Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 24951. (Read 26711605 times)

Status:



We are going up.. but we will come back down.

we all know that using bitcoin for illicit activity will not be stopped in NY because of this BitLicense, they will simply ignore it and continue using TOR... it will however hinder legitimate use and innovation in NY  

Benjamin Lawsky, you fucked up man... big time.

Stamp seems quite solid at 382$ at the moment. Maybe we are now laying on the bottom for awhile and then head up? Most of the indicators look quite hopeful, macds lining up quite nicely in all timescales and so on.

face it canadians are just cooler poeple.

Explanation

Except those guys were not elected...

Appointed lifetime trough swillers.

Canada listened to Andreas and made me almost believe in elected representation.

NY didn't.

well at least canadian regulators don't have a stick up there ass

Whenever New York is involved, you know someone's getting fucked.

BitLicense's Deadline is Here: BitPay and EFF Weigh In

well that sucks for NY...
and its stupid really, all this really going to do  is drive bitcoin businesses out of NY.

what's so bad about this proposed regulation anyway?

^good. I'm not saying anyone will be enforcing it (how could they?) It's more the fact that people seem to be looking forward to it that bothers me.

i think that pretty much sums it up 

Anyone else think this New York bitliscence thing is some BULLSHIT?

This is likely a very risky proposition. Training and comparing on past data. You run into survivor principle and confirmation bias. You can continually reject models until you get the one you want. Even if your model *does* match on the first go around, you can't guarantee that there weren't a hundred other people doing the same thing with slightly different parameters who failed.

Being sure your model represents reality, particularly when that reality is a complex, chaotic system is a thorny problem. If they manage to model the price for the next couple of months, I might be willing to agree that they might have something.

its not panic buy time yet, not for a long time. its slowly buy as much as you can at the bottom without running price up time.  

So it is officially green but the price is not changing at all.  Can't we at least get a few panic buys!?   

Explanation

the next 5 mins are CRITICAL!

5 minutes until the 3D MACD green candle solidifies, correct?

I had a quick look, here is what I understood:

Their raw data is the price and the first few order book entries at OKCoin, at 10-second intervals, from Feb/2014 to Jul/2014. 

To predict the change in price in the next 10 seconds, they take the last 180 to 720 data points (30 to 120 minutes' worth of their data set) and look back in history for occasions when the price wriggled in similar ways.  They look at what the price did just after those occasions, and use that information to predict what it will do next. The complicated math is details of how to compare the recent wriggles with the historical wriggles, and combining the "past futures" into the "next future". 

They did not actually trade on the exchanges.  They used the first 4 months of data to adjust the parameters of their method, and then simulated how it would have performed over the last 2 months (Jun-Jul/2014).   

Some comments:

I may have misunderstood, but it seems that they did just ONE test run, using the last 2 months of data.

The performance in that test (doubling the USD capital in 50 days) would be impressive for stock market trading, but for bitcoin trading it seems quite modest, given its hight volatility.  If God traded every 10 seconds, as in their simulation, He would probably get that return in a few hours. 

In fact, doubling the capital in 50 days may be within the noise level.  That is, if several traders traded at random, once a second, for 50 days, some of them may well double their capital, some may lose it all.  (I don't know whether this is true, it would have to be checked.)

So, here is one thing that may be wrong with the paper.  The method has several parameters. Some of them are meant to be ajusted by "training" the mthod on part of the data, as they did.  Others are ostensibly fixed, like the duration of the windows used ("30, 60 and 120 minutes").  But the latter are arbitrary, and they probably tried several values until they got values that seemed to work.  But in doing so they may have only selected a "random trader" that was lucky in that test. 

They may have discussed this potential flaw in the paper, in the parts that I skipped.