Such Currency.
Much wow!
Many Doges.
2 the MOOON.
Much wow!
Many Doges.
2 the MOOON.
2 the IGNOOORE.
Is there anyone you haven't ignored yet?
You for one. And a few others.
You make me blush
Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 30251. (Read 26709154 times)
January 19, 2014, 07:19:13 AM
2 the IGNOOORE.
Is there anyone you haven't ignored yet?
You for one. And a few others.
You make me blush
January 19, 2014, 07:09:51 AM
Huobi's volume is VERY low today (Sunday jan/19 UTC). Presumably the Chinese New Year holidays have started?
There was no such drop in previous Sundays, nor during the Christmas/Jan 1 holidays. (I suppose that Chinese employees generally don't have weekends off, do they?)
Curiously OKCoin's volume does not seem to be affected by this drop, or by Sundays in general. But it was very low from Fri Dec/20 to Tue Jan/02 UTC, inclusive.
Both exchanges show reduced activity in the same hour rage every day, from ~17:00 to ~22:00 UTC that corresponds to ~02:00 to ~07:00 am in Beijing, I believe. However Huobi's volume is VERY low in that interval, while OKCoin only drops by ~50%.
Are those drops due to exchange-specific events (e.g. problems with banks), or to different holidays and work hours by different user populations?
Or are they due to different volume-faking robots?
There was no such drop in previous Sundays, nor during the Christmas/Jan 1 holidays. (I suppose that Chinese employees generally don't have weekends off, do they?)
Curiously OKCoin's volume does not seem to be affected by this drop, or by Sundays in general. But it was very low from Fri Dec/20 to Tue Jan/02 UTC, inclusive.
Both exchanges show reduced activity in the same hour rage every day, from ~17:00 to ~22:00 UTC that corresponds to ~02:00 to ~07:00 am in Beijing, I believe. However Huobi's volume is VERY low in that interval, while OKCoin only drops by ~50%.
Are those drops due to exchange-specific events (e.g. problems with banks), or to different holidays and work hours by different user populations?
Or are they due to different volume-faking robots?
January 19, 2014, 07:02:44 AM
January 19, 2014, 06:30:35 AM
Such Currency.
Much wow!
Many Doges.
2 the MOOON.
Much wow!
Many Doges.
2 the MOOON.
2 the IGNOOORE.
Is there anyone you haven't ignored yet?
You for one. And a few others.
January 19, 2014, 06:04:32 AM
Such Currency.
Much wow!
Many Doges.
2 the MOOON.
Much wow!
Many Doges.
2 the MOOON.
2 the IGNOOORE.
Naw, poor Shibe. U mad?
Y u do dat?
January 19, 2014, 06:02:33 AM
January 19, 2014, 05:23:45 AM
Such Currency.
Much wow!
Many Doges.
2 the MOOON.
Much wow!
Many Doges.
2 the MOOON.
2 the IGNOOORE.
Is there anyone you haven't ignored yet?
January 19, 2014, 05:02:28 AM
January 19, 2014, 04:40:12 AM
Such Currency.
Much wow!
Many Doges.
2 the MOOON.
Much wow!
Many Doges.
2 the MOOON.
2 the IGNOOORE.
January 19, 2014, 04:02:36 AM
January 19, 2014, 03:37:13 AM
Such Currency.
Much wow!
Many Doges.
2 the MOOON.
Much wow!
Many Doges.
2 the MOOON.
January 19, 2014, 03:34:51 AM
January 19, 2014, 03:29:49 AM
January 19, 2014, 03:02:30 AM
January 19, 2014, 02:02:34 AM
January 19, 2014, 01:12:52 AM
Meanwhile...
January 19, 2014, 01:07:01 AM
Another random plot:
This plot shows the mean yearly rate of increase for the USD price of 1 BTC at Bitstamp since various past times to the present (specifically, to about jan/17/2014 23:00 UTC).
For example, the graph reads ~1000 around oct/17/2013. It means that the average price increase from that date to the present is equivalent to 1000-fold (9,990% increase) per year. More specifically, if we compare the price at that date (138.38 USD) and the price at jan/17/2014 (795.89) and extrapolate that rate of growth to one full year, we would get ~1000 times the starting price -- that is, ~795,000 USD by jan/17/2015.
On the other hand, the graph reads ~0.1 at about nov/30/2013. It means that between that date and jan/17 the price fell to such an extent (from ~1100 to ~795) that, extrapolated to one year, would give a factor of ~1/10 (a 90% decrease); namely, a prediction of ~79,5 USD/BTC by jan/17/2015.
If we look instead at the change from ~jan/06 to ~jan/17/2014, we get a factor of ~0.001, that is, a prediction of 0,795 USD/BTC by jan/17/2015
Finally, the graph reads 1 at about nov/24/2013. It means that the price at that date was the same as it is now, i.e. the rate of (non-)increase since then was 0% per year.
Presently I believe that this sort of analysis is quite useless. The market does not seem to care for past prices, presumably because experienced traders believe that other experienced traders do not care for them, and so on recursively.
The graph seems to justify this indifference. Logically, the price at nov/29 should be more relevant than that of oct/17. But, depending on the time span considered, the analysis may yield from very positive to very negative predictions. Which time span is the right one to use?
This plot shows the mean yearly rate of increase for the USD price of 1 BTC at Bitstamp since various past times to the present (specifically, to about jan/17/2014 23:00 UTC).
For example, the graph reads ~1000 around oct/17/2013. It means that the average price increase from that date to the present is equivalent to 1000-fold (9,990% increase) per year. More specifically, if we compare the price at that date (138.38 USD) and the price at jan/17/2014 (795.89) and extrapolate that rate of growth to one full year, we would get ~1000 times the starting price -- that is, ~795,000 USD by jan/17/2015.
On the other hand, the graph reads ~0.1 at about nov/30/2013. It means that between that date and jan/17 the price fell to such an extent (from ~1100 to ~795) that, extrapolated to one year, would give a factor of ~1/10 (a 90% decrease); namely, a prediction of ~79,5 USD/BTC by jan/17/2015.
If we look instead at the change from ~jan/06 to ~jan/17/2014, we get a factor of ~0.001, that is, a prediction of 0,795 USD/BTC by jan/17/2015
Finally, the graph reads 1 at about nov/24/2013. It means that the price at that date was the same as it is now, i.e. the rate of (non-)increase since then was 0% per year.
Presently I believe that this sort of analysis is quite useless. The market does not seem to care for past prices, presumably because experienced traders believe that other experienced traders do not care for them, and so on recursively.
The graph seems to justify this indifference. Logically, the price at nov/29 should be more relevant than that of oct/17. But, depending on the time span considered, the analysis may yield from very positive to very negative predictions. Which time span is the right one to use?
None.
January 19, 2014, 01:02:42 AM
January 19, 2014, 12:23:32 AM
Another random plot:
This plot shows the mean yearly rate of increase for the USD price of 1 BTC at Bitstamp since various past times to the present (specifically, to about jan/17/2014 23:00 UTC).
For example, the graph reads ~1000 around oct/17/2013. It means that the average price increase from that date to the present is equivalent to 1000-fold (9,990% increase) per year. More specifically, if we compare the price at that date (138.38 USD) and the price at jan/17/2014 (795.89) and extrapolate that rate of growth to one full year, we would get ~1000 times the starting price -- that is, ~795,000 USD by jan/17/2015.
On the other hand, the graph reads ~0.1 at about nov/30/2013. It means that between that date and jan/17 the price fell to such an extent (from ~1100 to ~795) that, extrapolated to one year, would give a factor of ~1/10 (a 90% decrease); namely, a prediction of ~79,5 USD/BTC by jan/17/2015.
If we look instead at the change from ~jan/06 to ~jan/17/2014, we get a factor of ~0.001, that is, a prediction of 0,795 USD/BTC by jan/17/2015
Finally, the graph reads 1 at about nov/24/2013. It means that the price at that date was the same as it is now, i.e. the rate of (non-)increase since then was 0% per year.
Presently I believe that this sort of analysis is quite useless. The market does not seem to care for past prices, presumably because experienced traders believe that other experienced traders do not care for them, and so on recursively.
The graph seems to justify this indifference. Logically, the price at nov/29 should be more relevant than that of oct/17. But, depending on the time span considered, the analysis may yield from very positive to very negative predictions. Which time span is the right one to use?
This plot shows the mean yearly rate of increase for the USD price of 1 BTC at Bitstamp since various past times to the present (specifically, to about jan/17/2014 23:00 UTC).
For example, the graph reads ~1000 around oct/17/2013. It means that the average price increase from that date to the present is equivalent to 1000-fold (9,990% increase) per year. More specifically, if we compare the price at that date (138.38 USD) and the price at jan/17/2014 (795.89) and extrapolate that rate of growth to one full year, we would get ~1000 times the starting price -- that is, ~795,000 USD by jan/17/2015.
On the other hand, the graph reads ~0.1 at about nov/30/2013. It means that between that date and jan/17 the price fell to such an extent (from ~1100 to ~795) that, extrapolated to one year, would give a factor of ~1/10 (a 90% decrease); namely, a prediction of ~79,5 USD/BTC by jan/17/2015.
If we look instead at the change from ~jan/06 to ~jan/17/2014, we get a factor of ~0.001, that is, a prediction of 0,795 USD/BTC by jan/17/2015
Finally, the graph reads 1 at about nov/24/2013. It means that the price at that date was the same as it is now, i.e. the rate of (non-)increase since then was 0% per year.
Presently I believe that this sort of analysis is quite useless. The market does not seem to care for past prices, presumably because experienced traders believe that other experienced traders do not care for them, and so on recursively.
The graph seems to justify this indifference. Logically, the price at nov/29 should be more relevant than that of oct/17. But, depending on the time span considered, the analysis may yield from very positive to very negative predictions. Which time span is the right one to use?
January 19, 2014, 12:02:27 AM
Jump to: