Remember that "lines on a chart" are formed by traders, the most influential of which read charts. So it's a feedback loop which is why they have such an effect.

People who buy on fundamentals to long term invest are not usually daytrading so they only have a momentary effect on the market. Otherwise, the price is driven by the small amount of coin supply that sits on exchanges and gets traded (according to chart interpretations).

That's why they can be a mathematical "inevitability". If there's a significant crossover then traders sell - because they know that every other seasoned daytrader is reading that same signal and acting upon it. Doesn't matter about fundamentals because they get priced in long term.

Your enthusiasm is admirable. But that's all it is - mania.

Traders take profits and that blows any mania to kingdom come when it comes to markets, so I'd be careful.

Well we have a solid 7/30 Day SMA crossover and it looks like being an EMA one as well. We've only had 3 such crossovers this year - January, July and April - and in EACH case the market took us back to BELOW the previously established platform support, albeit temporarily. That would suggest that we're going to at least retest $2700 and possibly lower prior to further growth.

I'd say therefore it was prudent, not smug, to entertain the idea that bears will be in control for at least a while.

No. I've steadily accumulated BTC for 3 years and never (net) sold any of them. But I've used Dash as a hedge since it's a better store of value than bitcoin and can act as a successful counterweight in bitcoin bear markets.

If we do - and that's the top - it will be followed by a retrace to $2000.

Cliff High says $13888 by next spring. So that could mean either:

 • $20k+ with retrace to $13 or
 • $13k with retrace to $3k next summer

We need that 80% retrace for the price to get baked in. Don't worry. The alts - in particular Dash - will take up the slack when it happens.

No it didn't. A "dip" took place.

A "healthy correction would be a retest of one of the major support lines created during revaluation period. I'm not necessarily saying that we've reached the top yet - there may well be more to come but the reversal will occur at some point and then we'll enter a long term consolidation period where the higher it rose the further it will retrace. 80% being not unreasonable given the  rise that's been.

Just sayin. Don't think "fundamentals" are going to save it because they're being priced in now.

MT Gox gets far more credit that it deserves for that bear market. It was a technical consolidation, plain and simple because nothing does that many multiples of gain without a corresponding consolidation.

Look back in history at previous spikes - you'll see exactly the same thing.

If it retests $1850 at least once more you can start feeling bullish again. Even an 80% retrace wouldn't be unreasonable if this is the top which means that we're looking at around $900 for the retest before further long term growth.

Completely wrong.

Where were you during the backside of the last big "China" spike in 2013 when it peaked out at $1200 ?

It had every bullish fundamental going for it - from Overstock adoption to new exchanges, to worldwide media attention to new associated fintech innovations, not to mention a ton of new wallet developers arriving on the scene.

All of that was NADA compared to the technical correction that ensued. Once the bear market kicks in, no amount of fundamentals can prevent it from running its course. A long term bearish crossover to a trader is a tidal reversal that no ship overcomes. During a major bullrun all "fundamentals" for at least the next 12 months get priced in anyway. It's when they arrive for real that the profit take starts.

Technical consolidation reached its conclusion and selling got exhausted.

Momentum indicators moving to the upside now on the Dash/BTC 12-hour.

^^ This.

I have been a Spectrocoin user for a while and am very happy with it. I can see that this is the way forward.

The Bankera tokens, however, are next to worthless by any reasonably objective measure.

They don't represent equity in any of the banking capital base (the way say, Bitshares does). The market cap is so high out of the gate that there's barely any upside in them as a security (compared with investing in say, top-10 cryptos directly) and the dividend is miniscule on a slither of profit margin. Even if it weren't, there's no priority for token holders since the banking entity can simply adjust the corporate reporting protocol to squeeze dividends out of the picture if revenue is tight.

The upside is all in the issuer's equity, not the tokens. But - being registered in the British Virgin Islands - good luck in getting your hands on any of that or even measuring it. Minimising transparency is as high a priority for this issuer as maximising takings of people's cryptographic capital.

It's not 20% of profits, it's 20% on a particular element of profits (net transaction fees) which makes it an expense, not a dividend. Ergo: conflicting incentives between the banking operation executives and token investors on top of everything else.

Pretty miserable. Think I'd rather have the BTC than the tokens. (So would Bankera apparently )

The problem with all these ICO's is that although the Whitepaper sounds all glitzy and revolutionary, you don't actually get any equity in the issuer. You just get a bunch of cornflakes packet tokens with some sticky-toffee sweeter like "20% of takings" which can be re-interprated any number of ways you like during the years to come.

The ICO issuer ends up with all the investor's valuable BTC AND all the relevant corporate equity, you end up with a bunch of worthless cornflakes packet tokens.

Who's got the better deal ?

Has anybody calculated a notional markcetcap based on the pre-ICO token price and projected token supply yet ?

...ah. I see it's around $1 Billion. Putting it above Cash, List, TenX, EOS, Bitshares, MAID before  it's even done anything.

So the only way is down then

The best way to use bitcoin is to have a bitcoin backed debit card. That way you have bitcoin for store of value but are able to 'spend' it in fiat-denominated merchants.

This is the optimal configuration.

It isn't really a question of whether it's centralised of decentralised. Cryptos gain their value from monetary function.

If you look back at how money "forked" in the last 2000 years you can see how this all plays out because the same two monetary priorities manifest themselves: 1. store of value  and 2. liquidity

Gold nuggets have held their value to this day but were not too great for carrying around in your pocket. So, cash parallels such as metal coins gained value by virtue of adding portability as a property to certain lesser valued monetary media such as silver and nickel.

The projection of this legacy onto modern cryptocurrencies doesn't arrive at Bitcoin Cash but......Dash. Because all BCC does is fork Bitcoin into a dead end by upping the blocksize which is kind of like shrinking the size of the gold nugget so it fits in your pocket.

Dash on the other hand makes the proper leap to a 'cash' paradigm by addressing all aspects of the crypto monetary medium that pertain to portability without compromising its capacity to store value. In particular:

 • it addresses fungibility shortfalls by continuously recycling the coin supply without compromising blockchain transparency (which a true cash archetype does and BCC does not)

 • it addresses the security deficiency at the front end of the confirmation cycle so that 0-conf's are safe for merchants (which a true cash archetype does and BCC does not)

 • it supports the decentralised equivalant of an SLA (service level agreement) for aspects of network performance levels by guaranteeing minimum hardware platforms

 • it does not rely on external commercial interests (such as banks or venture capitalists) to support its development but structures the blockchain rewards such as to prioritise the monetary value of the token over the equity value of any particular stakeholder

 • it correctly recognises that off-chain scaling only leads to increased on-chain capacity demand and therefore addresses on-chain scaling as a priority (which BCC does not other than increasing the blocksize which is not a comprehensive solution)

Am I right that the purpose of this chain is as follows ?

 • The SDR is being prepared by the IMF as a global successor to national currencies

 • In parallel, the ACC Chain is being established in order to digitise and centralise the ownership of global assets

 • The world is in a debt bubble that is now beyond recoverable

 • Instead of allowing widespread defaults to occur, banks will freeze account balances, redenominate them in SDRs which will be backed, amongst others by the ACC Chain asset base

 • The banks will then re-open with account balances having only 20-30% of the purchasing power they did when they were closed

 • This will effect the "global default" but have the cost of it socialised worldwide

What "utility value" ?

If speculative value based around the words "working closely" garners a market cap of a third of a billion $ and actual "utility value" is zero, then I'd imagine that realistic value is somewhere in between.