Personally i find all this bull/bear dichotomy utterly ridiculous.
Either you are here because you believe in the potential of the technology, or you are here because you are interested in the markets.
In the former 'bull' is the only appropriate description. In the latter the description is meaningless.
It is a useless dichotomy if you try to fit everyone (or every post) into it. However, there are posters in here that I believe genuinely fall into one of the two categories, in the sense that their position (at least as they express it in here) doesn't change one bit no matter what actually happens in reality. I feel it makes sense to refer to those as "bulls" or "bears" respectively. |
|
|
|
Ah, the memories. Back when the retardobulls (me included) gave dnaleor a hard time for suggesting we might enter a bear market, maybe even for a several weeks...
We were so naive back then *sniff*.
:-) I never thought that this downtrend would last so long... Almost no one did, except for masterluc, who I personally believe to be George Soros who's fucking with all of us by "predicting" the market, then making it go there by sheer force :P |
|
|
|
The same could be said about the most aggressive of bulls during a price decline and subsequent flash crash, no? Same denial, same greed, just applied in the opposite direction. The difference is... a lot of bulls, are on here and have old accounts , snr , hero, ledg... and are "real" and not all but a good 90%- 95% of the bears that pop up when there is a down move are these daft tools that start tens of newbie accounts and start ranting utter crap... which is just a blatant and poor attempt at propaganda, they fool no one, but they persist, it is embarrassing. Also I think most "permabulls" really believe in the tech, and the prospects of BTC, hence why they think the price will go up... and a fair few bears actually also think the price is going up long term, but just not yet, and so they believe , but they are betting against in the short term for profit.. so the bulls at least are true to what they believe, the bears are playing both sides of the fence. You have a point about the first part (bulls are, on average, older accounts). Then again, older account means they bought in earlier, so being bullish is a bit easier, considering you probably haven't been sitting underwater for more than half a year. About the second part, "bears playing both sides of the fence"... what's wrong with that? I don't consider myself a bear for the long term, but I'm not above selling at a point when I think we're in a manic phase and price will first have to go down for a while before it can rise again. The same could be said about the most aggressive of bulls during a price decline and subsequent flash crash, no? Same denial, same greed, just applied in the opposite direction. You frequently come out with these equivalency arguments, which are largely overstated. Bears and bulls are NOT the same (opposites). Even though there may be some truth to your assertions of equivalency, that seems to be much too simplistic of the difference description. Well, that's how I see the two sides. I somewhat prefer the (positively oriented) enthusiasm of the real bulls over the feigned concerns of the fake bears (who only plan to re-buy cheaper), but that wasn't the point I made - I pointed out that both the self proclaimed bulls and the obvious bears regularly show extreme greediness, and both often appear delusional if the market runs against their position. That's the similarity I see, but feel free to exclude yourself from the observation if you believe you don't act like that. |
|
|
|
|
Ah, the memories. Back when the retardobulls (me included) gave dnaleor a hard time for suggesting we might enter a bear market, maybe even for a several weeks...
We were so naive back then *sniff*.
|
|
|
|
The same could be said about the most aggressive of bulls during a price decline and subsequent flash crash, no? Same denial, same greed, just applied in the opposite direction. |
|
|
|
Barely back above $500, on low-ish volume, right after a sharp drop following a long period of stagnation, still no signs of fresh fiat, but the hodlers (not the same as holders, got no problem with the latter) and cultists are back in force, talking about a new ATH this year, etc. Don't know if we'll make a new low anymore, but don't see any signs for a real trend reversal yet either. Anyway... Um, yeah. If there is someone smarter than you with substantially more money, then he's probably going to take it from you. Listen up, people: there are two things that we are doing here to provide value to the Bitcoin economy: We are either reducing volatility and making money, or we are contributing volatility and paying off the good traders and hopefully learning something in the process. WE are the decentral bankers of Bitcoin. We are the liquidity providers and we are also here to take away the punch bowl when things get too frothy. We are trying to do what central bankers would try to do if bitcoin had a central bank. Now bitcoin is too volatile which means we are needed. The goal for most people here is to learn what the hell you are doing before you go broke. It's hard, but there is great opportunity for those with skill and a high risk tolerance.
Pay attention to the moving averages. until the four hour cross, there is no real momentum at all and we can assume a bias to the down side. I missed the train on the shot up to $687 so I'm not risking all cash, but here we are back in the four hundreds, so all I really lost was three months and I still have the same money as if I rode the market up and back down. Make your money on the overshoots up and down, and have enough coin and fiat to profit if either happens.
Happy to see you posting again, billyjoe. Don't always agree with you, but your posts are always entertaining. |
|
|
|
There are only $5.72M sitting on Bitstamp's order book - anyone remembers if this is the lowest amount we had on Bitstamp's bid side in 2014? I'm curious... And I kinda miss blockchained.com historical market depth charts, anybody knows where to find historical charts for major exchanges bid/ask figures?
Inevitable plug for http://www.coinorama.net/from me  And the answer is, I'm afraid, yes (at least as far as coinorama's history goes) |
|
|
|
...
Cool. Distributed manipulation for a distributed currency. Sounds good to me. (Seriously, this is beyond pathetic. Price doesn't go where it *must* go, according to autism logic, hence: manpiluationz!!!) Indeed. You shouldn't be too judgemental as the word manipulation can stretch a wide variety of phenomena. The complaint here is that the price discovery mechanism is broken, as the price action doesn't support the narrative drawn by the fundamentals. What classical economists fail to understand is that price is more a function of the properties of the marketplace than the traded asset. And I guess we all agree that the marketplace for bitcoin trading could use some more developing. Agreed, if "manipulation" is used in a rather relaxed sense, more or less meaning: price moves based on technical reasons more than on fundamentals. And sorry for the confrontative phrasing of my post, I'm just starting to get allergic to the overuse of the word "manipulation". I blame the Wall Observer thread :/ |
|
|
|
rpietila you've been wrong so many times in the past and your analysis is sketchy. i really don't know bro.
It's not about a particular analysis. It's about a frame of mind. To understand this watch e.g. Peter Schiff here and replace "gold" with "bitcoin": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6oQSSS2yGK0&index=3&list=UUG-G8LLr38fQUNZU8K0t-EA&t=260As long as markets are dominated by paper clowns it's hard for the bitcoin price - or any other price for that matter - to break free from liquidity traders. This is especially true if the price for liquidity is zero. The only backstop against this kind of collective manipulation is the scarcity of the resource in question (bitcoin) and the fact that a heavy disconnect between the paper price and the real demand accelerates the accumulation of the resource by buy-and-hold players and becomes unavailable for the floating supply. What follows is a violent upswing, such as outlined by rpietila. The bigger the disconnect, the more violent it will be. The value proposition of bitcoin has never been stronger. With borders closing all around the world, the need for a counterfeit proof global payment system is bigger than ever. The stage is set and global elites will makes sure the next crisis will induce a paradigm shift towards cryptocurrencies. Failure to understand this is to miss out on the biggest wealth transfer in the history of humankind. The call for the bottom should be interpreted as a statement of disbelief that the current price reflects true demand and the suspicion that the market is still dominated by players who have an interest in low BTC prices. Cool. Distributed manipulation for a distributed currency. Sounds good to me. (Seriously, this is beyond pathetic. Price doesn't go where it *must* go, according to autism logic, hence: manpiluationz!!!) |
|
|
|
Looks like we got a breather for now. Not convinced this is over yet, though. Bearish me expects a low of around $380 within the next 2 weeks.
That's very bearish. I don't think we will see sub-400 again. It'd still be a (marginally) higher low compared to April, so, not the most bearish scenario conceivable, imo. |
|
|
|
|
Looks like we got a breather for now. Not convinced this is over yet, though. Bearish me expects a low of around $380 within the next 2 weeks.
|
|
|
|
What you two call "inflection" are relative tops and bottoms.
The inflection point is where a slope that keeps getting more and more steep starts levelling off. In masterluc's chart that would be around the 5th of February in a positive slope. In oda.krell's we have an example where he put the sign "acceleration": For a brief time the line goes down fast and suddenly (in this case) starts going down slower.
It is not needed for the slope to be zero later, though that's the case in both charts.
Jup, you're right. Didn't really think that one through. Edit : the observation about the price / ma relation remains, though, but the terms were wrong. |
|
|
|
 I think these (1: april 2013 aftermath, 2: december 2013 aftermath) are quite similar. Now we even have the final blip down. In case of 1 this was caused by the silkroad bust, in case of 2, I don't even know. There are of course differences, too. 2 is quite a bit slower (takes longer time), for example. Of course I'm not the first one to notice this, just wanted to remind the bulls there still is hope  Agreed on the (approximate) similarity of the shape of the price graph, but the differences (duration of preceding bear market, volume) make it extremely unlikely, imo, that the next "growth spurt" is just around the corner. I consider Q1 2015 the earliest realistic option :/ |
|
|
|
Getting damn close to the previous low (August 14). Judging by volume, I don't think we're staying above. Could be the next wave of panic selling kicking in afterwards.
Second try. 15 cents away. |
|
|
|
|
Getting damn close to the previous low (August 14). Judging by volume, I don't think we're staying above. Could be the next wave of panic selling kicking in afterwards.
|
|
|
|
Fixed the link so that even the lazy people can click on it. Fitting, given how lazy the argumentation in that article is. (Just being as confrontational as you are.) |
|
|
|
Only in a very very far away future (and maybe not even then), if and when crypto/BTC accounts for the entire global money supply. Let's not count on that, mkay? Um, no. Bitcoin either expands until it becomes the money, or else it goes to zero(1). Anyone who is not interested in, and working toward, the former doesn't belong in Bitcoin. This isn't a game. (1)http://nakamotoinstitute.org/mempool/the-problem-with-altcoins/ I'm afraid you'll have to deal with me being both in Bitcoin and not working towards that, then. |
|
|
|
Using it as store of value will decrease the T
Only in a very very far away future (and maybe not even then), if and when crypto/BTC accounts for the entire global money supply. Let's not count on that, mkay? In the next years, we will see increasing T (my point being: btc rocks as a payment system), and maybe the occasional nutcase (i.e. us ) will throw in a few bucks using it as store of value. The latter doesn't decrease the former in that case. |
|
|
|
I still dont get how the price will rise if V is low, P= (M * V)/T means the greater V is the greater the price is, isn't it ? the case when the price will be high: if Transactions are low and both or one M or V rise greater than T.
Velocity of money is defined as: V = T / M (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity_of_money) For simplicity, we assume no. of coins in circulation to be constant, so we equate price with M. We can rewrite the above as: M = T / V, so it becomes clear that M ("price") decreases as V increases. Or maybe I misunderstood the question? |
|
|
|
I couldn't explain it better than a member of the Slovenian Bitcoin Association, so I am quoting his post. The conclusion is that price will stay unstable due to increasing adoption? I'm not so sure. At least it need not rise proportionally to adoption... One quite simple way to look at this is Fisher's formula for velocity of money: M * V = P * T.
M is money supply (fixed in case of bitcoin), T is num of transactions (rising in orders of magnitude). So to keep the equation balanced, the price (P) can rise but so can V (velocity of money, "frequency at which one unit of currency is used to purchase domestically-produced goods and services within a given time period"). Velocity has so far in history been rather stable, but given the usefulness of bitcoin for transactions (not very disputed even among critics), I wouldn't dare say V for bitcoin is going to be stable or at the same approximate level as for regular fiat money.
That's why I'm uneasy about projections like "the use of bitcoin will increase 1000x, therefore the price will rise 1000x". I believe the first part, but I don't think the second part follows necessarily. Not a completely bad point, but in order to compensate for growing adoption, V would need to keep on rising. Exponentially, to compensate for exponentially rising adoption/usage. Not likely. Probably impossible in fact, considering the technical limitations and tradeoffs of the network. In a thread a while ago, I made a (relatively simplistic) argument that, if Bitcoin is used as a method for Internet payments (and only for that) on the order of yearly Paypal volume today - a comparably modest goal, I'm sure you'll agree - and making a few extremely conservative estimates for the necessary parameters involved (including V), we arrive at a valuation of around $2000 per unit. The single biggest not-so-conservative assumption I am making is that those transactions are actually taking place on chain, not off chain, which could be an (unfortunate, because trust requiring) development. ( Link to my post, the calculation is under Addendum #2) Back to the topic: I set V_year = 10, which is a conservative value considering that actual velocity of Bitcoin is probably a lot lower currently. M1's V_year seems to be able to reach into the range of 10 ( WP link), but usually is lower, so if the Bitcoin network would be stable anywhere 10 it'd be a) pretty efficient, and b) the argument you mention, that increased adoption and usage doesn't lead to proportionally higher valuation, doesn't hold. the only way to know how this theory will work in reality is to sit-back and watch how things will develop, although it would be really hard to get "real" numbers, but estimates could do as well. Agreed. But to highlight the main point of my argument (like you did in yours :D) - we don't know yet exactly what V_year for the network will be, in the long run. If it's very low, theoretically per unit price would go up - only, it wouldn't because it would mean the network is too inefficient (at least a payment method). If it's very high, that'd depress unit price, but it'd be an incentive to use, because it would be efficient. The only thing that is unlikely enough to call it impossible is that V could somehow "outgrow" even moderate adoption - considering that right now, we are actually seeing the opposite problem, that is: the unsolved question how to make Bitcoin scale to size as a global transaction network (block size limit being the main point here, to my knowledge). |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
