Jaroslaw, you gonna bring us down to single digits tonight or tomorrow?

How long can they sustain that?

If everything goes smoothly, when is the soonest that the twins can start selling shares?

Wouldn't it make more sense to take cash from the IPO to manipulate the price further before cashing out? They might have enough cash and coins to drive the price up and down at will.

Would anyone be surprised to learn that the Winklevoss twins were almost solely responsible for bid-walling Bitcoin from single to triple digits?

Or those with the most hashing power may collectively decide to invest in an altcoin before a planned 51-attack on bitcoin. Afterwards, they can pump up the alt to unprecedented levels as it fills the newly created void left by bitcoin.

You might scoff at the suggestion that the largest miners or pools would collectively decide to do such a thing. But, consider the potential fortunes to be made.

It's too wild to have a "normal." I'm not comfortable pointing to any event(s) as unusual when I've come to expect erratic movements due to all the manipulation.

Frequent atypical behavior is normal in this market.

Unusual is the norm in this market.

Altcoins provide a powerful incentive to undermine Bitcoin's network.

Consider a situation where Bitcoin's price declines to, or stagnates at, a level that is no longer considered profitable by the miners or pools with the most hashing power. Suppose further that one of these miners/pools has enough power to sustain a prolonged 51% attack, or launch short but repeated attacks, sufficient to irreparably damage confidence in Bitcoin. This would result in immediate and intense competition among the most popular alts for Bitcoin's throne.

If the deviant miner/pool had invested in one or more of these alts before the attack, they stand to make a fortune afterwards. Further, if enough coins were purchased, the miner/pool could even control the early stages of competition with buy and sell walls. Such control could be used to maximize profits but is unnecessary, as the alts would rise in value without manipulative pressures while they are filling the void left by Bitcoin.

There is a fortune to be made through destroying Bitcoin.

Oops, you are right about total in $0-2 range.

According to Moody, there are bids totaling more than $50 million in the $0 - $2.50 range.

It isn't difficult to manipulate the total bid sum. All you need to do is place lots of bids far below where you expect sales.

F1 F1 F1 F1 F1 F1 F1 F1 F1 F1 F1 F1 F1 F1 F1 F1 F1 F1 F1 F1 F1

Earlier this morning, about 4 million was dumped within 30 minutes, right? According to Bitcoinity, it would only take a 12.5 million dump on gox to slide all the way down to $20. Am I reading this chart correct?

I realize 12.5 mil is not likely to be dumped all at once. But still... $20 doesn't seem that far away.

I do understand how it could cause a drop in volume, but not to current levels. There are other factors in play that have a greater impact on the price and volume, imo.

Wishful thinking, bull.

A more likely scenario is that speculators consider the price too high (potential reward greatly outweighed by risk at the moment), stubborn miners in a more competitive environment are holding positions, stubborn sellers are not willing to go lower than their entry point and there is a much reduced flow of money into Gox for numerous reasons, including potential new investors sitting on the sidelines viewing a stagnant price and considering weaker returns. Doubtful that the regulations are primarily responsible for widespread panic or reluctance to buy in. It is true that the regulations make it more difficult to get money into Gox, but generally only for the criminal-minded. If you have nothing to hide, it is still easy to transfer money, for example via wire.

I would entertain the possibility that recent regulation enforcement has scared away a small minority of criminals who were using bitcoin for money laundering. If this minority was responsible for most of the previous volume and are now absent, then I'd bet on a long, drawn-out downturn.

There was considerably more volume mid-April. A wall isn't effective when no one is interested in trading.

Demand = pretend demand (i.e. not demand). Ok, whatever.

But given your definition, which I admit may be the generally accepted one, then your analysis goes without saying and is therefore useless. Thanks.

Unwise to assume no manipulation or insider trading, especially in a speculative market like Bitcoin.

What am I confusing? I acknowledged I was guessing by calling it a "bet." But, it was an educated bet that took into consideration recent events.

You are making some of the most speculative guesses in this thread and have a hard time admitting that you might be wrong.