Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 31466. (Read 26619950 times)
November 30, 2013, 11:16:34 PM
I'd now call the move on BTCChina "significant". Coming 24h should be interesting.
November 30, 2013, 11:16:18 PM
Has there been a change in public sentiment? Has the news media over there panned btc?
Wish I knew, I've been asking around here if there's any forums dedicated to their market but no one has ever mentioned it. Hard to gauge sentiment in different markets. They've had quite a run though, they're overdue for a lot of profit taking. 
November 30, 2013, 11:15:47 PM
Has there been a change in public sentiment? Has the news media over there panned btc?
The change of sentiment happens during and after the crash. It cannot be perceived before the crash. Before the crash sentiment is most optimistic. At the bottom sentiment is most pessimistic.
November 30, 2013, 11:13:41 PM
Has there been a change in public sentiment? Has the news media over there panned btc?
November 30, 2013, 11:11:36 PM
Obviously this hasn't happened yet, and I'm not suggesting it will, but under heavy volume I notice that BTCChina seems to suffer from the ole Gox lag. I wonder how things would turn out if China got their first taste of a lagged panicked selloff.
November 30, 2013, 11:05:48 PM
Well down price doesn't always mean bearish. But thanks. I'll be watching.
November 30, 2013, 11:04:58 PM
What makes you say this?
Because the price is down? November 30, 2013, 11:04:08 PM
What makes you say this?
Of course it can change, just pointing out early movement for the day. Seems to set the tone for China.
November 30, 2013, 11:00:25 PM
...Volume is up for the new day and it's bearish.
What makes you say this?
November 30, 2013, 10:59:15 PM
I am amazed to still find people posting about currency deriving its value from "faith". That is a preposterous big lie which gains currency only from its constant repetition. A currency per se derives its value from its use. Not from faith orconfidence or backing in quatloos or fairy dust. This is accurately and adequately described by the quantity theory of money: PQ=MV. The value thus derived is kept connected to the currency by the faith or confidence that the utility conditions described in this equation will persist over the users discounting horizon.
Bitcoins have uses other than use as currency, i.e. a medium of exchange, and therefore the fundamental value of bitcoin is greater than the total M might naively imply, but of course the quantity theory adequately accounts for this in the V factor.
Bitcoins have uses other than use as currency, i.e. a medium of exchange, and therefore the fundamental value of bitcoin is greater than the total M might naively imply, but of course the quantity theory adequately accounts for this in the V factor.
V is the universally general flexible constant that makes your otherwise bogus formula always true. You know, the Fed is basically a Reichsministerium für Volksaufklärung und Propaganda at this point.
I guess you can be safely ignored then. I suspect that I despise the neokeynesian kleptocrats even more than you do, but you had might as well cast stones at the ideal gas law.
Refer to http://www.cato.org/events/31st-annual-monetary-conference/schedule, panel 1, second speaker: George A. Selgin.
November 30, 2013, 10:56:30 PM
Real action is going to be China today. Volume is up for the new day and it's bearish.
November 30, 2013, 10:56:15 PM
I am amazed to still find people posting about currency deriving its value from "faith". That is a preposterous big lie which gains currency only from its constant repetition. A currency per se derives its value from its use. Not from faith orconfidence or backing in quatloos or fairy dust. This is accurately and adequately described by the quantity theory of money: PQ=MV. The value thus derived is kept connected to the currency by the faith or confidence that the utility conditions described in this equation will persist over the users discounting horizon.
Bitcoins have uses other than use as currency, i.e. a medium of exchange, and therefore the fundamental value of bitcoin is greater than the total M might naively imply, but of course the quantity theory adequately accounts for this in the V factor.
Bitcoins have uses other than use as currency, i.e. a medium of exchange, and therefore the fundamental value of bitcoin is greater than the total M might naively imply, but of course the quantity theory adequately accounts for this in the V factor.
Why would someone accept a piece of currency in exchange for a good? Because they expect that the currency will have value tomorrow. Put another way, they have faith that the next time they use the currency, its value in terms of goods will be more or less the same (or greater, in the case of BTC .. hopefully). Mass psychology. People speculate on the sentiments of others whenever they accept a unit of currency whether they know it or not.
November 30, 2013, 10:48:41 PM
Yay. Action.
edit: No. Flash pause.
edit: No. Flash pause.
November 30, 2013, 10:28:23 PM
I am amazed to still find people posting about currency deriving its value from "faith". That is a preposterous big lie which gains currency only from its constant repetition. A currency per se derives its value from its use. Not from faith orconfidence or backing in quatloos or fairy dust. This is accurately and adequately described by the quantity theory of money: PQ=MV. The value thus derived is kept connected to the currency by the faith or confidence that the utility conditions described in this equation will persist over the users discounting horizon.
Bitcoins have uses other than use as currency, i.e. a medium of exchange, and therefore the fundamental value of bitcoin is greater than the total M might naively imply, but of course the quantity theory adequately accounts for this in the V factor.
Bitcoins have uses other than use as currency, i.e. a medium of exchange, and therefore the fundamental value of bitcoin is greater than the total M might naively imply, but of course the quantity theory adequately accounts for this in the V factor.
V is the universally general flexible constant that makes your otherwise bogus formula always true. You know, the Fed is basically a Reichsministerium für Volksaufklärung und Propaganda at this point.
I guess you can be safely ignored then. I suspect that I despise the neokeynesian kleptocrats even more than you do, but you had might as well cast stones at the ideal gas law.
November 30, 2013, 10:25:49 PM
When the crash comes, I think not many in the forum is buying. After going to $2k and crashing to $1k, would you really buy? Everybody is shitless by then. It is completely at the mercy of the new money then.
Dude, when it crashes from $1220 to $1200 I buy. Of course I'd buy if it went from $2000 to $1000!
November 30, 2013, 10:23:25 PM
It is currently a commodity that has value because of its potential to become a revolutionary currency (with even greater per-unit value).
Any attempt at valuation based on velocity of money is doomed to failure.
If you attempted to value a tech startup based on its discounted cashflow you'd come up with a rather misleading figure
Any attempt at valuation based on velocity of money is doomed to failure.
If you attempted to value a tech startup based on its discounted cashflow you'd come up with a rather misleading figure
ifi you attempted to value a tech startup based on anything other than its discounted cashflow you'd come up with a rather misleading figure. discounting accounts for time. the cash flow rem accounts for growth. likewise valuing bitcoin without reference to its future velocity and trade use appropriately discounting is a doomed enterprise. its long term commodity value is zero apart from use and monetary value will equalize with instrumental value lest there be arbitrage.
November 30, 2013, 10:21:42 PM
It is currently a commodity that has value because of its potential to become a revolutionary currency (with even greater per-unit value).
Or not. I'm growing worried that the incessant hype, evident on this site, of that greater per unit value is going to bite some otherwise innocent people where it hurts the most.
The present valuation of BTC is scary enough without the juveniles shouting 'we be the masters of the human race'. After all, we are still in beta, true?
November 30, 2013, 10:17:00 PM
I am amazed to still find people posting about currency deriving its value from "faith". That is a preposterous big lie which gains currency only from its constant repetition. A currency per se derives its value from its use. Not from faith orconfidence or backing in quatloos or fairy dust. This is accurately and adequately described by the quantity theory of money: PQ=MV. The value thus derived is kept connected to the currency by the faith or confidence that the utility conditions described in this equation will persist over the users discounting horizon.
Bitcoins have uses other than use as currency, i.e. a medium of exchange, and therefore the fundamental value of bitcoin is greater than the total M might naively imply, but of course the quantity theory adequately accounts for this in the V factor.
Bitcoins have uses other than use as currency, i.e. a medium of exchange, and therefore the fundamental value of bitcoin is greater than the total M might naively imply, but of course the quantity theory adequately accounts for this in the V factor.
V is the universally general flexible constant that makes your otherwise bogus formula always true. You know, the Fed is basically a Reichsministerium für Volksaufklärung und Propaganda at this point.
November 30, 2013, 10:08:10 PM
I am amazed to still find people posting about currency deriving its value from "faith". That is a preposterous big lie which gains currency only from its constant repetition. A currency per se derives its value from its use. Not from faith orconfidence or backing in quatloos or fairy dust. This is accurately and adequately described by the quantity theory of money: PQ=MV. The value thus derived is kept connected to the currency by the faith or confidence that the utility conditions described in this equation will persist over the users discounting horizon.
Bitcoins have uses other than use as currency, i.e. a medium of exchange, and therefore the fundamental value of bitcoin is greater than the total M might naively imply, but of course the quantity theory adequately accounts for this in the V factor.
Bitcoins have uses other than use as currency, i.e. a medium of exchange, and therefore the fundamental value of bitcoin is greater than the total M might naively imply, but of course the quantity theory adequately accounts for this in the V factor.
Bitcoin is not predominantly a currency, not yet.
It is currently a commodity that has value because of its potential to become a revolutionary currency (with even greater per-unit value).
Any attempt at valuation based on velocity of money is doomed to failure.
If you attempted to value a tech startup based on its discounted cashflow you'd come up with a rather misleading figure
November 30, 2013, 10:07:54 PM
That college game day QR code address has now netted over 22 BTC. Can you hear the editors sending the story to press?
Wow. That's impressive. Yeah and more fodder for the coin haterz.
Jump to: