International Skeptics Forum

International Skeptics Forum (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php)
-   Economics, Business and Finance (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=83)
-   -   Bitcoin - Part 3 (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=336407)

Dr.Sid 15th December 2019 04:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samson (Post 12925273)
Actually land bankers use technical analysis, they see patterns. If they pay cash they are immune to time worries. The Chinese own a lot of New Zealand with cash, they never sell. It is technical analysis that forecasts urban areas spread when the living is easy as it is in Auckland, temperate, water security, no climate change hazard.
Technical analysis is everywhere, utilised unwittingly.

And in bitcoin.

It's almost funny. Almost.

Samson 15th December 2019 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr.Sid (Post 12925330)
It's almost funny. Almost.


To keep you chuckling.

Technical analysis is simply a pattern mapping concept. Fast moves, changes of direction with certain prior events. It is a pictorial representation of the behaviour of people. Of course schooling fish and flocking birds are behaving with comparable paradigms.

Bitcoin is so good for technical analysis because no one can value it. In the last week I have seen powerful and earnest reasoning for bitcoin 1k and bitcoin 1m in the foreseeable future.

Hahahahaha.

Chanakya 15th December 2019 04:13 PM

An involved discussion specifically on TA would probably be off-topic here, but a short exchange perhaps: I'm afraid I'm skeptical about TA. Not just as far as bitcoin, I mean TA generally.

I know there are plenty of people who work with TA, especially TA algos for stocks and options, but TA basically works on the premise that past patterns of behavior, mapped over time, will repeat over time. Of course if it can be shown to work then I can hardly argue with that, but, in general terms, I just don't see how TA might work, except by happenstance -- or, if there were sufficient algo-fueled momentum, some degree of self-fulfilling prophecy.

Orphia Nay 15th December 2019 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chanakya (Post 12925760)
An involved discussion specifically on TA would probably be off-topic here, but a short exchange perhaps: I'm afraid I'm skeptical about TA. Not just as far as bitcoin, I mean TA generally.

I know there are plenty of people who work with TA, especially TA algos for stocks and options, but TA basically works on the premise that past patterns of behavior, mapped over time, will repeat over time. Of course if it can be shown to work then I can hardly argue with that, but, in general terms, I just don't see how TA might work, except by happenstance -- or, if there were sufficient algo-fueled momentum, some degree of self-fulfilling prophecy.

Yes, we still don't have the right categories for psychology (and psychologists agree these intermesh and are fluid).

We have estimates in statistics based on estimated categories.

People are learning that the 1.6% p.a. reduction in emissions isn't across the board.

It depends on who you are, where you live, as to what your country/area emits.

The Circular Economy Model (see China, EU, Australia) is based on interconnected decentralised systems/regions, each with zero marginal cost networks for connectivity, energy, transport, security (maybe more).

Our town/shire is getting itself organised (I'm in Australia) on that regard.

Twitter announced this week it's doing its version. All values-based, secure, humanitarian aims. Yes, so are YouTube, Facebook, Google, 23andMe, Microsoft - to name the big big big corporations.

Digital currencies and blockchain are all involved in learning how to create a safe secure, connected biosphere.

So much more I'd love to say on this.

So happy people are learning enough to understand the issues that it emerged from.

psionl0 15th December 2019 08:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Orphia Nay (Post 12925819)
Digital currencies and blockchain are all involved in learning how to create a safe secure, connected biosphere.

Unfortunately, that bit is not true (at least currently).

It is a competitive dog eat dog race to see who gets the next block of coins first and the winner is the person who chews up the most electricity.

The Don 17th December 2019 02:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chanakya (Post 12925760)
An involved discussion specifically on TA would probably be off-topic here, but a short exchange perhaps: I'm afraid I'm skeptical about TA. Not just as far as bitcoin, I mean TA generally.

I know there are plenty of people who work with TA, especially TA algos for stocks and options, but TA basically works on the premise that past patterns of behavior, mapped over time, will repeat over time. Of course if it can be shown to work then I can hardly argue with that, but, in general terms, I just don't see how TA might work, except by happenstance -- or, if there were sufficient algo-fueled momentum, some degree of self-fulfilling prophecy.

You're right to be sceptical about TA. A lot of major firms with a lot of money and a lot of very smart people have tried, and failed, to develop and implement TA in a variety of different markets.

The underlying premise, that there are repeated patterns, seem to be flawed and in any case, the first functioning TA process would in any case "break" the pattern by seeking to take advantage of it.

The idea that a single individual with a spreadsheet has succeeded where financial institutions have failed is remarkable, but not impossible. If I were that person I would either keep quiet and go on to amass a huge fortune using my TA directly and/or by selling it to a major financial institution. I know it's an argument from incredulity (and hence a logical fallacy) but the idea that someone with a working TA algorithm wouldn't use it to make themselves rich and would instead boast about it on a minor forum in the backwoods of the internet beggars belief.

It reminds me of the psychics, who claim not to be able to use their "gift" to make money :rolleyes:

Chanakya 17th December 2019 07:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Don (Post 12927041)
You're right to be sceptical about TA. A lot of major firms with a lot of money and a lot of very smart people have tried, and failed, to develop and implement TA in a variety of different markets.

The underlying premise, that there are repeated patterns, seem to be flawed


That was my impression too.

Plus, the logic underlying TA -- that all causative factors repeat over time, so extrapolating patterns over time automatically factors in those factors without explicitly identifying them -- seems, like you say, not quite impossible, but iffy.


That said:


Quote:

and in any case, the first functioning TA process would in any case "break" the pattern by seeking to take advantage of it.

This will apply for any opportunity, arising out of any kind of price discovery mechanism, not just TA. Besides, market efficiency is always somewhat wanting, leaving open one those window of opportunity things for limited time periods.


Quote:

The idea that a single individual with a spreadsheet has succeeded where financial institutions have failed is remarkable, but not impossible.

As you say, remarkable, but not impossible. That kind of thing does apply to identifying pricing inefficiency via fundamental analysis as well, throwing out a very few truly exceptional fund managers. (Although even the Warren Buffets occasionally trip up, or put in very pedestrian performances.)

I was commenting only generally, not speaking of Samson's claims. That I suppose can be directly evaluated, by him, or anyone else who's interested in his specific claims, by charting actual performance against claims? Should be fairly straightforward, I should think, should someone want to take the effort to do that charting.


Quote:

If I were that person I would either keep quiet and go on to amass a huge fortune using my TA directly and/or by selling it to a major financial institution. I know it's an argument from incredulity (and hence a logical fallacy) but the idea that someone with a working TA algorithm wouldn't use it to make themselves rich and would instead boast about it on a minor forum in the backwoods of the internet beggars belief.

It reminds me of the psychics, who claim not to be able to use their "gift" to make money :rolleyes:

I take your point, this makes sense generally speaking; but I'm not sure I agree, as far as this individual poster. I mean, sure, your POV is logical; but then what you say might apply to everyone who holds forth in these forums. We may argue, then, that the physicist -- and biochemist, and mathematician, and philosopher -- would better probably employ their time in actual research or study or discussion with equally knowledgeable peers or something, rather than pontificating on here, so that the one who does post here is probably some kind of poseur. While sometimes/often true, clearly that's not always the case (or at least, I think not, and hope not! :)). Different people may have different reasons for posting here as opposed to spreading the light of their knowledge in the world at large, and benefiting personally from it.

I'd rather not comment specifically on Samson's claims. (That, after all, can, like I said, be evaluated directly by graphing out the data points vis-a-vis his claims, should anyone want to do that.)


But absolutely, I share your general skepticism as far as TA itself. The thing sounds very much like, as you say, psychic reading or astrology or reading tea leaves (or skirt lengths!). And yes, to my (limited) knowledge, no one has, as you say, actually shown TA to work consistently. (I guess if it did ever work -- if if IF -- then it'd had to be run by, like you suggest, a relatively small operator working quietly, so as not to trip up the market and upset the magical patterns.)

