[https://i.imgur.com/dJ4KgoR.png[/img]
Last year, there were only three red volume months; January, March and September. September dumped because of profit taking after Segwit activated last August 24.
However, Bitcoin quickly recovered and rallied to its peak during the launch of CME Futures last December 18. So basically, January 2018 is a month of profit taking by speculators who bought prior to the CME hype.
This February will define if Bitcoin will continue its uptrend to $33,000 after the January correction.
The monthly chart shows strong support along $10,000 which also a psychological level.
Daily chart
Some bullish traders are expecting a repeat of the fractal patterns made before.
On Balance volume indicates a steady stream of money coming in despite the price decline.
Hopeful bulls are waiting around the 200 day MA ($8,963) to buy in.
Trade setup:
Buy/long the breakup/breakout of the triangle.
Sell/short the breakdown of the triangle.
Buy along the 200 day Moving Average.
Do you have to be a paid member on Trading View to see the 200 day moving average?, because I was wanting to attempt to verify this for myself. I have heard some folks proclaiming that the 200 day moving average is in the mid $7000s, and so your proclamation of a 200 day moving average to be nearly $9k is surely a better number, from my perspective (because it is higher). But verification? How to calculate it? On a TradingView graph, click on the "Indicators" button at the top. It's the one with the bars and a zigzag line. A menu comes up, Moving Average is one of the possible choices. After you OK it, your graph has the moving average added. Not sure about the defaults -anyway, if doesn't show the 200-day MA, but some other length, you've got to click on the cog button in the upper left near the new Moving Average label. You can choose 200 (if you're looking at the daily chart), and there it is. |
|
|
|
And if you do, could you please remind them that the correct ticker for Bcash isn't BCC? It's BCH. |
|
|
|
I can buy into this. This theory would remove some of the responsibility from the bcash gang and place it on heavier hands. I mean... if we are going "tin foil hat" we might as well go full tin foil hat.
Good, but don't rush it too much. One tinfoil roll at a time makes it. |
|
|
|
In order to be fully transparent I admit that the active Bitcoin (BTC) addresses have also dropped in this time
frame, but not by such a big percentage.
Old bitcoiners consolidating small amounts into segwit addresses? |
|
|
|
Going back to the network spam clearing up.
So… going theoretical here… Many believe that the spam the bitcoin network was experiencing was orchestrated by people with ties to Bitcoin Cash. The idea held by many was that these people were spamming Bitcoin network to drive fees up while offering a cheaper faster alternative. At the same time it appeared as if someone was pumping Bcash on occasion to create hype behind it and grab more attention. This seemed pretty effective at the time. Keep in mind this all occurred during arguably record high entrance to the market by newcomers.
After a few months of this going on, the people chasing the alt coin market began placing heavy value on cheap, fast transactions. This drove people to pumping coins that had little backing or history but, had cheap and fast transaction times. I think the sheeple have moved past Bcash and now see a larger range of coins that are available that offer their cheap fast transactions. The people who chased Bcash for the cheap and fast transactions have moved on (hence the Ripple boom).
I attributed the Ripple boom to the Western Union/Ripple rumours. There is little benefit to spamming the network now as many others on here have theorized. Not to mention how costly it must have been to spam the network… That money would be better spent say… pumping bcash again to gain interest in a market where Bitcoin is moving sideways and “becoming boring”. You heard it here first… bcash pump inbound.
Spam or not, they did spend quite some cash pumping bcash anyway. The number of emply or nearly-empty blocks mined by Bitmain and related pools is strong circumstantial evidence. Your thesis (as to the innocence of the Bcash Gang) remains far from compelling. A Ripple pump may happen of course - it's all cyclical. But that wouldn't support the Bcash innocence hypothesis, would it? EDIT: I see Torque beat me to it. I think his reply is worthy of consideration. But don't listen to me too much - I'm afraid he's winning me to the tinfoil club, one roll at a time.  |
|
|
|
We are quickly approaching 1-2 sat/Byte BTC transaction fee area. Not there yet, still in 2-5 sat/B zone, but can easily happen tomorrow. This means that tomorrow some 0 fee transactions may be quickly accepted by miners. Insane when you remember where we where two weeks ago.
Unfortunately, most of the pools are set up to ignore 0 fee transactions and not include them in a block. Also, I suspect that Bitcoin.com, F2Pool and maybe Antpool have set things up to ignore transactions with slightly higher fees than that as well. However, the situation is vastly improved. there are some transactions that have been stuck since November that are clearing. (Although I supect many of these are indeed spam.) Getting low-fee or zero-fee transactions confirmed seems like an attainable goal. For example, by imposing a penalty on block reward for mining significantly underfilled blocks when the mempool has many transactions waiting. I understand there's an issue with timing. Maybe just "old" mempool transactions could count - say, only those that have been waiting more than 2-3 blocks. The penalty would be added as a bonus to the next full block, in order to preserve planned inflation. Several constants to tweak, but I think it could be done. This is a minor issue, however: no one is going to cry if If 0-fee txs get dropped. My pet problem is more serious - getting rid of spam as much as possible. Avoiding tx censorship and fighting spam are fundamentally opposite goals, unfortunately. Core defined a threshold for dust transactions exactly in order to fight spam. |
|
|
|
 so, bitcoin cash is the original blockchain. interesting. Bitcoin cash is the original block chain?? I am fairly certain the information in that image is just wrong. Segwit activation did not cause a hardfork, it motivated it. I don't think they are that incompetent at the NIST. The blunder may be intentional. |
|
|
|
|
Hm, it smells like a bear cub trap.
|
|
|
|
Problem I see with Ethereum is that there's nothing you can run on the network that you can't run much cheaper on Ethereum classic. Or bitcoin, Real Soon Now(TM). The Gas model is flawed anyway. And with less chance it will get reversed by a bunch of whining cry-babies.
