you are right even though it was in bold and red I missed it  it does seem to fit the current price better  It's a model, don't try to work towards the actual price. Based on the model you can see how far the market has deviated from the "true" value (assuming the model is a valid representation of reality). Problem is, the only way available to us to judge whether the model is a "valid representation of reality" is by comparing it to reality, which means: price. This is not to dismiss gbianchi's model. But his, and the (somewhat similar) time-series based models all face roughly the same question right now: will price pick up rather soon, in support of their models (as it did in the past), or will there be a more fundamental break in the all-time trend. Yes, the price over the last 5 years (which it matches quite closely). Comparing it to the price at one point in time (today) is just silly and if you use that to judge the model you don't understand the concept of models. Missed the part where the guy you responded to talked about today's price only. Chill out. |
|
|
|
Krugman has a NB prize..
Obama has a NB prize.. he goes around slaughter 1000's a day............... A peice price? Only a moron things the NB prizes mean anything any more, only a moron.
Al gore gets one for a Fing speach on global warming.. himself being a large problem... instead of a woman that saved 1000's from the nazis.. like I said.. only a moron.
Last year they gave one to the European Union. It's a fucking joke. Newton's rolling over in his grave. That was the peace Nobel prize, not the economics one. The former is well deserved imo (hey, 60 years without wars on our continent is kind of a big deal), the latter would have been a joke. ........................................... ..................... are you serious right now? I can't.. the argument types people use... What country could of possible attacked NA in the past 60 years... Do you remeber what happend to Japan? All Nobel prizes are a Fing joke. I'm sure there was some kind of sentence in there, but try as I might, I can't discover it. Want to give it another shot? |
|
|
|
Can't believe all the überbears in here...  Bitcoin becoming the global reserve currency? Only? Bitcoin will definitely become the intergalactic reserve currency in ~20 years. Once the SS Rothbard connects us to far away alien civilizations (Alcubierre drive, baby!), they will surely see the light of Bitcoin and become adopters, and of course HODLERS  In this certain future, if you own half a satoshi, you will be considered a millionaire by today's terms! (Yes. "half a satoshi". We had to add extra decimal places at some point.) Finally some good sense around! I offer to draw a picture of a naked lady for one satoshi (my way of guaranteeing my retirement...)  We have a deal! I'll even make it 1 MILLION satoshis! (but it has to be an original drawing of a naked lady!) |
|
|
|
From the wall thread, where I didn't get any answer so far: I tried to find out what the usual practice is of a USMS Asset Forfeiture auction. Did I understand it correctly that they usually don't publish the result of the auction, i.e. who submitted the winning bids, or the total sum received in the auction?
Anyone in here knows if we'll ever know what price the coins fetched? |
|
|
|
|
Next round...
2014-06-20
trend: down
intraday median daily price: $590
intraday daily MACD hist: -17.6
RI = 48
comment: Let's stipulate for now that 1d MACD signals reversal when the MACD histogram turns positive, and RI when it goes above 50 (and remains there). So neither MACD nor RI signal a reversal today from the downtrend starting from July June 5.
|
|
|
|
As promised, the RI values during the last swing plotted against price (and daily MACD)  Observation #1: As mentioned a few posts above, values above or below 50 (i.e. when 50 is crossed), even when still near 50, should be considered a buy/sell signal. IOW, the output should be interpreted with high sensitivity, if it is to be useful at all. Observation #2: daily MACD outperformed RI during this swing. MACD went negative on June 10, around $650, my own signal crossed the 50 line 2 days later, near $590. Still in time for the bigger drop to $530, but even more lagging than the MACD, so it has to be improved. Conclusion: I'm changing some of the parameters to make my method more sensitive to an impending reversal. Will post the results, under the new rules, in a bit. |
|
|
|
I tried to find out what the usual practice is of a USMS Asset Forfeiture auction. Did I understand it correctly that they usually don't publish the result of the auction, i.e. who submitted the winning bids, or the total sum received in the auction?
Anyone? Can we expect to learn about the height of the winning bids from the USMS itself? Or do we have to hope the winning bidder will say how much he paid? |
|
|
|
More relevant imo is a historic comparison like active swaps and average rate of active swaps. And that view, despite what some bulls in here like to think, is slightly bearish, with USD swaps pretty much maxed out. Why would that be slightly bearish? I think it's neutral, but maybe I'm missing something here so I'm willing to learn. I just don't see the connection knowing only this piece of information. Sure, I don't mind explaining how I arrive at that conclusion. I'm not an expert on reading swaps, but my perspective on them is as follows: I read this one similar to spotting divergences on a price derived indicator -- the "divergence" here is that price is falling, or at least stagnating, but USD swaps make new highs. In my experience, this is an early bearish signal. Example: February 6 this year. But price isn't falling? We corrected to $537 and even $522 on Finex because of margin calls. USD swaps actually went down during that correction by a few million USD. Then the price started rising up to $610 again together with USD swaps, and now we're consolidating/flagging in $580-610 area until we see another breakout. The most likely way forward looking at the technicals here is a continuation of the trend, which is upwards. I don't think I can agree with your reasoning here that the number of USD swaps is a bearish indicator, but good luck if you decide to trade based on this.  I didn't say anything about trading based on this. It's a small piece inside a larger puzzle, and I am slightly more bearish as a result of it. That's all. The USD swap peaks I mean are on June 18 (crossing 26M USD), with price at the time ~$80 below the $680 top. Like I said: I think of it as a "divergence". Not the same as a stand-alone sell signal (which rarely exists anyway ) |
|
|
|
More relevant imo is a historic comparison like active swaps and average rate of active swaps. And that view, despite what some bulls in here like to think, is slightly bearish, with USD swaps pretty much maxed out. Why would that be slightly bearish? I think it's neutral, but maybe I'm missing something here so I'm willing to learn. I just don't see the connection knowing only this piece of information. Sure, I don't mind explaining how I arrive at that conclusion. I'm not an expert on reading swaps, but my perspective on them is as follows: I read this one similar to spotting divergences on a price derived indicator -- the "divergence" here is that price is falling, or at least stagnating, but USD swaps make new highs. In my experience, this is an early bearish signal. Example: February 6 this year. |
|
|
|
confirmed troll. your TA seems legit. I'm a bear troll myself now, huh? Kind of used inflationary lately. Oh well, better start posting random downtrends while I'm still unignored by a few laggards.
Anyway. I tried to find out what the usual practice is of a USMS Asset Forfeiture auction. Did I understand it correctly that they usually don't publish the result of the auction, i.e. who submitted the winning bids, or the total sum received in the auction? |
|
|
|
|
I wouldn't read too much into it: the direct comparison of swap demand vs. offer is just a snapshot, so it's difficult to put it in context. Or am I missing how to get a historic view of it?
More relevant imo is a historic comparison like active swaps and average rate of active swaps. And that view, despite what some bulls in here like to think, is slightly bearish, with USD swaps pretty much maxed out.
Add to that a falling average return rate (better view perhaps by looking at FRR). Approaching a low point that we last saw ~10 days ago, shortly before the drop from ~650 to ~550.
|
|
|
|
I'm a bear troll myself now, huh? Kind of used inflationary lately. Oh well, better start posting random downtrends while I'm still unignored by a few laggards.  |
|
|
|
Jorge will go down in history as one of the most successful trolls to have ever lived. Intelligent people here still don't understand he's a troll.
Is there anyone who ever said Jorge is not a troll  Oda for one. Sure. And I stand by that. However, I also pointed out how stubborn (and biased) he can be. But if a majority of this community considers what Jorge does 'trolling' then I'd have to conclude they're thinner skinned than I imagined. What igorr, mah87 or fonzie does can be justifiably called trolling. Jorge is just being obstinate. |
|
|
|
you are right even though it was in bold and red I missed it it does seem to fit the current price better It's a model, don't try to work towards the actual price. Based on the model you can see how far the market has deviated from the "true" value (assuming the model is a valid representation of reality). Problem is, the only way available to us to judge whether the model is a "valid representation of reality" is by comparing it to reality, which means: price. This is not to dismiss gbianchi's model. But his, and the (somewhat similar) time-series based models all face roughly the same question right now: will price pick up rather soon, in support of their models (as it did in the past), or will there be a more fundamental break in the all-time trend. |
|
|
|
let me guess, you sold? obvious bear is obvious. Several times actually. You didn't? Still got the same amount of coins you had in December, plus a few newly bought ones? |
|
|
|
For example, I am currently pessimistic about the chances of the price ever getting much higher than now
that's new. Yawn- putting this Jorge joker back on ignore yea, me too. also, I put TERA on ignore. I am tired of this "trend is broken" TA mumbo-jumbo/we are going to 100 k bipolar disorder. not to mention he/she dichotomy. Which would only sound "bipolar" to someone who doesn't understand even the slightest bit of TA (or forecasting, if you prefer). But you said that much, I realize. |
|
|
|
MatTheCataminorex is not a trollcryptocheerleader. Probably raised by trollscryptocheerleaders, perhaps under a bridgein a penny stock message board. Possibly married to a trollcryptocheerleader. Definitely shops on trollcryptocheerleader high street. Speaks with a trollcryptocheerleader accent. But still, not a trollcryptocheerleader.
