I think you are spending too much time talking about private keys. Bitcoin users never encounter private keys. They only encounter addresses, seed phrases, and passwords.

These corrections and clarifications might be helpful.

A "seed phrase" or "recovery phrase" or "mnemonic phrase" is used by the wallet to generate all of the private keys managed by the wallet. Most wallets will generate a new private key every time bitcoins are received, so it is generally a mistake to ever associate a wallet with a single private key (the exception is a paper wallet).

If you have an "HD" wallet (the kind with a seed phrase), then you don't have to protect "your private key". The private keys generated by the wallet are generally not stored by the wallet. They are simply generated as needed from the seed phrase. Instead, you need to protect your seed phrase.

A seed phrase is not equivalent to a private key. It is not generated from a private key.

A bitcoin address is not an account number. It is better to think of a wallet as an account and an address as a payment ID.


This explanation of terms might also help:

The article is deceptive. The author is selling you snake oil.

Take a look at the second negative crossing circled on the graph. The author wants you to believe that it predicted the long drop that followed. However, notice that the marked crossing was immediately preceded by a positive signal, which the author overlooked because it doesn't support his claims. A person actually following the MACD then would have bought at the top and proceeded to to lose a ton of money.

Also, look at the MACD at the end of the second red period. Again, there is a positive crossing that immediately precedes a swift decline.

The author is cherry-picking the results. If you look at all of the crossings, you will see that half predict the price movement correctly and half predict it incorrectly. In other words, the MACD is no better than flipping a coin.

The Myth of the MACD

The MACD is flawed indicator. If you look at the math behind it, you will see that it provides signals that are nothing more than noise. Simply stated, the flaw results from comparing two lagging indicators whose phases are shifted by different amounts. Furthermore, correcting the shifts results in predictions of the past, and not the future.

What is a Moving Average?

In simplest terms, a moving average (MA) is a "low-pass" filter. It is used to highlight longer trends by removing higher frequency changes. For example, a 12-day moving average smooths out changes that happen more frequently than once every 12 days and keeps changes that happen over periods longer than 12 days. The quality of a moving average as a low-pass filter is mediocre, but it is effective and frequently used because it is so easy to compute.

Moving Averages are Lagging Indicators

If you have ever looked at price graphs with moving averages (MA, SMA, EMA, etc.), you have probably noticed that the averages are shifted when compared to the data. A 12-period MA is shifted by 6 periods and a 26-period MA by 13 periods. If you shift the averages back by that amount of time, you will see that they line up perfectly with the data, as they should, but they will also be that many periods out-of-date. In other words, the 12-period MA and 26-period moving averages calculated now don't tell you what is happening now, they tell you what was happening 6 and 13 periods ago. Moving averages are lagging indicators. They tell you what happened in the past. The shift is done simply for convenience, but it results in the misconception that the value computed now represents the current state when it does not.

What is a MACD?

A MACD is simply the difference between two moving averages with different periods. The result is a "band-pass" filter. For example, subtracting a 26-day MA from a 12-day MA removes the changes that happen over periods longer than 26 days, leaving only changes that happen over periods between 12 and 26 days.

The MACD is flawed

The basic flaw of the MACD is that the two moving averages used by the MACD are shifted by different amounts (6 periods for a 12-period MA and 13 periods for a 26-period MA), and the unequal shifts result in a distortion that creates spurious signals and hides actual signals. Furthermore, if you correct the shifts, the moving averages go out-of-date, making the result of the MACD obsolete by the time it is computed.

Typical CoinTelegraph clickbait.

Dropping from $12k to $11.6k is not "plunging".

@notbatman, @exemplaar, et.al,

What do you think of this?


I imagine you will say it is a fabrication because not only is the distance around the edge more like 32,000 nm, but there is no way that a small sailboat could go 32,000 nm distance in only 196 days.

You didn't answer my question. How about showing some math? You can't invert a distance without inverting the units, and then it is no longer a distance.

Also, if you have a distance of 1 mm and you "invert" it, you get 1, right? But if you have the same distance of 10^-3 meters and you "invert" that, you get 1000. The results are different even though they are the same distance. Can you explain how your inversion is done?

You have written that a few times. What does it mean to "invert Max Planck`s shortest measurement of light"? I assume you are referring to a Planck length, 1.6x10^-35 m. If you invert that value, you get 6.19x10³⁴ m^-1, which is not 10²² light-years. It's not even a distance value because the units are inverted, too.

Real or not, you can't use ELA on that image because it is not a JPEG.

What do you mean "they've fixed them"? Are you saying that your analysis of the JPEGs shows that they have not been manipulated?

BTW, here are the sources. The first reports 88% as fake and the second reports 95% as fake. I'll admit that 99% is an exaggeration, but I like to play it safe.

https://medium.com/crypto-integrity/fake-volumes-in-cryptocurrency-markets-february-report-fec9329f1f98
https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nysearca-2019-01/srnysearca201901-5164833-183434.pdf

This is also a good read: https://hedgetrade.com/bitwise-exchange-report-raises-questions/

Unfortunately, ELA is designed for JPEG images and the one you analyzed is a PNG, so I don't think any interpretation of the results is valid.

1. Why would God need tools to destroy us?
2. Why do we beg for God's mercy? Imagine your children begging you not to kill them. What does that say?
3. Why would God help us to repent. It seems like if God intervenes, he is ruining is own test.

BTW, I know that is all coded language so I apologize for taking it literally.

I think it is odd that if God wanted to eliminate us, he would do it with an asteroid (or a flood). It seems unnecessary and overly dramatic. And what does an asteroid have to do with trust or salvation?

Git is decentralized as much as that while you may not be able to directly access a repo on Github, you can still access someone's clone of it.

That sounds like FUD to me. I say "FUD" because I don't believe you have anything to back up your claims.

Can you explain how you arrived at the conclusion that Bitcoin will collapse if the price doesn't double?

People were mining profitably when the price was ¹/₁₀₀ of what it is now. Profitability does not require the price to double.

No. Even if the price drops, some miners will still be profitable.

No. Even if the price drops, then some miners will continue mining because it is still profitable.


That's crazy talk. There is no basis for those statements. What happens in March?


Yes. That is why nothing else that you wrote is true.

Honestly, the problem with that site is that it is 90% Eric Dubay, whose flat earth beliefs seem to be derived primarily from his spiritual beliefs, and who seems to attack anyone that tries to apply scientific methods.

You are correct. Canada removed their reserve requirements in 1992; however, lending is still restricted by capital requirements. I am skeptical of your statements because you seem to be unaware of the details.

When you spend bitcoins, the transaction references only their UTXOs. Their addresses are not included in the transaction.

Fractional reserve banking existed under the gold standard. There were many bank runs and financial panics in the U.S. when the dollar was fixed at $20/oz. That was the reason for creating the Federal Reserve.

BTW, I believe that we will see fractional reserve banking with Bitcoin, too. And, that is why I don't think a bitcoin will ever be worth $1 million.


So you are saying that this is a misconception: 12 CFR Part 204 - RESERVE REQUIREMENTS OF DEPOSITORY INSTITUTIONS (REGULATION D)

Keep in mind that 99% of that volume is fake (as a rule of thumb).

The ability to monitor their customers, whether it is for their own benefit or as an agent of a government, is extremely valuable to a bank. They will fight anything that reduces that value, such as the ability to transact anonymously.

You don't have to be a "rich elite" to mine. You just need access to cheap electricity. Also, though it was not addressed in the whitepaper, Satoshi had predicted miner consolidation.


It was never assumed that transactions would be free. The whitepaper mentions fees as an integral part of the system.


You are assuming that an "insane" level of energy consumption is required for security. It is not.


I have read that paper. It makes some interesting points, but it is far from conclusive.