|
Newton was, in modern terminology, a 'kissless virgin' from what we know about his personal life. You certain that's something to aspire for? I mean, sure, amazing achievements by a single human mind, but...
|
|
|
|
... I would dare say that my "bubble model" is at least Copernican ... Maybe even a bit Newtonian...  Now you're getting ahead of yourself, doc. I have one additional comment on your model (aside from the fact that I don't buy the market events premise, as I said before... ). I'll write it up a bit later. |
|
|
|
Sometimes I really wonder if theymos was paid by somebody for closing - and keeping closed - newbie jail... I mean, I and many others repeatedly asked to re-open the "probation period" so that, at the very least, the number of utterly useless new troll accounts is *limited*, even if it doesn't get rid of the problem entirely. Mods respond to that request by "only theymos can change that", and he seems unwilling to do so. Really beyond me why he feels that way, which is leading me to come up with paranoid theories (see first line) yes, people often raise questions about theymos collecting donations, closing newbie jail, letting run obvious scams and ponzi securities threads open... but guess what libertards...that's free market of yours. Right. Because it's one of the defining features of places run by "libertards" that they're dens of corruption, scams, etc., while in the rest of the world, those qualities are mercifully absent. The world must be a wonderful place if you conceptually dumb it down enough to fit into a simplistic scheme. Also, allows you to avoid coming up with better answers to questions posed. Do we even know what "libertards" means? I want to knock it but I don't know where to start. Probably something like "people who never pass up a chance to rage against the state". Not my favorite type either. Then again, people that throw around names like "libertards" tend to be the type that never passes up a chance to rage against people that voice meaningful criticism of the state, and that type I like even less ^_^ |
|
|
|
Sometimes I really wonder if theymos was paid by somebody for closing - and keeping closed - newbie jail... I mean, I and many others repeatedly asked to re-open the "probation period" so that, at the very least, the number of utterly useless new troll accounts is *limited*, even if it doesn't get rid of the problem entirely. Mods respond to that request by "only theymos can change that", and he seems unwilling to do so. Really beyond me why he feels that way, which is leading me to come up with paranoid theories (see first line) yes, people often raise questions about theymos collecting donations, closing newbie jail, letting run obvious scams and ponzi securities threads open... but guess what libertards...that's free market of yours. Right. Because it's one of the defining features of places run by "libertards" that they're dens of corruption, scams, etc., while in the rest of the world, those qualities are mercifully absent. The world must be a wonderful place if you conceptually dumb it down enough to fit into a simplistic scheme. Also, allows you to avoid coming up with better answers to questions posed. |
|
|
|
A multiple-bubble descriptive model of bitcoin pricePreliminary version  [ click on the graph for a full-size version. ] This plot show a model (green irregular line) for the historic series of daily BTC prices (gray irregular line) as the sum of "simple bubbles". The reddish-brown line at value about 1 is the ratio of the model and the actual price. In each "simple bubble", the price grows exponentially with some rate r1 until a maximum value P at some date d1, then stays constant until some date d2, then decays with some rate r2. In most bubbles the dates d1 and d2 are equal, so there is no flat part between the exponential rise and the exponential decay. The model is the sum of several of those "simple bubbles", each with its own parameters r1,d1,P,d2,r2. They are the triangular or trapezoidal lines in the plot. Although each "simple bubble" mathematically extends infinitely in the past and in the future, it is relevant only for some limited interval of dates that includes d1 and d2. Outside that interval, it is too small compared to the sum of the other bubbles, and it could even be assumed to be zero, without a perceptible change in the model. I believe that each "simple bubble" in this model, or set of consecutive bubbles, corresponds to the opening of some market, distinguished by geography, national borders, application, community, etc. For example, the two "simple bubbles" labeled "SH1" and "SH2" are probably due to surges of demand in China created by BTC-China in Shanghai. The four "simple bubbles" labeled "BJ0" to "BJ4" are almost certainly due to the adoption of bitcoin by the amateur commodity speculators in Mainland China, especially via OKCoin and Huobi in Beijing. Bubble "BJ0" models the basic demand of that market, while bubbles "BJ2" to "BJ4" model the extra demand that was turned on and off by the PBoC rumors and anti-rumors in early 2014. The "simple bubble" model does not try to reproduce the oscillations of the price that occur at the end of a sharp rise. The parameter P of each bubble represents its contribution to the price between d1 and d2. It is not proportional to the demand of BTC by the corresponding market, because the effect on price of a given demand depends on the amount of BTC available for trading, and that amount must have been decreasing as the price increased. In the log plot, the exponential rise and fall of each bubble, plotted by itself, are straight diagonal lines; the rates r1 and r2 define their slopes. When the bubbles are added together, however, the rise and fall get distorted, and appear curved in the plot. The raw prices (gray line) are the weighted mean prices in each UTC day. These raw prices and the simple bubbles were smoothed with a 15-day Hann window. Alright. So, by now, I believe you know that I don't follow your basic premise ("Current price is a function of 'bubble like' market events that are closely linked to external events, like new markets."), and that you don't follow mine ("Current price is largely a function of the current and previous market state, with minor input from external events, which is best thought of as some sort of cyclical 'market mood' periods."). But I'm interested nonetheless what you have to say, even though you're wrong  Which leads to me to my question: is there any predictive element in your model? From what I can tell, the answer is no, correct. Put differently then: any idea how to extend the model to be somewhat predictive of future market states (doesn't matter what kind, direction, volatility, return)? |
|
|
|
Sometimes I really wonder if theymos was paid by somebody for closing - and keeping closed - newbie jail... I mean, I and many others repeatedly asked to re-open the "probation period" so that, at the very least, the number of utterly useless new troll accounts is *limited*, even if it doesn't get rid of the problem entirely. Mods respond to that request by "only theymos can change that", and he seems unwilling to do so. Really beyond me why he feels that way, which is leading me to come up with paranoid theories (see first line) |
|
|
|
Market is so slow... no Volume and not increase or decrease of price, what will happen in the next time? Hope to see a great raise of price with the introduction of ETF  Up ~20% from last month, up ~7% from last week. Sure, right now isn't exactly exciting, but I wouldn't exactly say the "market is so slow". Unless you were expecting another uber rally to take place of course, which is not likely to happen very soon imo - if we're lucky, this year will be (roughly) similar to 2012. |
|
|
|
|
They probably should write something about this topic on the withdrawal page. Ever since I've used Bitstamp, I noticed that there seemed to be two types of BTC withdrawals and corresponding waiting times:
(1) very small ones, that went through pretty much immediately (< 1 hour)
(2) larger ones, that seem to require some human 'okay' before they go out (up to 1 business day, but usually takes a few hours)
I guess yours fell into the second category. I personally don't mind the waiting time (if it adds security), but they should probably be more upfront about it, that very small withdrawals are slightly faster than somewhat large withdrawals.
|
|
|
|
|
I have to say, 2.0 is amazing - works out of the box, and has exactly the features I was hoping for.
Great job, devs.
|
|
|
|
Like I said yesterday, I'll start worrying about the trend since Jan if and when we fall and stay below 260/265, or dip below the DSMA20 without quickly recovering from it.
Unless something like that happens, I consider the most likely scenario that we're going through a repeat of the late February period, i.e. higher low, followed by consolidation, followed by continuation of uptrend.
That has been the pattern for a year or so Drops then higher lows followed by a rise up then a drop again to a new low area before that pattern roughly repeats Kind of curious though when that trendline will be broken On the larger scale, sure. It's a bear market we're in, after all But I'm talking about the January trend alone, so no new low (yet). And right now, I see more signs for consolidation + (upwards) continuation than reversal of the local trend from January. At what point can the long-term downtrend be considered 'over'? Depends who you ask, and what count they have in mind (if they use EW) Depends also on what is meant by "long term downtrend being over". The old downtrend could be over, but be replaced by another one, maybe less severe (i.e. a different downwards channel). Or it could end, but not be immediately followed by a much more bullish market either (i.e. bottom is in, but it's not rally time yet). There are several ways to look at it... Anyway, I don't have a fixed target at which I would conclude with certainty that the bear market is over, or let's say, that target is so high, I wouldn't want to wait until we reach it before buying back. That target would be roughly: close above weekly SMA20, supported by volume, possibly followed by consolidation or minor retracement not further than the SMA, followed by a trend reaching for upper weekly BB (high 300s to 400). |
|
|
|
Like I said yesterday, I'll start worrying about the trend since Jan if and when we fall and stay below 260/265, or dip below the DSMA20 without quickly recovering from it.
Unless something like that happens, I consider the most likely scenario that we're going through a repeat of the late February period, i.e. higher low, followed by consolidation, followed by continuation of uptrend.
That has been the pattern for a year or so Drops then higher lows followed by a rise up then a drop again to a new low area before that pattern roughly repeats Kind of curious though when that trendline will be broken On the larger scale, sure. It's a bear market we're in, after all But I'm talking about the January trend alone, so no new low (yet). And right now, I see more signs for consolidation + (upwards) continuation than reversal of the local trend from January. |
|
|
|
|
Like I said yesterday, I'll start worrying about the trend since Jan if and when we fall and stay below 260/265, or dip below the DSMA20 without quickly recovering from it.
Unless something like that happens, I consider the most likely scenario that we're going through a repeat of the late February period, i.e. higher low, followed by consolidation, followed by continuation of uptrend.
|
|
|
|
It will be interesting to see whether there really will be FIAT entering the regular exchanges of the people who didn't get a slice of the auctions' pie. I don't know... It's more or a news-driven event, I think...
Driven by which news then? Not the auction itself, right? There seems to be more or less consensus that the auctions are neutral-to-bearish. The (pseudo) ETF news? Unlikely, in my opinion: news hit already, so there should be a definitive end to it (like the Coinbase fueled run), and, well, it's not really the ETF we're waiting for. I think it's purely (or at least: mostly) technical: convincing capitulation in January, followed by rally into upper daily BB, which "failed", but then barely retraced back below the MA20, followed by another rally into upper BB, and this time: not even retracing below the MA afterwards... looks to me like the market is mainly just "confident" that we're not going much lower currently. (For now, that is. This is about the short-to-mid term picture alone.) |
|
|
|
^ If 2015 would turn out to be, roughly, like 2012, the hodlers should be more than grateful imo, even if there's no spectacular rally happening And specially if 2016 resembles 2013  Which would fit well with a market effect of the impending block reward era 3 (which is expected for 2016/2017, but we're going through blocks faster on average than the target, 144 per day target, 154 on all-time average) |
|
|
|
^ If 2015 would turn out to be, roughly, like 2012, the hodlers should be more than grateful imo, even if there's no spectacular rally happening |
|
|
|
|
Right now, consolidation period more likely than a substantial continuation of the rally, in my opinion - though I'm not saying we can't make another run for $300.
In that case, I would expect something similar to the period from mid-Feb to beginning of March. This time, if we would be staying above $260-265 on average, while briefs dips don't go much below $250-255 (DSMA20), we could be looking at a continuation of the upwards trend in a week or two from now.
I guess that, right now, I don't see $300 falling and closing above on daily.
/2cents
|
|
|
|
[...]
Hey, have a small favor to ask: I don't have you on ignore because I strictly try to limit the number of people who are on that list, but I do have to say, your posts are kind of worthless, so... could you maybe just stop posting? Yeah, that'd be just fantastic. k, thanks |
|
|
|
I already posted this, but there seem to be many new users who may need the information:
The English suffix "-ant" can be attached to some verb roots to yield an adjective or noun that means someone or something who is doing (or just did, or customarily does) the action signified by the verb. The root verbs that take this suffix seem to be mostly of Latin origin, that had infinitive ending in "-are"; those with "-ere" Latin infinitives take the "-ent" suffix instead. Thus for example, while "to solve" gives "solvent", and "to precede" gives "predecent", we have "protestant" from "to protest", "claimant" from "to claim", "entrant" from "to enter" (Latin "entrare"), etc.
Remeber this whenever you feel the urge to click "ignore".
Nice one. Still, the ignore button is your friend, especially when the troll brigade is out in force. What matters really is how you define 'troll'... different opinion than my own: not a troll. Low content posts trying to get a rise out of people: troll, ignore becomes an option if you still want to use the forum for its intended purpose. I second that, and for the story, even I don't agree with many people's posts here I don't have them on ignore. I do have on ignore though a LOOOONG list of multiple accounts of -a-one-and-single-user- here... LambYourMotherEtc...  Careful. By grafzep's algorithm, you're now on his ignore list as well ^_^ |
|
|
|
I already posted this, but there seem to be many new users who may need the information:
The English suffix "-ant" can be attached to some verb roots to yield an adjective or noun that means someone or something who is doing (or just did, or customarily does) the action signified by the verb. The root verbs that take this suffix seem to be mostly of Latin origin, that had infinitive ending in "-are"; those with "-ere" Latin infinitives take the "-ent" suffix instead. Thus for example, while "to solve" gives "solvent", and "to precede" gives "predecent", we have "protestant" from "to protest", "claimant" from "to claim", "entrant" from "to enter" (Latin "entrare"), etc.
Remeber this whenever you feel the urge to click "ignore".
Nice one. Still, the ignore button is your friend, especially when the troll brigade is out in force. What matters really is how you define 'troll'... different opinion than my own: not a troll. Low content posts trying to get a rise out of people: troll, ignore becomes an option if you still want to use the forum for its intended purpose. |
|
|
|
Trolls back in the cave. they will come out once the price drops 3$.
and here they are. so pathetic. They're not exactly subtle, are they Like the DDoS attacks timed to co-occur with a dump in the old gox days. I doubt whether it's effective though. Probably more for their own amusement than actually having any real effect. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
