FWIW: I'm all BTC and holding... (To infinity and beyooooooond!!!!)
BTW for you - I have assessed the large time behavior of bitcoin before. If you address the problem as a perfect product, the demand for which is always equal to precisely the number of people who have recognized its existence, the price would go like
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigmoid_functionSo for small times, the growth is approximately exponential. So I tend to take price data into excel, take the logarithm and try this:
This fit was done in early November, during the time when the price was rising quickly. There is a good explanation then, why the fit so badly missed the moment when the price would hit $1k. Left an as exercise.
Yes; I've figured out that far myself. I do have several other things to attend to during my days (and nights recently...) that really leaves me with minimal time to go as deep as I wanted to. This thing is definitely huge. IMHO, there's no need someone to risk his holdings in order to make them more. Especially people who don't know what they're doing.
The efficient market is like doing physics in space and discounting all variables.
Yes, the experimentation is needed to settle it.
Its been done with the stock market extensively across backtested trade data from databases reaching back decades for every trade recorded.
This was most famously done by William O'Neil and condensed in the CANSLIM methods (which just scratches the surface now).
Having worked for O'Neil and done some programming for him a few decades ago, I developed some respect for both the scientific methods used and the effectiveness of their rigorous application.
I haven't analyzed RP's methods, but claiming that all TA is bunk based on an analogy to pendulums or any other analogy is, well... I think you can do better.
1. I'd say you're right (that's why several times they're wrong - they should ACCOUNTING all variables)
2. It's like Risto Pietila's method of selling your bitcoins gradually (and vice versa if you're not sure if they go down or up respectively). As I previously wrote I'm a bit hostile at economic "scientists". They're no scientists at all to me. I may begin a big flame war here (which I will miss because I will have to go to sleep soon) but that's my opinion and I've no intention to change it.
3. I did not claim that ALL TA is bunk. I wrote (I'm not copy pasting) - did you ever read what I wrote on the 5th-6th paragraph?
4. I may be able to do better; but that's who I am, and I will probably wont!
.
