much scrap, very steel (frame maybe lol)
So is dogecoin for people who use English as a second or third language? Or perhaps they're related to Yoda? Doge Sit! Doge Stay! Doge Speak! Much trained well very?Would you kindly? A powerful phrase. Familiar phrase?  |
|
|
|
Interesting. I'm not holding my breath anymore, this latest consolidation period has shown quite a bit of resistance both on the way up and on the way down, but at least we've 6h closed now (across 2 exchanges, nonetheless) below what I think of as a relevant trend. Mtgox not playing along though... we'll see, I guess. If mtgox closes below ~890, and bitstamp below 800, I'd say we'll finally see a breakout (downwards). If not... back to the guessing game |
|
|
|
I'm aware of the possibility, and as I've said before, it's impossible to prove or disprove this. However, mining is fairly distributed and, because of the ASIC boom, the distribution probably changed from the previous GPU one. I'm not sure how hedge funds would go on about contacting miners due to that distribution, or vice versa. There is no real futures market I'm aware of. If you want to make that case, then I think it's more likely for hedge funds to set up mining operations of their own; purely for accumulation. In any case, there will be a large portion of the daily mined coins that goes to miners who have no channels to reliably sell Bitcoins other than exchanges – that is my speculation and I believe it's a reasonable and educated guess based on the things I listed here and the previous post. Right now, supply on exchanges is mildly increasing and if you add up multiple exchanges together, it is not all that low. If there is accumulation, then the accumulators either ran out of powder or they don't wish to accumulate anymore. Of course, this is all too easily visible based on SecondMarket's change in buying behavior alone: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=337486.0I personally believe a substantial number of coins (but still less than 50% of total volume) are sold off-exchange these days, but I admit, there is no way for me to prove my claims either. My main reason for this belief being that there is enough evidence by now that big (or at least: bigger than hobbyist's) money is entering the market, but at the same time, I have a hard time imagining them wiring a few millions over to Japan or Slovenia. Here's one smaller observation that perhaps matters in this context: If I look at the order book at all, I only consider relative bid/ask ratios, and their change over time, to be half-way reliable. But isolating for a moment the raw ask sum over time, there is, I believe, a pretty clear downwards trend visible over the past years, not easily accounted for by the reward halving alone. Whether that means more holding or more OTC is of course just anybody's guess again. 'Holding' would be bullish across all time frames, while 'OTC' would introduce an element of uncertainty ("maybe they're selling way below mtgox price?!") that could, at least short/medium term, be quite bearish. |
|
|
|
Here is an obscenely bullish desktop wallpaper (for usage as pr0n substitute), concentrating at this multiple times a day for 2 minutes each time will release endorphins and convert every bear into a bull after long enough exposure. I have made it 1024*768 for old laptops, I can make higher resolutions too.   This graph is only bullish until you realize that it has to drop to far below the trend line soon for the trend line to be valid. So, this chart is actually bearish in the short/medium term. I will update my more bullish graph (found other places on this forum) when January has passed. +1 Finally someone who doesn't only posts log linear trends, but also gets how they work  |
|
|
|
Adding "but bitcoin price can do whatever it wants" does not make the prior analysis less silly.
Nobody said "price can do whatever it wants". I simply said, from post one, "this is not serious TA, but eyeballing charts". I post more seriously in other threads, but consolidation times like this can be frustrating. There's something amusing about your insistence to point out that my OP is baseless speculation: this subforum is *full* of baseless speculation why we're about to go TO DA MOON, usually with no such thing as a disclaimer that's it's speculation rather than TA. Maybe some bias there, after all? Oh well, never mind. Join the tea leaf reading group or don't. * * * How do we feel about the single (high volume) bottom so far? I never quite made up my mind if we actually found support (at a level based on some less obvious trend, perhaps) on Dec. 18, or if we're in for another re-test of a capitulation bottom? |
|
|
|
You are as blind in that assumption as you are blind in looking at the graphs, i.e. a complete miss. I could not care less to actually get "unbalanced" by your pattern observations, just pointed out a fact that a coin toss would result in a much better prediction power than your TA. If you want to present a bearish point of view, you should try harder, your reasoning at the moment is even less credible than proudhon's "sources" or somebody else's dream, definitely much less funny since you seem to actually believe the gibberish that you post.
