Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion

[sarc]

Something is wrong with that chart. I have seen many log charts (for example the one at bitcoincharts.com) but they all look different.

The first thing that's wrong about that chart is that it's pulled out of the OP's ass. He was drawing a line based on "Mmmm, right about there".

ok then.

Plotted using sigmaplot.

regression analysis in genstat stats package (version 12) minus bubble data.

bitcoin price (logged) = -0.0635+0.0013791*time  

predicted price= $24.24

when I first saw this, I sold everything. edit: all bitcoins

Nice, so you actually didn't pull your prediction out of your ass, but used (polynomial) regression on historical data (not sure if it's wise to exclude bubble data/outliers, though). I respect that.

But do you want to know what is the single biggest assumption you make in your analysis, an assumption that some (including me) would consider completely unfounded, and in fact completely unrealistic?

That there is a single underlying growth function that governed the price of btc over the entire course of the data you looked at, and will continue to govern it.

Sure, you're free to make this assumption. But with that assumption removed, your analysis falls apart.

thanks. But I didn't assume an underlying growth function, I used a linear regression to identify  and measure it. Sure it can change post bubble, but will it? With unbiased eyes, does it really look like the bubble is over?

[1713580228]

1713580228

[1713580228]

1713580228

[ElectricMucus]

Nice, so you actually didn't pull your prediction out of your ass, but used (polynomial) regression on historical data (not sure if it's wise to exclude bubble data/outliers, though). I respect that.

But do you want to know what is the single biggest assumption you make in your analysis, an assumption that some (including me) would consider completely unfounded, and in fact completely unrealistic?

That there is a single underlying growth function that governed the price of btc over the entire course of the data you looked at, and will continue to govern it.

Sure, you're free to make this assumption. But with that assumption removed, your analysis falls apart.

So suddenly there is the call for scientific rigor, when the results do not match your expectations?
Awesome!

Oh and take a hint, the result wouldn't differ much if someone were to use the method you suggested.

[oda.krell]

Something is wrong with that chart. I have seen many log charts (for example the one at bitcoincharts.com) but they all look different.

The first thing that's wrong about that chart is that it's pulled out of the OP's ass. He was drawing a line based on "Mmmm, right about there".

ok then.

Plotted using sigmaplot.

regression analysis in genstat stats package (version 12) minus bubble data.

bitcoin price (logged) = -0.0635+0.0013791*time  

predicted price= $24.24

when I first saw this, I sold everything. edit: all bitcoins

Nice, so you actually didn't pull your prediction out of your ass, but used (polynomial) regression on historical data (not sure if it's wise to exclude bubble data/outliers, though). I respect that.

But do you want to know what is the single biggest assumption you make in your analysis, an assumption that some (including me) would consider completely unfounded, and in fact completely unrealistic?

That there is a single underlying growth function that governed the price of btc over the entire course of the data you looked at, and will continue to govern it.

Sure, you're free to make this assumption. But with that assumption removed, your analysis falls apart.

thanks. But I didn't assume an underlying growth function, I used a linear regression to identify  and measure it. Sure it can change post bubble, but will it?

Dude, you either don't know the math behind what you do, or you're willfully obstinate to make a point: if you run a simple regression analysis like you did, you de facto work from the assumption that there is one and only function underlying those data points. Otherwise, you "identified" jack shit.

[oda.krell]

Nice, so you actually didn't pull your prediction out of your ass, but used (polynomial) regression on historical data (not sure if it's wise to exclude bubble data/outliers, though). I respect that.

But do you want to know what is the single biggest assumption you make in your analysis, an assumption that some (including me) would consider completely unfounded, and in fact completely unrealistic?

That there is a single underlying growth function that governed the price of btc over the entire course of the data you looked at, and will continue to govern it.

Sure, you're free to make this assumption. But with that assumption removed, your analysis falls apart.

So suddenly there is the call for scientific rigour, when the results do not match your expectations?
Awesome!

Oh and take a hint, the result wouldn't differ much if someone were to use the method you suggested.

You're funny when you try too hard: I didn't suggest any method. I simply formulated the assumption made in sarc's analysis.

And "the result wouldn't differ much"? You're kidding, I hope. Simply (yet unrealistically) assuming that, say, growth was determined by one function up to January 2013, and another one following January 2013, would probably put us into the 500? 5000? (can't be arsed to calculate this now) range right now.

Which is obviously not where we are. Hence: unrealistic assumption as well, as noted above.

[sarc]

Something is wrong with that chart. I have seen many log charts (for example the one at bitcoincharts.com) but they all look different.

The first thing that's wrong about that chart is that it's pulled out of the OP's ass. He was drawing a line based on "Mmmm, right about there".

ok then.

Plotted using sigmaplot.

regression analysis in genstat stats package (version 12) minus bubble data.

bitcoin price (logged) = -0.0635+0.0013791*time  

predicted price= $24.24

when I first saw this, I sold everything. edit: all bitcoins

Nice, so you actually didn't pull your prediction out of your ass, but used (polynomial) regression on historical data (not sure if it's wise to exclude bubble data/outliers, though). I respect that.

But do you want to know what is the single biggest assumption

Dude, you either don't know the math behind what you do, or you're willfully obstinate to make a point: if you run a simple regression analysis like you did, you de facto work from the assumption that there is one and only function underlying those data points. Otherwise, you "identified" jack shit.

I'm only showing that there's an extremely strong underlying trend outside of bubble data, which predicts a bitcoin price much lower than it is now. No need to get antsy

[MickeyT2008]

I chucked a buy order for 120.12 @ 1 btc and it got filled..  either i got goxxed or someone else did..

Goxxed! who's got a gif

I haven't got a gif file but here's a music video about getting goxxed in the April crash: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2ku1A5Ox8U

[sarc]

Nice, so you actually didn't pull your prediction out of your ass, but used (polynomial) regression on historical data (not sure if it's wise to exclude bubble data/outliers, though). I respect that.

But do you want to know what is the single biggest assumption you make in your analysis, an assumption that some (including me) would consider completely unfounded, and in fact completely unrealistic?

That there is a single underlying growth function that governed the price of btc over the entire course of the data you looked at, and will continue to govern it.

Sure, you're free to make this assumption. But with that assumption removed, your analysis falls apart.

So suddenly there is the call for scientific rigour, when the results do not match your expectations?
Awesome!

Oh and take a hint, the result wouldn't differ much if someone were to use the method you suggested.

You're funny when you try too hard: I didn't suggest any method. I simply formulated the assumption made in sarc's analysis.

And "the result wouldn't differ much"? You're kidding, I hope. Simply (yet unrealistically) assuming that, say, growth was determined by one function up to January 2013, and another one following January 2013, would probably put us into the 500? 5000? (can't be arsed to calculate this now) range right now.

Which is obviously not where we are. Hence: unrealistic assumption as well, as noted above.

you really are missing the point. The analysis is showing that there is a consistent underlying trend - that's its point for being.

[ElectricMucus]

Nice, so you actually didn't pull your prediction out of your ass, but used (polynomial) regression on historical data (not sure if it's wise to exclude bubble data/outliers, though). I respect that.

But do you want to know what is the single biggest assumption you make in your analysis, an assumption that some (including me) would consider completely unfounded, and in fact completely unrealistic?

That there is a single underlying growth function that governed the price of btc over the entire course of the data you looked at, and will continue to govern it.

Sure, you're free to make this assumption. But with that assumption removed, your analysis falls apart.

So suddenly there is the call for scientific rigour, when the results do not match your expectations?
Awesome!

Oh and take a hint, the result wouldn't differ much if someone were to use the method you suggested.

You're funny when you try too hard: I didn't suggest any method. I simply formulated the assumption made in sarc's analysis.

And "the result wouldn't differ much"? You're kidding, I hope. Simply (yet unrealistically) assuming that, say, growth was determined by one function up to January 2013, and another one following January 2013, would probably put us into the 500? 5000? (can't be arsed to calculate this now) range right now.

Which is obviously not where we are. Hence: unrealistic assumption as well, as noted above.

One can never try too hard, when accomplishing something it doesn't matter.
I am not assuming a thing, you are accusing me of such assumption. To spell it out for you: No the course doesn't necessarily follow any trendline or exponential slope.

Trendlines and exponential slopes are common tools however to formulate models from which results an expectation. It's factual. No more or less valid than any of the other trends posted here.

[oda.krell]

Something is wrong with that chart. I have seen many log charts (for example the one at bitcoincharts.com) but they all look different.

The first thing that's wrong about that chart is that it's pulled out of the OP's ass. He was drawing a line based on "Mmmm, right about there".

ok then.

Plotted using sigmaplot.

regression analysis in genstat stats package (version 12) minus bubble data.

bitcoin price (logged) = -0.0635+0.0013791*time  

predicted price= $24.24

when I first saw this, I sold everything. edit: all bitcoins

Nice, so you actually didn't pull your prediction out of your ass, but used (polynomial) regression on historical data (not sure if it's wise to exclude bubble data/outliers, though). I respect that.

But do you want to know what is the single biggest assumption

Dude, you either don't know the math behind what you do, or you're willfully obstinate to make a point: if you run a simple regression analysis like you did, you de facto work from the assumption that there is one and only function underlying those data points. Otherwise, you "identified" jack shit.

I'm only showing that there's an extremely strong underlying trend outside of bubble data, which predicts a bitcoin price much lower than it is now. No need to get antsy

eh, sorry. my field (well, of sort) is foundations of mathematics, so I can get worked up over not knowing the (formal) premises of a method one uses.

anyway, I'm not even completely denying your point. I'm extremely cautious right now, and far from ruling out price will drop further. But I still consider it a distinct possibility that the fundamentals and public perception have changed enough for growth to continue from (roughly) where we are now. Time will tell.

[sarc]

Something is wrong with that chart. I have seen many log charts (for example the one at bitcoincharts.com) but they all look different.

The first thing that's wrong about that chart is that it's pulled out of the OP's ass. He was drawing a line based on "Mmmm, right about there".

ok then.

Plotted using sigmaplot.

regression analysis in genstat stats package (version 12) minus bubble data.

bitcoin price (logged) = -0.0635+0.0013791*time  

predicted price= $24.24

when I first saw this, I sold everything. edit: all bitcoins

Nice, so you actually didn't pull your prediction out of your ass, but used (polynomial) regression on historical data (not sure if it's wise to exclude bubble data/outliers, though). I respect that.

But do you want to know what is the single biggest assumption

Dude, you either don't know the math behind what you do, or you're willfully obstinate to make a point: if you run a simple regression analysis like you did, you de facto work from the assumption that there is one and only function underlying those data points. Otherwise, you "identified" jack shit.

I'm only showing that there's an extremely strong underlying trend outside of bubble data, which predicts a bitcoin price much lower than it is now. No need to get antsy

eh, sorry. my field (well, of sort) is foundations of mathematics, so I can get worked up over not knowing the (formal) premises of a method one uses.

anyway, I'm not even completely denying your point. I'm extremely cautious right now, and far from ruling out price will drop further. But I still consider it a distinct possibility that the fundamentals and public perception have changed enough for growth to continue from (roughly) where we are now. Time will tell.

ok truce. FYI, I'm a statistical modeller.

[oda.krell]

Nice, so you actually didn't pull your prediction out of your ass, but used (polynomial) regression on historical data (not sure if it's wise to exclude bubble data/outliers, though). I respect that.

But do you want to know what is the single biggest assumption you make in your analysis, an assumption that some (including me) would consider completely unfounded, and in fact completely unrealistic?

That there is a single underlying growth function that governed the price of btc over the entire course of the data you looked at, and will continue to govern it.

Sure, you're free to make this assumption. But with that assumption removed, your analysis falls apart.

So suddenly there is the call for scientific rigour, when the results do not match your expectations?
Awesome!

Oh and take a hint, the result wouldn't differ much if someone were to use the method you suggested.

You're funny when you try too hard: I didn't suggest any method. I simply formulated the assumption made in sarc's analysis.

And "the result wouldn't differ much"? You're kidding, I hope. Simply (yet unrealistically) assuming that, say, growth was determined by one function up to January 2013, and another one following January 2013, would probably put us into the 500? 5000? (can't be arsed to calculate this now) range right now.

Which is obviously not where we are. Hence: unrealistic assumption as well, as noted above.

One can never try too hard, when accomplishing something it doesn't matter.
I am not assuming a thing, you are accusing me of such assumption. To spell it out for you: No the course doesn't necessarily follow any trendline or exponential slope.

Trendlines and exponential slopes are common tools however to formulate models from which results an expectation. It's factual. No more or less valid than any of the other trends posted here.

Last reply I'm gonna make on this topic. Promised.

