Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 28969. (Read 26619944 times)

+∞

What it I told you 24 hours ago that in only a day's time you would be surfing over to CNN and finding headlines like this:



I mean, you can't make this shit up..

only in Bitcoin.

I'm normally a perma-bull, but Satoshi waking up brings nervousness that his coins are more likely to move than before, when some people even considered that he may be dead and his coins were frozen long-term.

So, unlike the Dorian antics, the market may take a bit of a hit with the latest development. Retest of 600 possible.

Bzzzzzzzzzzzzt. It's the beginning of Shakespeare's "Seven Ages of Man" spoken as a monologue by Jacques in "As You Like It":

All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely players;
They have their exits and their entrances,
And one man in his time plays many parts,
His acts being seven ages. At first, the infant,
Mewling and puking in the nurse's arms.
Then the whining schoolboy, with his satchel
And shining morning face, creeping like snail
Unwillingly to school. And then the lover,
Sighing like furnace, with a woeful ballad
Made to his mistress' eyebrow. Then a soldier,
Full of strange oaths and bearded like the pard,
Jealous in honor, sudden and quick in quarrel,
Seeking the bubble reputation
Even in the cannon's mouth. And then the justice,
In fair round belly with good capon lined,
With eyes severe and beard of formal cut,
Full of wise saws and modern instances;
And so he plays his part. The sixth age shifts
Into the lean and slippered pantaloon,
With spectacles on nose and pouch on side;
His youthful hose, well saved, a world too wide
For his shrunk shank, and his big manly voice,
Turning again toward childish treble, pipes
And whistles in his sound. Last scene of all,
That ends this strange eventful history,
Is second childishness and mere oblivion,
Sans teeth, sans eyes, sans taste, sans everything.

Amusing how I can drop in on this thread and see everything from Shakespeare, to some random Japanese guy playing with trains, or even jiggling boobies and butts. It really is a one stop shop for all your cultural needs  

I'm not about making excuses for anyone, just looking for reasons.


Well I wasn't thinking of the banks cheating the government, more their customers.
That's a whole other subject though which I don't think is relevant here.


Well in the context of an exchange still an exchange shouldn't be trading a clients BTC with other clients USD/EUR and neither should it be selling that BTC outside of the company so yes I think the BTC should stay as BTC. As soon as it does then a unfavorable change in the exchange rate would instantly make it insolvent since they wouldn't be able to buy back the same amount of USD.
There is a solid model in making money from exchange fees and/or deposit/withdrawal fees and exchanges should keep it simple. In the bitcoin model exchanges (& funds) are the closest things to banks there is but they shouldn't try to behave like one and I wouldn't want anything to do with an exchange that does.


I see your point but I disagree with the priority and faced with a choice between two exchanges, one offering each perspective I'll go with the one who ensures the customer deposits first and pays the bank back second. Banks accept the risks of loans as part of their business plan and have insurance for defaults but I don't.



Both good points and accepted.  They do boil down to trust again though and any financial relationship has to involve some trust.

The answer to your second question though can be solved with a technical solution. This is purely off the top of my head so might not be feasible but it would be theoretically possible to keep track of all the input and outputs to the wallet addresses used by the exchange.  The required BTC balance is then the sum total of all the BTC paid in minus the BTC paid out.
Further technical checks could be added on top, some I'm sure stolen from current banking practice and some added from the capabilities bitcoin and the block chain offer.
 

Sometimes there's something to read between the lines and sometimes there isn't.  Politicians and lawers are the worst for that and at the end of the day you have to make your own mind up

In my mind at the time that transaction occurred the USD rate was roughly $750 so 194,993.5 would have been valued at $146,245,125 so this would be tough to sell on to anyone in a single block.
Also note that the address which that payment was sent to is still active and has received BTC as late as yesterday and this is not the pattern of wallets used to move stolen coins.

Remember bitcoin isn't the same as any currency, it's a new thing and should be assessed as such.
Not *throw away the textbooks new* but different enough that existing ideas/preconceptions should be re-assessed.
A generation of economics students are going to have bitcoin rammed down their throats in the coming years whether it takes off or drops to $0 and vanishes.

