Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 28929. (Read 26609821 times)

there is already a  plan for that.. convert to dollars and offer dollars.. if he does not want then donate to his charity and then if he does not name a charity, then it goes to MOI.... me...

MtGox's FUD cloud is still blocking the sky. not sure if its going to rain....
market seems to be holding its ground.
with MtGox DB being analyzed and two bit Idiot trying to make some noise, we have a very interesting week ahead of us.

I understand distinguishing transactions into A and B is for tracing the success of bitcoin? What is that theory exactly?

I tend to see either A or B will  lead bitcoin to success, just on different levels. A, success as a currency. B, success as internet gold.

Inherent in nature as a transfer method, if bitcoin will succeed as internet gold(class B), it will succeed as a currency (class A)，by nature.

If that will be true, can we just include ABC all as adoption?   How do we check adoption growth?

Maybe try looking at the major bitcoin payment processors...   It would be a start.   They may well release periodical figures for turnover.    This would allow you to guess the 'major retailer' type income in BTC, since many will use Bitpay etc.

At least it is something to spot trends in.

Bitstamp took for me 2 business days to verify my account and I only had to send the passport, if I remember well.

I think the two classes of transactions can be distinguished in theory. Class A ( "payment for goods and services using bitcoin") is transfer of bitcoin from a customer's address to an address belonging to someone who sells goods and services unrelated to crypto-coins, in exchange for said goods and services being provided to the customer. 

Class B is pretty much everything else, such as transfer to/from a bitcoin exchange's wallet, transfers between people or companies in exchange of cash or other coins, etc.

Right now, purchasing with cryptocoins may involve up to three blockchain transfers: customer buys crypto at an exchange with dollars, sends to merchant, the merchant sells them for euros.  I would count only the middle transaction as "class A".  The other two could be put in a separate class C, "bitcoin transfers directly connected to class A"; but since they can be widely separated in time and lumped with other transfers, it doesn't seem to be a useful idea, even in theory.

Purchasing "with cyptocoins" today may also involve zero transfers, if the customer gives dollars to a "bitcoin-based" payment processor who then gives euros to the merchant, without actually moving any bitcoins.  I would not count those (non)transfers in Class A, since the payment processor is acting just like a traditional bank.

what a sucker rally.

Yes, more people are knowing bitcoin now, so more investisors. Still we should note the rising search terms are the following (last 30days) :

bitcoin dead     +350%
bitcoin ceo     +250%
mt gox     +250%
mt gox bitcoin     +250%
mtgox bitcoin     +130%
bitcoin crash     +120%

Is it a question of " chicken or egg, which is first", at the beginning stage?

Made this last night, but fell asleep before I could upload it. Cheers.

Thanks!

Indeed.

When I was watching Fukushima, I was amazed at how little data there was about the state of the reactors (and most of it later turned out to be bogus).  And yet the stakes there were huge -- millions of people at risk, tens of billions of dollars in cleanup costs ...

I feel the same about the bitcoin market scene.  There seems to be no reliable data about the most important variables, like the number of people actually trading or using bitcoin (not just open accounts at exchanges), how much money is in the traders' accounts, demographics of traders, ...  Volume is a very poor indicator of importance.  How can people invest and trade in the dark like that?

Coindesk(?) recently did a survey of venture capital invested on bitcoin services,  that was a notable exception.  There should be more of that...

Last couple of times I bought BTC it was on Localbitcoins, which I hadn't used before. I created an account, clicked on a seller's ad, followed instructions to send the seller money, the money cleared within two hours, and Localbitcoins released the BTC from escrow. This is in the UK, which has a bad rep for many things, but is admittedly maybe a bit more progressive than other states. Some buyers/sellers on Localbitcoins require a real name in advance (but they'll get my name when I transfer money to them anyway), but that's as close to verification I've found on Localbitcoins. I guess it would depend, too, on the size of the trade - I keep mine around the 1-2BTC mark, I don't know if larger trades cause AML/KYC to kick in (I'd imagine so).

tl;dr - for the hypothetical businessman or young guy, buying small amounts of BTC in the UK is quicker and easier than shopping on Amazon

Hi, Jorge, good to connect you. I like your analogy of great-great-great grandfather's map for island gold. My hyping bitcoin to friends as an investment was wrong, at current phase.

Okcoin set out leverage test on Friday., Mar/07. BTCChina added LTC on Mar/02,

What if he does not want them? lol.

As I wrote already, verification sucks and takes too long...

wowz almost 45BTC raised for dorian. nice nice

Really? How hard is it for a businessman or even a young guy to make a bank transfer to a exchange? It takes 2 minutes to make a bank transfer and by the next day (at least on bitstamp with sepa), you have your money there.

Also, there are loads of Bitcoin ATMs all over the world now. I don't think it could be easier.

Of course the trades are real but the volume is manufactured. The more interesting question is how many traders?

Huobi looks real to me, OKCoin looke strange. Yes, the lack of transaction fees could explain their high volumes (and should also attract/retain more clients).


Ah! I did not know that. Yes, could be.

Could That be also be explanation for the price jump on Mar/02?