arepo (OP)
Sr. Member
 Offline
Activity: 448
Merit: 250
this statement is false
|
 |
January 09, 2014, 10:21:04 PM |
|
My comment wasn't relating to the fractal in particular - like I said I was enjoying watching it form!
It was just to point out that the Overstock news caused a mini-rally and that this news was not caused by trader sentiment, a market move, or anything else.
it's funny that you claim to know for sure what caused the move up. i would take the scientific approach and say that the fractal model is sufficient to predict that the price would move up after such a large volume bounce off of the moving support, and so Occam's Razor encourages me to ignore any other data. it is because of this that i believe market forces win against news every time. in fact, i have empirical evidence to support this claim, while you merely assume that it was the news  --arepo You are joking aren't you?  Come on please. If you can't admit simple facts that everyone (including people who can't do maths, geometry, etc.) can see with their own eyes then what's the point? So it is just a coincidence that the Overstock news came online and minutes later the rally (which is still going well) happened? i'm guessing you don't have much of a background in science... let me first point out that correlation does not imply causation, that is, just because it happened "at the same time" does not mean that A caused B or vice versa. cum hoc ergo propter hoc is a logical fallacy. secondly, even if you value this hypothesis, you need to be able to support it with some kind of evidence. i'm not saying that it is definitely not the case that the Overstock news prompted the "mini-rally", but you seem to be claiming that it definitely is the case, without any supporting evidence whatsoever. this is a problem. if you don't ever second guess your intuition, you'll never realize how often it is wrong... some things to consider about the limits of our knowledge: when?: do you think everyone learned about the Overstock news at exactly the same moment? probably not. if it had an effect on price, it was likely "priced-in" a lot more gradually than your claim assumes. how?: are you sure that the Overstock news should have an immediate bullish influence on the price? perhaps in the long run, because of increased adoption, but in the short run, there are actually some bearish possibilities. the answers to both of these questions of WHEN and HOW news events and other external forces affect price are mired in the complexities of the market, and are the farthest, farthest cry from "simple facts that everyone can see with their own eyes". i hope you took a moment to reflect on these important limitations to the claims we can make about price behavior. --arepo |
this sentence has fifteen words, seventy-four letters, four commas, one hyphen, and a period.
18N9md2G1oA89kdBuiyJFrtJShuL5iDWDz
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Bitcoin network protocol was designed to be extremely flexible. It can be used to create timed transactions, escrow transactions, multi-signature transactions, etc. The current features of the client only hint at what will be possible in the future.
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
arepo (OP)
Sr. Member
Offline
Activity: 448
Merit: 250
this statement is false
|
|
January 09, 2014, 10:27:21 PM |
|
Good call, arepo. Let's see what the next days bring.
Ignore the people who think it all reduces to news. News matters, but not in the way they think it does.
I don't think it all reduces to news at all. If you have a minute or two please explain briefly how it matters in the way you think it does. I would be very grateful for the insight! so in what way does news matter? short answer -- we can't know. good thing is, often, we don't have to know. the market internalizes the information for us. not sure if you saw the following post, T, but if you parse through what i'm saying i think it might be a profound insight to you. the situation is difficult to read because it is being influenced by virality and factors difficult to factor into day to day calculations. I have explained this in several posts.
you should read up on the Efficient Market Hypothesis and consider how much of what you claim is externally influencing price may already be contained within the price and volume data itself. if a sufficient amount of such information is somehow contained in the data already, then the data itself is the complete picture. traders, through their actions, factor things like virality and fundamentals into the price data with their every action, so there's no need to develop models as to how these things might affect the price as if they were external to it. i hope that clears some things up. --arepo |
this sentence has fifteen words, seventy-four letters, four commas, one hyphen, and a period.
