rpietila Wall Observer - the Quality TA Thread ;)

[nioc]

... I said I'm leaning towards it being sincere manic ramblings.
...

I'm saying just that.  More likely than not he's sincere.  Not sure why we're stuck on this.

Sincere.........................................

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JXUA8oFWCc

[1714491004]

1714491004

[1714491004]

1714491004

[1714491004]

1714491004

[1714491004]

1714491004

[btc6000]

Bitcoin has a long history of steep dips, yet it has always gone higher. I think it is prudent to never sell below ATH.

Same applies to Monero of course.

Don't invest in BTC/XMR any money that you cannot lose. And sell so much in the tops that you can take the dips to zero if need be, without getting tempted to sell at the bottom.

From the Zurich Axioms; Minor Axiom I

Always play for meaningful stakes.

"Only bet what you can afford to lose," says the old bromide. You hear it in Las
Vegas, on Wall Street, and wherever people risk money to get more money. You read
it in books of investment and money-management advice by conventional counselors
like Sylvia Porter. It is repeated so often and in so many places that it has taken on
an aura of truth through assertion -- just like the shrinks' bromide about getting
calm.
But you should study it with the greatest care before making it a part of your
speculative toolkit. As most people interpret it, it is a formula that almost assures
poor results.
What is an amount that you can "afford to lose"? Most would define it as "an amount
which, if I lose it, won't hurt." Or "an amount which, if I lose it, won't make any
significant difference in my general financial well-being." A buck or two, in other

words. Twenty bucks. A few hundred. These are the kinds of amounts most middleclass
people would consider loss-affordable. And as a result, these are the kinds of
amounts most middle-class people speculate with, if they speculate at all.
But consider this. If you bet $100 and double your money, you're still poor.
The only way to beat the system is to play for meaningful stakes. This doesn't mean
you should bet amounts whose loss would bankrupt you. You've got to pay the rent
and feed the kids, after all. But it does mean you must get over the fear of being
hurt.
If an amount is so small that its loss won't make any significant difference, then it
isn't likely to bring you any significant gain either. The only way to win a big payoff
from a small wager is to go for a long, long shot. You might buy a $1 lottery ticket
and win a million, for instance. That is nice to dream about, but the odds against you,
of course, are depressingly high.
In the normal course of speculative play, you must start out with a willingness to be
hurt, if only slightly. Bet amounts that worry you, if only a little.

[Jutarul]

Bitcoin has a long history of steep dips, yet it has always gone higher. I think it is prudent to never sell below ATH.

Same applies to Monero of course.

Don't invest in BTC/XMR any money that you cannot lose. And sell so much in the tops that you can take the dips to zero if need be, without getting tempted to sell at the bottom.

....
In the normal course of speculative play, you must start out with a willingness to be
hurt, if only slightly. Bet amounts that worry you, if only a little.

Another truth which needs highlighting. I'd add a few items though:
a) specialize on a particular game/industry. Learn it inside out - increase or odds by making educated predictions.
b) hope for the best, plan for the worst. That is assume you will be hurt in ways you don't know yet.
c) know your league. You cannot play the billion dollar game with a 10k portfolio.

Bitcoin is an interesting phenomenon. It seems to negate point c), since the access to bitcoins is leveled. Unfortunately it also enhances point b), b/c the irreversibility of the payment makes it hard to contain fraud.

[rpietila]

Don't invest in BTC/XMR any money that you cannot lose.

Always play for meaningful stakes.

"Only bet what you can afford to lose," says the old bromide. You hear it in Las
Vegas, on Wall Street, and wherever people risk money to get more money. You read
it in books of investment and money-management advice by conventional counselors
like Sylvia Porter. It is repeated so often and in so many places that it has taken on
an aura of truth through assertion -- just like the shrinks' bromide about getting
calm.
But you should study it with the greatest care before making it a part of your
speculative toolkit. As most people interpret it, it is a formula that almost assures
poor results.
What is an amount that you can "afford to lose"? Most would define it as "an amount
which, if I lose it, won't hurt." Or "an amount which, if I lose it, won't make any
significant difference in my general financial well-being." A buck or two, in other

words. Twenty bucks. A few hundred. These are the kinds of amounts most middleclass
people would consider loss-affordable. And as a result, these are the kinds of
amounts most middle-class people speculate with, if they speculate at all.
But consider this. If you bet $100 and double your money, you're still poor.
The only way to beat the system is to play for meaningful stakes. This doesn't mean
you should bet amounts whose loss would bankrupt you. You've got to pay the rent
and feed the kids, after all. But it does mean you must get over the fear of being
hurt.
If an amount is so small that its loss won't make any significant difference, then it
isn't likely to bring you any significant gain either. The only way to win a big payoff
from a small wager is to go for a long, long shot. You might buy a $1 lottery ticket
and win a million, for instance. That is nice to dream about, but the odds against you,
of course, are depressingly high.
In the normal course of speculative play, you must start out with a willingness to be
hurt, if only slightly. Bet amounts that worry you, if only a little.

Yes, I am so accustomed to knowing the right interpretation that I almost forget that this adage is usually misapplied.

Q: Can you lose $5k if you're 20 and that's all you have?
A: Yes. Go ahead. Everyone needs to lose $5k to know how it feels. Better odds if you split it in 2 money-making ventures though.

Q: Can you lose $100k if you have another in the bank, and a job and a house?
A: Yes. It can easily be invested in anything you feel worthwhile and have made your homework on.

Q: Can you afford losing your house and be left paying off the mortgage, or a business loan of similar proportions, for 15 years or the rest of your life?
A: No. Don't take a mortgage unless you are a seasoned gambler. Renting is not outlawed if you can't buy your house.

Q: I am old and sick and have no income, but have a million in the bank. Lucky me.
A: No. You are an idiot and a gambler of ultimate proportions. Never risk in a bank or anything more than you can afford to lose, and in this case $100k is a max. Income-generating RE, gold, silver, cryptos, and stocks in moderate proportions are way better. Also don't trust them behind one person other than yourself.


TL;DR: Don't invest more than you can afford to lose, but do invest all that you can.

Whatever you hold value in with the hopes that you can some day reclaim the value, is an investment.

[madmat]

Don't invest in BTC/XMR any money that you cannot lose.

Always play for meaningful stakes.

"Only bet what you can afford to lose," says the old bromide. You hear it in Las
Vegas, on Wall Street, and wherever people risk money to get more money. You read
it in books of investment and money-management advice by conventional counselors
like Sylvia Porter. It is repeated so often and in so many places that it has taken on
an aura of truth through assertion -- just like the shrinks' bromide about getting
calm.
But you should study it with the greatest care before making it a part of your
speculative toolkit. As most people interpret it, it is a formula that almost assures
poor results.
What is an amount that you can "afford to lose"? Most would define it as "an amount
which, if I lose it, won't hurt." Or "an amount which, if I lose it, won't make any
significant difference in my general financial well-being." A buck or two, in other

words. Twenty bucks. A few hundred. These are the kinds of amounts most middleclass
people would consider loss-affordable. And as a result, these are the kinds of
amounts most middle-class people speculate with, if they speculate at all.
But consider this. If you bet $100 and double your money, you're still poor.
The only way to beat the system is to play for meaningful stakes. This doesn't mean
you should bet amounts whose loss would bankrupt you. You've got to pay the rent
and feed the kids, after all. But it does mean you must get over the fear of being
hurt.
If an amount is so small that its loss won't make any significant difference, then it
isn't likely to bring you any significant gain either. The only way to win a big payoff
from a small wager is to go for a long, long shot. You might buy a $1 lottery ticket
and win a million, for instance. That is nice to dream about, but the odds against you,
of course, are depressingly high.
In the normal course of speculative play, you must start out with a willingness to be
hurt, if only slightly. Bet amounts that worry you, if only a little.

Yes, I am so accustomed to knowing the right interpretation that I almost forget that this adage is usually misapplied.

Q: Can you lose $5k if you're 20 and that's all you have?
A: Yes. Go ahead. Everyone needs to lose $5k to know how it feels. Better odds if you split it in 2 money-making ventures though.

Q: Can you lose $100k if you have another in the bank, and a job and a house?
A: Yes. It can easily be invested in anything you feel worthwhile and have made your homework on.

Q: Can you afford losing your house and be left paying off the mortgage, or a business loan of similar proportions, for 15 years or the rest of your life?
A: No. Don't take a mortgage unless you are a seasoned gambler. Renting is not outlawed if you can't buy your house.

Q: I am old and sick and have no income, but have a million in the bank. Lucky me.
A: No. You are an idiot and a gambler of ultimate proportions. Never risk in a bank or anything more than you can afford to lose, and in this case $100k is a max. Income-generating RE, gold, silver, cryptos, and stocks in moderate proportions are way better. Also don't trust them behind one person other than yourself.


TL;DR: Don't invest more than you can afford to lose, but do invest all that you can.

Whatever you hold value in with the hopes that you can some day reclaim the value, is an investment.

Thanks to both of you for these posts. I was thinking i invested too much in bitcoin these days becaus i am at something like -20% today. But you are right, i have a job, i have a house and i have in banks twice what i invested, so if i lose, it will hurt, but that's all.

[rpietila]

I have very little commented Bitcoin's price during the last months. It is soon 7 months that I bought my shorts back and now I am just waiting the price to rise, to enable me to sell and gain financial resources - or not rise, in which case I continue to concentrate on forum education and less money-consuming activities.

The buyback average in 2014-2-25 was $449 and the low $382. So we are now at about the same price. This time it feels worse, because the spring that compresses in flashcrashes and catapults the price up, seems to be broken.

If it is broken, then it's perhaps the final capitulation.

Nobody should employ an investment strategy with stop-losses. That is idiotic. If you don't think the investment is valuable (and thus becomes better when it becomes more undervalued), why the heck should you buy it at all? There are valuable things in the world that you can buy instead.

Nobody should gamble more than he can afford to lose. By following this, I am able to wait the price coming down, and at $300 I'll probably cut excess spending, at $200 refocus my time on earning money instead of fooling around and at $100 buy more bitcoins with my renewed positive cash flow.

Interesting to see how it works out. Have to say I am not a major player in this and that is due to another coin that is more mentioned in the Altcoin observer thread.

[podyx]

Risto, How much % you hold in monero compared to bitcoin?

And you really think  we can go as low as $200 or even $100?

What I'm asking myself is if and when bitcoin will fail. To me, now seems the most likely time for bitcoin to just fade out and never come back which makes me slightly uncomfortable, I still believe it's heavy buying entry point though

[rpietila]

Risto, How much % you hold in monero compared to bitcoin?

And you really think  we can go as low as $200 or even $100?

What I'm asking myself is if and when bitcoin will fail. To me, now seems the most likely time for bitcoin to just fade out and never come back which makes me uncomfortable

The percentage is undisclosed, but is smaller than with most people who even mention Monero in their posts. 

No, I don't believe we will go to such prices, unless Bitcoin fails.

Selling at a bottom is a fail. If you feel prone to it, just get a vacation of 6 months and check back then.

[cbeast]

Selling now will be a learning event soon after. Buying now is an opportunity that hasn't been available in six months.

The buyback average in 2014-2-25 was $449 and the low $382. So we are now at about the same price. This time it feels worse, because the spring that compresses in flashcrashes and catapults the price up, seems to be broken.

If it is broken, then it's perhaps the final capitulation.

This is exactly the same pattern Bitcoin always has except it is expanded and elongated due to larger adoption. The snapbacks will not be a dramatic, but will be just as big.

[rpietila]

Oh yes, by "final" I mean the last big capitulation between the two tops, not necessarily the lowest, but the last one before a great runup.

[podyx]

What I'm asking myself is if and when bitcoin will fail. To me, now seems the most likely time for bitcoin to just fade out and never come back which makes me uncomfortable

Selling at a bottom is a fail. If you feel prone to it, just get a vacation of 6 months and check back then.