Now I'm getting preachy so time to agree to disagree I think... plus these posts are turning into small essays lol

Here is a personal experience I had once with audits and reports.  Read if you have nothing better to do, or if you suffer from insomnia and ran out of sleeping pills.

Public universities in Brazil, like all government institutions, have lots of red tape and restrictions on things like hiring temporary workers, buying equipment, charging for consultancies, etc..  In order to dodge thos restrictions, every university created at least one "supporting" Foundation, that is not formally part of the university, whose stated mission is to "do things that that the University wants to do but the law forbids it from doing." (Yes, it is as fishy as it sounds.)

Being private or semi-private, a Foundation in Brazil has fewer restrictions than a government institution; but it still must keep good accounting, prepare yearly financial report, have the report formally approved by its Board of Trustees, and submit it to a specific branch of the Judiciary.  The latter is  supposed to check, through the financial report, that the Foundation's money is not being pocketed by the trustees or staff, and is being used to foster the Foundation's mission as stated in its "constitution". 

A few years ago, when I became department chairman, I became automatically a member of the Board of Trustees of UNICAMP's support Foundation.  (On my first meeting I learned that the Foundation was actually insolvent, since it had about 2 million USD in the bank, turned about 2 million USD per year, and owed 6 million USD to the government in labor taxes.  It had not been shut down yet only because it kept telling the law and tax officers that closing it would force the university to close its public hospital, etc. But that is not relevant to the story.)

Eventually I was assigned to the Board's Financial Committe, which was tasked with analyzing the Foundation's financial report (prepared by the Executive Director and lower staff) and issuing a recommendation for the full Board to vote on. (I was the "junior" member of the Commitee; the other two were the head of the Economics department, and the head of the Geology department, who had served before as financial provost of the University, overseeing a budget of half a billion dollars per year.)

However, the "financial report" we got from the Executive Director was a skimpy two-page summary with gross totals, but no details and no original supporting documents (invoices, receipts, payrolls, etc.). And with some rather dubious items to boot.

The three of us were rather uncomfortable about recommending approval of that report.  But we were told that the deadline was tight so there would be no time to ask for the missing details and documents.

Then we saw the recommendation letter that had been written by the previous incarnation of the Committee, for the previous year's report: "The undersigned Financial Committe has thoroughly examined the attached Financial Report, and hereby forwards it to the Board of Trustees to vote."   (Note the studied absence of the word "approved".)

Quite relieved, we copied that letter verbatim and sent it on to the Board with that "report".

A couple of days latter, the Committee was recalled and given a terse note from the Board's president, "You must rewrite your letter to say that you approved the Financial Report."  We sheepishly did that (he was also Vice-President of the University), but I quit the Committe and stopped going to the Board meetings after that.

I am telling you this story because it came to my mind while reading that statement by Bitstamp's auditor.  I wonder why... 

Incorrect. She wrote that he said...

lol, she picked wrong group to bitch with, that didn't last long

Truly our crypto-messiah doth shine his love on us all.

I shall prostrate myself for three hours in wonder of his glory


 

It is now. At least in Bitcointalk meme land.

http://pastebin.com/jK84UxYX

Her name is leah McGrath, and it would be sweet irony if her personal phone number, email, social security number and personal address would appear online. Bonus for naked pictures.

Incorrect.  He said, "I am no longer involved with that".  

What we don't know is exactly what Nancy Grace asked him.  She wants readers to think she asked him about Bitcoin, but she does not say explicitly in the article exactly what she asked him.  When she posts the exact question she asked him, and she knows what it is, then that can be discussed.  Until then, his quote in Nancy Grace's fiction piece has nothing to do with Bitcoin.

Dorian said in the AP article, "I was referring to engineering."

I believe Dorian, not Nancy Grace.

What reaction did you expect?

Remarkeble to see that the price doesn't react to the satoshi news.

Double bottom on massive volume.



https://i.imgur.com/bsG1s1U.png

The AP article could be Dorian explaining he is under NDA, and can't talk about that LOL

This is what you get when you give up TV. Real life BS drama.

down trend officially reversed on the daily chart. the 24 hr moving average.