This would be utterly simple to do. The Bitcoin Foundation issues a statement that says BTC valuations are pegged at $100/BTC. Done.
i hope you don't actually believe this. bitcoin can never be co-opted by any power (and try they will) as long as its users maintain autonomy -- if too many users are attracted by centralization (see mtgox) the entire purpose of the currency is undermined. --arepo |
|
|
|
To complement my personal opinion, I think there might be some important insight hidden, and the idea to perform an systematic analysis of the primary market phenomena (as oposed to just explain everything by "fundamentals") has merit. But the specific way this has been done in TA might not be totally appropriate, maybe needs to be challenged and readjusted to get us there.
i can agree here, and am always willing to entertain serious challenges, although i do sometimes take breaks from the forums  thank you for the very humble response. --arepo |
|
|
|
Really surprised we are still at high $130's. Was feeling pretty sure we were going to see a downward slide recently, to $120 odd.
This whole speculation stuff just ain't easy at all.
it isn't as hard as you think  i noticed the downtrend was exhausted from a number of indicators as early as yesterday evening. take a look at my thread "arepo's price analysis" for the details. --arepo big sellers are waiting for higher prices, higher prices will not come. 120 will fall at this point, i'm starting to see this as likely. if we continue this consolidation in the short-term without breaking out, that would be a signal to sell. all i was saying was that i was confident $120 would hold overnight. |
|
|
|
Really surprised we are still at high $130's. Was feeling pretty sure we were going to see a downward slide recently, to $120 odd.
This whole speculation stuff just ain't easy at all.
it isn't as hard as you think i noticed the downtrend was exhausted from a number of indicators as early as yesterday evening. take a look at my thread "arepo's price analysis" for the details. --arepo |
|
|
|
TA's gonna kill you mate. I'm waiting to see your post "I'm Arepo. Or I'm not?" nothing's been invalidated... yet hehe, you had so many predictions in last 24 hours you can't be wrong only made two predictions in the last 24 hours: 1. $120 will hold in the mid-term 2. we will breakout up neither one has been validated or falsified, but they both are falsifiable. --arepo |
|
|
|
TA's gonna kill you mate. I'm waiting to see your post "I'm Arepo. Or I'm not?" nothing's been invalidated... yet |
|
|
|
This--  Almost completed. Brace yourselves. we bounced  where are the buyers? |
|
|
|
(1) this can not be concluded from the pattern you see in the graph. You need to look at the actual orders, and watch the actual deals going on in order to determine (a) if there was actually a resistance, (b) the resistance was the same which couldn't overcome by the first upward oscillation and (c) there are no further resistances, so you could call it rightfully the critical resistance. (2) You can only conclude this in hindsight. We agree that there was a fluctuation in volume, after the downward movement ended. But when the volume gets up again, the movement can indeed overcome several levels of resistance. Or it can move sidewards between the various resistance levels. Or a huge wall just gets pulled away and this prompts new market action. (3) Here you claim a generality which objectively doesn't exist. Only in hindsight, when you deliberately pick a consolidation break between several downward legs as an example, you make it look coherent as if there was a uniform and general causal structure behind the price movement. But you omit the cases (a) where you could see a triangle pattern, but no bull trap and no 'last ditch effort', and no continued downward move followed, and (b) you omit the cases where in a similar constellation there was a fluctuation in volume but no clearly shaped visible pattern formed before onset of the next market action. (4) to stress this point: here you give the impression that you can provide a reason behind the observable action. You claim to have a better explanation than just a "signal" derived from watching the chart, using notions like "resistance", "trend", "consolidation". (5) the model of classical mechanics indeed shows the virtues of a rational model. It is based on well defined axioms. And you can undoubtedly name the conditions when it is applicable and when not (preservation of momentum). The entities and forces detailed by this model can be shown to exist at the time the observed action actually takes place. Plus, this physical process has indeed a common causal nexus. It is one process, a transport of energy and momentum (6) but what you provide here as an "physical model" of price action is borderline ridiculous. (not to mention that you don't define your terms and that you don't specify the conditions when this model can not be applied). At the time, when the real market action takes place, there is no generic common reason behind the upwards movement and the downwards movement. Other than the fundamental situation in any market that some people want to buy and some want to sell. That some people want the price to go up and others want it to go down. You can not claim in general that the momentum of the upwards movement causes the momentum of the downward movement. (And if you insisted on this claim, I would demand a first class proof) There might indeed be a set of typical mass psychological situations, like people being nervous after a crash and anxiously watching the further movement to get an indication. But the way you are presenting your analysis here is not helpful to pinpoint such a situation. - (a) the pattern you present is formulated way too much generic and especially omits the specifics of the market and the current situation
- (b) the pattern can only be construed reliably in hindsight, when the further action is already revealed ("confirmed" as you like to put it)
- (c) the pattern is not necessary to determine a specific mass psychological situation, e.g. a crash. The fact that the price did not turn round but continue into a second leg down can be determined directly from the data available when the "confirmation" of the pattern has happened.
that being said, i really do appreciate stuff like this -- like i mentioned earlier your criticisms have, at least sometimes, been constructive and i have kept you in mind to help maintain rigor in my work. my methods are becoming more empirical thanks to you  --arepo |
|
|
|
*10-day hourly scale*  -===- 50-line bounce is a little worrying... i was anticipating more buying pressure than this. we might see a more bearish, continued consolidation as projected in this model: -===-  -===- but $120 should still hold for the short-term, at least. --arepo |
|
|
|
Arepo, the way you behave makes you look like an dishonest manipulator.
thank you for your opinion -- know that many disagree with you. i'm not going to babble about asking for "proof" of this claim, but know that whenever you make statements like this, you're treading on a double-standard. You constantly turn and distort other peoples arguments, you create huge claims, and when challenged for a real proof, you walk away and start further threads.
i didn't respond to you in this thread because your tone indicated to me that no amount of evidence would satisfy you. and i was correct! I demanded proof that a proposed method actually yields results.
I demanded proof that the terms and proceedings are actually necessary to arrive at certain conclusions.
your game of 'proof' is misguided. i cannot prove that my methods work, i can only supply evidence*. you know this. Next example of trickery and dishonesty.
TraderTimm does not provide evidence for why methods of TA work.
He just points to evidence that there are some self-correlation in the market rate curves, that they are no random walk. This does not proof anything regarding the existence and significance of the "method" you promote here i claim only that they exist. and this is given by TraderTimm's comment about the Hurst exponent. the next component of the "TA-Hypothesis" is as follows: if (a) time-dependent auto-correlations exist in price data, then (b) there exist some methods which can measure these. im not sure how you might think that this does not follow, but i'm prepared. let me flesh this out with a simple proof: (a) is given by the Hurst exponent following from this, the fact that any system of statistical analysis has identified that there are such correlations, they are therefore measurable, (b). Price movements are stochastic, meaning, like in quantum physics, they are impossible to predict with 100% accuracy.
...
Fortunately, although price movements are stochastic, they do exhibit time-dependent autocorrelations. This just means that there are deterministic rules in play as well, whose influence is visible through self-similar patterns.
This is a bold statement. You claim that you can show deterministic rules at work below a seemingly random surface. yes, again, because there is proof that they exist. why shouldn't they be measurable? I'll take an example right from this thread.
You claim to show a causal nexus, but actually you only show a mental projection in hindsight. this thread was not predictive. this is not misdirection, manipulation, or any of the above. if you'd like to discuss my predictive methods seriously, please meet me in my current thread, where i post work held to a much higher calibre of rigor-===- now, let me include the evidence* which i compiled for you in this thread, which you seem to have strategically ignored, in addition to some cross-posts. -===- independent determination of trendlines-===- highly successful, straightforward, repeatable, demonstrable, swingtrading techniquealso, here's a very simple ceiling-bounce/'doji'+volume hunting exercise i was doing yesterday while daytrading. very straightforward and effective method: -===-  -===- --arepo -===- prediction of a double bottomSomething like this?  still possible, though i assess unlikely from the following: bears lose ammo with every bounce, that is, bounces on high volume are 'exhausting' to the trend. also, the two bottoms are too symmetric. i haven't noted in this thread, but this pattern should look familiar (see action after first crash to $50). the bottoms of the bounces are almost equal, and their volumes are almost equal. in other words -- for falsifiability -- if this bounce had significantly lower volume, or did not reach as significantly close to $120, then your model would have better chances. try to use your bullish intuition, too -- flip the picture upside-down, does it look bearish to you? (double top) only time will tell... --arepo edit: not saying we can't still go down from here, but i think the most bearish situation would be a period of consolidation around this critical resistance before another significant leg down. -===- prediction of movement down from $160supdate 6: 10-day 2-hourhourly scale -===- 'moving support' here even more robust than the scaled chart i sent out in emails, showing the insane momentum of this last push. we're gonna start running out of space, soon, though. picking up some risk here. update 6: more trendline magic! William's %R 10-DAY 1-HOUR scale-===-  -===- downward breakout associated with a correction to the uptrend, as projected from update 5. 50-line bounce is very bullish, and we seem to have found support at a lower line. update 11: *charts are 1-month 6-hour scale*  -===- right now, we are still in scenario black. if the trendline breaks, scenario red could still be bullish, but carries a lot of reversal-risk (see high-volume green 'doji' on 6-hour scale) and at least for now, it still seems like there is too much bullish momentum and not enough selling pressure for scenario blue (REVERSAL).  -===- this is it. this is the big moment where we test the trend's support -- if we go any lower, the picture turns bearish. the bullish momentum is gone and the selling pressure is on, we need a big bounce.-===- compare to: I guess this was C, as trend line under attack  $140 should hold... if we go below then trend is broken... [from lucif's thread again] --arepo -===- also, you were incredibly dismissive about ruski's earlier comments, which referred to his own techniques. i understand that you should be suspicious because any of these methods are prone to apophenia, among other issues, but refusing to believe it's worth jack shit until you read a full statistical analysis of bitcoin price data and prediction methods is not intellectually honest. the calibre of proof for which you are asking demands hundreds of hours of work, and if you think i'll be willing to do that just so you can shout me down and determine just why it isn't 'scientific' then you'd be dead wrong. the same goes for your breakdown of the OP of this thread. i referred to my private models multiple times, and you see my 'withholding' of the statistical justification as manipulation, when the point of me posting on these forums is not to publish a rigorous proof of why my methods are effective (which would be long, boring, and also cause me an information loss against my 'opponents' -- other traders), but rather to exhibit these methods. this does not mean i have not done the due diligance on my own, as i would not dare publish anything that i haven't determined is sound in my own work. if this post still doesn't satisfy you, please do not break-down each and every example and point at the holes, etc. i'm am getting tired of this game. i'd like to save us both time -- if you still feel adamant, please, please, please supply me with specifically what would constitute evidence for my methods, as i have attempted three times already in this thread, and now many more, to satisfy that most important claim. i have nothing, at all, to hide, and i would appreciate a little bit of cool-down regarding the claims of dishonesty. --arepo |
|
|
|
$140 is the magic number.
Really is it? Magic? In what way? see this post. |
|
|
|
I don't know about pro manipulators but there do seem to be some amateur manipulators around here like Jaroslaw or nkspace. Or maybe it's just one person posting with multiple accounts.
I am starting to suspect it's smoothie. lol that would make him a grade A sociopath, creating shill accounts to endlessly shout BULL and BEAR alternatively? what would even be the point? these guys do nothing but spread FUD, i suspect something more ominous. |
|
|
|
Other than someone with a lot of money putting a stop to it, what eventually causes this sort of thing to end?
that's all it takes. profiting off of a regularity in the market closes the profit margin for others, similarly to arbitrage. |
|
|
|
Seems like we will be mired in the $150s for a long time...
good call |
|
|
|
any arbitrary line can be formed by two points. you need three or more for robustness. that being said, i tend to agree that said trendline seems viable. --arepo |
|
|
|
Dont buy yet it will hit 80-90 this week so dont think it cant go under 120 just wait for it. i'm confident that you are wrong. $90 is the minimum feasible, there's extremely strong support there, so no-go for 80-90 I think that the moment anybody (including me) sees a price below $100 they will start piling in. So while it might go down to $95-ish, or in a flash-crash scenario potentially even $90, I think the likelyhood of ever staying for more than 1 day under $100 is ridiculously low. at this point it looks like $120 is a solid floor. poising for a bullish breakout from this consolidation pattern -- $140 is the magic number. |
|
|
|
Holding $120 will be quite bullish. People bought back in hoping for another get rich quick rally to $200+, and now they're selling it back to those that actually want bitcoins.
Theres a lot of people who bought at 50-60$ and didnt sold. And now they see that price is falling and they can gain over 2milions $ by selling at 120 wall. the weak hands who bought in at 50-60 sold at $100. the strong hands sure as hell aren't selling now. |
|
|
|
[snip]
You cannot know from TA when I will realize to start/stop PUMP/DUMP. I know how much money I have $1000, $10,000, $100,000, $1,000,000, $10,000,000, $100,000,000, $1,000,000,000 but TA does not know. I'll stop when MY TA will see PANIC. it has nothing to do with how much money the players have. you clearly did not follow my line of thought. are you familiar with game theory, by any chance? anyway, regardless, larger players will have less and less of an impact as time goes on, by many mechanisms. --arepo |
|
|
|
When one says that we are "oversold", how do we observe this?
oscillators, mainly -- are you familiar with these indicators? here's the CCI: -===- *10-day hourly scale*  -===- if you are not familiar, here are the basics, in brief: oscillators roughly measure the 'momentum' of price. below the zero line is bearish (negative momentum), above is bullish. bounds which are calibrated to each unique formula are drawn to demonstrate periods of overbuying and overselling. notice how peaks in overbuying are often followed by market corrections, where the more severe the correction, the lower the oscillator drops? this allows for the use of trendlines to determine reversals. the last major correction before the crash found clear support on the zero-line -- a very bullish sign -- anticipating the next peak. now for my annotations, and your question: large blue spike says 'short-term oversold'. much red during the run-up could mean 'mid-term overbought', which is why many fear a downward correction at this point. however, the zero-line crossover and then support during the consolidation is very bullish, as is the beak into the 'overbought' zone. ( entering the overbought zone is bullish, leaving is bearish -- and vice versa for oversold). hope this satisfies your question. --arepo |
|
|
|
so becouse their are three points which show a matching under spike, that is considered the trend line
ahhahahahahahahha
i could show you a trend line which proves that bitcoins worth 50 dollars
that graph means nothing !
show me. 3 points makes a robust trendline... [crickets] |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
