Now once I have reported those transactions and by law also reported (e.g. in the USA IRS Form 1099) the identities of who I have received the coins from and sold them to, then I've reveal my anonymity, the anonymity of the entities I transacted with, and reduced the anonymity set on the block chain for all those who mixed their ring signatures with mine.
Is there anything that you consider out of bounds for taxman? When they take your kids and put them in perpetual slavery, still OK? Oh, wait.. bad example. Take your money when you want to leave country? Oh, wait... Seems that they have already crossed the line and become enemies of liberty, for many. What more can they do so that you still feel is OK? |
|
|
|
Maybe it was a mistake to tie the party to a certain price tag. It would have been better to just pick a date and then plan for that date regardless of the bitcoin price. Could be an anniversary (Genesis-block release for example). This way both the people organizing and the attendees can plan much better.
Maybe someone else will pick up the idea.
ya.ya.yo!
It might be a nice event to hold at the Bitcoin Castle in Estonia.  The location can be made available for such things at any time. As the owner of the Bitcoin Castle, I reaffirm that we can hold the party right away, or at any later time. The castle compound features 50-80 rooms, of which 12 are currently in use as bedrooms, with the capacity of up to 30 people. If we throw common decency out of the window, up to hundreds of people can be lodged indoors as long as it is not too cold. The place has already been a venue for several memorable Bitcoin events, including the Day Zero party, Supernode III and Summer Retreat. The Autumn Retreat will commence in Sept 23. More pics. |
|
|
|
im just saying that volume and other indicators (like rsi or macd) are maybe more important then those "walls" because they are small compared to volume
My investment philosophy as regards XMR is quite simple: - walls always lie - indicators are meaningless - volume is likely correct - only thing that really matters is how many XMR you get to buy, and (secondary) how much you paid for them. |
|
|
|
I have no reason to "hope" that it would go up or down. It is hard to trade profitably if you let that affect your decisions. About 6 people have 50,000 XMR or more (after all, 50,000 XMR is 1.5% of all the XMR that exists cf. similar % of bitcoins would be BTC200,000, hardly an insignificant amount as a bid support or size of dump  ). Some of these people ARE dumpers, however, so it is fully plausible that occasionally one person would quickly unleash such an amount. I am still waiting for your fact-based 12-line treatise, because your only meager content in the last post was easily proven to be absolutely wrong. I hope I am not being mean. |
|
|
|
Whatever. Hopefully others found my post more insightful than this newbie..No, that was mean  Rephrase: Please distill some of your knowledge on the topic in 12 lines for others to read!  |
|
|
|
Sure. But unless you have a huge quantity of coins to sell, you cannot force it down by more than a few 0.00001s. My interpretation on the situation is that it does make sense for latent buyers to buy because there is little to gain even from huge dumps (except if you arrange your buys as bid walls that the others have also done, aggravating the bid/ask imbalance). By waiting you win very little even if you are right. The walls are very real, nothing has been pulled during the downtrend. I remember when 0.00334 was being defended with huge walls, after bouncing from that area many times. A huge dump ensued, taking it down to 0.00290 (lowest daily average was 0.00305, this is a better measure if you actually needed to try to buy that low). So a gain of less than 10% for the patient waiters. If we just scale the numbers, the dump case now would be that 50k XMR get sold quickly to force the price from 0.00394 to 0.00342 as its lowest point, but the average for the lowest day would be 0.00360. This would scale very well with the ascending lows trend of 175-231-290-342, so would not be an impossible outcome (quite probable, actually) but also in no way "bad". Remember - it's only -10%, and nobody compels you to sell at a loss!  The upside is much more than 10%, and the resistance to get there is much smaller. I give this scenario a higher percentage as a result. |
|
|
|
Blockchain, as a technology, is indestructible. A reasonable starting point is to understand that crypto is here to stay, and no laws or wars can stop it. Any individual cryptocoin, Bitcoin included, has challenges particular to it, and local laws and wars may prove detrimental to individuals' wealth, as well as life. People can only learn more about Bitcoin, unlearning is not possible. With any technology, invention or innovation, there is an adoption curve that is the aggregate of all the people's individual propensities of learning about a new thing, deciding to use it, trying it, and amplifying their usage to significant levels. On average, the process from first hearing about something, to trying it, takes 2 years. From trying to actual adoption, we might add 1 more year. The current number of Bitcoin owners is likely a paltry 1-2 million. Even smaller is the number of people who actively use Bitcoin in their life. The first number, at least, has not grown significantly in 2014. Enthusiasm has given way to apathy, evidenced by both price and volume of trades lagging far behind their highs. Meanwhile, the 2 years average delay from first hearing to first trial, is slowly becoming fulfilled in hundreds of millions of people. There were millions who heard about the bubble in 2011, and their "2 years" started counting. Not enough of them were ready to buy in 2012, which was still a year of slow price appreciation. But in 2013, the great advances were made by the people who had had 2 years to ensure themselves that it was not a fly-by-night. In 2012, the global media coverage about Bitcoin was tiny, but in 2013 all changed. In two years, we are talking about 100x more people in the pipeline of becoming Bitcoin owners. This gives rise to the exponential trendline. There is only one way to draw a trendline with the best R^2 fit (follows from the fact that goodness-of-fit is a universal criterion), and it is shown here. The number of Bitcoin users is so small at 1-2 million that the trendline should stay exponential 2 more orders of magnitude minimum. An added reason is that because Bitcoin is money, and the exponential trendline means exponential gains for everyone involved, it makes sense to speculate and buy a large number of bitcoins instead of the fair share. (The fair share assuming worldwide adoption is BTC0.002 and assuming that only the elite of 3% world's richest and most connected buy it, BTC0.07.) An increasing number of people are already ready to buy bitcoins. Banks, ETF's, private services, etc. have the infrastructure ready for launch. Both are waiting. Bitcoin holders are anxious, but as long as their anxiety results in them selling more bitcoins to the deep-pocket investors, the wait continues. In 2012 it continued quite long, with price going up only a little (more than 100% though). Hearing about Bitcoin is the start of your Bitcoin pregnancy. Of these pregnancies, not all perhaps result in a healthy baby (adopting Bitcoin as your home currency), but luckily here, the time is not limited to 9 months. The average with those who currently are power users may have been 3 years (or less, since the delay is shorter with people with the early adopter mindset), but for others it may be 5 years. Miscarriages happen often, but the reverse-miscarriage is also a very typical occurrence. We have a world-record number of Bitcoin pregnancies going on now, and hardly any births for several months already. I believe that the laws of nature and mathematics will take care that the babies will be seen in increasing numbers. The trendline shows how much behind we are currently. The price shows the daily birth rate. I am writing this from a castle that I bought with money earned by trading Bitcoin based on the very premise I have explained to you here. I believe that the next one might carry us north of $10,000. The longer time we spend here, the more explosive it gets. The supermove from $2 to $266 (133x price appreciation) took 17 months. Extrapolate that with the starting point of $340 in 2014-4-11. |
|
|
|
|
We have made a quadruple bottom in 394-397 range, after bouncing once from 400 first, and very recently from 401 also.
The bottoming process seems quite complete to me. Therefore I dare to predict that the next move is up, towards some of the various fibonacci levels between 510->394->X.
It is impossible to say now if the monthly high was just made in 510, or if this was a more-vicious-than-normal battle in preparation for taking down 580. My understanding is that 510 is currently the zone to watch. Should we blast through, the battle of 580 is actually won already. Most resistance will be in 450-480 area.
|
|
|
|
|
If you have XMR, yet want to put a lid on its rise (for example: in the process of acquiring more), listing them for sale is very reasonable. It costs you little extra, and if some part of them are listed lower, you can actually let them fill to gain extra income from the waves. While they are just sitting there, they count towards indicators such as bid depth, attract more traders, keep the price in the desired range etc.
Also, when it is time to sell, it is not proven whether a wall is better or worse than incremental selling. Often there is a buyer for the whole wall at the same time, so that it functions as an attractor that may be bought 5%, even 10% away from market, resulting in a very good trade for the seller.
|
|
|
|
OK - so let's go through your list:
1. Fit to the data - here you have not really explained what did you try. I take your word that for all functions that you did exp was the best fitting - but I have the feeling that your imagination about the possibilities is limited.
