We keep tappin' on that $300 resistance (well, not quite ) and can't seem to break it. I'm seeing a big assortment of Cup-and-Handles being drawn on Tradingview from the $315 spike to now. Is it time to retrace and form that handle?

Any targets?

Indeed, this is my first thought as well. But I also wonder how long it could go on for.

Warning: tin foil hat on. What if the same group behind this scheme are also the ones spamming the bitcoin blockchain? There has been a whale on OKcoin selling thousands of coins into any bid wall or rally attempt in the last couple days, while LTC rallies. Meanwhile, 30k blocks out of that address listed above, 30k order blocks on BTCE LTC/BTC.

I know, serious conspiracy theory. But almost 25% of the mined supply of LTC has been through that address in a couple months. And all this lines up so well..... if this is all one group, I am seriously impressed.

This is crazy. Something like 22% of all mined LTC has moved through that address. I'm beginning to think this is for real. Has anyone uncovered any more info on the people behind this? I wonder where the other 7 million LTC have gone. There are batches of 500 --- something like 8000 tx in the past month or so -- still being sent. Hundreds today.

Crazy.....

I'll just leave this here.
https://coinplorer.com/LTC/Addresses/34Ae29qWAhGGTw3cSNkPygiwsgKbbCatou?skip=20

Site has been down for a couple hours now. I'm getting Cloudflare and others in the Tradingview chat are as well. We would appreciate an update.... hopefully all is well. Thanks.

Exactly, and that's quite possible. When we get a big spike up like that, I know to layer bids down $8-15 underneath the spread, because irrational spikes like this always happen. And there is not enough bids on the book to keep the price up (momentarily). Snatch up them coins! Price won't stay down for long in a market like this.......

Break of the log trend from ATH and all this consolidation at the top? This is bullish as F*CK. Once we clear this 268-276 resistance area, my guess is it's onto the 320 area... then likely 380-400. Timing was never my strong suit, though. Could be this week. Probably in the next couple weeks, anyway.

Indeed, I agree to an extent. People need to be careful when dealing with unregulated brokers dealing with bitcoin collateral and CFDs. Having said that, I've had a great experience with 1Broker, and have watched my trade execution pretty closely. Haven't noticed anything fishy (yet), or heard anything fishy about them. As a rule, I don't keep too much money there. But good things so far.

It could be a mistake. They may have set the % mark-down without realizing how big it actually was. If it's someone with low/no feedback, they may be willing to pay a premium to be able to trade relatively quickly. If it's in a public place like Starbucks, I wouldn't worry too much.

Any word on whether Blockchain.info wallets are relying on Core, or something else? Silence from their Twitter for the last couple days. I was hoping to see something on their homepage. I have a small hot wallet there.... only use it to hold a couple coins at any time.

Downloading the blockchain as we speak.... (sigh)

Looking like it, yep. Bulls look really strong here, and this rally from last night is starting to look parabolic. This could continue for days, torturing many bears with those bearish divergences that get broken every time. Can you tell my space suit is on?

I wish I could say I use it for money transfer ... but no one I know actually uses it.

I use it mainly as a vehicle for speculation. I day trade, I have cold storage tucked away for the long term. I do a lot of online shopping at places like Amazon. Other than that, not too much.

Just saw the warning. Glad I did. I use Electrum for my hot wallet. (Not that I keep much in it anyway)

Is there any news on this? I've looked through the end of the thread -- this is where the warning points -- and it appears unresolved. Am I crazy or shouldn't this be an easy fix for these pools?

There is a guy in this subforum that buys (or at least has advertised that he buys) banned accounts. I can't imagine why. Bit lazy to find the thread, but I saw it bumped several days ago. You won't get much, as you already know.

The accounts are unlikely to get unbanned.

"Do you know what default trust list is?"

That's just patronizing. I am well aware of how the system works and was not asking for a tutorial. I was commenting on how it is flawed, how and why people are gaming it, why people get scammed because of it, and how it's going to lead to some epic confidence scams.

New users need a temporary list? This forum existed for a long damn time before the trust system did.

