But, again, there may well be price manipulation - but price similarity between exchanges is not evidence of it.

And no, I'm not talking about a (solely) regulated forex market - I'm talking about a global forex market where many exchanges (in particular) are licensed and regulated, and many OTC money-changers may well not be.

There is no difference between arbitrage in a regulated market and arbitrage in a non-regulated market. If the price at one location is lower than the price at another location - it is profitable to engage in arbitrage, regardless of volume (fake or otherwise), regardless of the licensed/unlicensed status of the exchange, regardless of the regulations in place.

I could create two shady exchanges, AlphaExchange and ExchangeBeta. Neither are licensed or regulated. I fake the volume. You see a price of $450 per 1 BTC on AlphaExchange and a price of $455 per 1 BTC on ExchangeBeta - you realise you can make money if you simultaneously buy on Alpha and sell on Beta. In doing this you create demand on Alpha (pushing the price up), and you create supply on Beta (pushing the price down) - the prices on the two exchanges move towards each other. Both exchanges remain unlicensed, unregulated, and are (since they're secretly controlled by me and I'm up to all kinds of naughtiness behind the scenes) a cartel of two exchanges.

Honestly, this is not the smoking gun you seem to think it is. No one in the real world will look at this and assume that there is a cartel - even if there is. People will assume that this is normal - even if price manipulation is occurring.

Arbitrage can indeed exist in regulated markets. It can exist in all decentralized markets. It can even exist with centralized markets - stock prices from bucket shops during the Great Depression were the same - or very similar - to stock prices from licensed stock brokers.

Unlicensed OTC money-changers aren't licensed. Buy foreign currency on the street anywhere in the developing world and the chances are near 100% you won't be buying from a licensed money-changer. Yet mysteriously they'll charge prices similar to the prices charged by licensed exchanges.

Arbitrage has been around since forever. It existed long before governments started regulating and licensing foreign exchange.

I fail to see why some (unregulated) exchanges using bots prevents people engaging in arbitrage. There used to be a Google Docs spreadsheet showing BTC arbitrage opportunities - people used it, despite the exchanges being less regulated than today. They made money. I have no reason to think that people have stopped chasing profit, that they've stopped arbing.

Price manipulation occurs to a greater or lesser extent in all markets. It doesn't prevent arbitrage happening. If the price on one exchange is lower than another exchange, or I can buy something cheaper OTC than I could on an exchange - it will be profitable for me to buy while simultaneously selling on the second exchange. Price manipulation doesn't matter to me while I do this. Neither does volume, fake or otherwise. All that matters is the difference between the buy price and the sell price - the profit I make.

Again, "I'm not saying that there isn't a cartel operating, I really don't don't know. But this isn't evidence of it."

This is like you seeing Malory MalIntent breaking into my house one night, and the following day I wake up, realise I've been robbed, see that the sky is blue, and think to myself "The sky is blue. That's totally unexpected, therefore Malory MalIntent must have been the burglar." People are not going to think there is a scam in operation when what they're seeing is exactly what they'd expect to see.

Definitely! Past performance is obviously no guarantee for the future, and I can certainly imagine that the annual quadrupling we've seen on average might be reduced significantly, but even "moderate" annual rises would result in fantastic prices in 2020.

(In most any other market talking about 50% annual rises year on year would be ludicrous... we're talking about it as a realistic possibility, one that's not as impressive as the past!)

D'oh! You're right! There'll be people who used Gavin's faucet back in the day who are now whales I wonder if they realise...

Weeks? We're at the same price we were at 8 7 days ago.

99.99999% is 20999997.9 BTC. That leaves (assuming no BTC have ever been lost) just 2.100000001 BTC for us little ol' non-whales.

Sorry, that leaves 2.100000001 for all you non-whales to share between you. I've just realised I'm a whale.

Edit: 7 days. Price has risen since I first started replying.

The last halving was in November 2012.

Between September 2011 and September 2012 price (BTC/USD on Bitstamp) changed by +105% (i.e. it doubled).
Between September 2012 and September 2013 price changed by +1040%.
Between September 2013 and September 2014 price changed by +240%.
Between September 2014 and September 2015 price changed by -46%.

On average, price changed annually in that 4-year period by +335%, but that's not the point - the point is that doubling (or even significant price increases) has not been restricted to halving years.

I don't know. My expectation would be that price would rise quite dramatically, though I have no idea how far. Price has risen quite dramatically (and I think it may rise further, once the current consolidation is over, but I've not really thought that far ahead).

I was talking recently with someone with a different perspective on analysis - similar thoughts on what would happen (and has now happened), but a different approach to analysis. I suspect they've thought this through much more than me - I'll see if I can get them to comment.

Again, "I'm not saying that there isn't a cartel operating, I really don't don't know. But this isn't evidence of it."

It doesn't matter (for this purpose) whether or not the exchanges are regulated - if you buy GBP OTC on the streets of Rangoon from an unregulated money-changer the price will still be similar to the price you'd pay from a fully regulated exchange in New York or Paris (possibly slightly higher OTC to compensate the money-changer for the risk their taking, but not that much higher because otherwise people in Myanmar would buy their GBP from a regulated money-changer, or register with an exchange in Thailand (I dunno if this is possible, or there's even much Burmese demand for GBP - this is an example. Substitute countries of your choice, but the quest for profit remains, and it's that that leads to arbitrage and drives prices towards equilibrium).

This is what we would expect to see. With GBP, with USD, with BTC. When we do see it, it's expected. It's not evidence of a cartel operating.

Again again, there may well be a cartel operating. But price-similarity is not the smoking gun.

"Arbitrage-bots" are entirely normal in decentralized markets like forex. We may not like it, but the days of buying GBP in Britain and sending a telegram to a friend in the US to get them to "simultaneously" sell GBP in another country - those days are over. This can be - and has been - automated.

All forex is decentralised. Try buying GBP in Singapore, China, the USA or Europe and you'll see a similar price.

The reason prices are similar is due to arbitrage: if 1 GBP costs less in Singapore than it does in China, arbitrageurs will buy GBP in Singapore and sell it in China. The same thing happens with BTC.

I'm not saying that there isn't a cartel operating, I really don't don't know. But this isn't evidence of it.

Sorry, lambie. If you can't work out what "it's ridiculous to say that 70% of miners are Chinese because 70% of mining currently occurs in Chinese pools" means all by your lonesome I doubt I can't help.

Oh, sorry, I thought you were directing your post at me, not the post I was responding to.

Huh? (a) I'm not asking why BTC isn't skyrocketing. I doubt it will as a result of this. (b) "The government has been fairly positive about crypto (opportunity for British businesses, enterprise, innovation - the usual reasons). Our banks... not so much."

No. I'm saying "it's ridiculous to say that 70% of miners are Chinese because 70% of mining currently occurs in Chinese pools." Again. Do pay attention.

I'm not sure why you believe miners don't change pools. I tend to look at this every few days and the wedges are rarely static. Even assuming you were right, and miners haven't been switching pools recently - it's a bit of a stretch to assume that that will remain the case.

I'm also not sure why you think I should be surprised that miners' interests may not align with hodlers' interests. Aside from it being kinda obvious, I accepted that miners were the decision makers when I first read the whitepaper and in the years since nothing has changed.

I'm also also not sure why you think a group of pool operators and devs meeting should worry me. They were deciding a development roadmap, one that will be presented to miners. Who will then be free to accept or reject. Which rather sounds like... exactly how it's always been.

Assuming they need to spend some of that grant in GBP, they'll need to exchange BTC for GBP. It's the GBP hitting the bank that they'll need to explain - if the GBP comes from an exchange, it'll potentially raise a red-flag. I assume a cheque or transfer from a government funding body would go through without a second thought, like any other non-BTC-related deposit.

On the other hand, a government endorsement like this might be the push British banks need to stop dicking around.

@Mrpumperitis - that is good news (and good news for BTC-friendly researchers, too!). Weren't Barclays setting up a blockchain research lab or similar? They've gone up in my estimation. I might have a word with my local branch about BTC...

Two words - British banks! Researches receiving grants in BTC are going to encounter problems with it. They're going to need to spend GBP at some point, and they'll need to explain to their bank where the money came from.

The government has been fairly positive about crypto (opportunity for British businesses, enterprise, innovation - the usual reasons). Our banks... not so much. There used to be GBP exchanges (Britcoin, then Intersango, maybe a few others). No more. When I buy BTC via Localbitcoin I usually have to use something like "ebay purchase" as the reference for the seller's bank. I'm not convinced recipients of government grants are going to be comfortable doing that... even if they are, their auditors won't be.

(Behind the scenes British banks are interested in the blockchain. They just don't want us using that nasty magic internet money associated with the blockchain, however).

No. I'm saying it's ridiculous to say that 70% of miners are Chinese because 70% of mining currently occurs in Chinese pools. At one point 100% of pools were Czech (all one of them - Slush's pool) - 100% of miners were not Czech! (Well, to be fair it's possible that "100% - me" were Czech. But frankly I doubt it).

Miners have a choice which pool to use - or even if they mine in a pool, or go solo (though this choice really isn't much of a choice anymore, obviously, but still).

Edit: sorry, just realised the Slush comment was redundant. Apparently I can't read my own comments.

I kinda feel people expect too much from TA (and analysis in general). It's analysis, nothing more, nothing less. It's like that Eisenhower comment about planning for battle - in the heat of battle the plans are useless, but planning is still indispensable. Planning helps us prepare for what may happen; analysis helps us understand what has happened (and perhaps what is happening and what may happen), but it can't do anything more. With a bit of TA I'm still blind - but less blind than I'd be with no TA.

Totally agree about fundamental analysis, and I'd add that TA is decreasingly useful as the time-frame increases (good for short term, bad for long term). Fundamental analysis tends to be the reverse - short-term changes in a fundamental (usage/adoption, say) aren't that helpful, the data is too noisy.

I saw someone comment about the bear market having ended, which prompted some derision ("of course it's over, November 2015" etc). But IMO they're right - we were in a bear market for some time, late last year was the first time we saw a significant rise, and what we've seen since has shown it wasn't just a dead-cat bounce. I believe this is the early days of a new bull trend. Today's drop be damned.

@Razick, I'm a hodler mostly (with a bit of playing at being a trader, mostly options, for fun and... not profit). I use TA mostly to help me understand what's going on, rather than helping me to decide when to open/close positions. I'd agree about the triangle pattern you saw, except I believe we've reached the end of it, and the rise over the last week or so is what's replaced it.

Oh, sorry, I knew the PRC was totalitarian but preventing miners from leaving pools takes it to a new level. Crikey.