|
Isn't it obvious? chodpaba him/herself is the whale driving up the price.
1. Post predictions based on some fancy experimental indicator.
2. Be ridiculed for prediction.
3. Initiate corresponding buying program (simple. doesn't need more than ~100k coins.)
4. Gain people's trust, after prediction is confirmed
5. ???
6. Profit
|
|
|
|
You also have to realize that this is the English section of the forum, if you ran the same poll in the [insert any other language] subsection of the forum you would probably get very different results. I have some real doubts about it. What's the biggest non-English subforum? German? Don't expect too many people that fall out of the core category (I'm German myself, btw). One thing is true: bitcoin seems to have some success in China. Assuming most Chinese forum member don't post in the English subforum, you're right, they're skewing the results quite a bit. |
|
|
|
NSA information collection scheme?
Right. Cause if they are actually capable of doing what people think they are capable of doing, they'd need a poll for that kind of info. |
|
|
|
Im a little younger than 20 ::)
there's an option for that. But I guess my idea to randomize the order wasn't that smart after all :/ |
|
|
|
It isn't realistic, you have to realise as well there are some people who just don't care much about this sort of thing, in fact I'm betting that's how most people will feel, I always hear these dumb arguments from rights groups about how the leaders of various organisation etc. 'should' be hiring more of the group they're representing. How? If they aren't interested in doing the job then they're not going to do it well and you can't bloody well force them. This will be a pretty stereotypical example but imagine what one of those really girly stereotypical barbie style girls would say if they were suddenly told they'd should give up the work they prefer and go and work in a steel mill, they'd probably say "Go fuck yourself" or something along those lines.
The "barbie in a steel mill" example is such an oversimplification, it is not really useful in my opinion. I'm not a huge fan of affirmative action/quotas/etc either, but I'm not entirely against them either. The ultra-short version of my argument in favor of them would be: (a) for pretty much all throughout history, only men have been recipients of the highest level of education. it is naive to assume that 50 to 100 years after we've opened up the opportunities to everyone, the playing field is level already. (b) even assuming there are inherent differences that make guys more likely to become early adopters of technology, it could be in the best interest of all of society to correct for this -- only to a degree of course, otherwise you'll stifle natural competition too much in all likelihood. |
|
|
|
Not if the free market stays as it is no  you should also bear in mind this is an incredibly small poll of only 95 people which doesn't represent the population of the world or even the amount of people using Bitcoin, in fact, it wouldn't surprise me if there were just as many or maybe more women/ethnicities because of the pretty anonymous nature of Bitcoin. If everyone's only identity is an address then how can people judge them on their appearance or gender unless they reveal themselves? It's not about appearance or judgement, but the early adopter demographics, which consistently seems to be dominated by young guys, usually white with a few Asian guys in the mix. It's been like that during the Internet boom, the dotcom bubble, and I suspect it'll be like that again during the early stages of bitcoin, i.e. now. Sure, you can say, "what't the problem. us nerds are just quick to adopt new technologies", but I see several problems with this. (a) I personally think diversity/heterognity almost always beats homogenity, and (b) in 20 years from now, when bitcoin is fully accepted (let's say it is), we will probably have to somehow correct for this, similar to how we do now with quotas for female CEO/board members (in the EU) or affirmative action at universities ( in the US) I think it would be kind of preferable if we could get some more people from outside the core group to join our little experiment now. But I admit, I don't think it's very realistic. |
|
|
|
LOL that's just an example, I'd end up writing out the whole poll myself it I put in every ethnicity out there and for your information I'm half-Irish motherfucker  And what's your other half? Are you trying to use Irish as an example of non-white? particularly as I'm an artist and understand the concept of there being more than two colours in the world, oh and I'm not colour blind. And yes, I'm half-irish/half-english, there was actually a whole daily show segment on this kind of thing where politics and mainstream media loved to group everyone together in easily definable ways like hispanics or blacks or Europeans and there are many different groups in that group who hate each others guts. Don't know if you're refering to my poll in particular, but I thought I already addressed that point. Yes, white vs. non-white is incredibly crude and simplifying, bordering on rudeness. At the same time, as this poll so far confirms, it is not without predictive/empirical power. More precisely, from a, say, biologist's perspective, or that of an artist, white vs. non-white is probably dumb and meaningless. But in an economic context, it is de facto an important distinction. It's kind of sad that it is still a meaningful distinction, but don't blame the messenger for the message. My entire question was about: who will hold power/wealth in the bitcoin future. Right now, it looks like it'll be predominantly white guys. Doesn't that make you at least the smallest worried or uncomfortable? |
|
|
|
All i know is this is the time to get into bitcoins while prices are fairly low but very few people are buying. If there is another bubble this fall or next spring you will find thousands of people actually buying coins while the price is high and getting higher and then they get burnt on the downturn. It's a world of sheep out there. If the herd is not buying coins then the average buyer will not buy. At least the the original poster of this thread figured this out and is holding onto his coins rather than panic selling.
.... I trust reversion to the long term, ...... We will undershooth SMA200 at some point, now hovering around $95. That's a bit of an amusing argument: the more obvious conclusion of price being above both 1d SMA200 and 100 is that we're stable/going up. |
|
|
|
this thread is going to cost a lot of people a lot of bitcoin...
there's nothing to indicate a reversal is coming...
I did a quick analysis earlier today, comparing the late May situation (that ended in the month long downtrend) to now. Using the indicators and tools that I usually find reliable, I can't see a fundamental difference between now and then. Which doesn't mean that we're heading for a reversal, just that, with one difference(*) perhaps, May and August look similar, and the former situation saw to a drastic, rather unexpected, reversal. (*) the one difference I can see and that I would say is perhaps relevant is the duration of the uptrend until the reversal: when price started to fall in May, we only had a two week run-up behind us. Today, we're in a solid uptrend for almost two months. |
|
|
|
That poll confused me so much I clicked on the wrong option >_< organise it better!
It would be easier to read if they were not randomized. What is the point of randomizing the options? The point is that there's an obvious answer (male, white, 20-49), but I didn't want the results skewed by the fact that I would order the options by their likely final ordering already. |
|
|
|
Am I the only Indian guy here?!  Oh well, Indians are honorary whites anyway. I'm kidding, I'm kidding! |
|
|
|
|
The poll options are pretty self-explanatory, I guess:
8 combinations of ethnicity/gender/age range. (order sloppily randomized)
Please don't get too hung up about the, admittedly crude, distinctions like "white" vs. "non-white", or the binary gender choice, the format of this poll doesn't allow for much nuance.
Why am I asking those questions anyway, you might wonder. Because I believe that we are now still in the early stage of the history of bitcoin in which the wealth distribution is (largely) determined. This phase won't last forever, however. And if bitcoin is anywhere near as successful as many here think it is, bitcoin wealth distribution will eventually become general wealth distribution.
Maybe you can see why I would wonder then, what is the composition of our little group of early investors, speculators and adopters. I have a pretty big hunch what the result will look like, but I'm ready to be surprised.
Thanks for participating, by the way.
|
|
|
|
|
I wrote a longer answer to the 51% network attack over on r/bitcoin. The way I see it, the attack is almost trivially easy to pull of for a large motivated entity, such as, say, the US government.
There are two layers of protection against this happening, imo:
one, at the moment the price is low (300 to 400M USD), but *interest* to attack btc directly is also comparably low. That might chance as btc becomes more established, but then the *price* will also be higher.
two, network composition. if any large group suddenly enters the scene, outcomputing everyone else, that will most likely be noticed, and investigated by the community. I don't believe it would be easy, even for a government with loads of money, to pretend to be several thousand individuals forming a mining pool.
|
|
|
|
[...]
Well, I obviously missed the $50s, but considering that I called that bottom from $129 (when I sold) my call was not so bad as we indeed went to $64. I bought back a little at $67-69, then I bought back in full recently at $105. Didn't manage to double my BTC because of being too bearish, but nevertheless I increased my trading stash by aprox. 50% which in my book was a better call than just holding. I would say "barely better" because I spent way too much time on daytrading....
BTW, 66% of my trading stash joined the "investment stash" on a paper wallet. I sold the remaining 33% at $120 and requested a withdrawal to try some arbitrage with Bitstamp... The money didn't arrived to my account yet, so after the last rally my arbitraging move isn't looking too good ATM.
