I don't need hours. I need minutes. That how long it takes to sell a bunch of shorts and buy some longs.
I am not man enough to do short speculation in this market. Perhaps going speculatively long is my way to go, or just forget about it until there is low-hanging shortable fruit at $7k... Meanwhile, while we go to 270 and maybe below, your idea of "buying all the bitcoins" is exactly what we don't need. We need more bitcoins in the hands of more people, not less.
When the price goes down, the ownership concentrates (manipulator/whale accumulation, large speculator buying). It's during the booms that new people buy trickles and coins are dispersed. Both are good to keep the coins in the hands that value them the most. |
|
|
|
This market is just DYING for some bad news. It can't even keep itself up in anticipation of it.
Maybe so. Let's see how many hours can it keep below 400... |
|
|
|
I have the feeling more than half the field won't make it to the finish line.
Until now, all participants are hardcore pros, so if an entry fails by -20, it is likely a calculated move and hedged by another entry  Getting such a bad score would require that something unexpected happens, and a large share of the others somehow know it and you don't. The first one alone is not sufficient. Note that in the first column of the amber cells, there is the historical probability distribution for the 30-day change centered in 447. |
|
|
|
The awareness of bitcoin is so much larger now than in the beginning of 2013 that anything can be a catalyst for the next cohort coming [ ... ] These millions of people who are curious about Bitcoin and are not influenced by the FUD but just observe the price willing to buy low [... ]
How does China fit into this picture? And the growing list of scams and failures of bitcoin-related ventures? I am just taking the long-term view and big picture. A large percentage have not even heard of china. The list of scams and failed bitcoin ventures is growing every year, so up until now, the correlation with bitcoin price is positive. What I am trying to explain, are the mechanisms that always take Bitcoin up from the abyss where the majority believes that all hope is lost. Eg. my own purchase was motivated with the following analysis: - 75% it will go to zero - 25% it will turn back and reach ATH, in which case I make 10x. I know there are more people like this in the world, who buy cheaply, don't read news (they are lies) or forums (who would write anything worthwhile), and are expecting to lose all. Nothing can shake them once they have bought. That's the beauty of it If bitcoin goes down another 6 months, all the coins belong to the likes of me. You still think the price will go down afterwards? |
|
|
|
Wouldn't it make more sense to just not eliminate anyone if there would be nobody remaining, and award the prize to whoever failed the least miserably?
Well it will be incredibly difficult for everyone to get to -20 if the average score per round is zero anyway...  See the final ruling above, in most cases that should leave a few entries standing, who will share the pot. |
|
|
|
It will not change just by the current people passing the bag on. The new cohort of 3.2x more people is what will take it higher.
The current players' desire to have cheaper coins is no more significant then.
For the new cohort to come in, there must be a motivation factor. And what might that be? The awareness of bitcoin is so much larger now than in the beginning of 2013 that anything can be a catalyst for the next cohort coming: - If the price crashes really hard like to 100-200, there are millions of people willing to enter (of course at such a low price and fixed number of coins, not millions can enter..) - If the price starts to rise, another type of people who look for stability, enter in. The former leads to the latter. I belonged to the former group who shunned bitcoin in 2011 until it had become ridiculously cheap. Because me and a few (maybe a thousand, or even less, at that time) others bought, the price stabilized at $5 and the rest is history. So either we somehow start to rise incrementally from here, resulting in an entrance of more and more newcomers, and a bubble, or we first go down, and then rise, resulting in a bubble. These millions of people who are curious about Bitcoin and are not influenced by the FUD but just observe the price willing to buy low, are the second-last line in saving the price. I think their effect is already in play, and effectively hinders the price from going below 420 unless we are talking about a very high volume. If it is forced below, it will aim to rise back very quickly. This is also observed in the trendlines. |
|
|
|
Until everyone cries gloom and doom, then this bearish market is over.
That already happened a couple of time as well though. But people always want cheaper coins. It will not change just by the current people passing the bag on. The new cohort of 3.2x more people is what will take it higher. The current players' desire to have cheaper coins is no more significant then. |
|
|
|
As a participant I would prefer that in the even of a round where everyone is eliminated the final score _at that time_ is used to determine the winner. Alternatively, the scores at the beginning of the round could be used to divide the prize pot.
For the record: I will not object to your proposal above
To make sure that all of the prizes go to participants, this is the final ruling: If all remaining entrants are simultaneously eliminated (disqualified) in round 8, all the disqualified entrants from round 8 (but not from previous rounds) share the prize pot normally, and the competition ends.
If all remaining entrants are simultaneously eliminated (disqualified) in round 7, and there are no new entrants for round 8, all the disqualified entrants from round 7 (but not from previous rounds) share the prize pot normally, but the competition ends, so there is effectively no round 8.
If all remaining entrants are simultaneously eliminated (disqualified) in round 6, and there are no new entrants for round 7, the competition continues with round 7 being an empty round, but there is a possibility to submit a new entry for round 8. These entries are in competition for the prize pot. If nobody chooses to enter despite the good odds, the round 6 disqualified results are used as a basis for distribution.
The same for rounds 3-5.
In rounds 1-2 it is not possible for all the players to simultaneously suffer -20 points.
|
|
|
|
BTW small question concerning the price allocation: What if no-one reaches the end of round 8 due to being eliminated because of a -20 score? Will the prize pot go the last man standing? Will the money be divided equally among all? (Will Risto buy a very nice cigar?) I was starting to write that it is impossible for all players to be eliminated simultaneously, but actually proving it is rather difficult. I'll try anyway: - Let's assume all players are infinitesimally close to being eliminated after round 7 - If there is zero players playing a certain month, it gives zero points to all non-players. - If there is only one player, he likewise gets a zero regardless of the prediction, because the average 100% consists of him. - For two players, one gets points equal to -(the other). The total is zero (still impossible to eliminate both at once). But... - For three players, it is possible to get a negative sum for points awarded for that month. Eg. if one player votes 1%, and the two others predict 10%. The result is -3.6416 points for the worst one, and 1.1544 for the other two. The sum is -1.3327 points. - Therefore, if three players remain in the contest and they have several predictions that are evaluated in the Round 8, and each of them has failed miserably in one of the predictions, both the individual month sum totals and all the players' totals for that round CAN indeed go negative, resulting in elimination of all of the remaining players. I don't see any other way to keep it equal opportunity for all, except to award all prize pot to Malla Satoshi Suite construction effort if this happens. |
|
|
|
In a 0...9 scale of relative price, we are now at 0.2.
It is a good opportunity to short.
It's the time to finish the bad traders.
 you think now is a good time to short? the entire movement of the news has been retraced! we are at critical levels, and everyone still wants cheap coins. If you are a bad trader, you should short now, because it is the time to get rid of you and move on  |
|
|
|
|
In a 0...9 scale of relative price, we are now at 0.2.
It is a good opportunity to short.
It's the time to finish the bad traders.
|
|
|
|
|
Sgbett, can you be the "guardian of the empty prediction sheet" so that if someone wants it, you can provide it?
I am difficult to reach for a few days now. (Yeahyeah I've said that before..)
|
|
|
|
My issue wasn't with the idea that users will adopt a new unit but the idea that it would be forced from "the top".
The reason why I propose it is that in technical matters, the core devs are constantly evaluating proposals to make minor changes in the software, and "forcing them from the top" once they a) believe that the change is important enough b) there is sufficient concensus. The software won't crash even if we don't do anything to this problem (so it is not of critical urgency). But that is not a reason to refuse to do anything about it (it is of critical importance sooner or later). My aim is to make the change so prevalent that all popular media will use the "new" unit. At that point it does not matter if the rednecks use "grand" as their basic unit. The focus is in prospective users, not current ones. |
|
|
|
The most relevant fact to me is that people are being given crypto with monetary value and they aren't the ones paying for it. Human nature is such that we don't tend to value things we don't work for. This is why most lottery winners blow the money in a relatively short period of time and people who spend years saving money do not.
+1 This is the reason why: - No amount of income distribution can ever make the net recipients wealthy. - Corollary: you cannot start an economy with a currency you just give away without the recipient doing work to receive it. From what I understood of the "experiment" it was a way of studying spending habits of a finite group as well as a marketing scheme to diversify current local business models. Both of these can easily be achieved by giving away non-earned monies. (think of how coupons work) You are right. If the main goal of the experiment was to gather data, it was gathered regardless if the coin gained value or not. (It is currently trading at $0.6 after visiting $97). But coupons are not money. I don't argue whether you can give away some of your wealth to others (you can), but actually no matter whether you use hard currency (gold, bitcoins) or soft currency (state fiat or your own coupons) in the airdrop, getting the others to form a meaningful economy based on it, is very hard. If people don't have wealth, the reason is that they value other things in life. The valuation does not change if you give them wealth in any form. At most a year, and it is gone (unless it's like million$). The ones that are hoarders, would just hoard the extra wealth, or perhaps spend a small % of it. But to get them (either spenders or hoarders) to use, invest and make services in this new tehnology, it has (so far) proven to be better that people buy their initial stake themselves, because that "proves" that they are interested, and leads to the optimal allocation of wealth also, with most interested getting and keeping the most. |
|
|
|
I could make some use for the following excel work: - Weekly total fiat/bitcoin trade volume in all of the bitcoin economy (must be compiled with some clever method because exchange numbers are shit) - Estimated percentage of virgin money (money that is coming to bitcoin economy that has never been part of bitcoin economy) per week - USD/BTC price change that week There has been long-term estimates by me that the marketcap grows 4 USD per every 1 USD invested. But it is very dependent on the phase of the cycle - in the top day of the peak, $10 million may pump it up by $1 billion (for 100:1 effect). In the grind down, there is still net investment into Bitcoin (the number of coins is growing and some previous holders are selling so some must be buying), and this metric turns negative such as -1:1 for the week when $20 million was invested but the marketcap nevertheless declined by the same amount. Has anyone made this before? If not, how about making it for helping the community, or for a small bounty?  Apologies for the many who have volunteered to my projects. I get indundated with PM's. Just apply again and don't take it personally if I don't reply. |
|
|
|
Quick TA update (at $0.481): - 6H candle color/volume: not much volume during this week, conclusion: none/(historically: bearish) - Bid/ask strengh at market (Bitstamp): slippage to sell 5k: $0.040, slippage to buy: $0.043, conclusion: both sides have built up since last time - Trendline comparison: we are now at -0.355 log units. The trendline is at $1.090 and rising $0.008 per day, conclusion: rock bottom (note: it is not necessary that 'rock bottom' will change until the parabolic uptrend starts, because the trendline is itself rising) - Sentiment: n/a - Prognosis: shortest term unsecure, mid-term not sure if reversal seems confirmed, long-term buy zone Quick TA update (at $0.460): - 6H candle color/volume: red candles are taller, conclusion: bearish - Bid/ask strengh at market (Bitstamp): slippage to sell 5k: $0.040, slippage to buy: $0.056, conclusion: easier to move to the upside - Trendline comparison: we are now at -0.365 log units. The trendline is at $1.060 and rising $0.007 per day, conclusion: rock bottom (the 12-month range of the trendline is -0.404...+0.518) - Sentiment: fearish, bearish, conclusion: less downside than generally feared - Prognosis: shortest term don't know, mid-term not sure if reversal seems confirmed, long-term buy zone ADD: If sentiment is bearish, it indicated that the price will surprise to the upside, and vice versa. Quick TA update (at $0.450): - 6H candle color/volume: GREEN rules for last 5 days, although short, conclusion: slightly bullish - Bid/ask strengh at market (Bitstamp): slippage to sell 5k: $0.037, slippage to buy: $0.049, conclusion: pressure to the downside, surprise to the upside (when one side has higher figure than the other, it means that price has moved to that direction, eroding the bids/asks - if there is a reversal, it can move quickly to the side with less resistance) - Trendline comparison: we are now at -0.384 log units. The trendline is at $1.090 and rising $0.008 per day, conclusion: rock bottom (the 12-month range of the trendline is -0.404...+0.518) - Sentiment: weak - Prognosis: shortest term don't know, mid-term not sure if reversal seems confirmed, long-term (3+ months) buy zone |
|
|
|
The most relevant fact to me is that people are being given crypto with monetary value and they aren't the ones paying for it. Human nature is such that we don't tend to value things we don't work for. This is why most lottery winners blow the money in a relatively short period of time and people who spend years saving money do not.
+1 This is the reason why: - No amount of income distribution can ever make the net recipients wealthy. - Corollary: you cannot start an economy with a currency you just give away without the recipient doing work to receive it. |
|
|
|
It works for me..  |
|
|
|
|
In the future 1-2 years from now, people will find it incredible that so much analysis was made over market movements in a dull time when the price hardly even broke the 0.0004-0.0005 channel...
|
|
|
|
Again, 700 BTC sell and 500 BTC buy.
Oh yes, somebody mentioned a while ago, that there might be a new super-whale in town. An entity who would like to buy at least 1% of the BTC and is now testing the price sensitivities of the platforms etc. That kind of zig-zag from obviously the same account could be explained by such testing. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
