i was 14,250 in gox queue on Saturday, now i'm 11,800
one day later and i'm only 11,620  Now i'm 10,360 so i've moved nearly 4k places while the queue has still gone up over 4k, so i guess that means about 8k new requests since Saturday? How many of those are signing up to cash out? 10% maybe? Cashing out wouldn't effect price though. Only the selling part, which could have been done before verification. It's just as safe to assume people are signing up to buy BTC. And perhaps it's a safer assumption. Why? Because I'd think that if you bought BTC off the grid, chances are you'd sell it off the grid just as well, and not everyone is a miner that has BTC to sell that was generated. But charts will tell, should be interesting either way you look at it. |
|
|
|
I need 20 day to get invest back. ...and THAT'S where I stopped reading. LOL! A symptom of the now generation. |
|
|
|
Purchased avalon #1 using btc ,means I sold about 80 btc each unit to avalon at 16usd.
I got avalon batch 1 at April 5th. And since the btc price is climing, more and more people join the mining game, and I can only get 4.2 btc / day. That means ,if the difficult doesn't change, I need 20 day to get invest back.
So there is very big chance to meet ROI target.
But #2 and #3 are not so lucky. The crazy increase of btc price ,means crazy number of GPU come to the game, and the difficult increase is much higher than I calculate only how much new ASIC come before.
So, at the end of April,a single avalon will only get 2.4 btc back per day.
That means the 2nd batch will need a much more time to get money back.
In my origional calculation, I thought it will be 60 days. But if the crazy continue, Maybe GPU will add another 50T in every month, and I will never get my invest back.
At least you have a product. You could have chose bASIC and lost 75% of your BTC when Tom finally refunded you at higher $/btc rates. Or you could have chose BFL who has no product to ship and is still unclear on what they are doing - just pretend BFL doesn't exist. It will be a miracle when/if they ever ship. And I can't imagine there being 50TH of GPU's. Who would buy more GPU's with ASIC coming online? Even so, an ROI of less than a year would be better than most business models. |
|
|
|
People, congrats to all who are still holding... im letting my last block go today. I think this is SO unhealthy for btc. When this thing roles over its gonna drop dramatically. It will burn so many newbies. They will not want to come back.
I have to ask: if you're concerned about Bitcoin's health, why didn't you spend your coins on goods and services instead of cashing out into fiat? Serious question. Yeah, that does seem a good question. But I don't think he's being inconsistent. He seems to be saying he believes it's a bubble too. Assume instead he bought 50,000 pairs of alpaca socks to keep bitcoin commerce healthy. At that point, one could ask him, if you really thought it was a bubble, why not have just exchanged the bitcoins to fiat and exchange back in when you think bitcoins pricing is healthier. Just a thought. |
|
|
|
The cool thing about parabolic break outs is that they go parabolic.  |
|
|
|
I still hold my prediction that $300 will be the profit taking point. Why? Some TA and some gut, 10 times the previous ATH, etc.
My guess was $320 for the same [or similar] reason. Prior run was from $1 to $32. This one started at a base of about $10, so proportionate high would be $320. However!... The positive press and perceived legitimacy is greater now. With that point, it may not retrace nearly as hard (if at all or of any significance). |
|
|
|
.. tired of all the topics like .. when will the bubble burst? , where are we trading in 20XX ? will it hit 100,000 Usd ?
etc.. bla bla..
guys/gals .. just focus on what is happening NOW ! .. participate or not !
ok, hmm, I wonder what the price is going to be now? |
|
|
|
Hi everybody, We are Swedish miners that are producing our own ASIC miners to strengthen the market and avoid monopoly. Our company kncminer is pleased to announce the opening of a brand new web shop dedicated to the online sale of Bitcoin hardware to the international community, www.kncminer.com. A lot of scam sites are appearing every day and we are not one of them, therefore we will not take any orders and are only registering interest. [...] Hej. Jag ville bara skriva att säga något på svenska. För skojs skull.  Jag är inte svenska. Men jag hoppas att du är en legitim verksamhet. |
|
|
|
The number of BTC available to make large walls decreases as we go up, however:
In some sense this is true, that is, if we are only considering miners as the primary source of such large blocks. However, there are those that bought BTC at lower prices that might want to sell them at the seemingly ever higher and higher prices. So, one such person/entity or many people/entities all converging on a common sell point (e.g. a multiple of 100) could muster up 15k of bitcoins to sell at those psychologically motivating levels. No matter how you cut it, there are 11 million bitcoins currently out there that can be traded. Most all of them at this moment in time are in the hands of people that acquired them at lower prices. Admittedly, it will seem a relief - even if only justified as psychologically - to think miners have distributed the majority of their outstanding huge blocks of their coins. |
|
|
|
Today I've edited a Rosetta Code task about forest fire, and by doing so I've learnt about the Forest fire model. How is this related with bitcoin? Well, later in the day I was browsing the press coverage section on the bitcoin forum, and I thought how silly journalists were, to copy one an other in such a ridiculous way. It seems clear to me that they are, consciously or not, in major part responsible for the current bull market in bitcoin. As I was trying to find an analogy, the forest fire naturally came to my mind. Here are the rules of a forest fire model: * A burning cell turns into an empty cell * A tree will burn if at least one neighbor is burning * A tree ignites with probability f even if no neighbor is burning * An empty space fills with a tree with probability p It's easy to relate to journalism, isn't it? A newspaper will certainly not make its headline about the same subject several times in a row. That's rule 1. When Bloomberg makes its headling about bitcoin, the Financial Times somehow thinks it just has to do the same. That's rule 2. Rule 3 and 4 are similar, but introduce parameters which are largely unknown for journalism, but we might infer them with historical data, I guess. If we add to this model other parameters, such as a to-be-determined relation between the price and media coverage, I suspect it must be possible to predict the end of the current rally. Anyone would like to give it a try? Is the idea that the media "burns out" and either report negatively on bitcoin or that they just reporting less to none on it? Sounds useful as a part, but I suspect it will be incomplete. Meanwhile, let's see how we can counter the media fire analogy to float a spark on over to start another fire by analogy. Suppose the media is the kindling. And now, the bitcoin users fire is now burning. The users of bitcoin are the new fire - spreading by word of mouth. So, even if the media burns out, you have a bigger new [or at least accelerated] fire going. One that, perhaps, replaces the smoldering media. Sorry, just throwing in some thoughts on how it can get complicatified. |
|
|
|
I will sell 1 bitcoin.
I will buy dollars with a single bitcoin when I am able to pay off my $160,000 mortgage with the proceeds from that sale.
That will be the last time I buy dollars with my Bitcoin currency.
All of the rest will be spent or held.
if bitcoin ever went that high transaction fees would be like 100 dollars a piece. If transaction fees ever went that high no one would want to use bitcoin. Ergo bitcoin will probably never go that high. Aren't transaction fee's built into the client software - and not the bitcoin network. For example: The original client (Qt) charges BTC.0005 Multibit client charges twice at BTC.0010 If fee's depend on the client, it can change. |
|
|
|
One of the more interesting parts of the article reads (my italics): " Some finance industry entrepreneurs have leapt at the opportunity. Exante, a Malta-based asset manager, set up a Bitcoin fund last year that was largely intended as a fun punt. Wealthy investors each put in $1,000 when Bitcoins were trading at $13 on the understanding they could lose the original investment. Exante predicted that public and media interest would take off when Bitcoins were trading at $100. Managing partner Gatis Eglitis claims they are now getting 20 calls a day from large asset managers looking to invest up to $100m." Also same quote is found here: http://bitcoinmagazine.com/trace-mayer-on-fox-business-why-bitcoin-is-just-getting-started/ |
|
|
|
I'm trying to buy low, sell high, but how can I do that when the price is only going up?
And yes its going up every time I hit refresh too!
Jesse Livermore: "A stock is never too high to buy and never too low to short." He was a stock trader, but that probably applies to currency as well. Also, that guideline probably needs to be balance with all his ideas. http://www.jesse-livermore.com/trading-rules.html |
|
|
|
I am always trying out different priors for forecasting. And when I hit upon this it just seemed so odd that the peaks would tend to line up like that. Sure, I calibrated it, but the odd thing is, regardless of the calibration that the current peak and the $32 peak would approach the money flow ratio curve at about the same ratio. Perhaps it will seem less odd if there is no close confirmation, it just seemed so crazy I had to check it out.
Could you describe what you think the ratio might say in descriptive layman terms. |
|
|
|
As of the last complete candle, for the same calibration, the limit is calculated at a about $176.
I have not tried to recalibrate. Just waiting to see what happens.
I've been thinking about this, and still can't think of any reason the number would or should converge. Well, at least your testing it. My hope is almost that it fails the test, simply because if it works, it will drive me crazy trying to figure it out despite the obvious practical benefit. haha Can you describe better how you calc/draw the ratio line? Is this it: initial raw data set: {hour bar #1: O,H,L,C, Volume; hour bar #2: O,H,L,C, volume; hour bar #3: O,H,L,C, volume; hour bar #4: O,H,L,C, volume; ...etc...} process the initial data to make this data set: {hour bar #1: average(H+L+C)*volume; hour bar #2: average(H+L+C)*volume; hour bar #3: average(H+L+C)*volume; hour bar #4: average(H+L+C)*volume; ...etc...} is this the final data set?: {|(#1 - #2) divided by (#1 + #2)|; |(#2 - #3) divided by (#2 + #3)|; |(#3 - #4) divided by (#3 + #4)|; |(#4 - #5) divided by (#4 + #5)|; ...etc...} where | term| properly => absolute value ( term) The first thing you have to do is to redimension the time series. I am starting with hourly candles just because it is convenient for computing budget, but you could use anything on up to tick data if you wanted to. Group that data into candles of a constant quantile of BTC volume, the exact quantile you use to calibrate the model will depend on the resolution of the data you start with. Then, keep a running total of $volume from each of your redimensioned candles and divide that sum by the $volume of each individual candle. Then adjust the BTC volume quantile until low spots on the curve are approximately equal to the price peaks. About as close as I could get to this calibration with hourly data was with a 98.24% quantile. Raw data of higher resolution will enable you to get a more accurate calibration. I see - moreso. But since you intentionally modified the the volume quantile sizes to match the ratio minimum with price peak, why do you think the next major price peak should happen when it converges again with the ratio plot? Price could just blow past it. Or are you just being curious that it might. |
|
|
|
As of the last complete candle, for the same calibration, the limit is calculated at a about $176.
I have not tried to recalibrate. Just waiting to see what happens.
I've been thinking about this, and still can't think of any reason the number would or should converge. Well, at least your testing it. My hope is almost that it fails the test, simply because if it works, it will drive me crazy trying to figure it out despite the obvious potential benefit. Can you describe better how you calc/draw the ratio line? Is this it: initial raw data set: {hour bar #1: O,H,L,C, Volume; hour bar #2: O,H,L,C, volume; hour bar #3: O,H,L,C, volume; hour bar #4: O,H,L,C, volume; ...etc...} process the initial data to make this data set: {hour bar #1: average(H+L+C)*volume; hour bar #2: average(H+L+C)*volume; hour bar #3: average(H+L+C)*volume; hour bar #4: average(H+L+C)*volume; ...etc...} using that processed data set, is this then the final data set?: {|(#1 - #2) divided by (#1 + #2)|; |(#2 - #3) divided by (#2 + #3)|; |(#3 - #4) divided by (#3 + #4)|; |(#4 - #5) divided by (#4 + #5)|; ...etc...} where | term| properly => absolute value ( term) |
|
|
|
That only goes back to April 2012. Look at the bottom of the page. There is a link for "All Time" Thanks. I was interested in that for reasons that might suggest a cause to any coincidence with your plotted ratio and price converging to a point. On another thought. Not sure if it means anything. I noticed the wallets immediately spiked by a factor of about two to two and half times around the 2011 peak price. And when we bitcoin price was basing at about $10 prior to this bull run, we had close to 40,000 wallets. We are now about two time that value now. Maybe there's a possible clue in that too? For what it's worth. Based on simple technical reasons, I was already anticipating an at least short term top near around $181 to $189. This is one reason your thread caught my attention. My reasoning, however, has nothing to do with money flow. Just prior movements up to this point. I've also guessed that if we will see at least a scaled up spike of 2011. The 2011 run was from $1 base to $32 peak. We will need to see it run or spike to $320 from our recent basing at ~$10 (mathematically convenient numbers  ) Our recent baseline at $10 also occurred with an average about 40 times more wallets than the 2011 base. Does that mean 40 times more interested bitcoin buyers as 2011 base time? Interesting coincidence that 40 x the $32 prior peak = $1280. Very near your next peak at $1274. Well, it's not wallets really, but new Bitcoin addresses. As people decide to move their coins to/from the exchanges they create new addresses. Oh, your right! I wonder if that could still be a roughly proportionate to unique wallet users. And unfortunately, the data for the number of my wallet users doesn't seem to start accumulating until near the end of 2011. |
|
|
|
That only goes back to April 2012. Look at the bottom of the page. There is a link for "All Time" Thanks. I was interested in that for reasons that might suggest a cause to any coincidence with your plotted ratio and price converging to a point. On another thought. Not sure if it means anything. I noticed the wallets immediately spiked by a factor of about two to two and half times around the 2011 peak price. And when the bitcoin price was basing at about $10, prior to this recent uptrend, there were around 40,000 wallets. We are now about two time that value now. Maybe there's a possible clue to a near peak in that too? For what it's worth. Based on simple technical reasons, I was already anticipating an at least short term top near around $181 to $189. This is one reason your thread caught my attention. My reasoning, however, has nothing to do with money flow. Just prior movements up to this point. I've also guessed that if we will see at least a scaled up spike of 2011. The 2011 run was from $1 base to $32 peak. We will need to see it run or spike to $320 from our recent basing at ~$10 (mathematically convenient numbers ) Our recent baseline at $10 also occurred with an average about 40 times more wallets than the 2011 base. Does that mean 40 times more interested bitcoin buyers as 2011 base time? Interesting coincidence that 40 x the $32 prior peak = $1280 is very near your next peak at $1274. |
|
|
|
That only goes back to April 2012. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