Finally, in all honesty I also wrote many times that so many people waiting for the $50s could have meant that we weren't going there. I still believe that we will see double digits again in 2013, probably not $50 but I expect testing $79 again and if it is broken the $60s again. Nevertheless daytrading is always gambling, and in the BTC even more so. Just one whale buyer/seller can trigger huge movements, therefore TA is pretty useless in this market :)
That's why I appreciate your posts here. You are one of the bigger traders/investors that I largely "trust" when they talk about their decisions. Not that I tend to follow your buy/sell advice, but I believe you when you say you did X or Y :P EDIT: jsut to clarify, you usually don't give advice in the strict sense anyway. just that when you were pretty bearish in the last month or so, I took that into account, but decided otherwise myself. |
|
|
|
To the OP: Don't feel too bad, I bought [too many] coins at [much higher than] $230. I'm still eternally bullish, and have had the opportunity a few times since then to add to my wallet at lower prices (eg, at $60 when I got the chance). I have no doubt in my mind that the rate will get back to (and far beyond) what I paid for them eventually, just a matter of time. Meanwhile, here's to hoping there are still more opportunities yet for buying coins under $100!!  Much higher than $230? How is that possible? ATH was $266, and a few hours before the crash the price was BELOW $230 - how did you manage to buy "much higher" than $230??? $266 = Much higher than $230 Yes, I bought a lot of coins at $265-ish. It was only up there for a few hours but it was very high volumes being traded, and I was in there buying :/ Edit: I just noticed my forum activity is now 266."Insult? Meet injury. Injury, that's insult." |
|
|
|
I'm pretty happy with bitstamp, but market depth can be terrible there. Had some nice, early trades that should have given me a decent profit ruined by excessive slippage.
Which is surprsing. Looking at the overall volume (say, 30d) bitstamp volume is about half of mtgox, maybe a bit less. However it seems that at any given point, bitstamp market depth is perhaps a quarter or less of mtgox depth. I have no good explanation for that.
I have an explanation. Market making bots are using MtGox API through the huge amount of open source code available. Show me a ruby gem that covers what I need for the BitStamp API and maybe I'll move over. Sure, it wouldn't be too hard to do it myself, but I'm a full time student, teaching two classes, and my MtGox bot is still pulling in profits. Edit: Okay, there is a bitstamp gem available, but still it is not a drop in replacement for what I have running on mtgox, so it will have to wait at least until my next long weekend. And to be clear, I'm not saying my bot is significant here, but other operators are likely in the same situation. Guess I don't get it, since I never ran a bot for trading... does your bot place orders well ahead of time (i.e. they become part of the order book)? I alway thought the point of bot trading was to wait until the very last moment, when some price action triggers the bot's condition set, at which point it will place an order, which could be only minutes before the order is executed, so that the money/the btc never really appear on the order book. Can you clarify this for me? |
|
|
|
|
for clarity, that's a 30 min fixed offset over the entire history you test on, right?
(by the way, how do you run those tests? something custom made or matlab+mtgox data?)
|
|
|
|
|
This goes completely against my intuition on this, and my (non testable, I admit) observations. Like I already said, I never expected a one-way influence of one on the other with a constant lead time, but I expect there to be some consistent effect. I have no idea of showing it though, so I have to come back to it when I can think of a way.
|
|
|
|
|
Or the effect isn't picked up because that way of looking at it is too coarse, and the leading time might not be constant either, for example could depend on volume or volatility, in which case your global offset wouldn't be the right tool either.
|
|
|
|
The question is, why is so much more money on the order book of mtgox than that of bitstamp, when their trading volume is getting closer. Or to turn the question around: why is there so much trading volume on bitstamp when the order book is so empty, compared to mtgox.
Perhaps because the Bitstamp interface encourages you to buy/sell with market orders, with a very prominently placed "Instant order" button? Although this would only be relevant if most of the traders there were beginners. Interesting. Does that mean the "default" on mtgox is limit order? Not that I think that would account for the gap entirely, but at least in parts, it might. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
