The reason why Bitcoin is falling is simply: More sellers than buyers.
Accept it and act accordingly. And stop your whining.
Bitcoin is dead and ASICS will give it the rest. ASICS are still profitable even if Bitcoin drops under $5.
premise: "More sellers than buyers." conclusion: "Bitcoin is dead" ... does not compute. |
|
|
|
tangentially related: do you have an opinion on positive/negative volume index?
Um, not reallly. They are indicators. They give you part of the story. Well, they're wide apart right now. Judging by the charts, more than ever in bitcoin history, with PVI down and NVI up. I can sort of see an interpretation that would lend support to your hypothesis of as-of-yet unfulfilled demand. |
|
|
|
|
tangentially related: do you have an opinion on positive/negative volume index?
|
|
|
|
|
I see what you mean now. But is there any formal way (within your framework) of distinguishing between "erronous signal" and "demand destruction"?
|
|
|
|
It is probably my original hypothesis that needs adjusting. The indicator (not really a model) still shows the response to the $OBV and BTCOBV regressions to be fairly balanced. Although the spread is getting a little wider now. Meaning that BTC demand is softening. OTOH, this pattern often occurs right before demand reverses.
The thing that will tell the tale of whether we are heading higher or lower is what occurs when trader's ability to manage liquidity on Gox returns.
Since, by my reading, there is still pent up demand I still have to say that there will be a concerted reversal in the direction of demand when this happens. Whenever the regression is above the current price level, which it is currently, I read it as pent up demand. Although, an alternative reading of that condition is demand destruction, I still do not believe that is what is happening.
Oh, it's a model alright. Then again, I have the habit to call every single of my inane ideas "theory". Physics people tend to call me out on that. 2 more questions? If you'd rather not disclose your methods any further, no offense taken. (1) How did you conclude that your OBV regressions, in relation to price, if I understood correctly, are an accurate predictor? Do you have an actual correlation, or is the assumption based on eyesight? (2) You lost me at "demand destruction". Do you have any good motivation to interpret the signal for "demand" as, well, the opposite of demand? |
|
|
|
I'm not coming back to this thread to gloat, but because I honestly would like to hear what your thoughts are on what is going on right now.
So, do you need to adjust your model? Or are you going to say this was within the parameters of what you expected?
doubtful it needs adjusting... capitulation takes time. You're a young one, aren't you? And you might not be young, but you certainly don't like to read the rest of the thread, do you? I was trying to find out what OP thinks about the rather drastic decline in price, after he said that his model picked up (somewhat opaque) buying pressure. Had you read my earlier posts in here, you would have noticed that I questioned that. So I'm not the one surprised by the latest action :D |
|
|
|
even stupider than the people who write this shit, are the morons who believe it.
Believe what exactly? That we're going down, hard? That's a fact. Or do you mean that bitcoin has failed? Nobody in here said anything to that effect. As an aside: I noticed there's a noticeable divide between members of this subforum, those who take it personal if price goes down, and those who don't. The latter are not exclusively speculators (although certainly all speculators belong to that group), but they share the view that the market will determine the price, no matter what. And, yes, "the market" includes manipulating whales. Of course, there's a third group: those who invested too much to not take it personal. |
|
|
|
|
I'm not coming back to this thread to gloat, but because I honestly would like to hear what your thoughts are on what is going on right now.
So, do you need to adjust your model? Or are you going to say this was within the parameters of what you expected?
|
|
|
|
|
Oh wow. This is brutal.
In the past I've gotten into heated arguments with a few guys in here on how far the downtrend de jour would take us. I remember, about a month ago, when we broke through 100 for the first time after the May consolidation, I was telling off people who were expecting a drop all the way down to 70, 60 within in one day.
Anyway. No such words of caution from me today. I'm not sure there's a hard limit to how far we'll go within the next 24 hours.
EDIT: sp
|
|
|
|
[...]
