Topic: On evolution of prices - page 2. (Read 592 times)
it can be used in forex, especially in the crypto market today, any analysis cannot predict, since mid-2018 I have somehow made a wrong prediction, now I only expect halving from BTC and LTC, when that time arrives, BTC soar, altcoins will follow, I am very forced to become a bag holder.
to see future prices I think the most valid approach is with a fundamental approach. although this is very complex because it looks from many sides, but I think it is the most accurate way. unfortunately not everyone can be patient, because this is a long-term agenda, so it is very psychological
the longer the price stays in its tight range, the higher are the chances that it will continue to stay in that range in the future.
Fundamentally, it may mean more adoption
Fundamentally, it may mean more adoption
these two statements are contradictory.
if we get more adoption then price will rise. to put simply you can't expect more people buying bitcoin (more money coming in) while price stays the same!
That's not necessarily so
You are essentially assuming that people will be buying more bitcoins if real adoption should grow. But this is no more than what you come to intuitively think. So why do you think that people will be buying more Bitcoin in that case? I was always thinking that real adoption is about spending bitcoins (from already accumulated stashes), not so much buying more. Buying more is more about speculation than real use. If anything, adoption should first of all make prices less volatile. Whether it will be followed by rise in prices remains to be seen
I used two approaches to analyzing price action because I think it will help me to get better information related to the moving of the price. I can know where the trend wants to go, I can make another analysis with using the past data history, and I can compare with the present situations. Many things that I can get from two methods and so far, I can get something with that method.
The evolution of currency prices, from the beginning until the issuance of virtural (crypto) currencies. Everyone can see, in the movement of representative currencies, more familiar with fiat currency.
Well now, for example, you don't need to come to the bank anymore to exchange digital transactions for each crypto, not the same as gold. Related to the growth of cryptocurrency like Bitcoin,
maybe: If you wake up tomorrow and stop trusting the local currency, the crypto value will evaporate. And this brings us to Bitcoin.
Well now, for example, you don't need to come to the bank anymore to exchange digital transactions for each crypto, not the same as gold. Related to the growth of cryptocurrency like Bitcoin,
maybe: If you wake up tomorrow and stop trusting the local currency, the crypto value will evaporate. And this brings us to Bitcoin.
You can make money in any market, it doesn't matter. If anyone of you really think bitcoin will never hit 20k levels again you are welcome to short the market anytime you want and even use leverage if you want bigger profits.
They want quick profit in short, technology and entrepreneurs move too fast that you can see the evolution of price. We can't even determine and speculate the price evolution because we don't know if there are still technologies that will come out to solve problems and help us access it in cheaper/ more expensive price. But if I were going to choose, I would go to the first camp. Analyzing everything and check it the long term status is always better technically.
the longer the price stays in its tight range, the higher are the chances that it will continue to stay in that range in the future.
Fundamentally, it may mean more adoption
Fundamentally, it may mean more adoption
these two statements are contradictory.
if we get more adoption then price will rise. to put simply you can't expect more people buying bitcoin (more money coming in) while price stays the same!
"fundamentally" when adoption grows, the price grows with it.
as for the two views i don't think we can stick to only one specially as i said the second one is flawed already. i don't agree with the first one but that is what happens most of the times! it sometimes doesn't matter what I think, but it matters what the majority in the market think.
for example when they thought the 2018 bear market MUST be similar to 2014 then that is exactly what happened! whether i believed in the "past performance is not indicative of future prices" or not.
You can make money in any market, it doesn't matter. If anyone of you really think bitcoin will never hit 20k levels again you are welcome to short the market anytime you want and even use leverage if you want bigger profits.
I am not sure I understand what you mean by the second approach, though. It still looks on the past, but just on not distant past, right? Because to conclude that the price is low for a long time, we need to refer to the past. I think this approach is simply a narrower version of the previous one. It looks at the tip of the iceberg and makes its projections from there while the first one takes all of the existing data into account and makes more educated guesses
Strictly speaking, yes, it is still about statistics (i.e. looking back)
For example, once the trend is established, statistically it is more likely that it will go on than reverse right at the next moment, i.e. the odds of its continuation in the next couple units of base time are higher than its reversal (base time here refers to time used to define a trend). But it is about odds only, i.e. it doesn't in the least mean that the trend will continue indefinitely, of course
What I mean by the second approach here is a generalization of this case (including "no trend" option), which excludes from consideration past history, i.e. history before the trend (or its lack) has been established. In other words, it is explicitly assumed that what happened prior to that moment is irrelevant and doesn't affect future behavior or price action (for example, cycles, patterns or anything to that tune)
I strongly agree with your statement when we want to determine the direction of the market by approaching history / retrospectively by trying to look back by exploring past data. But in my opinion this method is more appropriate for control because in this way we can determine the risk factors and effects that occur so that we can minimize repetitive errors by exploring the causal variables or influencing variables.
It doesn't matter that much if we consider historic data or not,one thing is sure price will rise,it will take years i.e natural growth or sudden spike in price it is depend on big players and crypto adoption.based on past manipulation I was able to get a conclusion that price is following a pattern with sharp dump and pump in random years.
How can assure that price will rise? There is no need of historic thing to be repeat again in crypto currencies so need to be investing on only hope is the investors were doing. 
There are basically two approaches in analyzing price action with the purpose of seeing and telling the direction where prices may be going in the future
The first approach, which can be called historical (we can also call it retrospective), is based on the past data as it uses prior history to draw conclusions about future price action. If we use it, we should expect a powerful price action after a long period of stable or stagnant prices simply because it has always been so in the past. In this way, it can be said that we are running on a countdown timer now, i.e. with each passing day we are moving closer to the day when the market will rise and shine (again)
The second approach deliberately discards the past data (like past performance is not indicative of future prices), and on this ground it can be called progressive (or prospective). If we employ it, we may come to a completely different conclusion. Basically, the longer the price stays in its tight range, the higher are the chances that it will continue to stay in that range in the future. Fundamentally, it may mean more adoption and thus less speculative value, which would make this approach quite viable while its conclusions perfectly valid and legit
So which camp do you belong to? If you feel like you don't belong here at all, feel free to post your minority opinion too
I clearly understand the first approach and tend to support it more or less, even though I realize that if something happened in the past, it does not mean that it will happen again. I am not sure I understand what you mean by the second approach, though. It still looks on the past, but just on not distant past, right? Because to conclude that the price is low for a long time, we need to refer to the past. I think this approach is simply a narrower version of the previous one. It looks at the tip of the iceberg and makes its projections from there while the first one takes all of the existing data into account and makes more educated guesses. The first approach, which can be called historical (we can also call it retrospective), is based on the past data as it uses prior history to draw conclusions about future price action. If we use it, we should expect a powerful price action after a long period of stable or stagnant prices simply because it has always been so in the past. In this way, it can be said that we are running on a countdown timer now, i.e. with each passing day we are moving closer to the day when the market will rise and shine (again)
The second approach deliberately discards the past data (like past performance is not indicative of future prices), and on this ground it can be called progressive (or prospective). If we employ it, we may come to a completely different conclusion. Basically, the longer the price stays in its tight range, the higher are the chances that it will continue to stay in that range in the future. Fundamentally, it may mean more adoption and thus less speculative value, which would make this approach quite viable while its conclusions perfectly valid and legit
So which camp do you belong to? If you feel like you don't belong here at all, feel free to post your minority opinion too
These two approaches are not mutually exclusive. I think, it depends on the time frame you are looking
For example, in the case of bitcoin, if you go to smaller time frames, something like 15 minutes or similar, you will see that very often the price stabilizes before an abrupt change. The price can be so flat, that it looks as if no change is happening whatsoever. And then a proportionally huge rise (or drop). But on the higher time frames, the price movements are usually less volatile and it appears the second approach is right, that is, the price has stabilized in a tighter range
For example, in the case of bitcoin, if you go to smaller time frames, something like 15 minutes or similar, you will see that very often the price stabilizes before an abrupt change. The price can be so flat, that it looks as if no change is happening whatsoever. And then a proportionally huge rise (or drop). But on the higher time frames, the price movements are usually less volatile and it appears the second approach is right, that is, the price has stabilized in a tighter range
I think you are misunderstanding the whole point
More specifically, it is not a matter of timeframes at all because if it were, it would mean using the first approach. Basically, as soon as you start talking about timeframes, you are implicitly making your choice (in favor of the first approach). And I don't really know how you can possibly consider the price movement from measly 150 dollars up to almost insane 20k as less volatile, ever. But it is the longest timeframe you can take without losing focus. Indeed, you could take the whole Bitcoin history as "timeframe", but that would effectively destroy the idea of a timeframe (apart from making volatility almost infinite in that case)
There are basically two approaches in analyzing price action with the purpose of seeing and telling the direction where prices may be going in the future
The first approach, which can be called historical (we can also call it retrospective), is based on the past data as it uses prior history to draw conclusions about future price action. If we use it, we should expect a powerful price action after a long period of stable or stagnant prices simply because it has always been so in the past. In this way, it can be said that we are running on a countdown timer now, i.e. with each passing day we are moving closer to the day when the market will rise and shine (again)
The second approach deliberately discards the past data (like past performance is not indicative of future prices), and on this ground it can be called progressive (or prospective). If we employ it, we may come to a completely different conclusion. Basically, the longer the price stays in its tight range, the higher are the chances that it will continue to stay in that range in the future. Fundamentally, it may mean more adoption and thus less speculative value, which would make this approach quite viable while its conclusions perfectly valid and legit
So which camp do you belong to? If you feel like you don't belong here at all, feel free to post your minority opinion too
I think we should review history and should not ignore it. history and things that have happened will give us many new ideas for our strategy in the future.The first approach, which can be called historical (we can also call it retrospective), is based on the past data as it uses prior history to draw conclusions about future price action. If we use it, we should expect a powerful price action after a long period of stable or stagnant prices simply because it has always been so in the past. In this way, it can be said that we are running on a countdown timer now, i.e. with each passing day we are moving closer to the day when the market will rise and shine (again)
The second approach deliberately discards the past data (like past performance is not indicative of future prices), and on this ground it can be called progressive (or prospective). If we employ it, we may come to a completely different conclusion. Basically, the longer the price stays in its tight range, the higher are the chances that it will continue to stay in that range in the future. Fundamentally, it may mean more adoption and thus less speculative value, which would make this approach quite viable while its conclusions perfectly valid and legit
So which camp do you belong to? If you feel like you don't belong here at all, feel free to post your minority opinion too
Great successes have encountered many failures in the future, and those failures have made today's success.
so history is very important and needs to be carefully considered to make a new investment strategy.
The second approach deliberately discards the past data (like past performance is not indicative of future prices), and on this ground it can be called progressive (or prospective). If we employ it, we may come to a completely different conclusion. Basically, the longer the price stays in its tight range, the higher are the chances that it will continue to stay in that range in the future.
i don't get it. what is this progressive approach exactly and how does it lead to that conclusion?
Actually, it is not my thought or idea at all
And this phenomenon has even its own name (if anyone remembers it, you are welcome to chime in on this). Simply put, if we know nothing about a certain process, the longer it lasts the more we can be certain that it will go on for at least as long. It has certain application in things like accrual calculations. For example, if a person survives his 20th birthday, there are good chances that he will live up to 50
It doesn't matter that much if we consider historic data or not,one thing is sure price will rise,it will take years i.e natural growth or sudden spike in price it is depend on big players and crypto adoption.based on past manipulation I was able to get a conclusion that price is following a pattern with sharp dump and pump in random years.
There are basically two approaches in analyzing price action with the purpose of seeing and telling the direction where prices may be going in the future
The first approach, which can be called historical (we can also call it retrospective), is based on the past data as it uses prior history to draw conclusions about future price action. If we use it, we should expect a powerful price action after a long period of stable or stagnant prices simply because it has always been so in the past. In this way, it can be said that we are running on a countdown timer now, i.e. with each passing day we are moving closer to the day when the market will rise and shine (again)
The second approach deliberately discards the past data (like past performance is not indicative of future prices), and on this ground it can be called progressive (or prospective). If we employ it, we may come to a completely different conclusion. Basically, the longer the price stays in its tight range, the higher are the chances that it will continue to stay in that range in the future. Fundamentally, it may mean more adoption and thus less speculative value, which would make this approach quite viable while its conclusions perfectly valid and legit
So which camp do you belong to? If you feel like you don't belong here at all, feel free to post your minority opinion too
the previous development and charts are only be there using of confidence and hope for a person but it will not be like before at anytime the future will be totally different from the previous 10 years I definitely say the Crypto field will improve a lot more than before in some years. The first approach, which can be called historical (we can also call it retrospective), is based on the past data as it uses prior history to draw conclusions about future price action. If we use it, we should expect a powerful price action after a long period of stable or stagnant prices simply because it has always been so in the past. In this way, it can be said that we are running on a countdown timer now, i.e. with each passing day we are moving closer to the day when the market will rise and shine (again)
The second approach deliberately discards the past data (like past performance is not indicative of future prices), and on this ground it can be called progressive (or prospective). If we employ it, we may come to a completely different conclusion. Basically, the longer the price stays in its tight range, the higher are the chances that it will continue to stay in that range in the future. Fundamentally, it may mean more adoption and thus less speculative value, which would make this approach quite viable while its conclusions perfectly valid and legit
So which camp do you belong to? If you feel like you don't belong here at all, feel free to post your minority opinion too
What makes the price in a tight range? The limited number of Bitcoins makes it difficult to predict the stability of prices, especially with the increasing demand for cryptocurrencies.
The increasing numbers of currencies, especially Stablecoins "Shit-coins," makes possible manipulation possible, paving the way for correction once BTC is accepted globally.
So by mid-2020, the probability of volatility seems likely.
The increasing numbers of currencies, especially Stablecoins "Shit-coins," makes possible manipulation possible, paving the way for correction once BTC is accepted globally.
So by mid-2020, the probability of volatility seems likely.
The second approach deliberately discards the past data (like past performance is not indicative of future prices), and on this ground it can be called progressive (or prospective). If we employ it, we may come to a completely different conclusion. Basically, the longer the price stays in its tight range, the higher are the chances that it will continue to stay in that range in the future.
i don't get it. what is this progressive approach exactly and how does it lead to that conclusion?
So which camp do you belong to? If you feel like you don't belong here at all, feel free to post your minority opinion too
if i have to choose, i'm in the first camp. it's a lot easier to bet on the long term trend than anything else.
for me, the question is very binary because it's a question of technology adoption. society will either adopt it or it'll quietly disappear. if bitcoin starts looking like betamax in a few years, all the speculative money will flow out from the market and the chart will look like tulip mania.
These two approaches are not mutually exclusive. I think, it depends on the time frame you are looking.
For example, in the case of bitcoin, if you go to smaller time frames, something like 15 minutes or similar, you will see that very often the price stabilizes before an abrupt change. The price can be so flat, that it looks as if no change is happening whatsoever. And then a proportionally huge rise (or drop). But on the higher time frames, the price movements are usually less volatile and it appears the second approach is right, that is, the price has stabilized in a tighter range.
Even if you look at the forex market, there is a more or less stable range of prices where the selected pair moves, but it doesn't mean there are no powerful price actions every now and then. I think we will always have a mix of the two approaches.
For example, in the case of bitcoin, if you go to smaller time frames, something like 15 minutes or similar, you will see that very often the price stabilizes before an abrupt change. The price can be so flat, that it looks as if no change is happening whatsoever. And then a proportionally huge rise (or drop). But on the higher time frames, the price movements are usually less volatile and it appears the second approach is right, that is, the price has stabilized in a tighter range.
Even if you look at the forex market, there is a more or less stable range of prices where the selected pair moves, but it doesn't mean there are no powerful price actions every now and then. I think we will always have a mix of the two approaches.
Jump to: