A couple of questions..

1) If shorts get liquidated at these kinds of prices, that would likely mean that they were entered into in the below $7k territory, and if that much bear money gets liquidated,

2) if that quantity of shorts get's liquidated, wouldn't that provide a certain amount of lessening of the upwards BTC price resistance?

I am thinking that we cannot necessarily presume UP from this large liquidation, even though some bearwhales were likely reckt in the process, because other bearwhales could come in and profit through placing further shorts, perhaps?

Do you really think that wall street is one step ahead of everyone and bought in at $1k? That's ridiculous.  

Some of wall street had only started to notice the existence of bitcoin after it went above $10k.. (coupled with some of the futures news) and bitcoin wasn't even on their radar before that (for a large number of them).  A lot of wall street is still very skittish about bitcoin, trying to figure out what it is, and considering that it's liquidity remains way too low for them to develop any kind of financial products around bitcoin...   Thus, seems early stages, early early stages, no?

You do seem to be describing in absolutist terms that bitcoin is closer to an early 2014 scenario rather than an early 2013 scenario, and you could end up being correct, but currently, I still would suggest that bitcoin is more closely in an early 2013 scenario.. maybe currently, I would place about 65% chance in favor of an early 2013 and 35% chance in favor of an early 2014 scenario.....

Many of us remain flexible in our projections about BTC's prices and direction and don't try to proclaim too many legs of price movements in advance, like some kind of divine sorcerer; therefore, if circumstances change, then I will adjust my thinking and perhaps, begin to believe that an early 2014 scenario would become more plausible based on facts and momentum, rather than mere speculative and hopeful proclamations.

By the way, if you had not noticed, you have been engaged in hopeful proclamations about bitcoin's supposed bubble ever since BTC prices went above $5k the first time in October, and I recall that you were proclaiming bubble even before that... and you been whining about BTC bubble ever since, which is nothing new.

Sure, recently, you have been proclaiming to be correct, now that BTC price finally came down - though that still does not make you a sorcerer, merely because you guessed the stopped clock correctly.  Actually, BTC prices have not even come down to your pissed off going above $5k levels, yet..   ... Hopium, Terabera, Hopium.

You been at church for the last month-ish?  



You might need some church?  


Hang out with Infofront a bit more; he might help you to shake a little .

Yes.  Sounds like you have a lot of great ideas.  First, this system has been in place for a bit longer than 2 weeks, so we have plenty of information to determine that it is not working and that tweaking it is not going to work. In other words, it is a fucking disaster.  Secondly, based on the first idea, let's blow it all up, and start from the beginning.  Let's put everyone at zero.  A reset.  That will be better. 

Let's also throw all the bitcoins of the members into a pot and divide them up evenly amongst all members....   5 bitcoins each should be good enough.  Who need more than 5 bitcoins?  Price is going to go up anyhow.

hahahahahaha....


Could only dream... and then have to enroll in bot programing lessons and hopefully not screw up the bot set up parameters too much... .

Finally build up a BTC portfolio of 10 coins, and then lose 9 of them because of a programming "glitch"

The meme should say: 
"I should buy a bot... "

Can't you program your trading bots to do whatever you want, or does it depend on the bot and how good you are at programing?

Rosewater.... ?    Is that you?  Get out from under there,......

It's been more than 3 days.....   have you eaten?.. perhaps that's bread or are those crackers and what's the plastic and.... what's that???   do you have water?  Oh my, oh my... you not be looking good... and you have a fever too? why you shaking so much?      it's me, JJG... I am your friend...

What?  Wat?    You saying that I am too meanie?    And, I don't understand anything?   You want Jojo?  I thought you liked Hairy Mac?  Oh no, you want jojo?  Fuck... fuck..... Let's see if we can get Jojo over here?

Don't do it Hairy Mac.

We need you to bring back Rosewater, too...   

If we drink too many piñas, we are going to have to change the game to shooting the bottles out of the sky, whether empty or full, so hopefully our island does not include noise complainers.. your island, or mine?




I have a difficult time imagining a double order book because the $8k order was the last price point to have sold (in this example on the way up), and the $8k would be fruitless to be on the books because it is at the same price that we took our last action (in this example selling on the way up)... therefore, the $8k order is not even authorized to be placed until either the $8500 sell order fills or the $7500 buy order fills.


At the risk of repetitiveness or boredom (some of my specialties), let me provide three examples to attempt to elaborate on the profitability points:

Example 1: involves .1 BTC traded in $500 increments (about 7% increments) with .2% fees (of course if there are no fees, then you can trade tighter parameters and still make a profit).

As you see below the profits on a trade that goes both up and down is about $50 minus the assumed .2% fees (on each end of the trade), so around $47 for both sides (or about $23.50 for each side of the trade)

At $6k, costs $600 for .1 BTC,     fees  $1.20
At $6.5k, costs $650 for .1 BTC,  fees  $1.30
At $7k, costs $700 for .1 BTC, fees  $1.40
At $7.5k, costs $750 for .1 BTC, fees  $1.50
At $8k, costs $800 for .1 BTC, fees  $1.60
At $8.5k, costs $850 for .1 BTC, fees  $1.70
At $9k, costs $900 for .1 BTC, fees  $1.80


Example 2: involves changing one of the variables to have .1 BTC traded in $1,000 increments (about 14% increments)  with .2% fees.

As you see below the profits on a trade that goes both up and down is about $100 minus the fees, so around $97 for both sides (or about $48.50 for each side of the trade)

At $6k, costs $600 for .1 BTC, fees  $1.20
At $7k, costs $700 for .1 BTC, fees  $1.40
At $8k, costs $800 for .1 BTC, fees  $1.60
At $9k, costs $900 for .1 BTC, fees  $1.80
At $10k, costs $1,000 for .1 BTC, fees  $2.00

Example 3: involves changing another one of the variables to have .2 BTC traded in $1,000 increments (about 14% increments) with .2% fees.

As you see below the profits on a trade that goes both up and down is about $200 minus the fees, so around $194 for both sides (or about $82 for each side of the trade)

At $6k, costs $1,200 for .2 BTC, fees  $2.40
At $7k, costs $1,400 for .2 BTC, fees  $2.80
At $8k, costs $1,600 for .2 BTC, fees  $3.20
At $9k, costs $1,800 for .2 BTC, fees  $3.60
At $10k, costs $2,000 for .2 BTC, fees  $4.00

So yeah, of course, increasing trade increments and amounts increases profits while running the risk that the orders will not fill as often or running the risk that you run out of fiat or run out of BTC when the price runs too irrationally in one direction or another beyond expectations.  You can set your trade increments as low as .4% apart from one another and break even on the trade because you are covering the fees for both sides of the trade (of course if there are no fees, then you can trade tighter increments and still make a profit), but I would recommend a minimum of 1.5% increments to make the whole experience worth your time and because bitcoin remains volatile, you are still going to get plenty of practice (perhaps too much during more busy times)..by just letting the BTC price come to you rather than forcing anything or even betting in either direction.

Again, I personally tend to NOT get caught up in the profitability of each specific trade (so long as the trade is profitable) because I find much more value in stacking up orders on both ends, and later building up a position to such a state of stacked up buy/sell orders that you will be able to just sit back and not worry because you won't have to actively manage the trades once you have built up great enough amounts on both ends.. in other words, amounts can get bigger, Bigger and BIGGER with the passage of time... which means the trades will become more and More and MORE profitable, without necessarily gambling on either price direction (yet kind of assuming that in the long run BTC prices are going up).

With a pen, you can perform emergency tracheotomies, too.

Yep, Arriemoller.  What you are outlining is a good foundation for an incrementalist approach to stacking your bets and hopefully profiting either direction while providing yourself with insurance, and you can tweak it to your own tolerance and sometimes you can skip one (for example selling the 15 at 25) or go in the middle (selling the 15 at 22.5) or some other variation that might be lopsided in one direction because you consider it to more closely to assist you in reaching your various goals, so you do not have to stick to any strict formula in the event that you find some structuring that works better for your ability to eek out greater profits, better insurance, or more conformity with your own personal circumstances (finances, risk tolerance, views of bitcoin, timeline, available spare time, etc).

One thing is that sometimes if you structure your orders too close together then there might not be enough sense of profits (like you are spinning your wheels for nothing - as mentioned earlier by Jojo), or if you set your orders too far apart, then they don't tend to fill and you lose profit opportunities.   

Sometimes, I like to structure my orders in a very uniformed way in order to more easily remember each increment, even though there may be ways of structuring the orders that are more likely to be more profitable, but I give some value to the ease of remembering my orders.  Other times, I add a bit more complexity into my setting up orders for a short period of time because even though I am causing some possible confusion for myself, I consider that the short term more complicated practice is going to allow me to engage in a bit of rebalancing in one direction or another that helps to line up my sense of how allocated I want to be in one direction or another.  For example, I keep a spreadsheet tabulation that shows approximately how much allocated I am in one direction or another, and I recall that in 2016, there were price drops that caused my BTC/dollar allocation to approach 98% bitcoin and 2% dollars, and part of that was due to my newness in trading, and another part towards my tendency to easily become higher allocated in the direction of bitcoin, and another part was that my overall portfolio was not as highly in the profitable area (sometimes even in the negative in terms of profits). 

More recently, even though I continue to gravitate towards being bitcoin bullish and even having beliefs that we have not yet reached the last run-up in this particular bubble (or run up), so therefore, I have continued to maintain a decently high level of allocation that has been skewed in the bitcoin direction, so even when BTC prices approached $20k, my allocation of BTC to dollars still maintained at nearly an 88% BTC to 12% fiat level.  Currently, my tweaking of my plan continues to be based on my own refusal to go anywhere near 100% allocation towards bitcoin (to attempt to always maintain a cushioning of dollars), even if BTC prices were to drop to below $1k, I am still projected to have some dollars... yet as I type, I feel like I bought a lot of BTC on the way down from $20k to $6k, and at one point, I had used up nearly 66% of the previous amount of my fiat; however, when I look at my current allocation, it is still floating at about 92.7% bitcoin and 7.3% dollars.. So, simultaneously there is a certain level of attempted maintenance and another attempt at tweaking when I feel some need to prepare further one way or another.

great point..


hahahahahaha

they refuse to say bcash... dumb fucks!!!!

They do not even realize that bcash is a great name, but instead they are so short-sightedly focused on misleading and fraud that they cannot recognize actual value.  Again... dumb fucks.

Let's leave ETH out of this and talk about USD/BTC pairs, because even if you are attempting to use ETH to accumulate BTC, the pairing is a bit hostile to this thread...

1) chained order is a little bit of an additional concept that was raised by bitserve, and apparently Bitstamp has that service.  Neither Jbreher nor I were referring to chained orders because we manually set our orders after they fill.  We were talking more about incremental order setting or step setting.

2)  example of incremental / step setting in the $8k price territory using a ball park of $500 buy/sell increments.  Since, as I type, most recently BTC prices have been coming up from it's dip down to $6k, if you already had this system in place and you were buying .1 BTC on the way down, you would have bought every $500 at $8k, then $7.5k, then $7k, then $6.5k and then $6k.  Then you would would have sold all the way back up in the opposite at $6.5k, then $7k, then $7.5k and then $8k.  The only way that you accomplish the selling on the way back up is because you have reset all of your sell orders after the buy orders have implemented.  In this case you have a $500 increment, but you have a $1k spread.  So currently, since your most recent sell order had executed at $8k, your next sell order would be $8.5k, but after your $8k order filled, you reset your buy order at $7.5k.

3) The whole system is not a wash because you are able to either buy more BTC with the same amount of money or accumulate more money by the size of your orders.  If you keep the exact BTC amounts, then you accumulate dollars; if you keep the same dollar amounts then you accumulate BTC (or you can do some combination of the two).  Recently, I have been working on accumulating more
BTC with my orders.  

4)  The larger your amounts that you are trading, the more that you can notice that you are making money, and the larger your increments, the more that you make money too.  Of course, there is no free lunch because there is risk on both ends.  The larger your amounts that you are trading the more likely you could end up running out of money or btc when the price over shoots (which it does in BTClandia) and you could end up employing a kind of gambling rather than a sure thing.  Furthermore, the larger your increments, the bigger risk that you run that they will not get filled, and you end up in a kind of trading limbolandia rather than bitcoinlandia.  

5) I tend to recommend to folks to begin by setting your price increments really tight in order that you get a lot of practice, and to use really small amounts so you can get a hang of it.  As you get better and more experienced you increase your amounts and your increments.  For example, I started at 1.5% increments, which covers fees too that can be up to .25% on each end, that would take away .5% of your profits.  Currently, I am trading in the 16% territory, which is quite a bit larger than I had planned, but part of that is due to the price dropping down after I converted from $800 to $1k increments (on the way up past $15k - which would have been 7.5% increments at that price point).

6) Ultimately, you need to practice in a way that customizes the whole situation to yourself in terms of your finances, your risk tolerance, your view of bitcoin, how much time you have in your schedule, your timeline for wanting your money etc.  You also learn more about yourself by putting this into practice, too... because sometimes you might get emotional and want to do x, y or z, but later on reflection you can tweak your system when you make mistakes.  Further, you may not even know what you are going to do by theorizing about it, but if you actually practice, then you get an opportunity to actually put a kind of exact action to your thoughts (and words)

7) Even Jbreher and i have had little skirmishes about the "right" practice, so in the end the actual practice may not matter as much as the fact that you are trying to tailor it to yourself, and perhaps trying to learn from yourself and others, and even my writing out my practice from time to time, helps me to learn from others and from myself.



I don't think that "remove" is the correct word choice.  I find that when I am playing this whole system and it is going smoothly, then I am never really removing anything, but I am just adding.  Once a buy order executes, then I add a sell order, and once a sell order executes, then I add a buy order.  

On that same point, I tend to let the price come to me, and rarely do I tweak to reset the order and to expedite the process.   Sometimes, I will change a whole bunch of orders at once which is a kind of removal and replace, but that is not part of the regular practice when the practice is "flowing" then I am only adding orders, not removing orders.


I am not sure if your example helps.... O.k. we are going with a $500 increment, but if my order to sell at $8,500 executes, then I am not removing anything because I just add a buy order at $8k (because my previous sell had executed at $8k, and I could not do anything until either the next $8.5k sell order executed or the next $7.5 buy order executed.  If the price had gone down rather than up, then my $7.5k order would have filled and I would have set a sell order at $8k rather than the buy order that I ended up setting because of the $8.5k sell order that ended up executing first.

Probably, we are saying the same thing, just phrasing it differently.


You really win on each one, and the bigger your amounts the bigger your wins.  Sometimes it is difficult to recognize the wins in the short run, especially on the way down when your whole BTC value might be decreasing.  However, I frequently describe this whole process as stacking and a kind of insurance that really takes a lot of stress out of downside volatility (it does not take out all stress, but it can remove a lot of stress by providing a decent amount of insurance).  Furthermore, if you play around with this a bit more, then you will see more and more that you can tweak it to achieve your goals and to increase your amounts, but it does not do service to the whole system if you increase the amounts too much in the beginning and you end up running out of money because you over did the situation.  I personally only play with a small portion of my total BTC holdings.  I sell about 1% of the value of my total BTC holdings for every 10% price rise (and that is the amount that I am playing with, for the most part)

You never know in bitcoinlandia; however, I would think that 3 months would be more realistic on the optimistic side of things, with maybe an outside (quasi-realistic) range of that would be from about 3 to 9 months.

We know that posts can be edited too, which makes any research project that is based on posts even more difficult, in the event that either you did not quote the post at the time or recall the specific post in order that you would possibly be able to view it's edit history.

Your activity level should go up to 42 on Tuesday/Wednesday of next week, since you have more than 42 posts and you made at least one post during this 2 week activity period.  The same will be true in the future, as long as you are averaging 1 post per day, you will receive 14 additional activity points, as long as you post at least one time during the previous 2 week activity period.

Previously, I had never noticed that feature on Stamp, and just now, in reaction to the information of your post, I looked it up and it looks like something that I may be able to use, perhaps... so maybe I will give it a shot.. it might be useful in some circumstances..


In recent times, I have been selling less BTC than I buy and buying more BTC than I sell, but the feature could still work on a temporary basis until I am able to reset my regular orders, perhaps?   And I just did a quick browse at my other exchanges, GDAX, WEX and Gemini, and they do not seem to have such a feature.    Possibly, a decently useful feature in some circumstances, like you suggested.. thanks.

My sense is that if you aspiring too much to get exactly right or too close to perfection, then you are being too greedy, and you are engaging in gambling and unrealistic chasing of windmills.

Better aspirations are likely to attempt to be practical when opening and closing positions, and perhaps structuring whatever you do in a way that you win no matter what.... that would be my understanding of a closer approximation of perfection that is not really gambling, but removing emotion and perhaps even removing some of the impossibilities of attempting prediction.



Wowza!!!!  Much better said that me.

I have never used any kind of chained order feature, and I have always inserted my orders manually.  I had never even seen or considered any kind of "chained order" feature, so call me a noob or a novice in regards to my methodology.

I have heard that some folks use bots, and I understand that bots could be helpful, but I would be afraid of a bot, such as NOT programming the bot properly.

Actually in early days of my trading, starting in late 2015, I had orders that were set in increments that were less than 1.5%; however, as I have gotten more experienced, I have gotten some of my order increments between 5% and 18%, and currently around 12%, so my orders are just not triggering as often.... and I feel a whole hell of a lot less burdened by the manual attention needed to reset my orders, as compared with the past.  Maybe in the future, I could figure out some kind of bot or the chained order feature that you mention and I had never used or even saw it.  Currently, I am mostly using GDAX, Gemini, Bitstamp and WEX for my BTC/USD trading.

Edit: By the way, do you use "chained orders" and which exchanges have such features?