Bitcoin Forum
August 23, 2019, 08:08:21 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.18.0 [Torrent] (New!)
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Poll
Question: What do you think about more?
Sex - 49 (39.8%)
Bitcoin - 74 (60.2%)
Total Voters: 123

Pages: « 1 ... 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 [667] 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 695 696 697 698 699 700 701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 709 710 711 712 713 714 715 716 717 ... 24825 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion  (Read 21334280 times)
This is a self-moderated topic. If you do not want to be moderated by the person who started this topic, create a new topic. (104 posts by 20 users deleted.)
oda.krell
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1470
Merit: 1007



View Profile
June 05, 2013, 02:22:00 PM
 #13321

@prof7bit

Calm down, please. You're going as far as accusing sarc of posting false information on purpose, when all that goes on in reality is a disagreement about the math behind what was posted here.

My take on it (already mentioned above, shortened version to follow):

I don't know exactly what sarc did in his model, but if the dispute between you and him boils down to plotting the data on a chart with a log n y-axis vs. plotting the data on a chart with a log n+1 y-axis, then there is no dispute. The two are, for our purposes, equivalent.

If that's not the point of your dispute, I'm sorry that I missed it.
1566547701
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1566547701

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1566547701
Reply with quote  #2

1566547701
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1566547701
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1566547701

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1566547701
Reply with quote  #2

1566547701
Report to moderator
Richy_T
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1344
Merit: 1000


1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k


View Profile
June 05, 2013, 02:23:48 PM
 #13322

and then sell your bitcoins.
My bitcoins are none of your business. But you are free to do whatever you want with yours.
You can even plot log(2 pi cos(price + $42)) or whatever else you want and also make sure to try different values of 42 (maybe 42 Yen or 42 EUR) until the chart looks like you want it to look and then base your trading decisions on it.

god, you're such a nerd.

Not that nerdy. You can't take cos of a value with units.
sarc
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 98
Merit: 10



View Profile
June 05, 2013, 02:25:13 PM
 #13323

@prof7bit

Calm down, please. You're going as far as accusing sarc of posting false information on purpose, when all that goes on in reality is a disagreement about the math behind what was posted here.

My take on it (already mentioned above, shortened version to follow):

I don't know exactly what sarc did in his model, but if the dispute between you and him boils down to plotting the data on a chart with a log n y-axis vs. plotting the data on a chart with a log n+1 y-axis, then there is no dispute. The two are, for our purposes, equivalent.

If that's not the point of your dispute, I'm sorry that I missed it.

I think he might be being facetious for a laugh...oh and to deny the need to sell his bitcoins.
Richy_T
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1344
Merit: 1000


1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k


View Profile
June 05, 2013, 02:26:38 PM
 #13324

@prof7bit

Calm down, please. You're going as far as accusing sarc of posting false information on purpose, when all that goes on in reality is a disagreement about the math behind what was posted here.

My take on it (already mentioned above, shortened version to follow):

I don't know exactly what sarc did in his model, but if the dispute between you and him boils down to plotting the data on a chart with a log n y-axis vs. plotting the data on a chart with a log n+1 y-axis, then there is no dispute. The two are, for our purposes, equivalent.

If that's not the point of your dispute, I'm sorry that I missed it.

No. Adding a constant before taking the log of an exponential function distorts the curve. You would only add a constant if the exponential was starting from an offset (to counteract that offset).

If there is an offset in the bitcoin price (unlikely but possible), there is absolutely no reason to assume it is $1.
ElectricMucus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652
Merit: 1005


God of the code.


View Profile WWW
June 05, 2013, 02:29:31 PM
 #13325

@prof7bit

Calm down, please. You're going as far as accusing sarc of posting false information on purpose, when all that goes on in reality is a disagreement about the math behind what was posted here.

My take on it (already mentioned above, shortened version to follow):

I don't know exactly what sarc did in his model, but if the dispute between you and him boils down to plotting the data on a chart with a log n y-axis vs. plotting the data on a chart with a log n+1 y-axis, then there is no dispute. The two are, for our purposes, equivalent.

If that's not the point of your dispute, I'm sorry that I missed it.

I think he might be being facetious for a laugh...oh and to deny the need to sell his bitcoins.

Actually this is about if other people would consider selling them.
ElectricMucus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652
Merit: 1005


God of the code.


View Profile WWW
June 05, 2013, 02:36:07 PM
 #13326

@prof7bit

Calm down, please. You're going as far as accusing sarc of posting false information on purpose, when all that goes on in reality is a disagreement about the math behind what was posted here.

My take on it (already mentioned above, shortened version to follow):

I don't know exactly what sarc did in his model, but if the dispute between you and him boils down to plotting the data on a chart with a log n y-axis vs. plotting the data on a chart with a log n+1 y-axis, then there is no dispute. The two are, for our purposes, equivalent.

If that's not the point of your dispute, I'm sorry that I missed it.

No. Adding a constant before taking the log of an exponential function distorts the curve. You would only add a constant if the exponential was starting from an offset (to counteract that offset).

If there is an offset in the bitcoin price (unlikely but possible), there is absolutely no reason to assume it is $1.

You are missing the point. A trendline is to best match the development of the price, and if it does match it is consistent and can be used as a model for an expectation.
One could even estimate the "offset" systematically to better match the graph and this would be as valid or even more valid than doing otherwise.
sarc
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 98
Merit: 10



View Profile
June 05, 2013, 02:57:00 PM
 #13327

@prof7bit

Calm down, please. You're going as far as accusing sarc of posting false information on purpose, when all that goes on in reality is a disagreement about the math behind what was posted here.

My take on it (already mentioned above, shortened version to follow):

I don't know exactly what sarc did in his model, but if the dispute between you and him boils down to plotting the data on a chart with a log n y-axis vs. plotting the data on a chart with a log n+1 y-axis, then there is no dispute. The two are, for our purposes, equivalent.

If that's not the point of your dispute, I'm sorry that I missed it.

No. Adding a constant before taking the log of an exponential function distorts the curve. You would only add a constant if the exponential was starting from an offset (to counteract that offset).

If there is an offset in the bitcoin price (unlikely but possible), there is absolutely no reason to assume it is $1.

You are missing the point. A trendline is to best match the development of the price, and if it does match it is consistent and can be used as a model for an expectation.
One could even estimate the "offset" systematically to better match the graph and this would be as valid or even more valid than doing otherwise.

^yes.
ChartBuddy
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1050
Merit: 1000


1PwXK9TpmmaaqaZz2eqcLkPU2C1Fcva39G


View Profile
June 05, 2013, 03:02:32 PM
 #13328

oda.krell
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1470
Merit: 1007



View Profile
June 05, 2013, 03:03:12 PM
 #13329

@prof7bit

[...]

I don't know exactly what sarc did in his model, but if the dispute between you and him boils down to plotting the data on a chart with a log n y-axis vs. plotting the data on a chart with a log n+1 y-axis, then there is no dispute. The two are, for our purposes, equivalent.

If that's not the point of your dispute, I'm sorry that I missed it.

No. Adding a constant before taking the log of an exponential function distorts the curve. You would only add a constant if the exponential was starting from an offset (to counteract that offset).

If there is an offset in the bitcoin price (unlikely but possible), there is absolutely no reason to assume it is $1.

I never said you should add a constant to the value. I was talking about the equivalence of mapping to a log n and log n+1 chart. And that part is certainly true.

EDIT: I see the problem now. Damn sloppy notation :) you're talking about 'x', and I'm talking about base 'n' in log_(n)(x).

My point was, since the entire discussion between the two was sort of messy and unstructured, I'm not entirely sure what the claims of each party are, and I though at some point the two were arguing whether the above matters.

Anyway, unless we start doing the mathematical part of this discussion in a more systematic fashion, I'm afraid we will keep misunderstanding each others' points.

Let one thing be said, though: whether sarc's graph or method was entirely accurate or not, the prediction "in the range of 30 USD" seems to be the one you get in fact, if you do a simple regression on the entire historical data.

This is not due to some massaging the data by sarc or a mistake in his method, but simply the result of that particular analysis. Whether that type of analysis is actually predictive of the future price is a different matter.
Richy_T
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1344
Merit: 1000


1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k


View Profile
June 05, 2013, 03:04:49 PM
 #13330


You are missing the point. A trendline is to best match the development of the price, and if it does match it is consistent and can be used as a model for an expectation.
One could even estimate the "offset" systematically to better match the graph and this would be as valid or even more valid than doing otherwise.

Oh, for sure. I just don't agree with "We add 1 because it's the correct thing to do".
stereotype
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1554
Merit: 1000



View Profile
June 05, 2013, 03:05:49 PM
 #13331

Haha. Cant even agree on Math....   long live the Wall Observer thread!
Richy_T
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1344
Merit: 1000


1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k


View Profile
June 05, 2013, 03:06:00 PM
 #13332

Anyway, unless we start doing the mathematical part of this discussion in a more systematic fashion, I'm afraid we will keep misunderstanding each others' points.

I'm game for it. If you're looking at base notation, I seem to recall having used [for example] loge(x) and log10(x). Obviously, it is not standard notation but a compromise for a text-based medium.

I believe prof clarified things a little at one point and sarc continued to assert the incorrect thing as correct [ log(x+1) ].

Let one thing be said, though: whether sarc's graph or method was entirely accurate or not, the prediction "in the range of 30 USD" seems to be the one you get in fact, if you do a simple regression on the entire historical data.

This is not due to some massaging the data by sarc or a mistake in his method, but simply the result of that particular analysis. Whether that type of analysis is actually predictive of the future price is a different matter.

No disagreement there. The exponent definitely changed. The question is whether it is a bubble or represents a different phase of Bitcoin's growth. I'm holding on to mine...
oda.krell
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1470
Merit: 1007



View Profile
June 05, 2013, 03:12:29 PM
 #13333

Correction to my own post above:

30 USD is (probably, I didn't calculate it myself) the result of linear regression and, as I understood sarc, removing some outlier data (i.e. the bubbles).

The other charts I've seen that use the entire data have as at around 50 USD, IIRC.
sarc
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 98
Merit: 10



View Profile
June 05, 2013, 03:15:27 PM
 #13334

Anyway, unless we start doing the mathematical part of this discussion in a more systematic fashion, I'm afraid we will keep misunderstanding each others' points.

I'm game for it. If you're looking at base notation, I seem to recall having used [for example] loge(x) and log10(x). Obviously, if you could use real notation, it would be different.

I believe prof clarified things a little at one point and sarc continued to assert the incorrect thing as correct [ log(x+1) ].
nope.
log(x+1) is right for this data, that's how I'm able to fit a straight line to it and make a valid estimate of the underlying trend to date. 
oda.krell
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1470
Merit: 1007



View Profile
June 05, 2013, 03:16:50 PM
 #13335

Anyway, unless we start doing the mathematical part of this discussion in a more systematic fashion, I'm afraid we will keep misunderstanding each others' points.

I'm game for it. If you're looking at base notation, I seem to recall having used [for example] loge(x) and log10(x). Obviously, it is not standard notation but a compromise for a text-based medium.

I believe prof clarified things a little at one point and sarc continued to assert the incorrect thing as correct [ log(x+1) ].

As I wrote in my 'EDIT' already, there is no disagreement between us re: correct use of log, only a confusion of notation (more due to my part, I admit, my way of writing it was highly misleading)

log_(n)(x) and log_(n)(x+1) are of course not the same. If sarc stated that, he was wrong. Funny enough, for his results it shouldn't really matter much, the difference will be minimal I think.
Rampion
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1120
Merit: 1000


View Profile
June 05, 2013, 03:19:40 PM
 #13336

Correction to my own post above:

30 USD is (probably, I didn't calculate it myself) the result of linear regression and, as I understood sarc, removing some outlier data (i.e. the bubbles).

The other charts I've seen that use the entire data have as at around 50 USD, IIRC.

That is pretty much consistent with EW analysis, isn't it? I mean, the bottom of wave 4 (bottom post-2013 crash) is aprox. the top of wave 1 (2011 bubble high), isn't it?



As I said earlier I arrived to the same conclusion using my very own "common sense" and analysis after April, 10th - but now I believe I was mistaken.
oda.krell
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1470
Merit: 1007



View Profile
June 05, 2013, 03:21:03 PM
 #13337

nope.
log(x+1) is right for this data, that's how I'm able to fit a straight line to it and make a valid estimate of the underlying trend to date. 

Do you really mean:

log(x+1)

as in

log_(n)(x+1), where x = USD/btc, and n is the base you chose? If so, maybe that's a technique used in statistical modeling, but it certainly is not correct per se.
oda.krell
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1470
Merit: 1007



View Profile
June 05, 2013, 03:23:01 PM
 #13338

That is pretty much consistent with EW analysis, isn't it? I mean, the bottom of wave 4 (bottom post-2013 crash) is aprox. the top of wave 1 (2011 bubble high), isn't it?
[...]
As I said earlier I arrived to the same conclusion using my very own "common sense" and analysis after April, 10th - but now I believe I was mistaken.

I know close to nothing about EW analysis. In any case, I don't think we'll fall back to 50, and certainly not sub-30. I can see us going back to 60-80, though, I admit :/
nmersulypnem
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 238
Merit: 100


View Profile
June 05, 2013, 03:23:18 PM
 #13339

I thought this thread was about wall watching, not in-depth conversations about technical analysis.  But maybe that was just me...  
Jozzaboy
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 98
Merit: 10



View Profile
June 05, 2013, 03:27:46 PM
 #13340

I thought this thread was about wall watching, not in-depth conversations about technical analysis.  But maybe that was just me...  

Quoted for truth. Besides, this is Bitcoin. It tend to do what it feels like, depending on public faith in the currency not technical analysis and straight lines.
Pages: « 1 ... 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 [667] 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 695 696 697 698 699 700 701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 709 710 711 712 713 714 715 716 717 ... 24825 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!