rpietila Wall Observer - the Quality TA Thread ;)

[BTCtrader71]

Serious alts are relatively safe to invest in. Peercoin, Dogecoin, Namecoin and most others who have a raison-d'etre have been doing great and actually lost less value than Bitcoin since yesterday.

One of the biggest risks for alts is that I cannot be bothered to manage the private keys for a zillion alts. I do this for my significant investments, but I keep a lot of baby alts on cryptsy (small amounts only), and we all know what can happen when you keep your coins on a centralized exchange ...

[bitcoinsrus]

[quote

Serious alts are relatively safe to invest in. Peercoin, Dogecoin, Namecoin and most others who have a raison-d'etre have been doing great and actually lost less value than Bitcoin since yesterday.

http://media.giphy.com/media/9rWmUuwkNQvra/giphy.gif

LOL
I did believe doge was garbage until i read these
http://www.coindesk.com/dogecoin-founder-enthusiasts-set-san-francisco-convention/
http://www.coindesk.com/us-exchange-coinmkt-launches-api-adds-dogecoin-trading/

but i guess doge has potential

[jmw74]

The chances of this happening are small.
Most bitcoin holders would not be able to hold through a 100X or 200X increase happening so fast.
Bitcoin holders would find themselves sitting on trillions of wealth forcing them to diversify away from bitcoin. This would prevent such steep and sustained increase.

I think all of the above is wrong, because:
- The chances of this happening are surprisingly big, because it is a self-sustaining loop.
- The exchanges are not in the position to deal with it, so it will be very risky to sell bitcoins, trapping most of the current bitcoiners from selling even though they wanted to diversify.
- The countries have issued capital gains tax edicts, which makes you pay $100-$500 million tax per every billion you sell, and you don't have time to scale up your organization and tax planning
- Because your wealth goes up so quickly you are inundated with all kinds of considerations, might go crazy in a positive way or paranoid in a negative, but anyway not able to orderly sell such wealth
- Because price is going up steeply and people are not selling, quite small demand will push the price up ever more steeply until it goes really high and only then collapses. In the final phase of the bubble the price can double with essentially no volume.

TL;DR: There is no real reason why the next bubble would not be able to go to $100,000 even this year.

I totally agree, during the exponential rise, the delays for people to get set up (either to buy or to sell) contributes to the bubble's quick expansion and popping.  Whoever is prepared beforehand is in a position to profit immensely.  If previous bubbles are any indication hardly anyone is prepared (neither buyers nor sellers nor exchanges).

[rpietila]

I read the proposals with enthusiasm and thought, which one would be easier for the forecasters - producing a continuous probability distribution, or producing a discrete distribution like the one below. The ones who can handle continuous distributions, can easily process them to give piecewise results, but not necessarily the other way round.

Sensible. I agree.

I would propose that the ones who want to participate, need to produce a table that gives the probabilities (adding to 100.00%) for each log slot. The slots would be with 0.05 intervals like below. Eg. 3.00-3.05 == $1,000-$1,122. Once the correct result is known, we take a geometric mean of the probabilities given to that slot in the predictions. Then you get + or - points depending if your prob was higher or lower than the average. Eg. if your prob was 8% and average was 4%, you get 8/4-1 = 1 point. If your prob was 1% and average was 3%, you get -3/1+1 = -2 points.

Mostly sensible. Comments/Questions:
1) I don't see why the intervals would need to be of a fixed size

How would you do variable size?

2) I don't understand why you need to logarithm (I understand why it's used for modelling, that's fine, but for reporting and interpreting results I don't see the reason)

I have used it for everything in my grand excel for some time now, and don't think much in $ terms anymore. Try it, it works! (How much is bitcoin price today?  - 2.70, down 0.02.)

Of course we should use dollars in reporting.

3) Furthermore, I find you choice of base 10 unnatural (base e is the natural choice!;)

Base10 is good as you instantly see the round dollar amounts:

$100 == 2.00
$200 == 2.30
$500 == 2.70
$1000 == 3.00 etc.

(doubling == 0.30. tenfolding == 1.00)

Whereas in ln (base e)

$100 == 4.61
$200 == 5.30
$500 == 6.21
$1000 ==   6.91

(doubling == 0.70. tenfolding == 2.30)

4) What's the exact logic of the point system? Why is there a division and a subtraction/addition? What do the numerators and denominators represent? Why do the points seem asymmetric, i.e. lose more points on a bad guess than you gain with a good guess?

In some fields, such as art, it is important to sometimes hit big, and it does not matter so much if you sometimes produce bad works. In money management it is important to avoid mistakes. Therefore I purposely made the formula such that you are heavily penalized for not awaiting something that the others did, and what indeed happened. Millions of people in the world are forgoing the opportunity to become rich because they have decided not to believe that bitcoin can continue doubling, or even quadrupling in a month.

5) The intervals need to be in absolute terms, not relative to the price at posting time - otherwise you would also need to keep track of the price at posting time for each prediction (not difficult, just an avoidable pain in the ass)

Sure. I am proposing that the intervals are 0.05 (base10) points wide at round numbers, regardless of the price at posting.

[BitChick]

The chances of this happening are small.
Most bitcoin holders would not be able to hold through a 100X or 200X increase happening so fast.
Bitcoin holders would find themselves sitting on trillions of wealth forcing them to diversify away from bitcoin. This would prevent such steep and sustained increase.

I think all of the above is wrong, because:
- The chances of this happening are surprisingly big, because it is a self-sustaining loop.
- The exchanges are not in the position to deal with it, so it will be very risky to sell bitcoins, trapping most of the current bitcoiners from selling even though they wanted to diversify.
- The countries have issued capital gains tax edicts, which makes you pay $100-$500 million tax per every billion you sell, and you don't have time to scale up your organization and tax planning
- Because your wealth goes up so quickly you are inundated with all kinds of considerations, might go crazy in a positive way or paranoid in a negative, but anyway not able to orderly sell such wealth
- Because price is going up steeply and people are not selling, quite small demand will push the price up ever more steeply until it goes really high and only then collapses. In the final phase of the bubble the price can double with essentially no volume.

TL;DR: There is no real reason why the next bubble would not be able to go to $100,000 even this year.

Risto I love it when you talk all bullish like this!  

First world problem we might face:  We can't cash out thousands of dollars from our Bitcoins fast enough.

Right now is a good time to start planning for such scenarios.  Using the SSS plan as a guide and deciding how to, unemotionally, take advantage of the next bubble.  

[bitfair]

How would you do variable size?

"Variable" in the sense that each forecaster would be permitted to choose the interval size s/he prefers.

Example: (GT/E=greater than or equal to, LT=less than)
Forecaster 1

GT/E	LT	Prob
100	200	35%
200	400	50%
400	500	15%

Forecaster 2

GT/E	LT	Prob
100	700	50%
700	1500	50%

When the outcome is ready, the forecasts can be ranked as that other smart guy suggested. Say the outcome is 450. The probability predicted for this by F1 is 0.15% (distributing 15% uniformly over an interval of 500-400=100), and the probability predicted by F2 is 0.08333% (distributing 50% uniformly over an interval of 700-100=600). F1 would win.

The rest of the comments (base 10 or e, log or not, the scoring system, etc.) is really only a matter of taste. To each his own!

Edit: Let me clarify: I suggested base e because of the formula for continuously compounding interest. It's a very useful choice in very, very many circumstances, although it may not be as easy on the eyes as base 10.

[ArticMine]

The chances of this happening are small.
Most bitcoin holders would not be able to hold through a 100X or 200X increase happening so fast.
Bitcoin holders would find themselves sitting on trillions of wealth forcing them to diversify away from bitcoin. This would prevent such steep and sustained increase.

I think all of the above is wrong, because:
- The chances of this happening are surprisingly big, because it is a self-sustaining loop.
- The exchanges are not in the position to deal with it, so it will be very risky to sell bitcoins, trapping most of the current bitcoiners from selling even though they wanted to diversify.
- The countries have issued capital gains tax edicts, which makes you pay $100-$500 million tax per every billion you sell, and you don't have time to scale up your organization and tax planning
- Because your wealth goes up so quickly you are inundated with all kinds of considerations, might go crazy in a positive way or paranoid in a negative, but anyway not able to orderly sell such wealth
- Because price is going up steeply and people are not selling, quite small demand will push the price up ever more steeply until it goes really high and only then collapses. In the final phase of the bubble the price can double with essentially no volume.

TL;DR: There is no real reason why the next bubble would not be able to go to $100,000 even this year.

For me how much BTC I choose to sell, if any, in such a bubble may actually come down to how I choose to treat the BTC/USD exchange data from New Liberty Standard in 2009 http://newlibertystandard.wikifoundry.com/page/2009+Exchange+Rate, as it can impact my model trend lines. This is the nature of exponential models. Whether the price of 1 BTC was 0.000613 USD or 0.005 USD in December 2009 is actually an important factor here.  

In the last bubble (December 2013) and subsequent bear market I have held for the most part increasing my BTC holdings slightly over my position at the beginning of October 2013.  

Capital gains or similar taxes are a very important consideration before selling here. Essentially one is looking for a reasonable chance of being able to buy back at well below 50% of the average sell price in the subsequent bear market. Since one will never be able accurately time the top of the bubble, one is looking for a strong protracted bear market in the aftermath of the bubble.

As for the wealth management aspect of this it is  crucial. One has to learn to see one's net worth fluctuate in a matter of days over even hours by a factor greater than 50X or more of one's entire net worth a year ago, and learn to sleep soundly through the whole affair.

Edit: Exchange risk is also a crucial consideration. Mitigating the effects of a 1,000,000+ USD "goxing" by accepting a 250,000 USD loss. Now multiply this by a factor of 100.

[rpietila]

treat the BTC/USD exchange data from New Liberty Standard in 2009 http://newlibertystandard.wikifoundry.com/page/2009+Exchange+Rate, as it can impact my model trend lines. This is the nature of exponential models. Whether the price of 1 BTC was 0.000613 USD or 0.005 USD in December 2009 is actually an important factor here.

I feel the need to comment on this: this is one of the datasets I found when first trying to calculate the long-term trendline. I discarded it entirely, because it is not based on market prices. Of course it is cool to know what is the electricity cost per bitcoin, but one would be greatly in error if composing a similar dataset now and trying to explain the market price with it.

How much is the electricity cost for the newest equipment, btw? 10%?

[ArticMine]

treat the BTC/USD exchange data from New Liberty Standard in 2009 http://newlibertystandard.wikifoundry.com/page/2009+Exchange+Rate, as it can impact my model trend lines. This is the nature of exponential models. Whether the price of 1 BTC was 0.000613 USD or 0.005 USD in December 2009 is actually an important factor here.

I feel the need to comment on this: this is one of the datasets I found when first trying to calculate the long-term trendline. I discarded it entirely, because it is not based on market prices. Of course it is cool to know what is the electricity cost per bitcoin, but one would be greatly in error if composing a similar dataset now and trying to explain the market price with it.

How much is the electricity cost for the newest equipment, btw? 10%?

Yes but what is crucial here is not what the cost of electricity in the overall cost of mining Bitcoin is today, but what it was back in October - December 2009 when the equipment being used, CPUs was mostly all ready paid for and depreciated. Furthermore there is considerable evidence that these costs were used as a basis for offering Bitcoin for sale at the time.

[bitfair]

How much is the electricity cost for the newest equipment, btw? 10%?

Depends, but USD 0.06/kWh (approx. Washington State?) and 0.9 J/GH (Spoondoolies/AM) suggest an electricity cost of USD 5.53 per XBT.

[rpietila]

treat the BTC/USD exchange data from New Liberty Standard in 2009 http://newlibertystandard.wikifoundry.com/page/2009+Exchange+Rate, as it can impact my model trend lines. This is the nature of exponential models. Whether the price of 1 BTC was 0.000613 USD or 0.005 USD in December 2009 is actually an important factor here.

I feel the need to comment on this: this is one of the datasets I found when first trying to calculate the long-term trendline. I discarded it entirely, because it is not based on market prices. Of course it is cool to know what is the electricity cost per bitcoin, but one would be greatly in error if composing a similar dataset now and trying to explain the market price with it.

How much is the electricity cost for the newest equipment, btw? 10%?

Yes but what is crucial here is not what the cost of electricity in the overall cost of mining Bitcoin is today, but what it was back in October - December 2009 when the equipment being used, CPUs was mostly all ready paid for and depreciated. Furthermore there is considerable evidence that these costs were used as a basis for offering Bitcoin for sale at the time.

Okay, please unload the evidence here! I've been searching for it for 6 months so am very grateful  

[BTCtrader71]

For me how much BTC I choose to sell, if any, in such a bubble may actually come down to how I choose to treat the BTC/USD exchange data from New Liberty Standard in 2009 http://newlibertystandard.wikifoundry.com/page/2009+Exchange+Rate, as it can impact my model trend lines. This is the nature of exponential models. Whether the price of 1 BTC was 0.000613 USD or 0.005 USD in December 2009 is actually an important factor here.  

Do you think an argument can be made that recent price data has greater predictive power than old price data and should therefore be given greater weight when calculating the trendline?  Two arguments:
1. More recent price data, in theory, has more market information to draw upon. ie, any interval changes in market fundamentals are reflected in recent price data but not older price data.
2. The volatility as measured on a log scale is expected to decrease with time. IOW, recent price data should be modeled as having a better signal to noise ratio than older price data.

[SlipperySlope]

Since one will never be able accurately time the top of the bubble, one is looking for a strong protracted bear market in the aftermath of the bubble.

It depends on the degree of accuracy.

In contrast to your point of view, I have intensely studied bitcoin bubbles, personally experienced watching all of them in real time, developed a trading heuristic, and located academic research to support my tactic. Only when a significant proportion of speculators adopt this tactic will bubbles cease to characterize bitcoin prices.

Bubble peaks in general and bitcoin bubble peaks in particular have the property of super-exponential price acceleration up to the peak. On a linear price chart this feature is lost in the general parabolic appearance of the price line. But on a log chart, super-exponential growth is obvious because it curves upwards.

When the bubble starts, I keep track of how long it takes for prices to double. It is astounding what a brief time that can be. In the great June 2011 bubble, prices doubled from 15 to 32 in five days. In April 2013, prices doubled from 130 to 260 in seven days. And in November 2013, prices doubled from 400 to 800 in six days.

My peak timing heuristic is this . . . When the price looks to double within the following week, then that is a good time to place a spread of sell orders centered on twice the current price. The price doubling times get shorter as the peak approaches. From the preceding low there have been typically three or more price doublings to the peak.

The academic research on bubbles notes that the super-exponential price growth is self-reinforcing yet unsustainable, and that is why my heuristic works.

If enough speculators make this sort of trade, then the bubble peak will be lower and the subsequent bottom will likewise be higher than it otherwise would be as previously sold bitcoin is bought back.

[rpietila]

"Variable" in the sense that each forecaster would be permitted to choose the interval size s/he prefers.

Example: (GT/E=greater than or equal to, LT=less than)
Forecaster 1

GT/E	LT	Prob
100	200	35%
200	400	50%
400	500	15%

Forecaster 2

GT/E	LT	Prob
100	700	50%
700	1500	50%

When the outcome is ready, the forecasts can be ranked as that other smart guy suggested. Say the outcome is 450. The probability predicted for this by F1 is 0.15% (distributing 15% uniformly over an interval of 500-400=100), and the probability predicted by F2 is 0.08333% (distributing 50% uniformly over an interval of 700-100=600). F1 would win.

I am ready to do it your style, although there will be scaling errors if the forecaster uses wide bands. But that is not my problem

The scoring system I proposed is good unless somebody invents a better one. I like the bonuses and penalties

It is really important to be able to handle the tails of the probability distribution. Not many are in real life prepared for $100k per bitcoin this year, even though it is possible. It may ruin many people's life more than bitcoin going to zero.

[zimmah]

The chances of this happening are small.
Most bitcoin holders would not be able to hold through a 100X or 200X increase happening so fast.
Bitcoin holders would find themselves sitting on trillions of wealth forcing them to diversify away from bitcoin. This would prevent such steep and sustained increase.

I think all of the above is wrong, because:
- The chances of this happening are surprisingly big, because it is a self-sustaining loop.
- The exchanges are not in the position to deal with it, so it will be very risky to sell bitcoins, trapping most of the current bitcoiners from selling even though they wanted to diversify.
- The countries have issued capital gains tax edicts, which makes you pay $100-$500 million tax per every billion you sell, and you don't have time to scale up your organization and tax planning
- Because your wealth goes up so quickly you are inundated with all kinds of considerations, might go crazy in a positive way or paranoid in a negative, but anyway not able to orderly sell such wealth
- Because price is going up steeply and people are not selling, quite small demand will push the price up ever more steeply until it goes really high and only then collapses. In the final phase of the bubble the price can double with essentially no volume.

TL;DR: There is no real reason why the next bubble would not be able to go to $100,000 even this year.

Risto I love it when you talk all bullish like this!  

First world problem we might face:  We can't cash out thousands of dollars from our Bitcoins fast enough.

Right now is a good time to start planning for such scenarios.  Using the SSS plan as a guide and deciding how to, unemotionally, take advantage of the next bubble.  

We may see posts like this then:

[SlipperySlope]

. . . Not many are in real life prepared for $100k per bitcoin this year, even though it is possible. It may ruin many people's life more than bitcoin going to zero.

Ha. Our log trend models predict an average price of $100k per bitcoin in about 18 months. What difference does 12 months make when it comes to ruining people's lives?

[BitChick]

. . . Not many are in real life prepared for $100k per bitcoin this year, even though it is possible. It may ruin many people's life more than bitcoin going to zero.

Ha. Our log trend models predict an average price of $100k per bitcoin in about 18 months. What difference does 12 months make when it comes to ruining people's lives?

100K ruining people's lives?  (now or in 18 months which really is not that much longer)  Is the thinking that it will be like those that win the lottery and are not in the position to handle such wealth so quickly?

[bitcoinsrus]

. . . Not many are in real life prepared for $100k per bitcoin this year, even though it is possible. It may ruin many people's life more than bitcoin going to zero.

Ha. Our log trend models predict an average price of $100k per bitcoin in about 18 months. What difference does 12 months make when it comes to ruining people's lives?

100K ruining people's lives?  (now or in 18 months which really is not that much longer)  Is the thinking that it will be like those that win the lottery and are not in the position to handle such wealth so quickly?

[ArticMine]

treat the BTC/USD exchange data from New Liberty Standard in 2009 http://newlibertystandard.wikifoundry.com/page/2009+Exchange+Rate, as it can impact my model trend lines. This is the nature of exponential models. Whether the price of 1 BTC was 0.000613 USD or 0.005 USD in December 2009 is actually an important factor here.

I feel the need to comment on this: this is one of the datasets I found when first trying to calculate the long-term trendline. I discarded it entirely, because it is not based on market prices. Of course it is cool to know what is the electricity cost per bitcoin, but one would be greatly in error if composing a similar dataset now and trying to explain the market price with it.

How much is the electricity cost for the newest equipment, btw? 10%?

Yes but what is crucial here is not what the cost of electricity in the overall cost of mining Bitcoin is today, but what it was back in October - December 2009 when the equipment being used, CPUs was mostly all ready paid for and depreciated. Furthermore there is considerable evidence that these costs were used as a basis for offering Bitcoin for sale at the time.

Okay, please unload the evidence here! I've been searching for it for 6 months so am very grateful  

I will start with this post From NewLibertyStandard from January 19 ,2010. It is clear he was buying and selling based on his prices.  

I have had people buy bitcoins from me and sell bitcoins to me. Supply and demand, albeit only a small amount, already exists and is all that is really needed. Offering to exchange bitcoins for another currency is ultimately no different from exchanging bitcoins for goods or services. Currencies are goods and exchanging them is a service. I have been trying to think of something besides USD dollars which I can try to buy or sell using bitcoins, but I can't think of anything. Please let us know about whatever you decide to sell for bitcoins. As for the issue of burning through funds, I have written a daily donation into my budget. You can buy all my USD dollars or bitcoins today, but there will always be more tomorrow and the next day. Each person who buys or sells goods using bitcoins, including exchangers, is increasing the bitcoin economy. Everyone, do your part. Buy or sell something in exchange for bitcoins!

Here is a thread wondering why the price went up between late 2009 and early 2010, from February 2010 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=37.0

Here is a post indicating the cost of electricity seen and the major cost in mining Bitcoin with no mention of equipment https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2918.msg40324#msg40324

The indication that NewLibertyStandard was an exchanger buying and selling based on his posted prices. There is more one has to go through the earliest threads on this forum looking for references to price, exchangers etc.

EDIT1: The announcement of Bitcoin Market https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=20.0;all

EDIT2: This thread refers to NewLibertyStandard as a price indicator https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=25.0;all

EDIT3: Another early thread with references to NewLibertyStandard, Bitcoin Market and later MTGox! https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=30.0;all

EDIT4: Reference to NewLibertyStandard and his pricing methodology. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=42.0;all

EDIT5: This thread from satoshi indicated that the first automatic difficulty adjustment occurred on December 30, 2009 from 1 to 1.18. This is crucial since before then Bitcoin mining was not competitive equipment wise and it came down to how much electricity does it cost one to generate x number of BTC with equipment that would otherwise be idle. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=43.0;all

[rpietila]

I am willing to predict where the price is 2014-5-17 (30 days from now) volume weighted average Bitstamp price:

Price in USD range; probability

4466-100000; 0.1%
2818-4465; 0.4%
1778-2817; 2.0%
1413-1777; 2.0%
1122-1412; 3.0%
1000-1121; 2.5%
891-999; 3.5%
794-890; 5.5%
708-793; 8.0%
631-707; 14.0%
562-630; 18.0%
501-561; 17.0%
447-500; 9.0%
398-446; 6.0%
355-397; 4.0%
316-354; 2.0%
251-315; 2.0%
0-250; 1.0%