I'd much prefer to discuss this on the Elliott thread where I'm otherwise talking to myself in four pages. But yes, it is all Elliott, but not Fibonacci.

I count three magenta waves up from 19 November. Between the magenta bars thus far represents either a corrective fourth or a first regressive impulse. Above the magenta bar ($3.14) essentially confirms a fifth impulse (with caveat) and below magenta ($2.5) invalidates the entire count.

The green bar represents the fourth of the magenta third. And the gold bar represents the fourth of the green fifth. The fall from $3.14 bounced beautifully within the gold-green overlap and continued a wee bit over the suggested green fourth. It is no accident that $2.9 was a major bid wall, support, resistance, and bottom of a suggested fourth. Perhaps the manipulator is an Elliott occultist as well.

I count five waves from $3.14 to $2.61 (though they are not clean). If we are to expect a correction before continuing the rally, the only valid labeling is a zig-zag. The dark channel represents a possibility. The higher 'b' gets the flatter the zig-zag and the more likely 'c' ends safely within the lower magenta bar, thus preserving optimistic hopes that the major reversal has already begun.

I discuss this further in bloody detail (with brilliant calls and embarrassing failures) in real-time.


I like to think 'realist', but I've been calling a December reversal leading to triple digit heights since early northern summer. This could hardly be called a pessimistic chart, at least not in retrospect:

If bitcoin does not breach $3.14 immediately, and I do not think it will, then I expect a bounce below $2.6 before peaking in the $3's. However, a drop below $2.5 (the first peak 20 November since <$2) would have devastating psychological impact.

Sure Facebook, Google, Apple, may be successful selling paypal-like tokens and they may be wildly popular and useful. They still will not match all of the properties of bitcoin. I strongly believe no US/EU registered company can produce a bitcoin killer without some revolutionary as-yet unfathomed idea.

Facebook will never produce anonymous cash. Never!

Thank you, Dad. I can see patterns in Mt. Gox charts but can not short nor set stops on Mt. Gox. I would like to understand Bitcoinica's behavior. Is it executing my BUY-STOP when the BID is greater than my BUY-STOP, or the BID/ASK mean, or what?

$3.05 STOP for a Mt. Gox $3 and $0.1 Bitcoinica spread were useful answers, but I'd prefer it confirmed by Zhou.

I don't think any company can afford the liability associated with 'owning' a bitcoin fork. A company may use and integrate bitcoin or a future improvement, but any value a company 'adds' will likely be more of the same (credit card, paypal, online banking).

Right, and a typical corrective pattern would see another drop to about $2.6 as we saw 4 Dec, before continuing the upward trend.

I believe the price will continue correcting to above $2.5. Below that and the rally will have been invalidated.

If the price clears above $3.14 before correcting, then I expect it will climb shy of $4 before correcting the first wave of a major reversal beginning last month. If that optimistic scenario comes to pass (though I'm currently betting against it), the third wave rally after the correction (to the current iv price area) could launch bitcoin up to heights we haven't seen for months.

I expect we'll have a clear picture after this week.

Even with perfect trades, I do not believe it would have been possible to have gained on any two bitcoinica orders in the past 24 hours.

The above count fulfills the first requirement and four of five guidelines (there may be more). However, I think one could more easily count the 'c' impulse (five subwaves) to mid-October, which would fulfill all five guidelines. I think one must ask oneself "did I create the count because I want it to be true?"

I am unable to provide anything more convincing. Late October produced a picture perfect a-b-c zig-zag. I'm still not happy about my counts in early November from $3.8 to $2 and am entertaining the idea of three waves. The rise back up, peaking early December at $3.14 only counts three waves. Thus far, it is ambiguous.

I would not be surprised if bitcoin bounces between $2 and $3 a few more times before... I don't know.

It is entirely possible that the drop this past week to $2.6 is the fourth wave followed by a future fifth to new heights, precisely as I've counted the magenta and green waves earlier. The problem is that I either count five gold subwaves down from $3.14 to $2.61 or a zig-zag with a double-length c-wave which is most uncommon. Assuming the drop is five subwaves and bitcoin is in the fourth of five wave rally, then I'd expect another c-wave drop before rising on the fifth wave. Alternatively, assuming the same five subwaves, but that bitcoin is still correcting, then I'd expect the same drop not to return above $2.6 for a long time.



