Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion

[dropt]

And there is the 3th 522 wall, wonder how much this guy is going to sell

bitmaintech selling their btc to fiat

That explains the funny looking chart..

So the wall was eaten twice?

Might be the guy who kept placing and pulling a ~1700BTC wall.. if so, this is the last of their coins.

If it is Bitmain, which I doubt, they have a lot more coins to make walls with:

https://blockchain.info/address/1QB8Ds5KbGYBLQa5RyDQ2sVUeSKWf7qgkZ

[JayJuanGee]

In the event of no good or bad press, based on the charts we're due for another pop over 630 approximately June 2-3.  

I've been saying it for the last few days and I will say it again. $666 by Monday. Once the walls are removed/eaten that's the next stop. It seams to be a favorite hangout spot and then we will either crash back to $610-$605 or continue our rise. If we break $700 we will see a new ATH before any significant down turn.

I'm not saying you're wrong about $666 after the weekend, or even breaking $700 fairly soon. But I keep wondering how people can start seriously getting excited about the next ATH when volume still looks like this:





At some point between now and a new ATH we will need to see at least the volume of the peak days. Right now, we're at about a third to a fifth of that peak volume.

To be clear: that's not my way of saying that this rally is doomed. just that it seems way premature to even mention a new ATH before we're seeing similar volume spikes again as we did before, with upwards of 100k coins per day USD volume (and, yes, I'm okay with summing over stamp, finex and btc-e to have that count towards 100k)

You can also look at current volume in another way..... and in your chart, current volume kind of looks like October 2013 volume, and when price increases continue, likely volume increases will also continue.  There seems to be plenty volume, at the moment.  I am just hoping that the big sky ward direction will hold off for a month b/c I am supposed to have some fiat coming to me.....

[Richy_T]

Ok, but I disagree about the simulation. You'd need infinite precision, or need infinite energy for this to be accurate enough, or need an analog model the same size than the system you want to modelize for this to work.

Yes. And that would be an issue were such to be attempted but that is outside the scope of the assertion at hand. Even with a perfect model (impossible as that may be), the universe has unpredictable aspects (as far as current science knows).

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[dreamspark]

Yawn, someone just buy that wall already  

Was hoping for abit more movement this weekend...

[oda.krell]

Coming back to (xbt) volume one more time: here's a (very draft-y) motivation for my claim that I want to see eventually 300k xbt volume on the USD exchanges over three days... although that demand is perhaps a bit too high, on second thought: I demand 3 "perfect" days with 100k volume in a row -- I should revisit the exact claim.

Anyway, despite agreeing above with Peter R.'s observation that we don't need an increase in USD volume by factor x to support a price increase of factor x, there still seems to be some surprisingly constant (across vastly different price regimes) definition of 'high volume' periods, denominated in Bitcoin. That value seems to be somewhere above 100k coins per day, and until that patterns turns out to be broken in the future, I expect it to hold and will keep it in mind when judging how sustainable I consider a rally.

Here's a chart summing up volume over stamp and gox, over the past two years. Not added yet: finex and btc-e, so the values to the right are somewhat too low. Note that during the run-up to 1200, summed xbt volume spiked to above 100k several times.





There is another view (don't have it on this computer) where it becomes more clear that there is clearly a downwards trend in raw xbt volume over different price eras. My claim here however is that high volume "100k days" appear to be remarkably constant across periods (at least so far)

EDIT: just to be clear, I don't expect 100k+ volume days right now. During the late-2013 rally, they also appeared only rather late, from the SR crash onwards.

So my point isn't that I miss those high volume days during the current phase of the rally, but that because those days are still missing, we aren't in the phase of the rally yet that marks the run-up to a new ATH. I know, I know: duh!


EDIT 2: Maybe not so 'duh' after all... (from another thread)

[...]

No, most of us are talking $2000-$5000 by next MONTH, not next year.

That's exactly my point: no chance in hell. Bring on a few real spikes in volume, like the aforementioned 100k days, and we'll talk.

[Richy_T]

But to run a simulation you need to be able to solve the 3-body equations... Unless you're running some sort of simplified heuristic simulation, in which case it could never be absolutely deterministic anyway.

Absolutely not. A simulation would typically rely on the basic laws of physics, not complex solutions for particular situations.

[ShroomsKit]

Someone got tired of that wall.

[oda.krell]

Anyway, despite agreeing above with Peter R.'s observation that we don't need an increase in USD volume by factor x to support a price increase of factor x

Didn't Peter say "trade volume measured in BTC"? Maybe I'm looking at the wrong observation.

The volume measured in USD is something else entirely.

This is why I asked about your confusing statement earlier.

Apologies another time for my confusing phrasing. In your quote of me above, I refer to 'fiat volume', independent of what exact fiat currency the respective exchange trades with.

And I was refering to this statement:

One could argue that Coase Theorem would suggest that trade volume measured in BTC should decrease as the distribution of bitcoins becomes more efficient (e.g., as time goes on or as adoption continues).  

If $volume would indeed be required to increase linearly with price, we would expect to see constant BTCvolume. We don't: BTCvolume gently declines over time. And I agree with Peter that this is only to be expected.


The other time when I mentioned "USD", I meant BTCvolume on those exchanges that trade against USD in particular. In other words, I dismiss Euro and CNY in the analysis.

[Le Happy Merchant]

You don't need to solve the equations though. In a deterministic universe, if you know precisely the starting conditions, you could run a simulation and get the prediction. Chaos theory says that small perturbations in the starting conditions can lead to vastly different outcomes. Quantum physics says small perturbations are intrinsic. Even with two initially identical systems, things will occur in one which will not in the other.

This is precisely why I don't believe in the concept of free will.

Humans are too complex to model, but in the long run we won't be.

[BBmodBB]

Not even sure that the small errors in the physic models are needed. The beauty of René Thom"s chaos theory is that the non-determinism lies deep within the maths.

As an example, even if you know very precisely the speed and the position of the solar's system planets, and the external perturbations, you just can't do the maths, the 3-bodies equations are already too complicated to be solved. And which planet will be ejected from the solar system is still a mystery.

You don't need to solve the equations though. In a deterministic universe, if you know precisely the starting conditions, you could run a simulation and get the prediction. Chaos theory says that small perturbations in the starting conditions can lead to vastly different outcomes. Quantum physics says small perturbations are intrinsic. Even with two initially identical systems, things will occur in one which will not in the other.

But to run a simulation you need to be able to solve the 3-body equations... Unless you're running some sort of simplified heuristic simulation, in which case it could never be absolutely deterministic anyway.

You have to distinguish practical predictability from theoretical predictability. Chaos theory (as well as the difficulty in solving 3-body equations and such) make the universe practically unpredictable. Quantum theory (and only quantum theory) make the universe theoretically unpredictable.

predictable or probabilistic?  ;-)

[BBmodBB]

Someone got tired of that wall.

DISH network news is just unbelievable!! ====> watch as more U.S. corporations jump on the bandwagon!!! =))))) weee

[sleger]

And a new 600+btc ask wall is back...

[aminorex]

You don't need to solve the equations though. In a deterministic universe, if you know precisely the starting conditions, you could run a simulation and get the prediction. Chaos theory says that small perturbations in the starting conditions can lead to vastly different outcomes. Quantum physics says small perturbations are intrinsic. Even with two initially identical systems, things will occur in one which will not in the other.

This is precisely why I don't believe in the concept of free will.

Humans are too complex to model, but in the long run we won't be.

if that is true then there is a non-local hidden variable.  let's just agree right now to call it the soul, to save time.

[ShroomsKit]

New wall. Jesus Christ.

[Richy_T]

If $volume would indeed be required to increase linearly with price, we would expect to see constant BTCvolume. We don't: BTCvolume gently declines over time. And I agree with Peter that this is only to be expected.

While it does generally make sense to work in dollar amounts since it is more stable (Chartbuddy does this for depth scaling) , it should probably be taken into account that while bitcoin value is increasing, the value of the dollar is also decreasing (albeit at a slower rate)

[Le Happy Merchant]

if that is true then there is a non-local hidden variable.  let's just agree right now to call it the soul, to save time.

I spell it sole, and I've got two.

I can't stop dancing, I'm not sure where my soles should rest.

[ShroomsKit]

How did it go back to 620 with that wall up again so fast? Did that guy dump exactly the right amount to be able to put that wall up there again? This happened in no time.

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[Richy_T]

This is precisely why I don't believe in the concept of free will.

It's not like you have a choice, right?