Topic: rpietila Wall Observer - the Quality TA Thread ;) - page 256. (Read 907227 times)

ass clowns like Rpietila are one of the main reasons we are droppin' like a rock! =\ imho

I have read that numerous times. I will go dig up the link about that recent relevation where Max Keiser says Rickards was. Come back to read this post again...

thefunkybits, what proof do you have that I am a fool? Accusations without evidence is for the foolish. As if not quoting me would change any reality. Are you really that consumed by the power of politics. Actual reality is dictated by the economics of technology. Period.

Edit: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/911-insider-trading-confirmed-543076

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_G._Rickards#Biography

Appears his insider position comes from being a legal advisor to the intelligence community and DoD.



Agreed there can be in rarer cases a divergence to chaos which means disintegration of the inertial frame (structure), e.g. a disruptive technology from a competitor.

I know of no cases where an inertia produced its own disruption to (re-)accelerate its own (de-)acceleration. The disruption may be seeded by the inertia, but that actual inertia is by mathematical definition of its structure incapable of looking outside of itself.

Feel free to correct me with examples.


Your example appears to support my point above.


And how often do very large scale movements (e.g. Communism, adoption of modern central banking, adoption of Paypal or Facehookhole) have these bizarro higher order components? Any historical fact checking?

Appears to me on cursory interaction so far that you are based solely in math (and very good at it), but perhaps your weakness is you don't take the time to go tie into historical significance. Thus you could be flying in too many directions without a compass.

This is where Armstrong is a genius. He has some of your math ability and he put $100 millions of historical data into a model and he regularly talks with key insiders all over the world in every country.

I am limited by my resources and specialized area of experience (mostly programming), so I have to leverage him and others (e.g. Peter R's recent Metcalf fit) for data and initial insights, then I refine with my domain knowledge.


I don't know what a cascade model is? Care to summarize the significance or am I left to my own googling?
 

I agree I would really appreciate if someone did some empirical analysis of the data from this perspective. This is not my area of usual work, so I should stay focused on what I do best (which isn't talking in forums, but seems to have consumed me of late   ).

Hey guys, I'm not fluent enough with charting, but could someone please calculate Bitcoin price average percent growth per year?

Also of interest is average doubling time.

Who cares, we should all stop quoting this fool (Anonymint)

Do you have a source to say that Rickards is a former covert agent?

And this is one reason why I think we need and will get cpu-only mining with perpetual debasement, so we are constantly redistributing back to the individual entrepreneurs. This will make it much less profitable for server farms, because the masses will mine at a near-term loss and not even know it.

I like my TA with a dose of empiricism or at least plausible structural theory.  The *only* justification for treating the cross-over on bitcoinwisdom as a signal, as opposed to any other pair of moving averages, is the mere fact that it is the default on the 1 week chart on bitcoinwisdom.  Well, I'm sorry, but that's not a rational basis for a trading strategy.  We should ask the proprietor to randomly perturb the default periods on the moving averages.

It's sad because people will trade on such a pathetic excuse for a rationalization, thinking it is driven by some deep and compelling model, when in fact they are just hanging their emotions on a scary picture.  It's sad because most of them will lose bitcoin as a result (perhaps not as a result of selling at that specific time, but almost certainly as a result of selling low and buying high), contributing to the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few skilled but, in all too many cases, sociopathic persons.

Those two guys were closest technologically (of well known public cryptographers) and Finney was first miner.

But it doesn't fit the personalty of Finney who is very chatty and loves humanity. He even wrote layman explanations of Chaum research papers, so he cares about the common man.

I don't know about Szabo. He was pitching "cypto bit gold" I believe in 2005? Why would he suddenly stop being public and go underground? In that case, do we know who he really works for any way.

Any way, this is going way off topic of the thread. All that matters is what is actually happening with Bitcoin.

We can see the Bitcoin results empirically.  Centralization is no longer a theoretic outcome. And merchants taking BTC as a facade for fiat is growing faster than adoption.

And this impacts the valuation of Bitcoin.

I wish someone would do a regression analysis fit on the data so we can confirm empirically that rate of adoption (not nominal adoption size) is slowing. And hopefully be more precise.

Nick Szabo and/or Hal Finney is the most credible theory outside of deep state theories.  I have heard some pretty outrageous dark horses mooted, like Perelman, which I generally discount out of hand, but there's a pretty strong stylometric case for Szabo+Finney.

None. If you have a holistic nexus of data that I have collected over the past several years.

But everyone is free to have their own theory.

Do I have a confirmation bias? Surely do. Nevertheless if any one can present an argument which doesn't make a mockery of Occam's Razor, I will listen. All I've heard is naive theory of a lone man doing this, covering all his tracks like a covert agent yet not being one. A brilliant lone cryptography researcher whom no one ever heard of, never published anything before, who managed to obfuscate his activity from all his family and friends.

And "he" (Satoshi Inc) predicted all the ill effects and was promoting them, e.g. he expected ASICs and corporations to take control of mining.

Really, what other possible conclusions are there?

Only if you take future appreciation as axiomatic (or extremely probable).  On a delta-neutra/efficient-market assumption, current price is the best predictor of future price, and your future as a miner is that you will be condemned to eternal losses.  Much better to defect, use massive hash power to fork the chain, adopting software which is designed to make the fork more appealling to more fiat -- as, e.g., if the IMF were to make an offer, or perhaps just tweaking the parameters, reducing the long-term rewards and asymptotic money supply in exchange for larger immediate rewards for the current miners, preserving existing bitcoin wallets, but attacking and re-forking all other branches into oblivion, so that entrenched owners have no choice but to play along.  Anything is better than infinite losses.

There is no "game over" for Bitcoin. Just as the adoption won't accelerate the current acceleration, it also won't decelerate the current acceleration. Compounded growth is acceleration of nominal, even when the rate of compounding is declining. Humans are very fooled by this.

We are merely finding an equilibrium where the reality is, not where Risto et al's linear fit to a non-linear curve tricked everyone into  thinking the equilibrium was. Risto is still believing his own Koolaid. Fantastical dreams diehard.


If the government regulates the mining to take over, the price will not go down and there won't be any mass exodus nor fork, it will go up. And the masses will pour in. That comes later when it is time for that stage in Bitcoin's natural adoption nexus.

Bitcoin was carefully designed for this outcome by some very astute strategists. Appears to be the work of a black budget think tank.

Note my prior post I provided a link to Catherine Austin Fitts audio interview wherein she describes the $4 trillion black budget of the USA. It is incredulous but true. Secretary of Defense Rumsfield confirmed $2.3 trillion of it the day before 9/11 and then all the records were destroyed by the missleairplane that hit the Pentagon the next day. Armstrong has also written about this and has inside knowledge. Just last week, a smoking gun book was published by Jim Rickards (former covert agent) who was in the room with the government and also corroborated by Max Keiser's first hand conversions with Cantor Fitzgerald admitting that government was aware of the short options on two airlines before 9/11.

I would be cautious of normalcy bias.  We are dealing with iterated expansive maps.   Such systems can diverge rapidly.  It's a new technology and will introduce novel system dynamics.  Very few external analysts foresaw the collapse of the Soviet Union.  There is strong self-similarity in the price curve.  The manias seen so far may be higher order.  

If your log-logistic model is a MAP estimation, I would say it has strong empirical and analytic support, which would push the fractal fit (already quite unlikely, according to my own understanding, but still a possible expression of a distinctly conceivable set of dynamics) outside of the range of interesting possibilities.  But if log-logistic fit doesn't have a principled justification, with definable likelihoods (and I haven't seen that yet) then I would not exclude cascade models which typically produce such curves in other markets.  

You say that declining rates of adoption reversing would be unprecedented.  I say, how long have you been looking for them?  And, how many deviations lie between the current rate and the rate which would be implied by the fractal chart?   The history of AAPL comes to mind as a case of the former.  Regarding the latter, if it is within a couple of deviations, then it would not be surprising if the decline in growth were noise.  (And the more so, in a heteroskedastic model.)

So if we "drop" to 4x higher than we were just over a year ago, its game over? Hmmm. Ok.

Do you realize how fucking annoying you are? Do you??

I couldn't care less what you say because of HOW YOU SAY IT. The fact that you can't comprehend this one BASIC human communication fact, shows that you are seriously lacking basic communication skills at all. You aren't even able to feign humility. You are just a forum douchbag. And the general population isn't going to ever listen or follow someone who they percieve is a douchebag.

Get a grip on yourself man.

Told ya so. Yet again my holistic view coming true...


Not sad. It is necessary to form a bottom. That is good.


Correct. He said he already paid back his initial investment numerous times over. Low-cost power is a key factor. Thus victors to the one who can locate with economies-of-scale. This is why ASICs will drive incredulous centralization. It will only get worse over time.

it maybe that a sub $200 price is where it will settle, naturally resolving the massive misallocation of resources represented by a 2.2 peta hash facilities etc

could be a blessing in disguise for decentralized mining

Those big farms are likely running at a loss right now, considering the need to continually upgrade their hashing power. Cheap power cost does not solve this major problem of Bitcoin ASIC mining.

But even if miners are better off in the long run simply buying and holding bitcoin, they are still better off mining compared to conventional business investment because the next bubble will vastly increase the value of any coins they have not yet exchanged, thus ensuring that if they can hold on, they will prosper. I understand for example that the operator of the US Washington State bitcoin ASIC farm has a personal holding of over 1000 BTC.

What do you mean? Who would that help? That would just hurt everyone.