Corrected it already

And, tbh, I don't really believe it. More likely that those longs will stick around for longer, dragging us down.

So maybe that's how we're going to go up this time...

One huge short long squeeze, when price gets near 530 again, leading to a drop into the 400s, and, hey!, we have our 2014 SR event

Image sais it all. Seems like no ATH this year, folks.









...


...


...











Ooops.

I think this is kind of what separates the real traders from (most of us), hm, "enthusiastic amateurs" ... I had to look up what a "Bloomberg Terminal" is, a few days ago. When I saw the price, I wasn't exactly surprised, but had to conclude that for the time being, I won't need one

2014-06-26

trend: down

intraday median daily price: $566
intraday daily MACD hist: -15.5

RI1 (formerly just RI) = 44

comment: woohoo! quite the jump up. okay, seriously though, probably doesn't mean anything... remember, I tuned the parameters to make it more sensitive, so after a day of some kind of upwards action, it gets a bit closer to 50, that's all.

EDIT: how about another version... RI2 should be about as sensitive as the re-tuned RI, but I believe it might give less false positives of a reversal. Still based on similar principles as the original, just slight variations of how I calculate the value exactly and how I partition the price data. Brace yourself, by the way, I already have an idea for another one,  RI3. that one's a bit more complex though... the intuition is there, just don't know exactly the math of it yet.

RI2 = 43

True. Possible I got a bit too excited about it. There's just something... satisfying... to see Bitcoin used for perhaps the strongest reason that cryptos should exist - not as a speculative vehicle, not to avoid inflation (booh!, yeah I know), not to minimize transaction costs (important, but not as vital as the next point) - but to allow the near instantaneous transfer of ownership information & rights without distortion.

Where do you get the 2 months from?

I understand that the 2 digit changes are just some rounding errors, but what about the 3 digit entry on June 3rd?

As empty as the inside of his head


Seriously, though, he made it clear more than once that he follows the principle 'If I have no way of gaining knowledge on a subject, nobody can have a way to gain knowledge on that subject.' It's pretty pointless imo to argue him out of it.

Based on the information, I hacked his TCP/IP, fingered his low-level API, and put a trojan in his RFC...

Nothing. Wallet's empty :/

Guys, I'm not a professional quote maker (yet), but I must say it...

In this moment, I am euphoric. Not because of any phony god’s blessing. But because, I am enlightened by my intelligence.

Yes. To a degree, the current stagnation is caused by selling pressure from miners. I have no way of quantifying how much of it is miners, how much of it might be due to large entities "guiding" the market (what conventionally is called "manipulation" in here, but really isn't) and how much of it is simply due to the larger user/trader/investor base being more interested in selling than in buying right now.

In any case, here's my (semi motivated) opinion on this matter:

- production cost is a price attractor. It neither means market price can never go _below_ that cost (enough momentum and selling pressure from other sources can certainly do that), nor does it mean that it cannot stay _above_ for long. It is good to keep production costs in mind, but there is no immediate way to derive the price from them (although I do believe that the production cost provides a strong point of price resistance, and overcoming it is not easy absent of strong pressure downwards)

- the concentration process of mining since the ASIC revolution has led to, I believe, higher overall selling pressure by miners, in the sense that mining became more professional, and as a result: less ideological about holding. A guaranteed small profit is usually preferable over a large speculative one. I don't want to claim miners throw everything on the market immediately, but I suspect the amount of coins sold vs. coins held for the "Bitcoin endgame" changed towards a higher selling portion.

- I also believe a substantial amount of the coins mined and sold are sold off-exchange, to large entities interested in building a position (like, for example, to launch an ETF). Opinions vary if this creates downward pressure on price or not. One position says that, since coins sold off-exchange are not part of the floating capital, they cannot affect price. I personally disagree: the market and its participants have come to expect certain amounts of fiat being moved to the exchanges and expect trade volume in USD to substantially increase as per coin price increases. If more of the large orders are filled off-exchanged, that fiat is perceived as "missing" and negatively affects the price.

- Finally: opinions differ on what the production cost per coin is currently. I personally think that a number of calculations are too "bullish" in the sense that they overestimate production cost, because they tend to think from the perspective of small to mid sized miners, ignoring that a decent part of current hash power comes from large farming operations that operate on a different cost basis than smaller scale miners. My own calculations arrive at an _absolute minimum_ of around 470 USD per coin, for mining operations that can utilize electricity and employ mining hardware at a greatly reduced cost compared to smaller scale miners.

Tell me about it.

I printed the chart, cut out the blue area, and, who would have thought, it fit perfectly!

You conflate the 'investment opportunity to shady types' aspect with the 'additionals options through technology' one. Ignore, if you will, all of that article except for the localbitcoins aspect.


You will then still (I suspect) argue that it's only a marketing ploy. I doubt that, though. If Argentinians are as cynical about promises as I got the impression they are*, no Pantera marketing push was the cause for this uptake in usage. It's more likely that the investment opportunity arose from the usage increase.


* source: Argentinian friend. Extremely skeptical of Bitcoin, though

I dunno. Judging by the fact that 1st class tickets were pretty expensive, I'd guess most of them were traders.

Often don't agree with what you write. With this, I do.

Why Bitcoin’s Scoring in Argentina

Now this is the kind of news I like to read.

Not some hyped up merchant thingy that might or might not affect price in 2 years from now. Not some vague promise by the CEO of payebayamazon to, maybe, at some point, if it ever becomes convenient, think about integrating Bitcoin.

This is what I think should drive Bitcoin adoption in the early phase: providing the means to route around a damaged system. Hope it'll be more than just a passing fad for them.

We should probably start defining what we mean by "above market" or "below market".

Since the announcement of the auction, daily median has fluctuated between, what, 650 and 550? Something like that, I think.

So, new rule: if you say "they'll sell above/below market", you better specify the actual price, otherwise that prediction is sounding a bit fuzzy.

That's the friendly way of you telling me 'you have no life, and spend entirely too much time on btctalk' :P

Woah... Since when are you a hero member, Eurotrash?

EDIT: I think there's a rule... no more meme pics, as a hero. Only serious analysis, presented in a stately manner