Topic: Heat map 6 months (Read 2874 times)
Any ideas what's up with the site? I miss my ferroh heatmap
can someone describe how to read that heat map?
"heat" is amount traded at the specific prices. Basically you can see the trade volume: the more yellow/red the area around the line is, the more coins changed hands at that price.
There is a very strong cumulative effect of surrounding trades.
When trades take place in the same price region the 'heat' starts to build up and radiate out.
This graph shows you where lots of trades didn't change the price by much.
That is what it means.
Yes, the "heat starts to build up and radiate out" when trades happen... the more volume, the more radiating heat. The "radiating" is just a nifty way to display this data.
What you say doesn't invalidate what I said, except the part about "nonsense"
sr. member
Activity: 350
Merit: 250
Trust me, these default swaps will limit the risks
@Lebing
Where did you get this heat map?
Where did you get this heat map?
can someone describe how to read that heat map?
"heat" is amount traded at the specific prices. Basically you can see the trade volume: the more yellow/red the area around the line is, the more coins changed hands at that price.
Nonsense.
There is a very strong cumulative effect of surrounding trades.
When trades take place in the same price region the 'heat' starts to build up and radiate out.
This graph shows you where lots of trades didn't change the price by much.
That is what it means.
Yes, the "heat starts to build up and radiate out" when trades happen... the more volume, the more radiating heat. The "radiating" is just a nifty way to display this data.
What you say doesn't invalidate what I said, except the part about "nonsense"
it's generally agreed that the NASDAQ was a bubble that burst back in 2000. also housing was in a bubble that burst in 2008.
neither of them went to zero.
neither of them went to zero.
Housing drop was something like 40%, though it should have gone lower, and would have, if not for the interference of the Fed. (P.S. it still needs to go lower)
I think a bubble has more to do with mindset than strict numerical definitions.
The subprime real estate boom was irrational, as the market was acting irrational under the direction of the Fed (artificially low interest rates). This irrational behavior, to me, is what makes it a bubble.
Bitcoin could be in one big giant bubble! If we somehow discover this was all a terrible impossible idea, the Bitcoin will crash, and it will have been seen as a "bubble."
However, as the currency gains favor and dependency, I believe we will see more predictable pricing, based on market fundamentals. Bubbles could still arise after this stabilization, but my guess is they would be externally produced - government interference, hacker, or virus to name a few.
Any news that creates hype in the Bitcoin, but is flawed in reality, has the ability to send Bitcoin into a new bubble.
it's generally agreed that the NASDAQ was a bubble that burst back in 2000. also housing was in a bubble that burst in 2008.
neither of them went to zero.
neither of them went to zero.
Do you know anyone investing in Tulip Bulbs expecting a return in yield?
(Rhetorical, of course.)
Again - the definition is "price returns to the start of the move or collapses to zero". Since it didn't collapse all the way to zero, you're free to buy all the Tulip Bulbs you'd like - but you'd be a complete fool expecting any return from your investment.
Where are you getting that lame definition?
The wikipedia page[1] on an economic bubble has this to say: "trade in high volumes at prices that are considerably at variance with intrinsic values". In other words, when the market becomes irrational, in either direction.
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_bubble
You know, I'm just trying to help you out here. Go ahead, call 5% fluctuations "bubbles" all you want. My alias wasn't chosen at random, I know what I'm talking about.
Won't be me looking like a fool...
You're right about the 5% thing, I meant it in the context of a very short time frame, but I did not make that clear. I'll still stick with the Wikipedia definition though, and not your bullshit about going to zero.
Do you know anyone investing in Tulip Bulbs expecting a return in yield?
(Rhetorical, of course.)
Again - the definition is "price returns to the start of the move or collapses to zero". Since it didn't collapse all the way to zero, you're free to buy all the Tulip Bulbs you'd like - but you'd be a complete fool expecting any return from your investment.
Where are you getting that lame definition?
The wikipedia page[1] on an economic bubble has this to say: "trade in high volumes at prices that are considerably at variance with intrinsic values". In other words, when the market becomes irrational, in either direction.
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_bubble
You know, I'm just trying to help you out here. Go ahead, call 5% fluctuations "bubbles" all you want. My alias wasn't chosen at random, I know what I'm talking about.
Won't be me looking like a fool...
Is it just me, or is it really looks like smaller version of May 2011 to Mar 2012?
it looks nothing like the bubble. We just sat in a stable plateau period that lasted half as long as the entire original bubble runup. Nor does the runup match graphs of other bubbles. Your fears are causing you to find a similarity where none exists. Note, I'm not saying we won't go down. But even if we dropped off a cliff tomorrow (which I think unlikely) the graph STILL would not match that of a bubble. Every time a price rises then falls does not make a "bubble".
Every time the price goes exponential and then falls more than 5% is a bubble. There was an echo bubble, but you are right that it is recovering much better this time because speculative bubbles can't harm a market with sound fundamentals other than in the short term.
Right. So where's the exponential? And not sure where you got that 5% number but I don't think many investors would call a 5% dip a bubble. Maybe 50%... but 75-90% for sure.
Where are you getting that lame definition?
The wikipedia page[1] on an economic bubble has this to say: "trade in high volumes at prices that are considerably at variance with intrinsic values". In other words, when the market becomes irrational, in either direction.
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_bubble
This definition unfortunately refers to "intrinsic values" that can only be know after the event (if ever). BTW I don't like the other definition either.
But very simply, if there were a bubble one effect would be that people would have been spending their xmas and ny vacations trying to GET bitcoins. Bubble fever. Instead we saw low volumes as people did rational things during the vacation (like take time off).
I'm referring to the behavior in August, not this recent rise (yet).
Yes, intrinsic values are fuzzy, which is why I summarized it as "when the market becomes irrational".
can someone describe how to read that heat map?
"heat" is amount traded at the specific prices. Basically you can see the trade volume: the more yellow/red the area around the line is, the more coins changed hands at that price.
Nonsense.
There is a very strong cumulative effect of surrounding trades.
When trades take place in the same price region the 'heat' starts to build up and radiate out.
This graph shows you where lots of trades didn't change the price by much.
That is what it means.
Is it just me, or is it really looks like smaller version of May 2011 to Mar 2012?
it looks nothing like the bubble. We just sat in a stable plateau period that lasted half as long as the entire original bubble runup. Nor does the runup match graphs of other bubbles. Your fears are causing you to find a similarity where none exists. Note, I'm not saying we won't go down. But even if we dropped off a cliff tomorrow (which I think unlikely) the graph STILL would not match that of a bubble. Every time a price rises then falls does not make a "bubble".
Every time the price goes exponential and then falls more than 5% is a bubble. There was an echo bubble, but you are right that it is recovering much better this time because speculative bubbles can't harm a market with sound fundamentals other than in the short term.
Right. So where's the exponential? And not sure where you got that 5% number but I don't think many investors would call a 5% dip a bubble. Maybe 50%... but 75-90% for sure.
Where are you getting that lame definition?
The wikipedia page[1] on an economic bubble has this to say: "trade in high volumes at prices that are considerably at variance with intrinsic values". In other words, when the market becomes irrational, in either direction.
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_bubble
This definition unfortunately refers to "intrinsic values" that can only be know after the event (if ever). BTW I don't like the other definition either.
But very simply, if there were a bubble one effect would be that people would have been spending their xmas and ny vacations trying to GET bitcoins. Bubble fever. Instead we saw low volumes as people did rational things during the vacation (like take time off).
Awesome!
Where can I get my free tulips?
Do you know anyone investing in Tulip Bulbs expecting a return in yield?
(Rhetorical, of course.)
Again - the definition is "price returns to the start of the move or collapses to zero". Since it didn't collapse all the way to zero, you're free to buy all the Tulip Bulbs you'd like - but you'd be a complete fool expecting any return from your investment.
Where are you getting that lame definition?
The wikipedia page[1] on an economic bubble has this to say: "trade in high volumes at prices that are considerably at variance with intrinsic values". In other words, when the market becomes irrational, in either direction.
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_bubble
Awesome!
Where can I get my free tulips?
Do you know anyone investing in Tulip Bulbs expecting a return in yield?
(Rhetorical, of course.)
Again - the definition is "price returns to the start of the move or collapses to zero". Since it didn't collapse all the way to zero, you're free to buy all the Tulip Bulbs you'd like - but you'd be a complete fool expecting any return from your investment.
Every time the price goes exponential and then falls more than 5% is a bubble. There was an echo bubble, but you are right that it is recovering much better this time because speculative bubbles can't harm a market with sound fundamentals other than in the short term.
I know I keep trying, but honestly - people really need to lay of the "bubble" term. A true bubble is when the price falls to the inception or zero. A large market fluctuation is not a bubble. The best chance of that occurring was when we spiked on the massive highs past 30. Since we did NOT go down to the starting price level of that massive move - it isn't a "bubble".
The past fluctuation courtesy of Mr. Arr-Matey-Scamerson wasn't a "bubble". We're above the price inception of that fluctuation. Was it a liquidation event? Most certainly, but the market recovered. Bubbles don't recover. If they did, we'd still be investing in Tulip Bulbs.
I'll keep repeating myself, eventually it will stick.
(Futures markets have blowoff moves that follow an exponential curve - they aren't a "bubble" either. If they were, then silver would be at zero, to pick an example.)
Awesome!
Where can I get my free tulips?
Every time the price goes exponential and then falls more than 5% is a bubble. There was an echo bubble, but you are right that it is recovering much better this time because speculative bubbles can't harm a market with sound fundamentals other than in the short term.
I know I keep trying, but honestly - people really need to lay of the "bubble" term. A true bubble is when the price falls to the inception or zero. A large market fluctuation is not a bubble. The best chance of that occurring was when we spiked on the massive highs past 30. Since we did NOT go down to the starting price level of that massive move - it isn't a "bubble".
The past fluctuation courtesy of Mr. Arr-Matey-Scamerson wasn't a "bubble". We're above the price inception of that fluctuation. Was it a liquidation event? Most certainly, but the market recovered. Bubbles don't recover. If they did, we'd still be investing in Tulip Bulbs.
I'll keep repeating myself, eventually it will stick.
(Futures markets have blowoff moves that follow an exponential curve - they aren't a "bubble" either. If they were, then silver would be at zero, to pick an example.)
Is it just me, or is it really looks like smaller version of May 2011 to Mar 2012?
it looks nothing like the bubble. We just sat in a stable plateau period that lasted half as long as the entire original bubble runup. Nor does the runup match graphs of other bubbles. Your fears are causing you to find a similarity where none exists. Note, I'm not saying we won't go down. But even if we dropped off a cliff tomorrow (which I think unlikely) the graph STILL would not match that of a bubble. Every time a price rises then falls does not make a "bubble".
Every time the price goes exponential and then falls more than 5% is a bubble. There was an echo bubble, but you are right that it is recovering much better this time because speculative bubbles can't harm a market with sound fundamentals other than in the short term.
can someone describe how to read that heat map?
"heat" is amount traded at the specific prices. Basically you can see the trade volume: the more yellow/red the area around the line is, the more coins changed hands at that price.
can someone describe how to read that heat map?
I think market depth has increased. Just look at the daily candles for 2011 versus 2012. The upside breakout from the consolidating triangle is encouraging as well.
Jump to: