CNBC: "Bitcoin is the new safe-haven asset"

[deisik]

Keep in mind that the last time we hit $1000 it was completely artificial,Pumped up by the will bot or whatever you call it.

Why do you or anyone else actually believe that story? Because of the evidence provided?

The stories about trading bots at Gox were exactly that: stories. There was no attributable source: it was simply a claim, repeated multiple times in news pieces about the Gox fiasco. There exists nothing to prove the veracity of the stories, and should be treated in turn with due diligence.

Well, it may turn out just a story or an urban legend in the end, but there is hardly any doubt about the nature of that price spike from rags to riches. I mean that it was conspicuously artificial and ended badly...

For those who got stuck with bitcoins bought at prices anywhere above $300

[1715494484]

1715494484

[1715494484]

1715494484

[1715494484]

1715494484

[Carlton Banks]

So, why wasn't the 2013 $266 ATH "conspicuously artificial"? What was the big difference between 2013 spike and 2014 spike? It's "none", isn't it?

[deisik]

So, why wasn't the 2013 $266 ATH "conspicuously artificial"? What was the big difference between 2013 spike and 2014 spike? It's "none", isn't it?

I pretty much don't know since I wasn't there yet (when Bitcoin, as you say, hit $266 ATH in early 2013), but maybe because we didn't go below $200 after the spike that had started in November 2013 (and which was later attributed to Willy the bot)?

I guess 3 years is enough to make such an inference (that it was mostly "natural"), no?

[Carlton Banks]

So, why wasn't the 2013 $266 ATH "conspicuously artificial"? What was the big difference between 2013 spike and 2014 spike? It's "none", isn't it?

because we didn't go below $200 after the spike that had started in November 2013?

BTC/USD actually went below $100 ($70 was the bottom) subsequent to the April 2013 spike, which is ~60% drop. The drop from $1200 to $200 was more like a ~75% drop. I really don't think that a ~15% nominal disparity between those proportionate drops indicates anything with any certainty at all.


You're doing the same thing I do all the time: saying things without checking the facts separately. I get it right 9 times out of 10. You can do better.

[deisik]

So, why wasn't the 2013 $266 ATH "conspicuously artificial"? What was the big difference between 2013 spike and 2014 spike? It's "none", isn't it?

because we didn't go below $200 after the spike that had started in November 2013?

BTC/USD went below $100 subsequent to the April 2013 spike, which is ~60% drop. The drop from $1200 to $200 was more like a ~75% drop. I really don't think that a ~15% nominal disparity between those proportionate drops indicates anything with any certainty at all.

You're doing the same thing I do all the time: saying things without checking the facts separately. I get it right 9 times out of 10. You can do better.

You seem to be stretching out "the facts" to fit your point. I think that I've said it perfectly clear and unambiguous that I don't know whether that April 2013 spike was artificial or not. It may well be, but as I said, I don't know, so I can't possibly come to any decisive conclusion. Nevertheless, I have to repeat that the period of almost 3 years during which the price didn't fall below $200 seems to be long enough to argue that the price of $200 is "natural" (as far as it is possible for Bitcoin at all). And that the growth up to that figure was not artificial...

That's the point which you seem to have deliberately shrunk from addressing

[deisik]

And the drop from $1,200 to $200 is not quite like ~75%. It is more like 6 times (though only an 85% nominal drop). You should take $200 as the base for calculating percentages (i.e. from where the price started to hike). In any case, fiddling with percentages doesn't smell well since that's what you are trying to do now...

Namely, the price spike from $200 up to $1,200 equals 500% growth while the drop back to the same $200 is only 85% decrease

[Carlton Banks]

Everything you've said does not prove that the $1200 spike was artificial. What I said demonstrates that the magnitudinal changes were very similar. What exactly is it that you are trying to argue about now?

[deisik]

Everything you've said does not prove that the $1200 spike was artificial. What I said demonstrates that the magnitudinal changes were very similar. What exactly is it that you are trying to argue about now?

Further, your "nominal disparity" of ~15% would actually be equal to 25 though not percentages but percentage points. You may not see (or understand) the difference between the two, but if you convert 25 percentage points into actual percentages, you will get a real disparity of more than 40%. Not something that you can easily sneeze at, or get away with, and I was just following your own logic. Still going to insist that these "magnitudinal changes" are very similar?

It seems that I'm doing much better than you so far. Your strength is surely not in numbers, lol

[Carlton Banks]

Everything you've said does not prove that the $1200 spike was artificial. What I said demonstrates that the magnitudinal changes were very similar. What exactly is it that you are trying to argue about now?

Further, your "nominal disparity" of ~15% would actually be equal to 25 though not percentages but percentage points. You may not see (or understand) the difference between the two, but if you convert 25 percentage points into actual percentages, you will get a real disparity of more than 40%. Not something that you can easily sneeze at, or get away with, and I was just following your own logic. Still going to insist that these "magnitudinal changes" are very similar?

It seems that I'm doing much better than you so far, lol

That's why I used the word "nominal". Have you proved that the $1200 spike was artificial yet? No?

[7788bitcoin]

The title of the article should be :"Bitcoin is the new safe-haven asset?"

With such a high volatility, bitcoin is still far from being the "safe-haven". At the moment, many investors will still turn to gold during economy uncertainty. The risk bitcoin carries is still too high.

