i am of the opinion that in an information society it is intellectually dishonest to yourself as well as financially irresponsible to ignore those with opposing viewpoints to whatever your opinions are ... it's the equivalent of jamming your fingers in your ears and yelling LALALALA anytime someone says anything that even slightly differs with your views ... to note I have not ever and will not ever ignore any user on this or any other forum ...
Generally, I (and most here) would probably agree with you. But when we're talking about OBVIOUS Trolls...they go on ignore. There's literally not enough time to sort through all their dribble to get to intellectually honest opinions, which can be Bullish or Bearish in nature as all markets have their cycles. But anyone who comes on here for hours upon hours every day to tell you that Bitcoin is a waste of time, worthless and is crashing to zero....and they're telling you this on a Bitcoin Forum....yeah, those people go on ignore. There's literally no rational discussion that can take place with them, after all, they're wasting all their time in a forum that they're telling you is a waste of time. It is absolutely Shocking to me when people can't see the obvious agenda at work Jaredboice put me on ignore as I provided a link to a website that transfers money across the world without using bitcoin, to point out that the price of this alternative service (and others like it) is quite cheap (and much lower than the banks). He was so angry that I provided this data, he put me on ignore. The data suggested that the consumer value from using bitcoin was not as great as if compared to the cost of using traditional banking services. His comment above should be judged in light of this. |
|
|
|
|
I don't quite understand this strategy.
If you have 25k now, why not just buy 25k of btc now rather than spread over time.
Let's compare this strategy (strategy B) with yours (strategy A) under different scenarios...
Scenario 1: btc rises above 250 next week.
Under A, you only have $1k of btc bought, so only gain a bit.
Under B, you have $25k of btc bought, so gain a lot.
Scenario 2: btc rises above 250 after 6 months.
Under both A and B, you have $25k of btc bought, so gain a lot.
Scenario 3: btc never rises above 250
Under both A and B, you lose money.
So B is better than A.
|
|
|
|
A shrewd investment, in a few years I'm sure he'll be glad to have all that btc.
We already know that it was not a shrewd investment. Even if btc goes to $100k tomorrow, then he should have sold the house for $ and purchased btc today. Then he would achieve a return more than 3 times greater than what he would actually get. |
|
|
|
To be fair biggus 's post was quite ridiculous.Don't see why you would put him on an ignore list for stating that.
I got put on an ignore list by one swivel-eyed uberbull, I think jaredboice, for simply explaining the charge for a overseas payment transfer using a website, including a link to that websites pricing schedule for evidence. The human race includes a lot of people who really are no more intelligent than the average pond scum. They will lash out at the simplest and most irrefutable statements of fact. That's what makes this forum so interesting! People watching. |
|
|
|
Every ponzi needs new believers. Keep faith. I want to profit as much from bitcoin as possible. Don't ask, just buy.
Are you like the world's most honest person? |
|
|
|
Well said!
I am hodling...
I am amazed that you can all sing the praises of the OP's position. Admittedly funny, but quite possibly the worst investment decision that has ever been made by any one, ever. He decided to hold at the peak of the bubble, and we are now down a good 80%!!! His investment would now be worth five times more if he 'SODL'ed. And you worship this like it was one of the ten commandments. Nuts. |
|
|
|
whats the point of selling? you get what a bit of FIAT. Who cares for that. I am saying I remain un perturbed by any downward value of btc including to zero. The lower it goes, the less reason I have to care about selling.
What do you care about? If you wanted to own more BTC, then you would have sold at 1,000 and bought back four times more BTC today. But you say that would be pointless, so clearly you don't want to own BTC either. You must be an absolute nihilist. Nothing matters to you, nothing at all. Wow. Why are you posting? |
|
|
|
furthermore before all the assclowns jump in at the eleventh hour when btc is $200.11 trying to earn a quick BTC ...the bet is claimed. I'm not stupid, course there is a chance it could happen, i just don't think so right now... kind of...  Full marks for confirming the bet. You are a man of honour, unlike some others. |
|
|
|
Stop being such a retard. Show me where in this thread Chow Chow agreed to your terms and confirmed the bet with you? He also clearly stated that the price would go over $300 before Friday, that doesn't mean the price had to still be over 300 on Friday. You can decide what you want but not what you deserve, and you deserve nothing.
This.I'm really getting tired of the Speculation section. I don't even know who this "BTC designer whatever the fuck" guy is. Just another get-rich-quick type looking for a handout. Typical. How can you speak like this when you opened this thread with a clear request for bets that the price would go above 300? Whilst you claim some absurd technicality based reason why this happened on one exchange somewhere, it clearly did not happen in spirit. The price has remained firmly below 300. There is no realistic way you could have sold your bitcoin for more than 300. |
|
|
|
It will depend on how Stamp handles the situation when they reopen...
