so if I understand correctly Peter's "landmark paper" rise to the top was.."short like leprechaun". http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/009916.htmla valiant effort I guess. getting some more peer-review probably would've been of better judgment? ps. I'm not against you "crowd-sourcing" your grammar but I thought the whole exercise on reddit made your thread unreadable. I don't see how proportion of hash rate has anything to do with orphan rate. Each broadcast block has the same chance of being orphaned as the next broadcast block, regardless of your proportion of hashrate, with network speed and connectivity being the only major variable. He needs to show some peterr-style analysis. |
|
|
|
We would be below $100, imho. No troll, but without Gox' alleged relentless pushing through both 2013 rally's, there wouldn't have been $1000, and after this bear market, even with the China power, I think we would be back below $100 assuming we even broke 100 in the first place. But without the early 2013 rise, who knows if China would have even had the interest for the late 2013 rise?
Then why has the price not corrected back below $100? It has had 18 months to do so. Also, according to the wizsec report, the bot(s) reversed course and started continuously selling on January 28th and into the month of February, possibly accelerating the decline that month. By your logic, the price may now be artificially low. Perhaps it should have stayed closer to the all time high. Since the bots started selling, this indicates to me that they may not have been bitcoin moon bots but bots programmed to trade on technical conditions, and when momentum indicators started turning south in late January 2014, they started selling. For this reason, it could have been legit money from someone oblivious to the financial problems at gox, vs a hacker whose only goal was to accumulate and withdraw as much bitcoin as possible. Either way, the only thing we know for solid fact is how many coins are in circulation at any given point in time. Even today, there is a possibility that some of the exchanges are playing with fake fiat and/or fake bitcoin. |
|
|
|
Here is the most logical explanation that no one seems to want to post:  No conspiracy theories here. This is just a chart of actual price action on an exchange using (presumably) real money. Perhaps the psychological influence of rising prices on gox could have caused people to transfer money to other exchanges and buy when they otherwise would not have or perhaps caused sellers to not sell when they otherwise would have, but that is just pure speculation. The best thing to do is look at actual price data on an exchange that we are fairly sure was using real money. There was no arbitrage at the time. Mt gox was an island unto itself and many people were suspicious even then when gox was trading consistently at a 15 to 20% premium to other markets for months. We may never know what really happened at gox, but the all time high was 1163 on bitstamp and 1095 on btce. Besides, even if rising prices on gox influenced real money on other exchanges, it has been a year and a half so I would say prices have settled at their natural level by now, assuming there in no fake bitcoin being sold, in which case the price may be abnormally low. |
|
|
|
All those trolls were right. Bitcoin is doomed. Will go long again at 220 or less.
Mate you are more up and down like a yo-yo. You keep contradicting yourself. This isn't the ask I remember from the other thread. Are you drunk?  |
|
|
|
|
Now would be a good time to start your subscription service chessnut.
|
|
|
|
I just wanted you to say "no, I don't want to bet against the block size limit increasing within the next year (since it likely will)"  Sorry, this season of All My Bitcoins is about the "best" block size. Next year, XT is the villain and there is briefly some FUD about whether it or QT is the "real" Bitcoin. /spoilers What is the real bitcoin will be clear after just a few blocks, maybe 20. Its obvious he doesn't want to bet because he knows he will loose. Good job Peter. |
|
|
|
The sub-coins (Litecoin, Peercoin, and Namecoin - the original three popular alts) were down from their average ratio to BTC and were due for an upward correction. As usual, the stress testing is just the trigger, just the domino that sets off the cascade of pent-up tension there. It would have happened sooner or later anyway. Note the orange line, showing Litecoin price in term of BTC. It's merely returning to its usual ratio. It will likely overshoot a bit out of exuberance, then settle back down.  It looks a bit worse if you use log scale. In fact, btc has fallen 80% when priced in ltc in the past 2 months, but it is still only a 50% retracement from the all time high. Hopefully it is just a natural bounceback, but it is a bit stronger than I would have expected, and it goes against Cypherdoc's thesis that there will only be one dominant POW money. Its definitely due for a pullback.  |
|
|
|
the exit starts slowly at first and then will morph into a stampede; especially if the price starts plunging. the mempool is a problem that does have to be fixed so that ordinary users can start getting their tx's through. they won't be as patient as some of us here.
It looks like the bull cycle has already started and investors are looking for alternatives, likely because of the 1mb attack that has gone unresolved for years now. Hopefully its not too late to increase the limit and let the bull run... or maybe its time to jump ship.  |
|
|
|
From wikipedia...
Wave 3: Wave three is usually the largest and most powerful wave in a trend (although some research suggests that in commodity markets, wave five is the largest). The news is now positive and fundamental analysts start to raise earnings estimates. Prices rise quickly, corrections are short-lived and shallow. Anyone looking to "get in on a pullback" will likely miss the boat. As wave three starts, the news is probably still bearish, and most market players remain negative; but by wave three's midpoint, "the crowd" will often join the new bullish trend. Wave three often extends wave one by a ratio of 1.618:1.
Bitcoin trades more like a commodity IMO. |
|
|
|
This is what often irritates me about EW. There is always an alternate count. What would it take for everyone to agree that the 13 January low of $152 on Bitstamp completed the ABC correction and we are set now for a fresh cycle to begin: five waves up making new highs perhaps in 2016? Regarding the situation in Greece: when the banking crisis in Cyprus happened March 2013 bitcoin price surged from $40 to $260 before settling back at $120. What are the odds history will repeat itself? The move up from $152 is not impulsive, so it would not be agreed upon by ew'ers at all that the bottom is in. In fact, the only one that I know of who believes the bottom is in is that one guy who really doesn't know how to count (or pretends like he can't). I think his name is user1trillion or some shit The Greece 2013 thing was a coincidence. I have yet to see proof that the bubble was in any significant way driven by Greek Euros. IMO there is a plausible bullish count that would allow for a new ATH. I will share it if it actually works out. A good EW technician should have an alternate count, even if it's just to keep reality in check. |
|
|
|
Amazing post. I really hope you're right!
Somebody pointed out to me the BTCUSD charts, stamp and finex, which I havent been following lately. Seems like those are in fact firmly under the log trend either way, so Im a bit more conservative now. Probably because of USD strength over the past year or so. Euro seems to have broken the downtrend also, albeit on a less than impressive breakout, but we have seen a slow ramp before in crypto. I agree that we are in a zone of uncertainty now. |
|
|
|
Well, the facts are that Gavin literally did just that; an alternative, hardforked client with a 20 MB block limit, and anyone from the core deve team that didn't like that could watch while he lobbies miners, services and merchants to accept the new client. That was what he said, he has not retracted it, nor confessed the ulterior motive you are affording him. Those are the facts, are they not?
Why do they have to sit back and watch? Can they not lobby those same miners, services, and merchants. Besides, the miners are mostly in control anyway. That's why gavin was so quick to accept the 8mb deal offered by the Chinese miners. He knows who ultimately enforces the code. The blockstream guys don't seam to understand that. |
|
|
|
^ Or, you know, the 1.2mn btc volume week of January was the capitulation after all, and the most that'll happen now in terms of further capitulation is hammering out a floor around 200 on lackluster selling enthusiasm.
But, nah. That's not even an option, huh.
According to EW no that is not possible Someone said there are only a few hard ridged EW rules on the way up and no rules on the way down. Was he wrong, are there ridged EW rules on the way down too? Yes he was wrong. I was being a bit facetious with my comment. A number of top EW guys said we had to go below ~266 when we were at 600, and were ridiculed for it. If they were basing their predictions on rules for the way down then what were they?
There are plenty of resources available on the Internet to learn EW. |
|
|
|
^ Or, you know, the 1.2mn btc volume week of January was the capitulation after all, and the most that'll happen now in terms of further capitulation is hammering out a floor around 200 on lackluster selling enthusiasm.
But, nah. That's not even an option, huh.
