That's the divorce settlement speaking, I suppose.

Don't despair though. If your forum persona matches your actual self, your kind, mature character will surely attract a new partner in no time. Alternatively: consider a hug pillow.

He guyz? What do you think of this cool new shirt I just discovered?

Hehe, that one should be quoted a lot more around here. Like, daily.

I'm not even that fond of arguments from authority -- in the end, Satoshi is just a particularly smart human being, or group thereof, but fallible like everybody else.

The irony is of course that the Little Blockians are also the strongest proponents of 'protocol literalism', trying to preserve the purity of essence and sanctity of bodily fluids, err, I mean: the purity of Satoshi's original vision of sound money & free guns, as enshrined in the original version of the protocol.

Which only means that it must really suck for them that the master himself thought of max blocksize as a trivially easily changeable spam prevention measure, not some grand economic variable that must be protected by the spilling of blood of free Randian Übermenschen once in a while.

Agreed, mostly.

For completeness, I would add that 'Big Blocker' Prime, Gavin, made some strategically unwise decisions early on -- basically, being rather uncompromising wrt his 'exponential block size growth' model, which likely lead to further hardening of the fronts, and personally cost him a lot of sympathies and trust.

Thanks, OP. Not sure I see the point of the MSFT comparison (or I maybe don't fully follow it), but the alternative way of looking at growth is pretty interesting.

Much quality. So analysis! Much obliged for sharing this pearl with us humble particulier beleggers.

You probably know I appreciate, respect even your opinions on a number of issues in here, but that is one hell of an all-over-the-place, strawman-y argument I must say. From "store of value" to "not intended as cash" (as if the two are mutually exclusive), from "network security" to "no capped total emission"... it doesn't make much sense.

There's an interesting argument to be had about the exact balance between different usage cases, but the blunt rhetorical tools being brought out too often (by either side) are rather unhelpful.

It's more, and better, than what I feared the result would be a few months ago, but then again, maybe that says more about the low expectations I had.

I suspect the statement is read in very different ways by different groups. Some will read this line


and will draw very different conclusions about the future than some reading this line

^ Not saying I agree with the above chart (in fact, I don't ), but on the broader question "Is TA just superstition", I'll just refer to:

Over the entire (Bitstamp) history, the correlation coefficient between daily S&P500 and BTC/USD is ~0.65, which roughly means: moderately strong positive correlation.

In that sense, OP is right to point out that if there is any evidence so far for a correlation between stock market performance and BTC, it rather seems to be a positive relationship, not a negative one (i.e. "BTC is trending with stocks, not against").

However, the BTC history is rather short, and the above correlation is not extremely strong, so I'd take it with a grain of salt. More interesting perhaps is looking at it from a more fine-grained perspective: correlation between the two markets over a rolling time window of some reasonable length, say 200 days:



Under that view, it seems the two markets were rather strongly positively correlated until around mid 2014, followed by a period of negative correlation. I wouldn't pretend to know whether that's only a fluke or not (perhaps due to the deep BTC bear market), but we'll probably only get a real answer if and when stocks enter a real bear market and we get a chance to see whether BTC follows this trend or resists it.

Not sure if I'd go that far, but by comparing peak and close, it looks we're getting close to a decision point. I'm also leaning towards 'up' at the moment, but I don't think it's a given. Here are the time scales I mentioned earlier:


Weekly peak vs. close = Falling peaks, rising closes. NB: Last relevant candle still open.




Daily. Same pattern as weekly: falling peaks, rising corresponding closes.




6h is the last (relevant, imo) time scale that hasn't completed the above pattern yet: still no higher 6h close than the one printed at the $502 peak.




We're getting close... Will be interesting to see where this is going.

He's technically right: lower highs, in terms of candle peaks.

What he's missing (or fails to mention) is that we're going through a series of higher candle close values in the same series, like a little structure internal triangle hehe

^ You and your antisemitic clown posse really need to learn to distinguish Ashkenazi names with a Germanic root from Christian German names. I mean, it's not as if your theories aren't dumb enough conjecture wise, they're also full of trivial factual details.

Predictive? No fucking clue. Best I got is: eventually, this rally needs to find clear volume + bid/ask support - which it seems to be lacking a bit at the moment. That's not completely unheard of (e.g. look at volume during the mid to late 2012 prelude to the 2013 ATH rally), but eventually some big USD injection needs to happen visibly, or it'll falter before it really takes off.

Reactive? Anything below 300 would be pretty damaging imo, unless there's a volume signal of epic proportions rejecting such a level. Other than that, the obvious MAs are reactive signals, so testing and failing to hold DSMA50 or 200 as a first step to signal that the reversal is not going through.

Closing prices vs. candle peaks has been interesting to watch lately, across more than one time scale (6h, daily, weekly).

I personally wouldn't. I believe the place of margin is for the middle of the distribution, not the tails.


Not clear. Drying out order book (which is arguably the case), highly leveraged longs can point either way: the trend is weakening, or the market sentiment has changed drastically, and the above are just the first signs of change of demand temporarily being ahead of actual demand (i.e. dollars on the exchanges)


Breakout towards blowout? Possibly. Towards new sustained rally? No idea. Sideways? Less likely, imo.


See leverage remark above.

You really don't like funds sitting on an exchange, do you? :D

Sorry to hear that.

This reminds me to cut down on the smoking. Preferably, to near zero :/

I would say interpretation of the pattern depends on the larger context. For example, whether the market just came out of a year-long correction. I'd also look at price wrt weekly BB

(All of the following in subjective, informal probability estimate terms)

Yes, we're out of the 2014/(2015) bear market, with rather high probability - though not quite with "near certainty" I believe.

However: significant price drop that'll make some bulls wonder whether we're really out of the bear market is still possible - although right now, it's not the most likely scenario anymore I believe..

I get the sentiment behind your post, OP. The doomsday prepper goldbug antisemites infesting crypto can go suck a fat one in my pretend humble opinion.

spiderbrain's got a point as well though: don't confuse preparing for crisis with wishing for crisis.

Maybe the two ideas are difficult to separate entirely, but you can pretty clearly tell who falls into which camp, even by a cursory glance into this thread.