Best advice is still "to invest what you can afford to loss"!

[deisik]

Everything you've said does not prove that the $1200 spike was artificial. What I said demonstrates that the magnitudinal changes were very similar. What exactly is it that you are trying to argue about now?

Further, your "nominal disparity" of ~15% would actually be equal to 25 though not percentages but percentage points. You may not see (or understand) the difference between the two, but if you convert 25 percentage points into actual percentages, you will get a real disparity of more than 40%. Not something that you can easily sneeze at, or get away with, and I was just following your own logic. Still going to insist that these "magnitudinal changes" are very similar?

It seems that I'm doing much better than you so far, lol

That's why I used the word "nominal". Have you proved that the $1200 spike was artificial yet? No?

Thereby you essentially admit that you are deliberately distorting facts so that they better suit your point

[Carlton Banks]

Er, no. The nominal difference between 60% and 75% is now, always has been, and always will be 15%. That's what I said, because reality says the same thing, and no amount of arguing is going to change that

[deisik]

Er, no. The nominal difference between 60% and 85% is now, always has been, and always will be 15%. That's what I said, because reality says the same thing, and no amount of arguing is going to change that

Hey, have you finished school? If you subtract two percentages the result is always in percentage points

The difference between 20 percent and 30 percent is 10 percentage points, not 10 percent. In fact, an increase from 20 to 30 percent is an increase of 50 percent. Only if, for example, 20 percent of buyers choose a certain company's products in one year and 22 percent do so the next year, can one speak of an increase of 10 percent

And I am not even mentioning that just the difference between 85 and 60 is equal to 25, not 15 (percentage points or whatever). Go back to school, vires in numeris

[Hazir]

Arguing whether that ATH price spike was a genuine event caused by amazing coincidences first and then hype later or it was manipulated only by Mt.Gox trading bot is not gonna change anything here.
After all we are discussing statement that Bitcoin is the new safe-have asset, so far people are more convinced that it is not due to its incredible price fluctuation.

I would like to hear an official comment from that expert with explanation on what he based this observation tho.

[Carlton Banks]

Er, no. The nominal difference between 60% and 85% is now, always has been, and always will be 15%. That's what I said, because reality says the same thing, and no amount of arguing is going to change that

Hey, have you finished school? If you subtract two percentages the result is always in percentage points

The difference between 20 percent and 30 percent is 10 percentage points, not 10 percent.

That's what nominal difference means. Except I managed to sum it up in a two-word expression, whereas you managed to clunk it out of 15 word sentence.


And the 85% mistake was a typo. Ever noticed how close together the "7" key and the "8" key are on your keyboard?


Seriously, it's easier just to say "I was wrong". That's what I do, when I get things wrong.

[deisik]

Er, no. The nominal difference between 60% and 85% is now, always has been, and always will be 15%. That's what I said, because reality says the same thing, and no amount of arguing is going to change that

Hey, have you finished school? If you subtract two percentages the result is always in percentage points

The difference between 20 percent and 30 percent is 10 percentage points, not 10 percent.

That's what nominal difference means. Except I managed to sum it up in a two-word expression, whereas you managed to clunk it out of 15 word sentence.

So your "nominal difference" (lol) of 15% actually amounts to real difference of 40%, okay then. Now tell me that you are not distorting the facts. Besides, I also remember that you were saying something about "very similar values"...

Does the 40% difference pass as a "very similar value"? Is $500 very similar to $700?

[Bit_Happy]

This is a prime example of the controlled media secretly working to promote Bitcoin!
...LOL?
There of been other examples in the past, and a positive media cycle often happens shortly before a huge Bullish move.




Check out the USA Today logo with a Bitcoin inside:


Why are they hyping BTC so much?

[Carlton Banks]

So your "nominal difference" (lol) of 15% actually amounts to real difference of 40%, okay then. Now tell me that you are not distorting the facts. Besides, I also remember that you were saying something about "very similar values"...

Take a look at your linked wiki article on Percentage Points. The purpose of using percentage points is to compare the proportion of changes in two different sets of statistical records.

Now, this is very simple, follow closely:

1200 - 200 = 1000

1000/1200 = 0.83 recurring 3 (I worked out ~75% in my head, and I so don't care about having mental arithmetic that's so inaccurate)



266 - 100 = 166

166/266 = 0.624 3 d.p.

I'm sure you can do the multiply by 100 part with your own mental arithmetic skills, lol





Now. I'm comparing one percentage figure with another, for the prupose of comparing the proportions. Not for comparing the percentage differences between the changes themselves. If you really want to carry on arguing, you're either an appalling dogmatist or a terrible troll. Don't care which it is tbh

[deisik]

Now. I'm comparing one percentage figure with another, for the prupose of comparing the proportions. Not for comparing the percentage differences between the changes themselves

I don't understand what you are talking about. I just see that you are by any means trying to look convincing when in fact you just shitted your pants...

That's the only conclusion that I can draw

[Carlton Banks]

Right. Well, you still haven't substantiated your claim that the $1200 spike was artificial. You can't understand basic statisics written as English sentences either. And you haven't managed to use semantic sleight of hand to attack my maths either, so I don't know where to go with you. Suffice to say: "nowhere" is the only realistic option