if we break above the $11700s (where the double top was) then yes, we could easily pump $3000+ from there. lots of traders will use that breakout as a trigger to close shorts or buy back their sold BTC.


maybe, but that's a bit ambitious. i'd say the january high of $17250 is the highest we might go before more correction.

the bottom line is that merit is highly subjective. it's the prerogative of the advertisers how they want to incentivize posters, but i'd personally avoid any campaign that used merit instead of post quality to deny payment.


indeed. i get the impression that some campaigns are mostly intended for google results, not forum impressions or clicks. dealing with that kind of motive is a whole different can of worms.


but how do you get all managers to do this?

the daily death cross already happened in late march, near the bottom.

but it's true, the cross will take a lot to undo. the 200-day moving average is over $10k now, and the 20-week curved down, so the lagging technicals are pitted against us.

above $9600 we can start getting bullish, but until then, we're stuck in a pretty nasty bear trend.

wow, this guy was spot on---price dumped hard around 8am tokyo time, monday.


words of wisdom here. i started getting hopeful when price crossed the $8600s. this dump was a real dose of reality.... we had a nice bounce to $10k, but we're downtrending pretty hard on the low time frames. and the context is a 5 month (high time frame) downtrend. not a good look!

this tangent is really diverging from the point:

but okay, let's see what the dictionary says. scams involve fraud or deceit. both fraud and deceit require the existence of another person---the victim who is "defrauded" or "deceived." if fraud or deception doesn't occur, then all a potential scammer did was think some thoughts. this is why legally fraud torts can't exist without a victim. the juxtaposition in that article between "fraud" and "hoax" points out the requisite factors:

anyway, these ICOs and their bounties are not being materially damaged. they're not victims. in fact, they're lining their pockets (and probably exit scamming) on the backs of these horribly untrustworthy scamming shitposters. the idea that vaporware cash-grab ICOs are honorable and are "being cheated" employs such upside-down logic that it's painful. and they are the root spam problem too; they provide all the incentive and reinforce the terribly low posting standards. the bounty hunters are just a symptom, yet they get all the ire. the logic here is just totally backwards.

a scam implies a fraud or swindle, which requires a victim. that is, you can't defraud "nobody." if a tree falls in the forest and no one is around and all that.

and you removed the relevant part of the quote:


what are you talking about? my comments were about the DT system becoming increasingly useless because of all the recent emphasis on tagging people for harmless and petty shit.

and it's not just bounties either; that's just the most obvious example. like the digaran example above. it's normal now to see tags for "saying something untrustworthy once" (even in jest) or "lying" (as if the tagger could prove intent) or generic "untrustworthy" behavior. retaliatory tags. etc.

it's just rare these days to see people tagged for a bona fide scam. it's always stupid petty bullshit.

not surprising given the technicals. there was major resistance at the 200 day MA---we basically bounced right off it and crashed. that level, and the $10k psychological price, were too much to overcome.

it's looking more and more like we're in a big bearish triangle on the daily chart. this is from peter brandt a few days ago:

haha d'oh, thanks! i sort of knew it was public since you can see who's on DT on the trust page, but i could never figure out how to read who included/excluded who. never noticed the hierarchal view---that's really helpful.

scams require the existence of victims. again:

bounty managers only list that rule because its customary, to appease forum admins and community. the managers and ICO issuers don't give a flying fuck, and thinking otherwise is laughably naive.

equating a quid quo pro with real scams makes the trust system totally useless.


um, okay....? you're still the most egregious example.

sure, the real root problem is whoever added you to DT and i'd like to remove them from my trust network too. but i don't think that information is public. please correct me if i'm wrong.


i'm saying that---in most cases---it's a misuse of the trust system, period. it does absolutely nothing to prevent scams. fyi, neutral trust exists for situations where a user isn't actually a scammer.


as i've stated multiple times, you are not the only problematic DT member.

and if you would simply read my replies before responding, you'd know precisely why i am "pointing at you". digaran asked specifically about your feedback:

so, i checked the feedback. you literally tagged the guy over one sarcastic remark---nothing at all to do with scamming. WTF? then i took a look at your sent feedback. holy shit, what a pile of garbage......


well, that's actually what he's doing. marlboroza (and anyone with a brain) knows the bounty campaigns aren't getting scammed. it's just an underhanded way to tag shitposters.

but i don't think that's a proper use of the trust system, and i believe theymos has specifically said that. "shitposter" ≠ "scammer".

i am pointing at you because you are the most egregious example.

to reiterate:

anyway, you asked for examples and reasoning, so there you have it. i think you're misusing the trust system and your presence on DT devalues it greatly.

no.


it was extremely obvious that i was talking about you, hence removing you from my trust network. your flippant use of negative trust completely devalues the meaning of negative trust. just have a look at your sent feedback: i don't give a shit about 99% of what you tag people for. i care about scammers who are stealing/defrauding money from people.

but people who enroll alts in bounty campaigns---they are "scamming" bounties now? lol. 99% of bounties are spam machines for ICOs that are malicious cash-grabs themselves, much more deserving of negative trust. if you think they don't want alts spamming in their campaigns (or the managers aren't enrolling their own alts), you are incredibly naive. they mutually benefit from these alt farms and you know it. the idea that bounties are getting "scammed" is absurd. you're just using these outlandish definitions of "scamming" to circumvent theymos' intent, that the trust system not be used to punish people for spamming.

there is only one degree of negative trust. that means you effectively equate real actual scams where considerable funds are stolen/defrauded, with these alt accounts who are just party to a quid pro quo.

Astargath---didn't you know? if you are critical of the trust system, you must be a "sock puppet" and "alt" of someone else. this is very basic forum policy. are you sure you aren't new here?


that's sort of laughable. literally all default trust lines lead back to theymos. it's utterly centralized.


i'm guessing the problem isn't the objective members. and there is no guarantee that an objective member will cancel out an unjust rating left by someone else.


i added ~marlboroza to my trust settings after that. never done that before but i'm getting tired of these new DT2 members leaving these kinds of useless feedbacks and painting the forum red. this is what negative feedback is supposed to be for:

fair enough though---that's the most legit critique of LN there is. you need to keep your private keys online.

that's why it's not adequate to scale bitcoin, per se. it's only good for low-value payments, not value storage---at least if you're responsible about your finances. because of that, most value should remain on the blockchain.

old school crypto people know never to keep all their money on one exchange!

it's true though, ICE will bring a new layer of accessibility to investors (including actual ownership of BTC, unlike cash-settled futures). and NASDAQ has been exploring crypto for sure. but i think the real competitors here are coinbase and robinhood.

the above exchanges are (and will be) way more careful about coin listings, legal and custody issues, etc than binance. the wild card in all of this is poloniex (circle). being the first fully licensed/regulated shitcoin exchange will bring on an interesting era. i think poloniex is going to surprise a lot of people in the next year or two.

how do you know that most weak hands are already out of the market? a bull trap is called such because it traps weak hands at the top who end up selling the bottom of the next leg down. how can you rule out an interim bull trap?

markets (including bitcoin) don't usually crash 70% then immediately start pushing new highs. there should be a distribution/markdown cycle. it doesn't mean we're going to $3k or anything (though that's possible), but markets do take time to correct.

my experience reading sentiment on the forum, tradingview, social media, etc over the years is that the "weak hands" were often once "strong hands." they just sold later, near the real bottom.


i'm not worried, and i would hold the majority of my coins through a long term bear market anyway. but i wouldn't make grand assumptions about supply and demand either. don't forget that price has already risen more than 10000% over the last 2 years and change. real long term supports are far, far below here if the market really turns bearish.

the most bullish historical fractal is april-july 2013. compare the 2013 rallies to 2017 in terms of time. if rallies take so much longer now, corrections may take longer as well.

eerily reminiscent of the action at the $19,891 top, isn't it?! bitcoin loves to undershoot targets: everyone expects $10k? let's fail just a little bit before, just to fuck with the market!


if the bears retain momentum from the last couple days and push into the $8000s, this is gonna start looking like a big bearish triangle on the daily chart.


we do potentially have a lower high in place ($9990). so we should be on the lookout for bear power that threatens new lows. time to pay attention!

i suspect it'll still be awhile before we get sweeping standards for this stuff.

ETH as a security seems like a longshot, trickiness of pre-mine (ICO) aside. genesis block ETH is fungible with mined ETH, which is not centrally issued. i don't recall the ICO being marketed as an investment with promised returns like the ICOs of today, either. ETH clearly has utility beyond investment (if it could really be deemed an investment at all).


i'm curious to see how they rule on ripple. XRP is essentially useless and centrally issued. while not legally overlapping, i think the 2013 guidance from FINCEN (and subsequent ruling against ripple labs) gives us some idea about the level of centralized control ripple labs has regarding asset issuance: https://www.fincen.gov/news/news-releases/fincen-fines-ripple-labs-inc-first-civil-enforcement-action-against-virtual


i think the ICO market has priced in a lot of the expected negativity, and i don't expect any legitimately mined cryptocurrencies to be deemed securities. all in all, i don't see it being significant. we're already in a bear market; we should expect more of the same.

because he is a fellow signature designer. it would be preferable for his business if his competition were red-tagged. that's 100% what this thread is about---eliminating his competition. anyone who denies that has their head in the sand.


you know exactly what you're doing and there is nothing honorable about it.

if you provide quality products, you will get customers. PERIOD. if not, go lick the admin's boots and tattle-tale on your competition. that's fucking pathetic.

breaking a major down trend line can just indicate an interim bounce. that RSI divergence was relevant in the $6000s but it played out a long time ago---hence being in overbought territory now.

i agree that we're probably going higher though, just based on time and structure. the $11000s should provide a correction but i've never seen a triple top in the charts before. so if we get to the $11.5k area, i expect a pullback and breakout.


this seems doubtful to me. there are so many buyers trapped from last year. the 2017 bubble was the culmination of 2+ years of bullish accumulation---the ultimate squeeze. the market needs more correction, probably on the order of many months if not years.

ah, naturally we pulled back shortly after this post. dat $10k psychological price!


when we were coming off the double bottom in the upper $6000s / lower $7000s, that was the time to be bullish. now we have to contend with the 200 day MA, the 20 week MA, and the $10k psychological level.

nobody should be surprised at this pullback, but personally i think we consolidated for too long in the low $9000s to crash. lots of sellers should be supporting the price here. i might start getting nervous if we fall below yesterday's low ($9542 bfx).