:

[dree12]

Tuesday.

*image*

This market is testing your chart-making software, isn't it? This one looks particularly deranged (for lack of a better word). I don't think, however, that there is a 2% chance of the low being below $2.7 - this should be more like 50%.

If you want to judge a chart, you would need to know how to read it first, wouldn't you?

*facepalm*.
I know how to read these charts, I was just posting that really unconsiously. I changed my post to more useful information now.

[dree12]

Wednesday.

*image*

Testing the chart capabilities again, eh? The relative resistance looks like a flat line - though the time-series model says something different. This just shows what kind of market we're in.

[fivebells]

Expanding the independent axis to show where the real resistance starts would be interesting.

[netrin]

I believe this only highlights the age old debate regarding arithmetic vs geometric price axis. If you scale the prices logarithmically, the resistance and support will be more balanced. I believe that has always been true, but much less noticeable when your range was for example $4-$7. Now that it's $0-$6 it's quite obvious.

The midpoint is $3. Half ($1.5) and double ($6) have the same S/R levels.

[fivebells]

Thanks for the graph and the explanations.  "Retracement" is a new concept for me, and I think it will take a little time for me to wrap my head around it.

[fivebells]

Thanks, Chodpaba.   Modeling the retracement regions in a Bayesian framework would be interesting.

[netrin]

what changed in the trend?

[netrin]

OK, let me rephrase the question. What inputs resulted in a chart with higher price probabilities?

[netrin]

Haven't you noticed that at midnight, dozens if not hundreds of thread readers, after viewing your charts make your predictions come true? If you stop publishing snapshots, I predict your models will no longer hold. I suggest you publish more often. You'll be certain to profit from greater predictive power.

[TiagoTiago]

It's not possible to have a model that accounts for it's own existence?

[fivebells]

You are essentially proposing a deletion experiment which should provide a pretty strong test of the predictions' impacts on price behavior: just keep track of prediction accuracy when publishing/not publishing.

[ElectricMucus]

I think that also depends on the health of the mining network. If continues to drop at this rate prices could be somewhat stable at these levels because the remaining miners would still be making profit. But that happening is also kind of unlikely since the rate of miner outflow has already begun to decline.

[wobber]

How did you make this graph?

[fivebells]

What's the dependent axis represent?

[fivebells]

Thanks.

[BTCurious]

It seems to me it would make sense to make the horizontal axis logarithmic. I wonder if the slopes seem more equal then.

[cbeast]

Going from three to four is a big jump. I predict bitcoin will have to take a few steps back so it can get enough speed to make that leap. =p

[BTCurious]

I have analyzed exactly how the slopes got to be that way. It is mostly a function of how fast we moved through those price levels. The steps on the resistance curve are lower generally because we retraced through price levels several times on the way down, this has the effect of 'erasing' resistance between the price intervals. The opposite happened on the way up through prices on the support side, as we moved quickly through those price levels. And so there is a difference in the slope of the two curves.

That seems like it makes sense.
Still though, armchair analysis: the resistance for $0.00 can be expected to be infinite, whereas there is no such equivalent for the upside. On a log scale, this would be obvious, and work out perfectly.

[BTCurious]

-.-'

I'm not dividing by zero, dude. I'm talking about the price of a bitcoin never hitting zero. Even if everything crashes, it would just be worth very little, like a cent per coin, or less. But not zero. As such, the resistance for zero seems infinite.

[dree12]

-.-'

I'm not dividing by zero, dude. I'm talking about the price of a bitcoin never hitting zero. Even if everything crashes, it would just be worth very little, like a cent per coin, or less. But not zero. As such, the resistance for zero seems infinite.

The actual support is somewhere below zero, as bitcoins do require resources (disk space for the wallet.dat, though a marginal amount) to maintain. So if bitcoin's value goes below that point, people will expend time (though a marginal amount) to get rid of bitcoins as if they were garbage - and that time is likely to be more valuable than the bitcoins themselves, meaning they had paid to remove bitcoins.

Obviously this is a doomsday story and has nothing do with its likely future, but the resistance at zero isn't infinite from a fundamental standpoint. From a technical standpoint, however, chodpada is correct that support cannot be described at zero. This is because both zero and infinity are values no commodity can in theory have.