Topic: rpietila Wall Observer - the Quality TA Thread ;) - page 110. (Read 907229 times)

The problem is, i made the calculation for an industrial mining operation. Something like the megafarm of KNC, not for the casual hobbyist. The other problem is, we don't know how expensive the miners are to produce. We don't know how much profit a company like KNC makes per miner if they sell it to a costumer. Maybe the production and assembly cost is only 300$? That would explain their insane profits.

Governments get tax by WWW,  but will lose money by Bitcoin. That is why governments did not like bitcoin, but push WWW .
That is the difference.

Very nice! Just an idea, include cost of the miner. How much does it cost? I would take the amortization cost as exponentially decreasing (like a mortgage), such that its effect and the increasing difficulty cancel each other out and the profitable price remains constant until the equipment has paid itself.

Puh, i made a chart, that shows the bitcoin creation price under best circumstances.

- Modern and efficient hardware (Antminer S3 - 440 GH/340W)
- very low electricity costs (0.05 cent/kwh)
- no other maintenance costs other than electricity
- I assume the miner is fully paid and the only costs are electricity
- difficulty correct till the current rise
- for the future i assumed a 10% difficulty rise per adjustment

Please don't criticize me too much, i made the chart with paint lol. The data is in the chart under the picture.



The data starts from the release of the miner.

Atleast i understand now, why the big mining operations are investing like crazy in new miners.  

So ? The difficulty rises by ~15-20% per adjustment for now, i don't get your point ?
Who cares about the current maximum nethash, the only important thing is the difficulty adjustment every 2016 blocks.

http://bitcoincharts.com/ 
Network total 284141.699 Thash/s  now. Your 2 month chart, starts at 120000 Thash/s

https://bitcoinwisdom.com/bitcoin/difficulty

I think it will slow down to ~15% and later to 10% if the price doesn't change in the immediate future.

Puh, i made a chart, that shows the bitcoin creation price under best circumstances.

Bitcoin is nearing 6 years old. The World Wide Web was launched to the public-at-large in 1993. By the 6-7th year, the dot.com bubble had a capitalization that was 183% of the USA GDP!!!

Bitcoin is 1000x smaller phenomenon and yet the WWW is 10x bigger by now, so relatively speaking Bitcoin is 10,000x smaller.

Not at all.  There is a great deal of psychological research that shows how our human minds try to find patterns that aren't really there.  A fantastic book on this topic is "Thinking Fast and Slow" by Daniel Kahneman.

IMO, the growth rate for bitcoin would need to decline strongly (or retreat over a long period) to truly invalidate the exponential growth model.  Here's a model that fixes bitcoin's market cap at inception at $500,000.  The "rationale" is that Satoshi spent approximately 2 years building it, and the market-value for Satoshi-level talent is $250,000 / year.  



I'm not arguing for this model, just pointing out that if growth slows to a more modest (but still exponential level), arguments could still be made that we are on trend.  IMO it would take a failure to reach a new ATH by 2017, or a sustained (1 year+) fall below $250, for me to say that "bitcoin growth has halted."  

...

It's so easy to be fooled by randomness.  Here's several simulations of the same underlying exponential growth model.  But instead of solving a regular differential equation to get a smooth exponential curve, I'm solving a stochastic differential equation that adds process noise.  The people in Alternate Universe #1 who get to ride the upper purple curve will think bitcoin is the most fantastic thing!  The people riding the bottom blue curve are going to make up story after story about how it's failing.  But in all cases, the only difference was randomness.  

...

I had more than half the equivalent of the US National Debt under contract for advisory. I think I saw things no analysts has ever dreamed of no less understood.

...

I have written that written publicly that first PhiBro silver manipulation took place in 1993. They client was Warren Buffet. The CFTC went to PhiBro demanding to know who they were buying silver for. They refused to give up Buffet’s name. The CFTC would have thrown anyone else in jail and out of business. They are owned by the big players and corrupt as hell right to the core. The CFTC simply said ok, no name, then exist the trade.



They desperately tried to get me to join the second silver manipulation with Buffet. I have written stating publicly that PhiBro’s brokers walked across the COMEX pit and showed my floor brokers Buffet’s orders and told me to join. They knew I would never trust these people for how would I know I was not the patsy to buy and they would use a another seller. I would never join them. Hence, PhiBro showed me the orders to convince me to join.



I then reported to our clients “they are back” knowing it was Buffet and PhiBro for a second time. They all got pissed-off at me even though I never mentioned names. The buying of silver was done in London. Therefore, they moved silver out of COMEX warehouses in USA and shipped to London to pretend there was a shortage to justify the manipulation. The Wall Street Journal assisted in the rally.

The manipulators with steering the buffet buying in London to avoid the 1993 problem with the CFTC. This is why AIG trading arm also set up in London. Buying silver in London justified moving it from the NY COMEX and this allowed them to get the manipulation going. COMEX supplies were reported in isolation. Moving the silver to London created the false image of a shortage to justify thye higher prices. The Wall Street Journal was used to plant the story. On September 30th 1997 the stories played headlines – “Silver Prices Hit Six-Month High On Steadily Declining Reserves, By  PALLAVI GOGOI AP-Dow Jones News Service Updated Sept. 30, 1997 12:01 a.m. ET NEW YORK — Silver futures surged to a six-month high at the Comex division of the New York Mercantile Exchange, a move analysts said was triggered by steadily declining warehouse stocks. The rally was boosted by preplaced purchase orders around the $5-per-ounce level…” This was the news created for the manipulation that was constantly played out in the newspapers. The Wall Street Journal again reported on November 17, 1997, “Silver Futures Prices Leap On Hints of Tight Supplies”, and again on December 4, 1997 the Wall Street Journal from London reported “Silver Surges on Strength In Supply-Demand Status By NEIL BEHRMANN Special to The Wall Street Journal Updated Dec. 5, 1997 12:01 a.m. ET LONDON — Gold may be in the doghouse, but silver is soaring like a bird”. The reporting of shortages continued to fuel the rally. The Wall Street Journal reported again December 24, 1997 for the manipulators “Silver Futures Advance As Inventories Plunge”

The interesting point is the manipulators know that if the rally the metals, the retail goldbugs rush in and buy. They then routinely turn around and sell to them at the top and the markets crash. This standard procedure and the goldbugs buy the high every single time.

The “cluib” was pissed-off that I would not join and warned they were back manipulating silver. The got a journalist from the Wall Street Journal to try to discredit me. They told him I was short silver and trying to talk it down. The journalist accused me of this nonsense and we argued on the phone. It got quite heated and frankly I was not retail so could care less what they printed. My clients were the real deal who all knew the truth about journalism. In fact, they did not ever want me to give interviews about market forecasting to the press for their view was hey – we pay for that info.

Nevertheless, the journalist kept arrogantly taunting me and said if silver was being manipulated, then give him the name so I said fine, go ahead, let me see you print it, knowing he never would. The name I gave him was Warren Buffett. He laughed. Told me everyone knew Buffett did not trade commodities I told him that was how much he knew.

The Wall Street Journal published the article. The London newspapers were fed stories by the “Club” that I was now the largest silver trader in the world. This became all a joke to me. It demonstrated how bad the press really was. They were the pawns of the manipulators and probably didn’t even know it.

The mistake made by the “Club” by turning out the press against me, was they actually created such a worldwide story that silver was being manipulated the CFTC was forced to call me – it was public now and they had no choice. They knew I was not the source of the manipulation. Even the CFTC could look at positions and knew I was not the biggest player in silver. The CFTC then asked me, where was the manipulation taking place? I told them it was in London, out of their jurisdiction. The CFTC told me that they could pick up the phone and investigate London. I told them that they had to make that clear decision. I hung up. Never did I expect that they would really do anything. Yet, they never asked me who because the question was jurisdiction.

A few hours later, my phone rang. It was a good source in London who also was helping to monitor the “Club” actions. He told me that the Bank of England had called an immediate meeting of all silver brokers in London in the morning. I was shocked. The CFTC had made the call. But then again, I had given them no names so perhaps in their mind, this was fair game.

Within the hour, Warren Buffett made a press announcement. He admitted he had purchased $1 billion worth of silver, in London . He denied he was “manipulating” the market. Claimed the silver was a long – term investment. Everyone was shocked that Buffett was suddenly exposed as a commodity trader after all. The very next day the Wall Street Journal called me. The writer asked – “How did you know?” I told him it was my job to know! Silver thereafter declined and made new lows going into 1999. So much for Buffet’s long-term investment since he sold out.

When one trader from New York joined our firm, he called Goldman Sachs to ask about us. He has publicly stated on the record that their response was they had butted head with me many times but I usually won.

Exposing the silver manipulation trying to turn the press against me was a huge mistake. The CFTC would have never called the Bank of England just because I reported the manipulation to our clients. That was private. Exposing the issue in the press forced them to respond. My brokers on the floor were Emerald Trading. I routinely traded AGAINST the manipulators and defeated them many times. Just as the goldbugs do not like me, neither do the manipulators and it far too often seemed to coincide when they were trying to goose the markets UP – not down. Contrary to the bullshit, they need people to BUY the metals to create a pool of longs to bury. They are NOT interested in forcing a metal down to compel people to sell. That is not very profitable for they want the emotional traders who buy highs. Of course the goldbugs will say I am wrong but have never been in the same circles and some of them I question if they are not the people paid on the side by the manipulators.

There have been major manipulations of markets such as rhodium and then there was the manipulation of Platinum. I had recorded tapes and tons of documents on every manipulation. This was all seized by the court and I stood up instructing the court that these tapes Alan Cohen was demanding involved criminal activity on the part of the banks. I had it all for years. Alan Cohen then was made a board member of Goldman Sachs yet still remained as the court appointed person to run Princeton Economics. That is totally illegal and a conflict of interest. Law does not matter in New York City. (see Transcripts below).

To say I will not admit markets are manipulated is absurd. To claim they are always manipulated is impossible. Yet the real paradox is when they rally, they never seem to be manipulated. That is always real. They become manipulated only when they decline.

Not even the central banks can manipulate everything. Sure people try. But not everything. They target one market and go after that. The central banks have been trying to manage the economy to eliminate recessions. They have never succeeded even once. The central bankers know this is a confidence game just as the market manipulators. You NEED the public to move a trend. They cannot do it alone. If they were all-powerful, then Bretton Woods would never have collapsed.

There is a huge difference from a short-term manipulation within the trend like the Buffet silver move, but the market still fell to new lows with all the movement of silver and buying $1 billion in a tiny market. Where is the PROOF of systemic manipulation. It is nonsense.

I am a fool in the first count

He would be a fool to tell you until he has accumulated substantially, and a fool not to tell you afterwards.