Topic: rpietila Wall Observer - the Quality TA Thread ;) - page 101. (Read 907212 times)

Selling now will be a learning event soon after. Buying now is an opportunity that hasn't been available in six months.

This is exactly the same pattern Bitcoin always has except it is expanded and elongated due to larger adoption. The snapbacks will not be a dramatic, but will be just as big.

The percentage is undisclosed, but is smaller than with most people who even mention Monero in their posts. 

No, I don't believe we will go to such prices, unless Bitcoin fails.

Selling at a bottom is a fail. If you feel prone to it, just get a vacation of 6 months and check back then.

Risto, How much % you hold in monero compared to bitcoin?

And you really think  we can go as low as $200 or even $100?

What I'm asking myself is if and when bitcoin will fail. To me, now seems the most likely time for bitcoin to just fade out and never come back which makes me slightly uncomfortable, I still believe it's heavy buying entry point though

I have very little commented Bitcoin's price during the last months. It is soon 7 months that I bought my shorts back and now I am just waiting the price to rise, to enable me to sell and gain financial resources - or not rise, in which case I continue to concentrate on forum education and less money-consuming activities.

The buyback average in 2014-2-25 was $449 and the low $382. So we are now at about the same price. This time it feels worse, because the spring that compresses in flashcrashes and catapults the price up, seems to be broken.

If it is broken, then it's perhaps the final capitulation.

Nobody should employ an investment strategy with stop-losses. That is idiotic. If you don't think the investment is valuable (and thus becomes better when it becomes more undervalued), why the heck should you buy it at all? There are valuable things in the world that you can buy instead.

Nobody should gamble more than he can afford to lose. By following this, I am able to wait the price coming down, and at $300 I'll probably cut excess spending, at $200 refocus my time on earning money instead of fooling around and at $100 buy more bitcoins with my renewed positive cash flow.

Interesting to see how it works out. Have to say I am not a major player in this and that is due to another coin that is more mentioned in the Altcoin observer thread.

Thanks to both of you for these posts. I was thinking i invested too much in bitcoin these days becaus i am at something like -20% today. But you are right, i have a job, i have a house and i have in banks twice what i invested, so if i lose, it will hurt, but that's all.

Yes, I am so accustomed to knowing the right interpretation that I almost forget that this adage is usually misapplied.

Q: Can you lose $5k if you're 20 and that's all you have?
A: Yes. Go ahead. Everyone needs to lose $5k to know how it feels. Better odds if you split it in 2 money-making ventures though.

Q: Can you lose $100k if you have another in the bank, and a job and a house?
A: Yes. It can easily be invested in anything you feel worthwhile and have made your homework on.

Q: Can you afford losing your house and be left paying off the mortgage, or a business loan of similar proportions, for 15 years or the rest of your life?
A: No. Don't take a mortgage unless you are a seasoned gambler. Renting is not outlawed if you can't buy your house.

Q: I am old and sick and have no income, but have a million in the bank. Lucky me.
A: No. You are an idiot and a gambler of ultimate proportions. Never risk in a bank or anything more than you can afford to lose, and in this case $100k is a max. Income-generating RE, gold, silver, cryptos, and stocks in moderate proportions are way better. Also don't trust them behind one person other than yourself.


TL;DR: Don't invest more than you can afford to lose, but do invest all that you can.

Whatever you hold value in with the hopes that you can some day reclaim the value, is an investment.

Another truth which needs highlighting. I'd add a few items though:
a) specialize on a particular game/industry. Learn it inside out - increase or odds by making educated predictions.
b) hope for the best, plan for the worst. That is assume you will be hurt in ways you don't know yet.
c) know your league. You cannot play the billion dollar game with a 10k portfolio.

Bitcoin is an interesting phenomenon. It seems to negate point c), since the access to bitcoins is leveled. Unfortunately it also enhances point b), b/c the irreversibility of the payment makes it hard to contain fraud.

From the Zurich Axioms; Minor Axiom I

Always play for meaningful stakes.

"Only bet what you can afford to lose," says the old bromide. You hear it in Las
Vegas, on Wall Street, and wherever people risk money to get more money. You read
it in books of investment and money-management advice by conventional counselors
like Sylvia Porter. It is repeated so often and in so many places that it has taken on
an aura of truth through assertion -- just like the shrinks' bromide about getting
calm.
But you should study it with the greatest care before making it a part of your
speculative toolkit. As most people interpret it, it is a formula that almost assures
poor results.
What is an amount that you can "afford to lose"? Most would define it as "an amount
which, if I lose it, won't hurt." Or "an amount which, if I lose it, won't make any
significant difference in my general financial well-being." A buck or two, in other

words. Twenty bucks. A few hundred. These are the kinds of amounts most middleclass
people would consider loss-affordable. And as a result, these are the kinds of
amounts most middle-class people speculate with, if they speculate at all.
But consider this. If you bet $100 and double your money, you're still poor.
The only way to beat the system is to play for meaningful stakes. This doesn't mean
you should bet amounts whose loss would bankrupt you. You've got to pay the rent
and feed the kids, after all. But it does mean you must get over the fear of being
hurt.
If an amount is so small that its loss won't make any significant difference, then it
isn't likely to bring you any significant gain either. The only way to win a big payoff
from a small wager is to go for a long, long shot. You might buy a $1 lottery ticket
and win a million, for instance. That is nice to dream about, but the odds against you,
of course, are depressingly high.
In the normal course of speculative play, you must start out with a willingness to be
hurt, if only slightly. Bet amounts that worry you, if only a little.

Sincere.........................................

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JXUA8oFWCc

Sorry, we may be more or less in agreement, again.   

However, when you post a caricature of Risto (even though funny), I may get distracted that there may be some attempts at ad hominems, rather than to really explore relevant and material substantive issues. Sorry, that may just be my own distraction(s).

I'm saying just that.  More likely than not he's sincere.  Not sure why we're stuck on this.

You could be correct, and maybe I am just working off of incomplete information?

I read about an incident (including various aspects of Risto's own rendition) in which Risto gave up control of his laptop with bitcoins and then went on some drama and blaming and seeming failure(s) to take responsibility for his own sloppiness; however, I am NOT clear how that would necessarily rise to the level of purposeful deception (unless you are suggesting that the incident demonstrates that he is NOT acting in good faith b/c he has issues regarding his ability to take responsibility for his own sloppiness?).  

Further,  in my thinking, checking into a sanatorium would also be insufficient to cause me to conclude that someone is purposefully deceiving.... so in that regard, I believe that there can be "sincere manic ramblings" without them devolving into a category of purposeful deception. 

I am NOT totally closed on this point b/c with further evidence, I may be willing to reconsider my tentative conclusions.  I also believe that the topic could be important because Risto remains a fairly influential persona in the BTC world (especially overall on this forum, and even he has gained some mainstream press attention for his various "contributions" and/or assertions).  However, this thread does NOT seem to be  a great place to engage in such pursuits, especially given the fact that Risto manages this thread - and maybe it would cause self-censoring or even impressions of biasness to see which posts survive.... and really, I find it quite irritating to go through the efforts of composing a thoughtful post that I believe is contributing to the conversation and then to have it deleted by someone who has a different view of the meaning of "contribution."

Not sure what you mean--I said I'm leaning towards it being sincere manic ramblings.
As far as me thinking him manic?  That whole Magalonode Summit incident (after which he checked into a sanatorium), reads like a textbook example.

Is that "image key" public observable ? Every node knows what input is really spent and who ring-sing this message ?

Edit:
If I know YOUR public key, from an unspet input . You are broadcasting new transaction (is not yet minted). I can compute "image key" and create ring singature of YOUR input with my privateKey ... and output to my address.  What transaction will win ?

That is one of my concerns about Jorge; however, I was NOT really of the belief that Risto falls in the same category

To give you the benefit of the doubt in this regard, NotLambChops, this could be a matter of degree regarding how much purposeful deception is going on versus just irrational exuberance.  

I have much more tolerance for irrational exuberance (which seems to be your characterization of Risto's posts) than I do for purposeful deception (which seems to be my characterization of Jorge's posts).

Further, I consider that my tolerance level regarding purposeful deception as compared with irrational exuberance is NOT materially affected whether either of these is used in the direction of bear-ish or bull-ish predictions/assessments.

He's an intelligent guy.  That makes his reasoning seem solid to less intelligent guys.  Not sure if intentional sophistry, but more likely just manic ramblings.  Manics are fun, fascinating, often contagiously optimistic, and often successful folks.  They make awesome salesmen

I just made a post in that thread related to this particular point.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.8875563

In sum, I believe that Risto makes a lot of good points in his various posts regarding the price movements of bitcoin and the various factors influencing BTC prices, and maybe some of the contents of his various posts and the specifics of his various posts need to be taken with a grain of salt - as with the contents of any posters within these public forums.  I tend to take what I consider to be too much emphasis on math with a grain of salt; however, even with mathematical emphases, we can learn about price movements and influential dynamics within the BTC space.

 Even though Risto may be wrong from time to time, and even seems to be exaggerating from time to time, he does tend to provide a considerable amount of reasoning to back up his points that should help readers to arrive at their own conclusions rather than just accepting what he says lock, stock and barrel...

This is a TA thread - if you're struggling to grasp the cryptography then you are welcome to continue this discussion in the Monero ANN thread: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/xmr-monero-a-secure-private-untraceable-cryptocurrency-583449

Alternatively, if you believe you've found an exploit, I do encourage you (again) to document it and write a PoC like every other security researcher. The process of writing a PoC normally forces me to come to grips with the intricacies of the subject, and I document thereafter.

Rem tene verba sequentur, as they used to say.

Ok I'm not sure about "image key". I red somewhere it is derived from private key (so only me can verify because only I know private ) ... But in this paper "image key" is derived from pubic key. Does it mean I can use  VER to find out who is really spending ?

You certainly can, but it won't be a valid signature to spend my output, only your output.

That's because it will fail the VER step (page 10 of above mentioned whitepaper) when applied to my output. It will pass the step when applied to your output.


No. The key image is an input in to the VER step, and the signature won't verify with an invalid key image. Which is to say, it can be verified. The key image also needs to be unique (not used before -- LNK step) but this only matters once the signature containing the key image is verified. It won't be if you try to use your private key and my output.

EDIT:

Oh, I think I understand what you're saying. You are saying that the verifier can't tell whether your output was spent or mine. This is true. The difference comes from the LNK step, where I'm still able to spend my output once you've done this but you can't spend yours again. That's because I can create another valid key image with any ring signature containing my output, and you can't create another valid key image for any ring signature containing yours.

So you see, my output has not been "spent" here, because I'm able to spend it later (by producing a different, but valid,  key image). Yours has been spent, because you won't be able to do this.