Good point. No reason to donate to the exchanges to express our bitcoin geekiness. None but those who actively trade in bitcoin understand the immediate advantages and shortcomings of the bitcoin ecosystem.

Ya know, when you blur out a bitcoin address, six characters is generally enough to uniquely identify it (http://firstbits.com/). With a date attached it's unambiguous.

Looking forward to receiving my ugly silver donut.

Hey AdamstgBit, Is there a dedicated thread where I can post a comment/constructive critique to your potentially invaluable service? I've been happy with OTC-WOT, but am amazed by the HIGH number of crypto-currency users who do not know of PGP much less use it. I would like to see a (ideally decentralized) third party rating system with strong identity (linking to an account here, OTC, facebook mug, vel similia).

Hi Challengeaccepted,

This might as well be in the public record...

I've requested a withdrawl from Mt. Gox hours ago and the funds have not yet been withdrawn. I've sent a support ticket (and am informed that Mt. Gox will get back to me within 48-72 hours). I realize there is no way in hell you'll send silver without payment in advance -- the onus of trust is on me. So, I'm going to send you a SECOND transaction to the same address. I trust you'll return the other half if/when the first clears Mt. Gox.

Cheers,
Netrin

Hey Tux, I think it's great that Mt. Gox offers green transactions, but the purpose is defeated if the transaction doesn't hit the network immediately.

One should be careful not to refer to the traders independently of the market.

You can ask the same of all the exchanges. At some point, one must trust. And that, to me, is what bitcoin is all about.

I'm bummed you won't ship up north to Santa, but I'll provide a US address. (pm'd)

Well I suppose if you believe bitcoin is on a steady trend to zero, then my charts with perfectly predictive lucky analysis over the past month won't convince you of anything.

Twists new meaning to 'junk silver'. I'll take it at $22. I've sent a pm.

Oh thanks, well I can only estimate the potential value to an individual actor given current financial actions, but I have no way of calculating velocity of money nor size user base. This?:



@Trogdorjw73: You just described Elliott wave sentiment perfectly. The initial gains will be shallow with bear traps along the way, but once the third major wave catches momentum, it will make the pre-June wave look flat!

Clearly if bitcoin were in an uptrend, all of us here would close and hold our positions in bitcoin. But with declines we negotiate ideology, speculation, and weird loyalty/abandonment issues. Personally, I prefer to hold bitcoins because they are enormously convenient and secure. The instability of the bitcoin ecosystem and the risk of site seizure or failure produces not fear of losing my bitcoin but fear of losing my fiat.

I can't make a meaningful vote; What are the results?

what's a transfer figure?

I believe the rate of increase will be greater than the rate of decline since June. Gains will start out slowly, but more than double monthly before correcting again from triple digit heights, or higher.

From what I remember and understood from your explanations, the above chart displays actual traded prices, with diminishing weight based on duration since each particular price was traded. Since bitcoin prices have gone generally down since June, and there have not been any prices below $2 for six months, we would expect to see higher S/R on the chart above $2 than below. I have trouble understanding that $1.9 is equally 'likely' as $2.9.

Well, I'm not even the OP. I hijacked this thread from aptly named Mr. BitcoinBull.


There may be billions of ways to count waves, but not all counts are equal. I pay no heed to a chart which is blind to the April-June correction. Just as accurately, subjectively and superficially as facial recognition, I recognize April-June as the fourth wave of the yearly impulse.

I don't 'want' bitcoin to reach $0.6-1.1; That price is suggested by the fourth wave. That count and its sub-waves have proved to be quite predictive. Counts on numerous scales form a lattice which reinforce each other and subsequent counts. My counts are generally built from six degrees. I analyze hourly charts (green and magenta) in order to execute daily trades (black and cyan) which build a reliable case for monthly scale counts (red and blue).

Hmm... So, while valid Elliott waves, my count present invalid "Swannell waves". What could that mean? Well if I respectfully favour the late Swannell (September 2011) over the late Elliott (January 1948), I'd have to squeeze the first two weeks of November into a fourth wave. Some of my previous counts actually do that: Remove black I-II; Move magenta iv to where black II was; Replace black III with magenta v, completing the first black I at $2.1 on 15 November.




I'd probably change the colours (black becomes cyan, magenta becomes black) to stay consistent with higher scale charts. I'd also probably favour a final zig-zag pattern cyan 5-3-5 until the very bottom of major blue wave II (seen far above in this thread).

What difference would that make? Not a whole lot, except more extreme price ranges. Old black IV (now 'a') would be part of a new bigger second wave, that could find its peak in the price range of the previous grey iv triangle, $2.8.

Is $2.8+ likely? So far it doesn't look likely (I still have my stops [between $2.6 and] above $2.80). The price movement since 15 November looks fairly sideways. In fact, the drop two days later slightly below $2 seems to cancel out any potential sharp or zig-zag corrective patterns in the near future.


I'd like to stay on the "Elliott Education" topic, as there are already numerous threads discussing other technical, fundamental and seat-of-the-pants nonalysis. I'll respond from my/an Elliott perspective.

"Wave two corrects wave one... Typically, the news is still bad. As prices retest the prior low, bearish sentiment quickly builds, and "the crowd" haughtily reminds all that the bear market is still deeply ensconced. Still, some positive signs appear for those who are looking: volume should be lower during wave two than during wave one, prices usually do not retrace more than 61.8%... of the wave one gains, and prices should fall in a three wave pattern. ... As wave three starts, the news is probably still bearish, and most market players remain negative; but by wave three's midpoint, "the crowd" will often join the new bullish trend. Wave three often extends wave one by a ratio of 1.618:1." (Wikipedia)

Since S3052's double three suggestion, and my later triple three combined correction, I've held the belief that any indication of a 'quadruple' combination signals the death of bitcoin. I personally am not so morbidly bearish. I would buy like mad at $0.6.

Your subjective objective was obvious. Do not confuse objectivity with falsifiability nor subjectivity with lack thereof. Just because something is difficult to statistically control does not make it any less valuable or predictive, it only means you have to try harder if you're trying to publish a peer reviewed methodology. I've found Elliott waves to be enormously valuable, both predicting price movements and also for immediate in/validation which has allowed me to terminate positions with minimal loss.

It is my subjective opinion that your count is inferior to mine and I believe you would agree. Your subjective point was made, but you will find no argument. All technical analysis is subjective, even if that subjectivity is programmed. There were obvious price channels you arbitrarily ignored. I could program (objective) software to make a best fit in retrospect. It would not come up with your chart. What is more difficult for (eyeballs or software written by) humans is to count Elliott waves in real time. This is an art form. But past performance can be objectively measured. Some humans are better at it than others.

Computers can not yet play a decent game of go. While difficult to quantify (write an AI algorithm), it is no less possible to objectively claim that a professional has great skill, or race car driver, ballet dancer, football player, METAR/TAF weather forecaster...



Bitcoin has consistently expressed currency and commodity like properties rather than behaving like a stock chart. For example, the triangle from early this month took me off guard, because they've been rare ("Ending Diagonals appear in Wave 5 about three times as often in stock markets than commodities markets." Swannell, p59, 2003). If fact! I've just come across this again now, "Wave 2 can be any corrective wave except a Triangle" (Swannell, p63, 2003, but not Elliott).

Just because commodity charts often exhibit longer fifth waves on up trends (whereas stock charts tend to exhibit longer third waves) does not at all mean that a fifth wave MUST be longest. Bitcoin's extended fifth wave April-June should not surprise us and lends weight to the assertion that bitcoins behave like currency and commodities but not stock.

That does not mean that any 'ole longest five wave count is ideal. There are many other factors of which you are ignorant or have intensionally ignored. Most significantly is that every Elliott wave consists of smaller Elliott waves (and by implication, are members of larger Elliott waves). There are also suggestive price targets within each subwave which lend strength to a particular count. To count a single series on a single time scale is as good as rolling dice.

"Wave three is usually the largest and most powerful wave in a trend (although some research suggests that in commodity markets, wave five is the largest)." (Wikipedia)

"Wave 3 must never be the shortest by price when compared to Waves 1 & 5" (Swannell p37, 2003)



Drop further below $0.6 ?!

$0.6 to $1.1 is suggested by the previous fourth wave. It is not guaranteed, but I give it about 70% likelihood.


June was a bubble (which is typical of fifth waves), however bubbles collapse violently or symmetrically at best. The bubble and pop is over. Bitcoins are expressing a classic corrective pattern thus far. It could drop to zero, but I do not think so out of fundamental (not technical) conviction.


I'm not sure you can say with a straight face that, if I am proven correct in a couple of months, then my prediction would have been best. My predictions HAVE BEEN accurate in the past and MIGHT continue to be proven correct in the future.

You present a valid count. I question why you ignore the all too obvious peak in February, March correction and impulse beginning early April. I don't deny, as you attempt to show, that Elliott waves have an aesthetic/subjective component. However, the market is reacting to this same publicly available aesthetic picture. The entire bitcoin community has agreed that there were doldrums during March and a huge impulse (some say bubble) April-June. Your Elliott waves should reflect and predict sentiment.

As a side note, Swannell's work in the past decade includes a deterministic Elliott wave algorithm, real-time computation, and statistics with thousands of price histories across multiple asset classes. For example, his work questions Elliott's earlier assertion that within an impulse wave, subwaves 2 and 4 will often take alternate forms. His statistics find that wave 4 is most often sideways nearly irrespective of wave 2's form. And, as I mentioned in PM, the fifth wave bias of commodities are less pronounced during downward trends, in which case third waves are likely to be longest regardless of asset class.

While Aroon, RSI, or other indicators might hint at peaks and troughs, I would not expect Aroon to be a reliable determinant. Even so, there are multiple significant Aroon peaks you overlook, such as January, several in April, May, and many others.

Looking at your count specifically: Wave two (orange) can not drop lower than wave one (red). Though if we, as you suggest, assume wave one starts at $0, then wave three is the shortest wave of one, three, and five. So depending on your starting point, either rule #1 or #2 is violated. Rule #3 looks kosher: Wave four (purple) must not enter the price territory of either one or two.

My long term chart specifically cuts out earlier Mt. Gox history (about two months later than your start date). Perhaps I'm guilty of selective data, but I simply find the early data unreliable and also avoid accounting for the 'missing' data since Satoshi's gensis block January 2009.

That's fantastic! May I suggest you change the map_canvas dimensions? You've got the United States, S. America, Africa, and Australia squarely in there (by default), but you cut off half of Europe, Canada, Russia, and heaven forbid all of Greenland. Think of the polar bears!