Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 32555. (Read 26471274 times)
July 22, 2013, 11:22:21 PM
If this baby goes down though, I believe 90 is no save bet as we will at least go back to 70, maybe lower.
July 22, 2013, 11:01:16 PM
July 22, 2013, 10:58:55 PM
Time will tell but I think we are at least in for another resistance test.
Seems reasonable
So I should sell at $99.98 and wait to buy back at $90? That would be a nice 10% pick up.
Be my guest
July 22, 2013, 10:41:45 PM
Time will tell but I think we are at least in for another resistance test.
Seems reasonable
So I should sell at $99.98 and wait to buy back at $90? That would be a nice 10% pick up.
lol
July 22, 2013, 10:01:14 PM
July 22, 2013, 09:55:01 PM
Time will tell but I think we are at least in for another resistance test.
Seems reasonable
So I should sell at $99.98 and wait to buy back at $90? That would be a nice 10% pick up.
July 22, 2013, 09:13:55 PM
Time will tell but I think we are at least in for another resistance test.
Seems reasonable
July 22, 2013, 09:01:02 PM
July 22, 2013, 09:00:04 PM
I think we will retest 100 now. EMAs 10 and 21 (Goomboos) look good in 1hr and 2hr chart (my favorite periods for them), PSAR of 4hr chart as well, Bollinger Bands of 4hr and 6hr charts get narrow while we are on the upper half and rising, we just laid down a tripple bottom on the 88 USD resistance, although with little volume, and the Fibonachi retracements of the last big moves from 65 and 104 and from 104 to only 86 look quite bullish.
On the other hand there is a plethora of resistances coming up ahead all the way to the menacing 100 USD resistance, we had little volume so far to fuel the rocket and resemblance to the 2011 bubble would suggest that we simply keep bouncing off that resistance till we break it at low levels, lower then these for sure. Add to that that no real capitulation stage could be felt yet in these forums, so we may just as well dip down after a small sucker rally on low volume
Time will tell but I think we are at least in for another resistance test.
On the other hand there is a plethora of resistances coming up ahead all the way to the menacing 100 USD resistance, we had little volume so far to fuel the rocket and resemblance to the 2011 bubble would suggest that we simply keep bouncing off that resistance till we break it at low levels, lower then these for sure. Add to that that no real capitulation stage could be felt yet in these forums, so we may just as well dip down after a small sucker rally on low volume
Time will tell but I think we are at least in for another resistance test.
July 22, 2013, 08:01:14 PM
July 22, 2013, 07:01:17 PM
July 22, 2013, 06:48:42 PM
@all: How goo is the signal produced by one wall bought in this case? In other words: Would you buy/sell depending on the outcome of this stand off?
I would discount the event in which one wall would get pulled before substantially reduced by executed orders as a valid signal. So one wall HAS to be bought for this to have any meaning to me.
I would discount the event in which one wall would get pulled before substantially reduced by executed orders as a valid signal. So one wall HAS to be bought for this to have any meaning to me.
I'm not reading so much into it. I thought it's just the minimum sized no-slippage buy possible. Plus, if it gets sold into, another one can go up. Not a bad strategy to prevent from frightening sheep or bots
July 22, 2013, 06:40:52 PM
@all: How good is the signal produced by one wall bought in this case? In other words: Would you buy/sell depending on the outcome of this stand off?
I would discount the event in which one wall would get pulled before substantially reduced by executed orders as a valid signal. So one wall HAS to be bought for this to have any meaning to me.
I would discount the event in which one wall would get pulled before substantially reduced by executed orders as a valid signal. So one wall HAS to be bought for this to have any meaning to me.
July 22, 2013, 06:29:52 PM
It wouldnt suprise me if both walls would belong to the same owner 
July 22, 2013, 06:23:50 PM
I said half of it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold
I guess wikipedia should check their sources ha?
Btw investment is 40%, I think that includes "pure gold rings"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold
Quote
The world consumption of new gold produced is about 50% in jewelry, 40% in investments, and 10% in industry.
I guess wikipedia should check their sources ha?
Btw investment is 40%, I think that includes "pure gold rings"
That's consumption of new gold coming out of the ground. I'm talking percentage of market capitalization. 5-10% is about right.
I would say that ratio remained more or less constant over time. So it should be equal to market capitalisation.
Or are you including gold that hasn't even been mined yet?
I wasn't.
I have no data though, making my argumentation weaker. But most of the worlds gold lies in the form of bars in huge vaults doesn't it? Do you have any figures?
Well you said it.
There are various figures the problem is most of it is distorted depending on where you look. That is actually one of the few advantages Bitcoin has over Gold, you know how much there is of it.
To be honest I don't find this debate very fruitful, at least you give back respectful answers but I was kind of dragged into this and don't really care that much about gold.
My point concerned the similarity with bitcoin, or lack there of which I say is closer correlated with Rhodium, which you can see in another thread.
July 22, 2013, 06:16:53 PM
Maybe this is indeed a "Decision maker". In fact Mr. 91.6 USD Wall may want to provoke a clear decision where price wants to go. If it goes down, he sells, if it goes up, he buys?
July 22, 2013, 06:14:19 PM
I said half of it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold
I guess wikipedia should check their sources ha?
Btw investment is 40%, I think that includes "pure gold rings"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold
Quote
The world consumption of new gold produced is about 50% in jewelry, 40% in investments, and 10% in industry.
I guess wikipedia should check their sources ha?
Btw investment is 40%, I think that includes "pure gold rings"
That's consumption of new gold coming out of the ground. I'm talking percentage of market capitalization. 5-10% is about right.
I would say that ratio remained more or less constant over time. So it should be equal to market capitalisation.
Or are you including gold that hasn't even been mined yet?
I wasn't.
I have no data though, making my argumentation weaker. But most of the worlds gold lies in the form of bars in huge vaults doesn't it? Do you have any figures?
July 22, 2013, 06:12:16 PM
I said half of it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold
I guess wikipedia should check their sources ha?
Btw investment is 40%, I think that includes "pure gold rings"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold
Quote
The world consumption of new gold produced is about 50% in jewelry, 40% in investments, and 10% in industry.
I guess wikipedia should check their sources ha?
Btw investment is 40%, I think that includes "pure gold rings"
That's consumption of new gold coming out of the ground. I'm talking percentage of market capitalization. 5-10% is about right.
I would say that ratio remained more or less constant over time. So it should be equal to market capitalisation.
Or are you including gold that hasn't even been mined yet?
July 22, 2013, 06:04:44 PM
I said half of it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold
I guess wikipedia should check their sources ha?
Btw investment is 40%, I think that includes "pure gold rings"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold
Quote
The world consumption of new gold produced is about 50% in jewelry, 40% in investments, and 10% in industry.
I guess wikipedia should check their sources ha?
Btw investment is 40%, I think that includes "pure gold rings"
That's consumption of new gold coming out of the ground. I'm talking percentage of market capitalization. 5-10% is about right.
July 22, 2013, 06:04:18 PM
Oh please! 
Jump to: