Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 32558. (Read 26608405 times)

Those were buys on stamp, and sells on gox.

You can't see it now though as it seems to have stopped.

I wonder if someone is succesfully getting USD out of gox and is trying to arbitrage while minimising slippage. Or gox themselves are.

We'll see if it starts again.

This is a steady stream of buys. These trades aren't originated by sellers because the seller's orders are being hit all the time. Someone is accumulating a large holding and does not want to do the usual whale splash of ripping up the ask wall.

Lol at chart  

Blockchained.com says 11.71 M BTC mined, which I think is accurate.

weren't we mining at an accelerated pace the last few months perhaps this is the result of that? or perhaps there is some missing data for about a week or so.

otherwise the chart looks good to me

Off-topic, but does anybody know what is wrong with blockchain.info charts? 

Like this one with amount of bitcoin in circulation: http://blockchain.info/charts/total-bitcoins?timespan=30days&showDataPoints=false&daysAverageString=1&show_header=true&scale=0&address=

Looks like there has been an error since september 5th.

It provides for some liquidity.

its not unusual to see 10,000 - 25,000BTC traded in 1 hour

the sellers selling slowly at market is bullish!

ummm, the same thing is going on at bitstamp. slow and steady stream of 1 btc sells.

thats something like 2-400/hr on each exchange.

Perfectly reasonable explanation.  Speculation?  Of course.  His bigger point of this manipulation being a threat to Bitcoin however, is dead on.  Just one of many threats on a long list, IMO.   

Lol, you nailed it.

the impression i got from the article was someone lost out on some trades, his ego got hurt...

started to drink a bunch of whisky (I base this on his own bio, claiming to be a lover of whisky) that got him mad about it...

then to calm down called over some friends to smoke some weed (bought on SR of course, totally guessing here) that unfortunately made him really paranoid because the weed turned out to be moldy...

after sometime being high and coming up with ideas of what is going on with bitcoin someone at the party broke out the cocaine (because y'all know whisky and coke always come together to the party)

finally, he decided to do something about all this trading nonsense and wrote this article.

i know that's not what actually happened (OR DID IT but hey this is what happens when someone takes wild stabs in the dark...

I don't like it either and i don't get the same conclusions. It has some interesting ideas though.
As i said his own opinion. Wonder what is crossing his mind lately. He was absolutely bullish some months ago:

http://falkvinge.net/2013/03/06/the-target-value-for-bitcoin-is-not-some-50-or-100-it-is-100000-to-1000000/

Is he out and wants to come in again?

this article has a number of major flaws

#1 conspiracy theory

there is some cabal of traders- does he mean like a hedge fund operates?

# intent

he is guessing at intent

"splitting an order to give the illusion of many trades, and trading within a group to give the appearance of increased volume"

how about... splitting an order to maximize profit

his whole argument hinges on increased volume, yet there are people on this forum bitchin about lowered volume... huh 

#3 stop loss triggering

" causing more stop losses to trigger "

is anyone aware of any of the major exchanges to have a stop loss feature? as far as i know it does not exist.

# 4 panic selling

"illusion of many different players panic-selling" is created by 1 btc sells every 5 seconds?

no the illusion of panic selling would be created by someone dumping 500 btc, waiting 5 minutes, dumping 750 btc, waiting 5 minutes, dumping 1000 btc, waiting 5 minutes dumping 1250 btc.... boom! the rats start jumping ship...

i could go on but i would just suggest people not listen to a politician for market analysis, there is a reason why his role in society is politician not hedge fund manager...

Check falkvinges article about it. He has his own opinion about this 1 btc sells.

http://falkvinge.net/2013/09/13/bitcoins-vast-overvaluation-seems-to-be-caused-by-usually-illegal-price-fixing/

1btc bot is probably Gox raising funds to cover withdrawals. 

Its been going on for days now.  Looks like the same person is buying 1 BTC every 5-10 seconds on Bitstamp.

what is up with the barrage of 1 btc sells every 5-10 seconds? its hypnotizing.  good way to sell 1000s of coins without really moving/scaring the market. good way to induce movements but costly if wrong. maybe not too costly.

Can someone bring some insight into this document about the Federal Election Comission request and its possibilities to get accepted. Comments period finishes today 16th

http://saos.nictusa.com/aodocs/1245451.pdf

I think politicians accepting bitcoins can be quite bullish for market. As does not make much sense to accept them and later do not pave the path for their growth in further legislations.


Some info about this

A political action committee has sought an advisory opinion from the Federal Election Commission (FEC) as to whether bitcoins can be accepted as political contributions and, if so, how bitcoins should be characterized and valued by recipients.[1]  The FEC is accepting comments on the request until September 16, 2013.  A decision from the FEC is expected by October 28, 2013.[2]    
The FEC’s consideration of the request is significant because it will mark only the second time that a U.S. government agency has publicly considered the nature of bitcoins.[3]  An FEC ruling that bitcoins can be accepted as campaign contributions would, at least implicitly, constitute recognition that bitcoins are a legitimate alternative form of currency, which could in turn further broaden their use.  A ruling limiting or precluding bitcoin contributions, however, could create a drag on the growth of the virtual currency industry.  
The FEC’s ruling is also potentially significant in that the FEC has been asked to weigh in on a number of questions that go to the nature of bitcoins and how they should be valued.  Recognizing that current FEC regulations mandate that monetary contributions be treated differently than in-kind contributions (which may include stocks, bonds and intangible goods),  the request seeks guidance regarding whether bitcoin contributions should be treated as  monetary or in-kind contributions.  The request contends that bitcoins resemble both monetary and in-kind contributions in various ways and asks the FEC to rule that bitcoin contributions may be treated as either (consistent with the applicable rules governing receipt and disposition), at the election of the recipient.  The request then poses more specific questions about how bitcoin contributions should be valued under either scenario, including whether bitcoins treated as in-kind contributions can be held indefinitely for future sale and, if so, at what point they should be valued for purposes of reporting and complying with donation limitations.   How the FEC rules on these questions of how bitcoins should be characterized and valued could have implications beyond the narrow confines of election law.  While the FEC’s ruling will not be binding on other federal agencies considering whether and how to regulate bitcoins, it may certainly be cited as relevant precedent.  For example, if the FEC were to characterize bitcoins as in-kind contributions analogous to stocks or commodities, this characterization could influence the future consideration of bitcoins by the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, both of which have indicated that they are reviewing their possible jurisdiction over bitcoins.[4]  Such a ruling could also create questions about inconsistencies with the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network’s (FinCEN) March 18, 2013 Guidance interpreting the status of virtual currency under the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) and the anti-money laundering
    


from: https://www.google.es/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CEYQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Ff.datasrvr.com%2Ffr1%2F313%2F17749%2FUpdate_DVC_13_09_FederalElectionCommission.pdf&ei=4Ho3UvKQKO_07Ab9lYD4Bg&usg=AFQjCNGJFNDwDlV2G1rT239CFt3yhTiBkQ&bvm=bv.52164340,d.ZGU

Not sure I agree. It's a trade and a symmetry. There's no reason to pick BTC over $. Not sure what an appropriate indicator would be though.

Edit: As the $ is currently more stable, that is a good argument for using $ as the measure.

just what do you think the FBI will say...

how about..

we need more money for more computing power so that we can try to trace these illicit money laundering transactions, please give us another $10 billion so we can hire more people and buy more hardware