depends on who's leading the next move. If it's stamp, probably going up. Not sure about short squeeze though. If China is leading, probably more sideways leaning downwards  |
|
|
|
|
Whatever the reason, it's actually pretty impressive...
Note, I'm the first one to admit the order book is a prime tool for manipulation, so "walls" should never be taken at face value.
But bid/ask ratio almost tripled, while price continues a weak decline... that's a pretty strong bullish divergence, even when accounting for some amount of manipulative order book entries.
|
|
|
|
Oh me, oh my... would you have a look at this.  |
|
|
|
i hope someone else in the money 2020 give good lecture about bitcoin ...
Bitcoin emperor JorgeStolfi is going to speak tomorrow! I expect at least a 300% rise during/after his speech, and that is still a conservative outlook. Yes, my speeches at the faculty meetings usually have that kind of effect. Really, faculty meetings? I always imagined you to be more of an emeritus type  Still some years to go...  How about a 'second wind' academic career before that then? CS or graph theory are boring anyway... You could be THE "Bitcoin professor", the one who advised all the world's governments to invest BIG in BTC! Sounds tempting, admit it |
|
|
|
...
you never be late for bitcoin...
... Lurk moar. Most people are getting OUT of Bitcoin. But if you don't mind losing money, I suppose ur right  Do you actually make all of these... ? I mean, I'm pretty sure you at least have to work with layers to make the Bitcoin emblem to be below the spears... Sometimes I do think you're on somebody's payroll |
|
|
|
Question in the thread title?
Anything above 50% of your total wealth is a lot. Of course, there is no single answer since to some $10 is a huge amount and others snort through €500 bills... but yeah, 21B at that point in time is a good goal for newcomers, while 210 or "Vladimir club" 2100 are mostly out of reach for common folk. Also, to people who said that "only people who got in early can have that" - no, it's not enough - only people who can hold their shit together through extended periods of depressed prices, i.e. those who actually believe in fundamental value. So while it can be easy to get 2.1 or 21 right now, the hard part is to hold them for several years, not cashing all out at what you consider "tops" and not panic-dumping at what you consider "bottoms". Best answer so far. (Paraphrasing) Basically: two ways to define 'a lot of BTC' - (1) BTC holding relative to your total net worth, or (2) your BTC relative to all BTC in existence. One addition to your addition to the statement "only people that got in early can have a lot" ... you correctly point out that getting in super early is not sufficient to be big now (i.e. if you sold too early). I'd like to add that it's not necessary either, either by someone with a high non-BTC net worth buying in big now (the boring case), or by trading your way to a larger share of BTC (the less boring, but frequently dismissed as "gambling" case). |
|
|
|
i hope someone else in the money 2020 give good lecture about bitcoin ...
Bitcoin emperor JorgeStolfi is going to speak tomorrow! I expect at least a 300% rise during/after his speech, and that is still a conservative outlook. Yes, my speeches at the faculty meetings usually have that kind of effect. Really, faculty meetings? I always imagined you to be more of an emeritus type |
|
|
|
Agreed with the basic observation: volume is declining on the latest downtrend so far. That said, the overall picture is a bit more complex: a) the volume view that supports the claim we've found a bottom is relatively well supported by the Bitstamp data, but less so on Bitfinex and Huobi. b) While the current downtrend is on declining volume (bullish), the previous rally from the bottom fizzled out on lowering volume as well, which is bearish. Here's the details... Bitstamp: Clear case can be made the latest downtrend is on declining volume, but volume was also sharply declining when we left the low-300s https://i.imgur.com/JetMZbY.pngBitfinex: Less clear volume picture to me. Highest volume candle still a red one, and no clear trends in volume visible, but on the bullish side, by far the larger candles in the last month are green. Overall, relatively bullish volume picture I'd say. https://i.imgur.com/qDAUNPA.pngHuobi: Probably the least bullish volume picture. Volume trends similar to Bitstamp, but volume on down days at least as big as on up days. https://i.imgur.com/Nb5Uwkd.png |
|
|
|
|
JW Gold Label here. The original 18yr one, not the piss poor substitute they want to replace it with :/
|
|
|
|
Whisky, I hope Blended or single malt? All things predictable, i expect master to be on slavic wodka.  His old sig address was called 'whisky fund' |
|
|
|
Whisky, I hope Blended or single malt? |
|
|
|
I don't know why you call it "algorithm", do you really have an actual code written to monitor the change ? because as far as I can tell anyone could see the buy signal only by watching the 1W chart, a reversal would clearly appear there without the need to write any kind of code, just observing would be enough to do the job. 2 weeks ago people where excited when we went from 275 to 417, they called reversal and the moon, while it was only a good but very risky trading opportunity... everything shows that we are still heading down. https://i.imgur.com/C5x2jBh.png1) Yes. When I say algorithm I mean it's a piece of code. 2) Glad to hear you can do this by eye. If you would have read the original post, you would have seen that I already said that this method isn't intended to outperform a good discretionary trader. So, if you are one of those, good on you. How about this: the point of this "public experiment" is to keep track of exact targets (i.e. the price at which buy and sell signal will come in). Let us know the exact targets of your trade pairs and we can compare the results in a year from now. |
|
|
|
|
^
Jup. Turns out you're right.
|
|
|
|
number of transactions just hit an all time high, first time we have been above last Decembers bubble peak....only this time is has got there from steady growth. Number of wallets used daily has been at an all time high for some time.....bitcoin continues to grow slowly and steadily.
Not sure were you're getting the new all time high from... the 7 day smoothed view on blockchain.info (no. of tx excluding popular addresses) still shows the current value slightly below the previous peak...  No. of unique addresses is already at a new high though:  Anyway, I agree with your observation. I don't usually look for reasons for market states, but if I had to, I'd probably say the 2nd growth spurt of 2013 (i.e. the rally to 1200 USD) vastly outgrew the network size based price, which led to the protracted bear market we're in now. Since May this year, on the other hand, network growth is picking up nicely, judging by the commonly used metrics, while price is in constant decline, i.e. the reverse of what happened in late 2013. Eventually, there's a good chance the gap between network size motivated price and actual price will be substantial enough to cause the next growth spurt, but I don't claim to know when that is going to happen exactly. |
|
|
|
^
OK. My thoughts re. long-term TA strategies in general is too many variables have a chance to crop up--major news and stuff. Just seems like TA is more useful in finding short, repeating patterns which could be rapidly confirmed/denied. Longer period -> fewer data points -> less accessible to statistical analysis.
Just an opinion.
Complete agreement on that. Hence, "TA strategies" that are up to academic publishing standards usually look like the Bayesian regression method by Shah / Zhang, with trades being less than a minute apart. So, no, absolutely no chance for me to show that my method produces statistically significant results based on the backtest results, way too few data points for that. But I said that much right from the beginning. Guess it runs down to the question if the only methods (not just in TA) that you are willing to employ are those that can be fully rigorously shown to work, or if you allow including those that you have strong enough reasons to believe are working as well, but where those reasons can't be formalized to the point where you can show it in a "publishable" way. My example of choice in this context is chess opening theory, and the early (failed) attempts of chess algorithms beating human GMs practicing opening (or end game) theory. |
|
|
|
It questioned your TA abilities. If your "Lazy Wale" algorithm netted junk results, why should anyone take this TA iteration any more seriously?
This thread is nothing more than scientified book talk.
See, that's the talk I don't mind one bit. Why not ask it in the thread I made about the algo? But to be clear: what are the junk results of the algo in your opinion? That it still didn't give a 'buy' signal? When we're actually back down to 330/340? Seems good to me. It's junk because it failed to yield any results. The utility of your algorithm appears to be exactly zero--neither positive nor negative. Without knowing the actual ruleset (which you chose not to share), I can only assume that it's junk The "do not panic" thread seems to also be somewhat self-serving. What relevance did the Obama +1 Meme have that my question did not? Nothing to add on the algo remark. Whether it has zero utility (your idea) or decent utility based on a low number of signals (my idea) is the point of the public experiment. A bit self-aggrandizing to post it the way I do, maybe, but hey... you're not free of that vice either. Agreed on the other point. Kinda arbitrary decision I guess. See, that's why self-modded threads suck? |
|
|
|
Quick update, more of a non-update actually... Nothing changed, recommended position still USD. But, like I said over and over again in here, the method is slow and purely reactive, so I'd argue it's a good thing there's no 'buy' signal yet, considering we're not really going decisively up, for the time being.  Then again, maybe NotLambchop is right when he says: It's junk because it failed to yield any results. The utility of your algorithm appears to be exactly zero--neither positive nor negative. Without knowing the actual ruleset (which you chose not to share), I can only assume that it's junk Whether you agree or not is for you to decide. I just publish the signal (or lack thereof), like I said I would. |
|
|
|
Your backdated trigger hasn't gone bullish yet? What's up with your other thread?
I said I'd update it when a new signal comes in, nothing changed about that. So the absence of an update means no 'buy' signal yet, recommended position still USD according to this (slow as molasses, by design) momentum method. |
|
|
|
By price (and tx volume) movement you mean rate of change, or just absolute price? And I'm not sure I understand what you mean by 'scaled so they sum up to the same area'. You mean scaled so they initially sum up?
I'm wondering if this is similar to an observation I also made: network growth seems to have slowed down, while price seems to have continued growing as fast before (at least until recently).
Just the absolute price, not rate of change, I meant the price over time. The scaling is just the sum of all usd transaction value ticks divided by the sum of all price ticks over a two year period. (made with blockchain.info csv and libreoffice). The bright red areas and the bright blue areas should contain the same amount of pixels. Yes I think that is related to your observation, how I interpret it is that during the last months people have hoarded bitcoins rather than spent them. This may be caused buy the declining price as well but I the relationship is probably more complex than that. Case in point is hoarding doesn't contribute to bullish price action, it just dampens bearish price action. Could be a combination. Decreased adoption growth leads to reduced bullish action, increased hoarding leads to reduced bearish action. The result is the extremely stretched out correction in time (as opposed to the more drastic correction in price in 2011). |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
