|
tl;dr sha-3 coin with premining.
you can not mint fail!
|
|
|
|
Interesting ... this is the first time in a few days that that a 'sell-off' below 120 has stayed there for more than a few seconds ...
Where is the 'Invisible Hand' ??
 It's fuzzy, but the support is definitely there. Picture for Bitstamp. Why do the edges of your channel touch the graph only in one point? |
|
|
|
|
This happens when poes law an the uncanny valley meet.
|
|
|
|
Why don't you just update the site and wiki so it reflects **the truth** ? That would shut the mouths of all critics.
It wouldn't shut the mouths of any critics, they'd just move on to some other argument that they don't actually believe. Might be worth a try. A through description of the situation would actually be helpful imo. Of course it wouldn't stop the zealots, but they'd have a harder time to gain followers for sure.. Yes the next thing will be: "It's pre-mined!" then after that "But you guys wanna destroy Bitcoin!" and after this "We will fork your code and make it obsolete, hurr durr!" However in contrast to the licensing issue it requires some serious mental gymnastics to misinterpret things to come to these points. |
|
|
|
Personally, I think the bitcoin price is still a little on the high side.
I don't think it has reached a stable equilibrium state in term of supply (3600 coins per day) and demand. Moving forward, I think the market will face sell pressure from the miners.
The media hype attracted many curious people to buy a few bitcoins to see what the buzz is all about. But I don't think these demand can sustain for the next 3.5 years.
lol.. that only reminds me of, who was it suggesting that ~32kb was enough memory for any computer.. Bill Gates? At least PC architecture could in theory support the levels we have at the date. Bitcoin on the other hand is not like a PC it's more like the eniac. A proof of concept. The scenario you ulta-bulls are hoping for would be as if one mainframe would have been continuously upgraded to this date for all the worlds computing done on it. Cryptocurrencies can become a big thing, but their numbers would explode just like the number of computers did. Bitcoin would become a historical reference and maybe a novelty for collectors. |
|
|
|
@prof7bit
Calm down, please. You're going as far as accusing sarc of posting false information on purpose, when all that goes on in reality is a disagreement about the math behind what was posted here.
My take on it (already mentioned above, shortened version to follow):
I don't know exactly what sarc did in his model, but if the dispute between you and him boils down to plotting the data on a chart with a log n y-axis vs. plotting the data on a chart with a log n+1 y-axis, then there is no dispute. The two are, for our purposes, equivalent.
If that's not the point of your dispute, I'm sorry that I missed it.
No. Adding a constant before taking the log of an exponential function distorts the curve. You would only add a constant if the exponential was starting from an offset (to counteract that offset). If there is an offset in the bitcoin price (unlikely but possible), there is absolutely no reason to assume it is $1. You are missing the point. A trendline is to best match the development of the price, and if it does match it is consistent and can be used as a model for an expectation. One could even estimate the "offset" systematically to better match the graph and this would be as valid or even more valid than doing otherwise. |
|
|
|
@prof7bit
Calm down, please. You're going as far as accusing sarc of posting false information on purpose, when all that goes on in reality is a disagreement about the math behind what was posted here.
My take on it (already mentioned above, shortened version to follow):
I don't know exactly what sarc did in his model, but if the dispute between you and him boils down to plotting the data on a chart with a log n y-axis vs. plotting the data on a chart with a log n+1 y-axis, then there is no dispute. The two are, for our purposes, equivalent.
If that's not the point of your dispute, I'm sorry that I missed it.
I think he might be being facetious for a laugh...oh and to deny the need to sell his bitcoins. Actually this is about if other people would consider selling them. |
|
|
|
not when it's logged. try it with numbers above and below 1.
No. Add parenthesis just to be sure. Your graph is wrong, the one at bitcoincharts is correct. oh boy  |
|
|
|
Money is only worth it, because people accept and believe in a currency and is sometimes backed up by gold from the central banks. When nobody accepts Euro or Dollar it is also worth nothing.
Currency estimation of price is a thing of acceptance and belief.
And the application of force. If I owe you bitcoins and you live in the US I can pay you back in USD and there is nothing you can do about it as long as the US exists. Plus you have to hold some in order to pay taxes or you go to jail. |
|
|
|
|
That chart may actually be the 7day moving average of the price or something
|
|
|
|
Nice, so you actually didn't pull your prediction out of your ass, but used (polynomial) regression on historical data (not sure if it's wise to exclude bubble data/outliers, though). I respect that.
But do you want to know what is the single biggest assumption you make in your analysis, an assumption that some (including me) would consider completely unfounded, and in fact completely unrealistic?
That there is a single underlying growth function that governed the price of btc over the entire course of the data you looked at, and will continue to govern it.
Sure, you're free to make this assumption. But with that assumption removed, your analysis falls apart.
So suddenly there is the call for scientific rigour, when the results do not match your expectations? Awesome! Oh and take a hint, the result wouldn't differ much if someone were to use the method you suggested. You're funny when you try too hard: I didn't suggest any method. I simply formulated the assumption made in sarc's analysis. And "the result wouldn't differ much"? You're kidding, I hope. Simply (yet unrealistically) assuming that, say, growth was determined by one function up to January 2013, and another one following January 2013, would probably put us into the 500? 5000? (can't be arsed to calculate this now) range right now. Which is obviously not where we are. Hence: unrealistic assumption as well, as noted above. One can never try too hard, when accomplishing something it doesn't matter. I am not assuming a thing, you are accusing me of such assumption. To spell it out for you: No the course doesn't necessarily follow any trendline or exponential slope. Trendlines and exponential slopes are common tools however to formulate models from which results an expectation. It's factual. No more or less valid than any of the other trends posted here. Last reply I'm gonna make on this topic. Promised. Had you bothered to read my post history, you could have noticed that I *consistently* make the point that I don't believe in *the* trendline/growth function/etc governing: price = market behavior = human behavior. Which is why I don't like it if you accuse me of selectively appllying that rigor only when it is convenient for me. I make this point all the time, when talking about bullish trendlines and bearish ones. Assuming that there is *the* magical growth function that holds once and forever is delusional, therefore any analysis that plots such a line needs to be taken with huge grains of salt. (Note: I'm not saying "should be completely dismissed") If that is true we are in agreement. |
|
|
|
Nice, so you actually didn't pull your prediction out of your ass, but used (polynomial) regression on historical data (not sure if it's wise to exclude bubble data/outliers, though). I respect that.
But do you want to know what is the single biggest assumption you make in your analysis, an assumption that some (including me) would consider completely unfounded, and in fact completely unrealistic?
That there is a single underlying growth function that governed the price of btc over the entire course of the data you looked at, and will continue to govern it.
Sure, you're free to make this assumption. But with that assumption removed, your analysis falls apart.
So suddenly there is the call for scientific rigour, when the results do not match your expectations? Awesome! Oh and take a hint, the result wouldn't differ much if someone were to use the method you suggested. You're funny when you try too hard: I didn't suggest any method. I simply formulated the assumption made in sarc's analysis. And "the result wouldn't differ much"? You're kidding, I hope. Simply (yet unrealistically) assuming that, say, growth was determined by one function up to January 2013, and another one following January 2013, would probably put us into the 500? 5000? (can't be arsed to calculate this now) range right now. Which is obviously not where we are. Hence: unrealistic assumption as well, as noted above. One can never try too hard, when accomplishing something it doesn't matter. I am not assuming a thing, you are accusing me of such assumption. To spell it out for you: No the course doesn't necessarily follow any trendline or exponential slope. Trendlines and exponential slopes are common tools however to formulate models from which results an expectation. It's factual. No more or less valid than any of the other trends posted here. |
|
|
|
Intrinsic value as used in 'economics' vs subjective value used in your thought experiments. Yeah works out.  |
|
|
|
|
I'm not bullish mid term, only long term.
|
|
|
|
Nice, so you actually didn't pull your prediction out of your ass, but used (polynomial) regression on historical data (not sure if it's wise to exclude bubble data/outliers, though). I respect that.
But do you want to know what is the single biggest assumption you make in your analysis, an assumption that some (including me) would consider completely unfounded, and in fact completely unrealistic?
That there is a single underlying growth function that governed the price of btc over the entire course of the data you looked at, and will continue to govern it.
Sure, you're free to make this assumption. But with that assumption removed, your analysis falls apart.
So suddenly there is the call for scientific rigor, when the results do not match your expectations? Awesome! Oh and take a hint, the result wouldn't differ much if someone were to use the method you suggested. |
|
|
|
A Bitcoin's intrinsic value is 0
A car's intrinsic value is the metal (and other material) it is built of
This is how it is in the real world and even if you would like to believe otherwise, you can't change it
What's the use of that metal if it just sits there and doesn't do anything? I don't see any value in that at all. But the fact it can be used to hold wealth in an intangible space. That is beautiful. You cannot decide if bitcoin has intrinsic value simply because whether something has intrinsic value is decided by the owner. So at most you can claim that you find no intrinsic value in your stash of bitcoin. No it's only something universally recognizable which can consist of intrinsic value. So it's quite the opposite. Only under your definition your latter statement makes even sense. |
|
|
|
 Stable. |
|
|
|
If you draw a trend-line from one wick to the next it is broken if another wick crosses it. That's just the way it is, sorry the trendlines are broken.
The best you can hope for is a "false breakout".
Well I often see shakeout candles falling way below the supporting trendline (but open and close is above support) and then bouncing up again. The oppposite is called a 'shooting star' I believe. So I don't care if you call it a breakout or not, I'm just not convinced the support line is invalidated. Candlesticks work independently from trend lines. What you have to remember is that the beginning and end of a candlestick is somewhat arbitrary from a price perspective. Each candle stick represents the same duration during successive time periods while the wicks are the respective highs and lows. You can draw a trend line from one wick to another (still it is not optimal since the time of the price extrema isn't entirely correct) but it kind of works. The candles themselves however only have meaning in relation to each other in the form of recognizable patterns which for which it is unrelated where they occur, just if they do. Right now they indicate a sideways trend, not a reversal. |
|
|
|
|
If you draw a trend-line from one wick to the next it is broken if another wick crosses it. That's just the way it is, sorry the trendlines are broken.
The best you can hope for is a "false breakout".
|
|
|
|
|
So does that mean you guys will shut up once the beta ends and rippled is released as promised?
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
