Quote from: Goomboo on May 23, 2013, 11:59:21 PM

Quote from: lebing on May 23, 2013, 09:59:17 AM

These indicators do in fact often move the price in a stable way. The reason we have gone from 13 to 120 is not because of trading, but because of fundamental differences in the infrastructure and user/ business adoption of bitcoin.

Which indicators? How often do they move the price? What is stability? How do you know that infrastructure drove the price up 1000%? If you don't have a ready answer with hard numbers to these questions then you are relying on unsubstantiated speculation.

As discussed in this thread, professional-grade technical analysis creates, tests, and trades a set of technical rules. Professional-grade fundamental analysis is no different. If you want to talk about serious fundamental analysis, you have to quantify and test it as well. At its core, fundamental analysis is about the study of supply and demand and the majority of market participants fail to do just that...study supply and demand.

Here's some examples of a good place to start with legitimate fundamental analysis:

- "Demand for the commodity is 10% above the 1-year average and supply is 5% below the 1-year average - historically, this leads to price increasing by an average of 20% over the next week 70% of the time"

- "Imports are down 15% year over year while harvests are up 15% over the same time period - historically, this leads to price decreasing by an average of 15% over the next month 65% of the time"

- "Money managers added to their long positions by 10% while supply has dropped by 20% - historically, this leads to price increasing by an average of 15% over the next year 85% of the time"

Can't you see how there is a distinct difference between the nonsense spread on this forum and the above examples? This is fact telling rather than story telling. In each of the above, supply, demand, and the price response have been fully quantified and measured. Not only has the method been backtested, but it also makes intuitive sense. If you want to make money from trading fundamental analysis, you have to tell facts, not stories.

Your post should have read "these indicators do in story move price..."

Quote from: lebing on May 23, 2013, 09:59:17 AM

The reason we have gone from 13 to 120 is not because of trading

Are you sure? Can you prove this? How sure are you that it isn't me and some of my trading partners systematically extracting profits from the market? You cannot prove it and it is very bold to say "the reason" for anything. Above all, traders must remain skeptical and objective - not engaged in story telling.

This is precisely why I caution everyone against asking "why". It's a deadly question and breeds a false understanding. Unless you are a major player in the market, you truly have no idea why something happened. I'm not paid to know why something happened, I'm paid to make money.

The most important indicators are largely indicated here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=143973.0 but there are many many more which I would consider too noisy to be relavent.

The amount that they move the price is not necessarily quantifiable, its rather qualitative in nature. Compounded one can see the effect these events have on the price overall. There is nothing exact about this, of course it is a bit of a guess work, but so is "trading". The difference is that trading is looking for psychological/bot market patterns and exploiting those whereas investors are looking for emerging opportunities and exploiting those. There is probability calculation in both forms and corresponding benefits as well (as you pointed out, investing to date has actually been more profitable than your system when utilized perfectly). Many venture capitalists do not use hard data, they use their gut, which is based on knowledge and experience. There is often data behind their feeling, but they do not analyze it in detail before acting - they act as soon as they know the moment is right (or more often than not for the less successful of them after the moment has passed because they either did not trust themselves to act without data or did not see the opportunity).