That volume could be generated by the common traders, given the huge price increase. 

Yesterday's traded volume at OKCoin was "only" ~430 kBTC.  Their previous daily record was ~280 kBTC (three separate days in Feb--Mar/2014). 

The rally seems to be pulled by OKCoin. Huobi is usually within a few CNY from OKCoin, but now it is considerably lower (almost 100 CNY below at one time earlier today).  And the "Western" exchanges are even lower.

I would guess that OKCoin clients are reacting to the rumor about that multi-billion hedge fund "trading on their platform".  The rumor seems to be unconfirmed, though.

Perhaps OKCoin's online forum has some hints about the causes of this rally.

Since this is gentleman, shouldn't we apply loser standards on other peoples spelling and grummar, and hodl back our criticisms?

"The fund started trading on our platform" could mean "the fund licensed OKCoin trading software to trade their shares" or "the fund started trading their shares on the OKCoin servers + software".

I recal OKCoin boasting of their previous experience with financial/banking processing.  The above interpretation would be great news for OKCoin and their VC investors, but would be irrelevant for bitcoin.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MACD

(Ahem, I cannot resist pointing out that I helped edit that article, a few months ago. )

Just to be clear, what I think that the OKCoin guy meant is that the fund has licensed OKcoin's trading software, and perhaps is using their IT infrastructure, for their own shares.

You are misquoting me, I don't give investment advice.  I said only that I have converted the entirety of my bitcoin holdings to XRP.  And I am still doubling them every day.

(The first mention of bitcoin I saw was Falkvinge tweeting, last November: "I give no investment advice, but I am putiing all my savings into bitcoin".  Which he kept at MtGOX.) 

The head article by Tuur was taken down.  (Tuur is the guy who once spoke wonders of Neo&Bee, right?)

I listened to a bit of the interview, it was not clear to me what the guy meant.  The phrase could be understood as "that fund is now using OKCoin's platform (i.e. servers + software + support personel) to trade its own shares, not bitcoin".  No?  (That would be great news for OKCoin and their VC investors, irrelevant for bitcoin & traders.)

Well, to my plebeian eyes the contents seems very much like what a good lawyer would write, and a good web admin hired by a well-paying lawyer would construct.   Note for example the careful and repetitive statements to the effect "I have no idea yet" that end most items in the FAQ.  I don't think that the people who wrote BFL's defense statements would write like this. 

But those devils are much cleverer than me...

Does the email address listed in the IP registration records (eljreceiver@spencerfane.com) match that listed in reliable sources?

BTW, the MtGOX liquidator set up an informational website too, although it is way more spartan than the above, IIRC.

The arbitragers may have run out of BTC or money during this rally.  (Todayś volume is already 198 kBTC at Huobi, 380 kBTC OkCoin. The previous record at the latter was 285 kBTC, back in March, after one of the PBoC scares.)

Does WhatsApp have any patents/copyrights on their "technology"? (Presumably they own the brand.)

Commerical blockchain transactions are bitcoins changing owner in return for goods or services.  We can include bitcoins converted to cash through Bitpay/Coinbase.

Non-commercial transactions are bitcoins moving between addresses of the same owner (tumbling, hotwallet-coldwallet flow, consolidation and splitting, etc.), bitcoins exchanged by other currencies (via localbitcoins or OTC trades), or transfers between private wallets and bitcoin "banks" (entities where deposited bitcoins are stored in personal accounts, e.g. exchanges and gambling sites).

Coindesk apparently assumes that non-commercial trasactions generally offer SMALLER fees than commercial ones.  So, the rise in number of transactions without an increase in total fees suggests that only the non-commercial transactions are increasing.

It is hard to tell, though, since commercial transacions must be a small fraction of the total trasactions entering the blockchain.  Any increase in the commercial traffic would be hard to separate from the non-commercial one.

Why do you say so? I believe they are investigating all the past history of BFL, and I do not see why they would favor new refund requests over old ones. 

AFAIK, in bankrupcies, the receiver posts a deadline for all creditors to submit their claims, while he collects all the company assets. Then the receiver checks the claims and rejects invalid ones.  Then, if the recovered assets are not sufficient to cover all claims, they are divided proportionally to the amounts claimed, e.g. 50 cents to the dolar.  The FTC intervention is not a bankruptcy, but erhaps it will follow the same method (which IMHO is the fairest practical solution I can think of).

We edited at the same time; would you forgive me if I repeat your question 'didn't you read all the 313 pages of this thread?'?

indeed, shoud we ask that to the Original Poster?

Does he still care to know whether we would like a bacon sandwich?

That would be quite unusual.  Unless the SEC is worried about the huge loss that some customers would face if they liquidated now.

Earlier this year, SMBIT did promise that an open market for their shares would be available this year (which quarter?).  Perhaps the SEC letter has something to do with that promise?

What was again the penalty for violaing the only rule of this game?

What chain?

Is that fund trading bitcoin, or is it just using their trading platform to trade something else?