The three candles in a row point is just 3 days though, doesn't mention volume or the like. I still am confused by your statement. Also, I listed a lot of points regarding what I look at with TA, the size of the shares being sold, to me, is still significant.
I mean what are the chances that the sell sizes would be consistently larger than the buy sizes? Why not just have more volume down than up? When you throw the larger sizes in there it adds an alarm to me as the moves down like that, can start an avalanche. Know what I mean?
So again, my argument, or rather just a part of the points I mentioned, is not volume based, it is "sell sized" (I said blocks) based.
I'm cutting down the quote size, hope you don't mind. I'll try to make my points more clear... (1) The "three green candles" comment was an analogy, and had nothing to do with volume. The idea was: imagine someone posts "I am experienced in candlestick chart analysis", and then would drop that line about 3 green candles. You would say that that's not how it works, right? (2) Your "block" size argument rests on the fact that sell sizes are bigger than buy sizes. Since buy side and sell side of any executed trade are by definition equally large, what you mean is that sellers' positions on average are individually bigger than buyers' positions, right? (I'm honestly not trying to nitpick, just want to clearly understand your point.) (3) If so, then my question is simply: what prevents a whale from splitting up his buy orders, but consolidating his sell orders, to create the impression you described? (4) The order book is a prime tool for manipulation. So if (a) the order book tells you that the whales are selling while the small guys are buying, but (b) volume analysis would tell you that money flow is overwhelmingly positive (it is not, btw) then those two observations would conflict. And I would always trust (b) more than I would trust (a), because one is easy to manipulate, the other one less so. |
|
|
|
I think Bitfinex lends BTC to short from what Frozenlock has said. There may be others. Some online FX brokers are now offer BTC CFD's. Plus500 and Spreadex to name two accessible in the UK. I am sure there are many more. But tread carefully and manage your risk well if you intend to use leverage on something like Bitcoin. Things can blow up in your face real quick if you don't have the cash to cover it. TBH, for me the leverage just serves as a way to give them less of my fiat.
A CFD is a Contract For Difference in case you are not aware- basically a bet that the price will go up or down where you make or lose only fiat and never touch the underlying asset, though the issuer may do. Its a derivative - the paper shit that Rampion hates ! TBH for me it's not the 'paper shit' that is the issue, it is it's misuse/abuse that is the problem. Any market should have the ability to go short in my opinion otherwise there is no way for true price discovery. It's when the derivatives become greater than the value of the underlying that the problems start to arise and the house of cards starts to be built . When people use them to magnify position to such an extent that a small unexpected move can 'blow them up' that the systemic risk arises. See Long Term Capital (Mis)Management for the best example. And Lehmans for the more widely known one.
EDIT : I normally don't disclose my positions - I feel it can bring bad luck. I just felt in this instance it was necessary
You just made it into my list of bookmarked bitcointalk members (the line about the value/risk of derivatives warranted that). Don't you dare stop disclosing your position from now on. |
|
|
|
[long, extremely insightful comment]
Thanks for posting. I agree enthusiastically on (almost) all points. I also very much appreciate that, despite your trust in sound TA (which I generally share), you also acknowledge that any sufficiently strong good news will throw out all the (technical) predictions out of the window, at least for a while (I've been saying something similar in several different threads in the past). There's one minor? maybe not so minor? point of criticism. One of your arguments appeals to the intuition that all the large volume trades are sales, while the heavy lifting of buying is done by the small guys (I'm paraphrasing here), and then another comment following a similar line. I would like to point out that this is a somewhat naive form of volume-based analysis you're doing there. A bit as if I would look at a candlestick chart (which you said is more your specialty), and state "there are three green candles in a row, that must mean we're in an uptrend". More specifically, the situation you describe could also be the result of large holders of bitcoin selling en masse, then rebuying, in smaller portions, at a lower price. I'm not saying that's necessarily the case, but your argument seemed like an appeal to intuition (about volume), and that alone is probably not up to the task of analysing the market. See for example chodpaba's posts of the past days for a volume based argument why the current downtrend isn't sustainable, and decide for yourself if