 If you sell here do not lose sleep of being left behind I encourage anyone to look at the weekly chart. I have looked at ever bubble pop / crash / bounce since the beginning and have noticed that anyone you sells above the 7 week moving average post bubble pop bounce CAN REBUY THEIR POSITION for less that they sold for if not substantially less at a later time. Look at the chart yourself. If you sell here don't lose sleep that the train will take off without you. Now if you sold below the blue line it may be a different story. But it should put alot of ease to people thinking about closing their position (with intention to re-open) currently. I was just using that as an example you can go back since BTC = $1 and come to the same conclusion Maybe you can. I just looked and in my opinion it is not a signal worth risking money on. My conclusion is that you are seeing what you want to see. Trading using a single indicator is one of the shortest paths to an empty trading account. Im speaking to the buy and hold crowd,. You know the ones who don't want to day trade but still want to increase their BTC stack. We just ran up from 100 to 1200! how can anyone possibly have an empty bank account by selling now at $950? with the intention to buy back 20% cheaper ? Again read what I wrote. Historyically speaking anyone who did this could have rebought their position NO MATTER WHAT at a cheaper price at a far later time. Meaning, after a POP the train does not take off again without a a few months decline Unless of course you think 1200 to 400 was just one big bear trap in which case we should be shooting up past ATH by now If you are speaking to the "buy and hold crowd" and not traders, then you're wasting your breath by recommending a sale. They are, after all, the "buy and hold crowd". Sure, historically speaking it has worked out, but futuristically speaking, you should have dramatically less certainty, especially given the extremely limited data set you are drawing your conclusions from. Look at what happends AFTER a crash. it NEVER just shoots up to continue on to new ATHs. It has to test support levels and allow time to rethink or sell before any confidence can be restored and more panic buying can resume. I've been here since before $1. You're not going to convince me by telling me to look at the charts. I saw them as they happened. If you want to gamble, be my guest. But if you advertise it as a sure thing, I will call you out. Lets revisit this and see who is right . To qoute me Selling now at $950 with re-buy set at $760 (-20%) Meaning even though Im bullish I recognize $760 WILL be revisited before going back up. Increasing my BTC holding 20%, Lets revisit this in a Month (if not sooner) and see how it plays out shall we. I'm not disagreeing that it might go down. I'm disagreeing that it will go down with 100% certainty. Giving it a month won't prove anything about my position no matter what happens. Please design a scenario in which your position will be proven false. My position is that nobody can predict the future with 100% certainty. If you disagree, you need to prove that someone can predict the future with 100% certainty. Good luck. |
|
|
|
If you sell here do not lose sleep of being left behind I encourage anyone to look at the weekly chart. I have looked at ever bubble pop / crash / bounce since the beginning and have noticed that anyone you sells above the 7 week moving average post bubble pop bounce CAN REBUY THEIR POSITION for less that they sold for if not substantially less at a later time. Look at the chart yourself. If you sell here don't lose sleep that the train will take off without you. Now if you sold below the blue line it may be a different story. But it should put alot of ease to people thinking about closing their position (with intention to re-open) currently. I was just using that as an example you can go back since BTC = $1 and come to the same conclusion Maybe you can. I just looked and in my opinion it is not a signal worth risking money on. My conclusion is that you are seeing what you want to see. Trading using a single indicator is one of the shortest paths to an empty trading account. Im speaking to the buy and hold crowd,. You know the ones who don't want to day trade but still want to increase their BTC stack. We just ran up from 100 to 1200! how can anyone possibly have an empty bank account by selling now at $950? with the intention to buy back 20% cheaper ? Again read what I wrote. Historyically speaking anyone who did this could have rebought their position NO MATTER WHAT at a cheaper price at a far later time. Meaning, after a POP the train does not take off again without a a few months decline Unless of course you think 1200 to 400 was just one big bear trap in which case we should be shooting up past ATH by now If you are speaking to the "buy and hold crowd" and not traders, then you're wasting your breath by recommending a sale. They are, after all, the "buy and hold crowd". Sure, historically speaking it has worked out, but futuristically speaking, you should have dramatically less certainty, especially given the extremely limited data set you are drawing your conclusions from. Look at what happends AFTER a crash. it NEVER just shoots up to continue on to new ATHs. It has to test support levels and allow time to rethink or sell before any confidence can be restored and more panic buying can resume. I've been here since before $1. You're not going to convince me by telling me to look at the charts. I saw them as they happened. If you want to gamble, be my guest. But if you advertise it as a sure thing, I will call you out. Lets revisit this and see who is right . To qoute me Selling now at $950 with re-buy set at $760 (-20%) Meaning even though Im bullish I recognize $760 WILL be revisited before going back up. Increasing my BTC holding 20%, Lets revisit this in a Month (if not sooner) and see how it plays out shall we. I'm not disagreeing that it might go down. I'm disagreeing that it will go down with 100% certainty. Giving it a month won't prove anything about my position no matter what happens. |
|
|
|
If you sell here do not lose sleep of being left behind I encourage anyone to look at the weekly chart. I have looked at ever bubble pop / crash / bounce since the beginning and have noticed that anyone you sells above the 7 week moving average post bubble pop bounce CAN REBUY THEIR POSITION for less that they sold for if not substantially less at a later time. Look at the chart yourself. If you sell here don't lose sleep that the train will take off without you. Now if you sold below the blue line it may be a different story. But it should put alot of ease to people thinking about closing their position (with intention to re-open) currently. I was just using that as an example you can go back since BTC = $1 and come to the same conclusion Maybe you can. I just looked and in my opinion it is not a signal worth risking money on. My conclusion is that you are seeing what you want to see. Trading using a single indicator is one of the shortest paths to an empty trading account. Im speaking to the buy and hold crowd,. You know the ones who don't want to day trade but still want to increase their BTC stack. We just ran up from 100 to 1200! how can anyone possibly have an empty bank account by selling now at $950? with the intention to buy back 20% cheaper ? Again read what I wrote. Historyically speaking anyone who did this could have rebought their position NO MATTER WHAT at a cheaper price at a far later time. Meaning, after a POP the train does not take off again without a a few months decline Unless of course you think 1200 to 400 was just one big bear trap in which case we should be shooting up past ATH by now If you are speaking to the "buy and hold crowd" and not traders, then you're wasting your breath by recommending a sale. They are, after all, the "buy and hold crowd". Sure, historically speaking it has worked out, but futuristically speaking, you should have dramatically less certainty, especially given the extremely limited data set you are drawing your conclusions from. Look at what happends AFTER a crash. it NEVER just shoots up to continue on to new ATHs. It has to test support levels and allow time to rethink or sell before any confidence can be restored and more panic buying can resume. I've been here since before $1. You're not going to convince me by telling me to look at the charts. I saw them as they happened. If you want to gamble, be my guest. But if you advertise it as a sure thing, I will call you out. |
|
|
|
SODL and SHOTRING is the only way to go, at this point. Have you guys seen the latest confirmed bad news out of China. Sheesh!
I knew who posted this before even looking at the username. Seriously, do you ever get tired of saying the same stuff you were saying in 2011? It will continue to entertain him so long as so many users continue to have broken sarcasm detectors. |
|
|
|
If you sell here do not lose sleep of being left behind I encourage anyone to look at the weekly chart. I have looked at ever bubble pop / crash / bounce since the beginning and have noticed that anyone you sells above the 7 week moving average post bubble pop bounce CAN REBUY THEIR POSITION for less that they sold for if not substantially less at a later time. Look at the chart yourself. If you sell here don't lose sleep that the train will take off without you. Now if you sold below the blue line it may be a different story. But it should put alot of ease to people thinking about closing their position (with intention to re-open) currently. I was just using that as an example you can go back since BTC = $1 and come to the same conclusion Maybe you can. I just looked and in my opinion it is not a signal worth risking money on. My conclusion is that you are seeing what you want to see. Trading using a single indicator is one of the shortest paths to an empty trading account. Im speaking to the buy and hold crowd,. You know the ones who don't want to day trade but still want to increase their BTC stack. We just ran up from 100 to 1200! how can anyone possibly have an empty bank account by selling now at $950? with the intention to buy back 20% cheaper ? Again read what I wrote. Historyically speaking anyone who did this could have rebought their position NO MATTER WHAT at a cheaper price at a far later time. Meaning, after a POP the train does not take off again without a a few months decline Unless of course you think 1200 to 400 was just one big bear trap in which case we should be shooting up past ATH by now If you are speaking to the "buy and hold crowd" and not traders, then you're wasting your breath by recommending a sale. They are, after all, the "buy and hold crowd". Sure, historically speaking it has worked out, but futuristically speaking, you should have dramatically less certainty, especially given the extremely limited data set you are drawing your conclusions from. |
|
|
|
If you sell here do not lose sleep of being left behind I encourage anyone to look at the weekly chart. I have looked at ever bubble pop / crash / bounce since the beginning and have noticed that anyone you sells above the 7 week moving average post bubble pop bounce CAN REBUY THEIR POSITION for less that they sold for if not substantially less at a later time. Look at the chart yourself. If you sell here don't lose sleep that the train will take off without you. Now if you sold below the blue line it may be a different story. But it should put alot of ease to people thinking about closing their position (with intention to re-open) currently. I was just using that as an example you can go back since BTC = $1 and come to the same conclusion Maybe you can. I just looked and in my opinion it is not a signal worth risking money on. My conclusion is that you are seeing what you want to see. Trading using a single indicator is one of the shortest paths to an empty trading account. |
|
|
|
If you sell here do not lose sleep of being left behind I encourage anyone to look at the weekly chart. I have looked at ever bubble pop / crash / bounce since the beginning and have noticed that anyone you sells above the 7 week moving average post bubble pop bounce CAN REBUY THEIR POSITION for less that they sold for if not substantially less at a later time. Look at the chart yourself. If you sell here don't lose sleep that the train will take off without you. Now if you sold below the blue line it may be a different story. But it should put alot of ease to people thinking about closing their position (with intention to re-open) currently. Two whole data points! Damn, that is certainty. |
|
|
|
Granted it is only one sample, I picked blue as the fake data right away.
Good. Can you tell what looked "wrong" with that one? Brownian motion follows a normal distribution. Price changes follow a power law distribution with clustering of high standard deviation data points. Indeed, in other time intervals and other scales it is quite visible that the amplitude of the "random" component (the price changes) varies over a scale of tens of hours, so that there are "steadier days" and "wilder days". That should account for "clustering of high standard deviation data points". In that interval, in particular, the red curve has larger deviations in the first half, smaller in the middle (from ~120 to ~150) and then intermediate ones near the end. However, that effect seems to be rather subtle. Perhaps it was the non-normal distribution of the changes that made the red curve look different? ^ What I'm currently reading. But from what I understand, the derivative of price does not follow a normal distribution. There are far too many data points with high standard deviations. Instead you need a distribution with so-called fat tails. |
|
|
|
Granted it is only one sample, I picked blue as the fake data right away.
Good. Can you tell what looked "wrong" with that one? Brownian motion follows a normal distribution. Price changes follow a power law distribution with clustering of high standard deviation data points. |
|
|
|
All these FT links are paywall blocked, possible to do a little cut & paste .... ?
 Is it possible you could google the article title to get around the paywall? (Hint: yes) |
|
|
|
One of these plots is actual hourly closing price (USD/BTC) from one exchange, the other is a series of fake prices generated by a simple "log-Brownian" model.  Can you tell which is which, without looking at other charts? If you think you can, what difference do you see? Honestly, they both look very plausible. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if they're both BTC/USD, but from different exchanges. The red line (Y) is Bitstamp's hourly closing price from 2014-01-05 to 2014-01-13. The blue line (X) is generated by starting with X(0) = 840 Z(0) = log_10(X(0)), then, for i = 1,2,... Z(i) = Z(i-1) + 0.058*RND(), X(i) = 10^Z(i) where RND() is a random number with normal distribution, mean 0 and standard deviation 1. In simple words, the simulated price X(i) increases or decreases at each step by a random percentage, without regard for the past history. I had to try twice, with different random generator's seeds; on my first attempt the simulated price dropped too low at one point, it would have been a dead giveaway. Granted it is only one sample, I picked blue as the fake data right away. |
|
|
|
Deep packet inspection by ISPs has been going on for at least a decade. They never needed priority as an excuse. But keep on cheering for more centralized control of our networks. Soon all my traffic will be encrypted on Comcast's network.
Sure it happens, but it is relatively rare and expensive to do pervasively, even in places where the government claims the authority and is uncontested to do it at will, it is still relatively rare. Putting this financial incentive in front of it will ease the burden making it more common. When we brought our new shiny QoS high speed ATM and MPLS switches into China, knowing what to say, and what not to say, and to whom, remained important. Comcast has been injecting shit into unencrypted web pages since at least 2008. Not only are they reading the application protocol to do this, they are modifying the data. And why do you think it is expensive? They have the data and they have code to read the protocols. They can trivially extract anything they want that isn't encrypted. |
|
|
|
Excluding broadband internet from common carrier regulations keeps completion out of the industry. With copper lines, which do fall under common carrier, you provider has to provide you with the contracted bandwidth and you are free to resell it if you wish. Broadband providers do not have to follow these rules. I just moved into an apartment and I am having a terrible time dealing with Comcast just to get simple fucking internet (it's been over a week since I moved in). If I had any other options for broadband, I would love to give them my business. But regional monopolies dominate and even when demand is strong competitors can't get a foot in the door by buying from the monopoly provider. Networks are expensive to build and maintain, which is why centralization is such a strong force in these industries. Common carrier regulations were put in place to help balance this tendency and promote competition. If a stronger Comcast is so great, why am I typing this on my phone when I have a really nice desktop?
Because bitcoin. The internet is fundamentally broken in part precisely because it doesn't include any economic protocol until now. There are a great many tragedies of the commons that occur from this: spam, pervasive advertising, all you can download/upload pricing, that you even have to pay for it at all if you are getting just basic internet is a symptom. Letting the providers use the available technology to solve some of these problems is not such a bad thing. There will always be folks that just enjoy using law to stop technology, but that doesn't make it better. For your particulars, I don't know where you are, but I've never lived in a location that had so few choices for network. My priorities are likely different as I wouldn't have considered living in a place without more choices. If it doesn't have cable + DSL + wireless + nearby fiber + satellite availability, for myself, it could at best be a vacation rental. Certainly not a place I could live / work. Your vote with your rental payment has more sway than the ballot box. "Just leave" is a poor solution, especially when I am in one of the most population dense areas in my state. I probably am moving elsewhere when I finish my degree, but that won't help the millions of people that have no option to but to live with the situation (most people in my state are too poor to even think about moving). Ultimately lack of population density is the main problem, but at least with common carrier lines there was the possibility of smaller fish focusing on service to clean up the scraps left by the whales. Without such options, I am currently a scrap that can only access the internet though my phone or by visiting a friend. |
|
|
|
And how many fee free exchanges is it competing with? |
|
|
|
This is big govt vs big telco. Telco wins. Probably a good thing for people and companies that use their networks. MPLS QoS means that things that need real-time responsiveness can get it, so your skype call doesn't get choppy when your email attachment is coming across. Not the end of the world, and likely a good thing for progress. It's a good thing, so long as we can control these parameters ourselves. If I want to prioritize things differently then I should be able to. In fact, I could already. This is the telecos wanting to take over prioritization in the name of optimizing their networks. Of course it is technically trivial to just ignore user priorities, but until now it was thought to be against antitrust regulations because it enables, for example Comcast, to prioritize NBC's content (which they own), and deprioritize Fox's content. Other networks might deprioritize NBC to harm Comcast. This is a surrender of freedom. By ourselves, you mean free to buy network connections as you like, or be prevented by government from these being made available. I buy "business accounts" from my telco and do my own prioritization. Large companies pay for QoS prioritization and love it for the last 20 years, finally consumers can get a taste of it. For most people they won't care, won't notice. The things you are afraid of (NBC vs Cox) are already illegal under other laws in most jurisdictions (oops, sorry Italy) and are not an issue here (in the USA where this particular legal battle is fought). If you really want to worry about something in regards to this, your radar is seeing only the media chaff, while the missile sails right through. The operation of packet inspection for prioritization contains metadata that could ultimately be seized or subpoena and provide a deeper intrusion to privacy by TPTB. This can show what protocols each of us are running on our networks, and that may be far more interesting than the prosaic notion of whether the ads and services you are getting are for the company from whom you are buying a network. Think deeper. Deep packet inspection by ISPs has been going on for at least a decade. They never needed priority as an excuse. But keep on cheering for more centralized control of our networks. If you remember your history, all networks were controlled by government. All the PTTs... The increase of shifting of control from government to private enterprise is less "centralization" not more. Excluding broadband internet from common carrier regulations keeps completion out of the industry. With copper lines, which do fall under common carrier, you provider has to provide you with the contracted bandwidth and you are free to resell it if you wish. Broadband providers do not have to follow these rules. I just moved into an apartment and I am having a terrible time dealing with Comcast just to get simple fucking internet (it's been over a week since I moved in). If I had any other options for broadband, I would love to give them my business. But regional monopolies dominate and even when demand is strong competitors can't get a foot in the door by buying from the monopoly provider. Networks are expensive to build and maintain, which is why centralization is such a strong force in these industries. Common carrier regulations were put in place to help balance this tendency and promote competition. If a stronger Comcast is so great, why am I typing this on my phone when I have a really nice desktop? |
|
|
|
This is big govt vs big telco. Telco wins. Probably a good thing for people and companies that use their networks. MPLS QoS means that things that need real-time responsiveness can get it, so your skype call doesn't get choppy when your email attachment is coming across. Not the end of the world, and likely a good thing for progress. It's a good thing, so long as we can control these parameters ourselves. If I want to prioritize things differently then I should be able to. In fact, I could already. This is the telecos wanting to take over prioritization in the name of optimizing their networks. Of course it is technically trivial to just ignore user priorities, but until now it was thought to be against antitrust regulations because it enables, for example Comcast, to prioritize NBC's content (which they own), and deprioritize Fox's content. Other networks might deprioritize NBC to harm Comcast. This is a surrender of freedom. By ourselves, you mean free to buy network connections as you like, or be prevented by government from these being made available. I buy "business accounts" from my telco and do my own prioritization. Large companies pay for QoS prioritization and love it for the last 20 years, finally consumers can get a taste of it. For most people they won't care, won't notice. The things you are afraid of (NBC vs Cox) are already illegal under other laws in most jurisdictions (oops, sorry Italy) and are not an issue here (in the USA where this particular legal battle is fought). If you really want to worry about something in regards to this, your radar is seeing only the media chaff, while the missile sails right through. The operation of packet inspection for prioritization contains metadata that could ultimately be seized or subpoena and provide a deeper intrusion to privacy by TPTB. This can show what protocols each of us are running on our networks, and that may be far more interesting than the prosaic notion of whether the ads and services you are getting are for the company from whom you are buying a network. Think deeper. Deep packet inspection by ISPs has been going on for at least a decade. They never needed priority as an excuse. But keep on cheering for more centralized control of our networks. Soon all my traffic will be encrypted on Comcast's network. |
|
|
|
This is big govt vs big telco. Telco wins. Probably a good thing for people and companies that use their networks. MPLS QoS means that things that need real-time responsiveness can get it, so your skype call doesn't get choppy when your email attachment is coming across. Not the end of the world, and likely a good thing for progress. It's a good thing, so long as we can control these parameters ourselves. If I want to prioritize things differently then I should be able to. In fact, I could already. This is the telecos wanting to take over prioritization in the name of optimizing their networks. Of course it is technically trivial to just ignore user priorities, but until now it was thought to be against antitrust regulations because it enables, for example Comcast, to prioritize NBC's content (which they own), and deprioritize Fox's content. Other networks might deprioritize NBC to harm Comcast. This is a surrender of freedom. |
|
|
|
i panic sold once and i felt so dumb that i've adopted the strict HODL policy and it's been working out for me so far
you guys should try it out too
I've moved to a pure SODL strategy, since we're clearly heading to zero. Why are you still here when you think we are going to zero? Just as the Chinese government has recently warned citizens of the dangers of bitcoin, I am warning citizens of bitcointalk of the dangers of bitcoins, to help as many people as possible. Only Satoshi and maybe 2 or 3 other people will make any money from bitcoin. Everyone else will lose money, and probably destroy their life, as the Chinese government has explained. Alot of ppl already made profits and even if it goes down to 0, they still do. For the rest ur just posting crap news and stuff which are for 90% not even true. Really makes me wonder why ur here.. My best guess one of the few bears who are still waiting for the final drop from the 1200 crash. See you at $10k I assume you are human, so we can safely assume that your best guess is terrible since you have practically no information to make a good guess. Proudhon is trolling because he, like the rest of us have become annoyed at the constant panic mode of all the new traders. It has become a bit of a joke for us because mocking it and laughing is better than getting annoyed. It also shuts down the fudmeisters and before they know it, they are looking at the back of the train. Lessons will be learned and the new traders now will join in the games next time around. The forums will again be flooded with new traders if we rocket and once there are too many who need to learn the lessons of chasing the newsfeeds(which, hint you are the product, not the customer unless you are paying for it), we will top and teach them once more. |
|
|
|
|
21,000,000 kg of sugar per btc
|
|
|
|
the bearishness can you feel it?  I can feel it, yes. I almost sold in panic at the recent bottom. Might be a sign the bottom is in, but the panic was still manageable, so maybe we have some ways to go yet.  ??!??!??!??lol maybe I should clarify: When I say "I sell", I really mean: sell my trading stash (or part thereof), which is about 5% of my coins. So I never sell more than 5%. EDIT: although I've been trying to change that as per rpietilas divestment strategy... but it's hard. Just "divest" into your trading fund. You'll end up with fiat soon enough. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
