Spot on.

Also, "in the not so distant future" will probably be around late April/early May, so I also think Mat didn't pick the smartest moment to withdraw all funds. But let's see, if there's one consistent theme to his posts it's that he changes his opinions pretty quickly (nothing wrong with that, btw. better than being permanently stuck in either bull or bear mode, imo)

Finally got around to reading your original post, gbianchi. I remember skimming over it, not being too impressed, but wanted to go back to it. Glad I did that. I really like your idea of basing the model on non-empty addresses, and your argument in favor of doing so.

One question: did you calculate the R-square value for your model? (If you did and posted it already, I didn't find it, my apologies then.) Would be useful to compare it to the (more common) time-based lin regression models that others have posted.

adam, how about the following poll:

"Should wall observer polls be more serious, and without the moronic all caps options?"

a) yes, I mean: no! Never!

b) never.

c) HODL ALL THE COINS! (also: never)

Damn you for calling out my clever ruse to trick people into thinking something new (and of value) has been posted. *shakes fist*

What if I told you...

(Morpheus meme)

... we already broke the December downtrend, but nobody noticed it.




Yes, that's median price, not candles. Deal with it. Also, don't read too much into it, I know I don't. Just the byproduct of my fumbling attempts to see the similarities and differences between this bubble cycle and the ones before. For example, I noticed that the idea that at the end of the initial post peak downtrend we must immediately see signs for a clear uptrend became somewhat fixated in my mind. Perhaps a mistake.

Don't thank him, *pay* him.

... if only there would be some cutting edge payment system that would allow you to send him a nice little tip across the globe for little to no transaction costs... guess we still have to hope for some genius to come up with one

:D

Glad to see your post OP. I always like to see less common approaches to TA.

Care to elaborate a bit on your ANN method? How many layers? Regular feedforward ANN or recurrent network? What's the input and history size you train on?

Especially since, as someone on r/bitcoin correctly pointed out, the guy is essentially asking for half of the resolution value of the bet being paid out in BTC. In other words, economically it only makes sense for him to take the bet if he assumes that BTC price is somewhat stable or growing, otherwise he would be wiser to just put his money into the BRK-A share directly, instead of going through the effort of executing this bet.

Looks great! Really love the clean new design.

Not sure yet what the additional functions (e.g. "network activity tracking") are useful for, but I'll find out :)

Tip on the way, by the way.

That's the December downtrend I (and many others) have been going on about forever... I didn't zoom out far enough to show the (3 to 4) points of contact because I assumed by now everyone agrees that it is a valid trend (even though it might be undecided how much staying power it has).




EDIT: I just re-read my post. you're right, since I didn't mention it is the December downtrend, it was misleading. My mistake.

The plot thickens. Triangle closing, or maybe broken already to the downside. I don't think we're going to break through the December downtrend this weekend, but if whatever dip we might see over the weekend doesn't take us below ~600 I can see a continuation like shown below for the next week to 10 days, where we finally break through the LT downtrend and have a retest of 700. CMF, order book, even bitfinex stats all look pretty good, there's just not enough momentum, and we're a bit too overbought, to go through it *right* now.

I've already posted a few times about this in the other thread, the one that announced that newbie restrictions are lifted, but I'd like to summarize it once more here:

I would really love to see some form of a simplified 'approval' system for new users: Newbies are at first restricted to only post in a dedicated 'newbie' board, where ideally they should be asking questions about the protocol, how to securely set up a wallet, etc... just generally posting and showing that they can adhere to good form.

Now, any user who is a member for, say, 1 year or longer can go there and 'approve' a newly registered account. The standards for this 'approval' should be rather low: it doesn't mean we would only approve new accounts that made super-smart posts, but rather that if you see an account that has 5 or 10 posts, and is not yet approved, and you get the impression he's well behaved, you 'approve' him, i.e. he can post anywhere in the forum.

If that never happens, then after some time (say, 1 week maybe) the account is auto-approved.

The result would be that decently behaving new users would get approval more or less immediately after making a few posts in a restricted forum, and those who are too lazy to do that will eventually be able to post as well -- but hopefully the *impatient* trolls would have it harder.

The idea behind the above is a bit like how some of the Wikipedia projects have 'sighted' versions of articles: anyone can edit an article, but it takes an established account to confirm that an edit wasn't spam/trolling, and mark the article as 'sighted'.

good point. but keep in mind, the discussion started because someone wondered why anyone would "share" his privileged information status. the answer was: to profit from predictable reactions your information sharing causes... but for that to be the justification, one only needs to believe it to be profitable to do so (marginally even, maybe), it does not necessarily have to be significantly profitable.

Probably runs down to the question how efficient you believe the market, and how rational you believe market participants, to be. I don't have such high opinions of either of the two (and that includes myself, by the way :D)

Jup. Nice jump in bids, finally. Maybe we finally manage to break through 650 after all. And stay above it, I mean

Hey, btcwisdom... quick question.

Any chance you could implement two small buttons, "+" and "-" to zoom in exactly 1 step, and zoom out 1 step, respectively? Or maybe just map the same function to the + and - keyboard keys, without visible buttons?

The reason: on most of my devices (phone, Macbook) I use a trackpad, and when zooming in and out it can be really tricky to get the zoom level you want like that... I spend usually a minute or so until I get the right level.

It's not such a huge deal.. if it's too much effort to get it to work, forget it. Just would make usability a tiny bit better, in my opinion.

EDIT: I should maybe add: I'm sure I'm not the only one with a trackpad only device (smart phone or small notebook), so I suspect others might have a similar experience.

The problem with your argument, as with so many game theoretic derivations, is that it assumes a "static" setup, and then derives conclusions that are correct for the simplified setup, but not necessarily for reality. In the case under discussion here, I could construct a "meta meta" game where, given enough time, effort and actual ingenuity you could create a flock of followers with an account that allows you to exploit their group behavior, while also keeping track of diminishing returns. Once you become convinced other are onto you, you continue the game with a new account, with a new set of "followers". The previous is not so much a practical suggestion (if you are good enough to gather followers that easy you probably don't need to manipulate to make consistent profits), but to point out that the conclusions drawn in many GT derivations based on a finite set of premises can rather easily be picked apart.

Especially because the majority of the last third or so of this thread has been about finding, on our own, optimal parameters for a CO strategy. Lebing's assertion only makes sense if goomboo would have aggressively pushed for a particular set of parameters (say, the "traditional" 20+10 hourly)... but he never did that, saying quite early already that you should backtest parameters that give results you are personally happy with.

As for the psychological motivation people might have to share any information... it's not that difficult to see that a combination of altruistic willingness to share your knowledge, and maybe a bit of satisfaction if people like your work, i.e. express their respect/admiration, could be motivation to post here, besides financial incentives. Not everything a capitalist does needs to be motivated financially :)

Wish I had your optimism. I guess I can see some positive signs (other than that we're not trading near 500 again, of course), like a CMF recovery similar to the one in July 2013 (see chart 1), but on the other hand I really wish the 630-640 (24% retracement) area would start providing support finally (chart 2). So far, it seems that we touch back into and below it without much effort... and that's how the long slide down started from Jan 7 to 14 as well (same fibo level, not same price level of course).

I lost my appetite for trading a bit right now, so I'm sitting on my hands anyway, but in my view we have about one more week to decide whether we're staying above the next retracement level for good (i.e. we don't dip back below 630/640), and if and when that happens, I'm going to be a bit more optimistic.

We also have that looming December-to-now trendline (chart 3), and we'll have to figure out eventually if that one turns out to be still active... if the resistance at around 650 keeps throwing us back down, I might start betting on a continuation of the downtrend/consolidation after all.



(1)




(2)



(3)




EDIT: I guess there's another positive view on our current situation, if you look at the retracement steps from the January peak to the recent 400 bottom. The 24% level was taken back almost immediately, and the most recent jump to 700 solidly put us up one level higher (38%, above 627, where we stayed for most of the time since the jump up). The next level, 50%, at around 700, will have to fall eventually, and I have no way of telling if the upwards pressure is strong enough for that, but I'm just mentioning all of this because previously I only looked at the retracement levels of the latest uptrend, but never looked at it from the perspective of the 995 to 400 downtrend.

Phrased like that, in its generality, I wouldn't know how to answer your question...

"Mainstream adoption" as a daily used currency when you do your groceries?

"Mainstream adoption" for Internet-related business transactions?

"Mainstream adoption" for Internet-related business transactions, but not for the end user but by being the backbone of the transfer system (similarly to how Linux effectively is the OS that runs the Web, even though the majority of users has another OS)

"Mainstream adoption" as a store of value (assuming volatility reduces, or becomes more predictable), but not as a daily used currency?

My point is, mainstream adoption can mean a huge number of things, and the fact that I believe one or the other scenario is possible or even likely has no bearing on how likely I consider another mainstream success scenario.

EDIT: if you mean however how likely it is that there will be 10 times as many users as there are now, where "user" allows for our current usage (speculative asset, some trading/payment activity), then I'd say 90% or more likelihood.

I use both, tradingview for the long term view and analysis, but I go to btcwisdom daily. Also: trading calculator is fantastic.