What I mean is if bitcoin were to ever fail then now would be the time. I doubt bitcoin would fail and fade out when we are at $5k

I hope you're right though

[RAJSALLIN]

The number of transactions are closing in on ath. Number of transactions and price have had a close correlation before and probably will in the future (see Peter R work relating to Metcalfe's law). Either that correlation is broken or something has to give.

Number of transactions excluding popular adddresses.
https://blockchain.info/charts/n-transactions-excluding-popular?showDataPoints=false&timespan=&show_header=true&daysAverageString=7&scale=0&address=

[podyx]

The number of transactions are closing in on ath. Number of transactions and price have had a close correlation before and probably will in the future (see Peter R work relating to Metcalfe's law). Either that correlation is broken or something has to give.

Number of transactions excluding popular adddresses.
https://blockchain.info/charts/n-transactions-excluding-popular?showDataPoints=false&timespan=&show_header=true&daysAverageString=7&scale=0&address=

And the hashrate just keeps going like crazy

[RAJSALLIN]

The number of transactions are closing in on ath. Number of transactions and price have had a close correlation before and probably will in the future (see Peter R work relating to Metcalfe's law). Either that correlation is broken or something has to give.

Number of transactions excluding popular adddresses.
https://blockchain.info/charts/n-transactions-excluding-popular?showDataPoints=false&timespan=&show_header=true&daysAverageString=7&scale=0&address=

And the hashrate just keeps going like crazy

Yes hashrate and difficulty are 2 other factors that suggest the price at the moment isn't reflecting the fundemental values and probably more of a technical emosional dump that should turn up soon.

[klee]

The number of transactions are closing in on ath. Number of transactions and price have had a close correlation before and probably will in the future (see Peter R work relating to Metcalfe's law). Either that correlation is broken or something has to give.

Number of transactions excluding popular adddresses.
https://blockchain.info/charts/n-transactions-excluding-popular?showDataPoints=false&timespan=&show_header=true&daysAverageString=7&scale=0&address=

People offloading coins to buy drugs?

[rpietila]

Whoever likes my Economics side, here is a summary of how the coin distribution to owners of different size and quality affects the whole.

[smooth]

The number of transactions are closing in on ath. Number of transactions and price have had a close correlation before and probably will in the future (see Peter R work relating to Metcalfe's law). Either that correlation is broken or something has to give.

Number of transactions excluding popular adddresses.
https://blockchain.info/charts/n-transactions-excluding-popular?showDataPoints=false&timespan=&show_header=true&daysAverageString=7&scale=0&address=

And the hashrate just keeps going like crazy

Yes hashrate and difficulty are 2 other factors that suggest the price at the moment isn't reflecting the fundemental values and probably more of a technical emosional dump that should turn up soon.

Nah, probably just some ASIC developer deploying some new hidden farm somewhere or a large expansion of one. Not really plausible that open market miners are buying a lot of gear with the price collapsing and the difficulty skyrocketing, and that coming on top of mining profitability already being bad for quite some time.

Someone has some secret sauce ASIC that is ahead of the curve and is mining with it instead of selling it.

[smooth]

The number of transactions are closing in on ath. Number of transactions and price have had a close correlation before and probably will in the future (see Peter R work relating to Metcalfe's law). Either that correlation is broken or something has to give.

Number of transactions excluding popular adddresses.
https://blockchain.info/charts/n-transactions-excluding-popular?showDataPoints=false&timespan=&show_header=true&daysAverageString=7&scale=0&address=

Now this is a good point, and it will be very interesting to see which way it turns out.

[rpietila]

Someone has some secret sauce ASIC that is ahead of the curve and is mining with it instead of selling it.

Rather selling the proceeds.

[smooth]

Someone has some secret sauce ASIC that is ahead of the curve and is mining with it instead of selling it.

Rather selling the proceeds.

Of course yes. But the distinction I was drawing is that the growth in hash rate doesn't flow from an open market of miners believing that increased investment in capacity expansion is a good idea (which could be interpreted as a mid term bullish indicaator). It is simply someone who has made hashes cheaper (to them) so they can shovel out a lot of them.