Hallo,
ich habe mir nicht den gesamten Thread durchgelesen, sondern wollte kurz mein Feedback geben.
Ihr dürft eure Trades nicht in Word oder Excel abtippen!!!
Buchhaltung muss IMMER in einem Medium erfolgen, indem es später nicht wieder geändert werden kann!! Das ist eins der grundsätze der Buchhaltung.
Ihr könntet beispielsweise zusammen mit eurem Steuerberater eine Datev Schnittstelle einrichten. Dann gebt ihr eure Trades zu Hause in Datev ein und er sieht die dann alle und kann entsprechend die Abrechnung machen.
Kann ich bitte mal eine Quelle dafür haben? Oder hast du möglicherweise *gewerbliche* Buchhaltung im Kopf, für die (vermute ich mal) strengere Regeln gelten. Wovon wir hier reden ist, denke ich jedenfalls, eine Erfassung von einzelnen Bitcoin Kauf/Verkauf Vorgängen von privaten Investoren/Händlern. Wäre mir komplett neu dass in diesem Fall die Wahl der Aufzeichnung/Software eingeschränkt sein sollte. |
|
|
|
Seriously?  Now I'm disappointed. This has got to be the most anticlimactic bubble ever. Less than 50% price gain over the last bubble, followed by a crash not only smaller in % terms, but smaller even in flat $ terms. Gox didn't even get DDOSed, for god's sake. Worst. Bubble. Ever. I'm so glad someone gets it. AAA+++!!! very amusing, would read again. |
|
|
|
I've always found it weird when people say "going parabolic"... is parabolic short for double-exponential (which makes more sense)? Actually growing parabolically would be very slow...
Good point. I guess people that say "parabolic" do in fact think of the parabolic shape on a log chart, which would make the function super-exponential. Then again, even the periods that are *not* called parabolic could be super-exponential in fact, just with small enough parameters that they appear near straight on the log chart. |
|
|
|
So you want a bullish wavecount? I present the most bullish count i find plausable:  What has always bothered me is that the rise from 0.x -> 32 was so much more profound than the rise from 32 to 266. I don't think they are on the same degree. In log space the 266 peak doesn't even reach up to the long term trend line extended from the 32 peak. That is not normal. So i created a wave count which makes the 266 peak a subdivision on the road to 3. This means we are on the 3rd gear (like masterluc suggests), but on a lower degree. If this is actually the case, the upside and rise from here will be _enormous_. Is there any evidence to back this up? This is the orderbook for mt gox at the moment:  There are 20 million dollars in bids. There are ~8000 coins for sale. Wow. Never in the history of bitcoin have there been so many dollars chasing so few coins. Never before have there been such a huge discrepancy between buyers and sellers. The price went from 32 to 266 when there was a comparable amount of dollars chasing 150.000-200.000 coins. The current situation is much more profound. This is the case for all other traded currencies as well. There are extremely few coins for sale at these prices. Dividing the bids on the asks (20.000.000 / 8000) would give an average price of 2500 per coin. That is more in the correct range comparable to the 0.x -> 32 rise. (I know this is a simplification, but it is just a thought exercise) Does this fit with the current mood / sentiment? Its always difficult to gauge but to me it "feels" like everybody is just waiting for the bubble to pop. The media is in frenzy that its a bubble, its almost given that this will end badly very shorty. Every analyst i see in MSM say its a bubble. (remember, this is just my impression, i might be wrong). When everybody say its a bubble, its not. The point you should be very afraid of is when nobody say its a bubble - that is the point where it is actually a bubble. Also (again this is my personal impression) bitcoiners are worried that it is a bubble right now. There is a polite avoidance of the subject, because its a uncomfortable subject to say the least. Talks about bubble is met with aggression. Prices rise on a wall of worry. To sum up i don't see the all engulfing euphoria you would expect at a peak yet, the mood is much more reserved and calm. Little bit tipsy here from my cough medicine, but i would say this looks very positive for bitcoin in the short term. Would be surprised to see a "devestating" pullback now (lets hope i didn't just jinx it  Very well thought out post. Thanks! I'm not very fond of EW analysis, maybe because my understanding of it so far is rather superficial, but with different methods I arrive at similarly staggering high price points that we *could* reach in this run up. What I really found interesting is your very disattached, fitting (IMO) view of the current sentiment. One thing though: don't rely for order book analysis on mtgox data alone. At the very least, go to, say, coinorama and get a historical overview of normalized bid/ask ratios for different exchanges, which is in my opinion a much more reliable way of gauging the market situation than a snapshot of mtgox order book alone. |
|
|
|
Now that were clearly in another accelerating uptrend I think we can makes some basic assessments of the between April and now.
1) After the Gox dollar withdraw difficulty began their was a gradual draw down of available coins on Gox down to levels comparable to that which we saw at the peak in April. I'd estimate the draw down was at a rate of ~1k coins a day average over the whole period from the onset of the difficulties until now. The beginning of the withdraw difficulty also makes the reversal point for the volatile downtrend in price that had dominated after the April crash.
2) The Silk-roads closure and immediate flash-crash, flash-rally seems to have triggered a flood of USD back onto Gox which has brought it back to the level seen in the aftermath of the April peak. This seems to have been the immediate trigger for the present move up.
3) Trading volumes in USD after the April crash stabilized at volumes similar to the pre 2013 run-up period and has yet to set any new all time highs, but in the post silk-roads period they have shown their first signs of increase. Chinese Yuan trading has increased significantly post silk-roads and is now quite significant.
4) The network Hash-rate has continued exponentially increasing through the whole thing without looking back or showing an response to the price point.
I think these 4 points can be unambiguously agreed upon by all participants by simple examination of the data, I draw no conclusions from these points at this time but simply wish to get a big picture view of what has happened between April and now.
Agreed on your points. I'm particularly glad you acknowledge 4) because I remember a longer discussion in which we both participated where you took the position that there would *have* to be a "miners' capitulation" before another lasting uptrend could form. You agree now that this wasn't the case, right? I should add though I that I acknowledge that there might still be lingering effects on the price by the extreme difficulty/hash rate increase. I would like to add to your observations: 5) The notion of "total capitulation required" doesn't seem to hold for btc in general. One of the most persistent claims post-April was that, before another uptrend could form, price would have to "deflate all the way". That's the *exact* phrase that was used over and over again. It didn't hold true. It appears that the a) hard immediate correction to about 1/4 of April ATH, and b) the drawn out correction to the same price region that ended in early July had the same effect as the demanded "total deflation": it restored confidence that the lowest point was reached. Let me know if you think I cross into interpretation here, but to me it seems, given the trend that started in early July, and the extreme continuation of it that began more recently, don't leave much doubt that we are under no credible interpretation still in an "April correction/deflation". |
|
|
|
Margin requirement = STDDEV(trades of last x days/hours) * scaling_factor for example... Then they could allow nearly any leverage, as the limiting factor would be the margin required for new positions (10% margin means in the end you can only go to 10:1 in practice, as a 100:1 leverage has to be bolstered by 10 units, making it 100:10 in the end). In calmer phases that means people get larger leverage (meaning hey still increase their risk to loose all) while if the price is more volatile, it already IS volatile, so there is no need to enforce it via leverage. very good suggestion. Not only this one, but also the previous one where lenders can choose at which level of leverage they want to borrow. I'll talk to Raphael about it and we will see how to implement it. Have a good day Giancarlo Bitfinex Team Both are good suggestions, IMO. Thanks for monitoring this thread and picking them up, it's what makes bitfinex outstanding I believe. Personally, I like the 'lender choses max leverage' a bit better... in the end, I'm all for the choice of market participants -- if both sides are comfortable with a higher risk, let them do the deal. probably would be wise to add a warning though, along the lines of "allowing traders to take a leverage higher than x:1 brings along substantial risks to your capital, consider yourself warned." |
|
|
|
I am ok with the change, as long as you don't keep it more than necesarry. You're doing a good job so far. Also, Raphy, is that No Script (google issue) something to worry about?
since I brought it up (in my question), hope it's okay if I (try to) answer it: No, absolutely nothing to worry about. It's just about maximizing the security on *your own* side. I trade only in a Linux environment, since it's safer than Windows. And for that reason, I use the NoScript addon. But in order to see the bitfinex webpage in all of its beauty, I would have to allow NoScript to run content from googleuserscontent. In particular, it seems some page fonts are stored there. Nothing essential. In summary: if you're as concerned about maximizing security as I am, get NoScript, and *don't* allow googleusercontent. The site will look a bit worse, but trading still works. If you didn't use NoScript anyway, nothing changes |
|
|
|
|
hehehe, interesting to watch. almost as if the market is unsure if the correction should continue or not. re-testing 270 is still a real possibility, IMO. If we'd go there, we'll see what is stronger, hunger for more coins, or fear. however right now it looks like bitstamp has enough buying pressure to stop it from going further (that'd be a new development, bitstamp *stopping* a correction, instead of initiating it oO)
|
|
|
|
Well, might as well be the first to say it: I don't like it. I remember, the first time when I read about bitfinex, the maximum leverage advertised was 5:1. In fact, there are still places on bitfinex where that ratio is mentioned, e.g. here. When I finally signed up a few weeks ago, the 5:1 ratio already wasn't available anymore. Fine, I though, maybe too risky for such a volatile market. But now you're reducing it further, and I simply don't see why. We already have the distincion between "insured" and "uninsured" loans, so the lender are aware (or should be aware) that, in the worst case, they might lose some or most of their money. Why decide *for us* that it is too risky if, effectively, bitfinex doesn't need to participate in the risk anyway? ... Okay, and here's my biggest gripe: The justification is: "due to the recent market performance we believe a correction is due, sooner or later."What the hell? Would you please let *us*, the traders decide if we think we're in a for a correction or not? Seriously, I've only had positive experiences on my (short) time on bitfinex now, but this is the first time I'm officially miffed. I really, really don't want my exchange telling me that "we're in for a correction, so we're taking things back a notch." Hope you can understand where I'm coming from. I understand where *you* are coming from (security > profit, you've said so several times), but with that decision, and especially the *justification* of that decision, you went to far in your goal to put security before profit, IMO. |
|
|
|
|
Sorry for the clueless question, but does coinbase act as an exchange? If so, at which volume compared to the others?
Re: bitstamp higher atm than mtgox (not anymore, by the way). Anyone with two eyes in his head could have seen the mounting buying pressure on bitstamp over the past week or so. Reading from the order book is never straighforward, manipulation etc., but normalized bid/ask ratio went from ~1 4 days ago to 3 today. Not sure why, not sure how long it'll last, but right now, the pressure is on.
|
|
|
|
I will give precisely fuck zero credit to any of the bears going full retard in this thread... There is no guarantee the price will ever raise this high again.
The bears in here were every bit as uninformed, lazy and obnoxious as their bullish counterparts who are now cheering "we'll reach 1000 next week". Good thing there's a least a few people I enjoy reading in this forum. The crowd in this thread? Not so much. |
|
|
|
|
What the hell did I miss... bitstamp higher than mtgox?! o_O
|
|
|
|
|
They're back up again.
I'm not exactly happy they went down for at least 2 hours during a major market movement, but for fairness sake, they got it sorted out reasonably fast.
|
|
|
|
Personally, if I had to chose between dollar cost averaging and following rpietila's buy/sell based on deviation from the uber-trendline, I would go with the latter approach. DCA is simply too conservative for Bitcoin -- you'd lose out on spectacular returns simply because you'd sell into the most wonderful rallies I didn't think DCA called for selling at all. I thought it was a buy and hold strategy. The trendline is worrisome to me because it looks like it wouldn't have called for buying in the latter part of 2010, all of 2011, and the beginning of 2012. That means missing out on a lot. Or would the line have been sufficiently different then? I'm starting to think there isn't a better method for BTC than buying as much as you can as quickly as you can and holding for a long time. you're right, my mistake. had a different strategy in mind. |
|
|
|
|
Personally, if I had to chose between dollar cost averaging and following rpietila's buy/sell based on deviation from the uber-trendline, I would go with the latter approach. DCA is simply too conservative for Bitcoin -- you'd lose out on spectacular returns simply because you'd sell into the most wonderful rallies :)
|
|
|
|
Hey BitcoinWisdom, it's me, your loyal supporter and fan  Any chance you could maybe increase history size of charts? What I mean is: if I set the chart to, say, 15 min, I can "drag" it back a few days, then the history of that time interval is over. Practically this means, I cannot go back to, say April 10 in the 1 hour chart. I know, there are other sites that can do this (btccharts, for example), but I really like your interface and all, so I'd prefer to do it on btcwisdom. In another reply you already said you don't want to increase the "max zoom out", because then candles would get to thin, but let's say you leave the zoom out untouched, but allow us to drag back further into the past... would that be possible without too much work? |
|
|
|
In my opinion that trend line is unsustainable and arbitrary. 10k by jan 2015? Some unforeseen event(s) of ridiculous magnitude would have to occur. Maybe by 2020. But not by 2015.
No, it isn't. There is only one way to use the least squares method, and it is depicted above. You, on the other hand, seem to pull numbers from your sleeve, and good luck trading systematically with that approach. Really? You just discovered linear regression and suddenly extrapolation from previous data (which is *exactly* what you're doing there) is not arbitrary anymore? Learn a) your mathematical techniques (that part you seem to have done), and b) the assumptions you make when you employ said techniques. Note: This says nothing about the validity of your claims. I personally find it the approach useful, and your numbers might well fit the target. But there is abso-fucking-lutely no way around the fact that extrapolation from previous data only works as long as the function generating the data now is (more or less) the same as the function generating the data back then. If you believe that's the case -- fine by me. But it is an assumption. |
|
|
|
One completely different question: For obvious reasons, I prefer using NoScript when engaging in trading I noticed that bitfinex makes use of objects from external sources, e.g. googleusercontent. It's not terrible per se, but I would rather only allow objects from bitfinex itself. I noticed I can make use of the website with googleusercontent disabled, but some minor glitches appear. Any chance you can unify all scripts on bitfinex's own domain? |
|
|
|
|
Okay, I see. My misconception was that I assumed the user password had to be stored somewhere, when in reality, it is itself the key for decrypting the seed. D'oh.
In other words, someone gaining physical access to my (Electrum) files will gain no additional benefit over trying to brute force the user password directly.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
