so then how do you leverage a short? if my position is covered only by the funds i invest, and not by my tradeable balance, then i only see how one would leverage a long position.

so the obv agrees with your present bullish attitude, and that is why you like it? why should $5 "be the new $2"? my argument demonstrates that the simplicity of the formula glosses over information in the price which the ADL incorporates. this means that the obv is more susceptible to the danger of propagation of errors than the ADL.

further, even if $5 IS the new $2 (whatever that means), just because the obv has done an okay job SO FAR says nothing about it, i.e. the problem of induction. this is why i was addressing the formulae in general. do you have any responses to that effect?

i, too, apologise. seems i have been accused of trying to manipulate sentiment one too many times.


many indicators work volume into account. further, when i post here my analyses are intentionally incomplete, mostly for brevity. my actual analyses consist of far more indicators as well as real-world events. i usually only post when i notice a clear, communicable prediction demonstrated by a number of related indicators (see my last thread regarding oscillators).

i'm not sure what you're getting at, but i can edit out the last line if you think i'm attempting some kind of shameless manipulation. i would urge individuals who don't already hold a position to get into one, as well, which is not 'suppression'. since i clearly do not espouse a direction, regardless of whether or not the last line is a 'trading suggestion' i don't even think i'm breaking the new draconian forum rules.

so bugger off, i'll stop posting analysis altogether if i keep getting such negative feedback, and then everybody loses

disclaimer: this thread focuses only on non-directional observations.



two sets of observations can be made from the preceding:

on the one hand, we have seen incredibly low price movement/volatility in the past month:

-- ADX is around a 3-month low

-- Bollinger Width at a 3-month low

and on the other, we have what could be interpreted as the early signs of a 'reversal' in this trend of decreasing volatility:

-- Chaikin Volatility about to cross zero-line after making a 2.5-month low

-- Mass Index dropping off from a 2.5-month high

taken together, this predicts a large price movement in the next weeks/month. hold on to your positions -- and let's hope your bets are on the right side

McKean's law of miner errors strikes again.

obv sucks. it just adds/subtracts volume with no relation to the price spread for a given period. noting the difference between this and the ADL, it's easy to see how the problem of propagation of errors can lead to a distorted shape in the obv. let me elucidate: what would happen if, for a number of periods, the median price is only slightly lower than the median of the last period, but during which a large volume of BTC is traded? during periods of high volatility, this can easily happen. this large volume is assigned a negative value due to the slight drop in price, so the obv plummets even though the information in the price spread might contrarily indicate strong buying pressure. this alone accounts for the differences between the shape of the obv and the adl in the above post.

ITT:

yeah i notice that in practice, the ADL responds to the shape of the candles in a very predictable way. its slope is generally proportional to the distance from the median to the bounds in that when the upper bound is far away from the median (trading happened closer to the lower bound, top wick is tall) it decreases rapidly, and does the opposite when a "hanging man" (trading happened closer to the upper bound, bottom wick is long) forms.

even though it is an abstraction from the price, however, it does seem to do a good job detecting trends in the noise. it's actually pretty intuitive if you understand the formula that myself quoted.

EDIT because i accidentally reversed the relationship and for further explanation.

what wall?

and you're like the jock who ends up cheating off said kid's test right after making fun of him behind his back. you can think my social life is 'abysmal' to make you feel better about the ridiculous things your posts contain (a curious choice of insult which makes me think you're actually still in high school) but i know i spend a lot less time obsessing about bitcoin's astrological significance than you which makes me feel pretty good about myself, actually. are you done with the ad hominems?

edit: sorry, i just wanted to add that if you actually engaged in healthy discussion like having a fair conversation about why you excluded invertebrates from your definition of life or if you were referring to the protocol or individual bitcoins, it might be more fun for the both of us. that being said, a note should also be made that while outlandish claims are often found here, completely unsubstantiated claims aren't really conducive to healthy discussion. it's strange that you seem to refuse to be held accountable for the content of your posts. it's a double-standard at the very least.

hahahahahahahahahahaha

okay to answer your question before, i'm having fun now

seems i've gotten under your skin

im quite chill indeed, and curious to know where i've claimed to know anything at all in this thread. also, i am in fact on a track for a PhD in physics and hopefully it will lend me a successful career, thanks.

im sorry you don't have the time to educate yourself fully; i was merely noting that since you haven't done so, you might not want to make the kinds of claims that you do. i am going to have to concede here, though, and agree that it is in fact quite amusing to read huffy posts, you were right after all.

