I think you’ve missed the point of the criticisms. Samson says he has an algorithm, based on Technical Analysis (something that seems akin to tea leaf reading or biorhythm analysis) that can predict the price/movement of Bitcoin. What we are pointing out is that his “algorithm” is no better than guessing what’s going to happen; he may as well claim to be psychic.

I just wanted to say that I've been trying to login to coinbase for the last about 10 days now. The code they send me is invalid, according to their website, and I can't get in without both the password and code.

On top of that, easily the worst customer service I've received in the last 2-3 years. Non-responsive by phone, as in a human doesn't even pick up. I select 'login issues' from the phone tree and get an automated message that basically says, "We're busy, go to the website", then it hangs up. I've submitted my 3rd request for help now through their site and have yet to hear a reply. As in, not even an automated "thank you for your email support request" type of reply. Just nothing.

In the meantime. Just to enlighten and or brighten your day:

From: vanityfair.com

Ponzi Schemes, Private Yachts, and a Missing $250 Million in Crypto: The Strange Tale of Quadriga

:whistling

Can you post the evidence underlying this assertion hilited?
Thank you.

Actually he doesn't need evidence just like someone doesn't need evidence that a psychic's claims are no better than guessing.

It's up to you to prove otherwise and your "evidence" has never been convincing to anyone here other than yourself.

That was a nice, entertaining read. One knew the bare-bones facts of the case, obviously, but I enjoyed the narration and the additional detail. Recommended light read for anyone looking for a few minutes' distraction in the midst of the holiday season.

I am entertained by the idea
"who needs evidence?"
Witches sink apparently.

In addition to not understanding burden of proof, it seems you have poor reading comprehension too.

Meanwhile at 7130 this algorithm of disputed predictive power says sell bitcoin with a stop at 7530, target 6730 at least.
Easy money.

OK, but just a week ago the target was 6860. Which was never reached. So was it wrong or is this one right?

Should I keep my 12/24 transaction at the 7280 and buy back at target 6860 or 6730?

And do I move my stop loss from 7700 to 7530?

Note the trades are completely independent.
The short at 7280 is still live.

I have great tip too .. buy at 1000, sell at 20.000. And it's still active, if the price is not 1000, or after that, if it's not 20.000, just wait.

But if it's going down to 6730, why am I covering my short at 6860?
and if it might bite me in the ass, why shouldn't I update my stop loss to 7530 from 7700?

The trades are not linked
Think of them as 2 different stocks or currencies.
There are 4 possibilities

win win
win loss
loss win
loss loss.

Let nature take its course, I am supposed to be beating a coin toss remember.

Disclosure: I don't trade it myself.

Yes .. it's basically 50/50 .. you win, or you loose.
Btw. I'm not a rapper.

Yes. It is 50 50 if you toss a coin to buy or sell at market with equidistant stop and loss and no spread.
With a spread 50 50 is impossible. It will resemble loss loss win loss loss win......................

Meanwhile

A c-clamp formation that will be followed by a bullish Tenkan/Kijun (TK) cross and a big Ichimoku cloud E2E could open the door to $8,700.

https://u.today/bitcoin-price-remain...valentines-day

I am humbled.

No, its far better odds than 50/50 because Samson doesn't consider time restrictions in his "predictions" and can retrospectively choose when to "close his position".

50/50 would be right if we were just looking at the next move in price up or down but in effect Samson is saying that "at some point in the future the price of Bitcoin will be higher/lower than its current value".

For some something as volatile as Bitcoin, the chances of that happening are far greater than 50% and any "wrong" predictions just aren't "right" yet ;)

You nonchalantly assert falsehoods when you know far better.
A price constrained trade pays no heed to time. If bitcoin stabilised at this level it would be like viewing an object entering a black hole, permanently proving something useful.

I was just pointing out to the uninitiated that your "predictions" aren't just 50/50 calls. For something which has a volatile price, saying that it will be higher/lower than its current price at some unspecified point in the future is both highly likely to be correct, but also functionally useless.

It doesn't matter if you don't want the trades to be linked, since they trading on the same item, they are linked. If you were betting on a sports outcome you couldn't say take the over AND the under. Don't think of them as linked, they are different bets.

Again, if the TA is guidance, and BT will follow it, why would I NOT adjust by buy price or my stoploss to the new guidance?

Why aren't you trading it yourself? You said it was "easy money" Seems like you don't have any faith in your own model.


So again, I will ask -
But if it's going down to 6730, why am I covering my short at 6860?
and if it might bite me in the ass, why shouldn't I update my stop loss to 7530 from 7700?

Since, according to you, BT is going to follow your TA, why should I not adjust my trades to the new guidance?

Interestingly bitcoin traded 6852 then rallied 350 dollars.
That did put the 6860 trade in the can, though purists would also point out the standard trading spread is $36, so we would not have been "filled".

But it's still going to hit 6730, right? So executing it early is leaving money on the table.

AKA "Cutting one's loses"? ;)

Well, more like tearing up your slip that the Patriots would win, when they were down 28-3. or 21-3 at the half.

I don't know what it will hit, that trade is zstill live, profit taken on trade 1.
Therefore:
Winning in a non random game.

What do you mean you don't know what it will hit? Didn't you make a prediction?

Still doesn't explain why I would leave money on the table and not updating my position based on new information.

It would be cool to have some kind of a global currency that's inflation-proof, that's not controlled by or subject to whims/policies of individual nations/governments, that's fairly easy to access and use, that isn't wasteful (unlike Bitcoin), that isn't volatile (unlike Bitcoin), and that's impervious to manipulation and profiteering. Of course, such a currency would by definition work only if people agreed to use it, but assuming people's willingness to use such aa currency, is such a thing even possible/feasible? Would any of of the economics experts/nerds here know if such a thing has been studied/discussed/been dreamt up?

eta: I'm not very clear on all of the technical details of cryptocurrency, but I guess this is what cryptos, and specifically bitcoin, started out as, or so people imagined, right? So, has such an ideal/utopian global currency been dreamt up -- and the details addressed, at least some details, at least in theory -- by economists past or cryptonerds present, is what I was wondering.

In terms of the second trade, sell at 7130 profit 400 dollars and stop 400, this trade actually went 107 dollars out of the money and 277 into the money before the big reversal. This is up to the trader to see if there is a viable strategy and of course any mathematician will affirm there is, its obvious, including trailing stops, break even stops, adding on the back foot and so on. It is the 277 to 107 ratio that is important.

I tried to explain all this on the technical analysis threads but was continually reminded of the refrain, no good deed should go unpunished.

Cryptocurrencies allegedly have utility for people without access to bank accounts, and this seems an important role in pursuit of social equality. But there seems no point in this becoming a pyramid scheme like bitcoin.

Sorry, this does nothing to explain why you need to have to separate trades to cover what was basically, identical predictions.

If BT is going to go down to 6730, it has to hit any 6800 number because that is how numbers work. So, again I ask, why would I need 2 trades to cover the same general analysis? Why wouldn't I just update my buy point with the new prediction? Is the new prediction less valid? Is it less likely to occur?

Why does each prediction have to be considered as it's own thing when they are made days apart? Especially when they make almost identical predictions, they both were declines after all.

I really do not see the issue. If we forget bitcoin and think of say buying apple shares.
I might buy 100 shares on monday, with a profit target, and buy another 100 shares next monday with a different profit target.The fact I now have 200 shares for a while is just fine, especially if I sell 100 at a profit one day, and the other at a profit subsequently, which in fact was the case with these two bitcoin shorts, assuming a trailing profit stop on the second.

Here is the point. You say that Apple is going to hit 100. The NEXT DAY, you figure it's going to actually hit 120. Why would you throw away that 20 dollar change?

Prediction 2, where it's going to hit 120, will require it to hit 100. Prediction 2 updates, or clarifies prediction 1. There is no way for 2 to be right that doesn't include #1 being correct as well. So why, again, would I piss away that 20 buck change because the SAME ALGORITH predicted both DAYS APART?

FAILED!!!!

:crazy:

Yes I knew you would be lying in wait.
Dear psion have you heard of Turing machine?
Of course...

Is that anything like the "buzz-word" generator?

I don't know why so many people are saying that. Inflation, in moderation, is actually a good thing. It stimulates the economy.

Inflation is a tax on savings and acts as a disincentive to paying down debts (let inflation do that for you).

Although a currency needs to expand to accommodate population/GDP growth, it is better to use demurrage rather than inflation to stimulate spending.

Say what?

That's the part that confuses you?