$2.5 is the deciding line (below the lower magenta bar). A symmetrical zig-zag assumes but does not guarantee a 'c' wave below $2.5 just as a third impulsive wave is nearly always longer than the first wave. However a drop below $2.5 would invalidate the magenta count since black B ($1.99, 20 Nov) - invalidating hopes of a rally, signally a return to $2 or below.

The dark channel vaguely represents a possible 'c' exit point. If a zig-zag is confirmed then the price will likely end within the dark channel near the bottom of the magenta bar. Green 'b' may rise up to but the zig-zag must not cross above $3.14. This would make room to complete a prettier (though flatter) sub-zig-zag iv.b.C (unlabelled gold C wave since 6 December, within green a-b since 4 December, within magenta iv since $3.14, 2 Dec). The higher green 'b' travels, the flatter the zig-zag will likely become, providing sufficient space for green 'c' to bottom out in the lower magenta bar, safely above $2.5.

A price breach above $3.14 magenta would invalidate the green December count. Green 'a' would be relabelled magenta iv as before. Green 'b' would be relabeled somewhere in the third wave, and we'd expect a magenta 'v' peak well within $3's but not likely to reach $4 without a grand correction. I expect that simply crossing above $3.14 could trigger short stop loss thus igniting an extended fifth wave up.

It might be inefficient, but not useless. Bitcoin provides advantages as a middleman between far more currencies than you've mentioned. As one example, bitcoin offers most of the advantages of paypal, lacks many of the disadvantages, and offers unique advantages of its own. My only complaint about bitcoin really, is that so few people use them today. I suspect that will soon change.

Perhaps you mean that bitcoin-exclusive shops make no sense if it's only a conversion/transmission protocol? Maybe but I'm not so sure of your abundant use of absolutes: 'completely useless', 'only', 'no sense'...

Your innovations/implementations are fantastic. While I hope for your sake that you can monetize this somehow. I also hope others will follow in your footsteps. I would like to see the data formats and interfaces all standardized.

Don't you use QR codes in the PDF? I'd think the 3-7K capacity of a version 40 QR (left) is more than enough for a single key wallet. I still don't understand offline transactions. I don't understand why they aren't already common, why they are difficult to implement, and how then you are able to do them (there is something fundamental about outputs that I don't understand, but I don't know what I don't know/understand). The offline wallet is brilliant. But beyond a proof of concept, I don't think I would use them unless I could download a zip (html, js), pull the plug and only then generate keys. Its a position born from misunderstanding and distrust. When a private key (and most definitely a public key) is input, I think you can safely guess the encoding. I estimate there is one in ten trillion chance of confusing an honestly generated hex with base58 and the checksum and length should be unambiguous.

@Finway: I'd think a green address would be problematic as Puik's site does not provide accounts, but facilitates YOUR wallets. There would be no single trusted green address to send from, unless you entrusted your bitcoins to a single wallet managed by Puik. He's already emphasised having no access to your wallet (it's stored encrypted on his site and decrypted locally on your machine).

Suppose I am short and would like to set a stop to be triggered iff the Mt. Gox price rises above $3. If I expect a $0.1 spread on Bitcoinica, where should I set my stop? $2.95, $3.00, $3.05, or.... ?

Bitcoin monetary inflation (mining) has no significant impact on volatility, depreciation, nor appreciation. The bitcoin supply increases 0.1% daily, while bitcoin exchange rates fluctuate orders of magnitude above that. Since there is no multiplier effect (as far as I can imagine), a bitcoin supply of 0.05% will do nothing to stabilize bitcoin exchange rates.

I expect $/BTC will be triple digits in 2013, but it has nothing to do with reward rates.

Pretcher's 200 year chart of the US economy published in 1977 (I'm not sure how the data was created) merged with 100 years of Dow Jones (source Wikipedia). The charts don't line up perfectly. Sorry.

• 1929 - (III)
• 1932 - (IV)
• 1935-ish - I
• 1942 - II
• 1955-ish - III
• 1974 - IV
• today - (V).V (peak)

Bitcoinica leverage does help when you're too heavy in either currency. If I'm on the right side of heavy, I try to make my trades on Mt. Gox and move assets over to Bitcoinica for the stops (although I'll admit stop loss has not yet helped me). I like that I can place progressively larger limit orders inverse to probability: short 1 at $2.8, 10 at $2.9, and short 100 at $3 (it's a sure way to lose your shirt when you're wrong).

But considering I expected a peak today at $2.9, I'm annoyed I could only sell at $2.8 on Bitcoinica. I think you need to be gambling for the 50% weekly movements. You can't day trade on Bitcoinica.

I mentioning this as a matter of style. I have not yet seen your PDF, but it could look like a cheque or certificate with your brand ("In Puik we Trust"), rather than just an archival artifact. I am suggesting that users could generate a one time wallet simply to create fixed denomination cheques. Each cheque presumably contains a unique encrypted wallet. You can give the cheque to someone and they would need the passphrase to decrypt and transfer the funds. The passphrase is thus the activation 'signature'.



Brilliant. You are not too far from creating a scrambling service.



So that I can generate a private key offline, create offline transactions, but send the public address to your server for balance tracking?

Of course, arguing against this is silly. You answer the questions yourself about your own preferences. Westkybitcoins' chocolate analogy is pretty well on the mark.

	I like fried liver
	I like vanilla
✔	I like chocolate
	I like rat poison

"Oh my gosh, the test says that I like chocolate, and predicts that I'll enjoy M&M's. Amazing! But I don't believe it until I read a peer-reviewed article showing that my preferences are predictably my own preferences."

What I think would be more interesting is taking a survey of people's reaction to bitcoin correlated to their Jung-Myer-Briggs personality indicators. As mentioned earlier, members of a very different mailing list took the test and produced statistically significant divergence from the general population, similar to here on this thread. But it would be interesting to tweeze out the noise; Those who would bother reading this thread and bother to take a test are not necessarily an even cross section of the total population or those who might be interested in bitcoin.

- ENTP

Puik, I could foresee creating a wallet with a single address, adding some funds, printing it out as a pdf, and then I would like to be able to delete the record from your servers. Following that train of thought, your PDF could produce DIY PuiKash or, the analogy I prefer, traveller cheques. Writing the password on the cheque is equivalent to activating or signing it anonymously.

What is a multi-recipient transaction? First come, first serve?

Public key only address?

Looking forward to offline transactions and upload/download wallet.dat. Your innovations and implementations never cease to amaze!

Hi again Zhou, I managed to find three things to complain about.

Sorting by price exhibits odd behavior. For example (descending): 2.90, 2.94, 2.92, 2.80, 2.88, 2.86, 2.84, 2.82, 2.70, 2.78, 2.76, ...

Refresh kills sort/filter: If I choose to sort by amount or by price ascending, within seconds (AJAX refresh) my preference is ignored and the orders will be sorted by price descending.

Limit order history updates: I very much appreciate seeing the active orders listed by price. Excellent default behavior! However, when viewing order history, unexecuted limit orders should not be updated. If I have set a limit order to buy at $1, I should not continually see "updated less than a minute ago". From a historical perspective it is only interesting to know when I set the order and when it is canceled or executed. As for trailing stops I might want to know more than you show (when I set, at what price, last updated, current execution price).

But these are minor complaints. I keep missing max/minimas because I rely on Mt. Gox charts despite your larger spreads. But otherwise, the site is great and helps me sleep at night. Thank you.

Mt. Gox hit exactly $2.9. Unfortunately other markets came nowhere near that level. I expect prices to fall now below $2.5 in five waves.



This chart does not add much in terms of predictions, only that the waves have so nicely fit within the suggestive bars thus far. If the price falls below the magenta bar $2.5, most likely completing a zig-zag, then the impulsive magenta rally (since B) has failed. The black scale does not technically fail until a drop under $2, but a drop below the first magenta wave (i) leaves absolutely no other valid count.

A rise above the gold bar at $3.14 would confirm the continuation of the magenta fifth wave. However, given the extended third, magenta waves i and v should be about equal before a correction. That doesn't leave much room for v to rise above iii. There's much reason to believe the C.v already peaked at $3.14 even if I can't draw a valid count. The drop we've seen to about $2.6 already looks sufficiently corrective.

Zig-zag B wave:

• subdivides into zig-zag, flat, triangle, or combination thereof
• never moves beyond the start of wave A ($3.14)
• typically retraces 38-79% of wave A ($2.81-$3.03)
• if running triangle, will retrace 10-40% of wave A ($2.67-$2.82)
• if zig-zag, will retrace 50-79% of wave A ($2.88-$3.03)
• if triangle, will retrace 38-50% of wave A ($2.81-$2.88)

Zig-zag C wave:

• always subdivides into an impulse or diagonal
• almost always subdivides into an impulse
• about the same length as A
• almost always ends beyond the length of wave A ($2.61)
• the ends of A-C are often parallel to the starts of A-B