2. Relation to the observed mechanisms that produce the data - You don't mention any mechanism. I write that relation to time passing is better then relation to sun spots - cos(t) would also be related to time passing. A dumped oscillator function would actually have some relation to the observed mechanisms that produce the data - if we agree that people tend to predict that the price will go in the direction it goes now and that people predictions do influence the price.
3. Predicting future -
perl -e 'print 10**(-2.869800 + 0.003012 * 6000)'
1.59294213512763e+15
And that is a 1000 times more than all money supply on Earth (M0 is around 1.2e+12).
Evidently exp function cannot predict the future too far away and eventually it will have to be replaced by some S curve or maybe a dumped oscillator or something else. Maybe even something with a trigonometric function in it (the simplest oscillators)?
Yes, it seems that you have understanding on the subject, and also are probably doing quite well. It is difficult to try to distill the essence of quite long studies to an easily chewable form for people who do not understand the fundamentals of Bitcoin, nor of the model, while at the same time swimming in a sea of trolls. I have no intention to waste my precious time more than is needed to rigorously prove to a nonexistent audience, why and how the model needs to be amended to take into accout the edge cases when it has turned the entire Earth into Bitcoins, nor what is my estimation of the probability that the model holds another year, nor what are the bounds for the model to "hold", nor many other things. These are all important matters, but the capability of my audience to understand them and make informed decisions based on them any more than based on the "plain post" alone is just not there. If someone wants to buy bitcoin, my posting can help. If he does not want, he either cannot understand any deeper reasoning, or maybe he can, but his mind is made up nevertheless. |
|
|
|
Fallacy #31: Appeal to authority.
WHAT?  ? THIS COMING FROM THE GUY THAT APPEALS TO HIS CASTLE IN ALMOST EVERY SINGLE POST AS THE REASON WHY PEOPLE SHOULD LISTEN TO HIM? WTF!!!!!!!!!!  Yes, I was about to write a post but as I realized that the content would have essentially been appealing to my own authority, since I have been right previously, I decided to delete the actual reasoning and just label the post "Appeal to authority." |
|
|
|
Fallacy #31: Appeal to authority. Hmm - do you say that the line you are watching is not 'USD/BTC = exp(-2.869800 + 0.003012 * D), D being the number of days' anymore? Have you changed the coefficients or have you changed it altogether so some other function?
It is always, every day, the line (or other construct) that gives the highest R^2 fit with the USD/BTC price data between 2009-1-3 and present_day. For all the time it has been an exponential function, which is linear when plotted in logarithmic space as I do. Your comment about only one best fitting trendline only makes sense if you constrain your search space - for example by choosing only exponential functions.
A side note - if you for example allow for trendlines to be polynomials of unrestricted degree - then you'd be able to fit the trendline to the price chart exactly (with no divergencies at all).
1. Not really. Others just don't come close. 2. That's quite theoretical, since I cannot convince myself that a model with more than 2nd degree term is anything but noise with no predictive power, and Excel allows construction to 6th degree, with no improvement in R^2. What IS important is if the growth trend is slowing or not. I currently hold the opinion that the trend is pretty much intact and price is about to increase 10x in a year. AnonyMint thinks it has slowed. If we ever hit $5000/BTC... I give you legal ownership of my left kidney. I like my kidneys... so what I am saying is that will never happen. Not next year. Not ever. Merry Christmas. I could see $1500-$2000 in a bullish scenario. Too many new players, too much regulatory bulls---, no Willy Bot, reduced black market presence, newbies getting Wall Street raped, etc., etc. Just because new adoption has, historically, been at a certain rate does not mean that this new adoption will continue out into the future. The baseline for the forecast is off. It's, logically speaking, not terribly far off the rationale that banksters and credit agencies used in assigning inflated ratings to what were truly junk bonds -- the price of housing had not historically gone down and there had not been such a batch of foreclosures in prior history (and that sample size was much larger). However, the situation had changed... you had different people buying homes, different underwriting standards and down payment requirements, the perverse incentives created through securitization and derivatives, and balloon payments that functioned as a ticking time bomb. Here, the dynamic that has changed is different, but the result is similar... adoption rates increased more dramatically when the price was still psychologically affordable. Now, simply having seen so many people profit, a lot of new users know that they are late to the game and that the odds are higher, now, that they'll be left holding a bag rather than profit. Tack on the fact that we went pop (moved away from black markets and towards regulation, taxation, and Wall Street) and have, resultantly, lost our hipness and appeal. Yea, this s--- is going down man. I'm not saying your math is wrong, but the application is off base. |
|
|
|
Hmm - do you say that the line you are watching is not 'USD/BTC = exp(-2.869800 + 0.003012 * D), D being the number of days' anymore? Have you changed the coefficients or have you changed it altogether so some other function?
