Who sold at the bottom?
Lets see, I am not so sure sure it is there yet.....Would be cool if it is... lets see if it confirms as a bottom. |
|
|
|
For sure, I agree with the max pain theory, but currently max pain would be a short squeeze as the market is predominantly short. Not a long squeeze of Bitfinex that's only ranked no.7 based on leverage volume (becoming irrelevant). Max pain would also be trapping many sellers below $30K, that could end up being very painful for many in the long-term, similar to trapping many buyers above $60K.
To me it also seems clear that the Bifinex whales intend to stack longs all the way down from $40K to $20K. For all we know it could be with 0 leverage that is then applied later (if this is possible)...
Yeah for sure fair enough point... I expect max pain to be inflicted on both.... guess we will see in which order. Feel like we have another leg down and then things start to get interesting ... but we shall see. |
|
|
|
Wouldn't expect anything less right now. Bitfinex longs (yellow line) are inversely correlated to the overall leverage market. While the market is short, Bitfinex is long.  Traders on that platform take profits when price is rising, and otherwise accumulate when price is dropping (or sideways). Using very low leverage to avoid liquidation I imagine. They will start taking profits when price is rising, as long as they can avoid a covid-like capitulation crash. Of course, I hear you... however, I just feel like the fact that the BTC longs, on finex, are so far above ATH , at these price levels, to be too far out of kilter, and many of them are long, as seen on spikes on chart from 42K...... risky biscuits. If we would have seen the massive spikes in LONGS from the past week or two, I would assume they were in better shape. Never know, could all be fine... I just always expect the market to go for max pain...... and for some market participants, to want to impose max pain. |
|
|
|
lol. I gotta say..... I am looking forward to a large swath of those longs to get liquidated. It will be a good thing IMO. I have the feeling most of them won't get liquidated... what makes you think that ? (out of interest) Perhaps, we shall have to see, guess it depends on their leverage levels and collateral levels, and their entry points. We shall see. I am thinking that the longs will increase more.... and eventually a culling is inevitable, and healthy. These things usually have a tipping point, followed by cascading liquidations. |
|
|
|
lol. I gotta say..... I am looking forward to a large swath of those longs to get liquidated. It will be a good thing IMO. |
|
|
|
So what are your views about the decentralised web Jack is bringing up with Web 5.0 which will change everything and being bitcoin maximalist excites me about this  Not studied it properly yet.... however, what took them so long? about time we see more being built on/use being made of the BTC network. As for the maximalist thing, meh, does not impress me.... we need more interoperability/composability and innovation across the board. I do not mind who does it, who builds what upon what, as long as it works (or will work eventually) and is useful. The name is funny, web5... lol Also.... it is hardly a unique, new innovation , I mean it is for BTC, great about time, but, ermmm, yeah, Jack & co didn't "invent" this concept... they are just implementing it using BTC, which is great. On the negative side.... it is Jack, a person I have deep rooted reservations about given his track record/twitters track record, and their behaviour at Twitter when he was leading the charge there. I mean, the very last straw for me was the narrative control/censorship/blocking of people/topics etc, based on clear political bias. Banning Trump, the Hunter laptop story and on and on and on. Pure scum, and Jack defended that shit repeatedly, I do not trust him, nor his judgement.... |
|
|
|
At some point those longs will be right. .....well, at least the ones that manage to not get liquidated |
|
|
|
   Looking for the monthly accumulation/distribution to bottom out and reverse (turn up from in the red zone) , which should be roughly the bottom WHEN that happens (it is not happening atm as you can see on chart) Monthly SLUT |
|
|
|
Snowden is a Zcrap insider.
The “trusted setup” is gone in Halo2—a Leave the shitcoin shilling to another thread. Strong disagree, this is one of the best and most important and relevant topics in my humble opinion , BTC topics, and that is what we are essentially talking about here... that I have seen in this thread in a long long time. Very much enjoying it Hats off to death_wish... keep it coming. Just my point of view |
|
|
|
I am a very fan of Snowden, especially or what he did, although his statements about BTC do not like this time, he wants more privacy, but does not understand that BTC goes far beyond privacy.
I agree with Snowden. Loth though I am to say this, Bitcoin has a problem: Privacy is Bitcoin’s Achilles’ heel. To say that “Bitcoin goes far beyond privacy” is like saying that a tower goes far beyond its foundations. Privacy is a fundamental characteristic, it is an economic necessity insofar as it affects fungibility, and it needs to be built-in: It is a part of the foundation, not a roof ornament. Mixing does not work; that is a child’s game, and it costs you money in fees to achieve an inferior form of something that should be built-in, provided out of the box. (On another note, Monero is essentially a coin with a built-in mixer.) I have spent a ridiculous amount of money over the years on Bitcoin privacy, so I think I am qualified to opine. And no, LN is not an adequate solution. I am not inclined to make an extensive technical critique here—just saying, um, no, that doesn’t do it. None of this is any criticism of Satoshi. Given the state of the art in 2008-era cryptography, Satoshi had two choices: Try to build a centralized currency with transactional privacy, like Digicash—or build a decentralized system, which exposes all transaction data so that every P2P node can validate it. Either/or. In 2008, the technology did not yet exist for anything else. Satoshi made some breakthroughs with Bitcoin, but he himself was obviously not a cryptographer; and it would be unfair to expect him personally to solve every major problem at once, all by himself! In 2010, when he was still here, Satoshi was struggling with this issue: This is a very interesting topic. If a solution was found, a much better, easier, more convenient implementation of Bitcoin would be possible.
[...]
It's hard to think of how to apply zero-knowledge-proofs in this case.
Bitcoin gave the impetus to terrific advances in cryptographic research. A wave of breakthroughs in zero-knowledge proofs started in 2013–2014. Alas, by then, Satoshi was long gone. Not that we need his permission to improve Bitcoin: I think he would have liked to have seen that, and to have been involved in it as Satoshi. Thus, as it stands: - Bitcoin has less practical privacy than bank transactions. (Your bank knows your bank transactions. The whole world knows your Bitcoin transactions.)
- Such monstrosities as Chainalysis exist, and they invisibly spy on you much worse than you know.
- Bitcoin’s fungibility is always more or less under threat—in the large, systemically, and in the small, for each user. Governments and spy-companies draw up blacklists of coins. Bitcoiners fret over avoiding “tainted” coins—a ridiculous concept which should not exist. Even if you are irresponsibly apathetic about privacy, you need to pay attention to what this does to Bitcoin economically.
- The only major implementation of zero-knowledge proof privacy is an altcoin which, I recently discovered to my dismay, now plans to go POS.
 Snowden likes that altcoin. So do I—as long as it stays POW. (I am proud to be a Zcasher since Sprout.)
A constructive solution: Bring real privacy to Bitcoin! Don’t say, “We don’t need that,” when we obviously do. I say, “We can do it.” Bitcoin “Is Failing as an Electronic Cash System”: Edward SnowdenEdward Snowden has said that he is "very much a fan" of Bitcoin, but he thinks that its lack of privacy could mean it fails in the long term.
The American whistleblower said that there are multiple crypto assets that can be thought of as money akin to gold rather than currencies.
He added that he thinks competition between cryptocurrencies is a net positive for the world.  Source: https://cryptobriefing.com/bitcoin-failing-electronic-cash-edward-snowden/?utm_source=feed&utm_medium=rssI think everyone is looking for is focusing more on payments, Fiat money and do not see the complete potential that BTC represents. Payments without privacy are—a problem. I also agree with Snowden that competition is good. Bitcoin doesn’t retain its dominance due to meme graphics. It stands on being the best. That means it needs to be the best. The best never fear competition; and Bitcoin will only be improved by competition, if its response is “we can do it!” rather than “we don’t need it”. I also like that Snowden tweet about gold being a non-networked form of Bitcoin. Quotable. He apparently has quite a high regard for Bitcoin. If he offers some constructive criticism of it (as I do often), that is for the good of Bitcoin. There is one area where BTC's current restraints in terms of privacy , is sort of a good thing. Regulation. (try not to vomit) I wonder if BTC would be where it is today if it was a privacy coin...... I mean it opens up an attack vector for tptb/regulators.... Feel like BTC has walked that tightrope pretty well...... A world with widely adopted truly private digital money, could well come with issues of its own, some positive, and, some negative. But, 100% on the fungibility issue, and privacy issue as a whole. |
|
|
|
Edward Snowden has said that he is "very much a fan" of Bitcoin, but he thinks that its lack of privacy could mean it fails in the long term.
The American whistleblower said that there are multiple crypto assets that can be thought of as money akin to gold rather than currencies.
He added that he thinks competition between cryptocurrencies is a net positive for the world. competition? Between POS shitcoins.... Yes. But POW competition to Bitcoin... nothing that I can see (especially when that mETH lab blows up, soon) He also warned of the dangers of the financialization of the crypto industry. He said that the space was becoming increasingly divided “because of the financialization of cryptocurrency” and hinted that he thinks users are not focusing enough on the technology itself. “[Users are] not thinking primarily about what are the networks that are going to serve us for 100 years for transferring value,” he said. *“ I am worried about a world in which our money is used against us.” Snowden said that he hopes to see people get access to “free money in the independence sense.” In what could be interpreted as an endorsement of the broader crypto ecosystem rather than any one specific asset, he suggested that having multiple assets that could act as money was a good thing for the world. “I think the more competition we have there, then all the better,” he said. ...and he is not wrong, this is what I think too. ...would be better rephrased as "having multiple assets that could act as money was would be a good thing for the world" ....and he is right about the privacy thing also in a way. * (he/we already live(s) in that world) |
|
|
|
|
On the topic of oil.... I know an "oil guy" , like a legit oil guy, made his fortunes in Oil, and owns a company that does exploration.... like, the guy even in his old age, scuba dives to the bottom of oceans and uses various ships/submersibles etc to aid his research.. pretty fucking nuts.
Annnnnyways, I asked him about about "peak oil" once whilst we were having a piss up... and basically he said that there is no such thing as peak oil, and there is no shortage of oil and there won't be in any of our lifetimes....or our grand children's lifetimes either and likely not their grandkids either or even their great great great grandkids either, and that the world was making new oil all the time, and that basically the whole thing is bullshit that people who do not know, repeat.
Found that kinda interesting.
|
|
|
|
Putin yields incredible power over the United States of America. - He can interfere with its elections and make someone become president.
- He can invoke a "Putin tax" (as Biden calls it) on gas prices at the pump.
- He can cause inflation to reach near 10% all by himself.
BUT he cannot win a war against Ukraine. Weird huh? Very weird... because the only one of these things he can do, is win in Ukraine, which eventually they probably will ,for better or worse. |
|
|
|
I think they are making fun of us. It is not that funny anymore. Peeps starting to ask uncomfortable questions. Why would they have to elect US President if Putin decides what is the price of gas at the pump in the US. US imports 8.47M barrels per day Only a max of 600K (average of 200K) from Russia since 2011 (Source eia.gov) Ergo Putin doesn't determine the price. Probably oil companies filling their pockets and blaming Putin. It's called capitalism... Yuh , also, prices where headed up before Ukraine started.... this whole thing with putin being blamed for gas prices is just a side show. Not to say that Ukraine/Russia has had no effect because in this globalised "just in time" world, we live in, even minor changes in the supply chains have knock on effects. (Same with the wheat/fertiliser situation) That being said, Russia is the third largest importer to USA for oil, with Saudi Arabia 4th. Number one being Canada |
|
|
|
It is the sideeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeways I fear the most... that is the worst of the worst.
+1 Sideways sucks the most Dunno, for traders maybe yes. For hodlers, down is most painful...  “Sideways” means low volatility; the extreme of sideways-ness is price stability. The theoretically ideal form of money is price-stable. Volatility only benefits traders, at the expense of everyone else. If BTC could become price-stable, * then I would prefer that. The world cannot run on volatile money alone, nor on deflationary money alone. (Note to Jay: I am perfectly well aware that price-stable BTC will never happen.) Since I don’t swing-trade, the only thing uncomfortable to me about a sideways market is that I never know whether it’s about to crash, or about to moon.
* I mean price-stable according to an index of goods and services. That means rising against the dollar, as the dollar depreciates from inflation. The dollar is not price-stable; to the contrary, the dollar is a volatile currency. Have you seen dollar prices lately!? Not only the obvious increase in prices, but the fluctuations as markets adapt to price shocks.I didn't mention sound/ideal money, and for that yup, price stability is what is needed. However arguably, the BTC market needs the volatility while it is being boostrapped to become ideal money. There is a lot of money that needs to come into the market, for BTC, to grow to the size where it can handle the requirements of a global economy.. money allocators now, cant just say, huh, I need to put a half a trillion dollars into BTC, because the slippage would be killer.... so they enter and exit markets and build up capital in BTC instead and accumulate at cycle lows (are they manipulating these cycles now? hmmm perhaps) eitherway, for BTC to soak up the capital that needs to enter into the market, it needs to be volatile, and eventually be volatile to the upside.... eventually, the market should ideally grow to a size where the market is of a size and liquidity that is so great, that it can handle the inflows and outflows, without it impacting the market so much (volatility) and then if there is more usage , then it can handle velocity too. This has to be the way until people start to think in BTC terms, ie it decouples from the money markets. I think likely that there is another cycle or two or three up, and then with ETFs, Options and futures, that BTC volatility is tamed in this way.... which is not ideal... would have to be revisited if and when BTC is used and priced vs index of goods and services and used as a currency in its own right. I am still not super convinced that BTC NEEDS to become "currency" and would be perfectly happy for it to be considered as "digital gold" but whichever, I would be happy. |
|
|
|
Seems to me, what the markets need, is a mass liquidation event.........
The market only always needs a mega pump.... Hmmmm, I dunno bro, I think to get the pump, we may need to crush a load of longs, then the market can go and crush the shorts. BTC wise, looking at those longs on finex... they surely need culling at some point. It is the sideeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeways I fear the most... that is the worst of the worst. +1 Sideways sucks the most Dunno, for traders maybe yes. For hodlers, down is most painful... Sorta, but then if they are long term holders, then its just psychological, unless they need to sell of course. I mean for a holder, down, could represent good time to accumulate and add to stack. Up too quickly, is rarely good, unless its one of those moves whereby it raises the floor "permanently" , cut out a load of people who were on the sidelines or had previously been liquidated. Some sideways is alright, reaccumulation and some consolidation before next move etc , can always use options and collect premium I guess. But long sideways, like say a yearish give or take some months, is just depressing/boring. I guess you could make the argument that sideways is a good time to accumulate if you think bottom is in..... but then you never know if it legs down after the sideways just to fuck as many people as possible.. I prefer violent moves, crush the longs then crush the shorts ..... v shaped bottoms etc. Just get it over with , I dont wanna wait a year to bottom or wait year after bottom for some action... it hurts. Thats just me thou' |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