18N9md2G1oA89kdBuiyJFrtJShuL5iDWDz
|
|
|
|
threecats
|
|
January 09, 2014, 10:35:04 PM |
|
Just want to say, i am enjoying this thread, y'all are going at it but its all good : - ) Nice to have the lively discussion. Good everyone!
|
|
|
|
|
arepo (OP)
Sr. Member
Offline
Activity: 448
Merit: 250
this statement is false
|
|
January 09, 2014, 10:43:12 PM |
|
Good call, arepo. Let's see what the next days bring.
Ignore the people who think it all reduces to news. News matters, but not in the way they think it does.
i appreciate the advice but i guess i am a compulsive teacher  my only hope is that even if my patient explanations don't find their way into T's thick skull ( ) there are lurkers who are following who might now think twice before buying into the rally-on-news-crash-on-news mania. --arepo |
this sentence has fifteen words, seventy-four letters, four commas, one hyphen, and a period.
18N9md2G1oA89kdBuiyJFrtJShuL5iDWDz
|
|
|
oda.krell
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1470
Merit: 1007
|
|
January 09, 2014, 10:45:42 PM |
|
Good call, arepo. Let's see what the next days bring.
Ignore the people who think it all reduces to news. News matters, but not in the way they think it does.
I don't think it all reduces to news at all. If you have a minute or two please explain briefly how it matters in the way you think it does. I would be very grateful for the insight! Here's my view of it: Intuitively, one might think that some particular news item x has a clear, maybe obvious effect on price. If you read for example the wall thread, it's pretty clear that's a rather popular idea there. In reality however, while news affects price, the question of *how* and *how much* some news item affects price is not set in stone, but rather dependent on how it is *interpreted*. So the same news item, in two different market situations, could lead to drastically different results. Example: the SR takedown. Imagine asking on the wall thread a week or two before it happened how price would react if SR is being taken down by the FBI. I'm quite sure the intuitive answer would have been "terrible crash". And during the first few hours after the news, that was indeed the reaction. But then we discovered support, probably because of built up buying pressure, partly also because China had began to enter the game, and people started realizing that maybe it's not all that bad for BTC to cut its ties with the criminal market (not that it really did, but that what it looks like to the outside). And suddenly: huge rally. So I can't speak for the others, since I'm taking a sort of middle position: news matter, but *how* they matter is heavily context dependent. And while I don't think *any* news can trigger any price action, often enough the market is in such a state that many different types of news can trigger the same price response. Applied to today: I don't think, for example, that if the news of today would have been "US government outlaws Bitcoin" we would have seen the mild recovery we've seen. In that sense, it did in fact help that overstock made the announcement. But on a different day, the same announcement would have only caused a weak "so what?". So in that sense, it wasn't overstock that somehow caused the trend out of nowhere. (Bit of a rambling post, sorry. Too lazy to rewrite it ) |
Not sure which Bitcoin wallet you should use? Get Electrum!Electrum is an open-source lightweight client: fast, user friendly, and 100% secure. Download the source or executables for Windows/OSX/Linux/Android from, and only from, the official Electrum homepage.
|
|
|
|
kwest
|
|
January 09, 2014, 11:07:57 PM |
|
IMO: if the market is in a certain state, it is more or less likely to react in a certain way to different kinds of news. After a huge rally it would take a lot more to make the price go higher even if good news appeared. The market would be in an "exhausted" state from buying and would run out of fuel quickly. Whereas had the news arrived before the rally, it could've helped start it.
Technical analysis can help measure these internal market "states".. and also predict probable future actions with or without fundamentals changing. Nothing needs to change for the price to change, if the change in price is already priced in. lol.
|
|
|
|
|
Wilhelm
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1652
Merit: 1265
|
|
January 09, 2014, 11:19:57 PM |
|
oda atleast your avatar has a unicorn in it to accentuate the fact that you're right But I agree with arepo that we do not know. The world is a chaotic system so a butterfly in Peru could have played a major part in the rally. Many factors can influence the price but I stongly believe that no factor alone is responsible for a price movement. - A whale could have caused it by pumping or dumping. - News spreads and people react. - The way people react can have a cascading effect. (many quick big sell order makes people scared and start mirroring) - People that already wanted out or in. - Calculated traders trading in the trends - Trading bots reacting in the same frequency using the same parameters. - Hacker dumping coins they stole and buying other coins - etc. We simply do not know. The problem is that people feel the need to explain the world, but as long as you can't test it repeatedly in a lab you will never know if any of the factors have a real influence. Even if we repeat test it, it is not certain. Many brilliant scientists have been proven wrong after more factors have been factored into the equation. Note: Technical analysis is an empyrical tool. You do not exactly know what you are measuring. You only know that it has some correlation and you make more money than that you lose (hopefully). But we all like trolling |
Bitcoin is like a box of chocolates. You never know what you're gonna get !!
|
|
|
|
DPoS
|
|
January 09, 2014, 11:23:39 PM |
|
NewEgg is about to take bitcoin too... priced in or time to buy and sell the news to a higher level?
it does seem like this current range is finished. Arepo would be better at predicting next spot we land though
|
|
|
|
|
T.Stuart
|
|
January 09, 2014, 11:35:21 PM |
|
Thanks for your detailed reply Arepo. I can see that this news debate is quite hot with others also! i'm guessing you don't have much of a background in science... let me first point out that correlation does not imply causation, that is, just because it happened "at the same time" does not mean that A caused B or vice versa. cum hoc ergo propter hoc is a logical fallacy. secondly, even if you value this hypothesis, you need to be able to support it with some kind of evidence. i'm not saying that it is definitely not the case that the Overstock news prompted the "mini-rally", but you seem to be claiming that it definitely is the case, without any supporting evidence whatsoever. this is a problem. if you don't ever second guess your intuition, you'll never realize how often it is wrong... some things to consider about the limits of our knowledge: when?: do you think everyone learned about the Overstock news at exactly the same moment? probably not. if it had an effect on price, it was likely "priced-in" a lot more gradually than your claim assumes. how?: are you sure that the Overstock news should have an immediate bullish influence on the price? perhaps in the long run, because of increased adoption, but in the short run, there are actually some bearish possibilities. the answers to both of these questions of WHEN and HOW news events and other external forces affect price are mired in the complexities of the market, and are the farthest, farthest cry from "simple facts that everyone can see with their own eyes". i hope you took a moment to reflect on these important limitations to the claims we can make about price behavior. --arepo 'If it had an effect on price, it was likely "priced-in"'?? So you're saying the news could have had an effect then. I'm afraid that I won't be drawn into technicalities on the news issue or bother bringing up observational analysis such as Chinese news for evidence (because observations do count as empirical evidence of course). Although I must say that I wonder whether you would be as quick to dismiss your own model if your predicted upwards break had been disturbed by a negative news clip from China for example. Please be careful not to slip into sophistry. it's funny that you claim to know for sure what caused the move up. i would take the scientific approach and say that the fractal model is sufficient to predict that the price would move up after such a large volume bounce off of the moving support, and so Occam's Razor encourages me to ignore any other data. it is because of this that i believe market forces win against news every time. in fact, i have empirical evidence to support this claim, while you merely assume that it was the news --arepo Two can play at that game! Ockham's Razor demands parsimony. I would take the common sense approach and say that "good news causes the price to jump; bad news causes the price to fall" is sufficient. The fact that this would be "priced in" to a more complicated model is not enough to spare this model from Ockham's Razor - it must be cut loose if the simple fact itself is sufficient. There's some sophistry for you! As I said before I do respect the effort you put into explaining your work and your work itself, but please don't discount something you perceive as "unscientific" - especially if you claim that it may all be "priced in" already. Incidentally that is what lies at the root of your debate with me. I never criticized your prediction; I just said "whoops look how the news broke the fractal pattern". It was a simple point about news. You could have agreed and added that it was priced in to your model. Agreement across the boundary between science and common sense - nothing wrong with that!  PS. Congratulations on predicting this upwards breakout! |
|
|
|
|
T.Stuart
|
|
January 09, 2014, 11:39:59 PM |
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidenceSo, were those who expected the bounce this morning -- absent Overstock news -- wrong? What is your evidence that the news caused the rally? You are suggesting that absent this news, the market would not have rallied. What is your evidence for that? Empirical evidence includes observation (ie past news of China creating crash) I didn't say anyone who was expecting a bounce was wrong. I did not suggest that absent this news the market would not have rallied. |
|
|
|
|
T.Stuart
|
|
January 09, 2014, 11:42:39 PM |
|
Here's my view of it: Intuitively, one might think that some particular news item x has a clear, maybe obvious effect on price. If you read for example the wall thread, it's pretty clear that's a rather popular idea there. In reality however, while news affects price, the question of *how* and *how much* some news item affects price is not set in stone, but rather dependent on how it is *interpreted*. So the same news item, in two different market situations, could lead to drastically different results. Example: the SR takedown. Imagine asking on the wall thread a week or two before it happened how price would react if SR is being taken down by the FBI. I'm quite sure the intuitive answer would have been "terrible crash". And during the first few hours after the news, that was indeed the reaction. But then we discovered support, probably because of built up buying pressure, partly also because China had began to enter the game, and people started realizing that maybe it's not all that bad for BTC to cut its ties with the criminal market (not that it really did, but that what it looks like to the outside). And suddenly: huge rally. So I can't speak for the others, since I'm taking a sort of middle position: news matter, but *how* they matter is heavily context dependent. And while I don't think *any* news can trigger any price action, often enough the market is in such a state that many different types of news can trigger the same price response. Applied to today: I don't think, for example, that if the news of today would have been "US government outlaws Bitcoin" we would have seen the mild recovery we've seen. In that sense, it did in fact help that overstock made the announcement. But on a different day, the same announcement would have only caused a weak "so what?". So in that sense, it wasn't overstock that somehow caused the trend out of nowhere. (Bit of a rambling post, sorry. Too lazy to rewrite it ) I really appreciate your ramble! |
|
|
|
|
T.Stuart
|
|
January 09, 2014, 11:43:18 PM |
|
But we all like trolling And how! |
|
|
|
|
MAbtc
|
|
January 10, 2014, 12:20:34 AM |
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidenceSo, were those who expected the bounce this morning -- absent Overstock news -- wrong? What is your evidence that the news caused the rally? You are suggesting that absent this news, the market would not have rallied. What is your evidence for that? Empirical evidence includes observation (ie past news of China creating crash) I didn't say anyone who was expecting a bounce was wrong. I did not suggest that absent this news the market would not have rallied. Observation is only the first step. You must empirically demonstrate causation. This, in this case, is impossible. My feeling was that since you assert that the news caused the rally, that the rally would never have come to fruition without it. Hence, those expecting the rally absent news would have been wrong. |
|
|
|
|
Rdeschain
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 26
Merit: 0
|
|
January 10, 2014, 12:28:51 AM |
|
Good call, arepo. Let's see what the next days bring.
Ignore the people who think it all reduces to news. News matters, but not in the way they think it does.
