|
5
|
Economy / Speculation / Re: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion
|
on: November 25, 2014, 01:54:11 PM
|
*let's not have another debate about whether women exist on the internet, we're here...deal with it.
Did someone saying they like boobs accidentally oppress you? Did she use the word oppress? That sounds like a freudian slip on your part. I suspect it is more the endless pictures of naked women that people post here when their imaginations or intellect have reached a standstill. |
|
|
|
|
6
|
Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.
|
on: September 29, 2014, 10:16:16 AM
|
|
We're currently down about 68% from the ATH...so calling a bottom and reversal around now would be sensible, if you see the universe conforming to regular patterns.
|
|
|
|
|
7
|
Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.
|
on: September 29, 2014, 07:02:33 AM
|
|
Wow, it's been years since I read this thread, so I picked a random page a month back or so -- all very serious, lots of graphs and some interesting discussion (although in hindsight, some pretty off whack predictions). Then I skip forward to 'now' and it's people calling each other cocksuckers --unbelievable.
Cypherdoc, seriously, if you haven't learnt "don't feed the troll" by now, it does actually make me question your authority to posit an opinion on anything. LambChop/NotLambChop has trolled the forum forever, under a guise of identities...use the ignore button, he bores eventually.
|
|
|
|
|
9
|
Economy / Speculation / Re: rpietila Wall Observer - the Quality TA Thread ;)
|
on: September 08, 2014, 08:41:53 AM
|
In every practical sense, Bitcoin launched to the "public-at-large" in November 2013. Comparing WWW of 1993 (14 million users, project has been existing for decades) to Bitcoin of 2009 (10-20 users at most) is either extremely stupid or intentionally misleading. I thank you for deciding to leave the forum and not subject people to reading your cringeworthy posts any more. Yeah...the bubbles of 2010 and early 2013 didn't happen, the media wasn't full of BTC stories between Jan and April 2013. But I look forward to reading your posts, since you are clearly an intellectual giant with many years economic training and worldly wisdom to draw upon. |
|
|
|
|
10
|
Economy / Speculation / Re: rpietila Wall Observer - the Quality TA Thread ;)
|
on: September 07, 2014, 04:33:57 AM
|
You will be missed. Thank you for summarizing the information you have here. More people follow you than you know - I have no doubt you'll be back some day even if with a different handle.
Godspeed.
Seconded. I have learnt a great deal from AM's posts, erudition and (most importantly) his courage in challenging the accepted orthodoxy of this thread and the forum in general. It is a poor reflection on the BTC 'community' that a contrary view (and ironically one that is based upon statistical and theoretical learning) garners such unfounded animosity. God bless and thank you. |
|
|
|
|
11
|
Economy / Speculation / Re: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion
|
on: August 28, 2014, 10:40:19 PM
|
i thought after 5K coins traded at this level the walls would get busted one way or another, but no... we've traded over 10K now and still no movement...
On Stamp? 10K? In what time period? (still catching up on posts) the 12hour period we talked about. In the 12hour period we were talking about the volume was about 3K on Stamp. |
|
|
|
|
12
|
Economy / Speculation / Re: rpietila Wall Observer - the Quality TA Thread ;)
|
on: August 22, 2014, 08:36:23 AM
|
|
The issue seems to be sustainability, the last two hanging man formation have seen a reversal but we always encounter resistance and there just isn't the buying volume to break through and establish a new support level.
I suspect this is partly to due with hangovers from Gox, Neo et al and partly (maybe) because those trading are working within more professional parameters ie profit-taking is realised at lower levels but more often. Personally, I think the longer we go without some ludicrous bubble, the better; indeed it would be best if there was never another 'bubble'.
|
|
|
|
|
13
|
Economy / Speculation / Re: rpietila Wall Observer - the Quality TA Thread ;)
|
on: April 04, 2014, 03:14:48 AM
|
But we are at least in agreement about something (HURRAH!) with regard to shorting: I don't participate in that market either, not so much for the reasons you stated but that it seems morally wrong to profit from the failure of a market (I remember the Soros-short inspired sterling crash of the eighties).
All this moral crap really annoys me. Shorting helps to prevent selloffs from being so severe, because shorts cover on the way down and provide buying demand. Moralists always cause the opposite of what they portend to. I agree with you but its one of those early messages that gets ingrained: "shorting is bad, mkay". I'm not a fan of gambling, so it fits in with my schema. |
|
|
|
|
14
|
Economy / Speculation / Re: rpietila Wall Observer - the Quality TA Thread ;)
|
on: April 04, 2014, 03:10:07 AM
|
|
Before folks start quoting rules remember users under three months should limit themselves to three posts per 24 hours....that hasn't stopped Chessnut posting endless, one liners. But I don't see anyone modding him either.
As always the BTC 'community' reveals its considerable patience with those with differing (or more intelligent) points of view.
The stuff AnonyMint posts is stimulating and considered, granted I struggle with much of it, but I'd rather have that than noobs posting unsubstantiated claims about market movement, being proved wrong and then posting a new claim -- what does that teach us other than some people are shameless.
|
|
|
|
|
15
|
Economy / Speculation / Re: rpietila Wall Observer - the Quality TA Thread ;)
|
on: April 04, 2014, 02:58:52 AM
|
I like my TA with a dose of empiricism or at least plausible structural theory. The *only* justification for treating the cross-over on bitcoinwisdom as a signal, as opposed to any other pair of moving averages, is the mere fact that it is the default on the 1 week chart on bitcoinwisdom. Well, I'm sorry, but that's not a rational basis for a trading strategy. We should ask the proprietor to randomly perturb the default periods on the moving averages.
What should we set the EMA to? Sunny? Optimistic? I suggested randomization precisely to avoid goal-seeking. How can it be unempirical. It is two settings to judge a period.
Fine, change the settings until it draws a story that fits your point of view. Highly scientific.
Exactly what I seek to avoid. Fixed crossings are fine if you understand the limitations and are able to consistently maintain a suitable time-scale for all trading activity. Whether you would be profitable in a fixed EMA trading strategy in this particular instance, I cannot say, but it seems likely. One can easily calibrate that likelihood empirically. The scale of the opportunity costs implied by a strategy sufficiently disciplined to optimize that particular trade is quite vast, however. The trading public will be bimodally distributed: A small cohort will benefit more by paying relatively little heed to that weekly signal, without disregarding it; a much larger cohort will not be able to exercise the discipline to profit by it; the residual population is relatively smaller. It's sad because people will trade on such a pathetic excuse for a rationalization, thinking it is driven by some deep and compelling model, when in fact they are just hanging their emotions on a scary picture. It's sad because most of them will lose bitcoin as a result (perhaps not as a result of selling at that specific time, but almost certainly as a result of selling low and buying high), contributing to the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few skilled but, in all too many cases, sociopathic persons.
Yes, it's really sad that people use the tools at their disposable to inform their decision making. It is a blunt tool, and ineptly used. Hence my sadness. Sharp tools, aptly used generally cheer me up. Pretty much every indicator that shows we are having a bad time you dismiss --- each that predicts optimism you embrace: this seems highly unscientific. But hey, I need strong medication  I don't dismiss the relationship between ATH and the market - after all, it is only lows which create long opportunities. I see little advantage in moaning about it. Indeed, I have mostly foresworn shorting, not because it is unprofitable -- anything but! Rather, because I cannot bear to profit from the criminal acts of my enemies. I may still short a strong market, but only if there is no DDOS or other, more directly observable, massive embezzlement in progress. Sadly this means that most of my historical short gains will no longer be available, and any future shorts will be taken at much higher risk. If the market is sufficiently mature, I may short the next bear from top to bottom, because then it would not correlate with the designs of criminal actors, or contribute materially to their enrichment. Trading gets more complicated when you stop ignoring the moral elements. Just to follow up on that last remark first: I'm not sure I follow your syntax there -- I would say trading is more complicated when you acknowledge moral elements. But we are at least in agreement about something (HURRAH!) with regard to shorting: I don't participate in that market either, not so much for the reasons you stated but that it seems morally wrong to profit from the failure of a market (I remember the Soros-short inspired sterling crash of the eighties). It seems far too familiar to gambling as some poor sap recently commented on another thread. Back to tools. I have a number of cold chisels in my (real) tool box, they are quite blunt but are perfect for the jobs they are suited to. Indeed, as many of my tools are blunt as ones that are sharp. You may be inept with a blunt tool but that doesn't mean everyone is. If we were to randomize our EMA settings how would we find a grouping to settle on or make a consistent judgement over time? AS I said in my previous post Risto has stated he's a big fan of the 4hour EMA....so a fine enough a tool to fund a mansion? So, to summarize thus far you have dismissed the following TA indicators: Bid/sum ratio EMA Blockchain tx numbers and volume (and a couple of other from Blockchain.info I can't recall) Market cap Perhaps it'd be quicker if you summarized what is pertinent in your opinion  (other than tx addresses) +++++++ ADD: to all the lovely users who PM'd me with such warm, charming messages with regard to my mention of burning coal. http://websites.psychology.uwa.edu.au/labs/cogscience/Publications/LskyetalRecursiveFury4UWA.pdfhttp://theconversation.com/the-journal-that-gave-in-to-climate-deniers-intimidation-25085 |
|
|
|
|
16
|
Economy / Speculation / Re: rpietila Wall Observer - the Quality TA Thread ;)
|
on: April 03, 2014, 02:13:40 PM
|
Good question. I have seen presentations on internet power consumption and its pretty frightening. All the spam, porn and twitter-echos add up to the same daily power usage as Germany or similar (IRCC the internet would be the sixth largest 'national' consumer if you classed it as a country). But most here are strident climate change deniers, so it becomes a moot point. Keep burning that coal boys* *This message was brought to you by the Australian Department for Trade and Energy |
|
|
|
|
17
|
Economy / Speculation / Re: rpietila Wall Observer - the Quality TA Thread ;)
|
on: April 03, 2014, 10:39:35 AM
|
My judgement on the fundamentals and potential of Bitcoin is completely unchanged from 2013.
I don't doubt it. Where am I questioning this? You keep attributing me with some sort of malice which isn't there. Then it is in your eye If I quote something and say something in response, it may be confirmation or rejection or only distantly related to the quoted part, like in this case. What? Seriously, I have no idea what you are talking about, now. If you are so sure of your beliefs why not engage in some discussion instead of descending into cryptic, personal attacks. |
|
|
|
|
18
|
Economy / Speculation / Re: rpietila Wall Observer - the Quality TA Thread ;)
|
on: April 03, 2014, 09:52:00 AM
|
As for scary pictures. I notice there's a lot of pictures used here to describe bright, cheery scenarios, which could be as equally baseless.
Pretty much every indicator that shows we are having a bad time you dismiss --- each that predicts optimism you embrace: this seems highly unscientific.
My judgement on the fundamentals and potential of Bitcoin is completely unchanged from 2013. I don't doubt it. Where am I questioning this? You keep attributing me with some sort of malice which isn't there. But you use EMA as a buy/sell signal (and I'm sure you cross reference with other indicators as well). I'm pretty sure you have some personal trading rules based on those signals and that you are disciplined enough to stick to those rules and signals. I imagine you don't dismiss those signals when they tell you something you don't like. The weekly standard EMA hasn't crossed yet but when/if it does it would be appropriate to consider that we are in a bear market similar to the last time they were crossed, roughly Dec 2012. You can "weigh" all the signals and come up with a holistic impression, but lets not rubbish them just because they don't fit a personal projection (which you are not doing, btw but that is what Aminorex is telling me). |
|
|
|
|
19
|
Economy / Speculation / Re: rpietila Wall Observer - the Quality TA Thread ;)
|
on: April 03, 2014, 08:45:42 AM
|
I like my TA with a dose of empiricism or at least plausible structural theory. The *only* justification for treating the cross-over on bitcoinwisdom as a signal, as opposed to any other pair of moving averages, is the mere fact that it is the default on the 1 week chart on bitcoinwisdom. Well, I'm sorry, but that's not a rational basis for a trading strategy. We should ask the proprietor to randomly perturb the default periods on the moving averages.
What should we set the EMA to? Sunny? Optimistic? How can it be unempirical. It is two settings to judge a period. Fine, change the settings until it draws a story that fits your point of view. Highly scientific. Those default settings do a good job describing the times we have had a bearish market, so when they cross its probable that's where we'll be again. IRCC, for Risto, the 4 hour EMA is one of his significant buy/sell signals (I recall him saying something along the lines of "follow this and you should be rich")...but he's misguided too?
It's sad because people will trade on such a pathetic excuse for a rationalization, thinking it is driven by some deep and compelling model, when in fact they are just hanging their emotions on a scary picture. It's sad because most of them will lose bitcoin as a result (perhaps not as a result of selling at that specific time, but almost certainly as a result of selling low and buying high), contributing to the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few skilled but, in all too many cases, sociopathic persons.
Yes, it's really sad that people use the tools at their disposable to inform their decision making. As for scary pictures. I notice there's a lot of pictures used here to describe bright, cheery scenarios, which could be as equally baseless. Pretty much every indicator that shows we are having a bad time you dismiss --- each that predicts optimism you embrace: this seems highly unscientific. But hey, I need strong medication |
|
|
|
|
20
|
Economy / Speculation / Re: rpietila Wall Observer - the Quality TA Thread ;)
|
on: April 03, 2014, 02:36:02 AM
|
It doesnt mean alot alone
I'm sure some people will use it as a signal and sell. Sad, but true. Best ignore all those pesky TA signals...after all its not like we're in the quality TA thread...no, wait Seriously, ( <------ and not dour) We've not had a true bear market since 2012, it was always going to happen. Breathing space to improve and consolidate infrastructure, get BTC out of beta  And most importantly, realign people's expectations. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