vs. But then I think that'd be too easy.... Bitcoin price has a habit of biting you in the ass if you rely on half arsed pattern recognition too much.
or Nice observation. I mean, it's all rather uninformative eyeballing, but your eyeballing was slightly less uninformative than mine :P
Reading is hard. Let's go shopping! |
|
|
|
|
Hahaha, I finally start understanding what motivates guys like Blitz and ElectricMucus... Hey, two posters above me, your bull tears are absolutely delicious :3
Seriously though, go re-examine your life. If you can't stomach some bearish (and admitted from post one: non-rigorous) speculation on the specu-fucking-lation subforum then you're obviously more than just a bit imbalanced*
* by which I mean you probably didn't take out your initial investment yet, and it shows. Oh, how it shows.
|
|
|
|
I think this... Looks more like this (red circle)...  Though this consolidation is more like a triangle, so it seems more likely to break up with a target of around $1120 before breaking back down Nice observation. I mean, it's all rather uninformative eyeballing, but your eyeballing was slightly less uninformative than mine :P |
|
|
|
I keep wondering if where we are now  is essentially where we were back then  But then I think that'd be too easy.... Bitcoin price has a habit of biting you in the ass if you rely on half arsed pattern recognition too much. ... ...... You can probably tell my thoughts don't run particularly deep these days |
|
|
|
It's the same boat. Both parts (traders or not) are in for the greater profit (either in BTC and/or fiat). No need to be angry if you are into one category or the other... Both have got our positions you (traders) and I ( hodler)... Physicist, what are you doing on the forum at 11 before noon? Go back to your field equations or Fourier transforms or whatever it is you physics kids do these days!  |
|
|
|
ungrateful, skittery, day tarders.
Ungrateful? What does that even mean in this context? What kind of market (liquidity) do you see existing without traders? And how do you think this would affect volatility? Never mind that noise. It's kind of in fashion on this subforum to bash active traders, especially if they *gasp* use TA. > ungrateful, skittery, day tarders. > posted in: Bitcoin Forum > Economy > Economics > Speculation  |
|
|
|
re: double exponentiation. there is not "official" explanation, just like there is not "official" explanation of simple log linear price models. they tend to work as an approximation, although I would alway point out that they're too imprecise to trade on. If you want the actual source of the graph, I already gave you a name, user Ducky1.
I just wanted to say thank you to oda.krell for a splendid explanation of the graphs. Just a point of note: There are two (and only two) hypothesizes in this graph:1. The price follows an exponential rise on this time scale (and onwards). 2. The price follows an double exponential rise on this time scale (and onwards). The coefficient of determination (R 2) clearly shows that hypothesizes 2 is more likely. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coefficient_of_determinationFrom end date of this graph and onwards, for every date the price stays closer to the green line than the red line the 2nd hypothesis is strengthened. I plan to revisit this graph at the end of the month to re- evaluate. What seems clear is that we need a substantial and long lasting price fall for the 1st hypothesis to be strengthened. hehehe, at the risk of annoying you, and everyone else... you have one more assumption, what I called assumption a) in my post: that it is exactly *one* function generating the entire data. Absolutely non-obvious assumption, that one |
|
|
|
Update for me. My money is now in my account. It took only next day (1 day) to review my second verification data to post the money into the account. The questions feel a little invasive, but I understand the need for making sure its from "viable" sources. Examples are:
what are my banks?
documented example of where money came from?
how I plan to use bitcoin?
The process overall for the deposit was reasonable given their need to comply with laws. Only suggestion again is adding to the FAQ some info around verification and timelines for funds that exceed some thresholds.
Here is a timeline in my case if it helps others plan. I am a US citizen.
1. I opened my Bitstamp account three weeks ago approx.
2. Verification took around 1 week (passport + utility photo).
3. I sent a $2k deposit test from my US Bank to Bitstamp's bank in Slovenia. It took around 24hrs, slightly more, for my bank to complete sending it and for Bitstamp to post it.
4. I have also moved around 18K USD worth of bitcoins in and back out in some tests (coins came from coinbase trades), both were essentially instant, as well as trading with it while it was in Bitstamp (with a bot as well).
5. I then transferred ~60K USD from my bank to Bitstamp. My bank completed the wire within around 14hrs (sent Thursday at 3pm, bank completed it around 14 hrs later my side in the early 'am' according to timestamps).
6. On Monday I contacted Bitstamp to check the status of the transfer as I was past the declared 24hrs of time they said it takes to deposit. Bitstamp has responded to every query within 24hrs. In this case, the agent said the money was already there, but she was mistaken and looking at the first 2k deposit. I sent another email explaining that. I got a support email the next day saying they needed more info due to the size/volume thresholds I had exceeded with this deposit. Some very personal finance questions, but I understand why so I answered them. Within the next 24hrs they released my funds. Being in different timezones probably added an extra 48hrs for me in getting this finalized but that isn't their fault. The whole process and responsiveness has been good when you understand why its happening, so not upset. Just wanted to relay my experience so it can help others plan when dealing with sums that exceed the reporting limit.
Sounds good. Thanks a lot for keeping us updated, and giving us a detailed insight into how larger deposits are processed at the moment. All in all, I think that, right now, Bitstamp is probably the safest exchange if your plan is to buy and sell in relatively large volume. IMO they'd be well advised to hire someone who handles PR for them, updating their twitter/facebook/this forum more frequently, but in principle, I trust them more than I trust, for example, mtgox. |
|
|
|
So anyway, then came (roughly) December 2012/January 2013, and that orange line was broken. So it had to be redrawn.
I think we are a bit hair-splitting now about drawing the proper line. I never drew the orange line and I dont not know wether the professional analysts from the german webside did it.(I doubt it) If a solid trend is going about to be broken you have also to take in account the time -scale. Breaking a solid trendline is not done in a few days, it takes more time. Let me say a last word about the godmodetrader.de chart:in these nervous days/weeks here on bitcointalk.org I am very confident referring to that Chart since I am longterm-involved. I can`t stand these hour-/days-charts as posted here so many times. BTC is too dynamic to get "fenced" in charts like that. Do you agree ?Yes, and no. If your point is to zoom out a bit, look at the big picture, and encourage people to hold instead of panic sell: sure. It makes sense to post a log trendline and point out that price can go higher, can fall down, but in the end it looks like we're in a very long uptrend. But my 'orange line' example above wasn't purely semantic: it is the ultimate problem of what we're doing here -- using past data, analyzing it, and extrapolating to the future. And that alway carries the risk that it can at some point stop. "The Trend Is Your Friend, Until It Ends" holds for the short term view as much as it does for the ultra long term view. We probably agree in a more practical sense: price would have to fall much much deeper before I begin questioning the overall uptrend that BTC saw since trading began. It's just that I would never call it a "bull market" if price would deflate all the way to, say, 90 USD. So in that sense, it's a semantical distinction: what you call "bull market" I wouldn't apply to such a long time frame, but calling it an "uptrend" I'm fine with. That said, *if* we would fall back to 90, there's a good chance IMO we'd break through it. Not saying that BTC is finished in that case, but so much investor's confidence would be destroyed that all previous trends would, probably, be broken. But tbh, I highly doubt it'll come to that. In fact, I'd be surprised if we ever visit sub-500 for longer than a few hours, maybe a few days, again. |
|
|
|
There is no actual 'global warming' going on during the past 10 years, so now they renamed it to just 'Climate Change'. I have spent time doing research at a University, I know how it works and really all I can say is that our climate is far too complex to be fully grasped by our current state of science. Don't overestimate how much science actually can predict and explain, it's useful yes but it also has its flaws and limits.
I have no doubt that humanity is not managing the earth's resources very well and we are effectively destroying our environment, but trying to lower carbon emissions isn't going to help one bit. It only serves as another way to tax so governments can stick themselves deeper into debt. What has to happen is to stop our obsession with economic 'growth', because that's what makes us deplete resources faster and faster eventually leading to a catastrophy.
Your meta-scientific remarks non-withstanding, your remark about there being no warming during the last 10 years is misleading, hopefully out of ignorance, not malice. There's plenty of high quality data (and data analysis) showing that for the past ~100 years, average temperature *has* been rising, that CO2 concentration and temperature change *are* correlated, that polar ice caps *are* reducing in thickness, etc. The fact that there are years where the trend doesn't express itself in new record highs doesn't change that. NASA Surface Temperature Analysis By the way, there's some irony that a lot of us in here would look at the above graph and say "It's clearly in a long term uptrend" if it were a graph of BTC price, but when it's about global warming, suddenly a short term trend reversal questions the entire long term trend. /super-offtopic in an already offtopic-heavy thread |
|
|
|
In fact, that already happened, when the lower bound all time trend had to be updated at the last point (early 2013, I guess).
When was the lower bound broken ? you mean from Jauar 2013 a steeper line ? That would be a "subtrend" within the longterm trend Edit: Hope we discuss more serious and less pejorative No, the current all-time log trendline is unbroken of course. That's the whole point: it is drawn that way. But I'm asking you to put yourself in the situation of a trader about a year ago. He used the same methods, tried to do the same thing, but he only had the price data up to that point, The following is a very sloppily drawn trend line. Please don't argue about the exact points of contact etc., it's just there to illustrate my point (and it could be made more precise, if necessary),  RED line is (sloppily drawn!) the trendline you posted, the one from the german website. Now time travel back to late 2012. You just drew the ORANGE trend line, also through the lowest candle wicks, just like we are doing now in early 2014. Maybe you can argue that back then you would have had a slightly less "solid" trend, less points of contact or something, but in the end, it's what you had back then, and what you had to work with. So anyway, then came (roughly) December 2012/January 2013, and that orange line was broken. So it had to be redrawn. The irony is of course that, as the previous AT trend line was broken downwards, we were about to enter a hugely profitable rally |
|
|
|
ODA,
I consider myself a conservative and I am in your camp. I have seen the research and have no doubts that there is climate change as a result of man. Not all of us are bat shit crazy lol I feel your frustration though. I feel one of the problems is people dont understand its climate "change" and "extremes" not just warming. any way just wanted you to know you have at least one friend on your side that is a "right winger" and I am doing my best to spread the word.
Haha, and I apologize for equating "conservative" and "anti-science"/"anti-intellectual"... it's not a contradiction at all... just that the US Republican party is having a hard time for some time now combining the two. I blame the Kochs and the teabaggers |
|
|
|
I never claimed proponents of the log trend line say that price could never fall below this line, just that, so far, it never *has* fallen below it.
but you have not realized yet i claimed always the same : just that, so far, it never *has* fallen below it and nothing else But you ascribed this the all time trend never went below those points, so this line marks the lowest boundary of the all time trend". Agreed? to me Which is empirically true. The "all time trend" (up to now) has never fallen below those points. If it ever does, the previously assumed all time trend is considered broken. In fact, that already happened, when the lower bound all time trend had to be updated at the last point (early 2013, I guess). |
|
|
|
Besides - the big news in France today will be which of the president's mistresses is actually the First Lady of France.
Why, the hot young blonde one of course. Ooh la la (seriously though, I feel kind of bad for his long term girlfriend) (ha! take that Americans! Our leaders aren't married, they have *girlfriends* and *mistresses*, and we still elect them!) (it also helps that they aren't climate science deniers ) A man cheats on his wife, he'll cheat on anyone. "Climate Change" is a scam designed to separate YOU from your MONEY and FREEDOM.Funny you think France is in a better position than America when we're BOTH being lowered into the vat of boiling oil. You via the Euro, us via the Federal Reserve. SPACE LIZARD JEWS are controlling the FED via mind control satellite rays that the ILLUMINATI installed eons ago in your ancestors' HEADS!!! *nervous eye twitch* I rarely feel as bearish about the future of Bitcoin as when I realize how many batshit crazy rightwingers are attracted to it :/ Sorry to be so cynical here, but I suppose you mean bearish in the sense of "what-a-shame-that-Bitcoin-will-be-making-so-much-money-for-the-batshit-crazy-rightwingers", right?  I wish. More like BTC <--> FoxNewsBux, in the worst case scenario. The currency of choice for the timothy mcveigh's of the world to buy supplies to prepare for the impending communist invasion. @Mad Scientist: Sorry for calling you "bat shit crazy". I don't know you, so I'm probably wrong. But climate science simply isn't a scam. It's a properly executed research topic. There are still open questions, true, but the basic results are almost universally accepted by the scientists inside the field, and fields close to it: (1) global warming is taking place, (2) a significant cause for (1) is man made. Like I said, details are open for debate and not agreed upon in the field, and most importantly, it is not clear what are the *consequences* to be drawn from the findings, but the whole "global warming is a scam" idea is deeply offending to anyone who ever set a foot into a university and/or worked in research himself |
|
|
|
|
added a more serious response in an EDIT
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
