|
Bullish as I am for the very long term, I see little chance for a new ATH in July this year. The best I could see is that we are in an uncontested uptrend by that time, like July+August 2013, or October+November 2013. In other words: we would be /on our way/ to a new ATH.
Realistically though, I'm not even sure about that. I'm pretty much divided 50/50 if we saw the end of the post-December bear market/correction already. Market/forum/news sentiment-wise I'm leaning towards yes, looking at raw price I'm weakly leaning towards yes, but looking at price derived metrics (e.g. longer time frame RSI, as others, like TERA have posted as well) it could be that we need to see another "leg down" first before we're over it for good. If that's really going to happen (note: I'm undecided myself whether I believe that), I would see late April/early May as a time frame for the "real" LT reversal -- which would leave us 2 or 3 months to go the new ATH -- not realistic, in my opinion.
|
|
|
|
Just noticed the new volume option on bitcoinwisdom.  May I suggest heading over to user/bitcoinwisdom's profile or the official btcwisdom thread and leave a donation. The guy and his website are awesome, imo: he's quick to react to (reasonable) suggestions (the volume(quote) was suggested by me some days ago, he implemented it in *no* time), his website is up and running with high reliability, and it's a breeze to use (like the very intuitive line tool). well worth a small donation /shameless plug |
|
|
|
What contributions?
About as many useful ones as from OP himself, in my opinion. The main difference is that OP has a loyal following among the clueless, while kkaspar is lacking even that. And on this thread in general: how deprived of approval must a person have been in their formative years to become so desperate in fishing for approval now. In my eyes about as pathetic as the constant trolling by kkaspar. @cAPSLOCK: Forget the banning threat. rpi was talking out of his ass, as always. The invaluable contributions of kkaspar will remain preserved in our little forum. |
|
|
|
Hey, I know what I'll do: I'll just warm up my earlier point: how come those pretty "socialist" states like Sweden, Switzerland, The Netherlands outperform (on pretty much every metric) more economically permissive countries like the US?
CH is one of the most decentralized nations on Earth and in no-wise comparable to the others. It is extremely "economically permissive". What do you consider to be less economically permissive about SW or NL? There is no minimum wage, for example, in Sweden. Both are historical mercantile powerhouses. Perhaps you aver to tax rates? By that criterion China should be a great exemplar of the free market paradigm. There are so many factors differentiating the nations of the Earth that factor analysis is, at least, very hard, on purely frequentist statistical grounds. I definitely think the remarkable degree of cultural homogeneity in Scandinavian nations makes it much more feasible to operate a collective project there. You can get a large majority on board without huge incentivization or massive application of force. NL and Scandinavia are also supremely Protestant (cf. BJA). All true. Also, not at all pertaining to why I brought up those countries. Because despite your more nuanced answer (relatively decentralized state for Switzerland, homogenic society/protestant work ethic for Scandinavia) the simplistic (a.k.a. retarded) battle cry of the libertarian/armchair-anarchist in here seems to be "kill the state", not "reduce the state to its optimal level". Let me put it differently: I'd be more than happy to discuss in which areas, in which countries, for this and that reason, the state has taken over more control than it should have. I however laugh at the notion that a complete removal of the state would somehow lead to a guaranteed improvement of our current living conditions. |
|
|
|
I'm a n00b to this forum, but I can see why you guys want to make it harder to spam. It's kind of a pain in the ass for me to use this site as as newbie, though; I'm still restricted to a post every 360 seconds. Curses!
Yeah, I really think a 'post per time' limit like that is annoying, and probably not even helpful: in the speculation subforum, a number of aggressively dumb spammers manage to cause quite a lot of damage despite that limit (or maybe they're not newbies anymore). I would really like the idea of a simplified 'approval' system: Newbies are at first restricted to post in a 'newbie' board, asking questions about the protocol, etc. and in general, showing that they can adhere to good form. Any user who is a member for 1 year or longer can go there and 'approve' a newly registered account .... by which I don't mean you should only be approved based on merit or super-smart posts, that would be too elitist/restrictive, but more on the *absence of total idiocy*. A bit like how some of the Wikipedia projects have 'sighted' versions of articles: anyone can edit, but it takes an established account to confirm that an edit wasn't spam/trolling, and mark the article as 'sighted'. It's a really low-level form of approval, doesn't require much other than that you are *not* an idiot  |
|
|
|
Isn't there a bullish flag forming since March in the daily? Just trying to throw 2 Finneys at this thread.  Not sure if you're serious or poking fun at my (continuation of uptrend = bullish) pennant post some days ago, but in principle you could still argued for the pattern still being there:  But tbh, I don't see it as the most likely scenario either anymore. |
|
|
|
To follow up my post from a few pages ago, finally my withdrawal was processed and went through. Unfortunately for me the USD lost almost 3% against the Euro in the meantime. However, after the lengthy KYC procedure went through, the withdrawal/transfer took as little time as usual. One day to change from "in process" to "finished", another day to appear on my balance statement. So generally, bitstamp appears to work.
Thanks for keeping us updated. There are some "complaints" in this threads I simply can't take serious, but after I understood what went on in your case, I was waiting to hear how it will be resolved. Glad to hear it worked out in the end, even though with a delay. (Sorry for my initial reaction 2 or 3 pages ago, by the way. I thought your complaint was that you refuse to answer the additional KYC questions, but that was my mistake in not reading your original post careful enough.) |
|
|
|
I know, I know, we don't really like r/bitcoin in here, but this one is amusing  |
|
|
|
If you claim the a monopoly government is necessary to prevent the predation of the disadvantaged by the powerful, then I ask, howz that workin out for you so far?
Here's a question: let's say you could, for the rest of your life, commit 30% of your income and savings to charitable organizations of your choice, with a certain amount required to go to basic needs charities, in exchange for never paying taxes on anything ever again. Would you say yes? If that's too much, what's the maximum you'd go up to? , keep in mind the US was designed to have decentralized state governments by its founders. If you don't like the rules in one state, drive to another one. To most libertarians, this is acceptable. So calling them anti-government is a gross misunderstanding. State and Federal governments here often butt heads, and often states win out. Illinois, for example, resembles a socialist country in decline. It has many social safety nets, huge union influence, huge unsustainable debt, high unemployment and a super corrupt, scandalous government. Fortunately it's not difficult to move somewhere like Oregon, with low income tax and zero sales tax. After the auto industry bailout by the Feds (which didn't work, btw), Michigan has largely taken a hands-off approach with the decline of Detroit. As much of a hellhole/ghost town the metropolitan area is, the suburbs are still doing well. The corruption and collapse is working itself out and investors are buying up cheap cheap real estate. My friends rent a huge, amazing house there for a few hundred dollars a month. The neighborhood looks like a demilitarized zone but it's not unsafe because there's nobody there. How lovely the world must look like to the stubbornly naive... Can't believe I'm turning into the statist here, considering that in he outside world I tend to take the opposite role, but so much simplification and ideologically motivated misrepresentations of reality have that effect. Hey, I know what I'll do: I'll just warm up my earlier point: how come those pretty "socialist" states like Sweden, Switzerland, The Netherlands outperform (on pretty much every metric) more economically permissive countries like the US? |
|
|
|
You're right about the rate of change being lower.
