Ok, thanks. The form is to tell them how much and from whom is arriving and afterwards comes the Unicredit account.
Does this mean Unicredit is bitcoin frinedly bank?
They seem to be profit friendly enough to tolerate large BTC related transactions  |
|
|
|
How does one deposit into BitStamp? There is only an empty form which to fill?
Shouldn't I get some sort of account to which I send certain amount?
You register (name, email), you verify your account (scans/copies of passport and utility bill), you send money to their account at Unicredit and enter a number on the transfer that they assigned specifically to your account, so that the money is credited to your account correctly. |
|
|
|
|
(1) There's a new option, 'Depth Range'. Does it increase order book depth? If so, it seems it doesn't anything at the moment...
(2) Any news on the 'Bid/Ask ratio' indicator? Did you find a way to make it work?
(3) Donation sent :D
|
|
|
|
Eh, there's one point in which I tend to agree with MatTheCat's crazy rantings: it's easy for the earliest adopters/investors/miners to pontificate about the amazing success of buy & hold, if for no other reason than that, if you weren't extremely cautious and/or dumb, there's a good chance you're holding well upwards of 1k coins. Myself, I have a tentative BTC goal (nothing too unrealistic, but approximately twice as much as I hold now), and I'll cut down active trading once I reach that goal (and December brought me much closer already). But to each his own, I guess.
If you can do it, do it. I myself did. But keep in mind you could lose everything. Having half as much BTC as you want is better than having none. If I were to do it again I would HODL! ditto. No risk, no fun Seriously, though, there's one pretty good advice for everyone who asks himself what to do, b&h or active trading: If you plan to get into BTC, buy in with whatever fiat you're prepared (and able) to lose. Then take, say, 5% of the resulting total btc and use them as your trading portfolio. Check where you stand after a month or so: you did well? Make it 10%. You failed at making a profit, or made a net loss? Make it 2.5% You get the idea. There's no need to actively trade with a large fraction of your BTC holding, unless you have some confirmation that you're consistently making a profit (on average). So the goal is to determine whether your own idea of how well you trade matches reality, and not lose your pants in the process of finding out. edit: sp |
|
|
|
So again, important updates are being spread everywhere except direct customer email notification.
+1 How f%&king hard can it be: Event X (whether a) planned & known ahead of time, like scheduled maintenance, or b) sudden and unexpected, like a DDOS) happens, customers are notified ahead of time, case a), or as soon as possible, case b), via Email, twitter, and a short update in a bitcointalk.org 'official' thread. Should take 10 extra minutes to copy&paste it into the various fields. |
|
|
|
I thought an actual side bet might lend a little credibility to your assertion. I don't trade as a rule, but I do gamble every now and again for fun. I think one of us has it the right way round  If we bet, then £50, converted into Bitcoin at 00:00 1st March 2014. I am currently long Bitcoin and won't be short for quite some time since Bitfinex have removed my ability to place stops on an exchange I trust (Bitstamp), leaving me to trade solely on an exchange I don't trust (Bitfinex). These fuckers have robbed me for the last time after a short sell I made at practically the top of that spike got called after a big sell wall that my stop order was hiding behind, vanished. I am as of yet undecided what Bitcoin is going to do around the next corner. But since long term indicators as per the 4 hour charts all suggest more downside, regardless of any short term uptime, I will take that bet right now if you wish. If I lose, I will definitely stump up, but I do work offshore and have no reliable timetable for when I will be around (and capable of BTC transaction) or not. I give you this warning in advance. Why not (what a novel idea!) trade on stamp directly? |
|
|
|
Haha, I would rather gnaw off my own foot than post in that other quality TA thread, but this one is great.
However, I disagree with the basic premise: don't just hodl. Occasionally, after careful consideration, sodl to buy back cheapler.
My brain hurts.
This thread is not making fun of that thread or others like it, just people who think they can call the markets. You might be right most of the time but when you are wrong, it could really mess you up. I have done this long enough, and been lucky enough to know I should have just HODL. Eh, there's one point in which I tend to agree with MatTheCat's crazy rantings: it's easy for the earliest adopters/investors/miners to pontificate about the amazing success of buy & hold, if for no other reason than that, if you weren't extremely cautious and/or dumb, there's a good chance you're holding well upwards of 1k coins. Myself, I have a tentative BTC goal (nothing too unrealistic, but approximately twice as much as I hold now), and I'll cut down active trading once I reach that goal (and December brought me much closer already). But to each his own, I guess. |
|
|
|
Woah its getting too deep in here. These are just stop loss and trigger orders with bitfinex or bots. There was a 6000btc dump just the other day too.
eh wot!? What kind of Stop-Loss buys in 3000 BTC causing a market spike to non-maintainable highs? I have witnessed the rancid (and probably fraudulent) market sweeps where a few hundred coins are dumped followed instantly by a few hundred coins purchased, triggering a big bunch of orders and effectively stealing coins and/or USD from market players. This buying surge just wasn't that kind of activity. Or do I seriously lack some kind of market understanding here? Woah, steady on! I bought around that level too! Bitcoins may drop a little but longer term the bull still looks like its in good shape to me.
You are buying just a handful of Bitcoins. This person (yup, probably just one single entity here) bought about 3000K BTC. Now, if someone is looking to make a long term investment with a 2.5 Million USD ball of capital, he isn't going to be chomping at the bit at his computer waiting for his funds to clear at the exchange before just jumping right in. Over the past few days, there has been much better buying opportunities for someone looking at investing that kind of volume all in one go and actually, there were better opportunities even just today. Like the 820 - 836 mass whale buy in, this buy in itself was the top of the market, which makes it a fucking shocking bit of business, even if this time next year Bitcoin is at 5K. I don't know, perhaps in the Bitcoin pond there is a different category of multi-millionaire swimming around, with zero business acumen and who isn't that bothered about winning or losing. Perhaps this was done to try and give Bitcoin some sort of boost on the back of the NY hearings, perhaps hoping that the great Bitcoin supporting public just chomping at the bit for a bit of positive market action would pile in right behind him. It was a very very strange an inexplicable piece of market action......and it cost me. @sgbett. Good post and credit to you for getting in and taking the risk for something in which you believed was the future, back at a time when Bitcoin did seem like a renegade anarchistic innovation that just might help free the people from bankster oppression. Obviously it has paid off for you. Of course, if you were a bit more of a market player you could have done a lot better for yourself than you have although that may all seem immaterial now after you having witnessed 50000% of upside. But that was then and this is now. No fucking way is Bitcoin going to see anything like the same growth that the early adopters have been treated to, yet all you early adopters are still religiously and forcibly preaching the same advice on everyone; Namely, 'buy and hold as much as you can regardless of price, because whatever you buy will be worth ten times that amount in no time at all'. All well and good for you guys, but what if the advice you dish out to newbs on this forum turns out to be wrong? Where would I be now if I caved into the scoffing and derision I got on here when I stated that I was selling $1100 range Bitcoins at a loss in $1000 dollar range? Here is the rub from my point of view. Bitcoin can no longer be viewed as an anarchistic or liberalising techno venture. Bitcoin is not anonymous. I can still see a 366 Bitcoin transaction (it wasn't that much in GBP back when it was made) to my old SR1 wallet. This is in the blockchain forever. Anyone with access to information linking my Intersango account to my identity (very easily done) can soon start to piece together my financial activity in Bitcoin. Perhaps this is still generally a bit of a pain in the arse for state intelligence agencies but I am pretty sure that if The Man is to welcome Bitcoin into the fold, then there are 101 innovative measures that can be taken to take all anonymity out of Bitcoin transactions. Perhaps Bitcoin is the prototype for the great beast's global currency. Perhaps Bitcoin will itself be transformed into it. As for its valuation. If it is true that less than 5% of all Bitcoins are regularly transacted and just 49 whales own more than half of all Bitcoins in the world today. Bitcoin is a fucking shockingly cornered market which has undoubtedly played a massive role in the meteoric rise of its price as determined on a handful of shady exchanges run largely by crooks. This a market where individual entities, who in the grander scheme of things may even be considered as pipsqueeks, have the power to absolutely destroy all your purchasing power. Perhaps some of the whales genuinely want to see Bitcoin succeed out of ideological reasons. Perhaps some are awaiting the chance to cash in on riches of avarice beyond their wildest dreams. Perhaps there are entities now in this market who intend to destroy it. Whatever the complexities of the reality out there are, this whole market hangs on the end of just a relative handful of strings that lead back to just a relative few hands, yet you early adopter luckers keep barking out the same old mantra and paradigms from 2-3 years ago. Perhaps things have changed? Perhaps someone 'buying in and holding at these bargain prices' is not going to see multiple profits in the coming months, but multiple losses, or who knows, perhaps even get wiped out altogether? Bitcoin right now, is a very dangerous financial playground. I am in it, because I am looking for that clear long opportunity but I just don't see it coming at this point in time. Therefore, unlike yourself on the bear trend down from $32 - $2, I refuse to invest and hold on the longside until I either feel the bottom is in and the trend has reversed, or their is such a bloodbath that any coins that are purchased will either prove to be the biggest waste of capital in a lifetime, or an investment of a lifetime. Wow. Great post, actually. What happened to foam at the mouth retardo shorting Mat? Anyway. Two remarks. re: anonymity. You're right, that, on average, anonymity will probably vanish. But tumblers (or similar methods) will be to Bitcoin what Tor is to the Internet as a whole. re: bad advice from early adopters. You got a point there, but it's pretty damn difficult to say if it's a good point yet. Every. Damn. Time. guys like you came out of the wood work saying "this time, it's different. buy and hold simply doesn't cut it anymore. the time of the big returns is over." And every. single. damn. time they were proven wrong. True, you won't capture the entirety (by definition) of growth if you buy in now, but even if BTC tops out at 10k (something which a lot of people would at least consider possible), that's a god damn 12 fold increase. Keep your point in mind, and come back if, in 1 or 2 years from now, we still didn't get to a new ATH. |
|
|
|
|
Haha, I would rather gnaw off my own foot than post in that other quality TA thread, but this one is great.
However, I disagree with the basic premise: don't just hodl. Occasionally, after careful consideration, sodl to buy back cheapler.
My brain hurts.
|
|
|
|
I, too, love the parallel channel tool of tradingview.com. |
|
|
|
Alright. Read it a bit more carefully. Makes sense to me, even though I'm not completely sure if the original Kelly formula doesn't cover his case (outcomes other than double-or-none and risk size greater than 1) as well, by relatively straightforward modification, in which case I'm not sure if the rename was completely appropriate, but that's maybe nitpicking. It was an interesting read, for sure. Here's a little observation how to apply the 'generalized Kelly'/'Sanden criterion' for different trading assumptions: Starting from the assumption you're 100% in USD, and that your goal is to make a USD profit, let's say you give it equal chances that USD/BTC will go up by P% or down by P%. Applying the criterion we non-surprisingly get (0.5)/(P) - (1-0.5)/P which reduces to 0. In other words, don't trade at all if you don't know where price is going. But now assume for a moment you're 100% in BTC, and your goal is to maximize your total of BTC. This only makes sense of course if you're willing to accept a (short term) USD loss, and is based on the assumption that in the very long run, USD/BTC will go much higher and you want to increase your coin stash as much as possible. Then the calculation becomes one of "selling BTC now to rebuy cheaper later or not". Say again we assume with equal likelihood that USD/BTC goes up P% or down P%. If price goes up, you made a BTC loss, more precisely: you rebuy for 1/1+P, which means your new BTC total is 1-(1/1+P) as percentage of your previous BTC total. Similar for the case where your trade is BTC profitable and price goes down. But you can already see where I'm going with this: for example, price going down 50% and rebuying means your BTC total doubles, while price going up 50% and rebuying (at a BTC loss) means your BTC total is reduced by only 1/3.Using the criterion formula, we get (1/2)/(1-(1/(1+P))) - (1-1/2)/((1/(1-P))-1) which reduces to... 1.100% of your position. [1]So, the conclusion would be that, if you are a long term BTC maximizer (what user Rampion once called the "land grabbing" strategy), then it makes sense to sell your entire coin stash relatively quickly, on a "whim" so to speak, as long as you're conviced that the possible upside potential of USD/BTC (on a short/medium term swing) is identical on to the potential downside potential during that swing.I'll leave it up to the reader if that really makes sense as a strategy. Note please that this doesn't mean the criterion itself is mathematically wrong: the thing to keep in mind is that Kelly (and Sanden) define the maximum size you should risk to maximize profit, but for independent reason [2] it might well be more sensible to stay below that maximum. * * * [1] If I made a thinking mistake somewhere, let me know please. Although I went through it again, and it looks right to me: it's basically a mildly surprising (to me at least) consequence if you don't measure profit in the unit that undergoes change P% (USD, in the first example), but in BTC. [2] Such as: It's possible that when we think chances are 50/50 that price goes up or down by equal percent, you're actually systematically misjudging the market. It's certainly a thought I have quite often ("to me it looks like it could go up 10% or down 10% with equal likelihood"), but that doesn't mean I am justified in that belief. Could be a systematic cognitive bias I need to take into account. It seems like your assuming your chances of making a successful trade are arbitrarily assigned. Its an experimental value that will be different for each trader/bot. That's not really an answer to my observation. Your objection applies to the first case I mention (goal: USD profit) just as well. Also, whether you actually can "empirically" determine your chance of successful trades by looking at your previous ones is not at all obvious. How big do you demand the sample size to be before you're sure? Do you look at your previous, I don't know, 20 trades, see how many times you were right, and plug that in? Do you do calculate that as an absolute probability, or a conditional probability (like, "if I assume we're going up, I'm usually right, but if I think we're going down, I'm wrong n% of the time"). So "experimental value" is a pretty fuzzy term, and your intuition always plays a role in trading in the end, even if you're following a formal system. My point was really pretty simple, and independent of whether your assumptions about the market direction have been historically correct or not: If you trade to make a USD profit, an "uncertain" situation as defined above (50/50 chance that price goes equal percentage up/down) is a no trade. If you trade to make a BTC profit (because you assume that long term you should maximize your BTC position), the same "uncertainty" actually becomes a strongly encouraged trade. That's, to me at least, noteworthy. (EDIT added a paragraph) |
|
|
|
Alright. Read it a bit more carefully. Makes sense to me, even though I'm not completely sure if the original Kelly formula doesn't cover his case (outcomes other than double-or-none and risk size greater than 1) as well, by relatively straightforward modification, in which case I'm not sure if the rename was completely appropriate, but that's maybe nitpicking. It was an interesting read, for sure. Here's a little observation how to apply the 'generalized Kelly'/'Sanden criterion' for different trading assumptions: Starting from the assumption you're 100% in USD, and that your goal is to make a USD profit, let's say you give it equal chances that USD/BTC will go up by P% or down by P%. Applying the criterion we non-surprisingly get (0.5)/(P) - (1-0.5)/P which reduces to 0. In other words, don't trade at all if you don't know where price is going. But now assume for a moment you're 100% in BTC, and your goal is to maximize your total of BTC. This only makes sense of course if you're willing to accept a (short term) USD loss, and is based on the assumption that in the very long run, USD/BTC will go much higher and you want to increase your coin stash as much as possible. Then the calculation becomes one of "selling BTC now to rebuy cheaper later or not". Say again we assume with equal likelihood that USD/BTC goes up P% or down P%. If price goes up, you made a BTC loss, more precisely: you rebuy for 1/1+P, which means your new BTC total is 1-(1/1+P) as percentage of your previous BTC total. Similar for the case where your trade is BTC profitable and price goes down. But you can already see where I'm going with this: for example, price going down 50% and rebuying means your BTC total doubles, while price going up 50% and rebuying (at a BTC loss) means your BTC total is reduced by only 1/3.Using the criterion formula, we get (1/2)/(1-(1/(1+P))) - (1-1/2)/((1/(1-P))-1) which reduces to... 1.100% of your position. [1]So, the conclusion would be that, if you are a long term BTC maximizer (what user Rampion once called the "land grabbing" strategy), then it makes sense to sell your entire coin stash relatively quickly, on a "whim" so to speak, as long as you're conviced that the possible upside potential of USD/BTC (on a short/medium term swing) is identical on to the potential downside potential during that swing.I'll leave it up to the reader if that really makes sense as a strategy. Note please that this doesn't mean the criterion itself is mathematically wrong: the thing to keep in mind is that Kelly (and Sanden) define the maximum size you should risk to maximize profit, but for independent reason [2] it might well be more sensible to stay below that maximum. * * * [1] If I made a thinking mistake somewhere, let me know please. Although I went through it again, and it looks right to me: it's basically a mildly surprising (to me at least) consequence if you don't measure profit in the unit that undergoes change P% (USD, in the first example), but in BTC. [2] Such as: It's possible that when we think chances are 50/50 that price goes up or down by equal percent, you're actually systematically misjudging the market. It's certainly a thought I have quite often ("to me it looks like it could go up 10% or down 10% with equal likelihood"), but that doesn't mean I am justified in that belief. Could be a systematic cognitive bias I need to take into account. |
|
|
|
I understand the wrench method. The idea is to provide for your family after you are taken along with not giving in to the demands of kidnappers.
Of course, one should do whatever it takes to avoid getting taken in the first place.
Good point. If you calculate your personal utility not only based on "payout to yourself", but "payout to people you care about", my wrench method calculation fails. Maybe I'm just too egotistical to think like that, however |
|
|
|
looks like we're moving up! hehe, let's not get ahead of ourselves. On the bigger time scale it looks to me like we're still in a (mildly) downward sloping consolidation. So I'd say, let's break through 830, 850, 900 first, then I'm going to join the crowd of cheering bulls again exactly but the news today from BTC China if this works, we are going to mars. we're going to need 6 confirmations that this is infact legal, and then BAM the shiniest green candle bitcoin has ever seen will appear I would be more than happy to see the consolidation end (I'm mostly in BTC, so I have no real skin in the short game), but all I'm saying is that, while we had some nice price action, and are finally seeing volume return to btc-china, it's too early to call it a proper reversal. In the bigger picture, we're consolidating/slightly going down since January 6 (see below). News isn't quite as straightforward as it sometimes made to look like in here. "Bad" news can trigger a rally (see: Silk Road takedown, and subsequent uber rally), "Good" news can be largely ignored if the buying pressure simply isn't there. So that's what I'm trying to say: there's a chance that buying pressure returns, in which case we're going to see a rally I suppose. But what we have so far (not fully confirmed good news for China) is not necessarily going to lead to that return of buying pressure. Markets are finicky like that.  |
|
|
|
The U.S. government confiscated DPR's Bitcoins.
I think you mean Ross Ulbricht's coins? Poor password security. So should it come to your stash you'd be much smarter and more secure, eh? And you're impervious to a $5 wrench? There are tools currently available to make bitcoins extremely hard to get. There are also tools available which can prevent you from accessing your own coins, rendering the $5 wrench useless. In other words, yes. By the way, it helps if you don't brag about running the world's largest underground online drug bazaar (while living in the US) on major financial news sites. That's not how the idea behind the 'wrench' method works. Once the wrench is being applied to you, the assumption is that the cost for you is so high (possibly: death) and the cost for them is so low (5$ wrench) that you will do *anything* in your power to give up the secret. Even if you set up a system that makes it impossible for you to actually give up the key, the cost for you to set up the 'cannot reveal' method is substantially higher (death, no coins) than the cost for them to apply the 'wrench' method (5$ wrench, no coins) |
|
|
|
looks like we're moving up! hehe, let's not get ahead of ourselves. On the bigger time scale it looks to me like we're still in a (mildly) downward sloping consolidation. So I'd say, let's break through 830, 850, 900 first, then I'm going to join the crowd of cheering bulls again |
|
|
|
Looks like masterluc bought back in  |
|
|
|
Was relatively unimpressed in the beginning, thinking "what a tosser -- rediscovering the Kelly criterion and then slapping his own name on it", but luckily I read it to end and noticed he's addressing that question, pointing out they're subtly different. Will have to read it more carefully later and will report back  |
|
|
|
|
I think the current situation is more or less acceptable as it is now:
Altcoins are collected inside one subforum (which not all alt proponents like -- but hey, deal with it), but alts *are* part of the crypto ecosystem and they're here to stay, whether you like it or not, so to me it makes sense they stay on the forum. Bitcoin itself is still the mother of all cryptos, so for the time being, "Bitcoin" being largely synonymous with cryptos in general is okay, in my opinion.
I would however like it if, inside the Altcoin subforum, sub-sub-forums for specific alts could be created. I would place some (rather strict) requirements on the creating of a new sub-sub-forum, like "alt must have market cap of at least X, must have 30 day trading volume of at least Y [plus some other criteria to rule out scam coins]".
I would set the above parameters such that, right now, only LTC would qualify for its own sub-sub-forum -- since it's being pretty much uncontested the only other "real" alternative crypto right now, when looking at market cap, trading volume and network computing power (i.e. not "potential" as a cryptocurrency, but actual volume and importance)
|
|
|
|
According to this extrapolation we should start heading to Mars pretty soon now.
Please, volume determins direction. Bitcoin is heading towards a black hole, and it is a really very very black one. Let me guess, you're looking at (a) raw BTC volume and (b) on mtgox. Am I right? I know I'm right Sure you are, and in which direction is it obviously heading? Thought this is an obvious TA thread. No direction I can tell. Slight bias downwards perhaps, but with a lot of resistance on the way. That's why they call it consolidation No, my point was that it looked to me as if you were going on about the by now ancient argument "volume is sooo low compared to [enter earlier year], therefore price is unjustified", to which the obvious refutation is that (a) mtgox volume is now split up over several different exchanges, and (b) you can't directly compare BTC volume across different eras. Point (b) is the most tricky one: there are those who favor simply comparing USD volume, which is (in my opinion) not the right way to look at it either -- but expecting that raw coin volume should be the same at 800 per coin as it was at 80 per coin is almost certainly wrong as well. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
