Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 30318. (Read 26709700 times)
January 14, 2014, 05:15:59 PM
Blitz is right. Many here are very badly prepared psychologically for the event of a long term bear market. Do I expect $100 coins? Lower? No. Is it a distinct possibility, outside of a fatal crash to $0? Yes, unquestionably. Dismissing the possibility out of hand, as many here do, is laughable. Queue log chart, etc. that is supposed to show me that trend break is impossible.....
January 14, 2014, 05:11:32 PM
what kind of drugs are those that hope for 100$ COINS TAKING??
The kind that make you do this:
January 14, 2014, 05:06:04 PM
what kind of drugs are those that hope for 100$ COINS TAKING??
Just drink...
January 14, 2014, 05:04:27 PM
what kind of drugs are those that hope for 100$ COINS TAKING??
January 14, 2014, 04:55:39 PM
and read here what they think when i explained the Chart
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=274613.1280
hum if i get it you argue that it could drop to 90 and that we are in a long term bull market... dont see the point
edit: this one is much more precise : https://www.tradingview.com/e/M1ZPd859/
it gives you a clear 'chanel' (the pink one) to consider when trading
Please read the link https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=274613.1280 and you will get the point (i hope).Feel free to ask me again.
Your Chart ist not more precise it is only more visualized by the fork. In my Chart you have also a channel (you have to enlarge the Chart then you see it clearly)
Note : my Chart,well actually it is from godmodetrader.de , was published 2013-11-18
edit: it is my favorite Chart
because it is longterm not ,as many Charts here,hours-,weeks - related and very hastily and nervous
Fantastic. Now you're spamming this thread as well with your log trendline. God, I can't believe I'd say this, considering I only joined the forum in April, but... you clueless newbies sure are annoying, re-posting the same, old uninformative stuff over and over again.
January 14, 2014, 04:42:54 PM
If a stronger Comcast is so great, why am I typing this on my phone when I have a really nice desktop?
Cause you haven't set up tethering?
January 14, 2014, 04:07:37 PM
Excluding broadband internet from common carrier regulations keeps completion out of the industry. With copper lines, which do fall under common carrier, you provider has to provide you with the contracted bandwidth and you are free to resell it if you wish. Broadband providers do not have to follow these rules. I just moved into an apartment and I am having a terrible time dealing with Comcast just to get simple fucking internet (it's been over a week since I moved in). If I had any other options for broadband, I would love to give them my business. But regional monopolies dominate and even when demand is strong competitors can't get a foot in the door by buying from the monopoly provider. Networks are expensive to build and maintain, which is why centralization is such a strong force in these industries. Common carrier regulations were put in place to help balance this tendency and promote competition. If a stronger Comcast is so great, why am I typing this on my phone when I have a really nice desktop?
Because bitcoin.
The internet is fundamentally broken in part precisely because it doesn't include any economic protocol until now.
There are a great many tragedies of the commons that occur from this: spam, pervasive advertising, all you can download/upload pricing, that you even have to pay for it at all if you are getting just basic internet is a symptom.
Letting the providers use the available technology to solve some of these problems is not such a bad thing.
There will always be folks that just enjoy using law to stop technology, but that doesn't make it better.
For your particulars, I don't know where you are, but I've never lived in a location that had so few choices for network. My priorities are likely different as I wouldn't have considered living in a place without more choices. If it doesn't have cable + DSL + wireless + nearby fiber + satellite availability, for myself, it could at best be a vacation rental. Certainly not a place I could live / work.
Your vote with your rental payment has more sway than the ballot box.
January 14, 2014, 04:02:48 PM
January 14, 2014, 03:56:23 PM
Deep packet inspection by ISPs has been going on for at least a decade. They never needed priority as an excuse. But keep on cheering for more centralized control of our networks.
Would be nice if this pushes the entire internet to serve all content over TLS... however unlikely.
I'm concerned. You should be concerned too. WE ALL should be concerned. As Nick Colas stated here: http://www.cnbc.com/id/101298888
Quote
7. Bitcoin is untraceable
Bitcoin transactions happen online. Enough said. (Though Colas does offer: "If you think anything you do online is secret, I can't help you.")
Bitcoin transactions happen online. Enough said. (Though Colas does offer: "If you think anything you do online is secret, I can't help you.")
I have ways to anonymize myself, I'd say it's a profound and wise thing to do, when dealing with money. Try A LOT of money you might (or might not) have within a few years *IF* bitcoin goes up or down respectively.
I have been investigating this since some time in 2012 to be honest. I came up with a solution that covers both encryption and anonymity via Vidalia (Tor protocol). Imagine an app that's able to run anonymously an instance of BitcoinQT that derives its connections through Tor protocol. Yeah; it's not perfect but it is SOMETHING when you need instant backup of your cold wallet and don't want to be traced.
If you need help I can also provide the code and package (provided you are entrusting a stranger's app from the net to sync your wallet.dat).
January 14, 2014, 03:54:48 PM
i think gox is so successful because the fees for low volume trades are so high, it´s all about trades with high volume ripping off low-volume traders.
January 14, 2014, 03:49:36 PM
and read here what they think when i explained the Chart
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=274613.1280
hum if i get it you argue that it could drop to 90 and that we are in a long term bull market... dont see the point
edit: this one is much more precise : https://www.tradingview.com/e/M1ZPd859/
it gives you a clear 'chanel' (the pink one) to consider when trading
Please read the link https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=274613.1280 and you will get the point (i hope).Feel free to ask me again.
Your Chart ist not more precise it is only more visualized by the fork. In my Chart you have also a channel (you have to enlarge the Chart then you see it clearly)
Note : my Chart,well actually it is from godmodetrader.de , was published 2013-11-18
edit: it is my favorite Chart
because it is longterm not ,as many Charts here,hours-,weeks - related and very hastily and nervous
January 14, 2014, 03:49:11 PM
This is big govt vs big telco.
Telco wins.
Probably a good thing for people and companies that use their networks.
MPLS QoS means that things that need real-time responsiveness can get it, so your skype call doesn't get choppy when your email attachment is coming across.
Not the end of the world, and likely a good thing for progress.
It's a good thing, so long as we can control these parameters ourselves. If I want to prioritize things differently then I should be able to. In fact, I could already. This is the telecos wanting to take over prioritization in the name of optimizing their networks. Of course it is technically trivial to just ignore user priorities, but until now it was thought to be against antitrust regulations because it enables, for example Comcast, to prioritize NBC's content (which they own), and deprioritize Fox's content. Other networks might deprioritize NBC to harm Comcast. This is a surrender of freedom.
By ourselves, you mean free to buy network connections as you like, or be prevented by government from these being made available.
I buy "business accounts" from my telco and do my own prioritization. Large companies pay for QoS prioritization and love it for the last 20 years, finally consumers can get a taste of it.
For most people they won't care, won't notice.
The things you are afraid of (NBC vs Cox) are already illegal under other laws in most jurisdictions (oops, sorry Italy) and are not an issue here (in the USA where this particular legal battle is fought).
If you really want to worry about something in regards to this, your radar is seeing only the media chaff, while the missile sails right through.
The operation of packet inspection for prioritization contains metadata that could ultimately be seized or subpoena and provide a deeper intrusion to privacy by TPTB.
This can show what protocols each of us are running on our networks, and that may be far more interesting than the prosaic notion of whether the ads and services you are getting are for the company from whom you are buying a network.
Think deeper.
Deep packet inspection by ISPs has been going on for at least a decade. They never needed priority as an excuse. But keep on cheering for more centralized control of our networks.
If you remember your history, all networks were controlled by government. All the PTTs...
The increase of shifting of control from government to private enterprise is less "centralization" not more.
Excluding broadband internet from common carrier regulations keeps completion out of the industry. With copper lines, which do fall under common carrier, you provider has to provide you with the contracted bandwidth and you are free to resell it if you wish. Broadband providers do not have to follow these rules. I just moved into an apartment and I am having a terrible time dealing with Comcast just to get simple fucking internet (it's been over a week since I moved in). If I had any other options for broadband, I would love to give them my business. But regional monopolies dominate and even when demand is strong competitors can't get a foot in the door by buying from the monopoly provider. Networks are expensive to build and maintain, which is why centralization is such a strong force in these industries. Common carrier regulations were put in place to help balance this tendency and promote competition. If a stronger Comcast is so great, why am I typing this on my phone when I have a really nice desktop?
January 14, 2014, 03:36:32 PM
or this
...
...
It is quite the same than this one
...
and read here what they think when i explained the Chart
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=274613.1280
hum if i get it you argue that it could drop to 90 and that we are in a long term bull market... dont see the point.
edit: this one is much more precise : https://www.tradingview.com/e/M1ZPd859/
it gives you a clear 'chanel' (the pink one) to consider when trading
January 14, 2014, 03:32:59 PM
This is big govt vs big telco.
Telco wins.
Probably a good thing for people and companies that use their networks.
MPLS QoS means that things that need real-time responsiveness can get it, so your skype call doesn't get choppy when your email attachment is coming across.
Not the end of the world, and likely a good thing for progress.
It's a good thing, so long as we can control these parameters ourselves. If I want to prioritize things differently then I should be able to. In fact, I could already. This is the telecos wanting to take over prioritization in the name of optimizing their networks. Of course it is technically trivial to just ignore user priorities, but until now it was thought to be against antitrust regulations because it enables, for example Comcast, to prioritize NBC's content (which they own), and deprioritize Fox's content. Other networks might deprioritize NBC to harm Comcast. This is a surrender of freedom.
By ourselves, you mean free to buy network connections as you like, or be prevented by government from these being made available.
I buy "business accounts" from my telco and do my own prioritization. Large companies pay for QoS prioritization and love it for the last 20 years, finally consumers can get a taste of it.
For most people they won't care, won't notice.
The things you are afraid of (NBC vs Cox) are already illegal under other laws in most jurisdictions (oops, sorry Italy) and are not an issue here (in the USA where this particular legal battle is fought).
