done. now for me to quit jibber jabbering and get my entry(s) sorted!  |
|
|
|
having difficulty downloading file - just get a 'connecting to sender' and spinny wheel... no google drive? S3? I am happy to host a copy if you email it me  |
|
|
|
It would be nice to have some opponents!  |
|
|
|
Trust me, Bankers will own over 25%+ of Bitcoin by this Christmas and over 50% in the next 18 months.
I said last year Wall-Street was gonna come in strong this year and I was laughed at.
I traded stocks for over 20 years. When bankers accumulate a stock, no matter how massive the accumulation, the price doesn't always go up, it actually often goes down.
How is that possible? Manipulation. Between the Media, constant China banning (which is all preplanned and I called it some 3 months ago) and clever ways to accumulate Bitcoins, bankers will get the coins they want THIS YEAR.
We will know this for a fact as banks and hedge funds have to report new investments quarterly. I have no doubt we will see that they bought Bitcoins, hand over fist, this entire downturn. And this is just a hunch but I think they grabbed a lot of the coins from Gox, although I don't know how. Wall Street is untouchable when it comes to their survival [and annihilating opponents] and it was clear to me last year that Andreas et al were wrong; Banks and governments actually LOVED Bitcoin.
My 25%+ target should actually be reached well before Christmas and that will cause some panic in the libertarian circles, which is a large portion of the current Bitcoin holders.
And that's why I said Bitcoin incumbents and Millionaires should have a contingency plan.
I expect a mass migration to a new coin sparked by a respected Bitcoin insider. They may first try a Newly launched coin but that will probably fail.
An already tested and ultra secure coin will probably prove to be the best choice. This may already be planned, hard to say with so much going on behind the scenes. It would only take the move of one high profile and trusted individual, like Gavin, to create a mass exodus from Bitcoin to a different "decentralized" coin. [No successful coin will ever be decentralized, that's not how/why they were designed].
Bitcoin will see at least a $2,000 price this year. I've said it before: All the money and power in the world has converged to one massive focal point to make the Bitcoin protocol a success and Bitcoin will not be allowed to fail, at least not until cryptos reach critical mass.
Critical mass, the point where Groupthink takes over, won't happen for at least 18 more months and also, given the mass amount of SmartMoney going into Bitcoin, it's guaranteed to go much higher later this year, and especially next year. Due to The sheer illiquid nature of Bitcoin and lack of available coins, even if a mass migration happens, there will still be a massive shortage of Bitcoins to go Around and Wall Street is very good at increasing perceived value of an asset, especially a rare asset.
The media will jump in and make the masses go nuts for Bitcoin [and a few other select alts].
Throw in the guaranteed ETF license [by year's end, as i predicted last year] and you'll see a massive influx of billions of dollars by next year from mutual funds and pension funds. This is why the SmartMoney is hurrying to buy Bitcoin hand over fist now, those in early will see the most massive profits later this year and especially next year, when Mutual Funds And Pension Funds throw billions into Bitcoin ETFs [which will overcrowd buyers and demand will spill-over into alts].
So the contingency plan is not for profits sake, although one can make much more buying select alts, but rather for the reason Bitcoiners bought into Bitcoin in the first place. For financial freedom and decentralized money.
That will be gone by year's end and even Andreas will stop telling lies on TV. So Bitcoin millionaires should get together and figure out where the masses will migrate to once it's obvious Bitcoin is not decentralized and worse, it's ran by banks, Corporations, hedge funds and maybe even the NSA.
Cause besides the huge profits one can make by finding that coin now, one can also position oneself strategically to try and slow down another systemic hi-jacking like what's happening now with Bitcoin.
This hi-jacking was obvious from last year but nobody was listening and unfortunately, even a new coin, if it succeeds, will see a takeover attempt.
But it's fun to try and stop them, and maybe have a little bit of financial success while doing it.
Thanks and Good luck!
mostly agree with this, though i deviate in my opinion on the final outcome. I don't think there needs to be a move to another coin if banks already have ~50% of btc (and I totally agree that they are accumulating like mad behind the scenes now, whilst at the same time holding the market down. pretty easy to do so with the volume at the moment). I still think btc was always intended to be the new money that actually fixes the "problem" of fiat being anonymous. Occams razor says it was invented (or at least instigated) by the people that want to retain power/wealth rather than the FLOSS crowd. I think the coders were sold the dream of currency that sticks it to the man, without realising that the man was pulling the strings all along. Maybe my tinfoil hat needs adjusting though. Anyway, in this scenario (BTC is the one coin to rule them all), just holding is the contingency plan. I'm glad I got in when i did, its really hard to buy significant amounts at these prices without tweaking my risk tolerance. I suspect the "1000/1 stock split" when we go full mbtc will have a big psychological effect. (if the 7/1 split of AAPL is anything to go by!) probably will be petrol poured on the fire in the next run up. I would not like to be out of the market when that comes, and I am quite prepared to ride the price to zero to ensure I don't miss what could be the biggest 'gap up' in the entire history of money. Sure people can put this down to greed, but i'm quite sure there is a big helping of prudence involved. |
|
|
|
well it will go back up but i don't see it ever going anywhere over $1000 ever again.
ahaha ok thanks for the laugh. no really, you are funny. you are about as short-sighted as OP have you ever planned and executed anything with a timeframe longer than 15 seconds? Why sir, that is outrageous I .... ooh shiny!!! |
|
|
|
Also, I'm ready when you are. My probabilities are calculed! My bitcoin urges to reach you! Did you really knock it down to 0.05? bloody cheapskates  with the amount of time it takes to enter complaining about a mere $50 of BTC makes me think these people need to get proper jobs! hehe |
|
|
|
in principle I agree with this but I think the cutoff of -10 is pretty tight. If you believe in volatility (you should! ) and pitch your guesses over a wide spread, but then everyone else just does a normal distribution centred round the you could lose a lot of points on what would be a legitimate entry (i.e. not attempting to game the system). I understand this rule is focused on increasing the quality of the aggregate consensus, but it might be forcing people to guess much more conservatively, instead of actually putting down what they think for fear of getting disqualifed. I think that would be just as much of a compromise to the quality of the predictive power. I just changed it to -20. The example above should indicate that you don't really get that much more points when you bet a certain range with as much probability as you can muster: there is a law of sharply declining marginal returns in the lucky prediction and the law of exponentially-growing punishment in the unlucky prediction. I know that the rule alone (with or without cutoff grades) does make people conform to conformism, but this is a serious prediction contest and not a lottery. -20 is better, i was going to suggest something like that, but instead I thought I'd start the negotiation at total removal hehe |
|
|
|
If your point total goes to -10 or worse, you are disqualified from the game immediately and your possible next round prediction is forfeited. This rule is to discourage trolling, gaming of the system and unresponsible forecasting. Getting -10 means that your estimated probability for a certain event which happened was 1/10 of the average. Certainly you were not being serious, were you?!
bad rule. I have experimented with this, and the reason for such a rule is to preserve all players in the game (by threatening to kick them out for non-performance). What is wrong with it? If you want to max out your risk and leave some slots "unattended", the previous rules would anyway have doled you several minus-points, making it difficult to get back to the green. And to make it, you would have needed to gamble with the following months and make forecasts not based on what you think is probable but based on how you get back to the game. This is "gaming the system". With a large number of other players (so that your guess does not too much move the average): If there is only 2 choices of slots, BULL and BEAR, and others assign 80% to BULL. If you assign: - 80% to BULL, you get 0 should BULL realize and 0 should BEAR realize - 60% to BULL, you get -0.33 should BULL realize and +1 should BEAR realize - 40% to BULL, you get -1 should BULL realize and +2 should BEAR realize - 20% to BULL, you get -3 should BULL realize and +3 should BEAR realize - 10% to BULL, you get -7 should BULL realize and +3.5 should BEAR realize
- 5% to BULL, you get -15 should BULL realize and +3.75 should BEAR realize <-- risky, because leads to elimination if BULL
- 1% to BULL, you get -79 should BULL realize and +3.95 should BEAR realize <-- risky, because leads to elimination if BULL
You can summon quite much volatility to your guess, but not arbitrarily much. The example shows that there is no merit in going gung-ho, but it disturbs the other players. in principle I agree with this but I think the cutoff of -10 is pretty tight. If you believe in volatility (you should! ) and pitch your guesses over a wide spread, but then everyone else just does a normal distribution centred round the you could lose a lot of points on what would be a legitimate entry (i.e. not attempting to game the system). I understand this rule is focused on increasing the quality of the aggregate consensus, but it might be forcing people to guess much more conservatively, instead of actually putting down what they think for fear of getting disqualifed. I think that would be just as much of a compromise to the quality of the predictive power. |
|
|
|
Facebookcoin? Really? I'd call 'em facebucks |
|
|
|
|
its really hard to break. just today though i had this big urge to just sell up and wait for a reversal. the only thing that stopped me was FOMO. (call it greed if you like!) missing the black swan up would be financially worse then riding the slow decline to zero. even though emotionally its harder to do. so i hold on tight... and cry a bit inside every day...
|
|
|
|
|
Looks good. Take my money!!!
|
|
|
|
id go for the 10-100000 on 0.05 log increments. i'd not realised that superseded the [P/Slot * width] system but i see now what you have done. I see the benefit in collecting longer term forecasts to get an aggregate market outlook, so my complaint about having to do an 8 month forecast is really only minor i guess. I'll still enter regardless |
|
|
|
LOL.
Not sure, what you mean. Are you suggesting that no-one can beat buy and hold!?
Are you suggesting that the people buying and holding should sell right now? |
|
|
|
|
forecasting 8 months out in month one feels a bit like a lottery imho and is 8x more work! my preference would be 1 month at a time, fwiw.
given my recent dream (yes sorry, i know!) of $64 price I would prefer if there were bands for
2.1 125.89
2.0 100
1.9 79.43
1.8 63.10
1.7 50.12
1.5 31.62
1.4 less
as they seem a bit top heavy at the moment (i.e. 100,000 is around 200x current price, whereas 158 is only around 1/3 current price) this covers going back all the way to retest the ~$32 ATH
I don't think its likely we will go that low but when you are dealing with assigning the chance of 1 in a million....
|
|
|
|
fwiw I dreamed it went to $64 last night. I had a bunch of orders filled... I was very disappointed this morning |
|
|
|
|
My timeframe is 20 years. Whereas it seems most of the traders round here don't look much further out than 20 days.
We'll see.
|
|
|
|
all these bans. they affect the man in the street. not the man in wall st. china be buyin' the govt doesn't want competition from its citizens |
|
|
|
(oh btw) Paypal, you were so accommodating back then .. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