When? If? I think you are probably right, they will probably reopen, but not definitely. The thing is, Stamp has to say it will reopen shortly, whatever the situation. If they have actually lost far more and will go bust, they still need to say they will reopen. If they are actually squirrelling money off to Brazil, they still need to say they will reopen. If everything is fine and they are about to reopen, they still need to say they will reopen. There is no situation where they would say otherwise. |
|
|
|
|
I see others are starting identical threads, so this needs bumping...
|
|
|
|
140,000
We don't need that many respondents for a good sample. |
|
|
|
|
2012 results: highly significant lagged variables, therefore NOT A RANDOM WALK.
. reg dt0 dt1 dt2 t3 if(time<365)
Source | SS df MS Number of obs = 364
-------------+------------------------------ F( 3, 360) = 7.55
Model | .058269935 3 .019423312 Prob > F = 0.0001
Residual | .926368985 360 .002573247 R-squared = 0.0592
-------------+------------------------------ Adj R-squared = 0.0513
Total | .98463892 363 .002712504 Root MSE = .05073
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
dt0 | Coef. Std. Err. t P>|t| [95% Conf. Interval]
-------------+----------------------------------------------------------------
dt1 | -.2417949 .0523137 -4.62 0.000 -.3446738 -.1389161
dt2 | -.1060391 .0522126 -2.03 0.043 -.2087191 -.0033591
t3 | -.0045321 .0069005 -0.66 0.512 -.0181024 .0090381
_cons | .0126326 .0142685 0.89 0.377 -.0154274 .0406926
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2013 results: no statistically significant lagged variables, therefore we cannot reject random walk.
. reg dt0 dt1 dt2 t3 if(time>365 & time<730)
Source | SS df MS Number of obs = 364
-------------+------------------------------ F( 3, 360) = 0.34
Model | .006482693 3 .002160898 Prob > F = 0.7979
Residual | 2.3014901 360 .006393028 R-squared = 0.0028
-------------+------------------------------ Adj R-squared = -0.0055
Total | 2.30797279 363 .006358052 Root MSE = .07996
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
dt0 | Coef. Std. Err. t P>|t| [95% Conf. Interval]
-------------+----------------------------------------------------------------
dt1 | .0132722 .0527079 0.25 0.801 -.0903819 .1169262
dt2 | -.0135911 .052703 -0.26 0.797 -.1172356 .0900534
t3 | -.003767 .0040118 -0.94 0.348 -.0116564 .0041224
_cons | .0285126 .0191565 1.49 0.138 -.00916 .0661852
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2014 result: Significant variable to 99% confidence level, so can reject random walk.
. reg dt0 dt1 dt2 t3 if(time>730)
Source | SS df MS Number of obs = 363
-------------+------------------------------ F( 3, 359) = 2.84
Model | .013178025 3 .004392675 Prob > F = 0.0380
Residual | .555674788 359 .001547841 R-squared = 0.0232
-------------+------------------------------ Adj R-squared = 0.0150
Total | .568852812 362 .001571417 Root MSE = .03934
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
dt0 | Coef. Std. Err. t P>|t| [95% Conf. Interval]
-------------+----------------------------------------------------------------
dt1 | -.0676219 .0522455 -1.29 0.196 -.1703676 .0351238
dt2 | -.1358541 .0522824 -2.60 0.010 -.2386725 -.0330358 t3 | -.0070585 .0077177 -0.91 0.361 -.0222361 .008119
_cons | .041105 .0481442 0.85 0.394 -.0535751 .1357851
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
So I did it for you. I tested whether the daily price series was a random walk or not in the past. I got the opposite results from you.
Firstly, price definitely WAS NOT a random walk in 2012. Totally not random.
Conversely, I cannot reject the random walk hypothesis for 2013. It actually seems quite random that year, at least until end November.
I can reject random walk in 2014. The persistent bear market in 2014 IS NOT A RANDOM WALK.
This is simple statistical testing. I'm surprised you didn't do it before presenting your analysis.
|
|
|
|
For all the fancy charts, you don't seem to have done the simplest thing of all. Have you not statistically tested whether the price series IS or IS NOT a random walk? Is the change in the price today correlated with the price yesterday (or any previous day), or not? All I need are the co-efficients of the lagged price variables and their standard errors. I can do the rest... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_walk_hypothesisThanks |
|
|
|
|
It's all so confusing. Both Hold and Sell!!!
|
|
|
|
|
I'm confused. First you say not to sell bitcoins now, and then you suggest trading in both directions (ie selling and buying) during 2015. Which is it?
|
|
|
|
Come on people, get your votes in. 43 isn't enough to get over statistical variability, particularly given how many categories there are in the poll.
How many votes is sufficient to get over statistical variability and produce a good sample? It depends on your desired level of precision in the results. Pollsters usually go for at least 1,000 respondents, but we don't need such precision. I would say that the 497 votes achieved last time is plenty. Less than 200 would be dodgy. |
|
|
|
So, what would be the best approach to return to equilibrium?
Presumably to pray that (or engineer that) the BTC price crashes, so it only has to pay out a small amount of new USD to customers transferring the BTC to USD then withdrawing. This suggests that it should discourage withdrawals of BTC, and instead encourage withdrawals of USD. |
|
|
|
|
Come on people, get your votes in. 43 isn't enough to get over statistical variability, particularly given how many categories there are in the poll.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
