Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 28904. (Read 26609572 times)

I would disagree that they don't want to sell. They have put the wall up several times over a few days; at this point anyone that wants to buy a lot of bitcoin would have seen that wall pop up and can expect it to pop up again a few times a day, and they will be able to buy a lot instantly without any slippage. This guy is just advertising his wall, waiting for someone to buy. Putting that wall up so often would be idiotic if they don't want to sell because if the price is undervalued, someone is going to buy a few thousand instantly and that wall guy will lose a ton of money.

They obviously do not want to sell and I am betting they are using a pretty high amount of margin to execute it. The fact that weak hands are actually selling because of it is sad.  

That guy likes repeating numbers - 11.111 BTC wall at $633.33. Maybe he should move the wall at $333.33 (would look even better). 

+1 ...and if you're running on basic instincts, then it's no wonder it's such a sad and harsh world you see around you.

Explanation

10k bfx wall is back

I'd put greed and sex far before fighting.

Eh, take the word proof out, then. The burden is on you to explain why we should change, and how. I'm seeing a lot of why's. Some I disagree with, some are okay, but absolutely no how's. You can change this by telling us how you envision us making this change as painlessly as possible. How do we get there? These are questions you should be able to answer, being a strong supporter of this idea. It's definitely something you should have put time to thinking about. I'm not asking what works best, because that is information neither of us can provide. What I want to know is what you think will work, but specifically in terms of getting there.


You can't provide proof, only opinions. I know that. Just don't try to present them as undeniable, ironclad facts, and we're cool. My contrasts regarding current society and your ideal society are similarly opinions. Why would I want to shut you out, when I want your opinion and ideas (if nothing else out of curiosity and to strengthen my own arguments next time I have this debate). Winning the debate is overrated, all the fun is in the debate, since that's when you learn about how other people think.


Do what the rest of us are doing, speculate and explain how you think we should go about getting to this point of decentralized society. Pretend we're completely oblivious. How do we get rid of government, and once that happens, what steps do we take to get functioning again? Humans are animals, and like to form tribes. How do you ensure that there's not a bunch of local leaders, or is that sort of thing acceptable? I originally asked where you draw the line, and you never really clarified. Is a sheriff okay? How about a treasurer? Is a leader okay? At what point does this become the government you're trying so hard to oust?

Also for anyone who hasn't seen this the famous 1933 1's address has been moved for the first time since november 2012.


https://blockchain.info/it/address/1933phfhK3ZgFQNLGSDXvqCn32k2buXY8a

Isn't defence (flight) or attack (fight) the most basic human instinct. So both of these are just natural instincts.

My first thought is 'I wonder if I can keep this guy from killing me for my boots'

Please tell me more about how I would go about producing this kind of proof? I hope you don't mean "talk about it"?


I am truly sorry, but you seem to be misunderstanding me here. I reckon English is not your primary language? I didn't mean to put words in your mouth. I have stated that I have often seen this argument being made, as well as what sort of ideas usually follow. This doesn't necessarily mean, that you hold these same ideas, right? Well, to be fair, I find your way of expressing yourself confusing and I'm not quite sure what your points are most of the time. Please don't take this as an attempt to insult you.

Look, guys - octaft and JayJuanGee. I have done this many times and I can see where this is going. You'll be asking me to provide proof that some other system would be better. You will ask me how this other system would work, how it would achieve this or that. And I'll be replying that I do not know, after which you will probably feel like you "won the debate" because I can't produce any counter arguments. When in fact my argument is precisely that I do not know. Neither do you. And that is the reason why none of us should be in charge of all of us. The point is that having one single system is a bad idea. Multiple choices are needed.

Self organizing systems and Emergent order exist in life all around us. Utilizing them for the full benefit of society just runs counter to our prevailing culture and financial status quo. I'm at a loss to explain this to you. If I knew how a free and decentralized society would organize itself it would cease being the superior option, because we could just go ahead and do exactly that, right now. Do you see what I mean? The superior alternative quite obviously is something you and I on our own can't think of, that is why it is superior. You are familiar with the concept of synergy, I presume?

This is one of the reasons why the technology behind Bitcoin is so powerful. There is absolutely no way to predict all the ways how it will be used, by whom and for what purpose. People through trial and error, will come up with innovations so astounding that we probably can't even imagine them right now. They can innovate, without permission, because the technology is open source and decentralized. Yet here we are, on bitcointalk, proclaiming the superiority of decentralized open source financial technology, when in fact so far there has been little evidence that it is better right now. I find myself constantly amazed by the amount of bitcoiners who just don't seem to get this.

I know! never thought id be sitting here with more ltc charts open than btc. Even reading up on some new alts...

ltc is a bit more interesting today

You are truly pulling this summary of my previous statement(s) out of your ass.  Sorry to be so crude in my description of what you seem to be doing, but I have NOT made any assertions about human nature in ways that you are attributing to me.

My comment is merely responding to inadequacies in previous descriptions about how we are supposedly to transition from the current state of affairs into some utopian individualistic world that is being described by posters like Billyjoeallen - in his assertion that we should just get rid of government and everything will be better in terms of "freedom."

Many would consider what we have to be working, isolated echo chambers aside. For those people, the burden of proof is on YOU on why we should change, and the burden of proof is on YOU on as to why we're wrong, and why we should go through a huge upheaval to meet the desires of a small minority of people.

Another boring morning in bitcoinland then. No walls to observe, no trains to post 

Your quote of me is somewhat out of the context of the ideas being discussed.  Surely, it is easy to get garbled up with these various arguments being presented, and from the garbled /fragmented sections attempt to figure out what is being said.

I believe here:  Octaft had presented a hypothetical -asking how much charity BillyjoeAllen would be willing to lock into to pay to cover public interest/benefits etc.  BillyjoeAllen responded that he does NOT want to pay anything into such a system b/c it is his money.

I was merely responding and suggesting that such a world of people NOT contributing (assuming that Billyjoeallen is imagining a world in which everyone is on their own) would result in deterioration of social cooperation and forms of barbarianism.  If there are NO rules to protect, and there are too many people living in dense areas, we would likely devolve into survival of the fittest b/c there is NOT enough resources to go around and the current resource distribution remains extremely skewed.  If we got rid of government, then we would likely experience redistribution through brutal means. 

I am NOT suggesting that human nature is to kill one another.  However, if we immediately got rid of government and received the world that BillyjoeAllen was postulating, we could NOT magically transition from our current world to his utopian state of individualism without some bad things happening to the weak and the poor and the elderly.  More or less, that is the context of my comment.


This is NOT a scenario that I am wishing for, and in fact, I am continuing to suggest that if we are going to transition to some world without government (or even lesser government or more widely distributed government), then we need some kind of plan for that transition, rather than mere bare assertions (without plans) that we need to get rid of government.

That is why you need also the principle of self defense.

I think the quote by JayJuanGee is one of the many strawmen I have been alluding to. I have often seen this argument made, usually followed up by some talk about "human nature". What I fail to understand about this position is this: if it is true and human nature is vicious, crooked and evil (something I choose not to believe), then how is the creation of an institution with the legal monopoly on initiating force helping the situation? Especially since this institution is operated by the very same vicious, crooked and evil human beings?

In the end it boils down to the question of whether you trust people in general. I do. And if you don't, you're afraid that they'll be mean to you without the presence of some punishing force...I would suggest traveling around a bit more.