i guess it depends on what he means by "immediately." to rebound off his middle pitchfork line (and prevent a fall to $3000), we needed an immediate reaction, but does that mean bulls need to retake those levels in a single candle? i don't think so. anytime a move happens that fast, it's usually a fakeout anyway.

we've just tagged the daily 200MA. now we need to get above it. as for the weekly, we still have another 4 days before the bar closes.

sometimes i wish he were less cryptic.

we have to keep in mind that we're talking about listening/reachable nodes, so any stats like this need to be taken with a grain of salt. the numbers from 2016-2017 are quite low given the number of services (exchanges, wallets, mining pools) in china.

maybe a lot more people there use third party services rather than full nodes. or maybe we're looking at bad data.


i doubt if anyone could tell you. it looks like thousands of chinese nodes are being run out of datacenters. i can't tell when they were spun up. given that more than half were spun up in the last 6 weeks, i wouldn't consider it organic growth, nor important.

yup, i've been talking about the large attack surface and questionable authentication practices underlying hardware wallets for a while. the vulnerability seems to exploit the shared attestation (vs. authentication) problem that eric voskuil touches on here.

the "supply chain" attack he outlines is pretty worrisome. better steer clear of 3rd party resellers on ebay, amazon, etc!

in general, that's not unreasonable. i would never expect a multi-coin wallet with flashy UI (made primarily for mobile use) to have ideal security. that'll never happen. the problem these days is that new investors want exposure to multiple altcoins in addition to BTC. naturally, they look for a wallet solution where they can store as many coins as possible in one wallet. so they dump all their funds into a jaxx or coinomi wallet (which they continue spending from) rather than devising a cold storage solution.

i'm not sure what the big difficulty with allowing a complex passphrase is. jaxx should at least expand the PIN number past 4 digits.


it's sort of a gimmick, though. ledger wallet + radar relay (for ERC-20 tokens) is much more impressive---no rate-limiting to jack up your fees like shapeshift does either. and with things like blocknet, crypto-bridge and others being actively developed, things are getting better on this front.

sure, there's an element of that. but statistical truisms don't directly apply to markets. no two market conditions play out exactly the same. when it comes to markets and price fractals, i think of it more like history does not repeat itself, but it rhymes.

if you've been trading this market for years and years, you start to notice conditions like historically similar fractals and volatility squeezes. those conditions form EV+ opportunities. while there is no guarantee that a fractal or squeeze will perform the same as it did historically, they probably do more than 50% of the time.

that doesn't matter though. the important thing is that these patterns can provide discrete boundaries for entries, exits and stop losses. being a successful trader is more about risk/reward and bankroll management than predicting things correctly.

that was my initial thinking when the report from the creditor meeting was released. but why did the trustee specifically say this:

what's the legal basis for further sale of BTC and BCC? it sure sounds like it's possible.

we've had some bullish news recently. lightning labs just launched their beta on mainnet! also, coinbase is expanding into the UK after just receiving a license there. poloniex is expanding into asia and circle just released a new crypto investment app available in 46 US states. and billionaire hedge fund manager alan howard (and other partners at the firm) have disclosed sizeable personal investments in crypto and he says he plans to invest more.

it's just that the news isn't effective right now. buyers are scared, the hype has faded, and sellers have remained in control of the market. so it goes.


maybe. personally i think this consolidation has lasted too long (and volume too high) for a simple retest of the lows. i think if price returns to $6000, there will be an attempt to make a double bottom. but afterwards i would expect much, much lower.

not sure about that EW count---i get that the 5th of 3 is extended but i really don't love the proportions. wave 4 also must be pretty short in order to hold that trend. i think it'll change into something else.

about the comparison to 2014..... lots of people saying this. maybe so, but in particular i would point out the already apparent difference in fractal. where is the big bull trap? if anything, this looks more like 2011, which would be much worse.

anyway, my point is: be open-minded here. "history does not repeat itself, but it rhymes."

what happens when i scan your face while we're riding on the tube?

biometric authentication is bad news---same goes for biometric seed generation for the same reasons. if it only takes a body part to impersonate you and steal all your money, then you open yourself up to a variation of the $5 wrench attack:



it's just a matter of beating you into telling which body part.

best case: armed robbers wrench attack you, you give up the biometric auth, they sweep the funds there.
worst case: armed robbers wrench attack you, you give up the biometric auth, they remove the body part in question.

i'd echo the general consensus that this rank stuff shouldn't matter this much. as far as theymos' intentions with merit go, the simplest short-term solution, as rlim475 points out, is to remove all signature capability for jr members or establish a merit requirement.

or just remove signatures entirely so we can end this stupid drama. and call us all "members."


that's not actually rational. it doesn't matter to spammers whether it's difficult to write 20+ good posts. they'll apply and write 20+ posts regardless. at the end of the day, these people are getting into campaigns. over and over and over. there has never been any action (formal or informal/community-based) against any campaign managers, so that's unlikely to change.

the "minimum posts required" custom is part of it. it's not getting paid for something you ordinarily do anymore. it literally makes it a job to spam---one where you don't get paid if you don't meet the spam quota. that spam quota exists whether or not there are enough interesting (non spam megathread) discussions happening on the forum, or whether you are capable of engaging in higher level technical discussion.

that is to say, the incentive for "post padding" is much, much higher when you threaten not to pay participants for their posts.

why do campaign managers require a spam quota? it's to make their job easy and please advertisers at the expense of the forum's quality. that's their prerogative. can't blame managers for that. but instead of people acknowledging the reality and establishing new community standards, they'd rather go around hurling racial epithets and blaming "third worlders" and "Indonesian shitposters" and "pajeets" for ruining the forum. yet---somebody is paying all these shitposters. are they not?

to be fair, the title is a bit disingenuous. the allegation is that QS received 20 BTC from TF. at the time, BTC was trading ~ $230, putting the amount netted ~ $4600.

also, it's conceivable (perhaps unlikely) that QS claimed to have received funds but never actually did. we don't have evidence that he posted the address in question. he could have done this as a scare tactic. however, this doesn't explain the involvement of the TF account.


what was the actual agreement?

FOMO helps to drive adoption in the short term---that's what causes the bubble periods where price diverges from the mean. it definitely affects the nature of price movement. but surely that's not what adoption is "all about!" how do you explain the 2014-15 bear market---or really, any of the corrections where price returns to the mean?

many of the "get rich quick" type people get shaken out during the bear markets. but adoption keeps growing as weak hands sell to strong hands.

there's clearly a long term uptrend. during the corrections is when the ecosystem and infrastructure are built out the most. it's where most of the exciting things happen tech-wise because the whole ecosystem isn't overcome with get-rich-quick schemes built on the back of a bubble.


oh cool, another comparison to tulips and beanie babies. /yawn

nah, that's just not how it works. the bubbles are massive layers of hype (essentially gartner hype cycles) build on top of slowly uptrending utility. that leaves lots of room for dumb money speculation and it happens every cycle because of rational human reaction to the market cycle. people want the next big thing, and they want to get rich---the bitcoin/altcoin bubbles feed into those dreams well. the masses aren't thinking, "oh, this bitcoin technology is really empowering and revolutionary. let's end trust in finance and start using sound money!" they're just looking for the next big thing and they'll bail when the hype is over. it's not a matter of "good tech" or "bad tech" or scams or real utility or any of that.

that will be true until the "s-curve" has completed and adoption has plateaued. by then, mainstream adoption has already occurred and there isn't much upside left from a speculative standpoint. and that's when you'll see "justified" valuations for bitcoins and shitcoins alike.

no, the last time the trustee moved coins was february 5th.


between december and february.


it's really impossible to know how much of an effect these sales had. i wouldn't say they are "responsible" for the dip. maybe they added to it.


an incomplete list of remaining cold storage is listed here: https://www.reddit.com/r/mtgoxinsolvency/comments/82m0dl/mtgox_trustee_has_sold_some_btc_and_bch/dvd2vre/

ITT the transaction IDs for the sold BTC are also listed.

TF said he sent the transaction here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1179238.msg12407212#msg12407212

the 1GLados change address is known to belong to him. that adds some credibility.

the receiving address is not posted in the thread. QS said he received the transaction here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1179238.msg12406963#msg12406963

something interesting about the transaction posted above---it led to conclusively tying TF to the hashie.co exit scam from 2014.

apparently we haven't reached "misery" until the index is < 27. i guess anything above should be considered no signal. before the recent signal, we hadn't seen "misery" since 2016.


i think it looks like that because it's a laggy indicator, and because of the "stairs up, elevator down" effect. it reacted really strongly to the november plunge to $5400 and didn't really recover until we were near the top.

the more i think about it, it just reads like an overbought/oversold momentum indicator.

probably because of the proliferation of security tokens that can't be defined any other way. that's a pretty recent phenomenon.

in the early years, there was just BTC, which most people agree is not a security. the first generation of altcoins were similarly decentralized and open source, and even in the case of (centralized closed source) ripple, it's hard to argue that XRP is some sort of certificate of ownership or derivative contract or that ripple labs issued them with the promise of investor profit.

ethereum was the first ICO. but it's a functioning decentralized cryptocurrency and was never marketed as a security. and it wasn't officially launched until mid-2015. i think that's when this stuff really began hitting the SEC's radar. and it basically takes 1-2 years for the feds to do anything in general.

now that everybody and their grandma is launching ICOs that are very obviously securities, and (unregistered) exchanges are listing them and allowing US customers to trade them? SEC got no choice but to do something about it.


you're an old-timer. i remember being much more trusting of exchanges in 2013 than i am now. and honestly, years ago, newcomers were usually people with some basic technical knowledge or real interest in markets. newcomers today are dumber than ever. total plebs trying to get rich quick.


they'll never do that. not in a million years. that's not how regulators work, at least not in america. they usually fine and/or litigate against parties but don't offer explicit guidance on how to properly comply. then everyone tries to interpret the case to see what the SEC's position is. they never give explicit guidance, only general.

the best we get is things like the munchee ICO. basically, don't do what munchee did, because that'll get you shut down, fined, maybe even imprisoned. but that tells us nothing about how to properly comply. it just tells us what not to do.

this is a bit like broad sentiment reading. probably some good overlap with leveraged commitment of traders (like bfxdata). what's odd to me is how much faster the signal was triggered this time than 2012-2017.

the only comparable case is 2011, which is a bit terrifying---we better hope this isn't 2011. that would have us targeting what, $1000 as the final low?

i think you're too early here even though i'm not in the $2000-4000 bear camp. everything takes 3-4 times longer now than in 2013. if you expect june 2013 to play out, it should be after a significant bull trap and another leg down---not to new lows, mind you---but yeah. the bull trap is necessary to establish the soul-crushing sentiment that we had at the june bottom.

in the short term, sentiment is crazy bearish (like june 2013) because we probably made a bottom and are now squeezing the late bears. but that's just short term local action. i think he was talking on a longer time scale.

where does it explicitly say that the trustee dumped on exchanges? i didn't see that in the report.

the coindesk article and other speculation i've seen points to BTC movement on the blockchain that coincided with the bear market, but i haven't seen any blockchain analysis that shows coins were entering exchanges. are we sure he wasn't selling OTC?


then why is he talking about continuing to liquidate the assets? if the entity is legally solvent, what business do they have liquidating assets of the claimants?