Socialism/communism is much more corrosive than just the negative effect any single ruling party can have. As a mindset, it imbibes at least half the population, sometimes as many as 90%, with an entitled culture whereby they spend most of their lives looking over the fence jealously envying what someone else has and thinking somehow that their birthright has been stolen from them. The net effect is it tears the fabric of society apart as individuals turn/work against each other, instead for themselves albeit in total in the same direction.
i know im going to get flak for this, but that description sounds like capitalism: the jealousy of another's riches versus being content with what one has and not continuously (and unsustainably) striving for more; and the ruthless competition that wastes more resources than the innovation it breeds. see? generalizing over entire schools of economic thought is easy. stop acting like a bunch of indoctrinated westerners. did you guys grow up during the red scare or something? "-isms" aren't inherently evil. |
|
|
|
|
are you in the habit of posturing yourself at extreme angles? shoulders are even. this is bad TA
|
|
|
|
What the hell is this thread doing in speculation it belongs to politics & society or at least off-topic
climategate is completely unrelated to this.
Do something useful like finding the keys and methods to extract this information from the torrents.
+1 icebreaker just turned this thread into his conspiracy theory soapbox |
|
|
|
is that a serious quote? because i see the usefulness of TA but i still think astrology is complete bunk.
Western astrology (the shit in the newspapers) is incorrect because it does not consider precession. It was accurate at the time it was translated from vedic astrology, but now it is off by an entire sign. Proper vedic astrology actually lines up with the positions of planets and is quite helpful for understanding the energies currently influencing the world. Anyway, if you want to debate this again, this is not the place. I doubt much good will come out of it since last time we both just gave up, but if you want to create a thread to discuss it maybe some new perspectives will show up. if you're not even correct about where the celestial bodies in question are (western astrology), then it's double-bunk. but even if you know (vedic astrology), you still have to identify a mechanism or reliable effect through which their positions influence the personalities, thoughts, or tendencies of people. if you can show that, feel free to start a thread and we can discuss the question of validity. otherwise, the basic premise of astrology is groundless. |
|
|
|
|
is that a serious quote? because i see the usefulness of TA but i still think astrology is complete bunk.
|
|
|
|
We can't assume the free market is efficient, but it should be an approximation of an efficient market. As a consequence, from the current value of 19.6, 100 is almost twice as likely to be touched before 2. A few more stats using the efficient-market hypothesis: - The chance of touching 2 before 190 is almost exactly 50%
- The chance of touching 100 before 3.75 is almost exactly 50%
not saying i reject your analysis, but how did you come about these numbers? |
|
|
|
SELL SELL SELL!!!
No, you should have done that two hours ago when people were saying "buy, buy, buy". Now is when you "buy, buy, buy". +1 we've already bounced. gotta anticipate market movements, not react to them. unless you want to be a bag holder. yes, this is what i try to do with cycle theory; it allows one to anticipate or time the turns. its not always easy. so you're in the bull camp now? of course not. but you should certainly not sell at the bottom of the first leg of a correction. wait for a bounce, and a second top for the (lower) high. and if you're daytrading, which could be very profitable during these times of volatility, you should buy at the microterm bottoms like the $18.00 low, again to sell at the next top before we go downside for good  it would be hilarious if i was so terrible at analysis that i switched camps right when we've finally topped off...  |
|
|
|
Where do you think we are in the bubble?
SELL SELL SELL!!! No, you should have done that two hours ago when people were saying "buy, buy, buy". Now is when you "buy, buy, buy". +1 we've already bounced. gotta anticipate market movements, not react to them. unless you want to be a bag holder. |
|
|
|
perhaps they just started....? low: $18.00 |
|
|
|
i'm skeptical about 'price-averaging'. given a stochastic market, aren't the chances that you end up with an average price higher than whatever initial buy-in price equal to the chances that you can achieve a lower average price?
i understand that large buys are prone to slippage, and that is one advantage of multiple smaller bids, but does the technique really average dollar cost?
But by that logic you're 50% likely to lose money as you are to make money in any investment, in which case investing is pointless. Dollar cost averaging just provides a simple way to buy more when it's cheap and less when it's more expensive, without having to spend your whole life doing analysis, or beating yourself up when you call the bottom wrong. if you have no information about price direction, then yes, you are no more likely to win than to lose. that is the point. 'investments' are usually made with a positive expected return, so that's different. what im trying to say here, is that without knowing anything about price direction, your chances of getting a lower mean price through cost-averaging are no better than getting a higher mean price. is that wrong? |
|
|
|
|
the information that someone sold 44000 coins will still be priced in, no matter through what method they choose to carry out the exchange.
|
|
|
|
the reason this is completely unfeasible
...
is because markets are anti-inductive. they correct for 'knowledge' of future price information. so you not only have to see the trend forming from regular trading, but anticipate the actions of all of the others who see the trend as well. Which leads to the conclusion: what technical analysis claims to achieve is pointless. arbitrage opportunities have the same characteristics. by your logic they are never profitable. learn2gametheory. again, just because you don't understand something doesn't mean it's intentional mystification.