Samson 17th December 2019 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Don (Post 12927041)
You're right to be sceptical about TA. A lot of major firms with a lot of money and a lot of very smart people have tried, and failed, to develop and implement TA in a variety of different markets.

The underlying premise, that there are repeated patterns, seem to be flawed and in any case, the first functioning TA process would in any case "break" the pattern by seeking to take advantage of it.

The idea that a single individual with a spreadsheet has succeeded where financial institutions have failed is remarkable, but not impossible. If I were that person I would either keep quiet and go on to amass a huge fortune using my TA directly and/or by selling it to a major financial institution. I know it's an argument from incredulity (and hence a logical fallacy) but the idea that someone with a working TA algorithm wouldn't use it to make themselves rich and would instead boast about it on a minor forum in the backwoods of the internet beggars belief.

It reminds me of the psychics, who claim not to be able to use their "gift" to make money :rolleyes:

Yes I have heard the argument from incredulity all my life, and the notion that algorithms are bound to be self defeating. Both claims are nonsense as I have repeatedly shown. I posted several bitcoin trading ideas on this thread, one failed.
I will collate and detail when I have time. The idea that posting on a small forum would contradict a notion of viability is just another argument from incredulity.

fromdownunder 17th December 2019 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samson (Post 12927638)
Yes I have heard the argument from incredulity all my life, and the notion that algorithms are bound to be self defeating. Both claims are nonsense as I have repeatedly shown. I posted several bitcoin trading ideas on this thread, one failed.
I will collate and detail when I have time. The idea that posting on a small forum would contradict a notion of viability is just another argument from incredulity.


Did your algorithm suggest that Bitcoin would drop from $7,200 to $6,600 in the past two days?


Norm

abaddon 17th December 2019 03:32 PM

Out of curiousity, I graphed Bitcoin value over it's life to date.

https://i.imgur.com/qmpcix9.png

It will be interesting to see if the next trough and peak are lower over the next few months. There is certainly not yet sufficient data to conclude a trend yet. It could be an emerging trend, I suppose.

Disclaimer: I own no bitcoin nor have any pecuniary interest in them. I just ran the graph for the hell of it.

Samson 17th December 2019 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fromdownunder (Post 12927704)
Did your algorithm suggest that Bitcoin would drop from $7,200 to $6,600 in the past two days?


Norm

It is not quite like that. Let me emphasise all predictions I have made on any thread, oil, gold Ta, this one are based on the simplest observations, no more than two lines of excel code in fact. The reality is I have seen multiple entry points for short positions since the blooming of this tulip, only a few of which I have outlined.
There is no mystery, I will draw a diagram ...

Dr.Sid 17th December 2019 05:09 PM

This made me laugh recently ..
https://www.reddit.com/r/Buttcoin/co...919/how_to_ta/

psionl0 17th December 2019 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by abaddon (Post 12927822)
Out of curiousity, I graphed Bitcoin value over it's life to date.

https://i.imgur.com/qmpcix9.png

You should have used a logarithmic scale. That "teensy weensy" blip just prior to 2014 was in fact a significant price event in the life of bitcoin.

Chanakya 17th December 2019 07:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samson (Post 12927638)
Yes I have heard the argument from incredulity all my life, and the notion that algorithms are bound to be self defeating. Both claims are nonsense as I have repeatedly shown. I posted several bitcoin trading ideas on this thread, one failed.
I will collate and detail when I have time.
The idea that posting on a small forum would contradict a notion of viability is just another argument from incredulity.


I don't think you've actually shown that. I don't post in this thread -- or I haven't, till recently -- but I do follow this thread off and on, and this montage keeps repeating over and over here : you giving out TA-algo-based tips, then afterwards claiming you've been shown to be right, and every one disagreeing with that assessment, and then reset once again.

If you wish, and if you have the time, you can, like you suggest, put this argument to rest once and for all by taking the time to plot every prediction you've made here on these bitcoin threads, vis-a-vis actual performance. Your call.

Just in case this is shown to work -- which I personally doubt -- I'll gladly revise my opinion that TA is essentially tea-leaf reading.




ETA: Like others have pointed out, open-ended claims like "This asset/commodity will drop", without specifying details and timeframes, are meaningless, as I'm sure you'll agree. I've only cursorily dipped into these bitcoin threads, but at least some of your claims have been too open-ended to be testable, or of any actual use. If you do this charting thing, perhaps you could pick all valid, testable claims, and -- to preempt another criticism I've seen others make here, and prevent yet another reset of both sides claiming victory -- pick all your non-open-ended claims across these threads, exhaustively, not just a few selected ones.

If you can do this, many naysayers here, including me, will be proved wrong. Either that, or you'll get a more realistic assessment of your algo than your own personal opinion, and might then revise your own view.

Samson 18th December 2019 02:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chanakya (Post 12927998)
I don't think you've actually shown that. I don't post in this thread -- or I haven't, till recently -- but I do follow this thread off and on, and this montage keeps repeating over and over here : you giving out TA-algo-based tips, then afterwards claiming you've been shown to be right, and every one disagreeing with that assessment, and then reset once again.

If you wish, and if you have the time, you can, like you suggest, put this argument to rest once and for all by taking the time to plot every prediction you've made here on these bitcoin threads, vis-a-vis actual performance. Your call.

Just in case this is shown to work -- which I personally doubt -- I'll gladly revise my opinion that TA is essentially tea-leaf reading.




ETA: Like others have pointed out, open-ended claims like "This asset/commodity will drop", without specifying details and timeframes, are meaningless, as I'm sure you'll agree. I've only cursorily dipped into these bitcoin threads, but at least some of your claims have been too open-ended to be testable, or of any actual use. If you do this charting thing, perhaps you could pick all valid, testable claims, and -- to preempt another criticism I've seen others make here, and prevent yet another reset of both sides claiming victory -- pick all your non-open-ended claims across these threads, exhaustively, not just a few selected ones.

If you can do this, many naysayers here, including me, will be proved wrong. Either that, or you'll get a more realistic assessment of your algo than your own personal opinion, and might then revise your own view.

Yes interesting, The great Greeks like Plato and Aristotle would be followed by villagers "foraging" for scraps of wisdom. Imagine being challenged to prove what they just proved.

I hasten to add you are the most open minded poster since Marplots.

The Don 18th December 2019 03:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chanakya (Post 12927221)
As you say, remarkable, but not impossible. That kind of thing does apply to identifying pricing inefficiency via fundamental analysis as well, throwing out a very few truly exceptional fund managers. (Although even the Warren Buffets occasionally trip up, or put in very pedestrian performances.)

It seems to me that these "truly exceptional fund managers" all seem to eventually have feet of clay and their performance eventually reverts to the mean. The most recent that springs to mind is the "genius" UK fund manager whose run of luck ran out a couple of months ago.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-50052945

Warren Buffet may be the one exception, but his stock (both literal and metaphorical) is so high that he may actively influence the market with his actions.

An exception could be if a fund manager had access to information so his transactions could anticipate news being released to the public. In most markets, this kind of "insider trading" would however be illegal.

psionl0 18th December 2019 04:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Don (Post 12928224)
Warren Buffet may be the one exception, but his stock (both literal and metaphorical) is so high that he may actively influence the market with his actions.


I remember that Warren Buffet backed an index fund against a basket of hedge funds and won:
Quote:

Buffett bet $1 million in 2007 that an index fund would outperform a basket of hedge funds over a decade. The proceeds would go to charity, and Buffett designated his local Girls Inc. affiliate as the recipient if he won. When the closing bell rang at the New York Stock Exchange Friday, the famed investor locked in his victory.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/bu...ger-2017-12-30

Samson 19th December 2019 02:45 AM

Bitcoin had a vicious short covering rally of a thousand dollars but about 14%
Like a dow move of 4000 points in a day.
Botcoin is now reclining and will post new lows by january end.
This is completely outside the algo, just a casual observation.
Life without bitcoin would be like wine without alcohol or a rock band without bass.

fromdownunder 19th December 2019 03:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samson (Post 12929338)
Botcoin is now reclining and will post new lows by january end.
This is completely outside the algo, just a casual observation.


I love it. Bitcoin sinks in January, you can say "I am right". Bitcoin does not sink in January, you can say "my (unseen by us) algorithm is right"


Win, win.


Norm

psionl0 19th December 2019 03:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samson (Post 12929338)
Bitcoin had a vicious short covering rally of a thousand dollars WHICH I FAILED TO PREDICT.

ftfy

Chanakya 19th December 2019 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samson (Post 12928189)
Yes interesting, The great Greeks like Plato and Aristotle would be followed by villagers "foraging" for scraps of wisdom. Imagine being challenged to prove what they just proved.

I hasten to add you are the most open minded poster since Marplots.


Like I said, your call entirely. I only elaborated on that part because you'd yourself said you'd chart out your data points. If you don't wish to, that's your business.

You know, in these forums it's common practice to say to people "Your claim, you prove it." That position strikes me as somewhat less black and white than (some) people assume. I think the burden of proof vests not so much with the person making a claim as with the claim itself: that is, it is reasonable to accept only such claims as are evidenced; but when it comes to actual people, I guess the matter is less clear. If, for instance, someone makes a claim, but is content to have others reject that claim, then I don't see that they, at a personal level, carry any burden of proof. At some level, then, that burden probably rests with the person who cares enough about some claim or question, irrespective of whether he's the one who's made that claim himself.

Chanakya 19th December 2019 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Don (Post 12928224)
It seems to me that these "truly exceptional fund managers" all seem to eventually have feet of clay and their performance eventually reverts to the mean. The most recent that springs to mind is the "genius" UK fund manager whose run of luck ran out a couple of months ago.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-50052945

Warren Buffet may be the one exception, but his stock (both literal and metaphorical) is so high that he may actively influence the market with his actions.

An exception could be if a fund manager had access to information so his transactions could anticipate news being released to the public. In most markets, this kind of "insider trading" would however be illegal.


Both fair points.

Some of the hedge fund managers' reputation owes to some degree of smoke and mirrors; and some to some form of insider info, which is increasingly difficult to come by. That said, sound investments can be consistently made only by good fund managers -- irrespective of whether that "manager" manages a large fund or simply his own portfolio. There's no alternative to old-fashioned roll-up-your-sleeves fundamentals, is something I strongly believe.

Thing is, your (perfectly valid) argument is often used to make a case for index investinging, which POV I find not just spurious but actually alarming at a large-picture level, because if index investing becomes mainstream -- and it has, kind of, at this time -- then basically the market's chasing its own tail, and 'value', becomes a largely second-hand and therefore spurious idea. The whole efficient fund allocation thing then goes for a toss.

I'm sorry, this is getting kind of off-topic. My point, as far as that, was this: You'd argued that TA, if embraced en masse, upsets the underlying patterns. While true, that's equally true of index investing. (As well as price opportunities thrown up by old-fashioned fundamental analysis, on account of the market efficiency argument that you yourself imply.) I guess this particular argument applies to all arbitrage/investment opportunities, and so isn't particularly/especially applicable to TA per se.

But of course, index investing does work, and makes economic sense as well, at least for niche numbers; while TA -- in my opinion, and clearly in yours as well -- simply doesn't work at all, not even for investments that are too small to affect market trends, other than in the clock-showing-the-right-hour-twice-a-day sense. (Unless someone, Samson perhaps, can show us otherwise? But then it seems he's scorning the idea of having to prove his "scraps of wisdom". Which is fair enough I guess, it's his call after all, but then it means we have no reason to rethink our skepticism as far as TA.)

Samson 19th December 2019 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chanakya (Post 12929684)
Both fair points.

Some of the hedge fund managers' reputation owes to some degree of smoke and mirrors; and some to some form of insider info, which is increasingly difficult to come by. That said, sound investments can be consistently made only by good fund managers -- irrespective of whether that "manager" manages a large fund or simply his own portfolio. There's no alternative to old-fashioned roll-up-your-sleeves fundamentals, is something I strongly believe.

Thing is, your (perfectly valid) argument is often used to make a case for index investinging, which POV I find not just spurious but actually alarming at a large-picture level, because if index investing becomes mainstream -- and it has, kind of, at this time -- then basically the market's chasing its own tail, and 'value', becomes a largely second-hand and therefore spurious idea. The whole efficient fund allocation thing then goes for a toss.

I'm sorry, this is getting kind of off-topic. My point, as far as that, was this: You'd argued that TA, if embraced en masse, upsets the underlying patterns. While true, that's equally true of index investing. (As well as price opportunities thrown up by old-fashioned fundamental analysis, on account of the market efficiency argument that you yourself imply.) I guess this particular argument applies to all arbitrage/investment opportunities, and so isn't particularly/especially applicable to TA per se.

But of course, index investing does work, and makes economic sense as well, at least for niche numbers; while TA -- in my opinion, and clearly in yours as well -- simply doesn't work at all, not even for investments that are too small to affect market trends, other than in the clock-showing-the-right-hour-twice-a-day sense. (Unless someone, Samson perhaps, can show us otherwise? But then it seems he's scorning the idea of having to prove his "scraps of wisdom". Which is fair enough I guess, it's his call after all, but then it means we have no reason to rethink our skepticism as far as TA.)

The problem with posters on TA is they have serially ignored what I claimed would happen, and the follow up.
I am familiar with this cognitive dissonance in the true crime arena. People ignore facts and will not change their minds. They will even hold incompatible beliefs, God and the big bang. Paul Davies is an example. But above all they rest their case on the thought experiment of if its too good to be true it isn't true.
I said I would collate my predictions, so I will, but as you point out, anyone could if they were truly interested.

Samson 19th December 2019 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 12929375)
ftfy

Ladder against the wrong wall there, no one relies on TA to predict everything, that is never the aim. Nor is it the aim to predict the extent of a move, direction is everything.

Samson 22nd December 2019 01:32 PM

Bitcoin is staging a good volume rally, this is very festive.
I expect it to fail, but if ever I was to buy it would be now. Not an algo trade though.
Maybe 25,000, 250,000 is on its way. I hope not, it is a phony, environmentally destructive greed fueled game.

Dr.Sid 22nd December 2019 02:26 PM

Maybe X is on its way, where X = anything.

Mycroft 22nd December 2019 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samson (Post 12932376)
Bitcoin is staging a good volume rally, this is very festive.
I expect it to fail, but if ever I was to buy it would be now. Not an algo trade though.
Maybe 25,000, 250,000 is on its way. I hope not, it is a phony, environmentally destructive greed fueled game.

The problem with your predictions is I can't tell what you're predicting. I wonder if you're not just making fun and deliberately making nonsensical predictions.

Samson 22nd December 2019 04:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mycroft (Post 12932505)
The problem with your predictions is I can't tell what you're predicting. I wonder if you're not just making fun and deliberately making nonsensical predictions.

I tend to read up on bitcoin and cryptos, because they are interesting and the future is uncharted. It is easy to find excellent arguments for bitcoin 1k and bitkcoin 250k, bot convincing in isolation. It would be hard to find an abstract argument to predict the big bang or origin of life because the preconditions are a profound mystery. The preconditions for bitcoin are analagous, and what will transpire is a mystery indeed.

Orphia Nay 22nd December 2019 07:35 PM

@jack on Twitter posted this link yesterday (CEO of Twitter endorsing bitcoin):

https://www.500headlinesaboutbitcoin.com/

Orphia Nay 22nd December 2019 07:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mycroft (Post 12932505)
The problem with your predictions is I can't tell what you're predicting. I wonder if you're not just making fun and deliberately making nonsensical predictions.

It seems a bit odd that the skeptics' criticisms in here are not about any qualities about bitcoin per se, but about Sampson not being psychic enough for their liking.

(I do not own any bitcoin. I thought I'd check out this thread for knowledge. I'll look elsewhere.)

Orphia Nay 22nd December 2019 07:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Orphia Nay (Post 12925819)
Digital currencies and blockchain are all involved in learning how to create a safe secure, connected biosphere.

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 12925895)
Unfortunately, that bit is not true (at least currently).

It is a competitive dog eat dog race to see who gets the next block of coins first and the winner is the person who chews up the most electricity.

Renewable energy?

The printing of cash, the volatile, inflationary "growth" model, the success of the "1%" based on overproduction, over-consumption, exploitation of workers, and depletion of renewable resources aren't anything to start crowdfunding for your startup these days. :D


Random factiod:

A bitcoin millionaire, Pine, donated US$5 million to GiveDirectly, which is giving money for free to villagers in Africa to do Universal Basic Income feasibility studies.

psionl0 23rd December 2019 12:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Orphia Nay (Post 12932658)
Renewable energy?

The printing of cash, the volatile, inflationary "growth" model, the success of the "1%" based on overproduction, over-consumption, exploitation of workers, and depletion of renewable resources aren't anything to start crowdfunding for your startup these days. :D

I think you are missing the point. Unbelievable amounts of energy are being used by computers globally to mine bitcoins. And what are these computers doing? Basically just useless calculations (essentially guessing numbers).

Suggesting that this pure energy burning is doing something useful is the perfect illustration of the broken window fallacy.

Quote:

BITCOIN has been alarming people for years because of the amount of electricity needed to mint new virtual coinage. Alex de Vries, a bitcoin specialist at PwC, estimates that the current global power consumption for the servers that run bitcoin’s software is a minimum of 2.55 gigawatts (GW), which amounts to energy consumption of 22 terawatt-hours (TWh) per year—almost the same as Ireland. Google, by comparison, used 5.7 TWh worldwide in 2015. What’s more, bitcoin “miners” consume about five times more power than they did last year, and orders of magnitude more than just a few years ago—and there are no signs of a slowdown.
https://www.economist.com/the-econom...so-much-energy

psionl0 23rd December 2019 12:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Orphia Nay (Post 12932654)
It seems a bit odd that the skeptics' criticisms in here are not about any qualities about bitcoin per se, but about Sampson not being psychic enough for their liking.

The qualities of bitcoin have been discussed at length for a long time and a lot of useful information can be found (along with a lot of useless information) in this forum. Don't forget that we are up to the third bitcoin thread now.

The problem is that in recent years, this thread has been dominated by Samson's "TA" predictions. Due to his lack of success, he has had to obfuscate his more recent posts so that nothing he posts can be falsified.

It is little wonder that as the dominant poster, most of the other posts are replies that address his nonsense. There is little else left to talk about re bitcoin any more.

Orphia Nay 23rd December 2019 02:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 12932790)
I think you are missing the point. Unbelievable amounts of energy are being used by computers globally to mine bitcoins. And what are these computers doing? Basically just useless calculations (essentially guessing numbers).

Suggesting that this pure energy burning is doing something useful is the perfect illustration of the broken window fallacy.


https://www.economist.com/the-econom...so-much-energy

That's a pretty old article.

Bitcoin and blockchain are being used by major and mega companies now.

Blockchain is all part of this discussion, as you should know.

https://eng.ambcrypto.com/geneva-blo...y-in-business/

Geneva Blockchain Congress 2020 to address sustainability in business

The 2020 Geneva Blockchain Congress will focus on eight separate themes:

Public administration
Regulation and legal frameworks
Supply chains and logistics
Illicit trade and counterfeiting
Banking and finance
Deep-tech evolution
Health and well-being
Social and humanitarian applications.

Blockchain is changing lives and communities in "emerging countries". It allows villagers access to money when cash and inflation is unaccessible.


Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 12932792)
The qualities of bitcoin have been discussed at length for a long time and a lot of useful information can be found (along with a lot of useless information) in this forum. Don't forget that we are up to the third bitcoin thread now.

The problem is that in recent years, this thread has been dominated by Samson's "TA" predictions. Due to his lack of success, he has had to obfuscate his more recent posts so that nothing he posts can be falsified.

It is little wonder that as the dominant poster, most of the other posts are replies that address his nonsense. There is little else left to talk about re bitcoin any more.

What is TA in this context?

The fossil fuel use mining bitcoin is related to the energy supply of the building/supplier/city/country.

Blaming bitcoin for being unsustainable is disingenuous and/or assumes fault without evidence.

Perhaps you're from somewhere which still is entrenched in fossil fuels, and does not have a plan to offload/transition out of those stranded assets.

Nothing to talk about?

You can't be looking very hard for news.

Dr.Sid 23rd December 2019 04:53 AM

TA: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technical_analysis

Mycroft 23rd December 2019 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Orphia Nay (Post 12932654)
It seems a bit odd that the skeptics' criticisms in here are not about any qualities about bitcoin per se, but about Sampson not being psychic enough for their liking.

It's a bit odd for you to interpret a criticism of Sampson as a criticism of Bitcoin instead. I'm trying to encourage him to either give more information or to admit he's just pulling our leg.

psionl0 24th December 2019 05:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Orphia Nay (Post 12932841)
What is TA in this context?

The fossil fuel use mining bitcoin is related to the energy supply of the building/supplier/city/country.

Blaming bitcoin for being unsustainable is disingenuous and/or assumes fault without evidence.

Perhaps you're from somewhere which still is entrenched in fossil fuels, and does not have a plan to offload/transition out of those stranded assets.

Nothing to talk about?

You can't be looking very hard for news.

You seem to misunderstand my position. I think that blockchain is a terrific concept. It has applications not only in decentralized currencies (which could be a boon in countries with unstable currencies or banking systems) but also other public record systems such as "smart" contracts or even voting systems.

The problem is that bitcoin's "proof of work" algorithm is not the way to do it. No matter how much computing power is thrown at it, bitcoin blocks can only be mined at a rate of 1 every 10 minutes. The more individuals that mine it, the more power each individual needs to do so. No matter how you slice it, that adds up to a huge amount of energy (renewable or otherwise) that can't be used for other purposes (hospitals etc).

Another limitation of bitcoin is that it doesn't scale. Only a limited number of transactions can be stored in each block and that limit is fixed. So bitcoin can't become a global currency. It's only remaining purpose is speculation. (Incidentally, TA stands for "Technical Analysis" - the belief that by analyzing past prices alone, one can predict future prices. It is essentially woo but that doesn't stop some people saying that they have "cracked" it).

Other blockchain based systems hold more promise. Ripple (which is being used by major banks) and Stellar are showing the way with a "consensus" (instead of competitive) approach to recording transactions that eliminates the huge power required for what is essentially just digital data.

Samson 24th December 2019 10:38 AM

Here is another opportunity for ostriches. The 4 hour chart has posted a sell signal, with a stop loss at 7700 (current price 7280)
I would expect it to get to at least 6860 to register a winning trade, I will remind when this happens.

Dr.Sid 25th December 2019 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samson (Post 12934017)
Here is another opportunity for ostriches. The 4 hour chart has posted a sell signal, with a stop loss at 7700 (current price 7280)
I would expect it to get to at least 6860 to register a winning trade, I will remind when this happens.

Wait, I thought it was supposed to be 1000 soon ? I'm not buying above that.

psionl0 25th December 2019 06:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr.Sid (Post 12934655)
Wait, I thought it was supposed to be 1000 soon ? I'm not buying above that.

Samson recommended that you sell at 7280 and buy back at 6860. As usual, no time frame is given.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:43 PM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2015-19, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.