while this is a rather silly definition for life because it excludes most life on earth (basically everything that isn't part of chordata), and begs the question: what is intelligence? i'm going to humor you. this granted, i'm rather curious what makes you think that Bitcoin itself is intelligent, or capable of self-replication... are we talking about the protocol here? individual bitcoins? the original statement was so ill-formed i think you'll find you're going to have a lot of trouble defending it and i would advise you to concede now.

i'm not even going to ask why you think Bitcoin exists in any more dimensions than we do

there's a reference for you. if you had read that first you might find that this is not a science in its infancy at all; it was in its infancy in Einstein's time (in fact he has some pretty epic quotes that turned out to be dead wrong because even a genius's intuition is no match for physical truth). we have a very full understanding, mathematics included, of quantum theory including equations that make consistent and accurate predictions. we just don't understand why/how probabilistic systems underlie the seemingly deterministic macro-scale universe which we inhabit. furthermore, particles only become entangled under certain conditions and it is a demonstrably false claim that every particle is entangled with every other because then every particle's position, momentum, etc would change instantaneously whenever such a property of any other was changed. it is not wise to pretend to know more about a subject than one actually does, and it is certainly a terrible way to go about engaging in a discussion.

moreover, i am not inclined to do so because as with quantum mechanics, it is a subject which you could easily inform yourself about if you had the willingness. again, it seems that you do not so it is rather unfortunate that you believe that you know truths about the universe. it's a bit like claiming to know (read: for certain) what's inside a room without ever actually venturing thereinto.

oh and this is great, too. are you prepared to defend such a claim? [hint: what definition of 'higher-dimensional' and 'life' are you using?]

i am a large purple dinosaur. i can make bold unsubstantiated claims on forums too. i don't quite see the fun though.

i ask you a pointed question which you can't hand-wave your way out of so you resort to ad hom's and asking me to 'leave you alone'. nice. regardless of whether or not you think you can convince me of your position, you ought to at least think about the question for the sake of your own intellectual honesty, don't you think? seriously, all sarcasm aside.


there is nothing huffy about my posts; i merely find that if i do not ask extremely pointed questions, we never get further than ZOMG YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN HOROSCOPES YOU'RE SUCH A CLOSED-MINDED FOOL.


it's just plain sad that you're turning this into a tribal issue. seriously, my theory? what are you, a creationist? regardless, i can pm you all sorts of information about cosmology and the ramifications of the theoretical singularity if you're actually interested. something tells me you're not. maybe it's because you could inform yourself much more easily as you clearly have an internet connection and yet you remain ignorant.

here's the deal: i promise never again to make huffy posts in your little astrology clubs if notme actually attempts an intellectually honest answer to my question (bolded above) and you actually attempt to educate yourself on the finer points of big bang cosmology. aren't you curious whether or not the empirical data does in fact support such a belief? you're right, naively, a singularity produces the suspicion that everything IS connected in some way or another. but of course it's more complicated than that. you'd have to be able to demonstrate a mechanism for the specific effects astrologers claim the orientation of planets and the like have on terrestrial events. can you do that?

if you can state a hypothesis, we can discuss this. all you've said right now is "the rate of receipt of EM radiation (light) from the sun changes hurr durr".

yeah, it actually fluctuates wildly every day. that is what the phenomenon of day is.

what mechanism do you propose links this differential to anything that has to do with predicting future events, individuals' personalities, or anything of the like? what experiments can you run to demonstrate such a mechanism? btw, have you ever heard of Carlson's Experiment (astrologers could match individuals to signs at a rate no better than chance) or the Mars Effect (a single statistical analysis seemed to suggest that Mars' location affected athletes but such a correlation has never be independently verified).

i don't like the OBV because it just adds and subtracts volume -- too simple. this is probably why there is such a discrepancy among the time scales (noise is possible too, but because the formula is so simple it is especially susceptible thereto). i pay more attention to weighted indicators like accumulation/distribution and price-volume trend.

i'd say with mars and pluto standing still in the zodiac and then appearing to change direction is a clear indicator of kepler's laws and gravity in elliptical orbits.

seriously, do you also believe that thunder is the rage of the gods and in everything else the ancients had 'figured out'? what's so special about astrology? do you even care whether or not the beliefs that you hold can be empirically demonstrated or, as speculators, do you just run with whatever ideas pop into your head regardless of their realism, sanity, or possibility? the ridicule that is well-deserved towards the fools who draw some lines on a chart and claim with near certainty that a specific price movement is going to happen should seem familiar as you look to the skies and imagine fantastical drawings among the stars and personalities for the other celestial bodies in orbit round our sun.