We can safely skip the question if it's an intentional deception or mystification, it is sufficient that it is a mystification, by its nature. The first thing when you start learning math is to prove the necessity of new terms and laws you introduce, and to prove that any construction you create actually delivers what you claim it to do. here are a number of things about price behavior that i'm sure you know already. this list is also, incidentally, a list of phenomena that can easily be quantified. -increasing and decreasing candle heights
-increasing and decreasing volume
-momentum of price movement
-percentage of old highs or lows
-volatility
if you understand why paying attention to these things is important to understanding what is likely to happen to the price in the next period, you will understand why the mathematical models such as Bollinger Band Width, Percent Volume Oscillator, Rate of Change, Aroon Up/Down, and Mass Index, respectively, are useful. finally, price behaves as a stochastic function and so one can never predict future price. One can only make statistical claims like "price is likely to..." but these claims are easily shown to be supported by technical analysis. i'm pretty damn close to doing a TA/basic calculus thread to explain to all of you who never took the time to analyze technical analysis how the basic concept of derivatives are used to predict tops and bottoms. |
|
|
|
so how many minutes until "never" ends?  it looks like today is the end of this topic. we're still about $150,000 away. it actually looks like today is the end of this bull run... |
|
|
|
Exactly my point.
Technical analysis isn't vodoo, it is a mystification.
It is just a bunch of common sense packaged in arbitrarily complex terminology and a layer of math, which serves the purpose to impress the uneducated.
are you projecting? it's not common sense, it must be learned. and the idea of the relationship between derivatives and integrals (rate of change vs cumulative height) is also very important. in other words, you need to know bitcoin, AND math. not very many do. that's why it's lucrative. the reason the below is completely unfeasible: If technical analysis would be something substantial, then you could create a constructive algorithm, which could be executed by a machine or a human without any experience, and generate precise or at least >80% reliable predictions (on statements which have substantial explicative value) is because markets are anti-inductive. they correct for 'knowledge' of future price information. so you not only have to see the trend forming from regular trading, but anticipate the actions of all of the others who see the trend as well. Technical analysis can't deliver to that promise. So you can skip all the allegedly high tech smoke and mirrors, and just apply a bit of common sense, to arrive at the same level of predictions and reliability.
again, just because you don't understand something doesn't mean it's intentional mystification. i have no doubt that the large subscription-based analyses primarily function by herding the 'ignorant' masses but don't let those few give all of us a bad name. and it's not like other methods are equal in prediction reliability; you can talk until you're blue about news or fundamentals but these things are extremely difficult to quantize with regards to price information. i.e., how is buying because you believe BFL will follow through an informed trade? |
|
|
|
technical analysis could be a self fulfilling prophecy. The more people believe in technical analysis and act accordingly, the more the patterns "predicted" by techical analysis start showing up in real world measurment values. So there are two aspects to this issue. - if you want to prove scientifically that there is some real effect, as opposed to just an assumed effect, then you'd need a way to prevent your test subject to know the rules to be proved -- to prevent behaviour according to an assumed effect. Some kind of a double blind test
- if you're looking just for some practical guidelines, the more people know and believe in technical analysis, the better. Congratulations, you've produced a nice flock of mentally conditioned sheep.
technical analysis isn't voodoo. it isn't something you believe in or you don't. most indicators are price/volume transforms and their abstractions. if you understand the behavior of price and volume generally (no rallies on decreasing volume, support/resistance at price levels, and retracements) then you'll understand technical analysis. i'm tired of this lemming bullshit. if you just go "LOOK THE PRETTY PICTURES ARE GOING UP UP UP" then you're not doing technical analysis. |
|
|
|
Uh oh! macd says get out at the bottom.
it ain't no bottom yet |
|
|
|
bearish reversal pattern that can also mark a top or resistance i'm trying to figure out at what point those losing money trying technical analysis against bitcoin simply conclude that it's different with bitcoin. [/quote] do you have evidence for that positive claim? |
|
|
|
the smaller picture you mean. right now we're bouncing off of the 61.8% mark from the low of $15.63 to yesterday's peak of $17.81. unless we break through there is no way but down. http://s8.postimage.org/wvptu96np/chart5.pngclear consolidating market making new lows in the ADX 17.80, breakthrough? Or does it need to hold above that level? yes this is a very precarious situation. having just broken through if we now hold above it, that is very bullish. however, the only way down from here is a strong downward move. consolidating around this level is risky to a bear |
|
|
|
the smaller picture you mean. right now we're bouncing off of the 61.8% mark from the low of $15.63 to yesterday's peak of $17.81. unless we break through there is no way but down.  clear consolidating market making new lows in the ADX |
|
|
|
that's exactly right. thanks for that beautiful diagram showing that the correction to the reversal bounced neatly off of the 61.8% line. wave analysis degrades after the first correction... the classic intuition is a 'head and shoulders' shape. so you refer to wave 2 as in elliot waves, but im still undecided on that particular technique. there seems to be a combination of noise-to-signal ratio problems and confirmation bias in constructing the model. from my analysis, the correction failed to continue the trend. the price is breaking an important support as we speak, so we shall see. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
