$1,000 is likely to be a very brief consolidation like $200 was
My hypothesis is that we will fail the first attempt at 1000 USD, rebounding strongly and falling back to 800. People will be calling the end of the rally and that's when it will actually start. From 800 to 5000. This makes a lot of sense. It fits the scenario I just posted quite well, too. |
|
|
|
That breakout chart looks crazy. Those green candles look like penis in erection phase  Haha, I would say "overextended" but when you take a look at the november rally, Bitcoin don't care. one more 3day green bar in this rally? Why only one more ? Is it really going to rest before the 1000 resistance ? To be honest I think it is going to rest. In fact I think we'll pause (go roughly sideways or even down slightly) around $800 for a couple of weeks once we've reached that price level, which might take us a while, too (less than current speed is quite possible and I wouldn't mind). On what grounds? Well, firstly: we've had a lot of traffic around $800 during January, pretty much the whole month of January, in fact. That needs to be worked off before we can go higher substantially. Some people who bought there will get out and transfer their coins to new buyers... takes time. And secondly: the similarity to the April bubble aftermath. $800 is similar to the $130 level we meandered about in September '13 for a good month. How is it similar when clearly 130 is 50% of 266 whereas 800 is 68% of 1162 (notice the fib levels?). Well, after we've found a post-crash bottom on July 6th at around $60, we pretty much rallied for 2 months. I think the $380 low corresponds to that bottom. The bulls are getting increasingly relieved and the bears are closing (or are forced to close) their shorts and are getting back on board. Also increasingly (due to the rally itself), fresh blood starts to rush in (but not as hard as it will after we've started making new all-time-highs again, of course). As to why $800 and not $700? See my first point. It's just a possible interpretation, but I think it's much more likely than simply shooting through $1000 and beyond in one go. |
|
|
|
I'd like to take a moment to remind everyone that the future is not written in stone and we are not all destined to be the super mega wealthy elite for doing nothing.
there is nothing wrong with hoping you will live on bitcoin for the rest of your live. I would be fully availible for the cause: I would spread anarchism and try to code/help with projects. Try to increase adoption, etc. Actually: not that I live it myself (I make up all kinds of excuses), but if everyone who thinks like this does it (the full availability thing) now instead of when XBT reaches a certain exchange rate or whatever, we'd probably get there with higher certainty and faster. |
|
|
|
I'd like to take a moment to remind everyone that the future is not written in stone and we are not all destined to be the super mega wealthy elite for doing nothing.
Bear anxiety lol...... I'll never understand people like these. Who pays them to be haters? Dude, he has a point. |
|
|
|
I present the Matroska Cup & Handle pattern:
This is a pretty interesting pattern. So you're speculating at this point that we still won't reach our previous ATH this year? No, we will break $1260 according to this. Around October. Why do you consider $1260 to be the ATH and not $1163? my mistake. I remembered wrong and didn't check. |
|
|
|
Pretty newbie question: I listen sometimes this "slippage" or "slipping" concept. Could you sketch it in one or two lines? Thanks  It's when you use a market order and don't get the "current best bid/ask price" when buying/selling something, but a less favorable one because in the process you're eating up all the asks/bids on the order book. Slippage is higher when liquidity is lower. To avoid slippage, one can try buying/selling repeatedly in lower amounts over a period of time, risking the market getting away during the process. |
|
|
|
handle side: man your cups are leaking /broken, all of them !!
true. Couple holes got punched in. Better use only liquids with high viscosity! |
|
|
|
I present the Matroska Cup & Handle pattern:
This is a pretty interesting pattern. So you're speculating at this point that we still won't reach our previous ATH this year? No, we will break $1260 according to this. Around October. |
|
|
|
i must say, that first cup and handle seems far more speculative than the one you pointed out in november. that's not to say that i wouldn't LOVE to see a rocket to $1k right now.  It seemed pretty speculative to me back in November, too. Let's look back from Christmas and see how it went. |
|
|
|
cross-post from wall-thread (since this is clearly quality TA): I present the Matroska Cup & Handle pattern:  |
|
|
|
I present the Matroska Cup & Handle pattern: $1000 bitcoin party around October... see you there EDIT: which, by the way, has worked before very well: can there be a cup & handle inside a cup & handle ?  |
|
|
|
New idea. There should be a working session the day before the party. I'm sure there are a number of valuable business topics that the world's more affluent bit coiners should be discussing.
One track could be wealth management. One would think there are multiple wealth advisors that would jump at the chance to address such a well-heeled audience.
New company pitch- fest?
Best practices for storage.
Etc.
For a nominal fee - room rental and minor catering - a program with much value could be assembled for each attendee's ongoing business operations.
fuck business. Let's party! |
|
|
|
...
I enjoyed reading your analysis and largely agree. Thanks. |
|
|
|
Jetzt über 2 Stunden bis zum letzten Block. Weiß jemand, wie lang der größte je gemessene Zeitabstand war? Ich finde noch keinen Thread, in dem das diskutiert wird. Wenn möglich Überweisungen vermeiden, bis sich die Lage normalisiert hat.
Es gibt einen. Habe damals 'ne schöne query dafür gemacht. Finde aber trotz intensiver Suche weder den thread noch die query. Es kam aber vor, und ich glaube garnicht so selten wie man glaubt. Stochastik ist nicht intuitiv. |
|
|
|
600 needs to go or we will eventually go down again i think.
I am still thinking $585 is the mark to beat. We have passed it a few times last night, but then keep falling below, and fighting to get back to $585. Shouldn't be a psychological level there, but it definitely seems like the ceiling we need to break... 60,000 JPY are 587 USD... just saying |
|
|
|
|
Having observed many rallies in bitcoin (and none anywhere outside of cryptos), this one feels like it's happening in slow-motion?
A correction like we just had today and recovery from it used to happen both earlier and faster the way I recall the past rallies.
Is it just me? What could be possible explanations? Higher liquidity? lower amount of traders? Better distributed holdings?
(I'm not saying I don't like the relatively slow pace)
|
|
|
|
Although inflation is a persistent problem with all fiat currencies, the Icelandic krona has been inflated consistently to a greater extent than other such currencies, losing more than 99.5% of its value to the dollar since 1960, in a time when the dollar lost 98% of its value to gold!
It took auroracoin just a few months to lose 99.6% of it's value.
And with this the dream is over .
To be fair, you would have to look at the value at the beginning of the airdrop, when it was introduced to Icelanders. But the silence from the developers since the Airdrop has been damning. No plans for any integration into Icelandic society that people outside the country can appreciate. I still have Auroracoin - but to be honest, this has been such a disaster that it has done a great deal of damage to the cause of crypto-currencies. This is like the MT Gox of Altcoins, and it's because of coins like this that the market is only getting smaller. Cryptos are supposed to be encouraging transparency but either the devs are keeping silent about real progress or they have no other plans because they have already made their money out of this scam.
I find it a bit unfair to put blame on balduro. He has done a huge amount of effort and as far as we can tell remained honest with the premine (at least there's no evidence to the contrary). Bootstrapping a currency for a nation is not something that can be done by a single person. The bitcoin community did help (many contributed great work). The reaction / contribution of Icelanders themselves I cannot judge. But it was apparently not widespread enough to have the desired effect (continued use of the money in Icelandic markets and person to person). But one thing is for sure: simply buying AUR and hoping for the best (or even demanding more action from the founder) is not enough. This was (or "is", I don't consider it over yet) a very interesting experiment. It might be "such a disaster" for you, maybe you lost money, I don't know. For me it's something we can learn from. I don't think it has brought more harm than good for crypto in general so far, either. |
|
|
|
Namecoin isn't a monetary coin.
LMAO for non-monetary coins. namecoin is useful as it allows a decentralized censorship resistant DNS .bit domains its a cool alt coin thats been out for a long time. I wouldn't speculate on namecoin, but i can see myself possibly buying a few to get a .bit domain actually namecoin is interesting from a theoretical perspective. Because it clearly has "intrinsic value" (by most definitions) separate from the monetary aspect (as opposed to bitcoin where the intrinsic value is not that apparent and intertwined with its use for transactional purposes) and makes the regression theorem work without having to bend it. This should appeal to gold-bugs and austrians for these reasons. The fact the gold-bugs are not jumping on NMC in hoardes tells me the whole "intrinsic value" argument is flawed. |
|
|
|
No. We want to keep the project independent and that’s why we have decided to do a crowdfunding. Instead of issuing shares, we will allow our early supporters to participate on our success by earning bitcoins from referral sales. sounds great where did you quote that from? |
|
|
|
this has been a bad weekend for news on Bitcoin 2.0 projects. we all know about Ripple now. Mastercoin allegedly has problems with Willett selling out (not confirmed by me), and now we have Bitshares: http://letstalkbitcoin.com/blog/post/beyond-bitcoin-1-nxt-asset-exchange-and-bitshares-technical-updatelisten carefully to Larimer describe how, just last week, he's had to redo the entire implementation of how tx's are handled within his protocol. simple inputs and outputs structure like in Bitcoin have been discarded for database tables which will be required for every asset tracked by the Bitshare protocol. blocks require "delegate" (read centralized) nodes to sign off and approve tx's. apparently he had severe forking problems with his original code and lack of a mechanism to develop consensus. while listening to the podcast it dawned on me how centralized these Bitcoin 2.0 projects have become in the sense of depending on a core group of known devs who have a vested interest. he even says that if something happened to him while the protocol had a problem there would be no one to really fix it. that's bad. Satoshi was wise to remain anonymous. by leaving and turning the code management over to a distributed group of devs who don't have a vested interest in Bitcoin, other than whatever BTC they may have bought on the free market, he fortified the Bitcoin dev process from gov't pressure. all the Bitcoin 2.0 projects have dev teams whose personal financial success depends on the success of their product. if the devs themselves ever get attacked by gov't their project would be finished by the mere fact that most of them have awarded themselves an upfront disproportionate share of the equity. i am beginning to believe that blockchain technology may only ever be applicable to Bitcoin as money. you heard it here first. i know what Satoshi said about scripting language and the potential to do more things like smart contracts et al but he said those things in a forum post and almost as an afterthought. he also could be wrong about growing these products out from the blockchain from an economic and technical standpoint. the masses don't care about these things, at least right now. i think they just want their money to be safe. here in the US, the arguably wealthiest country in the world, only a small % own things like stocks or bonds let alone assurance contracts or derivatives. i think it's an interesting thought that blockchain technology may only ever be used to protect Bitcoin as money. if i'm right, all that money directed at alt projects has yet to flow back to Bitcoin. wow, cypher. I'm sure you're aware of the boldness of the claim you make. (EDIT: if you scratch the "may", that is) You don't back it up substantially (or do you?), so I'm not convinced (at all, to be honest). I'll try to keep it in the back of my head with an open mind, though and look for indications or reasoning that support it. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