Y'all are so habituated to logarithmic modelling that you can't even see an increase in the rate of change. You can only see a decline in the rate of growth. Ah, that's probably my more fundamental mistake. I said "expansion" which to you implies a rate of growth, and not unreasonably so. Yeah, you'll have to take that one on yourself. Makes more sense most of time to speak about rate of growth then rate of change in Bitcoinia, almost always when looking at larger time spans, so most of us wear log goggles . That said, I agree with your point in principle, like I wrote above: the addresses graph looks nothing like that of 2011. |
|
|
|
You were talking about the rate. You'd look at a logarithmic chart for that, and oh look, you are wrong based on your own metric. The rate of growth is historically decreasing. Typical argument here: This time is different, because this time, I am aboard. Literally and figuratively.  You're right about the rate of change being lower. But the chart you linked to also shows why it's unlikely we're going to see a 2011 bear market again: it took about a year, from July 2011 to July 2012 to reach the previous 'unique addresses used' peak again back then -- today, we've already surpassed the previous peak (which, non surprisingly, was in November/December 2013). Doesn't mean we're about to start another rally, but I don't see a 2011 repeat as likely either. How can the number of unique addresses used decrease? I see it has decreased on the chart during the period you've mentioned during 2011-2012, but I don't understand how the number of addresses used can decrease? "in use, per day" AFAIK |
|
|
|
You were talking about the rate. You'd look at a logarithmic chart for that, and oh look, you are wrong based on your own metric. The rate of growth is historically decreasing. Typical argument here: This time is different, because this time, I am aboard. Literally and figuratively. You're right about the rate of change being lower (EDIT to be clear: second derivative). But the chart you linked to also shows why it's unlikely we're going to see a 2011 bear market again: it took about a year, from July 2011 to July 2012 to reach the previous 'unique addresses used' peak again back then -- today, we've already surpassed the previous peak (which, non surprisingly, was in November/December 2013). Doesn't mean we're about to start another rally, but I don't see a 2011 repeat as likely either. |
|
|
|
|
Very happy with your first newsletter. Exactly the kind of mixture I was looking for: solid mid-term analysis, with some derived short-term recommendations.
Some (critical) remarks, if you allow:
(1) You show evidence for the 'factor 3' hypothesis, i.e. that we play out the correction at a speed 3 times as slow as that of April 2013. But in the end you don't make the obvious conclusion: that if we don't just see the local minima so far 3 times slower, but the *overall* correction will be at that speed, then we're in for another few months of bear market. Don't get me wrong, I don't believe there's a conclusive answer to this question (yet), but it's a bit strange IMO to bring up the 'factor 3' argument, but then not mentioning the possibility of a sustained downtrend.
(2) Your trendlines are a bit debatable. You go to great lengths to build them on as many points of contact as possible (i.e. you're rigorous), but then you're quite quick to declare candles that fall outside as "outliers", which is problematic in my opinion. In the end, I see more or less the same figure you describe, but I just wanted to remark on the 'points of contact' vs. 'outliers' problem (specifically, the chart on page 10)
But in the end, that's details... you did a great job, in my opinion.
|
|
|
|
That's officially the worst graph I've seen this year so far There are many that show much the same thing. I picked one that wasn't too busy and included the countries you named. I'm dicking around on a forum, not conducting a research project.
tl;dr With some effort one can probably find a correlation between national wealth and economical permissiveness. That however only shows that *too much state interference* hinders economic progress, not that a *total absence* of state would be the ideal condition for economical development. Subtle, but important difference.
Fine. Let's start with getting rid of the "too much state interference" and when/if it seems to start hurting things, then we can stop. We are heading in the wrong direction currently. I'd agree with that method. Still difficult enough to sell to voters, though. |
|
|
|
otherwise he is just as ideologically motivated as the statists he despises.
Yeah. Primarily I'm motivated by the ideology that people should be free. Quite frankly, the economic stuff is secondary. But with that said, you have to be careful with your definitions. You named a couple of well performing "high state" economies, but not the low-state ones you are comparing them with. Also, one needs to take historical data into account. One must also take care to differentiate economic from social freedom, either of which will have different effects.  That's officially the worst graph I've seen this year so far Their definition of 'wealth' is fantastic. Germany, with 41k USD GDP per capita vs. the US's 51k (a noticeable difference, but in a country ranking it translates into a difference between rank 10 vs. rank 20), and a substantially better wealth GINI (i.e. wealth much more evenly spread), gets about a quarter of "national wealth" according to that chart. Something about combining GDP and GDP growth, I guess. Still a ridiculous calculation. NZ is another one that I can, from the top of my head, say makes no sense ("national wealth" near zero... very amusing) Anyway, even if you can construct a similar graph based on a better definition of wealth (why not just use GDP per capita), the correlation is supposed to be against "ease of doing business". You need quite a bit of simplification to equal "ease of doing business" with "no state interference"... their own metric for example includes "cost of enforcing contracts": something that, historically, seems to work better when function legal sytems are present. tl;dr With some effort one can probably find a correlation between national wealth and economical permissiveness. That however only shows that *too much state interference* hinders economic progress, not that a *total absence* of state would be the ideal condition for economical development. Subtle, but important difference. |
|
|
|
Sure, you can explain part of that by independent causes (Norway: natural resources, Switzerland: banking culture), but hardly all of it. The way it looks to me, at least in /some/ countries "statism" works just fine, from an economical perspective.
A mostly free market can support quite a lot of nonsense. Heck, even the minor capital reforms the Chinese have allowed have boosted their economy enormously. With the productivity increase that technology has brought, we should be seeing astounding progress right now. As it is, even with what's going on, things are still pretty good. It's that hard to keep people down. No, I won't let that slide. That's the worst kind of argument: "If A happens, it proves my point. And if not-A happens, that proves my point as well." Unless you can come up with a "wealth/productivity baseline" that is guaranteed solely by technological progress, the only (sort of) objective comparison we have is between different forms of states, and how they compare economically. And a 'heavy state' economy that outperforms several 'low state' economies *is* something that a libertarian needs to account for in proper detail, otherwise he is just as ideologically motivated as the statists he despises. |
|
|
|
Quick thought: I'd say size has a lot to do with is size... large unmanageable bureaucracies are a sociopaths dream come ture  Agreed. But the argument becomes a bit nuanced then, no? "Statism doesn't work for very large countries". And the conclusions (assuming the above is true) would also be a bit more subtle: you could fix large dysfunctional nation states either by breaking them down into more manageable units (c.f. "Bioregionalism"), or by reducing the power of the state. In which case I suspect a break-up into smaller sub-nations is becoming more likely as well. |
|
|
|
|
Fun! I'll jump into the discussion if you don't mind, and play devil's advocate for a moment (I'm personally mostly agnostic I guess in the discusion statists vs. libertarians/anarchists)...
How do countries like Switzerland, Sweden, Norway fit in?
They are, by all meaningful definitions, heavily leaning towards "strong state", but are economically incredibly powerful (per capita, which is the relevant metric here).
Sure, you can explain part of that by independent causes (Norway: natural resources, Switzerland: banking culture), but hardly all of it. The way it looks to me, at least in /some/ countries "statism" works just fine, from an economical perspective.
|
|
|
|
Is this normal to not show any lower bids?  Bitcoin Wisdom is just generally fucked and never reports the right volumes. a) btcwisdom truncates the order book, for speed reasons as the owner says. seeing that his site is usually up during heavy trading days when the others go down, i'm inclined to follow his logic. b) the way the order book information is displayed is unintuitive at first maybe, but before claiming it's all wrong, first understand how prices are grouped. explanation is in the btcwisdom thread in the service subforum. c) never heard of volume being wrong. quick check matches volume shown on tradingview. care to find some evidence for your claim? I'm the one claiming lot's of data that bitcoinwisdom is showing is fucked up: MACD numbers are wrong, they do not match tradingview (and my own calculations at all). Volumes are correct if you refresh the page, but if you keep it open for a couple of hours (without internet connection loss obv). It'll start showing some real messed up volumes for the past couple of candles. If you refresh the page after that the volumes will be correct again. What seems to be correct however is: Price, Orderbook In the end I got tired of websites showing me wrong data, I wrote my own (private). If you are looking for a better site tho, I can suggest tradingview (as far as I checked their numbers are correct). Didn't know about the volume error when not refreshing page. Sounds plausible, but seems benign to me if it's solved with a reload. Re: MACD. Did you account for different MACD parameters? Both tradingview and btcwisdom allow you to set your own parameters, which in case of tradingview includes price source itself. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