|
|
|
|
Can't believe all the überbears in here... Bitcoin becoming the global reserve currency? Only? Bitcoin will definitely become the intergalactic reserve currency in ~20 years. Once the SS Rothbard connects us to far away alien civilizations (Alcubierre drive, baby!), they will surely see the light of Bitcoin and become adopters, and of course HODLERS In this certain future, if you own half a satoshi, you will be considered a millionaire by today's terms! (Yes. "half a satoshi". We had to add extra decimal places at some point.) |
|
|
|
these are always great threads.
we need to memorialize these mainstream obstructionists and apparatchiks who have actively blocked and impeded the progress of Bitcoin so that years from now maybe they will be held accountable.
Here's a start: http://honestnode.com/bitcoin-journalism-for-the-record/i'd like to see one that focuses on individuals with their pics front and center. i'd start with these 2 apparatchiks, especially Vance, who is clearly a hard ass that operates the way he pleases: Cyrus R. Vance, Jr – District Attorney of New York County Richard B. Zabel – Deputy U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York Yes, it should show pics, small bio and quotes. And the top people should be "experts" -- economists, CEOs of financial companies, politicians etc. Journalists can go at the bottom or just be removed, unless they are financial anchors with a following. Journalists don't have the same impact... because economic forecasting is not their area of expertise. Actually, journalists could be called out if their articles are factually incorrect... except then we'd have to put them ALL on the list. :-( Dang; markwilliams.com and marktwilliams.com are both taken. BitcoinObstructionists.com is still open. Ok, I just snagged*: bitiots.com and bitsofshame.com Which is better? * paid for the registrations with bitcoin, of course.bitsofshame sounds good to me. I've been keeping a personal 'list of idiotic predictions', with a short recap and the author and publication. I do however think regular journalistic pieces should be included, at least in cases where they represent the "official position" of an entire (important) newspaper *cough* NYT *cough* |
|
|
|
I understand your point about early investors also being the ultimate risk takers. However, that wasn't my point, to claim that there is a guaranteed profit. Neither is there one, btw, for the 2nd line of investors in a malicious pyramid scheme.
I'll try to paraphrase to clarify my point: the ultimate goal of Bitcoin as it is widely understood is reaching a capitalization that does not only represent the intrinsic value of the transaction network itself, but represents the global economic output (or a fraction thereof).
To get there, Bitcoin needs to successively reach global acceptance. Any speculative value in excess of the current usage + acceptance level will melt away should it ever become apparent that global acceptance isn't attainable. In that case, the earliest investors will quite likely sit on a healthy profit, while the latest investors might well face a substantial loss.
So far, no different from a stock, right? The difference is what I describe in the 2nd paragraph: stocks only measure the intrinsic value of the company they represent (plus hype, plus some industry wide multiplier perhaps). They don't require a growing user and investor base to hold a price (unless the price was vastly inflated by speculative mania). Bitcoin, from day one of trading, has been understood as a global peer to peer currency -- and its speculative value represented that. Should our little experiment ever fall short of our expectations for good, the price deflation would probably be so vast that at least the last 2 waves of investors would face a loss.
tl;dr Intensionally, you are right: Bitcoin isn't a pyramid. My claim is that extensionally, it is indistinguishable up to the point where it succeeds.
I can't see how even extensionally we can call Bitcoin a pyramid scheme. Just because it needs a growing user base, doesn't mean that those late investors will have more to lose than the early ones. Lets say an investor bought 100 bitcoins last November at $1000, and I buy 100 bitcoins now at $500, who will have more to lose ? Me or the early investor ? The claim that once the user base grows so does the price is false, just take the last 6 months as an example. A pyramid scheme would clearly favour the early investor. Indeed if the price will rise so does the risk of the late investors but thats the nature of a deflationary monetary asset, just like gold, but unlike gold there's no one who sets the price each morning based on their subjective view. I think I understand your point, but I'm not sure you understand mine: I am not claiming Bitcoin as an investment is a malicious pyramid a.k.a. a Ponzie. I am however pointing out that the user base/acceptance growth requirements placed on the market by the huge enthusiasm of the early adopters (i.e. us) and the extremely ambitious goals resemble that of a pyramid: we must grow at an exponential rate, or the experiment will probably fail. Good thing then that, so far, exponential growth in all the key metrics holds. (*)(*) That's not an endorsement of extrapolation from linear regression over log price. I continue to believe that this is way too crude (and imprecise) to be considered a useful predictor of future price for any practical purposes (i.e. trading). |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
