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

[harrymmmm]

Ok, taking my seat again for the next round incoming.

Hey tok _ n

I was thinking about our recent interaction, and I am really thinking that if you were to consider a kind of weighted average to the trade volumes of exchanges, then that could be more satisfactory overall...

I've thought about this in the past too. I tried to model it as a supply/demand system.

I failed miserably, but the journey was enlightening

1) there is some actual faked volume easily visible watching trades, verified by people who should know etc. This makes modelling (and therefore weighting) very inexact.

2) as in all demand/supply models you either take into account some external resource limitations, or you accept an infinite demand when the price is zero. This means the zero transaction fee volumes are limited by unknowable things like traders' bandwidth, bot speeds, exchange processing limitations, etc. Weighting this is pretty much unknown (and even if you could, it wouldn't last long).

3) where the fee is above some threshold, it starts to become doable. I was looking at something like measured volume = a 'base' volume scaled up by some measure of the jiggling around of the price by traders with the start and end price over an analysis period (volume bar times). That base volume was to be just the volume 'swept' out under the effective supply/demand curves at the start of the analysis as the price moved (no retracements) from the starting price p0 to the end price p1 in the analysis period. I finally realized that the offered volume would, itself, probably be dependent on the fees (?).

The scaling up would need to be done by adding randomness, restricting possible transactions to those that actually made a profit greater than their fee plus maybe a factor expressing the drop in demand for transactions simply because of the fee (a trader sentiment kind of thing). The effective demand/supply profile would probably need to be approximated by the exchange order book.

I gave up looking at all the bad approximations needed in that lot. Lol.

TL;DR zero fee volumes can't be used sensibly unless you model those fake and external influences. Different fee volumes probably can't be modelled the way I described but maybe the basic idea is usable.

[Paashaas]

Lift-off to $850-$900 followed by a crash back to sub $700. Then it's time to crush the ATH.

[unknown04]

Lift-off to $850-$900 followed by a crash back to sub $700. Then it's time to crush the ATH.

How sure are you ? It might crash or it might stay at the 900 range till next year and it takes off again.

[TERA]

Lift-off to $850-$900 followed by a crash back to sub $700. Then it's time to crush the ATH.

[forzendiablo]

we are goign for 700 USD now guys!

[Killerpotleaf]

we are goign for 700 USD now guys!

feels like this comment is from the past like about 10 days ago.

[AZwarel]

we are goign for 700 USD now guys!

no

[marcus_of_augustus]

we are goign for 700 USD now guys!

no

800.

[PoolMinor]

Now.....

[TERA]

Trust China;  get shanghaied

[JimboToronto]

Finally!



According to Bitcoinaverage.

[JayJuanGee]

Ok, taking my seat again for the next round incoming.

Hey tok _ n

I was thinking about our recent interaction, and I am really thinking that if you were to consider a kind of weighted average to the trade volumes of exchanges, then that could be more satisfactory overall...

I've thought about this in the past too. I tried to model it as a supply/demand system.

I failed miserably, but the journey was enlightening

I understand that there has been various discussion about this point of weighted trade volume, and I understand that it could be quite a bit of work to attempt to establish any kind of exact system, and therefore, probably good in concept, even though in practice we may want to merely attempt a kind of ballparking of such weighted trade volume considerations.

1) there is some actual faked volume easily visible watching trades, verified by people who should know etc. This makes modelling (and therefore weighting) very inexact.

In the end, each of us is working with various kinds of imperfect information; however, yes, as you say, from time to time, some insiders will reveal some of the insider practices (such as faking trade volume), and various kinds of corruption and deception such as this is going to vary from exchange to exchange (and some will be attempting to be on the up and up), so we just would need to ball park approximate with the best that we can.

2) as in all demand/supply models you either take into account some external resource limitations, or you accept an infinite demand when the price is zero. This means the zero transaction fee volumes are limited by unknowable things like traders' bandwidth, bot speeds, exchange processing limitations, etc. Weighting this is pretty much unknown (and even if you could, it wouldn't last long).

I understand that these kinds of factors can exist, sometimes, and sometimes these kinds of factors may need to be considered in various scenarios, but other times, maybe they constitute too many trees for missing the forest....   I mean big things and big lumping of factors is likely better than getting caught too much into the details, in my thinking.

3) where the fee is above some threshold, it starts to become doable. I was looking at something like measured volume = a 'base' volume scaled up by some measure of the jiggling around of the price by traders with the start and end price over an analysis period (volume bar times). That base volume was to be just the volume 'swept' out under the effective supply/demand curves at the start of the analysis as the price moved (no retracements) from the starting price p0 to the end price p1 in the analysis period. I finally realized that the offered volume would, itself, probably be dependent on the fees (?).

The scaling up would need to be done by adding randomness, restricting possible transactions to those that actually made a profit greater than their fee plus maybe a factor expressing the drop in demand for transactions simply because of the fee (a trader sentiment kind of thing). The effective demand/supply profile would probably need to be approximated by the exchange order book.

I gave up looking at all the bad approximations needed in that lot. Lol.

TL;DR zero fee volumes can't be used sensibly unless you model those fake and external influences. Different fee volumes probably can't be modelled the way I described but maybe the basic idea is usable.

I personally think that it would be easier not to get caught up too much with any particulars of the exchange, just down grade them a bit from 100% if they have questionable practices.  For example a place like Okcoin or Huobi have extraordinary trade volume, so maybe just count them as 10% or 20%, and maybe even less, if you come to the conclusion that the trade volume does not really represent anything meaningful...

[AZwarel]

2013. Without Willy. We all want to see that November again, right?

On a serious note, all the ingredients (-ETF WF, India waking, SW, LN upon, scaling solved, WS and other institutionals are ready, MSM free advertise) are ready for it. The fundamentals are there, the halving getting priced in (yes, i said it!) slowly, just like the last time, and i am sad that i did not bought last month. Even thought my strat is buy+HODL. I shall and will buy moar.

[TERA]

2016 post-bitfinex hack is unique in that there is that there is now NO authoritative exchange to follow. There always used to be mtgox, bitfinex, bitstamp or something you could follow with a large USD volume, Now, all USD exchanges are trading very thin volume and all CNY exchanges are trading massive amounts of obviously fake volume with meaningless numbers. You can no longer pick out a market leader or use any kind of volume analysis. No order books, no walls, no volume, only price action. You just have to kind of blindly trust what is going on behind the scenes on the chain based on the candles. It is like trading Forex.

[r0ach]

Newsflash:  Some of what's going on right now is people positioning for the pre-pump of gold, silver, and Bitcoin if a Trump win is announced.  Gains if Trump wins, no losses if he loses = asymmetric trade.

[TERA]

So I should be expecting that test of $660 on Nov 9?

[r0ach]

So I should be expecting that test of $660 on Nov 9?

Not really since both Clinton and Trump were going to announce massive public works projects (out of control spending stimulus) and Shillary was probably going to try and implement "basic income", because helicopter money as a one-off event wouldn't stop terminal decline in monetary velocity leading to cascading deflationary collapse.  A last ditch effort at saving/extending their fractional reserve, debt based currency scam.

[AZwarel]

So I should be expecting that test of $660 on Nov 9?

I wish. No, seriously, i want to buy in with like 3+ BTC, so i wish we crash back to $660 even for a couple of hours. Alas, i do not see why that would happen. Market behavior has changed. It is a wide spread accumulating phase now, and we can not say a thing about it.

[JayJuanGee]

2016 post-bitfinex hack is unique in that there is that there is now NO authoritative exchange to follow. There always used to be mtgox, bitfinex, bitstamp or something you could follow with a large USD volume, Now, all USD exchanges are trading very thin volume and all CNY exchanges are trading massive amounts of obviously fake volume with meaningless numbers. You can no longer pick out a market leader or use any kind of volume analysis. No order books, no walls, no volume, only price action. You just have to kind of blindly trust what is going on behind the scenes on the chain based on the candles. It is like trading Forex.

I personally believe, at this time, that the price is going up on relatively overall low volume (or medium volume at best), but anyway the various USD exchanges are going to pick up and show their actual capabilities in respect to processing higher levels of volume once the price battle begins (in other words the price battle has not begun yet).

At this point, also, I theorize that there are three logical places in which the price battle could most feasibly begin:  1) after a price rise into the upper $700s, 2) after a price rise in the mid-$800s or 3) after a price rise into the above $2k arena.

I believe that scenario 2 above is the most likely, and I am less than 50% confident that the bulls are going to win that battle - but I certainly would like to be pleasantly surprised against my best intuitions (maybe like some others in this thread, I have become a bit battle fatigued and I remain a bit scared of the bears, since they had been successful in beating us bulls down several times over the past 3 years - even when there seems to be continuing pretty decent upwards price pressures at the moment) 

[harrymmmm]

Ok, taking my seat again for the next round incoming.

Hey tok _ n

I was thinking about our recent interaction, and I am really thinking that if you were to consider a kind of weighted average to the trade volumes of exchanges, then that could be more satisfactory overall...

I've thought about this in the past too. I tried to model it as a supply/demand system.

I failed miserably, but the journey was enlightening

I understand that there has been various discussion about this point of weighted trade volume, and I understand that it could be quite a bit of work to attempt to establish any kind of exact system, and therefore, probably good in concept, even though in practice we may want to merely attempt a kind of ballparking of such weighted trade volume considerations.

TL;DR zero fee volumes can't be used sensibly unless you model those fake and external influences. Different fee volumes probably can't be modelled the way I described but maybe the basic idea is usable.

I personally think that it would be easier not to get caught up too much with any particulars of the exchange, just down grade them a bit from 100% if they have questionable practices.  For example a place like Okcoin or Huobi have extraordinary trade volume, so maybe just count them as 10% or 20%, and maybe even less, if you come to the conclusion that the trade volume does not really represent anything meaningful...

You may well be correct if you're saying there's no better way than to suck your finger and hold it in the wind. I certainly didn't come up with anything better.
Nevertheless, you won't get any agreement amongst the people you're talking to with such a subjective guess. Everyone will have their own guess - the details matter here.

I hoped to supply some real analysis.

PS: have you checked your pm's lately?