IMHO it will go to 10 to 100x the final 'stable' value at some point during the mainstream adoption gold rush. Then the sell-off will be epic. There will be the largest redistribution of wealth in history. It will make/or break millions. After the final grand oscillation period it will settle in to the 5 or 6 figure range. I think this is 5-10 years out. I also think there is about 0.1% chance that I am accurate  Dude, I like your posts. |
|
|
|
Actually, powers of 2 had some meaning in the digital bitcoin world. 32 = 2^5, 256 = 2^8, so continuing this would mean this rally should top out in the vicinity of 2^11 aka 2048, the next one - 2^14 = 16k.
Price minimums also followed powers of 2, increasing by 2 every year (2011 = 2^0, 2012 = 2^2, 2013 = 2^4)
Rather than trying to use this to strictly calibrate this episode I think it may be more instructive to think about it in terms the order of magnitude for rally cycles going forward. Volatility increases. I've seen you making similar statements in the past. Including the idea that btc won't be a very effective store of wealth for that reason. I'm not completely sure I understand your reasons for this assumption (it's an interesting question though, I thought about starting a thread to discuss this question), but as a purely empirical remark: in the brief history of btc trading, volatility arguably did decrease slightly. (Note that I'm not drawing too many conclusions from that. Like I said, "brief history") Anyway, looking at the three most volatile time periods (June 2011, April 2013, November 2013), and the sharp drop of value that followed a correction we get: June 2011 saw an immediate correction to 1/3 of the previous high, then a gradual decline down to ultimately 1/13. Difficult to compare to April and November, where the lowest point was reached much faster: April, down to 1/5, earlier correction in November, down to 1/2. Staring at peaks and lows isn't that instructive though I believe. Bollinger Band Width is a small step up in sophistication when measuring volatility. According to that metric, 2011 saw the peak in volatility. This year/current rally isn't over yet, of course, so we might break that barrier as well. [Daily/weekly BBW. Couldn't be arsed to read their documentation, but it looks like it isn't pure BBW, but normalized for price (which is necessary anyway when comparing over such long time frames).]   |
|
|
|
Maybe we are being too hasty...  Nothing to justify top of this channel. Not even a second point. It's because this entire way of thinking of "the one trend" is flawed from the beginning. Depending on your bias you use the entire data when you draw the line or, mathematically slightly more sophisticated I guess, use linear regression, or you drop some of the peaks as "outliers", in which case you get a slightly flatter line, but in the end all of that reasoning is based on the idea that one growth function governs all the time from 2011 to now. That's almost certainly a flawed conclusion. If you're willing to accept a huge imprecision (maybe you care only about the order of magnitude), then it's an okay approach I guess. But if you happen to be interest in the actual price, I don't see much value drawing any line between data from 2011 and 2013. |
|
|
|
I always think he's gonna get run over.
I like your way of thinking. Be easy on us with the gloating when the inevitable correction comes :D |
|
|
|
I would rather explain this by goxbux cashout. Other exchanges are not following the widening bid/ask spread at all.
There's another way to look at it, a better one IMO: dynamically/as change over time. In that view, bid/ask depth ratio (price normalized in the charts below) on bitstamp and btcchina has been largely stable for the past week, with a very weak decline until yesterday, and a slight upwards slope since today, while the ratio went trough the roof on mtgox. I take that as a pretty positive sign. Doesn't mean I'm sure we're going up, further consolidation is still quite likely, but I don't see many bearish signs on the order book.    |
|
|
|
This rise is just someone (or somegroup) who is pumping the price and they have no control over BTCChina. The last few days movements are obvious algo-trades.
Hurr durr, algo trades! I don't believe for one second that you have anything even remotely related to a technical understanding of the words you use. I looked at the charts as well, by the way, and I can clearly tell current trading is dominated by horny geishas and class of 2012 Westpoint graduates. Don't ask me how I know, I just can tell, from looking at it real good. |
|
|
|
BitStamp has always worked great for me. The only issue I experienced was my fault (although their support would not get my full marks). I can't say the same of MtGox for sure.
In regards to the missing transfers problem, here my conspiration theory based only on posts in this forum:
* there has been a software fuckup starting 12.11.2013 and ending 15.11.2013.
