Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 33016. (Read 26497754 times)

The post linked above contains simple and plain truth.

But really I don't get how a lot of people just do not understand.

you stole that from an old radical: http://www.dgcmagazine.com/the-old-radical-how-bitcoin-is-being-destroyed/

There's been suggestions that the naughty whale traders are generating most of the volume, and are even accused of creating false volume, so here's a new chart. It measures how many minutes per day trading volume was at least 100$, and so reduces the impact of large individual sells/buys (and associated activity):



conclusion: bitcoin market is emptier by the day, I hope Gox kept the receipt on their new 'smokin' fast' trading engine...

If you increase the quantity of money, then all other things being equal, a unit of the money will be worth less: inflation.

But if you increase the supply of money and demand for the money increases, i.e. people want to hold more of it, a unit of the money may be worth more than before: deflation.

And if QE adds money to a money system where the amount of credit is collapsing the total money supply may be unchanged or even fall, so the tendency is still deflationary.

Even if a QE is not showing as inflation it still distorts the market. The QE benefits those who first get the money it represents, at the expense of those who already had savings: if it wasn't for the QE their spending power would have risen.

I'm not sure what we are debating however I think you can direct most of your anger towards nixon doing away with the gold standard (fiat money) and Milton What's his face :-)

Back to bitcoins and wall tracking ?

I don't get why inflation should be inherent to the monetary system as you say. I don't get why a dollar's purchasing power should decrease over time.
Suppose there was a finite and constant amount of $ (yeah right)
Suppose the population is increasing so the number of economical subjects is increasing.
Suppose the amount of food they need is also increasing.

The amount of $ is finite and constant, but there are more bananas being produced over time. The bananas are still priced in dollars. My logic says that an increasing quantity of bananas will be worth less dollars per banana.

I understand that the argument against deflationary currencies can be summarized like that:
The increasing purchasing power of the dollar would bring people to hoarding dollars instead of cultivating bananas.
This in turn would make the population starve.

Then I say: This in turn would cause bananas to become more valuable, hence their price in dollars would go up again. It seems pretty self regulating to me. With the added bonus that we'd stop producing more bananas than we really need.

s/dollar/bitcoin I think this is what we are trying to do.

Where did I get it wrong?

Cute Pic.

Quantitive Easing is deployed with a goal of increasing inflation sure, but do you disagree inflation is pretty much inherent in any monetary system since the concept of money was deployed? I'm only questioning why anyone would be surprised that over 100 years 1$ buys far less?

Edit: the guy int he post before me is correct. QE was deployed with the goal of increasing liquidity for banks on the dime of the taxpayer which yes i agree has basically amounted to highway robbery and complete subsidy of greedy banking's downside

Well, first let me say both are robbing the masses.
But, QE is not inflation at the same level of typical inflation, as the money is mostly just seeing the upper reaches of society. (e.g - Via QE, the banks are investing in bonds, the stock market, etc and most of society is not seeing that money.) I believe this can be verified with the velocity of money.
I still think QE causes some inflation, but not as much as I once thought (after reading about it).

Anyone jump in here as I'm going by what I've heard recently. And it's still a recipe for disaster.

Yes, it is possible that we will see again coins for 95-98 on Bitstamp and BTC-e and we do not know how long the wall at $ 104 will be on Mtx ...

Yes, the Bitstamp order book is a "failsafe" of sort regarding the current state of BTC.
Most of us here are bullish on BTC, just not short to mid term.

I don't understand, are you talking about the early morning spike? I can see that some sold their coins, but what about the huge buy that cause the price spike and slippage this morning?
This happened a week or two ago when the price dropped below 100 as well. Same thing, bad business decision regarding the slippage (and the hour was odd, China?). I really wonder if someone is
desperate to keep the price above 100, as once it spends time below that, a new psychology develops (if you know what I mean)...

Not a picture of health from the 2nd largest exchange...

The spike at mtgox is really artificial as people flee this exchange with their bitcoins stuffed into their wallets...
Just look at the bitstamp order book where you see the opposite ...
Everyone is trying to sell

I'd hardly call Inflation robbing the masses, but QE meanwhile is robbing the masses.

The price seems stuck, that gulf between 106 and 104 is just 

Great post Rampion, I'm with you I'd happily continue using bitcoins if they were priced in single digits. The way the economy is looking I'd say its much more likely that fiat currency will be the one losing all its value.

Interesting fact, the Federal Reserve has caused the US$ to devalue by 98% since it was created 100 years ago. Inflation is how to rob the masses without them realising.

I believe "not a person in the world who would want to touch them" is very inaccurate. There are lots of people who don't believe the "legitimacy" delusion, people who is not swallowing the BS they are fed with. People who appreciate the ability to do whatever they want with their money, regardless of what some regulators/policemen/government thugs say.

Are you worried by Bitcoin going to single digits, even sub dollar? I explained many times, with figures, why I believe in the long term Bitcoin will be more expensive than now, even in a global ban scenario. Black market economy is huge, so if your only worry is the exchange rate, I won't worry so much. Of course you will have to learn how to trade it outside the traditional channels in that scenario.

Then, I will say something that may be very impopular in the speculation sub forum: if Bitcoin goes to single digits but it survives, serving as a tool for those that cannot move their money freely in order to bypass unfair regulations, I will be happy. Sure, I would have lost a lot of the value I threw at Bitcoin, which is not negligible - I can tell you I could leave very good during two years with the amount of fiat I invested in BTC. Still, if I'd lose it I wouldn't be starving, and I'm very conscious from the very first moment that this is a super high risk investment. Fiat denominated profit is a nice bonus, but it was never my goal when I decided to participate in this experiment. I very much prefer being free than being rich. For me Bitcoin is a matter of freedom and principles, this is about challenging the rotten financial system, not about getting rich quick. And still, as I said earlier, in the long run I don't see BTC going to sub-dollar unless a) a superior crypto with the same characteristics (trust-free, decentralized) takes over, or b) a fatal flaw in the protocol is discovered.

Let the party begin, I hope you were never so foolish to believe that the people pulling the strings in the financial world would leave something that truly endangers their position alone.