Not being snarky, but honestly wondering: That H+S pattern didn't materialize, right? Or is there something like a double right shoulder?!

Yeah, guess I should have been more explicit. Our time frames are very different I rarely if ever look at something that long. My point was, in the past 7 days we went from 95 to 110/111, now back to ~106. I don't even want to look ahead 7 days, but for the coming day or two, I don't see the current uptrend fizzling out just yet.

I'm wondering where some of you are getting the idea that the trend is about to reverse. Because of the 5 USD retracement we just saw? Or maybe I'm missing something that the candle watchers can see but I cannot.

The way I see it, it's not entirely clear if, in the short term (24-48h) we'll continue to go up or will stabilize at this level, but I see very little indication that we're going down right now.

Drama. And not the bitcoin kind. I want to chime in as well.

I agree with shroomskit to a (very small) degree, Blitz can be a pain in the ass, especially during downtrends. Right now, he's all reasonable ("we all make wrong predictions, what's the big deal"), but when price is going down, there's a lot of self-righteous gloating that rubs me the wrong way too.

That said, that's no excuse for the shitty attitude of shroomskit.

@adamstgBit, vokain

I'm a bit late, previous post on this topic already two pages behind us, but I'd like to add one remark about the Accumulation/Distribution indicator and what to gather from it.

I would be very careful looking at it in absolute terms. It's almost useless in that respect, in my opinion. So looking at the difference in absolute value between bit and mtg doesn't say much, other than (as chodpaba already said) that historically, volume was higher on mtg and thus the absolute value of A/D is higher.

Similarly for absolute peaks and absolute lows of A/D. I don't think they can be really used for predicting anything.

What I find somewhat useful is to contrast A/D with it's volume-based brethren PVT and OBV, that are all, in one way or another, trying to estimate the "actual" capital entering/leaving the market, as opposed to the relatively uninformative market cap method of multiplying coins with current price.

The difference, in my understanding, between PVT and OBV on the one hand, and CMF, A/D on the other is that the former are closer to an attempt to estimate the net volume *in* the market, while the latter is more concerned with a series of *trends* of how money enters/leaves the market.

The obvious example is that the way CMF and A/D (basically the cumulative version of CMF) are calculated, they can be *positive* even if closing price is lower than opening price for a given period, as long as the closing price is above the middle point of high and low of that period.

That might look like a problem (one which PVT and OBV don't have, btw), and it also seems to be common to file it under "criticism" of the method, but I see it slightly differently: it's a way to combine minor, individual price/volume trends as a series, to get a feeling if the market is more "optimistic" or rather "pessimistic".

Sorry for the vague terminology :/ It's simply that I can't describe it much better right now. The way I interpret the A/D graphs I posted is that we're in a phase of (mild) consolidation/optimism after the last long slide down, and that the optimism/buying pressure is somewhat greater on bit than on mtg, because of the rate at which A/D is growing currently on bit vs. its (near) stagnation on mtg.

Which to me becomes *really* surprising considering that we would expect selling pressure to dominate bit, given the "buy on mtg, sell on bit, to escape the mtg fiat trap" hypothesis that most people on here seem to follow.

You're a quality poster, solex, so don't take this as criticism, but what is your method for the above projection? Doesn't look like you used points of contact to draw the line, so that would leave us with (linear) regression (on a log scale). I remember that [statistical modeling guy who's name I can't remember] did that, and got a substantially lower value, but he was "massaging" the data quite a bit, so that could explain the difference :P

EDIT: or, of course, the line is drawn "by intuition" alone. nothing wrong with that, but would be good to know.

A volume-based metric I place some trust in, confirms that: there is substantial buying pressure on bitstamp, even if the price gap somewhat obscures this fact.





First the similarities: daily A/D continued to rise on both bit and mtg, well after the April peak, and throughout the initial correction/bubble deflation. It peaked in mid-June, then gently started sloping downwards. The corresponding price action was the recent downtrend that took us from ~110 to ~70 (mtg prices).

Now for the differences: as of early JuneJuly, A/D stabilized on mtg. Maybe with a weak upwards slope. Contrast this with bit: around the same time, instead of merely stabilizing, A/D is shooting up (in comparison).

It's as if all the btc optimism migrated from mtgox to bitstamp. No guarantee that this lasts however, if mtgox manages to solve its fiat problem in time.

EDIT: corrected mistake

Feel free to place me on ignore. This thread is defined more by it's off-topicness than by its actual topic, so I'll continue posting whatever the fuck I feel like.

I do consider it good practice not to spam the entire thread with those tangential discussions, especially if there's something interesting going on on the market, but that was hardly the case here.

You are proselytizing, not unlike the people you despise so much.

There is a simple test for what you should, no, must tolerate: does it cause quantifiable harm to you or others? If yes, the demand for tolerance doesn't apply. If not, tolerate it.

I already anticipate your answer: But why yes, oda, of course religion causes substantial harm to humanity, and has been doing so for ages!.

The answer to that claim is of course: no, it does not, or at least not universally.

If you would live in, say, Afghanistan and you were a woman being deprived of basic rights, based on religious grounds, you can chose to fight your fight against religions.

If it were your goal to change the above situation in Afghanistan, as an outsider, you would be justified to do so.

But since you most likely live in the kind of circumstances that most of us do ("Western" society, in practice mostly secular, with some vestiges of religious morals still in place), you have no right to be intolerant of those who practice religion, or any other kind of non-empirical belief system, within the bounds of that society. The harm you perceive is too immaterial for you to inflict the amount of harm you do when you chose not to tolerate their beliefs and practices.

Please note that the above does not infringe on your right of freedom of expression: you are very much free to argue (publically) that, for the betterment of the human kind, the influence of religion should decrease even further. But the underlying stance in that discussion has to be that of tolerating the opposing side's views and practices -- something that is very clearly not the case when you (not you, personally) write that religious people would ideally be deported to an island.

That lucif takes a "fucking forget the order book" approach to TA :P

Not sure if you're ironically quoting others or being serious, but every way you turn it, 100 has been and continues to be an important psychological barrier, both as support and as resistance.

Touching it like we do now won't magically turn this ship around all by itself, but as far as noteworthy signals go, I consider this a (moderately) positive one. Now let's see how long we stay above.

Not much TA behind the following statement, but I don't see us going back below 100 and staying there right now. We approached and broke through 100 with quite a bit of volume (compared to the previous week).

No idea if triple digits are here to stay for the near future, but I expect us to cross 100 again within an hour or two.

To be fair, I don't think Rampion ever made a silly prediction like "never again 100/no 100 in 2013".
Blitz, on the other hand...

In less important, less metaphysical news:

Hellooooo, 100!

Oh well, then it's okay of course. I mean, isn't that the textbook definition of tolerance -- "not getting worked up about all kind of shit, except of course the stuff you really disagree with."

What exactly happened to good old fashioned fucking tolerance, huh?

I personally believe (a) astrology is pretty much bullshit, or at least: completely uninteresting for me as a guiding algorithm to go through life, but I also (b) don't get my knickers in a twist when it turns out someone believes it has some merits.

"... should be put on an island"... sheesh. You'd fit right into r/atheism. And that's obviously no compliment.

Similar strategy to what Electricmucus described above, I guess. I would call it "trading into an established, or better yet: about to be established trend".

The tricky part is to a) determine correctly if a trend is in fact established, i.e. if it'll last long enough for you trade profitably, taking into account slippage and fees, and b) determine the above *slightly* earlier than the rest of the pack.

My biggest problem: I trade on bitstamp, but the relevant trends are made on mtgox. Between the time it takes trends to arrive from the latter to the former, some profitable opportunities are lost.

Just adding my voice to the "Don't stop posting, don't get rid of this thread" choir.


And would like to ask, since you're quite fond of the 1d SMA200, what your opinion is about the possibility that this




will end up like this





i.e. whether you think it is likely that we got one bump up from the SMA, but break right through it ~4 weeks later, in a repeat of 2011.

By "positive demand" you mean non-lagging demand (compared to your initial posts)?

*cough* volatility squeeze *cough*

*cough cough* looks pretty clear to me what the bias is *cough cough*


I should really get some cough syrup.