I'm not sure that you read what I wrote very closely. Actually, I'm sure that you didn't. I explained that this is about how the system works in practice, not how you think it should work. 99% of users will never bother to understand how it works, how to alter the list or why they should. In that context, whether they can change their trust lists is irrelevant.

Nobody is asking for anyone's IRL identity; nobody should be asking to be on the Default Trust list in the first place. This shouldn't be treated like an "in" list and anyone that "wants" to be on it should be viewed with suspicion.

I think that a Default Trust user extending trust to someone because they "trust their judgment" rather than on the basis of trustworthiness is a misuse of the system. Same as those that leave negative trust over petty flame wars rather than trading experience. Opinions, often backed by nothing, should not determine what is essentially your trading reputation. I want to trade with people whose reputations are built on trust as it relates to money/value.

What you're saying isn't really in line with how things work in practice. People do, in fact, trust others with money because they are on Default Trust or have green trust. And that's absolutely going to continue. Who do you think people are going to trust to escrow trades, IPOs, group buys, signature campaigns? People looking for an escrow service aren't necessarily regulars, nor do they necessarily have a firm grasp on how to avoid getting scammed. Enter: the green trust score. (Or in other cases of trust abuse, the red trust score).

I'm not sure that your response shows a good understanding of how confidence scamming works. I'm saying that people that maintain anonymity while trying to build a strong rating via the Default Trust system should be viewed with a healthy skepticism. For example, ask yourself why someone might go from escrow to escrow (all of whom are at Depth 1-2) from one trade to the next. Really just think about it. And yes, it's happening. If you don't see why this poses a problem, then I can't help you.

My (admittedly limited) dealings with noobs on this forum lead me to believe they don't research reputation deeply at all. But they love dat green trust. I'm fully in favor of abolishing the Default Trust system and letting users build their own webs of trust, without artificial weighting that is often plagued with personal vendettas and double standards.

If that were to happen, it would still be quite obvious who the limited number of truly trustworthy people on this forum are.

My opinion is basically this.

The obvious requirements of stellar trading/lending/contract history, sound security protocols, and significant time spent in the community (how users who have been here less than a year are on Default Trust is completely beyond me) should be obvious.

Beyond that, what is clear to me is that if the default web of trust seen by the entire community is going to basically conform to this group's opinions, that their reputations should be staked on it. What I mean by that is, anonymous users should not be on default trust; they have nothing to lose by gaming it, and we as a community have everything to lose by trusting them.

If you cannot risk associating your real identity with your forum account, then you have absolutely no business governing the default web of trust that the community sees. And you have no business being trusted with large sums of money. Because at the end of the day, one can do a hell of a lot more damage than his/her anonymous forum account is worth, no matter how green the trust rating.

Indeed. In the couple years that I've been here, I learned to trust your judgment. I wish I could say the same about those who you are "passing the torch" to. I won't name names, because of the vindictiveness that will come with it.

But I see quite a lot of gaming of the trust system -- whether that's hitting up as many trusted escrows for their services as possible to maximize trusted feedback, neg repping users without evidence or for petty personal differences, using various alt accounts to bolster arguments in regards to trust abuse, or otherwise.

There are serious long cons being built here. If you want to trust forum users -- particularly anonymous users who have not publicly disclosed their identity -- based on a green number on their profile..... I say, good luck in life.

There is a lot more to a user's reputation than that green number. Actions speak volumes.

Hmmm, retesting 1500 CNY again here. Price is dripping a bit. Another dip, then? I have no position here. I'll be watching the 235-236 and 227-230 areas for a good bottom. Then, with any luck, it's time for BTC to go to the moon.

I used to. My primary trading was done at 10x futures. However, with all the rumors surrounding Okcoin (bad security protocols, front running their customers, making the market with un-backed accounts) I moved my funds elsewhere.

Sticking to BTC-E, Bitfinex, and Coinbase. But I do miss the low/no fees.

Let's be honest. Don't put your hopes into "warranties." We pay 15% because the risk is high, and the sellers have no reputation. When I buy a gift card like this, I literally walk out the door and spend some of it. Pay $15, spend $30. And I don't have any expectations about the cards staying good.

P.S. sandy-is-fine -- He will pop up under a new name next week.