Only peoples perceived probabilities could be priced in. That is a massive difference.
+1. All logical differences are big differences.
TLDR: Predicting the future is hard.
Topic: Here is why "The chart includes all fundamentals already" is wrong. (Read 1446 times)
January 19, 2013, 05:23:03 PM
+1. All logical differences are big differences.
TLDR: Predicting the future is hard.
January 19, 2013, 04:52:30 PM
Wrong.
The probabilities of these events are always prices in the charts.
The probabilities of these events are always prices in the charts.
No the probabilities of the events could not possibly be priced in the charts. Only peoples perceived probabilities could be priced in. That is a massive difference. It may sometimes look like its priced in if the event in question is very predictable, or the reaction to the posdible outcomes is very predictable. There are quite a lot of examples where neither is predictable.
January 19, 2013, 03:28:36 PM
Wrong.
The probabilities of these events are always prices in the charts.
I don't beleive I agree with blue guy The probabilities of these events are always prices in the charts.
January 19, 2013, 01:05:09 PM
Wrong.
The probabilities of these events are always prices in the charts.
and ppl who make this decisions and know the effect of said decisions are already in the market if they have something to gain The probabilities of these events are always prices in the charts.
also mega dont accept bitcoins it ask for euros
January 19, 2013, 12:28:23 PM
My guess would be that hard evidence of ASICs being shipped would trigger a correction worth about 50k BTC (due to ~25k BTC being mined with ASICs till the next difficulty change if delivered on time and 25k BTC of market over reaction).
On the other hand people could value some ASIC company actually delivering as a sign of the strenght of the Bitcoin economy and therefore invest into BTC, instead of selling.
Those two forces related to this event have to show their strenght and the outcome is unknown. If I had to make a guess however, I would say the first mentioned effect would be much stronger and maybe causes the positive effect to be delayed for some days.
On the other hand people could value some ASIC company actually delivering as a sign of the strenght of the Bitcoin economy and therefore invest into BTC, instead of selling.
Those two forces related to this event have to show their strenght and the outcome is unknown. If I had to make a guess however, I would say the first mentioned effect would be much stronger and maybe causes the positive effect to be delayed for some days.
Granted.
However since recently these kind of small dumps were always bought back up almost immediately.
January 19, 2013, 12:24:21 PM
My guess would be that hard evidence of ASICs being shipped would trigger a correction worth about 50k BTC (due to ~25k BTC being mined with ASICs till the next difficulty change if delivered on time and 25k BTC of market over reaction).
On the other hand people could value some ASIC company actually delivering as a sign of the strenght of the Bitcoin economy and therefore invest into BTC, instead of selling.
Those two forces related to this event have to show their strenght and the outcome is unknown. If I had to make a guess however, I would say the first mentioned effect would be much stronger and maybe causes the positive effect to be delayed for some days.
On the other hand people could value some ASIC company actually delivering as a sign of the strenght of the Bitcoin economy and therefore invest into BTC, instead of selling.
Those two forces related to this event have to show their strenght and the outcome is unknown. If I had to make a guess however, I would say the first mentioned effect would be much stronger and maybe causes the positive effect to be delayed for some days.
January 19, 2013, 12:01:48 PM
Let me demonstrate:
The mining industry needs to be in constant competition in order for the prices to rise. This is because once competition subsides those were "easily earned" bitcoins. You see part of bitcoins value comes from their scarcity and competition in mining increases the relative scarcity. Something you had to work hard for is automatically valuable for you.
It is right that there is the incentive for miners to be in the green as fast as they can as to sell their BTC mined with new equipment. But this only would be the case during a period where difficulty cannot keep up with the hashrate. Once difficulty has adjusted the bitcoins are "hard earned" again.
The mining industry needs to be in constant competition in order for the prices to rise. This is because once competition subsides those were "easily earned" bitcoins. You see part of bitcoins value comes from their scarcity and competition in mining increases the relative scarcity. Something you had to work hard for is automatically valuable for you.
It is right that there is the incentive for miners to be in the green as fast as they can as to sell their BTC mined with new equipment. But this only would be the case during a period where difficulty cannot keep up with the hashrate. Once difficulty has adjusted the bitcoins are "hard earned" again.
January 19, 2013, 11:53:06 AM
I concede your point.
thanks
I understand the effect of Mega, but why Avalon shipping = rally?
Because if they ship it statistically would increase the chances that the others ship too, although not directly influence it. And the health of the mining industry is a significant factor.
I wouldn't call creeping up to the 20s a rally. (This term is largely misused by the dramatization here when I say rally I mean new ATHs)
The effect of ASIC is unknown because there are too many possibilities. You only consider the best scenerio.
January 19, 2013, 11:27:28 AM
I concede your point.
thanks
I understand the effect of Mega, but why Avalon shipping = rally?
Because if they ship it statistically would increase the chances that the others ship too, although not directly influence it. And the health of the mining industry is a significant factor.
I wouldn't call creeping up to the 20s a rally. (This term is largely misused by the dramatization here when I say rally I mean new ATHs)
January 19, 2013, 11:24:08 AM
There are two strong fundamentals coming up imo:
Both are discrete events which can only have one possible outcome (true or false) they cannot be predicted with reasonable accuracy.
These predictions cannot be made using technical analysis.
- Mega accepting BTC or not accepting BTC
- Avalon shipping during the promised timeframe or not.
Both are discrete events which can only have one possible outcome (true or false) they cannot be predicted with reasonable accuracy.
- Should Mega accept BTC and Avalon ship we are going to rally.
- If one of em turns out to be true and the other not we are going to creep to the 20s.
- However if both of them turn out to be false we are going to grind down.
These predictions cannot be made using technical analysis.
I understand the effect of Mega, but why Avalon shipping = rally?
January 19, 2013, 11:15:44 AM
Wrong.
The probabilities of these events are always prices in the charts.
The probabilities of these events are always prices in the charts.
Sure, the probability of events is priced in, but the probability can change dramatically when events happen or news is released.
Before the election, you might say Obama has a 60% chance of being president the next four years. Now, Obama has a (roughly) 100% chance of being president the next four years. So once an event happens, the probability from before no longer matters.
Misinterpreted.
That is my point. you cannot tell the chance from the chart if there are 2 different events in close proximity. It is called interference it inhibits measurement. It is scientifically proven.
January 19, 2013, 11:12:02 AM
Wrong.
The probabilities of these events are always prices in the charts.
The probabilities of these events are always prices in the charts.
Sure, the probability of events is priced in, but the probability can change dramatically when events happen or news is released.
Before the election, you might say Obama has a 60% chance of being president the next four years. Now, Obama has a (roughly) 100% chance of being president the next four years. So once an event happens, the probability from before no longer matters.
Misinterpreted.
That is my point. you cannot tell the chance from the chart if there are 2 different events in close proximity. It is called interference it inhibits measurement. It is scientifically proven.
January 19, 2013, 11:04:01 AM
Wrong.
The probabilities of these events are always prices in the charts.
The probabilities of these events are always prices in the charts.
Sure, the probability of events is priced in, but the probability can change dramatically when events happen or news is released.
Before the election, you might say Obama has a 60% chance of being president the next four years. Now, Obama has a (roughly) 100% chance of being president the next four years. So once an event happens, the probability from before no longer matters.
hero member
Activity: 756
Merit: 500
It's all fun and games until somebody loses an eye
January 19, 2013, 11:00:34 AM
Wrong.
The probabilities of these events are always prices in the charts.
The probabilities of these events are always prices in the charts.
Sure, the probability of events is priced in, but the probability can change dramatically when events happen or news is released.
Before the election, you might say Obama has a 60% chance of being president the next four years. Now, Obama has a (roughly) 100% chance of being president the next four years. So once an event happens, the probability from before no longer matters.
January 19, 2013, 10:57:17 AM
Wrong.
The probabilities of these events are always prices in the charts.
The probabilities of these events are always prices in the charts.
You can't filter them out, there is no rigorous method to do it. Attribution is all based on intuition.
January 19, 2013, 10:56:50 AM
Wrong.
The probabilities of these events are always prices in the charts.
Indeed. The probabilities of these events are always prices in the charts.
January 19, 2013, 10:55:21 AM
Wrong.
The probabilities of these events are always prices in the charts.
The probabilities of these events are always prices in the charts.
January 19, 2013, 10:52:52 AM
There are two strong fundamentals coming up imo:
Both are discrete events which can only have one possible outcome (true or false) they cannot be predicted with reasonable accuracy.
These predictions cannot be made using technical analysis.
- Mega accepting BTC or not accepting BTC
- Avalon shipping during the promised timeframe or not.
Both are discrete events which can only have one possible outcome (true or false) they cannot be predicted with reasonable accuracy.
- Should Mega accept BTC and Avalon ship we are going to rally.
- If one of em turns out to be true and the other not we are going to creep to the 20s.
- However if both of them turn out to be false we are going to grind down.
These predictions cannot be made using technical analysis.
Jump to: