that's why he is buying bitcoin. to spite you.

pitch that one to your shrink. might be productive.

People sure aren't acting like they are aware of the risks already. I'll probably get my account banned soon, so you don't have to see my name any longer. Can't promise that you won't see my text anymore though.

The last line you wrote was a little weird. To me, that's like shooting yourself in the foot just to spite people like me :/

I can't add much to those thoughts as I do not attempt to extrapolate mid-term trends from long-term trends (well, I am only interested in mid-term trends -- you and I can likely agree on the long term, anyway). This is the nature of counter-trends. I did draw some charts to meet your conditions, but I don't understand why this should be predictive, rather than coincidental.

That's my point, you act like people aren't aware of the risks already. Go run along and do something else.

I just bought a couple more just to spite people like you.

To balance things out. Yeah, when a group of smokers like to cheer to each other, how good smoking is for their health, then I'm exactly the guy who cuts in and recommends to have at least minimal grip on reality.

No I don't mean you.  It's crucially important for anyone investing in bitcoin to understand its problems, and criticism is very helpful in that regard.

I'm very doubtful that, e.g. kkaspar in particular, could ever manage to make such a useful contribution.  

There may be bull trolls as well, but I'm less sensitive to those.  Many might consider me to be one.

That's be more efficient if those who posted on-topic used a different colour. 

If you mean me, I´m no troll, I´m 90% in Bitcoin 

Just writing my thoughts, why usual people are probably not interested in buying Bitcoins.

Why do you post here?

You sound like the annoying brat telling a group of smokers how bad it is for their health over and over. What's it to you? Light up or screw off.

Everyone here are also aware that most of the bitcoins are owned by anonymous people, who in all probability and considering the history, are drug dealers, computer crackers or confidence man. By trusting your wealth in bitcoin, you are trusting that this criminal element won't dump their coins to acquire your wealth as their own.

I'm not a fan of staying on topic but how about we use a different colour for those who want to skim past the random drivel..