It is always, every day, the line (or other construct) that gives the highest R^2 fit with the USD/BTC price data between 2009-1-3 and present_day. For all the time it has been an exponential function, which is linear when plotted in logarithmic space as I do. Your comment about only one best fitting trendline only makes sense if you constrain your search space - for example by choosing only exponential functions.
A side note - if you for example allow for trendlines to be polynomials of unrestricted degree - then you'd be able to fit the trendline to the price chart exactly (with no divergencies at all).
1. Not really. Others just don't come close. 2. That's quite theoretical, since I cannot convince myself that a model with more than 2nd degree term is anything but noise with no predictive power, and Excel allows construction to 6th degree, with no improvement in R^2. What IS important is if the growth trend is slowing or not. I currently hold the opinion that the trend is pretty much intact and price is about to increase 10x in a year. AnonyMint thinks it has slowed. How about trigonometric functions? Have you tried them? Or polynomials with trigonometric functions? I am sure Excel have many many functions and you can combine them in many many ways - I am sure you have not tried them all. So my question is how do you chose your functions - why are you sure that exp is good and cos is not? I am sure that you are trolling, yet want to explain the scientific method to others: - The model needs to have a good fit to the data (best fit is usually best) - The model needs to be in unison with the observed mechanisms that produce the data - In absence of exact mechanisms (which is usually the case), the model should rely on general events (time passing) more than special (number of sunspots), if they give the fit that is equally good to explain the historical data. - The model is used to predict the future. Therefore its future predictions have to be reasonable. In most other contexts, predicting a market cap of $17,000 billion dollars in 4 years is not credible. Here disregarding it as an impossibility may be a grave mistake, as it was to refuse to invest a few grand into Bitcoin 4 years back when it was available to all with little effort at $0.08. If Bitcoin has done something that other haven't, ever, it has a nonzero possibility of repeating the behaviour, and the model is better knowing it. |
|
|
|
Hmm - do you say that the line you are watching is not 'USD/BTC = exp(-2.869800 + 0.003012 * D), D being the number of days' anymore? Have you changed the coefficients or have you changed it altogether so some other function?
It is always, every day, the line (or other construct) that gives the highest R^2 fit with the USD/BTC price data between 2009-1-3 and present_day. For all the time it has been an exponential function, which is linear when plotted in logarithmic space as I do. Your comment about only one best fitting trendline only makes sense if you constrain your search space - for example by choosing only exponential functions.
A side note - if you for example allow for trendlines to be polynomials of unrestricted degree - then you'd be able to fit the trendline to the price chart exactly (with no divergencies at all).
1. Not really. Others just don't come close. 2. That's quite theoretical, since I cannot convince myself that a model with more than 2nd degree term is anything but noise with no predictive power, and Excel allows construction to 6th degree, with no improvement in R^2. What IS important is if the growth trend is slowing or not. I currently hold the opinion that the trend is pretty much intact and price is about to increase 10x in a year. AnonyMint thinks it has slowed. |
|
|
|
How can you assert that a fit with one model is lesser fit than a fit with another model? Define 'lesser'?
The best fit is when you have a better R-squared value than any other fits. Excel calculates the best fits for every model automatically, so you can just conclude that a log-linear model has a better fit (0.94) than log-logistic (0.73). |
|
|
|
|
There is always the possibility of a long con going on, and sometimes the line between a financial services innovator and a con artist is not easy to draw. Scammy systems are hailed as new paradigm if/as long as they manage to stay a float, and honest systems are labeled as scams just because they failed.
I was asking if there is anyone having anything negative to say about jl777's past. Nothing so far. A man without past is a red flag. Especially if he uses sockpuppets to paint a rosy picture, which has been alleged if not admitted(?)
|
|
|
|
there always is one and only one best-fitting trendline for USD/BTC all time dataset
Mathematically false. For example, there may be only one least squares linear fit (on a logarithmic scale), but that is just one model and you do not know which model is the correct one. For example, I posit that log-logistic curve fit is more apropos. A trendline with lesser fit can have greater predicting power. But there are no more than 1 trendline with the best fit, and it is mine. Situation is analogous to our shoe size, either I have larger, or you have, or they may be the same, but only if they actually are the same. |
|
|
|
|
I sense a misunderstanding here.
The formula cannot be retired, since it is a financial truism/unity - there always is one and only one best-fitting trendline for USD/BTC all time dataset. It's like your shoe size is a certain measure and you cannot retire it.
Disregarding the use of the trendline at the point that has historically offered the least risk and best upside, is not smart in my investment philosophy. Quite the contrary, you should now make the adjustment to benefit most from the fact that we are at such a cheap and low-risk point.
|
|
|
|
I bought a castle because I understood the content of the OP last year. Now, even though there is much more evidence that it is true, and this is a Bitcoin forum, and the text is freely available for all, still many people not only refuse to believe it, but actually ridicule me!
You saw the WorldCom plot. After five years of nearly perfect exponential growth, by your reasoning
... Did you actually read the OP? Please revisit my reasoning. Hint: "pregnant with WorldCom" never existed. Will there be another Bitcoin bubble? Analysis of past prices cannot tell you that. - - We just cannot tell that at this time.
I could tell last time. I can tell this time (within the bounds of realistic +EV such as 50/50 chance of winning 1000%, in which Kelly suggests to invest 50% of your holdings, which I have done, and you should too). Analysis is not luck. Finding mechanism for past price developments and applying them to the future is not luck. Following sound concepts from other brands of mathematics is not luck. That a professor is trying to label my investing over the past 21 years when I started using other than saving accounts for risk management, "luck", is lamentable. It is not an indication of his very good capability in this area. |
|
|
|
Another barbarous relic, gold, has even lower transactional utility [...]
I can't resist the urge to point out that Keynes never called gold a barbarous relic; it was the gold standard - the practice of linking the value of currency to the value of gold - that he so described. Good point indeed. Gold standard truly is a laughable practice, similar to - just imagine - that somebody would tie his shitcoin's value to Bitcoin! Sooner or even sooner it is found out that Bitcoin still has value but the shitcoin is sinking just as the dollar did when defaulted from the gold standard. Let gold be gold, and Bitcoin be Bitcoin. And people use whatever they wish. Actually, I disagree. The classical gold standard involved issuing paper that was 100% backed with gold and freely exchangeable for gold. It was a device to make it more convenient to do business in gold than it otherwise would have been had it involved lumps of metal. I don't find this practice laughable at all; these were true promisary notes, and the holder of a one pound note could quite literally withdraw the metal from the Bank of England. British notes, to this day, still carry the words "I promise to pay the bearer on demand the sum of X pounds", which dates back to the gold standard (although now has no meaning). Bretton Woods, which followed it, was a very different beast and rather more dubious: the US dollar, as the reserve currency, was priced at a fixed rate in terms of gold but not 100% backed by it and not freely exchangeable for it (except by other central banks). Other central banks in turn priced their currencies in terms of US dollars, and therefore, indirectly in terms of gold, and held dollars (and/or gold) as their reserves. This is sometimes also refered to as a gold standard, but it is really rather different from the classical gold standard; I'd be more willing to dismiss this later form than I would the true classical gold standard. roy If the gold standard Keynes was criticizing did not mean credit expansion, what was he criticizing then? If the standard was just that gold = money, and may be circulated as 100% backed notes, then I'd say that it is equal to calling gold the relic, and not only the standard, considering that gold and standard are the same thing! Please make your concluding remarks, I'll turn the discussion back to OP. I bought a castle because I understood the content of the OP last year. Now, even though there is much more evidence that it is true, and this is a Bitcoin forum, and the text is freely available for all, still many people not only refuse to believe it, but actually ridicule me! |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