According to EW no that is not possible |
|
|
|
|
Yep. People have completely forgotten what it's like to experience a bitcoin mega-rally.
|
|
|
|
|
I doubt we will see another crash fractal. Probably a slow grind lower if it happens at all.
|
|
|
|
lol so now gavin is only considering mike's opinion. plus calling for lobbying (  ) from merchants and centralized businesses... mymy.. USG get out of this body!  He has to lobby merchants and exchanges to accept the changes because of the decentralized nature of Bitcoin. this is what i want to see, the will of the majority crush the minority this IS what Bitcoin is all about. Do It Do it, come on, Do it! As always, the majority is often wrong and misguided. Because masses are far more easy to manipulate than individuals. So your majority can go screw themselves as they are used to. Im not following the sheeples. Seriously bitcoin is NOT about lobbying, that filthy practice which is far from democratic and in direct opposition to a natural consensus. Bitcoin is about freedom. It certainly doesnt need lobbyists a la TBF to take over teh world and them wall street scammers. Gavin seems pretty desperate here. Good. edit: funny the irony of such a nice bitcoiner like you to consider bypassing the decentralized consensus of Bitcoin with some nasty self centered lobbyists. It's not about lobbying or desperation. This is why bitcoin works: Because if we can't come to consensus here, the ultimate authority for
determining consensus is what code the majority of merchants and exchanges
and miners are running. |
|
|
|
Correlation coefficient between daily close of BTC/USD and DXY, over a rolling 365 day window (right click for full resolution)  To my (untrained) eyes, it does look like there could be evidence for an inverse relationship between the two currencies (we're approaching a coefficient of -1), however:(1) BTC/USD itself is measured against the dollar, our second variable. The effect we see could (mostly) be the dollar appreciating and everything else depreciating. Which wouldn't be a particularly interesting observation, for the purpose of prediction. (2) Before 2014, there's evidence for a positive relationship between the two (strong positive coefficient). It's only since the beginning of the 2014/2015/... bear market that the coefficient turned negative. Those two points together, i.e. during bull market, positive relation, during bear market, negative relation, makes me think that, at least by the superficial analysis I can do, I don't have much reason to assume the two are correlated in a meaningful way. Thanks. I'm sure it will negatively correlate until it doesnt. I agree in that correlation may not be useful here. The dollar has not gained 200x or had a 90% drop in the past few years like bitcoin has. |
|
|
|
That sma is a great outstanding support so far. Hope it will be for next years.
However technicians of gold and euro (us dollar generally) suggest dollar will probably rally soon. This makes me unsure will this support survive or not.
Since when did bitcoin correlate to moves in usd?  That actually correlates quite well It would be nice to see a correlation coefficient if someone wanted to figure it out. Sometimes correlation can be a bit decieving when just eyeballing a chart. |
|
|
|
Pretty bold claims from Middleton, but I have tried it and it works, at least in a beta phase, not vapor phase or proof of concept phase, but beta phase. You can trade all tickers that Cypherdoc mentions on here.
I still don't understand how the tickers are fed into veritaseum to settle the bets. Can you explain that? Saying "it works" without understanding how it works is short-sighted. Twice or thrice I tried to find technical documentation (wading through all the promotional crap) and was stifled, so I assumed it is centralized bullshit. That's my assumption, too... until it's explained how it works and it works in a way I can trust (which I doubt, but I've been wrong before). If it's Reggie typing in 50000 tickers every hour then there might be no "counterparty risk", but there's plenty of other risk. EDIT: I PMed him, maybe he'll show up here and explain. If not, it hardens my assumption. It works from an end-user standpoint, which is more than I've seen from any other project. Tickers prices are fed through an oracle, which is centralized. Also, the code is not open source... yet, which i cant blame them for not wanting all their work to just be copied into another system. In a nutshell, it appears to be blockchain.info 2.0. The blockchain.info model has proven to work thus far with zero trust issues, but we will just have to wait for more info to become available. Thanks for the info regarding the centralized oracle. I don't understand your comparison to blockchain.info. I compare it to blockchain.info in that users retain control of their keys while using the service but without running a full node themselves - it is much more convenient and less resource-intensive. Of course it's not a Web client but they may have plans for that. @Reggie Middleton Do you have plans to develop a hosted Web interface for your product? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