i appreciate the advice but i guess i am a compulsive teacher my only hope is that even if my patient explanations don't find their way into T's thick skull ( ) there are lurkers who are following who might now think twice before buying into the rally-on-news-crash-on-news mania. --arepo You (and other posters) have definitely changed my noobish mentality on the whole news factor and it's supposed impact. |
|
|
|
|
arepo (OP)
Sr. Member
Offline
Activity: 448
Merit: 250
this statement is false
|
|
January 10, 2014, 05:47:35 AM |
|
Two can play at that game! Ockham's Razor demands parsimony. I would take the common sense approach and say that "good news causes the price to jump; bad news causes the price to fall" is sufficient. The fact that this would be "priced in" to a more complicated model is not enough to spare this model from Ockham's Razor - it must be cut loose if the simple fact itself is sufficient. There's some sophistry for you! As I said before I do respect the effort you put into explaining your work and your work itself, but please don't discount something you perceive as "unscientific" - especially if you claim that it may all be "priced in" already. Incidentally that is what lies at the root of your debate with me. I never criticized your prediction; I just said "whoops look how the news broke the fractal pattern". It was a simple point about news. You could have agreed and added that it was priced in to your model. Agreement across the boundary between science and common sense - nothing wrong with that! PS. Congratulations on predicting this upwards breakout! "good news causes the price to jump; bad news causes the price to fall" isn't even a workable hypothesis, because of the issues with news perception. you may feel bullish about a certain move, like the Overstock news (anticipating adoption), but its actual effect on the market might be the opposite (Overstock may sell their coins immediately after receiving them, thereby increasing the selling pressure in proportion to its effect on adoption rate). what may seem like "good" news to you is very subjective, to say the least! for instance, i would conjecture that the effect that the conversation around GHash and cex.io is bullish, not a cause for panic, because it is a demonstration of how a decentralised network can spontaneously self-organise in an effort of self-protection. beautiful! anyway, there seems to be a bit of confusion about the price movement. the upwards move in question was not a breakout, it was part of the triangle pattern. the news didn't break anything.. it didn't even register as a blip in the price, if the price was already expected to move up due to simple consolidating forces. evidence for the news affecting price would have been an actual upwards breakout. what you're calling a 'mini-rally' wasn't even a rally, we've been trapped within tightening bounds for about 2 days now..  i can't quite tell if we're talking past each other at this point. i don't mean to draw anyone into technicalities, i was just challenging the validity of your hypothesis, that news affects price in predictable ways. PS Although I must say that I wonder whether you would be as quick to dismiss your own model if your predicted upwards break had been disturbed by a negative news clip from China for example. Please be careful not to slip into sophistry. i'll be careful not to slip into sophistry if you take care not to assume your own hypothesis that's some pretty circular reasoning right there. --arepo |
this sentence has fifteen words, seventy-four letters, four commas, one hyphen, and a period.
18N9md2G1oA89kdBuiyJFrtJShuL5iDWDz
|
|
|
Holliday
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1120
Merit: 1010
|
|
January 10, 2014, 06:08:59 AM |
|
NewEgg is about to take bitcoin too...
Do what now? |
If you aren't the sole controller of your private keys, you don't have any bitcoins.
|
|
|
|
DPoS
|
|
January 10, 2014, 06:26:13 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
Wilhelm
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1652
Merit: 1265
|
|
January 10, 2014, 08:13:34 AM |
|
They find the following to be proof....  Back in late November, a Twitter user @thedatascape asked the company, “Do you have any plans to add Bitcoin as one of your payment methods?” The reply was rather simple. “It’s a possibility, #staytuned ” the company tweeted. Now, that really doesn’t tell us much. But today, another user asked a similar question. This time around, the company tweeted, “Still waiting for an update, but will let you all know as soon as we receive word!” We can only assume they are informing about accepting it. Either some management must approve the idea or some btc merchant service must prove they can handle the load. Anyhow there is no real news... |
Bitcoin is like a box of chocolates. You never know what you're gonna get !!
|
|
|
|
DPoS
|
|
January 10, 2014, 09:13:38 AM |
|
buy the rumor... or I'll be selling ya that news |
|
|
|
|
Ducky1
|
|
January 10, 2014, 10:59:34 AM |
|
Just looking at some numbers:
Overstock Revenue 1.1 billion
Newegg Revenue 2.5 billion
(Amazon Revenue 61.09 billion)
So, Newegg is about twice the size of Overstock, but I presume that it has larger potential for the current mostly geek community owning Bitcoin. Amazon on the other hand is in a league of its own, so any news from them would be VERY interesting.
|
|
|
|
|
