Arguing with the fanatic hodlers during a bull market is similar to arguing with the 'crypto is doomed' trolls during a bear market: a noble effort, maybe, but ultimately a waste of time.

Or calling the bottom in July 2013 (paraphrasing a bit: buy everything below $60). Or calling various bull traps in 2014 (which I fell for myself, reliably, over and over again).

However, I give him most credit for a different type of prediction, about his own limitations. Early 2015 (someone else could look up the exact month), he essentially declared the bear market to be over, but added (paraphrasing, again): no targets this time, I cannot trade this anymore.

He's a competent trader, that much is plain visible if you check his post history. But he also seems to have a sense of distinguishing epistemic and aleatory uncertainty governing his trades. That's what makes him (in my opinion) a great trader.

/fanboyism

Thought I remembered something from a very solid thread a while ago...


Quick recap maybe of what caused that 180 degree turn of opinion, both on the block size issue itself, and the disdain for people citing Satoshi?

Guess you're right. Too bad 'knee level testicles' and 'merely thigh level testicles' share the same status label.

Maybe read the last pages again.


As for the rest of the tinfoil gang:

There's a reason why you're not getting laid, you know that right?

It's not an entirely bad indicator of the market cycles though. Impossible to progress to the next stage with (only) the old hands giving each other reacharounds.

I feel old.

I like to think of it as the purgatory you have to go through in return for the profits that can be made here.

I think we all know the answer. His problem is that the people doing it were stopped 72 years ago.

Granted, stolfi was stubborn as hell, and his biases tended to cloud his (generally) informed judgments to the point where they became uninformed again. Still, I had some of the better discussions in here with him, so I for one miss the old geezer.

Clearly you don't know the language used in the internal communication of multinational corporations, such as:

> Open door for external actors w/ no skin in game to disrupt incentives.

/s

We should first agree on what we mean by 'tulip mania'. I like to keep it distinct from 'speculative bubble'. Tulip mania to me means rising once, then never getting back again anywhere near its former glory.

That's some serious lack of self-awareness, right there. All of the arguments can be, and have been applied to btc earlier as well. I didn't believe them back then, and as time progresses, that position is only confirmed. That said, nothing per se means that a bubbling alt market is a tulip mania, just like the bubbling btc market wasn't in itself a necessary signal for tulip mania back then.



Probably true in terms of percentage over coins, but not in terms of market cap (in a loose sense, I know).

I'm not worried about btc dominance, it is the main player and I don't see that changing in the near future, based on what I observe.

At the same time, some share of the total crypto market will shift to alts -- as a hedge, speculative mass, and simple funding innovation (or what is perceived as such). It would be a good idea, I believe, if people could wrap their head around this idea: as crypto is growing up, there's going to be more than one crypto -- and that doesn't mean that btc becomes 'just one of many alts' (USD is also just 'one among ~180 currencies', only, it is not just that)

But that's your checking account strictly containing currency, not any money, riiight?

^*

a) people are hedging or diversifying -- no matter which side you're on, btc development has an unresolved problem finding some (high level) decision making process that doesn't involve different sides bitch slapping each other until one of them caves in. b) people like to trade on volatility. alts certainly are attractive for that, precisely because of their lower capitalization and higher trading-to-usage ratio.

Cause a) won't go away, and it shouldn't. The size of that effect depends on the path the main crypto takes -- in my opinion, not /which/ path is taken, but /how/ the decision is made. b) contains a negative feedback component, i.e. it is self-stabilizing: as capitalization increases, volatility decreases, making (volatility) trading less attractive.

The current numbers: btc to next highest alt currently at ~4.5:1; btc vs. total of all alts combined above 2:1.

Let's take two other examples of 'network effects' (in a loose, maybe unrelated sense. it's the best I got): Google search share fluctuated over the past years, but was at 60-something percent 2-3 years ago. I don't recall thinking Google would lose its pole position. US military spending accounts for 37% of the world's total. There's little doubt where US military capacity stands in relation to 'the rest'.

I don't have a fixed ratio in mind that would make me conclude the picture fundamentally changed (aside from parity with a single other coin (edit), but by then, it'd be rather late). However, 80/20% vs the next highest, 66/33% vs all, doesn't mean anything yet, in my opinion, only that a) alts are there to stay (deal with it *sunglasses*), and b) our little market is growing up.

Hehe, had the same thought as FiendCoin but decided not to grill you on it.

On the other hand, it means the unlikely event of 44k coins¹ could look just a tiny bit less impossible =)

¹during our lifetime, let's say

1. Sell at 1200$
2. ?
3. Sell again at 1200$
4. Repeat until teh bitzcoin ded
5. Profit cokkrochez!1!

Can't help thinking you forgot some in-between step there :3

*snort*



(Aside: following with interest, but didn't sign up yet... sorry :/)

I very much doubt the site would function as it still does with zero maintenance in the background. Any minor change in any of the exchanges' APIs, and we wouldn't be seeing graphs anymore.

That said, it could be that he's just keeping it 'alive', but doesn't do much more than that -- pretty unfortunate, since it is still one of the best charting sites out there I'd say.

Just one quick aside, in reply to the two posts above, then I'll respect this thread again for what it is: the temple of luc ;)

Volume analysis has always been tricky in this market, and I've struggled with it for a long time. I also believe it only became more difficult since most of the volume shifted to the low/no fee exchanges. Direct comparisons between e.g. finex and BTCChina or OKCoin are out of the question for me, so I wouldn't simply average over all volume equally. However, I also go back on what I said & believed a year or so ago: that volume analysis should mainly focus on the big two or three USD "high fee" exchanges. That is (and was) rather naive of me, I can see now.

These days, I look at volume a) through a weighted average across ~5 exchanges, and b) by a kind of min/max 'snapshot' across exchanges, e.g. if a clear volume picture emerges on one, better two of the major exchanges I track, then I assume/believe that this is roughly equivalent to the same volume picture emerging on the single relevant exchange back in the day.

/2cents