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? |
|
|
|
Hey, you reduced min-candle-width, right? Looks like I can zoom out much further now! Awesome!
EDIT: quick follow-up... any chance you can implement "Dollar Volume"? As an option, so you could either see volume in BTC (default), or volume in USD (by choice)? $Vol = BTC volume * price per BTC.
Why? Because when comparing volume in the same month or so, BTC volume is great, but when you zoom out a lot and look at volume in, for example, April 2013 and December 2013, then it's almost impossible to compare the volume in BTC, so $volume becomes extremely useful.
Yes, I reduce the min width from 3px to 1px, so including the 1px space there are twice range than before. It's no problem. Volume in quote currency is supported. Extremely fast, as always! Thank you. (I'll do my part and make another donation tonight) |
|
|
|
|
Serious question:
What's the point of the mtgox data dump, and even looking into it?
It only means we get a glimpse into their *internal* accounting... how does that tell us anything that we don't know already.
Possible that I'm missing something though, so please correct me if I didn't think this through enough...
|
|
|
|
The problem with using the word 'manipulation' is that idiots get this confused with actual problems like 'insider trading'.
The word 'manipulation' is most frequently used on these forums to reference ordinary traders that simply have lots of money, i.e. 'whales'. These people are the exact same as everyone else in that they're just trading and trying to make a profit. Calling this 'manipulation' is stupid because this makes everyone a manipulator. But, erecting huge buy/sell walls or pumping and dumping isn't manipulation -- it's called being wealthy.
Save the term 'manipulation' for devious practice like insider trading and otherwise.
I'd love to print this, frame it, and hang it in the speculation forum lobby. |
|
|
|
|
Somehow can't shake the feeling that TERA is the more chatty alt of lucif/masterluc.
|
|
|
|
|
Hey, you reduced min-candle-width, right? Looks like I can zoom out much further now! Awesome!
EDIT: quick follow-up... any chance you can implement "Dollar Volume"? As an option, so you could either see volume in BTC (default), or volume in USD (by choice)? $Vol = BTC volume * price per BTC.
Why? Because when comparing volume in the same month or so, BTC volume is great, but when you zoom out a lot and look at volume in, for example, April 2013 and December 2013, then it's almost impossible to compare the volume in BTC, so $volume becomes extremely useful.
|
|
|
|
I refuse to get nervous until ~590. Then, however, I will panic like a sheep on the way to the slaughterhouse  I wouldn't do that, I would start buying around there. Wasn't entirely serious. I'm sitting on my hands right now anyway until I get a clearer picture of what is going on. I do think of up to around590 as a reasonable retracement on the gains we made since Feb 25, but going lower than that will make me doubt the (mid term) reversal, that I saw as the most likely scenario so far. |
|
|
|
|
I refuse to get nervous until ~590. Then, however, I will panic like a sheep on the way to the slaughterhouse :D
|
|
|
|
Guys, we need to leave Dorian alone so he can get back to CCing his MFing trains.
Seriously. I don't understand the fascination. The dude clearly wants to be left alone. So what? Look, I understand the Newsweek article is pretty shite, but just because some/many of us are kind of big into privacy doesn't mean that nosing around in business that isn't ours isn't a deeply human desire. And I'm completely serious: on a rational level, I agree with you. But the undeniable monkey brain part of me *is* wondering who is SN, and wants to see him interviewed and photographed. So I can't act all surprised that the media tries to do just that, if I can see that desire to have him revealed inside myself. |
|
|
|
Excellent summary of what is wrong with the article. I guess the fact that Newsweek went "all in" and made it a cover story had everybody lose their head for a moment, and ignore the obvious objections.
There's only circumstantial evidence that Dorian is "Satoshi", and in fact, there are other candidates for which there exists much more such circumstantial evidence.
Actually I don't believe the article myself, it reads as if the reporter twisted the words and facts to fit her theory. Someone posted earlier a paragraph that Newsweek deleted from that article, which explained how the reporter had found Dorian by combing through all the "Satoshi Nakamoto"s living in the US. Now, if you collect a hundred random people from some database, there is a good chance that you will find one who has a computer or electronics background (even if it is not cryptography). That person quite likely will have worked for some technology company (where else?) that did classified wor for the government (is there any company in the US that didn't?) Heck, even *I* worked for two such companies (Xerox and Digital Equipment). Then you only have to pick a phrase or two from relatives and acquaintances that suggests he is the guy, and omit the cartloads of evidence that suggest that he isn't... I disagree. There is /some/ evidence that Dorian = SN, it's just not enough to call it a scoop. A case that is made, by the way, in an excellent fashion by Felix Salmon of Reuters in here. He's a rather educated Bitcoin critic, by the, you might like him. Has a bet going on with Ben Horowitz about where btc will be 5 years from now. Anyway, I suggest that anyone who read the article in Newsweek reads Felix' one as well. forgive his slight abuse of Bayesian probability, he just needed to throw that around so he could make a point about rejecting a prior ;) |
|
|
|
I do not think it is him at all. The journalist "work" is extremely bad and based on pure speculation, it really looks like this is a prank pulled on her by Dorian's brother. The internet is full of posts by Dorian (Amazon; guns forums; train models forums; Toyota forum; etc.) and his writing style is EXTREMELY different (and bad) compared to SN's. The journalist was SO BAD and so eager to publish this story that she didn't even take the time to make a real comparison between the writing of both characters - she just wrote on his piece that Dorian's wife said that her husband mixes both American and UK english, which is beyond ridiculous as a "proof", especially if there is SO much material on the internet to make a REAL comparison. It's obvious that Dorian writes a very bad english, and this is very easily verifiable: his posts all over the internet. All in all there's some circumstancial evidence, but not a single hint of firm evidence. In fact, the strongest evidence is that the guy's birth name is Satoshi Nakamoto - but Dorian is a physicist and an engineer, not a cryptographer; add to that his bad english (which, again, is easily proved by using a little google-skills) and the unbelievable characteristics of this story (a guy who never spoke to his family about his project and went to greath lengths to be anonymous "tacitly admits" his involvment to a journalist and uses his real name to publish the foundational paper). I bet Dorian is not SN. It just doesn't add up. If his birth name was not "Satoshi Nakamoto", everybody would have been laughing at this whole story. It's much more likely SN is Nick Szabo - the evidence is still circumstancial but orders of magnitude stronger in his case. For Christ sake, Nick Szabo was the "inventor" of the "smart contract" concept, his work revolves around the concept of eliminating trust on third parties using decentralized ledgers and he created "bit gold" (which is pure and simply the precursor of Bitcoin), working on it for decades until he stopped publishing papers on electronic cash around 2005 (his last post on bit gold was written on his blog on 2008, just little before the Bitcoin paper was published - what a coincidence). Plus, Szabo's and Satoshi's writing styles are very similar, they use the very same terms and concepts and their work revolves around the very same point. It really looks like Szabo found the "solution to the problem" and created bitcoin, and that's why he never published again about electronic cash/trustless sytems - which were the center of his work for more than a decade. He never wrote about bitcoin and ignores all the comments about bitcoin on his blog, which seems incredibly shady given the fact that he is clearly the inspirator of such a system… All that might be circumstancial, but the links (in form of PAPERS and WORKS, not speculation by family members and retarded journalists) are SO strong they cannot be ignored. IMO all this Dorian story is a ludicrous joke that leverages on just three things: A) Dorian's name; B) the fact Dorian worked on classified projects; C) the fact Dorian is a libertarian and quite "paranoid" when it comes to Government - which is simply what you would expect from anyone who has worked for the Government - he just knows first hand that Govs spy and apply violence on people. The Newsweek journalists should be ashamed. Great post, Rampion, as usual. Excellent summary of what is wrong with the article. I guess the fact that Newsweek went "all in" and made it a cover story had everybody lose their head for a moment, and ignore the obvious objections. There's only circumstantial evidence that Dorian is "Satoshi", and in fact, there are other candidates for which there exists much more such circumstantial evidence. Hence: we should reject that Dorian = "Satoshi", unless additional proof is given by the author of the NW article. (and I'm not exactly holding my breath for that to happen.) |
|
|
|
Ok, we are getting a TON of press right now, where is the price bump we all are waiting?
As was said before: have some patience. The news right now will have a positive influence on price in the mid term: huge exposure, and not in a predominantly negative fashion (more like a human interest story). It also shows how big Bitcoin is by now even in the popular media. That said, don't expect price to jump as a result in the next days necessarily. The current media frenzy will just further increase awareness of Bitcoin, and increase "familiarity" so to speak... after hearing about sthg that is not universally negative for years, you're inclined to become familiar with it, I believe. |
|
|
|
|
Sounds good. Will transfer the amount/sign up later tonight.
|
|
|
|
Alright, let's try something different. I'm going to zoom out a bit, because (I'm sure you will agree) it's pretty difficult to read the market right now. (cue Mat "manipulative whale whores everywhere, cannot trust this price, ramble ramble".) Note that I'm smoothing out the details in the following one. Median price instead of candles. 30 day EMA as the comparative baseline. I want to look at the bigger picture for a moment, okay?  Looking at it like that, it doesn't sound completely unreasonable to me to ask "are we playing out a similar post-bubble correction like in 2013, and are we at the end of it?". The similarities: red circle is the "Oh fuck. The rally is really over, after all" phase. Suddenly there's almost no hope left (except for permabulls) that we're breaking through the top again. Predictably, then comes the flash crash. Next, we go back above the 30d EMA. Sentiment: "Hey, maybe this time the recovery will be done much quicker! Look, we already found the bottom last week!". Nope. It's never over that quick. Orange circle follows. Which is where we are now. Maybe. Let's say we are, for a second. So what would we expect to see in that case? Looking back to July/August 2013, let's note first that there's plenty of room for indecision reflected in the price. We actually went below the 30d EMA for another week. But eventually, it'll have to stay above... no need for huge jumps at first, but we do need to stay above that baseline at some point, or it's going to look like the correction will drag on. In analogy with 2013, I'd say (raw) price briefly dipping back to 600 is still okay, but if it's going back below 580 then it's probably a lost cause. Also, any of those visits below the EMA should be over in about a week, maybe two, otherwise the similarities to 2013 pretty much end there. EDIT: Correction. Forgot about the dump on July 18 that took out 60% of the gains we made since the capitulation. Analogous would be staying above 520 now. One thing: don't come in here shouting "what reversal, we're still firmly in a downtrend", please. Think of the above as a hypothetical question in if/then form: if we are indeed in a recovery situation similar to July 2013, what would we expect to see in the next week or two. |
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the clarification.
One follow up: do you have a minimum number of subscribers in mind? I mean, I hope a lot of people will sign up for it, but is there a lower bound you want to reach for it to be worth your time? If so, do you have a backup plan in case you don't reach that number?
|
|
|
|
|
Hey arepo. Welcome back :)
Glad to see you're launching that newsletter that you mentioned before. I enjoyed your previous posts in here a lot, and I can say already that I'll sign up for the 4 month subscription right away under one condition: weekly newsletter is good enough for me, as I try to limit my trades to one or two per weeks at most, but sometimes bigger events can make it necessary to update your analysis.
Say, for example the week before the 400 USD bottom. A newsletter on Monday could have described the general outlook and downtrend, but I'm pretty sure an update would have been necessary a) when gox officially filed for bankruptcy protection, and b) when we hit 400, in what appears to be a mid term bottom.
I would hope that, even for those who order the weekly newsletter, such short term updates could be made available without extra cost. Is this something you can see yourself doing for the subscribers?
|
|
|
|
Could be him, I guess. The description, slightly nutty, but brilliant anti-government private researcher certainly fits.
But that's hardly enough evidence. Reading the article it sounds to me the evidence that it's him is basically that the writer of the article says "he implicitly admitted to be the creator of Bitcoin"... Is that sufficient evidence in your eyes?
And what about the name? Someone who cares so much about privacy uses his real name on the internet? Sounds unbelievable to me. Could have been a lapse. The white paper was kind of academic in style and setting. Sthg a researcher wouldn't mind putting his real name on. But then it blew up, became real, really fast. At the point when he realized his real name was associated with a global phenomenon, he dropped out. Sounds at least possible to me. |
|
|
|
|
Could be him, I guess. The description, slightly nutty, but brilliant anti-government private researcher certainly fits.
But that's hardly enough evidence. Reading the article it sounds to me the evidence that it's him is basically that the writer of the article says "he implicitly admitted to be the creator of Bitcoin"... Is that sufficient evidence in your eyes?
|
|
|
|
I am surprised what kind of sissies you are.. Seemingly never had a million dollars yourselves...  Satoshi is welcome to my castle if he needs protection. Don't you have a new "elite" forum where you're kept tight on goat's loving leash :3 I'd suggest to go there to brag about your million dollar cigars and such. More receptive audience. |
|
|
|
To form a proper base for an upward breakout from the 3 month downtrend, it should do something like this, as it did last year.
[...]
(12 hour chart)
We're talking about THE breakout of the 2014 consolidation into the rally for the next bubble. This doesn't just happen off the cuff with a 3 day retracement after a 75% rise from the bottom which was a mere week ago.
I'm not that sure about the bolded part. If your expectations about what a possible breakout would have to look like are based on the assumption that the breakout would be followed (more or less) by the next rally phase (EDIT: towards a new ATH) , I don't know if I see that assumption to be all that certain. There continues to be a worrying picture in my head where we are now in the stage where we were in early May 2013: after the *first*, not the *last* post-ATH bearish/correctional curve. I'll see if I can whip up a picture of what I mean later today. Anyway: if that's the case, and we're playing out the April 2013 correction, but slowed by a factor of ~2, then to me it'd make sense to "break out" now without a more solid base/retest of lower levels. If you look at page 1 of this thread, then I have posted a chart about just this. Haha, I see what you're getting at with that chart now. Sorry, but when I first saw it I couldn't make any sense of it, bit too chaotic with the squiggles and stuff. Anyway, I'm not claiming the idea is mine, or even that new. For exampple, it's similar to what masterluc said pretty much immediately after the December double top. In his case, it was (to my knowledge) based on counts following EW theory, which I'm pretty skeptical about, but in either case, it looks like it's a thought a number of us have in their head. Not sure it'll play out like that though: for instance, Fibonacci levels paint a very different picture (we are now where we were at the peak of the last corrective wave in 2013). |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