Good point. But then you are sane and technically-minded. Etherhuffers all worship the Vitalik and derive their value from him. They aren't bothered with technical niceties. They will be. Just give it time. |
|
|
|
Where have all the big blockers gone?
Since there are no walls to watch, and price discussion gets boring during sideways skating, let's talk about an issue that I'm afraid will resurface in due time: blockchain spam. At the moment, the situation is peaceful. Spam has vanished, and tx fees are back to sane levels. There have been several explanations offered for the end of spam, most of which are plausible or have some merit. It might be that it was too costly to sustain the attack. It might be that someone is moving shop. It might be the attackers became afraid to push LN towards success. It might be that Coinbase withdrew support by fixing their unforgivable withdrawal arrangement (either intentionally or simply as a consequence of other choices). The point is: most of the people on this forum believe they know who the attackers were and why they did it. For the time being, they are defeated. They might or might not have another try at it. I am concerned with a future when some more powerful opponent delivers a spam attack - backed by the full financial power of a small (or large) nation. That could be an expensive way to shut up the bitcoin network, but it can be fairly successful, especially If you can eat up the loss and hide it inside a large budget by slightly cooking the books. I think we need someoneto come up with a partial solution to the spam problem. My guess is: if such a remedy is ever found (which I'm totally not confident about), it will be a game theory person to deliver it. |
|
|
|
Ethereum keeps creeping up and taking over market share. Will ethereun slowly take over bitcoin? Kinda seems like its possible
Just wait till they want to use it for real transactions  Demand for Cryptokitties is strong bro  I hear cryptotitties will overtake it tho? https://www.producthunt.com/upcoming/cryptotittiesDon't talk titties to me, man. One thing I sorely miss from the everyday ATH season! On second thought, it's actually a pair of things. |
|
|
|
Ethereum keeps creeping up and taking over market share. Will ethereun slowly take over bitcoin? Kinda seems like its possible
Just wait till they want to use it for real transactions |
|
|
|
Sorry for that stupidish question. I invested 2013 in Bitcoin and holding since then. My Coins are on a paper wallet and I don't have much to do with cryptos since then. Everybody is talking about tether these days. I have no idea what that is again. Do I have to do anything with my bitcoins before this tether thing crashes? Or simply hold another few years?
It isn't stupid to ask IMO. Very briefly: Tether, as per the FAQ pointed above, is a substitute for USD pegged 1:1. It's being used to add fiat-like liquidity. There are worries of over-creation of tether (fractional reserve), along with more complex hypotheses. If it is a fake, and it pops, there will be some blood and unpleasant consequences on BTC price. However, bitcoin has lived through worse events (Gox, for example). If one believes in the long-term future of bitcoin, tether shouldn't be able to sway their course of action for the long run. TL;DR: Just hodl. |
|
|
|
What worries me about tether the most is not that it may not be fully covered by real dollars, but that it might be dangerously close to what central banks are doing. ANd we all know, that banks are not too happy when someone else is taking their money printing/fractional reserve monopoly away from them. Especially when they cannot control it.
My conspiracy tinfoil hat tells me that Tether was sort of endorsed by the CB establishment. They need Bitcoin and the whole crypto market to have a weakness, an Achilles heel, when the next financial crisis comes. Otherwise they know that Bitcoin will go to the moon and they won't have a way to crash and short it. Tether could be like their Trojan Horse. Double and triple crosses. You're just way above in Higher Conspiracy Studies, man. |
|
|
|
What worries me about tether the most is not that it may not be fully covered by real dollars, but that it might be dangerously close to what central banks are doing. ANd we all know, that banks are not too happy when someone else is taking their money printing/fractional reserve monopoly away from them. Especially when they cannot control it.
That's why I've been wishing the audit to produce an "all clean" report. If there's no fractional reserve going on, and tether is really backed up 1:1 by real USD, this means no actual printing privilege has been taken away from the central banks. In turn, this should imply the central banks can't take legitimate action against tether creation and, more importantly, have no need or little motivation to do so. However, my whole point is moot. Apparently, the audit's been canned and it's likely there is overprinting (fractional reserve) going on, so the games are still quite open. |
|
|
|
Having said that, I think one of the best applications of lightning-type channels would be the ability to instantly remove funds which aren't actively traded, This could be an effective motive for the exchanges not to adopt LN. edit for something irrelevant: I did a <20sat/byte tx earlier in the day to consolidate some funds, it cleared within a couple of hours... don't even remember when I went *that* low...
Yet a number of exchanges or other online accounts still have a default fee of 0.0008 BTC for a standard 1in+2out tx, and users are not allowed to set it to a different value  I think the two points made by AlexGR show how we'll really have to lobby the exchanges into servicing user needs. Much more competition is what we need. |
|
|
|
(uninteresting titless img snipped)
 The first cheering half-tit of a calf run? The lady knows how to handle flow. Merited as a micro push. But you invite me to your next party okay?  |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
Whats merit standing for ? 
