Its going up too fast. Ooh, now its going up too slow!

It went up, but time to go back down. Turning down now... okay trend changed. Gonna go all the way down, naturally..

Bear logic.

Nice channel.. very simple. So simple its genius, many satoshis for you good sir.

Alright, got my head on straight (hopefully).

Cumulative volume doesn't really highlight well, what it is you are trying to show. The main thing that pops out is that price is the same now as back then.

What I would be much more interested to see is a plot of cumulative net volume. I suspect it would be similar to on-balance volume, and I'm curious to see how similar.

Plotting the On-Balance Volume transforms some of that "stretched out" x-axis into vertical change (projected onto the linear date axis), making what you are trying to show much more clear (ie, that the OBV is much higher now than it was back in June '11). But I am curious to see how the cumulative net volume would plot (not sure if there is an indicator equal to cumulative net volume).

Thanks for the charts. But my first thought is that your labeling of the axex as "cumulative trade volume" don't make no sense. A "cumulative volume" plot would be monotonic, always-increasing. Cumulative net-volume might decrease. So I'm not sure exactly what you're plotting here.

Ooops, a little celebration-drunk. The cumulative quantity is on the x-axis (always-increasing), makes total sense. Nice charts!

First of all, its not a news-based, rapid-adoption rally. Look at those long periods of sideways consolidation, first around $5, then around $12. We're in an uptrend: sideways leads to up. Until otherwise (ie downtrend) there's no reason to suspect that sideways will lead to down.

Secondly, you're using an oscillating indicator again (ADX).

But thanks for the quote about the King Effect (didn't see that before). At first glance, I can see that it's another mean-reversion statistic. Such economic models (mean-reversion long-term predictions based on historical precedence) were shown to be insufficient by the superbubble in 2008. That's because economic systems are social systems, not natural systems. Social systems are subject to reflexive effects, which means they won't behave like the natural, biological/physical laws which restrict the populations of countries. (google George Soros, his slogan is "the market is always wrong". or decent intro video convo).

The mean-reversion assumption (implicit in oscillating indicators) makes the same mistake that led to the 2008 superbubble. "Because house/asset prices always have gone up in the past, they will always go up." You're just applying it to bitcoin a little bit differently: "Because bitcoin has been worth $0.10 in the past and gone down in the past, it will go down and be worth $0.10 again."

Such mean-reversion models work for physical systems because science studies physical systems that come to equilibrium in the duration of an experiment (actually, in many experiments). But social/economic experiments do not come to equilibrium in time for us for us to conduct many experiments (unless you want to look at the MACD crossing over on the 2-hour and 6-hour scale).

So, the King Effect may hold on true on a long enough time scale (Zero Hedge slogan: "On a long enough timeline the survival rate for everyone drops to zero"). Therefore, eventually, you'll be right about bitcoin. But you'll be calling the top at 3-digits, at 4-digits, at 5-digits...

So you unless you want to do that all the way up..  you still have to find the "different means" to call the top. Both ADX and the King effect are mean-reversion statistics.

Right, the highest-valued addresses which have already spent coins (revealed their pubkeys).

protip: only coins in an address which has never spent coins (thereby revealing its public key) can be irreversibly lost. The rest of the coins (those in addresses whose public keys have been revealed) will be trivially claimed by the first Quantum Computers.

Hey! proudhon removed his "I predict single digits in 2013" tagline.

Yeah, pretty sure he's responsible. He did it the moment he found out that the source code was leaked (pissed him off, plus gave him plausible deniability).

I don't think he's worried though. Now, if someone goes after Trendon Shavers (and then Sam Theofanopoulos aka HaskKing), then he would start worrying.

BTW, has anyone contacted MtGox about their stance on the bitcoinica funds?

Thanks, caught that too. He moved it to $38.00, about 2.5k BTC.

Dip. Then new money the following week.

LOL, this is the quote of his that I always remember.


2 acre hot-tub with a harem of supermodels. 

He's gotta be on here using a different username..

For anyone curious, arepo posed some good questions in a thread I started back in April at $5 about OBV.

Thanks for the on-going healthy and articulate skepticism.

lol. I could see triple digits in 1-2 years, but four digits?! That's still two orders of magnitude away.. let's not get ahead of ourselves.

oh, well in that case, good call! 

Thanks. You, good sir, are a scholar and a gentleman. I learned a lot analyzing your charts, the result you see above.

until the reversal
Cheers!

What about the record? You predicted that either it will correct around $30 and then advance, or it will correct at $32 and reverse.

I, OTOH, am on the record predicting that it will, quite simply, go up. 

The bulls are winning fair and square. If you think its "manipulated", go short so you can profit from other's stupidity.

Oscillating indicators only work in a closed system. This system has external input - new money. Or were you being sarcastic?

Called. that.