This thread's title makes no sense at all.
verdict: bubble top
Do you have enough conviction this time to take some bets on it?
give me some proper terms and i'll consider it. what's your bet?
Topic: YAWN (Read 4452 times)
This thread's title makes no sense at all.
verdict: bubble top
My point was that calling a thread YAWN doesn't make a lot of sense during this imo exciting price action. Congrats on finally calling the top btw.
This thread's title makes no sense at all.
verdict: bubble top
Do you have enough conviction this time to take some bets on it?
This thread's title makes no sense at all.
verdict: bubble top
also, the point of the title of the thread was that we've seen this all before and we knew this was where we were heading.
also, i was fuckn blazed when i posted it, so that may also have been a part of it
This is probably the top.
just bought another 300 since it's obviously the bottom.
and damn was I right. thanks proudhon again.
you wouldn't bother me so much if you knew a cow's lick about technical analysis and the discussions we have about it were actually constructive.
bearish perspectives are important. i was wrong in my predictions. i can handle that. can you handle that?
bearish perspectives are important. i was wrong in my predictions. i can handle that. can you handle that?
But I do know all about it brother. That's what I'm sayin'.
I can handle that your wrong, and it's not even that I care that you're wrong. I don't even care that much actually. It all seems a bit out of context today as the big bump is (maybe?) over, but seeing 10 threads start each with an OP that has a some TA chart and some doom-gloom sentiment is a bit over the top. Like the tarot card guy, I don't think I posted in his thread at all mostly because he had one thread and he updated it and the title was something designed to inspire fear/flame posts/whatever even though I think tarot reading is jsut as effective as TA.
I'm not aiming to tell you how to post, but I'm just sayin' if you post multiple threads with titles like YAWN and CRASH COMING EVERYONE'S GONNA DIE! (one of the two is an exaggeration) I'm going to probably show up and throw it back at ya. I don't do the same for bullish TA posts mostly because they seem less serious in the first place to me, but I do have the same opinion of them.
this is of course assuming that past data predicts future results.
Which it doesn't. Therefore /thread
this statement may not be true. that is all i'm trying to say.
if you disagree with my assumptions, then don't bother with the conclusion. it needn't follow. but don't get butthurt just because you don't think TA is worth anything. many people here do and are interested in the various projections of that assumption.
I wouldn't bother if you guys didn't post 15 thousand threads every time upload a picture and proclaim that TEH CRASH IZ COMING! DA LINEZ SHOW IT! That's why you don't see me in the long running TA threads.
you wouldn't bother me so much if you knew a cow's lick about technical analysis and the discussions we have about it were actually constructive.
bearish perspectives are important. i was wrong in my predictions. i can handle that. can you handle that?
this is of course assuming that past data predicts future results.
Which it doesn't. Therefore /thread
this statement may not be true. that is all i'm trying to say.
if you disagree with my assumptions, then don't bother with the conclusion. it needn't follow. but don't get butthurt just because you don't think TA is worth anything. many people here do and are interested in the various projections of that assumption.
I wouldn't bother if you guys didn't post 15 thousand threads every time upload a picture and proclaim that TEH CRASH IZ COMING! DA LINEZ SHOW IT! That's why you don't see me in the long running TA threads.
this is of course assuming that past data predicts future results.
Which it doesn't. Therefore /thread
this statement may not be true. that is all i'm trying to say.
if you disagree with my assumptions, then don't bother with the conclusion. it needn't follow. but don't get butthurt just because you don't think TA is worth anything. many people here do and are interested in the various projections of that assumption.
the onus is on the claimant.
the onus is on nobody at all if i state it as an assumption.
the onus is on nobody at all if i state it as an assumption.
No, if you make assumptions without any evidence/support/ect then you are a terrible poster. Watch, I'll demonstrate.
The market will reach $10000 per BTC this afternoon with the assumption someone is going to spend a billion dollars on BTC. I will now proceed to get all butt-hurt if anyone says this assumption is dumb.
Why? Why the hell would I assume that?!
BTC is actually the tool of the Lizard Alien Race from the largest moon of Jupiter to control all humanity, with the assumption that the Lizard Alien Race wants to control all humanity.
See! I did it again.
this is of course assuming that past data predicts future results.
Which it doesn't. Therefore /thread
please. it doesn't necessarily. but saying the opposite just as surely is just as bad.
do you have a peer-reviewed paper proving the absence of time-dependent autocorrelations in price data?
Hmmm... you can't prove a negative, arepo. You also can't prove the non-existence of unicorns. The onus is on you to prove the correlations are causal, not the other way around.
the onus is on the claimant.
the onus is on nobody at all if i state it as an assumption.
this is of course assuming that past data predicts future results.
Which it doesn't. Therefore /thread
please. it doesn't necessarily. but saying the opposite just as surely is just as bad.
do you have a peer-reviewed paper proving the absence of time-dependent autocorrelations in price data?
Hmmm... you can't prove a negative, arepo. You also can't prove the non-existence of unicorns. The onus is on you to prove the correlations are causal, not the other way around.
this is of course assuming that past data predicts future results.
Which it doesn't. Therefore /thread
please. it doesn't necessarily. but saying the opposite just as surely is just as bad.
do you have a peer-reviewed paper proving the absence of time-dependent autocorrelations in price data?
this is of course assuming that past data predicts future results.
Which it doesn't. Therefore /thread
Going a bit more in-depth, we have the king effect clearly seen in Bitcoin prices:
The king effect means that when Bitcoin goes back up above $30, it will either continue to rise before a sizable collapse, or collapse immediately. For example, all of the following are plausible scenarios:
The king effect means that it is unlikely we will see both new highs and stability. One has to go.
The king effect means that when Bitcoin goes back up above $30, it will either continue to rise before a sizable collapse, or collapse immediately. For example, all of the following are plausible scenarios:
- Price remains below ~$25, with stability
- Price rises above ~$25, then quickly collapses below ~$25, with some stability
- Price rises above ~$25, then continues rising to around $40 before returning to the $25 to $30 level, with little stability
- Price rises above ~$25, then continues rising to far above $25 before collapsing but remaining above $25, with almost no stability
The king effect means that it is unlikely we will see both new highs and stability. One has to go.
science is when you can derive the same conclusion from different means
anyway, it's gonna be a bumpy ride.
Lol. It's a log-log scale, and what's on the horizontal axis? The number of data points? I think you've been played.
You'll get that "king effect" with any (positive) data set that has simple exponential growth* over time. Add some new "all-time highs" and what happens? The old 'king' point get shunted off to the right and exponentially closer to the straight line approximation. Then the new all-time high becomes the new king point and there's only a very small chance that it will hit the middle.
*Edit: (and some noise superimposed on the signal)
the conclusion still holds that when new 'exponential highs' are reached, they will bring with them instability.
did you even read the words underneath?
this is of course assuming that past data predicts future results.
You have nowhere near the number of data points to ascertain a linear function. For all you know, it's asymptotic, kinda like Bitcoin 
This isn't about what I know, but for what it's worth you're right, I don't have all the data points -- the silver store I work for does. And I can tell you from the proprietary charts I've seen, it's linear.
Do you have any analysis as to why this trend is unsustainable? It perplexes me why there are those on the forum who are only willing to accept slight success for bitcoin. What if a small country adopts bitcoin as their national currency? What if a major e-commerce site integrates bitcoin? Those that prophesy a downtrend because bitcoin adoption is unsustainable should at the very least back up their arguments with logic.
That's not to say a major flaw could be discovered tomorrow and the price tanks to $0. Both are possible, why do you think one is probable over the other, and what proof other than napkin logic and feelings do you have?
That's not to say a major flaw could be discovered tomorrow and the price tanks to $0. Both are possible, why do you think one is probable over the other, and what proof other than napkin logic and feelings do you have?
I should clarify, I mean the trend with relation to precious metals. I do not believe BTC will appreciate much farther against silver and gold. That's also what I meant by exit plan; in spite of new money, you can't eat bitcoins.
Why do you think it's unsustainable. It doesn't matter which relationship we are discussing. If it is a generalized belief, that's all well and good. This is the speculation sub-forum after all, and all opinions are welcome. I don't however, agree with statements like The trend right now is unsustainable. This is what we know.. We don't know this, and you haven't offered up any explanation as to why you feel this way.
As an aside, currency was not made to be eaten. If you are, you're doing it wrong.
Seriously? In comparison to percentage gains and losses on logarithmic charts to the upside we are seeing a linear progression towards ZERO in silver/BTC. We know it's unsustainable because precious metals can never be worth zero.
This isn't about gaining or losing 10%. This is about how many times you can gain or lose $1 before you hit ZERO. When you go to zero, very small moves turn into huge percentage moves. Silver is going to become exceedingly volatile as it lowers in price, and a time will come when it reverses. I just have no idea when that time will be. But what we do know, is that precious metal's linear trend towards zero, denominated in BTC, is not sustainable.
You have nowhere near the number of data points to ascertain a linear function. For all you know, it's asymptotic, kinda like Bitcoin
Jump to: