Topic: . (Read 9139 times)
Can you post an update of the original money flow ratio chart? Is it arching back up as it did after June 2011?
Here is all data: The reason the peaks at $32 don't match up as well as the more recent ATH is that I switched to a constant interval of BTC volume instead of a quantile. Still trying to decide on a method for projecting a new ATH based on this. Two data points is not much to go on.
And here is a closer view of the most recent data:
say again please what is the x-axis here?
Have you thought of normalizing the values? Say, per $1000?
I have. But normalizing to BTC volume seems to work better. It is simply the case that there is less variance in BTC volume than $volume, for obvious reasons.
Just from a lay persons perspective, a growth in Bitcoin's value is equal to deflation in the BitCoin Economy, and that fact alone will cause people to save (less BTC activity), however when there is a large increase in Dollar value that will cause a greater imbalance (more BTC Activity) To me it seems that it is both that are important to model.
Hey chodpaba, you gotta admit this is an interesting one. Again, convergence correlated with decline but in this case with no fundamental reason other than market panic. To me this would suggest that your model at the least would suggest unsustainablity in a parabolic.
Is it this one? https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/--173313
Are you posting the updates for fun? 
I only half understood everything, but I got the impression that you thought the model was broken as the price had trampled through your error bounds.
I only half understood everything, but I got the impression that you thought the model was broken as the price had trampled through your error bounds.It only means that, instead of two calibration points, I may only have one. It remains to be seen what the error is. Even with the error, I can apply a posterior analysis, I just have not gotten that far.
Regardless, there is still an obvious covariance that I think can tell us something about price development.
What exactly are you calculating now? I am not sure but I think you may be detecting that during "bubbles" there is a divergence between the rate of change in USD volume and the USD volume volatility.
Somebody out there—replicate this.
Welp, we have reached $190/BTC which is outside the range of error for my working hypothesis. Which tells me that past price bubbles do not really have much of a bearing on the current activity. The tail for the probability for price growth is becoming longer, moving into rotation territory.
Feeling like doing a update? I want to see what it looks like right now.
I am always trying out different priors for forecasting. And when I hit upon this it just seemed so odd that the peaks would tend to line up like that. Sure, I calibrated it, but the odd thing is, regardless of the calibration that the current peak and the $32 peak would approach the money flow ratio curve at about the same ratio. Perhaps it will seem less odd if there is no close confirmation, it just seemed so crazy I had to check it out.
Could you describe what you think the ratio might say in descriptive layman terms.
As of the last complete candle, for the same calibration, the limit is calculated at a about $176.
I have not tried to recalibrate. Just waiting to see what happens.
I have not tried to recalibrate. Just waiting to see what happens.
I've been thinking about this, and still can't think of any reason the number would or should converge. Well, at least your testing it. My hope is almost that it fails the test, simply because if it works, it will drive me crazy trying to figure it out despite the obvious practical benefit. haha
Can you describe better how you calc/draw the ratio line?
Is this it:
initial raw data set:
{hour bar #1: O,H,L,C, Volume;
hour bar #2: O,H,L,C, volume;
hour bar #3: O,H,L,C, volume;
hour bar #4: O,H,L,C, volume;
...etc...}
process the initial data to make this data set:
{hour bar #1: average(H+L+C)*volume;
hour bar #2: average(H+L+C)*volume;
hour bar #3: average(H+L+C)*volume;
hour bar #4: average(H+L+C)*volume;
...etc...}
is this the final data set?:
{|(#1 - #2) divided by (#1 + #2)|;
|(#2 - #3) divided by (#2 + #3)|;
|(#3 - #4) divided by (#3 + #4)|;
|(#4 - #5) divided by (#4 + #5)|;
...etc...}
where |term| properly => absolute value (term)
The first thing you have to do is to redimension the time series. I am starting with hourly candles just because it is convenient for computing budget, but you could use anything on up to tick data if you wanted to. Group that data into candles of a constant quantile of BTC volume, the exact quantile you use to calibrate the model will depend on the resolution of the data you start with.
Then, keep a running total of $volume from each of your redimensioned candles and divide that sum by the $volume of each individual candle. Then adjust the BTC volume quantile until low spots on the curve are approximately equal to the price peaks. About as close as I could get to this calibration with hourly data was with a 98.24% quantile. Raw data of higher resolution will enable you to get a more accurate calibration.
I see - moreso.
But since you intentionally modified the the volume quantile sizes to match the ratio minimum with price peak, why do you think the next major price peak should happen when it converges again with the ratio plot? Price could just blow past it. Or are you just being curious that it might.
As of the last complete candle, for the same calibration, the limit is calculated at a about $176.
I have not tried to recalibrate. Just waiting to see what happens.
I have not tried to recalibrate. Just waiting to see what happens.
I've been thinking about this, and still can't think of any reason the number would or should converge. Well, at least your testing it. My hope is almost that it fails the test, simply because if it works, it will drive me crazy trying to figure it out despite the obvious potential benefit.
Can you describe better how you calc/draw the ratio line?
Is this it:
initial raw data set:
{hour bar #1: O,H,L,C, Volume;
hour bar #2: O,H,L,C, volume;
hour bar #3: O,H,L,C, volume;
hour bar #4: O,H,L,C, volume;
...etc...}
process the initial data to make this data set:
{hour bar #1: average(H+L+C)*volume;
hour bar #2: average(H+L+C)*volume;
hour bar #3: average(H+L+C)*volume;
hour bar #4: average(H+L+C)*volume;
...etc...}
using that processed data set, is this then the final data set?:
{|(#1 - #2) divided by (#1 + #2)|;
|(#2 - #3) divided by (#2 + #3)|;
|(#3 - #4) divided by (#3 + #4)|;
|(#4 - #5) divided by (#4 + #5)|;
...etc...}
where |term| properly => absolute value (term)
edit above.
Do you know where to find the data on how many wallet users were there were when it peaked about $32 in 2011?
Maybe this? http://blockchain.info/charts/n-unique-addresses
That only goes back to April 2012.
Look at the bottom of the page. There is a link for "All Time"
Thanks. I was interested in that for reasons that might suggest a cause to any coincidence with your plotted ratio and price converging to a point.
On another thought. Not sure if it means anything. I noticed the wallets immediately spiked by a factor of about two to two and half times around the 2011 peak price. And when we bitcoin price was basing at about $10 prior to this bull run, we had close to 40,000 wallets. We are now about two time that value now. Maybe there's a possible clue in that too?
For what it's worth. Based on simple technical reasons, I was already anticipating an at least short term top near around $181 to $189. This is one reason your thread caught my attention. My reasoning, however, has nothing to do with money flow. Just prior movements up to this point.
I've also guessed that if we will see at least a scaled up spike of 2011. The 2011 run was from $1 base to $32 peak. We will need to see it run or spike to $320 from our recent basing at ~$10 (mathematically convenient numbers
)Our recent baseline at $10 also occurred with an average about 40 times more wallets than the 2011 base. Does that mean 40 times more interested bitcoin buyers as 2011 base time? Interesting coincidence that 40 x the $32 prior peak = $1280. Very near your next peak at $1274.
Well, it's not wallets really, but new Bitcoin addresses. As people decide to move their coins to/from the exchanges they create new addresses.
Oh, your right! I wonder if that could still be a roughly proportionate to unique wallet users. And unfortunately, the data for the number of my wallet users doesn't seem to start accumulating until near the end of 2011.
edit above.
Do you know where to find the data on how many wallet users were there were when it peaked about $32 in 2011?
Maybe this? http://blockchain.info/charts/n-unique-addresses
That only goes back to April 2012.
Look at the bottom of the page. There is a link for "All Time"
Thanks. I was interested in that for reasons that might suggest a cause to any coincidence with your plotted ratio and price converging to a point.
On another thought. Not sure if it means anything. I noticed the wallets immediately spiked by a factor of about two to two and half times around the 2011 peak price. And when the bitcoin price was basing at about $10, prior to this recent uptrend, there were around 40,000 wallets. We are now about two time that value now. Maybe there's a possible clue to a near peak in that too?
For what it's worth. Based on simple technical reasons, I was already anticipating an at least short term top near around $181 to $189. This is one reason your thread caught my attention. My reasoning, however, has nothing to do with money flow. Just prior movements up to this point.
I've also guessed that if we will see at least a scaled up spike of 2011. The 2011 run was from $1 base to $32 peak. We will need to see it run or spike to $320 from our recent basing at ~$10 (mathematically convenient numbers
)Our recent baseline at $10 also occurred with an average about 40 times more wallets than the 2011 base. Does that mean 40 times more interested bitcoin buyers as 2011 base time? Interesting coincidence that 40 x the $32 prior peak = $1280 is very near your next peak at $1274.
edit above.