* they communicated about it first on 18.11.2013 and then on 20.11.2013 said it's all resolved.
* it's not resolved for some and support has gone unresponsive on them: some transfers on 12.11.2013 seem to have ended up a black hole.
Now fixing this one is a delicate matter and depends on why and how the data is missing (hardware fuckup? insider theft? bank stole the money? do lawyers need to be involved?). Every cent needs to be accounted for. Some people are surely trying to scam BitStamp by claiming they sent money they never sent.
Also they need to be careful about their communication because admitting the fuckup might be damaging for their business. And so would be hiding their heads in the sand and hoping it all goes away.
Once more BitStamp has always worked great for me and I hope they do the right thing and restore everyone's faith quickly.
I agree, in principle I'm not giving up on stamp yet. I've tried other exchanges, and followed the news about those that I didn't use yet, and I'm still quite sure bitstamp is my best option right now. But that's what I tried to communicate in my original post, no? That they need to turn ship *now*, because they're losing a lot of goodwill. Recurring downtime, transfer delays (which seems mainly to be solved now), and most importantly, lack of regular communication. |
|
|
|
My previous intra-day trading tip on my previous post worked to perfection.  Price currently resides below topside resistance where we look for additional scalping opportunities You have a strange definition of 'perfect'. Your first "sell 830, buy dips" was correct. The second one, not so much (~870 atm) |
|
|
|
Umm... you're right in the first part, but to the last paragraph I could add: given any fully specified Martingale (odds, betting size progression, ending conditions), I can construct an equivalent single bet strategy. The only reason to employ a Martingale over a single bet strategy is that the former seems easier to risk-manage intuitively for the human mind.
I disagree, but will allow you to prove me wrong... Suppose I have 127 BTC and want 128. I propose betting 1 BTC at 49.5% (2x payout). If it wins, stop, else double and repeat until it wins. So bet: 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64 until one of them wins. If none wins, I've lost all 127 BTC. If any wins, I've got the 128 BTC I wanted. This strategy will work so long as any one of the maximum of 7 bets wins. ie. unless all 7 lose. The probability of all 7 losing is 0.505^7 = 0.008376, so I have a 100 * (1 - 0.008376) = 99.1624% chance of success. It's pretty likely that I'll end up betting less than the full 127 BTC. My expected total stake is less than 127. So my expected loss is less than 1.27 BTC. What's your equivalent single bet strategy? How much does it expect to risk? How much does it expect to lose? Jup. You're right. The equivalence only holds for betting without an edge. If there's an edge against the player, Martingale is slightly more favourable than a single bet with equal profit. |
|
|
|
Hi All, And many thanks to those who have taken the time to post thoughtful replies either pro or anti my position. Unfortunately, I haven't got time to respond to each individually plus I have received at least one pm which suggests this isn't going to resolve itself nicely. However, I just want to make a couple of points: 1. To all those who say my OP was OTT...well, maybe it was and maybe there are intellectual or argumentative flaws in there. But hey, sometimes you are angry and I'm not going apolgise for that - oda.krell: sometimes you get angry when you have a lifetime of this shit and you see it replicated by people who claim to be creating a new fairer world. This is my first main point: if crypto is meant to be part of the NWO then this stuff needs to aired and if you are male and this sensitive then really you should go live somewhere where you are in the minority. You'll soon understand, believe me. 2. A lot of the advice I am getting is to 'play them at their own game'. I won't do that because this is a fallacious strategy. Women behaving like men does not allow women to be women and in the end men will always win: as I said earlier "women wanted liberation but settled for equality". 3. The porn question. It's a thin end of a wedge and I guess the younger males here have grown up with so much porn and female imagery that it just feels normal but it's not. I am, by trade many things including a scientist. So, let's leave the moral and ethical debates and the burgeoning sex slave trade for a minute and look at some science. Although not my field I have a particular interest in neurology. Dr Valerie Voon has studied the impacts of porn on the brain - I believe this paper has yet to published and is in peer-review. However, the impact of pleasurable behaviour is not disputed, see: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0896627309010459while addictions to porn are a recognised phenomena. A more accessible precis can be found here: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/26/brain-scans-porn-addicts-sexual-tastesAn addiction's ability to change behaviour is well documented and across large social groups is an especially powerful feature that should not be ignored. Imagine you were forced to eat chocolate or smoke cigarettes where ever you turned in your daily routine - how long before you became addicted, how long before your behaviour changed to accommodate this need? For those with short attention spans (tl:dr) I'll leave you with this excerpt: In her book, Bunny Tales: Behind Closed Doors at the Playboy Mansion, Izabella St James, who was one of Hugh Hefner's former "official girlfriends", described sex with Hef. Hef, in his late 70s, would have sex twice a week, sometimes with four or more of his girlfriends at once, St James among them. He had novelty, variety, multiplicity and women willing to do what he pleased. At the end of the happy orgy, wrote St James, came "the grand finale: he masturbated while watching porn".
Here, the man who could actually live out the ultimate porn fantasy, with real porn stars, instead turned from their real flesh and touch, to the image on the screen. Now, I ask you, "what is wrong with this picture?". Oh snap, you're a sex-negative feminist... I should have known it. Damn woman, get with the times. Feminism =/= crypto-puritanism, y'know. |
|
|
|
You can make the following reasoning when you see a martingale that will show you that it is a gambler's fallacy:
- A martingale is a strategy with low probability (let's say it is 0.001%) of busting
- If you have two strategies with the same probability of busting, you should choose the one which plays less times, because the less you interact with the adversarial edge, the better
- You can always play the vanilla strategy of betting all your money at 99.999%.
- Thus the vanilla strategy must be better than the martingale
A martingale is just a way to hide a bad way to play with a low probability of busting strategy
This again? Your reasoning is faulty, leading you to an incorrect conclusion. The part where you went wrong is "choose the one which plays less times, because the less you interact with the adversarial edge, the better". It's not the number of bets that determines your expected profit; it's the amount you risk. If you risk less, you expect to lose less. A carefully planned martingale progression can cause you to expect to risk less and so lose less than a single large bet. We've gone over this many times before both on the forum and in the on-site chat. The correct conclusion is that any single large bet can be replaced by a series of smaller bets which achieve the same return as the large bet but with a better chance of success.Umm... you're right in the first part, but to the last paragraph I could add: given any fully specified Martingale (odds, betting size progression, ending conditions), I can construct an equivalent single bet strategy. The only reason to employ a Martingale over a single bet strategy is that the former seems easier to risk-manage intuitively for the human mind. (Which, btw, is a pretty good reason, and probably why so many bet Martingale) |
|
|
|
|
Thanks a lot, Rannasha & Abdussamad. Very helpful answers!
If it's okay with you I'll split the tip (in which case I still need your address, Abdussamad).
|
|
|
|
You actually can't trust any internet connection. The encryption used in your private wifi network is designed to prevent unauthorized persons from leeching your bandwidth. It won't magically make the Internet at large a safe place. It doesn't change the fact that you are connected to the global, wild west, free for all that is the Internet.
That is why we have firewalls, HTTPS, GPG etc. because we can't trust the network. So WiFi, wired, public or private doesn't matter. Whether it is properly encrypted or not does.
One follow-up question: The corollary to what you said would be that I am safe (no matter what wifi network I use) if I connect to a site via HTTPS (and the certificate is valid). Did I get that right? |
|
|
|
Maybe you are asking the wrong question. Maybe the question we should be asking is "Why are there some women investing in BTC?" As a women myself, I am curious to know if there are any common attributes of us women who are involved in BTC that might make us more likely to be involved compared to other women.
As for feminism, there are various forms of feminism (at least according to what I remember from a feminist philosophies class).
Good point. Mind if I ask what your education background is? One of the STEM fields (which probably unites a majority of early adopters in most tech-related innovations)? Then again, I noticed there's a number of (sometimes older) guys in here that are quite far from those fields (there's a pretty funny dude who seems to work with barn wood, and he seems to be btc loaded  ). Maybe there is *some* element of 'willingness to take potentially irrational risks' involved. Don't want to sound cliche, but there is to my knowledge (though I'm not a biologist or psychologist) some scientific evidence that men are slightly more inclined to take greater risks*, which puts them at a disadvantage at times, but can also pay off if things work out. Would be interesting to have a survey (among both men and women) to see if, on average, the early BTC are "risk takers", by comparison... * claims like that require proof, I know. If requested, I'll look up the sources for it. |
|
|
|
Men are better at math, computers, economy etc than women. That is simple reality. Nothing can change that. You are going to be in for a nasty shock when you meet a genuinely intelligent woman. See, your mistake is responding to a troll. That'll encourage him. Plus, if he would be half as good at math as he claims he is he would know that from his anecdotally sized sample ("my mom, my dad") he cannot draw any conclusions. And if he knew the scientific literature, he would know that the iq question is pretty much open atm. But since he isn't smart or well read, he still lives in his parents' basement. Have some pity please. |
|
|
|
Fine - beg to differ. I read the OP and found it entirely inoffensive (to me as a man) and substantially true. If bitcoin's devotees want to pretend that they're somehow different they need to behave like they're different, and they don't: the forum is not a welcoming place for women, particularly when they're told to "fuck of" for having the temerity to express an opinion. But then this is hardly new. As Rebecca West said at the beginning of the last century:
“I myself have never been able to find out precisely what feminism is: I only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat, or a prostitute.”
Dude, where are you getting any of this from? In the first paragraph of my first post here I said "you start with a decent point, that this place can be unwelcome to women". So I'm acknowledging that. She then continues with what I consider a pretty genderist post, and for that I tell her to fuck off. Got a problem with that? Cause I tell that to anyone who I think acts like a dick. And I shouldn't treat women different in principle from man, agreed? And re: your last line. What makes you think I'm not a feminist? I do however have little patience for whiny housewives complaining that the boy's club she just joined doesn't fall over backwards to change their culture to accommodate her sensitivities. P.S. I give some credit to OP for starting this thread, at least. Interesting discussion, and somewhat necessary. p.p.s. at least equally important discussion though: WHY THE FUCK ARE THERE SO FEW WOMEN IN BITCOIN? I did a survey here myself a while ago, and some others did so as well before, and the numbers are like 90+% here are guys. Whose fault is that? Nothing prevents women (in sufficiently rich countries) to join this ride, correct? So I am actually worried that, if this whole BTC thing takes off, in 20 years from now women will be *again* fucked economically if they don't get on board NOW. Let's discuss THAT. a) why aren't there more women investing in btc? b) how can we get more women onboard? and don't just say: "just act nicer to women on this forum". that's not going to happen universally (see my explanation of neckbeards+anonymity above), so we need a different, actually practical solutin IMO. |
|
|
|
Having frozen addresses with funds try (!) command in the amount section of the Send tab.
Thanks for the quick reply. Just tried it, it fills in the max non-frozen amount it seems. It's useful, but not exactly what I was hoping for: I guess I'm increasingly using Bitcoin (and with it: Electrum) like I would use a bank account, paying for services, moving between exchanges, etc. I would be nice if I could see, at a glance, my total non-frozen funds, which are the ones that are really available to me. But I also can see that there's probably more important stuff to implement than display tweaks like that. |
|
|
|
|
I'm back!
Another day where I went to bed and price CRASHED over night to double digits and we're in deep bear land, but all my chart sites are still stuck on old incorrect data (800+).
PLEASE somebody recommend me a new site! I can't trade like this!
|
|
|
|
In case any Bitstamp users feel like making their opinion heard, I opened a thread in the Service Discussion subforum with a "Message to Bitstamp", collecting complaints, to let them know that their time is running out and they need to get their act together now. If you have a minute, add your comment. Don't know if it'll help, but it's worth a try. |
|
|
|
|
Hey
Big fan of you client. Had one minor request: could you maybe make the total balance of the current wallet that is displayed to be equal to all funds *without* those in addresses that are set to frozen.
Since not everyone wants that, maybe it could be an option in the settings, or maybe even better... the balance could show both, in the style of:
ALL FUNDS (ALL FUNDS - MINUS FROZEN FUNDS)
Does that sound like something you could get behind? The reason is that at least I consider the funds in my frozen addresses really different from the regular funds... some are held there for friends, some are "reservres", and in any case I don't want to consider them part of my actual, normal balance.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
