yeah, but still it made enough headlines that a British friends told me about it:) (he is not a bitcoiner)
I can't believe you have a friend who isn't a bitcoiner goat, after your success and reputation in community.
Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 30315. (Read 26709590 times)
January 14, 2014, 10:41:20 PM
I can't believe you have a friend who isn't a bitcoiner goat, after your success and reputation in community.
January 14, 2014, 10:40:58 PM
One of these plots is actual hourly closing price (USD/BTC) from one exchange, the other is a series of fake prices generated by a simple "log-Brownian" model.
Can you tell which is which, without looking at other charts?
If you think you can, what difference do you see?
Can you tell which is which, without looking at other charts?
If you think you can, what difference do you see?
Honestly, they both look very plausible. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if they're both BTC/USD, but from different exchanges.
The red line (Y) is Bitstamp's hourly closing price from 2014-01-05 to 2014-01-13.
The blue line (X) is generated by starting with
X(0) = 840
Z(0) = log_10(X(0)),
then, for i = 1,2,...
Z(i) = Z(i-1) + 0.058*RND(),
X(i) = 10^Z(i)
where RND() is a random number with normal distribution, mean 0 and standard deviation 1.
In simple words, the simulated price X(i) increases or decreases at each step by a random percentage, without regard for the past history.
I had to try twice, with different random generator's seeds; on my first attempt the simulated price dropped too low at one point, it would have been a dead giveaway.
Granted it is only one sample, I picked blue as the fake data right away.
January 14, 2014, 10:39:12 PM
Actually bitcoin miners are fucked.
99% of the miners (paid in BTC) won't reach ROI ever !
They hoard the coins and wait for a price increase, otherwise they all lose money.
If the mining business collapses and 5000 coins are sold daily, there will be blood (candles)
At the moment, only a few can win. Most can't cash out or they will lose money (market collapse). That's one of the main reason for the steady uptrend. It's not market adoption or increased utility. Transactions didn't increase very much the last 3 years. The price did with only a few percentage of bitcoins traded.
99% of the miners (paid in BTC) won't reach ROI ever !
They hoard the coins and wait for a price increase, otherwise they all lose money.
If the mining business collapses and 5000 coins are sold daily, there will be blood (candles)
At the moment, only a few can win. Most can't cash out or they will lose money (market collapse). That's one of the main reason for the steady uptrend. It's not market adoption or increased utility. Transactions didn't increase very much the last 3 years. The price did with only a few percentage of bitcoins traded.
lol, just lol
*edit* I'm finally in the 1%!!! woohoo!
January 14, 2014, 10:14:55 PM
Irrelevant. Nobody buys bitcoin or any other cryptocurrency because they are superior payment systems. We buy for one and only one reason: to hodl and sodl our way to more fiat.
Please do not respond to my post with lies. thx.
January 14, 2014, 10:07:07 PM
i panic sold once and i felt so dumb that i've adopted the strict HODL policy and it's been working out for me so far
you guys should try it out too
you guys should try it out too
I've moved to a pure SODL strategy, since we're clearly heading to zero.
Why are you still here when you think we are going to zero?
Just as the Chinese government has recently warned citizens of the dangers of bitcoin, I am warning citizens of bitcointalk of the dangers of bitcoins, to help as many people as possible. Only Satoshi and maybe 2 or 3 other people will make any money from bitcoin. Everyone else will lose money, and probably destroy their life, as the Chinese government has explained.
Still just trying to catch up, but I just have to blurt out, this was epic!
Well done Proudhon. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7TuFy0fcuw
January 14, 2014, 10:02:37 PM
January 14, 2014, 09:43:51 PM
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/news/lily-allen-calls-herself-an-idiot-for-declining-bitcoin-payment-now-worth-millions-9046211.html
posting cuz new to me!
i guess this is big news in england
posting cuz new to me!
i guess this is big news in england
Actually the consensus over here appears to be that she has mixed up bitcoin and Linden Dollars (L$), which makes sense given the timing and the virtual venue.
January 14, 2014, 09:39:52 PM
One of these plots is actual hourly closing price (USD/BTC) from one exchange, the other is a series of fake prices generated by a simple "log-Brownian" model.
Can you tell which is which, without looking at other charts?
If you think you can, what difference do you see?
Can you tell which is which, without looking at other charts?
If you think you can, what difference do you see?
Honestly, they both look very plausible. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if they're both BTC/USD, but from different exchanges.
The red line (Y) is Bitstamp's hourly closing price from 2014-01-05 to 2014-01-13.
The blue line (X) is generated by starting with
X(0) = 840
Z(0) = log_10(X(0)),
then, for i = 1,2,...
Z(i) = Z(i-1) + 0.058*RND(),
X(i) = 10^Z(i)
where RND() is a random number with normal distribution, mean 0 and standard deviation 1.
In simple words, the simulated price X(i) increases or decreases at each step by a random percentage, without regard for the past history.
I had to try twice, with different random generator's seeds; on my first attempt the simulated price dropped too low at one point, it would have been a dead giveaway.
what about over a longer time period?
It's called a jump-diffusion. Essentially all exchange-traded investments are modeled pretty well as jump-diffusions. It is difficult but not impossible to discriminate the signal from the noise at finer scales. Self-similarity argues that it is also difficult to discriminate the signal from the noise on larger scales; however, comparing BTC since 2011 to a log-normal process over the same number of points would not be remotely confusing. The jumps have structure, but it is most not endogenous structure, so they are not markovian.
had to look up several things to understand that. thanks for the insight
January 14, 2014, 09:26:20 PM
One of these plots is actual hourly closing price (USD/BTC) from one exchange, the other is a series of fake prices generated by a simple "log-Brownian" model.
Can you tell which is which, without looking at other charts?
If you think you can, what difference do you see?
Can you tell which is which, without looking at other charts?
If you think you can, what difference do you see?
Honestly, they both look very plausible. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if they're both BTC/USD, but from different exchanges.
The red line (Y) is Bitstamp's hourly closing price from 2014-01-05 to 2014-01-13.
The blue line (X) is generated by starting with
X(0) = 840
Z(0) = log_10(X(0)),
then, for i = 1,2,...
Z(i) = Z(i-1) + 0.058*RND(),
X(i) = 10^Z(i)
where RND() is a random number with normal distribution, mean 0 and standard deviation 1.
In simple words, the simulated price X(i) increases or decreases at each step by a random percentage, without regard for the past history.
I had to try twice, with different random generator's seeds; on my first attempt the simulated price dropped too low at one point, it would have been a dead giveaway.
what about over a longer time period?
It's called a jump-diffusion. Essentially all exchange-traded investments are modeled pretty well as jump-diffusions. It is difficult but not impossible to discriminate the signal from the noise at finer scales. Self-similarity argues that it is also difficult to discriminate the signal from the noise on larger scales; however, comparing BTC since 2011 to a log-normal process over the same number of points would not be remotely confusing. The jumps have structure, but it is most not endogenous structure, so they are not markovian.
January 14, 2014, 09:16:18 PM
Are you trying to tell us bitcoin is a purely speculative investment? Nah, GTFO!
Not at all! "Random" means "due to arcane reasons that we mortals are not given to understand". January 14, 2014, 09:09:22 PM
One of these plots is actual hourly closing price (USD/BTC) from one exchange, the other is a series of fake prices generated by a simple "log-Brownian" model.
Can you tell which is which, without looking at other charts?
If you think you can, what difference do you see?
Can you tell which is which, without looking at other charts?
If you think you can, what difference do you see?
Honestly, they both look very plausible. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if they're both BTC/USD, but from different exchanges.
The red line (Y) is Bitstamp's hourly closing price from 2014-01-05 to 2014-01-13.
The blue line (X) is generated by starting with
X(0) = 840
Z(0) = log_10(X(0)),
then, for i = 1,2,...
Z(i) = Z(i-1) + 0.058*RND(),
X(i) = 10^Z(i)
where RND() is a random number with normal distribution, mean 0 and standard deviation 1.
In simple words, the simulated price X(i) increases or decreases at each step by a random percentage, without regard for the past history.
I had to try twice, with different random generator's seeds; on my first attempt the simulated price dropped too low at one point, it would have been a dead giveaway.
what about over a longer time period?
January 14, 2014, 09:08:01 PM
One of these plots is actual hourly closing price (USD/BTC) from one exchange, the other is a series of fake prices generated by a simple "log-Brownian" model.
Can you tell which is which, without looking at other charts?
If you think you can, what difference do you see?
Can you tell which is which, without looking at other charts?
If you think you can, what difference do you see?
Honestly, they both look very plausible. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if they're both BTC/USD, but from different exchanges.
The red line (Y) is Bitstamp's hourly closing price from 2014-01-05 to 2014-01-13.
The blue line (X) is generated by starting with
X(0) = 840
Z(0) = log_10(X(0)),
then, for i = 1,2,...
Z(i) = Z(i-1) + 0.058*RND(),
X(i) = 10^Z(i)
where RND() is a random number with normal distribution, mean 0 and standard deviation 1.
In simple words, the simulated price X(i) increases or decreases at each step by a random percentage, without regard for the past history.
I had to try twice, with different random generator's seeds; on my first attempt the simulated price dropped too low at one point, it would have been a dead giveaway.
Are you trying to tell us bitcoin is a purely speculative investment? Nah, GTFO!
January 14, 2014, 09:07:36 PM
I believe bitcoin is money of course, a currency if it is heavily used. But you can also view it as an asset, like stocks, bonds, real estate and so on. It is just different views. I happen to think that the money view is the correct one in the long run, but it can be viewed as an asset. If it is an asset, it is somewhere you invest, instead of saving in dollars. Just like investing in a bond, a house, a stock or even in a bank account. Appearantly the asset view is also rampant with new users and the potential investors from wall street.
Viewed as an asset class, the speculative view is different. You have some fiat, or some other asset that can be liquidated to fiat, and consider investing it in bitcoin. Your goal is to enter at a low price, then for a high price sell out to the safety of fiat or some other traditional asset.
The point with all this is, that to the degree that a number of people view it thusly, it will be affected by the central banks actions just like stocks. That is, bitcoin can go down if the investing public believes that the money fountain will be turned off.
What do you think?
Viewed as an asset class, the speculative view is different. You have some fiat, or some other asset that can be liquidated to fiat, and consider investing it in bitcoin. Your goal is to enter at a low price, then for a high price sell out to the safety of fiat or some other traditional asset.
The point with all this is, that to the degree that a number of people view it thusly, it will be affected by the central banks actions just like stocks. That is, bitcoin can go down if the investing public believes that the money fountain will be turned off.
What do you think?
Well bitcoin is essentially an asset. If the money fountain is turned off, all assets will be deflated to varying extents.
January 14, 2014, 09:02:39 PM
January 14, 2014, 09:02:35 PM
Haven't seen this talked about much on bitcointalk, and the good people frequenting this topic should know about it:
Sourceforge:
http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_id=31813471
Reddit:
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1v7ayg/revolution_in_bitcoin_privacy_stealth_addresses/
It is about stealth addresses, a possible new anonymity feature. So with coinjoin, we now have two anonymity efforts going on.
Breaking the partial anonymity we have now, is the most realistic way governments can reign in the bitcoin users. In my view.
Sourceforge:
http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_id=31813471
Reddit:
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1v7ayg/revolution_in_bitcoin_privacy_stealth_addresses/
It is about stealth addresses, a possible new anonymity feature. So with coinjoin, we now have two anonymity efforts going on.
Breaking the partial anonymity we have now, is the most realistic way governments can reign in the bitcoin users. In my view.
January 14, 2014, 08:47:24 PM
The unequal distribution of coins can discourage adoption ...
What is the argument or evidence for this?
There is none.
We can't tell if there is one entity with coins scattered across a thousand addresses...all they are doing is guessing at the distribution based on the coins in the largest addresses. We don't know if some of those are lost or irretrievable. It could be far worse or far better than the estimate.
They also count Satoshi's 1m coins as a part of that distribution....which is plausible, although most people believe we will never see those coins moved again.
The entire argument is irrelevant anyway....as it becomes an incentive those coins will redistribute from those large wallets to smaller and smaller wallets as they get sold or spent. If they never get moved, they have less and less influence on the bitcoin economy. (Other than determining scarcity.)
I agree with this analysis.
January 14, 2014, 08:40:22 PM
Use your imagination
January 14, 2014, 08:37:43 PM
The unequal distribution of coins can discourage adoption ...
What is the argument or evidence for this?
There is none.
We can't tell if there is one entity with coins scattered across a thousand addresses...all they are doing is guessing at the distribution based on the coins in the largest addresses. We don't know if some of those are lost or irretrievable. It could be far worse or far better than the estimate.
They also count Satoshi's 1m coins as a part of that distribution....which is plausible, although most people believe we will never see those coins moved again.
The entire argument is irrelevant anyway....as it becomes an incentive those coins will redistribute from those large wallets to smaller and smaller wallets as they get sold or spent. If they never get moved, they have less and less influence on the bitcoin economy. (Other than determining scarcity.)
January 14, 2014, 08:37:10 PM
I believe bitcoin is money of course, a currency if it is heavily used. But you can also view it as an asset, like stocks, bonds, real estate and so on. It is just different views. I happen to think that the money view is the correct one in the long run, but it can be viewed as an asset. If it is an asset, it is somewhere you invest, instead of saving in dollars. Just like investing in a bond, a house, a stock or even in a bank account. Appearantly the asset view is also rampant with new users and the potential investors from wall street.
Viewed as an asset class, the speculative view is different. You have some fiat, or some other asset that can be liquidated to fiat, and consider investing it in bitcoin. Your goal is to enter at a low price, then for a high price sell out to the safety of fiat or some other traditional asset.
The point with all this is, that to the degree that a number of people view it thusly, it will be affected by the central banks actions just like stocks. That is, bitcoin can go down if the investing public believes that the money fountain will be turned off.
What do you think?
Viewed as an asset class, the speculative view is different. You have some fiat, or some other asset that can be liquidated to fiat, and consider investing it in bitcoin. Your goal is to enter at a low price, then for a high price sell out to the safety of fiat or some other traditional asset.
The point with all this is, that to the degree that a number of people view it thusly, it will be affected by the central banks actions just like stocks. That is, bitcoin can go down if the investing public believes that the money fountain will be turned off.
What do you think?
Jump to: