Any volume, doesn't matter. If the exchange goes to shit you lose your account, whether it has one bitcoin or a thousand, so never keep more than you can afford to lose.

As for which of the two is better, I personally prefer Bitstamp as they seem more serious and less shady than btc-e. Although 'stamp has previously gotten hacked and btc-e afaik hasn't, so there's that. edit: according to post above me they've both gotten hacked.

I mainly trade on OKCoin, the degenerate that I am Note though that Chinese exchanges are probably the shadiest and riskiest, with the trade-off being by far the most liquidity, best fees and margin options.

So you would count the parabolic conclusion to the pictured 3 as a kind of hyper-blowout-(v)? Trying to figure out the internals of this spike so I can get some clarity and wave orientation but so far to no avail.

Just wanted to chip in with the rest and say thank you for this (and your previous) thread lucif. Your continuous prophetic wisdom among this cesspit of "HODL"s and rocket pictures is what got me interested in TA to begin with, and has led to some nice profit over the years.

Although something tells me you (hopefully) won't be away for good. Analysis never ends!

Technically it doesn't matter, but yes it makes more sense to draw it that way as you are measuring the retracement to the larger trend down, starting from bottom.

Also speaking of fibs



China touching on a potential 100% corrective ratio and resistance line.

Also worth keeping in mind is the yellow count provided by Ryan earlier which, unless I'm mistaken, still seems a valid possibility.

Any chance the impulse up could've been C as red count below (or alternatively 3, if the pictured A is somehow counted as an impulse)?



Personally a bit doubtful of that as the B looks too much like an impulse down, probably some species of truncated 5.

Like Ryan said, yours already broke the rules for a valid impulse as both your (4)-(1) and 4-1 overlap, which afaik is only allowed for an impulsive count within a leading or ending diagonal.

Seems we (may) have completed 3 of 5 waves down, which for me begs the question of whether this impulse will be the entire final leg of the 2-year bear market, or just the start of it ((1) of V of (C))?
If the former, it may likely end as truncated/double bottom depending on how far the 5 extends. If the latter then capitulatory wave to lower 100's/double digits is still on the table, although (2) will probably need to retrace very heavily (ie to ~$260's) for the rest of the impulse to maintain reasonable fib proportions.



Curious to hear your guys thoughts on this, or any alternative counts.

Perhaps this?



*edit: added (C) option

I do seem to recall him being similarly bullish at one point - in October 2013 just at the very start of the bubble rise to $1200.

So I take it you (and others) don't consider this triangle likely? Or is it a valid possibility? (unsure on the D-wave count, especially from ¥1370 :s)

I would agree, but the drop so far imo looks fairly corrective in structure across the exchanges (although this could change quickly lol), and that potential triangle needs another, similarly sized move up to complete the subwave.
While it could drop some more, I have a feeling we just finished (a) and have another, larger C-wave ahead of us. That or current c is not complete, but this seems unlikely considering, as you mention, the clear 5 wave structure and div confirmation. I guess time will tell.


Hmmh, if this is an ABC I don't think it'd be possible, since a trend reversal requires an impulse of the previous trend directly preceding it (ie a 5), and as you say 1370-ish lows terminated an ABC, with the final spike being a pretty clear C which largely rules out a truncated 5th wave.

However, it would be possible if Wave A and half of B are counted as a triangle, as then the spike down could could have been a 5th. But I am not sure if such a triangle would even be valid, as it doesn't form using the actual bottom of the larger move down as starting point, which I think is required for a triangle to be a continuation pattern of said larger move. Don't know if this is a specific EW requirement though

Something like this in such case:



Would that be valid?

Indeed, I'm fairly certain that's an ABC. At least I've counted it as one since bottom successfully (with us currently being near the top of C if my count is correct, but it may somehow overextend to complete a triangle wave; see below).



