BTC following Wickoff stock analysis very closely!
its an EW thread please. I think that is a very crude version of a wave theory. More of an observation that the market moves in waves. No labeling so no consistent expectations and no actual targeting function. I guess it could be so, but in that case he has said enough  |
|
|
|
BTC following Wickoff stock analysis very closely!
its an EW thread please. It seems like we have completed the wave B of a triangle. look for a deep retrace.
The 62% brother, right ? Yes, at this time it is down 38% on a clear abc... meaning that a deep retrace must be some sort of combination.... could be a bit disorderly. if we pass 3880 now then Im a but confused. Longs growing on Okcoin are a good indication that we will decline though. 62% and deer would mean a target of around 3630. good call Chessnuut
thanks. |
|
|
|
|
It seems like we have completed the wave B of a triangle. look for a deep retrace.
|
|
|
|
Thank you my friend, chessnut, quality TA as usual  After the 62% retrace, we will head towards 4000+ CNY, am I right ? yup, should be. The west is leading, how confident are you in that triangle?
Maybe china just needs to wake up
doesnt have to be triangle, but it makes a lot of sense. |
|
|
|
We have returned to the triangle of IV wave territory which I have been waiting for. This abc is probably the first wave of a triangle wave (IV) minimum tgt 3800 for triangle, wave (V) tgt is 4k + regardless.   Tracking the triangle.... I would expect around 3900, 3800 minimum, and then 62% retrace. |
|
|
|
We have returned to the triangle of IV wave territory which I have been waiting for. This abc is probably the first wave of a triangle wave (IV) minimum tgt 3800 for triangle, wave (V) tgt is 4k + regardless. |
|
|
|
Well done Ryan... There is a telling little triangle at this point of the trend as we reach 3/4 of the minimm reasonable target, 4k yuan. be wary of over leveraged longs here.  |
|
|
|
its frustrating when the local counts dont play nicely with the big counts, but the bigger count seems to be well in tact now...  |
|
|
|
Hey chessnut, thnks for starting this thread up again  I reposted the chart above as I wanted clarification on something ... If this is a triangle as per your 1st chart of the 2, how would that fit with the chart I reposted? Would it not invalidate that count as triangles only happen in wave 4 or B right? And it seems waaaay too big to be a 4th wave of the possible wave i initial break up from multi-month triangle. So it would have to be 'something else' - do you have an alt count for that scenario? If it is A-B-C as per your 2nd chart, there is no invalidation of your cautious count, right? Thats right... its difficult to fit the local triangle into that count, but with the potential for ambiguity of the larger count I wouldn't rule it out, its better to swing with the punches and I think the larger count becomes weaker by the day. The Ending diagonal local count is probably the better count... imo .. fyi, with good form you can have a triangle in y or x position of a complex correction and expect continuation and not termination. |
|
|
|
...tracking this  |
|
|
|
we pass 3030, its bullish. are we confused about something? these people calling me noob are about as good at reading as they are at EW... Lucky they didnt lose any money since they didnt long before the count was validated or confirmed by some kind of oscillator, they will be most content.
|
|
|
|
Breaking 3030 could make this impulse a primary wave... the implications are potentially very bullish.  notice how the retrace of hypothetical i is exactly 0.618... just how we like it. |
|
|
|
chessnut's view on the current market conditions?
I am cautious about this count but it is a fair case for a halving bubble. There is a lot of opportunity for ambiguity here. |
|
|
|
Bah them top four just aren't making any mistakes  |
|
|
|
OMG, the original post looks like it was written by a bot. I know it wasn't, however, but this reinforces my view that technical analysis is kakapoopoo at best. It is interesting to me to see that "wave C" that was drawn, and to note that this is what we didn't see in the coming year.
Can't argue with a techie though.
Yes you can. |
|
|
|
We are at critical crossroads. Seems like two striking possibilities here in this excellent local EW form. 1-2 i-ii or abc. The one two chance begins with a primary wave extension, nothing wrong with this count but it is fragile, becoming invalid with a solid break under 2500. abc only just meets the B wave retrace level of a flat. This would take us lower to a limited downside. The bigger picture is Bullish in either case.   |
|
|
|
|
Bitcoins are units of account that are recorded securely for you on a decentralised public ledger that is distributed over a peer to peer network. You see them in the blockchain as you see numbers of currency in your centralised bank account. Bitcoins cannot be forged because the validation system for bitcoins is transparent and runs off consensus and maths. Bitcoins are finite because the protocol of the validation system deems that they are and this cannot be changed especially in the case that bitcoins achieve significant value. You can only authorise bitcoin transactions if you have the Private key (password) but you can accept them from anyone who has your private key (and some btc).
|
|
|
|
The Reserve Bank of New Zealand opposes blanket de-risking of money remitters. That article doesn't specifically mention Bitcoin or Bitcoin exchanges, but the tone of the article suggests the Reserve Bank of New Zealand expects banks to use other techniques to comply with their AML/CFT obligations, not blanket de-risk all exchanges by refusing them bank services. http://www.rbnz.govt.nz/news/2015/6004856.htmlThe recent New Zealand experience reflects an international banking trend known as “de-risking”. The Reserve Bank recognises that banks’ reasons for de-risking are varied, including concerns about profitability and reputational risk, and requirements imposed by international correspondent banks.
Money remitters present varying degrees of risk. The Reserve Bank considers that banks’ obligations under the AML/CFT Act require measured risk management and do not justify blanket de-risking. With appropriate systems and controls in place, banks should be able to manage and mitigate the money laundering and terrorism financing risks posed by many money remitters. If banks are de-risking to avoid rather than manage and mitigate those risks, then that would be inconsistent with the intended effect of the AML/CFT Act. It seems unlikely, but if banks are using blanket de-risking itself as a procedure to manage and mitigate those risks, then the Reserve Bank would consider that an inadequate means of complying with their obligations under the AML/CFT Act. There is only one bitcoin exchange in NZ, they have received this notice to halt remittances in NZD. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
