Serious question, sorry for the cluelessness... where do they even trade Ripple in quantity?

Jorge, it is so painfully obvious that you operate under some seriously constrictive, empirically unsustainable assumptions about markets in general and price discovery in particular that it'd be pointless to discuss this topic with you.

Convince yourself of the unlikeliness of (at least the strong forms of) the EMH, or worse, the RWH, and we talk :D

Short update on daily cloud, money flow

The 6h money flow view, which was the dominant reason for making me (cautiously) optimistic a week ago, continues to look pretty good (see first chart below). In addition we're going through the daily Ichimoku cloud quicker than I expected. We're currently sitting right below the upper boundary of the cloud (~$507), but I see a good chance that one more push will put us above eventually.

(aside: I'm looking into different parameters for the cloud, other than the standard ones... haven't found any that I like better yet, but will continue looking. Thanks for the suggestion, bucktotal)

We're still far below the daily SMA200, which by conventional wisdom means we should expect bearish throwbacks all the way up.

To reiterate the main point I was trying to make since my first MFI post: while I'm still skeptical whether we're entering a sustained bullish environment already (not enough fresh fiat for that yet, in my opinion), it looks to me like mid-400s marks a "sustainable price plateau", for the first time since the 2014 bear market began. So for those who were worried about a continued decline of the USD value of their trading account, this seemed like a good (re)entrance point.

Sorry, but, no.

This is exactly the kind of naive presentation of the (admittedly) impressive rise of Bitcoin that I'd prefer would be avoided.

You can't simply pick a date you like (Jan 1st) and then compare it to the same date next year. Otherwise, I'll pick another date, just as arbitrary, and show that your claim is plain wrong:

June 2011: 32 USD
June 2012: 7 USD
June 2013: 130 USD

You can make a similar, more substantial claim about annualized growth rates, but at some point you will need to admit the extreme volatility, and the long stretches of decline as well.

Hey, I just had an idea:

Say the 'settings' tab only shows the 6 indicators you think are the most used ones, or most useful.

And then, in the 'indicator parameters' tab, you have a full list of /all/ the indicators in one line, and you can click on them to show/hide them in the 'settings' menu.

You see what I mean?

I see your point. I personally would kick out OBV (seems only useful for long term analysis, not so much trading decisions) and KDJ (because I have no fucking clue how to use it ).

Either as we make new lows (buying in out of greed), or as we (slowly) break through major resistances on the way back up.

Possible. But there is 'slow trickle of new money' plus 'old money sitting on the side lines', and together it might not be, no, scratch that: it most certainly won't be enough to get us to a new ATH, but that doesn't mean it's too little to support 470, 500, or maybe more.

We will probably overshoot whatever level will turn out to be the lowest stable one without a major new fiat gate, and then correct back to that stable level. I do however believe that lowest stable level to increase over time, simply because of the cyclic nature of sentiment (people that sold last year and haven't bough back in yet will be more inclined to think "the correction is probably over by now")

This is getting a bit of a semantic discussion, no?

Volume has been, well, okay so far. Better than the week(s) before, worse than what you'd really want to see to be sure it's not going to go down again. There's evidence in my opinion that it's a more natural increase this time, not merely driven by a rubber band effect from the latest flash-crash-followed-by-mean-reversion-recovery, but I also want to say that considering where we are now, we have plenty of bearish sentiment to shake off, so being skeptical is not a bad idea.

Same though here. ~470 is something I really expected (and still could happen). Back to 450, without bouncing up, and I'd start worrying that it was a pump&dump after all.

Did you decide if you want to include MFI?

Like I argued in my previous post, for most day to day trading decision, the MFI oscillator is the most useful variant of the Chaikin Money flow based indicators (MFI, CMF, A/D). I just forgot to request it when I originally asked for the other two....

He or she calculated wrong then.

For the current cycle, the low was 340, about 1.28 times higher than the previous high of 266.

Amd if you follow the bearish EW crowd, the final capitulation bottom isn't even in yet.

Great way of putting it.

I'm more optimistic than I have been in more than a month, but I'm puzzled when I see senior and hero members talk about the next ATH rally after we just broke the first line resistance, one of many more that we need to go through, complete with many more chances to retrace (and flatline) again for long stretches of time.

I'm not dismissing your findings, but I don't agree with the way you present them either.

The question is similar to the one brought up by JustAnotherSheep two posts ago, about the earlier break of the linear downtrend: if price retraces again substantially and the market enters a low volume phase for more than an entire month, was it really already a 'reversal' at that time, or did the market itself wait for another confirmation? We should distinguish the (post facto) event "the bottom was in at that point" and the (determined as we go along) decision "reversal, yes or no?".

Part of that question is hypothetical, since we have seen yesterday the 2nd confirmation of a reversal. Another part of the question is not hypothetical at all: when should you buy in? Buying in at the earlier reversal signal would have meant getting in at 480 to 500. Waiting for the breakthrough yesterday gave you more certainty, as well as a better price: between 455 (if you were really fast) and 470.

Of course, if you were even faster, you were able to buy at 340 to 400, but we're talking about confirmation scenarios here, not buying into the bottom itself.

He probably has the last stage pre-ATH in mind, the one that can sometimes look like a short phase of superexponential growth.

So for April 2013 that's probably around mid to late January 2013.

For the November 2013 high, that'd probably be early October 2013 (the SR crash and bounce)

Yeah, I added an EDIT later, making it clear that I don't claim you should declare candles "outliers" and ignore them (unless for technical reasons).

The idea runs down to the following principle, I guess: a violation of a trendline through candle extrema is overall less significant than a violation through a close above/below it.

Whether that is empirically motivated or not, is a good question.

Sure, your triangle looks good to me. You seem to work under the assumption that trendlines are like mythical immortal Scottish swordsmen (there can be only one!).

First, the other triangle was validated by a high volume move. Nothing to argue about. The triangle you drew has only two points of contact for the upper trendline, which makes it somewhat less likely to be motivated by something other than chance compared to the trendline with more points of contact.

EDIT possibly 3 points of contact. I think I remember drawing the line of resistance myself, but neglecting it after a while because price action didn't even get /near/ it for months.

The lower trendline is one that I do myself keep an eye on. I'm not sure yet if we won't revisit it.

I really don't think I know this as a 'hard rule'. Can you find me a quote on it?

The way I understand it, there are two ways to go about trendlines, in the most general sense: 1) not allowing any violation (in which case, only candle extrema are possible points of contact), 2) minimizing the no. of violations and only allowing candles that /closed/ above the trendline.

In the latter case, you can mix up extrema and closing points of candles. But like I said, I can be corrected on this.

EDIT: to be clear, you don't declare entire candles as "outliers". you just accept a small number of violations through wicks, and no violations through close.

Not sure about that.

Wrt price, it made very little difference, at least for the linear trendline and log trendline that I looked at (broken through at 445 on linear, at 449 on the log one).

But the real test is always 'breakthrough on volume'. And that one clearly goes to the log line.


EDIT: I see your point now.  You mean the linear trendline that connects to the December high. Agreed, volume wise you could argue it was at least as good as the current one, but the linear one you mean broke through at 499 520, then retraced quite a lot (down to 420), which is why I guess the market needed at least another confirmation.

Actually, not sure if that's a 'hard rule' of trendlines.

Anyway, the triangle looks fine to me. Broke out upwards. Don't know what porcupine's problem is with it... I think he just doubts that TA could ever dominate fundamentals, news, sentiment, etc.