I am an iMBA degree student at UIUC. I took a leap of faith and got admitted in the iMBA program (Jan'17 cohort). I can say with confidence that UIUC is not only the first one to give such an affordable education but their online education platform is pretty stable.
Lots of my friends who are in the iMBA program are pretty serious about the Masters in DS. They had to be, after all they are getting 2 masters degree for half the price. I might be wrong but Berkeley is offering their DS Masters (online program for 100k+)
I never want to reuse my comments from other thread but this time I just can't resist. No one really anticipated what we all are currently experiencing and Coinbase is not different.
Thanks, this is a really interesting way of looking at it. The change from $0-1000 is still not comparable to the other 2x gains. I looked up $500-$1000 and it looks like it took about 1000 days.
That being said, does price matter or does volume matter, in terms of Coinbase? Their infrastructure should be indifferent to price. I understand there's a correlation there, but daily trading volume would be the ultimate determinant of Coinbase's performance.
While I agree with you that the amount of users probably raised a lot to the point were servers are stressed out, there's something slightly off with the data you present: the latest entries are actually smaller percentage moves.
Here is the same data with (approximated) percentage moves:
$0000 - $1000: 1789 days
+100% ($2000): 1271 days
+50% ($3000): 23 days
+33% ($4000): 62 days
+25% ($5000): 61 days
+20% ($6000): 8 days
+16% ($7000): 13 days
+14% ($8000): 14 days
+12.5% ($9000): 9 days
+11% ($10000): 2 days
+10% ($11000): 1 day
+9% ($12000): 6 days
+8% ($13000): 17 hours
+7.5% ($14000): 4 hours
+7% ($15000): 10 hours
+6.5% ($16000): 5 hours
+6.25% ($17000): 2 hours
+5.8% ($18000): 10 minutes
+5.5% ($19000): 3 minutes
Anyway, it's more the volume that is of importance here than the price when it happens.
You don't need money "coming into" to increase value of Bitcoin.
All you need is back and worth trades in th market. It can even be market manipulation where some buy and sell between themselves.
Bitcoin has massive market liquidity problem. Once people want to sell, the price drops like a stone. This is why it would be convent to have "technical problems" or do DDoS attack to prevent sells and allow markets to calm.
Had to be a lot. Should have screen recorded it, but instead recorded with my phone. The order book entries and chart were going nuts. Entire sections of the book disappearing at once. The chart would go almost entirely flat several times.
Almost always you see minor movement on the order book except maybe sometimes at the actual mid point it may update a bit. The chart is almost always balanced until the past few weeks it's be HEAVILY weighed towards the sell side.
71K+ BTC had been already traded by the time it hit high 19k.
Technically, not much. Let's say people stopped trading except for two people that made a series of trades of .0000001 btc at $100k, then the price would be $100k.
Not much. 1% of asset allocation for an institutional investor is enough for that.
EDIT: You currently need $70m to bump the market above 20k on GDAX. That's a lot for retail investors but not much if institutional investors get involved.
You look at the "Depth Chart" -- it shows you how much people are selling (or buying if you go to the right) in a way that escalates as you get further away from the mid-market price that is currently executing.
right now, as i'm looking on gdax, the price is 16.3k/btc, and it would take 42m to fulfill all of the sell orders to push it up to 19k. that's not a lot (but it's only one exchange). i think <100m to swing the market by that much across all of the exchanges.
Tangent: it would be cool to have a browser extension that could notice that this data could be presented visually and offer to show you e.g. the scatter plot.
The insane rise in the valuation of Bitcoin. How many times we have seen a currency or an asset that represents this kind of momentum? Clearly no one has seen this coming (that soon).
They are rarely completely offline. But, they've been experiencing all sorts of "minor outages" and partial service degradation. And when you can't trade or transfer between wallets, the fact that their portal is "up" doesn't matter much.
The way things are moving it seems no one is selling and that's what baffles me. Crypto market is something we have never seen before where people are buying and not selling that is what is driving the price of Bitcoin.
Not true. For each buy that happens, there must be a sale. There are more buyers than sellers right now, not no sellers. Each time the price goes up, that's a sale _that happened_
This is something we've seen many times before. It's not new. It's a classic bubble where demand (buyers) greatly outstrips supply (sellers).
The big question is why. Crypto currencies haven't suddenly gotten more useful. The current rise is fueled by speculation of the ability to resell at a higher price.
I think a large part of the answer is scope. The scope is international, and the scope of average, retail investors and their ability to do this ... well, unprecedented. Next, you have a lot of people with a lot of cash, tens, maybe hundreds of millions of potential people, in China, Korea, Japan, U.S., Europe, and so forth.
That's my hypothesis as to the 'unprecedented' aspect to all of this.
What other bubbles are there that were so lightning-quick, vast in geography and 24/7 operation.
Tulips at least required some sort of hand waving at auctions (presumably) and some transportation at some point after 'settlement'.
This is as fast as a video game connected to your bank account.
Some people definitely are selling, it's not like we're seeing new BTC come from thin air for all these buyers (assuming they're getting BTC on their private wallets instead of an IOU that might not be covered with real BTC)
However, at the moment there's a lot of willingness to buy and little willingness to sell, and that's why the price is rising.
Hardware company or Software company, we can always debate about it and choose whatever we want to say.
In few years Apple will be a "Trillion dollar company" and there won't be any debate or doubt about it.
Ha. I've read it as "Fermat's Last Theorem" - guess that's the UK name.
For anyone who hasn't read them Simon Singh's books are great introductions to subjects by tracking their history. In this case mathematics, but he also has one about cryptography [1] and another on the space and the universe [2].
Seconded, the subject matter is fascinating and the human story of Wiles' difficult journey and ultimate accomplishment is gripping. One of the books I've most enjoyed ever on any topic, let alone in popular science / maths. It's Singh's best work.
Well so many things comes to mind when thinking about this kind of guarantee. Location is one for example. If I am willing to live and work in Chicago but Udacity found me the job in Sacramento, CA will I be willing to move to CA. I don't think so and that makes me the potential candidate where my fee won't be refunded as I say NO to the job offering based on the preference of the city I choose to work/live in.
APJ once said, "the best leader when failed, take the complete responsibility of failure, and when succeed give the credit to his team - this is the best management principle i have learn for the first time"
Lots of my friends who are in the iMBA program are pretty serious about the Masters in DS. They had to be, after all they are getting 2 masters degree for half the price. I might be wrong but Berkeley is offering their DS Masters (online program for 100k+)