Don't take the following too serious.

On the other hand, don't dismiss it entirely either.

Among the TA crowd there's an unhealthy (IMO) obsession with "exact" prices at which trades execute, hence: candles being the preferred view of the price. In my personal (and I admit: very limited) experience, applying some low-level smoothing is useful to get a clearer view of short term trends.

I'm not talking about the broad strokes you get when you look at the SMA100 or MACD, but the much more granular view of the price you get by looking at the median, or alternatively VWAP, on a short enough time scale.

With that in mind, one could say (me! me!) we've reached April's ATH again on October 23rd, and are currently only slightly below this point:

First, note: I'm not slamming your method per se, altoidmintz. I for one appreciate any formal approach presented here. But you're not the first one to do regression analysis on $/btc, and if memory serves me right, they tend to undershoot.

But here's the easy/lazy/obvious reply to this kind of analysis: did you backtest it? In particular, did you apply the same method and ran the analysis on either the full data set, or a more recent subset, up to January 2013, and tried to look at the prediction for the following month(s)?

You can probably see where I'm getting with this -- unless I'm hugely mistaken, a sudden and violent rally like the one that brought us to the ATH in April almost certainly wouldn't have been within your 95% interval.

That said, if you're one of those who perform regression on the entire data set and then declare that's where price should be... well, in that case, we do TA from different perspectives then :D

+1 molecular

"Spekulationsgewinne" sind es eben nie, weil bitcoin als Sachgut beurteilt wird (wie z.B. Gold).

EkSt. fällt an, wenn btc Einnahmequelle sind (z.B. als Gehalt), oder als Gewinn aus privates Ver.geschäft.

Privates Ver.geschäft ist aber eben *nicht*, wenn zwischen Kauf und Verkauf mehr als 1 Jahr liegen.

Ergo: steuerfrei.

Interessant. Kannst du erklären wie du zu Punkt 2 kommst?

Hier das Heise Artikel Zitat, das entstand nach der Bundestagsanfrage:


So wie ich es verstehe heisst es dass btc, wenn zwischen Kauf und Verkauf max. 1 Jahr liegen als "privates Veräusserungsgeschäft" bewertet sind, und damit steuerpflichtig, danach aber nicht mehr. Ich sehe nicht wieso EkSt. hier greifen sollte, es sei denn jemand würde mir z.B. mein Gehalt in btc bezahlen.

Tag nochmal.

Ich antworte mal in deinem thread...

re: 1-Jahresfrist. Danke, verstehe es deutlich besser, und verstehe jetzt auch was das FIFO vs LIFO in diesem Kontext bedeutet.

re: FA Prüfung. Okay, ich sehe was du meinst. Ich kenne bisher halt Prüfungen nur vom ehemaligen Betrieb meiner Eltern, und da waren die "Bücher" halt immer irgendwas was von der Finanz-Buchhaltungs-Abteilung gemacht wurde und irgendwie offiziell ... aber wenn ich jetzt so drüber nachdenke, da hätte es natürlich auch Spielraum gegeben die Bücher zu "bearbeiten". Wird also interessant, wann ein dt. FA zum ersten mal einen richterlichen Beschluss erwirkt um die Accountdaten auf mtgox oder bitstamp nachzusehen.

Ich meld mich wieder wenn ich mit dem Steuerberater gesprochen hab, vielleicht lern ich ja noch was interessantes das ich hier wiedergeben kann.

I voted 'new trend', but it's not exactly representative of my own beliefs: I think we will continue to bounce between various trends, based on both btc fundamentals and market dynamics (i.e. a feedback loop).

I've written the following argument several times throughout the past months, but there seems to be this widespread believe that there is *the one trend* that governs the price. And then, when the price actually deviates from what that trend predicted, people say that before growth continues price first needs to "fall back" or "deflate" back to the price predicted by the old trend.

Nothing like that actually happens. In an already simplified picture, what actually happens that external (fundamentals) and internal (the market) reasons create various trends, and control which trend price follows at which point, and for how long. Those trends are perhaps attractors, so "falling back to an old trend" is certainly a possibility, but what we saw in the post-April period is that price can also just pick up from some point on a new trend, but continue from there on another trend. That is, price didn't need to "deflate" completely, as so many predicted -- it simply dropped a point at which the market concluded that btc is priced reasonably low, and then continued on a slightly more sane growth path than the super-exponential one we saw in April (and perhas now, when we were getting close to the ATH again).

What I'm trying to say is: trends are maybe a useful tool, but I don't think any particular trend will govern price within the next year. I would only say we can describe the boundaries: Barring catastrophic news, the "old trend" will mark the lower bound, while the upper bound is probably marked by what you call the "new trend", barring extremely *good* news re: adoption and awareness. (keep in mind, while the *relative* increase, roughly one order of magnitude, has many precedents in btc history, the *absolute* amount of money needed to enter the market increases -- it's not imossible that this will happen, but it will require some particularly good news, like a large enough online retailer accepting btc, or something like that)

Hey molecular

Danke für den Link zu deinem thread. Hier ist mein eigener, im dt. Spekulations-Forum... sind aber bisher noch keine Antworten gekommen :D

Um es gleich zu sagen: du bist mir um Längen vorraus. Um genau zu sein, ich vesteht tatsächlich weniger als die Hälfte von dem was du macht... hängt wahrscheinlich damit zusammen dass btc meine erste richtige Erfahrung mit börsenähnlichen Geschäften sind, und meine EkSt-Erklärung bisher immer recht schlicht ausfiel.

