|
I have done enough observation of the Gox lag, and I think I can confidently say that the lag occured both during upmove and downmove.
|
|
|
|
EDIT: Now after I installed the version of bitcoind from the official Ubuntu repository Armory can see it, but I still can not open the settings window, so I guess it's an independent problem.
I'm fairly certain it's a unicode issue. The installation path or datadir have a unicode character in them, and it's breaking the settings. This is one reason I'm anxious to do the new wallets and just clear this up once and for all. Do you still see a unicode error in the log file? Ah, sure, now to clarify I didn't have any bitcoind installed before, I was under the impression that bitcoin-qt should be bundled with bitcoind until I installed it, the same error message still show up in the log file, I don't have any unicode character in my bitcoind/data path, and consider that the character in question is Chinese character for "year", it may have something to do with the date, which is actually represented in Chinese in my system.(Ubuntu 12.04). |
|
|
|
Ahha, Seems that you have a new guy in the team? Hello Giancarlo, maybe you can advise me on the kind of things I can go to ask you instead of pestering Raphael on a day-to-day basis? Thanks.  |
|
|
|
I could see someone with a lot of money dumping 10 million in purely for egotistical reasons. Just to mess with Bitcoin.
I'm sorry you're having those delusions. Wealthy people are often much more frugal and/or careful than the average person, especially when it comes to their investments. How long would someone stay wealthy if they threw money around at every little deal that popped on their radar screen simply for the sake of ego?? Sure, it's possible we could go up higher than $300 one day......but not by April 15th. Increased use of bitcoin for its utility is what will ultimately bring us higher in meaningful way. I wouldn't waste time hoping for some sort of dimwitted, wealthy savior to bring BTC up to $1000. On one occasion: when the money is not yours and you still get a hefty bonus even if all your investments are bleeding, Wall Street banksters have squandered money on things worth much less than bitcoin. I am not saying such money will come into Bitcoin though. |
|
|
|
Pyramids.
Rendering threads unreadable since papyrus.
Try Merkle tree. |
|
|
|
Okay Alan, I compiled 0.87.94-beta, after startup it prompted me that the bitcoind installation cannot be found, I tried to point it to the location of the installation, by clicking the "Change Settings" button in the dashboard, or the "Settings" item in the menu, both gave no response, no window popped up, instead, the console showed the following error message whenever I tried: Traceback (most recent call last):
File "ArmoryQt.py", line 716, in openSettings
dlgSettings = DlgSettings(self, self)
File "/home/****/BitcoinArmory/BitcoinArmory/qtdialogs.py", line 9913, in __init__
'specified format.' % exampleStr )
File "/home/****/BitcoinArmory/BitcoinArmory/qtdefines.py", line 203, in __init__
self.setText(txt, **kwargs)
File "/home/****/BitcoinArmory/BitcoinArmory/qtdefines.py", line 206, in setText
text = str(text)
UnicodeEncodeError: 'ascii' codec can't encode character u'\u5e74' in position 232: ordinal not in range(128)
So it seem like a encoding support problem(FYI u+5e74 is the unicode representation for the Chinese character meaning year), I don't know how difficult it's to sort this out, if you can't please just tell me what configurations I should change on my part to make it work. Yeah, Armory has no unicode support yet. It would've been trivial if I had known from the beginning what "unicode" is and how to support it... but I didn't. I haven't been able to upgrade it, because I didn't want to risk breaking the wallet code (fixed-width fields overflow with unicode characters). However, I'm totally revamping wallets in the near future, so I will go through and upgrade all of Armory with it. It shouldn't be too hard, I just don't want to risk coin-losing bugs by upgrading the old wallets in a hurry, and they're going to be obsolete soon, anyway. For now, let's see if I can get around this for you. Is it failing because of a custom bitcoind installation path? Or does it fail anyway? In the ArmorySettings.txt file, do you see fields with non-ASCII characters? I can probably work around a specific instance of unicode problems, I just can't upgrade the whole app, yet. I don't see any non-ASCII characters in the setting file, to test it for the bitcoind installation path I think I should use command-line options as the GUI is not working right now? EDIT: Now after I installed the version of bitcoind from the official Ubuntu repository Armory can see it, but I still can not open the settings window, so I guess it's an independent problem. |
|
|
|
I agree with all of this....
You could actually make sense of it? Sometimes the people in this thread make way too many assumptions. His assumptions (and Lucif's, etc.) are as valid, if not more valid, than many of the other views on this forum. This is one of the best threads in Speculation, IMO. I don't use EW religiously, but it proves very interesting during aberrant moves. And many extremely successful traders (especially those who catch market tops/bottoms) swear by it. We all know there are compelling arguments for bitcoin's further success and equally compelling arguments for a market top, especially with a last leg. I'm bullish bitcoin and alt-coins, but realize that odds do not favor this parabolic rise for bitcoin. Big news could move us up much higher, of course....but it will take bigger news than we've had in the past (e.g., Western Union integrates Bitcoin). Media, hoarding, and lack of liquidity have played much larger roles in this parabolic move than any change in fundamentals. Stability, even if it means a downward move is ultimately better for the long-term survival of bitcoin. And I see room for alt-coins. I accept valid assumptions supporting bitcoins rise or fall. What I do not accept are the seemingly popular views held on this forum that phantom millionaires and mythical hedge funds will drive this up $1000. I'm just not sure what to make of this last leg..... Here is what he said: and it matches up with the S&P which finished potentially the most major top in all of history. The first bitcoin bubble was wave 3 a la 1929, and now we're nearing the big top a la 2000.
All right, so according to him, EW actually accounted for information in 2000 all the way back in 1929, great. That's the problem I have with some technical analysts/abusers, when your prediction doesn't work you extend the time frame to ridiculous length to make it look like it works, not too much different from many "gonna be soon" "no target but it will collapse" analysts on this subforum. I'm not a religious fanatic when it comes to TA. It does tend to work best during extreme moves (for me, at least). Herd psychology hasn't changed much over the centuries. I find it interesting that people dismiss charts/TA yet choose to believe in phantoms and unicorns. Anyone with even a hint of a financial background can immediately discount the possibility of a unicorn (e.g., very large mover, institution, etc) distorting the price in such a way. It applies both ways, no fiat unicorns, but no bitcoin unicorns as well. So neither large upmove nor downmove. Herd psychology works yes, but when you time frame is long enough to put in a world war, you better make some adjustments to your theory. I'm not sure what your first sentence means. No, I think he was simply comparing bitcoin waves to waves in other historical bubbles. Bubbles are bubbles and herd psychology has been around for a very long time. General analogies are fine, but unfalsifiable predictions are hardly useful, masters at such prediction usually extend the time frame to arbitrary length to fit in market fluctuation that will somehow "support" their original prediction. Bitcoin unicorn means: Some big time single holders who has been hiding away for the last 2-3years with some more than 200k holdings, and then one day magically show up to dump them all to crash the market. It's simply an attempt at limiting to two (or few) possibilities and making entry/exit plans (or hedging) accordingly. What can't be falsified are the trades each person makes based on their TA, which is all that matters. Detractors take these predictions/possibilities too seriously. To me, technicals are one part of the puzzle. Of course, during periods of intense speculation TA becomes a much larger slice of the pie. True, only an idiot would crash the market by dumping 500K coins in a single day. One difference, though, is that there is at least the possibility that a few big holders could dump (perhaps after unforeseen bad news). Conversely, it would be prohibitively difficult for someone to purchase 1,000,000 BTC on the open market without raising this to bizarre levels due to persistent hoarding. The logistics of large movers coming into the market are more difficult than a few large sellers bailing out (at these levels). One can assume that large movers are likely to be investment savvy whereas we really don't know much about the large bitcoin holders. What I meant by falsifiability is when you give a statement you have to provide the conditions under which it can be proven false, you call it a bubble and it maybe one but there always should be conditions when satisfied you will concede it's not a bubble. A prediction without targets is useless, or FUD. After unforeseen bad news there is a definite chance that several large holders are going to cash out more or less simultaneously, though I can't imagine what could be even worse than a chain-fork. When there is no unforeseen bad news this will only happen under the assumption that these large holders somehow coordinate or at least don't play against each other, the chance of which, given that the number of investors controlling other assets is much larger than the number of large bitcoin investors, is probably as unicorny as new large fiat holders joining the market. I'm confused.....who is making unfalsifiable predictions? I predict we don't go anywhere near $1000 over the next few months (as many have claimed) for fundamental and technical reasons. I said (other thread) we would not hit $200 and $300 by the 9th & 15th. If any of the above occur, my predictions will be proven false. I think we all know what a bubble is.....if this deflates either before or after another major move(s), we can safely say it was a short-term bubble. If we continue higher, plateauing and never crashing (substantially), then this is not a bubble. If we look look back and say 'can you believe we paid $140 for a bitcoin (expensive)?', then this will have been a bubble. If we crash then recover next year to an even higher level, I will still say that this was a short-term aberration (bubble). The EW guys are outlining various possibilities, patterns, etc. I don't believe they are chiseling predictions in brimstone. And yes, without bad news I don't see panic dumping. Best case we meander for awhile and taper off. But the chart looks short-term bullish. The bubble talk is tiresome; anxious to see what next week brings. This is the best chart I've seen since 1999...... Okay, then we actually agree with each other about the trend. That the chart looks bullish and that this might be the last leg of a short-term bubble (up then back down)? Or, we meander and taper off for awhile. Those are my two thoughts. I do not think we go straight up into the stratosphere, where centaurs fly. Alright, maybe we're on the same page. All of the above, the conditions needed to falsify the prediction, the price movements under different scenarios, actually the meandering part is what I would hope to happen:the price would be stable enough for the business to develop and high enough to not be easily manipulated, I am not as eager to retire as many others here. |
|
|
|
I agree with all of this....
You could actually make sense of it? Sometimes the people in this thread make way too many assumptions. His assumptions (and Lucif's, etc.) are as valid, if not more valid, than many of the other views on this forum. This is one of the best threads in Speculation, IMO. I don't use EW religiously, but it proves very interesting during aberrant moves. And many extremely successful traders (especially those who catch market tops/bottoms) swear by it. We all know there are compelling arguments for bitcoin's further success and equally compelling arguments for a market top, especially with a last leg. I'm bullish bitcoin and alt-coins, but realize that odds do not favor this parabolic rise for bitcoin. Big news could move us up much higher, of course....but it will take bigger news than we've had in the past (e.g., Western Union integrates Bitcoin). Media, hoarding, and lack of liquidity have played much larger roles in this parabolic move than any change in fundamentals. Stability, even if it means a downward move is ultimately better for the long-term survival of bitcoin. And I see room for alt-coins. I accept valid assumptions supporting bitcoins rise or fall. What I do not accept are the seemingly popular views held on this forum that phantom millionaires and mythical hedge funds will drive this up $1000. I'm just not sure what to make of this last leg..... Here is what he said: and it matches up with the S&P which finished potentially the most major top in all of history. The first bitcoin bubble was wave 3 a la 1929, and now we're nearing the big top a la 2000.
All right, so according to him, EW actually accounted for information in 2000 all the way back in 1929, great. That's the problem I have with some technical analysts/abusers, when your prediction doesn't work you extend the time frame to ridiculous length to make it look like it works, not too much different from many "gonna be soon" "no target but it will collapse" analysts on this subforum. I'm not a religious fanatic when it comes to TA. It does tend to work best during extreme moves (for me, at least). Herd psychology hasn't changed much over the centuries. I find it interesting that people dismiss charts/TA yet choose to believe in phantoms and unicorns. Anyone with even a hint of a financial background can immediately discount the possibility of a unicorn (e.g., very large mover, institution, etc) distorting the price in such a way. It applies both ways, no fiat unicorns, but no bitcoin unicorns as well. So neither large upmove nor downmove. Herd psychology works yes, but when you time frame is long enough to put in a world war, you better make some adjustments to your theory. I'm not sure what your first sentence means. No, I think he was simply comparing bitcoin waves to waves in other historical bubbles. Bubbles are bubbles and herd psychology has been around for a very long time. General analogies are fine, but unfalsifiable predictions are hardly useful, masters at such prediction usually extend the time frame to arbitrary length to fit in market fluctuation that will somehow "support" their original prediction. Bitcoin unicorn means: Some big time single holders who has been hiding away for the last 2-3years with some more than 200k holdings, and then one day magically show up to dump them all to crash the market. It's simply an attempt at limiting to two (or few) possibilities and making entry/exit plans (or hedging) accordingly. What can't be falsified are the trades each person makes based on their TA, which is all that matters. Detractors take these predictions/possibilities too seriously. To me, technicals are one part of the puzzle. Of course, during periods of intense speculation TA becomes a much larger slice of the pie. True, only an idiot would crash the market by dumping 500K coins in a single day. One difference, though, is that there is at least the possibility that a few big holders could dump (perhaps after unforeseen bad news). Conversely, it would be prohibitively difficult for someone to purchase 1,000,000 BTC on the open market without raising this to bizarre levels due to persistent hoarding. The logistics of large movers coming into the market are more difficult than a few large sellers bailing out (at these levels). One can assume that large movers are likely to be investment savvy whereas we really don't know much about the large bitcoin holders. What I meant by falsifiability is when you give a statement you have to provide the conditions under which it can be proven false, you call it a bubble and it maybe one but there always should be conditions when satisfied you will concede it's not a bubble. A prediction without targets is useless, or FUD. After unforeseen bad news there is a definite chance that several large holders are going to cash out more or less simultaneously, though I can't imagine what could be even worse than a chain-fork. When there is no unforeseen bad news this will only happen under the assumption that these large holders somehow coordinate or at least don't play against each other, the chance of which, given that the number of investors controlling other assets is much larger than the number of large bitcoin investors, is probably as unicorny as new large fiat holders joining the market. I'm confused.....who is making unfalsifiable predictions? I predict we don't go anywhere near $1000 over the next few months (as many have claimed) for fundamental and technical reasons. I said (other thread) we would not hit $200 and $300 by the 9th & 15th. If any of the above occur, my predictions will be proven false. I think we all know what a bubble is.....if this deflates either before or after another major move(s), we can safely say it was a short-term bubble. If we continue higher, plateauing and never crashing (substantially), then this is not a bubble. If we look look back and say 'can you believe we paid $140 for a bitcoin (expensive)?', then this will have been a bubble. If we crash then recover next year to an even higher level, I will still say that this was a short-term aberration (bubble). The EW guys are outlining various possibilities, patterns, etc. I don't believe they are chiseling predictions in brimstone. And yes, without bad news I don't see panic dumping. Best case we meander for awhile and taper off. But the chart looks short-term bullish. The bubble talk is tiresome; anxious to see what next week brings. This is the best chart I've seen since 1999...... Okay, then we actually agree with each other about the trend. |
|
|
|
Okay Alan, I compiled 0.87.94-beta, after startup it prompted me that the bitcoind installation cannot be found, I tried to point it to the location of the installation, by clicking the "Change Settings" button in the dashboard, or the "Settings" item in the menu, both gave no response, no window popped up, instead, the console showed the following error message whenever I tried: Traceback (most recent call last):
File "ArmoryQt.py", line 716, in openSettings
dlgSettings = DlgSettings(self, self)
File "/home/****/BitcoinArmory/BitcoinArmory/qtdialogs.py", line 9913, in __init__
'specified format.' % exampleStr )
File "/home/****/BitcoinArmory/BitcoinArmory/qtdefines.py", line 203, in __init__
self.setText(txt, **kwargs)
File "/home/****/BitcoinArmory/BitcoinArmory/qtdefines.py", line 206, in setText
text = str(text)
UnicodeEncodeError: 'ascii' codec can't encode character u'\u5e74' in position 232: ordinal not in range(128)
So it seem like a encoding support problem(FYI u+5e74 is the unicode representation for the Chinese character meaning year), I don't know how difficult it's to sort this out, if you can't please just tell me what configurations I should change on my part to make it work. |
|
|
|
This may have been asked before, but is there nothing can be done to mitigate the one hour freeze of my laptop whenever I start Armory?
Does it freeze? I should run but be in offline mode. If your laptop is lower on the RAM spectrum, then I suppose it can take a while... I'm starting on the RAM reduction stuff this week. I have no idea how long it's going to take, but I expect a week or two. Then you shouldn't have these problems anymore. Nah, it's online, freezes in the reading blockchain part. My laptop has got 5G of RAM, not sure how much is freely available at the time I started it though. I assume you're running 0.87.2? Before 0.8-something, I didn't have multi-threaded blockchain operations, which meant that it froze for everyone when it started up. But that was a while ago, I assume you have the latest... Yes, 0.87.2, so if it's all gonna be resolved in 0.88 I am definitely gonna compile it right, I was just too lazy to install that many additional packages.  Come on Alan, you got too good a memory. |
|
|
|
I agree with all of this....
You could actually make sense of it? Sometimes the people in this thread make way too many assumptions. His assumptions (and Lucif's, etc.) are as valid, if not more valid, than many of the other views on this forum. This is one of the best threads in Speculation, IMO. I don't use EW religiously, but it proves very interesting during aberrant moves. And many extremely successful traders (especially those who catch market tops/bottoms) swear by it. We all know there are compelling arguments for bitcoin's further success and equally compelling arguments for a market top, especially with a last leg. I'm bullish bitcoin and alt-coins, but realize that odds do not favor this parabolic rise for bitcoin. Big news could move us up much higher, of course....but it will take bigger news than we've had in the past (e.g., Western Union integrates Bitcoin). Media, hoarding, and lack of liquidity have played much larger roles in this parabolic move than any change in fundamentals. Stability, even if it means a downward move is ultimately better for the long-term survival of bitcoin. And I see room for alt-coins. I accept valid assumptions supporting bitcoins rise or fall. What I do not accept are the seemingly popular views held on this forum that phantom millionaires and mythical hedge funds will drive this up $1000. I'm just not sure what to make of this last leg..... Here is what he said: and it matches up with the S&P which finished potentially the most major top in all of history. The first bitcoin bubble was wave 3 a la 1929, and now we're nearing the big top a la 2000.
All right, so according to him, EW actually accounted for information in 2000 all the way back in 1929, great. That's the problem I have with some technical analysts/abusers, when your prediction doesn't work you extend the time frame to ridiculous length to make it look like it works, not too much different from many "gonna be soon" "no target but it will collapse" analysts on this subforum. I'm not a religious fanatic when it comes to TA. It does tend to work best during extreme moves (for me, at least). Herd psychology hasn't changed much over the centuries. I find it interesting that people dismiss charts/TA yet choose to believe in phantoms and unicorns. Anyone with even a hint of a financial background can immediately discount the possibility of a unicorn (e.g., very large mover, institution, etc) distorting the price in such a way. It applies both ways, no fiat unicorns, but no bitcoin unicorns as well. So neither large upmove nor downmove. Herd psychology works yes, but when you time frame is long enough to put in a world war, you better make some adjustments to your theory. I'm not sure what your first sentence means. No, I think he was simply comparing bitcoin waves to waves in other historical bubbles. Bubbles are bubbles and herd psychology has been around for a very long time. General analogies are fine, but unfalsifiable predictions are hardly useful, masters at such prediction usually extend the time frame to arbitrary length to fit in market fluctuation that will somehow "support" their original prediction. Bitcoin unicorn means: Some big time single holders who has been hiding away for the last 2-3years with some more than 200k holdings, and then one day magically show up to dump them all to crash the market. It's simply an attempt at limiting to two (or few) possibilities and making entry/exit plans (or hedging) accordingly. What can't be falsified are the trades each person makes based on their TA, which is all that matters. Detractors take these predictions/possibilities too seriously. To me, technicals are one part of the puzzle. Of course, during periods of intense speculation TA becomes a much larger slice of the pie. True, only an idiot would crash the market by dumping 500K coins in a single day. One difference, though, is that there is at least the possibility that a few big holders could dump (perhaps after unforeseen bad news). Conversely, it would be prohibitively difficult for someone to purchase 1,000,000 BTC on the open market without raising this to bizarre levels due to persistent hoarding. The logistics of large movers coming into the market are more difficult than a few large sellers bailing out (at these levels). One can assume that large movers are likely to be investment savvy whereas we really don't know much about the large bitcoin holders. What I meant by falsifiability is when you give a statement you have to provide the conditions under which it can be proven false, you call it a bubble and it maybe one but there always should be conditions when satisfied you will concede it's not a bubble. A prediction without targets is useless, or FUD. After unforeseen bad news there is a definite chance that several large holders are going to cash out more or less simultaneously, though I can't imagine what could be even worse than a chain-fork. When there is no unforeseen bad news this will only happen under the assumption that these large holders somehow coordinate or at least don't play against each other, the chance of which, given that the number of investors controlling other assets is much larger than the number of large bitcoin investors, is probably as unicorny as new large fiat holders joining the market. |
|
|
|
I agree with all of this....
You could actually make sense of it? Sometimes the people in this thread make way too many assumptions. His assumptions (and Lucif's, etc.) are as valid, if not more valid, than many of the other views on this forum. This is one of the best threads in Speculation, IMO. I don't use EW religiously, but it proves very interesting during aberrant moves. And many extremely successful traders (especially those who catch market tops/bottoms) swear by it. We all know there are compelling arguments for bitcoin's further success and equally compelling arguments for a market top, especially with a last leg. I'm bullish bitcoin and alt-coins, but realize that odds do not favor this parabolic rise for bitcoin. Big news could move us up much higher, of course....but it will take bigger news than we've had in the past (e.g., Western Union integrates Bitcoin). Media, hoarding, and lack of liquidity have played much larger roles in this parabolic move than any change in fundamentals. Stability, even if it means a downward move is ultimately better for the long-term survival of bitcoin. And I see room for alt-coins. I accept valid assumptions supporting bitcoins rise or fall. What I do not accept are the seemingly popular views held on this forum that phantom millionaires and mythical hedge funds will drive this up $1000. I'm just not sure what to make of this last leg..... Here is what he said: and it matches up with the S&P which finished potentially the most major top in all of history. The first bitcoin bubble was wave 3 a la 1929, and now we're nearing the big top a la 2000.
All right, so according to him, EW actually accounted for information in 2000 all the way back in 1929, great. That's the problem I have with some technical analysts/abusers, when your prediction doesn't work you extend the time frame to ridiculous length to make it look like it works, not too much different from many "gonna be soon" "no target but it will collapse" analysts on this subforum. I'm not a religious fanatic when it comes to TA. It does tend to work best during extreme moves (for me, at least). Herd psychology hasn't changed much over the centuries. I find it interesting that people dismiss charts/TA yet choose to believe in phantoms and unicorns. Anyone with even a hint of a financial background can immediately discount the possibility of a unicorn (e.g., very large mover, institution, etc) distorting the price in such a way. It applies both ways, no fiat unicorns, but no bitcoin unicorns as well. So neither large upmove nor downmove. Herd psychology works yes, but when you time frame is long enough to put in a world war, you better make some adjustments to your theory. I'm not sure what your first sentence means. No, I think he was simply comparing bitcoin waves to waves in other historical bubbles. Bubbles are bubbles and herd psychology has been around for a very long time. General analogies are fine, but unfalsifiable predictions are hardly useful, masters at such prediction usually extend the time frame to arbitrary length to fit in market fluctuation that will somehow "support" their original prediction. Bitcoin unicorn means: Some big time single holders who supposedly have been hiding away and remain silent for the last 2-3years with some more than 200k holdings, and then one day magically show up to dump them all to crash the market. BTW, we haven't seen unicorns, but definitely a few manticores, some million dollars single market orders were made on the way up, not sure about their intentions of course. |
|
|
|
"Managing partner Gatis Eglitis claims they are now getting 20 calls a day from large asset managers looking to invest up to $100m." - http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/b4be7d8e-9c73-11e2-9a4b-00144feabdc0.html#ixzz2PRJpnZqIThis smells like textbook pump and dump. - There hasn't even been $100 million traded since this article was released, let alone purchasedI highly encourage all participants to ensure that they have an exit plan in place and the discipline to stick with it should price reverse. Yes, so no pump yet. To pump and dump, you need to pump first. I will believe it when I see the pump. |
|
|
|
I agree with all of this....
You could actually make sense of it? Sometimes the people in this thread make way too many assumptions. His assumptions (and Lucif's, etc.) are as valid, if not more valid, than many of the other views on this forum. This is one of the best threads in Speculation, IMO. I don't use EW religiously, but it proves very interesting during aberrant moves. And many extremely successful traders (especially those who catch market tops/bottoms) swear by it. We all know there are compelling arguments for bitcoin's further success and equally compelling arguments for a market top, especially with a last leg. I'm bullish bitcoin and alt-coins, but realize that odds do not favor this parabolic rise for bitcoin. Big news could move us up much higher, of course....but it will take bigger news than we've had in the past (e.g., Western Union integrates Bitcoin). Media, hoarding, and lack of liquidity have played much larger roles in this parabolic move than any change in fundamentals. Stability, even if it means a downward move is ultimately better for the long-term survival of bitcoin. And I see room for alt-coins. I accept valid assumptions supporting bitcoins rise or fall. What I do not accept are the seemingly popular views held on this forum that phantom millionaires and mythical hedge funds will drive this up $1000. I'm just not sure what to make of this last leg..... Here is what he said: and it matches up with the S&P which finished potentially the most major top in all of history. The first bitcoin bubble was wave 3 a la 1929, and now we're nearing the big top a la 2000.
All right, so according to him, EW actually accounted for information in 2000 all the way back in 1929, great. That's the problem I have with some technical analysts/abusers, when your prediction doesn't work you extend the time frame to ridiculous length to make it look like it works, not too much different from many "gonna be soon" "no target but it will collapse" analysts on this subforum. I'm not a religious fanatic when it comes to TA. It does tend to work best during extreme moves (for me, at least). Herd psychology hasn't changed much over the centuries. I find it interesting that people dismiss charts/TA yet choose to believe in phantoms and unicorns. Anyone with even a hint of a financial background can immediately discount the possibility of a unicorn (e.g., very large mover, institution, etc) distorting the price in such a way. It applies both ways, no fiat unicorns, but no bitcoin unicorns as well. So neither large upmove nor downmove. Herd psychology works yes, but when you time frame is long enough to put in a world war, you better make some adjustments to your theory. |
|
|
|
This may have been asked before, but is there nothing can be done to mitigate the one hour freeze of my laptop whenever I start Armory?
Does it freeze? I should run but be in offline mode. If your laptop is lower on the RAM spectrum, then I suppose it can take a while... I'm starting on the RAM reduction stuff this week. I have no idea how long it's going to take, but I expect a week or two. Then you shouldn't have these problems anymore. Nah, it's online, freezes in the reading blockchain part. My laptop has got 5G of RAM, not sure how much is freely available at the time I started it though. |
|
|
|
I agree with all of this....
You could actually make sense of it? Sometimes the people in this thread make way too many assumptions. His assumptions (and Lucif's, etc.) are as valid, if not more valid, than many of the other views on this forum. This is one of the best threads in Speculation, IMO. I don't use EW religiously, but it proves very interesting during aberrant moves. And many extremely successful traders (especially those who catch market tops/bottoms) swear by it. We all know there are compelling arguments for bitcoin's further success and equally compelling arguments for a market top, especially with a last leg. I'm bullish bitcoin and alt-coins, but realize that odds do not favor this parabolic rise for bitcoin. Big news could move us up much higher, of course....but it will take bigger news than we've had in the past (e.g., Western Union integrates Bitcoin). Media, hoarding, and lack of liquidity have played much larger roles in this parabolic move than any change in fundamentals. Stability, even if it means a downward move is ultimately better for the long-term survival of bitcoin. And I see room for alt-coins. I accept valid assumptions supporting bitcoins rise or fall. What I do not accept are the seemingly popular views held on this forum that phantom millionaires and mythical hedge funds will drive this up $1000. I'm just not sure what to make of this last leg..... Here is what he said: and it matches up with the S&P which finished potentially the most major top in all of history. The first bitcoin bubble was wave 3 a la 1929, and now we're nearing the big top a la 2000.
All right, so according to him, EW actually accounted for information in 2000 all the way back in 1929, great. That's the problem I have with some technical analysts/abusers, when your prediction doesn't work you extend the time frame to ridiculous length to make it look like it works, not too much different from many "gonna be soon" "no target but it will collapse" analysts on this subforum. |
|
|
|
|
This may have been asked before, but is there nothing can be done to mitigate the one hour freeze of my laptop whenever I start Armory?
|
|
|
|
I agree with all of this....
Sometimes the people in this thread make way too many assumptions. understatement of the week. Not going to take the time to refute what BA says, but its a load of shit and has been explained ad nauseum elsewhere. tl;dr "altcoin" balhblahblah "rising in popularity"=read elsewhere |
|
|
|
Literally silkroad! You are absolutely right! Bitcoin has no future in legal world! Coz there nobody need such volatile currency or asset.
Only drugs, whores, gambling, weapons and other stuff which no other choice except bitcoin.
There are other completely legal things which will require bitcoins. You are Russian, I don't think I need to tell you in plain words. Bu first world people probably can't get it. lol did you just call Russia a second (third?) world country? Hmmm, why did they huddle together with nations like China to form the BRICS? There ain't one developed nation in this whole group besides South Africa, which unfortunately has a life expectancy of less then 50 years. I dont think its about development in this case, its about developing a competitor to the USD/EUR (ie joining forces to call the shots on a macroecon level). More idiots trying to outdo bitcoin? I don't think so. But stay on the topic, there is a reason why they are known as "emerging markets". |
|
|
|
Yup, medias were euphoric with the new Dow Jones high, I dare you to buy into them.  |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
