BETI: Bitcoin Exponential Trend Index and technical analysis - page 40.

Wary

hero member

Activity: 798

Merit: 1000

Who's there?

Quote from: mmortal03 on November 09, 2014, 04:36:25 PM

Quote from: Wary on October 02, 2014, 06:29:11 PM

Quote from: statdude on October 02, 2014, 04:39:11 PM

So you're calling a bottom at 230?

My crystal ball isn't good enough to make definite calls. Sad

I see conflicting signals. This chart

seems to predicts 6-week drop to 230 with following steep rise. From the other hand, weekly MACD histogram seems to predicts 8-week rise starting next week. (Sorry, can't show it, bitcoiwisdom is down).

Choose either call or make your own.

Where are we at on this prediction, Wary?

Either 275 was THE bottom and we are already on upcurve or there is one more dip to go. So, basically price will go up or down Grin

I'm in.

It would be interesting to see updated graph from jl2012.

mmortal03

legendary

Activity: 1762

Merit: 1011

Quote from: Wary on October 02, 2014, 06:29:11 PM

Quote from: statdude on October 02, 2014, 04:39:11 PM

So you're calling a bottom at 230?

My crystal ball isn't good enough to make definite calls. Sad

I see conflicting signals. This chart

seems to predicts 6-week drop to 230 with following steep rise. From the other hand, weekly MACD histogram seems to predicts 8-week rise starting next week. (Sorry, can't show it, bitcoiwisdom is down).

Choose either call or make your own.

Where are we at on this prediction, Wary?

Wary

hero member

Activity: 798

Merit: 1000

Who's there?

Quote from: statdude on October 02, 2014, 04:39:11 PM

So you're calling a bottom at 230?

My crystal ball isn't good enough to make definite calls. Sad

I see conflicting signals. This chart

seems to predicts 6-week drop to 230 with following steep rise. From the other hand, weekly MACD histogram seems to predicts 8-week rise starting next week. (Sorry, can't show it, bitcoiwisdom is down).

Choose either call or make your own.

statdude

legendary

Activity: 1498

Merit: 1000

So you're calling a bottom at 230?

intighet

member

Activity: 83

Merit: 10

mene mene tekel upharsin

Quote from: jl2012 on September 29, 2014, 11:01:56 PM

Looks bad? Yes. But if we could go >1.5 at a bubble, going to -1.25 occasionally is very likely in long-term. Just an inverted bubble.

It does not look bad. It looks like a classic technical oscillator. The lower we go, the more oversold the asset becomes...

Wary

hero member

Activity: 798

Merit: 1000

Who's there?

So, rough estimate:

jl2012

legendary

Activity: 1792

Merit: 1111

Looks bad? Yes. But if we could go >1.5 at a bubble, going to -1.25 occasionally is very likely in long-term. Just an inverted bubble.

jl2012

legendary

Activity: 1792

Merit: 1111

jl2012

legendary

Activity: 1792

Merit: 1111

Date:    29-Sep-2014
VWAP:    376.98
x:    1535
a:    0.00578
b:    -1.69322
Rsq:    0.90345
The day's expected price:    1305.52
Actual price / expected price:   28.88%
Predicted date for today's price:    25-Feb-2014
Days ahead:    -215.02
Daily price rank:    321
Predicted date for ATH ($1126):    8-Sep-2014

(See OP for explanation)



https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=e+%5E+%28+0.00577692701191043++%28+number+of+days+since+jul+17%2C+2010+%2Fdays+%29+-1.6932246440403+%29

Driv3n

sr. member

Activity: 364

Merit: 250

Quote from: rebel24 on September 28, 2014, 11:11:45 PM

Quote from: Driv3n on September 28, 2014, 10:34:24 AM

Would love to see another update now that we're down below $400... are we closing in on the 2012 lows?

you can do it by hand, its ln $378/1700
(ln as in the calculator function)

Awesome thanks, so ln(actual price/expected price)?

Much appreciated, looks like were still doing a lot better than the low point in 2012.

rebel24

member

Activity: 114

Merit: 10

Quote from: Driv3n on September 28, 2014, 10:34:24 AM

Would love to see another update now that we're down below $400... are we closing in on the 2012 lows?

you can do it by hand, its ln $378/1700
(ln as in the calculator function)

Driv3n

sr. member

Activity: 364

Merit: 250

Would love to see another update now that we're down below $400... are we closing in on the 2012 lows?

Chef Ramsay

legendary

Activity: 1568

Merit: 1001

Quote from: minerpumpkin on September 11, 2014, 11:30:37 AM

I actually gotta say that seeing the latest version of the graph is rather scary! :/ It isn't unprecedented that we went this far down, yet we're now in a relative state of mainstream adoption and already tapped some of Bitcoin's potential, so I don't hope this means decision time already, and people decided against it...

At this point there's really no reason why the general public should care or want to use bitcoin in lieu of traditional payments. Most of the merchants that take bitcoin don't offer any substantial reason for people to want to pay w/ it and if they do they certainly don't advertise it. The small % of people that are buyers/holders/users has clearly increased quite a bit since last year which is why the price is being sustained at 2-3 times last summer's price. The trajectory is going up not down in terms of more people learning about and wanting have a piece of the action all over the world. Now, there's way more exchanges in plenty of countries not to mention all the ATMs which will help the next rally in epic form when the next trigger sets it off.

oda.krell

legendary

Activity: 1470

Merit: 1007

Quote from: jl2012 on September 11, 2014, 12:28:32 PM

Quote from: minerpumpkin on September 11, 2014, 11:30:37 AM

I actually gotta say that seeing the latest version of the graph is rather scary! :/ It isn't unprecedented that we went this far down, yet we're now in a relative state of mainstream adoption and already tapped some of Bitcoin's potential, so I don't hope this means decision time already, and people decided against it...

It may just mean we will follow a less steep exponential trend, or even a linear trend. Obviously, the exponential trend has to be broken someday or we will be able to buy everything in the world in 10 years.

Then again, in terms of deviation from the best estimate of the trendline at the time, we're still nowhere near to 2011 levels, so it's probably too early to declare defeat (of the model)

jl2012

legendary

Activity: 1792

Merit: 1111

Quote from: minerpumpkin on September 11, 2014, 11:30:37 AM

I actually gotta say that seeing the latest version of the graph is rather scary! :/ It isn't unprecedented that we went this far down, yet we're now in a relative state of mainstream adoption and already tapped some of Bitcoin's potential, so I don't hope this means decision time already, and people decided against it...

It may just mean we will follow a less steep exponential trend, or even a linear trend. Obviously, the exponential trend has to be broken someday or we will be able to buy everything in the world in 10 years.

oda.krell

legendary

Activity: 1470

Merit: 1007

Quote from: cypherdoc on September 11, 2014, 11:33:22 AM

Quote from: oda.krell on September 11, 2014, 05:50:15 AM

Thought this might be interesting to you, OP. Maybe you saw it already...

http://www.extremetech.com/computing/179421-analyzing-bitcoin-why-btc-is-so-valuable-whether-it-will-keep-its-value-in-the-future

Correlation analysis of price/difficulty. Looks quite rigorous to me, but didn't really read it with full attention so far. Also wondering a bit if the extremetech article is the only way they presented their results, or if they published this academically... couldn't find anything.

Reminds me a bit of gbianchi's model, who's modeling price/"network size" (where network size is estimated by no. of blockchain addresses that are/were in active use. Would be interesting to have the two look at each others models, imo.

EDIT: Peter R. had a similar model around the Metcalfe assumption, just using a different estimator for network size. Might be interesting to him as well, in case he's reading.

interesting. they actually claimed price doesn't correlate with tx volume as Peter argues.

"With few exceptions, the long-term hash rate drives upwards — as does the value of the currency". i've argued this all along.

That's why I said I was looking for an actual publication with the full technical details: I don't think they meant "no. of transactions" (as Peter R.) does, or "zero addresses" (as gbianchi does), but it sounded to my as if they looked at BTC transfer volume, or maybe even USD transfer volume.

I'll see if I can find the details....

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Quote from: oda.krell on September 11, 2014, 05:50:15 AM

Thought this might be interesting to you, OP. Maybe you saw it already...

http://www.extremetech.com/computing/179421-analyzing-bitcoin-why-btc-is-so-valuable-whether-it-will-keep-its-value-in-the-future

Correlation analysis of price/difficulty. Looks quite rigorous to me, but didn't really read it with full attention so far. Also wondering a bit if the extremetech article is the only way they presented their results, or if they published this academically... couldn't find anything.

Reminds me a bit of gbianchi's model, who's modeling price/"network size" (where network size is estimated by no. of blockchain addresses that are/were in active use. Would be interesting to have the two look at each others models, imo.

EDIT: Peter R. had a similar model around the Metcalfe assumption, just using a different estimator for network size. Might be interesting to him as well, in case he's reading.

interesting. they actually claimed price doesn't correlate with tx volume as Peter argues.

"With few exceptions, the long-term hash rate drives upwards — as does the value of the currency". i've argued this all along.

minerpumpkin

hero member

Activity: 686

Merit: 500

A pumpkin mines 27 hours a night

I actually gotta say that seeing the latest version of the graph is rather scary! :/ It isn't unprecedented that we went this far down, yet we're now in a relative state of mainstream adoption and already tapped some of Bitcoin's potential, so I don't hope this means decision time already, and people decided against it...

ssmc2

legendary

Activity: 2002

Merit: 1040

Quote from: oda.krell on September 11, 2014, 05:50:15 AM

Thought this might be interesting to you, OP. Maybe you saw it already...

http://www.extremetech.com/computing/179421-analyzing-bitcoin-why-btc-is-so-valuable-whether-it-will-keep-its-value-in-the-future

Correlation analysis of price/difficulty. Looks quite rigorous to me, but didn't really read it with full attention so far. Also wondering a bit if the extremetech article is the only way they presented their results, or if they published this academically... couldn't find anything.

Reminds me a bit of gbianchi's model, who's modeling price/"network size" (where network size is estimated by no. of blockchain addresses that are/were in active use. Would be interesting to have the two look at each others models, imo.

EDIT: Peter R. had a similar model around the Metcalfe assumption, just using a different estimator for network size. Might be interesting to him as well, in case he's reading.

Interesting comments too. Hey look, it's Neal Palmquist Roll Eyes

Every time I see that user name in an article's comments section it just further convinces me he's a paid shill for some major entity that is very scared of BTC. And that alone makes me happy

oda.krell

legendary

Activity: 1470

Merit: 1007

Thought this might be interesting to you, OP. Maybe you saw it already...

http://www.extremetech.com/computing/179421-analyzing-bitcoin-why-btc-is-so-valuable-whether-it-will-keep-its-value-in-the-future

Correlation analysis of price/difficulty. Looks quite rigorous to me, but didn't really read it with full attention so far. Also wondering a bit if the extremetech article is the only way they presented their results, or if they published this academically... couldn't find anything.

Reminds me a bit of gbianchi's model, who's modeling price/"network size" (where network size is estimated by no. of blockchain addresses that are/were in active use. Would be interesting to have the two look at each others models, imo.

EDIT: Peter R. had a similar model around the Metcalfe assumption, just using a different estimator for network size. Might be interesting to him as well, in case he's reading.

Topic: BETI: Bitcoin Exponential Trend Index and technical analysis - page 40. (Read 110414 times)