You know, normally I'd assume you're joking, but I guess you're not...

to recap:

1) you're invested too much in an extremely speculative asset^*.

2) your investment is underwater, and you have no form of risk control in place

3) if it goes down further (and you're down with your initial, already too big, investment even more), you plan to increase your exposure.

... I'm not even gloating, or trying to be a dick... I'm just puzzled. And, while I don't know you personally, a bit worried.



^* (well, that's what it is. has a shot at going to the moon, has a real chance to never make it back to $1000. ergo: extremely speculative)

Hashpower majority will follow economic majority (it's individually rational of each miner/pool to do so, so it's not even potentially a ToC scenario.). Economic majority would need to be fully aligned with mining majority for that to happen, but that is extremely unlikely: old BTC hands + new high net investors (say, Winklevii) + 2013 and later venture capital + exchange operators are a lot more likely to constitute an economic majority together, and they have nothing to gain from a fork motivated by disgruntled miners.

EDIT: but I enjoy the odd devil's advocate style scenario, so i'm not complaining you brought that one up.

Don't know if that's in response to my answer, but you basically equated "thinking that we're still in a downtrend" with "salivating daytraders".

That's bound to get a reaction

User adoption (vs. merchant adoption, that looks a lot better).

The trolling tone of posters like Jorge aside, they do have a point somewhat:

It is not 100% clear that a vast number of people will feel the need to get into crypto. Let's go into the reasons of the groups that we do know have an interest:

- political (somewhat simplified: libertarian mindset)

- desire for anonymity (somewhat simplified: black market transactions) (yes, I know, not really anonymous. But a lot better than buying weed with your CC)

- economical (somewhat simplified: Austrian school)

- unbanked / remittance market (somewhat simplified: the poorest of the world)

- technological (somewhat simplified:  Bitcoin "feels" technologically superior to, say, cash to a certain type of people)

- (EDIT) inflation safe store of value / free movement of capital (like a combination of "ecnomical" and "unbanked" above, but for countries that are developed enough to have a working banking system, but where "inflation" is more than just something that only Austrians get mad about. Argentina comes to mind, for exmple.)

(Did I forget an obvious group?)

Point is, we're waiting for signs of massive adoption in either one of the above groups, or signs of minor adoption in the broad population.

That, or the next wave of speculative capital, I guess.

"CNN now has a Bitcoin ticker" doesn't really add much to answer that question, at the current level of exposure.

It's not even that unmotivated, if you think about it.

Back then, Bitcoin was fighting for even the slightest chance at recognition, and even just awareness. A mainstream article was enough for that.

Next was merchant adoption. Took a while, but it looks like Bitcoin is on track in that respect. Makes sense, as well: there's a good, solid financial incentive for merchants to favor Bitcoin over legacy payment systems (assuming they put a processor like Bitpay in between).

Now that that one is settled, more merchant adoption (short of amazon.com) doesn't seem to move price up much anymore.

So, big question to the audience: what's the next "unresolved" question (as in: something that the market still reacts to)?

I have a hunch

Blessed are those with a short term memory...

We were at $680 just 3 months ago. Took a while, then it was clear that the 600s can't be supported (for now).

Then the 500s. One fight in June, one in August. Then that was history.

So we're in the 400s. What makes you so sure they can be supported? It looked like a pretty clear case to me in May (and I wrote about that, accordingly). But right now, I'm much less sure there's strong enough support at mid-to-high 400s.

Sure, it's backed up by nothing but my own understanding of the current technicals, but I'm also not ruling out another rally soon (just that I see it as less likely than in mid May). You however seem pretty sure of what you say. Care to elaborate why?

Hey

Very cool you're not dismissing the idea entirely. No hurry to implement it, imho, it's a major change in presentation, and should probably be thought through well before you decide on a way to to do it.

P.S. Your site rocks.

Hey, Bitcoinwisdom

I have a feature request. I know it is not so simple, but I want to make a case for it:

I noticed that I'm using your site a lot. More than tradingview, even, because your site is so damn fast.

Here's an example of what the problem is:

Sometimes I want to look at the 15min resolution charts in the past. That doesn't work well on Bitcoinwisdom, because the 15min history "window" is pretty small.

Now, I understand this is by design, to keep your service fast and lean.

So you cannot (and don't want to) increase this window.

But what if we would get the option to set a window of the same size, but with different START and END dates?

Example:

Time resolution 15 min. Time window size is about 900 candles (correct?) = about 9 days in 15 min resolution.

Option 1 (current way): I can "scroll" back 9 days.

Option 2 (what I suggest): I can, in addition, enter: Start date "May 1 2013" and End date "May 10 2013" to be displayed.

