All the people worth reading like TERA were driven away by the HODL-tards for giving contrarian views. After all the juvenile attacks against them, why would they come back? All you delusional bulls have each other now.
There have been countless others that have come through here only to be driven off. It doesn't matter if they're bulls or bears, there's absolutely no control here, and after the removal of noobie jail it's just gotten worse. Couple that with a mod who's asleep at the wheel, or a general bull-troll himself and what do you expect?These forums have absolutely gone to shit since the beginning of 2013. Blitz? First time I heard someone referring to him as a "bull troll"  |
|
|
|
According to the stats page, there are 350419 members and 8293716 posts, meaning an average post count of 24. Since activity is always lower than post count, that means the mean user is a Newbie-level. Jup, that answers the question. Didn't know we had site stats like that. |
|
|
|
This means that in 2017 people who have registered on here just today have a potential of being "Legendary"? I'm not really a fan of emotes, but I gotta use this one...  That's what I'm saying. It only takes about 2 years and 4 months for a brand new account to possibly become "Legendary". Now if you think of the meaning of the word, someone can become a legend after ~2 years? Really?? You could just do forum rank according to standard deviations and set legendary rank for accounts with activity above 3 standard deviations. This would ensure that the highest rank is always highly exclusive. Bell curve distribution with no skew has its merits, too. that is... beautiful... 3 SD above: legendary 2 SD above: hero 1 SD above: senior average: member 1 SD below: candidate 2 SD below: junior 3 SD below: newbie I think you'll find that the mean is much lower than you think due to the vast number of new accounts. Anything below the mean would likely be Newbie. Not sure about that. Not anymore, at least. Looks to me like user registration numbers go through "growth spurts", similar to (and probably highly related with) price. Other than during those growth spurts, registrations seem to stagnate. Lately, I'm under the impression that except for a few newbie troll accounts, I'm only having conversations with seniors and above. Then again, I can only speak for the speculation sub, and I don't have any hard numbers on this, only a feeling. The solution is to look at a site-wide average of activity over time, no? If it keeps falling, you're right. |
|
|
|
This means that in 2017 people who have registered on here just today have a potential of being "Legendary"? I'm not really a fan of emotes, but I gotta use this one... That's what I'm saying. It only takes about 2 years and 4 months for a brand new account to possibly become "Legendary". Now if you think of the meaning of the word, someone can become a legend after ~2 years? Really?? You could just do forum rank according to standard deviations and set legendary rank for accounts with activity above 3 standard deviations. This would ensure that the highest rank is always highly exclusive. Bell curve distribution with no skew has its merits, too. that is... beautiful... 3 SD above: legendary 2 SD above: hero 1 SD above: senior average: member 1 SD below: candidate 2 SD below: junior 3 SD below: newbie |
|
|
|
|
Looks very good to me. I like it.
But it _does_ look like sthg broke.
How to reproduce:
Single exchange, Bitstamp.
Settings: disable small views. disable moving averages.
Change time scale, or reload page: bid/ask doesn't load anymore.
|
|
|
|
FTFY (just the size). Come on, oda.krell, unleash your inner bear! Like this?  |
|
|
|
Where did fallling and shroomie go? Taking their 4 o'clock nap?
Trollin' taking its tollin'... Eh. I try, I try. Doesn't look like we formed a bottom, though. For today, perhaps, but don't think we've seen the end of it. |
|
|
|
I asked several times what could have convinced some traders to buy in spurts and take the price from 450$ to 630$. General answer was "who cares" momentum. ... If so, perhaps they now have been disappointed and are just selling back what they bought. But, who cares? momentum.
YW  |
|
|
|
no more bubbles. but stable and constant growth.... and I wish that will happen, so most of the greedy bastards here will learn a lesson.
A stable and constant growth is only possible in short to mid term times spaces. The fundamentals of the bitcoin economy can not handle this kind of growth. A strong bear market, going down to low 300's - possible. A stronger bear market , going down to 100's - possible. A stable and constant growth over several years - no. Thank you for the astute analysis - please... have a seat and enjoy a nice tall glass of stfu - you are whats wrong with BTC - plzlearn2economics . Why so upset? I studied economics (Volkswirtschaft). Well, I could tell you that I'm Julio Iglesias, too. But however. A stable and constant growth is not possible - just my point of view. No reason to freak out ;-) In the off chance that you are economic studying Julio Iglesias - your knowledge has indoctrinated you in a world you cannot move past - I know a lot of 'educated' people who fail to see a HUGE paradigm shift. But I also saw that when I tried to explain to an elderly man that the post office would take a back seat to email and he told me I was speaking 'rubbish' You can't stop technology - and good luck trying to block the truth - Bitcoin is our only chance to have TRUTH in an otherwise nebulous money society. I'm not saying that bitcoin will fail or is forced to fall back to the 100's. But it could. Being aware of the risks of a very, very young market let me see downward movements with composure. I doubt that bitcoin could growth in a harmonic way, since it's not the way in which young markets are growing. Being an ecomist does not qualify me to make valid judgements about the bitcoin future. In some cases even high qualified economists fail to make valid conclusions regarding very young and volatile markets: http://www.handelsblatt.com/unternehmen/banken/commerzbank-chefvolkswirt-bitcoins-haben-auf-dauer-keine-chance/9118802.htmlI like your posts. Hope you stay around |
|
|
|
oda.krell, you missed the chance to post the bearish scenario I was asking for. :D
Now the bullish scenario has been invalidated and the bearish one (capitulation) is going strong.
IIRC you advised someone to buy a couple of months ago because it looked 'safe' (bear market seemed over).
If so, then IMO you should advise them to sell now or on the rebound that will follow, they can buy back below 300$.
Different time scales, and different trading goals. My posts from May talking about buying support in the mid 400s, leading to the relatively unconditional (compared to my usual statements at least :D) buying recommendation at $459, were on a different, larger trading time scale compared to what you have in mind, I believe. Also, I don't see evidence that this level (the 400s) won't be supported by buying now, if we should even go there. Not saying it's impossible that we break through into the 300s, but I'm not expecting it. That said, lots of trading opportunity in between then and now. But for a lack of time to write long essays, but also because of the above mentioned different goals I have in mind for this thread, I'd rather leave the shorter term trades out of my analysis. |
|
|
|
...
this graph could also be applied to the quality of your posts So you think the quality of my post is crashing because I am bearish? because I don't post picture of trains and rockets ? yet I have been telling you this for almost 3 months and everyone started to hate me for this the quality of thinking in this community is following that chart. I don't know... I kind of liked your posts better before you started very obviously talking book in more than half of them. Which seemed to coincide with you turning mostly negative on market outlook. don't you think that I was turning negative for a reason? don't you see what kind of a joke this community is turning to ? no voice of reason, no common sense whatsoever... and BTW I've never insulted you in any way but you did call me and imbecile just for fun... Don't remember it, but quite possible. Sorry for that, in retrospect. Bad style. |
|
|
|
...
this graph could also be applied to the quality of your posts So you think the quality of my post is crashing because I am bearish? because I don't post picture of trains and rockets ? yet I have been telling you this for almost 3 months and everyone started to hate me for this the quality of thinking in this community is following that chart. I don't know... I kind of liked your posts better before you started very obviously talking book in more than half of them. Which seemed to coincide with you turning mostly negative on market outlook. |
|
|
|
To me it all looks like this:  Not a single red candle Nice one, hehe. Also, +1 for being premium member. btcwisdom is a great site, deserves all the support. D'oh. Just realized that's the regular button, doesn't mean you paid |
|
|
|
It's not panic, nor weak hands.
It's a raid.
Precise targeted selling, not to gain a good price but simply to move the price down. Easy in a market this thin. You seem to see 'coordination', where there is mainly just 'market momentum'. It's large blocks, Oda - so you what do you think is happening with a (hitherto) low volume market like this. I'd be interested to know Downwards momentum crossed an (arbitrary - but possibly shared as a sentiment, therefore not completely arbitrary) threshold, leading a number of traders to exit a long position or enter a short. |
|
|
|
It's not panic, nor weak hands.
It's a raid.
Precise targeted selling, not to gain a good price but simply to move the price down. Easy in a market this thin. You seem to see 'coordination', where there is mainly just 'market momentum'. It really is such a ridiculous idea that everything one dislikes must be the making of conspiratory evil forces that I'm troubled to understand how they can ignore the cognitive dissonance. It's even weirder when you took part in the actions that are re-interpreted as being part of some 'grand scheme'. Didn't even know I'm an Illuminati member... |
|
|
|
It's not panic, nor weak hands.
It's a raid.
Precise targeted selling, not to gain a good price but simply to move the price down. Easy in a market this thin. You seem to see 'coordination', where there is mainly just 'market momentum'. |
|
|
|
|
You know what's the best part about the current crash? During future crashes, ShroomsKit will have lost all moral high ground to complain about the "weak hands" ^_^
... who am I kidding. He will rant on, as he (or: they) always did. Funny guy.
|
|
|
|
Also, to stay with your "coin laundering" example, why would there need to be *more* wallets as time progresses (unless adoption by criminals also increases)?
Because the wallets used would be disposable, single-use. I'm assuming a launderer savvy and paranoid enough to use anonymizers of one kind or another to connect to the wallet provider. They'd want to avoid reusing wallets to lower the risk of correllation analysis blowing their operation. Each transaction would therefore involve creating at least two new wallets. Now, an automated system for something like this would probably stand out other users, at least in sufficient volume. I don't know to what extent this is happening, but I do believe it is being done - it just makes sense. My point is, with activities requiring the constant creation of new wallets, you'd expect the number of wallets to keep rising even if the number of users did not increase. Rate of change may be a more interesting statistic to look at.Yeah, didn't phrase that clear enough, but that was exactly my point: exponential growth in key metrics means increasing rate of change. 'Automatized wallet creation', the way I see it, would explain only a constant (positive) rate of change. The gap is (presumably) due to increase in usage. |
|
|
|
|
Umm... is it just me or does the 5th "shiny coin" (that's what it's supposed to be, right?) actually look more like a half coin?
When I first saw the new rank, I thought it was below 'Hero' because of that.
|
|
|
|
With Metcalfe's law, bitcoin is indeed quite promising, as the users have been increasing and are expected to increase further.
This means the value of bitcoin is increasing. Could this argument be valid?
We do not know whether the number of "bitcoin users" is increasing.The sources that I know (such as blockchan.info) do not give that information. They give some quantities (such as wallet software downloads, transactions per day, total BTC volume per day) from which some people claim to be able to derive the number of users. However, those quantities include an unknown amount of operations that do not imply real additional use. Some of them (like total BTC volume) have been relatively constant for the last 6 months. Moreover, there is no information at all about people who stopped "using" bitcoin, e.g. after buying a bit just for curiosity. Yes, we actually do. blockchain.info stats aren't the only source saying so. Online wallet stats, number of vendors accepting Bitcoin... there's plenty of evidence of growth well above linear increase (cue: "doesn't mean it's long-term exponential"). Your argument runs down to: but all those stats could be faked/manipulated by entities high enough in the decision chain of exchanges or websites. While theoretically possible, you have to ask yourself it is the most likely explanation of the data. There's plenty of fraud and deception in the Bitcoin ecosystem, but what you seem to have in mind is a level of organized deception that you cannot simply "claim" to be the reason for the data. If you have solid proof for it, let us know. Otherwise, I could dismiss anthropogenic global warming by claiming that measuring stations world wide were manipulated by Jewish space lizards -- it's a possibility, y'know. tl;dr The most likely reason to generate data indicating exponential growth in usage is actual usage. Claiming otherwise requires evidence, which I have yet to see. It doesn't have to be manipulation. Say you're laundering coins on a regular basis. Say you're using Blockchain.info to do this. How many throwaway wallets a month would an automated system built for this purpose generate? What about several of them? Valid point. But as I pointed out: similar growth is visible across different key metrics. Also, to stay with your "coin laundering" example, why would there need to be *more* wallets as time progresses (unless adoption by criminals also increases)? Note, by the way, that this doesn't necessarily mean that we don't have an inflated price. Just that network growth seems a) natural and b) quite clearly exponential (perhaps in "bursts" of growth, though) |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