Wenn du erlaubst, ein, zwei Fragen:

Wenn ich es richtig verstanden habe sollen btc Spekulationsgewinne nach einem Jahr steuerfrei sein. Beinhaltet das den zwischenzeitigen Ver- und Rückkauf von btc, oder nicht?

Du beschreibst den Download der mtgox Datenbank. Das sind nur deine eigenen trades, richtig? In dem Fall sind die also nicht öffentlich zugänglich, sondern nur aus deinem eigenen Account zugänglich (ich bin selber nicht auf mtgox, sondern bitstamp, aber ich nehme mal an es ist im wesentlichen gleich). Vielleicht verstehe ich nicht wirklich wie das FA arbeitet, aber was für eine Aussagekraft hat so eine selbst zusammengestellte Tabelle für die? Sie können auf die von mir getätigten trades nicht zugreifen (weil sie meinen Account nicht haben), und die Tabelle die ich mit einreiche kann ohne weiteres von mir geändert werden.


Ich treffe Ende des Jahres meinen/den Steuerberater meiner Mutter, und frag ihn auch mal um Rat. Ich befürchte, der wird nur sehr begrenzt die btc Aspekte verstehen, aber vielleicht lassen sich ja einige Dinge aus dem Börsenhandel etc. anwenden.

Bitcoin is shaping up to be the currency of the future, enabling people to send and receive money anywhere in the world free of charge in a currency that govts are unable to control, Roger Ver, bitcoin investor and the CEO of Memory Dealers told to RT.

It's all just FUD, LALALA CAN'T HEAR YOU


If your point is that the line "gox dollars aren't even real money", that is thrown around thoughtlessly all the time, is as annoying as it is wrong, I agree. If your point is that mtgox is doing just fine and the withdrawal delays aren't really a big deal -- well, believe whatever you want.

minor bug: seems the site doesn't remember the "show lag/don't show lag" option between reloads.

tried reloading several times, but problem persists.

Maybe I'm missing something, but now that there are two interest rate averages (FRR, AVIR), shouldn't we be able to get options for both of them in the 'lend' and 'autolend' windows?

I got the impression (translation: I shall pull the following out of my arse) that 150 is perhaps the new 100 -- the point at which a substantial part of market thinks that anything below is "cheap coins". 100 provided support several times in the past months, or maybe more accurately: price never remained below 100 for long (except for the final leg of the May/June downtrend). I believe we've left this price segment behind us, i.e. double digits are, major changes in the fundamentals non withstanding, a thing of the past. So the bottom moved up. To somewhere around 150, would be my best bet.

He was joking (or so he said in a longer, actually pretty thoughtful, post a bit later).

I missed today's (probably: flash) crash, but I traded during the SR one, and I wasn't very happy with how bitstamp handled the large volume... my order got through in the end, but their website went belly up several times in between, and overall, the experience was extremely laggy.

Preliminary remark: I like bitstamp. Good support, decent communication, I trust them.

Problem: They're not fully prepared to handle the increased volume that headed their way in the past months, IMO.

Question: Can we, the customers, do something about it? Make it known that we'll continue to support them, but we expect better performance and reaction to events than, say, mtgox?

Any suggestions?

Hey, I don't know why you're doing that, but can you please stop posting empty posts? I only see your username and then nothing else. kthxbye

You know, when you put effort into your analysis, your posts are actually worth reading. I'm not a great believer in Fibonacci mysticismanalysis, but the conclusions you arrive at are plausible, in my opinion.

tl;dr I like your current style a lot better than your pink RR period

A small request, should be simple enough to implement if you see my point: can you slightly increase the frequency at which Autolend is run? I just noticed it took more than 30 minutes before my funds were offered again -- which is not terrible, but still a bit too long I would say. Maybe running it every 5 to 10 minutes would be possible, and not too computationally expensive?

Most of Europe? A.k.a. "the civilized part of the modern world"

You know, when you carve away all the trolling and needless SHOUTING, fleabag's argument is not even completely dumb. If an event never happened until now, or only happens extremely rarely, it is reasonable to adjust your expectation of the likelihood of that event happening in the future by the fact. As always, there's a relevant xkcd for this.

That said, I ultimately disagree with fleabag for several reasons. His assumption is flawed ("the entire worlds already knows about it"), and the event itself is not completely unprecedented either (e.g. a pretty large number of millionaires were created during the dot-com bubble -- some even kept their wealth). Finally, constructing the prior probability is not as simple as saying "that totally didn't happen before, so it'll never happen, duh", which is essentially what he is trying to say.

I'm holding, and have been, for a while now. And personally, I don't see that correction happening yet. By my count, we're up around 50% from where the "irrational" part of the current rally began (I'm going by bitstamp figures, by the way, but the two markets are linked closely enough that it doesn't matter). The market is more cautious this time, April is still in the back of the mind of many people, but a 50% rise in about 10 days isn't quite the frenzy that makes me think we'll see a major correction in the next days. That'll be different when (and depending on how) we go past 260 to 300.