BITCOIN

Type_45

Watched a clip of Logan Paul's podcast recently (he's a young, American 'vloger' and "influencer"). 

He was talking about people he knows who have "everything" in crypto...

Zola.

A lot of people will no doubt lose their shirt if the capitulation continues and they need that cash in the immediate future. More fool them for going all in. 

bugbyte_2

darren232002 said:

bugbyte_2 said:

Volatility: As darren picked out deviation, the following is factually correct: Number of days bitcoin swung more than two deviations from its average:

2017  23
2018  21
2019  18
2020  10
2021  19

 As you can see, 2021's figure is 9 days more than 2020, therefore volitivity on this measure has gone up year on year. Interesting to see what 2022 will look like but I bet it is more than 23 days, probably already.

Haha. Really? In response to me saying you have no idea of statistics you come back with this data?

You realise that choosing 2 SDs is an arbitrary measure right? Can you articulate on the reason why you chose 2 rather than 1 or 3 or 1.65? Unless of course, the reason is that it helped to prove the point that you wanted to actually make. This kind of cherry picking of arbitrary boundaries on data to get a desired result is the hallmark of people that haven't actually studied statistics at any level of detail; its inbuilt bias trying to appear as if it is impartial. There are an infinite number of choices you can make as to where you set the boundary, and thus people will set it where the data looks good for them. Not to mention that much of the moves in 2021 were upward moves - I assume people aren't too worried about upward volatility....

Can you answer this next question honestly please; What is the highest level of Statistics you have studied? Because I have a hunch that my last post was right on the money and that you actually have no background here whatsoever and you just googled something to support your argument. And then I found this on Bloomberg. Absolute clownworld....

And with those three paragraphs you prove everything the new poster wrote. You do realise your stats were cherry picked as well? Of course you do. Strange how you don't address any other measure of volatility, but I guess we know why. Energy use? What about the 70% that is not claimed to be from renewables? I guess 70% is not a big percentage in BTC world.

As regards my background, it is completely irrelevant, but I do have a Masters in Autism Spectrum Condition so I can spot single issue obsession a mile off.

Type_45

The thing I never understood was the NFTs. People paying money for pixelated animal pictures etc.

One guy on the Logan Paul podcast I mentioned above admitted he paid more than $700,000 for such a thing "at the top of the market".

Grenage

Type_45 said:

The thing I never understood was the NFTs. People paying money for pixelated animal pictures etc.

One guy on the Logan Paul podcast I mentioned above admitted he paid more than $700,000 for such a thing "at the top of the market".

FOMO and the abandonment of reason.

User232002

bugbyte_2 said:

And with those three paragraphs you prove everything the new poster wrote. You do realise your stats were cherry picked as well? Of course you do. Strange how you don't address any other measure of volatility, but I guess we know why. 

30 day, 60 day and Option IV are pretty standard measures. What other options did you want to use? Sorry but setting arbitrary limits as what counts as 'volatility' and then using this as a data set is a really poor application of statistics. 

bugbyte_2 said:

As regards my background, it is completely irrelevant, but I do have a Masters in Autism Spectrum Condition so I can spot single issue obsession a mile off.

Thanks for confirming you have none.

bugbyte_2 said:

Energy use? What about the 70% that is not claimed to be from renewables? I guess 70% is not a big percentage in BTC world.

Would you like to post your source for that number? Oh, you made it up...

Bitcoin sustainable electricity mix is 58.4% per Bitcoin Mining Council. That's a higher percentage than most western countries. I think Bitcoin is leading the change.

https://bitcoinminingcouncil.com/bitcoin-mining-council-survey-confirms-year-on-year-improvements-in-sustainable-power-mix-and-technological-efficiency/

Zola. said:

A lot of people will no doubt lose their shirt if the capitulation continues and they need that cash in the immediate future. More fool them for going all in. 

Agreed. Some good buying opportunities over the next 3 months or so I think. Macro still terrible though so plenty of time to stack.

bugbyte_2

@ darren,

2 standard deviations is a common measure, as you know, and is actually quite a lenient threshold. You picked SD as a measure of volatility then found some charts from fan boi sites showing 2011 - 11 years ago - is slightly more volatile than 2021.  Well done, but it does not really take into account the volatility of the past month, or reflect any other measure which is normally applied to assets.

As regards my background, I am really not going to get involved in this - I am not trying to prove to anyone anything, and of course I could just lie. I have some knowledge of maths and SD is not really that complicated.

Energy - 30% came from a previous discussion pages ago and CBA to go looking, so we will take your 58.4% from the obviously independent bitcoin mining council, a voluntary forum of bitcoin mining companies based in Texas, not known for its oil production.

What about the other 41.6%?

Adyinvestment

Bitcoin Fear & Greed index at 6...the lowest it has ever been

Mostly down to the greed or mis-management of Three Arrows Capital, beggars belief that a $10 Billion dollar hedge fund has gotten themselves in a position to be liquidated!

It is not only the noob degenarates that can't control their greed!

Michael121

Michael Saylor Meme - NO SECOND BEST - YouTube

Malthusian

Adyinvestment said:

Mostly down to the greed or mis-management of Three Arrows Capital, beggars belief that a $10 Billion dollar hedge fund has gotten themselves in a position to be liquidated!

As long as you're not familiar with neither the definition nor the history of hedge funds, then yeah, staggering.

The whole point of most hedge funds is that they boost returns by investing borrowed money, which inherently means they can go bust. Going bust doesn't in itself mean TAC were greedy or mismanaged. Unless they were breaching the fund prospectus in some way (aka doing a Woodford), they were doing what they said on the tin.

$10 billion is relative peanuts - Long Term Capital Management had $230 billion (mostly borrowed money) when it imploded.