VOLUME

[T.Stuart]

I thought it would be a good idea to start a thread specifically on volume.

There are quite a few people who swear by the volumes we are seeing. This seems to be at the root of every bear's argument.

I just looked at the volume over the past 12 days.

I compared it with the volume of 12 days in the middle of October.

An arbitrary comparison you might say, but I wanted to get a point just before the main run up to the bubble and compare with just after the bubble pop (please don't dispute the meaning of the term "bubble" unless it is directly relevant to the topic of volume).

So for the 12 days in October we have roughly 300,000 bitcoins traded for roughly $50,000,000

For the 12 days leading up to today we have roughly 125,000 bitcoins traded for roughly $100,000,000

Bearing in mind that the last 12 days sit slap bang in the holiday period I feel this is a strong signal for a bullish start to the year (also with the uptrend of course). But of course I would!  

Please excuse the rough figures but what do you think?

Please also do your own comparisons of volume if you can, to back up your own views.

EDIT: Sorry, should have been more precise - Gox figures of course

[arepo]

we were seeing such low volume this week specifically because the price point we were consolidating at corresponds to "zero potential energy" in the oscillations caused by the crash. i am referencing a model none of you have seen, but maybe someone will know what i'm talking about

hint: price behavior after a sudden and significant movement can be modeled with the equations for a damped oscillator, like a sine function with linearly decreasing amplitude.

--arepo

edit: here's another hint:

[ElectricMucus]

Linearly decreasing amplitudes don't happen in nature, it's almost always exponential decay.
Why should price fluctuations be different?

[arepo]

Linearly decreasing amplitudes don't happen in nature, it's almost always exponential decay.
Why should price fluctuations be different?

sorry for the ambiguity. i meant to say that one example of a damped oscillator is a sine function with linearly decreasing amplitude, not that that is the preferred model for price.

you don't take issue with the fact that price behavior can be modeled with the equations for damped oscillators, do you?

[ElectricMucus]

Linearly decreasing amplitudes don't happen in nature, it's almost always exponential decay.
Why should price fluctuations be different?

sorry for the ambiguity. i meant to say that one example of a damped oscillator is a sine function with linearly decreasing amplitude, not that that is the preferred model for price.

you don't take issue with the fact that price behavior can be modeled with the equations for damped oscillators, do you?

I agree with you more on it than almost everybody in this forum, except one or two exceptions. I rarely write about it

[T.Stuart]

we were seeing such low volume this week specifically because the price point we were consolidating at corresponding to "zero potential energy" in the oscillations caused by the crash. i am referencing a model none of you have seen, but maybe someone will know what i'm talking about

hint: price behavior after a sudden and significant movement can be modeled with the equations for a damped oscillator, like a sine function with linearly decreasing amplitude.

--arepo

edit: here's another hint:

Am I understanding it correctly then by saying that as the oscillation fades you look to see where the next move will go, and that it is at this point that you consider volume?

EDIT: or do you mean that the direction should change once the oscillation fades?

[arepo]

Am I understanding it correctly then by saying that as the oscillation fades you look to see where the next move will go, and that it is at this point that you consider volume?

EDIT: or do you mean that the direction should change once the oscillation fades?

not sure what you're getting at, but allow me to clarify.

we've been oscillating about a (moving) hidden price point since the crash, similarly to the way that a pendulum swings back and forth through a point of "zero potential energy". while the system has enough energy, it does not rest at this equilibrium point, but as the system loses energy, its movement strays less and less from this point until it comes to rest. the oscillations in price are running out of "energy" and we were seeing a low-volume consolidation around this equilibrium point. "energy" is proportional to volume in this model.

--arepo

[T.Stuart]

Am I understanding it correctly then by saying that as the oscillation fades you look to see where the next move will go, and that it is at this point that you consider volume?

EDIT: or do you mean that the direction should change once the oscillation fades?

not sure what you're getting at, but allow me to clarify.

we've been oscillating about a (moving) hidden price point since the crash, similarly to the way that a pendulum swings back and forth through a point of "zero potential energy". while the system has enough energy, it does not rest at this equilibrium point, but as the system loses energy, its movement strays less and less from this point until it comes to rest. the oscillations in price are running out of "energy" and we were seeing a low-volume consolidation around this equilibrium point. "energy" is proportional to volume in this model.

--arepo

OK that's understood. So what I mean is that the closer the swings get to the point (the less energy there is in the oscillation) is the closer we get to the market moving in the next price direction, is that right?

[arepo]

I agree with you more on it than almost everybody in this forum, except one or two exceptions. I rarely write about it

i wouldn't write about it either but the sheer obliviousness of each new wave of investors calls to the teacher in me

[T.Stuart]

I agree with you more on it than almost everybody in this forum, except one or two exceptions. I rarely write about it

i wouldn't write about it either but the sheer obliviousness of each new wave of investors calls to the teacher in me

I appreciate the lesson

[arepo]

OK that's understood. So what I mean is that the closer the swings get to the point (the less energy there is in the oscillation) is the closer we get to the market moving in the next price direction, is that right?

yes, as the oscillations lose energy any underlying trend becomes proportionally more apparent than the effects of the initial push.

[T.Stuart]

OK that's understood. So what I mean is that the closer the swings get to the point (the less energy there is in the oscillation) is the closer we get to the market moving in the next price direction, is that right?

yes, as the oscillations lose energy any underlying trend becomes proportionally more apparent than the effects of the initial push.

So as the energy wears out we look at volume; if it is weak we predict the price will go down - is that it in a nutshell or have I got it wrong?

[arepo]

So as the energy wears out we look at volume; if it is weak we predict the price will go down - is that it in a nutshell or have I got it wrong?

nope. the entire point is that the weak volume in this case has nothing to do with any underlying trends. the weak volume is because we are about halfway through the oscillations caused by the large-volume price movement from $1200-$750, and we are very close to the equilibrium price, analogous to the zero-potential energy point in a physical oscillator.

then again, i'm sure some here will disagree. i like to apply physical models in my analysis, but a more well-accepted interpretation is that we are entering a sustained period of low-volume consolidation as the market begins to "forget" about the November-December volatility, and decides on a new trend. this kind of quiet occurs after all large price movements.

--arepo

[T.Stuart]

So as the energy wears out we look at volume; if it is weak we predict the price will go down - is that it in a nutshell or have I got it wrong?

nope. the entire point is that the weak volume in this case has nothing to do with any underlying trends. the weak volume is because we are about halfway through the oscillations caused by the large-volume price movement from $1200-$750, and we are very close to the equilibrium price, analogous to the zero-potential energy point in a physical oscillator.

then again, i'm sure some here will disagree. i like to apply physical models in my analysis, but a more well-accepted interpretation is that we are entering a sustained period of low-volume consolidation as the market begins to "forget" about the November-December volatility, and decide on a new trend. this kind of quiet occurs after all large price movements.

--arepo

Thanks very much for the explanation.

[thaaanos]

A new question
Do markets "learn" from the surprise of the rise and next similar rise will be more damped or we expect a similar oscilation for similar price changes?

[arepo]

A new question
Do markets "learn" from the surprise of the rise and next similar rise will be more damped or we expect a similar oscilation for similar price changes?

this questions reminds me of another that still baffles me. consistent patterns in price data ("autocorrelations") are not supposed to exist under the efficient market hypothesis. however, triangle consolidation patterns are extremely common and robust in the bitcoin universe, and at least make appearances in the larger financial world, as well. if traders are able to anticipate these behaviors, they should be able to profit from them and, in doing so, negate them -- as your intuition tells you, "damping" the oscillation more and more each time-- but we don't see this occurring! either way, there is a very complex feedback loop that creates the environment in which they form.

that being said, it's difficult to say from my own work anything other than that they occur, they occur consistently in response to sudden and large ("high-energy") price movements, they occur on all scales, and their mechanism is similar to the physics of a ball bouncing or a pendulum swinging, depending on the environment.

in other words, the market does not seem to "learn" in this regard and the magnitude and type of the damping is the product of a complex feedback loop that is difficult to predict.

--arepo

[jasonjm]

volume has literally dropped 75% or more on all exchange compared to the last month.

not sure what that means in bitcoin land, but in stocks, thats a bad thing, shows declining interest.

with bitcoin its really no good as there are mining coins coming online every day. stocks do not have new shares issued every day.

[traderCJ]

volume has literally dropped 75% or more on all exchange compared to the last month.

not sure what that means in bitcoin land, but in stocks, thats a bad thing, shows declining interest.

with bitcoin its really no good as there are mining coins coming online every day. stocks do not have new shares issued every day.

This shit again?

[arepo]

volume has literally dropped 75% or more on all exchange compared to the last month.

not sure what that means in bitcoin land, but in stocks, thats a bad thing, shows declining interest.

with bitcoin its really no good as there are mining coins coming online every day. stocks do not have new shares issued every day.

0/10 troll harder

[pbody]

volume has literally dropped 75% or more on all exchange compared to the last month.

not sure what that means in bitcoin land, but in stocks, thats a bad thing, shows declining interest.

with bitcoin its really no good as there are mining coins coming online every day. stocks do not have new shares issued every day.

...the price of bitcoin was 200-500 first half of Nov. also, the price fell in Dec, so what your saying is actually bullish. more people buying than selling in the last two months.