rpietila Wall Observer - the Quality TA Thread ;)

[MahaRamana]

I am open to read any helpful response that is not lacking certain components of human communication. You, however, assume that I put up a facade for myself, you assume that I have the inability to create something of value (which I do btw almost every day after work), you assume that it's all about me getting wealthy, you insult me, you state something neither Risto nor I have said in the way you display --> you lack certain components of human communication --> communication with you seems to be unsuccessful

It's a shame, because you have some good points to make, but you just spoil your wisdom. I won't respond anymor but this one time to you, because more responses would not make sense, so please feel free to disprove all of my words in your next response without me answering.

If you think Bitcoin is going to $100,000 in 6 months, then you are not calculating probabilities correctly. If you said, there is a 1% chance Bitcoin goes to $100,000 by 2017, there is no way I can disagree. If you increased it to 10% by 2017, I would quibble but I wouldn't have strong confidence to disagree. If you raised it to 33% in the next 6 months as Risto is, I would say you are irrational and emphatically disagree.

So my point in replying to you is you will never be wealthy because you whorEship fantasy. Your excuse that you will give to charity is just a veiled facade to cover for your inability to actually go create something of value in this world that makes you wealthy.

You wrote you are not wealthy. You wrote you hope to become wealthy because of Risto. You wrote your motivation is to give to charity.

You don't get wealthy for those reasons.

To get wealthy requires being able to think for yourself correctly. God doesn't entrust talents in surrogates who are just following another person. He would put the talents in the person who is actually making the decisions.

And people don't like to hear someone tell them frankly.

AnonyMint, I think you should let the wealthy philosophise about who is getting wealthy and how.
Maybe, just maybe, people get wealthy for many different reasons.
If followers didn't have any talent, the leaders and decision-makers would have no support to make anything happen.

[TeeBone]

I am open to read any helpful response that is not lacking certain components of human communication. You, however, assume that I put up a facade for myself, you assume that I have the inability to create something of value (which I do btw almost every day after work), you assume that it's all about me getting wealthy, you insult me, you state something neither Risto nor I have said in the way you display --> you lack certain components of human communication --> communication with you seems to be unsuccessful

It's a shame, because you have some good points to make, but you just spoil your wisdom. I won't respond anymor but this one time to you, because more responses would not make sense, so please feel free to disprove all of my words in your next response without me answering.

If you think Bitcoin is going to $100,000 in 6 months, then you are not calculating probabilities correctly. If you said, there is a 1% chance Bitcoin goes to $100,000 by 2017, there is no way I can disagree. If you increased it to 10% by 2017, I would quibble but I wouldn't have strong confidence to disagree. If you raised it to 33% in the next 6 months as Risto is, I would say you are irrational and emphatically disagree.

So my point in replying to you is you will never be wealthy because you whorEship fantasy. Your excuse that you will give to charity is just a veiled facade to cover for your inability to actually go create something of value in this world that makes you wealthy.

You wrote you are not wealthy. You wrote you hope to become wealthy because of Risto. You wrote your motivation is to give to charity.

You don't get wealthy for those reasons.

To get wealthy requires being able to think for yourself correctly. God doesn't entrust talents in surrogates who are just following another person. He would put the talents in the person who is actually making the decisions.

And people don't like to hear someone tell them frankly.

AnonyMint, I think you should let the wealthy philosophise about who is getting wealthy and how.
Maybe, just maybe, people get wealthy for many different reasons.
If followers didn't have any talent, the leaders and decision-makers would have no support to make anything happen.

The vast majority of the wealthy elite achieved it through State violence, not because of talent or leadership...Corporate welfare, intellectual 'property', barriers to entry, etc.

[gizmoh]

Food for thought: Capitulation rarely occurs when it is expected.

I remember waiting for sub $50 coins when price was $60-70

Same for the last wave, to find the top.

When everyone is waiting for sub $400 and the bulls are starting to expect more downtrend, then i'm buying with confidence

Risto is right, long live Risto.  

[mmitech]

So you all think that that is it ? we are reversing ?  I am not buying it...

[MahaRamana]

So you all think that that is it ? we are reversing ?  I am not buying it...

That was not "all" of us. Only two people.  

I think the chinese ban rumor is well exhausted and is getting established into the "past news" territory.

I think reversal happens about here. I mean, who will sell coins below 400 ? I will be buying heavily if we get there.

[Zarathustra]

I think that the most important fact of that chart comparison is that the superbubble is a possibility, the nice fitting of shape of the charts, and the order of magnitude of the price and time.

Everything is a possibility. We can fit an elephant to a mouse using a math model.
The real value is in correctly discerning probabilities.

There are no such things as possibilities and probabilities. There is only one 'possible' future.

http://www.ntslibrary.com/PDF%20Books/Necessity%20or%20Contingency.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diodorus_Cronus#Master_Argument

[Trolololo]

Peter R at al, before you go on with this nonsense direction of thinking about arbitrary charts which have no basis in reality like they came from a child with an Etch-A-Sketch (not ad hominem to Trolololo, just trying to color my point with drama), and since I know you try to be based in data and fact checking, I suggest you try to find even one example in this history of man where the adoption accelerated after it was evidently slowing. And remember I am talking about rate of growth, not the nominal size of growth. The nominal size is getting larger and huge, and this will make us feel like the growth is growing, because humans can't differentiate between slowing rate and larger nominals.

You won't find it. Larger things don't suddenly change adoption curves, because the inertia is ingrained structure that provided the very high adoption rate in the beginning.

I am very confident because I have history and rationality on my side.

You have been FA trumpeting that we are visiting lower lows in the 300's and 200's.
I agree with you, and probability of that is bigger than the fractal I posted. 2 or 3 times bigger at least.

But markets are irrational.
And FA is not enough.
FA, TA (& fractals), market sentiment... all them help, but none of them is perfect. Joining them together gives you a better picture. That's all.

Anyhow, the big picture is that bitcoin's value on the long term will be huge or zero.
Is the trend is your friend, bitcoin longterm log trend is still my lover.
For me, it's worse to lose the next choochoo than lose the fiat (having invested the fiat I don't mind to lose).


The "child chart" I posted helps to visualize which is the timeframe, and the order of magnitude of the price, in case we repeat the superbubble of 2010; because future log trends are difficult to visualize for most of the people.

I consider R Peter's Metcalfe's bitcoin fit chart much more interesting than mine, and we should resume in that direction.

The real value is in correctly discerning probabilities.

I agree with that!

Risto does that very well.
What are the probabilities you discern for each scenario??

Edit: Your post https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=400235.msg6049626#msg6049626 answers my question.

[MahaRamana]

I think that the most important fact of that chart comparison is that the superbubble is a possibility, the nice fitting of shape of the charts, and the order of magnitude of the price and time.

Everything is a possibility. We can fit an elephant to a mouse using a math model.
The real value is in correctly discerning probabilities.

There are no such things as possibilities and probabilities. There is only one 'possible' future.

http://www.ntslibrary.com/PDF%20Books/Necessity%20or%20Contingency.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diodorus_Cronus#Master_Argument

I not only believe there is only one possible future, but also that the whole existence has been "written" before being played. But from the human mind perspective that is shut-down in the space-time illusion, probabilities is the only way to make assessments, preparations, investments in relation with the future.

[chessnut]

I not only believe there is only one possible future, but also that the whole existence has been "written" before being played. But from the human mind perspective that is shut-down in the space-time illusion, probabilities is the only way to make assessments, preparations, investments in relation with the future.

there is no evidence for that argument, and there is some pretty interesting evidence against that argument in the realm of quantum physics.

 - anything is possible. did you know that in the highest study of philosophy, even the validity mathematics is being debated.

[Zarathustra]

I think that the most important fact of that chart comparison is that the superbubble is a possibility, the nice fitting of shape of the charts, and the order of magnitude of the price and time.

Everything is a possibility. We can fit an elephant to a mouse using a math model.
The real value is in correctly discerning probabilities.

There are no such things as possibilities and probabilities. There is only one 'possible' future.

http://www.ntslibrary.com/PDF%20Books/Necessity%20or%20Contingency.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diodorus_Cronus#Master_Argument

I not only believe there is only one possible future, but also that the whole existence has been "written" before being played. But from the human mind perspective that is shut-down in the space-time illusion, probabilities is the only way to make assessments, preparations, investments in relation with the future.

Exactly, and the 'stone age interpretation' of quantum mechanics (Kopenhagen) is the greatest bullshit ever.

»In rerum natura nullum datur contingens, sed omnia ex necessitate divinae naturae determinata sunt ad certo modo existendum et operandum«
Spinoza

»Le mot hasard sert officieusement à voiler notre ignorance.« Quételet

[AlexGR]

I am very confident because I have history and rationality on my side.

I would be cautious of normalcy bias.  We are dealing with iterated expansive maps.   Such systems can diverge rapidly.  It's a new technology and will introduce novel system dynamics.  Very few external analysts foresaw the collapse of the Soviet Union.  There is strong self-similarity in the price curve.  The manias seen so far may be higher order.  

That was due to being a conscious decision to "pull it" (a la WTC 7 terminology) rather than the Soviets going bankrupt.

If you check the CIA factbook for 1990-91, you'll see that USSR had ~2trn usd gdp. Its external debt was like 50 bn usd. Who the f*ck goes bankrupt and collapses with just 2.5% external debt? It's all bullshit.

There was one who "predicted" this, in writing, but his "prediction" was not really a prediction but rather knowledge of the plan ahead (as he was a KGB defector):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatoliy_Golitsyn

...

His books[edit]

New Lies for Old[edit]
In 1984, Golitsyn published the book New Lies For Old,[13] wherein he warned about a long-term deception strategy of seeming retreat from hard-line Communism designed to lull the West into a false sense of security, and finally economically cripple and diplomatically isolate the United States. Among other things, Golitsyn stated:
"The 'liberalization' [in the Soviet Union] would be spectacular and impressive. Formal pronouncements might be made about a reduction in the communist party's role; its monopoly would be apparently curtailed."
"If [liberalization] should be extended to East Germany, demolition of the Berlin Wall might even be contemplated."
"The European Parliament might become an all-European socialist parliament with representation from the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. 'Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals' would turn out to be a neutral, socialist Europe."

[rpietila]

You realize we said the same thing mathematically. You are simply saying it is worth betting a smaller amount on smaller probabilities.

In that case, you should be buying altcoins but you don't. Ostensibly you don't want any development that could actually help humanity. You talk about how Bitcoin is going to help the world, but the facts are it is fully centralized and is driving us towards a fiat result and thus it can only be a world governance fiat result.

How you could possibly deny that, I can not comprehend. You would have to explain it to me.

And that is why I am not happy with you. At least I don't hide it.

Perhaps you don't comprehend why diversity is critical to freedom?! But I find it very difficult to believe you don't understand that already.

I can't figure you out. Have you joined the cabal?

Edit: it like, "dude what happened to you, did you get infected with a Bitcoin delirium virus". Why not continue to be a speculator and play to the resilience of diverse bets? What caused you to become so monotonically myopic on Bitcoin at the cost of every other smaller probability with higher potential gains?

That is why you need for that $100,000 to be true. Because you don't want to admit to yourself that you need to be buying altcoins.

Did you just get lazy? Yeah that is the only rational explanation (and add also your fantasy about being a Baron and having a roundtable with Knights). I'm sure you didn't join the cabal literally, but sort of figuratively with your goal to have lifestyle as an aristocrat blueblood.

I am thinking that you actually hate nerds. You don't want it to be true that a nerd could be more powerful than a blueblood. I am thinking it makes you very uncomfortable the prospect that there could be continual competition and technological disruption.

Or maybe you believe in the Moldbug theory, "there can only be one" (winner in crypto-currency). If Moldbug is correct, it is in direct opposition to his philosophy of the Dark Enlightenment.

There is this problem that I try to coordinate with you but you make it difficult. That's why you don't know what I am up to, and accuse me of inaction. But since you know so well, why not post here what I should be doing! That I can review without revealing my plans.

[Trolololo]

Bitcoin was carefully designed for this outcome by some very astute strategists. Appears to be the work of a black budget think tank.

Note my prior post I provided a link to Catherine Austin Fitts audio interview wherein she describes the $4 trillion black budget of the USA. It is incredulous but true. Secretary of Defense Rumsfield confirmed $2.3 trillion of it the day before 9/11 and then all the records were destroyed by the missleairplane that hit the Pentagon the next day. Armstrong has also written about this and has inside knowledge. Just last week, a smoking gun book was published by Jim Rickards (former covert agent) who was in the room with the government and also corroborated by Max Keiser's first hand conversions with Cantor Fitzgerald admitting that government was aware of the short options on two airlines before 9/11.

All I've heard is naive theory of a lone man doing this, covering all his tracks like a covert agent yet not being one. A brilliant lone cryptography researcher whom no one ever heard of, never published anything before, who managed to obfuscate his activity from all his family and friends.
And "he" (Satoshi Inc) predicted all the ill effects and was promoting them, e.g. he expected ASICs and corporations to take control of mining.

Very interesting statements.

If the elite is behind bitcoin, don't you think that the chances of succes folds hundreds of times?

[sgbett]

I not only believe there is only one possible future, but also that the whole existence has been "written" before being played. But from the human mind perspective that is shut-down in the space-time illusion, probabilities is the only way to make assessments, preparations, investments in relation with the future.

there is no evidence for that argument, and there is some pretty interesting evidence against that argument in the realm of quantum physics.

 - anything is possible. did you know that in the highest study of philosophy, even the validity mathematics is being debated.

Maha, i say this.

There are infinitely possible futures, which are all the realisation of the outcome of the probabilistic nature of everything around us. When time 'T' happens the wave function of probable outcomes collapses into that instant's reality. The macro scale resolves, based on the quantum scale.

All our individual consciousness appear to exist in that instant 'T' - the present. The future exists insomuch as it is the set of probable outcomes, the past (lets call it anti future) only exists as a collective memory (echo?) of actual outcomes, observed by 'T' collapsing the wave function(s).

Consciousness is observation, our perception of time is based on the repeated collapse of probable outcomes. Everything past is definite, everything future is probabilistic.  

So ass chestnut says anything is possible. (my caveat being within the scope of what can possibly be probable e.g. 'time going backwards' isn't possible because time doesn't have a direction, it doesn't exist, it is just a 'memory')

practically speaking. HODL

[sgbett]

Bitcoin was carefully designed for this outcome by some very astute strategists. Appears to be the work of a black budget think tank.

Note my prior post I provided a link to Catherine Austin Fitts audio interview wherein she describes the $4 trillion black budget of the USA. It is incredulous but true. Secretary of Defense Rumsfield confirmed $2.3 trillion of it the day before 9/11 and then all the records were destroyed by the missleairplane that hit the Pentagon the next day. Armstrong has also written about this and has inside knowledge. Just last week, a smoking gun book was published by Jim Rickards (former covert agent) who was in the room with the government and also corroborated by Max Keiser's first hand conversions with Cantor Fitzgerald admitting that government was aware of the short options on two airlines before 9/11.

All I've heard is naive theory of a lone man doing this, covering all his tracks like a covert agent yet not being one. A brilliant lone cryptography researcher whom no one ever heard of, never published anything before, who managed to obfuscate his activity from all his family and friends.
And "he" (Satoshi Inc) predicted all the ill effects and was promoting them, e.g. he expected ASICs and corporations to take control of mining.

Very interesting statements.

If the elite is behind bitcoin, don't you think that the chances of succes folds hundreds of times?

absolutely yes. if you are gonna be a slave, might as well throw in some stockholm syndrome.

[AnonyMint]

I think that the most important fact of that chart comparison is that the superbubble is a possibility, the nice fitting of shape of the charts, and the order of magnitude of the price and time.

Everything is a possibility. We can fit an elephant to a mouse using a math model.
The real value is in correctly discerning probabilities.

There are no such things as possibilities and probabilities. There is only one 'possible' future.

http://www.ntslibrary.com/PDF%20Books/Necessity%20or%20Contingency.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diodorus_Cronus#Master_Argument

Actually every day there a billions of different futures occurring and you can't possibly know them all. This is why following a leader is unfit.

Opportunity is borne in the small and diverse, i.e. specific knowledge.

[chessnut]

this argument that the future is set in stone is not falsifiable. The very fact that you must 'believe' such a theory implies that you could be wrong. and what would that mean......?
there is more scientific evidence to disprove this theory than there is to prove it.
and naturally, other explanations are possible. But the nature of any given explanaton cannot be known to us, because as you will know, to know what something is means you have changed its nature.

[AnonyMint]

Risto you posted today about how much capital is in the world how only $1.3 trillion of that can send BTC to $100,000.

First of all, that is incorrect, because price is set by marginal flow, not by entire market cap flow. But this point is actually more in your favor. The capital needed to send BTC to $100,000 is much less than you think.

However, large capital holders are not coming to BTC (now), because the fact is capital needs liquidity. Bitcoin's float is way too small even for a $100 millionaire. Rather it is headed into USA stocks and the dollar:

http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/04/02/us-corporates-all-cashed-up/

The numbers are in. U.S. companies (excluding banks) are all cashed up holding more cash on their balance sheets than ever in history – some $1.64 trillion at the end of 2013. That is up 12% over 2012. If history repeats, they will start to buy their own shares back when the market turns down. So much for US equities being overvalued.

You can't accelerate adoption by making observations about nominal sizes (even relative nominal sizes). This is the greatest failing of the human race. You see where Jason Hommel ended up with his crazy projections of $50,000 per oz silver. There are structural impediments that take time. This is because the universe would not exist if there were no friction, as past and present would collapse into a single infinitesimal point in time.

[Zarathustra]

Everything past is definite, everything future is probabilistic.  

No, there is no difference between the past and the future. Causality is not probabilistic, neither in the past nor in the future.

Einstein:

 "I do not believe in free will. Schopenhauer's words: 'Man can do what he wants, but he cannot will what he wants,[Der Mensch kann wohl tun, was er will, aber er kann nicht wollen, was er will]' accompany me in all situations throughout my life and reconcile me with the actions of others, even if they are rather painful to me. This awareness of the lack of free will keeps me from taking myself and my fellow men too seriously as acting and deciding individuals, and from losing my temper." Schopenhauer's clearer, actual words were: "You can do what you will, but in any given moment of your life you can will only one definite thing and absolutely nothing other than that one thing." [Du kannst tun was du willst: aber du kannst in jedem gegebenen Augenblick deines Lebens nur ein Bestimmtes wollen und schlechterdings nichts anderes als dieses eine.]

[Zarathustra]

I think that the most important fact of that chart comparison is that the superbubble is a possibility, the nice fitting of shape of the charts, and the order of magnitude of the price and time.

Everything is a possibility. We can fit an elephant to a mouse using a math model.
The real value is in correctly discerning probabilities.

There are no such things as possibilities and probabilities. There is only one 'possible' future.

http://www.ntslibrary.com/PDF%20Books/Necessity%20or%20Contingency.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diodorus_Cronus#Master_Argument

Actually every day there a billions of different futures occurring and you can't possibly know them all.

Yes, my future is different than your future, and the same is true for the past. But neither the past nor the future is open.