Within this window, I can now scroll around, but I cannot scroll to *earlier* than May 1, or *later* than May 10, so the max history of 900 candles is still respected (and the display is still fast).

Does that make any sense?

Hey again

I was wondering, how difficult it would be to change the data presentation of coinorama to a more "traditional" and, ultimately, more informative way, where 'time period displayed' and 'time resolution' are not 1:1 linked?

As in: you can set a time resolution (daily, weekly, hourly), but you can zoom in/zoom out (within limits) given that time resolution.

Bitcoinwisdom is probably a good example for that behavior.

Probably quite a rework of your current site, but I'm just throwing it out as a suggestion to what could still be improved

2011 wants to have a word with you.

$32 to $2. That was a sharp drop, not this down 75% chicken shit we might be seeing now.

Still, two years later, $260, then $1200.


What I'm saying is, try to avoid claims about the "future for btc" based on current price. I'm about as bearish as it gets, currently, but you don't see me throwing hissy fits about how Bitcoin is dead because we're in a bear market (and might stay in it even longer).

"... each Time corner point rotates through the other 3-corner Time points, thus creating 16 corners, 96 hours and 4-simultaneous 24-hour Days within a single rotation of Earth – equated to a Higher Order of Life Time Cube."

Yeah. Thanks for sending me down that rabbit hole.

Space Lizards from planet Judaea Prime control the global markets with mind control rays!!!


amirite guyz?


EDIT: nevermind, just found your blog. That is actually the stuff you believe in. Oh lord. Bitcoin is great. Some of its early supporters are kinda freakshow, though.

Right. The point of Liu's post is that Wall Street firms themselves, with their own money, will probably never be the "next group of investors", and will most likely only get in once volume allows them to do their usual tricks.

About the point you make: It's alluded to in the part I quoted actually, as "offsetting risk to retail investors".

But that's another question: how likely is it that a massive vehicle for retail investors (like the ETF, or the existing funds) is going to pump up price all by itself, especially in a persistent bear(ish) market?

In my opinion, it's going to matter eventually (as a huge "fiat flood gate" for the next price jump). But the timing of that next price jump could be much farther into the future than most in this forum seem to believe.

You know that when you start quoting fallling unironically, you've probably crossed over into troll territory yourself. Whatever works for you. (Also, "sloppy" doesn't even begin to describe that triangle in white you've tacked onto your post to give some resemblance of TA to your ramblings.)

from: http://jackcliu.com/post/97546140332/why-wall-street-has-yet-to-enter-bitcoin


There's this persistent idea that "Wall Street" is going to "drive the next bubble". Alternatively that idea is expressed as "once big money arrives" (we're going to the moon).

Just finished reading this post by Jack C. Liu, and I wanted to share it here because it puts into not-too-many words what I've been thinking myself for a long time now: don't count on Wall Street to drive the next price jump.

I'm sure you will (correctly) point out that this Liu guy is just another dude with an opinion. Absolutely true. I'm not claiming this post is interesting because of deep insider knowledge. It is interesting in my opinion because it makes sense.

Let me know what you think.

Awww, look at puppy Blitz, before he became all callous and cynical about the markets... He even complained about a "manipulator" who's "keeping the price down" ... just like the new noobs are doing now :3


Don't ban me please

Thanks for the update, much appreciated as always.

Care to give a very brief rundown on what "study subgraph difference" is? A quick Google search gives me the idea it might be a MACD-like momentum indicator, but based on Hull MA instead of SMA/EMA? Yes/No?

Huh, wondering where Devin Chow is these days...

He was always more than willing for some grade A backdoor integration, if you know what I mean

That does not counter (or even relate to) my argument. I talked about individual preference, you talk about non-rigorous vs. rigorous pursuit of a field.


Then again, I invited that response to a degree: I agree with Jorge's conclusion that there cannot be "rigorous economic arguments" in what is conventionally called a "discussion about economics".

I disagree with his idea that academic economics (or at least, parts of it) are or can become "hard sciences" in the sense that the field provides testable predictive models for fragments of economic reality.

Agreeing with Sr. Stolfo here. Economics, politics, etc. are at least partially based on an individual's set of preferences. Arguing which of those sets is superior to another won't work unless you appeal to a set of higher axioms, which eventually always turn out to be ideologically motivated.

That said, there is one case in which a rigorous political/economical argument can be made: in showing that one's set of preferences is contradictory.

However, the problem is that even in those potentially rigorous arguments, one will need to make some assumptions that are not easily seen as "objective", so we're back to the first point - that economical/political objectivity doesn't practically exist.