Topic: S3052 and Manipulation Techniques - page 2. (Read 10024 times)

In that case - yes. But there are unite a few people around here that seem to think that he is "the manipulator" and his analysis moves the market in whatever direction he wants it to, which is BS.

S3052 claims to predict the movements - the congratulations seem quite adequate.

You're saying that he was the one that caused the price to go so down? I call BS. Here's my reasons for this:

- S5032 is mostly bullish in his updates. He was bullish in EVERY update until the last one. So it's safe to assume that many people bought/gone long back then, at price levels 5.5 - 6.2.
- Even with his bullishness market clearly stopped rallying, and the Starfish Rally Blocker (tm) appeared. This caused the market to go the other way. S5032 noticed it and issued an short term update, but he sure wasn't the only one to notice this (I've gone short big time before he even posted the update)
- After the last update, there was some big sell offs, that we can PARTIALLY credit to the update, but not completely. Subscribers saw the update AND current market conditions, so they acted on it.

The update accelerated the down movement, not caused it!

I'm going to sound bad for a change.

Yes, S3052 offers standard technical analysis which has been documented extensively in the trading bibliography.

Yes, technical analysis can look at a chart and give you reasons to be both bullish and bearish at any time (OK, most of the times).

Yes, S3052's subscribers probably hold relatively large amounts of BTC, since they're paying 5 BTC per month.

Yes, many of those subscribers are unstable emotionally young geeks that can react collectively with a mass mentality and, with their large BTC positioning can affect price significantly.

Yes, this is exactly the same reason why the Uncertainty Principle was established, in short saying that when the observer is "too big" in relation to the observed object, the observation alters the properties of the object.

Yes, the BTCUSD market is illiquid by all measures (compare 130K daily volume to the hundreds of billions in stock markets, or a few trillions in Forex).

Yes, for the above reasons, however honest S3052 can be in technical analysis, whatever is written in each newsletter can have an avalanche effect on the price.

Yes, this same thing has been going on for hundreds of years in every illiquid market.

So, what's new?

I would think that most readers here should give thanks for the education that they receive in markets and trading (and yes, this means taking the losses), which they probably would not be able to get anywhere else, instead of trying to put the blame on someone who tries to offer their obviously solid experience in technical analysis within the context of an immature yet market.

If you are looking for immoral things, I will offer one scenario to you, which hasn't been written explicitly in this thread: BitcoinUserXXX wants to buy 10,000 BTC for cheap, and bribes S3052 with 10% of this amount to over-emphasize a bearish outlook in the next newsletter, so the price will fall massively, say 20% and the purchase can be made with a much better price. I guess this (or something similar) is what the OP is trying to suggest. It would be immoral if there was an absolute certainty that the price would actually fall more than 10%. But there is no such certainty. It would be just another gamble, and I would not rush to assume that S3052 would be attracted to such a deal, as there is no guarantee that it will work. Bull traps and short squeezes can happen any time in such illiquid markets.

TL;DR If you're losing money, blame it on yourself. It is the best possible conclusion you can make and one of the cornerstone concepts in any kind of trading.

Posters here appear unwilling to subject themselves to the merited level of contempt and ridicule. Fools.
I will mock you as others lead you to slaughter.

Congratulations, S3052.

First, sorry for being a dick earlier. It was 8am here and I hadn't even gone to sleep yet. Anyway, I am still very confused as to why you see a moral issue. I see no moral issue at all. The purpose of speculation is to make money, right? I can think of no other reason to speculate. We can argue the value of speculation to a community/society, but that is a different argument.

S3052, the people who subscribe to his analysis, and the "public speculators" are all trying to make money. Everyone playing the speculation game is trying to make money, everything they do will be with this purpose. This is evident to all involved, there is no information disparity.

Depends on how you define concentration of ownership. The amount of speculators vs "traders" (trading goods and services for btc) or how btc's are divided among owners. In the first sense, yeah obviously, but I meant the second when I spoke of concentration of ownership and I thought you did too. There might be some people who own a large % of all btcs, but I dont see that as a problem or having a big effect either way. I thought you did, but perhaps I misunderstood you


I meant fundamentals as in bitcoin becoming more mainstream. I didnt mean technical improvements in the software.

Here's how my father dealt with this.  It worked quite well for him (unlike most of his other strategies).

1. Subscribe
2. Wait for market reaction, ensure there was an overreaction(there usually is)
3. Do the opposite
4. Profit

Once enough people do this, or start to put limit orders to catch the peak/trough, the negative effects will die out.  Profit will die out too unless the analysis is sound.

When 99.9% of the value (/ownership) is speculators, people dump bitcoin because other speculators dump it and buy bitcoin because others are buying. Or because they expect others to dump/buy.


I never even mentioned concentration of ownership. Speculators moving like a herd is not that different than concentrated ownership.


True, but were is the incentive to move the price only for moving it?  And a higher exchange rate, aka as a new bubble -unless something more fundamental changes first- will also attract more speculators. Bitcoin could grown 10.000x and it would still represent next to nothing in the world economy.

Anyway, this has been debated to death now I think. And AFACIT, the facts speak for themselves.
Lets see if it changes over the next years, but Im not holding my breath.

In my personal opinion, if a person is paying for advise from someone on speculation then they are being manipulated, not the market.  If that person's advise was so good then they would be using their time to make money and not creating a newsletter and selling it.  It is not their trading advise that is valuable.  It is their salesmanship of their newsletter that is valuable.

People can waste their money anywhere they want.

No.  I agree that speculation serves a valuable purpose.  I'm arguing against manipulation.  Perhaps it is intentional, or perhaps it is simply a flock of fools fulfilling the prophecy of their leader.  It doesn't matter which.

I'm not asking to ban or regulate anything.  Regulations cannot end this behavior.  They only make it more perverse.

I am simply appealing to reason:  Realize that creating coordinated mass movements creates a little profit for a few, but damages the future of BitCoin as a whole.  We have an opportunity to create something much bigger than day to day profits.

Instead of creating artificial waves to exploit, speculate on BitCoin's future.  Buy the rumor, sell the news.  Create your own charts.  Analyze web boards.  I don't care what your strategy is.  Just stop participating in the coordinated attacks.

Then the speculation will inevitably fulfill the desire of stability.

As for the "Tragedy of the Common", that's easily resolved by ownership of the resources involved: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLirNeu-A8I

People aren't going to let their Bitcoins go to nothing if they value the product itself and people do.

Id say it is if most people dont use it for anything other than speculation because of its instability. Nice catch 22.

Is stability relevant if it isn't relevant to most people trading the respective commodity?

Agreed.

Nobody manipulate Bitcoins! Everyone just trade what you need when you need it for purchases!


Then one day cascius or bit-pay need 100,000 BTC for some project they are working on or an investment into a new technology and the price skyrockets to $1,000/BTC as they have to pay whatever people ask for with such a limited supply at the exchange.

Maybe, but its not unregulated, and you will probably hate me for saying this, but it does have central banks that ensure some stability. Moreover the volume on  forex is perhaps much larger than the underlying economies, but that not what matters. Buying and selling the same dollar 1000x per day does not cause price swings. What matters is how much of the currency or commodity is owned by speculators, and in that sense, forex is minor compared to the underlying economies. In oil the % would be bigger, gold I would guess even bigger than that and bitcoin almost a theoretical maximum. See a pattern?


No it doesnt. Speculation adds liquidity. Some speculation is good, and really needed, but when you get to the point where speculator ownership completely dwarfs the underlying economy, it doesnt do anything like stabilizing.

If people truly want price stability, it will come in one way or another without compromising Bitcoin as a whole. I mean, all it takes is the majority of traders sticking to one price while they reflect the will of the people buying it.

Right now it's just not important to enough people. That's not a problem from what I can see.

I tend to agree, but I see it as inevitable. Bitcoin being what it is, completely unregulated and its value for 99.9% determined by speculation, I cant see how it will ever obtain price stability. I dont like that, but I cant see a solution for it either, so if I were a speculator Id either sign up for his newsletter or start my own if I had enough funds to make sure my initial predictions came true.

Atlas is back!!!!