I'm not sure how it fits in with the bigger picture though. At first I figured it was corrective to the preceding impulse, meaning as soon as it is complete we resume the downtrend since $250 top, imo probably to form a 5th wave of some degree since we seemed to lack a 5 when we entered correction.

However I recently noticed this potential triangle which, if valid, would suggest that the ABC is just a triangle subwave, possibly even half a wave ((a) of C) unless c extends to hit upper trendline. It would also mean top of current correction will likely be followed by 2 more corrective waves (D and E). Further the presence of a triangle here would afaik  seem to confirm the downtrend from $300 top being an A, and I think a successful downwards break and C-wave would probably invalidate the triangle count(s) posted by chessnut earlier (unless the hypothetical coming (C) turns out to be extremely underextended).



But I don't even know if it's valid heh, just a thought. Would love some feedback from the resident EW experts =)

Well I think (or hope heh) it will more likely be followed by a large (C)-wave up to $260-level that will conclude the entire rise/correction from $215. In other words, my primary local count atm is that the aforementioned potential next wave down should terminate v of (c) of E (in case of chess' expanding triangle) of (B), after which we should see the second, impulsive half of the larger correction up. However, this is but the personal opinion of a sheep, and there are many other ways it could develop if we even bounce at all.

I guess (think?) it is also possible the bounce will be corrective to a major trend down, in that case probably 4 of (1) of III or something, which would likely retrace to $235-$238 i.e. same price level we've been at for the last week as you mention, after which we get more down. I don't find this scenario very plausible (and perhaps not even valid), and my gut tells me the larger rise isn't over yet, but the question of which alternative will play out doesn't matter too much right now as it can be better determined later once the bounce actually occurs by looking at its subwave structure. What I am fairly certain of at this point though is that there should be a bounce soon and that it could potentially be very strong, hence my warning about shorting here.

A rough illustration, with my preferred alternative in white/green and a possible count for Wave III scenario in red:




Note that the pic is not so detailed and subwave labels, especially around (a) - (b), are approximate and may be off. The count is rather messy as I'm struggling with confidently identifying the exact wave form and position at places, which admittedly also increases the possibility that I'm completely wrong lol, so take it as you will.

Personally I'd be careful with shorts here. While I agree us breaking several major trendlines doesn't look good, from an EW point of view it seems like a reversal of some degree may be due after another small wave down (which could truncate, or hit ~$230 @ OKCoin).

That or we have begun III and I'm about to get sheared

Imo it looks much better as 3 waves, though chessnut also mentioned earlier he thought it was 5, so what do I know. Perhaps bit clearer form on OKUSD:



Blowout v of (a) ((following underextended iii)) and severely overextended iii of (c) followed by a weak and truncated v.

The ratio between (a) and (c) pictured is also almost exactly 1:1, i.e. typical corrective proportion.

I see, thanks. Seems like this is may have been what happened, but with triangle start earlier than I thought. Revised white count:



The triangle and divergence suggest termination soon (though the div may yet be overcome), so I'm assuming this is (c) and not a larger impulse.

So did Finex, although only slightly yet.

Damn it, closed my short way too soon. Forgot all about the $240 order I put up earlier  

I tried searching for it but found nothing. I've read the rules and guidelines and as far as I remember there is no mention of what I'm asking. I could spend hours going through EW books just to see if there is something on this specific subject, but why when there exists a dedicated EW thread where I can ask the pro's directly and in addition get feedback/criticism on my counts (not to mention that others might also benefit from the answer)?

However, I apologize if my questions are unwanted, and if chessnut tells me to I will stop posting.

Noob question: Can the first wave of a regular corrective triangle be longer than the previous wave, or would that be invalid in terms of EW? I ask because if it is possible, it would allow for the potential green triangle count below, meaning break up instead of down (which my gut tells me is neither likely nor valid, but I feel it's good to map out all alternatives).



Also, would you consider the white count to be plausible? If not, could you give your take on the current situation? My main count(s) tell me more down, but I noticed you recently bought in the trading sim so you must have good reason for it