you see any merit in his statements (I more often than not do). Thanks for the comment (and honesty). Regarding the volume of trades, maybe you misunderstood or missed my point - I am watching the buys and sales go through on clarkmoody or http://trading.i286.org/ and I notice the size of the "blocks" are generally MUCH LARGER on the sells. This is purely observational, the intuitive part, if I can call it that, is that "I get the feeling" those large block sizes are early adopters and miners. But even then, it makes sense. I mean who can afford to buy 100, 200, 1000 shares? That is a lot of money in a small small market. Let's say I can afford to buy 100 shares, if I sold I would probably not do it at around the same time as other guys selling those large blocks, which is what I see happening. And the buys (as you say being smaller in block size) are no where nears as much as the larger blocks, that is why we are going down. That part is purely volume, but I was talking block size. I might be mistaken as I am no expert with "watching the tape" and no one else has commented on this that I have seen. But it does fit my theory.  I understand your point, as far as I can tell. unless, when you say "block", you're actually talking about the technical concept. then I didn't understand your argument  Assuming you're talking about size of individuals trades (yes?), your argument makes some intuitive sense. Agreed. So does "three green candles in a row, up we gooooo!". My point was that what you see (small chunks for buying, large chunks for selling) could also be the result of a/several not-completely-stupid large holders covering their tracks. If that's the case, then the immediate observation you described is not able to support your conclusion ("confidence in bitcoin is eroding"). There are more sophisticated methods to gauge if volume and supply/demand supports or contradicts the current trend. I'm not an expert in them, all I was saying is, your volume based argument sticks out somewhat as being slightly, sorry for calling it that, naive, compared to the rest of your points. |
|
|
|
[...] more speculative propaganda. the price is low because the influx of regulations that just happened to coincide with the problems at mt gox, coupled with the uncertainty of the winklevoss IPO bullshit. a few weeks from now the price will be back up and all the gullible suckers you conned into selling at the current low price will be kicking theirselves for being so naive, while you count your stacks of crisply minted usd as you cash those wire transfers from campbx. Submitted to the Wall of Fame: Quotes of Bold Predictions thread. You can {thank, curse} me later. |
|
|
|
[...] more speculative propaganda. the price is low because the influx of regulations that just happened to coincide with the problems at mt gox, coupled with the uncertainty of the winklevoss IPO bullshit. a few weeks from now the price will be back up and all the gullible suckers you conned into selling at the current low price will be kicking theirselves for being so naive, while you count your stacks of crisply minted usd as you cash those wire transfers from campbx. One of many similar responses to one of many similar posts by Rampion these days (in which he predicts we'll continue to go down hard). Time will tell, eh? |
|
|
|
[long, extremely insightful comment]
Thanks for posting. I agree enthusiastically on (almost) all points. I also very much appreciate that, despite your trust in sound TA (which I generally share), you also acknowledge that any sufficiently strong good news will throw out all the (technical) predictions out of the window, at least for a while (I've been saying something similar in several different threads in the past). There's one minor? maybe not so minor? point of criticism. One of your arguments appeals to the intuition that all the large volume trades are sales, while the heavy lifting of buying is done by the small guys (I'm paraphrasing here), and then another comment following a similar line. I would like to point out that this is a somewhat naive form of volume-based analysis you're doing there. A bit as if I would look at a candlestick chart (which you said is more your specialty), and state "there are three green candles in a row, that must mean we're in an uptrend". More specifically, the situation you describe could also be the result of large holders of bitcoin selling en masse, then rebuying, in smaller portions, at a lower price. I'm not saying that's necessarily the case, but your argument seemed like an appeal to intuition (about volume), and that alone is probably not up to the task of analysing the market. See for example chodpaba's posts of the past days for a volume based argument why the current downtrend isn't sustainable, and decide for yourself if you see any merit in his statements (I more often than not do). |
|
|
|
I don't see a trend reversal, not even short term. Only the most fine-grained of the indicators I look at saw a swing in the other direction, everything else indicates we're going down further, or are at least not about to go up rapidly, within the next 24h.
I am however mildly nervous because my gut feeling tells me that recent news (Bitcoin ETF, mtgox press release re: wire transfers) are comparably positive, and we've reached a price level that, say, 4 weeks ago would have had people salivating. In other words, I don't trust this downtrend.
The ETF may or may not happen. They filed the paperwork. It will be months before we know. It could help add exposure to BTC though and that is great. In and of itself it is not much. The MtGox release is NOT good news. They are essentially saying "We almost got our problem resolved. Things will still be slow for a while until we catch up." It is not good news to just function as expected. Good news will be in a few weeks when they have the new trade engine. But LTC is being released around then (perhaps) so we'll see the effect. Not to be a downer but just calling it like it is. You can turn it any way you want, those *are* good news. Maybe you're sceptical about them, but for those who trade on mtgox, this press release is almost certainly better news than the previous where they announced they'd stop (automatically) processing them. Similar with the ETF. Sure, might take a while before it becomes reality, maybe it'll never do... that's not the point I made in my post however: I recognized we're in a downtrend, but that I'm somewhat nervous because of the relatively good news recently, and that I recognize the possibility that it might turn around soon. Nitpicking about the *exact* quality of goodness of the news doesn't influence that argument, in my opinion. |
|
|
|
|
I don't see a trend reversal, not even short term. Only the most fine-grained of the indicators I look at saw a swing in the other direction, everything else indicates we're going down further, or are at least not about to go up rapidly, within the next 24h.
I am however mildly nervous because my gut feeling tells me that recent news (Bitcoin ETF, mtgox press release re: wire transfers) are comparably positive, and we've reached a price level that, say, 4 weeks ago would have had people salivating. In other words, I don't trust this downtrend.
|
|
|
|
Is there som site there people can vote for what thay think will happen with bitcoin up or down ?
today's your lucky day, there are actually several sites like that: http://mtgox.com/http://bitstamp.net/need more? (you set yourself up for this one :D) |
|
|
|
If the price doesn't regain and maintain triple digits, I would see the bear market as confirmed.
The bear is on since the April crash, which was deeper and faster than the one we had in 2011. I don't see it like this. For a looooong time the outcome of this crash was uncertain. It looked like the mother of all consolidation triangle. Unless I'm mistaken, even Blitz was kinda confused. ;) I completely agree. I don't really care who had the right intuition before anyone else. I care about how they arrived at their conclusion, so I can decide if their methodology is worth a damn or not. There are relatively few early bears that I took serious in that respect, slipperyslope and Rampion are among them (Blitz would be among them as well, if he wouldn't have a bit of a prosectilizing tendency about it occasionally :D). Anyway, I was (and to a degree, still am) undecided how this will play out exactly, but there were several breaking points at which my sentiment changed. (a) when we broke throught the last of the (increasingly lower) exponential growth trends that started in 2013 (b) when we broke the daily SMA100 (not that I see a deep meaning in that indicator, but I know people rely on it, so it matters after all) (c) and finally, and that's the biggest one, when the "higher lows" series broke a few days ago. I still trade exclusively on a short-to-medium-term basis, from day to day, week to week at most, and I'm mostly agnostic about how far we are into the correction/deflation, but I do somewhat adjust over time my expectation of the absolute bottom. And after each of the events above, that value went down. |
|
|
|
|
Some people in here really need to STFU.
You can go to any other bearish thread and post what you posted here with some justification, but accusing Rampion of spreading "FUD" is just, what's the word, childish. He's been one of the most consistent and consistently thoughtful posters on here. He has been saying for months now that a) we're going down, and b) he's not really worried about the long-term prospects of bitcoin. If your own trading strategy puts you into a level of discomfort, change it. Don't come crying about it in the thread of one of the not-that-many quality posters on this sub-forum.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
