I wonder if it's all a big scam
12 TH/s, at least, thanks to ASICMiner. |
|
|
|
Anything that pays less than .01 btc is a complete waste of time....
0.01 BTC is the daily wage for hundreds of millions across the globe. Think twice before you say it's a complete waste of time. |
|
|
|
I don't have any special love for subsidized crony industries such as electric cars or for Tesla and Mr. Musk...
certain other "crony industries" are "subsidized" a lot more. 2010: Electric cars: $4 billion USD Oil: $35 billion USD Electric cars "allowed to compete" my foot. I dislike subsidies, but there's no reason to dislike an industry with a subsidy, especially when the competing industries are subsidized even more! If you truly dislike subsidies, surely you would attack the regular cars? |
|
|
|
Here's an extremely simple indicator that relies on purely geometric data. It does much better for Bitcoin because of its huge swings. The formula: This is a unitless measure. Effectively, that means that it is not susceptible to variation due to price variation. This is one criterion, the other is that it is reversible. The volatility is the same no whether the price is increasing or decreasing, as long as the magnitude is equal. It does suffer for aliasing, but only if the time interval is too short. A trailing weekly measure, measured daily, suffers from little aliasing. |
|
|
|
Great, exactly what I wanted.
No, it isn't. This volatility index does not meet your criterion: We need some formula that will not be distorted if value rises significantly.
The quirk of standard deviations is that they too increase with a increase in value. Indeed, because these are linear standard deviations, they assign greater volatility to upwards movements than downwards ones. A standard deviation should not be used in raw form with inherently geometric data. Instead, volatility must be calculated on the natural logarithm of the price. Chaikin volatility is an example of a calculation that comes close, working with exponential moving averages (but giving distorted results when there is a huge change in the time period). Are you sure that all those antiquated concepts of open, close, daily high, and daily low are even relevant for a system that runs 24h continuously? According to barchart.comThe basic premise of the Accumulation/Distribution Line is that the degree of buying or selling pressure can be determined by the location of the close, relative to the high and low for the corresponding period. There is buying pressure when a stock closes in the upper half of a period's range and there is selling pressure when a stock closes in the lower half of the period's trading range.
The Chaikin Oscillator is simply the Moving Average Convergence Divergence indicator (MACD) applied to the Accumulation/Distribution Line. The formula is the difference between the 3-day exponential moving average and the 10-day exponential moving average of the Accumulation/Distribution Line. Just as the MACD-Histogram is an indicator to predict moving average crossovers in MACD, the Chaikin Oscillator is an indicator to predict changes in the Accumulation/Distribution Line. Which sounds very nice except that when there's no such thing as "a daily trading period" -- trading is spread across multiple time zones. Cherry-picking open/close times to fit a formula is going to give you aliasing errors. That's not a concern with the Chaikin, because it is averaged over so long that the close time doesn't matter much. It is a concern with daily time intervals—however, there is nothing stopping one from using a longer time interval. |
|
|
|
|
One step closer to the top.
1. 2011-06-09 W. Avg: 29.58
2. 2011-06-08 W. Avg: 27.25
3. 2013-02-16 W. Avg: 27.16
4. 2013-02-15 W. Avg: 26.99
5. 2013-02-13 W. Avg: 25.48
6. 2013-02-14 W. Avg: 25.46
7. 2013-02-12 W. Avg: 25.09
8. 2011-06-10 W. Avg: 24.67
9. 2013-02-11 W. Avg: 24.13
10. 2013-02-10 W. Avg: 23.42
11. 2013-02-09 W. Avg: 23.24
12. 2013-02-08 W. Avg: 22.42
13. 2013-02-07 W. Avg: 21.61
14. 2013-02-06 W. Avg: 21.09
15. 2013-02-01 W. Avg: 20.73
16. 2013-01-31 W. Avg: 20.58
17. 2013-02-05 W. Avg: 20.57
18. 2013-02-04 W. Avg: 20.42
19. 2013-02-03 W. Avg: 20.26
20. 2011-06-13 W. Avg: 20.11
|
|
|
|
I really want to be able to scale the ticker to 10px or something like that.
[img height=10]http://im.ag/e.png[/img] |
|
|
|
"much Bitcoin"; "many bitcoins"  This. much must be used with uncountable nouns, while many for countable ones. NB: Above sentence intentionally left capitalized. |
|
|
|
Earlier I posted about the "King Effect". Well, it's reversed. This can mean two things: one, the king effect applied to Bitcoin is utter bollocks; two, a correction is due; or three, we will soon rally to new heights. If you believe in the king effect applied to Bitcoin, stability ain't going to happen anytime soon.
I really like your posts, but why bother saying the bolded part? So either nothing will happen or something will happen? That's the problem with weak assumptions: there isn't much predictive power. Mathematics is certain because the assumptions are strict: for example, we assume that, without proof, for every integer there is an integer one greater, which itself is not lesser than the given integer. We can safely do so because it seems obvious, but it still is a strong and unprovable argument. If these assumptions were not obvious, most of our results in mathematics would be uncertain. The school of economic analysis I subscribe to employes weak assumptions, in part because there is nothing obvious to assume. To predict the future, we need to consider patterns in the past. However, unlike the example with numbers, it is not obvious that these patterns will indefinitely continue. As a result, a caveat must be included: there is always the chance that the assumption is invalid. Unfortunately, this means that the predictive utility is very low. On the other hand, the accuracy is very high. For every increase in accuracy, the utility must suffer (and, of course, vice versa). An extreme example is predicting that "either A or not A", which is guaranteed to be accurate 100% of the time, but also of null utility. Contrarily, predicting that "the Bitcoin price for the next 70 years can be generated with the function [...], which is accurate to the nearest millisecond and to the nearest $0.00000001" would be extremely useful if true, but also almost definitely inaccurate. On topic, another day another metre walked: 1. 2011-06-09 W. Avg: 29.58 2. 2011-06-08 W. Avg: 27.25 3. 2013-02-15 W. Avg: 26.994. 2013-02-13 W. Avg: 25.485. 2013-02-14 W. Avg: 25.466. 2013-02-12 W. Avg: 25.097. 2011-06-10 W. Avg: 24.67 8. 2013-02-11 W. Avg: 24.139. 2013-02-10 W. Avg: 23.4210. 2013-02-09 W. Avg: 23.2411. 2013-02-08 W. Avg: 22.42
12. 2013-02-07 W. Avg: 21.61
13. 2013-02-06 W. Avg: 21.09
14. 2013-02-01 W. Avg: 20.73
15. 2013-01-31 W. Avg: 20.58
16. 2013-02-05 W. Avg: 20.57
17. 2013-02-04 W. Avg: 20.42
18. 2013-02-03 W. Avg: 20.26
19. 2011-06-13 W. Avg: 20.11
20. 2011-06-07 W. Avg: 19.90 |
|
|
|
At the peak of the 2011 bubble I started GPU mining as my CPU mining efforts has not yield any results.
After mining for a few months I was the proud owner of a few dozen coins but I was left somewhat disillusioned at the economic potential of Bitcoin (I had not yet discovered Bitcointalk)
After discovering Casascius Physical coins I was struck by the marvel of that my computers had generated enough economic benefit to justify the mining of metals, the minting of a coins and wherewithal to encourage someone to take the risk and pay to ship real tangible BTC GDP output to me. Quite an epiphany :-)
No drought, I made my first Bitcoin purchase. I bought 4 casascius Bitcoins, and I paid in Bitcoin, the total cost was 9BTC to quantify that, I'll Include Campbell's Ready To Serve Cream Of Mushroom Soup (I know people think Fiat isn't worthy.) it works out like this:
4 Bitcoin cost me 9 Bitcoin. (BTC2.25 Each)
Or in Fiat 4 Bitcoin's cost me $ 243. ($60 each)
Or in Soup, Bitcoin cost me a deflationary loss of 42.6 cans of soup. *
*9BTC = 4BTC ( 127.8 cans of Soup difference at today's price)
Not to do with deflation, but to add injury to insult, I experimented initially with my Bitcoin faucet BTC0.05 and sent some of it to a few publically available addresses where I could see the balance. amazingly it worked, however when it came time to pay for my Casascius coins, being a novice I sent my BTC9 to the wrong address, making the cost of my 4 coins effectively double (BTC4.5 per BTC1) .
So I have come to realise my 9BTC investment for 4BTC Casascius coins was a good hedge against deflation.
You didn't buy the 4 BTC for 9 BTC, that's absolutely nonsensical. What you did was spend 5 BTC on a plated coin with a private key (worth nothing) on it, and sent a further 4 BTC to load up the private key. So effectively, you spent 5 BTC on a coin and the labour that went in to making it special (the 4 other BTC were not really "spent"). This isn't a "hedge" against deflation as you purpose. That's simply purchasing a commodity for money. It isn't a hedge against deflation in the sense that buying a new bed isn't a hedge against inflation. An example of a "hedge" against deflation would be an option contract where if the value of a coin increases substantially, someone has the option to buy coins from you at the previous value. You would earn an immediate profit (the fee for taking a hedge) in return for a possible loss if deflation happens. |
|
|
|
The government should concentrate on catching actual criminals who do harm rather than people performing non violent trade.
Why does politics have to inch into every topic, even ones that have nothing to do with it? Bitcoin has to fit into the system we have now. Trying to fit the system onto Bitcoin is useless and unproductive. Bitcoin is important, but not that important. No, Bitcoin cannot be blamed—one of the media's faults when describing Bitcoin. But it could, and should, be used to help stop criminals, as it is far more traceable than historical forms of currency. If criminals wish to use Bitcoin, they should expect to be caught.
It's a lot harder to trace in smaller transfers. Besides, it's anonymous  I was talking about bitcoins with my mom the other day and she decided it would be the perfect way to launder money Bitcoin is anonymous in the sense that careful criminals can escape the reach of incompetent detectives. Any large operation will come under great scrutiny and be eventually figured out. That's why we should embrace Bitcoin for its ability to detect and eliminate organized crime, not defame it for facilitating it. |
|
|
|
Correction the BTC money supply valued in USD exceeded $300 million. Also isn't Bitcoin larger than Linden Dollars? Can't seem to find a stat later than this one but...  Would indicate the Linden Dollar money supply is valued on the order of ~$30 million USD. Fixed. That's what I get for using Quora as a source. |
|
|
|
|
For the first time ever, the market capitalization of all bitcoins currently in existence is over 300 million. (NB: right now, it actually isn't, but it was for a brief period of time yesterday.)
The market capitalization is an upper bound on the total size of an economy. For many reasons, the total Bitcoin economy is actually smaller than this; a few include: some bitcoins are lost or destroyed, some bitcoins are dormant and currently unable to be spent, and if all bitcoins were spent immediately the price would drop quite a bit. However, it is an interesting statistic to use when calculating Bitcoin's size. Now, Bitcoin is likely the largest incompletely-backed virtual currency in the world when measured by market capitalization.
From here, what next?
|
|
|
|
chart is really lookin like a bubble. but nobody knows when the bubble pops  maybe at 30 USD, maybe at 100 USD, 1000 USD?? If you believe that it's a bubble, and you still buy more in the hopes that you can sell to the next sucker for more, you deserve whatever outcome that you get. Most participants in a bubble win something. It's just those left holding the bag that get burned. |
|
|
|
I'd buy, but I'm out of USD.  you and all of the other irrational bulls. ready for the squeeeeeze No such thing, unless you know of a BTC exchange that supports margin trading. (In which case, being out of USD wouldn't be keeping theymos from buying!) Bitcoinica. Seriously, there is icbit.se. |
|
|
|
|
No, Bitcoin cannot be blamed—one of the media's faults when describing Bitcoin. But it could, and should, be used to help stop criminals, as it is far more traceable than historical forms of currency. If criminals wish to use Bitcoin, they should expect to be caught.
|
|
|
|
|
Ironically, I got a "502 Bad Gateway" error when voting for the poll. I guess my option of choice is justified.
|
|
|
|
I generated one using my forum scraper. I can't guarantee accuracy, but it shouldn't be too far off.  |
|
|
|
I think it will look better (and more meme like) if you used the bitcoin logo with a pinwheel background. the current image doesn't really relate to bitcoins.
The current image doesn’t relate to bitcoins, in the sense that they are bitcoins.  |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