Had you bothered to read my post history, you could have noticed that I *consistently* make the point that I don't believe in *the* trendline/growth function/etc governing: price = market behavior = human behavior.

Which is why I don't like it if you accuse me of selectively appllying that rigor only when it is convenient for me. I make this point all the time, when talking about bullish trendlines and bearish ones. Assuming that there is *the* magical growth function that holds once and forever is delusional, therefore any analysis that plots such a line needs to be taken with huge grains of salt. (Note: I'm not saying "should be completely dismissed")

[oda.krell]

Something is wrong with that chart. I have seen many log charts (for example the one at bitcoincharts.com) but they all look different.

The first thing that's wrong about that chart is that it's pulled out of the OP's ass. He was drawing a line based on "Mmmm, right about there".

ok then.

Plotted using sigmaplot.

regression analysis in genstat stats package (version 12) minus bubble data.

bitcoin price (logged) = -0.0635+0.0013791*time  

predicted price= $24.24

when I first saw this, I sold everything. edit: all bitcoins

Nice, so you actually didn't pull your prediction out of your ass, but used (polynomial) regression on historical data (not sure if it's wise to exclude bubble data/outliers, though). I respect that.

But do you want to know what is the single biggest assumption

Dude, you either don't know the math behind what you do, or you're willfully obstinate to make a point: if you run a simple regression analysis like you did, you de facto work from the assumption that there is one and only function underlying those data points. Otherwise, you "identified" jack shit.

I'm only showing that there's an extremely strong underlying trend outside of bubble data, which predicts a bitcoin price much lower than it is now. No need to get antsy

eh, sorry. my field (well, of sort) is foundations of mathematics, so I can get worked up over not knowing the (formal) premises of a method one uses.

anyway, I'm not even completely denying your point. I'm extremely cautious right now, and far from ruling out price will drop further. But I still consider it a distinct possibility that the fundamentals and public perception have changed enough for growth to continue from (roughly) where we are now. Time will tell.

ok truce. FYI, I'm a statistical modeller.

Biology? Bioinformatics?

[ElectricMucus]

Nice, so you actually didn't pull your prediction out of your ass, but used (polynomial) regression on historical data (not sure if it's wise to exclude bubble data/outliers, though). I respect that.

But do you want to know what is the single biggest assumption you make in your analysis, an assumption that some (including me) would consider completely unfounded, and in fact completely unrealistic?

That there is a single underlying growth function that governed the price of btc over the entire course of the data you looked at, and will continue to govern it.

Sure, you're free to make this assumption. But with that assumption removed, your analysis falls apart.

So suddenly there is the call for scientific rigour, when the results do not match your expectations?
Awesome!

Oh and take a hint, the result wouldn't differ much if someone were to use the method you suggested.

You're funny when you try too hard: I didn't suggest any method. I simply formulated the assumption made in sarc's analysis.

And "the result wouldn't differ much"? You're kidding, I hope. Simply (yet unrealistically) assuming that, say, growth was determined by one function up to January 2013, and another one following January 2013, would probably put us into the 500? 5000? (can't be arsed to calculate this now) range right now.

Which is obviously not where we are. Hence: unrealistic assumption as well, as noted above.

One can never try too hard, when accomplishing something it doesn't matter.
I am not assuming a thing, you are accusing me of such assumption. To spell it out for you: No the course doesn't necessarily follow any trendline or exponential slope.

Trendlines and exponential slopes are common tools however to formulate models from which results an expectation. It's factual. No more or less valid than any of the other trends posted here.

Last reply I'm gonna make on this topic. Promised.

Had you bothered to read my post history, you could have noticed that I *consistently* make the point that I don't believe in *the* trendline/growth function/etc governing: price = market behavior = human behavior.

Which is why I don't like it if you accuse me of selectively appllying that rigor only when it is convenient for me. I make this point all the time, when talking about bullish trendlines and bearish ones. Assuming that there is *the* magical growth function that holds once and forever is delusional, therefore any analysis that plots such a line needs to be taken with huge grains of salt. (Note: I'm not saying "should be completely dismissed")

If that is true we are in agreement.

[prof7bit]

bitcoin price (logged)

Then please explain why your "bitcoin price (logged)" does not look anywhere similar (not even remotely) like any other bitcoin price log chart?

[oda.krell]

bitcoin price (logged)

Then please explain why your "bitcoin price (logged)" does not look anywhere similar (not even remotely) like any other bitcoin price log chart?

It actually does. It's just that his historical data spans from the beginning of btc trading to now, while the log charts you see more often begin in January 2013.

[sarc]

bitcoin price (logged)

Then please explain why your "bitcoin price (logged)" does not look anywhere similar (not even remotely) like any other bitcoin price log chart?

dunno, maybe they're charting it wrong?

Could be a different log, could just be proportions of the chart. Time series data are often plotted on a much wider plot. Doesn't change anything of course, and the closest thing I've seen to this chart made a similar prediction.

[sarc]

Something is wrong with that chart. I have seen many log charts (for example the one at bitcoincharts.com) but they all look different.

The first thing that's wrong about that chart is that it's pulled out of the OP's ass. He was drawing a line based on "Mmmm, right about there".

ok then.

Plotted using sigmaplot.

regression analysis in genstat stats package (version 12) minus bubble data.

bitcoin price (logged) = -0.0635+0.0013791*time  

predicted price= $24.24

when I first saw this, I sold everything. edit: all bitcoins

Nice, so you actually didn't pull your prediction out of your ass, but used (polynomial) regression on historical data (not sure if it's wise to exclude bubble data/outliers, though). I respect that.

But do you want to know what is the single biggest assumption

Dude, you either don't know the math behind what you do, or you're willfully obstinate to make a point: if you run a simple regression analysis like you did, you de facto work from the assumption that there is one and only function underlying those data points. Otherwise, you "identified" jack shit.

I'm only showing that there's an extremely strong underlying trend outside of bubble data, which predicts a bitcoin price much lower than it is now. No need to get antsy

eh, sorry. my field (well, of sort) is foundations of mathematics, so I can get worked up over not knowing the (formal) premises of a method one uses.

anyway, I'm not even completely denying your point. I'm extremely cautious right now, and far from ruling out price will drop further. But I still consider it a distinct possibility that the fundamentals and public perception have changed enough for growth to continue from (roughly) where we are now. Time will tell.

ok truce. FYI, I'm a statistical modeller.

Biology? Bioinformatics?

Behavioural biologist, but don't judge me.

[oda.krell]

Something is wrong with that chart. I have seen many log charts (for example the one at bitcoincharts.com) but they all look different.

The first thing that's wrong about that chart is that it's pulled out of the OP's ass. He was drawing a line based on "Mmmm, right about there".

ok then.

Plotted using sigmaplot.

regression analysis in genstat stats package (version 12) minus bubble data.

bitcoin price (logged) = -0.0635+0.0013791*time  

predicted price= $24.24

when I first saw this, I sold everything. edit: all bitcoins

:)

Nice, so you actually didn't pull your prediction out of your ass, but used (polynomial) regression on historical data (not sure if it's wise to exclude bubble data/outliers, though). I respect that.

But do you want to know what is the single biggest assumption

Dude, you either don't know the math behind what you do, or you're willfully obstinate to make a point: if you run a simple regression analysis like you did, you de facto work from the assumption that there is one and only function underlying those data points. Otherwise, you "identified" jack shit.

I'm only showing that there's an extremely strong underlying trend outside of bubble data, which predicts a bitcoin price much lower than it is now. No need to get antsy :)

eh, sorry. my field (well, of sort) is foundations of mathematics, so I can get worked up over not knowing the (formal) premises of a method one uses.

anyway, I'm not even completely denying your point. I'm extremely cautious right now, and far from ruling out price will drop further. But I still consider it a distinct possibility that the fundamentals and public perception have changed enough for growth to continue from (roughly) where we are now. Time will tell.

ok truce. FYI, I'm a statistical modeller.

Biology? Bioinformatics?

Behavioural biologist, but don't judge me.

Why would I? I'm a mildly formal philosophy person, basically :P

EDIT: sorry for the off topic conversation. it's just that nothing happens right now.

[ChartBuddy]

[San1ty]

SNIP

I just made a log chart myself since the beginning of trading and I can agree on the price target of $25-30 if you make a load of assumptions as already stated by others above.

I myself am not a believer in one trend to rule them all from the beginning of time till now, it is kind of simplistic and purely statistical.
Therefor I believe the price we are at now to be appropriate and we will go upward from here onward.