Do you know where to find the data on how many wallet users were there were when it peaked about $32 in 2011?
Maybe this? http://blockchain.info/charts/n-unique-addresses
That only goes back to April 2012.
edit above.
Do you know where to find the data on how many wallet users were there were when it peaked about $32 in 2011?
The assuming this chart is based on essentially the most recent data, the date for the first convergence on the chart is then about Feb 10th. Yet, when looking at the price chart for bitcoin, there was no major pullback from a peak. What is the date range of the chart you are analyzing?
http://bitcoincharts.com/charts/mtgoxUSD#rg90zczsg2013-01-08zeg2013-03-10ztgSzm1g10zm2g25
http://bitcoincharts.com/charts/mtgoxUSD#rg90zczsg2013-01-08zeg2013-03-10ztgSzm1g10zm2g25
I find the tendency for this market to make repeated parabolic moves extremely curious. In an attempt to understand this phenomenon my investigation has turned to a focus on money flow... And it only gets curiouser.
Maybe someone who has seen this before can explain what is going on exactly:
Maybe someone who has seen this before can explain what is going on exactly:
What is the x axis? I think I read it was hours, is it? And are all calculations based on hourly price and volume bars?
please go jump off a bridge
Weeeeeeeeeeeeee!
Ok, now what?
Can you take the top graph an divide it by price*total_btc_minted?
There you go notme. I am not sure what that might mean to you, but now that I have total_btc_minted in my raw data I am planning to run some experiments with it.
I don't know what it means either, but thanks
.
What the OP graph really tells us for the recent days is that cash is flowing in much, much more than out. It doesn't really tell anything about being at a turning point or not. A whopping one preceding incident of money flow meeting price equaling crash doesn't establish a pattern. No matter how cool of an arc the data draws.
Disclaimer: this doesn't mean that it couldn't be a turning point. I'm not in the business of proving negatives.
Disclaimer: this doesn't mean that it couldn't be a turning point. I'm not in the business of proving negatives.
your obviously missing my points entirely from how you answered
an indicator has no emotion and can not think for itself, it merely transmits an image from the data it is given
an indicator cannot factor in the fact we have so many people wanting bitcoins
orly? I highly doubt you have contact to ANY billionaires but regardless of that you only are making my point
tell someone who has that much money that right now they cant have bitcoins, they are only going to want them even more
this is only the beginning as ive stated before,
an indicator has no emotion and can not think for itself, it merely transmits an image from the data it is given
an indicator cannot factor in the fact we have so many people wanting bitcoins
orly? I highly doubt you have contact to ANY billionaires but regardless of that you only are making my point
tell someone who has that much money that right now they cant have bitcoins, they are only going to want them even more
this is only the beginning as ive stated before,
Behavior is something that can be measured.
this is true, though an incredible amount of data has to be inputed, for example that persons current emotional state, the history of that person from early childhood to the present morning, medications one takes, style of personal growth and the education level of that individual.
source- BS in Psychology
please go jump off a bridge
Weeeeeeeeeeeeee!
Ok, now what?
these answers are so vague and horrendous id get better debate from a wall or rock
Im saying there is something charts cannot account for and that is why you shouldnt base all your trading on just that, why do you think some people make money in this game and some dont? because there are some people out there that just see things differently and can account for things that INDICATORS cant,
Whether you know it or not the people who are leaders of bitcoin are HEAVILY invested, and not only are these people working as hard as they can because of this but you are going to see a level of work that is unmeasured because they are working for their own benefit, since they hold bitcoins they want to see its success because in the end it is ultimately their success as well
Whether all indicators are pointing to overbought it probably doesnt understand what is going on right now with all the new money and news coming in, probably with any other financial asset or vehicle this would look insane but its just what happens when something limited in supply is being Overwhelmed by demand.
TLDR; sorry there isnt one
Im saying there is something charts cannot account for and that is why you shouldnt base all your trading on just that, why do you think some people make money in this game and some dont? because there are some people out there that just see things differently and can account for things that INDICATORS cant,
Whether you know it or not the people who are leaders of bitcoin are HEAVILY invested, and not only are these people working as hard as they can because of this but you are going to see a level of work that is unmeasured because they are working for their own benefit, since they hold bitcoins they want to see its success because in the end it is ultimately their success as well
Whether all indicators are pointing to overbought it probably doesnt understand what is going on right now with all the new money and news coming in, probably with any other financial asset or vehicle this would look insane but its just what happens when something limited in supply is being Overwhelmed by demand.
TLDR; sorry there isnt one
your obviously missing my points entirely from how you answered
an indicator has no emotion and can not think for itself, it merely transmits an image from the data it is given
an indicator cannot factor in the fact we have so many people wanting bitcoins
orly? I highly doubt you have contact to ANY billionaires but regardless of that you only are making my point
tell someone who has that much money that right now they cant have bitcoins, they are only going to want them even more
this is only the beginning as ive stated before,
an indicator has no emotion and can not think for itself, it merely transmits an image from the data it is given
an indicator cannot factor in the fact we have so many people wanting bitcoins
orly? I highly doubt you have contact to ANY billionaires but regardless of that you only are making my point
tell someone who has that much money that right now they cant have bitcoins, they are only going to want them even more
this is only the beginning as ive stated before,
I forgot charts can input for human emotion and news of global caliber,
i stopped trading solely on charts when i realized that i was only right about half the time and lost money,
seriously trying to use a chart and then tell people that this is a bubble or its going to correct is just a guess and a bad one at that there are at least 15k people waiting to get verified in gox,
does your chart/indicator know that? any one of them can be ready to pour in a cool milly. does your chart know that? no neither do I but it is probably naive to say that there isnt at least 1,
trade with both charts and News not just indicators considering most of the major ones are LAGGING meaning that they go off of what has already happened your guess is as good as flipping a coin
i stopped trading solely on charts when i realized that i was only right about half the time and lost money,
seriously trying to use a chart and then tell people that this is a bubble or its going to correct is just a guess and a bad one at that there are at least 15k people waiting to get verified in gox,
does your chart/indicator know that? any one of them can be ready to pour in a cool milly. does your chart know that? no neither do I but it is probably naive to say that there isnt at least 1,
trade with both charts and News not just indicators considering most of the major ones are LAGGING meaning that they go off of what has already happened your guess is as good as flipping a coin
I was actualy starting to understand the first graph haha, ok so if i have this correctly then after the first touch it seams that it should be a mirror image of each other as stocks move up or down so does the money flow in exact terms. But then there is the money flow that alot is moving in and a lot is moving out so that would give it diffrent values, and the point is the interesting part at the end correct? where the money flow has gone down significantly yet the price has risen significantly stating that most all money has been for bulls or purchasing, so if this top line were to rise significantly and the lower (price) line were to stay flat or then would that be an indication of a drop off? obviously it would be a sign of volatility but in what direction does it indicate?
how im not dumbing up this intelligent thread. Thanks
how im not dumbing up this intelligent thread. Thanks
Way cool, what I see is lots of activity leading up to a peek when new demand (cryptocurrency converts) enter the Bitcoin economy. Once in, it looks like they locking in and save. (an attitude of I have my Bitcoin's I'm going to hold tight and let deflation play out its course) then Activity / Demand decreases.
As demand decreases the price falls, people start to use / sell their coins and activity increases, as activity increases the demand increases, and the price increases with demand activity starts to decrease (people start saving)
So it looks like to me, new cryptocurrency converts saving there coins, are the cause of the decrease in activity that causes the price to fall. The falling price of Bitcoin is akin to inflation in the Bitcoin economy and should spur innovation and growth, and disperse in bitcoin as a store of welth investment (and a decrease demand for Bitcoin.)
That will in turn drive activity and so we start the cycle again.
The graft can't make a prediction as it is driven by cryptocurrency converts, but it is cool it confirms that Bitcoin is distributing and the nature of its use / value.
As demand decreases the price falls, people start to use / sell their coins and activity increases, as activity increases the demand increases, and the price increases with demand activity starts to decrease (people start saving)
So it looks like to me, new cryptocurrency converts saving there coins, are the cause of the decrease in activity that causes the price to fall. The falling price of Bitcoin is akin to inflation in the Bitcoin economy and should spur innovation and growth, and disperse in bitcoin as a store of welth investment (and a decrease demand for Bitcoin.)
That will in turn drive activity and so we start the cycle again.
The graft can't make a prediction as it is driven by cryptocurrency converts, but it is cool it confirms that Bitcoin is distributing and the nature of its use / value.
typical price*bitcoin volume = an estimate of USD volume
If I plot USD volume it looks pretty much the same as net money flow. I think you are taking lag 1 differences and then adding them back when you do the integral (get the running cumulative "net money flow") so in the end it is a wash. Perhaps I am misunderstanding, but the charts are definitely very similar.
I still have no intuition for what total money flow means, at least the way I calculated it (and got similar charts to yours except using daily data rather than the 12 hr you must be using for so many data points). I did it as the cumulative sum of lag 1-day differences in USD volume magnitude. I think it may be interesting though.
If I plot USD volume it looks pretty much the same as net money flow. I think you are taking lag 1 differences and then adding them back when you do the integral (get the running cumulative "net money flow") so in the end it is a wash. Perhaps I am misunderstanding, but the charts are definitely very similar.
I still have no intuition for what total money flow means, at least the way I calculated it (and got similar charts to yours except using daily data rather than the 12 hr you must be using for so many data points). I did it as the cumulative sum of lag 1-day differences in USD volume magnitude. I think it may be interesting though.
Even though the data looks noisy there is a conservation of value at play here, that is why I use the whole integral from the very first trade, even very small imbalances add up over time. Using USD volume as an approximation also does not help you with the incident *direction* of money flow, and the integral does not add up the same.
Total money flow does not care about direction though, it always goes up because it uses the absolute value of money flow for each sample.
Hmm. I think there is some miscommunication. If you posted some code or part of a table that would be great. I'm also unsure why the closing price gets so much attention. It is pretty arbitrary with respect to bitcoin. VWAP instead of typical price would make more sense I think. But even VWAP*BTC volume is just estimating the actual USD volume which seems to be the measure that includes the least compression... I dunno.
To get total money flow I integrate the absolute value of those terms. It looks like this:
The net money flow integral looks like this:
The net money flow integral looks like this:
And this represents the volume under the curve of the money flow?
typical price*bitcoin volume = an estimate of USD volume
If I plot USD volume it looks pretty much the same as net money flow. I think you are taking lag 1 differences and then adding them back when you do the integral (get the running cumulative "net money flow") so in the end it is a wash. Perhaps I am misunderstanding, but the charts are definitely very similar.
I still have no intuition for what total money flow means, at least the way I calculated it (and got similar charts to yours except using daily data rather than the 12 hr you must be using for so many data points). I did it as the cumulative sum of lag 1-day differences in USD volume magnitude. I think it may be interesting though.
If I plot USD volume it looks pretty much the same as net money flow. I think you are taking lag 1 differences and then adding them back when you do the integral (get the running cumulative "net money flow") so in the end it is a wash. Perhaps I am misunderstanding, but the charts are definitely very similar.
I still have no intuition for what total money flow means, at least the way I calculated it (and got similar charts to yours except using daily data rather than the 12 hr you must be using for so many data points). I did it as the cumulative sum of lag 1-day differences in USD volume magnitude. I think it may be interesting though.
Nice to see you posting interesting things again, chodpaba.
My personal analysis seems to converge with yours - though I'm reluctant to post a chart with the indicators I've been working on for the last ten years, for obvious reasons. Right now, we're in a bull phase that has some indications of continuing until at least May 1st. (Using my timing indicator, that is.)
Around that point, plus-or-minus a few days, we're likely to start a new bear phase. The only problem is - I can't estimate magnitude. So it may be your classic 'panic' decline, or a relatively soft correction that looks more like a sagging plateau. Its a very difficult problem to solve.
Keep us posted, it is fascinating to look at.
My personal analysis seems to converge with yours - though I'm reluctant to post a chart with the indicators I've been working on for the last ten years, for obvious reasons. Right now, we're in a bull phase that has some indications of continuing until at least May 1st. (Using my timing indicator, that is.)
Around that point, plus-or-minus a few days, we're likely to start a new bear phase. The only problem is - I can't estimate magnitude. So it may be your classic 'panic' decline, or a relatively soft correction that looks more like a sagging plateau. Its a very difficult problem to solve.
Keep us posted, it is fascinating to look at.
Intuitively, I'm leaning more toward a relatively soft correction. We have one data point (2011) showing that a massive/drastic drop following a parabolic move will not kill overall appetite for bitcoin in the long run. Even if you bought at the peak of $32, and held, you have made massive returns by now. I think that would add a lot to dampen the emotional panic. Perhaps that may explain the major bounces yesterday.
Nice to see you posting interesting things again, chodpaba.
My personal analysis seems to converge with yours - though I'm reluctant to post a chart with the indicators I've been working on for the last ten years, for obvious reasons. Right now, we're in a bull phase that has some indications of continuing until at least May 1st. (Using my timing indicator, that is.)
Around that point, plus-or-minus a few days, we're likely to start a new bear phase. The only problem is - I can't estimate magnitude. So it may be your classic 'panic' decline, or a relatively soft correction that looks more like a sagging plateau. Its a very difficult problem to solve.
Keep us posted, it is fascinating to look at.
My personal analysis seems to converge with yours - though I'm reluctant to post a chart with the indicators I've been working on for the last ten years, for obvious reasons. Right now, we're in a bull phase that has some indications of continuing until at least May 1st. (Using my timing indicator, that is.)
Around that point, plus-or-minus a few days, we're likely to start a new bear phase. The only problem is - I can't estimate magnitude. So it may be your classic 'panic' decline, or a relatively soft correction that looks more like a sagging plateau. Its a very difficult problem to solve.
Keep us posted, it is fascinating to look at.
Is this MtGox data? Can you show me the actual equations? I'm having trouble understanding your definitions.
Yeah, it's Gox data.
The 'typical price' or 'pivot point' for a candle is often calculated as the average of the High, Low, and Close. Multiply that by the volume of that candle. For me it makes more sense to use the Bitcoin volume than to use the Dollar volume for this. The difference between that calculation for each candle is supposed to be a measurement of money that has flowed in the market from candle to candle, and the direction it flowed. That is what I am calling net money flow. For what I am calling total money flow I just take the absolute value of that money flow calculation. Each one of those is summed in an integral from the beginning of the time series, and the ratio taken from those integrals. (total money flow/net money flow)
So TMFn = sum(i=1, n) |NMFi| ?
Thanks, if I understand correctly then the ratio is a measure of the quantity of money moving in/out of bitcoin relative to the total amount ever moved to that date.
Sorry to be dense, but basically what you are saying is, that there is a serious resistance point at around $189 and another at $1274. What about support levels, though, or since there has only been one arc before is there not yet enough dips to draw any conclusions about that?
This is fascinating to look at, thank you for posting. So the price could potentially get to the $180-$190 range before reversing, eventually hit its bottom somewhere during the next arc, and then get to the $1270 during the next rally in the coming years?
That is pretty much my speculation at this point. But since the data is very noisy I would not want to bank on those values being very precise, if my speculation is correct it would be somewhere in that ballpark.
Regarding the current peak: If the $32 peak is any indicator, the value of the money flow arc does not quite converge with price. And once they start to diverge it is all over. The divergence of the money flow ratio currently has already started to look more decisive. I suppose enough cash could change that but everything I am seeing points to a drop in the price in the short term.
What I do not have a good bead on is how low to expect it to drop. While the money flow ratio seems to clearly show extremely overbought peaks I have not really come up with a way of reading oversold conditions from it or valuing them.
For sure its all ballpark speculation for those exact prices. But yeah the peaks of the arcs clearly don't match with the bottoms. Oct-Nov 2011 bottom was only a 1/4 into the second arc followed by a year long climb to connect with the arc again. Again this is all fascinating!
Please forgive my ignorance but could you define money flow for me, is this total capital coming into bitcoin in USD? It looks interesting though, I too think that bitcoin may be bubbling and have positioned myself for the time being into fiat, but my decision was based on search volumes being excessive compared with historic norms.
Average(H+L+C)*Volume for each candle. Add those up for net money flow, and take the sum of the absolute values for total money flow. Some analysts use dollar volume, but I use Bitcoin volume. Since price is $/BTC and volume is in BTC that yields money flow dimensioned in $ for each sample. The money flow ratio I was talking about is technically dimensionless as it is just $/$ (total money flow/net money flow).
(edit) Sorry, I should clarify. Net money flow is the *difference* of that calculation from candle to candle.
Daily?
Please forgive my ignorance but could you define money flow for me, is this total capital coming into bitcoin in USD? It looks interesting though, I too think that bitcoin may be bubbling and have positioned myself for the time being into fiat, but my decision was based on search volumes being excessive compared with historic norms.
Jump to: