We're going down. Target $260 imo.
260? No, but 275-280$ - yes Funny how the guys who sold are saying the price is dropping. Meanwhile the price is down a whole 2-3 dollars today and flat.  Shorts up to 11,500. Excellent. A bit more fuel for the permabull party. Who said I've sold? Its speculation based on my own TA and alaysis. To back your idea that this is the bottom of this dip come up with something better than shorts at 11.5k. Shorts are near their lowest levels since dec 14 whereas 30 mill+ of longs is all time high area! Price movement doesn't happen all in one second. $3 a day for the next week puts us down to around where I have bids and will go long again. True there is a lot of long leverage in the system. But that is a consistent feature of bitcoin and doesn't necessarily mean we are at extremes. I suspect a lot of the long position on finex is actually held in bitcoin. |
|
|
|
We're going down. Target $260 imo.
260? No, but 275-280$ - yes Funny how the guys who sold are saying the price is dropping. Meanwhile the price is down a whole 2-3 dollars today and flat. Shorts up to 11,500. Excellent. A bit more fuel for the permabull party. |
|
|
|
The IQ of the trolls on this site has fallen considerably. Sounds like you don't even know how a fork works. Instantly double all bitcoin? So you're saying after the fork there will be 28mil coins? Just stop, your embarrassing yourself.
You are the one showing how stupid you are here. Instantly double all bitcoin means two bitcoin at the same time. one with large block, one with small. everyone then can have same amount of bitcoin on each block version. This means : DOUBLE ALL BITCOIN |
|
|
|
We're going down. Target $260 imo.
perma bulls don't care what you think! 2014 was just a big Bullflag! Bitcoin will always go up! kk? Place your bets. Bulls still standing. Bears rekt' in last 8/52. |
|
|
|
|
700 coin ask wall sat on 286. Someone trying to keep the price down.
|
|
|
|
Sorry to say, but the title of this thread is very deceitful. It is great that you are a follower of Martin Armstrong, so am I, but that does not necessarily mean that all his predictions come true. As you know, he often changes his predictions down the road (an example is his recent turnaround on diamonds). In addition, I see no reason why Bitcoin should follow the exact pattern of global markets such as the euro, commodities like oil or gold, or anything else. As Luthier has shown, Bitcoin has not followed the same price patterns at all as other commodities during the last 6 months. Another important point is that the Bitcoin market cap is completely meaningless if you compare it to the market cap of for example gold or oil. The people behind it, the people owning large chunks of Bitcoin are also a completely different group than institutional investors with different ambitions and long term goals. I am not saying here you are wrong. You could be right. However, the way you present your information is very misleading for newbies. There is absolutely no guarantee that your predictions will unfold. Looking at the current market sentiment and the last six months you actually have the odds against you. Last but not least, put your money where you mouth is and show us a printscreen of your shorts. Otherwise it will only look as incitement to other people. He is on record on another thread saying he has sold his bitcoin and doesn't use leverage. Advising others to use leverage whilst not taking the risk yourself. Sounds legit! |
|
|
|
aaaand here comes 250  Keep dreaming mayer Keep hodling and catch the falling knife Inca Price up 25% and you are jumping up and down about a 4 dollar drop? |
|
|
|
aaaand here comes 250 Keep dreaming mayer |
|
|
|
This will be the closest for you to determine: https://bitinfocharts.com/top-100-richest-bitcoin-addresses.html The number is between 1 and the Number of Addresses holding coins. Several addresses can be owned by one user so its practically impossible to determine how much a given person actually owns. Unless you know all their addresses. What this table shows is how poorly distributed bitcoin still is. To be expected given the Pareto principle. |
|
|
|
traders are dumping and buying 100k per day? can you point me the source of this? i don't really care about the demand and supply but only the supply so i can compare better the reduction in the "mining supply"
if it's indeeded 100k per day than ok 1800 is nothing to that lower than 2% and will cause a 4% up in demand like you said
You're looking at it the wrong way, I think. It doesn't matter how many coins are flipped by traders each day. What matters is the net demand and net supply. If we are talking about demand and supply. Wheres the new volume of demand going to come from? geminis new exchange when it launches? its a shame i ask about bitcoin and my friends still give me a blank stare. Where did it come from last time? Adoption waves leading to an imbalance in supply and demand that coupled with the hype cycle as the price starts rising, a new bubble. This time bitcoin will be easily accessible via coinbase, circle, dozens of exchanges globally, ETN's, and soon hopefully etf's. Bitcoin doesn't really have to do very much except stay in this trading range as the halving approaches and it will do it's thing. |
|
|
|
290 not holding anymore, be ready for the dump, cut your looooses while you can
The book talking from you and galix is transparent. At least dress it up with some wall observation or something. |
|
|
|
|
I am I the only one who can feel the narrative of the blocksize debate shifting?
|
|
|
|
Now its Frap.doc's turn to get rekt: Piling every proof-of-work quorum system in the world into one dataset doesn't scale.
Bitcoin users might get increasingly tyrannical about limiting the size of the chain so it's easy for lots of users and small devices.
 You should keep in mind this while posting. Maybe then you would take a full quote of a post, instead of just extracting a part out of its context in order to prove your point. BitDNS users might be completely liberal about adding any large data features since relatively few domain registrars are needed, while Bitcoin users might get increasingly tyrannical about limiting the size of the chain so it's easy for lots of users and small devices.
But I guess that intellectual honesty has never been your goal here Haha. Brilliant!! |
|
|
|
Yeah it looks pretty grim from here.
If we had broken 300 we could have stayed there for a bit and build some resistance. But hope is slowly fading in the community. People are starting to realize it's all a fad and they are holding unbacked VIRTUAL money in their bags.
I feel panic selling will soon commenced.
Hey aren't you that guy who sold his coins at 10$? I would call that pretty grim personally. |
|
|
|
Ok, I will give some possible scenarios now. Surprisingly enough I realised yesterday that a fall from 296 can be extremely bullish in some of them.
Let's forget the sideways scenario (which is of course possible) because no one cares here.
Scenarios:
1) Go directly to breakout from 296 at 300. This has been covered above. Wait for the 300-310 area to get cleared and FOMO.
2) Fall and then rise again at 300. Extremely bullish because we have triple top breakout which is more than enough to counter the previous triple bottom break. We buy with both hands!
The fall can have two cases:
a) Lower Higher low down to 276
b) Double bottom at 272.
Both very bullish
3) The most interesting one! Shakeout... Covered in depth above.
We double bottom break 272 down 1-2 boxes (probably in the 265 area) and reverse (3X). It is a shakeout pattern and is a BUY at the reversal.
4) Fall lower (box at 260). Bearish. Support at around 250. But be extremely careful with longs. If we close below 244 short every bounce. It is going sub 200s.
Happy safe trading everyone!
Excellent summary of the current situation. It will take fairly aggressive selling to break the bullishness in the market with, as you describe, many support levels on the way down, versus minimal resistance at 300 and 315 going upwards.. I am keeping my eye on the finex leverage though - up to >30 million USD.. |
|
|
|
decision to force a fee market is a centralized solution
On it's face this is a nonsense argument since any development decisions are centralized in the same manner. Increase the blocksize, decrease the blocksize, or leave it alone, they are all (centralized) development decisions. It's also false that anything is really centralized about it because if there were truly a consensus for change (over the objections of the 'centralized' developers) there would be a successful fork. Yes all dev decisions are essentially centralized, including the decision to NOT do something. Since that is trivially true, I am talking about the effect of the decision. And in one case miners can optimize their profitability by choosing to include transactions while in another case they are artificially limited. Brg444 asked if I was for completely lifting the limit. I would be from a theoretical perspective but from practical engineering experience its makes sense to have what is called a "sanity check". This is a limit that you expect to never be reached. If it is, something is very wrong with the system. Therefore if it was up to me, I would choose a bump to (say) 4 MB and then a periodic increase that mirrors txn adoption curves. If we were creating a more complex solution in a less constrained environment, I would let miners expand the block with high fee txns (which I described previously) and I would implement something that puts the limit at (say) 10x the average of last month's fee paying txns. The problem with the latter though is that a miner could artificially expand the block size by including a bunch of fake txns is his own blocks. This can be solved with a payout pool (half the txn value goes into the pool) rather than a direct payout. The only way to make software secure, reliable, and fast is to make it small. Fight Features. - Andy Tanenbaum 2004 IDK about this out of context quote but Tanenbaum's approach is to put every feature in isolation so if one has an issue the whole system does not go down. Linux, Windows, etc instead take the philosophy that essential features should be placed together to increase performance and decrease overall complexity. It does not matter if the whole fails when one does because every feature is essential. Ofc, things have gotten pretty lenient WRT "essential" features in Linux/Windows lately... Gold is unique and was the most efficient soln for thousands of years cementing its social perception of value. Bitcoin at 1mb is more like the iphone. It will be outcompeted in price (efficiency) before the majority of the world was even introduced to smartphones with the obvious result that the majority of phones are android.
Gold is not unique. Silver. QED. Why do you speak of "fee market" in the singular? By unique I was referring to people's inability to create new elements. You can't just brew up gold 2.0 in the lab. In that context silver is unique also. Do you not understand on- and off-chain fee markets will exist at Layers 1 and 2+, competing to be more efficient at bundling tx for eventual reconciliation with and inclusion into the Mother Blockchain?
You seem to, with the reference to the fact that "real markets evolve spontaneously and in a P2P manner to address real issues."
How does simply staying at 1MB (and rejecting the Red Queen interpretation) preclude such real markets' spontaneous evolution?
By what logic do you conflate a dearth of consensus for increased blocksize with "a centralized solution?"
Bitcoin and FinTech is invading the banker's space because of inefficiency. Technology in all domains replaces low-tech solutions due to inefficiency. Deliberately introducing inefficiency into the system (forcing a fee where one is not needed -- from the user's perspective efficiency is fee/amount transferred) is basically asking for new technology to replace bitcoin. The first apps to go will be colored coins (smart contracts) and immutable ledgers. If these become useful, the money function of the chain that hosts them will have a much better operational efficiency (you don't have to move bitcoins into these coins, trade a stock, and then move them back). If this coin/chain delivers similarly to Bitcoin on basic premises (scarce, decentralized, no premine etc) Bitcoin will be replaced. In that case the BEST outcome for Bitcoin will be a gold analogy (store of value only). However I have serious doubts about that because Bitcoin does not have gold's history, intrinsic value, etc.
Another outcome would be if a SC takes on the colored coins and immutable ledger function. This would probably preserve Bitcoin's value since the SC is denominated in BTC. Yet moving from SC to bitcoin chain is awkward so as Cypherdoc likes to argue all the coins might drain out of the bitcoin chain over to the SC. I differ from him in my analysis because in this case at least BTC's value is preserved. However, I find it hard to believe that a startup company would produce a SC with no advantage to themselves... they'll either produce a non-SC chain and out-mine other people in the early days or they'll be a per txn fee going to the startup.
Oh not the sidechains debate again! |
|
|
|
...the price will shoot up fifty dollars.
That's less than 0.96MB... Make it happen!
static const unsigned int MAX_BLOCK_SIZE = 1000000;
Just add another two 0's on the end and keep the blockstream guys looking the other way while you hit commit! |
|
|
|
I am glad it is settling at $300. I am not bothered if we are back at $280 next week. We need a stable bitcoin. A slow and steady climb at $5 per week will be better than $50 in a month.
Took a few days off and its nice to see it aggressively near the $300 line and holding. Spoke too soon..mini sell off. Low volume panic sell by the looks of things. Let's see if we hold 290. If it does then 300 should fall next time. |
|
|
|
Buffet is in his 80's, just living each day is a gift to him.. |
|
|
|
|
With 0.8 billion VC funds expected to enter bitcoin companies in 2015 do you really think bitcoin is dead? The party is only just starting. Just wait until ETFs come online or the next price surge sets another adoption wave.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
