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

[Ibian]

https://twitter.com/Coronavirus_Guy/status/1234204006810935301
tl;dr carnivores are 100% immune to the pox /jk

This is interesting. Different people eat different things, which obviously implies biological differences.

It is well known that a lot of animals have sub-races within the same species. One example is ants, where some of them are workers while others are soldiers who protect the hive. They are the same specie, but the soldiers are several times bigger than the workers and they do not work, only fight to protect the hive.

Another example is a type of rodent (i forget which). They live in underground caves, but some of them don't really do much. They are bigger than the others, and they just laze around and eat a lot. However, when the rain comes they serve a very important function. They waddle up to the entrance of the cave, and plug it with their big fat butt. An easy and lazy life in exchange for a risk of being eaten by a wandering predator.

What about humans? We used to live in tribes. Some men would spend most of their time in camp, building clay pots and playing with the kids, while others would be out hunting animals (or other humans), risking their life to protect and provide for the tribe. It is possible (and I would say seems reasonable) that there are genetic differences between different types of men. At the least, we can say for sure that there are psychological differences.

Does diet correlate to psychological traits? I have never seen any studies about this, but I would guess that it does. Different lifestyles obviously require different physical abilities and different ways of thinking, it would make sense that that means different types of food are optimal.

Maybe, just maybe, this virus is more likely to be fatal for soyboys than normal men. Would be very interesting to see some statistics, once we have enough samples.

So, maybe testosterone is the cure. We should just throw infected men into a pit to fight over a slab of bacon.

Also, you remind me of the Japanese concept of grass-eating men

Grass eaters are just their word for men going their own way. Which, being bitcoiners, we all pretty much are by definition.

As for family, if it turns out to be possible. It's not in the west. That's part of why I'm moving elsewhere.

[1713406178]

1713406178

[1713406178]

1713406178

[josegines]

It's funny how people expect an economic collapse for their BTC to rise in value, when the next BTC bullrun will probably be accompanied by stock market increases

https://www.tradingview.com/chart/BTCUSD/tSSkaRsS-Hey-BTC-Bulls-Do-Not-Pray-for-an-Economic-Crisis/

[Jeremy Franklin]

Guys we are going up again. Don't jinx it, if you want your new lambo in 2020!

[d_eddie]

-snip-

Jon Cuncliffe, the deputy governor for financial stability of the United Kingdom’s central bank, the Bank of England (BoE)

Name checks out.

[El duderino_]

Guys we are going up again. Don't jinx it, if you want your new lambo in 2020!

We want BTC not Lambo 

[JimboToronto]

Good morning Bitcoinland.

Up a wee... currently $8830USD/$11792CAD (Bitcoinaverage).

Keep it coming.

WHERE IS YOUR GOD NOW?

which one? Names pls.

JHW of course, ya noob  

it says:

יהוה

Dude!  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetragrammaton

Of course, i presented kind of a modernised representation. Didn't want to throw full hardcore at you, but i see i can't add anything of value for you now.
"I am that i am" is also the far better translation, forgive my sloppiness. 

[bkbirge]

-snip-

Jon Cuncliffe, the deputy governor for financial stability of the United Kingdom’s central bank, the Bank of England (BoE)

Name checks out.

Haha! That was my first thought too.

[nutildah]

Again, a "constant upward trajectory" creates zero volatility.

Reading comprehension.
I was never talking about "constant upward trajectory", but about "constant upward trajectory with volatility around the trajectory"; or in other words random deviations from the trajectory.

Is the trajectory constant or not? You are employing a loose definition of the word "constant" to make your case here. Within the "random deviations from the trajectory" could exist several other trajectories, depending on what span of time we're talking about. Within the cluster of those sub-trajectories exists risk if you are a shorter-term trader.

You didn't even know the trajectory was upward until after it had taken place, so to say it was a "risk free" investment is a statement made after the fact, and basically meaningless. Its like making a prediction on 2015's price of bitcoin in 2020. Sure, after the fact, we can say that the overall trajectory was up, and there existed a lot of volatility in the middle. But nobody knew it was a risk-free investment in 2015.

Volatility, in essence, is nothing but a random oscillation around a potentially unknown trajectory.
This, again, means that you can have assets of arbitrary volatility that fall into all three categories of: 1.) negative risk 2.) positive risk and 3.) neutral risk.

This all has to do with the span and timing of your trades/investments. Stocks and other assets go up and down and many have several different trajectories within their lifespans.

Bitcoin is just one of a countless number of assets and has no relevance to the definition of volatility.
It may serve as an example for an asset with high volatility and negative risk (e.g. an expected long-term return greater zero) that may, despite having a positive expected return, still reduce your capital to ashes; which makes it a rather interesting case.

It makes it risky is what it makes it. Who gets to decide bitcoin has a "positive expected return"? And for what period of time?

But that does not imply that all volatile assets are risky.

Everything that is traded under the sun has a certain degree of volatility and a certain degree of risk. The more volatile something is, the greater chance exists for financial ruin. It seems to be a no-brainer. Don't know why you would argue against that.

Arguing about hypothetical situations taken advantage of to the maximum degree doesn't negate the correlation between risk and volatility. You should probably give this a read through:

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/v/volatility.asp

[OutOfMemory]

https://twitter.com/Coronavirus_Guy/status/1234204006810935301
tl;dr carnivores are 100% immune to the pox /jk

This is interesting. Different people eat different things, which obviously implies biological differences.

It is well known that a lot of animals have sub-races within the same species. One example is ants, where some of them are workers while others are soldiers who protect the hive. They are the same specie, but the soldiers are several times bigger than the workers and they do not work, only fight to protect the hive.

Another example is a type of rodent (i forget which). They live in underground caves, but some of them don't really do much. They are bigger than the others, and they just laze around and eat a lot. However, when the rain comes they serve a very important function. They waddle up to the entrance of the cave, and plug it with their big fat butt. An easy and lazy life in exchange for a risk of being eaten by a wandering predator.

What about humans? We used to live in tribes. Some men would spend most of their time in camp, building clay pots and playing with the kids, while others would be out hunting animals (or other humans), risking their life to protect and provide for the tribe. It is possible (and I would say seems reasonable) that there are genetic differences between different types of men. At the least, we can say for sure that there are psychological differences.

Does diet correlate to psychological traits? I have never seen any studies about this, but I would guess that it does. Different lifestyles obviously require different physical abilities and different ways of thinking, it would make sense that that means different types of food are optimal.

Maybe, just maybe, this virus is more likely to be fatal for soyboys than normal men. Would be very interesting to see some statistics, once we have enough samples.

So, maybe testosterone is the cure. We should just throw infected men into a pit to fight over a slab of bacon.

Also, you remind me of the Japanese concept of grass-eating men

Grass eaters are just their word for men going their own way. Which, being bitcoiners, we all pretty much are by definition.

As for family, if it turns out to be possible. It's not in the west. That's part of why I'm moving elsewhere.

Yes it does. Colon is lined with enormous count of nerve cells, which are believed to interact with the brain. As well as i don't have a source link handy, i don't know if this evidence was strengthened in the meantime.
And according to this, heavy consumption of certain food, wheat meal, HFCS, sucrose, fat... harms, at least changes gut bacteria that is linked to process or create serotonine/dopamine in the colon. On the other hand, colon bacteria population was discovered to be influenced by psychic illness, and the findings correlated to a good amount to the colon popuplation of obese people.

It's a two sided sword indeed, while fructose and fructans (fructose alcohols, as in wheat) play an important role here.
For example, i was diagnosed as anxious/depressive two decades ago, and i was able to change my mood and strength by a diet i held because i was later diagnosed with fructose malabsorption. Even today, when i eat too much fructose/fructans i get angry, nervous, my muscles become weak and hurt, skin problems etc.
My colon suffered from inflammation for decades, taking a shit several times a day was causing malnutrition, which in turn led to vitamin deficiencies, these caused my memory problems.

So i can say for sure that brain fitness and nutrition are linked directly.
 

[BTCMILLIONAIRE]

Is the trajectory constant or not? You are employing a loose definition of the word "constant" to make your case here. Within the "random deviations from the trajectory" could exist several other trajectories, depending on what span of time we're talking about. Within the cluster of those sub-trajectories exists risk if you are a shorter-term trader.

You didn't even know the trajectory was upward until after it had taken place, so to say it was a "risk free" investment is a statement made after the fact, and basically meaningless. Its like making a prediction on 2015's price of bitcoin in 2020. Sure, after the fact, we can say that the overall trajectory was up, and there existed a lot of volatility in the middle. But nobody knew it was a risk-free investment in 2015.

I'm starting to feel like you're trolling me now. What part about "a constant trajectory around which the price oscillates" do you not understand?

Not even going to address the rest of the post until we've established why you refuse to understand this and keep repeating the same wrong thing over and over even when it's pointed out to you.

"Volatility, in essence, is nothing but a random oscillation around a potentially unknown trajectory."

[nutildah]

Is the trajectory constant or not? You are employing a loose definition of the word "constant" to make your case here. Within the "random deviations from the trajectory" could exist several other trajectories, depending on what span of time we're talking about. Within the cluster of those sub-trajectories exists risk if you are a shorter-term trader.

You didn't even know the trajectory was upward until after it had taken place, so to say it was a "risk free" investment is a statement made after the fact, and basically meaningless. Its like making a prediction on 2015's price of bitcoin in 2020. Sure, after the fact, we can say that the overall trajectory was up, and there existed a lot of volatility in the middle. But nobody knew it was a risk-free investment in 2015.

I'm starting to feel like you're trolling me now. What part about "a constant trajectory around which the price oscillates" do you not understand?

Not even going to address the rest of the post until we've established why you refuse to understand this and keep repeating the same wrong thing over and over even when it's pointed out to you.

"Volatility, in essence, is nothing but a random oscillation around a potentially unknown trajectory."

You're talking about a moving average that could only be established after a bunch of data points had been collected, which is the main thing I have an issue with. In order for something to be a "risk free investment", you're implying that somehow the trajectory could be established prior to it happening. I'm saying it couldn't. Only after the fact could it be demonstrated to be risk free. It just sounds like you ascribe to trend following, which is fine, but that doesn't negate the correlation between volatility and risk.

So what am I getting wrong?

You don't have to bother addressing the rest of the post if you don't want to.

[VB1001]

Announcements > Bitfinex To Cease Trading for Several Trading Pairs with Low Liquidity March 02, 2020

We would like to announce the removal of several trading pairs due to its low liquidity on our platform.

The removal of these trading pairs is a common measure that serves to consolidate and improve liquidity on Bitfinex, leading to a more streamlined and optimised trading experience for our users.

From 06/03/20 10:00 AM UTC

https://www.bitfinex.com/posts/461

[VB1001]

BTCMILLIONAIRE

Welcome back

[BTCMILLIONAIRE]

BTCMILLIONAIRE

Welcome back

Thanks!

[jojo69]

a sea of green in the alts

risk on

[Elwar]

The lead up to the halving is usually volatile. The price will drop again once any major publication posts the theory that at halving the miners will all stop mining (along with the implications of what happens to Bitcoin then).

Just enough people will be worried enough to sell bringing the price down yet again.

The lower the better to launch the price rise at halving, when mining continues at its normal pace.


This time around I am not sure how this Corona virus will affect the price. It may turn into a hedge, the Fed will certainly pump as much as they can which helps.

The US is finally getting cases of people affected. China started in November and by January there was full panic. US having first deaths in March could mean full panic mode in May just as the halving happens.

If the mining panic drives the price down, people may not see it as a safe haven during the crisis.

It could either be a perfect storm for a big bitcoin price or the timing counters sentiment such that it is just a normal rise starting at halving.

I certainly went out and stocked up on enough food for about a month. Fortunately I am far from Panama City and there are no reported cases here yet.

[BTCMILLIONAIRE]

Is the trajectory constant or not? You are employing a loose definition of the word "constant" to make your case here. Within the "random deviations from the trajectory" could exist several other trajectories, depending on what span of time we're talking about. Within the cluster of those sub-trajectories exists risk if you are a shorter-term trader.

You didn't even know the trajectory was upward until after it had taken place, so to say it was a "risk free" investment is a statement made after the fact, and basically meaningless. Its like making a prediction on 2015's price of bitcoin in 2020. Sure, after the fact, we can say that the overall trajectory was up, and there existed a lot of volatility in the middle. But nobody knew it was a risk-free investment in 2015.

I'm starting to feel like you're trolling me now. What part about "a constant trajectory around which the price oscillates" do you not understand?

Not even going to address the rest of the post until we've established why you refuse to understand this and keep repeating the same wrong thing over and over even when it's pointed out to you.

"Volatility, in essence, is nothing but a random oscillation around a potentially unknown trajectory."

You're talking about a moving average

I am not talking about any moving averages. You could compute them for my example, but they're not relevant to the argument.

Your argument was that volatility is equivalent to risk, which is generally wrong. Neither contains much, if any, information about the other.

To show to you that this is not the case I've tried to give you examples of assets that directly contradict your assertion.

In the 'basket of all stocks' you have no risk in the long-term, because your expected loss (= risk) is strictly negative and hence your expected return is strictly positive, because the realized total return converges towards 10% p.a. (in the case of the US stock market) over time.
Despite that, the asset itself has been volatile. Hence, volatility does not imply anything about risk nor vice versa. The only thing that matters for risk is your strategy and nothing else.

You can have a perpetually flat asset with high risk, or you can have highly volatile assets without any risk (Bitcoin - which does not mean that you are guaranteed to make money).

You can get volatility and risk in any combination and neither implies the other.

You are probably conflating risk and actual returns. Risk is a statistical measure, e.g. the expected loss of a strategy, asset or portfolio.
Just like the expected value of a dice roll is 3.5 = 1/6 times sum of all potential results.
With risk the results are potential price trajectories in the market and the probabilities are obviously different and depend on all sorts of parameters.
Realized returns on the other hand are what you end up with in reality, and while risk can give you an idea of a region that you'll land in, it'll never tell you what will really happen for individual 'games'.


Here's another attempt to make the point clear.
Assume you have volatility but it's always the same. Basically, your price follows a 100% predictable pattern no matter how many people buy or sell. In that case you have volatility, but 100% insight and hence can generate profits without any risk whatsoever.
Obviously this isn't going to happen in real markets (though it does in many games), but it should be sufficiently illustrative to show that volatility and risk aren't related.

[jojo69]

Just texted with a friend, the groceries in Seattle got wiped out yesterday.  Silly normals, why pay for food when you can just split the skulls of your neighbors and feast on the tasty goo inside?

[lightfoot]

[lightfoot]

Just texted with a friend, the groceries in Seattle got wiped out yesterday.  Silly normals, why pay for food when you can just split the skulls of your neighbors and feast on the tasty goo inside?

See, buy some extra groceries, 2-3 weeks is all you need.

Oh and measure your neighbors and rank for caloric content. Easy peasy