If you really want to worry about something in regards to this, your radar is seeing only the media chaff, while the missile sails right through.
The operation of packet inspection for prioritization contains metadata that could ultimately be seized or subpoena and provide a deeper intrusion to privacy by TPTB.
This can show what protocols each of us are running on our networks, and that may be far more interesting than the prosaic notion of whether the ads and services you are getting are for the company from whom you are buying a network.
Think deeper.
Deep packet inspection by ISPs has been going on for at least a decade. They never needed priority as an excuse. But keep on cheering for more centralized control of our networks.
If you remember your history, all networks were controlled by government. All the PTTs...
The increase of shifting of control from government to private enterprise is less "centralization" not more.
January 14, 2014, 03:31:00 PM
January 14, 2014, 03:23:07 PM
This is big govt vs big telco.
Telco wins.
Probably a good thing for people and companies that use their networks.
MPLS QoS means that things that need real-time responsiveness can get it, so your skype call doesn't get choppy when your email attachment is coming across.
Not the end of the world, and likely a good thing for progress.
It's a good thing, so long as we can control these parameters ourselves. If I want to prioritize things differently then I should be able to. In fact, I could already. This is the telecos wanting to take over prioritization in the name of optimizing their networks. Of course it is technically trivial to just ignore user priorities, but until now it was thought to be against antitrust regulations because it enables, for example Comcast, to prioritize NBC's content (which they own), and deprioritize Fox's content. Other networks might deprioritize NBC to harm Comcast. This is a surrender of freedom.
By ourselves, you mean free to buy network connections as you like, or be prevented by government from these being made available.
I buy "business accounts" from my telco and do my own prioritization. Large companies pay for QoS prioritization and love it for the last 20 years, finally consumers can get a taste of it.
For most people they won't care, won't notice.
The things you are afraid of (NBC vs Cox) are already illegal under other laws in most jurisdictions (oops, sorry Italy) and are not an issue here (in the USA where this particular legal battle is fought).
If you really want to worry about something in regards to this, your radar is seeing only the media chaff, while the missile sails right through.
The operation of packet inspection for prioritization contains metadata that could ultimately be seized or subpoena and provide a deeper intrusion to privacy by TPTB.
This can show what protocols each of us are running on our networks, and that may be far more interesting than the prosaic notion of whether the ads and services you are getting are for the company from whom you are buying a network.
Think deeper.
Deep packet inspection by ISPs has been going on for at least a decade. They never needed priority as an excuse. But keep on cheering for more centralized control of our networks.
Would be nice if this pushes the entire internet to serve all content over TLS... however unlikely.
January 14, 2014, 03:22:38 PM
or this
It is quite the same than this one
and read here what they think when i explained the Chart
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=274613.1280
January 14, 2014, 03:21:02 PM
This is big govt vs big telco.
Telco wins.
Probably a good thing for people and companies that use their networks.
MPLS QoS means that things that need real-time responsiveness can get it, so your skype call doesn't get choppy when your email attachment is coming across.
Not the end of the world, and likely a good thing for progress.
It's a good thing, so long as we can control these parameters ourselves. If I want to prioritize things differently then I should be able to. In fact, I could already. This is the telecos wanting to take over prioritization in the name of optimizing their networks. Of course it is technically trivial to just ignore user priorities, but until now it was thought to be against antitrust regulations because it enables, for example Comcast, to prioritize NBC's content (which they own), and deprioritize Fox's content. Other networks might deprioritize NBC to harm Comcast. This is a surrender of freedom.
By ourselves, you mean free to buy network connections as you like, or be prevented by government from these being made available.
I buy "business accounts" from my telco and do my own prioritization. Large companies pay for QoS prioritization and love it for the last 20 years, finally consumers can get a taste of it.
For most people they won't care, won't notice.
The things you are afraid of (NBC vs Cox) are already illegal under other laws in most jurisdictions (oops, sorry Italy) and are not an issue here (in the USA where this particular legal battle is fought).
If you really want to worry about something in regards to this, your radar is seeing only the media chaff, while the missile sails right through.
The operation of packet inspection for prioritization contains metadata that could ultimately be seized or subpoena and provide a deeper intrusion to privacy by TPTB.
This can show what protocols each of us are running on our networks, and that may be far more interesting than the prosaic notion of whether the ads and services you are getting are for the company from whom you are buying a network.
Think deeper.
Deep packet inspection by ISPs has been going on for at least a decade. They never needed priority as an excuse. But keep on cheering for more centralized control of our networks. Soon all my traffic will be encrypted on Comcast's network.
January 14, 2014, 03:18:47 PM
Etoro is out of Beta and orders are executed 4 times a day now instead of once in beta.
They only trade paper bitcoins, correct?
Yes, it is CFD. It is only betting on price. No real bitcoin is bought/sold.
...gamblers
And (the opposite) hedgers. Very inefficient hedge, however.
January 14, 2014, 03:18:44 PM
Funny that you can read every chart 2 ways.
Either way the long term trendline is still up
Either way the long term trendline is still up
Jump to: