Topic: rpietila Wall Observer - the Quality TA Thread ;) - page 258. (Read 907212 times)

Paraphrased:


I need to think of a funny name for that phenomenon.


I wonder if people think we are living in normal or dangerous times. I guess many ignore the signs. Seems people are willing to ignore just about anything that conflicts with the succulent shrimp hanging in front of their face.

Myopiacumen?

Tunnelcision?

Statusquaaludes?

P.S. And exactly how many months have you spent studying hash functions. It is good you didn't first ask me what I know before blabbering about how you know everything there is to know about hash functions, because in this instance I wouldn't tell you. Sorry. Some things necessarily must be secret. I can share one already public open source inadequate effort. Search "tromp Cuckoo Cycle". That will get you started down the rabbit hole of adjusting your myopia.

The dominant economy is the reserve economy right now.  Speculation is small relative to reserve.  Transactional circulation is smaller still.  It is certainly useful to fraction the economy.   An aggregated model and the disaggregated transactional model should provide the same valuations, however.   It only the relative allocations to M vs. V which change.  Otherwise, arbitrage.

In fiat economies financials are included in GDP.  If you start factoring the model, you could discriminate some useful dynamics, but the quality of data will decline enormously, which is likely to lead to Lyapunov-compounding model error in any predictive derivate.

As Peter R's observation would infer, Fisher and Metcalfe both are best suited to describe relative value under distinct parametric conditions, as, e.g. at distinct times in history.   To properly model value relative to an external numeraire, it is necessary to link to the numeraire economy.  We do this by repricing PQ in, e.g. USD, but there are other ways to do it, which would be much more predictive.  Neither Fisher nor Metcalfe have any dependency on time.  They do not describe dynamics.  They are just constraints on the attractor domains of the price dynamics.

Measure it in an external reference, e.g. as USD.  Then it should be a leading indicator.

My take on the matter: I think Chinese blockade is mostly priced in. While, by reading this forum, you might feel like it's only a stupid rumour, I believe the market is more competent at assesing news than a bunch of permabulls. Which ironically is bullish, because the more the bad news is priced in, the less downside there is.

Besides, it takes only so many exchanges closing channels before the news can be considered confirmed and the announcements are no longer followed by a flash crash.

On the upside, look at how the price just cannot help but going up whenever things are calm. [movie trailer]This summer... [/movie trailer]

awesome rpietila, much respect. I said the same thing in relation to your prognosis days ago in my Cosmopolis thread, but was only laughed at by trolls

There is about $5 Million between $400 and $200 (approx) they could be pulled out and the price is allowed to plunge/flash crash

Quick TA update:
- 6H candle color/volume: one huge red has nullified the positive effect of previous green (what a heck), conclusion: can go either way, esp. down
- Bid/ask strengh at market: slippage to sell 5k: $38, slippage to buy: $58, conclusion: selling pressure has built up
- Trendline comparison: we are now at -0.328 log units. The trendline is at $932 and rising $7 per day, conclusion: rock bottom
- Sentiment: unchanged, conclusion: unchanged
- Prognosis: 400 is the critical level, if it holds, upside is sure - if it falls, there may be a flash crash to lower levels

Oh, I think we have a winner in the e-peen contest.  30 years, that is impressive.  That makes me, a computer science educated programmer with 20 years experience, feel inadequate. 

I'm sure you will want to see my credentials, which university I attended, which companies I worked for, and my github account, so that you can find some tiny detail to mock? 

Or will that suffice so that you can stop arguing from authority?

I saw a TV documentary and it said 7% (I remember that well) and they said they hoped to reach 10% very soon. I saw the racks and racks of ASICs in a huge cooled warehouse-like facility and he was adding more continuously. I don't remember the name. They said they were keeping the exact location secret. The title was something like "The man who owns 10% of Bitcoin".

Found it:

http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/03/meet-the-manic-miner-who-wants-to-mint-10-of-all-new-bitcoins/

"2.2 petahash"

That was months ago. Surely it has increased since then. So you are the one who needs to get your "facts" straight before you attack.  

Hey does that look like a personal home computer mining operation to you much?  

You don't see a qualitative difference in centralization much.  

Any more dicks who need me to change their tampon?

BitChick: No offense intended. Males need to find their leader, it is simply way the hierarchy of males functions (as much as I wish it wasn't so).

Why do you keep making up "facts"? MegaBigPower would be the mine in East Washington, and they're running about 1 PH. that is under 2% of the network.

I am going to exceed my 10 per day limit, so I better make this the last post and go eat/sleep.

He is still calling for gold to blast off after Sept 2015. For his Pi = 3.1459 computer model that correlated all of the world's historical cycles, 2015.75 is when this current economic bounce in the USA peaks and we turn down over a cliff much worse than 2008. But this time, the Fed won't bail out any banks, instead it will be bail-ins (confiscations from depositors and bankruptcies of pensions) and thus gold will do the opposite of what it did in 2008 and skyrocket. Gold is out of favor right now, because the USA is improving (due to capital flows escaping developing world bond markets and rushing back to the dollar safe haven as BRICs are collapsing as we speak).


I love these boastful, overconfident people who think they know computer science better than me (which I have been doing for 30 years on and off). It is going to be fun watching them react soon. I am going to especially enjoy seeing Risto react since he was given every early opportunity and expected 30% share. No way Jose. I didn't need you Risto, it was about friendship and doing the right thing for humanity. It was about sharing excitement and creating something. But you are not capable of leading because you are into something about Bitcoin. I can't really determine where your mental perspective originates from. I thought maybe pride, but based on your recent comments maybe it is just you can't see what I see. You are speculator, it is all you know. You'd better to play Dominion while we nerds do other things.

You are hilarious.  When we were talking about co-opting bitcoin, I was hopelessly naive for thinking the government can't pull it off.  But if we use a CPU-only coin, then the government is suddenly hapless and helpless?  That is a hoot.

Intel and AMD are both in the US.  The government is already known to slap secret court orders on companies just like them to keep their mouths shut.  You are the one who's hopelessly naive if you think that buying CPUs is harder for them than making a huge spectacle of raiding miners' datacenters.

Besides, a CPU-only coin is a figment of your imagination, there's no such thing.  All known hashing algorithms can be sped up with specialized hardware, and there's little reason to think this doesn't apply to all algorithms in general.

There is no solution to this kind of POW attack.  Bitcoin is about as good as it gets.  If you want to defend against 51% you need some other mechanism like proof of stake.

I think if we break $400 we will visit the old high of $250 and possibly overshoot to the low 200s. Adoption rate is something I feel no one can really have a sure grasp on atm. Interesting right now is that the U bottom we are in is getting a wider and wider base. I think there is still possibility that this is the bottom but whoreally knows. We are all just guessing here. Some are better than others but no one comes close to knowing.


Edit: about Gold. Do you know what Armstrong is predicting? Several years ago he said $5000 was likely but then when all the gold bugs started attacking him after gold turned in 2012 he seemed to not want to make any new clear predictions.

I am not certain about the level of the bottom price, as such curve fitting can't be that precise. Only the market knows where the equilibrium is. TA may help and other ways of analyzing such as the compounding from prior bottoms as I did ($300 - $350).

What I am gaining confidence about is that the adoption rate and thus growth rate of the price is slowing (yet still phenomenal). And I feel good odds that I am correct about price not racing past $10,000 before end of 2015 and the price appreciation in 2016 being roughly par with gold (within a factor of 2 or at most 3). I expect gold to go to $5000 at least (2017?) with a rocket to ATH in 2016 (as the confiscations begin and global collapse begins in earnest).

I didn't expect you to flinch since you are certain in your predictions and you have no desire to buy any coins in the first place. Your predictions of new lows may be coming soon. Exciting. Let's see how it plays out.

Agreed - absolute value is irrelevant.  More interested in a determination of - as you say - economic vs non-economic transaction volume as related to price discovery as a coefficient, something you have already shown to some extent, great work.

As infrastructure evolves and becomes more complex we should see a decrease in the ratio of acquisition vs trade transaction numbers even with an exponential increase in acquisition numbers.  Something which is likely obvious to some who have manipulated the data in some way, and would certainly be reasonable.  That is my main point of consideration.

Side note -N drop lagging past price peak can be a variety of reasons - coin dumping at exchanges, coin acquisition from new buyers still taking place as a result of a) exchange administration in verification and fiat transfer b) cotinued mania of ATH + runup (esp if absolute value of acquisition on average is smaller then size of large holder dumps trading the market) etc

EDIT  Also agree that bitcoin economy = speculation + trade atm - market is coming to life...

I've had this argument a zillion times. It is boring already. I don't feel like repeating myself on the details on how the mass switch you expect can't change the outcome. Go on in your delusion about the lack of effects from centralization. When you wake up one day with government regulation of 51% of the pools and owners of ASICs and your coins are blacklisted, don't come whining to me.

I'll offer you two sentences.

If necessary SWAT teams show up at physical locations where the bulk of the ASICs are since for example one miner has 10% of network hash rate all in one location in East Washington. But most non-personal miners wouldn't need to physically persuaded, a regulation is all that is needed to compel them to comply.

A cpu-only coin won't have this problem. The government can't regulate millions of individual miners. Whereas, Bitcoin is fucked.

I think that is a fair criticism of my approach.  Indeed I have mixed the speculative economy with the goods/services economy.  Modern economics theory has never witnessed a hyper-monetization event like bitcoin, and I think some fresh thinking here is fine.  I believe the goods/service economy and the speculative economy are actually just the economy.  Furthermore, we have empirical data on the economy and it is speculative in itself to try and dissect it.  

The challenge for bitcoin now is to continue to grow its user base and economy.  I am doing this by trying to hire people in the bitcoin space for projects that I would normally contract out locally.  For example, I am looking for someone to do schematic capture / PCB layout (in Eagle or Altium).  If you have experience and would like a small job, I will pay fair market rates.  Please PM me if interested.  

This is not even relevant, unless you are worried about a 51% attack that lasts for one hour.  That's how long it would take for individual miners that make up these pools to bail out, once they realize the mining pool operator has screwed them over.

Again that wouldn't matter. The growth rate has never been linear. That was some imaginary fiction concocted by curve fitting a line to a non-linear data set.

To an ant, a rock appears to be a flat surface.

Oh here come the ad hominem attacks again as if attacking me will change the facts. Or the bitter emotions as if I am responsible for the collapsing price. Grow up and grow some balls stop acting like women.

I saw an article which claimed it had increased to 50% recently. I can't find that article again. I find articles such as these:

http://news.slashdot.org/story/14/01/10/1422206/largest-bitcoin-mining-pool-pledges-not-to-execute-51-attack

I see it reached at least 42%:

http://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-miners-ditch-ghash-io-pool-51-attack/

Any way, just take 2 or 3 of the pools and you have over 50%. So my point remains.

Pedantic resistance of the facts is just wasting everyone's time.